2

Biogas plant in the village of Jawahar, Maharashtra

3Contents

Executi ve summary 4

Introducti on 5

The energy situati on in rural India 5

Research methods 7

Background and descripti on 8

Benefi ts from the VESP 12

Challenges facing the VESP 17

Conclusions and lessons learned 19

Appendix: Technologies of the VESP 22

References 24

Acknowledgements 25

About the authors 25

4

It is essential to improve the energy security of India’s

rural population to achieve sustained economic growth

on an equitable basis. Approximately 404 million people

in India lived without electricity in 2009. Additionally, the

country’s rural population remains plagued by limited

access to commercial fuels. To address these chronic

issues of energy access, the Indian Ministry of New and

Renewable Energy (MNRE) launched the Village Energy

Security Program (VESP) in 2004. Planners structured the

program so that a village energy committee (VEC) ran a

decentralized village program involving biomass gasifi-

ers, Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) systems, biogas plants,

and improved cookstoves to produce electricity and

thermal energy to meet the total energy requirements

of rural communities. The VEC acted as a custodian for

each system and was responsible for its management

and operation. At the end of January 2011, a total of 79

VESP projects were sanctioned in nine states and 61 of

these projects were fully commissioned.

The aim of the VESP was to meet the energy requirements

of rural villages using local renewable energy sources. The

MNRE conceived of the VESP to not only provide rural

electricity, but to create a sustainable system for “village

energization” using decentralized institutions, local man-

aging stakeholders, and dedicated feedstock plantation

management. The MNRE envisaged that the VESP would

provide energy services to reduce poverty, enhance

health, reduce drudgery, improve education, raise agricul-

tural productivity, create employment, generate income,

and reduce migration. Figure 1 shows one household that

benefitted from the VESP in Madhya Pradesh.

However, VESP projects have had varying levels of suc-

cess, and provide seven important lessons for policymak-

ers launching rural energy programs. First, political will

at the provincial and national level is essential to create

a level playing field so that renewable energy technolo-

gies can compete with fossil fuel systems. Second, some

renewable energy technologies, such as biomass sys-

tems, require clusters to take advantage of economies

of scale and to establish a responsive after-sales service

infrastructure. Third, to ensure program effectiveness,

policymakers must consider community factors such as

the strength of local governance, community cohesive-

ness, and energy demand when they structure demo-

cratic and decentralized energy programs. Fourth, policy-

makers must facilitate stakeholder information-sharing,

decision-making, and accountability to clearly define

roles and responsibilities. Fifth, planners must fund the

projects, instead of viewing them as a gift, to ensure

that capacity is built and utilized. Sixth, programs must

organically grow and rarely outsource service and main-

tenance. Finally, community awareness and information

about projects is essential so that the collective benefits

of electricity access are apparent to households.

Figure 1: Lighting in a beneficiary household, Village Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh

5

India is an overwhelmingly rural country—approxi-

mately 70% of the total population lives in rural areas.

For this reason, India’s economic and social develop-

ment is inherently linked to growth in the rural sector. In

order to contribute to India’s overall development, the

rural sector must have access to modern electricity and

fuel sources. Sustainable supplies of modern energy are

critical to alleviating poverty, enhancing public health,

improving education, and generally facilitating eco-

nomic and societal growth. Energizing rural India is thus

crucial to promoting the country’s broader economic

and social development.

However, India faces an enormous rural electrification

challenge. It has the largest rural population in the

world and, as of 2009, 404 million Indians were living

without electricity (IEA 2010). Despite the govern-

ment’s efforts to improve rural electricity infrastructure

for more than a half century, household electrification

levels and electricity availability in India are still far

below the world average.1 To achieve energy security

in the 21st century, India must adapt, intensify, and

ultimately become more effective in improving rural

access to electricity.

Furthermore, rural Indians lack access to modern com-

mercial fuels for activities such as cooking and heating.

A majority of rural households depend on traditional

biomass to meet their thermal energy requirements.

Even where rural communities have access to lique-

fied petroleum gas (“LPG”), cost is a significant barrier.

Because people can gather fuel wood at no cost, they

are typically unwilling to purchase LPG. Providing the

rural sector with access to modern, commercial fuels is

also critical to India’s energy security.

This report presents a detailed analysis of the Village

Energy Security Program (“VESP”), a project dedicated

to increasing energy access for India’s rural population,

and expanding the breadth of energy security. It begins

by providing an in-depth view into the energy dilemma

in rural India and the need for modern energy services.

Second, it addresses the qualitative and quantitative

research methods employed to compile data on VESP’s

performance and gauge the needs of local stakehold-

ers. Third, it explores VESP’s project objectives, such as

facilitating rural energy intervention through distributed

energy solutions. Fourth, it examines the technologies

harnessed for the VESP pilot program, and the service

delivery model implemented. Finally, it critiques the

challenges and best practices of VESP and reviews the

project’s structure, technological performance, financial

strategy and feedback from stakeholders.

We find that programs like the VESP that address these

‘total energy needs’—electrification and access to mod-

ern fuels—can facilitate economic and social develop-

ment in village communities throughout India, but only

if they are designed and implemented properly. In this

case, while the MNRE designed the VESP in a very novel

and innovative way, many of the test projects took a long

time to implement, and once implemented, less than

half of the total test projects were functional.

The pace of electrification in rural India has been

somewhat sporadic. Though most rural villages—about

93%—have electricity access, the electrification rate

among actual households is much lower—about 60%.

Even where electricity access is available, the quality of

supply remains poor because power is often unavail-

able during the evening hours when people need it the

most. Only seven out of 28 states have achieved 100%

village electrification, and five of these states have

smaller geographic sizes, making electrification easier.

Some of the larger states—including Assam, Bihar,

Jharkhand, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh—have

lagged behind in terms of their rural electrification

efforts. Though Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have

“officially” achieved complete village electrification, a

recent field study of The Energy and Resources Institute

(“TERI”) indicates that many hamlets and forest fringe

villages do not have access to any form of electricity

(Palit and Chaurey 2011).

There is generally a geographic and income-based

divide in terms of electricity access. Urban areas or

1. Low household electrification rates may reflect the fact that, historically, the government has measured electrification levels as a percentage of electrified

villages with grid extensions at any point within the revenue boundary of a village, irrespective of whether any individual household is being connected or not.

In fact, some researchers argue that electrification as a part of the green revolution in agriculture was the main driver for rural electrification (Bhattacharyya,

2006; Krishnaswamy, 2010). However, the Government of India adopted a new definition of village electrification in 2004, and many villages that were previously

considered electrified fell by definition into the un-electrified category.

6

upper-income households consume more electricity than

do rural areas or lower-income households. (Pachauri

S, 2007). Even among urban and rural households

with comparable incomes, the former consume more

electricity. Generally, however, electricity consumption

per capita increases with higher levels of income. Low-

income groups appear to use electricity mostly for light-

ing, whereas elevated electricity consumption among

upper-income groups can be attributed to appliance and

productive use.

There is, likewise, a divide between urban and rural

areas in terms of access to commercial fuels. Though

commercial fuels constitute about two-thirds of total

primary energy consumption throughout all of India, the

inverse is true in rural areas, where much of the popu-

lation still does not have access to these fuels. In 2007-

08, the National Sample Survey Organization (“NSSO”)

conducted a Household Consumer Expenditure Survey

and found that more than three quarters of rural house-

holds use firewood and chips as their primary cooking

fuel (see Figure 2). The proportion of households using

firewood and chips is highest among the bottom of

pyramid population: 84% of agricultural labor house-

holds and 90% of scheduled tribe households use fire-

wood and chips. Furthermore, about 61 million rural

households use kerosene for lighting.2 However, due to

a lack of adequate transportation infrastructure, kero-

sene is less available in the hilly and remote areas of

the country.

