4.7 Article

Institutional influence on power sector investments: A case study of on- and off-grid energy in Kenya and Tanzania

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 59-70

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.011

关键词

Multi-level perspective (MLP); On- and off-grid energy resources; Regime transition

资金

  1. Carnegie Mellon University
  2. Hydro Research Foundation under Department of Energy [DE-EE0006506]
  3. National Science Foundation [DGE-1252522]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the recent decline of renewable energy technology costs-most notably solar photovoltaics -off-grid energy systems are becoming increasingly attractive alternatives to grid extension for advancing rural electrification in Africa. However, there are institutional challenges to wider adoption of off-grid solutions. Combining a multi-level perspective with project funding data from the Kenyan and Tanzanian energy sectors, we assess the extent to which these new off-grid technologies have been incorporated into the existing energy regimes in both countries. Using a qualitative assessment of academic literature and official documents, and a quantitative assessment of energy investments, we find that although international development agencies have provided financial support for niche, off-grid companies, both global donors and the regime electricity sector operators in Kenya and Tanzania continue to favor on-grid and grid extension activities. While landscape influences on both countries are similar, we find that differences within the institutional regimes result in different development pathways for off-grid niches. In Kenya, unbundling and privatization efforts have attracted private investment in both on-and off-grid projects. Tanzania has more relaxed regulations for off-grid power producers, and a clearer regulatory framework for allowing off-grid operators to impose cost-reflective tariffs, which creates a supportive environment for niche innovation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据