This project is funded by the European Union A project Implemented by MWH
Framework Contracts beneficiaries 2009 – Lot 4
Contract 2012/284032
Evaluation of EU energy funding in Liberia and recommendations
Final Report
August 3rd, 2012
ii Contract 2012/284032
The content of this report is the sole responsibility of MWH and can in no ways be taken to reflect
the views of the European Union. This report is prepared solely for the use and benefit of the
Contracting Authority. It is the result of an independent review, and neither MWH, nor the authors
accept or assume any responsibility or duty of care to any third party
NAME Final report
VERSION This version submitted on August 3rd
includes comments and clarifications
further to the presentation of results held on July 24th 2012 in Monrovia
VERSION HISTORY - June 6th : Substantive Draft Report
- May 11th 2012 : Preliminary Draft report
PREPARED BY : Roger Gaillard
Laurence Wilhelm
FINAL REVIEW : Laurent De Block 03.08.2012
Final Report – August 2012 3
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 12
2 CONTEXT OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................... 20
3 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................................. 21
4 BRIEF COUNTRY CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 23
5 SECTOR CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 24
5.1 Assessment of the sector policy ................................................................................................ 24
5.2 Electricity Sector Context .......................................................................................................... 24
6 LIBERIA ELECTRICITY CORPORATION (LEC) ......................................................................... 26
6.1 Organization .............................................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Corporate assets ....................................................................................................................... 27
6.3 Tariffs ......................................................................................................................................... 27
6.4 Customers connections and types ............................................................................................ 30
6.5 Applied tariffs (as of May 2012) ................................................................................................. 35
7 INITIAL APPROACH AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EU INTERVENTIONS ........................................... 36
8 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION MISSION ............................................................. 38
9 EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................... 42
9.1 Projects selected for the evaluation .......................................................................................... 42
9.1.1 Implementation of the Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation Project ......................................................................... 44
9.1.2 Status of the Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation Project to date ........................................................................... 45
9.2 Approach for data collection ...................................................................................................... 50
9.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 50
9.4 Follow-up of the end-users survey ............................................................................................ 52
9.4.1 Results and findings of the Household End User survey .............................................................................. 52
9.4.2 Results and findings of the Enterprise End User survey ............................................................................... 62
9.4.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 65
9.5 Evaluation Criterions ................................................................................................................. 66
9.5.1 Past evaluations ............................................................................................................................................ 66
9.5.2 Relevance of the EU interventions ................................................................................................................ 67
9.5.3 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................................... 72
9.5.4 Implementation effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 75
9.5.5 Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 77
9.5.6 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................. 78
9.6 Conclusions to the evaluation.................................................................................................... 79
10 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 85
10.1 Approach to Recommendations ................................................................................................ 85
4 Contract 2012/284032
10.2 Current situation of the Electricity Sector .................................................................................. 85
10.2.1 Other Donors interventions and programmes ............................................................................................... 85
10.2.2 Synthesis of donors interventions in the electricity sector ............................................................................. 92
10.2.3 Demand projections ...................................................................................................................................... 94
10.3 Options for future power generation .......................................................................................... 98
10.4 The hydropower potential in Liberia .......................................................................................... 98
10.4.1 General ......................................................................................................................................................... 98
10.4.2 The Mont Coffee project ................................................................................................................................ 98
10.4.3 The Via and St Paul Rivers possible projects ............................................................................................. 100
10.4.4 The Via Reservoir project ............................................................................................................................ 102
10.5 Final recommendations ........................................................................................................... 103
10.5.1 Orientation of EU future interventions ......................................................................................................... 104
10.5.2 Pro-poor approach ...................................................................................................................................... 106
10.5.3 The way forward .......................................................................................................................................... 106
10.5.4 Actions for supporting the Via Reservoir project development ................................................................... 107
10.5.4.1 Sequence of future actions .................................................................................................................... 107
10.5.4.2 Funding arrangements ........................................................................................................................... 108
10.5.4.3 Terms of Reference for Pre-studies and Studies ................................................................................... 108
A. Reconnaissance Study ............................................................................................................................... 108
B. Detailed Feasibility Study of the Via Reservoir Project ............................................................................... 111
11 COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS FURTHER TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT ON JULY
24TH 2012 ......................................................................................................................... 117
12 ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................... 119
12.1 List of persons met during the evaluation ................................................................................ 119
12.2 List of consulted documents and bibliography ........................................................................ 121
12.3 Survey Methodology ................................................................................................................ 126
12.3.1 Data and Document Collection ................................................................................................................... 126
12.3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 127
12.3.3 Schedule for the survey and survey team ................................................................................................... 133
12.3.4 Problems faced during the survey ............................................................................................................... 134
12.4 Survey Data ............................................................................................................................. 135
12.4.1 Household Socio Economic Characteristics ............................................................................................... 135
12.4.2 Energy : household behaviour practices and expenditures ........................................................................ 140
12.4.3 Impacts of electricity on household living conditions perception by customers .......................................... 152
12.4.4 Willingness to get connected to lec grid and affordability ........................................................................... 153
12.4.5 Households expenditures: budget effort by level of income and category of respondents ......................... 154
12.4.6 Advantages and disadvantages of energy source according to its use : respondents key judgments ...... 157
12.5 Household Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 160
12.6 Enterprise Survey Questionnaire............................................................................................. 168
12.7 Attendance list to the presentation of results – July 24th 2012 ................................................ 173
12.8 Slides of the presentation on the 24th of July 2012 at the EU delegation in Monrovia ............ 175
Final Report – August 2012 5
List of figures
Figure 1 : LEC organisation chart 26
Figure 2: Breakdown of Eu funded assets and LEC registered assets 27
Figure 3: Breakdown of customer base - LEC data March 2012 31
Figure 4: Analysis of data from LEC 33
Figure 5: Analysis of data from LEC 33
Figure 6: Analysis of data from LEC 34
Figure 7: Analysis of data from LEC 34
Figure 8 : Map of the survey areas in Greater Monrovia 53
Figure 9 : LEC households : impacts on living conditions 56
Figure 10 LEC customers : advantages of LEC current and service provided 63
Figure 11 : Disadvantages of LEC current and service provided 64
Figure 12: Planned interventions of donors in the electricity sector 94
Figure 13: Evolution of electricity demand : low and high growth scenarios 96
Figure 14: Graph of demand projections 97
Figure 15: Graph of demand projections (log) 97
Figure 16: Via reservoir project 102
Figure 17: World Bank energy mix model up to 2040 103
Figure 18: Impacts of electricity on household living conditions by category of impact 152
Figure 19: Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures 155
Figure 20 : Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures 156
Figure 21: Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures (IPP) 156
Figure 22 : Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures (own generator) 156
Figure 23 : Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures (wo electricity) 157
6 Contract 2012/284032
List of tables
Table 1: Lec customer base............................................................................................................. 30
Table 2: Project log frame ................................................................................................................ 38
Table 3: LEC equipment funded by the EU ..................................................................................... 41
Table 4: Identified EU contracts ....................................................................................................... 42
Table 5: Project Components as of October 2010 .......................................................................... 46
Table 6: Limitations to the evaluation .............................................................................................. 50
Table 7: Household distribution per survey area and per urban pattern ......................................... 52
Table 8: Household monthly total expenditures by category of respondents .................................. 59
Table 9: Household monthly expenditure by category of expenditure ............................................ 60
Table 10: Critical issues from the past evaluation ............................................................................. 66
Table 11: Human Development index ............................................................................................... 68
Table 12: Indicators for doing business ............................................................................................. 68
Table 13: Relevance of the project .................................................................................................... 70
Table 14: Project efficiency ................................................................................................................ 73
Table 15: Project effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 75
Table 16: Project Impacts .................................................................................................................. 77
Table 17: Sustainability ...................................................................................................................... 78
Table 18: Evaluation synthesis .......................................................................................................... 84
Table 19: Norway funded projects ..................................................................................................... 87
Table 20: AFDB projects by sector .................................................................................................... 89
Table 21: Funding of CLSG interconnexion project ........................................................................... 89
Table 22: Synthesis of donor interventions in the electricity sector ................................................... 92
Table 23: Scenarios for future demand up to 2040 ........................................................................... 95
Table 24: Demand projections from various institutions and consultants ......................................... 96
Table 25: IHA principles ................................................................................................................... 105
Table 26: End user survey sample: Households distribution by location and urban pattern ........... 135
Table 27: Households distribution by sex of household head and by location ................................ 135
Table 28: Households distribution by sex of household head and by location (%) ......................... 135
Table 29: Households distribution by marital status of household head and by location ................ 136
Table 30: Households distribution by marital status of household head and by location (%) ......... 136
Table 31: Average Household size by location................................................................................ 136
Table 32: Dwelling Occupation status of household by location .................................................... 137
Table 33: Dwelling Occupation status of household by location (%) .............................................. 137
Table 34: Number of years the household is in the dwelling by location ......................................... 137
Table 35: Type of wall of household dwelling by location ................................................................ 138
Table 36: Type of wall of household dwelling by location (%) ......................................................... 138
Table 37: Type of roof of household dwelling by location ................................................................ 138
Table 38: Type of roof of household dwelling by location (%) ......................................................... 139
Table 39: Main source of drinking water of households by location ................................................ 139
Table 40: Main source of drinking water of households by location ................................................ 139
Table 41: Does your house get electricity (on grid or off grid) ......................................................... 140
Final Report – August 2012 7
Table 42: Does your house get electricity (on grid or off grid) ......................................................... 140
Table 43: Source of electricity of household by location ................................................................. 140
Table 44: Source of electricity of household by location ................................................................. 141
Table 45: Electricity sources : when did your household get this electricity source (s) ................... 141
Table 46: Electricity sources : when did your household get this electricity source (s) ................... 141
Table 47: Satisfaction of customers with the electricity supplier (LEC,IPP) service: ....................... 142
Table 48: :Satisfaction of customers with the electricity supplier (LEC,IPP) service (%): ............... 142
Table 49: LEC Reasons for Satisfaction .......................................................................................... 142
Table 50: LEC Reasons for Satisfaction (%) ................................................................................... 142
Table 51: 142
Table 52: LEC Reasons of Disatisfaction ........................................................................................ 143
Table 53: Reasons of Satisfaction IPP service ................................................................................ 143
Table 54: Reasons of satisfaction IPP service ................................................................................ 143
Table 55: Reasons of Dis satisfaction IPP service .......................................................................... 143
Table 56: Reasons for Dis satisfaction IPP service ......................................................................... 144
Table 57: Usages of Electricity whatever the source (grid or off grid) by order of priority ............... 144
Table 58: Usages of Electricity whatever the source (grid or off grid) by order of priority ............... 144
Table 59: LEC customers : Connection expenditures for customers having paid 50 USD of
connection fees (pre payment meter) ...................................................................................... 145
Table 60: LEC customers Connection expenditures for customers having paid 115 USD of
connection fees (conventional meter) ..................................................................................... 145
Table 61: LEC customers Electricity Monthly expenditure .............................................................. 146
Table 62: LEC customers Average Annual electricity consumption per capita equivalent ............. 146
Table 63: LEC customers : Average Annual electricity consumption per capita and gender of
head of household equivalent.................................................................................................. 146
Table 64: IPP Connection expenditures for customers ................................................................... 147
Table 65: IPP Customer Electricity Monthly expenditure ................................................................ 147
Table 66: IPP Customer Average Estimated Electricity Consumption Per Capita equivalent : ...... 147
Table 67: IPP Customer Estimated annual average electricity consumption per capita : ............... 148
Table 68: Estimated cost paid by IPP customer per kWh ............................................................... 148
Table 69: Average Electricity consumption per capita: household with own generator .................. 149
Table 70: Average Electricity expenditures and cost of kWh of households with own generator ... 149
Table 71: Average Monthly Household and Per capita Electricity expenditure by location ............ 150
Table 72: Respondents without electricity: Average Monthly Household Lighting expenditure by
location .................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 73: Average monthly lighting expenditures (apart electricity spending) by category of
respondents ............................................................................................................................. 151
Table 74: Average monthly cooking spending by category of respondents ................................... 151
Table 75: Monthly household energy spending by category of energy expenditures and by
Quartile .................................................................................................................................... 152
Table 76: Willingness to get connected to LEC grid per category of respondents .......................... 153
Table 77: Willingness to get connected to LEC grid per category of respondents .......................... 153
Table 78: Can you afford the costs – connection, upgrading or new wiring of the house,
miscellaneous .......................................................................................................................... 153
8 Contract 2012/284032
Table 79: Can you afford these costs : connection, upgrading or new wiring of the house,
miscellaneous .......................................................................................................................... 153
Table 80: If credit was available, average monthly affordable payment .......................................... 153
Table 81: Household monthly total expenditures by location .......................................................... 154
Table 82: Household monthly total expenditures by category of respondents ................................ 154
Table 83: Household monthly total expenditures by category of expenditures and by level of
income ..................................................................................................................................... 155
Final Report – August 2012 9
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific
AfDB African Development Bank
AIDCO EuropeAid Cooperation Office
AU African Union
CE Commission européenne
CRIS Common Relex Information Services
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DAC Development Assistance Committee
EC European Commission
ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
EDF European Development Fund
EIB European Investment Bank
EPP Emergency Power Programme
EU European Union
EUR Euro
FA Financing Agreement
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FD Financing Decision
FED Fonds européen de développement (see EDF)
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoL Government of Liberia
GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation)
ha hectare
HDI Human Development Index
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus / Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome
HQ Headquarters
HR Human Resources
HV/MV High Voltage / Medium Voltage
10 Contract 2012/284032
ICB International Competitive Bidding
IDA International Development Assistance
IMF International Monetary Fund
IR Inception Report
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JNA Joint Needs Assessment
KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Financial Cooperation)
km Kilometre
kV Kilo Volt
LBR Liberia
LDC Least Developed Countries
LEC Liberia Electricity Company
LISGIS Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Service
LRDC Liberian Reconstruction and Development Committee
LTTA Long-term Technical Assistance
LWSC Liberia Water and Sewage Company
M Million
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MoF Liberian Ministry of Finance
MPEA Liberian Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs
MT Metric ton
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
N/A Not applicable
NAO National Authorising Officer
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIP National Indicative Programme
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OJ Official Journal of the European Union
OLAS On-line Accounting System
Final Report – August 2012 11
PCRCBP Post Conflict Rehabilitation and Capacity Building Programme
PCRD Post Conflict Rehabilitation and Development
PIA Project Implementation Agreement
PMU Project Management Unit
PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy
ROM Results Oriented Monitoring
SIDA Swedish Development Agency
SMEP Small and Micro-Enterprise Programme
SOE State-Owned Enterprise
SSR Sub-Saharan Region
STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance
TA Technical Assistance
TAP Technical and Administrative Provisions
TF Trust Fund
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia
UNSC United Nations Security Council
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
US$ US Dollar
VRA Volta River Authority
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
12 Contract 2012/284032
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context, Objectives and Scope of the Evaluation
In February 2012 the EU launched an International Competitive Bidding for recruiting under the
Framework Contract procedures consultants for evaluating its funding and corresponding
interventions in the electricity sector in Liberia and to formulate recommendations on its future
interventions. The contract was awarded to MWH (formerly Montgomery Watson Harza) which
started activities in Monrovia on April 11th. The team comprises Mrs Laurence Wilhelm, Socio-
Economist, Mr Roger M. Gaillard, Energy Specialist (Team Leader) and Mr Laurent De Block,
Project Manager. This final reports includes comments and clarifications further to the presentation
of results held on July 24th in Monrovia.
The EC originally committed to an electricity support program in Liberia under the EDF 8 Financing
Agreement of July 13th 2001. This programme was launched in a war and unrest period and its
implementation, without a National Indicative Programme in place was governed by Art.225
emergency procedures of the revised Lomé IV convention. The overall objective was to assist the
reintegration of returnees and displaced population in order to minimize the risk of further conflicts.
Considering the lack of impact of previous interventions, after the war, the EU launched a
management/reorientation study on the electricity supply in Monrovia.
As a result, an important objective of the interventions was to achieve/contribute to poverty
reduction: through the rehabilitation of the electricity grid and providing incentives for private
participation in generation, as well as distribution to end users, it was expected that the majority of
the population from Monrovia could have access to electricity and that as a consequence, the end-
user price would drop significantly.
The ultimate objective of this evaluation pertaining to the above described interventions, in addition
to the judgement through the usual standard criterions applicable, is to formulate motivated
recommendations concerning the best mix of future EU interventions in the energy sector in Liberia.
The general scope of the evaluation mission as stated in the Terms of Reference was threefold:
- Assessment of the impact that the project has made in the life of the
beneficiaries and the communities;
- Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project
interventions;
- Lessons which can be drawn for guiding future EU interventions.
The topics of the general scope are then broken-down in more detailed activities under several
judgment/evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability in
compliance with accepted standards.
Final Report – August 2012 13
Synthesis of Evaluation Findings and Results
The synthesis of the evaluation is illustrated in the following table. Globally, the interventions and
associated results/impacts and outcomes are ranging from Satisfactory to Good. For each criterion,
the most important factor which positively or negatively supported or affected the marking is
introduced in the third column.
A: Excellent B: Good C: Satisfactory D: Poor E:
Unacceptable
Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation
Project
(Institutional Aspects Excluded)
Reintegration for returnees and
displaced people and Post conflict
rehabilitation and capacity building
programmes
Criterion Marking Remarks Marking Remarks
Relevance B
Supporting factors: Project is a
response to a critical and
emergency situation C
Marking under the ROM
performed in 2010
Efficiency B
Supporting factors: High
standard of construction.
Contract at cost reflecting
market risk patterns
Appropriate and proven
technologies.
B
Effectiveness B
Supporting Factors: HT and
MV equipment in operation
Deterrent factors: Connections
to customers through LV
equipment came at the end of
the project
C
Impacts C
Deterrent factor: Connections
to customers were not
included at the beginning of
the project
C
Sustainability A
Supporting factors: High
standard of construction.
Appropriate technologies.
B
Coherence A
Supporting factors: Leading
role of EU. Coordination with
other donors.
Complementarities of
programmes
NA
Consistency B
Supporting factors: End-users
survey shows that the project
satisfies the expectations and
aspirations of population in
various domains
NA
14 Contract 2012/284032
The Liberian Electricity Sector and its Future Development
Contextually and under the current legislation, the Liberia Electricity Corporation is responsible
for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Before the civil crisis, the total
installed electricity capacity of LEC was approximately 191 megawatts (MW), while that of
concessionaires was 212 MW. Today (2012) capacity is less than 30 MW. The key indicator
that translates the tangible results/impacts achieved by the interventions of donors (including
the EU) is the number of customers who are finally connected to the grid as illustrated in the
tables and charts embedded in this report. The global number of connections was 2’403 in
October 2010 (the major part being 1’096 residential and 1’171 commercial) then 5’313 in
October 2011 reaching 5’710 at end of March 2012 with a good stake (1’728) of connexions
through prepaid meters. LEC has a target of 40’000 customers for June 2015.
For the next coming years, the involvements and commitments of donors from the international
community will satisfy the needs in the fields of generation, transportation and
distribution/connections resulting from the expected growth rates of the demand. This statement
is backed-up by the analysis of the assumptions and the various scenarios outlined by various
parties for assessing the future demand. In other words, the sector is “crowded” enough by
financing partners for covering the development of the electricity sector and for satisfying the
demand up to 2020. After this date, new projects in the fields of generation, transport and
distribution will require additional support by LEC, the Government and the donors. The
following graph illustrates the concentration of actions from donors in various projects in the
electricity sector during the period 2012 – 2020.
At short term (until 2015 – 2017) generation capacities allowing to respond to the demand/load
resulting from the new connections (planned to reach 30’000 in Monrovia in 2014 and an
equivalent number in off-LEC grid rural areas) would be mainly thermal plants and the possible
supply through the CLSG interconnection project and the Ivory Coast – Liberia Cross Border
Generation Transport Distribution Connections Rural Electrification Private IPP’s
(Generation)
Time Line (Years)
2008 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025
EU (Monrovia Grid Rehab
project)
EU (Monrovia Grid Rehab
project)
Arcelor Mittal
450 MW
Rubber Wood Plant
36 MW
EU (1'400 units)
EU (Cross Border
project)
USAID (Small IPP’s)
WB (GOBPA) 16'000 Units
CLSG Multidonors (WB, AfDB, BEI,
KfW)
Mount Coffee Rehab.
(Norway, KfW) 64 MW
JICA HFO Plant
10MW MW
LEC Plans
Multi donor ( 5 – 10
MW )
Other Miners (200 MW)
MW from CLSG
Final Report – August 2012 15
project, both implemented under the WAPP. IPP’s essentially running with diesel generators will
also continue to provide electricity to customers not-yet hooked to the national grid. IPP’s are
however an intermediate solution, which had justification during the period when emergency
actions were the privileged alternatives until the national utility can resume its activities. IPP’s
should be gradually decommissioned when reaching their lifespan as long as access to the
national grid for more affordable electricity of better quality (services and reliability) is increased.
On the longer term, given the uncertainties on the trend of fossil fuel costs (oil barrel WTI at US
$104.68 at the date of April 27th, 2012) for the future, but reasonably assuming that they will
continue to increase, it will be legitimate and wise to consider other sources of energy,
preferably of renewable and more environmentally friendly nature, to achieve a better balanced
mix of future generation capacities in Liberia.
Recommendations and the Way Forward
The final recommendations resulting from the evaluation process and the appraisal of the
electricity sector patterns, as detailed in the relevant chapters of the report are based on the
following statements of facts:
i) The future peak demand from the electric system (Monrovia Grid and
interconnections) will realistically range from 40 to 80 MW at the 2017 horizon
and could reach 110 MW, 130 MW and 160 MW at the horizons 2020, 2025 and
2030 respectively.
ii) The model results obtained at the completion of the Liberia Energy Options Study
(WB 2011) indicate that the most economic options for expanding the
interconnected power system at the level of approximately 100MW (the next 8
years) is a mix of hydropower generation composed of the rehabilitation of the
Mt. Coffee hydropower plant, the Saint Paul River development, and possibly the
Mano hydropower project identified in another river basin (belonging to the three
countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea), and an addition of thermal power
produced by diesel power generation, HFO, and the WAPP CLSG regional
interconnection line
iii) The sector is relatively crowded by the international community of donors for
supporting and financing the contemplated new generation capacities with the
corresponding transport, transmission and distribution components up to 2020.
iv) The end-users survey realised under the present evaluation (see below) confirms
the willingness of the majority of the Monrovia population to get connected to the
LEC grid. The majority of the users also confirmed that they are ready to pay for
the connection fees and for the quantity of electricity consumed. This willingness
is mainly motivated by the wish to have electricity of good quality (stability and
continuity of supply is dominating) at an affordable cost. However, given the
patterns of the current consumption, the relatively high poverty level of the
population and the other categories of expenses it has to afford (transport is
frequently the main item of household expenditure); the demand growth will
remain modest. The figure of 100MW of installed capacity for the Monrovia Grid
at the horizon of 2020 is therefore realistic.
16 Contract 2012/284032
v) Preparing and designing hydropower schemes require complex and long studies
and surveys, specifically since the river basins of Liberia have not been object of
investigations during the last two decades because of the wars and conflicts.
vi) On the long term, hydropower could generate energy with the lowest levelized
cost compared to other sources like fossil fuels.
The statements above fully motivate the recommendation that the EU, if it decides to pursue its
support to the Liberia electricity sector, should take the lead in the initiative to develop the
hydropower potential of the St Paul River basin.
Supporting the development of the hydropower potential of the St Paul River is the appropriate
approach when preparing plans for medium and long terms horizons. This is justified by the long
gestation period needed by hydropower projects for preparing necessary surveys, studies and
technical documents in compliance with the recognized standards and good practices of the
industry.
According to preliminary studies (Stanley Consultants), one of the first actions which could make
sense is the creation of a reservoir on the Via River (a confluent to the St Paul River) upstream of
the Mount Coffee hydropower plant. Such a reservoir regulation effect on the river flow would
drastically increase the dependable capacity of the Mount Coffee power plant which is very low,
given the seasonal regime of the St Paul River. Currently (and when rehabilitated), while delivering
nearly its full capacity during the rainy season, the power plant can only deliver less than 10 MW of
power during the dry season. Then by implementing other reservoirs/dams and power plants along
the St Paul River an ultimately fully equipped cascade could assure nearly a yearly average of
2’700 GWh of energy.
It is recommended that this initiative starts with the mobilization of funds to conduct and update
an appraisal of the hydraulic potential of the river, an assessment of the environmental patterns
of the affected area, a diagnosis of exiting and historical data in the sectors of hydrology,
geology, seismicity and in general all domains concerned by large hydropower schemes
projects. The global cost of such a Reconnaissance Study is estimated at 150’000 Euros.
The next action must comprise additional surveys and studies for the preliminary assessment of
the complete cascade, the estimates of costs, the economic computations and the appraisal of
the cumulative impacts that a complete cascade would generate. The global cost of such a
Detailed Feasibility Study is estimated at 2’000’000 Euros. The outlines of the Terms of
Reference for both studies are included in the main report.
In summary, the recommended 2 studies are amounting respectively:
150’000 Euros for the Reconnaissance study
2’000’000 Euros for the detailed feasibility study
At their completion, a set of tender documents for the execution of the project through International
Competitive Bidding will be available. It is recommended that in view of the further implementation
phase and in order to continue its support to the development of renewable energy in Liberia the EU
should earmark additional resources under the EDF 11 envelope.
Such resources would ideally amount to 40 to 60 million Euros for contribution to the capital cost of
the project. They may be utilized in various ways (blending effect through loan interest subsidies,
Final Report – August 2012 17
guarantees, investment, funding TA and construction supervision activities…) the aim being that
they can trigger a leveraging effect for the mobilization of resources from other donors and investors
for a project which is worth several hundred millions dollars (current estimate 220 Millions).
End Users Survey
Aside of the evaluation of the EU interventions, the Consultant was in charge of conducting an
End Users survey for measuring the behaviour patterns (Willingness and Affordability To Pay)
of the Monrovia population towards the access to and the use of electricity. The survey was also
covering some commercial customers.
The broad objective of the survey was to assess the main patterns in behavior, expenses, attitude
towards energy use in various segments of the population, enterprises and institutional services.
More specifically, the aim was to assess:
1. the impacts the access to LEC electricity grid has on the life of the beneficiaries as well in
the communities,
2. the willingness to pay and affordability to get connected to LEC grid of those households and
other units who are not yet connected.
3. the perceptions of the results and achievements of the project (EU funded Grid
Rehabilitation activities) by the beneficiaries and their degree of appropriation.
The Household End Users Survey was conducted in six sites (survey areas) throughout the capital
selected with reference to specific representativity criteria according to the objectives of the survey:
these sites are Stephen Tolbert in Barnersville, New Georgia Estate in the community of the same
name, Neezoe and Police Academy in Paynesville city, Clara Town in Bushrod Island, and
Jallah/Saye Town in Central Monrovia. They cover the three types of urban patterns and land use in
which the majority of the population of Monrovia is concentrated today. The following results and
findings are derived from the interviews of 354 households, as illustrated and summarized in the
following charts.
Survey results for households: Impact of being connected to LEC on living conditions
18 Contract 2012/284032
Survey results for Commercial Customers: Advantages for being connected to LEC
More specific conclusions are the following :
If the tariffs applied by LEC are among the highest in the world (estimated at 0,578
USD/kWh), those applied by small private operators (estimated at 1,2 USD/kWh) or by auto-
production with small generator sets (estimated at 1,9 USD/kWh) are even more exorbitant.
Unfortunately many households and most companies not connected to the LEC grid have no
choice but to pay such tariffs.
The willingness to be connected to the electricity network is very strong among the
households and the small enterprises. The capacity to pay is an important issue for a major
part of the households as well as for small companies. The poor population of the districts in
downtown area and in the peri urban zones however doesn’t have the financial capacity to
pay the first connection and electrical wirings expenses up-front; the decision and strategy to
accelerate the installation pre-payment meters and facilitate access to credit to finance these
costs is essential.
The feeling of satisfaction concerning electricity was dominant among all households
interviewed: 62% of customers are entirely satisfied, 11% are dissatisfied and 27 % mixed.
The reasons for discontent are mostly problems with the quality of service provided by LEC.
For those households equipped with conventional meter, they particularly quote problems of
metering and billing; those equipped with pre paid meters complained wasting time to find
scratch card sellers. The customer service is not yet well developed, especially in the peri
urban areas of Barnersville and Gardnersville. For small enterprises the major problems
raised were the irregularity of current, the outages and their negative impacts on economic
activity.
The geographical targeting - Northern zone of Monrovia and Eastern districts – The
interventions financed by the European Union within the framework of EPP 2 and the
Monrovia Electricity Grid Rehabilitation Project were perfectly relevant as these
neighborhoods comprise the major part of the population of the town of Monrovia. However,
as the low voltage grid has not been developed by other actors as expected, large peri urban
neighborhoods of Paynesville still don’t have access to the grid, even if the rehabilitation
Final Report – August 2012 19
programme of its sub station, initiated during EPP 1 and EPP 2, financed partly by the
European Union, had in its targets to allow the extension of the network in these zones
characterized by a very rapid urbanization. Eventually, the last rider of the Monrovia
Electricity Grid Rehabilitation Project covered the provision for resources for the delivery and
installation of 2’600 prepaid meters in low income neighborhoods, in particular in Jallah
Town and Saye town, located in Central Monrovia. This specifically targeted the final
beneficiaries and thus was very relevant.
.
20 Contract 2012/284032
2 CONTEXT OF THIS REPORT
In February 2012 the EU launched an International Competitive Bidding for recruiting under the
Framework Contract procedures consultants for evaluating its funding and corresponding
interventions in the electricity sector in Liberia and to formulate recommendations on its future
interventions. MWH (formerly Montgomery Watson Harza – www.mwhglobal.com) submitted a
proposal and was awarded the contract for conducting the evaluation.
The team comprises Mrs Laurence Wilhelm, Socio-Economist, Mr Roger M. Gaillard, Energy
Specialist (Team Leader) and Mr Laurent De Block, Project Manager at MWH who assures the
contract administrative and financial management.
The activities started on April 11th with a first mission which lasted till May 15
th 2012 and allowed for
submission of a substantive draft report.
A second mission was held during July 2012 by the Team Leader for the presentation of the results
on July 24th. This final report includes comments and further clarifications resulting from this
presentation.
Final Report – August 2012 21
3 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The EC originally committed to an electricity support program in Liberia under the EDF 8 Financing
Agreement of July 13th 2001. This programme was launched in a war and unrest period and its
implementation, without a National Indicative Programme in place was governed by Art.225
emergency procedures of the revised Lomé IV convention.
In such circumstances, the overall objective was to assist the reintegration of returnees and
displaced population in order to minimize the risk of further conflicts. The obvious aim of improving
access to clean water, sanitation and electricity was to anchor such populations in a better living
environment avoiding them to fall back into unrest and degraded living conditions.
This approach was mainly motivated by the humanitarian and emergency dimensions of the situation
and was therefore fully relevant and pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be addressed at this
point in time. The main aim of the infrastructure component (water and electricity) was to develop the
facilities so that they are eventually managed as autonomous and self-sustainable entities. Under
existing funds (EDF 8) of the Financing Agreement a management study outlining various reform
scenarios was prepared. A strategy focusing on delivering services to the most vulnerable
populations and, at the same time, attracting private sector participation in more commercially viable
parts of the business, was retained as the best suited for sustainable delivery of electricity.
Technical assistance to define the detailed implementation modalities of the strategy, to draft the
new legal framework and to oversee the implementation of rehabilitation works was put in place.
However, delays occurred in the starting of the rehabilitation works and as the Financing Agreement
was to end in March 2006, the remaining time period was too short to proceed to the implementation
of the electricity rehabilitation and reform program. Therefore a new Financing Agreement was
necessary to complete the program using funds from the 9th EDF. One of the main lessons learnt
during this initial period was that since its creation, even if the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC)
had received international funding through technical assistance, management contracts and
investment support to keep it running, it hardly managed to operate in a financially and economically
sustainable manner. Weak management, lack of incentives and poor recovery of operating costs
continued to deteriorate the infrastructure and revenue base, and led to poor performance. During
the war period of 2001-03, the EU supported the electricity sector through technical assistance and
investment support. While the support allowed the company to operate, it did not create a
sustainable business model for the continuous delivery of services once the funding ended. In fact,
electricity supply via the utility halted shortly after the project ended.
Considering the lack of impact of previous interventions, the EU launched after the war a
management/reorientation study on the electricity supply in Monrovia which stated as main issues: i)
Overstaffed inefficient public body, widely subject to political influence ii) Absence of a management
committed to providing a service iii) A very high level of revenue leakage and iv) A total lack of public
funding for rehabilitation. Since LEC stopped providing electricity, independent private producers
were supplying power to neighbourhoods in a sustainable manner. It was therefore obvious that a
new approach was needed with a combination of investment support and revenue generation
opportunities for private producers based on incentives, good governance and private participation.
An important objective of the interventions was to achieve/contribute to poverty reduction: through
the rehabilitation of the electricity grid and providing incentives for private participation in generation,
22 Contract 2012/284032
as well as distribution to end users, it was expected that the majority of the population from Monrovia
could have access to electricity and that as a consequence, the end-user price would drop
significantly. Ultimately, while materialized by equipment (generation, transport, distribution,
metering), works and technical/management services, the EU funds target was the less
commercially viable areas to reach the poorest areas of town where publicly funded provision of
(electricity) service was most needed.
Electricity is a vital input for income generation in the nowadays modern world including on the
African continent; hence the interventions were designed to have positive multiplier effects on
productive activities, employment and economic development, this last also encompassing collateral
aspect like security, education, health and gender as some of the crosscutting objectives. Surveys
and specific studies performed by various institutions members of the UN organization have
demonstrated that in the less developed countries, there is a close correlation (no causation)
between the per-capita average yearly electricity consumption and the progress of some of the
Human Development Indexes like infant mortality rate, access rate to safe drinking water, life
expectancy and literacy rate. Results of surveys performed on countries which have gone through
the development sequence from less developed to emerging countries, show that when the per-
capita consumption reaches 1’000 kWh per year (approximately 60% of the world population have
less and average in Sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 400 kWh), when people have only risen
above desperate poverty to a stable if rudimentary standard of living, the literacy rate increases to
50% and the rate of access to safe drinking water to nearly 40%. When reaching the threshold of
2’000 kWh per year, which is close to the world average, and relates to a society that is a mix of
modern technological dynamism and traditional agricultural life, the same indicators increase to 85%
and 90% respectively.
