India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP) Understanding and Assessing Impact   ransmission and Distribution of T Projects on Electricity Access India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP) Understanding and Assessing Impact   ransmission and Distribution of T Projects on Electricity Access Rohit Mittal, Amol Gupta and Kwawu Mensan Gaba Publication date: September 2018 The report is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominators, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Copyright Statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. Designed and Printed by: Macro Graphics Pvt Ltd  |  www.macrographics.com Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms.............................................................................................................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................................................................................vii Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................................................................................viii 1. Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP......................................................................................................1 iii India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 1.1 Background.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Multi-Tier Framework. 1.3 Modified MTF for Measuring Impact of NERPSIP (NERPSIP Framework).......................................................................................................2 1.4 Selection and Definition of Attributes................................................................................................................................................................................4 1.5 Comparison of NERPSIP Framework with MTF..............................................................................................................................................................8 2. Application of NERPSIP Framework - A Comparison of States across Attributes.............. 11 2.1 Survey Approach and Findings............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Distribution Across Attributes for Household Index............................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Distribution Across Attributes for Productive Engagement Index................................................................................................................ 19 2.4 Distribution Across Attributes for Community Facilities Index........................................................................................................................ 21 3. Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index........................................................................ 24 3.1 Findings from Household Index.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Findings from Productive Engagement Index. 3.3 Findings from Community Facilities Index................................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Aggregation of Different Indices......................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 3.5 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index as per NERPSIP Framework..................................................................................... 29 3.6 Gap Analysis..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 3.7 Designing Interventions for Improving Electricity Access Index.................................................................................................................... 32 3.8 Key Learnings from the Study............................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 4. Ex-Ante Estimation of Impact of NERPSIP �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36 4.1 Alternate Approach for Ex-Ante Estimation................................................................................................................................................................. 36 ............................................................................................................................. 37 4.2 Methodology Adopted for Ex-Ante Estimation for NERPSIP. 4.3 Estimation of Ex-Ante Electricity Access Index........................................................................................................................................................... 41 4.4 Estimating the Impact of NERPSIP on Electricity Access Index........................................................................................................................ 44 4.5 Comparison with Ex-Post Findings.................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 5. CONCLUSION ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 Annexure-A: Baseline ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDEX....................................................................................... 47 A1 District-wise Distribution of Households Sample......................................................................................................................................................... 47 A2 District-wise Distribution of Commercial Establishments Sample..................................................................................................................... 49 A3 Distribution of Industrial Units Sample............................................................................................................................................................................... 50 iv A4 District-wise Distribution of Schools Sample.................................................................................................................................................................. 51 A5 District-wise Distribution of Health Centres Sample.................................................................................................................................................. 53 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access A6 District-wise Distribution of Community/Panchayat Buildings Sample......................................................................................................... 55 Annexure-B: Ex-Ante Estimated ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDEX.................................................................... 57 B1 District-wise Distribution of Households Sample......................................................................................................................................................... 57 B2 District-wise Distribution of Commercial Establishments Sample..................................................................................................................... 59 B3 Distribution of Industrial Units Sample................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 B4 District-wise Distribution of Schools Sample................................................................................................................................................................... 61 B5 District-wise Distribution of Health Centres Sample................................................................................................................................................... 63 B6 District-wise Distribution of Community/Panchayat Buildings Sample......................................................................................................... 65 Annexure-C: Electricity Access Index Calculation as per MTF.......................................................... 67 Definition of Attributes......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67 Electricity Access Index Framework.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Baseline Electricity Access Index Calculation using MTF................................................................................................................................................. 69 Baseline Electricity Access Index Comparison....................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Annexure-D: DEMAND ESTIMATION................................................................................................................... 73 Supply-side Data Collection and Analysis. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 73 Future Demand Estimation................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 74 Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 75 Application of Demand Estimation Results for Future Investment Planning..................................................................................................... 78 List Of Figures ES Figure 1: Tier design of the six attributes selected for the Electricity Access index. .................................................................................... x ES Figure 2: Weightages for computation of Composite Electricity Access Index............................................................................................xi ES Figure 3: Expected movement of sample units..............................................................................................................................................................xiii Figure 1: Multi-Tier Framework...........................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Challenges faced in conducting Primary Survey during the study........................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Representation for computation of Electricity Access Index as per NERPSIP Framework........................................................4 Figure 4: Weightages for computation of Composite Electricity Access Index................................................................................................. 29 Figure 5: Pull-down factors reported by Households across the six states.......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 6: Pull-down factors reported by Productive Engagement units across the six states................................................................. 31 Figure 7: Pull-down factors reported by Community Facilities across the six states. ..................................................................................... 32 Figure 8: Difference-in-Difference (DiD) approach.............................................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 9: Type of Investments Envisaged under NERPSIP............................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 10: Expected movement of sample units.................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 11: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Assam)....................................... 41 Figure 12: Ex -ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Manipur). ................................. 42 Figure 13: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Meghalaya)............................. 42 Figure 14: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Mizoram).................................. 42 Figure 15: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Nagaland)................................ 42 Figure 16: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Tripura)...................................... 43 Figure 17: Comparison of ex-ante impact with ex-post findings............................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 18: Approach for Extrapolation of Demand to State Level............................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 19: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Assam (Rural)....................................................................................... 75 Figure 20: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Manipur (Rural).................................................................................. 76 Figure 21: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Meghalaya (Rural)............................................................................. 76 Figure 22: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Mizoram (Rural).................................................................................. 77 Figure 23: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Nagaland (Rural)................................................................................ 77 Figure 24: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Tripura (Rural)...................................................................................... 78 v India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access List Of Tables ES Table 1: Sample size covered across categories in all the six states.....................................................................................................................ix ES Table 2: Illustration for Electricity Access Index calculation of each category in a geographical area............................................ x ES Table 3: Summary of Key Pull Down factors and findings from Gap Analysis across locales and across states......................xii ES Table 4: Expected impact of NERPSIP in Intervention Districts of the six states.........................................................................................xiv Table 1: Selection and definition of attributes under MTF . .............................................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Definition of selected attributes under the NERPSIP Framework .............................................................................................................5 Table 3: Illustration of Tier design of the six attributes selected for the Electricity Access Index ............................................................8 Table 4: Comparison of attributes under NERPSIP Framework vis-à-vis MTF .......................................................................................................8 Table 5: Sample size covered across categories in all the six states ........................................................................................................................ 13 Table 6: State-wise comparison of attributes for households . ................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 7: State-wise comparison of attributes for Productive Engagement Units ........................................................................................... 19 Table 8: State-wise comparison of attributes for Community Facilities . .............................................................................................................. 21 Table 9: Illustration for Electricity Access Index calculation of each category in a geographical area .............................................. 25 Table 10: Summary of Key Pull Down factors and findings from Gap Analysis across locales and across states......................... 32 Table 11: Most common types of Impact Evaluations Designs ................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 12: Focus of NERPSIP works . ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 13: District-wise baseline and ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index (Assam) ................................................................. 44 Table 14: Difference in Intervention and Control District Baseline Electricity Access Index (Assam) ................................................. 44 Table 15: Difference in Intervention and Control District Ex-ante Electricity Access Index (Assam) .................................................. 44 Table 16: DiD in Intervention and Control District Ex-ante Electricity Access Index (Assam) ................................................................. 44 Table 17: Expected impact of NERPSIP in Intervention Districts of the six states ........................................................................................... 45 Table 18: Multi-tier Framework for Household Index ....................................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 19: Multi-tier Framework for Productive Engagement Index ........................................................................................................................ 68 Table 20: Multi-tier Framework for Community Facilities Index ................................................................................................................................ 69 Table 21: Comparison of Baseline Electricity Access Indices using the two approaches .......................................................................... 71 Table 22: Coverage of Supply Side Survey .............................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Table 23: Current and Future Annual Demand Estimated for the six states (Overall) .................................................................................. 78 List Of Boxes ES Box 1: District level Baseline Electricity Access Indices. ................................................................................................................................................xi Box 1: Area Selection ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Box 2: Geographical Spread of the Survey .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Box 3: Important Survey Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Box 4: Important Findings from Household Index . ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 Box 5: District-wise Baseline Index for Households ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Box 6: Important Findings from Productive Engagement Index .............................................................................................................................. 27 Box 7: Productive Engagement Index Across States ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 Box 8: Important Findings from Community Facilities Index ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Box 9: Community Facilities Index across States ................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Box 10: District Level Baseline Electricity Access Indices ............................................................................................................................................... 30 Box 11: Baseline Indices vis-à-vis Ex-Ante Estimated Indices for Electricity Access ....................................................................................... 43 Box 12: District-wise Baseline Electricity Access Index for Households ................................................................................................................ 70 Box 13: Productive Engagement Index Across States . .................................................................................................................................................... 71 Box 14: Community Facilities Index Across States ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 Abbreviations and Acronyms CHC Community Health Centre DD Double Difference DiD Difference-in-Difference vi ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program FGD Focus Group Discussion India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access GoI Government of India HH Household kWh Kilowatt-hour kV kilovolt MTF Multi-Tier Framework NERPSIP North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project NER North Eastern Region PFA Power for All PGCIL Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. PHC Primary Health Centre PSM Propensity Score Matching S/s Substation T&D Transmission and Distribution Acknowledgements This report summarizes the findings of a World Limited (MePTCL), Meghalaya Power Distribution Bank study to understand and assess the impact Corporation Limited (MePDCL), Manipur State of Transmission and Distribution projects on Power Company Limited (MSPCL), Manipur State electricity access as part of the IBRD - financed Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL), North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL), vii Project (NERPSIP). NERPSIP is 50 percent financed Power & Electricity Department (PED) in Mizoram India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access by Government of India and 50 percent by World and Department of Power (DPN) in Nagaland, for Bank. The World Bank team was led by Rohit Mittal their valuable inputs, suggestions and support for (Senior Energy Specialist), Amol Gupta (Energy the background study. Specialist) and Kwawu Mensan Gaba (Global Lead – Power Systems and Lead Energy Specialist), with This report would not have been possible without the a core team including Kavita Saraswat (Senior invaluable contribution of the Multi-Tier Framework Power Engineer) and Defne Gencer (Senior Energy (MTF) – Energy Sector Management Assistance Specialist) of the Energy and Extractives Global Program (ESMAP) team led by, Dana Rysankova Practice in the World Bank. The work was undertaken (Senior Energy Specialist), Elisa Portale (Senior Energy under the guidance of Demetrios Papathanasiou, Specialist), Gouthami Padam (Consultant), Sunita Practice Manager, Energy Global Practice, South Chikkatur Dubey (Consultant) and Hussain A. Samad Asia Region. (Consultant). The report draws from the background work and The financial and technical support by the Energy study done by M/s Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) Private Limited, who were engaged as consultants is gratefully acknowledged. ESMAP - a global and interacted with the power utilities across the knowledge and technical assistance program six states (Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, administered by the World Bank - assists low- and Nagaland and Tripura) participating under NERPSIP middle-income countries to increase their know-how and collected data and also undertook consumer and institutional capacity to achieve environmentally surveys. sustainable energy solutions for poverty reduction and economic growth. ESMAP is funded by Australia, The team is grateful to the officials of Power Grid Austria, Canada, Denmark, the European Commission, Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL), Assam Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Electricity Grid Company Limited (AEGCL), Assam Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), the Rockefeller Foundation, Sweden, Switzerland, the Meghalaya Power Transmission Corporation United Kingdom, and the World Bank. Executive Summary A. North Eastern Region The scheme is a part of GoI’s wider initiatives to have 24x7 Power for All and is aimed at improving The North Eastern Region (NER) of India stretches the reliability, availability and quality of power to across the eastern foothills of the Himalayan mountain the end consumers in the six states. The scheme is viii range. Geographically, the region is connected to the being implemented by Power Grid Corporation of other parts of the country through a small ‘chicken India Ltd. (PGCIL) in collaboration with the states, India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access neck’ corridor in the state of West Bengal. With a total and the assets post completion will form part of the population of 45.6 million (2011 census), the sparsely respective state utility network. The scheme also populated NER covers 7.9 percent of India’s total aims to build the institutional capacity of the power geographical area. The vast majority of the region’s utilities and departments in the six states. population (82 percent, 2011 census) lives in rural areas. The region possesses substantial estimated c. Understanding the Impact of energy reserves, significant hydropower potential NERPSIP – Developing Methodology and natural gas reserves in the country. However, development in the NER has remained constrained While the scheme does not directly contribute due to several issues including deficit in physical to increasing access at the consumer end, the