The government has taken steps to address many of

these issues. In 2001, it created the Rural Electricity

Supply Technology (“REST”) mission with the objec-

tive of obtaining “power for all by 2012.” In April 2005,

it continued this effort by launching the Rajiv Gandhi

Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (“RGGVY”), a large-scale

program designed to accelerate rural electrification and

provide electricity access to all Indian households. Under

RGGVY, the government subsidizes grid extension to all

but the most remote areas, which are too expensive to

connect. The MNRE is to electrify remote off-grid areas

with locally available renewable energy sources. Since

2001, the MNRE has been implementing the Remote

2. This data is from the 64th Round of National Sample Survey by the Government of India.

Figure 2: Cooking energy use in rural householdsSource: National Sample Survey Organisation, 2007-08

7

Village Electrification (“RVE”) program to meet these

objectives. In 2004, the MNRE launched the test phase

of the VESP to meet each village’s complete energy

requirements using locally available renewable energy

sources (MNRE 2004).

This report provides a performance assessment of VESP

projects, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses

of the program so far. The information and qualitative

analysis in this report mainly comes from a series of

in-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus group

discussions. These interviews and discussions involved

a number of stakeholders at the federal, provincial, and

grassroots level who were associated with the VESP

across various project sites (TERI 2009). The TERI team

obtained input from a broad spectrum of key stakehold-

ers, including those representing the government, the

Project Implementation Agency (PIA), civil society, and

local communities. Furthermore, the team also included

input from respondents from Village Energy Committee

members and system operators to understand the

operational and technical issues surrounding each proj-

ect. Such input is critical to determining the success of

any decentralized energy project.

The study covered a total of 50 sanctioned VESP test

projects spread across seven states (TERI 2009).” The

projects were either commissioned or were at various

stages of implementation at the time of assessment. Of

these, the TERI team made field visits to 16 project sites

between September 2008 and June 2009 and gathered

secondary information from PIAs at other sites. The

team used a combination of tools to collect and anal-

yse information on specific themes, including (1) how

well the technology performed, (2) how effective local

institutions were in governing individual projects, and

(3) the financial performance and costs associated with

the project. Researchers used a purposive sampling

strategy to select respondents that could represent

perspectives from government, the private sector, civil

society, and the communities themselves. Finally, the

team collected secondary information on technology

performance through a study of the monitoring data

and meeting records (if any) available within VECs and

PIAs. Figures 3 and 4 show some of the research activi-

ties the team undertook.

Figure 3: A focus group discussion in the village of Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh

8

Households in rural India generally need energy for three

purposes: cooking, lighting, and productive uses such as

micro-enterprises. Currently, in rural India, the typical

fuels that households use to serve these purposes are,

from an energy security perspective, either inadequate

or unavailable. In terms of cooking, rural households

depend almost entirely on burning biomass in inefficient

earthen stoves, metal stoves, or open pits in poorly ven-

tilated kitchens. These inefficient stoves demand a great

deal of fuel wood, and they also emit a great deal of

indoor air pollutants —which is a significant health risk,

especially for women and children who are mostly in

the home. Kerosene and paraffin are common fuels for

lighting, especially in remote villages that have limited

access—or lack access altogether—to electricity. The lack

of reliable electricity access also constrains productive

enterprises in rural areas.

The government previously has implemented rural

electrification programs to address these issues. The

government designed projects in the 1980s—including

the Urjagram (Energizing Village) and Integrate Rural

Energy Program (IREP)—to foster energy self-reliance

among Indian villages by deploying various renewable

energy technologies (RETs). However, the Urjagram

and IREP projects utilized RETs that had not techno-

logically matured and could not be effectively serviced.

Furthermore, because these programs were mostly

“target driven” rather than “demand driven,” com-

munities were not as involved during the planning and

design stages. Therefore, the Urjagram and IREP were

constrained by novel technologies and suffered from a

lack of community involvement, and they were gener-

ally unsuccessful.

With Urjagram and IREP examples in the background,

the Ministry created the VESP—a rural energy pro-

gram that utilizes locally available renewable energy

resources to address the total energy needs for cook-

ing, electricity, and motive power in the remote villages.

Unlike other energy schemes implemented in rural

India, the VESP embraces a “holistic” approach that

aims to achieve “village energization.” (TERI 2009). It

is designed to meet rural areas’ comprehensive energy

needs in an economically efficient and environmentally

sound manner.

Figure 4: Community meeting in the village of Jawahar, Maharashtra

9

The MNRE launched the test phase of VESP during April

2004. Through the VESP, the MNRE provided a VEC with

a one-time grant (up to 90% of the total project cost)

to install energy systems capable of meeting the com-

munity’s energy demand. The community also provides

an equity contribution of cash, labor, or land. The focus

has been on finding ways for villages—particularly those

located in remote rural areas that are unlikely to be

provided grid electricity in the near future—to achieve

energy security based on locally available renewable

energy sources. The projects were designed to (1) test

certain methods and propositions, (2) learn from them,

and (3) apply lessons to implement the larger opera-

tional program.

As demonstrated in our analysis below, the success of

the VESP program largely has depended on (1) appropri-

ate institutional mechanisms (2) reliable technologies

that suit local requirements (3) successful demonstra-

tion projects (4) sound management practices, (5)

community awareness programs, (6) the availability of

local technical expertise for implementation and service

support, and (7) financial subsidies to cover the higher

up-front cost of RETs.

While the MNRE has discontinued the VESP and has

not approved any new projects since 2009, several

researchers and policy think tanks have argued that

decentralized generation using locally available renew-

able energy sources such as biomass is key to enhancing

power supply in rural areas and to extending electrifica-

tion to remote areas in India (Palit and Chaurey, 2011;

Banerjee, 2006; Ghosh et al., 2006; Buragohain et al,

2010). Thus, we felt that it was important to study the

VESP and to extrapolate experiences and lessons from

the program that might be used to design similar pro-

grams in the future.

Objectives

As mentioned above, the Ministry designed the VESP

as a project that would go beyond rural electrification

to achieve “village energization.” Therefore, the project

took a more systematic approach to energy security than

its predecessors by focusing on providing clean cooking

technologies (such as improved cookstoves and biogas),

using energy for productive purposes (e.g., job creation),

and sustaining energy systems. Its primary objectives

were to:

1. create appropriate institutional mechanisms that

could facilitate rural energy interventions at a decen-

tralized level;

2. strengthen the capacities of different stakeholders

(communities, local institutions, etc.) to manage the

local resources in a sustainable manner;

3. meet the village’s comprehensive energy require-

ments, including cooking, lighting and productive

uses; and

4. establish a dedicated tree plantation and manage-

ment system as a feedstock for the village’s energy

production system.

To achieve these objectives, the VESP had several

components:

• An energy production system that utilized RETs such

as biomass gasifiers, biogas systems, or other hybrid

systems to generate electricity for domestic and pro-

ductive use;

• The promotion of systems that provided energy for

cooking through community and/or domestic biogas

plants fueled by animal or leafy waste and through

energy efficient cookstoves such as gasifier, turbo, or

fixed cement concrete stoves;

• An energy plantation scheme that would provide a

sustainable fuel supply, either in the form of biomass

or oilseeds for biofuel;

• The development of participatory Village Energy

Plans (VEPs);

• Stakeholder training and education;

• Local community mobilization and institution build-

ing to effectively manage the project.

The MNRE envisioned that the VESP, by delivering com-

prehensive energy services to rural villages, would facili-

tate broader social and economic development in the

rural sector. The MNRE believed that the program would

help reduce poverty, improve public health, reduce

drudgery (particularly for rural women), raise agricultural

productivity, create employment, generate incomes, and

reduce migration. The cornerstone of the VESP test phase

rested on two pillars—community ownership and use

of locally available resources. Local communities would

plan, implement, and sustain their program with support

from external institutions known as the PIA. The VESP

represents an innovative and pragmatic approach to

solving an emerging trilemma of (1) maintaining energy

10

resources, (2) sustaining economic development, and (3)

preventing environmental degradation.