The ultimate objective of this evaluation, in addition to the judgement through the usual standard
criterions applicable, is to formulate motivated recommendations concerning the best mix of future
EU interventions in the energy sector in Liberia.
Final Report – August 2012 23
4 BRIEF COUNTRY CONTEXT
Liberia covers an area of 111’369 sq.km and has currently a population of 3’887’886. It has
boundaries with Guinea 563 km, Cote d'Ivoire 716 km, Sierra Leone 306 km and a coast line of 579
km. Its GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) was estimated at US$ 1’836 billion for 2011. GDP growth
was estimated at 6.9% in 2011, a constant increase from 5.6% in 2010 and 4.6% in 2009. Current
impediments to growth include a small domestic market, lack of adequate infrastructure, high
transportation costs, poor trade links with neighbouring countries and the high dollarization of the
economy. Liberia used the United States dollar as its currency from 1943 until 1982 and continues to
use the U.S. dollar alongside the Liberian dollar. Liberia is a low income country heavily reliant on
foreign assistance for revenue. Civil war and government mismanagement destroyed much of
Liberia's economy, especially the infrastructure in and around the capital, Monrovia. Liberia has the
distinction of having the highest ratio of direct foreign investment to GDP in the world. Richly
endowed with water, mineral resources, forests, and a climate favourable to agriculture, Liberia has
been a producer and exporter of basic products, primarily raw timber and rubber and is reviving
those sectors. Local manufacturing, mainly foreign owned, has been small in scope.
Re-elected president in 2011, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has taken steps to reduce corruption, build
support from international donors, and encourage private investment. Embargos on timber and
diamond exports have been lifted, opening new sources of revenue for the government. The country
reached its Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative completion point in 2010 and nearly $5 billion
of international debt was permanently eliminated. This new status will enable Liberia to establish a
sovereign credit rating and issue bonds. Liberia's Paris Club creditors agreed to cancel Liberia's debt
as well. Rebuilding infrastructure and raising incomes will depend on generous financial and
technical assistance from donor countries and foreign investment in key sectors, such as
infrastructure and power generation providing that the institutional framework is conducive enough.
Since 2006, Liberia has made noticeable progress in the areas of political rights, civil liberties, and
freedom of the press. Liberia is ranked 20th out of 53 African countries in the 2010 Mo Ibrahim index
of Participation and Human Rights. Despite the opposition-led Legislature, the Government has
been successful in implementing significant reforms. Furthermore, the Government has been
promoting national healing and national unity through, for example, the establishment of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, as well as through “inclusive governance” to ensure that all
ethnicities have voice and representation. The security situation is generally stable albeit fragile and
vulnerable to political instability in the region, with a sizeable United Nations (UN) peace-keeping
force of more than ten thousand soldiers and police remaining on the ground until at least
September 2012.
Liberia has made also significant progress in achieving post-conflict economic stabilization and its
development agenda as set in the PRS paper. The long-term vision currently being developed by the
country is to attain middle-income status by the year 2030. Despite the global financial crisis has
also adversely impacted Liberia’s economic performance particularly in 2009, slowing economic
growth, reducing employment in the rubber sector, and delaying investments in iron ore mining the
economy has performed well during 2008-2010 with real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth
rates averaging close to 6.0%, though much lower than the double-digit growth rates envisaged
under the PRS.
24 Contract 2012/284032
5 SECTOR CONTEXT
5.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE SECTOR POLICY
The EU interventions in the electricity sector in Liberia were initiated when the Result-Focused
Transition Framework (RFTF) of 2003, based on the Joint Needs assessment undertaken by the
United Nations (UN) and the WB under the guidance of the National Transitional Government of
Liberia (NTGL), stipulated the relief and recovery development actions for Liberia. One of the nine
sector clusters addressed was Infrastructure that includes power. The NTGL has empowered a
Special Executive Committee on Electricity (SECE) to launch, coordinate, and supervise a sector
reform process. While the NTGL through SECE has endorsed the EC proposed strategy through a
Memorandum of Understanding signed on November 23rd
, 2004, it had not at this stage issued a
holistic sector policy statement addressing electricity sector reform in general and the provision of
electricity throughout the country.
At the date of end 2004 a sector approach was not feasible since none of the defining components
were in place. There was no overall strategic framework for the country's development (a Poverty
Reduction Strategy was to be prepared with the assistance of the IMF). There were no sector policy
document adopted by the government and there was no medium term expenditure framework in
place. Moreover, the country was still in a crisis situation, in transition from humanitarian to
development assistance and under Art.255 emergency procedures. Hence a project approach was
chosen to best address urgent needs on the ground, while also working with the national
counterparts in defining a sector policy and a new legal and regulatory framework.
5.2 ELECTRICITY SECTOR CONTEXT
The most critical infrastructure gap in Liberia now is in the power/electricity sector. The wars left the
electricity system in Liberia in extremely bad conditions; the grid was destroyed and there was no
publicly provided power at all by the late 1990s. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement, reached in
2003, had ended 14 years of civil war, but the deleterious effects of this conflict had forced the
Liberian Electricity Corporation (LEC) to stop generating electricity a year later. It is only in
September 2006 that with the donation of a 1 MW generator for Krutown sub-station with the
assistance of the Volta River Authority (VRA) - Ghana’s utility, LEC resumed delivery of commercial
electricity service to downtown Monrovia.
A the same period, the European Commission (EC), the World Bank, and the US Government
(USG) were already conducting infrastructure projects in water and roads in Liberia, and showed
interest in cooperating on power. Beginning discussions in February of 2006, this group signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Liberia at the end of March, initiating the
Emergency Power Program (EPP). The Government of Liberia (GOL) provided sites, supply support,
and administrative budget for the Liberian Electricity Corporation (LEC). The EC’s funding
contribution was for the purchase of generators and construction of distribution networks. This
construction was actually carried out by VRA, under a contract with the EC.
Based on the very early results of the EPP in Liberia, the government of Norway decided to grant
$7.8 million for further emergency generation in Monrovia. The original donors – the EC, the World
Bank, and the US and now Norway formed a new coalition with the government of Liberia in
Final Report – August 2012 25
December 2006. This new program, named EPP II was totalling $25 million of aid, including $1.8
million of in-kind and budget support from the government of Liberia.
This emergency assistance financed by the above group of several donors allowed increasing
capacity incrementally to 13.8 MW in early 2010 and then to 22.6MW by March 2011. The data
available in the various reports issued at that period were stating that the cost of generation was
about US$ 0.32/kWh (World Bank, Afteg 2011); this should be compared with average generation
costs in Africa of US $0.18/kWh (World Bank AICD 2009). To date (April – May 2012), the
Management Board of LEC has maintained the rate of US $ 0.54 per kWh. Generation capacity will
need to be increased in small increments as new connections are installed – ideally, perhaps 5MW
for each increment. Studies have been carried out to determine the optimal plan for increasing
capacity. Highly simplified, the main conclusions of these studies as prospective trend are as
follows:
- In the immediate future, diesel will remain the main source of additional capacity – at a
levelized cost of about US0.32/kWh nevertheless subject to the price fluctuation -
increase – of oil on the international market.
- As soon as the supply of heavy fuel oil (HFO) can be re-established units using HFO will
be preferred (2x5 MW HFO Generators announced to be funded by JICA). The
benchmark levelized cost of this source of power has been estimated at US$ 0.16/kWh.
- Starting around 2015–2016, two new sources should be available and would play a large
role: i) Power supplied by the West Africa Power Pool (WAPP) through a transmission
line interconnection between Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea (CLSG)
should be one of the feasible alternatives. The expected cost ranges from US$0.11 to
0.17 per kWh, depending on the mix of supply from Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire,
respectively (with Guinean supply expected to come on stream only sometime after
2020) ii) Hydropower from Mount Coffee (see section on Mt. Coffee) – levelized cost of
phase one estimated at US$ 0.10/kWh.
- In the longer term (beginning, say, in 2020), there could be substantial further potential in
Liberia from hydropower. There are no recent studies, but based on studies carried out in
the 1970s and 1980s, there is great potential for both large and small hydropower plants.
But there is considerable uncertainty over what the cost would be (depending on the
project structure and the associated costs for collateral infrastructures like access roads,
long HV evacuation lines) and how it would compare with other sources.
- IPPs around Monrovia, Bio fuel plants – e.g., wood-fired – may also be an optimal choice
for the longer term. Studies are needed to explore this further.
26 Contract 2012/284032
6 LIBERIA ELECTRICITY CORPORATION (LEC)
Under the current legislation, the Liberia Electricity Corporation is responsible for the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity. More precisely, LEC has the legal mandate to “engage in
the development, generation and transmission of electrical energy, the manufacture, construction
and installation of electrical equipment and devices related thereto, and the distribution and sale of
said electrical energy and related electrical equipment and devices, to cities, towns and the public in
general for heating, lighting, and power purposes.” The ownership of LEC restricted to the
Government, which did not have the ability to provide enough capital to enable the utility to
discharge its mandate fully deprived the corporation to extend services to the majority of the
population as dictated by the policy established in 2009
Before the civil crisis, the total installed electricity capacity of the LEC was approximately 191
megawatts (MW), while that of concessionaires was 212 MW. Outside Monrovia there were three
radial lines extending into the countryside and 11 small off-grid power systems operated by LEC to
supply electricity to cities and towns located along the coast and in rural areas. The installed
capacity of the rural electrification program was 13 MW and distribution lines stretched 90 miles, with
an additional 26 miles of low-voltage service lines. The small isolated rural systems were powered
by plants ranging from 300 kilowatts (kW) to 1300 kW. There is no generation capacity outside of
Monrovia beyond privately-owned generators and scattered donor-funded pilot projects. A number of
Government agencies, community organizations and private sector establishments in rural locations
in several counties have been able to receive diesel generators and solar power systems through
USAID, the United Nations Development Programme, and some NGOs.
6.1 ORGANIZATION
The Liberia Electricity Corporation organization is illustrated in the chart below. Under the
Management Contract, this organization is likely to evolve and change to adapt to circumstances
and match with the objectives and challenges resulting from the agreed development and
investment plans.
Figure 1 : LEC organisation chart
Final Report – August 2012 27
Breakdown EU funded assets (US $ 32.539
Million)
Transmission
Lines
23.92%
Distribution Lines
14.78%
Transformers
37.20%
Poles
4.42%
Connections
3.95%
Generators
6.24%
Sub stations
0.83%
SI Generators
8.33%
S & I
0.24%
M eters
0.09%
6.2 CORPORATE ASSETS
Further to the implementation of the management contract, LEC finance department established the
registry of all assets of the company starting from the years 2005 for the furniture and buildings and
2009 for the electrical components. The small data base that they have built shows that the whole
assets are valued in 2011 at US $ 67.280 Million. The assets corresponding to equipment and
supplies funded by the EU are totalling US $ 32.539 million or 48.36 % of the company registered
assets, the rest having been funded by other donors (USAID, Norway) and the corporation itself.
This significant percentage illustrates the strong and continuous engagement of the EU in the
Liberian electricity sector since 2006. The breakdown of the EU funded assets shows that the main
part was for Transformers (37.2%), Transmission lines (23.92%) and Distribution lines (14.72%).
The rest (24.16%) is covering equipment like generators, poles, connections and meters, safety and
information systems associated to generators and substations. The charts below illustrate the EU
funded significant part of the LEC current registered assets.
Figure 2: Breakdown of EU funded assets and LEC registered assets
6.3 TARIFFS
Under the covenants /clauses of the Management Contract, LEC must define an approach to a Tariff
Model for guiding its commercial strategy for the years to come. LEC has therefore proposed to
retain a flat rate tariff based on the revenue requirements calculation of the Average Retail Tariff
defined in the relevant clause of the Management Contract. However some adjustments were
introduced to account for current realities.
Large stable regulated utilities with a long history of customer behaviour and a wealth of reliable load
and cost data can implement recognized good practice for the setting of their tariffs. This is obviously
not the situation prevailing at LEC which is just emerging from years of poorly managed operations.
Computations of cost-reflecting tariffs are complex and require detailed analysis of large amounts of
reliable data.
LEC Registered Asset (2011)
32'540 34'740
67'280
0
20'000
40'000
60'000
80'000
Total Funded by EU Not Funded by EU Total Registered
assets (2011)
Th
ou
san
ds
Assets
US
$
28 Contract 2012/284032
The standard sequence of actions/measures for preparing the adequate conditions for cost-reflective
tariffs that good practice recommends to follow are:
1. Development of a detailed asset register (Finally established and audited in 2011)
2. Computation of per kW (capacity) and per kWh (energy) costs associated with each asset
class
3. Analysis of records on properly segmented operating and maintenance, administration and
customer service costs and their separation into fixed and variable components
4. Allocation of those costs to per kW and per kWh categories, or in the case of customer
service to numbers of customers
5. Computation of a total revenue requirement to cover all the identified costs – including an
allowable return on the fixed asset base
6. Allocation of all these costs to individual customer classes
However, given that LEC has a very limited asset base (total worth US $ 67 million), has not the
capacity to finance new assets (which would only develop under donor’s grants arrangements) and
is pushed to aggressively connect low-income customers, a proper cost of service analysis is not
relevant. Instead, LEC needs a more practical approach suitable for a small utility, based on a
simplified revenue requirements approach targeting near full cost recovery and effectively near
breakeven operations on an accounting basis.
The proposed adopted tariff policy recognizes that this is very unusual in a developing country
situation where tariffs are typically set more on a combination of affordability considerations and
social, economic and often political considerations. However it is certainly prudent as it gives LEC a
much greater chance of quickly achieving financial sustainability, and it takes into account the
inability of the Government of Liberia to support LEC with large subsidies. LEC supports this
approach as both rational and practical and the proposed Tariff Calculation is based on such
considerations. As a result of these given existing fundamentals LEC concluded that for the time
being, it would be not feasible to apply tariffs derived from cost allocation based on economic
principles with different prices by voltage level and consumption pattern. Therefore, LEC proposes in
the interim (at least until end of 2012) to maintain the system of flat rate tariffs with an additional fuel
cost (being the major part of the production cost) adjustment being passed through to the consumer.
Differentiated tariffs will certainly be considered when lower cost non-petroleum (hydropower,
interconnections with sub-region network) generation becomes available.
The methodology retained within the frame of the Management Contract stipulates that the Average
Retail Tariff is the sum of six components expressed in $US/kWh:
1. Value added on distribution (VAD) – that comprises all LEC costs except generation costs
defined in 2. below
2. plus the cost of generation delivered at the busbar – in the case of LEC currently generating
all its own power, comprising fuel, O&M and depreciation of generation assets, and in the
case of power purchases from an IPP any associated capacity and energy payments
3. plus any applicable taxes – assumed to mean any taxes that are not collected and remitted
to the Government like GST (Gross Sales Tax)
4. plus other extraordinary costs
5. less any subsidy received by LEC
6. plus a reserve for capital investment of 0% of revenues in year 1, 2% in year 2, and 4%
thereafter
Final Report – August 2012 29
The Average Retail Tariff was set contractually at $0.42/kWh (when the fuel price is at US $2.83 per
gallon) at the commencement of the MC and is required to be adjusted quarterly, thirty days in
advance, at least by the following factors:
1. the fuel component of the generation cost by international fuel price benchmarks defined in
Schedule 5 of the MC
2. the VAD for changes in LEC’s (presumably) distribution O&M costs, reductions in losses
(presumably both technical and non-technical and cash collections), and Liberian inflation
A separate note for a Request for Change in Methodology concerning the Fuel Price Adjustment,
justified by the market price volatility/increase was introduced recommending the following changes
to the fuel component of generation in order to minimize LEC’s exposure to changes in fuel price:
1. monthly, instead of quarterly adjustment
2. adjustment based on actual delivered fuel price to LEC, not on international benchmarks
3. no Board approval required for the monthly adjustment as it is fixed by a simple formula
Other clarifications/adjustments relating to depreciation principles, allocations of cost of losses etc…
are under discussion for “fine-tuning” the methodology for tariff setting.
The tariff policy proposed by LEC stated that it is now appropriate (mid 2012) to update the Average
Retail Tariff Calculation methodology, and establish a Standard Operating Procedure for Tariff
Calculation, making it fully transparent so that both the source data and the build-up of the final tariff
is clear, incorporating explicitly the requirements of the MC, and addressing any ambiguities.
30 Contract 2012/284032
6.4 CUSTOMERS CONNECTIONS AND TYPES
The key indicator that will translate the tangible results/impacts achieved is the number of customers
who are finally connected to the grid. It was not easy for the evaluation team to obtain reliable data
on the evolution of the customer base for the last years and specifically before the entering into force
of the Management Contract in July 2010. What appeared through various available reports and
documents shows that the global number of connections was 2’403 in October 2010 (the major part
being 1’096 residential and 1’171 commercial) then 5’313 in October 2011. Thus concurs with the
LEC reports stating that the target of 5’000 customers will be reached even before august 2012 in its
Quarterly Progress Report for the period December 2011 to March 31, 2012 – May 1st 2012 which
reflects the most updated situation of the corporation activities. Data are reported in the following
table.
Table 1: Lec customer base
Year 2011 Year 2012
Number of Customers Months Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
Total customers previous month 4'659 4'965 5'079 5'158 5'313 5'414 5'446 5'398 5'604
New Connections 309 117 99 198 104 42 13 198 104
Disconnections -74 -35 -56 -64 -49 -53 -100 -62 -46
Reconnections 71 31 37 21 46 43 39 70 48
Total Connections at End Month 4'965 5'078 5'159 5'313 5'414 5'446 5'398 5'604 5'710
Customer Breakdown
Residential 2'581 2'650 2'692 2'854 2'927 2'948 2'711 2'645 2'183
Commercial 2'141 2'181 2'219 2'213 2'239 2'252 2'073 1'888 1'635
Government of Liberia 104 108 110 109 110 112 114 117 118
Non-Governmental Organisations 35 35 34 36 36 34 34 33 30
Public Corporations 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
LEC 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Tax exempt 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Prepay Customers 89 89 87 85 86 84 450 905 1'728
At the date of March 2012, the total number of customers is 5’710 with the break down as per the
attached table and the corresponding graphs. The number of prepay customers has been multiplied
by 4 from the beginning of 2012.
Final Report – August 2012 31
Figure 3: Breakdown of customer base - LEC data March 2012
Analysing the data and their graphic illustration, the following comments can be made. However
taking into account that the size of the data bank and the number of registered parameters are still
relatively modest, corresponding to only a few months of records, it is not possible to derive clear
trends or projections and the following observations and conclusions must be considered with
caution.
1. Growth Rate of the Customer Base
The highest growth rate of connection was recorded during the period October 2010 –
October 2011 (12 Months) at 242 new connected customers per month. However, the
average rate decreased down to 194 per month when considering the overall period October
2010 – March 2012 (17 months). Over the last 7 months July 2011 – March 2012, the
average rate was only 82 new connections per month, with a noticeable low figure in
December 2011 and January 2012. A reasonable average figure of 150 to 200 new
customers/connections per month was the actual rate these recent years. This very far from
the figures of 720 or 950 connections per month for 38 months needed for achieving the
targets of respectively 32’000 or 40’000 customers at the date of June 2015. The actual rate
for the near future will strongly depend on the working force, staff and equipment that LEC
can mobilize and operationally on the prudent approach required concerning the
management of demand/load versus the available actual generation capacity.
2. Growth Rate of Prepay Customers
When analysing the evolution of the Prepay Customers during the same time patterns, their
total number remained unchanged at approx. 87 until January 2012, when their cumulative
number rocketed at 450. Then their number was doubled every month for reaching the total
of 1’728 in March 2012. This focus by LEC on the installation of new prepaid meters can
explain the low growth rate of “purely” new customers during the same period.
3. Evolution of Breakdown per category
Breakdown per Category of Customers
Commercial
28.63%
LEC
0.14%
Goverment of
Liberia
0.021
Tax exempt
0.04%
Non Govermental
Organisations
0.53%
Residential
38.23%
Prepay Customers
30.26%Public Corporations
0.11%
32 Contract 2012/284032
The data provided by LEC (Management Contract monthly report) show that the changes in
the breakdown patterns of the customers’ base mainly occurred in the repartition between
Residential and Commercial customers. Both their number decreased. However at the same
time the number of prepay customers increased approximately by the same number,
obviously corresponding to the changes effected by replacing conventional meters by
prepaid meters.
4. Evolution of revenues (billed kWh) per main categories of customers
Since the beginning of 2012, the part of revenues billed for prepay customers has
significantly increased against a decrease of revenues from “traditional” residential and
commercial customers, thus corresponding to the increase of the number of customers
equipped with prepaid meters. As the available data are not detailing the repartition of new
prepay customers between the residential and commercial categories, it is not possible to
draw conclusions concerning the evolution of customers of the low income type.
Nevertheless the following paragraph intends to draw at least a qualitative conclusion on the
evolution of the customer base towards more customers of the low income type.
5. Evolution of customers of low income type
This type of customers is certainly embedded in the residential category. Given the fact that
the decrease of residential customers with conventional meters was sharper than the
decrease of commercial customers also with conventional meters, it can be reasonably
concluded that the switch from conventional meters to prepaid meters was oriented towards
residential customers. Given that the prepaid customers have an average monthly
consumption of approximately 50% of residential customers with conventional meters or 25%
of commercial customers with conventional meters, and with observing that the number of
prepay customers has nearly doubled two times (multiplied by approx. 4) between January
and March 2012 (450 to 905 up to 1’728) the fact that the average unit and total consumption
of prepay customers has not progressed at the same pace inclines to conclude that the
major part of the “new” prepaid customers are of the low income class. Despite this
assessment has to be cautiously taken, this deserves to be pointed out as reflecting the
materialization of one important objective of the donors’ interventions, including the EU– in
line with the government policy – which was to provide access to the poorest.
6. Commercial customers
The number of commercial customers remained stable for several years. It has decreased
during the first 2012 quarter certainly due to connections which have been transformed for
prepaid meters. Their average monthly consumption as well as the revenues generated for
this category of customer has not shown dramatic changes allowing to observe a trend. The
reasonable conclusion is that the stability of the characteristics for this type of consumers
translates also the stability of the sector. In other words, commercial activities are neither
dynamic nor declining.
Final Report – August 2012 33
Figure 4: Analysis of data from LEC
Figure 5: Analysis of data from LEC
Evolution of the Customers'base per category
0
500
1'000
1'500
2'000
2'500
3'000
3'500
Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
Months
Nu
mb
er o
f C
ust
om
ers
Residential Commercial Prepay Customers
Customers Number /Prepaid Customers
89 89 87 85 86 84 450
905
1'7284'965
5'0785'159
5'3135'414 5'446
5'398
5'6045'710
0
500
1'000
1'500
2'000
Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
Months
Nu
mb
er
of
Pre
paid
Cu
sto
mers
4'400
4'600
4'800
5'000
5'200
5'400
5'600
5'800
To
tal
nu
mb
er
of
Cu
sto
mers
Prepaid Customers Total Connections at End Month
34 Contract 2012/284032
Figure 6: Analysis of data from LEC
Figure 7: Analysis of data from LEC
Billed kWh Breakdown per main customers
(March 2012)
Prepay Customers
10.96%
Commercial
38.11%
Residential
26.70%
Goverment of
Liberia
24.23%
Residential Commercial Goverment of Liberia Prepay Customers
Breakdown of billed kWh per main categories of customers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
Months
0
500'000
1'000'000
1'500'000
2'000'000
2'500'000
US
$
Residential Commercial Goverment of Liberia Prepay Customers Total
Final Report – August 2012 35
6.5 APPLIED TARIFFS (AS OF MAY 2012)
For the quarter 3, the tariff calculated under the new tariff model was reviewed by the Board of
Directors who decided to leave the tariff unaltered at 0.54 US$/kWh. Fuel prices during the quarter
increased once again by 11 cents per gallon from 4.20 to 4.31 US$/Gallon. Although this increase
can legitimately be passed through into the tariff, given the low affordability of the tariff by the
customers, the Board opted not to do this. It was decided instead that a presentation to the
Honourable President of Liberia will be made to request a special privilege for LEC waiving ALL
government taxes and duties on fuel in order to mitigate the impacts on the final tariffs. Globally,
LEC reports normal progress on the fronts of the various actions and projects under its
responsibility. On the aspects of human resources and training, LEC reports that delays occurred in
the implementation of training activities due to changes in the origination of funds. This aspect is of
prime importance as there is a close correlation between the availability of appropriate skilled
personnel and the achievement of activities planned for the continuation of substantive progress in
the quality of services by the utility. This is particularly true as far as establishment of new
connections to new customers is concerned.
The number of new connected customers is the ultimate indicator for all donors for measuring the
impacts and outcomes of their respective supports to the sector. The EU funding was mainly
allocated for HV and MV parts of the electrical system. In spite they are necessary links of the
electricity supply chain, investments towards this specific equipment obtain the maximum of their
added value when LV systems and electricity supply to customers are materialized. In this regard, it
is strongly suitable that LEC regularly reports on the progression of the connected customers’ base
so that appropriate corrective actions can be implemented timely when delays are observed in the
achievement of planned targets.
On the side of power generation, the peak load was 8.6MW essentially the same as in February
2012 and Fuel efficiency remained the same as last month at 12.8kWh/US gallon. (Equivalent to
0.2957 litres per kWh or approx. 247 grams of fuel per kWh assuming a density of 835 grams per
litre).
On financial aspects, the Monthly Status Report for March 2012 submitted by LEC, states that
revenues were $1,672k for the sale of 3.16GWh (Slightly lower than the February output of 3.27
GWh), thus corresponding to an average revenue of US $ 0.529 per kWh. Total monthly losses after
adjustments also increased from 22.7% to 27.1% in March. 104 new customers were energized in
March bringing the year to date total to 1,184. With connection materials finally on site, contractors
mobilized and placement of poles in the seven targeted low-income communities progressed well.
36 Contract 2012/284032
7 INITIAL APPROACH AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EU INTERVENTIONS
The Government of Liberia has neither the funds nor the capacity to implement a sector reform
program without international assistance. The EC has taken the lead in the water and electricity
sector given its comparative advantage due to its historic presence in these sectors in Liberia.
However, it was clear that other donors will need to come forward if a more holistic sector strategy
was to be implemented. The WB financed a sector assessment but decided not to finance
rehabilitation.
At the formulation phase of the project (Year 2003) the main stakeholders were the Government
through its duly empowered Special Executive Committee on Electricity (SECE) and the Ministry of
Lands, Mines and Energy; the future regulatory body; the Liberian Electricity Company (LEC) that
provided electricity in the past; future private electricity producers, transmitters and distributors;
businesses and public bodies based in Monrovia, as well as the population of the city. The primary
target group comprises people living in the poorest areas of Monrovia who will benefit from provision
of services in their neighbourhoods at more affordable prices due to the EU funded infrastructure.
Businesses throughout the city will see their overhead charges decrease due to lower electricity
prices. It was also expected that electricity producers, transmitters and distributors connecting to the
publicly funded parts of the networks will be able to charge prices allowing them a reasonable rate of
return on their investments.
The policy and strategy were retaining compulsory advance payment of metered electricity at each
level to ensure that customers as well as distribution concessionaires have direct financial interest to
keep revenue leakage and loss levels as low as possible. It was envisaged that concessions would
be competitively awarded. Former management and employees of the utility were a potential source
of staff and expertise and well placed to provide their services to concessionaires. Should these
arrangements successfully materialize, the Government would enjoy both improved infrastructure
and financial benefits through royalties and concession renewal fees. Such funds can then be used
to subsidise disadvantaged populations and/or extend service to remote and rural areas. SECE had
the responsibility to oversee the reform process, while the Ministry may take action in policy matters.
The creation of a new regulator was to be set up to oversee the newly privatised and liberalised
sector.
At the time of the design of the interventions (Year 2003) consumers and business were facing very
limited supply of electricity at very high prices. This situation, despite noticeable improvements, still
prevails to date, mainly due to the lack of service provision through the electricity grid in the city.
Instead, where available, power is provided by privately owned generators and resold at inflated
prices to “captive” customers. The causes of the situation are multiple as shown by the management
study performed at the initiation of the project. First of all the war, lack of maintenance and looting
have damaged most of the generation, high and medium voltage electricity transmission network, as
well as the distribution network in the city. Second, even in peaceful times, the state-owned public
utility LEC suffered from poor management, over staffing, lack of funding and high revenue leakage.
It operated at loss despite a series of fund injections by international donors. Third, no incentives
and monitoring structures were in place to prevent electricity theft at the lower levels of the networks
(customers connecting to neighbours grid etc.) which further exuberated the financial difficulties of
the operator. Finally, policy, regulation and operations rested in the same body, namely LEC, which
led to political influence and conflicts of interests.
Final Report – August 2012 37
The overall objective guiding the intervention is to reduce poverty through improved living conditions
and an environment conducive to economic growth. Electricity is a basic need for the population and
an essential input for businesses; hence the purpose of the project is to give access to the
population and business of Monrovia to more affordable electricity. The project goals were to be
achieved primarily through investment into restoring electricity transmission. In addition, secondary
activities were to provide technical assistance to enable the liberalisation and privatisation of the
sector.
38 Contract 2012/284032
8 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION MISSION
The general scope of the evaluation mission as stated in the Terms of Reference is threefold:
- Assessment of the impact that the project has made in the life of the beneficiaries and
the communities
- Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project interventions
- Lessons which can be drawn for guiding future EU interventions.
The topics of the general scope are then broken-down in more detailed activities under several
judgment/evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability in
compliance with accepted standards as they are retained by the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) of the OECD, (Quality Standards for Development Evaluation -) the
Commission of the European Communities having taken part in the work of the OECD for the
establishment of these standards.
The basic synthetic document which initially fixed the intended objectives, expected impacts outputs
and outcomes of the project is the log frame established at the preparation stage. However, worth to
note that intervention logic is defined as a set of hypothetical cause and effect linkages that describe
how an intervention is expected to attain its global objectives. These causes and effects are fair
assumptions at the time of conceiving the intervention.
The project log frame is reproduced hereafter. This is the most updated available version which
incorporate the amendments which were introduced as a result of long delays in the launching of the
project as well as riders (addendum) issued for overall budget adjustments/increases. Broadly said,
the overall objective of the project to improve living conditions of the population (more customers
connected to the national grid) and the project purpose to give access to the population and
business in Monrovia, have only started to materialize at the end of 2011 with today (April – May
2012) first measurable results. This is not to state that the project has failed, but the project scope
itself as well as particular circumstances along the project implementation process are plausible
reasons for this deviation. The current evaluation objective is also to provide explanations and when
pertinent, fair justifications.
Table 2: Project log frame
Project description Indicators Verification Assumptions
Overall Objective:
Poverty reduction
through improved
living conditions and
environment
conducive to growth
Improved living
conditions
Improved safety
Increased business
activities in the
sector and else
Increased job levels
in the sector and
else
Human development
indicators
Number of crimes
reported during night
Business registry and
tax statistics
National employment
statistics
Project Purpose:
Give access to the
population and
Coverage increases
from <10% of
population having
Inspection of network
coverage in a
representative sample of
Peace and stability
Final Report – August 2012 39
Project description Indicators Verification Assumptions
business of Monrovia
to more affordable
electricity
access to electricity
to at least 50%
Average of business
and consumer end-
user price drops by
at least 30%
areas
Business and consumer
price benchmarks
throughout the city
Project Results:
Direct results:
High Voltage
transmission electricity
grid rehabilitated
Mixed-ownership
holding company set
up for transmission
network ownership
Medium Voltage
distribution grid
rehabilitated in
Paynesville, Congo-
town and Sinkor
Improved revenue and
expenditure
management
Indirect results:
Private concession(s)
for generation
awarded
A company recruited
to operate the High
Voltage transmission
grid
Private concession for
distribution
concessions awarded
Legal and regulatory
framework for
liberalisation
completed
Sector regulator set up
Final acceptance of
works for
transmission and
distribution grid
Holding company
owning transmission
network
incorporated
Tenders held and
contracts signed
with generation and
distribution
concessionaires
Tender held and
contract signed with
a company to
operate
transmission grid
Adoption of
electricity law and
secondary
legislation
Completion report and
authorisation for final
payment under works
contract
Registration document
of company
Contract document with
generation and
distribution
concessionaires
Contract document with
transmission operating
company
Governance
environment permits
for continuous
spending of EC
funds
EC funded assets
are protected from
looting and asset
stripping
Concessions and
other contract
awarded in a
transparent and
competitive manner
Input prices such as
fuel remain stable
allowing for
sufficient operating
margin
Improved revenue
collection (less
funds diversion) due
to improved mgmt.
Competitive
environment allows
for efficiencies to be
passed on to
consumers
New government
has sufficient
capacity to oversee
liberalisation and
40 Contract 2012/284032
Project description Indicators Verification Assumptions
privatisation process
Project Activities:
Primary Activity:
Investment into the
rehabilitation of the
electricity grid
a) Works
b) Supervision of
works
Investment in High
Voltage transmission
in the entire city
Investment in Medium
Voltage distribution in
up to 6 areas
Secondary Activity:
Institutional and
logistical support
a) Institutional
support and studies
enabling sector
reform
b) Logistical support:
TA for finalisation of
legal and regulatory
framework
TA for launching the
award of concession
contracts
Project Evaluation and
Audit
Input and Budget:
EUR 13 million:
Works contract
EUR 0.2 million:
Technical
Assistance
EUR 0.2 million:
Programme
Estimate (private
indirect
decentralised
operations)
EUR 0.2 million:
evaluation
EUR 0.2 million:
audit
Award of work contract
by 03/2006 (under
suspension clause)
Award of TA contracts
as necessary
Programme Estimates
Primary Results:
Government meets
initial conditionalities
Security situation
permits carrying out
necessary works
Secondary results:
New democratically
elected government
in place and ready
to adopt legislation
necessary for
liberalisation and
privatisation
Government
provides funds and
personnel for
regulator
Sufficient private
sector investor
interest in
generation and
distribution
Successful tender
for company to
operate the
transmission grid
Sufficient private
sector interest in
distribution
First, what appears when analysing the components of the project and more specifically the scope of
supply object of the International Calls for Bids (ICB) (funding decision 19 186) is that they do not
comprise Low Voltage equipment and material for the physical connections of the end users to the
grid. The main components of the initial contract are equipment for the High Voltage HV (transport of
electricity) and for the Medium Voltage MV (distribution of electricity) part of the system. There was
no provision for equipment relating to the Low Voltage LV (supply of electricity). Electric systems are
however complex and all equipment, from generation to final delivery (passing through HV transport,
MV distribution, Control and Instrumentation etc…) are all indispensable elements of the entire
electricity supply chain.