infrastructure, poor connectivity, difficult and hilly improvements in transmission and sub-transmission terrain, etc. On the electricity access front, the region network would lead to improvement in the electricity has a small and underdeveloped power system, with delivered at the consumer end, and therefore would limited electricity access levels in rural areas and significantly contribute to the development of the significant bottlenecks in the intra-state Transmission overall power sector in the NER states. In order to and Distribution (T&D) network. carry out the impact evaluation of the NERPSIP scheme, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP was b. North Eastern Region Power appointed by the The World Bank to establish the System Improvement Project baseline and suggest an appropriate methodology for impact assessment. The Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) Energy is one of the most essential items of developed by ESMAP under the Sustainable Energy infrastructure for economic, social and human for All (SE4ALL) initiative was identified an appropriate development in a country or region. Therefore, framework that can be used for measuring the impact access to reliable and good quality power supply of the NERPSIP in the six states. This was because MTF acts as an integral catalyst for boosting productivity covered both qualitative and quantitative parameters and economic activity. North Eastern Region Power to measure electricity access level in comparison to System Improvement Project (NERPSIP) is a scheme the general practice of unidimensional monitoring funded by the Government of India (GoI) and The of electricity access levels. The MTF expands on World Bank that is focussed on augmentation of the the traditional approach of measuring household T&D network in six North-Eastern states i.e., Assam, energy access in terms of connectivity to the grid Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. and consumption patterns to a multi-dimensional framework which measures various attributes such the selected districts, three blocks were covered based as capacity, availability, reliability, quality, affordability, on the level of electrification to carry out consumer- legality etc., with respect to the electricity access. In side surveys. Within blocks, village selection was the MTF, tiers are defined based on a combination of done using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) attributes that reflect the performance of the energy method followed by random selection of 10 percent ix supply. These are then used to calculate an Electricity households in each of the selected villages. A specific India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Access Index for a particular consumer group and/ questionnaire set was designed for each consumer or geographical area. Electricity Access Index is a category which was also field-tested under a pilot representation of the level of electricity access and run for removing any questionnaire-related issues. quality in the respective region. The survey was undertaken across the six states over the period from November 2016 to February 2018 For a comprehensive measurement of energy and baseline data for demand and supply side was access in an area, the MTF is also applied for then collected for the selected areas. productive engagements (commercial and industrial establishments) as well as community facilities (such While MTF recommends a list of attributes to measure as schools, health centres, community buildings, the index, NER as a geography lends itself to various street lighting, etc.) which are referred to as ‘locales constraints. Therefore, the MTF methodology and its of energy access’. The MTF combines the three tiers could not be replicated directly for computing locales of energy access i.e. households, productive the indices for NERPSIP, and needed to be modified engagements and community facilities by clubbing for tracking incremental/ex-post impact of the the three under a single index. scheme. The revised framework (NERPSIP framework), adopted for this study, retains the MTF methodology The application of MTF methodology would require to a large extent, with some modification to the data from surveys to be conducted across the six definition of attributes and formulation of tiers. states. Therefore, the study was proposed to be carried out on a sample size of approximately 20,000 d. Creating Baseline Electricity electricity consumers, spread across locales (ES Access Index Table 1). Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also held in each state to explore the issues faced by the The NERPSIP Framework is built on sub-indices consumers. As part of the survey, 20 districts spread for different categories, i.e. household, productive across the six states were identified. The survey engagement and community facilities index using was designed with sets of intervention and Control several attributes graded along Tiers (0 to 5) in Districts for each of the six states. Further, in each of increasing order of electricity access (ES Figure 1). The es Table 1 | Sample size covered across categories in all the six states Panchayats/ Health Industrial District Villages HHs Commercial Schools Community FGDs Centres Units Centres Assam 247 7906 463 414 52 86 68 16 Manipur 81 1846 125 101 48 71 13 2 Meghalaya 120 2194 123 120 28 90 11 2 Mizoram 47 945 97 70 24 31 3 3 Nagaland 43 1217 76 44 21 43 6 2 Tripura 43 2915 98 45 32 40 8 3 Total 581 17023 982 794 205 361 109 28 Executive Summary ES Figure 1: Tier design of the six attributes selected for the Electricity Access index TIERS ATTRIBUTES 0 1 2 3 4 5 x CAPACITY: ability of the system to deliver a quantity of electricity    Availability: time duration for which electricity is available India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access       Reliability: measured by the frequency and duration of power cuts       Quality: defined in terms of the occurrence of voltage fluctuation       Affordability: ability of the consumer to pay for electricity usage   Legality: inferred by the presence of a meter and bill payments   demand side survey across the six States captured index (broadly in proportion to the sample size some key attributes of the electricity access index covered) (ES Figure 2). Such an approach helps in including capacity, availability, reliability, quality, comparing the overall baseline electricity access affordability and legality. Each unit of analysis (i.e. index for the selected areas. The baseline indices will household, school etc.) in the survey exhibited also be useful in computing the estimated/actual certain unique characteristics against the attributes impact of the scheme ex-ante/ex-post respectively. selected for the NERPSIP framework, based on which a tier value ranging from 0 to 5 was assigned to them. Using the NERPSIP framework developed and The weighted average of the tiers for each category assigning weightage to each of the indices, the defined the baseline Electricity Access Index for baseline Electricity Access Index for all the 20 districts the respective category (ES Table 2). The electricity across the six states have been calculated (ES Box 1). access index was further aggregated to form district The baseline electricity access index for each district and state level indices which would represent the is primarily influenced by the Household Index due overall index. to the higher weightage assigned to the Household Index (corresponding to its proportion in the sample The sub-indices created using the NERPSIP coverage). The analysis shows that: framework for each category, i.e. household, zz Assam has the lowest baseline electricity productive engagement and community facilities access index followed by Tripura. Poor levels of were aggregated using weightages of each sub- electrification reported during the survey is one es Table 2 | Illustration for Electricity Access Index calculation of each category in a geographical area Value of Proportion of Contribution Tiers each Tier respondents of each Tier to Interpretation (Vk) (Pk) AI (PkxVk) 0 0 20% 0 20% respondents have no access 1 20 10% 2 10% respondents have 20% access 2 40 35% 14 35% respondents have 40% access 3 60 10% 6 10% respondents have 60% access 4 80 20% 16 20% respondents have 80% access 5 100 5% 5 5% respondents have full access The Overall Electricity Access Index is 43 with only 5% respondents having 100% access to electricity and 20% Total 100% 43 having no access. The remaining 75% have only partial access but contribute significantly to the overall index. ES Figure 2: Weightages for computation of Composite Electricity Access Index Electricity Access Index xi India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 70% 15% 15% Productive Community Household Index Engagement Index Facilities Index of the major reasons for the same. The situation districts in the state due to few un-electrified is likely to have improved in the recent months households (11%) and better access for schools under the GoI’s household electrification program and industries (10% in Tier 5), as against the poor “SAUBHAGYA” that aims to provide electricity electricity access in other districts. access to all households. zz The baseline Electricity Access Index for all the three zz The baseline Electricity Access Index of the balance districts in Meghalaya is very close to each other, while four states show very little variation. in case of Tripura and Manipur there is considerable zz Kamrup district in Assam, had the highest baseline difference between the districts with the highest electricity access index among the five surveyed and lowest baseline Electricity Access Index. ES Box 1: District level Baseline ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDICES ASSAM MANIPUR MEGHALAYA DHEMAJI 44.76 30.95 26.17 50.55 49.04 SENAPATI DARRANG JAINTIA HILLS 29.43 CHURACHANDPUR 50.43 45.14 GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 33.55 WEST KHASI HILLS EAST KHASI HILLS 34.78 BISHNUPUR 47.15 46.06 GOALPARA 65.90 29.89 Low High Low High Low High MIZORAM NAGALAND TRIPURA KOLASIB 51.99 47.39 48.42 48.18 MOKOKCHUNG 35.86 NORTH TRIPURA 29.08 WOKHA WEST TRIPURA MAMIT 54.10 42.13 46.18 LUNGLIE i 44.10 SOUTH TRIPURA 36.99 PEREN 44.12 Low High Low High Low High Executive Summary zz Kolasib (Mizoram) despite being the control of NERPSIP as a system-strengthening project in the district, had the highest baseline index across the selected areas. three districts in the state The projects under NERPSIP scheme mainly xii e. Gap Analysis involve (i) construction of new transmission and sub-transmission sub-stations and lines, and (ii) India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access The attributes considered under the NERPSIP augmentation and bay addition at existing sub- framework as well as the underlying data set of stations. As such, these are expected to have a direct the six states also provide inputs for analyzing the impact on mainly three attributes of the Electricity constraint/pull-down factor for Electricity Access Access Index i.e. availability, reliability and quality of Index across locales, regions, etc. Such a gap analysis supply, in the intervention districts. The maximum can provide insights for policy makers and utilities in impact of transmission and sub-transmission the region to review the attribute deficiencies and projects is expected to be witnessed by those plan appropriate interventions for improving the establishments which currently lie in the middle tiers Electricity Access Index in their respective regions. and are restricted in their access due to poor quality The analysis (ES Table 3) shows that while in some and unreliable power supply since these projects states like Assam and Tripura, the distribution utilities benefit the entities which have grid connections but need to focus on providing electricity connections to cannot directly uplift un-electrified establishments a large number of un-electrified consumers, in other (ES Figure 3). states providing uninterrupted and quality power would help in improving the Electricity Access Index. Further it has been assumed that due to the absence of works under NERPSIP in the Control f. Ex Ante ESTIMATION OF ELECTRICITY Districts, there shall be no movement in the ACCESS INDEX electricity access index of these areas. With respect to ex-ante evaluation, the methodology selected The study also attempts an ex-ante estimation for measuring the impact of the NERPSIP scheme of the Electricity Access Index considering the is the Difference-in-Difference (DiD) technique. This improvements envisaged on account of the impact measures the impact in the intervention area with es Table 3 | Summary of Key Pull Down factors and findings from Gap Analysis across locales and across states Pull-Down Factors Key Findings Productive Community Households: Locale/State Households Units Facilities 1. Availability emerged as the major constraint in almost all 1st 2nd 1 2 st nd 1st 2nd the states 2. In Assam, Manipur and Tripura, capacity was the other Assam       biggest factor restricting access Manipur       3. For others, utilities should focus on providing uninterrupted power Meghalaya       Productive Engagement Units: Mizoram       1. Availability and Reliability emerged as two key issues in all Nagaland       states 2. In Tripura, new connections need to be added to improve Tripura       index Community Facilities:       Capacity Availability Reliability Quality Affordability Legality 1. Capacity was reported as the largest constraint in 4 states with availability in remaining states 1st Attribute that was reported by the highest percentage of respondents as the primary constraint/pull-down factor; 2nd Attribute that was reported second highest response by respondents as the pull-down factor. ES Figure 3: Expected movement of sample units Upward No Change Movement Overall Expected Movement post implementation of NERPSIP xiii India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Tier 0 1 2 3 4 5 +2 Availability Availability +1 Reliability Reliability Intervention Quality Quality No access Electrified but low duration of Electrified and facing less of power supply issues 100% access and and supply/ higher power cuts/ and thus less scope for improvement receiving 24x7 unaffected frequent voltage fluctuation reliable, affordable by NERSIP and thus greater scope for and quality power improvement Control If the sample unit belongs to a Control District then no movement has been considered respect to the improvement in the control group zz In case of Meghalaya, impact is expected to be at the pre-intervention and post-intervention stage. higher in Jaintia Hills as large number of samples As the improvements across the various parameters are estimated to move to Tier 4 from Tier 3. of the Electricity Access Index will be impacted by a zz In case of Mizoram and Nagaland, impact is host of other parameters in parallel to the NERPSIP expected to be similar across both intervention scheme, comparison with a control group shall districts since spread of sample units in both is help in quantifying the impact attributable to the similar for baseline. NERPSIP scheme. zz In case of Tripura, high level of un-electrified households is leading to lower baseline index value The key findings (ES Table 4) from the ex-ante (than that of all the other states except Assam) and estimation are: therefore conservative impact expected without zz In case of Assam, impact is expected to be highest improvement in electrification rates. in Kamrup since substantial proportion of samples (for e.g. 20 percent in case of Households) across g. Conclusion categories currently fall in Tier 1 and these are expected to move to higher tiers (more than This study provides a framework based on the 72 percent samples in either Tier 3 or Tier 4). Multi-tier Framework for assessing the impact of zz In case of Manipur, impact is expected to be T&D investments on the electricity access in an area. smaller and similar across both intervention This framework covers the multidimensional aspects districts since significant percentage of samples of electricity which is generally difficult to capture across categories are already in middle tiers (35 to in other alternate frameworks. The baseline energy 40 percent of Households). access parameters, established under the study in Executive Summary es Table 4 | Expected impact of NERPSIP in Intervention Districts of the six states DiD (Difference-in-difference) Baseline Electricity Ex-Ante Estimated Intervention Districts [Expected Improvement in Electricity Access Index Electricity Access Index Access Index due to NERPSIP] xiv ASSAM Dhemaji 26.17 35.52 9.35 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Golaghat 33.55 45.13 11.58 Kamrup 34.78 53.32 18.55 MANIPUR Bishnupur 65.90 78.64 12.74 Senapati 44.76 55.47 10.72 MEGHALAYA East Khasi Hills 46.06 58.61 12.56 Jaintia Hills 50.43 64.71 14.28 MIZORAM Lunglei 44.10 59.43 15.33 Mamit 46.18 62.27 16.10 NAGALAND Mokokchung 51.99 67.98 15.99 Wokha 54.10 71.33 17.23 TRIPURA South Tripura 36.99 46.45 9.46 West Tripura 42.13 54.48 12.35 the select geographical locations of the six states, will (both in intervention as well as control areas) and inform the ex-post impact evaluation of the NERPSIP how they differ from the ex-ante outcomes as well project. Such a study is unique as it not only helps as their movement with respect to the control areas. in comparing the six states across key attributes of For this purpose, an ex-post evaluation would be electricity access, but also helps in identifying the required to be undertaken which would help in key constraints that are limiting the energy access identifying the actual benefits in terms of electricity in the respective regions. Review of the various access in the selected regions. The findings from components/attributes of the Electricity Access Index the ex-post survey can be used as an evidence for and their gap analysis can provide valuable inputs on validating the project outcomes and informing the policy and project interventions for future. adapted MTF methodology used under this study for its refinement and future use as impact assessment Further it would be useful to analyse how the actual tool for T&D investment programs. outcomes are impacted by other interventions 01 Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP 1.1 Background the multi-dimensional nature of energy access by capturing data on qualitative aspects like reliability, Energy is one of the most essential items of quality, affordability etc., of the electricity supply. infrastructure for economic, social and human Being multi-tier, it is easier to track improvement development in a country or region. Therefore, over time and a disaggregated analysis is also access to reliable and good quality power supply possible across geographies and end-users. The acts as an integral catalyst for boosting productivity approach is thus, more suitable for a comprehensive and economic activity. measurement of electricity supply. 1 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Development in the North-East states in India has 1.2 Multi-Tier Framework remained constrained due to several issues including poor connectivity, difficult and hilly terrain, etc. The MTF provides a logical methodology covering On the electricity access front, the region suffers both qualitative and quantitative parameters to from limited degrees of electrification and low measure electricity access levels. The MTF expands levels of consumption/supply as compared with on the traditional approach of measuring household the rest of India. The electrification levels reported energy access in terms of connectivity to the grid by the Government in the Census are primarily and consumption patterns to a multi-dimensional unidimensional and does not adequately represent framework which measures various attributes such the electricity access levels in the region. Some as capacity, availability, reliability, quality, affordability, of the other indicators like Energy Development legality etc., with respect to the electricity access. In Index (World Energy Outlook), while being simpler the Multi-Tier Framework, tiers are defined based in design, capture only basic elements like share of on a combination of attributes that reflect the population with electricity access and per capita performance of the energy supply. consumption of electricity. The Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) developed by ESMAP under the Sustainable A summary of the attributes and their definitions Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative overcomes these as prescribed under MTF has been provided in short-comings by expanding the scope to include Table 1. 