8/12/2019 09 Financial Aspect for Subt a in Able
1/24
8/12/2019 09 Financial Aspect for Subt a in Able
2/24
9-2
To overcome such a difference between the costs and willingness to pay and thedistortions in existing PLN electricity tariff, one should think of a set of supportingmeasures to make the rural electrification projects financially sustainable and fair aswell.
9.2 CHARGES AND COSTS OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION PROJECTS
9.2.1 Charges
The charges for rural electrification project will be composed of i) periodical ormonthly payments for electric energy, ii) one time payments for service opportunity,and iii) unscheduled payments for unscheduled maintenance or repair. The first item isthe recipients payments for electricity supplied. The second item is often referred to asthe connection fees which is collected when electricity services begin. The last itemwill be required when the project facility is in trouble. All of these costs are expected to
be recovered from the power recipients. The power recipients could be of households,
any community facilities, and enterprises using electricity within the community.Unfortunately, the typical villagers are not usually rich enough to pay for full costrecovery for rural electrification project.
9.2.2 Valuation of Charges
The recovery of three types of charges of a rural electrification project will depend onthe level of electricity tariff, which should be established by the villagers concerned anddepends on their willingness to pay. However, this does not imply setting up a grosslyhigh tariff without discretion. The tariff should be agreed by the villagers throughdiscussions about the need for project sustainability, and their own capacity to pay.
The Study suggests the following prices for electricity:
Energy fee: Rp. 25,000/household/month or 10% of villagers income.
Connection fee: Twelve times of the monthly energy fee (desired to save money outof villagers salary to be paid on participatory construction)
Unscheduled payment for repair/maintenance: No required. (It is more important toraise the energy fee up to the villagers capacity to pay.)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Village Sample
Rp./
HH.Month
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
0%
Rp./
HH.Month
Max. Rp. 1,281,500/HH.MonthMin. Rp. 36,500/HH.Month
Ave. Rp. 312,700/HH.Month
(Note) 77 samples.
Figure 9.2-1 Non-Electrified Villagers Income
8/12/2019 09 Financial Aspect for Subt a in Able
3/24
9-3
According to the Rural and Social Surveys conducted for the South Sulawesi, East NusaTenggala and West Tenggala Provinces, the average family disposable income rangedfrom Rp.36,500/month to Rp.1,281,500/month in 2002, as shown Figure 9.2-1. Theaverage income is Rp.312,700/month/household.
The expenditures of the households on alternative sources of lighting can be taken torepresent their willingness to pay for the future electricity. As a proportion of theirincome, the expenditures on alternative lightening sources range from 4% to 20% asshown in Figure 9.2-2.
For these non-electrified villages, the average monthly expenditure on alternativelighting sources such as kerosene lumps is as high as Rp.25,670/household/month withthe lowest and highest bounds of Rp.5,925/household and Rp.64,400/householdrespectively. The monthly expenditures for the alternative lighting sources are given inFigure 9.2-3.
The Rural and Social Surveys found that average family size and working familymembers of a household in rural areas are 5.81 persons and 1.91 persons, respectively.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Village Sample
ShareofExpendituretoHHs'Income
Max.Rp.20.26 % to HHs Income
Min. Rp. 4.45 % to HHs Income
Ave. Rp. 8.21 % to HHs Income
(Note) 77 samples.
Figure 9.2-2 Non-Electrified Villagers Expenditure
Ratio for Alternative Lighting
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Village Sample
Rp./
HH.Month
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0%
ShareofExpendituretoHHs'Income
Max. Rp. 64,400/HH.Month
Min. Rp. 5,925/HH.Month
Ave. Rp.25,670/HH.Month
(Note) 77 samples.