The table below, built from the LEC data base of registered assets (Year 2011) evidences the
dominance of HV and MV components in the scope of supplies and works. The dominance is in
Final Report – August 2012 41
terms of capital value and does not obligatorily reflect the relative or absolute importance of the
given component within a comprehensive electric system.
Table 3: LEC equipment funded by the EU
The delivery and commissioning of the components
under the original contract were therefore fully
pertinent and of full relevance in terms of targeting
end users. Very fortunately, on February 24th, 2011 a
sixth rider (addendum) amounting Euros 692’976
was signed for extending the contract of the
implementing company (ELTEL) and among other
items, specifically provides for wiring and installation
of 2’600 prepaid meters and associated connections
fixtures. With this addendum, which is currently (may
2012) under implementation at various places in
Monrovia, the ultimate purpose of the project “Give
access to the population and business of Monrovia to
more affordable electricity” is practically achieved.
Equipment type Value
Euros
Percentage
Generators 2'028'862 6.24%
Transmission Lines 7'783'208 23.92%
Distribution Lines 4'808'653 14.78%
Transformers 12'104'788 37.20%
Poles 1'437'632 4.42%
Connections 1'286'761 3.95%
Meters 30'337 0.09%
S & I 78'915 0.24%
SI Generators 2'711'508 8.33%
Sub stations 269'189 0.83%
Total Funded by EU 32'539'853
42 Contract 2012/284032
9 EVALUATION
9.1 PROJECTS SELECTED FOR THE EVALUATION
Under the 3 funding decisions covering the EU interventions in Liberia, the team could broadly
identify a total number of 19 individual operations/contracts for services, works and supplies as
illustrated in the following table.
Table 4: Identified EU contracts
EU reference
Number/Contract
Title Contract
Date of
signature
End date
of
activities
Contracting
Party
Amount
in Euros
1 FED/2005/195-691
(EC)
Technical
Assistance for
rehabilitation of the
electricity grid in
Monrovia
September
12th, 2005
March 31st,
2006
Republic of
Liberia
400’000
2 FED/2006/190-478
(EC)
Technical
Assistance for
management and
supervision of
electricity and water
rehabilitation in
Liberia
November
22nd
, 2006
December
31st, 2009
Louis Berger
SAS
1’619’800
3 FED/2006/190-523
(CL)
Emergency power
programme network
June 12th,
2006
September
19th, 2007
Republic of
Ghana (VRA?)
1’829’534
4 FED/2006/190-524
(CL)
Emergency power
programme for
selected
neighbourhoods in
Monrovia
June 12th,
2006
August 2nd
,
2007
Republic of
Ghana (VRA?)
893’654
FED/2006/190-527 Emergency Power
Programme
Coordinator
August
30th, 2006
June 7th,
2007
Jacobs Gibb
LTD
189’655
5 FED/2008/195-875
(EC)
ELTEL electricity
grid rehabilitation in
Monrovia
February
21st, 2008
May 29th,
2011
ELTEL
Network TE
AB
4’282’584
6 FED/2008/195-876
(EC)
Electricity grid
rehabilitation in
Monrovia
February
20th, 2008
May 29th,
2011
ELTEL
Network TE
AB
6’500’000
7 FED/2009/208-898
(EC)
Addendum N01 to
ELTEL contract
May
14th,2009
May 31st,
2011
ELTEL
Network TE
2’217.417
Final Report – August 2012 43
Addendum N02
Addendum N04
Addendum N06
AB 47’000
42’240
692’876
8 FED/2009/228-260
(EC)
Addendum No.4 to
LTTA for
management of
water and electricity
rehabilitation
December
12th, 2009
May 31st,
2011
Louis Berger
SAS
238’950
9 FED/2010/247-939
(CA)
Technical and
contractual review
of the electricity grid
rehabilitation project
in Monrovia
October
18th 2011
Application
Européenne
de
Technologies
78’810
10 FED/2003/195-645 Supply contract for
procurement of
gasoil for the Liberia
Electricity
Corporation
October
30th, 2003
December
12th, 2003
GEPCO
Gasoil
41’899
11 FED/2003/195-648 Framework contract
with ECO.
Consultancy to
assist THE LEC
Liberia Electricity
Corporation
October
20th, 2003
January
14th, 2004
European
Consultants
Organisation
SPRL
29’990
12 FED/2003/195-651 LPRC Supply
Contract 70’000
Gallons Gasoil
procurement for
LEC
December
9th, 2003
June 4th,
2004
75’610
13 FED/2003/195-651 Electricity
Management Study
March 23rd
,
2004
January
31st, 2006
SWECO
International
AB
83’955
14 FED/2003/195-661 Framework contract
for the study of New
Electricity Act in
Liberia
April 5th,
2004
June 23rd
,
2004
Pohl
Consulting &
Associates
GMBH
66’504
15 FED/2004/195-668 Study for the
Development of a
Regulatory
Commission in the
electricity sector
April 30th,
2004
June 30th,
2004
European
Consultants
Organisation
SPRL
42’310
16 FED/2004/195-674 Rural Towns June 28th, September European 72’580
44 Contract 2012/284032
Electricity
Production and
Distribution Study
2004 4th, 2004 Consultants
Organisation
SPRL
17 FED/2004/195-679 Restoring Street
Lights in Monrovia
Impress Account
December
30th, 2004
November
30th, 2005
Republic of
Liberia
46’166
18 FED/2004/195-681 Technical
Assistance to assist
LEC
March
23rd, 2005
July 9th,
2005
Application
Européenne
de
Technologies
94’532
19 FED/2004/195-684 Long term
assistance in
electricity
June 13rd,
2005
March
31st, 2006
MVV
Consultants
and Engineers
GMBH
105’246
Most of them are old projects executed during the period 2003 - 2007 covered under the 2 first
funding decisions. These projects are completed and they have been closed. Nevertheless an audit
was commissioned in 2008 covering some of the corresponding projects, the period subject for audit
ranging from 1st January 2005 to 1st February 2008. The auditor report states that the Programme
Estimates and Implementation reports were not on file and copies were not made available for the
audit team to review. This led to identify ineligible expenditures due to the absence of appropriate
documents and various irregularities in the management and implementation of the
programme/projects.
The purpose of the current evaluation being not for digging in depth in the administrative aspects of
the interventions, and given that older projects have been audited and even evaluated [(Reference
to the 2010 evaluation of all EC interventions (all sectors) covering the period 1999-2008 mandated
by The Joint Evaluation Unit for: EuropeAid Cooperation Office (AIDCO), Directorate General for
Development and Directorate-General External Relations)] , the current evaluation has focused on
the most recent interventions completed or to be completed in the very near future. Thus concerning
essentially the interventions under the funding decision 19 186 and the important contract
implemented by ELTEL for the Rehabilitation of the Monrovia Electricity Grid, as they are shaded in
the above table.
9.1.1 Implementation of the Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation Project
The tender for the works and supplies relating to the Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation Project was
originally prepared in October 2005 targeting the 13th of January 2006 for submission of proposals
by the bidders. However the Procurement Notice for publication was then re-scheduled for 1st
November 2005 to be published on the internet together with the Tender on 1st December 2005.
Respecting the 90 days submission period, bids would be received on 1st March 2006, go through
the evaluation and contract notification aiming to mobilise the selected candidate by end of March
2006. Finally the dead line for tendering in the published Works procurement notice (2006/S 56-
057777 dated 22nd March 2006) was 10th of July 2006. A site Visit was held on the 24th of May
2006. In June 2006 deadline for submission of tenders was extended to September 2006 and the
public opening scheduled for the 14th September 2006. Two bids were received. Both bids were well
over the budget requiring realignment of the finances. After negotiations with the EU Delegation in
Final Report – August 2012 45
Ivory Coast (NAO function) the evaluation was finalised in March 2007 (period of 6 months). The
tender was then cancelled on the 27th April 2007 (via notice 2007 2007/S 74-089506) due to no
valid bid received and permit for “Negotiated Procedure” was applied by authorization from EC/Ivory
Coast.
A contract with ELTEL was eventually signed in March 2008; broadly two years after the initial
tender notice date. One reason for this delay was stated in progress reports as a “delay in EC
signing the long agreed contract amendment” for ELTEL that would “result in commissioning of the
work being delayed until at least the end of March 2009”. The works started very slowly, and three
years after signing the financing agreement, merely 18% of the planned 12.6 km of medium voltage
lines and none of the planned 26.8 km of high voltage lines had been built or renovated. However,
progress reports suggest that the work has progressed well since then and by February 2010, all of
the medium voltage lines had been built and 70% of the high voltage lines had either been built or
reconstructed. The project was finally commissioned for the majority of its component during the
fourth quarter of 2010.
9.1.2 Status of the Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation Project to date
The company Louis Berger was commissioned by the EU Delegation for the supervision of the
project. They issued a final report at the date of October 2010, detailing the status of the various
works and supplies under the contract of ELTEL. According to the supervising engineer and based
on a comprehensive tour of the project sites by the evaluation team in April- May 2012, the scope of
works and supplies is fully implemented in compliance with high standards and the statement that in
the opinion of the LB team leader, “EC and LEC have received a very high quality functional
electricity distribution system sufficient to meet Monrovia’s requirements for at least five years”.
The only reservation is relating to the capacity of the step-up transformer (66/22kV) at Bushrod
premises which is/will not be adequate to distribute power from the new generators which may
come in addition to the 15 currently in operation (not all at the same time). With the route of the 66
kV HV line running along the northern part of the city, no immediate expansion of the 66kV system
would be economically justified.
Tables below indicate components of the completed project at the date of October 2010.
46 Contract 2012/284032
Table 5: Project Components as of October 2010
Monrovia 22kV Circuits
Circuit Conductor Route
Length (m)
Acceptance
Certificate
From To
Bushrod Freeport 120mm²
AAAC Bare 2,888 03
Freeport Vai Town 120mm²
AAAC BLX 1,773 04
New
Bridge Ashmun Street
120mm²
AAAC BLX 406 011
Monrovia New Bridge Cable 95mm² Cu 473 011
Freeport Flour Mills 120mm²
AAAC BLX 530 05
Flour
Mills New Georgia Junction
120mm²
AAAC Bare 2,869 06
Flour
Mills New Georgia Junction
120mm²
AAAC BLX 995 06
Lynch
Street Capitol
120mm²
AAAC BLX 1,313 01
Capitol Third Street Sinkor 120mm²
AAAC BLX 2,061 02
Congo
Town Paynesville
120mm²
AAAC Bare 3,327 07
Newport
Street Mamba Point Hotel
120mm²
AAAC Bare 134 08
Newport
Street Mega Compound
120mm²
AAAC Bare 250 09
Benson
Street EC Office
120mm²
AAAC Bare 176 010
Final Report – August 2012 47
Monrovia 22kV System
66/22kV Substations 22kV
Panels Status
Bushrod 5 Commissioned
Krutown 6 Commissioned
Capitol 7 Commissioned
Paynesville 5 Commissioned
22/0.415kV Pole Mounted Substations Quantity Status
Connected to distribution system. 18 Commissioned
Training substation 1 Used for training
22/0.415kV Ground Mounted Substations Quantity Status
Connected to distribution system. 4 Commissioned
Monrovia 66kV System
66kV Circuits Status
Bushrod - Krutown Construction complete, energised and
commissioned 12 October 2010.
Bushrod – Stockton Creek Construction complete, energised and
commissioned 12 October 2010.
Stockton Creek - Capitol Construction complete, energised and
commissioned 12 October 2010.
Stockton Creek - Paynesville
Construction complete. Insufficient electrical
clearance from a partially demolished building
at Red Light / Paynesville has precluded
energising the entirety of the line. Section from
Red Light Junction to Paynesville 66/22kV
substation has not been energised. Protection
system is commissioned but not proved by
energising the complete line to Paynesville.
Stockton Creek Switching Site Commissioned.
66kV Substations Status
Bushrod
Construction complete, substation
commissioned 12 October 2010. (66/22kV
transformer on soak)
Krutown Construction complete, substation
commissioned 12 October 2010. (66/22kV
48 Contract 2012/284032
transformer initially energised. Re-energising
requires resolution of system protection
characteristics)
Capitol
Construction complete, substation
commissioned 12 October 2010. (66/22kV
transformer initially energised. Re-energising
requires resolution of system protection
characteristics)
Paynesville
Construction complete. Tested. 66/22kV
transformer to be energised from Congo Town
on 14 October 2010. 66kV line from Bushrod /
Stockton Creek cannot be energised until
completion of building demolition at Red Light /
Paynesville.
Telephone communication between substations. Commissioned
Spares, Test and Safety Equipment
A lump sum of EUR 25,000 was included in the contract for provision of test and safety equipment. ELTEL have indicated the actual cost for test and safety equipment is considerably greater than the contract price but considering that all the items were essential ELTEL did not claim for additional
money. The following items were to be supplied to LEC by ETEL during November 2010.
Substation Spares Quantity
Lamps and bulbs (lot) 1
Fuses and MCB (lot) 1
66kV Overhead Line Spares Quantity
OPGW joint box 2
150mm2 AAAC quick joint 3
Suspension insulator string 5
Tension insulator string 5
Wooden poles 3
HV LP insulator 5
22kV Overhead Line Spares Quantity
Wooden poles 5
LP insulators 5
Tension insulators 5
Quick joints AAAC 120mm² 3
Preformed ties (set) 1
Final Report – August 2012 49
Guy wires and anchors (set) 1
HV fuses (Set) 1
LV fuses (Set) 1
66kV and 22kV Line Safety Equipment Quantity
Grounding equipment 3-ph.(steel tower) 4
Grounding equipment 3-ph.(wood poles) 6
Grounding equipment 3-ph. 8
HV Voltage indicator (with test set) 2
Insulated rod/stick 10
MV Voltage indicator (with test set) 2
66kV and 22kV Test Equipment Quantity
Insulation tester "Megger" 1
Relay tester "Sverker" 1
Multimeter with test probes 2
Phase rotation meter 3
MV Phasing tester 2
Infra Red Imager 1
General Tools and Equipment Quantity
Pole climbing shoes, set 5
Linesman tool belt and set 10
Lug-all block, 1,5ton 3
Tirfor incl. 20m wire 1
Come-along for conductor types, set 2
Lifting sling and snatch block 5
Torque wrench 3
Cutter for all types of conductors used 2
Safety belt & helmet 10
Pole climbing shoes, set 5
Vacuum Cleaner 4
50 Contract 2012/284032
9.2 APPROACH FOR DATA COLLECTION
The most obvious source of data, documents and information pertaining to the EU operations in the
electricity sector is the CRIS. However due to the fact that the migration of all data related to older
projects from the previous system (OLAS) was not totally effected, the access to the relevant
material was therefore not totally exhaustive. Nevertheless, the EU programme Manager did his
utmost in order that the team could receive hard and soft copies of administrative, financial and
operational documents. The operations under the funding decision for the Monrovia Grid
Rehabilitation project as the most recent ones are also the most appropriately documented.
Through the Web, the team performed also an extensive identification of documents of relevance to
the sector, its policy and the operations (past, current and planned) by the members of the
international donor’s community. Reports, sector studies, appraisal documents were invaluable tools
for appraising the prevailing context, the actions in progress as well as the projections for the future.
Thanks to the well opened public information disclosure policies of the majority of donors, updated
and accurate data of various natures were made available.
Interviews and meetings have been held with the main actors of the electricity sector in Liberia.
Official as well as informal discussions have also taken place in order for the team to appraise the
prevailing socio-economic situation of Liberia and specifically acquaint with the situation of the
electricity sector. Such interviews and discussions allowed collecting data and quantitative indicators
as well as qualitative information useful for the performance of the evaluation. A list of the persons
met is in Annex 1 and the bibliography in Annex 2.
9.3 LIMITATIONS
On the aspect of access to data and information and their acceptable level of accuracy, when
carrying out this evaluation, the team had to face with and respond to a number of constraints, as
laid out here after.
Table 6: Limitations to the evaluation
Constraint Response by the evaluation team
First interventions having
occurred in early 2003 the
availability of e-copies of
relevant documents in CRIS
was limited.
By cross checking various documents and reports available from
different sources the team could partly retrace the history of said
operations. Nevertheless, as it appeared that they were few in
relation with the electricity sector, the impossibility to conduct a
valid ex-post evaluation to date has no significant influence on
the conclusions and recommendations expected from this
mission.
Low access to hardcopy
documents, and in particular
financial data, for older EC-
financed programmes (e.g.
Second Rehabilitation
programme;
EDF8 Reintegration
Programme)
The team received the full support from the EU Programme
Manager who took over the administration of the old portfolio
thus obtaining an acceptable quantity of information recorded in
CRIS.
Final Report – August 2012 51
The availability of
Government and beneficiary
(LEC) data on donor’s
cooperation was low.
The team arranged meetings with the most important donors
active in Liberia for open discussions also seizing the opportunity
to take knowledge of their current operation and future/planed
interventions.
The indicators and data
deriving from the
Management Contract
monthly and quarterly reports
are only available for the
recent months. The data
base is therefore limited, thus
not allowing to perform valid
statistical commutations
A detailed analysis of the data and indicators was conducted in
order to assess possible trends even with limited long historical
records with the main aim to determine the tangible results on the
ground: customers’ access, improvement of living conditions, and
improvement of business/productive activities.
Availability and reliability of
data from the government
agencies is uncertain. History
of data is too short for
deriving significant trends.
Agencies in charge of statistics and compilation of various
indicators (LISGIS, MoF) have not up dated and processed data
for reflecting the current prevailing conditions. Extensive
consultation of data banks on the Internet, recent economic
reports allowed to assess the situation with a relatively good
accuracy.
Volatility of scenarios for
future demand/load due to
the inaccuracy or absence of
the baseline parameters
In spite of noticeable differences for the scenarios depending on
their respective authors’ perception and methodologies, the
evaluation retained the most probable scenario as standing
midway of the extremes corresponding to Low Growth and High
Growth approaches.
52 Contract 2012/284032
9.4 FOLLOW-UP OF THE END-USERS SURVEY
This chapter reports the findings of the End Users Survey which was carried out in Monrovia from
May 2nd
to May 9th 2012, as part of this evaluation. The broad objective of the survey was to assess
the main patterns in behavior, expenses, attitude towards energy use in various segments of the
population, enterprises and institutional services. More specifically, the aim was to assess:
4. the impacts the access to LEC electricity grid has on the life of the beneficiaries as well in
the communities,
5. the willingness to pay and affordability to get connected to LEC grid of those households and
other units who are not yet connected.
6. the perceptions of the results and achievements of the project (EU funded Grid
Rehabilitation activities) by the beneficiaries and their degree of appropriation.
The following sections report, first, the results of the household survey and second those of the
enterprises. The Methodology followed in this survey is presented in detailed Appendixes, as well as
the questionnaires used.
9.4.1 Results and findings of the Household End User survey
Urban context
The Household End Users Survey was conducted in six sites (survey areas) throughout the capital
selected with reference to specific representativity criteria according to the objectives of the survey:
these sites are Stephen Tolbert in Barnersville, New Georgia Estate in the community of the same
name, Neezoe and Police Academy in Paynesville city, Clara Town in Bushrod Island, and
Jallah/Saye Town in Central Monrovia. They cover the three types of urban patterns and land use in
which the majority of the population of Monrovia is concentrated today. The following results are
derived from the interviews of 354 households. See Table 7 and Figure 8 below.
Table 7: Household distribution per survey area and per urban pattern
Survey Area Nbr of HH interviewed
% Urban pattern Sites/ Communities/
Neighborhoods
Clara Town
Jallah- Saye Town 85 24% Unplanned « Low income communities »; densely central populated neighborhoods
Bushrod Island
Central Town
Neezoe
Police Academy 138 39% Unplanned (organic) popular peri urban neighborhoods ; low density of population
Paynesville -North of Somalia Drive Road and West of Tubman Bvd
Stephen Tolbert
New Georgia 131 37% Planned (grid pattern) peri urban neighborhoods ; medium to high density
Barnesville /New Georgia both located north of Somalia Drive Road
Total 354 100%
Final Report – August 2012 53
Figure 8 : Map of the survey areas in Greater Monrovia
Demography and living conditions
Demography
On average, the household size of the interviewees consists of 6.4 members, a figure significantly
higher than the average 4.8 members of the household size in Monrovia ( 2008 National Census).
The reason is the high percentage of households of peri urban type selected for the End Users
Survey sample; their families are much larger than those of households in densely populated low
income neighborhoods of central Monrovia and Bushrod Island (the figure in these neighborhoods is
4.3 members on average); indeed, if the dependency ratio is on average1.2 for all households, it
ranges from 1.4 in Neezoe and Police Academy to 0.7 in Clara Town.
Among the sample, 21% of households are headed by females (widowed, divorced or single with
children) ranging from 34% (Stephen Tolbert) to 17% (Neezoe, Police Academy, Jallah Town). The
overall mean age of household heads for sampled households is 37 years old. The mean
percentage of households headed by members’ 60-years-of-age or above is 5%.
Housing and Living Conditions
A small majority (57%) of the households declared ownership of their dwelling units. Only 8% of the
households reported neither ownership nor payment of rent for their current dwelling units—meaning
that they are either housed by well-wishers/friends/relatives or declared themselves as caretakers.
Most “free occupants” live in Clara Town. It is also in this type of low income “slum” settlement that
overcrowding and multi sharing of the dwelling between several households are observed. On the
54 Contract 2012/284032
contrary, households in the peri urban areas are always the sole occupants of their dwelling
irrespective of their tenure status, owner or renter.
Renters can be found in every neighborhood; on average they account for 35% of the sampled
households; they are mostly representative of the household tenure status in the densely populated
areas of Clara Town and Jallah Town (renters accounting for 53% of the respondents in these sites).
The majority of LEC customers’ households and those equipped with a generator are owners of their
houses while the majority of all renters are of the category of households without any access to
electricity.
Levels of rents are closely correlated with income, size of the family and neighborhood environment.
LEC customers and households with their own generator, irrespective of their location, pay on
average USD 60 for the monthly renting of their dwelling, as those without electricity don’t pay more
than about USD 20; the lowest costs rentals are observed in Clara Town and Jallah Town.
Concrete (hollow blocks) is the dominant construction material, accounting for about 90 % of
households in central Monrovia low income neighborhoods as well in the two estate housing
settlements (Stephen Tolbert and New Georgia); in the peri urban neighborhoods of Police Academy
and Neezoe, however, mud bricks for walls still account on average for 30% of the responses.
Roofing materials doesn’t vary as zinc material accounts on average for 97% of the sampled
households in all neighborhoods.
Owners’ households of the peri urban sites in Paynesville (Neezoe and Police Academy) also
characterized themselves by the shortness of the time they have lived in their actual dwelling -on
average for 9 years - while respondents of the two low income settlements and the estate housing
sites have lived there for many years already – on average 17 years -. The same differences
between lengths of rentals are observed in the case of the renters: they have spent on average 3
years in their dwellings in Police Academy and Neezoe, and about 7 years in the other survey areas.
This is a distinctive indication of the rapid urbanization process which develops in these peri urban
neighborhoods
Overwhelming majority (95%) reported having access to improved drinking water (piped water/
standpipe, borehole with hand-pump, protected wells). However this access has a high cost in
monetary terms and /or in time spent on this activity: on average 21% of all households have to buy
water from water sellers, in particular in Jallah Town where they are 53% to do so. Some 5% of
households (in Neezoe and Police Academy) draw water from wells, most of them being
unprotected. The rest of the households have access to hand pumps (on average 59%), sometimes
to piped water indoor or on neighbor’s yard (15%). The majority of hands pumps are found in the
peri urban areas; most often financed by NGO’s projects. Very few have been installed in Clara
Town or in Jallah Town. Safe water access and sanitation are crucial needs faced by the majority of
urban households in Monrovia, in particular in the low income neighborhoods of central Monrovia
and Bushrod Island.
Access to electricity and electricity use
Among the survey areas, three have been electrified during the last two years by LEC - Stephen
Tolbert, New Georgia and Jallah Town-; the area of Clara Town is in process of electrification and
two areas - Police Academy and Neezoe - are not yet connected to LEC grid.
Four categories of households are identified according to the type of access to electricity (grid or off
grid): households connected to LEC grid (the sample is of 87 households), those supplied with
Final Report – August 2012 55
electricity by a private “current seller” called Independent Power Producer (“IPP”) (46 households),
owners of an electric generator (67 households) and finally households having access to no source
of electricity (154 households).
68% of the LEC household customers in the areas of New Georgia, Stephen Tolbert and Clara Town
were connected to the grid in 2012 and 32% in 2011. They are thus very recent customers.
The IPP current sellers have developed since a few years mainly in neighborhoods with high density
of population: like any supplier of electricity, they indeed look for a network of customers large
enough in the immediate vicinity of their generator so as to make their business profitable. In Clara
Town, Jallah Town and New Georgia, 20% to 40% of the households are connected to an IPP’s grid
and it has been so for several years (40% of these households got connected between 2008 and
2010).
In peri-urban zones that are not densely populated, the IPPs are not frequent; the only means to get
electricity is to own an electric generator; that concerns around 30% of the households, those whose
with the highest incomes.
In these peri-urban areas of Paynesville City, 65% on average of the households are thus without
access to electricity; they are approximately only 30% without access to electricity in the other
surveyed areas.
The use of electricity is identical for all households with access to electricity (grid or off grid); their
priorities are the following: 85% of the interviewees quote lighting in first use, 70% mention
entertainment appliances (TV/radio) as a second priority/use and 58% only quote ventilators in third
use. Only 33% of the respondents quoted in the other uses (charger of telephone, computer and
miscellaneous)as the fourth use. Only one household has an electric cooker but used sparingly:
Whatever the survey areas or the level of income of interviewees, charcoal is the primary source of
cooking energy.
LEC customer: connection costs, spending and consumption, perception of LEC service
Connection costs
Households equipped with conventional meters (in 2011) paid USD 115 connection fees, including
USD 50 for connection and USD 65 in advance on consumption (or deposit). Households which
have been equipped with prepaid meter on the other hand paid no more than USD 50 for
connection fees. The installation of prepaid meters allowed the removal of advance on consumption
fees. The additional costs incurred by some households mainly consist of expenses for installation
within the house - around USD 50 for wiring, labor cost, switches for a single circuit and
approximately twice - USD 115 - for the households having installed several circuits.
Monthly electricity expenditure and consumption
On average, the electricity bill of households of the sample amounts to USD 42 per month.
Differences are observed in various neighborhoods and depend on the living standard: the majority
of the bills amounting less than USD 20 per month are paid by households located in Clara Town;
more than one third of the households of New Georgia and Stephen Tolbert pay monthly bills
amounting to more than USD 40.
As a whole this level of bills indicates an extremely limited/low consumption; at the cost of USD
0,578/kWh (USD 0.54 tariff per kWh plus taxes) The average monthly electricity consumption of
56 Contract 2012/284032
these recently connected households is 73 kWh, meaning 131 kWh per person and per year. It
should also be noted that the electricity consumption of households headed by a woman is definitely
lower than that of households headed by a man, probably reflecting a lower level of income for
women heading a household (given that the average size of their household in the sample is not
lower than that of a household headed by a man).
Appreciation of the service provided by LEC
62% of the interviewed households are entirely satisfied with the service provided by LEC, 11%
expressed dissatisfaction and nearly a third are both satisfied and disgruntled. The main reason of
satisfaction is to – finally – have permanent access to electricity (24 hours a day). It is indeed the
greatest improvement compared to the former situation; obviously for households which did not have
access to electricity, but also for those which were connected to an IPP network of or which owned
their own electric generator. In these two cases (see hereafter), the hours during which they could
use electricity were very limited.
The reasons for dissatisfaction are primarily the irregularity of the supply currently provided by LEC;
brownouts are frequent, so are outages seemingly, specifically in off-centered neighborhoods in the
north of Somalia Drive Road. It is noted that the reason “expensive electricity” is quoted only by 16%
of the disgruntled households. A quarter of the disgruntled households is not satisfied with the
system of payment and billing: the households equipped with a prepaid meter consider, depending
on the neighborhood, that they have difficulties obtaining prepaid card easily ( the network of
salesmen needing to be developed gradually) and among those which were equipped with
conventional meters, the main reason for dissatisfaction is the billing amount (flawed meters
readings and sometimes apparently, exaggerated bills ).
Impact of electricity on households living conditions: perceptions by customers
Figure 9 : LEC households : impacts on living conditions
All households interviewed underline the beneficial impact of connection to the LEC electrical grid on
their living conditions. Regarding their new spending patterns, the issues highlighted by interviewees
suggest that the change is more qualitative than quantitative. 27% of the households stress that the
main positive impact is safety – the feeling of safety increases considerably with the ability of having
lighting at night (bulb on the house porch); besides, this feeling is even stronger in neighborhoods
where streetlights were installed even before the electrification of households.
Final Report – August 2012 57
The second by order of importance of the beneficial impacts relates to the improvement of family life
and children conditions of studies (in overall 24% of the households); households’ investments in
children school enrollment indeed needs to be highlighted and result in important financial sacrifices
(see hereafter household expenses). 7% of the households are satisfied to finally be able to use the
totality of their electrical appliances (this generally consists of one or two additional bulbs, one
television set and a radio, a fan, rarely a refrigerator). 3% are satisfied to save money: generally,
households which were equipped with electric generators. Globally, it can be noted that only 19% of
households stated that they bought or want to buy more electrical appliances; finally 12% of
households consider the development of an economic activity (very often related to the preparation
and the sale of food; it often relates to households headed by a woman).
The impact of connection to the electrical grid on the level of consumption of these households
appears moderate and the declarations of interviewees confirm the results of the quantitative
analysis of their consumption. The financial constraints of these households are very strong: they
are hereafter detailed in the section relating to the analysis of the total expenditure of the surveyed
households’ budget.
IPP customer: connection costs, spending and consumption, perception of IPP service
Connection costs
They appear reduced and mainly consist in, the wiring of the residence, depending on answers; the
average expenditure is approximately of USD 42 by household. This amount appears
underestimated in the results. According to interviews conducted in the survey areas IPP also
require customers to pay a small amount of money for “the recording”; many of them also require an
advance/deposit on consumption.
Monthly electricity expenditure and consumption
The billing system used by IPPs covers two main models. The monthly payment based on the
amperage provided which represents a ceiling of consumption: the customer can subscribe for 1
amp, 2 amps, 3, 4 etc. The price is USD 40 per amp and per month in all neighborhoods surveyed
and the bill is a multiple of this amount depending on the number of amps provided. It is the most
widespread system and it concerns the majority of IPPs’ customers. The second model consists in a
“daily” (at night actually) or a weekly billing, for “a certain number of electrical installations”: they are
almost exclusively electric bulbs, and generally the households having this type of billing are modest
households only equipped with 2-3 bulbs. The electricity is exclusively provided at night: the most
frequent time slot is from 7 pm to 6 – 7 am, that is to say on average 11 hours per day. In Clara
Town, according to the answers from the households, the number of hours is definitely lower
(between 5 and 6 hours per night).
The average expenditure is USD 40 in Clara Town, Jallah Town and Neezoe; it is almost twice in
New Georgia (USD 70), area where the average level of income of households is higher.
By computing the number of hours of current provided /the average number of hours during which
the electricity consumption of the household is effective and the number of amps subscribed, it is
possible to estimate the household’s consumption. The determined theoretical average per person
consumption is 10.9 kWh per month, meaning, 131 kWh per year. In reality, households consume
electricity only during a few hours at night. Also, the determined actual consumption only rises to a
little more than 90 kWh per person and per year, which is very low. For this actual consumption, the
price per kWh paid by household ranges from USD1,4 to USD 0.9 depending on the areas of survey
58 Contract 2012/284032
– the highest price being in Clara Town. On average the IPP customers of the sample pay USD
1,2/kWh which is more than twice the LEC price.
Evaluation of the service provided by IPPs
The interviewees are in majority (63%) dissatisfied with the service provided by their IPP: “the
current is unstable and above all, it is only provided at night”. For those who are satisfied, the main
reason is, at least, that the IPP is in their neighborhood the only provider of basic current for
minimum lighting of households of all categories of incomes. For a majority of households, it is
indeed much cheaper to be connected to an IPP, despite all the drawbacks of using this kind of
supplier, than to operate its own electric generator… as the operation and maintenance costs are
high. All households of this category wish to be connected to the LEC grid.
Households with their own generator: spending and consumption
67 households owning an electric generator were questioned about their consumption and spending.
The generators are of a low capacity for the majority of them: on average they are 2.7 kVA in
capacity and operate no more than 4 hours a day. Their lifetime is limited and the period of
depreciation is short. In surveyed neighborhoods almost all households use an electric generator for
their domestic use. Electrical appliances of these households are far more diverse than those of
more modest households connected to IPPs. In general households owning an electric generator
own a TV set.
On average, calculated over the year and per person, consumption remains however very moderate;
that is to say 110 kWh approximately. The evaluation of electricity consumption evidences clear
differences between neighborhoods: the annual average consumption per person in Stephen
Tolbert, a “wealthy” neighborhood is 140 kWh while it is only 80 kWh in Clara Town, a “low income”
neighborhood.
Fuel and maintenance costs are heavy and recurring. Adding up the depreciation, maintenance and
regular expenditures, the expenses incurred by households for the operation of their generator are
close to USD 4 per day. On average, these households pay their kWh USD 1.9 which is 3.3 times
the price of one kWh from the LEC network. It is then obvious that these households would all wish
to be connected to the LEC network.