Technologies

In one form or another, biomass is available in substan-

tial quantities in the rural areas, so the VESP primarily

focused on implementing energy production systems

based on either biomass gasifiers and/or straight veg-

etable oil (“SVO”). In addition, the VESP also provided

biogas plants and improved cookstoves for a village’s

thermal energy (i.e. cooking) needs. The Appendix dis-

cusses these technologies in greater detail, Figures 5 and

6 depict two systems already installed in villages.

Service delivery model

The VESP followed a service delivery model whereby

the PIA, with representatives from the villagers and the

local governance body (the gram panchayat), formed a

Village Energy Committee (VEC). The VEC usually con-

sists of 9 to 13 members. Women represent 50% of the

committee, and there is an elected Panchayat member

from the village who serves in an ex-officio capacity.

The PIA sets up the energy production systems through

the original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) and

hands over the hardware to the VEC for day-to-day oper-

ation and management (O&M). The VEC acts as custo-

dian of the energy production system and is responsible

for O&M. The electricity generated from the energy

production systems is distributed to the community

through a local mini-grid. Because standalone and off-

grid systems are free of licensing obligations and regu-

latory oversight, the VEC sets the tariff in consultation

with PIA, such that the tariff will cover fuel and O&M

costs. The VEC is also responsible for procuring the bio-

mass fuel—either on a rotation basis from the project

beneficiaries or by purchasing it from the biomass col-

lection agents. Additionally, the VEC creates an energy

plantation in the village’s forestland or community land

to ensure that the system has a sustainable supply of

biomass. The VEC collects energy charges from users to

meet the operational expenses of the projects, and the

VEC manages all project accounts.

Furthermore, under select provisions of the State

Panchayati Raj Act, a VEC creates a Village Energy

Fund—which is initially funded by beneficiary contribu-

tions—to sustain the project’s operation and manage-

ment. Thereafter, a VEC deposits monthly user charges

in this account. The Fund is managed by a VEC with two

Figure 5: Biomass gasifier in the village of Dicholi, Maharashtra

11

signatories nominated by the committee. One of the

signatories is the ex-officio Gram Panchayat member

and the other signatory is the President or Secretary

of the VEC. In short, a VEC is responsible for producing

the power, distributing the electricity, managing project

revenues, and resolving disputes in the event of supply

disruptions, a schematic summarized by Figure 7. The

summary of the transaction between the various key

stakeholders under the VEC service delivery model is

presented in Table 1.

Results

The VESP has been moderately successful so far. As of

January 30, 2011, the Ministry reports that a total of 79

VESP test projects have been sanctioned in 9 states of

the country (MNRE, 2011). These test projects covered

un-electrified, remote villages and/or hamlets not likely

to be electrified through conventional grid extension in

the immediate future. Of these, 61 projects have been

actually constructed or commissioned in 8 states, while

the others are at various stages of implementation, or

Figure 6: Biofuel engine in Jawahar village, Maharashtra

Table 1: Summary of transactions between key entities in the VESP model

Source: TERI 2009

Serial number

Entities Offers To Expects

in return Instrument

1 Beneficiaries Fuel VEC Payment for fuel supply –

2 VEC Electricity Beneficiaries Payment for electricity Negotiated tariff

3 Beneficiaries Payment VEC Reliable Electricity Connection agreement

4 OEM AMC VEC Payment AMC agreement

12

have not been commissioned. In all, around 700 kW of

electricity generation equipment has been installed.

Nearly 90% of the energy production systems from these

projects are based on biomass gasification technology,

whereas the remaining ten percent are based on SVO

engines (The World Bank, 2011).

TERI’s analysis demonstrates that the VESP, while certainly

not a complete failure, has suffered from setbacks. At the

same time, VESP has also provided some sound lessons

which policymakers can consider while designing future

biomass energy based decentralized projects. Our assess-

ment indicated that 42% of the 50 surveyed projects were

fully or partially operational, while the rest were either

non-functional (26%) or had not even been commissioned

(32%) at the time of assessment (shown in Table 2).

Notwithstanding these challenges, the VESP did achieve

a collection of institutional, technological, and financial

benefits summarized by this section of the report.

Institutional performance

We found that the VESP projects emerged as a vehicle

to motivate the community—especially the youth—to

attempt to develop their skills. Local youth enhanced their

training to operate the install energy production systems

in almost all surveyed test projects. In some projects, the

diesel engine mechanics, operating in the neighborhood

town, also enhanced his or her skills and entered into an

annual maintenance contract (AMC) with the VEC and PIA

to provide the technical support for post-installation main-

tenance. Selected PIAs pursued innovative strategies to

build the technical capacity and competency of the opera-

tors, enabling them to run the system continuously and

thereby improve overall system performance. This also

helped to build confidence among communities, facilitat-

ing a willingness to pay for regular and reliable electricity.

NGOs were better able to mobilize and lead test projects

than governmental entities, largely because the NGOs

coordinated closely with the VEC. Another reason that

NGOs were more successful at mobilizing community

support may be that NGO-run projects benefited from

the NGOs long-term association with the villages, prior

to initiation of VESP.

Figure 7: The Village Energy Committee Model of the VESPSource: TERI 2009

13

NGOs were effective in building the technical capacity and

competency of system operators, which improved system

performance. For instance, TERI implemented projects

in Jambupanu and Dawania village in Madhya Pradesh

and conducted month-long training sessions during pre-

installation, during installation and commissioning, and

post-installation =. TERI also entered into an AMC with a

local diesel engine mechanic in both of these villages who

provides the necessary support to the operators on an on-

call basis. This ensured that the system was operational

for more than 20 days per month on average.

In the villages of Chhattisgarh, the VESP involved a local

gasifier manufacturer to place trained technicians in

the villages for a period of three months from the com-

missioning date to support local operators. The trained

technicians provide hands-on support by staying in the

village for 30 days during the first month, two weeks

during the second month and a week during the third

month. Figure 8 illustrates some of the maintenance

practices engendered by the VESP.

Additionally, NGO implemented community projects

were better mobilized than those implemented by

state governments. For example, in Mankidiatala and

Champapadar (villages of the state of Orissa) the local

Forest Department involved a local NGO known as the

Tribal Reconstruction and Inform Backward Edification

(TRIBE) to encourage community mobilization. Because

of the regular visits of TRIBE’s personnel, we observed

that the VEC organized regular meetings, properly

recorded the content of these meetings in a log book,

and engaged in regular energy meter reading. These

communities were also better mobilized than many

other villages where VESP projects were being imple-

mented by state governments.

In West Bengal, Karrudoba, villages have implemented

projects on a deposit contract on behalf of the Forest

Department. Initially, the VEC presumed that the gov-

ernment would undertake all operational and project

management. However, when the Ministry appointed a

Regional Consultant (RC), the RC’s local partner made a

series of visits to the village and explained that the VESP

had to be a sustainable operation owned by the VEC.

Thereafter, the VEC started taking an active interest in

the project and the operators also became motivated

to run the system on regular basis. The VEC’s awareness

of the project’s sustainable purpose created the desired

impact and it started to organize meetings regularly, with

minutes and operational data documented according to

the VESP monitoring and evaluation framework.