Figure 9.2-3 Non-Electrified Villagers Expenditurefor Alternative Lighting
8/12/2019 09 Financial Aspect for Subt a in Able
4/24
9-4
9.3 COSTS
9.3.1 Definition of Costs
There are a lot of costs associated with promoting a rural electrification project at everystage and every phase of the Project Initiation, Project Development, and Project
Operation discussed earlier. However, one should have a clear definition on what goesinto the project cost and what does not, so that consistency and transparency can beensured throughout the project promotion. Costs are assumed to be borne by associatedstakeholders. That is, costs specifically related to the promotion activities for a specificrural electrification project are the only ones counted as part of the project costs. Thisconcept is illustrated graphically in Figure 9.3-1 and further discussions are made inChapter 7 in the Guidelines, which have been separately prepared during the Study.
The project cost items are therefore defined as costs specifically required for the ProjectDevelopment, Community Preparation, Project Implementation, and Project Operation.In principle, wages or other direct and indirect costs for governmental staff cannot becounted as part of the project costs, although they are likely to be incurred with variouskinds of services to the project. Possible cost items that may be counted as part of the
project costs are listed in Table 9.3-1.
Figure 9.3-2 illustrates likely disbursements of a project.
GOIDistrictVillage
Daily O&M
Expression of Interest
Reconnaissance
Feasibility Assessment
Prioritization
Support and Monitoring
Project Implementation
Community Preparation
Project Development
Project
Operation
Project
Development
Potential Survey &
Campaign
Coordination and
Advice based on
Five-year Rolling
Plan
Project
Implementation
Project Initiation/
Rural Electrification
Planning
Figure 9.3-1 Cost Items Counted for Rural Electrification
8/12/2019 09 Financial Aspect for Subt a in Able
5/24
9-5
Table 9.3-1 Possible Cost Items
Project Phase Activity Possible Cost Items To Be Counted
Specialists' Fee for engineering services
Costs of investigations for hydrology, wind, etc.Project
Initiation
Project
Development
Taxes
Specialists' Fee for engineering services
Costs of capacity buildingCommunity
PreparationTaxes
Costs of land acquisition
Specialists' Fee for engineering services
Cost of contractor procurement
Facility cost exclusively for power system
Training costs
Cost of new enterprises
CapitalCost
Project
DevelopmentProject
Implementation
Taxes
Costs of daily operation and maintenance
Management costs
Unscheduled repair costs
Scheduled replacement costs
OperationCost
Project
OperationProject Operation
Taxes
9.3.2 Valuation of Project Costs
(1) Project Costs of Micro-hydro Power Systems
As discussed in Chapter 8 of these Guidelines, the major component of the total projectcosts for a micro-hydro power system is the facility cost, which is mainly composed of
civil construction cost and cost of equipment and installation. The facility cost mayfluctuate widely ranging from $2,000/kW to $7,000/kW. From the financial point of
Engineering Fee
Construction Cost
(Capital Cost)
Unscheduled Repair Cost
Scheduled Replacement Cost
Daily O&M Cost
Years
Cost
Commissioning
Construction
Engineering
Schedu
ledReplace
Engineering
Unscheduled
Repair Cost
Figure 9.3-2 Example of Disbursements Required
8/12/2019 09 Financial Aspect for Subt a in Able
6/24
9-6
view, however, one should make strongest effort to reduce the unit facility cost toaround $4,000/kW or less. Such cost reduction seems possible for most cases, when oneutilizes local technologies, local materials, and local human resource.
Table 9.3-2 shows three alternative examples of potential life cycle costs for a
micro-hydro power system. Life cycle costs are derived over the whole economic life ofa project in present value terms, discounted at 10%. In other words, all costs streams ofover the economic life of the project, assumed to be 20 years, including capitalinvestments, annual operations and maintenance and repair and replacement arediscounted to bring them to a common basis in present value terms. This techniqueenables the planner to compare the average incremental costs (AIC) of any number ofalternative projects in terms of their unit costs of supply. The example in table 10.2-2shows these unit costs can be subdivided into each major component of costs for ease ofcomparison.
The example represents a case of 22.2 kW of the installed capacity with the unit facility
costs at $2,000/kW, $4,500/kW, and $7,000/kW, which correspond to the low, average,and high unit facility costs, respectively.
The unscheduled repai