Households without electricity: lighting expenditures
This category of household is primarily equipped with low consumption lamps (Chinese lamps)
working with batteries. There are very few urban households that rely solely on candles for their
lighting. Rather, it is noticeable that the candles are still used as emergency lighting. Batteries
expenses are high; given the poor quality of those available on the market they must be renewed
frequently. On average, lighting expenses for households without electricity amount to USD 4 per
month.
All sampled households: cooking fuel
As noted before, all households of the sample use charcoal as cooking fuel. Average monthly
household expenditure for charcoal amounts to USD 12,7.
Final Report – August 2012 59
Willingness to get connected and affordability
Households that are not connected to the LEC grid were questioned about their willingness to be
connected and their ability to pay the related connection expenses. Without surprise all (100%)
interviewees owning an electric generator and those buying electricity from an IPP answered that
they were willing to become customers of LEC and that they were able to pay the connection
expenses. For these two categories of households, the installation and wiring expenses will
generally be low. On the contrary, in the case of households with no access to electricity, nearly all
of them will have to pay connection fees plus wiring expenses, which in total amounts approximately
to USD 100 per household. It is to be noted that 90% of these households wanted to be connected
but 30% of them specified that they did not have the financial capacity to pay these expenses.
When questioned about their monthly repayment capacity, these households answered that they
were able to pay USD 17 on average, but the median answers amounted to USD 10 monthly. It is to
be noted that it precisely represents the amount of repayment contemplated by LEC over 5 months
to facilitate most modest households’ access to electricity. Consequently, they will have to bare the
installation expenses in their residence.
Level of financial effort per category of consumers: household budget expenses
A detailed analysis of the levels of expenditure was carried out for each main category of expenses,
following different categories of consumers - LEC customers, IPP customers, households with their
own generator, households without electricity - and quartiles (determined using the total number of
households) in order to measure the financial effort these households are prepared to make. The
levels of expenditure are used as a proxy of the level of households’ incomes.
By area of survey: the average amount of expenses for the whole interviewees is of 422 USD per
household and per month; the median amount of total expenses is relatively close and amounts to
372 USD. It is in the area of Neezoe that the poorest households according to the level of their
expenses were identified (between 80 USD and 183 USD for Q1) and in the area of Stephen Tolbert
that the households with the highest monthly level of expenses (maximum USD 1227) were
identified.
By category of consumers: households without electricity are those with the lowest median level of
expenses and households connected to LEC are those with the highest median level of
expenditure.
Table 8: Household monthly total expenditures by category of respondents
All
respondents
LEC
customers
IPP
customers
Own
generator
Without
electricity
USD USD USD USD USD
Average 422 508 426 542 323
Median 372 437 427 514 288
Q1 266 333 296 356 194
Q2 372 437 427 514 288
Q3 535 642 506 684 408
Q4 1227 1227 751 1072 953
60 Contract 2012/284032
By main category of expenses:
Three categories of expenses account for 63% of households’ total monthly expenses: see Table
below.
Table 9: Household monthly expenditure by category of expenditure
Quartile Food Mobility Ener
gy
Water Rent School/
education
Medical
care
Commu
nication
Various Total
%
Total
USD*
Q1 53% 7% 12% 2% 2% 5% 6% 6% 5% 100% 188
Q2 43% 9% 13% 2% 2% 8% 6% 8% 8% 100% 316
Q3 37% 12% 12% 2% 2% 11% 6% 9% 8% 100% 447
Q4 32% 16% 11% 2% 2% 11% 8% 8% 10% 100% 743
% on total 37,5% 12,6% 11,6% 2,3% 2,0% 9,9% 7,0% 7,8% 9% 100,0%
Average
on total
USD
158,5 53,4 49,2 9,9 8,6 41,9 29,5 33,0 38,2 422,4
*calculated on average of expenditure in the quartile
Food is obviously the major expenditure: if this category accounts on average for 38% of
household’s total monthly expenditure, this percentage is 53% for Q1 households and of 32% for Q4
households.
Mobility: transportation costs represent the second expenditure: on average 13% of the total
expenses. This is representative of the financial effort of households living far from the main centers
of employment (private or public employees).
Transports accounts for only 7% (USD 14 per month on average) for Q1 households against
16% (USD 120 per month on average) for Q4 households.
The poorest households which hardly move no matter the area of survey considered are
among the formers.
When they live in off-centered areas, households with modest to average levels of income
(Q2 with Q4) dedicate a significant portion of their income to mobility: this is the main
problem pointed out by households living in neighborhoods in the north of Somalia Drive
Road (Stephen Tolbert or New Georgia) or in Paynesville (Academy Police and Neezoe).
These are indeed the households that make the highest effort for their children education;
often the expenses for children’s mobility are as important as those of parents’ because
these children attend secondary schools or colleges located in the center of Monrovia. It is
also in these expenditure quartiles that are the largest number of employees of the formal
private sector or the public sector whose places of work are more often located in the town
center.
Final Report – August 2012 61
The comparative advantage in cost of mobility for households living in the “low income
neighborhoods” of the town center - Jallah Town or Clara Town is clearly shown when
compared to the mobility budget of peri-urbans households.
Energy is the third category of expenditure. It covers the expenditure for lighting and cooking. This
category also accounts for 12% on average of the households’ total monthly expenditure and it
should be noted that this percentage remains almost identical for all quartiles.
This category represents an expenditure of USD 20 per month for the households of Q1 –
households which are almost all in the category “without electricity”, some being customers of IPPs –
the main part of this amount being devoted to purchase the energy required for cooking.
The energy category represents an expense ranging from USD 41 to USD 54 for households of Q2
and Q3 – the related households are mainly customers of IPPs and LEC and some own a generator
– in the last Q4 quartile, the energy category for lighting and cooking represents an average
expense of USD 80 per month for the households in Q4 – this relates to households having an
electric generator and the wealthiest LEC households customers.
The other significant categories of expenditures are education, telecommunication and health care
(each one representing between 7% and 10% of the total average expenses for the whole
households). The remainder - rent, water, miscellaneous social expenses – approximately accounts
for only 13% on average of all of the sample households’ expenses.
Three types of behavior can be identified:
It clearly appears that for the households of quartiles Q3 and Q4 to pass from the statute of
an IPP customer especially from that of electricity producer (owners of an electric generator)
to that of LEC customer several alternatives are possible:
- The expected benefit can be a definitely higher electricity consumption (24 hours a day,
all electrical appliances of the household can be used) for a constant level of expenses.
These are the households that also state that they want to buy more electrical appliances
and invest in an economic activity that requires a greater consumption of electricity.
- But for others, taking into account their priorities - other incompressible expenses and
financial efforts essentially directed toward objectives of mobility (supporting of
professional investment) and investment in the education of descendents - the choice will
rather be to save on the energy bill and transfer the savings to these other expenses. In
this case, consumption hardly increases.
For low to middle income households, customers of IPPs (Q2), connection to the LEC
network represents considerable savings: these households will reduce their average
electricity expenses by a 2 factor: they are those who will be able to move from the monthly
USD 40 that they pay for the subscription of one amp with an IPP to a monthly electricity bill
of USD 20-25; and this by consuming the same quantity (either approximately 35 kWh by
household and per month).
For the poorest, being connected to the LEC network represents an additional expenditure:
from USD 5 on average of lighting expenses, the expenditure will necessarily increase and
approximately reach USD 15 per month as shown in our sample. It is in this group that can
be identified the largest number of household heads stating that they conduct petty trade as
main activity (generally on large neighboring markets - Red Light in Paynesville or Douala
62 Contract 2012/284032
Market in Bushrod Island). It is also this group expressing the strongest concern relating to
their ability to pay connection expenses and regular electricity consumption expenses/bills.
This confirms the advantages of the prepayment meter which allows these households to better
manage their expenses and to cover them as their cash income become available. It also confirms
the advantages of a deferred payment of initial connection expenses.
However, for this group of poor households, the average consumption obviously remains very low.
Extremely important expenditure like food, often those of water, rental expenses are incompressible
expenditure which have priority over that of lighting.
9.4.2 Results and findings of the Enterprise End User survey
Because of various limitations during the process of the survey (cf methodology section) the sample
of the economic and social units is almost totally constituted of economic and commercial
enterprises; only one school agreed to answer the questions. These companies all are located along
Somalia Drive Road at the crossroads of Chicken Soup Factory; Stephen Tolbert Community and
Zota Community.
The number of questioned units and whose results are exploitable amounts to 36: 20 are connected
to LEC grid, 8 have their own generator for their supply in electricity and 6 are without electricity.
This sample is composed of a private high school and for the remainder, a majority in the trade
sector – commercial enterprises represent 75% of the sample, those in services and production
being the 25%. They are very small companies/entities. The leading managers are rather young - on
average 35 years and most are men (75%).
In majority these units are settled in individual building (54%) while 25% develop their activity in
premises including their housing; two thirds of these companies have been tenants of their buildings
for 6 years on average. They are built in concrete (95%); only the craftsmen carpenters operate in
buildings built out of precarious materials. The service companies have on average 2 employees,
those in trade a little less than 1.5 employees and those of artisanal production on average 6. The
school employs 10 people including 8 teachers.
All the companies supplied by LEC grid were connected in 2012. Those with their own generator
acquired it already in 2006, and more recently for others in 2009, 2010 and 2012. 4 of these
companies use electricity only for lighting, all the others have several other types of appliances or
electrical equipment (freezers, ventilation, radio, electric tools etc.).
16 on the 20 units connected to the LEC grid are equipped with prepaid meters, the others with
conventional meters. The cost of connection is on average 115 USD, the range being from 80 USD
to 285 USD for the highest amounts. Expenses for wiring equipment and manpower are significant.
Their average monthly bill amounts to USD 140 and their median expenditure is 74 USD. The
consumption which corresponds to this amount is 240 kWh in the average case and of 124 kWh for
the median expenditure. Three quarters of these companies, including the school, declare that their
expenditure of electricity accounts for approximately 25% of their turnover; this share amounts to
33% of the turnover of the two larger electricity consumers of the sample.
These companies are as a whole very satisfied to be connected to LEC grid.
Most of them are however expressing a mix of satisfaction and dissatisfaction on certain aspects
The economic criteria are obviously dominant: the first reason for satisfaction is the possibility of
Final Report – August 2012 63
having current permanently (24h over 24h), then comes as a second by set of priorities the
economies which they can now make compared to the former situation (electric generator); finally
the control of consumption for some of them equipped with a pre-payment meter is considered a
plus. For 15% of the companies the possibility of longer opening hours in the evening for commercial
or service activities is also a plus.
These companies are located along the road of Somalia Drive Road, at places where street lights
were installed since the end of 2011 by LEC. They state to benefit doubly from the improvement of
the commercial environment thanks to the public lighting and that of their own unit attracting more
customers.
Figure 10 LEC customers : advantages of LEC current and service provided
It should however be stressed that these small enterprises mention the following problems:
At first the irregularity of the current which strongly penalizes them - inopportune cuts,
outages -: “LEC current is most often fluctuating; Current goes off unnoticed, unstable
current; current shut down whenever there is rain”;
High price of LEC electricity.
The system of payment is not adapted to the operation of their business : “prepaid is good
for household not for business; “difficult to get prepaid card”. On the contrary, some would
prefer to have prepayment meters instead of being billed (billing and metering problems,
defective meter) in an inaccurate way.
Finally there are those mentioning that the LEC does not have any real service where
customers could go for their complains or for addressing various issues; they complain also
about the high transport expenses incurred for multiple displacements when it is necessary
to go to LEC head office in West Point to solve problems.
64 Contract 2012/284032
Figure 11 : Disadvantages of LEC current and service provided
For the units having their own electric generator the same problems as those described above in the
case of households: high costs of the maintenance of the generator, fuel consumption, repairs. On
average the monthly expenditure amounts to USD 170 (from USD 95 to USD 385 according the size
of the units) for approximately 5,5h per day. The managers unanimously declare that this system
has one main disadvantage “high operation costs”.
As for the units (craftsmen) with the “Chinese lamps” for lighting, they recognize that this lighting
system is of a very moderate cost and “it is the only affordable for the time being”.
These small enterprises were questioned on the three main problems which they face: for those
which are connected to the network, the cost of electricity is quoted at first, then the small base of
customers, the security and the transport costs of the goods from the port to their premises. For
those which are not connected (owning a generator), the major problems are that of the electricity
cost and the difficulty to access credit, finally, for the carpenters, tailors and mechanics and small
traders who have neither electricity from the network nor generator; the main problem is obviously
the access to electricity and then, the high cost for rental.
Concerning the willingness to be connected to LEC grid, the majority of the enterprises express their
will to be connected. Several of them tried to register already at LEC but they had to wait because
the progress in constructing new installations in the area is very slow. They state all to have the
capacity to pay the connection and installation expenses for their enterprises. Only two (the
carpenter and a tailor) on the 16 units express a refusal due to the high costs of the connection,
wiring and consumption.
Concerning the impact on their economic activity if connected to LEC grid, they mention in first an
appreciable increase of the number of customers, in particular in the evening (45%), safety (25%), a
better management of products and goods (for pharmacies and other salesmen of health products),
a greater comfort (!) “no more stress associated with operating the electric generator”.
Final Report – August 2012 65
9.4.3 Conclusions
If the tariffs applied by LEC are among the highest in the world (estimated at 0.578
USD/kWh), those applied by small private operators (estimated at 1.2 USD/kWh) or by auto-
production with small generator sets (estimated at 1.9 USD/kWh) are even more exorbitant.
Unfortunately many households and most companies are constrained to pay such tariffs
when they are not connected to the LEC grid.
The willingness to be connected to the electricity network is very strong among the
households and the small enterprises. The capacity to pay is an important issue for a major
part of the households as well as for small companies. The poor population of the districts in
downtown area and in the peri urban zones however doesn’t have the financial capacity to
pay the first connection and electrical wirings expenses up-front; the decision and strategy to
accelerate the installation pre-payment meters and facilitate access to credit to finance these
costs is essential.
The feeling of satisfaction concerning electricity was dominant among all households
interviewed: 62% of customers are entirely satisfied, 11% are dissatisfied and 27 % mixed.
The reasons for discontent are mostly problems with the quality of service provided by LEC.
For those households equipped with conventional meter, they particularly quote problems of
metering and billing; those equipped with pre paid meters complained wasting time to find
scratch card seller. The customer service is not yet well developed, especially in the peri
urban areas of Barnersville and Gardnersville. For small enterprises the major problems
raised were the irregularity of current, the outages and their negative impacts on economic
activity.
The geographical targeting - Northern zone of Monrovia and Eastern districts – The
interventions financed by the European Union within the framework of EPP 2 and the
Monrovia Electricity Grid Rehabilitation Project were perfectly relevant as these
neighborhoods comprise the major part of the population of the town of Monrovia. However,
as the low voltage grid has not been developed by other actors as expected, large peri urban
neighborhoods of Paynesville still don’t have access to the grid, even if the rehabilitation
programme of its sub station, initiated during EPP 1 and EPP 2, financed partly by the
European Union, had in its targets to allow the extension of the network in these zones
characterized by a very rapid urbanization. Eventually, the last rider of the Monrovia
Electricity Grid Rehabilitation Project covered the provision for resources for the delivery and
installation of 2’600 prepaid meters in low income neighborhoods, in particular in Jallah
Town and Saye town, located in Central Monrovia. This specifically targeted the final
beneficiaries and thus was very relevant.
66 Contract 2012/284032
9.5 EVALUATION CRITERIONS
9.5.1 Past evaluations
In 2010 an evaluation of all EC interventions (all sectors) covering the period 1999-2008 was
mandated by The Joint Evaluation Unit for: EuropeAid Cooperation Office (AIDCO), Directorate
General for Development and Directorate-General External Relations. The report on findings was
issued in December 2010. The evaluation considered EC assistance during the periods of the EDF8
and 9 (from a variety of instruments), but also considered choices made by the EC to disburse aid
under the EDF10, including most of the interventions object of the evaluation performed by the team
in April – May 2012 and specifically the last funding decision 019-186 pertaining to the Monrovia
Electricity Grid Rehabilitation Project which is the culminating point of EU engagements in the
Electricity sector in Liberia
For the older contracts (Contracts covered Technical Assistance, supplies (gasoil at the period 2003-
2004), supervision and monitoring services, equipment and works.) implemented on the period 2003
to 2006), the evaluation findings were underlining the lack of proper staffing of the EU delegation in
Monrovia for assuring the proper instruction and processing of the interventions. In fact a full-fledged
Delegation was installed in Monrovia only in September 2010. Prior to this date, interventions were
under the responsibility of the EU delegation in Abidjan.
The most critical issues identified under the evaluation which are relevant to the interventions in the
electricity sector are reported in the following table:
Table 10: Critical issues from the past evaluation
Reason for low performance Effect - Impact Suggested
Recommendation
Low organisational capacity of
the EU during 2005 - 2006
A fraction of the money that had
been promised to the Liberian
Government effectively contracted.
Link resource
commitments to
operational resources
Conjunction of administrative
delays of prior years, and the
overall difficult conditions for
delivering aid in
Liberia
The rebuilding of electrical and
water infrastructure in Monrovia
was also affected by these delays;
many of the intended projects to
make lasting improvements to the
capitals infrastructure started only
with 2-3 years of delay.
Improve coordination
and information system
within the EU system
Understaffing of the EU office in
Monrovia
Difficulty to respond to the
operational demands that the large
aid portfolio had placed on the
organisation, leading to unfulfilled
expectations among the
commission’s main partners.
Link operational
resources to resource
commitments
Disconnection between fund The design of the EC cooperation Re-enforcement of the
Final Report – August 2012 67
commitments and provision of
operational resources
strategy and the commitment at
political level for large scale
support during Liberia’s post-war
years did not sufficiently consider
the very limited implementation
capacity of the EU’s own
Delegation in Liberia during those
years.
appraisal and
preparation phases of
the projects with
enlarged dialogue with
future executing and
beneficiary agencies
Unrealistic anticipation of risks
and other post conflict
constraints
The European Commission’s
procedures and mechanisms for
design, planning and
implementation did not adequately
take into account the difficult
conditions, vagary, risks and
operational constraints of Liberia’s
post conflict environment.
Strengthen procedures
and mechanisms that
can help to adequately
anticipate the particular
risks and constraints of
working in Liberia, and
in post-conflict countries
in general.
Shortcomings reduced the full
potential of the EC actions
The EC could successfully provide
some relevant and important
impulses for Liberia’s stabilisation,
but only in a relatively small
number of cases. The EC’s
contributions lagged significantly
behind its actual potential and
value-added for assisting post-
conflict societies and its
commitment to focus support on
the most vulnerable, marginalised
populations.
Improve monitoring,
supervision and
oversight and refocus
support on most
vulnerable and
marginalised
populations.
Better use of the ROM
missions and reports
9.5.2 Relevance of the EU interventions
As per the evaluation standards, Relevance measures “the extent to which an intervention’s
objectives are pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be addressed”. The following table and
graph illustrate the evolution of the Human Development Index (HDI) in Liberia since 1980. To date,
Liberia's HDI is 0.329, which places the country a rank 182 out of 187 countries with comparable
data. The HDI of Sub-Saharan Africa as a region increased from 0.365 in 1980 to 0.463 today,
placing Liberia below the regional average. As appearing on the graph, the index most significant
increases (despite modest) started from the year 2006, which corresponds to the concentration of
efforts by the international community and the new elected government for restoring the institutions
and the basic infrastructure. There was a slight decrease in 2008 and since then the trend is positive
but very slow. It would be hazardous to conclude that there is a causality link between the index
increase and the specific interventions of the EU in the electricity sector. Nevertheless, their
contribution to the improvement in the living conditions of the population (mostly in the Monrovia
area – 48.2% of the Liberia’s population lives in urban areas) cannot be disputed.
68 Contract 2012/284032
Table 11: Human Development index
An interesting observation which is derived from the data relating to the indicators for Doing
Business (IFC – World Bank) shows that getting electricity is still a bottleneck with one rank lost
between 2011 and 2012. Numbers of days and procedures and the cost for access (connection)
have not changed since 3 years. On the contrary, the rank relating to the aspect of starting a
business has drastically and positively improved in 2011. Thus demonstrates the emergence of a
dynamic momentum resulting from a better institutional and legal framework conducive for more
productive initiatives and activities.
Table 12: Indicators for doing business
Year
Ease of
Doing
Business
Rank
Starting
a
Business
- Rank
Starting a
Business -
Procedure
s (number)
Starting a
Business
- Time
(days)
Starting a
Business -
Cost (% of
income per
capita)
Getting
Electricit
y - Rank
Getting
Electricity
-
Procedure
s (number)
Getting
Electricity
- Time
(days)
Getting
Electricit
y - Cost
(% of
income
per
capita)
2007 .. .. 10 68 563.9 .. .. .. ..
2008 .. .. 10 68 489.6 .. .. .. ..
2009 .. .. 6 31 100.2 .. .. .. ..
2010 .. .. 5 20 85.6 .. 4 586 5,066.0
2011 155 71 5 20 88.3 152 4 586 5,294.1
2012 151 35 4 6 68.4 153 4 586 4,455.2
Human Development Index
Year Liberia Low human
development
Sub-
Saharan
Africa
World
2011 0.329 0.456 0.463 0.682
2010 0.325 0.453 0.460 0.679
2009 0.320 0.448 0.456 0.676
2008 0.328 0.443 0.451 0.674
2007 0.319 0.437 0.445 0.670
2006 0.298 0.430 0.438 0.664
2005 0.300 0.422 0.431 0.660
2000 0.306 0.383 0.401 0.634
1985 0.332 0.334 0.374 0.576
1980 0.335 0.316 0.365 0.558
Final Report – August 2012 69
Expected or facilitated access to electricity is certainly one of the important favourable parameters.
Nevertheless the reality remains that since the rehabilitation of parts of the Monrovia electricity grid,
the rate of connection installation is still low. As a result of what was observed during the appraisal of
LEC capabilities and the visits made in various areas of the city several reasons can be articulated:
1. LEC lacks the tools, personnel and equipment (vehicles, hauling equipment) to install the LV
part of the system at a pace commensurate with the challenging objective assigned to them
of several thousands of new connections within the coming months. (Under the Management
Contract, LEC must connect at least 33,000 plus 9’000 additional new customers by 30 June
2015).
2. LEC is constrained by the need for a prudent management of the customer base growth and
the actual capacities of the transmission system (HV and MV) and installed/available
generation capacity.
3. The cost of connection to be borne by LEC (said to be in the tune of US $ 1’000 per
connection), before it is amortized by the customer connection fee has an important impact
on LEC’s financial situation.
Remedies for addressing these issues (resulting in the low rate of connection installation) are closely
linked with the future investment plan that LEC will implement for the next years. The execution of
this plan closely depends on the availability of adequate financial resources from LEC revenues,
from the government and from donors. This is to say that there is necessity of a well coordinated
mainstreaming of the actions and initiatives of all parties. LEC will remain the ultimate “implementer”
of the planned programmes and projects. To properly discharge this role, LEC needs support and
capacity re-enforcement at various levels: HR, equipment and tools, operations and management
organization, financial support and facilitation which can be globally provided through adequately
designed Technical Assistance, Training and Knowledge Transfer.
The following table is a synopsis of the immediate and first observations and findings “from the
ground” that the evaluation team gathered during its activities. Such table is established for the 5
usual evaluation criterions namely: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impacts and Sustainability.
70 Contract 2012/284032
Table 13: Relevance of the project
Relevance and quality of the Project
Sub Component
Correspondence with
the Project Log frame
Observations Comments and
Suggestions
Documentation and
reports from the project
Award of work contract The team had access
to a large volume of
documents and
reports. The technical
aspects were relatively
easy to assess for the
most recent projects,
but difficult to identify
for the older projects.
The administrative
background of older
projects was only
fragmentary in the
CRIS.
The initial project
identification and
definition documents
are of good standards.
They allowed to issue
tenders and bids
internationally. The
subsequent contracts
did not lead to claims
or recourses except
the older ones for
which ex-post audits
determined
irregularities.
The responsibility for
issuing the project
implementation
documentation and
reports was obviously
passed on to the
implementation
agencies and the
contractors.
Socio-economic and
environmental context
in the Project area
Improved living
conditions
Improved safety
Increased business
activities in the sector
and else
Increased job levels in
the sector and else
To date (April- May
2012) the prevailing
conditions observed in
Monrovia are those of
a poorly developed
country, aggravated by
destruction and
deterioration which
happened during the
years of wars and
conflicts.
There is no doubt that
any initiative to
improve Monrovia’s
electrical power supply
infrastructure was
highly relevant at the
beginning of the
interventions which
took place in a post-
conflict situation.
Final Report – August 2012 71
In the sector of
electricity, obvious
improvements were
visible immediately
after the emergency
interventions which
allowed a limited
number of customers
to be connected as
well as the restoration
of some street
lightings.
The results of the end-
users survey
conducted under the
evaluation scope
confirm that the
willingness to pay and
the level of affordability
to cover costs for
connections and
supply of electricity
exists. The population
(interviewed
households) also
declared that they
would prefer LEC
services for more
reliability in the power
supply and an easier
management/predictab
ility/control of their
expenses.
The project did not
originally comprise LV
components for
connecting new
customers until an
addendum to the
contract provides
resources for 2’600
prepaid meters
targeting low income
communities
Socio-economic
indicators have
improved since the
beginning of the
Project, but some have
deteriorated, like the
indicator “getting
electricity” which lost 1
rank between 2011
and 2012.
Relevance regarding
Ministry of Energy and
Poverty Reduction
Strategies
New democratically
elected government in
place and ready to
adopt legislation
necessary for
liberalisation and
privatisation.
Government provides
funds and personnel
for regulator.
Sufficient private sector
investor interest in
generation and
distribution.
The interventions are
fully aligned with the
strategic objective 1
stated in the PRS
which is to extend grid
electricity throughout
Monrovia and its
environs and the
principal objective of
the National Energy
Policy which is to
ensure universal
access to modern
energy services in an
affordable, sustainable
Interventions were a
first set of urgent
actions responding to
needs in a post conflict
situation. Further
actions will have to
closely align with the
subsequent goals and
strategic objectives of
the PRS and the
National strategies
which target quality
and access (modern
energy), low carbon
type (renewable) and
72 Contract 2012/284032
9.5.3 Efficiency
As per the evaluation standards, efficiency measures “the extent the desired effects are achieved at
a reasonable cost”. It also covers the appraisal of achieved results with reference with those
targeted in the project log frame.
The Financing Agreement (FA) was signed on June 1st, 2006 but the Works Contract was awarded
to ELTEL only in March 2008 mainly due to the fruitless international bidding process. Works on the
sites started effectively around November 2008 and about 17 months after the awarding of the
contract, only about 25% of the entire work was completed mainly due to a long mobilization period
imposed by the actual prevailing circumstances. Then the works progressed well under an efficient
management and efficient cooperation with local subcontractors, using appropriate local resources
and demonstrating a flexible and innovative approach.
Unfortunately on the institutional aspects slow progress were made regarding the TA activities
supporting good governance at MLME and LEC as they were foreseen in the Financial Agreement.
Such technical assistance was and remains very important to support the government organizing the
sector in view of its liberalisation and privatisation. The expected target that private participation
would take interest in the investment, construction and operation in the sector was globally missed.
Looking backward, the project objectives were also expected to produce Indirect results listed in the
initial project log frame like i) Private concession(s) for generation are awarded ii) A company is
Successful tender for
company to operate
the transmission grid.
Sufficient private sector
interest in distribution.
and environmentally-
friendly manner in
order to foster the
economic, political, and
social development of
Liberia.
least coast alternatives
(affordability) options
for the next phases of
development of the
electricity sector at the
scale of the country.
Expectations for the
private sector
participation were too
ambitious.
Initial project
identification and initial
formulation
Secondary Activity:
Institutional and
logistical support
a) Institutional support
and studies enabling
sector reform.
b) Logistical support:
TA for finalisation of
legal and regulatory
framework.
TA for launching the
award of concession
contracts.
Proposing this activity
within the scope of the
interventions was well
aligned with the
Government own
objectives and policies
as stated in the PRS
and the draft National
Energy Policy.
The objective was
premature and over
optimistic. The
corresponding
activities were not
implemented.
Preparation phase of
the project should have
better integrated
lessons and
experiences gained
from failures in other
countries in the region.
Final Report – August 2012 73
recruited to operate the High Voltage transmission grid and iii) Private concession for distribution
concessions is awarded.
These expectations were highly ambitious, not to say unrealistic. Given the prevailing conditions in
most of the West African countries where privatization or concessioning of electricity generation or
transportation projects have not yet produced success stories but rather dramatic failures, it was
over-optimistic to target such results in a post-conflict and still fragile country. The construction of a
conducive institutional environment takes a long time. It is however certainly the approach for the
future, as private sector participation in the electricity sector could bring additional investments,
management and operational skills and could improve the overall performance of the
industry/services,. Before contemplating such a favourable context, strict prerequisites and
appropriate fundamentals are necessary. There is still a long way to go for Liberia where the
materialization of the basic first parameters is constantly delayed, like the finalization and adoption of
the Electricity Law and the setting up of an Electricity Regulatory Entity/Authority.
Table 14: Project efficiency
Project Efficiency (Status of results)
Sub Component
Correspondence with
the Project Log frame
Observations Comments and
Suggestions
Input Delivery Inspection of network
coverage in a
representative sample
of areas.
Business and
consumer price
benchmarks
throughout the city.
Due to the emergency
situation at the time of
preparing the project and
defining its components
and corresponding
budgets, the basic data
were not totally accurate
and needed to be
guessed to some extent.
Re-enforcement of
preparatory phase quality,
more detailed evaluation
activities and in the
country dialogues are
essential.
Cost Control Supervision of works
Final acceptance of
works for transmission
and distribution grid
The first part of the
interventions was
dominated by an
emergency character
which involved that
activities were to be
expedited quickly, thus
eventually not optimizing
costs.
The second part costs
were the response of
market to an ICB,
supposed to reflect the
real costs and a
reasonable portion of
contingencies and risk
premium.
The process for the ICB
was long and delayed for
mainly reasons, thus
fostering the perception of
high risk.
74 Contract 2012/284032
Activity Management Supervision of works
Execution and
implementation delegated
to other agencies for the
“emergency part” of the
project.
Then assignment of an
Engineer as Owner’s
Delegate for the physical
part of the rehabilitation
project
The appointment of an
experienced company for
a Management Contract
within the National Utility
was pertinent.
Reliable data and
information are only
generated since the MC
is in place.
Contractual
achievements
Award of work contract
by 03/2006.
Final acceptance of
works for transmission
and distribution grid.
Award of TA contracts
as necessary.
Works under the ELTEL
contract fully
implemented and
commissioned in
December 2011.
Despite delays in the
bidding phase, works
were performed with high
professional standards.
No major deviation in the
implementation calendar.
Works and installations
performed in accordance
with high standards
complying with the state
of the arts.
Final report by the
Owner’s Engineer has no
reservation.
Results obtained
versus expected
results
Private concession(s)
for generation
awarded. A company
recruited to operate the
High Voltage
transmission grid
Private concession for
distribution
concessions awarded
Legal and regulatory
framework for
liberalisation
completed
Sector regulator set up
On the aspects of Private
Sector participation and
“unbundling” of
operations in the
electricity sector by
allocating concessions,
there are no tangible
results
No Regulatory Entity in
place and fully
operational
The Energy Law is
drafted but has not yet
been adopted.
The results on the
technical aspects are fully
achieved through the
delivery and installation
on site of all works and
services covered by the
contracts.
The results on the
institutional aspect
targeting the concession
of parts of the electricity
system were not
achieved.
Adoption of laws and the
creation of a Regulatory
Entity needed for drawing
interest of private
investors, operators and
concessionaires are
delayed.
Final Report – August 2012 75
9.5.4 Implementation effectiveness
Effectiveness measures the extent to which objectives set are achieved as well as the mechanisms,
specifically relating to coordination with stakeholders, which contributed to the achievements.
Historical reports confirms the EC staff were formally part of a large number of coordination
mechanisms and donor – GoL coordination platforms over the years, i.e., between 2004 and 2008.
In some areas, such as GEMAP / economic governance or the rehabilitation of the electricity grid,
the Commission seems to have adopted the leading or at least one of the leading roles. However in
the later years (2007 / 2008) the ability of the EC to remain active in important coordination
mechanisms became limited. In 2007, the EC was not able anymore to participate in coordination
meetings as important as the workshops accompanying the elaboration of the Governments Poverty
Reduction Strategy (PRS).
Table 15: Project effectiveness
Project Effectiveness
Sub Component
Correspondence with
the Project Log frame
Observations Comments and
Suggestions
Stakeholders
coordination
Logistical support:
TA for finalisation of legal
and regulatory
framework.
New democratically
elected government in
place and ready to adopt
legislation necessary for
liberalisation and
privatisation.
Adoption of electricity law
and secondary legislation.
Strong leadership and
guidance by the EU at the
inception of the
programme in 2003 faded
away the next years,
certainly hampering a
proactive role and the
adjustment of actions with
the rapidly evolving
situation.
Post-conflict and fragile
states require support
and guidance during the
delicate period when
institutions as well as
infrastructures are to be
rebuilt. Such
accompaniment is also a
unique opportunity for
founding new and
unbiased basements for
the legal and regulatory
frameworks.
Information
management and
dissemination
Perception of results
Improved living conditions
Improved safety
Increased business
activities in the sector and
else
Increased job levels in the
sector and else
The first interventions
were quickly understood
by the public as the prime
beneficiary of the project
like revamping of
streetlights and electricity
generation facilities.
It is not obvious that the
targeted groups have
been duly informed of the
subsequent phases to
come further.
During the end-users
survey (April - May 2012)
the perception of
information on the time
frame as well as the
financial/economic
aspects of the projects
was still volatile in the
public opinion.
There is still a big
discrepancy between the
reality and what the public
perceives ,as for example
on the costs and tariffs,
formalities, obligations
and rights as customers.
Beneficiaries globally
perceive positive results
but are not always
individually affected.