In terms of agreement between a VEC and electricity

consumers, for example, Mahishakeda is a village in

Dhenkenal district of Orissa, where the READ Foundation

has implemented a VESP test project. A unique feature

of the project is that the agreement entered between

the VEC and the consumers mimicked the connection

agreement that Electricity Distribution Companies usu-

ally enter into with their consumers. The agreement

specifies that the VEC is the authority for producing and

distributing electricity; the consumer’s role is to provide

biomass through collection from the nearby-forested

Table 2: Status of VESP projects surveyedSource: TERI 2009

RegionNumber of

projects Number of comissioned

projectsNo. of functional

subprojects

Assam 14 – –

Chhattisgarh 6 6 3

Gujarat 2 2 –

Madhya Pradesh 10 9 4

Maharashtra 5 5 5

Orissa 9 9 7

West Bengal 4 3 2

Total 50 34 21

14

area and to pay for the electricity consumed. The agree-

ment also specifies actions for breach of the agreed

terms and conditions.

Technological performance

Considering their remoteness and various other inher-

ent technical and institutional problems, we found

project run-time to be satisfactory in many projects that

the NGOs managed, which indicates that the technolo-

gies disseminated under the program were robust (Palit

2011). Runtime was as high as 70% in some well-per-

forming projects for a particular duration. Further, VESP

also provided a good platform for various technology

designers and manufacturers to test new technologies.

For example, TERI-New Delhi, Indian Institute of Science-

Bangalore, and Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies-

Baroda had an extensive opportunity to field test the

small capacity gasifier systems that they designed, which

allowed them to further customize their technologies for

rural markets.

The team observed mixed results regarding the function-

ality of biogas technology. Whereas in Mokhyachapara

and Karrudoba villages, we observed that both biogas and

electricity generation systems were running satisfactorily,

in Kumhedin and Ghungahta in Madhya Pradesh and

Mokyachapara in Maharashtra, the majority of the biogas

plants were working, but the electricity generation system

operated irregularly. In Assam, where gasifier systems still

had to be commissioned even three years after the proj-

ect had been sanctioned, the installed biogas plants were

nevertheless in use, saving tons of fuelwood which would

otherwise have been used for cooking.

Some villages also found innovative uses for the biogas

technology. In Mokyachapara village in Maharashtra,

the community operated six floating drum biogas plants

(with six cubic meters of capacity each) on a communal

basis. Each of the biogas plants has been designed to

supply cooking fuel to five to six households. The ben-

eficiaries are successfully using biogas as a clean cooking

option. Further, de-oiled cakes obtained as by-product

from the oil expeller are also used as feed material for

the biogas plant and are mixed along with cow dung to

obtain higher gas yield. In Kumhedin village in Madhya

Pradesh, 14 domestic-sized biogas plants (each two

cubic meters of capacity) are in operation. Each biogas

plant serves one family, and cow dung is used as the feed

material. In addition to using biogas as a cleaner cooking

option, the beneficiaries also use the sludge as manure

Figure 8: Maintenance procedures for a gasifier written on the wall of the gasifier shed in the state of Orissa

15

for growing vegetables. The vegetables are then sold

in the nearby block town to earn additional income. In

Amabahar village in Chhattisgarh, a mantle-based light-

ing point has also been connected to each of the biogas

plants and beneficiaries enjoy lighting from biogas.

Plantations & fuel supply management

We observed that the success of a plantation is propor-

tional to the level of community involvement, which

again demonstrates that community involvement is

essential to the success of any decentralized project.

In Mankadiatala and Champapadar villages in Orissa,

where the Forest Department is implementing projects,

scientific species selection and plantation manage-

ment practices resulted in survival rates of about 50

to 60%. The community has planted Simaruba, Bakain,

Eucalyptus, Mahaneem and Acacia species (see Figure

10), which grow well in the region. The community was

fully involved in pit digging, nursery raising, sapling plant-

ing, and weeding, and the Forestry Department planted

1,400 to 1,500 plants per hectare as a block plantation

with the community’s assistance.

In Mokhyachapara, true to the spirit of VESP’s multi-

stakeholder approach, the PIA and Pragati Pratishthan

approached local plantation experts from the region

to get their guidance for forming an energy plantation.

Initially, the farmers from the village were motivated

to plant jatropha and, through meeting and discussing

the issue, creating awareness about the plants benefit.

Proper plantation methods and post-plantation main-

tenance (such as weeding, gap filling etc.) ensured that

about 80% of the plants were in healthy condition. For

example, during the assessment, we found that the

plantation had attained a height of about three to four

feet. In most of the test projects, biomass fuel supply is

based on each household bringing in a certain quantity

of biomass from the community forests and contributing

to the power plant every week. During the field visits,

we observed that the fuel supply is well streamlined

in villages such as Dicholi, Karrodoba, Bhalupani and

Mahishakeda. In Dicholi and Bhalupani, each household

contributes about 30 to 40 kg of fuelwood on a monthly

basis. This is collected from the fallen wood found in sur-

rounding forest areas and within the existing plantations

of the village. Electricity payments are also linked with

biomass contribution, with non-contributing households

required to pay amounts equivalent to what they pay for

biomass fuel. In Karrudoba, the fuel supply is mainly pro-

vided by the Forest Department from lops and tops. In

Figure 9: Village map grid on the wall of the gasifier shed in the Village of Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh

16

addition, villagers also contribute biomass from ‘kitchen

surplus’ (i.e. savings achieved because of the use of

improved cookstoves).

Financial performance

Consumers’ willingness to pay (Rs/month/household)

for electricity ranged from Rs 30 to Rs 133 (with an aver-

age of Rs 82). However, the actual tariff that consumers

paid for four hours of daily supply ranged from Rs 30 and

Rs 60 per month per household, depending on the socio-

economic conditions of the village (Palit, 2011). This

payment is usually equivalent to kerosene’s replacement

cost. Communities generally pay the set tariff wherever

the systems are in regular operation (around 20 days or

more in a month), with about 50-70% paying their tariffs

on time. We found that revenue management was com-

paratively better where villagers have greater income

opportunities—either existing income generation activi-

ties (e.g. a flour mill) or activities introduced after elec-

trification under VESP (such as honey extraction and sal

leaf stitching.

Convergence with development programs

We also found that the potential for income generation

activities exists in almost all the test projects. The only

reason that these activities have not been exploited is

because of the absence of proper guidance from the

VEC. The active involvement of a gram panchayat (repre-

sentation in VEC) helped in developing the required syn-

ergy between village development funds and VESP fund-

ing for the project capital expenses as well as towards

O&M. For instance, projects at Dicholi, Bhalupani and

Karrudoba villages saw a use of funds from the local

panchayat, state government and local forest offices

respectively, either as a capital contribution towards the

project or for establishing income generation activities.

For example, the local panchayat contributed towards

the completion of power distribution lines in Dicholi,

while the forest department in Karrudoba installed an

open well for water supply to the gasifier plant.

Our financial analysis indicates that the MDP (Minimum

Desired Price of Electricity) for a 10-kWe biomass gasifier

system ‘without any subsidy’ is Rs 16.26/kWh at a capac-

ity utilization factor (CUF) of 33 percent. Considering a

capital subsidy of 90 percent (available under VESP, RVE

and DDG projects) and 10 percent contribution by the

community or PIA, the MDP for 10-kWe and 25 kWe sys-

tems are Rs 5.60/kWh and Rs 4.29/kWh respectively at a

CUF of 33 percent (Palit et. al 2011).

Figure 10: Energy plantations in the state of Orissa

17

However, based on the field assessment of the VESP

test projects, we found that most of the BGPP have

been operating at a CUF of only 7 percent. The real chal-

lenge, therefore, is to set a domestic tariff consistent

with the willingness to pay (i.e. somewhere around Rs

40-80 per household per month). The financial analysis

for a typical VESP project indicates that introduction

of productive load along with variable tariff of about

Rs 10/kWh for productive load and Rs 50 – Rs 60 for

domestic load (at a collection efficiency of at least 70%)

will make the VESP projects financially sustainable

(Palit et al., 2011).