01 Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP Table 1 | Selection and definition of attributes under MTF Attribute Definition Measurement The MTF approach assumes that all grid-connected units have Tier 5 The capacity of the electricity 2 Capacity supply refers to the ability of the system to deliver a capacity. It is only for off-grid connections that the ownership/use of appliances and the capacity of these appliances is taken into account for placing the units in Tiers 1-5. Households with no electricity connection of India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access quantity of electricity. any form or ones that use dry-cell battery are in Tier 0. Availability, for households is a combination of all day duration (24 hours) and evening duration (usually between 6 pm-10 pm). The availability (duration) of For productive engagement units and community facilities, it is referred to the electricity supply refers in terms of availability of power during the working shifts of the respective Availability to the time during which establishment. For such units, availability also evaluates the availability electricity is available. from non-electric sources for compensating the electric supply during working hours and whether longer working hours have been prevented in a unit due to lack of adequate availability of supply. The reliability of the electricity supply is defined in terms of Measured in terms of the number of unscheduled power cuts and not the Reliability frequency and duration of scheduled load-shedding. unscheduled outages. The quality of the electricity Voltage stability is an important issue as fluctuations in voltage can Quality supply refers to the level and damage equipment and cause electrical fires. This is generally measured stability of the voltage. based on extreme fluctuations in voltage causing appliance damage. Calculated based on a standard consumption package of 365 kWh per year. Affordability refers to whether A household can afford electricity if the cost of the consumption package Affordability households are able to pay for of 365 kWh based on the current electricity tariff is less than 5 percent of the electricity. the household income. Legality refers to the A binary attribute that looks at whether the household actually pays a connection of the consumer Legality bill to anyone (either to the utility directly or, if shared, to the landlord or being legal and payment of relative or any authorized representative). bills being made to the utility. Measures the safety of electricity supply, or whether any of the household members have suffered from any serious accident (mostly resulting in Refers to safety of the people death or permanent limb damage) as a result of the grid electricity. It also Health, from hazards that can captures the awareness of households regarding basic safety measures. Safety and arise from the operation of Convenience electricity under normal as In case of productive engagement units and community facilities, well as faulty conditions. convenience was also used to capture the amount of time and effort spent in sourcing and maintaining the supply equipment and its impact on production cost. For a comprehensive measurement of energy access 1.3 Modified MTF for Measuring in an area, the MTF framework is also applied for Impact of NERPSIP (NERPSIP productive engagements (commercial and industrial Framework) establishments) as well as community facilities (such as schools, health centres, community buildings, The Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) is applied for street lighting, etc.) which are referred to as ‘locales of measuring ‘Energy Access’ in a region and covers energy access’. The MTF combines the three locales access to household cooking fuel in addition to of energy access i.e. households (HHs), productive electricity connections to expand the scope of energy engagements and community facilities by clubbing use. However, considering the scope of the NERPSIP the three under a single index. The various index scheme, the framework suggested under the MTF and sub-indices considered as part of the Multi-Tier has been modified for the purpose of computing the Framework are provided in figure 1. ‘Electricity Access Index’ in the region. Figure 1: Multi-Tier Framework ENERGY ACCESS INDEX 3 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Index of Access to Index of Access to Index for Household Energy for Productive Energy for Access to Energy Engagements Community Facilities HH HH HH Street Health Education Community Public Electricity Cooking Heating Lighting Facilities Facilities Building O ce Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Index While the MTF recommends a list of attributes to recall on several factors of electricity including power measure the index, North-Eastern Region (NER) as cuts, voltage fluctuations, etc., remained limited. The a geography lends itself to various constraints. The investigators were trained to ensure that the questions primary survey conducted in the rural population were explained to the respondent and questions of NER faced several field challenges (figure 2) in also had validation checks to restrict contradictory gathering data on electricity parameters. responses. Nevertheless, review of the data collected from the various categories of consumers across On an overall basis, the awareness of respondents the six states in NER indicated data limitations. relating to several factors i.e. monthly consumption, Therefore, the MTF methodology and its tiers could Figure 2: Challenges faced in conducting Primary Survey during the study Field Challenges ADMINISTRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL Contiguous villages – Difficulty in ascertaining Infrastructural bottlenecks – Highly damaged the boundary of the village and estimating roads during previous rains resulting in high number of households to be covered travel time, even with two-wheelers POLITICAL TECHNICAL Non co-operation – In some areas, a few cases of Awareness about electricity – In case of health non co-operation from community centres and schools, the understanding of the staff on electricity parameters was lower SOCIAL ECONOMIC Diversity – In terms of culture, language, dialects Economic constraints – In areas with lower etc., – even local investigators found it difficult to literacy rates and poor living standards, inability communicate with the locals of the respondents to devote adequate time to answer a comprehensive questionnaire 01 Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP not be replicated directly for computing the indices 5. School/Anganwadis for NERPSIP, and needed to be modified for tracking 6. Panchayat/Community Centres incremental/ex-post impact of the scheme. Under the NERPSIP framework, Electricity Access 4 While the basic approach and framework of the MTF Index for the region has been computed by methodology has been retained to a large extent, calculating the Electricity Access index for each India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access the definition of attributes and formulation of tiers locale as shown in figure 3. For each state, six have been modified, based on the broad level of different datasets across the different locales, i.e. understanding of socio-economic factors of the households, productive engagements (covering survey area and the analysis of the data collected industrial and commercial units) and community from the survey on the various attributes. Further, facilities (covering health centres, schools and the tier formulation across a few of the attributes community centres) were used to compute the sub- has been done considering ease of monitoring and index for each category in each district. measurement of the tier movement of a household/ establishment, post the completion of the proposed 1.4 Selection and Definition works under NERPSIP. The revised framework of Attributes (hereafter referred to as NERPSIP framework) is expected to facilitate better monitoring of the Similar to the MTF methodology, NERPSIP framework changes in the electricity access index, post the is built on several attributes of energy, based on the implementation of various works under the NERPSIP nature of the category which help in influencing scheme. Therefore, the NERPSIP framework has the electricity access index. Broadly, these attributes been used for computation of a baseline index and remain common across locales i.e. household, estimation of the impact of the NERPSIP scheme. productive engagement and community services. The definition of each of these attributes is The primary survey, covered the following six summarized in Table 2. categories: 1. Household The data collected from the survey has been 2. Industrial classified into these six attributes across categories 3. Commercial to determine the distribution of samples across the tiers. The level of electricity access has then been 4. Health Centre measured on a scale of 0 to 5 based on responses Figure 3: Representation for computation of Electricity Access Index as per NERPSIP Framework ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDEX The index represents the level of electricity access in a given geography PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY FACILITIES HOUSEHOLD INDEX ENGAGEMENT INDEX INDEX Data collected from commercial Data collected from schools, Data collected from households establishments and industrial health centres and community/ covered in the study units in the study Panchayat buildings in the study Table 2 | Definition of selected attributes under the NERPSIP Framework Capacity Capacity pertains to the ability of the system to deliver a quantity of electricity Availability Availability refers to the time duration for which electricity is available Reliability Reliability has been measured by the frequency and duration of power cuts 5 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Quality Quality is defined in terms of voltage and its level and stability Affordability Affordability refers to whether or not consumers are able to pay for the electricity they use Legality Legality is inferred by the presence of a legal connection in combination with bill payments against each attribute by each respondent. These Availability tiers have been defined for the household index, The availability (duration) of electricity supply productive engagement index and community refers to the number of hours/time duration for facilities index, based on the typical nature of each which electricity is available. For households, category of respondents. The definition and tiers a longer duration of supply enables improved for each attribute considered under the NERPSIP electricity service by allowing the user to choose framework is explained below: the time of usage. Additionally, the availability of electricity supply during evening hours improves Capacity the quality of life by enabling the use of appliances The NERPSIP Framework draws upon the same during that time of the day when electricity serves definition of capacity as provided under the MTF. The critical purposes, e.g. lighting. Therefore, in case of capacity of the electricity supply (or peak capacity) households, a combination of overall supply hours is defined as the ability of the system to provide a and evening supply hours have been used to define certain amount of electricity in order to operate the attribute. different appliances at peak capacity, ranging from a few watts to several thousand watts. For commercial units and industrial establishments, supply hours are generally referred in terms of Tier design for capacity attribute across all availability of power during the working shift of Tier categories the respective establishment. Adequate availability 0 Un-electrified units (duration) is ensured when working hours are not limited solely due to supply availability (duration) 2 Mini-Grid/Micro-grid/Rooftop Solar constraints. Accordingly, the duration of working Grid-connected electricity supplied by State hours and availability of power during the 5 Electricity Department/Utility working hours of such commercial and industrial establishments have been considered for measuring Grid-connected systems, due to their ability to availability. Similarly, for community facilities such as cater to peak loads (which could be unlimited from health centres, schools and community buildings, the the consumer perspective) has been assigned a supply hours were recorded during the operational Tier 5. For respondents whose establishments were hours of the institution. running on either mini-grids or rooftop systems, Tier 2 has been assigned to such systems as the capacity Availability has thus been defined broadly in line with of these systems is small and less than a grid- the MTF under the NERPSIP Framework. In case of the connected system, and this could restrict the usage former, availability also evaluates the availability from to low or medium level appliances by a consumer. non-electric sources for compensating the electric For respondents whose establishments were found supply during working hours and whether longer to be un-electrified, Tier 0 has been assigned. working hours have been prevented in a productive 01 Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP Tier Tier design for Households Tier design for Productive Engagements & Community Facilities 0 No availability during the day/evening No availability during working hours Minimum 4 hours of supply during the day with 1 Minimum 2 hours of supply 6 minimum 1 hour during evening Minimum 4 hours of supply during the day with 2 Minimum 4 hours of supply India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access minimum 2 hours during evening Minimum 8 hours of supply during the day with 3 Half (minimum 50%) of the working hours minimum 3 hours during evening Minimum 16 hours of supply during the day with 4 Most (minimum 75%) of the working hours minimum 4 hours during evening Minimum 23 hours of supply during the day with 5 Almost all (minimum 95%) working hours minimum 4 hours during evening unit due to lack of adequate availability of supply. Tier design for Reliability attribute across all In the case of the sample units covered under the Tier categories study, productive units were mostly small in size 0 Un-electrified with limited working hours and no arrangement for High frequency of power cut with power cut of backup/alternate source of supply. Therefore, under 1 more than 70 hours in a week the NERPSIP framework these criterion have been High frequency of power cut with power cut of dropped. 2 upto 70 hours in a week The tiers assignment for the Availability attribute has Medium frequency of power cut with power cut of 3 upto 45 hours in a week also been kept similar to the MTF. Higher tiers across the categories refer to higher duration of supply as Low frequency of power cut with power cut of 4 upto 15 hours in a week shown in the table above. Insignificant frequency with power cut of upto 3 5 hours in a week Reliability The availability of electricity or longer supply hours does not directly translate into adequate services For defining reliability tiers, un-electrified units are since the effective power supply may be restricted classified in Tier 0. High frequency of power cuts due to frequent power cuts. Therefore, electricity (>10 times a day or greater than 70 hours in a week) access becomes severely restricted if there are adversely affect the ability of a consumer to use its frequent power cuts of long duration. electric appliances and therefore such cases have been classified under Tier 1. Similarly, on the other The MTF defined reliability in terms of frequency and end of the spectrum, consumers reporting few duration of unscheduled outages only. However, power cuts with insignificant duration have been in case of the NERPSIP Framework, the definition considered under tier 5. of reliability is all encompassing, capturing the frequency and duration of all types of power cuts In case of middle tiers (Tier 2, 3 and 4), a combination experienced at the consumer end. This was done of frequency of power cuts as well as duration of keeping in mind the geography and awareness levels power cuts ranging from high to low have been of the population covered. As a result, the tiers under considered to assign an appropriate reliability tier. the NERPSIP Framework have also been designed The design of tiers for reliability has remained the keeping in mind the range of duration of power cuts same across categories as power in rural areas is fed experienced in the NER region, and therefore differs from the same supply (as the commercial or industrial from the MTF tiers for reliability. consumers covered are very small in nature) and therefore the design of tiers for households can be defined standard consumption package of 365 kWh replicated to others categories. per year or 1 kWh per day, regardless of the actual consumption of the household. The MTF framework Quality suggests that a standard consumption package Access to electricity supply also refers to the of 365 kWh per year should cost the household 7 potential to use electricity, should the user desire less than 5% of its income. A similar definition for India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access to do so (ESMAP). As an illustration to the above, affordability has been used under the NERPSIP the ownership of a refrigerator does not necessarily framework. imply the usability of the same. Frequent voltage fluctuations or low voltage at the consumer end Tier design for Affordability attribute for Tier may restrict the usage of such appliances for cooling Households purposes and further even reduce the demand for Cost of Standard Consumption Package of such appliances since their usability remains low. 2 365 kWh/year is more than 5% of household income Therefore, an important attribute to consider with respect to the usability of the appliance is frequency Cost of Standard Consumption Package of 5 365 kWh/year is less than 5% of household income of voltage fluctuations. The survey outcomes indicated that the responses Since affordability as an attribute is binary in nature received for appliance failure/damage were very (i.e. either electricity is affordable or unaffordable), poor as the respondents were unable to point to the it has been measured under two Tiers (2 and 5). For exact reason for the failure. As a result, for measuring productive units, as the degree of response to the Quality, NERPSIP Framework uses the frequency of questions about the percentage spent on electricity voltage fluctuations reported by the respondents in vis-à-vis their total cost of production was poor, the survey. This differs significantly from the definition therefore, the attribute has not been considered in used under the MTF that considers appliance failure/ the productive engagement index. Affordability, damage on account of voltage fluctuation. as a parameter, has also not been used in case of community facilities i.e. schools, health centres, Tier design for Quality attribute across all Tier etc. as most of the institutions covered under the categories survey are under government ownership and the 0 Un-electrified respondents were not able to comment on the 1 Voltage fluctuation of more than 3 times in a day electricity expenditure. 2 Voltage fluctuation of 1-3 times a day Legality 3 Voltage fluctuation of 1-3 times a week Legality refers to the lawful usage of the electricity 4 Voltage fluctuation for less than once a week connection for which the user is paying the due 5 No Voltage fluctuation charges. Since Legality is a sensitive issue, it needed to be cautiously handled. Accordingly, for all Similar to reliability, the tiers for quality of power have categories a set of indirect questions were added remained the same across categories since voltage to the questionnaire regarding the regularity of bills fluctuations as an attribute is fed from same supply source, causing similar experiences across consumer Tier design for Legality attribute across all Tier categories categories. Absence of a meter and/or neither receiving nor 3 Affordability paying bills to the utility In line with methodology used under MTF, the Availability of meter or receiving bills or paying 5 bills affordability of use has been computed, based on a 01 Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP Table 3 | Illustration of Tier design of the six attributes selected for the Electricity Access index Attributes Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Capacity 8 Availability India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Reliability Quality Affordability Legality received and regularity of payments made in favour the electricity bills are settled centrally by the State of the utility to understand the status of electrical Government department. In case of community connections. buildings, a combination of the presence of an Legality is also a binary measure and therefore, it has electrical connection in the building where meetings been defined across only two Tiers (Tier 3 for illegal are held and the payment of bills was used to capture and Tier 5 for legal connections) under the NERPSIP Legality. Framework, in line with the MTF approach. Only if respondents have reported absence of a meter and/ Overall, the NERPSIP framework for each locale is on or is neither receiving nor paying bills to the utility, the lines of the illustration provided in Table 3. In the it has been considered an illegal connection and Table, the level of electricity access decreases as one assigned Tier 3. moves towards the left (lower tiers). Each framework A large number of commercial establishments for the three locales must therefore, be read from the reported using a shared connection which was either right to place each respondent in the corresponding shared with the residential connection or formed part tier on the attributes used. of a large commercial complex where the number of establishments were sharing the total electricity 1.5 Comparison of NERPSIP bill. Therefore, such cases have been considered Framework with MTF under legal connection as the units consumed by the respective establishment was being metered at A summary of the modifications considered some point. For community facilities (schools, health in the NERPSIP Framework with respect to the centres and Panchayat buildings), since most of the definition for attributes provided under the MTF for institutions were government-owned, most of them computing the Electricity Access Index is provided reported having legal connections (Tier 5) where in Table 4. Table 4 | Comparison of attributes under NERPSIP Framework vis-à-vis MTF NERPSIP Rationale for revision, if any in Attributes Locale MTF Framework Comparison Framework framework Household - Ability of the Ability of the system to Productive system to deliver a Capacity deliver a certain - Engagement certain quantity of quantity of supply Community supply - Facilities NERPSIP Rationale for revision, if any in Attributes Locale MTF Framework Comparison Framework framework Duration of Duration of supply supply (24 hours) Household (24 hours) and evening supply and evening - 9 supply India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Availability Productive Availability during Engagement working hours Limited/poor response Availability + from non- received on usage of during working Community electric sources alternative sources of hours Facilities + restriction in electricity working hours Household Based on Defined only number of in terms of Such a distinction between power cuts and the number of scheduled and unscheduled Productive their duration Reliability unscheduled power power cuts could not be made Engagement for all locales cuts and not the since the region reported no with tiers being scheduled load fixed timings for power cuts Community defined from Tier shedding Facilities 0 to 5. Household Limited/poor response Measures quality Based on the with regard to equipment as extreme frequency damage due to the extreme Productive Quality fluctuations in of voltage fluctuations in voltage. A Engagement voltage (causing fluctuations large set of respondents were Community appliance damages) experienced. unable to point out the exact Facilities reasons for appliance damage Based on Based on a standard a standard consumption Affordability Household consumption - package of 365 package of 365 kWh per year kWh per year Ability of the enterprise to pay for the energy Limited/poor response on the required to run percentage spent on electricity Productive productive vis-à-vis their total cost of Engagement applications production and the cost being without unduly borne by the units sacrificing market Attribute has competitiveness been dropped Ability to pay Majority of the community for energy use facilities are under and refers to the Community government ownership and availability of funds Facilities therefore, were unable to for operating and comment on the electricity maintaining the expenditure electricity system Whether the Household household actually Combination - pays a bill to of type of Productive anyone (either the connection and Legality utility directly or, regularity in bills - Engagement if shared, to the received and bill landlord or relative paid was used as Community or any authorized proxy for legality - Facilities representative) 01 Electricity Access Index for NERPSIP NERPSIP Rationale for revision, if any in Attributes Locale MTF Framework Comparison Framework framework Looks at the safety/ Household occurrence of 10 accidents due to Very few respondents could Productive electricity supply. attribute safety-related India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Health, Engagement Convenience incidences to electricity Attributes have Safety and was also used to supply. Also, in case of been dropped Convenience capture the amount households the parameter of time and effort remained unexplored in the Community spent in sourcing questionnaire. Facilities and maintaining the supply Same as MTF Modified Different from MTF A comparison of the indices used under the NERPSIP the latter framework has also been provided in Framework and the MTF along with the results using Annexure-C. 02 Application of NERPSIP Framework – A Comparison of States Across Attributes 2.1 Survey Approach and Findings Panchayat/Community buildings in the areas to be surveyed. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were The Electricity Access Index is a multi-dimensional, also held in each state to explore the issues faced by multi-faceted measure of the level of electricity the people. access. The application of the MTF methodology or the NERPSIP Framework requires data from As part of the survey, 20 districts spread across the surveys to be conducted across the six states. six states were identified (Box 1). The survey was Therefore the study was proposed to be carried designed with sets of Intervention and Control 11 out on a sample size of approximately 20,000 Districts for each of the six states. Further, in each India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access electricity consumers, spread across categories of the selected districts, three blocks were covered called locales. The consumers in the sample to carry out consumer-side surveys. The survey was covered households, commercial units, industrial undertaken across the six states over a period of establishments, health centres, schools and November 2016 to February 2018. Box 1: Area Selection 1 Selection of intervention and control district(s) based on upcoming Selection of NERSIP works Districts Control 20 Districts Intervention 2 Blocks were selected based on level of Selection of electri cation 59 Blocks Blocks High electri cation Medium electri cation Low electri cation 3 20% of villages in each block selected using Probability Proportional Selection of to Size (PPS) method Villages 581 Villages based on upcoming Selection of NERSIP works Districts Control 02 20 Districts Application of NERPSIP Framework – Intervention A Comparison of States across Attributes 2 Blocks were selected based on level of Selection of electri cation 59 Blocks Blocks High electri Box 1: Area Selection cation (Contd...) Medium electri cation Low electri cation 3 12 20% of villages in each block selected using India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Probability Proportional Selection of to Size (PPS) method Villages 581 Villages 4 Respondent selection using Random sampling Selection of 19474 sample Respondents units Box 2: Geographical Spread of the Survey ASSAM DHEMAJI MIZORAM KOLASIB DARRANG MAMIT GOLAGHAT KAMRUP LUNGLIE GOALPARA 15 8989 9 1170 5 3 MANIPUR NAGALAND CHURACHANDPUR MOKOKCHUNG SENAPATI WOKHA BISHNUPUR PEREN 8 2204 9 1407 3 3 Box 2: Geographical Spread of the Survey (Contd...) MEGHALAYA TRIPURA JAINTIA HILLS NORTH TRIPURA 13 WEST TRIPURA India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access WEST KHASI HILLS EAST KHASI HILLS SOUTH TRIPURA 9 2566 9 3138 3 3 Selected Intervention Districts Districts Selected Control Districts Blocks Other Respondents The state of Assam, owing to its larger size as A specific questionnaire set was designed for each compared to other states, is represented by 5 districts consumer category which was also field-tested with 3 blocks each, while the other 5 states, namely under a pilot run for removing any questionnaire- Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Tripura related issues. A snapshot of the key findings from are each represented by 3 districts with 3 blocks each the demand-side survey for each state is highlighted as shown in Box 2. in the figures under Box 3. A summary of the total sample size covered across the six states has been provided in table 5. Table 5 | Sample size covered across categories in all the six states Panchayats/ Health Industrial District Villages HHs Commercial Schools Community FGDs Centres Units Centres Assam 247 7906 463 414 52 86 68 16 Manipur 81 1846 125 101 48 71 13 2 Meghalaya 120 2194 123 120 28 90 11 2 Mizoram 47 945 97 70 24 31 3 3 Nagaland 43 1217 76 44 21 43 6 2 Tripura 43 2915 98 45 32 40 8 3 Total 581 17023 982 794 205 361 109 28 02 Application of NERPSIP Framework – A Comparison of States across Attributes Box 3: Important Survey Findings Key Findings - Households 14 Percentage of Male Respondents Annual Income (in INR) for was higher Households was highest in Mizoram India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 5% 8% 4% 16% 32% 22% 18% 26% 27% 47% 28% 41% 48% Female 54% 40% 38% 21% 38% Male 25% 19% 30% 15% 16% 8% 12% Tripura Nagaland Mizoram 62% Meghalaya Manipur Assam < 50000 50000-1Lakh 1-2 Lakh > 2 Lakh Electrification Rate of Households Common appliances were lights, was lower in Assam & Tripura fans and radio/television, barring in Power Cuts emerged as a bigger issue as Mizoram compared to voltage fluctuation Light Only Light + Fan Electri ed HHs Power Cut Occurrence Medium-end Appliances High-end Appliances Voltage Fluctuation Occurrence 12% 4% 14% 82% 30% 68% 26% 87% 83% 71% 77% 32% 96% 64% 50% 50% 48% 35% 40% 40% 19% 30% 42% 1% 20% 6% 1% 32% 10% 31% 69% 75% 83% 94% 93% 65% 14% 20% 7% 25% 4% Meghalaya Nagaland Manipur Mizoram Tripura Assam Manipur Assam Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Key Findings – Commercial Units Small stores such as Grocery and Pan Majority of the commercial units reported Shops constituted majority of commercial partial or little dependence on units in the region electricity for their functioning Completely Dependent Partially dependent Not at all dependent Little dependent Don't Know/ Can't Say Kirana/Pan Shops 9% 8% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 21% 10% 13% 29% 21% 12% 51% 37% 28% 37% 66% 26% Other Commercial 26% 71% 18% 30% Establishments 40% 16% 46% 24% 29% 11% 7% Meghalaya Nagaland Mizoram Manipur Tripura Assam Box 3: Important Survey Findings (Contd...) Electrification Rate of Commercial Duration of Power Cut was lower in Units was lower in Assam and Tripura Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura 15 Frequency Extent India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Assam 68% 64% Manipur 71% 59% 58% 56% 53% 51% 52% Meghalaya 76% 44% 43% 45% 38% Mizoram 92% 1-3 Times/day Manipur 1-3 Times/day Meghalaya 1-3 Times/day 1-3 Times/day Nagaland 1-3 Times/day 1-3 Times/day 28% 1-3 Hrs/day 1-3 Hrs/day 1-3 Hrs/day Nagaland 89% < 1 Hr < 1 Hr < 1 Hr Tripura 66% Electri ed Commercial Units Mizoram Assam Tripura Unelectri ed Commercial Units Key Findings – Industrial Units Small Cereals, Grains and Oil Mills Owing to small scale nature of constituted majority of industrial units in Industries majority of establishments the region reported consumption in lower ranges 8% 8% 20% 20% 25% 6% 23% 37% 18% 38% 100% 60% Food Processing Units 80% 75% 56% Micro - Enterprises 31% 20% 22% Mills Assam Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Meghalaya Manipur 54% Others <200 Units 201-1000 Units 1000-3000 Units Don't Know/Can't Say 89/109 (78%) Industrial Units were electrified across surveyed states Key Findings – Schools Government Schools are predominant Electrification Rate of Schools was in the region extremely poor, barring Mizoram and Nagaland 16% 46% 36% 81% 91% 24% 8% 31% Anganwadi 26% (Govt. Pre-School) Public Schools Semi-Govt/NGO run Assam Tripura Mizoram Manipur Nagaland Meghalaya Private Schools 35% Electri ed Schools Unelectri ed Schools 02 Application of NERPSIP Framework – A Comparison of States across Attributes Box 3: Important Survey Findings (Contd...) Key Findings – Health Centres 16 Sub-Centres constituted the highest Electrification Rate of Health Centres share of health centres surveyed was better in Nagaland, Mizoram and Assam, India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access as compared to other states 5% 0.50% Assam 71% Sub-Centres Manipur 35% 14% Mini-PHC Meghalaya 57% 8% PHC Mizoram 92% 73% CHC Nagaland 100% Model Hospital Tripura 50% Electri ed Health Centres Unelectri ed Health Centres Key Findings – Panchayat/Community Buildings Percentage of Female Panchayat Significant percentage of Panchayats Members was significantly lower in in Nagaland reported improvement Nagaland in supply hours while highest percentage 21% 7% of Panchayats in Tripura reported 25% 35% 47% 37% improvement in power cuts 23% 18% 23% 13% 16% 93% 39% 79% 75% 63% 65% 28% 40% 28% 53% 33% 29% 30% 54% 48% 47% 56% Assam Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Meghalaya Manipur 44% 31% Manipur Assam Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Male Female Increase in Supply Hours Fewer Power Cuts Better Voltage pro le 316/361 (88%) Panchayats were electrified across surveyed states 2.2 DISTRIBUTION ACROSS ATTRIBUTES under the NERPSIP framework, is summarized in FOR HOUSEHOLD INDEX Table 6. A state-wise comparison of survey results across the various attributes for households, as defined Table 6 | State-wise comparison of attributes for households ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS CAPACITY 17 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Distribution of Households across Capacity yy In case of Assam and Tripura, the 100% percentage of households falling in Tier 0 was higher due to higher number of un- 80% electrified households in these states. 69% 64% 75% 60% 83% 94% 93% yy In Mizoram and Nagaland on the 40% 0.1% other hand, the number of electrified 0.1% households falling in Tier 5, was more 0.2% 20% 31% 35% than 90%. 25% 17% 0.4% 0.2% 0% 5% 7% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura yy A very small proportion of households in states like Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, 0 2 5 Nagaland and Tripura have reported use of alternate source of electricity like solar or mini grid, etc. AVAILABILITY Distribution of Households across Availability yy Across all states, maximum percentage of 100% households fell in Tier 3. This is primarily 9% 17% due to lower supply during evening hours 18% 23% 9% 28% 80% 42% 12% 5% despite having supply of minimum 16 4% 3% 60% hours during the entire day. 60% 2% 56% 53% yy Manipur reported the highest percentage 40% 63% 60% 52% of households in Tier 5 with minimum 20% 15% 14% 23 hours of supply and atleast 4 hours of 6% 16% 8% 7% 4% 2% 7% 4% 1% evening supply. 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura yy Responses on poor availability have been 1 2 3 4 5 significant, primarily in the states of Assam, Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall Mizoram and Nagaland where 20% or electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 more respondents are in Tier 1 and 2. RELIABILITY Distribution of Households across Reliability yy Out of the electrified households in Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura, the 100% 16% 23% highest percentage of respondents 25% 80% 35% 38% reported facing insignificant frequency 16% 50% 6% of power cuts with duration of less than 3 60% 32% 13% hours in a week (Tier 5). 34% 44% 46% 40% 26% 37% 28% yy On the other hand, despite the high 20% 27% 23% electrification rate in Mizoram, reliability 16% 10% 11% 19% 0% 5% 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% of power supply in the state remained Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura a concern with the highest percentage 1 2 3 4 5 of the electrified households reported facing power cut for upto 45 hours in a Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall week (Tier 3). electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 02 Application of NERPSIP Framework – A Comparison of States across Attributes Table 6 | State-wise comparison of attributes for households (Contd...) ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS 18 QUALITY Distribution of Households across Quality yy Majority of the electrified households India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 100% did not report occurrence of voltage fluctuation as an issue with power supply. 80% 60% 60% This was due to usage of basic appliances 70% 65% 60% 80% by majority of the surveyed households, 90% as well as low awareness levels regarding 40% 1% 3% 4% 19% 10% the issue. 4% 13% 20% 1% 16% 6% 8% 26% 15% 6% yy Voltage fluctuations as an issue was 9% 11% 0% 8% 4% 1% 4% 5% reported more in the states of Assam, Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. 1 2 3 4 5 yy Tier 2 (i.e. voltage fluctuation of 1-3 times Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall a day) was reported higher in Mizoram, electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 Assam and Nagaland. AFFORDABILITY Distribution of Households across Affordability yy Majority of the households across states reported power supply to be affordable 100% with cost of standard package of 365 80% kWh/year being less than 5% of household income (Tier 5). 60% 94% 98% 96% 98% 96% 95% yy A major reason for this is the subsidized 40% tariff applicable for households in NER. 20% It is to be noted that the survey was 6% 2% 4% 2% 4% 5% limited to rural areas where majority 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura of the consumers were in the lower 2 5 consumption slabs, which is generally subsidized by the respective state governments to a large extent. Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 LEGALITY Distribution of Households across Legality yy Almost all electrified households covered 100% under the survey reported either having a meter or receiving/paying bills in all six 80% states and therefore were classified under 60% Tier 5. 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 40% 20% 1% 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura 3 5 Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 2.3 Distribution across Attributes micro and small enterprises of the type of small for Productive Engagement Index home-based enterprises, atta-chakkis, etc., and commercial establishments which are mostly small Productive uses of energy are defined as those that grocery stores, departmental stores, pan shops, etc. increase income or productivity and refer to the In addition to this, it was found that most of these 19 activities that add value that could be taxable, if part establishments were unaware about their average India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access of the formal economy (ESMAP). Besides improving load thereby making it difficult to assess the load income or productivity, a major advantage of profile of these productive engagements. With these monitoring progress over productive uses is given constraints, the index has been designed by that it secures higher economic sustainability of cross-validating the responses across a variety of electrification projects. indicators to understand the nature and size of these establishments. A significantly large proportion of industries and commercial establishments covered as part of A state-wise comparison of survey results across the survey are observed to be of small size. This the various attributes for productive engagement is primarily due to the difficult terrain and lack units, as defined under the NERPSIP framework, is of connectivity. Rural NER as a region has mostly summarized in Table 7. Table 7 | State-wise comparison of attributes for Productive Engagement Units ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS CAPACITY Distribution of Productive Engagement Units yy Since the units surveyed were mostly across Capacity small-scale and home-based enterprises, the distribution of electrified units across 100% states was in line with the electrification rate recorded for households across 80% states. 69% 73% 66% 60% 78% 91% 88% yy A higher percentage of un-electrified units were reported in the states of 40% 1% Assam and Tripura, with the lowest 1% 20% 34% un-electrified units being found in 30% 26% 22% 1% Mizoram and Nagaland. 8% 12% 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura yy Almost all electrified units were grid- 0 2 5 electrified with very few units in Assam, Manipur and Mizoram reporting solar, diesel generator set etc. 02 Application of NERPSIP Framework – A Comparison of States across Attributes Table 7 | State-wise comparison of attributes for Productive Engagement Units (Contd...) ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS 20 AVAILABILITY Distribution of Productive Engagement Units yy Across states, few productive units despite India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access across Availability being electrified reported receiving less 100% than 2 hours of power supply. Such units 6% 3% 15% 8% 14% have been assigned Tier 0 along with un- 18% 30% 28% 80% 10% electrified units. 44% 60% 31% 51% 21% 25% 31% yy Productive units reporting lower than 50% availability during working hours 40% 25% 18% (Tier 1 & 2) were higher in Assam (31%) 19% 22% 27% 20% 23% 7% 13% and Nagaland (38%) while the availability 26% 22% of power in Manipur, Meghalaya and 9% 18% 15% 17% 0% 3% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Mizoram remained higher with a higher 1 2 3 4 5 percentage reporting 75% or higher availability during working hours Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 (Tier 4 & 5) RELIABILITY Distribution of Community Facilities across Reliability yy Out of the electrified units in each 100% state, Meghalaya reported the highest 12% percentage of commercial and industrial 24% 25% 22% 23% 12% 31% 80% units which did not face issues of frequent 8% 17% 60% 27% 33% power cut. 43% 23% 43% 24% yy Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura 40% 20% 22% had higher scope for improvement with 35% 20% 25% 6% 26% respect to reliability as a large share of 29% 21% 5% 18% 8% units fall in Tier 1, 2 and 3 indicating 3% 1% 3% 1% 10% 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura higher frequency of power cut for longer 1 2 3 4 5 durations. Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 QUALITY Distribution of Productive Units across Quality yy Overall, the percentage of electrified units in Manipur and Meghalaya reporting no 100% quality issues was the highest among all 80% the six states. 59% 53% 62% 69% yy The percentage of electrified industries 60% 83% 88% which reported facing the issue of voltage 40% 2% 9% fluctuation was much higher in the states 5% 4% 7% 5% 9% of Assam, Mizoram and Tripura. 16% 20% 17% 5% 25% 18% 6% 5% 8% 23% yy Highest percentage of commercial and 1% 1% 4% 8% 3% 6% 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura industrial units in Assam and Tripura were 1 2 3 4 5 reported in Tier 1 i.e. frequent voltage fluctuations of more than 3 times a day Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 (Tier 1). Table 7 | State-wise comparison of attributes for Productive Engagement Units (Contd...) ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS LEGALITY Distribution of Productive Units across Legality yy Almost all electrified commercial units 21 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 100% and industrial establishments covered 80% under the survey in the six states were found to have legal connections and were 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 99% receiving/paying bills to the utility. 40% yy Large number of commercial units 20% were reported sharing the electricity 0% 3% 1% connection in many states due to Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura common connection. 3 5 Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 2.4 Distribution across Attributes can improve necessary communication between for Community Facilities Index citizens and government officials and improve monitoring of government schemes. Also, in India, Electricity for community services (such as electricity Panchayat buildings or community buildings are access in government buildings, health centres, the places where the Gram Sabha meetings are held schools, community buildings, street lighting etc.) frequently to discuss matters of importance for the is fundamental to improvement in human capital. village community. Therefore, electricity access to Electricity access in health facilities can help in such community facilities forms an important aspect improving the infrastructure and services available in overall development of the village. at local health centres within or near the village and thereby reducing the requirement to travel A state-wise comparison of survey results across large distances for treatment and availing of health the various attributes for community facilities facilities. Similarly, improved electricity access in units, as defined under the NERPSIP framework, is schools can introduce innovative and modern summarized in Table 8. techniques of teaching. In Panchayat buildings it ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS Table 8 | State-wise comparison of attributes for Community Facilities CAPACITY Distribution of Community Facilities across Capacity yy On an overall basis, the electrification of community facilities was better in Mizoram 100% and Nagaland while in case of Assam the 28% electrification of such community facilities 80% 48% 52% 50% was very poor. 60% 78% 82% yy Assam and Tripura reported the poorest 40% 72% electrification rate of schools. 48% 50% 52% 20% yy In case of health centres, Manipur and 22% 18% Tripura reported the highest percentage 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura falling in Tier 0 (un-electrified) as compared 0 2 5 with Nagaland where all 21 health centres surveyed were reported as electrified. 02 Application of NERPSIP Framework – A Comparison of States across Attributes Table 8 | State-wise comparison of attributes for Community Facilities (Contd...) ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS AVAILABILITY 22 Distribution of Community Facilities across Availability yy Overall, the highest percentage of the India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access community centres (except those in Manipur) received power supply for 100% 15% 12% 20% roughly 50% of the working hours (Tier 3) 25% 31% 80% 39% 18% 21% 9% yy Among the electrified facilities in all the 60% 22% 13% states, those in Manipur, Meghalaya and 23% 43% 54% Mizoram received electricity supply for 40% 50% 44% 43% longer duration (Tier 4, 5) 20% 31% 12% 8% 5% 11% yy Although schools in Nagaland and 3% 3% 14% 0% 6% 5% 5% 8% 7% Mizoram had high electrification rates, Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura the availability of power supply during 1 2 3 4 5 working hours was low (Tier 1, 2, 3). yy None of 28 health centres surveyed in Meghalaya reported power availability Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall for more than 95% of the working hours electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 (Tier 5), followed by only one such health centre in Nagaland. RELIABILITY Distribution of Community Facilities across Reliability yy The highest proportion of electrified 100% community facilities in the four states 12% (except Assam and Tripura) did not report 35% 27% 80% 17% 39% 42% 44% power cut as an issue. 14% 60% 16% yy In case of Mizoram and Nagaland, majority 39% 23% 27% 12% 16% 40% of the schools, reported facing no power 27% 28% 30% 29% 30% cuts. 20% 24% 19% 8% 8% 7% 3% 9% 6% 13% yy In Mizoram, all electrified health centres 0% 2% 5% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura covered under the survey reported power 1 2 3 4 5 cut as a challenge. Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 Quality Distribution of Community Facilities across Quality yy In case of community facilities in all the six states, the majority of the electrified 100% facilities in Manipur, Meghalaya and 80% 35% 43% Nagaland reported no occurrence of 49% 70% voltage fluctuation. 60% 87% 19% 4% 94% 13% yy Electrified community facilities in Manipur 40% 10% 5% 19% 9% reported the least occurrence of voltage 8% 20% 21% 1% fluctuation among all the six states. 19% 1% 30% 15% 1% 5% 14% yy In Mizoram, all electrified health centres 9% 5% 7% 7% 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura reported an issue of voltage fluctuation. 