76 Contract 2012/284032
Delivery of Outputs Give access to the
population and business
of Monrovia to more
affordable electricity.
Coverage increases from
<10% of population
having access to
electricity to at least 50%
Average of business and
consumer end-user price
drops by at least 30%.
Business and consumer
price benchmarks
throughout the city.
The material outputs in
terms of emergency
interventions and
delivery/installation of
equipment are realized,
despite observed delays.
As stated at many places
in the evaluation report,
the physical
delivery/access of
electricity to beneficiaries
and target groups is only
tangible since
approximately one year.
The scope of the
intervention fortunately
incorporated equipment
and works for LV
connections.
It was fortunate that other
donors also supported the
electricity sector, thus
creating synergies which
today translate into the
measurable increase of
the customer basis.
To date, the data bank of
records which could make
possible the
measurement of
quantitative parameters is
too small for deriving
meaningful results. On
the other hands, statistics
and their quality are not of
a sufficient standard.
Appropriation,
participation and
commitments of
beneficiaries and
Authorities
New democratically
elected government in
place and ready to adopt
legislation necessary for
liberalisation and
privatisation
Government provides
funds and personnel for
regulator
A promising dynamic
momentum was observed
during the first phases of
the interventions with the
government focusing on
the preparation of
policies, strategies and
the associated drafted
documents for revamping
the overall sector.
Today, the framework
which would have made
the sector attractive for
other participants is still in
its infantile stage. The
electricity law has not
been passed and the
creation of an Electricity
Sector Regulatory
Agency/ Authority is
staked.
Final Report – August 2012 77
9.5.5 Impacts
“Impacts” is a general term used to describe the effects of an intervention on society. They can be
either positive or negative and foreseen or unforeseen. Initial impacts are called results, whilst
longer-term impacts are called outcomes.
Table 16: Project Impacts
Impacts
Sub Component
Correspondence with
the Project Log frame
Observations Comments and
Suggestions
Results (direct) Final acceptance of works
for transmission and
distribution grid.
Holding company owning
transmission network
incorporated.
Improved revenue and
expenditure management
The complete scope of
actions, works relating to
the electricity grid
rehabilitation including
content of addendum has
been materialized.
As already stated this
result was not achieved
The National Utility
situation is stabilized but
still very fragile.
Good or acceptable
quality of the contractors
and the agencies in
charge of the
implementation
Good control framework
imposed by the
formalities,
conditionalities, rules and
regulations driving EU
interventions.
Over-optimistic objective
not matching the reality
of the prevailing situation
The installation of a
Management Contract
was a must for achieving
this result
Results (Indirect) Private concession(s) for
generation awarded
A company recruited to
operate the High Voltage
transmission grid
Private concession for
distribution concessions
awarded
Legal and regulatory
framework for
liberalisation completed
Sector regulator set up
Indirect results have not
been materialized
The institutional
arrangements (laws,
regulations) have not
been put in place to date
Outcomes Improved living conditions
Improved safety
Increased business
activities in the sector and
else
Increased job levels in the
sector and else Coverage
increases from <10% of
population having access
to electricity to at least
50%
Figures initially articulated
in the log frame cannot be
assessed due to the lack
of compilation of
necessary data by the
governmental agencies
The agencies in charge of
statistics and follow-up of
socio-economic progress
are still weak and not in
position to release valid
and reliable indicators.
Nevertheless, the End-
users survey allowed to
obtain a rather good
indication of the
population positive
78 Contract 2012/284032
Average of business and
consumer end-user price
drops by at least 30%
perception of the benefit
from access to electricity
in their everyday life:
more security, access to
more efficient appliances,
longer time for children to
study, small business
opportunities.
9.5.6 Sustainability
Sustainability measures the extent to which positive effects are likely to last after the intervention has
terminated. In this respect, works and equipment installed for contributing to delivering electricity to
the target groups and beneficiaries have been erected according to very good standards. The HV
and MV parts of the Monrovia grid are dimensioned for satisfying the services expected from the
utility for the 4 to 5 years to come. Thanks to other donors’ interventions aiming at accelerating the
installation of new customers’ connections, the sustainability of the EU interventions in the electricity
sector is undisputable. The quality of the executed works (achieved by the contractors under the
adequate supervision of engineers commissioned by the EU) recognized by all parties also
guaranties a longer lifespan of equipment. The technologies selected for the LV part of the grid
(prepaid meters) will also limit theft, tempering and illegal connections hence resulting in lower
operation costs for the utility. With abstraction of the administrative and time management
misfortunes at the inception of the programme/project, the approach has an interesting potential for
replication. First in other urban centres in Liberia when they are incorporated into the future HV
national/regional grid, but also for any other country with similar patterns like: Post conflict or post
disaster status, institutional fragility.
Table 17: Sustainability
Sustainability
Sub Component
Correspondence with
the Project Log frame
Observations Comments and
Suggestions
Capacity of actors High Voltage and
transmission electricity
grid rehabilitated
LEC has gained
experience in installation
works and their
maintenance.
Combination of donors’
interventions,
accompanied with the
entering into force of the
Management Contract
has imposed a new
corporate culture of rigor
and discipline and
accountability.
LEC staff have acquired
skills for works and
operations activities.
Local companies sub-
contractors to ELTEL
have benefited
experience and
equipment.
As an example, at the
end of its contract, ELTEL
donated the tools,
equipment and vehicles
to the local sub-
contractor.
Economic feasibility
and financial
sustainability
Average of business and
consumer end-user price
drops by at least 30%
LEC can better manage
its financial standing.
The costs of connections
as well as the cost of
electricity will decrease
Due to the fuel price
increase, tariff decrease
could not be significant
but was at least
contained.
Final Report – August 2012 79
when the number of
consumers increases
through the effect of
scale.
Replication potential Give access to the
population and business
to more affordable
electricity
Improved living
conditions
Improved safety
Increased business
activities in the sector and
else
Increased job levels in the
sector and else
At the scale of Liberia, the
project approach could be
replicated for other urban
centres in the country,
when the backbone of a
HV national transportation
grid is in place.
Neighbouring countries in
Western Africa with
electricity sector similar
patterns could be
candidates for replication.
(Guinea, Guinea Bissau,
Sierra Leone …)
9.6 CONCLUSIONS TO THE EVALUATION
Further to the evaluation activities and analysing the history of the evolution of the EU intervention
logic, the findings lead to the following broad conclusions.
The EU interventions in the electricity sector occurred under 3 cycles of EDF. From 1999 to 2005,
EC cooperation objectives reflected the dominant needs of Liberia’s population and, after the
appointment of a transitional Government in 2003, were also consistent with the GoL’s newly defined
policy priorities. Then, the European Commission repeatedly adjusted its cooperation objectives and
modalities for Liberia to reflect changes in the political circumstances and security situation in the
country during this period. The early years of EC assistance were clearly focused on the
rehabilitation of basic services and infrastructure in Liberia, coupled with support to the reintegration
and rehabilitation of displaced people and ex-combatants.
The CSP (Country Strategy Paper) for the EDF9 however shifted towards adopting a more
development oriented approach, in particular with its support to education. Still, compared to the
development emphasis of the latter part of the EDF9, the EDF10 strategy took a step back and
returned to an approach that was more geared towards the satisfaction of immediate needs, in
particular to fill any possible rehabilitation gap while the international community was in the
meantime transitioning away from humanitarian assistance.
The evaluation report dated December 2010 already brought answers and conclusions to the basic
judgment criterias applicable for measuring the impacts of the interventions. These answers and
conclusions are still valid as of today. According to the 3 criterias i) Increased access to electricity
in urban and rural EC supported areas ii) Increased number of working streetlights and public
lighting and iii) Increased number of hours of electricity supply per day, the evaluation/judgment
conclusions state that the contribution of the European Commission to increasing access to
electricity in Monrovia consisted of a number of earlier small scales, but politically important
installations of generator powered electricity loops and associated streetlights and significantly
delayed works on a larger portion of Monrovia’s electricity distribution network. In 2006, the
European Commission was able to finance three small, generator powered electricity grids (in
Congo Town, Kru Town, Paynesville suburb) in time to serve as showcases of progress after the
election of President Johnson-Sirleaf. These networks were inaugurated around the annual
celebrations of Liberia’s Independence Day, and therefore served as important, albeit largely
80 Contract 2012/284032
symbolic, signs of progress in Monrovia. As of May 2007, a total of 535 street lights had been
installed in connection with these three isolated loops. It is not known, how many of these street
lights were still operating at the end of 2008. EC support of the larger scale rehabilitation of
Monrovia’s electricity grid experienced significant delays of about three years, counting from the
initial launching of the first tender for the works in March 2006 until the start of actual construction in
May 2009. Reasons behind the delays were difficulties in finding enough interested parties to
respond to the tender, lengthy evaluations of the received bids and negotiations between the EC
office in Monrovia and the Delegation in Ivory Coast on the application of “negotiated procedures” for
the award of the contract. Upon start of the construction in early 2009, the works seem to have
progressed well, and as of February 2010, the biggest part of the EC-financed work on the electricity
grid was completed. Long assessment periods (e.g. the evaluation of PMC took over 2 years to be
finalized) and the overburdened bureaucratic procedures have caused severe delays and could
have been prevented if a more efficient steering structure would have been in place. The
complicated and time-consuming set-up, comprising of the LEC, the donor steering committee, the
board of the LEC and the ministry has complicated the communication and caused delays for
necessary decision making processes. Ahead of the 2005 elections, the European Commission
supported the rehabilitation of streetlights under the “Street light Project” of the Reintegration
Programme for Returnees and Displaced People. In comparison to the intended scale of the
rehabilitation the sustained success was small: out of 226 lights that were supposed to be repaired,
only 87 were in fact worked on. Within months of completion, only 38 of these lights were still
working. The EU support for the rehabilitation of the electricity infrastructure is valued as timely, but
upcoming crisis and unpredictable changes in the security situation have hampered the
implementation of the reconstruction efforts. Parts of the EC commitment for installing power lines
from the EPP I and II was not fulfilled, so USAID took over the responsibility and completed the
installations. Despite the no fulfilment, the professional capacities of EU contractors were rated very
positive by LEC authorities.
For the ease of understanding the modulation of the conclusions towards different perspectives, the
EU interventions can be broken down in two batches:
1. The first series of interventions comprising the Post-Conflict Rehabilitation and Capacity
Building Programme (PCRCBP) and the Reintegration Programme for Returnees and
Displaced People in Liberia. Under these two programmes, the contribution of the European
Commission for increasing access to electricity in Monrovia consisted of a number of earlier
small scales, but politically important installations of generator powered electricity loops and
associated streetlights. The 5 aspects of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impacts and
sustainability were globally evaluated as satisfactory in reports issued further to appraisal
missions and specifically the findings of the 2010 Country Level Evaluation of EC support to
the Republic of Liberia. The current evaluation purpose is not to re-evaluate those
interventions. However, the global satisfactory results relating to the 5 usual criteria certainly
translate particular circumstances where needs are so huge that any interventions driven by
emergency and humanitarian considerations are likely to achieve expected objectives. At
least, those interventions had the merit to trigger other supports from other donors and to
impulse the process of rebuilding infrastructure in a post conflict environment. In such
circumstances restoring the operations of public services was paramount for also restoring
the confidence of populations within a complex reconciliation process. Nevertheless and for
the good sake of drawing lessons from these past interventions it is worth to point out some
Final Report – August 2012 81
of the weaknesses which were identified in the implementation and performances of the
programmes.
a. Complex administrative procedures (including tender and procurement regulations)
have limited the operational flexibility of the European Commission.
b. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the effects of EC support on peace consolidation
and conflict prevention has been erratic, which has constrained the ability of the
European Commission to adjust its cooperation strategy with regard to these issues
appropriately and in a timely manner.
c. The EU support has not enough strengthened the capacities for policy design and
implementation in the sector, this remains a high priority when there is a massive
lack of adequately trained staff (engineers, technicians). The lacking capacity
ultimately also threatens the possibility of adequately maintaining the investments,
and thus the sustainability of the initial achievements.
d. During the period 2003 to 2007 the demands that planning and implementation of EC
assistance have placed on the EC in Monrovia have overburdened and overwhelmed
the organisational and human resources of the EC office and later the EU Delegation
in Monrovia.
e. The lack of strong coordination in planning and programming among implementers of
EC funded programmes led to duplications, overlap and even competition, thus
reducing efficiency of interventions.
2. The second series of interventions in the electricity sector were performed under the
Monrovia Electricity Grid Rehabilitation Project. Theses interventions are the specific objects
of the current evaluation. The major part of the project was mainly composed of works and
supplies for the HV and MV parts of the electric system. The bidding procedures for these
works were originally started in October 2005 targeting the 13th of January 2006 for
submission of proposals by the bidders. After various adjustments and delays in the internal
instruction of the project within the EU system, the dead line for tendering in the published
Works procurement notice (2006/S 56-057777 dated 22nd March 2006) was 10th of July
2006. It was then cancelled in 27th April (via notice 2007 2007/S 74-089506) due to no valid
bid received. It took almost 2 years after the signing of the Financing Agreement (June 1st
2006) to have a signed works contract in March 2008, mainly due to the fruitless results of
the International Competitive Bidding (ICB), the necessity for a rider to adjust budgets and
costs and finally to apply the negotiated procedure Financing Agreement (FA) was signed on
01/06/2006. The Work on the ground started effectively around November 2008. The second
part of the intervention was for supporting the liberalisation of the electricity sector and
private investment. It has not been achieved, and therefore there has been no need to
activate the TA support to the commercialization of power generation and its distribution. The
objectives under these TA with expecting the rapid involvement of private players in the
sector were however too ambitious. Given the lessons drawn from the numerous attempts
made in West African countries (Guinea, Senegal, Mali …) to liberalize the sector and invite
private participation which drastically failed, the approach was unrealistic. On the 5 standard
aspects guiding evaluation, the findings lead to the following conclusions.
82 Contract 2012/284032
a. Relevance When appraising to what extent the intervention was relevant in respect to needs,
problems and issues identified in target groups, the delivery of works under the contract
only partly satisfied this criterion. The initiative to improve Monrovia’s electrical power
supply infrastructure was highly relevant as a means to contribute towards the project’s
Overall Objective (OO). However, the intervention as initially designed was not in line
with the Project Purpose (PP) which is to allow the public access to affordable electricity,
as the intervention was restricted to High Voltage (HV) and Medium Voltage (MV)
distribution network, and its substations. Out reaching end users together with tangible
impacts on their living conditions was therefore depending on other donors and more
specifically the Low Voltage (LV) distribution network needed to be funded by non-EU
projects. Fortunately, within the frame of constant adjustments of the EU intervention
logic for matching actual circumstances, a rider (No.6) covering the provision for
resources for the delivery and installation of 2’600 prepaid meters was signed.
b. Effectiveness As far as achieving the objectives of the project, the first objective and results relating to
delivery of electricity to the population is achieved, however with delays and at a slow
pace due to various reasons explained in other parts of the report. The second objective
of improving the institutional environment allowing for a strong participation of private
partners in the development of the Liberian electricity sector is not achieved.
c. Efficiency On the aspect of improving access to electricity for populations and the associated
effects on their living conditions, the programme achieved these results at a cost which
can be qualified reasonable. Despite the results of the tendering process were fruitless
requiring direct negotiations with the selected contractor within a final budget increased
through riders, the contract amount was reflecting the market and the level of risks for
operations in Liberia. All parties also recognized that the works were executed according
to very high standards, thus assuring that a status of best value for money was achieved.
d. Impacts Globally, the impacts of the project are positive in terms of immediate results evidenced
by the increasing number of connections to the grid and served population. They still
need a period of consolidation for allowing significant changes for various indicators for
measuring tangible outcomes. The end-users survey performed during May 2012
provides qualitative indicators that the populations have perception, expectations and
aspirations in line with what improved access to electricity could satisfy. The aspects of
security, better education for children thanks to lighting, better comfort and possible
opportunities for initiating new productive activities are amongst those cited by the
interviewees. During the survey, the sentence pronounced by an household keeper
stating that “ electricity gives me the feeling of resurrecting “ is self explanatory.
e. Sustainability There is few doubts that the positive effects and results describe above will vanish after
the programme is achieved. On the contrary, the project had a trigger effect, with other
donors providing support to other sub-components of the electricity sector (like described
in the part of the report relating to other donors interventions) and specifically assisting
LEC in recovering an acceptable standard of operation. This however implies that for the
Final Report – August 2012 83
future, a particular vigilance on the progress of LEC towards better financial and
operational achievements will be required. The ability for LEC to pursue its successful
reorganization is a key parameter for assuring that the results and outcomes under the
project are sustainable.
In addition to the 5 standard criterions, there are two additional aspects which are worth to be
commented as follows:
f. Coherence The project, on the part of the grid rehabilitation works is coherent as it did not contradict
other interventions by other donors. On the contrary, by having assumed a leading role in
the electricity sector in Liberia during the first years after the end of conflicts and wars,
the EU impulsed other’s actions within a logic of complementarities. This coordinated
approach, which deserves to be pursued and improved allowed other donors to support
and initiate programmes and projects beyond the sole perimeter of the capital Monrovia:
rural electrification, renewable energy, bio-mass management, off grid small power
plants, consumption management programmes, national and regional interconnections
are examples illustrating the on going activities in the electricity/energy sector at the
country scale.
g. Consistency Last but not least, in addition to the usual evaluation criterions, the aspect of consistency of the project deserves to be underlined. Positive spill-over on other economic, social or environmental policy areas are qualitatively perceived through the results of the end-users survey.
Evaluation synthesis table on next page
84 Contract 2012/284032
Evaluation illustrated synthesis
In order to illustrate the results of the evaluation, the following table is built by allocating a mark for
each evaluation criteria according to the following legend.
Table 18: Evaluation synthesis
The illustration above shows that globally, the Monrovia Electricity Grid Rehabilitation project has
satisfied the majority of targeted objectives and standard evaluation criterions.
A: Excellent B: Good C: Satisfactory D: Poor E:
Unacceptable
Monrovia Grid Rehabilitation
Project
(Institutional Aspects Excluded)
Reintegration for returnees and displaced
people and Post conflict rehabilitation and
capacity building programmes
Criterion Marking Remarks Marking Remarks
Relevance B
Supporting factors: Project is a response to a critical and emergency situation
C
Marking under the ROM performed in
2010
Efficiency B
Supporting factors: High standard of construction. Contract at cost reflecting market risk patterns Appropriate and proven technologies.
B
Effectiveness B
Supporting Factors: HT and MV equipment in operation Deterrent factors: Connections to customers through LV equipment came at the end of the project
C
Impacts C
Deterrent factor: Connections to customers were not included at the beginning of the project
C
Sustainability A
Supporting factors: High
standard of construction. Appropriate technologies.
B
Coherence A
Supporting factors:
Leading role of EU. Coordination with other donors. Complementarities of programmes
NA
Consistency B
Supporting factors: End-users survey shows that the project satisfies the expectations and aspirations of population in various domains
NA
Final Report – August 2012 85
10 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 APPROACH TO RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations detailed below are based on the activities conducted during the evaluation
mission, the documents and data collected and the interviews and meetings held with the various
parties intervening in the Liberia electricity sector development. They are also backed-up by the
results and findings of the end-user survey which had the twofold purpose of measuring the direct
impacts of EU interventions on the beneficiaries as well as allowing to assess the validity and
realism of projections made concerning the future trends in the electricity consumption in Liberia
(mostly the Monrovia area and through the interconnections which are planned in the near future)
and the corresponding needs in terms of generation capacities and overall development of the
electric system.
Recommendations are built in the light of observations made during the mission as well as detailed
analysis of data and information and various computations performed in order either to assess the
validity of some assumptions or to found the own opinions of the evaluation team. The
recommendations and the suggested actions are part of a dynamic process to be unrolled during the
next coming years. As a consequence, the recommendations specifically take into account the
current situation of the electricity sector in Liberia, the status and development plans of the national
utility - Liberia Electricity Corporation -, the involvements of other donors interventions through their
announced operations in the sub-sectors of generation, distribution and access identified for
satisfying the needs up to the year 2015. Finally, recommendations are considering the place that
the hydropower potential can or must take within the most adequate future mix of sources which
could improve the electrical autonomy of the country and reduce its expenses for the procurement of
fossil fuels on the international market.
One observation which is overarching the approach to recommendations is that for the next coming
years, the involvements and commitments of donors from the international community will satisfy the
needs in terms of generation, transportation and distribution/connections resulting from the expected
growth rates of the demand. This statement is backed-up by the analysis of the assumptions and the
various scenarios outlined by various parties for assessing the future demand. In other words, the
sector is “crowded” enough by financing partners for covering the development of the electricity
sector and for satisfying the demand up to 2020. After this date, new projects in the fields of
generation, transport and distribution will require additional support by donors.
10.2 CURRENT SITUATION OF THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR
10.2.1 Other Donors interventions and programmes
The evaluation team held several meetings with the donors (bilateral and multilateral) identified as
active in the sector of electricity. Nevertheless, some of them have no representation office in
Monrovia or have not focused on this sector either as a result of donors’ coordination aiming at
avoiding redundant interventions or have not retained Liberia as a country of concentration for their
aid.
The description of donors’ interventions below only refers to the electricity sector though they may
be active and strongly involved in Liberia in other domains.
86 Contract 2012/284032
The description of, past, current and future interventions reflects the situation and the accuracy of
information available at the date of April – May 2012. The calendar for the actual implementation of
new projects, specifically in the field of new generation capacities must be considered as tentative
and subject to further changes as a result of different constraints embedded in the respective
donors’ agendas and procedures. Nevertheless the prospects for the next five years (up to 2017)
can be considered valid and reliable for assessing the situation of the Liberia Electricity sector at the
same term.
The World Bank Group
The World Bank portfolio at the end of 2010 consisted of 12 projects totalling $226 million in
commitments. Disbursement was at $101 million or 46 percent, with a disbursement ratio in fiscal
year 2010 of 20%. The average project age is 2 years. Six projects are in their final year of
implementation and 2 projects are in their first year of implementation. The sectorial distribution is as
follows: Infrastructure at $164.4 million (primarily transport); Social Protection at $26.3 million,
economic and public sector governance capacity building at $19 million; Agriculture at $7 million;
and Health at $8.5 million. Projects were rated as satisfactory or moderately satisfactory on
development objective and implementation progress in 2009, with ratings for procurement and
financial management generally lagging behind. Main challenges were: (i) projects were prepared
rapidly without appropriate capacity pre-building and; (ii) project staff lack familiarity with Bank
fiduciary policies and procedures. The World Bank proposed to provide more in-depth training on
fiduciary issues as well as increase Bank staff capacity to support project procurement on an on-
going basis, by placing full-time procurement staff in-country.
In the specific sector segment relating to access to electricity (in the Monrovia area) the World Bank,
on December 2011, acting as administrator for the Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid
(GPOBA), has approved a grant of US$10 million to connect about 80,000 people (equivalent to
approx. 17’000 households) to Monrovia’s electricity grid, raising the electricity access rate in
Liberia’s capital from 0.6 percent to 8 percent. GPOBA funding will supplement capital allocations
from various donors to install connections, initially targeting 21 priority low-income neighbourhoods.
The scheme will be implemented by the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC). The project will help
make access to electricity more affordable by subsidizing the cost of connection and more inclusive
by explicitly targeting the poor. GPOBA will pay LEC a capital subsidy of US$ 595 for each
connection installed (reminder: Current connection cost for LEC is approx. US$ 1’000). The
connections made through the output-based aid (OBA) scheme will increase LEC customer base
and secure resources for further investments in access programs.
Also, the utility will be able to speed up its goal to reduce tariffs and subsequently energy
expenditure for Liberian households. In its plans, strategy and projections, LEC estimates that for
every 10,000 new customers it acquires, tariffs will reduce by US$0.03-0.04. Ultimately, the savings
made by households will help make more spending available for other commodities and education
thus achieving the objective of improving the living conditions of the population and opening
opportunities for re-allocation of the saved resources to productive activities or other socio-economic
improvements like better access to health and education services and reduction of gender
inequalities. LEC will receive the subsidy payment in two phases and in accordance with the OBA
approach, only after independent verification of household connections. 80 percent will be paid after
a connection in a priority neighbourhood is made and verified; and the remaining 20 percent will be
paid upon verification of proof of three months satisfactory service delivery to target households. The
GPOBA project is part of the Liberia Electricity System Enhancement Project (LESEP). The scheme
Final Report – August 2012 87
will be financed jointly by GPOBA (US$10 million), the Government of Norway (US$5.8 million), and
user contributions (US$0.8 million). As a reminder, LESEP is funded through a US$29 million grant
from the Government of Norway, a US$10 million IDA credit from the World Bank and US$2 million
grant from the World Bank’s Africa Renewable Energy Access (AFREA) program. The World Bank
will also continue through LESEP to support the five-year management contract signed in July 2010
with Manitoba Hydro International (MHI).
In the field of regional interconnection potentially bringing additional power to the Liberian grid, the
WB is also participating Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea (CLSG) Interconnection
Project implemented by the WAPP. During the preparation phase of the project, the WB provided a
Project Preparation Advance of US$1.95 million to support among others, the establishment of the
Special Purpose Company (SPC) which was a necessary prerequisite for the proper structuring of
such an multinational project. The WB (IDA) will then participate in the funding of the project
implementation with US$ 136.63 million.
KfW
The only potential intervention identified under KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau - German
Financial Cooperation) refers to a pledge to participate to the Mount Coffee Rehabilitation project
(Phase 1) with a grant of US$ 25 million, officially announced to the Ministry of Lands, Mines and
Energy on 09 December 2011.
KfW also supported the Pre-investment studies fully funded by EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund
through EIB (1.55 Million) for the Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea (CLSG)
Interconnection Project implemented by the WAPP. KfW will then participate to the CLSG project
with US$ 43.43 million of grant to Liberia.
Norway
The Norwegian Government focused its support to Liberia’s energy sector early in 2007 through
funding to the Emergency Power Program (EPP) II. The cooperation was expanded in 2010 when
Norway entered into 4 cooperation agreements related to electricity generation, distribution and
transmission, energy planning and institutional development. Around NOK 50 million were donated
for procuring and installing 7 MW of diesel generators and a small grid for distributing the power. In
2010 Norway entered into the following cooperation agreements with the Liberian Government
(GOL).
Table 19: Norway funded projects
Project Objective Cost
NOK
Million
Time Frame
Project Gaps Financial support to LEC to procure and install 3
MW new capacity and expand the distribution
network in Monrovia
81.9 2010 – 11
LEC
management
Rebuild LEC and strengthen electricity services in
Monrovia through a 5 year management contract
with Manitoba Hydro International
86 2010 – 15
88 Contract 2012/284032
(MHI) as LEC Operator
Investment
funding
Financing of the annual investments plans of LEC
(LEC Operator) to reach the goal of 33,000 new
connections by 2015
203 2010 – 15
Institutional
cooperation
Strengthening of Ministry of Lands, Mines and
Energy (MLME) through an institutional cooperation
with Norwegian Water Resources
and Energy Directorate (NVE).
51.4 2010 – 15
In addition, Norway has announced that a grant for US$ 70 million will be made available for the
rehabilitation of the Mount Coffee hydropower plant.
JICA
The Japan International Cooperation Agency activities in Liberia can be traced from 2007. They
were managed from their office in Ghana until the opening of a Field Office within the premises of
the UNCHR building in Monrovia . . They were concentrated on the medical/health sector and the
restoration of urban facilities through various initiatives. As far as the energy/electricity sector is
concerned, JICA announced the launching of Basic Study for Rehabilitation of Monrovia Power
System. In the framework of this study, JICA will implement a basic study to see the possibility to
implement the Rehabilitation Project of Monrovia Power System which would cover the addition of a
2x5MW Heavy Fuel Oil Operated Diesel Engine Plant at LEC Bushrod main generation facilities.
The project would also comprise equipment for a substation, MV/LV transformers, and equipment for
HV line extension.
JICA conducted a survey mission at the beginning of 2012 for identification purposes and
discussions with LEC and the Government. The corresponding amount of financing is not yet
available but a budget of US $ 30 million is articulated. The time frame for implementation can be
anticipated at the 2013 horizon depending on the procedures for completing the transaction.
Government of Japan Cabinet approval is expected in October 2012. JICA continues to have a
strong concern about the completion of the off-loading and storage facilities for HFO at the Bushrod
premises for assuring the fuel supply of the projected plant. Bidding documents for rehabilitation of
the HFO storage infrastructure at Bushrod Island are being finalized under funding from the World
Bank, and bidding process for conduct of an ESIA for these facilities is underway.
African Development Bank
The African Development Bank operations in Liberia are guided by the Liberia Joint African
Development Bank/World Bank Assistance Strategy 2008-2011 (JAS) and Eligibility to the Fragile
States Facility approved in December 2008. The overarching aim of the JAS is to support Liberia’s
transition from post conflict recovery to long-term development. The strategy was articulated around
the following two pillars: Pillar I “Rebuilding core state functions and institutions” and Pillar II “Jump-
starting and facilitating pro-poor economic growth”. The JAS was designed to support Liberia’s first
full Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) April 2008 - June 2011, which is built around four pillars: (i)
Peace and Security, (ii) Economic Revitalization, (iii) Governance and Rule of Law, and (iv)
Final Report – August 2012 89
Infrastructure and Basic Services, with gender equity, peace-building, environmental sustainability,
HIV/AIDS, children and youth, and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) cross-cutting themes.
Bank assistance under the JAS was framed in terms of two pillars: (i) Rebuilding core state functions
and institutions; and (ii) Jump-starting and facilitating pro-poor economic growth. The second pillar
encompasses improved access to key infrastructure services, improved agricultural and natural
resource management in a way that generates pro-poor growth; and improved business and
investment climate.
At the time of the last portfolio review performed by the bank in early 2011 there were ten (10) on-
going projects at different stages of implementation with a total approved amount of UA 68.33 million
(Approx. US $ 106.7 million). The following table provides the projects list by sector. Altogether, the
Water & Sanitation sector (Infrastructure) accounted for 48%, Social Sector 23%, Agriculture (and
Emergency)19%, Private Sector 6% and Multi-sector 5%.
Table 20: AFDB projects by sector
The electricity sector was not
covered. As a result of debt relief
and the improvement of its debt
indicators from high to low risk of
debt distress, Liberia now
qualifies for 100% ADF (Africa
Development Fund) loans.
Liberia’s indicative performance-
based allocation under ADF 12 is
UA 36.75 million. Proposed FSF
(Fragile State Facility)
supplemental support is UA 52.43
million and available FSF targeted support amounts to UA 4.7 million. Indicative total resources
available are therefore UA 94 million (US $ equivalent 146.8 million) for the period 2011-2012. Under
these earmarked resources, since 2011, the Bank (with other donors - see detailed herein) has
actively engaged in the Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone And Guinea (CLSG) Interconnection
Project implemented by the WAPP West African Power Pool. The total cost of the project is
estimated at US $ 493.92 million with the breakdown per donor and beneficiary country as follows:
Table 21: Funding of CLSG interconnexion project
Sectors Project title
Water &Sanitation
Monrovia (Watsan) & 3 Counties Liberia Water Sector Reform Urban Water Supply & Sanitation Project Monrovia Water Supply Rehab (DFID)
Social Labour-Based Public Works Project
Agriculture Agricultural Sector Rehab. Project (ASREP) Emergency Assistance (caterpillar infestation)
Private Sector
Access Bank Liberia (Technical Assistant) Liberia Bank for Development & Investment
Multi-sector Institutional Support Project (ISP)
Donor Amount in US $ Million Beneficiary country
AfDB 190.30 Liberia: 34.38 Ivory Coast 51.76 Sierra Leone 41.44 Guinea 62.72
World Bank 136.63 Liberia
EIB 105.47 Sierra Leone
KfW 43.43 Liberia
Contribution by Countries Governments 18.07 4 beneficiary countries
90 Contract 2012/284032
USAID
USAID is active in Liberia since decades. Its involvement in the electricity sector started with the
advent of peace in late 2003. USAID sought to support the comprehensive peace agreement with
the objective to transition from emergency assistance to reintegration/recovery and democratization
programs. In the electricity/energy sector, this assistance was developed through 3 operations:
The Emergency Power Program (EPP). The aim was the reestablishment of electricity services
and streetlights to portions of Monrovia. USAID was a participant to this GOL and multi-donor effort.
In 2009, USAID shifted its emphasis from response to emergency conditions to sustainable
development. USAID programs was concentrated on establishing a stable democracy, changing the
culture of impunity, systematic corruption and poor governance, closing severe gaps in access to
quality education and health care, expanding economic opportunity through agricultural enterprise
and natural resources management, and helping to rebuild essential infrastructure and sources of
renewable energy.
The Liberia Energy Assistance Program (LEAP). In 2006, the USAID began helping the post-war
Government create a national energy policy, including a strategy to reach the most underserved. In
two years, LEAP showed the benefits of low maintenance solar technologies at 19 sites in schools,
clinics, small businesses, and public buildings supported by other USAID programs.
The Liberia Energy Sector Support Program (LESSP) to be implemented from September 27,
2010 to September 26, 2014. The corresponding budget is US $ 18.962 Million. LESSP’s primary
goal is to increase access to sustainable, affordable clean energy and electricity for rural and urban
communities and commercial operations in Liberia. The scope of work is a mix of institutional
support and specific electricity generation pilot projects as well as support for increasing the number
of connected customers in urban as well in rural areas. The ultimate objective is to benefit the
citizens of Liberia through strengthened economic development and improved access to social
services, resulting from access to electricity.
Key components of the LESSP are:
Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy (MLME);
Supporting the Rural Renewable Energy Agency (RREA) with technical and management
training;
Strengthening the management capacity of the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC);
Improving the enabling environment for private sector participation and investments;
Promoting clean energy development in Liberia with four pilot hydropower and biomass
electric power projects;
Supporting energy regulatory, policy and legislative changes that will improve the private
investment climate in Liberia for clean and renewable energy development;
Strengthening the capabilities of local government, civil society and the private sector in
managing, operating, monitoring and regulating renewable energy projects;
Increasing Liberia Electric Corporation’s (LEC) customer base from about 1’500 to about
2’500 within year one of the program and at an accelerated rate thereafter;
At the current date (April – May 2012) the on-going activities of the USAID programs are reflected in
the monthly report issued in April 2012. They are classified according to 3 objectives:
Final Report – August 2012 91
Objective 1: Strengthen the GoL’s Capacity to Implement Plans for Rural Electrification as
Expressed in the National Energy Policy. The objective will be achieved through the implementation
of capacity building (training and courses) and institutional support activities. The Energy Law
Review and draft ERB (electricity Regulatory Board) Action Plan have been circulated for comment.