Currently, villagers are dependent on diesel for running

productive loads such as an atta chakki or rice haul-

ers. For example, a five to ten horsepower atta chakki

in a village consumes about one to 1.5 liters diesel per

hour, the minimum cost of which is about Rs 40/ liter in

remote villages. Thus, a atta chakki costs about Rs 40 –Rs

60 per hour to fuel. In contrast, an electricity operated

atta chakki will consume about 3.75 kWh/hour and a ten

horsepower system will consume about 7.5 kWh/hour.

At a tariff of Rs 10/kWh and Rs 7.50/kWh, the expected

expense per hour comes to about Rs 37.5(for 5 HP) and

Rs 56(for 10 HP) respectively, implying a savings of Rs 2-4

for the atta chakki entrepreneur.

Usually 10 HP systems are used for grinding cereals in

villages. An 8 kW load for eight hours of operation (four

hours domestic and four hours commercial) is an ideal

configuration for financial sustainability. Therefore,

replacing a diesel-powered atta chakki with one pow-

ered with electricity is a clear win-win scenario for all

stakeholders: consumers, who pay tariffs based on their

affordability; the atta chakki owner, who saves about

Rs 2 to Rs 4 per hour of operation; and the VEC, which

can generate sufficient income through sale of electric-

ity to domestic and commercial consumers to meet the

expenses for sustainable operation.

One case study is most illustrative. Bhalupani is a small

tribal village in Mayurbhanj district of Orissa. Sambandh,

an NGO, implemented a VESP test project in the village

with 44 households. Income generation activities pro-

moted under a watershed project were integrated with

the VESP. Accordingly, eight donapatta machines having

a total load of 2 kW were provided in connection with

the gasifier power plant. In addition, a honey-processing

unit (6 kW) powered by the gasifier plant managed by

Women Federation of the Balupani Gram Panchayat was

also set up in the village, with support from Integrated

Tribal Development Agency, Government of Orissa.

The donapatta systems are operated by self-help groups,

and promoted by Sambandh. These commercial units

produce cup-plates from saal leaves and operate for

about four hours in the evening for 10-15 days a month.

The Women’s Federation pays Rs 60 per day for the

electricity tariff when the donapatta unit is operational.

The connection of this donapatta unit with the gasifier

system ensures the financial sustainability of the VESP

subproject, providing a net income of about Rs 57 per

month. Without the revenue from this unit, therefore,

the VEC would incur a loss of about Rs 500 every month.

In addition, the Women’s Federation makes payments of

Rs300 per month for about four to five months a year

for using electricity from the power plant for the honey-

processing unit, which contributes to the financial viabil-

ity of the project.

While we observed many of the best practises noted

above, at the same time, many more projects experienced

a number of challenges that compromised the effective-

ness of the VESP.

Institutional performance

Many of the projects faced sustainability challenges.

This is mainly because of less concentrated electric-

ity demand in villages, low economic activity (implying

lower electricity demand), lower consumer ability to

pay (in the absence of cash income opportunities), dif-

ficulty in operation and maintenance, limited technical

knowledge of VECs, and, most importantly, weak fuel

supply chain linkages. Any combination of the above fac-

tors leads to very low capacity utilization factor (CUF)—

between 7-10% in some villages, leading to a higher unit

cost of energy production in those locations.

Further, a lack of clarity about the roles and responsi-

bilities among the different stakeholders (PIAs, State

Renewable Energy Development Agencies, and VECs)

contributed to project delays and weaker performance.

The lack of group activity in many villages created an

absence of project ownership, especially where the VECs

seldom meet to review the project and discuss ways to

strengthen project performance. In many areas, the VECs

are also not adequately trained and empowered to man-

age decentralized projects effectively, especially where

projects are executed by the Forest Department with

the thinking that VESP projects will be similar to other

18

government projects. While the VESP guidelines require

at least 50% female members at the VEC, we found that

women’s participation was almost absent or minimal in

most of the test projects. Additionally, inordinate delays

in installation and commissioning of the electricity

generating systems were found to severely impact the

mobilization of beneficiary communities. In Assam and

West Bengal, for example, the majority of projects that

the Forest Department oversaw between 2005 and 2006

took more than four years to commission.

Technological performance

Performance analysis of some of the better run projects

such as Karudoba (West Bengal), Bhalupani (Orissa) and

Jambupani (Madhya Pradesh) indicates that there is

wide variation in operational days and electricity gen-

eration over the course of several months (Palit 2011).

While there may be non-technical reasons for this varia-

tion (such as community disagreement or fuel supply

issues), technological issues contributed as well. Indeed,

management was found to be one of the most critical

determinants of poor project performance. However,

technical reasons for system non-operation have more

to do with poor technical knowledge by the operators

than with the technology per se. Problems of operational

knowledge need to be overcome to increase the opera-

tional efficiency of VESP projects at the grass root level.

Inadequate post-installation maintenance networks (for

example, the limited number of spare parts suppliers)

contributed to a long lead times for fault rectification.

Inadequate rural maintenance networks also tended to

increase after-sales service costs and thereby threaten

operational viability. Because of the remoteness of

many projects, many VECs found it difficult not only to

attract suppliers but also to establish reliable local after-

sales service.

During field visits and interactions with PIAs and the

community, the team also found great demand for irri-

gation pump sets (~ 5 to 10 HP Capacity), indicating that

village demands could not be met by the installed low-

capacity systems in use currently. On the other hand, in

extremely remote areas, existing capacity was found to

be under-utilized. We found this underutilization largely

was the result of domestic loads consuming only about

one-third of installed capacity in the absence of any pro-

ductive load.

Challenges with technology utilization included:

DC motors used in the cooling and cleaning train of many

of the gasifier systems require frequent maintenance.

Safety paper filters are missing on many units. These

paper filters can help lower dust intake, reduce mainte-

nance, and increase the engine life of gasifier units.

Battery charger systems in some of the subprojects did

not work properly. The battery was discharged after

15-18 hours of operation and does not get recharged

during system operation. Consequently, the battery has

to be taken to the nearest town for recharging as the

gasifier system remains non-operational, which contrib-

utes to substantial net downtime.

Water tanks to supply clean water for cooling and clean-

ing of the gas are improperly built in almost all the proj-

ects. Most units have only one chamber in the water tank

instead of two as called for in the design. Consequently,

dirty water containing tar is re-circulated for cleaning

gas. This results in inadequate cleaning of the gas, higher

engine maintenance and increased difficulty in operat-

ing the system.

In many SVO systems, oil is directly fed to the engine

without passing through a filter. This can lead to long-

term engine damage and reduce the operational life of

the system.

Plantations & fuel supply management

Furthermore, supply of biomass is a key constraint for

uptime—not because it is not available, but because of

erratic supply. The fuel supply chains were unorganized;

with each villager required to contribute a share of the

total biomass without any monetary benefit, disinterest

among villagers after the initial month was common.

Many of the beneficiaries are reluctant to collect bio-

mass from the forests because of the irregular operation

of the systems. Further, biomass being perceived as free

for the taking, there is limited motivation to collect the

fuel. In case of SVO-based projects, the oilseeds col-

lected from forests yield better prices in the local mar-

ket as compared to their use for electricity generation.

Indeed, selling oilseeds is a livelihood for many tribal

villagers, who are more inclined to sell the oil seeds for

cash income than to contribute them to the VESP.

Financial performance

In most of the test projects, revenue management was

virtually absent. Because systems were down much of

the time, communities were reluctant to pay for service.

Poor revenue flow diminished interest in maintaining

system operations, creating a vicious cycle. Operator

costs (varying between Rs 500 to Rs 1500 per month)

also became significant since low lighting load and the

19

absence of productive load diminished demand. Normal

maintenance costs added to total expenditures, often

overwhelming revenues that user payments generated.

Because the VECs do not levy any penalty for non-pay-

ment, they had no reason to keep any revenue-related

records tracking project income and expenses.