1 2 3 4 5 yy Electrified community facilities in Tripura Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall reported frequent voltage fluctuation as a electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 key challenge (30% in Tier 1). Table 8 | State-wise comparison of attributes for Community Facilities (Contd...) ATTRIBUTES FINDINGS LEGALITY 23 Distribution of Community Facilities across Legality yy Since the majority of the community India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access facilities were government institutions 100% and bill payments in case of such 80% institutions is borne by the government by way of actual payment or adjustment, 60% 99% 100% 100% 98% 97% 100% most of these institutions were assumed 40% to be of legal nature, while in case of 20% private institutions, the status of the 1% 2% 3% connection was assessed and mapped in 0% Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura the respective tier. 3 5 Note: The above graph shows the units in a particular tier as a percentage of overall electrified units in the State, i.e. after excluding the un-electrified units in Tier 0 In case of schools, an important finding was that faced across households, productive units and overall, the number of schools that were grid- community facilities for each respondent or for connected were very few, thereby influencing the different geographies, i.e. blocks/districts/state. The index towards the tier constituting un-electrified attributes of each respondent are further aggregated schools (Tier 0). as per the methodology described in Chapter 3, for computing the Electricity Access Index for each The above comparison of distribution across locale across the six states and comparing the attributes helps in understanding the constraints results. 03 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index For computation of Baseline Electricity Access ILLUSTRATIVE Index, the survey data from each locale was Attributes Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 mapped across the different tiers for each of Capacity their respective attributes as per the NERPSIP Framework to define the interplay of different Availability attributes in determining the overall tier of a Reliability respondent. The overall tier for each locale i.e. Quality 24 household, institution and community infrastructure Affordability is calculated by applying the lowest tier across all the India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access attributes. Legality By using this method, it is ensured that every Post assignment of a tier to each respondent under a sample (say Household) that is having higher tiers category, the overall tier is then computed by taking across several attributes may still fall in a lower slab a weighted average of the proportion of samples in if any one attribute is falling in the lower tier i.e. a the particular category and the weightage assigned household may have higher reported attributes to each tier as per the given formula, of capacity, availability, affordability, etc. but if the Access Index AI = ∑ (P ∗ V ) 5 reliability of electricity is poor and limiting the usage k =0 of appliances, the overall tier of the household shall where, P is the proportion of people at the kth tier be guided by the lowest tier of the attributes, which is reliability in this case. Therefore, a household shall be V is the value associated with tier k assigned a higher tier only in case when all attributes of supply are ensured including capacity, availability, An illustration to explain the methodology used to quality, reliability, etc. compute the Electricity Access Index for all six states has been explained in Table 9. Based on this approach, after mapping each respondent to the various tiers, the proportion of Based on this methodology, the Electricity Access respondents in each tier is determined. Each tier Index for each category in each district for all six is then assigned a weight based on the degree of states has been computed. The advantage of such access enjoyed by the people in the particular tier. an approach is that such representation can be For example, un-electrified households shall fall disaggregated to the level where each respondent under Tier 0 due to no access to electricity. can be categorized into a unique tier and the data Table 9 | Illustration for Electricity Access Index calculation of each category in a geographical area Value of Proportion of Contribution Tiers each Tier respondents of each Tier to Interpretation (Vk) (Pk) AI (PkxVk) 0 0 20% 0 20% respondents have no access 25 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 1 20 10% 2 10% respondents have 20% access 2 40 35% 14 35% respondents have 40% access 3 60 10% 6 10% respondents have 60% access 4 80 20% 16 20% respondents have 80% access 5 100 5% 5 5% respondents have full access The Overall Electricity Access Index is 43 with only 5% respondents having 100% access to electricity and 20% Total 100% 43 having no access. The remaining 75% have only partial access but contribute significantly to the overall index. can then be aggregated across geographies, such The findings indicate that Assam and Tripura reported as blocks, districts or state level. lower electricity access index in comparison to the other four states due to a higher number of un- 3.1 Findings from Household Index electrified households and reduced availability, quality and reliable supply among households. The distribution of households across the six tiers in the six states, done using the NERPSIP Framework, Since the index can be aggregated and is shown in Box 4. In each state, the distribution of disaggregated across geographies, indices were households across tiers varied, reflecting different prepared across districts and states for the sample energy access levels in each of these states. households covered in the survey (Box 5). Box 4: Important Findings from Household Index Distribution of Households across tiers yy Tripura had the maximum number of unelectrified households (Tier 0) Assam 31% 12% 23% 31% 1%3% yy Mizoram had the least number of unelectrified households (Tier 0) Manipur 25% 4%4% 38% 7% 22% yy Assam had the least number of households with Meghalaya 17% 3%12% 52% 5%11% 100% electricity access (Tier 5) since very few Mizoram 6% 10% 39% 29% 16% households reported high availability of electricity along with lower frequency and shorter duration of Nagaland 10% 11% 21% 37% 4% 16% power cuts and infrequent voltage fluctuations Tripura 35% 8% 15% 26% 1%14% yy In case of Mizoram, the maximum number of households (around 78%) fell in middle tiers (Tier 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% to Tier 4) Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 yy Similarly, in case of Meghalaya and Nagaland, a substantial number of households belonged to middle tiers (72% and 77% respectively) 03 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index Box 5: District-wise Baseline Index for Households ASSAM MIZORAM 26 70.0 70.0 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 60.0 60.0 56.1 50.9 51.0 50.0 50.0 48.8 39.8 40.0 40.0 35.4 33.8 32.0 32.7 30.0 26.7 30.0 20.0 20.0 Dhemaji Golaghat Kamrup Darrang Goalpara ASSAM Lunglei Mamit Kolasib MIZORAM MANIPUR NAGALAND 70.0 68.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 57.9 54.2 53.8 52.6 50.4 50.0 48.3 50.0 48.3 44.5 44.5 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 Bishnupur Senapati Churachandpur MANIPUR Mokokchung Wokha Peren NAGALAND MEGHALAYA TRIPURA 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 55.3 52.7 51.6 50.0 48.1 50.0 43.4 40.0 40.0 38.1 36.3 32.6 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 East Khasi Jaintia West Khasi MEGHALAYA South Tripura West Tripura North Tripura TRIPURA Intervention Districts Control Districts State At the district level in case of Assam, Kamrup district attributed to the highest percentage (36%) of performed better than the other four districts in households falling in Tier 5 due to high availability, terms of lower proportion (11%) of households quality and reliable electricity supply. in Tier 0 (un-electrified). In case of Dhemaji, 51% of the households are categorized in Tier 0 which Out of all the Control Districts, Darrang (Assam) also explains the lowest overall index (26.7) for reported the lowest household index (32) mainly due households in the district. to a lower proportion of households (1%) reporting 100% electricity access (Tier 5) in combination Out of all 20 districts, Bishnupur district (Manipur) with higher number of un-electrified households has the highest household index which is mainly (Tier 0). On the other hand, Kolasib (Mizoram) had the highest index (56.1) due to minimal proportion Index was computed. The distribution of productive (1.89%) of un-electrified households reported in the units across the six tiers in the six states, done using survey. Similarly, in case of Meghalaya, West Khasi the NERPSIP Framework, is shown in Box 6. district has a higher electricity index as compared to its Intervention Districts. Lower un-electrified Some of the key findings about the Productivity 27 households as well as a higher percentage of Engagement Index are listed below: India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access households falling in middle tiers are the primary zz Across states, Meghalaya and Manipur show the reason for the higher index in this district. highest Productive Engagement Index, mainly due to the lower number of un-electrified For both the Intervention Districts of Nagaland, the industrial units in both the states. Also, a higher distribution of households across tiers is very similar, number of commercial establishments which thus resulting in a very close baseline index for have 100% electricity access (Tier 5) is observed households in the two districts. in case of Meghalaya, which has resulted in a higher index. At the state level, except for Assam and Tripura, the household electricity access indices computed for zz At the district level, both Bishnupur and the balance four states are greater than 50, primarily Churachandpur (Manipur) reported better electricity due to the lower number of un-electrified households access levels for commercial establishments. reported in the survey. Darrang, Dhemaji and Kamrup (Assam) and East Khasi Hills (Meghalaya) were among the low 3.2 Findings from Productive performing districts with low level of electricity access for commercial establishments. Engagement Index zz On the contrary, industries in East Khasi Hills In view of the limited numbers of survey responses (Meghalaya), South Tripura and West Tripura under the industrial category and in view of the (Tripura) although small in size, reported better similar framework for both commercial and industrial electricity access levels and therefore, a higher categories, a combined Productive Engagement index compared to other remaining districts. Box 6: Important Findings from Productive Engagement Index Distribution of Productive Engagement yy The nature of productive units was micro and small Units across tiers enterprises and therefore largely in line with the distribution of households across States. Assam 31% 38% 14%13% 3%1% yy Tripura had the maximum percentage of Manipur 28% 4% 8% 26% 31% 4% un-electrified commercial and industrial units as compared with Mizoram which reported the least Meghalaya 29% 18% 10% 17% 13% 13% percentage of un-electrified units. Mizoram 9% 19% 36% 22% 7%7% yy Meghalaya had the highest number of commercial and industrial units with 100% electricity access Nagaland 13% 22% 20% 38% 7% (Tier 5). Tripura 36% 25% 16% 12% 4% 7% yy In case of Nagaland, the maximum number of 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% commercial and industrial units (around 87%) fell in middle tiers (Tier 1 to Tier 4). Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Note: The above distribution graph is based on the total sample distribution for commercial and industrial put together. A district level distribution of the commercial and industrial samples across the tiers is provided in Annexure A. 03 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index zz In case of Nagaland and Tripura, the Control Box 7: Productive Engagement Index across Districts, i.e. Peren and North Tripura respectively States reported a much lower index for commercial establishments as compared to their Intervention 60.00 28 Districts, mainly due to the higher proportion of 51.37 52.08 50.00 un-electrified units. India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 42.06 38.86 37.22 40.00 3.3 Findings from Community 27.26 30.00 Facilities Index 20.00 The distribution of community facilities across the 10.00 six tiers in the six states, done using the NERPSIP Framework, is shown in Box 8. 0.00 Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Some of the key findings about the Community Facilities Index are listed below: zz At the district level, Dhemaji (Assam), Peren zz Across states, Nagaland had the highest Community (Nagaland) and Kolasib (Mizoram) had better Facilities Index mainly due to the fewer number of electricity access levels for health centres. un-electrified schools and health centres. zz In case of schools, electrification levels in zz Overall, the status of electrification in case of the districts of Mokokchung (Nagaland), schools in the states other than Nagaland and Wokha (Nagaland), Bishnupur (Manipur) and Mizoram was found to be lower than 50%. Churachandpur (Manipur) remained better than zz Similarly, the status of electrification of health the other districts. centres in Tripura, Meghalaya and Manipur zz Kamrup (Assam) reported the poorest electricity remained low with atleast 50% of health centres access level for community/Panchayat buildings reporting absence of electrification. when compared to all other districts. Box 8: Important Findings from Community Facilities Index Distribution of Community Facilities yy A fairly large number of un-electrified community across tiers facilities in Assam have resulted in higher percentage of such facilities falling under Tier 0. Similarly, about 52% of Assam 73% 5% 9%10% 2%1% the community facilities in Meghalaya and Tripura were reported un-electrified thus falling in Tier 0 Manipur 49% 2% 8% 21% 8% 12% yy Mizoram and Nagaland had comparatively lesser Meghalaya 52% 4%7% 21% 5%11% number of such un-electrified facilities (Tier 0) than Mizoram 26% 14% 18% 34% 6%2% other States yy Assam also had the least number of facilities with Nagaland 21% 15% 20% 29% 9%6% 100% electricity access (Tier 5) since very few facilities Tripura 52% 16% 9%12%5%5% reported higher duration of power availability during working hours along with good reliability and quality 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% of electricity Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 yy Nagaland and Mizoram overall reported much higher number of facilities in middle tiers (Tier 1 to Tier 4) Note: The above distribution graph is based on the total sample distribution for health centers, schools and panchayats put together. A district level distribution of the health centers, schools and panchayats samples across the tiers is provided in Annexure A. 3.4 Aggregation of Different Indices Box 9: Community Facilities Index across States The household survey conducted in the six states covered 17023 households in total, 982 commercial units, 109 industrial establishments, 794 schools, 50.00 41.70 29 205 health centres and 361 Panchayat buildings. 40.00 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 34.77 36.08 The largest coverage of the survey was on the 29.31 30.00 household front with comprehensive data collection 23.96 21.39 from all the six states. Further, considering that 20.00 industrial as well as commercial activity in the North- Eastern Region remained low due to various issues 10.00 including connectivity, transportation, etc., the share of Productive Engagement Index has been given a 0.00 Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura weightage of 15% of the total Electricity Access Index. Under the categories covered under Community Index (i.e. health centres, schools and Panchayats), it indices, the baseline Electricity Access Index for was observed that most of them were government- all the 20 districts across the six states have been owned establishments and the awareness of calculated. In Box 10 districts with higher Electricity respondents was limited with respect to the coverage Access Index have been shown in a darker shade of questions. Therefore, in view of the large coverage with reducing grades as the level of electricity access (more than 85% of total respondents) in case of declines. the household category and better quality of data retrieved from their responses, a higher weightage As can be seen here, the baseline index for each has been assigned to the household electricity sub- district is primarily influenced by the Household index for calculating the overall Electricity Access Index due to the higher weightage assigned to the Index of a block/district/state (Figure 4). Household Index (corresponding to its proportion in the sample coverage). 3.5 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index as per Key observations on the baseline electricity access NERPSIP Framework index computed for the districts and states are: zz Assam has the lowest index followed by Tripura. Using the methodology described in the earlier Poor levels of electrification reported during section and assigning weightage to each of the the survey is one of the major reasons of low Figure 4: Weightages for computation of Composite Electricity Access Index Electricity Access Index 70% 15% 15% Productive Community Household Index Engagement Index Facilities Index 03 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index Box 10: District level Baseline ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDICES ASSAM MANIPUR MEGHALAYA 30 30.95 DHEMAJI 50.55 44.76 49.04 26.17 SENAPATI India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DARRANG JAINTIA HILLS 29.43 CHURACHANDPUR 50.43 45.14 GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 33.55 WEST KHASI HILLS EAST KHASI HILLS 34.78 BISHNUPUR 47.15 46.06 GOALPARA 65.90 29.89 Low High Low High Low High MIZORAM NAGALAND TRIPURA KOLASIB 51.99 47.39 48.42 48.18 MOKOKCHUNG 35.86 NORTH TRIPURA 29.08 WOKHA WEST TRIPURA MAMIT 54.10 42.13 46.18 LUNGLIE i 44.10 SOUTH TRIPURA 36.99 PEREN 44.12 Low High Low High Low High index values in these two states. The Electricity establishments. As a result, in the overall baseline Access Index of the balance four states (Manipur, index Churachandpur had marginally better Mizoram, Meghalaya and Nagaland) show very access than Senapati. little variation. zz Kolasib (Mizoram) despite being the control zz A comparison of electricity index across districts district, had the highest baseline index across of all states indicate Dhemaji (in Assam) with the the three districts in the state. It is to be noted lowest index value while Bishnupur (in Manipur) that Control Districts were selected based on emerged as the district with the highest index upcoming NERPSIP works and not based on level value. of electricity access. zz While the overall index of Assam remained low, zz The baseline Electricity Access Index for all the Kamrup district in Assam, had the highest baseline three districts in Meghalaya is very close to each index among the five districts in the state due to other, while in case of Tripura and Manipur there is few un-electrified households (11%) and better considerable difference between the districts with access for schools and industries (10% in Tier 5), the highest and lowest baseline Electricity Access as against the poor electricity access in other Index. districts. zz In case of Manipur, although Senapati had a better The computed electricity access indices would household index than Churachandpur, it fared serve as a baseline index for the assessment of any poorly on the Productive Engagement Index due potential improvement expected in the various to the large number of un-electrified commercial attributes comprising the Electricity Access Index i.e. capacity, availability, reliability, etc., on which was restricting its movement to the subsequent account of the works proposed under NERPSIP tier. A summary of percentage of such respondents for strengthening the transmission and sub- which were restrained by common attributes transmission network. was prepared. Depending on the percentage of respondents, the attributes were then classified into 31 3.6 Gap Analysis low to high impact attributes in each of the states as India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access shown in figures 5 to 7. While the works under NERPSIP have already been finalized, the gap analysis conducted under the For households, availability remains a key constraint study was more focused on the observed attribute due to the absence of redundancies in the network, deficiencies based on the survey undertaken in the energy shortage, frequent faults and transformer selected areas across the six states. The attributes breakdowns. considered under the NERPSIP framework for the computation of the baseline electricity access index For productive engagement units in Assam and as well as the underlying data set of the six states Mizoram, frequency and duration of power cuts provide inputs for analyzing the constraint/pull- emerged as a major pull-down factor for electrified down factor across locales, regions, etc. units, while in case of Manipur and Meghalaya, both availability and reliability emerged as major In order to conduct the gap analysis, the attribute(s) constraints. In case of Nagaland, supply hours during with the lowest tier of a respondent was identified, working hours remained a major restricting factor. Figure 5: Pull-down factors reported by Households across the six states Pull-Down Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Observations (Households) Factor Capacity       yy Availability emerged as a major constraint across States Availability       yy In Mizoram, reliability along with availability Reliability       was reported as a major constraint Quality       yy Capacity was the other constraint in Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura Affordability       yy Affordability did not emerge as a concern Legality        High  Medium  Low   >30% respondents   10-30% respondents   <10% respondents Figure 6: Pull-down factors reported by Productive Engagement units across the six states Pull-Down Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Observations (Productive Units) Factor Capacity       yy Availability & Reliability emerged as the two major constraints for productive units Availability       yy In Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland Reliability       improving power supply during working hours is a major requirement Quality       yy Electrification rates were higher except in Legality       Tripura  High  Medium  Low   >30% respondents   10-30% respondents   <10% respondents 03 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index Figure 7: Pull-down factors reported by Community Facilities across the six states Pull-Down Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Observations (Community Facilities) Factor 32 Capacity       yy Capacity was reported as the largest constraint in Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya Availability       India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access and Tripura Reliability       yy Electrification of schools among community facilities remained the lowest Quality       yy Availability and Reliability were key pull down factors for electrified community Legality       facilities  High  Medium  Low   >30% respondents   10-30% respondents   <10% respondents For community facilities, capacity was a major pull- A list of the various pull-down factors that is restricting down factor in Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya and the Electricity Access Index of the respondents in each Tripura, due to lower electrification rates. In the of the categories across the states is summarized in remaining two states, duration of power supply was table 10. a constraint. While most of the productive engagement units 3.7 DESIGNING INTERVENTIONS FOR did not perceive capacity of the systems to deliver a IMPROVING ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDEX certain quantity of energy due to grid-connections a challenge, this was a major challenge that The NERPSIP project which includes various emerged across community facilities, especially works for improvement of transmission and sub- schools where electrification rates remained transmission networks, will partially address the poor. constraints related to a few of the attributes of Table 10 | Summary of Key Pull Down factors and findings from Gap Analysis across locales and across states Pull-Down Factors Key Findings Productive Community Households: Locale/State Households Units Facilities 1. Availability emerged as the major constraint in almost all 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd the states 2. In Assam, Manipur and Tripura, capacity was the other Assam       biggest factor restricting access Manipur       3. For others, utilities should focus on providing uninterrupted power Meghalaya       Productive Engagement Units: Mizoram       1. Availability and Reliability emerged as two key issues in all Nagaland       states 2. In Tripura, new connections need to be added to improve Tripura       index Community Facilities:       Capacity Availability Reliability Quality Affordability Legality 1. Capacity was reported as the largest constraint in 4 states with availability in remaining states 1st Attribute that was reported by the highest percentage of respondents as the primary constraint/pull-down factor; 2nd Attribute that was reported second highest response by respondents as the pull-down factor Electricity Access Index. However, suggestions on power to meet their demand and therefore, the possible policy and other interventions required availability of power from hydro stations may be for improvement of the attributes that are limiting limited during different time intervals. Moreover, the Electricity Access Index based on the earlier gap load shedding during evening hours is resorted analysis are summarized below: to by the utilities (on rotational basis) to meet 33 the peak demand during evening hours. A host India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 1. Capacity: One of the key constraints observed in case of households across the state of of initiatives can be adopted by the utilities/ Assam and Tripura was on the capacity state government for meeting such demand- front due to the poor electrification status supply gaps including tie-ups for additional of a large number of households. Last mile power quantum, banking arrangements, connectivity in unserved areas will be critical demand-side efficiency measures (distribution for realizing the full benefits of NERPSIP. While of energy efficient appliances), improvement in the NERPSIP scheme does not provide end- distribution network, etc. user connectivity, it will facilitate delivery of 3. Reliability: Reliability is one of the important power to un-electrified areas, or enhance the attributes that restrict the overall Electricity load-bearing capacity of the network. This will Access Index in the six states across North- need to be supported with commensurate Eastern states. During the supply-side surveys, infrastructure improvements in 11 kV and below one of the important findings that emerged electricity supply network. It is expected that was the existence of a radial network in a few the GoI’s Household electrification program states like Meghalaya and Nagaland. This sort “SAUBHAGYA” or Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli of supply mechanism results in frequent power Har Ghar Yojana, aimed at providing electricity cuts/faults and thus impacts a larger area access to all households, will help address this instead of the local area where the fault has gap. occurred. Realigning such an electricity supply Similarly, a large number of community system into a ring main system, particularly at establishments (health centres, schools, etc.) higher voltage levels, will help in improving were observed to be un-electrified across the system reliability. Also upgradation of old six states. Electrification of these community distribution networks in line with the growth in infrastructure facilities, which are primarily consumer-load and demand will be useful to government-owned, would help in improving avoid system failure due to overloading. the education and health-care facilities in 4. Quality: As all consumer categories including these areas which are generally far away households, commercial and community from the main cities. All these electrification facilities in the survey area were using basic initiatives would contribute towards uplifting appliances (primarily lighting, fans and other the Electricity Access Index for households and low-load appliances), the concerns raised community facilities in the six states. over voltage fluctuations was considerably 2. Availability: Availability of electricity supply low across the six states, as compared to during the entire day as well as during evening other attributes like availability and reliability. hours was the largest factor reported by the However, based on the supply-side data households across the states that restricted the analysis, it was observed that in a few areas the overall index value. The survey results also reflect supply voltage at the11 kV-end of the 33/11 kV medium levels of load shedding, which could substation was low. Therefore, the quality of be due to distribution network constraints, supply in these areas remained poor (and need resulting in several breakdowns and outages to be addressed), but was not reported due to at the consumer end. Also, the North-Eastern lack of understanding and limitations in usage states are primarily dependent on hydro- of high load appliances. 03 Computation of Baseline Electricity Access Index 5. Affordability: In case of households, patiently answer a lengthy questionnaire affordability did not appear as a major barrier covering socio-economic parameters, followed which limited the Electricity Access Index of the by electricity-related parameters. Similarly, households across the six states. Low electricity in case of other categories such as health 34 requirement due to limitations in ownership centres and schools, the understanding of the of high-load appliances in the surveyed areas respondents (mainly administrative staff such as India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access and subsidized electricity tariff in the domestic ward boys, teachers) on electricity parameters categories were the primary reasons for was at best minimal, thereby reducing the such an outcome. In case of Productive and response rate. In such cases, a simplistic version Community index, affordability as a parameter of MTF with data collection on the most critical had to be dropped from the overall index due attributes may increase the response rate from to poor response and lack of knowledge of the a primary survey. respondents in government-owned institutions 3. The states in the North-eastern region of India (schools, health centres, etc.) with respect to differ widely from each other in terms of culture, the pricing of electricity. language, etc. The languages as well as dialects 6. Legality: Similar to affordability, legality did spoken in these six states varies significantly. not appear as a constraint in determining the In order to overcome these local challenges, Electricity Access Index across the categories in a survey team consisting of local surveyors each state. Also, most of the institutions were was selected. The team was given adequate either un-electrified or government-owned training comprising class-room training as well and therefore the legality of connection is not a as mock sessions to brief them regarding the significant issue. requirements of the survey and the importance of the questionnaire. However, the individual 3.8 Key Learnings from the Study surveyor’s understanding and bias may have led to variations in the responses garnered The study faced a number of challenges during across the respondents. execution that lend critical insights for similar studies 4. The inherent technicality involved in the survey across geographies. Some of the key learnings are: i.e. ability to differentiate between power cut 1. The Multi-Tier Framework is a particularly with low voltage and the recall on various useful tool for a disaggregated analysis across aspects (availability of supply during morning/ different establishments/locales. However, the evening, frequent or duration of power cuts, definition of attributes and the tiers considered average monthly consumption, etc.), leads to for Electricity Access Index may require changes difficulty in garnering the right responses from to account for (i) variations in electricity access the respondents. An approach to address this conditions in a geography, and (ii) variations could be to ensure that the respondent for each in electricity access across the spectrum of unit is someone who is adequately equipped households, productive engagements and with a basic understanding of electricity community facilities due to the nature and indicators. For example, a homemaker may timings when electricity is needed for daily be better equipped to answer the question operations. of number of supply hours during the day 2. In case of the household survey across states, it than a household member who is away from was observed that the comprehensive approach home during most hours of the day. The under MTF makes data collection a complex aforementioned constraints could also be and challenging exercise. In areas with lower adjusted and responses from consumer level literacy rates and poor living standards, the survey validated if supply side data repository respondents are unable to devote time to on electricity-related parameters such as availability, interruptions at the village level was survey was being conducted as per the being maintained by utilities. In the absence administrative boundary (districts and blocks), of such data, it was difficult to ascertain the the electricity distribution in India is as per accuracy of the responses collected from the the electrical boundaries defined by circles/ end-consumer. sub-divisions and did not overlap with the 35 administrative boundaries. As a result, the India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 5. Owing to the comprehensive nature of the survey which was spread across a difficult supply arrangement for selected blocks and terrain of North-Eastern states, the survey villages was comprehended based on inputs exercise spilled over to a longer duration than from the local substation in-charge. The envisaged during the planning stage. This supply from each substation was not limited might have led to a change in the reference to a particular block and instances of one point for the responses reported. Seasonal substation supplying to more than one block variations in weather further change the was observed. Therefore, approximation based pattern of electricity supply and the demand, on feeders supplying to the selected areas leading to variations in responses collected (which were selected as per administrative over time. So timing of ex-post study must be boundaries) was undertaken to address the synchronized with the timing of baseline data challenge. collection. 7. The poor connectivity and damage to road 6. One of the concerns which emerged during infrastructure, particularly during monsoon the selection of sample districts and blocks rains, resulted in high travel time and also were the differences in administrative and contributed towards stretching the survey electrical boundaries in India. While the period. 04 Ex-Ante Estimation of Impact of NERPSIP 4.1 Alternate Approach for Ex-Ante when the intervention would have not taken place. Estimation This is also termed as counterfactual. In the absence of information on the counterfactual, the Control Ex-ante estimation is primarily used at the stage of Group (which is a proxy to the counterfactual) serves program design to optimally choose the project as an indicator of what would have happened to based on cost and impact considerations. Also, the Intervention Group, had the intervention not it acts as a tool for estimation of the impact of a taken place. 36 project at the time of design or implementation. This helps in laying down the impact parameters In cases where there is full control over allocation and India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access which needs to be monitored at the time of ex- scheduling of the intervention, impact evaluation post. Therefore, ex-ante assessment can help studies make use of experimental designs such in building some evidence on the range of the as randomized evaluations. However, in cases impact to be expected post implementation of the where there is no full control over the allocation program and selection of the sample size for any of participants, quasi-experimental designs are ex-post evaluation. used. Some of the techniques used in such cases include Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Double Therefore, the two main questions to be answered Difference (DD) / Difference-in-Difference (DiD), for selection of an appropriate approach for ex- regression discontinuity etc. (Table 11). These ante estimation are: what constitutes impact and designs prescribe different techniques to minimize how to estimate it? For projects where appropriate the bias between the control and intervention impact parameters can easily be identified and data while measuring the impact. on such parameters is readily available, selection of a suitable approach becomes easy. However, ex- In case of NERPSIP, the scheme envisages a list ante estimation for a project like NERPSIP becomes of works that have been selected in specific difficult as the impact of change in one element geographies. The objective of the ex-ante estimation (transmission) of the value chain for energy supply done under the study was to understand the impact has to be evaluated. of these works in the intervention area. As the allocation of participants as well as the schedule of In such situations where the parameters are also the intervention has been pre-determined in the impacted by other government policies or programs, modalities of the NERPSIP scheme, it is pertinent to the impact of a program in the intervention area use quasi-experimental techniques to measure any has to be understood with respect to the situation impact of the scheme in the selected districts. Table 11 | Most common types of Impact Evaluations Designs Design Techniques Description and Application yy Simple to implement and helps in avoiding selection bias at the Experimental Design (Participants are randomly Randomized Evaluations level of randomization 37 assigned) yy The treatment and control subjects should exhibit similar pre- India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access program characteristics yy Used when treatment and control groups do not exhibit similar pre- program characteristics Propensity Score Matching (PSM) yy Matching is done based on observed characteristics to create Quasi-Experimental intervention and control groups, and the mean difference in Design outcomes of the two groups is the program impact (Participants cannot be randomly assigned) yy Is useful for studies where intervention and control do not exhibit similar pre-program characteristics. Difference-in-Difference (DiD) yy The treatment effect is determined by taking the difference in outcomes across treatment and control units before and after the program intervention. Secondly, ex-ante (meaning ‘before-the-fact’) estimations. Additionally, to ensure that responses estimation of the impact of any intervention scheme were received despite low awareness levels on is a type of forecast based solely on baseline data electricity indicators, data was collected using binary/ unlike ex-post, where observed data is available categorical variables which does not lend itself easily before and after the intervention has taken place. to statistical techniques used for prediction. Therefore, Quantitative ex-ante estimation techniques such as in such cases, applying extrapolation techniques or univariate time series, extrapolations, multivariate regression techniques becomes difficult. regression etc. use statistical designs in the project design to forecast the impact of an intervention It is also important to highlight that the Multi-Tier scheme by predicting the outcomes of variables Framework being used for designing the Electricity of interest. Since the methodology adopted for Access Index (outcome) for NERPSIP makes use of constructing the baseline electricity index is a multi- several attributes to capture the status of electricity tier framework constructed using both quantitative access in a geography. As an index, it is more useful as well as qualitative attributes, such techniques in tracking the improvement in electricity access cannot be utilized for ex-ante estimation. of a geography than establishing cause-and-effect relationships. As a result, direct attribution of any Additionally, in case of the Indian power sector, scheme on all the attributes of the index (in the it is generally observed that the availability as absence of ex-post data) can lead to misleading well as quality of data from secondary sources is a conclusions. Given these limitations, an approach key constraint. For instance, any information with similar to difference-in-difference technique has respect to quality and reliability of power supply is been evolved to conduct an ex-ante estimation mostly unavailable. Such data limitation poses a big of the impact of NERPSIP on the Electricity Access challenge for estimation of the impact for a project Index. of such nature. 4.2 Methodology Adopted for Therefore, for measuring the impact of the NERPSIP Ex-Ante Estimation for NERPSIP scheme, limitations with respect to data collected for creating the baseline index (one-time exercise), with The initial sampling of Intervention Districts for no historical data available on most of the indicators NERPSIP was done keeping in mind the upcoming covered under the survey, posed a challenge for such projects of NERPSIP, as compared to the selection 04 Ex-Ante Estimation of Impact of NERPSIP Limited Domino E ect of availability of T&D segment secondary data Baseline 38 Pre-decided based on MTF– quantitative & program design India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access qualitative COMPLICATIONS Cross-Sectional Challenges encountered in MTF does not data (no historical designing an Ex-Ante establish causal data for forecasts) Estimation Approach relationships The approach for ex-ante estimation was designed keeping the Multi-Tier Framework in mind and using a simpli ed Di erence-in-Di erence (DiD) Approach of Control Districts which had an absence of such changes/movement that can be safely attributed to projects. other than the NERPSIP scheme. Considering that the baseline Electricity Access Using the above conceptual framework, the Index is computed based on the extensive data assumptions used for ex-ante estimation have been collected for the six states under NERPSIP and detailed out in the subsequent section. similar data collection shall be undertaken ex- post, it is relevant to measure the impact in terms 4.2.1 Focus of NERPSIP of difference between the outcomes of observed Since the Multi-Tier Framework being used (resulting from implementation of works under to construct the Electricity Access Index is an NERPSIP) and unobserved (due to other state- aggregation of multiple attributes, it is important to sponsored T&D schemes) characteristics. An understand the impact of the infrastructure projects illustration of how Difference-in-Difference would such as NERPSIP on each of these attributes. Also, therefore apply to measure the impact of NERPSIP the impact of each type of infrastructure project in between baseline and ex-ante has been shown in the energy supply chain (generation/transmission/ figure 8. The Difference-in-Difference approach distribution) may impact each attribute differently. would therefore compare the difference between Therefore, identification of key attributes which the baseline indices of Intervention and Control with the ex-ante difference between the estimated Figure 8: Difference-in-Difference (DiD) approach indices of Intervention and Control areas. 40 35 For ex-ante estimation purposes, while an estimation can be made for the Intervention 30 14.0 Districts, estimating the outcomes (Electricity Access Index) for Control Districts in the absence of 20 17 21.0 complete information of all the other schemes of the government is challenging. Therefore, to isolate 7.0 14 10 the impact of NERPSIP on Intervention Districts, the 10 attributes in the Control District have been assumed 0 Baseline Ex-ante to show no signs of improvement in the absence of NERPSIP works. Any movement that is recorded in Control Intervention Counterfactual the Control Districts ex-post then would be due to Figure 9: Type of Investments envisaged under NERPSIP 39 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access New Transmission New Transmission Augmentation & Bay and sub-transmission and sub-transmission Addition at Existing Substations Lines Substation would be impacted by the NERPSIP project is apparent at the end-consumer level, percolate down important. to the end-users. Figure 9 lists the various types of works that have The projects under NERPSIP scheme are estimated been envisaged under the scheme for strengthening to have a direct impact on mainly three attributes of of the transmission and sub-transmission network the Electricity Access Index i.e. availability, reliability in the North-Eastern states and delivery of the and quality, as described in Table 12. generated electricity to the demand area. Such interventions act as enablers to improve electricity Other attributes such as capacity, affordability and access in areas which were earlier unserved due to legality would be influenced more by other parameters the limitation of transmission/ sub-transmission such as distribution system augmentation, improved infrastructure. However, last-mile connectivity income levels, etc. The direct impact of NERPSIP in such cases is still dependent on upcoming scheme on these attributes has therefore not been distribution projects. Therefore, the benefits of considered for ex-ante estimation of the Electricity intervention at transmission and sub-transmission Access Index. levels in the electricity supply chain, though not Table 12 | Focus of NERPSIP works Attribute Type of Works under NERPSIP Rationale Construction of new 132/33 kV yy The enhanced transmission capacity will help in transfer of √ Transmission and 33/11 kV higher quantum of power to demand areas. Sub-transmission Substations yy The new 33/11 kV substation will help cater to additional Availability consumer load in the concerned areas. Bay Addition/Transformer Capacity √ yy Further, works related to transformer capacity augmentation Augmentation at Existing Substation will help in expanding load on the distribution side. New Transmission and yy Reliability of the existing system will improve because of √ Sub-Transmission Lines redundancies being developed in the existing transmission and sub-transmission system, thereby reducing faults/ Reliability breakdown. An example of such impact can be expected Re-conducting/Underground Cabling from projects such as underground cabling of existing lines √ of Existing Lines (if needed) in Guwahati Municipal area which will lead to higher system reliability. Construction of new 132/33 kV yy Quality will be improved by construction of new 33/11 kV √ Transmission and 33/11 kV substation in areas Sub-transmission Substations Quality yy Bay addition works will enable possibility of re-alignment of long 11kV feeders thus improving voltage profile in the Bay Addition/Transformer Capacity area particularly for end-consumers on overloaded 11 kV √ Augmentation at Existing Substations feeders. 