An expert is re-examining the energy law review and draft ERB Action Plan for comment.
Objective 2: Establish Commercially-Viable Pilot Plants that Provide Renewable Energy Services to
Population Centers in Bong, Lofa and Nimba Counties. The objective is currently materialized
through the implementation of Hydropower Pilot Projects. The preparation of RFPs for transmission
and distribution line equipment and electro-mechanical and hydro-mechanical equipment for
Wayavah Falls Micro Hydropower Project is in progress. Additional surveys along the penstock
alignment on the Mein River and Weave Falls sites were carried out and some changes in the
project layout are being made. Based on this the detailed engineering design and drawings for Mein
River project will begin soon. Flow measurements of the Mein River and Wayavah Falls continued
on a regular basis including gauge readings downstream of the lower Kpatawee Falls. The Sorlumba
Community Electric Cooperative Society has been formally incorporated. The RFP for the
importation of the SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) generator has been finalized and the two RFPs for
civil and electrical works are being prepared. Concerning the Cocopa biomass projects, issues
relating to the continuity of the concession may delay the possibility to develop the project in the
immediate future.
Objective 3: Collaborate with International Donors for the Expansion of Monrovia’s Power
Distribution Network. This activity is currently on hold as requested by USAID. According to USAID,
orientations will be given in September 2012, following the USAID mid-term LESSP project review
which is planned for July/August 2012.
Other prospective projects
It is also worth to quote other prospective projects which may be materialized in Liberia.
Arcelor Mittal needs a 450 MW capacity for processing the iron ores from its concession. The
project has remained at a status quo since 2008, corresponding to the worldwide crisis and he
declining demand for steel in China and other growing economies. The ArcelorMittal decision to
pursue this project and the possible timeframe is not known.
Another project supported by Buchanan Renewable Power Inc. (BRP) could provide 36 MW of
capacity with a rubber wood chips fuelled plant. The US Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) has approved a loan of up to US$112 million for the project with the remaining amount
funded by equity. However, the negotiations for the agreements are complex and protracted. To
minimize risk, BRP reportedly demanded a "lockbox" arrangement in the Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA) under which revenues earned by the LEC are paid directly into an escrow account
from which BRP is paid first. Attorneys and advisors to the GOL are concerned the arrangement with
the proposed stringent “security package” would discourage other potential investors in the power
sector. The GOL is also concerned by the "affordability" of the power compared to long-term
hydroelectric power. As a consequence, there are strong uncertainties concerning the
materialization of this project in the near future.
92 Contract 2012/284032
10.2.2 Synthesis of donors interventions in the electricity sector
The following table illustrates the compilation of information relating to the various interventions,
initiatives, projects and programmes announced by the various donors present in Liberia. For the
purpose of assessing the future structure of the national electrical system, only the projects
comprising physical works in the sub-sector of generation, distribution and access are listed, keeping
in mind that the same group of donors is also implementing support on the institutional, legal,
regulatory and capacity building aspects.
Table 22: Synthesis of donor interventions in the electricity sector
Name Project
Description
Sub-sector Units Capacity Location Cost
(US$m)
Financiers Status
Liberia
Electricity
System
Enhancement
project
(LESEP)
Expansion of
Monrovia’s
distribution
network;
Rehabilitation of
HFO
storage/offloading
facilities;
Generation
overhaul;
Capacity building
of LEC
Distribution
Generation
Urban
households
33'000 Monrovia 48 NORAD,
GPOBA, IDA
On-going
Liberia
Electricity
System
Enhancement
project
(LESEP)
Establishment of
Rural and
Renewable
Energy Agency.
Provision of
micro-hydro, solar
energy to off-grid
users
Rural
Electrification
Rural
households
9'000 Lofa, Bong 3 AFREA TF On-going
Rural Energy
Master Plan
and SSMP
Development of
Liberia's rural
energy master
plan; Pilot rural
SSMP
Rural
Electrification
Rural
households
4'000 Lofa 2 EU Funding
secured
Cross Border
Rural
Electrification
Cross Border
Rural
Communities
Electrification
project (Côte
d'Ivoire - Liberia)
Rural
Electrification
Population 130'000
(25’000
househol
ds)
Nimba,
Grand
Ghede and
Maryland
counties
11.7 WAPP(50%)
EU (50%)
Funding
secured
Buchanan
Renewable
Energy
Biomass energy
plant using rubber
wood chips
Generation MW 31 - 35 Kakata 170 BR, OPIC,
Mr.McBain
Planned
The Liberia
Energy Sector
Support
Program
(LESSP)
Four pilots to
create micro-grids
in rural areas
based on biomass
and hydro sources
Rural
Electrification
Rural
households
Lofa, Bong,
Nimba
6 USAID Funding
secured
Diesel
Generators
Additional Generation MW 3 Bushrod 2 NORAD Complete
Final Report – August 2012 93
Name Project
Description
Sub-sector Units Capacity Location Cost
(US$m)
Financiers Status
generators for
Monrovia
(Monrovia)
Diesel
Generators
Additional
generators for
Monrovia
Generation MW 10 Bushrod
(Monrovia)
6 USAID Complete
HFO-fired
generation
plant
Additional
generators for
Monrovia
Generation MW 10 - 20 Bushrod
(Monrovia)
15-30 JICA Planned
WAPP CLSG Cote d'Ivoire,
Liberia, Sierra
Leone, Guinea
(CLSG) Weat
Africa Power Pool
(WAPP)
interconnection
and sub-stations
Transmission Kms
MW
510
100
Through
interconn
ection
Yekepa -
Buchanan -
Mt. Coffee -
Monrovia-
Foya
494 EIB, EU, IDA,
KfW
Funding
secured
Mt. Coffee HEP Rehabilitation of
pre-war hydro-
electric plant of
Mount Coffee
Generation MW 64 St John
River
162 Norway, KfW,
EIB, (AfDB,
WB)
Funding
Pledges
received
Foya River
HEP
New hydro-
electric plant
Generation MW 50 Foya River
(border
Liberia/
Sierra
Leone)
143 Funding
unsecured
St. Paul River
HEP1B and 2
New hydro-
electric plants
Generation MW 198 St Paul
River
879 Funding
unsecured
Even if this provides a relatively realistic picture of what will be the situation after 3 to 4 years from to
date (May 2012), the actual materialization of targets will closely depends on 4 factors:
1. Political and socio-economic stability and consolidation of progress achieved to date in
Liberia in the sectors of governance and re-enforcement of the institutional framework.
2. Economic growth to continue resulting in an increasing number of potential customers
(demand) willing to access, pay and use electrical energy of good quality and at affordable
price.
3. Respect of funding commitments from donors and proper arrangements for minimizing
delays and administrative constraints in the various stages of the projects implementation.
(Timely readiness of reports, realistic dates of their respective Boards acceptance, well and
timely monitored procurement process, regular Monitoring and Evaluation activities, proper
support with Technical Assistance and capacity building programme).
4. LEC as the only entity to implement and finally operate the projects is the key player for the
success of all contemplated projects. Therefore LEC needs a drastic reinforcement of its
capacities (human resources, tools and equipment, organization and management tools)
together with capacity building and training program in order to leverage the full added-value
of the current Management Contract. It is paramount that LEC can consolidate the relatively
sound status that it has achieved to date, specifically on the aspect of prudent financial
management.
94 Contract 2012/284032
The following table is a visual illustration of the planned interventions by donors in the sub- sectors
of Generation, Transport and Distribution, Connections, Rural Electrification and private IPP’s for the
coming years. It shows that there is a concentration of activities for the period 2012 – 2020 in all the
sub-sectors. By cross checking with the demand projections, the economic growth forecasts as well
as the capacities of LEC to implement plans at an appropriate pace, it can be concluded that the
planed projects will meet the needs. This opens the door for opportunities to initiate approaches for
the next period (2020 – 2025) and to prepare the ground for projects and developments specifically
oriented towards more environmentally friendly technologies and the utilization of domestic or
regional natural renewable resources like hydropower.
Figure 12: Planned interventions of donors in the electricity sector
10.2.3 Demand projections
To be able to formulate proper recommendations, it is necessary to conduct an appraisal of the
future environment of the sector and specifically to evaluate the future needs. A detailed analysis of
various documents reporting on many possible scenarios was performed. The most recent report
(2011) on the subject was issued by the World Bank and AFTEG in the report titled: Options for
the Development of Liberia’s Energy Sector.
The table below illustrates the two scenarios which were considered for computing the future
demand up to 2040.
Generation Transport Distribution Connections Rural Electrification Private IPP’s
(Generation)
Time Line (Years)
2008 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025
EU (Monrovia Grid Rehab
project)
EU (Monrovia Grid Rehab
project)
Arcelor Mittal
450 MW
Rubber Wood Plant
36 MW
EU (1'400 units)
EU (Cross Border
project)
USAID (Small IPP’s)
WB (GOBPA) 16'000 Units
CLSG Multidonors (WB, AfDB, BEI,
KfW)
Mount Coffee Rehab.
(Norway, KfW) 64 MW
JICA HFO Plant
10MW MW
LEC Plans
Multi donor ( 5 – 10
MW )
Other Miners (200 MW)
MW from CLSG
Final Report – August 2012 95
Table 23: Scenarios for future demand up to 2040
Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040
Slow Growth High Growth
MW MW
Monrovia
Grid 18.66 34.30 41.98 63.15 127.28 Monrovia Grid 19.66 54.50 75.58 149.99 417.78
Other On-
Grid 0.37 1.70 2.51 5.00 9.54 Other On-Grid 0.44 3.97 5.09 12.06 28.60
Urban and
rural Off-Grid 0.98 4.84 7.26 14.61 27.62
Urban and
rural Off-Grid 1.19 10.07 13.18 30.63 70.65
Non
Monrovia
Industrial:
Off-Grid
16.50 71.00 191.00 324.00 443.47 Non Monrovia
Industrial: Off-
Grid
16.50 121.00 341.00 574.00 770.47
Non
Monrovia
Industrial:
Potential On-
Grid
0.00 0.00 59.00 91.00 132.12
Non Monrovia
Industrial:
Potential On-
Grid
0.00 50.00 109.00 216.00 232.12
Total On-Grid 19.03 36.00 103.49 159.15 268.94 Total On-Grid 20.10 108.47 189.67 378.05 678.50
Total Off-Grid 17.48 75.84 198.26 338.61 471.09 Total Off-Grid 17.69 131.07 354.18 604.63 841.12
Grand Total 36.51 111.84 301.75 497.76 740.03 Grand Total 37.79 239.54 543.85 982.68 1'519.62
GWH GWH
Monrovia
Grid 117.46 216.80 268.70 553.18 1'114.95 Monrovia Grid 123.59 340.75 474.74 1'313.94 3'659.73
Other On-
Grid 2.98 14.46 21.51 43.29 82.99 Other On-Grid 3.89 34.82 44.56 105.64 250.53
Urban and
rural Off-Grid 8.62 42.42 63.62 128.02 241.91
Urban and
rural Off-Grid 10.44 88.22 115.50 268.31 618.88
Non
Monrovia
Industrial:
Off-Grid
101.18 435.37 1'171.21 1'986.77 2'719.38 Non Monrovia
Industrial: Off-
Grid
101.18 741.97 2'091.01 3'519.77 4'724.54
Non
Monrovia
Industrial:
Potential On-
Grid
0.00 0.00 361.79 558.01 810.15
Non Monrovia
Industrial:
Potential On-
Grid
0.00 306.60 668.39 1'324.51 1'423.35
Total On-Grid 120.44 231.26 652.00 1'154.48 2'008.09 Total On-Grid 127.48 682.17 1'187.69 2'744.09 5'333.61
Total Off-Grid 109.80 477.79 1'234.83 2'114.79 2'961.29 Total Off-Grid 111.62 830.19 2'206.51 3'788.08 5'343.42
Grand Total 230.24 709.05 1'886.83 3'269.27 4'969.38 Grand Total 239.10 1'512.36 3'394.20 6'532.17 10'677.03
96 Contract 2012/284032
The graphic representation shows the evolution of the demand (Power and Energy) for the Low and
High growth scenarios.
Figure 13: Evolution of electricity demand : low and high growth scenarios
The following table illustrates the demand projections performed by various institutions and
consultants (Considering the On-grid generation only).
Table 24: Demand projections from various institutions and consultants
Years
MW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Manitoba/WB (2005) 10 15 40 48 57 69 72 76 80
AETS/EU (2005) 21.5 25.9 31.1 37.3 44.8 53.8 64.6 77.5
COWI/IFC (2007) 34.8 38 51 102 124 153 191
Stanley Consultants/USTDA (2008) 69
LEC (2009) 38.2
World Bank Slow Growth (2011) 19 36 103.5 159.2 268.9
World Bank High Growth (2011) 20.1 108 190 378.1 678.5
Current situation 9
When plotted, the data provide the following graphs.
Demand Forcast (Energy) 2010 - 2040
4'969.38
3'269.27
1'886.83
709.05230.24
10'677.03
6'532.17
3'394.20
1'512.36
239.10
0
3'000
6'000
9'000
2010 2015 2020 2030 2040
Years
GW
h
GWh Low
Growth
GWH High
Growth
Demand Forcast (Capacity) 2010 - 2040
497.76
740.03
301.75111.8436.51
1'519.62
982.68
543.85
37.79239.54
0
400
800
1'200
1'600
2010 2015 2020 2030 2040
Years
MW
M W Low Growth
M W High Growth
Final Report – August 2012 97
Figure 14: Graph of demand projections
Over the period 2005 - 2040, the dispersion of projections is very wide, with quite diverging figures at
the 2040 term.
When focusing on the 2005 – 2015 in the graph below (plotted with logarithmic function) the cloud of
data displays a relatively coherent picture placing the demand within the range of 40 to 80 MW for
the years 2013 – 2014. Nevertheless, the actual installed capacity (on the LEC grid) is only less than
10 MW, far below the projections. If the IPP’s and the “self supplied” customers currently off grid in
Monrovia are taken into account as immediate demand (they are “consumed” by their direct
customers), the current capacity within the city limits can be assessed in the tune of 20 -25 MW.
Figure 15: Graph of demand projections (log)
LEC estimates in the Electricity Master Plan prepared in 2011 that a base case scenario forecasts a
peak demand of about 48 MW in June 2015. (Note: The above graphed data are relating to the On-
Grid system therefore not including capacities which may be installed in other off- grid (LEC)
locations in the country)
Demand Projections (MW)
Current situation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Years
MW
Manitoba/WB (2005)
AETS/EU (2005)
COWI/IFC (2007)
Stanley Consultants/USTDA
(2008)
LEC (2009)
World Bank Slow Growth
(2011)
World Bank High Growth
(2011)
Current situation
Demand Projections (MW)
Current situation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Years
MW
Manitoba/WB (2005)
AETS/EU (2005)
COWI/IFC (2007)
Stanley Consultants/USTDA
(2008)
LEC (2009)
World Bank Slow Growth
(2011)
World Bank High Growth
(2011)
Current situation
98 Contract 2012/284032
10.3 OPTIONS FOR FUTURE POWER GENERATION
At short term (until 2015 – 2017) generation capacities allowing to respond to the demand/load
resulting from the new connections (planned to reach 30’000 in Monrovia in 2014 and an equivalent
number in off-LEC grid rural areas) would be mainly thermal plants and the possible supply through
the CLSG interconnection project and the Ivory Coast – Liberia Cross Border project, both
implemented under the WAPP. IPP’s essentially running with diesel generators will also continue to
provide electricity to customers not-yet hooked to the national grid. IPP’s are however an
intermediate solution, which had justification during the period when emergency actions were the
privileged alternatives until the national utility can resume its activities. IPP’s should be gradually
decommissioned when reaching their lifespan as long as access to the national grid for more
affordable electricity of better quality (services and reliability) is increased.
On the longer term, given the uncertainties on the trend of fossil fuel costs (oil barrel WTI at US
$104.68 at the date of April 27th, 2012) for the future, but reasonably assuming that they will
continue to increase, it will be legitimate and wise to consider other sources of energy, preferably of
renewable and more environmentally friendly nature, to achieve a better balanced mix of future
generation capacities in Liberia.
10.4 THE HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL IN LIBERIA
10.4.1 General
Downstream of the Futa Djalon region, called the Water Reservoir of Western Africa, Liberia is
endowed with an appreciable hydro potential estimated at 1’000MW of technically and economically
feasible capacity. Apart from small or mini-hydropower plants, historically, the Mount Coffee
hydropower scheme built in the sixties was the only project of significant size. It was however totally
destroyed during the wars. The revamping of its nominal capacity of 64 MW is currently at the top of
the priorities agenda of the Government. The rehabilitation of the Mount Coffee power station and
the possible development of additional hydro capacities in the country are the object of numerous
articles in the local press, which are often of frivolous nature, announcing totally unrealistic figures
and calendars, thus leading to disproportionate expectations from the public.
10.4.2 The Mont Coffee project
Currently (April – May 2012) the Mount Coffee Rehabilitation project is at the stage when various
studies and surveys (Survey of existing civil structures, Dam Safety appraisal, Environmental
Impacts Studies, preparation of Design and corresponding Tender Documents) have been
performed by international consultants under the funding by various donors, the EU being one of
them. Rehabilitating the Mount Coffee Hydropower Plant is part of a bigger plan in Liberia to regain
power stability and financial benefits. The project is to answer to the Liberian people’s urgent
electricity needs and also to produce power to neighbouring countries. The plan is part of the West
African Power Pool (WAPP) CLSG Redevelopment sub programme. The aim is to reach the pre-war
level of the power plant of 64 MW.
To prepare the ground for the Mount Coffee Hydropower Rehabilitation Project, a grant for project
preparation studies was made available by the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund (ITF allocated a
grant of €1.5 million in April 2010) to the WAPP secretariat on behalf of the Liberia Electricity
Corporation. The studies include an environmental and social impact assessment and resettlement
action plan, a detailed site survey, the preparation of a geotechnical baseline report outline, a dam
Final Report – August 2012 99
safety study, the preparation of a site survey and a design report. Once the plant is fully
rehabilitated, Liberia could supply power not only for national consumption, but also to its
neighbouring countries. The project could play a major role in post-conflict reconstruction through
boosting trade and the economy and finally fighting poverty.
The scope of the contract was comprehensive enough to define the rehabilitation project up to a
state where it can be tendered on the international market for execution. The phases of the contract
were:
Phase I - Feasibility Study Review and Definition of the Scope of Supply of Plant and Installation
Services by the Contractor
(a) Review of the Feasibility Study
(b) Detailed site survey
(c) Preparation of a Geotechnical Baseline Report Outline
(d) The Dam Safety study
(e) Preparation of a Site Survey and Design Report
(f) Preparation of the “Employer Requirement - Scope of Supply of Plant and Installation Services by
the Contractor” section of the Bidding Documents
Phase II - Presentation of Phase I outcome, Review by Donors and Validation Seminar
(a) Presentation of Phase I outcome to Liberian Actors in Liberia
(b) Review (by LEC, WAPP and Donors)
(c) Phase I Validation Seminar in Liberia or at WAPP headquarters
Phase III - Preparation of Bidding Document
(a) Execution of additional Geotechnical Investigations, if any
(b) Preparation of the draft Functional Bidding Document
(c) Preparation of final Geotechnical Baseline Report
(d) Presentation of the draft Functional Bidding Document to Liberian Actors in Liberia
(e) Review (by LEC, WAPP and Donors)
(f) Preparation of the final Functional Bidding Document
Phase IV - Assistance during Bidding Process
(a) Participation to the pre-bid conference and site visit
(b) Preparation of the replies to request for clarifications
(c) Assistance during Bid Evaluation
(d) Assistance during Contract Negotiation and Award
The estimate of the project cost is in the tune of US$ 190 million. This figure is rather on the high
side for rehabilitating a capacity of 64MW (to possibly 80MW) where existing civil structures can be
salvaged. The explanation is that this is the cost which could be resulting from a tender for a
comprehensive EPC contract. However, parties responsible for the project argue that the actual cost
could be less when the works are tendered in 4 or 5 different “technical” lots, increasing the
competition amongst interested contractors and suppliers.
The financing of the project seems to be secured, most of the important donors having pledged
amounts totalling more than the estimated cost. However, the government seems to retain the
donors with the cheapest cost of finance and transaction. The Norwegians with US $ 70 million, the
KfW with US $ 25 million are the preferred donors. The balance for more than US $ 100 million could
100 Contract 2012/284032
be mobilized from the Government Budget in yearly allocations matching the needs of the
construction calendar. Providing that such financing arrangements are validated and executed in
2012 and assuming that the tender process is successfully conducted also in 2012, the energizing of
the first unit could be expected at the earliest in 2015.
10.4.3 The Via and St Paul Rivers possible projects
Considering that the Mount Coffee Rehabilitation project is now well on tracks and suitably
supported by international/bilateral donors for coming on line in 2015, the next step is to pay
attention to the harnessing of other hydro potential available on the Liberian territory.
Supporting the development of the hydropower potential of the St Paul River is the appropriate
approach when preparing plans for medium and long terms horizons. This is justified by the long
gestation period needed by hydropower projects for preparing necessary surveys, studies and
technical documents in compliance with the recognized standards and good practices of the
industry. Worth to note the importance of impact appraisal studies to be performed and mitigation
measures properly designed, according to the international practices, which are a highly sensitive
prerequisite for obtaining support from multilateral organizations and the full adherence of the civil
society and NGO’s to the projects.
According to preliminary studies (Stanley Consultants), one of the first actions which could make
sense is the creation of a reservoir on the Via River (a confluent to the St Paul River) upstream of
the Mount Coffee hydropower plant. Such a reservoir regulation effect on the river flow would
drastically increase the dependable capacity of the Mount Coffee power plant which is very low,
given the seasonal regime of the St Paul River. Currently, while delivering nearly its full capacity
during the rain season, the power plant can only deliver less than 10 MW of power during the dry
season. Then by implementing other reservoirs/dams and power plants along the St Paul River an
ultimately fully equipped cascade could assure nearly a yearly average of 2’700 GWh of energy.
The opportunity for creating a reservoir upstream of the Mount Coffee Power plant was already
considered in the appraisals performed by the World Bank in May 1970 when the appraisal report
stated: “The Mt. Coffee hydro-electric scheme, located on the St. Paul River 15 miles northeast of
Monrovia was commissioned in 1967, with two generating units and an ultimate capacity for six. It
was an expensive project requiring an investment of about US$29.1 million or US$855/kW installed
which is a very high figure, but its full utilization depends on the construction of upstream
water storage facilities to augment the flows of the St. Paul River during each year's dry season.”
Through old reports and appraisal documents issued in the seventies, it was possible to collect
general information on the features of the St Paul River basin as they were identified by consultants’
missions in the past. Since then, several years of conflicts and wars have hampered any further on
site investigations and surveys. The information provided below is however a fair illustration of the
characteristics of the river basin.
The total drainage area above Mt. Coffee is about 21’000 km2. The basin is about 64 km wide and
322 km long. The river runs from the plateau region of southern Guinea and flows South-West to the
Atlantic Ocean near Monrovia. The St Paul River is entering Liberia about 225 km from the coast at
about 270 m above sea level, the first 48 km then drop over a series of rapids in relatively narrow
canyons until joined by the Via River on the right hand side. From the Via confluence to Dobli Island
the river flows in relatively narrow and sinuous channels. Minor rapids occur throughout this portion
of the river. Downstream of Dobli Island, the river flows through an hilly area of low relief until at Mt
Coffee, a series of rather sharp rapids drops the river in a short distance to near sea level at White
Final Report – August 2012 101
Plains, 19 km from the Atlantic Ocean. The rapids in the Mt Coffee area generate a head of nearly
30 high, about 23 m of which have been developed by the Mt Coffee project for generating electric
power.
Other sites were also investigated in view of designing a cascade for harnessing the potential of the
river.
Mecca Dam Site
This site on the St. Paul River is located approximately 38 km up-stream of Mt Coffee and about 65
km from Monrovia. Total possible storage volume is about 567 million cubic meters with a useful
storage of about 370 million cubic meters. A power plant could be constructed at the foot of the dam
and six 17 MW units ultimately installed could produce about 438 GWh per annum of which 275
GWh would be firm. The impact of the Mecca storage on Mt. Coffee would be to increase minimum
flow in the dry season from 450 cu secs to about 2’800 cu secs or in an average year from 2’000 cu
secs to about 4’000 cu secs.(records of 1967)
In addition to the Mecca site two other sites have been investigated: the Gbakrele and Palakole
Dam sites.
Gbalwele Site (Via River). A tributary of the St. Paul River, the Via River above Gbakwele has a
catchment area of about 3’400 km2 and a run-off of about 18% of the St. Paul River at Mt Coffee.
With a useful storage of about 4’070 million cubic meters, the Via flows would have to be cut off
early enough to ensure filling the reservoir. Run-off at Gbakwele is estimated at about 3’207 million
cubic meters for the period mid-May to end of December. No water would be released during this
seven-month period in most years. In the other 5 months water release would be limited to amounts
required to firm up Mt. Coffee. Generation of prime power at Gbakwele does not appear to be
practicable.
Palakole Site. The Tuma Creek, a tributary of the St. Paul, above Palatkole has a catchment area of
about 270 km2. An average annual run-off of about 925 million cubic meters has been estimated.
With a useful storage of about 740 million cubic meters, the Tuma flows would be cut off at about
mid-May or earlier if possible and released to Mt. Coffee to cover peak-shaving requirements.
102 Contract 2012/284032
10.4.4 The Via Reservoir project
Figure 16: Via reservoir project
The above figure illustrates what could be the possible cascade of dams and power plants which
could be implemented within the St Paul River basin (Courtesy Stanley Consultants presentation
March 2012). It assumes that the maximum possible heads and water volumes are theoretically
exploited. Such a cascade, as per the computations performed by Stanley Consultants would
harness a cumulative head of 216 m, a discharge of 510 m3/s which would generate 2’700 GWh per
year (currently the yearly production by LEC is approximately 40 GWh) with a total installed capacity
of 534 MW of with approximately 419 MW of dependable capacity. This is the ideal theoretical
scheme, combining power plants and reservoirs allowing storage for regulating the rivers’ flows
hence mitigating their seasonal regimes.
Final Report – August 2012 103
10.5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The final recommendations, as introduced in the above chapters of the report are based on the
following statements of facts:
i) The future peak demand from the electric system (Monrovia Grid and
interconnections) will realistically range from 40 to 80 MW at the 2017 horizon
and could reach 110 MW, 130 MW and 160 MW at the horizons 2020, 2025 and
2030 respectively. These figures concur with the findings of the evaluation team
and the end-users survey results which show that future demand growth is
closely tight to the transformation of the country economic framework and its
ability to drain investments for fostering industrial development and productive
activities. The demand from domestic customers/population will not constitute the
biggest part of the load even if poverty decreases. A wise and reasonable
assumption is that the required fundamentals for a strong economic take-off are
not fully in place. The mining sector will remain an important but uncertain factor
as it is tight to the worldwide economic situation and if regaining dynamism could
become the trigger for a drastic change of the energy profile of the country.
ii) The model results obtained at the completion of the Liberia Energy Options Study
(WB 2011) indicate that the most economic options for expanding the
interconnected power system at the level of approximately 100MW (the next 8
years) is a mix of hydropower generation composed of the rehabilitation of the
Mt. Coffee hydropower plant, the Saint Paul River development, and possibly the
Mano hydropower project identified in another river basin (belonging to the three
countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea), and an addition of thermal power
produced by diesel power generation, HFO, and the WAPP CLSG regional
interconnection line like it appears in the graph below.
Figure 17: World Bank energy mix model up to 2040
104 Contract 2012/284032
iii) The sector is relatively crowded by the international community of donors for
supporting and financing the contemplated new generation capacities with the
corresponding transport, transmission and distribution components up to 2020.
iv) The end-users survey confirms the willingness of the majority of the Monrovia
population to get connected to the LEC grid. The majority of the users also
confirmed that they are ready to pay for the connection fees and for the quantity
of electricity consumed. This willingness is mainly motivated by the wish to have
electricity of good quality (stability and continuity of supply is dominating) at an
affordable cost compared to the cost of electricity provided either from own
generator or from local IPP’s. These two aspects are those which will feed the
growth of the domestic demand during the next years. However, given the
patterns of the current consumption, the relatively high poverty level of the
population and the other categories of expenses it has to afford (transport is
frequently the main item of household expenditure), the demand growth will
remain modest. The figure of 100MW of installed capacity for the Monrovia Grid
at the horizon of 2020 is therefore realistic.
v) Preparing and designing hydropower schemes require complex and long studies
and surveys, specifically since the river basins of Liberia have not been object of
investigations during the last two decades because of the wars and conflicts.
vi) On the long term, hydropower could generate energy with the lowest levelized
cost compared to other sources like fossil fuels.
10.5.1 Orientation of EU future interventions
The statements above fully motivate the recommendation that the EU, if it decides to pursue its
support to the Liberia electricity sector, should take the lead in the initiative to develop the
hydropower potential of the St Paul River basin. It is recommended that this initiative starts with
the mobilization of funds to conduct and update an appraisal of the hydraulic potential of the
river, an assessment of the environmental patterns of the affected area, a diagnosis of exiting
and historical data in the sectors of hydrology, geology, seismicity and in general all domains
concerned by large hydropower schemes projects.
The next action must comprise additional surveys and studies for the preliminary assessment of
the complete cascade, the estimates of costs, the economic computations and the appraisal of
the cumulative impacts that a complete cascade would generate. With the Via reservoir project
considered the first project to be implemented thanks to its regulation function directly
optimizing the other possible power plants of the cascade, including the Mount Coffee power
station, the critical part of the study would be the final detailed design of the reservoir project
with cost estimates, economic and optimization computations and the set of tender documents
for the construction of the project. All activities and studies at all stages will encompass the five
integrative perspectives: Environmental, Social, Technical, and Economical/Financial.
The outlines of the Terms of Reference for these actions and studies are provided in the next
chapters. To the maximum possible extend, they are integrating and following the guiding
principles of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (IHA) which considers the
whole spectrum of aspects to be taken into account in the successive stages of assessment:
Early Stage, Preparation Stage, Implementation Stage and Operation Stage. The establishment
Final Report – August 2012 105
of this protocol was co-financed by the EU and other donors The subjects to be assessed under
each stage are listed in the following table.
Table 25: IHA principles
106 Contract 2012/284032
10.5.2 Pro-poor approach
Targeting poverty reduction obviously calls for approaches where direct impacts on the most
vulnerable population can be achieved quickly. For decades, the aim of development was to
maximise marketable production of goods. Nowadays the emphasis of “pro-poor development” is on
expanding opportunities and strengthening human capacities to lead long, healthy, creative and
fulfilling lives. Development is now about enabling people to have the “capabilities” to do and be the
things that they have reason to value keeping in mind that poverty is defined as the deprivation of
these basic capabilities. In the context of the project raising the question whether it is appropriate to
invest for connecting poor households to the grid or if the funds would have more impacts if they
were used to provide cheaper energy to the users is legitimate. However, there is no straightforward
reply and the complexity of interactions, sometimes antagonistic, amongst numerous parameters
does not allow drawing univocal or absolute conclusions.
In the case of Monrovia, the End-users survey showed that near 90% of interviewed people without
electricity, hence the poorest people, are willing to be connected to the LEC grid, 71% of them also
declaring that they will be in a position to afford the associated costs (connexion fee, wiring and
electricity consumption). The motivation is essentially guided by the expectation to reach a better
level of living standards and comfort with security, protection of the family unity and utilisation of
more modern appliances perceived as the three major improvements by the interviewed population
with respectively 27, 17 and 14%. Access to electricity for improving conditions for children to study
longer in the evening and for adults to seize new business opportunities is also perceived as
valuable plus by the householders.
Given these observations, it can be stated that the funds allocated by donors for the electricity sector
(specifically for the capital Monrovia and for expansion of the LEC grid), together with the
programmes and initiatives supported by various international organizations falls into a context
where complementarities are effective at satisfying the requisites of a pro-poor approach. In other
words, focusing on connecting poor population with for example the support for US $ 10 millions
from the Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid (GPOBA) or deployment of rural
electrification/generation initiatives (USAID, EU Cross border project) is not in contradiction with
expanding the grid for supplying electricity to industries or residential districts where higher income
customers can afford the costs and tariffs. It is also of paramount importance that the customer base
of LEC, the national company, comprises a mix of customers with various buying powers. This will
allow to eventually establish differentiated tariffs of a “pro-poor” type, without endangering the
financial soundness of the corporation. In addition, thanks to the expected “economy of scale effect”
LEC has already computed that by increasing the number of customers and the size of its
generation capacity the tariffs would significantly drop. Despite this is a qualitative estimate - figures
articulated by LEC should be taken with caution -, funding and investing in the electricity sector is
one of the routes to produce and supply cheaper energy to users, including the poorest part of them.
10.5.3 The way forward
Supporting the development of the hydropower sector in Liberia and more specifically the
harnessing of the St Paul River potential through the creation of the Via River reservoir project
must be approached in two phases.
A first phase, comprising a Reconnaissance Study will allow to globally asses the sector and the
potential of the St Paul River cascade with a performance of a diagnosis of what information is
Final Report – August 2012 107
currently available and what information and data require to be further detailed. At the
completion of this first phase, the Terms of Reference for a next phase study will be finalized.
The second phase will be a comprehensive detailed feasibility study covering all aspects of the
design of an hydropower project culminating with the complete set of tender documents
allowing to secure the financing of the project and to launch an International Competitive
Bidding (ICB) for the construction of the project.
