 is limited knowledge on regulatory frameworks for mini-grids, compared with large grid and stand-alone systems. Currently, most mini-grid service providers are often not regulated or over-regulated. The regulation for mini-grids, whether from renewable energy or conventional sources, must be performed in different ways relative to the same regulatory tasks for grid extension.
The mandate for expansion of electricity services into rural areas often rests with a national or regional rural utility company. However, most utility companies are structured exclusively around electricity supply networks, and they often exhibit a strong institutional resistance to the mini-grid solutions, even when they are clearly more cost-effective. These national or regional rural utilities are uninterested or unable to provide service to remote areas. This is clearly demonstrated the case study of Micro-Hydro Mini-Grids and Rural Electrification in Thailand. Under such circumstances, a regulatory framework for rural electrification should give the right to non-utility service providers, such as community cooperatives and the private sector, to serve in off-grid areas. Such a regulatory framework should also ensure fair competition for all service providers with respect to the utility in competing for new customers. These approaches have flourished where the government has created and supported conditions favorable to the private sector involvement, such as through effective subsidies, cost-recovery tariffs and institutional capacity building. Developing cost recovery tariffs is probably the single most important factor determining the long‑term commercial viability of mini-grid and other rural electrification projects. If the project has a financially viable cash flow, then there it will attract investors, regardless of utilities, community-based organizations, or the private sector. There is widespread belief that electricity tariffs need to be extremely low to benefit rural people, but the facts do not support this. Rural household surveys in many developing countries demonstrated that rural consumers can afford to pay up to 5% of household income on electricity and up to 10% on all energy use, such as candles, kerosene, and dry cell and car batteries in un-electrification areas, ranging $3-20 per month. Rural electrification can significantly improve the energy services. Charging the right price allows the service providers to serve in an effective, reliable, and sustainable manner to an increasing number of satisfied consumers. Worldwide all rural electrification programs have involved some form of subsidy. In principle, subsidies should be fairly easy to administer (efficient), have an impact on the desired population (effective) and reach the poorest of society (equitable). Subsidies for the promotion of mini-grid renewable energy systems need to be developed within the context of subsidies for rural electrification, but should be designed differently from grid extensions. In principal, capital subsidies are preferred to on-going subsidies for operating and maintenance. The trick is keep a balance between too little and too much subsidies. For the principles of mini-grid regulatory framework, tariff structure, and subsidy schemes, link to the regulatory framework section. 
|
RSS