04 Ex-Ante Estimation of Impact of NERPSIP 4.2.2 Assumptions used for Impact Estimation primary assumption behind this movement is that The framework and assumptions taken for the since investment in T&D networks helps in improving movement in attributes and tiers in the intervention the availability, reliability and quality of power group due to the impact of NERPSIP are described supply, it benefits the entities which have grid- 40 below: connections, but cannot directly uplift un-electrified establishments. Therefore, the maximum impact India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Assumption 1: of transmission and sub-transmission projects is On the whole, transmission and sub-transmission witnessed by those establishments which currently projects move consumers from access Tiers 1, 2, 3 lie in the middle tiers and are restricted in their access and 4 to Tiers 3, 4 and 5 by improving availability, due to poor quality and unreliable power supply. reliability and quality of the electricity supply. The Tier 1, 2, 3, 4   Tier 3, 4, 5   Illustration: For Household X, Baseline Index=1; Estimated Tier=3 Attributes Baseline Index Estimated Index Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Capacity Availability Reliability Quality Affordability Legality Figure 10: Expected movement of sample units Upward No Change Movement Expected Movement post implementation of NERPSIP Overall Tier 0 1 2 3 4 5 +2 Availability Availability +1 Reliability Reliability Intervention Quality Quality No access Electrified but low duration of Electrified and facing less of power supply issues 100% access and and supply/ higher power cuts/ and thus less scope for improvement receiving 24x7 unaffected frequent voltage fluctuation reliable, affordable by NERSIP and thus greater scope for and quality power improvement Control If the sample unit belongs to a Control District then no movement has been considered Assumption 2: directly uplifted by the NERPSIP scheme, leading For those establishments that lie in the middle tiers, to an improvement in their tier as compared to the improvement will be in availability, reliability the others. Also, electrification of currently un- and quality, i.e. attributes which are directly electrified households or other consumers has affected by investments in the transmission and not been considered as a direct impact of the 41 NERPSIP scheme as these are generally affected India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access sub-transmission network. While the improvement may be incremental (movement of one tier) in case by government schemes and policies supporting of consumers already in the higher tier, for others distribution companies for increasing electrification (especially those in Tier 1) significant improvements at the consumer end. are expected as a result of NERPSIP. The shift therefore, becomes commensurate to the baseline 4.3 Estimation of Ex-Ante Electricity tier for availability, reliability and quality. Access Index As shown in illustration, the movement of each Based on the assumptions stated under section establishment is thus dependent on its baseline 4.2.2, estimation was done for each establishment tier for key attributes such as availability, reliability in all the six locales i.e. household, commercial, and quality of electricity supply. Therefore, a industrial, schools, Panchayat/community building decision tree (Figure 10) was created to treat the and health centres in the Intervention Districts of various combinations that may arise using the two all six states. It has been assumed that due to the principles which has then been used to estimate absence of works under NERPSIP in the Control the movement of households, commercial units, Districts, there would be no movement in the industrial establishments, schools, health centres electricity index of these areas. The results for and Panchayat buildings across tiers. Intervention and Control Districts in each state are shown in figures 11 to 16. The decision tree shows that the impact of the NERPSIP scheme in improving the Electricity A summary of the district-wise baseline Electricity Access Index would be primarily associated with Access Index for each of the six states along with those households/categories which are falling ex-ante estimation of index is summarized in the under lower tiers for attributes such as availability, graphs in Box 11. reliability and quality. Such respondents shall be Figure 11: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Assam) Intervention Districts Control Districts Findings yy Impact will be highest in Kamrup since substantial proportion of samples (for e.g. 20% in case of Households) across 18.54 categories currently fall in Tier 1 and these 11.58 are expected to move to higher tiers (more than 72% samples in either Tier 3 9.35 or Tier 4). 33.55 34.78 29.43 29.89 26.17 Dhemaji Golaghat Kamrup Darrang Goalpara ; Ex-Ante Estimation of Improvement in Electricity Access Index =  Baseline Electricity Access Index =   04 Ex-Ante Estimation of Impact of NERPSIP Figure 12: Ex -ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Manipur) Intervention Districts Control Districts Findings yy Impact will be smaller and similar across 42 12.74 both Intervention Districts since significant percentage of samples across categories India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 10.71 were already in middle tiers (35%-40% of Households). 65.90 44.76 45.14 Bishnupur Senapati Churachandpur ; Ex-Ante Estimation of Improvement in Electricity Access Index =  Baseline Electricity Access Index =   Figure 13: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Meghalaya) Intervention Districts Control Districts Findings yy Impact will be higher in Jaintia Hills as large number of samples are estimated to 14.28 12.55 move to Tier 4 from Tier 3. 46.06 50.43 47.15 East Khasi Hills Jaintia Hills West Khasi Hills ; Ex-Ante Estimation of Improvement in Electricity Access Index =  Baseline Electricity Access Index =   Figure 14: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Mizoram) Intervention Districts Control Districts Findings yy I mpact will be similar across both districts since spread of sample units in both is 15.33 16.09 similar for baseline. 44.10 46.18 48.42 Lunglei Mamit Kolasib ; Ex-Ante Estimation of Improvement in Electricity Access Index =  Baseline Electricity Access Index =   Figure 15: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Nagaland) Intervention Districts Control Districts Findings yy Impact will be similar across both districts since spread of sample units in both is 15.99 17.23 similar for baseline. 51.99 54.10 44.12 Mokokchung Wokha Peren ; Ex-Ante Estimation of Improvement in Electricity Access Index =  Baseline Electricity Access Index =   Figure 16: Ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index for Intervention and Control Districts (Tripura) Intervention Districts Control Districts Findings yy High level of un-electrified households leading to lower baseline index value (than that of all the other states except 43 12.35 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Assam) and therefore conservative 9.46 impact expected without improvement in electrification rates. 36.99 42.13 29.08 South Tripura West Tripura North Tripura ; Ex-Ante Estimation of Improvement in Electricity Access Index =  Baseline Electricity Access Index =   Box 11: Baseline Indices vis-à-vis Ex-Ante Estimated INDICES FOR ELECTRICITY ACCESS ASSAM Manipur 100 100 78.64 80 80 60 53.32 55.47 60 35.52 45.13 65.9 45.14 40 29.43 29.89 40 44.76 33.55 34.78 20 20 26.17 0 0 Dhemaji Golaghat Kamrup Darrang Goalpara Bishnupur Senapati Churachandpur MEGHALAYA MIZORAM 100 100 80 80 64.71 62.27 58.61 59.43 60 47.15 60 48.42 40 50.43 40 46.06 44.1 46.18 20 20 0 0 East Khasi Hills Jaintia Hills West Khasi Hills Lunglei Mamit Kolasib NAGALAND TRIPURA 100 100 71.33 80 67.98 80 54.48 60 60 44.12 46.45 40 51.99 54.1 40 42.13 29.08 36.99 20 20 0 0 Mokokchung Wokha Peren South Tripura West Tripura North Tripura 04 Ex-Ante Estimation of Impact of NERPSIP 4.4 Estimating the Impact of NERPSIP assumption that there is no movement in Control on ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDEX Districts. This was done to isolate the index from the impact of any other influences and compute For ascertaining the movement of Electricity Access the impact on the Electricity Access Index in the 44 Index in the Intervention group on account of Intervention District which can be attributed NERPSIP, change with respect to the movement in to works undertaken under NERPSIP. Since the India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access difference of the respective district index with the movement for Control Districts has been kept Control District has to be computed. An illustration constant for ex-ante estimation, any improvement of the same for the districts of Assam has been in the outcomes of the Control Districts observed shown in Tables 13 to 16. The analysis shows that at the time of ex-post would be due to the impact movement in Electricity Access Index on account of of other schemes except NERPSIP. impact of NERPSIP scheme would range between 9.35 and 18.55 for Intervention Districts in case of Further, it is assumed that these other schemes Assam (Table 16). would have a similar influence on the Intervention Districts as well. In a similar manner, impact of NERPSIP on electricity access index has been measured across Intervention For the purpose of ex-ante estimation, the impact Districts vis-à-vis the indices of Control Districts in all (change in outcomes that can be attributed to the the six states (Table 17). interventions) can be estimated simply by a single difference of outcomes of the treatment group 4.5 Comparison with Ex-Post between pre- and post-intervention. However, Findings at the time of ex-post evaluation, the changes in outcomes recorded in the Control Districts will The impact computed using the Difference-in- serve as benchmarks to isolate the impact from Difference approach in Table 17 is based on the other schemes on Intervention as illustrated in figure 17. Table 13 | District-wise baseline and ex-ante estimation of Electricity Access Index (Assam) Baseline Ex-ante Districts Index Estimation Intervention Table 15 | Difference in Intervention and Control District Ex-ante Electricity Access Index (Assam) Dhemaji 26.17 35.52 Golaghat 33.55 45.13 Intervention Control Districts Darrang Goalpara Districts Ex-Ante Index 29.43 29.89 Kamrup 34.78 53.32 Control Dhemaji 35.52 6.09 5.64 Darrang 29.43 29.43 Golaghat 45.13 15.70 15.25 Goalpara 29.89 29.89 Kamrup 53.32 23.89 23.44 Table 14 | Difference in Intervention and Control District Baseline Electricity Access Index (Assam) Table 16 | DiD in Intervention and Control District Ex- Intervention Control Districts Darrang Goalpara ante Electricity Access Index (Assam) Districts Baseline Index 29.43 29.89 Districts Difference –in- Difference Dhemaji 26.17 -3.26 -3.71 Dhemaji 9.35 Golaghat 33.55 4.12 3.67 Golaghat 11.58 Kamrup 34.78 5.35 4.89 Kamrup 18.55 Table 17 | Expected impact of NERPSIP in Intervention Districts of the six states Baseline Ex-Ante Control Control District 2 DiD (Difference- Intervention Districts Index Estimated Index District 1 (if applicable) in-difference) ASSAM 45 Dhemaji 26.17 35.52 29.43 29.89 9.35 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Golaghat 33.55 45.13 29.43 29.89 11.58 Kamrup 34.78 53.32 29.43 29.89 18.55 MANIPUR Bishnupur 65.90 78.64 45.14 - 12.74 Senapati 44.76 55.47 45.14 - 10.72 MEGHALAYA East Khasi Hills 46.06 58.61 47.15 - 12.56 Jaintia Hills 50.43 64.71 47.15 - 14.28 MIZORAM Lunglei 44.10 59.43 48.42 - 15.33 Mamit 46.18 62.27 48.42 - 16.10 NAGALAND Mokokchung 51.99 67.98 44.12 - 15.99 Wokha 54.10 71.33 44.12 - 17.23 TRIPURA South Tripura 36.99 46.45 29.08 - 9.46 West Tripura 42.13 54.48 29.08 - 12.35 Figure 17: Comparison of ex-ante impact with ex-post findings Ex-ante impact estimation Ex-post impact assessment 40 40 35 30 Actual 30 30 impact Estimated impact 14.0 20 17 13.0 20 17 21.0 7.0 7.0 10 10 14 10 10 10 0 0 Baseline Ex-ante Baseline Ex-post Control Intervention Counterfactual Control Intervention Counterfactual 05 Conclusion The Multi-tier framework is an appropriate to the end consumer. This study lays down a framework to study the impact of transmission framework based on the Multi-tier Framework and distribution projects under the North Eastern for assessing the impact on the electricity access Region Power System Improvement Project on across the six states where the NERPSIP scheme is electricity access in the six states. This framework being implemented. covers the multi-dimensional aspects of electricity which is generally difficult to capture in other One of the essential objectives of the study was to 46 alternate frameworks. A simple evaluation in terms establish the baseline for energy access and energy of the level of electrification is not a determinant of quality and related socio-economic parameters in India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access the outcome of all kinds of investment in the power the select geographical locations of the six states transmission and distribution networks. Other where NERPSIP scheme is being implemented. attributes like availability, reliability, quality, etc., The baseline energy access parameters will inform are equally important factors which are required to the ex-post impact evaluation of the NERPSIP be considered to assess the overall impact of T&D project. Such a study is unique as it not only helps investment in the electricity sector. in comparing the six states across key attributes of electricity access, but also helps in identifying the The NERPSIP scheme which is primarily aimed at key constraints that are limiting the energy access upstream investment improving the transmission in the respective regions. Review of the various and sub-transmission network in the six states will components/attributes of the Electricity Access have a causal effect on increasing the electrification Index and their gap analysis provide valuable inputs levels/improving the quality of energy delivered on policy and project interventions for future. Annexure-A Baseline Electricity Access Index A1 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of Households Sample ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 47 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 6% 10% 18% 1% 22% 26% 16% 34% 51% 1% 10% 2% 31% 36% 21% 11% 2% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 1% 1% 33% 34% 22% 20% 10% 12% 1% 34% 1% 32% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 15% 36% 18% 40% 10% 37% 3% 35% 6% 4% 5% 33% 4% 29% 6% 10% 4% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of Households Sample (CONTD...) MEGHALAYA 48 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 11% 10% 12% 44% 58% 56% 13% 11% 12% 4% 22% 6% 15% 3% 12% 5% 3% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MIZORAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 20% 15% 14% 34% 32% 24% 34% 37% 42% 10% 8% 14% 0% 0% 8% 2% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 17% 15% 18% 31% 40% 42% 23% 31% 18% 11% 11% 10% 2% 9% 3% 6% 6% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 13% 12% 15% 26% 27% 26% 7% 15% 21% 5% 0% 6% 12% 49% 39% 1% 24% 2% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 A2 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of Commercial ESTABLISHMENTS SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 49 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 1% 1% 2% 16% 13% 16% 21% 8% 21% 62% 46% 19% 7% 24% 38% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 1% 2% 17% 6% 16% 54% 50% 1% 34% 14% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 2% 17% 20% 47% 63% 11% 42% 8% 5% 2% 13% 57% 5% 4% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 4% 7% 24% 17% 27% 14% 9% 17% 25% 22% 15% 21% 4% 43% 6% 17% 29% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of Commercial ESTABLISHMENTS SAMPLE (CONTD...) MIZORAM 50 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI KOLASIB MAMIT 2% 19% 49% 15% 10% 19% 15% 10% 9% 2% 21% 30% 29% 50% 12% 9% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 6% 13% 45% 26% 48% 23% 16% 26% 27% 29% 9% 23% 4% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 4% 10% 24% 3% 24% 9% 7% 10% 21% 43% 53% 77% 6% 6% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 A3 Distribution of Industrial UNITS Sample 6% 27% 16% 19% 23% 10% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Note: In case of industrial units, since the sample size covered for small, distribution has been shown for the entire sample. A4 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of SCHOOLS SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 51 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 1% 9% 8% 2% 15% 3% 9% 9% 1% 66% 86% 82% 2% 7% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 3% 10% 3% 4% 93% 81% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 12% 4% 2% 11% 41% 2% 37% 6% 11% 92% 14% 24% 18% 3% 23% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS JAINTIA HILLS 7% 14% 14% 7% 22% 8% 22% 8% 79% 56% 56% 7% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of SCHOOLS SAMPLE (CONTD...) MIZORAM 52 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 5% 8% 20% 51% 42% 12% 20% 20% 46% 60% 12% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 36% 22% 27% 7% 17% 9% 53% 6% 9% 20% 28% 18% 20% 28% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 7% 7% 6% 7% 20% 6% 14% 73% 81% 71% 6% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 A5 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of Health Centres Sample ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 53 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 27% 13% 20% 27% 9% 13% 40% 18% 75% 40% 18% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 11% 26% 44% 26% 22% 11% 22% 37% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 11% 60% 14% 38% 20% 2% 63% 20% 73% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 14% 10% 18% 14% 30% 18% 10% 9% 71% 50% 55% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of Health Centres Sample (CONTD...) MIZORAM 54 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 20% 17% 20% 20% 56% 100% 28% 40% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 50% 10% 30% 60% 33% 30% 40% 17% 30% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 8% 17% 8% 13% 17% 25% 17% 8% 25% 17% 38% 58% 50% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 A6 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION of community/panchayat BUILDINGS Sample ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 55 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 4% 6% 16% 41% 18% 33% 10% 12% 17% 51% 41% 50% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 9% 36% 33% 27% 33% 27% 33% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 30% 18% 14% 32% 35% 43% 13% 12% 29% 12% 26% 24% 14% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 8% 21% 43% 9% 10% 32% 32% 8% 11% 18% 33% 32% 4% 41% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF community/panchayat BUILDINGS Sample (CONTD...) MIZORAM 56 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 11% 9% 36% 11% 9% 50% 22% 50% 22% 45% 33% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 20% 18% 10% 33% 18% 30% 8% 45% 10% 30% 58% 18% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 20% 9% 9% 36% 20% 27% 14% 7% 36% 29% 13% 18% 21% 40% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexure-B Ex-Ante Estimated Electricity Access Index B1 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 57 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 7% 11% 3% 18% 26% 34% 20% 18% 39% 5% 8% 13% 51% 36% 11% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 1% 1% 33% 1% 34% 22% 20% 10% 12% 34% 32% 1% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 46% 24% 15% 35% 37% 40% 7% 8% 3% 10% 29% 33% 4% 2% 2% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS SAMPLE (CONTD...) MEGHALAYA 58 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 17% 14% 12% 44% 57% 5% 13% 11% 56% 4% 12% 22% 15% 12% 3% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MIZORAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 15% 14% 20% 32% 24% 41% 49% 34% 8% 34% 10% 8% 4% 5% 2% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 24% 19% 15% 42% 40% 20% 27% 31% 9% 8% 31% 11% 5% 6% 9% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 13% 17% 13% 27% 26% 13% 19% 26% 8% 14% 7% 39% 24% 49% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 B2 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 59 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 1% 16% 8% 2% 36% 13% 36% 50% 5% 20% 46% 1% 38% 24% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 1% 2% 17% 6% 16% 54% 50% 34% 14% 1% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 79% 7% 47% 20% 42% 16% 13% 57% 4% 8% 2% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 9% 51% 7% 17% 17% 31% 15% 14% 25% 43% 17% 21% 29% 4% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS SAMPLE (cONTD...) MIZORAM 60 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI KOLASIB MAMIT 4% 19% 10% 66% 29% 10% 21% 30% 38% 9% 50% 2% 9% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 13% 45% 6% 48% 36% 26% 35% 14% 16% 29% 23% 4% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 11% 10% 19% 45% 7% 29% 30% 10% 3% 6% 9% 77% 43% 3% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 B3 DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL UNITS SAMPLE ALL STATES 16% 16% 21% 14% 11% 23% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Note: In case of industrial units, since the sample size covered for small, distribution has been shown for the entire sample. B4 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 61 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 1% 9% 7% 2% 15% 5% 9% 9% 86% 2% 82% 66% 7% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 3% 10% 3% 4% 93% 81% 5% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 29% 4% 11% 41% 2% 37% 6% 2% 11% 14% 24% 92% 3% 23% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 14% 22% 24% 7% 22% 10% 10% 79% 56% 56% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS SAMPLE (CONTD...) MIZORAM 62 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI KOLASIB MAMIT 5% 51% 8% 20% 17% 33% 20% 15% 13% 60% 12% 46% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 36% 7% 22% 27% 53% 17% 18% 20% 6% 28% 18% 20% 28% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 6% 7% 13% 6% 71% 73% 81% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 B5 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH CENTRES SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 63 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 27% 13% 27% 13% 20% 27% 40% 18% 75% 40% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 11% 26% 44% 26% 22% 11% 22% 37% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 11% 60% 14% 38% 20% 2% 20% 73% 63% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 10% 18% 30% 27% 14% 10% 14% 50% 55% 71% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH CENTRES SAMPLE (cONTD...) MIZORAM 64 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 20% 17% 20% 100% 61% 20% 22% 40% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 10% 50% 30% 33% 50% 60% 17% 10% 40% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 8% 8% 17% 13% 17% 8% 25% 17% 17% 25% 50% 38% 58% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 B6 DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY/PANCHAYAT BUILDINGS SAMPLE ASSAM INTERVENTION