Convergence with development programs

Inadequate capacity building and support to the VEC

and system operators is another key factor affecting

the project uptime and management in many of the

subprojects. While the operators of the energy produc-

tion system in the test projects seem to be trained on

operation of the system, they are not very competent

to deal with maintenance aspects, especially of the

engine system.

The adequacy assessment of the subprojects reflects

that the focus of both the PIA and beneficiaries in

almost all the subprojects is on electrification and not

on the biogas, improved cookstoves, energy plantation

systems, or other technologies implemented under

the VESP. In a majority of the subprojects, improved

cookstoves and biogas plants are either non-functional

or not being given adequate importance, even though

these technologies are critical to the VESP concept.

Communities are not inclined to use biogas and

improved cookstoves because (a) they are used to cook-

ing on wood and are reluctant to change their cooking

practices, (b) dung availability is low, because cattle are

not stall-fed in most of the projects, and (c) plenty of

fuelwood is available at zero cash outlay. The project

experience also suggests that beneficiaries needed

more training on how to maintain the stoves and biogas

plants to ensure their sustained use.

Planners conceived of the VESP as a holistic way of

energy delivery based on the premise that biomass based

technologies are reliable, operations can be viable, and

local communities can plan and manage projects with

support from PIAs. The main strength of the VESP lies

in its goal of “providing total energy security to achieve

sustainable development” to remote areas through

utilization of locally available renewable bio-energy

resources and the empowerment of local communities.

Locally sourced bio-energy provides a closed loop for

energy generation, producing energy for a community in

a self-sufficient way. This creates financial opportunities,

increases economic development, and provides a sense

of ownership for local communities.

Despite its approach, VESP could not achieve its

desired goals due to a mesh of discrete failures and

unintentional weaknesses. Some of these setbacks

include competition with other state sponsored rural

electrification projects, lack of clarity between various

stakeholders, and after sales service issues. Despite

the drawbacks, VESP has potential for a wide range of

opportunities. Some opportunities include creating a

profitable rural biomass market, developing improved

trade relations with nearby markets, and providing

abundant renewable energy for rural areas, which

brings improved economic, environmental, and health

opportunities with it.

We present six main conclusions for energy develop-

ment practitioners and policymakers based on the

VESP experience.

First, political will at the provincial and national levels is

key to project success. Political will is necessary to create

a level playing ground for renewable energy technolo-

gies and systems. A policy framework and clear vision for

all stakeholders was lacking for the VESP, yet is neces-

sary for large scale implementation. Additionally, short-

term competition from subsidized conventional energy

sources and prevailing matured modern technologies

are a major barrier for popularizing emerging biomass

energy technologies considered to have limitations and

cumbersome to use. These fears were sometimes over-

come by evolving user-friendly products and creating

supplier and after sale service mechanisms.

Second, some renewable energy technologies require

clusters, or certain economies of scale, to work properly.

One cannot promote biogas or gasifier systems the same

as solar home systems or improved cookstoves, and

in the particular case of the VESP, its community-scale

ambitions did not always match the realities of local fuel

supply. Depending on the proximity of the habitations,

the merit of setting up a local mini-grid and a central

power plant of higher capacity could be beneficial over

smaller capacity systems.

Third, energy users—in this case villagers and VECs—

need to be trained on how to use, service, and maintain

the VESP systems. Most suppliers showed reluctance to

develop the post installation service network because

of a low volume of activity, despite the fact that they

had an interest in participating in programs such as

20

VESP. That is, though the suppliers were interested in

providing technological support, villagers were not

interested in using it enough to convince the supplier to

develop a post-installation service network. Many sup-

pliers reported outsourcing the majority of the equip-

ment repairs beyond the local population. However,

suppliers and manufacturers need to work with the

community to develop local knowledge and skills to

maintain the VESP systems. After-sales service and

maintenance must be locally provided and rarely out-

sourced. Additionally, maintenance expenses were not

internalized in the VESP budget which led to burgeoning

differences in the overheads required to keep systems

effectively functioning.

Fourth, community awareness and information regard-

ing the benefits of electricity helps ensure community

investment. “Ownership” of the project is necessi-

tated by extensive IEC (Information, Education, and

Communication) activities about how access to elec-

tricity can greatly improve the quality of life for the

community and its people. Outreach should describe

how electricity can stimulate micro-enterprises, increase

local entertainment, prevent the destruction of the envi-

ronment, enhance health, and help build ‘social capital’

by increasing the educational opportunities for children.

This creates a direct benefit for households and micro

enterprises while showing the community the collective

benefits of access to electricity.

Fifth, the community based service model of the VESP,

while democratic and decentralized, presents its own

challenges. VESP projects were implemented on the

premise that the community (through the VEC) or the

local panchayat own the project and assume overall

responsibility for management and operations. This

model is suitable for remote areas where there is suffi-

cient strength of local governance and a social cohesive-

ness in the village. However, the institutional arrange-

ments for a remote tribal village may be different from

that of a less remote village having relatively higher

power demand. Therefore, in order to determine the

Figure 11: A more sustainable VESP model

Source: TERI 2009

21

appropriate institutional structure, stakeholder consul-

tation is instrumental.

In the case of the VESP, there was a greater need to have

regular consultation meetings among all stakeholders

including the MNRE, state governments, VECs, and pan-

chayats. Provincial level facilitation would have helped

in brainstorming solutions to various technical as well

as financial problems. A more effective VESP structure

is shown in Figure 11. Such a structure would perhaps

have promoted income generation thereby increasing

purchasing capacity and reducing migration.

Sixth, VESP projects should have focused more on com-

mercial viability, producing a revenue stream for the

community where the project is located. The community

should view projects as a potential source of income

and not a gift. This mindset creates a sense of commu-

nal ownership that works to maintain the success of the

project. This can be achieved either by maintaining an

efficient fuel collection system or by exploring additional

revenue options through an increase in tariffs. Moreover,

communities need incentives to increase or maximize

electricity loads.

Without considering the above lessons learned, future

project implementation will leave rural energy policy

stumbling towards its goal of “Power for All” by the end

of 2012.

22

As biomass is found in substantial quantity in rural areas

in various forms, the primary energy production system

implemented under the VESP has been either biomass

gasifier systems and or SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) based

systems. In addition, biogas plants and improved cook-

stoves were also implemented for thermal (i.e. cooking)

energy needs of beneficial communities. Below are the

technologies imlemented under the Program.

Biomass gasification based power generation

Biomass gasification is the process of converting solid

biomass fuel into combustible gaseous fuel (called

producer gas) through a sequence of complex thermo-

chemical reactions. A biomass gasifier system usually

consists of a biomass preparation unit, a biomass gasifier

reactor, gas cooling and cleaning system, internal com-

bustion engine suitable for operation with producer gas

as main fuel, electric generator, and electricity distribu-

tion system. A biomass preparation unit is used to cut

the collected biomass to proper size suitable for feeding

into the biomass gasifier. In a typical downdraft gasifier

the biomass is fed from the top. It passes through the

gasifier and undergoes the following sequence of pro-

cesses - drying, pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction, in a

limited supply of air to produce a combustible mixture

of carbon monoxide (18% - 22%), hydrogen (15%–20%),

and methane (1%–3%); carbon dioxide (9%–12%) and

nitrogen (45%–55%); and tar and ash (Parikh, 1984;

Kohli and Ravi, 2003). The gas formed is passed through

a cooling and cleaning sub-system that usually consists

of a cyclone for particulate removal and a scrubber for

cooling and cleaning the gas. The ash, formed from oxi-

dation reactions, moves through the reduction zone and

gets removed from the ash disposal system consisting of

the grate and ash collection system.