10.5.4 Actions for supporting the Via Reservoir project development
10.5.4.1 Sequence of future actions
First Phase: Reconnaissance Study
It is estimated that this study will take 3 months, requiring 7 man-months of efforts by a team of
experts comprising:
A Team Leader, hydropower and dam specialist;
An Economist for economic and financial computations, specialist in the sector of
infrastructure and energy;
An Environmentalist for socio-environmental impacts appraisals, specialist of
hydropower schemes and river basin management.
The global cost of the Reconnaissance study is estimated at 150’000 Euros.
Second Phase: Detailed Feasibility Study of the Via Reservoir Project
This comprehensive study, with the objective of launching the tenders for the construction of the
project will take 18 months, allowing performing all the necessary surveys and on site
investigations as well as the environmental and socio economic impacts appraisals. It will
require 98 man-months of efforts of various experts of a project team suggested to comprise:
A team leader, hydropower and dam specialist;
A hydropower energy expert;
An hydrologist;
A geologist;
A civil engineer, specialist in dam design and construction;
A hydro-mechanical engineer specialist in hydro-equipment design;
A financial analyst expert in the energy sector;
A socio economist;
An environmentalist.
Various experts for short term assignments in various domains like: Topography,
hydrology and flood computations, seismicity, geotechnical aspects and construction
materials, dam safety monitoring, tender documents and construction contracts.
The global cost of the Detailed Feasibility Study is estimated at 2’000’000 Euros. This figure
does not take into account the possible additional cost for security measures (escort to sites) if
they are required depending on the actual circumstances.
108 Contract 2012/284032
10.5.4.2 Funding arrangements
The recommended 2 studies are amounting respectively:
150’000 Euros for the Reconnaissance study
2’000’000 Euros for the detailed feasibility study
At their completion, a set of tender documents for the execution of the project through International
Competitive Bidding will be available. It is recommended that in view of the further implementation
phase and in order to continue its support to the development of renewable energy in Liberia the EU
should earmark additional resources under the EDF 11 envelope.
Such resources would ideally amount to 40 to 60 million Euros for contribution to the capital cost of
the project. They may be utilized in various ways (loan interest subsidies, guarantees, investment,
funding TA and construction supervision activities…) the aim being that they can trigger a leveraging
effect for the mobilization of resources from other donors and investors for a project which is worth
several hundred millions dollars (current estimate 220 Millions).
10.5.4.3 Terms of Reference for Pre-studies and Studies
A. Reconnaissance Study
The main objective of the reconnaissance study is to prepare the further stage of a more
comprehensive and detailed study which will ensure that technically, environmentally, socially
and financially viable hydropower developments through the implementation of a cascade of
dams and power plants on the St Paul River may be recommended with a first project relating to
the creation of a reservoir on the Via River. For the specific Via Reservoir project, the
comprehensive and detailed study will be expected to broadly assess the appropriate
investment (size, expected output, initial capital cost, interconnection to the grid, etc.),
operational rules, organizational structures, revenue requirements, government incentives as
appropriate, environmental and social management plans, to assess the economic and social
benefits for Liberia, and to carry out a financial analysis from the operator’s perspective and to
propose measures to manage the various risks.
The ultimate result of the Reconnaissance Study will be to finalize the Terms of Reference
(ToR) for the next study. The ToR suggested in the next chapters are therefore tentative and
indicative and will be fine tuned by the Consultant assigned for the Reconnaissance Study. For
this Reconnaissance Study, the depth of the investigations, designs and estimates shall be
limited to the degree of accuracy required for a clear delineation among the project possible
alternatives considered, enabling the Consultant to make a substantiated recommendation as to
the selected scheme to be retained for the creation of the Via River reservoir project.
For the Reconnaissance Study, the Consultant assignment shall be carried out in three (3)
phases.
Phase I. Overall Assessment.
The Consultant shall conduct an assessment of the St Paul River basin cascade project
(including the Via River Reservoir and the existing/rehabilitated Mount Coffee hydropower
Final Report – August 2012 109
scheme). The assessment shall be performed in compliance with the Hydropower Sustainability
Assessment Protocol (IHA). The Protocol offers a way of assessing the performance of
hydropower in more than 20 sustainability topics. Assessments results will be presented in a
standardised way, making it easy to see how existing facilities are performing and how new
projects are being or can be developed. Through the performance of the assessment, the
Consultant shall establish a diagnosis of all identified existing previous studies performed on the
subject as well as domains where additional studies and surveys are needed for the further
design stage of the projects on the cascade.
Phase II. Project definition
This phase will focus on the definition of the Via River Reservoir project. Various aspects will
need to be assessed in order to define and select the most appropriate alternatives. The
aspects for which data are outdated, fragmentary or missing needing a diagnosis by the
Consultant are relating to:
i. Topography: The Consultant will identify existing maps and will assess the needs for
topographic surveys required for the next phases of the studies and for the project
implementation. He will collect maps and data from various sources in order to perform
a pre-assessment of the project area patterns within the St Paul River basin. The
consultant will perform a reconnaissance and identification of access roads to the
project site with appropriate description of areas where improvements are needed to
allow the passage of vehicles and transportation of goods and equipment. He will
illustrate the findings on maps of appropriate type.
ii. Hydrology: The regimes of the rivers in the basin must be reassessed in order to
establish a valid data base for the future computations of generation capacities,
optimisation of storage works, dimensioning of future hydraulic structures, and selection
of environmental flows and appraisal of climate change influence on the rivers regimes
patterns. The Consultant will identify historic and existing data and Liberian agencies
responsible for their recording and processing. He will issue recommendations
concerning the needs for a further campaign for hydrological records and the
implementation by the Liberian responsible agencies of the recording/gauging stations
at the appropriate locations along the rivers.
iii. Geology: The consultant will identify the possible sources of data and documents for
the appraisal of the geological patterns of the river basin and at the sites of the various
works (the Via Reservoir Dam). He will identify, collect and review existing
documentation available at Government agencies, and among other things, to assess
the completeness, adequacy, and usability and quality of investigations carried out in the
past against good international practice. He will issue recommendations concerning the
needs for a further campaign for geological surveys within the scope of the next studies.
iv. Seismicity: The Consultant will identify, collect and review the existing seismic data in
the region/zone/project area and propose means to improve the assessment of this
aspect.
v. Construction Materials: By performing a visit on the sites, the Consultant shall identify
suitable location for construction materials. This shall cover locations of potential
110 Contract 2012/284032
quarries for sand, soils, dam core materials, rock and aggregates, etc. and preparation
of indicative maps identifying the borrow areas.
vi. Climate Change Impact Assessment: The Consultant shall review the trends in annual
and seasonal water flow in the St Paul River basin during the past several decades,
forecast changes in water flows as a result of climate change and global warming and
take these into account while assessing the design flows and possible operating regime
of a reservoir. The Consultant shall review the available global and regional climate
models and studies carried out with relevance for the West African countries and assess
the likelihood of variability in the flow regime of the St Paul and Via Rivers. The
Consultant should also assess the possible positive aspects of the Via Reservoir Project
in the context of climate change - flood control in the event of higher flows due to climate
change, avoided carbon emission of the project contribution for power generation
relative to similar-sized fossil fuel generation; the beneficial impact it would have on the
sources of water into the river basin.
vii. Hydraulic Studies: The Consultant will perform a preliminary assessment of the flood
routing of the probable maximum flood through the Via reservoir to establish the
discharge capacity of the spillway system , the operating rules of the reservoir, and the
water levels downstream of the dam/spillway. The Consultant will also assess the
aspects of solid transport of the river for determination of the reduction of the dead and
useful reservoir/live storage/volume as a function of time and sedimentation rates.
viii. Engineering aspects - Dam type: The Consultant shall propose the type of dam
based on a design at the project definition level taking due consideration of the identified
possible availability of construction materials and the various characteristics of the
proposed site. He shall prepare design criteria, a brief memorandum illustrated with
definition drawings. The determination of alternative layout and design shall include
various dam types and height/reservoir capacity and mode of operation, reservoir and
flow management, environmental mitigation and volume in the reservoir to absorb
floods. The definition design and definition drawings shall cover all major components of
the dam, spillway, intake, bottom outlets, tunnels and penstocks if any, river diversion
during construction.
ix. Environmental Aspects: The Consultant will list all potential issues which must be
addressed in compliance with the guidelines, rules, regulations and good practices in
the domain. He will specifically assess the needs for further surveys, impact studies and
investigations required for complying with the safeguards and recommendations from
the Multilateral Development Banks. (World Bank guidelines are accepted as the
appropriate model).
x. Institutional aspects: The Consultant will identify the institutional setup options for the
project including establishment of a special purpose company through a public–private
partnership or any arrangement compatible with the existing laws and regulations in
Liberia.
xi. Miscellaneous: The Consultant will take into account all other aspects not listed above
but which may potentially affect the design and the feasibility of the Via Reservoir
project.
Final Report – August 2012 111
At the completion of this definition phase the Consultant will issue a comprehensive report
illustrating its findings together with the recommendations for the suitable design of the Via
Reservoir project which will serve as a basis for the further detailed feasibility study.
Phase III. Terms of Reference for the Detailed Feasibility Study
This last phase of the Reconnaissance Study will cover the preparation by the Consultant - in
the light of its findings and after consultation with concerned parties in Liberia- of the detailed
Terms of Reference for the Detailed Feasibility Study of the Via Reservoir project. The detailed
feasibility study scope will include the complete set of documents and data allowing the
launching of an International Competitive Bidding for the construction of the project. In the
meantime, Donors and Financiers will base their decision for funding of the project on the
results of the Detailed Feasibility Study.
An outline of these ToR is provided in the next chapter. This outline is tentative and indicative,
derived from projects of similar nature executed in other countries. They will be adjusted and
finalized by the Consultant under this Phase III of the Reconnaissance Study.
The ToR define the scope of works for a Consultant to conduct a detailed feasibility study for
the Via Reservoir project based on the conclusions of the Reconnaissance Study. The detailed
feasibility studies shall include, but not exclusively: a detailed description of the facility (civil
works, mechanical and electrical installations, interconnection requirements) and a description
of the expected output contribution by the Via Reservoir at the Mount Coffee (rehabilitated)
power plant and a projection of generation at various power plants along the future cascade
(MWs, MWh/year with base case and high and low scenarios), detailed cost estimates for main
component and for operation and maintenance of the facility; capital structure and financing
arrangements, construction and drawdown schedules; revenue requirements, environmental
and social impact assessment and corresponding management plans; requirements for permits
and licences; suggested organizational arrangements, and risk analysis. The ultimate
deliverable of the Detailed Feasibility study will be a set of Tender Documents in the
appropriate format acceptable by development financing institutions (DFI’s) allowing to launch
an International Competitive Bidding process.
B. Detailed Feasibility Study of the Via Reservoir Project
An outline of ToR for the Detailed Feasibility Study of the Via Reservoir Project is provided
hereafter.
The Detailed Feasibility Study will comprise 2 Phases. Globally, it will require but not be limited
to the following areas of expertise: (i) power sector management, (ii) hydropower planning, (iii)
hydrological engineering, (iv) construction planning, (v) electrical engineering, and (vi)
mechanical engineering (vii) financial analysis and structuring, (viii) economic analysis and
evaluation, (ix) environmental assessment and management, (x) social development and
safeguards, (xi) community development, (xii) legal and contractual aspects, (xiii) transfer of
skills and know how.
112 Contract 2012/284032
PHASE I: Review of the Reconnaissance Study
During Phase I which is a critical review of the results of the Reconnaissance Study the
Consultant shall carry out the following assignment/tasks:
Examine existing project documents and other available data when. Review the investments
as previously estimated and revise the proposed configuration to reflect one that would be
competitive, given the current electricity market and tariff structures in Liberia.
Conduct preliminary site investigations including hydrological, topographical, geological and
geotechnical studies and survey of access roads to the project sites.
Develop preliminary layouts of hydraulic structures, electro-mechanical and electrical
equipment and confirm selection of the main project characteristics such as dam type,
storage capacity, storage area limits, additional energy production at the Mount Coffee
power plant, reservoir management, etc.
Develop preliminary cost estimates based on major quantities and cost items.
Identify potential socio and environmental impacts, and proposed solutions.
Carry out/update the project economic and financial analysis at reconnaissance level.
Highlight the main risks facing the project, and possible mitigation measures.
PHASE II: Detailed feasibility and final design
During this phase the Consultant will continue the site investigation works on the sites including
major geotechnical investigations in order to finalize the design of the project. The Consultant
will
Define all key structures and equipment in sufficient detail to obtain quantities for all
items contributing more than about 10% of the cost of structures and equipment.
Provide a detailed initial cost estimate for: (i) the initial capital costs including access
roads, transmission interconnection(s) to the grid if any; (ii) the implementation of the
environmental and social management plans; and for (iii) the operations and
maintenance of the proposed facilities.
Provide the base case estimate of the annual project output contribution at the Mount
Coffee power plant (firm and average capacity and energy) over the project life/duration.
Establish projections of the project contribution for generation at other future power
plants downstream along the St Paul River Cascade.
Estimate the reduction of greenhouse gas reduction estimate throughout the life of the
project
Carry-out an-environmental and social impact assessment and a mitigation plans in
compliance with the ESEE Project Environmental Management Framework and the
Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework, survey community interest groups
regarding their use of water use practices.
Carry out a project economic analysis (Liberia’s perspective) and a financial analysis
(project owners’ perspective) including capital, operating and maintenance costs and
revenue streams required for cost recovery and return, and financing plans. The analysis
shall also consider private sector arrangements for the construction and/or operation of
the hydropower scheme (Via Reservoir operation for power generation at downstream
power plants) through concessions under Design, Build, Operate and Own (DBOO). The
Final Report – August 2012 113
Consultant shall recommend a capital structure required to finance and implement the
new hydro facility. Local and overseas partnerships shall be considered.
Determine the best organizational and institutional arrangements for hydropower
management and ownership over the period of operation of the project.
The following paragraphs highlight key activities and products expected from the Consultant. It
is however the responsibility of the consultant to define and carry out all activities necessary to
ensure quality and timely delivery of the studies.
PHASE I KEY ACTIVITIES
Task 1 - A hydrological report shall be prepared based on previous hydrological
analyses and additional data relevant to the site shall be collected from the relevant
government agencies. Historical flow data obtained from previous studies and the
relevant government agencies shall be verified by on-site measurements over an agreed
time period and via computer simulation modeling. These flow data shall also be
considered in the power computation and the design of hydraulic structures. Flood flow,
low flow and flow duration curve shall be computed by using different hydrological
models. Sediment samples from riverbed shall be collected and mineralogical and
particle size distribution analyses shall be carried out to find the type and percentage of
mineral content and particle size distribution of the sediment. The quantity of sediment
shall be estimated on the basis of sediment sampling data, if available, or with indirect
methods. The expected maximum possible sediment particle that could be transported
by flood shall be recorded during the field visits. Each component of the selected project
alternative will be optimized under different flows.
Task 2 – Preliminary layouts of hydraulic structures, electro-mechanical and electrical
equipment shall be developed and the selection of the main project characteristics such
as installed capacity, energy production, capacity factor, etc shall be made.
Task 3 - Energy computation (on a monthly basis) for optimum dam capacity shall be
carried out. All applicable deductions like environmental release of flow, estimated
outage, internal energy consumptions, transmission losses if any etc. shall be deducted
from the gross plant energy estimate(downstream of the Via Reservoir). Annual energy
sales shall be calculated considering prevailing energy rates in Liberia.
Task 4 - The major socio-environmental impacts of the hydropower development during
the construction and the operation phases shall be identified and appropriate mitigating
measures shall be proposed.
Task 5 – A preliminary costing of the project shall be carried out based on major
quantities and cost items and a preliminary economic analysis and financial analysis
carried out to assess the economic and financial viability of the investment. The viability
of the project shall be assessed based on criteria such as NPV, IRR, ROI and annual net
cash flows or any other suitable financial analysis.
114 Contract 2012/284032
PHASE II KEY ACTIVITIES
Once the economic and financial viability of the project has been ascertained through the pre-
feasibility study and comments taken into account, the following additional tasks shall be carried
out by the Consultant and the feasibility report will be prepared: The following paragraphs
highlight key activities and products expected from the Consultant. It is however the
responsibility of the Consultant to design and carry out all activities to ensure quality and timely
delivery of the studies.
Task 1 – A more detailed geotechnical study, which shall include drilling, sampling,
laboratory testing and factual reports, shall be prepared to determine the infrastructure
requirements and related costs, based on the project layout. The project components of
the selected option shall be designed with a degree of accuracy expected at feasibility
stage reflecting the design concept and improving the accuracy of the cost estimates.
Hydraulic calculations and structural sizing shall be carried out. Design methodologies
and design criteria shall be set while designing the project components. The
components of the project shall also be described and specified in general terms. Civil,
hydro-mechanical, electromechanical, mechanical, electrical components and other
structures of the project shall be developed. A construction schedule shall be prepared
by sequencing and scheduling of the project activities. Resources availability and critical
activities shall be taken into consideration while sequencing and scheduling the project
activities. Infrastructure requirements during construction and operation shall be
considered. Such infrastructure requirements and facilities may include site camps,
offices, access roads, construction quarters, construction power, water supply and
sanitation, communication, and transport.
Task 2 - Alternative functional layout designs shall be considered to identify the most
appropriate one. A schematic layout for each alternative shall be prepared and its
technical and financial aspects compared and ranked. The most appropriate alternative
shall be selected for the design of the project components. Topographical, financial,
environmental, geo-technical and construction issues shall be considered during the
selection of the project layout. In addition, key schematic drawings for all major
components like headworks, water ways, forebay, desilting basin, electromechanical
equipment if any, power generation option for various operations at the dam site and
single line diagram, transmission lines if any, project layout in appropriate scale shall be
prepared.
Task 3 – A socio-economic and environmental assessment during the construction and
the operation phases shall be carried out using the existing applicable Environmental
and Social Frameworks. The physical, chemical, biological, cultural and socio-economic
environment of the project affected area will be studied. This shall include a social and
environmental management plan and a plan to monitor the implementation of the
mitigation measures. The project structuring will take into account possible community
and local communities, municipal government participation considering land rights
allocation, local co-investment and labour contribution. Community participation is
considered a key issue in order to incorporate local perception and sharing of costs and
benefits for project construction and for long-term operation and maintenance.
Task 4 – An Economic and Financial analysis shall be performed to determine: (a) the
economic benefits of the construction and operation of the project for Liberia; and (b) its
Final Report – August 2012 115
financial soundness for the project sponsors/owners. The key assumptions used for the
economic and financial analysis will be clearly spelled out (in particular the basis for the
various unit costs) and justified. In addition, the economic and the financial analysis shall
include sensitivity analysis around the key input parameters to assess the impact of key
parameter variations on the economic and financial viability of the project.
Task 5- An overall implementation plan which identifies the key steps, decisions and
actions needed to implement the various recommendations of the study.
Task 6 – The Consultant will prepare the complete set of Tender Documents, including
drawings and estimates of quantities necessary for launching an International
Competitive Bidding complying with practices and rules of DFI’s.
Task 7 – The Consultant shall allow for capacity building and transfer of knowledge to
Liberian staff from agencies and enterprises selected in due times so as to build
effective hydropower development know how in three areas: hydropower scheme
design, socio-environmental impact analysis and basic economic and financial analysis.
CONSULTING TEAM
GENERAL
The successful candidate for this consultancy will be a firm. The assigned Consultant project
team must possess expertise in mechanical, electrical, civil, structural, hydropower,
topographical and geotechnical engineering, environmental and social impact assessments and
management plans and in project economic and financial analysis. The team should have a
proven track record of conducting feasibility studies for hydropower/dam projects.
The Consultant may contract local companies to carry out certain components of the works,
such as but not limited to geotechnical, and topographical work and other socio-economical
surveys.
INDICATIVE LIST OF EXPERTISE REQUIRED
The following indicative list of experts is suggested: The consultant is fully responsible for the
selection of the expertise required to satisfactorily carry out the contractual obligations.
1. Team Leader experienced in the hydropower and dam sectors
2. A hydropower energy expert
3. Hydrology Specialist
4. A Geologist
5. A civil engineer, specialist in dam design and construction
6. A hydro-mechanical engineer specialist in hydro-equipment design;
5. Environmental Specialist
6. Social Specialist
7. Economic and Financial Analyst (with experience in private sector investment and
PPP arrangements)
8. Others experts and specialists that the Consultant will consider useful for the
successful performance of the assignment.
116 Contract 2012/284032
The Consultant must possess the expertise and skills required to execute or supervise (if sub-
contracted) under his full responsibility topographical studies, geotechnical analyses, socio-
economic analyses, environmental analyses, civil/structural analyses and design. The
Consultant must possess the expertise and skills to create, edit, format and update technical
documents, in English, in a concise and clear manner.
Final Report – August 2012 117
11 COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS FURTHER TO THE PRESENTATION OF
THE REPORT ON JULY 24TH 2012
The report was presented to various development and funding partners on July 24th 2012 at the
premises of the EU delegation in Monrovia. The list of attendance and presentation slides are
included in appendix 12.7 and 12.8. Hereafter are various clarification and explanations in reply
to questions or concerns raised by participants during the meeting.
Mount Coffee rehabilitation project
There is a concern that the design of the rehabilitation, like the unit capacity of the turbines as
well as their type, the provisions for adding further units is adequately taking into account the
contribution of the Via Reservoir and the entire future possible cascade of upstream power
plants to the generation of energy. Such design should be developed in order that the Mount
Coffee plant capacity fully takes benefit of the regulation effect of upstream reservoirs and
hydropower plants installed in the medium and long terms.
Possibility of exporting energy to neighbouring countries systems
In case future installed hydropower capacity exceeds the load demand of Liberia, the
opportunity to sell the surplus of energy to neighbouring countries could constitute a source of
revenues for the country. However this will be closely depending on international agreements
on tariffs, availability of a reliable regional network (the CLSG project is a first step for
interconnecting the sub-region) which are aspects to be organized and managed through a
strong regional cooperation amongst the concerned states. These are crucial prerequisites for
decision for capital investment in the related projects.
Issue of large capacities required by mining operators
Currently, operators and investors operating in the mining sector (or large agro compounds)
develop and install their own off-grid generation capacities. This is an obvious response to their
main concern to have reliable and continuous power supply and to the current situation where
the national grid is not reaching remote areas where these industries are usually settled.
Incorporating such capacities and interconnecting them into an adequately developed national
grid/system is a very long term vision which will need the mobilization of huge resources and a
strong strategic and political will from the Government.
Demand projections
The report illustrates various scenarios which have been considered for projecting the demand
at various horizons. Up to 2020, analyses have concluded that the demand will reach
approximately 100- 120 MW on the LEC grid (therefore not including possible off-grid capacities
installed at other locations or by other operators in the country). This figure is lower than what
has been estimated by several consultants or partners but relatively close to the figure projected
in the most recent study performed by the World Bank Group in November 2011. The motivated
justifications enlightened in the report are of the various following natures: i) The future demand
is essentially driven by the growth of access to electricity by the low and middle income
customers in the Great Monrovia whose consumption remains low ii) despite an encouraging
118 Contract 2012/284032
economic annual growth rate, a drastic “take of” of the Liberian economy is not expected at the
short term, the absence of critical and conducive ingredients/environment coupled with the
uncertainties on the worldwide situation impeding a too optimistic vision iii) The national
electricity company LEC faces absorptive capacity limitations which when coupled with a
prudential (nevertheless adequate) development strategy do not allow a too rapid development
of its generation, transportation and distribution system. The articulated target of achieving
87’000 customers/connections in the Great Monrovia in 2020 (96 months away from today)
would require the installations of more than 800 connections per months. This is a challenging
rate compared to those currently observed (1st semester 2012) ranging from 80 to 190 per
month.
Climate change, hydrology and forest preservation
One participant rightly raised the issues of soil erosion and forest management prevailing in
Liberia with an estimated 50% of the country forests and 40% of the country’s mass land under
concessions. As logging operations (and mining activities) have an obvious impact on the
hydrological cycle of the river basins where they are located, this aspect has to be carefully
taken into consideration when designing the capacity of hydro-reservoirs (useful capacity and
lifespan) and associated hydropower plants. It can already be confirmed that such aspects will
be duly taken into consideration within the scope of the recommended Reconnaissance and
Detailed Feasibility studies. Environmental issues as well as Climate Change issues are
amongst the aspects already embedded in the guidelines, directives and safeguards
(universally applied by MDB’s, as well as Private Funding Institutions - Equator Principles -…)
that will be applied/followed when performing the EIAS
Final Report – August 2012 119
12 ANNEXES
12.1 LIST OF PERSONS MET DURING THE EVALUATION
Name Organization Function/Title
Mrs. VASQUEZ
HORYAANS Paula
European Union Delegation Head of Section Operations
Mr. KIRCHNAYR
Giorgio
European Union Delegation Attaché, Programme Manager -
Infrastructures
Mr. JASURA William Liberia Electricity Corporation
(LEC)
Chief Financial Officer
Mr. BONAMPEKA Alain
Pierre
African Development Bank Country Program Officer (CPO)
Mr. SHAHID Mohammad Liberia Electricity Corporation
(LEC)
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Mr. KONAI Matthew Liberia Electricity Corporation
(LEC)
Planning Manager
Mr. LEAY Joseph Liberia Electricity Corporation
(LEC)
Project Manager Cross Border Rural
Electrification Project
Mr. LARTEY Sammuel
A.
Energy Ventures (GH) LTD. Project Administrator. Cross Border Rural
Communities Electrification Project
Mr HETTINGER Patrick
S.
African Development Bank Senior Country Economist
Mrs. STROUP Kristin K. Liberia Electricity Corporation
(LEC)
Senior Project Manager
Mr. GULBRANDSEN
Thor Henning
Norwegian Water Resources
and Energy Directorate
Senior Advisor, International Section
Mr. BROWN Russell C. Winrock International Chief of Party
Mr. Parker David Winrock International Consultant/Advisor
Mrs. LITTLEJOHN
Coleen R.
The World Bank Senior Operations Officer
Monrovia Office
Mrs. Hasselsten JENNY The World Bank Urban Development Specialist
Monrovia Office
Mr. Hady Sherif Centre for Sustainable
Energy Technology
Executive Director
Mr. EDHOLM Gunnar ELTEL Networks TE AB Chief Engineer, Transmission International
Mr. BORBODEE Peter Eleder of the Neezoe Community
Neezoe Community/Paynesville
Mr. DAVIS Thomas Director for Geo Information Systems
Liberia institute of Statistics & geo Information Services LISGIS
Mr. DAVIS Yacouba Lawyer Community Leader New Georgia Estate Community
Mr. GRAY Victor Consumer New Service Department
Liberian Electricity Corporation
Mr. HARRIS Hannah Treasury Sayetown Development Association
Mr. JACOBS David L. Chairman Claratown Township
Mr. LIBERTY Edward T (Ph D)
Director General Liberia institute of Statistics & Geo Information Services LISGIS
Mr. LYNCH Jura A. Attorney at Law Chairman of the Stephen Tolbert Community
Mr. MORRIS K. George Secretary general Sayetown Development Association
Mr. NYAN Joseph Director for Data Processing Liberia institute of Statistics & geo
120 Contract 2012/284032
Information Services LISGIS
Mr. DNEEHSAWZEH Paul
Member of the Council Claratown Township
Mr. SUAH Jackson Chairman for the Neezoe Community
Neezoe Community/Paynesville
Mr. SURWORGO Peter Block C Leader Sayetown Development Association
Final Report – August 2012 121
12.2 LIST OF CONSULTED DOCUMENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Year Author Title
2010 EU Country Evaluation Liberia
2011 Norad - Norplan Norwegian support to the
Liberian energy sector - Baseline Study and RBM System
2011 World Bank - Afteg Options for the Development of Liberia’s Energy Sector
2009 World Bank – AICD Powering Up: Costing Power Infrastructure Spending
Needs in Sub-Saharan Africa
2007 USAID Let there be light: the role of Electrification in Liberia’s
Post-conflict stabilization
2006 EU Financing convention for Electricity Grid rehabilitation in
Monrovia n°9493/LBR/EDF IX
2011 EU Briefing note on the Energy Sector in Liberia
2007 EU Addendum n°1 EC 06/07/2007
2009 EU Addendum n°2 EC 26/09/2009 and explanatory note
2010 EU Budget reallocation
2006 EU Tender Notice Electricity Grid rehabilitation
March 2012 Stanley Consultants Via Reservoir/Diversion System the Keystone to
Dependable Hydropower on the St. Paul
May 2009 Liberia Government National Energy Policy an Agenda for Action and Economic
and Social Development (Ministry of Lands, Mines and
Energy)
February 2007 Liberia Government NATIONAL ENERGY SECTOR WHITE PAPER White
Book
April 2008 Liberia Government Liberia Poverty Reduction Strategy (Period 2008 - 2011)
July 2010 UNDP (Consultant Report) United Nations Development Programme, Liberia Country
Programme Action Plan (CPAP) Mid-Term Review 2008 -
2012
May 2008 UNDP UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT Assistance
Framework for Liberia 2008 - 2012
January 2012 World Bank PROJECT PAPER on a proposed additional credit (US $
22 million equivalent) and a proposed grant from the
environment facility trust fund (GEF) (US $ 1.454 million)
122 Contract 2012/284032
for an electricity system enhancement project
October 2011 GPOBA - World Bank The Global Partnership on Output-Based Aid (GPOBA)
Annual Report 2011
February 2011 International Resources Group
(IRG) for the USAID
LIBERIA ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LEAP)
Final Report
April 2012 USAID Fact Sheet on the Emergency Power Program (EPP)
April 2012 USAID Fact Sheet on Liberia Energy Sector Support Program
(LESSP)
February 2012 African Development Bank Project Concept Note. COTE D’IVOIRE, LIBERIA SIERRA
LEONE AND GUINEA (CLSG) INTERCONNECTION
PROJECT
April 2012 World Bank Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia Sierra Leone and Guinea (CLSG)
Interconnection Project - Project Information Document
(PID)
November 2010 European Commission
Environment LIFE program and
International Hydropower
Association (IHA)
Hydropower sustainability assessment protocol
May 1970 World Bank Appraisal of public utilities authority. Power Expansion
Project
July 2008 County Development
Committee, in collaboration with
the Ministries of Planning and
Economic and internal affairs.
Government of Liberia
Monserrado County Development Agenda 2008 - 2012
2012 IFC - World Bank Doing Business 2012 data for Liberia
December 2011 West African Power Pool
(WAPP)
CLSG project environmental and social impact assessment
study (Final Report Liberia Section)
December 2011 West African Power Pool
(WAPP)
CLSG Project Resettlement Action Plan (Liberia)
March 2011 African Development Bank LIBERIA Country Strategy 2008-2001 Mid-Term review,
portfolio performance review
March 2011 Liberia Electricity Corporation LEC Tariff Policy
April 2011 Liberia Electricity Corporation LEC Electricity Master Plan
April 2012 Liberia Electricity Corporation March 2012 Monthly Report
May 2011 Liberia Electricity Corporation LEC Year 2 Investment Plan
Final Report – August 2012 123
April 2012 Liberia Electricity Corporation LEC Auditor's report and Financial Statements 2011
April 2012 Liberia Electricity Corporation LEC Fiscal Year 12Q3 Quarterly Progress
April 2012 The World Bank Liberia Infrastructure Policy Notes Prioritizing Investments
for_ Diversification[1]
April 2009 Liberia Electricity Corporation
(LEC) and International Finance
Corporation (IFC)
Request for Prequalification (RFP) from LEC Liberia (for
the selection of an utility operator - the “Operator” - for the
LEC under a management contract
April 2012 USAID (Winrock) LESSP March Monthly Progress Report
July 2011 USAID (Winrock) Sorlumba project Survey Report Final Socio-economic and
Load Demand assessment survey for Sorlumba Biomass
Electricity Project, Sorlumba Foyah Statutory District, Lofa
County
May 2011 USAID (Winrock) Wayavah Falls project survey report Final. Report of load
demand assessment & socio-economic survey conducted
in Salayea district.
May 2011 USAID (Winrock) Mein River Project Survey Report. Final Report. Load
Demand Assessment & Socio-Economic Survey
For Proposed Mein Mini Hydropower Project Suakoko &
Jorquelleh Districts, Gbarnga
Bong County
July 2011 USAID (CSET for Winrock) Cocopa Project Final Survey Report Socioeconomic And
Energy Baseline Survey Report On Cocopa & Its Nearby
Towns In Nimba County
1983 Bremen The Open Door Policy of Liberia, an Economic History of
Modern Liberia, FPM van der Kraaij
2010 AMCOW Water supply and sanitation in Liberia: turning finance into
services for 2015 and beyond An AMCOW Country Status
Overview 2010 The African Ministers Council on Water
2010 Backiny-Yetna, Prospere Poverty in Liberia: Level, Pro_le, and Correlates in 2007
World Bank September 2010 MPRA Paper No. 34415
2011 IDLO International Development
Law Organization
Addressing Land Tenure Insecurity Through Community
Land Titling: A policy brief presenting the findings of the
Community Land Titling Initiative in Liberia Policy Brief
October 2011
2008 International Resources Group’s
(IRG)
Let there be light the role of electrification in Liberia’s post
conflict stabilization Rick Whitaker Chief of Party in Liberia
for the USAID Emergency Power Program and the Liberia
Energy Assistance Program,
124 Contract 2012/284032
2011 Lookman Oshodi Housing and Urban Development in Monrovia Liberia
Observer’s pers pective A visitation report August 2011
2009 MLME National Energy Policy an Agenda For Action and
Economic and Social Development Ministry of Lands,
Mines and Energy Monrovia, Liberia May 2009
2008 Montserrado County Development Agenda Republic of Liberia 2008 – 2012
2011 NORAD Norwegian support to the Liberian energy sector Baseline
study and RBM system Norad Report 9/2011 Discussion
2011 Norwegian Refugee Council
NRC
Beyond Squatter’s rights Durable solutions and
development induced displacement in Monrovia, Liberia,
May 2011
2011 Republic of Liberia LISGIS Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo information
ServicesStatistical Bulletin, Monrovia, Liberia. December
2011
2008 Republic of Liberia Poverty Reduction Strategy April 2008
2009 Republic of Liberia LISGIS , 2008 National Population and Housing Census
Final Results , Monrovia , Liberia
2011 Small Arms Survey Issue Brief Liberia Armed Violence Assessment Issue Brief
Number 1 and 2 September 2011
2009 Timothy Kortu Urban Agriculture in and around Monrovia, Liberia, Urban
Agriculture magazine, number 21,January 2009
2008 UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance
Framework for Liberia 2008-2012
2010 UNDP Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP)
Mid-Term Review
2008-2012
2006 UNDP/EPA First State of the Environment Report For Liberia, UNDP
and Environmental Agency of Liberia
2008 UNHabitat Country programme Document, 2008-2009, Liberia
2009 UNHabitat/ Global Energy
Network for the Urban
Settlements (GENUS)
“Electrification for slum/low‐ income settlements in Liberia:
opportunities and Challenges”, Mr. Hady Sherif, Center for
Sustainable Energy Technology, CSET, Liberia, in - Expert
Group Meeting Promoting Energy Access for the urban
poor in Africa: Approaches and Challenges in Slum
Final Report – August 2012 125
Electrification Final report- ; Nairobi, Kenya, October 2009
2010 Urcun Aude et al Gouvernance « non souveraine » et régulation des
services de l’eau à Monrovia, Libéria, Revue Tiers Monde
2010/3 - n° 203
2011 USAID User guide: USAID poverty assessment tool for Liberia,
January 2011
2008 USAID Liberia Fact Sheet The Emergency Power Programm 2008
2009 USAID Liberia Project fact EPP 2006-2009
2006 WFP/FAO,ECHO/GOL Liberia Comprehensive Food Security and Nutrition Survey
(CFSNS)
2007 WFP/FAO,ECHO/GOL Liberia Market Review (LMR), VAM Vulnerability Analysis
and Mapping, Strengthening Emergency Needs,
Assessment Capacity (SENAC).