DISTRICTS 65 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access DHEMAJI GOLAGHAT KAMRUP 16% 4% 41% 6% 24% 6% 33% 4% 6% 17% 51% 41% 50% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 CONTROL DISTRICTS DARRANG GOALPARA 9% 33% 36% 33% 27% 33% 27% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MANIPUR INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT BISHNUPUR SENAPATI CHURACHANDPUR 14% 30% 18% 43% 32% 29% 13% 35% 14% 26% 12% 12% 24% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 MEGHALAYA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT EAST KHASI HILLS JAINTIA HILLS WEST KHASI HILLS 8% 25% 43% 32% 9% 18% 11% 32% 33% 32% 18% 41% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexes DISTRICT-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY/PANCHAYAT BUILDINGS SAMPLE (cONTD...) MIZORAM 66 INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access LUNGLEI MAMIT KOLASIB 11% 9% 11% 36% 50% 22% 9% 22% 45% 50% 33% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 NAGALAND INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT MOKUKCHUNG WOKHA PEREN 18% 20% 33% 18% 8% 45% 10% 58% 18% 30% 10% 30% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIPURA INTERVENTION DISTRICTS CONTROL DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA WEST TRIPURA NORTH TRIPURA 20% 9% 20% 9% 36% 7% 27% 14% 13% 36% 29% 40% 18% 21% 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Annexure-C Electricity Access Index Calculation as per MTF This Annexure provides a comparison of the Thus reliability of electricity becomes important computation of the Baseline Electricity Access Index for such consumers. The survey questionnaire in line with the MTF and tiers defined for measuring captured information related to the frequency and each attribute. This computation has been done for duration of power cuts from the respondents. Based the purpose of comparison of the actual MTF with on the information captured, the tiers have been 67 the modified MTF used for the purpose of evaluating aligned to match the MTF definition. Frequency India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access the impact of NERPSIP projects on electricity access. of disruptions has been considered for only those samples which had availability of power of more Definition of Attributes than 16 hours in day. Under the NERPSIP framework, except for two attributes, Quality Reliability and Quality, the definition of the rest of the Quality of electricity is defined in terms of the impact attributes i.e. Capacity, Availability, Affordability and of voltage fluctuations on the usage of appliances. Legality were aligned to the MTF. The definition and Extreme voltage fluctuations can lead to damaging tiering of attributes for computing Reliability and of appliances used by the consumers, or may limit Quality as per the MTF is detailed below: the performance of the appliances. Reliability Tier Tier design for Quality attribute across all The availability of electricity for longer durations categories of time may not cater to the desirable level of Un-electrified/Voltage fluctuations affect the use of 3 satisfaction for the end- consumers of electricity in appliances case consumers face frequent power cuts. In such a Voltage problems do not affect the use of desired 5 scenario, high frequency of power cuts proves to be appliances an impediment to the effective usage of electricity even for those consumers availing of electricity for The respondents were asked to report damage longer durations of time. to any electrical appliance in the recent past and possible reasons for the same. Also, since it was not Tier Tier design for Reliability attribute across all categories possible to differentiate between the moderate and no impact for productive engagement and Un-electrified/Electricity availability of less than 3 community facilities locales due to the limited 16 hours in a day awareness of the respondents, the attribute has 4 Max 14 disruptions per week been defined only across two tiers (Tier 3 and Max 3 disruptions per week with total duration Tier 5). For industrial consumers, the questionnaire 5 < 2 hours had specific questions about the difficulty in Annexes using the appliances/machines owing to voltage ELECTRICITY ACCESS Index Framework fluctuations. The parameters and tiers for various attributes For community buildings, it was difficult to ascertain defined in the MTF for computing the Household 68 the impact of voltage fluctuations on appliance Index, Productive Engagement Index and usage, therefore the frequency of voltage fluctuation Community Facilities Index have been provided in India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access has been used to model tiers. Tables 18 to 20. Table 18 | Multi-tier Framework for Household Index Attributes Description Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Min 50 W/ Electrical Min 3 W/ Lighting/Air Power Capacity Lighting of Circulation/ Capacity Ratings or Min 200 W Min 800 W Min 2000 W 1000 lmhr/ Telephone Services day Charging/ Television possible Min 16 Min 23 Hours per Day Min 4 Hours Min 4 Hours Min 8 Hours Hours Hours Availability Hours per Min 4 Min 1 Hour Min 2 Hour Min 3 Hours Min 4 Hours Evening Hours Max 3 Disruptions Max 14 per Week Reliability Disruptions with total per Week duration < 2 Hours Voltage problems do not Quality affect the use of desired appliances Cost of Standard Consumption Package of Affordability 365 kWh/year is less than 5% of household income Legality Bill is paid to utility Table 19 | Multi-tier Framework for Productive Engagement Index Attributes Description Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Power Capacity Ratings or Min 3 W Min 50 W Min 200 W Min 800 W Min 2000 W Services Capacity Standalone Generator Typical Solar Generator or Solar or Mini Grid Technology Lantern Grid System Grid Half of the Most of the Almost all Min 2 Working Availability Electricity Min 4 Hours Working Hours working hours Hours Hours (Min (Min 75%) (Min 95%) 50%) Table 19 | Multi-tier Framework for Productive Engagement Index (Contd...) Attributes Description Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Reliability No Reliability Reliability issues with Moderate issues or little 69 (or no) impact impact India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Quality issues No Quality Quality with Moderate issues or little impact (or no) impact Variable Variable Energy Cost<= Affordability Energy Cost< 2 times the the grid tariff grid tariff Legality Bill is paid to utility Table 20 | Multi-tier Framework for Community Facilities Index Attributes Description Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Power Capacity Min 3 W Min 50 W Min 200 W Min 800 W Min 2000 W Ratings or Capacity Services Standalone Typical Solar Generator or Generator or Solar Grid Technology Lantern Mini-Grid Grid System Half of the Most of the Almost all Min 2 Availability Electricity Min 4 Hours Working Hours Working Hours working hours Hours (Min 50%) (Min 75%) (Min 95%) Reliability No Reliability issues with Reliability issues or little Moderate (or no) impact impact Quality issues No Quality Quality with Moderate issues or little impact (or no) impact Variable Variable Energy Cost<= Affordability Energy Cost< 2 times the the grid tariff grid tariff Legality Bill is paid to utility Baseline Electricity Access Index Household Index Calculation using MTF The summary of household electricity access index Using the methodology described in the Chapter 2, across the districts in each state and the overall the baseline electricity access index under the MTF state level index as per the MTF is as shown in the approach has been calculated for the three locales at graph under Box 12. As can be seen therein, Kamrup district and state levels. (Assam), Kolasib (Mizoram), Bishnupur (Manipur), Annexes Box 12: DISTRICT-WISE BASELINE ELECTRICITY ACCESS INDEX FOR HOUSEHOLDS 70 70.0 ASSAM 70.0 MIZORAM 63.0 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 60.0 60.0 57.3 58.2 57.1 50.0 47.9 50.0 40.5 38.5 39.4 40.0 40.0 36.6 30.0 29.6 30.0 20.0 20.0 Dhemaji Golaghat Kamrup Darrang Goalpara ASSAM Lunglei Mamit Kolasib MIZORAM MANIPUR NAGALAND 70.0 69.0 70.0 61.4 60.0 60.0 58.8 57.93 53.8 54.8 50.0 49.5 50.0 48.3 45.8 44.5 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 Bishnupur Senapati Churachandpur MANIPUR Mokokchung Wokha Peren NAGALAND MEGHALAYA TRIPURA 70.0 70.0 60.0 57.3 60.0 54.3 53.4 50.1 50.1 50.0 50.0 40.2 42.9 40.0 40.0 35.7 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 East Khasi Jaintia West Khasi MEGHALAYA South Tripura West Tripura North Tripura TRIPURA Intervention Districts Control Districts State Mokokchung (Nagaland), West Khasi (Meghalaya) for measuring the movement of the household to and West Tripura (Tripura) have the highest Electricity higher tiers. Access Index values in their respective states. The electricity index computed as per the modified The reason that the index computed here is framework also reflected similar districts which higher than indices computed in the main study had the highest electricity index in their respective is primarily influenced by the ‘Reliability’ attribute states. The reason for similar results under both where MTF specifies reliability to be considered the approaches is the limited changes in the two for those respondents who are reporting a attributes i.e. voltage and reliability which was done supply of over 16 hours. A large portion of such respondents are therefore being classified under Box 13: PRODUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT INDEX ACROSS higher tiers (4&5) under the MTF definition. Thus STATES on an overall basis, the household index value is higher, but the pattern remains the same across districts. 60.00 54.59 59.03 51.89 71 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 50.00 Productive Engagement Index 43.11 40.00 38.75 39.74 The summary of productive engagement 30.00 indices (comprising commercial and industrial 20.00 respondents), as per the MTF, for each state has 10.00 been provided in Box 13. 0.00 Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Community Facilities Index The summary of community facilities indices, as per the MTF, for each state has been provided in Box 14. Box 14: COMMUNITY FACILITIES INDEX ACROSS STATES Baseline Electricity Access Index COMPARISON 60.00 50.50 Using the methodology and weightages for 50.00 47.42 each sub-index as detailed in Chapter 3, the 40.00 37.96 32.96 overall index has been computed considering 27.94 28.38 30.00 the revised index values as per the actual MTF. Table 21 presents a summary of the baseline index 20.00 for each district and state, as per the actual MTF and 10.00 a comparison with the baseline index value arrived 0.00 at, considering the revised MTF methodology Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura (NERPSIP framework) used for NERPSIP. Table 21 | Comparison of Baseline Electricity Access Indices using the two approaches State/District Baseline Index as per MTF used for NERPSIP Baseline Index as per MTF ASSAM 30.95 37.57 Dhemaji 26.17 26.99 Golaghat 33.55 39.35 Kamrup 34.78 43.76 Darrang 29.43 35.62 Goalpara 29.89 37.99 MANIPUR 50.55 51.53 Bishnupur 65.90 66.75 Senapati 44.76 44.52 Churachandpur 45.14 49.39 Annexes Table 21 | Comparison of Baseline Electricity Access Indices using the two approaches (Contd...) State/District Baseline Index as per MTF used for NERPSIP Baseline Index as per MTF MEGHALAYA 49.04 51.18 72 East Khasi Hills 46.06 48.71 India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access Jaintia Hills 50.43 53.33 West Khasi Hills 47.15 50.34 MIZORAM 47.39 56.07 Lunglei 44.10 52.30 Mamit 46.18 54.14 Kolasib 48.42 55.71 NAGALAND 48.18 54.13 Mokokchung 51.99 55.59 Wokha 54.10 58.55 Peren 44.12 48.50 TRIPURA 35.86 40.23 South Tripura 36.99 41.14 West Tripura 42.13 48.39 North Tripura 29.08 32.09 Annexure-D Demand Estimation As part of the study the future demand in selected STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED areas was also estimated and extrapolated to each PGCIL Officials Utility Officials state. The exercise involved: (Overall Project & (Headquarter Understanding the pattern of electricity delivery State Coordinators) Level) zz of select distribution substations (33/11 kV) with 73 information on availability, rostering and fault India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access correction timelines, and zz Estimation of current and future demand in selected districts in the project area based on the demand-side data collected. Utility Officials Substation in-charge Supply-side Data Collection and (Field Level) and Local staff Analysis In order to collect information on pattern of 116 330+ Substations 11kV electricity delivery in the selected region, a Covered Feeders supply-side survey was conducted in parallel to the demand-side survey for all the selected 59 blocks across 20 districts in six states. As part of the exercise, a total of 116 substations and substations, each substation was visited and corresponding electricity supply network for each information regarding feeder load and outage of the 59 blocks was identified in consultation data for a period of one year was collected, subject of utility officials. Barring a few inaccessible to availability (Table 22). Table 22 | Coverage of Supply Side Survey Particular Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Number of Substations (S/s) Covered 26 15 21 19 21 14 Number of Manned S/s 23 15 9 19 3 14 Unmanned S/s 3 - 12 - 18 - S/s with Data availability - Complete 20 13 5 10 0 13 - Partial 1 0 1 5 3 0 - None 5 2 15 0 18 1 Annexes Based on the supply-side data collected, the block visits, a demand adjustment factor was calculated level electricity delivery pattern has been studied using the below formula: and analysed to the extent possible. However, the Demand Unserved (Load * analysis is restricted by the inconsistencies and lack Interruption duration) 74 of adequate maintenance of such details at the Demand Adjustment Factor (β) = Unrestricted Demand (Average Load*24) substation level. India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access The demand adjustment factor for each block, Future Demand Estimation which is a representation of unserved demand in the selected areas on account of power cuts, was applied The methodology adopted for demand estimation on the current demand to ascertain the unrestricted considers the electricity consumption pattern demand in the respective areas. from the demand-side data collected from the primary survey for estimation of current demand. Using a mix of the primary data on consumption Based on the survey results, an estimation patterns across selected areas and secondary data of average electricity consumption by each sources such as Census data, Saubhagya dashboard household and number of households in each (which tracks live household electrification levels) block (based on secondary information) has been and Power For All (PFA) reports for the respective considered so as to arrive at the current estimation states, current demand was extrapolated for the of electricity demand for the selected blocks. The entire state. Since the geographical areas selected for broad approach adopted for estimation of current the survey were primarily rural in nature, benchmarks demand and future demand is summarized in the for urban electrification and consumption level figure below. were considered, based on information available from other sources i.e. PFA reports, GoI schemes For future demand estimation, based on the hourly monitoring data, etc. for the purpose of extrapolation load and outage information on number and of demand at the State level. The approach for duration of interruptions collected from the field extrapolation has been shown in figure 18. Approach for Future Demand Estimation Estimating Current Demand Demand Side Data Supply Side Data Data Points Data Sources Data Points Data Sources 1. Electi cation Level 1. Primary Survey, 1. Hourly Load 1. Primary Survey - Saubhagya substation logbooks 2. Monthly Consumption 2. Outage information - per household 2. Primary Survey for rural number and duration 2. Primary Survey - and PFA reports of interruptions interruption registers 3. Total number of households 3. Census, Saubhagya 3. No. of substation - 3. Utility o cials, hand- feeders and input drawn maps supply arrangement Current Demand at State, District and Block Level Demand Adjustment Factor (β) Scenario 1: Estimating Future Demand at Current Electri cation Level Scenario 2: Estimating Future Demand at 100% Electri cation Level Figure 18: Approach for Extrapolation of Demand to State Level SAMPLE 75 DEMAND India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access BLOCK DEMAND Data collected from DISTRICT primary survey at DEMAND household level STATE Extrapolation to block level Census DEMAND data on number of households Extrapolation to district level using data from Saubhagya portal Extrapolation to state level using data from PFA reports, Saubhagya portal Findings 2. Scenario 2: 100% household electrification and reduction in supply-side network The current demand estimated and supply-side data constraints. collected in the six states was used to project the future demand under the two scenarios: State-wise summary of the annual current and future 1. Scenario 1: Reduction in supply-side network demand estimated for rural households along with constraints at current household electrification the demand adjustment factor has been provided in levels. figures 19 to 24. ASSAM Figure 19: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Assam (Rural) All gures are in Lakh Units (‘00000) 350 31% 35% 30% 300 30% 135 250 25% 200 13 17% 135 16% 23 31 33 16% 20% 77 94 51 150 70 13% 17% 16% 53 15% 22 9 14% 12 10% 12% 13 100 19 4 36 15 44 30 9% 25 20 10% 8% 11 14 16 175 8% 155 50 89 22 98 5 116 104 5% 4% 109 83 58 64 121 5 41 53 0 101 112 0% Sissiborgaon Machkhowa Matia Dhemaji Krishnai Golaghat North Kakodonga Bihdia Jajikona Goroimari Rampur Kharmuza Golaghat South Pub-Mangaldai Pachim-Mangaldai Bechimari Current Demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2 β Annexes MANIPUR Figure 20: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Manipur (Rural) 76 All gures are in Lakh Units (‘00000) 250 20% 19% India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 18% 200 15% 66 16% 14% 14% 24 150 12% 8 10% 10% 18 9% 10% 9% 11 10% 33 100 10 35 8% 7 148 17 6% 27 50 104 107 5 4% 10 71 72 48 6 3 2% 0 11 1 19 0% Bishnupur Moirang Lamka Singngat Kankpokpi Mao Maram Sangaikot Saikul Current Demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2 β MEGHALAYA Figure 21: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Meghalaya (Rural) All gures are in Lakh Units (‘00000) 140 16% 13% 13% 13% 14% 120 14% 14% 14% 26 12% 100 32 16 13 15 10% 6 9 80 2 8 10 6% 6% 8% 10 60 11 9 7 6% 40 7 87 80 85 6 3 6 68 62 4% 56 20 44 41 40 2% 2% 0 0% Laskein Ranikor Saipung Khliehriat Nongstoin Mawphlang Mawkynrew Mawryngkneng Mawthadraishan Current Demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2 β MIZORAM Figure 22: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Mizoram (Rural) All gures are in Lakh Units (‘00000) 77 100 12% India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 10% 6 10% 75 3 8% 8% 6 2 7% 8% 8% 1 50 5 5% 5% 6% 3 2 3 72 2 2 3% 2 70 4% 2 2 25 49 1 36 1 34 3% 2% 26 1 29 20 10 1 0 0% N. Thingdawl Bilkhawthlir Zawlnuam West Phaileng Tlangnuam Part Lunglei Lungsen Hnahthial Reiek Current Demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2 β NAGALAND Figure 23: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Nagaland (Rural) All gures are in Lakh Units (‘00000) 60 3 12% 11% 10% 5 50 4 1 10% 4 2 8% 1 8% 8% 40 8% 8% 8% 4 1 8% 3 3 3 3 30 6 6% 2 5% 3 50 43 2 20 2 4% 44 34 31 27 29 10 24 2% 17 0 0% Sanis Peren Wokha Tening Jalukie Chukitong Mokokchung Changtongya Mangkolemba Current Demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2 β Annexes TRIPURA Figure 24: Future Annual Demand Estimated for Selected Blocks in Tripura (Rural) 78 All gures are in Lakh Units (‘00000) 250 30% India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access 24% 25% 200 38 40 14 20% 150 7 7 11 74 65 15% 100 81 165 133 7 10% 20 8% 145 8% 10% 8% 8% 50 34 5% 1 86 65 49 28 5% 30 2 15 27 3% 121 3% 0 0% Bishalgarh Damchhara Kumarghat Pencharthal Bokafa Matarbari Ompi Jirania Melaghar Current Demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2 β Table 23: Current and Future Annual Demand Estimated for the six states (Overall) Future Demand Future Demand Current Demand (Scenario 1) (Scenario 2) Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand State (in MUs) (in MW) (in MUs) (in MW) (in MW) (in MUs) Assam 2996 214 3517 252 5360 383 Manipur 577 48 656 55 830 70 Meghalaya 411 27 460 30 575 37 Mizoram 228 24 244 26 257 27 Nagaland 405 36 441 39 514 46 Tripura 680 68 742 74 900 90 Based on the above analysis, the estimated total transmission and sub-transmission networks of (urban as well as rural) annual demand for households the region. Works planned under substation and in the six states is represented in Table 23. tower packages such as upgradation of existing transformation capacity at the existing 132/33 kV Application of Demand Estimation and 33/11 kV substations and upgrading of existing Results for Future Investment networks will enhance the electricity delivery capacity Planning of the network. Such works will enable power utilities to serve additional load in the area subject to The projects planned under the NERPSIP scheme commensurate planning and improvements in the are expected to bring in improvement in the downstream network. Moreover projects such as conversion of single circuit out an assessment on whether their downstream lines to double circuit lines or projects which aim to distribution network is capable of catering to the provide secondary sources of supply for existing additional demand of electricity or not as the 33/11 kV substations will help improve the reliability scheme does not envisage works pertaining to of power supply systems in these areas. Such end-user connectivity issues such as laying of 11 kV 79 projects may not directly impact the end-consumers. network or interventions at distribution transformer India: North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project (NERPSIP): Understanding and Assessing Impact of Transmission and Distribution Projects on Electricity Access However, improved reliability of the system will or Low Tension (LT) network level. eventually lead to growth in consumption. Activities such as load bifurcation, network In order to fully exploit the improved network re-conductoring, augmentation and additional capacity due to NERPSIP scheme, the utilities must distribution transformers, load balancing, installation plan proactively for simultaneous improvement of capacitor banks, shifting distribution transformers in the infrastructure providing the last-mile- and reducing length of 11 kV feeders etc., may connectivity to its consumers. Post implementation be planned by the utilities to enhance their load- of schemes under the project, some of the areas catering capacity. will witness considerable increase in demand of electricity owing to improved supply hours in Thus planning for distribution networks will the short run and better system reliability in the complement the improvement in the network long run. The planning for the upgradation of the constraints at the sub-transmission and transmission distribution network may be prioritized for the areas levels and help utilities to maximize the benefits where the demand adjustment factor is observed to because of improved network electricity delivery be on the higher side (figures 19 to 24). In order to capacity. meet the improved demand, the utilities must carry