Figure 12 presents the schematic diagram of a biomass

gasifier based power generation system. The electricity

generated is distributed to the consumers through a local

low tension mini-grid system. The MNRE considered

various capacities of the biomass gasifier system under

the program, depending on the size of the community,

to standardize the technology packages. For example,

a 10kWe system was designed for a community size

of 50-100 households (hh), while a 25kWe system was

designed for a community of more than 250 hhs. Since

a 20 kWe gasifier design was not commercially available

at that time, the MNRE allowed use of 2x10kWe systems

for a community size between100 -200 hhs.

Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO)

SVO, also referred to as neat vegetable oils, or pure plant

oil, is derived from either edible or edible seeds, and

can be directly used in diesel engines. SVO engines are

a clean, effective and economical option. The VESP test

phase consisted of installation of SVO engines for power

Figure 12: Biomass gasifier system

23

generation mainly in the capacity range of 10 HP systems.

The fuel for the engines are based on collection of natu-

rally occurring non-edible oilseeds from the forests near a

project, or harvested from energy plantations undertaken

as part of VESP. The sequence of operations employed for

the production of SVOs as shown in Figure 13.

Various technologies are used for oil extraction.

Mechanical oil extraction is the most common technology

in use for extracting non-edible oils. The typical recovery

efficiency of good expellers is 80-85% of oil content in

the seed. Mechanical crushing is preferred for smaller

plants because it requires a smaller investment. Typically

plants that process less than 100,000 kg/day (100 TPD)

use mechanical crushing and plants that process more

than 300,000 kg/day (300 TPD) use solvent extraction.

The main problems by using vegetable oil as engine

fuel are associated with its high viscosity and high flash

point. The high viscosity interferes with the fuel-injection

process in the engine, leading to poor atomization of

fuel and inefficient combustion. An oil carrying pipeline

is wound around engine exhaust pipe to preheat the oil

before supplying it to the injector. This is done simply to

increase the oil temperature and reduce the viscosity.

The engine operation can also be made smooth and long

lasting by using two-tank SVO systems (Chaturvedi et al.,

2006). In India, many diesel engine suppliers modify and

supply engines to run on SVO for decentralized power

generation. Low speed engine (600-1000 RPM) engines

are more suitable with fewer maintenance problems

compared to normal 1500 RPM diesel engine.

Biogas technology

Biogas is a clean fuel produced through anaerobic diges-

tion of a variety of organic wastes: animal, agricultural,

domestic, and industrial. Anaerobic digestion comprises

three steps.

• Decomposition (hydrolysis) of plant or animal matter

to break down complex organic materials into simple

organic substances

• Conversion of decomposed matter into organic acids

• Conversion of acids into methane gas

Biogas consists of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces

of other gases such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen sulfide. The gas mixture

is saturated with water vapor and may contain dust par-

ticles. The relative percentages of these gases depend on

the quality of feed material and the process conditions.

The percentage of methane in the gas determines its cal-

orific value, as the other constituents do not contribute

to the energy content. The methane content of biogas

is appreciably high, at 55-60% with calorific value of the

order of 4500-5500 kcal/Nm3.

The process temperature affects the rate of digestion,

and so it should be maintained in the mesophilic range

(30–40°C) with an optimum of 35°C. The rate of biogas

production also depends on factors such as the carbon

to nitrogen ratio, hydraulic retention time, solid concen-

tration, and types of feedstock. The biogas is burnt in gas

stoves for thermal energy. A tailor-made spark ignition

engine can operate on 100% gas or can be operated on

dual fuel mode to replace up to 75% of liquid fuel (diesel/

bio oil). The gas requirement for power generation with

dual-fuel engine is 0.6 m3 / kWh and with 100% biogas

engine the gas requirement is 0.75m3 / kWh.

Figure 13: Production process for SVO

24

Banerjee, R., 2006, Comparison of options for distrib-

uted generation, Energy Policy, 34, 101–11.

Bhattacharyya, SC, 2006. Energy access problem of the

poor in India: Is rural electrification a remedy? Energy

Policy. 34, 3387-3397.

Buragohain, B., P. Mahanta, and V. S. Moholkar, 2010,

Biomass gasification for decentralized power genera-

tion: The Indian perspective, Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews, 14, 73–92.

Chaturvedi. O., Mande, S. and Palit. D. 2006. Biofuel

promotion in Northeastern region of India. 22nd

National Convention of Mechanical Engineers on Energy

Technologies-Strategies for Optimal Utilization of

Natural Resources, September 9 – 10; The Institution of

Engineers (India), Guwahati

Ghosh, D., Sagar, A., and Kishore, V.V.N. 2006. Scaling up

biomass gasifier use: an application-specific approach.

Energy Policy 34, 1566–1582.

IEA, 2010, World Energy Outlook 2010, International

Energy Agency, Paris.

Krishnaswamy, S., 2010. Shifting of Goal Posts – Rural

Electrification in India: A progress Report. Vasudha

Foundation, New Delhi.

Kohli, and Ravi. 2003. Biomass gasification for rural

electrification: prospects and challenges. Solar Energy

Society of India, 83-101.

MNRE, 2004, Test Projects on Village Energy Security;

Guidelines for Planning, Implementation and Funding of

the Test Projects; Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy

Sources, Government of India, New Delhi

MNRE, 2011, Annual Report 2010-11, Ministry of New

& Renewable Energy, Government of India, New Delhi

Pachauri S 2007. Global development and energy

inequality options; http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/

INF/OPT/Winter07/opt-07wint.pdf; Last accessed on

November 20, 2011

Palit D. 2011. Performance assessment of biomass

gasifier based power generation systems implemented

under village energy security program in India; In pro-

ceedings of the International Conference Advances in

Energy Research; December 9-11, 2011; Mumbai: Indian

Institute of Bombay.

Palit D, R. Malhotra and A. Kumar, 2011, Sustainable

model for financial viability of decentralized biomass

gasifier based power projects, Energy Policy, 39,

4893–4901.

Palit, D and Chaurey, A. 2011. Off-grid rural electrification

experiences from South Asia: Status and best practices.

Energy for Sustainable Development, doi:10.1016/j.

esd.2011.07.004

Parikh, P. 1984. State of the Art Report on Gasification

of Biomass, Report submitted to Department of

Nonconventional Energy Sources. Delhi: Government of

India.

TERI, 2009, Impact & Adequacy Assessment Report,

National Contract for Economics & Financing, Monitoring

& Evaluation Frameworks and Policy & Institutional

Issues, The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi.

The World Bank, 2011, India: Biomass for Sustainable

Development: Lessons for Decentralized Energy Delivery,

The World Bank, India Country Management Unit, New

Delhi.

25

This paper draws, in part, on a research study carried out

under the project titled “National Contract for Economics &

Financing, Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks and Policy

& Institutional Issues”, with support from the Ministry of

New and Renewable Energy, Government of India and The

World Bank. The authors would like to thank the MNRE

officials, the State Renewable Energy Development Agency

officials, members from various PIAs and VECs and opera-

tors of the energy production systems implemented under

VESP and biomass gasifier system suppliers, who freely

shared information as well as their views and insights dur-

ing the course of interviews with them. Special thanks to

Dr. Akanksha Chaurey, Director, Decentralised Electricity

Solutions Division, TERI for her valuable inputs during the

study and also former TERI colleagues, Dr. Sanjay Mande

and Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, who contributed during the

field survey of VESP projects. The authors are appreciative

to the Centre on Asia and Globalisation and the Lee Kuan

Yew School of Public Policy for some of the financial assis-

tance needed to conduct the research interviews, field

research, and travel for this project. The authors are also

extremely grateful to the National University of Singapore

for Faculty Start-up Grant 09-273 as well as the MacArthur

Foundation for Asia Security Initiative Grant 08-92777-

000-GSS, which have supported elements of the work

reported here. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions

or recommendations expressed in this material are those

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views

of the Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew

School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore,

or MacArthur Foundation. Also, the views of the author(s)

expressed in this study do not necessarily reflect the views

of the United States Agency for International Development

or the United States Government.

Mr Debajit Palit works in the field of

distributed generation, rural electri-

fication policy and regulation, clean

energy access, solar photovoltaics

and biomass gasification. Currently,

working as Fellow at the Decentralized

Electricity Division, he is associated with TERI for the last

14 years. He has handled around 25 projects as Team

Leader dealing with various aspects such as technology

adaptation, resource assessment & energy planning;

project implementation; policy and regulatory studies;

monitoring and impact assessment and capacity building.

Mr Palit has a wide national and international experience,

working in projects for various UN, multilateral, bilateral

organisations and national governments, spread across

India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Myanmar, Nepal,

Philippines and Thailand in Asia and Ethiopia, Kenya,

Liberia, Sierra Leone and Uganda in Africa. He has authored

a book on rural electricity distribution franchisees, contrib-

uted around 50 technical papers in peer-reviewed jour-

nals, conference proceedings and edited books and has

participated in more than 30 national and international

conferences and workshops. He represented TERI in the

Sub-group on Distribution including village and household

electrification of the 11th Five Year Plan - Working Group

on Power, 2006 and contributed during the development

of guidelines for the decentralized distributed generation

program under the National Rural Electrification Program

of the Government of India. He is also in the Solar Lighting

Working Group under the Energy for All Partnership of

Asian Development Bank.

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is currently a

Visiting Associate Professor at Vermont

Law School, where he manages the

Energy Security and Justice Program

at their Institute for Energy & the

Environment. His research interests

include the barriers to alternative sources of energy supply

such as renewable electricity generators and distributed

generation, the politics of large-scale energy infrastruc-

ture, designing public policy to improve energy security

and access to electricity, and building adaptive capacity

and resilience to climate change in least developed Asian

countries. He is the author or editor of eight books and

more than 140 peer reviewed academic articles on vari-

ous aspects of energy and climate change, and he has pre-

sented research at more than 70 international conferences

and symposia in the past few years. He is a frequent con-

tributor to Energy Policy, Energy & Environment, Electricity

Journal, Energy, and Energy for Sustainable Development.

Christopher Cooper is an expert in

national and international energy secu-

rity policy, transmission expansion and

community organizing. He has analyzed

the energy security implications of

megaprojects in emerging economies,

including performing an in-depth case study of large des-

ert solar energy for the Asia Research Institute. He has also

written extensively on policies to incentivize distributed

26

generation of small-scale renewable energy units. Under

a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, Chris evalu-

ated the implementation of smart grid pilot programs on

low-income and underserved communities in the U.S. As

Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices

(NNEC), he provided strategic guidance to federal and state

policymakers and nonprofit organizations on innovative

infrastructure investments designed to advance energy

security while increasing sustainability. His extensive analy-

sis of renewable portfolio standards was instrumental dur-

ing the 2007 Congressional effort to adopt a national RPS.

With official United Nation’s observer status, Chris served

as spokesperson for the global nuclear weapons abolition

movement during the 2005 U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty renewal conference. He also directed external com-

munications for the United States’ largest public interest

group devoted to sustainable city and regional planning.

Chris holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science

from Wake Forest University and earned a Master of Arts

degree (cum laude) from the University of Miami.

Shannon Clarke specializes in the

impact of renewable energy and

energy efficiency programs on low-

income and rural communities. At

the University of North Florida, she

researched the socio-economic impact

of solar photovoltaic electrification on rural villages in Uttar

Pradesh, India. She has analyzed the consequences of

Energy Efficiency Block Grants for the National Association

of Counties, where she was also instrumental in authoring

a guide to financing and developing landfill gas-to-energy

projects for U.S. counties. She has also worked as a law

clerk in the District of Columbia Office of Administrative

Hearings researching and analyzing state and federal regu-

lations and drafting final orders on public benefits, housing

and shelter. Shannon holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in

Sociology from the University of North Florida.

Meredith Crafton specializes in

international social justice issues sur-

rounding conventional and nuclear

energy generation. She helped coor-

dinate the Government Accountability

Project’s Russia Program, organizing a

conference on energy policy and whistleblower rights in

St. Petersburg, Russia. She has researched and reported

on site worker exposure and contractor malfeasance at

the Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant, uncover-

ing information used in a 60 Minutes expose’. For VLS’s

Environment and Natural Resources Law Clinic, Meredith

provided research on Montana’s coal mining law and policy

that was critical to a motion in federal district court. In

2003, she also performed field research on conservation,

militarization and revolution in Chiapas, Mexico. Meredith

has a Bachelor of Arts degree in sustainability studies from

Hampshire College.

Jay Eidsness specializes in the ecologi-

cal implications of energy production

on local communities. In 2010, he orga-

nized volunteers and local leaders to

establish urban community gardens in

Peru. He has also analyzed the effects

of riparian health on native flora under a project funded

by the United States Forest Service. As a Student Certified

Attorney for Central Minnesota Legal Services, he has

argued motions on housing and consumer protection for

underserved families in Minnesota. Jay earned a Bachelor

of Arts degree in communication and biology from St.

John’s University.

Katie Johnson has an expertise in

renewable energy markets and the

effects of energy production on

resource availability. For the Public

Utilities Commission of Ohio, Katie

authored a report for the Ohio General

Assembly recommending policies for stimulating the states

renewable energy market. She has worked with Dr. Allen

Prindle analyzing the relationship between population

growth and water well usage and evaluated how Ohio’s

energy regulations affect the state’s water quality. She has

studied in France at the Universite de Toulouse Il-Le Mirail

and in the Netherlands at the University of Maastricht.

Katie graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of

Science degree in economics from Otterbein University.

David Zoppo specializes in the energy

justice and sustainability implications

of multinational corporations. For the

ABB Group, North America’s leading

power and automation technology

company, David evaluated internal

company safety regulations, reviewed the sustainability

of the company’s supply chain management procedures

and drafted recommendations to improve its compliance

with state regulations. He has worked in refugee camps

in South Africa and teamed with the AIDS Law Project

to advocate for the civil and economic rights of people

displaced during a series of xenophobic attacks there in

2008. David holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political

science and history from the University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill.

27Energy Governance Case Studies Series

1. Lighti ng Laos: The governance implicati ons of the Laos rural electrifi cati on program

2. Gers just want to have fun: Evaluati ng the renewable energy and rural electricity access project (REAP) in Mongolia

3. Living up to energy governance benchmarks: The Xeketam hydropower project in Laos

4. Sett ling the score: The implicati ons of the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) in Malaysia

5. What went wrong? Examining the Teacher’s Solar Lighti ng Project in Papua New Guinea

6. Summoning the sun: Evaluati ng China’s Renewable Energy Development Project (REDP)

7. Rural energy development on the “Roof of the World”: Lessons from microhydro village electrifi cati on in Nepal

8. The radiance of Soura Shakti : Installing two million solar home systems in Bangladesh

9. Untapped potenti al: The diffi culti es of the Small Renewable Energy Power (SREP) Programme in Malaysia

10. Harvesti ng the elements: The achievements of Sri Lanka’s Energy Services Delivery Project

11. Commercializing solar energy: Lessons from the Indonesia Solar Home Systems Project

12. Towards household energy security: The Village Energy Security Program in India

Distributi on grid from the biomass gasifi er, village Orissa

The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is an autonomous,

professional graduate school of the Nati onal University of

Singapore. Its mission is to help educate and train the next

generati on of Asian policymakers and leaders, with the objec-

ti ve of raising the standards of governance throughout the

region, improving the lives of its people and, in so doing, con-

tribute to the transformati on of Asia. For more details on the

LKY School, please visit www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg

Strategic partners