2008 World Bank Rice Prices and Poverty in Liberia, by Clarence Tsimpo
Quentin Wodon, The World Bank Human Development
Network Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics
October 2008, Policy Research Working Paper 4742
2012 World Bank Liberia Preliminary results of the Willingness to pay Survey
Annex 3 Willingness to Pay analysis Energy use and
spending patterns Liberia
World Bank Liberia Preliminary results of the Willingness to pay Survey
Combined WTP Findings 2 21 2012
2012 World Bank/IBRD Developing Public- Private Partnerships in Liberia; Zachary
A. Kaplan, Peter Kyle, Chris Shugart, and Alan Moody
126 Contract 2012/284032
12.3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
12.3.1 Data and Document Collection
It was an asset for the project that a baseline sociological end-users survey was completed in
October 2010 for the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation within the framework of the
Norwegian support to the Liberian Energy Sector (Norad – Baseline Study and RBM system, see
bibliography). However, the original data from this survey couldn’t be found in Monrovia by the
evaluation team, neither with the EU officer nor with the Norwegian representative of the Norwegian
cooperation in Monrovia. Therefore the End User survey to be launched by the evaluation team
could not anymore be a “follow up” survey as requested by the TORs but was designed as a
genuine new End Users survey.
As a start, all relevant data were collected like: data on urban household characteristics and income
levels, living conditions, targets of the Poverty reduction Strategy of the Liberian Government, socio
economic context of Monrovia development, level of urban services, demographic data. All
document used are listed in the Bibliography. Several working meetings were held with the National
Statistical Institute officers at LISGIS (Liberian Institute for Statistics and Geo Information Systems)
aimed at assessing the demographic data of the 2008 Census for the neighborhoods of Greater
Monrovia – those data were provided to the Consultant by LISGIS. It allowed to finalize the size of
the sample of the households survey in the various selected surveyed areas.
The Consultant team was informed that an in depth national consumer survey aiming at assessing
the willingness to pay for electrical services was carried out in 2010-2011, financed by a separate
Global Partnership on Output Based Aid grant. The survey covered a random sample of 479
households in Monrovia without access to grid electricity and 479 households connected to the LEC
grid. Questions covered overall household use of energy, use and expenditure on various energy
sources, and ownership and use of electric and non-electric appliances, as well as questions
regarding household income and expenditure. The analysis of the data collected is not completed
and consequently the final report not yet available. However some preliminary findings have been
provided to the Consultant by the World Bank in Monrovia.
A survey on Electricity efficiency on a sample of LEC customers households in Monrovia – financed
by USAID - was just starting during the evaluation mission time. Discussions about households
behavior concerning electricity uses and types of appliances were held with the consultancy team in
charge of the survey. Documentation on energy behavior of rural households was provided also to
the team by Winrock International in charge of of USAID projects management/coordination in
Liberia.
Several meetings were held with Manitoba Team in charge of the Management Contract of LEC:
they were very useful for the understanding of LEC works and on-field equipment the various
neighborhoods of Monrovia. A working tour of Monrovia neighborhoods was also organized with an
officer of LEC Customer New Service during which several key installations were visited - Bushrod
main station, Paynesville sub station, Old Congo sub station all around the city of Monrovia and also
several places in northern Monrovia. Documentation was provided also by Manitoba on main themes
of interest to the evaluation team. Unfortunately neither data on distribution of the number of actual
LEC customers by location (neighborhoods) could be provided to the Consultant nor maps of the
location of main clusters of customers.
Final Report – August 2012 127
12.3.2 Methodology
The survey was carried on 354 households and 36 enterprises/institutions. The methodology used is different for the two categories and presented in two separate sections.
End User Household survey methodology
The survey was organised according to the following steps:
Definition of the targets groups to be surveyed
Choice of the sample Size
Definition of the sampling strategy
Choice of the interviews techniques
Definition of the targets groups to be surveyed
Through various interviews and documents consulted it became rapidly apparent that the electricity
generation capacity in Monrovia comprises :
i) public and private organizations’ own generators
ii) private enterprises (often informal) generators distributing energy to households and other
small enterprises on a “local grid” setup, called IPPs
iii) private households’ own generators.
It was therefore decided to target 4 different groups of households in order to capture the different
energy consumption patterns, expenditure strategies and behaviors concerning the impacts of
electricity on their living conditions: those without electricity, those owning a generator, those whose
electricity is supplied by IPPs and finally those connected to LEC electric grid. For the
enterprise/social units’ component of the survey, 3 groups were selected: those connected to LEC
grid, those with a generator and those without electricity.
Choice of the sample size
In order to analyze the behavior of these groups with respect to energy, the sample survey size was
determined for 350 households as the focus of the survey was on households. This sample size is
relevant for the analysis of socio economic trends in various social groups. The number of units in
each targeted social group allows reliable calculations and results (especially quartiles) so as to
capture socio economic stratification. The number of enterprises/social units was fixed to 30 as the
outcomes sought were more qualitative than quantitative. The objectives were actually to capture the
main problems and issues they face and to assess their perception of electricity impacts on their
activity.
Sampling strategy
The End Users Household survey is a multistage sampling survey.The sampling strategy aimed at
producing data that must be representative across the socio-economic, demographic and economic
patterns of the Monrovia urban perimeter. The objective was to target Monrovia population most
representative of the bulk of future LEC customers. Priority zones should be therefore representative
of low to middle income groups. It was therefore decided not to include middle to high income social
groups in the sample
128 Contract 2012/284032
First stage: selection of survey areas
Areas were selected according to the following criteria.
Households connected to LEC grid:
They were to be found in zones or neighbourhoods of Monrovia recently electrified and, if possible,
with infrastructures financed by the EU project. These areas should also allow targeting several
social groups, from the lowest income level group up to middle class income level.
The two following types of areas were chosen:
i) The northern neighbourhoods of Monrovia; areas which have been supplied by the
66kV High Voltage Line constructed along the Somalia Drive Road. Very few areas have
been electrified in these zones: however from 2011 LEC started to electrify some specific
neighbourhoods - estate housing areas- offering the best opportunities for easily
developing customers groups thanks to the density of their population and the presence
of a variety of income social groups with a good percentage of low middle class.
Two survey areas were selected in these neighbourhoods: one in Stephen Tolbert
neighbourhood, located in Barnesville Township and the second in New Georgia estate
housing in New Georgia Township.
Stephen Tolbert is situated next to Somalia Drive Road (main asphalted road of the
zone), in a commercial area (with Chicken Soup factory market). It can be characterized
as a mainly middle income residential area. New Georgia is very far from Somalia Drive
Road but connected to it by a good asphalted road. It is residential, with a few shops but
not any real market place and characterized with a mix of low to middle income groups.
ii) The second category of area selected was a “low income area” in Monrovia which has
been electrified very recently and equipped with the pre-paid meters of the Eltel contract
: the survey area selected is in Jallah Town neighbourhood, Central Monrovia. It can be
characterized as a mainly poor to very low middle income residential area; the poorest
households are located in the area bordering the wetland. It is close to an asphalted road
and benefits from all urban commodities of central town.
For the group of households without electricity
For this group of households, areas should be representative of the two typical urban patterns and
housing types where the largest part of the urban population lives in Monrovia: unplanned and not
densely populated neighbourhoods of the peri urban areas and most densely populated slum areas
in the central areas of the capital.
i) The two selected zones in the not densely unplanned areas were both in Paynesville
city, which acounts today for more than 30% of the total population of Monrovia: one
survey area was selected in Neezoe Community and the other in Police Academy
Community. Neezoe and Police Academy are both exclusively residential and not
connected to an asphalted road. The nearest commercial market place is a few
kilometres away: it is the very important commercial centre of Red Light at the junction of
Somalia Drive Road and Tubman Boulevard. These areas can be characterized as
mainly poor to low middle income group. Both communities are not yet electrified; they
are planned to be in the coming five years (according the Master Plan of LEC).
Final Report – August 2012 129
ii) The last selected area was Clara Town: a very densely populated slum type
neighbourhood located on the south-western end of Bushrod Island, off the UN Drive.
The LEC grid runs through the community, and some customers along the main line
have been connected. The community is currently in the process of being electrified and
households equipped with pre-paid meters. The community is characterized by mainly
larger retail and trade businesses along UN Drive, and very poor to low middle income
residential area off UN Drive. The poorer households are located in the area bordering
the wetland.
Second stage; Distribution of the sample size among the survey areas’categories
The distribution was based on the estimation of the population of the survey area (demographic
projections for 2012 calculated for each area based on the results of the 2008 Census). The ratio
targeted was to interview about 10% of the estimated number of households in each of the selected
areas.
Third stage; selection of households in each survey area
The final choice of the households was defined by judgmental sampling for households connected to
LEC grid and by random sampling for the ones not connected. This methodology produced
households data which are largely reliable as well as representative for urban Monrovia low to
middle class income group.
The sample is given in the table below:
Table 1: End user survey: households distribution per Survey Area and per urban pattern
Survey Area Nbr of HH interviewed
% Urban pattern Sites/ Communities/
Neighbourhoods
Clara Town
Jallah- Saye Town
45
40
85
24% Unplanned « Low income communities »; densely central populated neighborhoods
Bushrod Island
Central Town
Neezoe
Police Academy
78
60
138
39% Unplanned (organic) popular peri urban neighborhoods ; low density of population
Paynesville -North of Somalia Drive Road
and West of Tubman Bvd
Stephen Tolbert
New Georgia
71
60
131
37% Planned (grid pattern) peri urban neighborhoods ; medium to high density
Barnesville
New Georgia
both located north of Somalia Drive Road
Total 354 100%
Figure : Surveys areas in Monrovia
130 Contract 2012/284032
The satellite images are inserted below with the selected areas contoured in red.
Clara Town:
Final Report – August 2012 131
Jallah Town:
Stephen Tolbert:
132 Contract 2012/284032
New Georgia:
Police Academy
Final Report – August 2012 133
Neezoe
Interviews techniques
The Consultant has applied traditional survey methods using questionnaires and interviewing. A
questionnaire with quantitative questions and some qualitative questions was prepared (see
questionnaire in Annexe 10.5). Interviews with community leaders in each community were also
carried out.
Enterprises and Social Units Survey
With respect to the group of enterprises and social units the methodology used was very different: it
was chosen - considering the short time (one day) which could be devoted during the survey to this
category of end users - to target units located only along the Somalia Drive Road in three areas:
Stepehn Tolbert Junction, Chicken Soup factory Junction and Zota Community.
The number of enterprises/social units was fixed to 50 targeting 50% enterprises and 50% social
units, as the outcomes were more qualitative than quantitative. The objectives were actually to
capture the main problems and issues these entities face and to assess their perception of electricity
impacts on their activity.
A specific questionnaire was prepared for these units (Appendix 10.6).
12.3.3 Schedule for the survey and survey team
The preparation of the survey was carried out during the first two weeks of the evaluation mission:
this period was devoted to intensive preliminary field work allowing to finalize the choice of the
survey areas. During this period most of the working with geo information systems and statistical
officers of LISGIS took place as well as interviews conducted with main actors of the energy sector.
The End Users Survey was conducted during 10 days mobilizing a team of 8 local surveyors for
interviews of beneficiaries: 1 day was devoted to training of the surveyors, 1 day was necessary for
pre test exercise in one neighborhood (Stephen Tolbert) and to analyse feed back from the pre test
134 Contract 2012/284032
to adjust the questionnaire and 8 days of survey in the various selected areas. 7 days were devoted
to the households’ survey and one day to the enterprise units.
The quality of the survey was monitored through the coordination and supervision of the surveyors
by a Field coordinator who was permanently in the field and who was responsible for the first stage
of the quality check.
Data entry (two persons) was organized in such a way as to have each day’s set of questionnaire
recorded the day after in order to enable a running review of the quality and profile of the
information. This was the task of the Quality check data computer officer.
All Survey staff (surveyors, field coordinator, data entry and quality check) has been provided by the
Centre for Sustainable Energy and Technology (CSET), we thank them for their cooperation in the
survey.
12.3.4 Problems faced during the survey
Problems occurred only with the enterprises/social units survey. Very few social units were located
in the areas selected along Somalia Drive Road. The managers either refused to answer the same
day and suggested another meeting day, and this was not possible, either the person which could be
interviewed couldn’t answer to the questionnaire as having no knowledge on the matters questioned.
This is the reason why the final sample is constituted by enterprises only (only one school) and the
size was limited to 36 units.
Final Report – August 2012 135
12.4 SURVEY DATA
12.4.1 Household Socio Economic Characteristics
Table 26: End user survey sample: Households distribution by location and urban pattern
Location Total Nbr % l % Urban patterns
Clara Town 45 13%
24%
unorganized grid of « Low
income communities »
Bushrod Island and Center of Monrovia
Jallah/Saye Town 40 11%
Neezoe 78 22%
39%
Un planned settlements of peri
urban Monrovia : Paynesville North
and West
Police Academy 60 17%
New Georgia 60 17%
37% Planned grid of estate housing
North of Somalia Drive Road Stephen Tolbert 71 20%
354 100% 100%
Table 27: Households distribution by sex of household head and by location
Location
Sex of Household Head
Nbr Male Nbr Female
Total
Clara Town 36 9 45
Jallah/Saye Town 33 7 40
Neezoe 65 13 78
New Georgia 48 12 60
Police Academy 50 10 60
Stephen Tolbert 47 24 71
Nbr Total 279 75 354
Table 28: Households distribution by sex of household head and by location (%)
Location
Sex of Household Head
Nbr Male Nbr Female Total Nbr
Clara Town 80% 20% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 83% 18% 100%
Neezoe 83% 17% 100%
New Georgia 80% 20% 100%
Police Academy 83% 17% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 66% 34% 100%
Average on total 79% 21% 100%
136 Contract 2012/284032
Table 29: Households distribution by marital status of household head and by location
Location
Marital Status
Nbr Single Nbr Married Nbr Divorced/
Separated
Nbr Widowed
Total Nbr
Clara Town 6 36 1 2 45
Jallah/Saye Town 7 32 0 1 40
Nezzoe 8 62 2 6 78
New Georgia 9 47 2 2 60
Police Academy 10 48 1 1 60
Stephen Tolbert 17 46 3 5 71
Nbr Total 57 271 9 17 354
Table 30: Households distribution by marital status of household head and by location (%)
Location
Marital Status
Nbr Single Nbr Married Nbr Divorced/
Separated
Nbr Widowed
Total Nbr
Clara Town 13% 80% 2% 4% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 18% 80% 0% 3% 100%
Nezzoe 10% 79% 3% 8% 100%
New Georgia 15% 78% 3% 3% 100%
Police Academy 17% 80% 2% 2% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 24% 65% 4% 7% 100%
Average Total 16% 77% 3% 5% 100%
Table 31: Average Household size by location
Location Household size Average
Household size
Median
Nbr of persons=> 18 years
Nbr children <5 years
Nbr children >5 <18 years
Clara Town 5,7 5 3,3 1,8 0,6
Jallah/Saye Town 6,1 5 3,2 2,2 0,7
Nezzoe 6,5 6 2,8 2,7 1,0
New Georgia 6,8 6 2.9 2,5 1,4
Police Academy 6,9 6 2,9 2,9 1,1
Stephen Tolbert 6,6 6 2,8 2,6 1,2
Average for total 6,4 5,7 3,0 2,5 1,0
Final Report – August 2012 137
Table 32: Dwelling Occupation status of household by location
Location Owner Renter private
renter public
Free Occupation
Caretaker Total Nbr
Clara Town 14 24 0 6 1 45
Jallah/Saye Town 17 21 0 2 0 40
Nezzoe 42 34 0 1 1 78
New Georgia 44 11 2 3 0 60
Police Academy 35 20 0 2 3 60
Stephen Tolbert 50 8 5 6 2 71
Nbr Total 202 118 7 20 7 354
Table 33: Dwelling Occupation status of household by location (%)
Location
Dwelling Occupation status
Owner Renter private
Renter public
Free Occupation
Caretaker Total Nbr
Clara Town 31% 53% 0% 13% 2% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 43% 53% 0% 5% 0% 100%
Nezzoe 54% 44% 0% 1% 1% 100%
New Georgia 73% 18% 3% 5% 0% 100%
Police Academy 58% 33% 0% 3% 5% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 70% 11% 7% 8% 3% 100%
Average Total 57% 33% 2% 6% 2% 100%
Table 34: Number of years the household is in the dwelling by location
Location
Length of occupation Nbr of years as…
Owner Renter Other
Clara Town 18,7 5,6 23,0
Jallah/Saye Town 17,0 6,5 15,0
Nezzoe 10,8 2,9 3,5
Police Academy 7,3 3,1 3,2
New Georgia 16,0 6,7 7,2
Stephen Tolbert 17,3 9,8 11,2
Average on Total 14,5 5,8 10,5
138 Contract 2012/284032
Table 35: Type of wall of household dwelling by location
Location Type of Wall
Nbr Concrete/
ciment
Nbr Corrugated Iron Sheet
Mud Bricks
Mud and Wattle
Other Total Nbr
Clara Town 42 2 1 0 0 45
Jallah/Saye Town 34 5 1 0 0 40
Nezzoe 46 0 29 3 0 78
Police Academy 43 1 15 0 1 60
New Georgia 54 4 2 0 0 60
Stephen Tolbert 67 3 0 1 0 71
NbrTotal 286 15 48 4 1 354
Table 36: Type of wall of household dwelling by location (%)
Location
Type of Wall
Nbr Concrete/
ciment
Nbr Corrugated Iron Sheet
Mud Bricks
Mud and Wattle
Other Total Nbr
Clara Town 93% 4% 2% 0% 0% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 85% 13% 3% 0% 0% 100%
Nezzoe 59% 0% 37% 4% 0% 100%
Police Academy 72% 2% 25% 0% 2% 100%
New Georgia 90% 7% 3% 0% 0% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 94% 4% 0% 1% 0% 100%
Average Total 81% 4% 14% 1% 0% 100%
Table 37: Type of roof of household dwelling by location
Location Type of Roofing
Nbr Concret
Nbr Zinc Nbr Tarpaulin
Total Nbr
Clara Town 1 44 0 45
Jallah/Saye Town
0 40 0 40
Nezzoe 0 75 3 78
Police Academy
2 58 0 60
New Georgia 2 58 0 60
Stephen Tolbert
2 69 0 71
Final Report – August 2012 139
Nbr Total 7 344 3 354
Table 38: Type of roof of household dwelling by location (%)
Location
Type of Roofing
Nbr Concret
Nbr Zinc Nbr Tarpaulin
Total Nbr
Clara Town 2% 98% 0% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town
0% 100% 0% 100%
Nezzoe 0% 96% 4% 100%
Police Academy
3% 97% 0% 100%
New Georgia 3% 97% 0% 100%
Stephen Tolbert
3% 97% 0% 100%
Total average 2% 97% 1% 100%
Table 39: Main source of drinking water of households by location
Location
Main source of drinking water
Pipe or pump indoor
Pipe or pump outdoor (on neighbour's)
Watersellers Private well
Hand pump
Total Nbr
Clara Town 2 5 15 23 45
Jallah/Saye Town 4 4 21 11 40
New Georgia 2 3 12 3 40 60
Stephen Tolbert 4 4 20 2 41 71
Nezzoe 3 12 4 8 51 78
Police Academy 7 5 2 4 42 60
Nbr Total 22 33 74 17 208 354
Table 40: Main source of drinking water of households by location
Location
Main source of drinking water
Pipe or pump indoor
Pipe or pump outdoor (on neighbour's)
Watersellers Private well
Hand pump
Total Nbr
Clara Town 4% 11% 33% 0% 51% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 10% 10% 53% 0% 28% 100%
New Georgia 3% 5% 20% 5% 67% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 6% 6% 28% 3% 58% 100%
Nezzoe 4% 15% 5% 10% 65% 100%
Police Academy 12% 8% 3% 7% 70% 100%
Total average 6% 9% 21% 5% 59% 100%
140 Contract 2012/284032
12.4.2 Energy : household behaviour practices and expenditures
Electricity all sources
Table 41: Does your house get electricity (on grid or off grid)
Location Yes No Total
Clara Town 28 17 45
Jallah/Saye Town 33 7 40
Nezzoe 25 53 78
Police Academy 22 38 60
New Georgia 41 19 60
Stephen Tolbert 48 23 71
Total nbr 197* 157 354
*8 households have 2 sources of electricity: LEC and their own generator
Table 42: Does your house get electricity (on grid or off grid)
Location
Yes No Total
Clara Town 62% 38% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 83% 18% 100%
Nezzoe 32% 68% 100%
Police Academy 37% 63% 100%
New Georgia 68% 32% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 68% 32% 100%
Total average 56% 44% 100%
Sources of electricity
Table 43: Source of electricity of household by location
Location LEC LEC neighbour
IPP Shared generator
Own generator
Solar Total
Clara Town 2 0 20 0 6 0 28
Jallah/Saye Town 23 3 7 0 2 0 35
Nezzoe 0 0 5 1 19 1 26
Police Academy 0 0 0 0 22 0 22
New Georgia 21 0 14 0 11 0 46
Stephen Tolbert 41 0 0 0 7 0 48
Total nbr 87 3 46 1 67 1 205
Final Report – August 2012 141
Table 44: Source of electricity of household by location
Location LEC LEC neighbour
IPP Shared generator
Own generator
Solar Total
Clara Town 7% 0% 71% 0% 21% 0% 100%
Jallah/Saye Town 66% 9% 20% 0% 6% 0% 100%
Nezzoe 0% 0% 19% 4% 73% 4% 100%
Police Academy 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%
New Georgia 46% 0% 30% 0% 24% 0% 100%
Stephen Tolbert 85% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 100%
Total nbr 42% 1% 22% 0,5% 33% 0% 100%
Table 45: Electricity sources : when did your household get this electricity source (s)
Category of respondent 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007-2000
1990-1999
Total Nbr
LEC (own) 56 26 5 87
LEC (neighbour) 3 3
IPP 5 17 19 1 1 3 46
Shared generator 1 1
Own generator 6 23 18 4 3 9 4 67
Solar 1 1
Nbr Total 70 67 43 5 4 12 4 205
Table 46: Electricity sources : when did your household get this electricity source (s)
Category of respondent 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007-2000
1990-1999
Total Nbr
LEC (own) 64% 30% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
LEC (neighbour) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
IPP 11% 37% 41% 2% 2% 7% 0% 100%
Shared generator 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Own generator 9% 34% 27% 6% 4% 13% 6% 100%
Solar 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Nbr Total 34% 33% 21% 2% 2% 6% 2% 100%
142 Contract 2012/284032
Comparison of customers’ perception of the quality of service provided by LEC or IPP
Table 47: Satisfaction of customers with the electricity supplier (LEC,IPP) service:
Category of respondent LEC IPP
Yes 52 17
No 9 23
Yes and No 23 6
Total respondents 84 46
na 3
Table 48: :Satisfaction of customers with the electricity supplier (LEC,IPP) service (%):
Category of respondent LEC IPP
Yes 62% 37%
No 11% 50%
Yes and No 27% 13%
Total respondents 100% 100%
Table 49: LEC Reasons for Satisfaction
Reasons of satisfaction Nbr
24hrs 28
Regular current 18
Stable current 9
Reduced cost 10
Payment of what is consumed 10
Total respondents 77
Table 50: LEC Reasons for
Satisfaction (%)
Table 51:
Reasons of satisfaction Nbr
24hrs 36%
Regular current 23%
Stable current 12%
Reduced cost 13%
Payment of what is consumed 13%
Total respondents 100%
Final Report – August 2012 143
Table 52: LEC Reasons of Disatisfaction
Reasons of disatisfaction
Costly 16%
Bill problem* 22%
Payment system ** 25%
Current not regular 38%
Total respondents 100%
* conventional meter ** pre paid meter and scratch card
Billing is too high
I don’t how the bill is calculate and I always receive heavy bill
To obtain chip is a problem, we need more selling places for the chip
Poor costumer service: shut down power without notification
LEC is not stable, buying the chips is hard
Getting the card is big problem
Conventional meter is very expensive
Table 53: Reasons of
Satisfaction IPP service
Reasons of satisfaction Nbr
Basic lighting 7
Regular 3
On time and all the night 7
Total respondents 17
Table 54: Reasons of
satisfaction IPP service
Reasons of satisfaction
Basic lighting 41%
Is there : less expesnive then own genset
18%
On time and all the night 41%
Total respondents 100%
Table 55: Reasons of Dis satisfaction IPP service
Reasons of disatisfaction Nbr
Costly 10
144 Contract 2012/284032
Only night 10
Current not regular 9
Total respondents 29
Table 56: Reasons for Dis satisfaction IPP service
Reasons of disatisfaction
Costly 34%
Only night 34%
Current not regular 31%
Total respondents 100%
Usages of electricity all customers
Table 57: Usages of Electricity whatever the source (grid or off grid) by order of priority
All respondents :354
Usages 1st Use 2nd Use 3rd Use 4th Use 5th Use
Lighting 180 23 7 1 0
TV/Radio 16 147 33 11 3
Fans 5 21 123 12 1
Refrigeration 3 10 15 20 1
Cooking 0 0 0 1 1
Other appliances 5 8 32 70 25
Na 2 2 1 96 180
211 211 211 211 211
Table 58: Usages of Electricity whatever the source
(grid or off grid) by order of priority
All respondents :354
Usages 1st Use 2nd Use 3rd Use 4th Use 5th Use
Lighting 85% 11% 3% 0% 0%
TV/Radio 8% 70% 16% 5% 1%
Fans 2% 10% 58% 6% 0%
Refrigeration 1% 5% 7% 9% 0%
Cooking 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other appliances* 2% 4% 15% 33% 12%
Na 1% 1% 0% 45% 85%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
*mobile phone charger, laptop are the most frequently cited
Final Report – August 2012 145
LEC CUSTOMER: ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURES
Cost incurred for connection
Table 59: LEC customers : Connection expenditures for customers having paid 50
USD of connection fees (pre payment meter)
Total Fee Wiring Breaker Transpor
tation
Other
USD USD USD USD USD USD
Average expenditure/ respondents 92,7 50,0 64,1 15,6 19,4 48,9
Median expenditure/ respondents 72,5 50 50 15 22,5 40
Nbre of respondents 44 44 18 9 10 9
Average expenditure/all LEC customers having paid 50 US$
92,7 50,0 26,2 2,1 4,4 10,0
100% 54% 28% 2% 5% 11%
Table 60: LEC customers Connection expenditures for customers having paid 115 USD
of connection fees (conventional meter)
Total Fee Wiring Breaker Transpor
tation
Other
USD USD USD USD USD USD
Average expenditure/respondents 184,3 115,0 114,5 40,0 16,2 30,7
Median expenditure/ respondents 155,0 115,0 102,5 40,0 15,0 25,0
Nbre of respondents 37 37 19 2 6 6
Average expenditure/ all LEC customers having paid 115 US$
184,3 115,00 60,76 1,30 2,22 4,98
100% 62% 33% 1% 1% 3%
No customer in “low income communities”
146 Contract 2012/284032
LEC customers Electricity Monthly expenditure
Table 61: LEC customers Electricity Monthly expenditure
Location
Nbr respondents
LEC Electricity Monthly Expenditure
Average Median <=20 >20 =40 >40
USD USD USD USD USD
Clara Town/Jallah/Saye Town 23 34,8 40,0 35% 48% 17%
New Georgia 18 46,7 40,0 22% 39% 39%
Stephen Tolbert 41 44,5 40,0 7% 56% 37%
All respondents 82 42,3 40,0 18% 50% 32%
n.a 5
LEC customers: electricity consumption
Table 62: LEC customers Average Annual electricity consumption per capita equivalent
Location
Average Monthly
expenditure per
household
Average Household
size
Average Monthly
electricity expenditure per capita
Average Monthly
electricity consumption
per capita
Average Annual
electricity consumption
per capita
USD Nbr USD kWh* kWh
Clara Town/Jallah/Saye Town 34,8 5,6 6,21 10,75 129,0
New Georgia 46,7 7,2 6,49 11,22 134,7
Stephen Tolbert 44,5 7,1 6,27 10,84 130,1
Average on total 42,3 6,7 6,3 10,9 131,1
*0.578 US$/kWh LEC tariff = 0.54 US$/kWh + 0.07% taxes
Table 63: LEC customers : Average Annual electricity consumption per capita and gender of
head of household equivalent
Head of household Average Monthly
expenditure per
household
Average Household
size
Average Monthly
electricity expenditure per capita
Average Monthly
electricity consumption
per capita
Average Annual
electricity consumption
per capita
USD Nbr USD kWh kWh
Women 38,0 6,5 5,8 10,0 120,4
Male 43,5 6,8 6,4 11,1 132,8
Average on total 42,3 6,7 6,3 10,9 131,1
Final Report – August 2012 147
IPP CUSTOMERS ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND EXPENDITURES
Cost incurred for connection
Table 64: IPP Connection expenditures for customers
Total Wiring Breaker
USD USD USD
Average expenditure/ respondents 44,4 42,7 5,0
Median expenditure/respondents 40,0 35,0 5,0
Nbre of respondents 23 22 16
Average expenditure/all IPP customers 22,2 20,4 1,7
IPP customer Electricity Monthly expenditure
Table 65: IPP Customer Electricity Monthly expenditure
Location Nbr respondents
Average Median <20 > 20 =40 >40
USD USD USD USD USD
Clara Town 19 40,0 38,8 26% 53% 21%
Jallah Town/
SayeTown
7 40,0 40,0 0% 100% 0%
Neezoe 5 40,0 40,0 0% 100% 0%
New Georgia 14 69,8 69,8 0% 21% 79%
All respondents 45 47,4 40,0 11% 56% 33%
n.a 1
IPP customer electricity consumption
Table 66: IPP Customer Average Estimated Electricity Consumption Per Capita equivalent :
Location
Respondents
Average nbr of hours energy
is supplied by IPP*
Average nbr of Amp
Theoretical Daily
Household Electricity
consumption**
Theoretical Monthly
Household Electricity
consumption
Average Household
size
Theoretical Average Monthly
electricity Consump
tion per capita
Theoretical Annual
Electricity Consump
tion per capita
Nbr Nbr Nbr kWh kWh Nbr kWh kWh
Clara Town 19 5,5 1,00 1,2 36,3 4,6 7.9 94.8
Jallah Town/Saye Town
7 11 1,00 2,4 72,6 5,9 12.3 147.6
Neezoe 5 8,2 1,00 1,8 54,1 8,8 6.15 73.8
New Georgia 14 11,5 1,75 4,4 132,4 7,1 18.6 223.2
148 Contract 2012/284032
All respondents 45 8,5 1,19 2,2 66,5 6,1 10.9 130.8
n.a 1
*During night time always : from 6-7 pm to 12pm or 6-7 am according IPP by survey area and respondents answers
**Nbr of Amp x 220 Volt x Nbr hours
*** Estimation based on discussion with respondents
Nota : theoretical : as current being supplied during night, customers never consume the totality of their “amp” provision. IPP customers all complain about that.
Table 67: IPP Customer Estimated annual average electricity consumption per capita :
Location
Respon
dents
Average nbr of hours energy is
supplied by IPP*
Theoretical Average Monthly
electricity
Consumption
per capita
Theoretical Average Annual
electricity
Consumption
per capita
Estimated*
Average Annual electricity
Consumption
per capita
Nbr Nbr kWh kWh kWh
Clara Town 19 5,5 7,9 94,7 76
Jallah Town/Saye Town
7 11 12,3 147,7 89
Neezoe 5 8,2 6,15 73,8 44
New Georgia 14 11,5 18,6 223,9 134
All respondents 45 8,5 10,9 130,8 92
n.a 1
*Calculation based on estimation of nbr of hours of daily electricity consumption by household: according respondents , the following data apply : 80% Clara Town , 60% JallahTown/Saye Town, Neezoe, New Georgia, all respondents = 70%
Table 68: Estimated cost paid by IPP customer per kWh
Location
Nbr respondents
Estimated cost of kWh
by IPP
Multiplier of LEC
electricity cost
USD/kWh
Clara Town 19 1,4 2,4
Jallah Town/Sayz Town
7 0,9 1,6
Neezoe 5 1,2 2,1
New Georgia 14 0,9 1,5
All respondents 45 1,2 2,1
n.a 1
Final Report – August 2012 149
OWN GENERATOR
Own generator customer Electricity Monthly expenditure
Table 69: Average Electricity consumption per capita: household with own generator
Location
Respondents Average
rating of generator
Average
nbr of hours generator
running per day
Average Daily electricity
consumption per household
Average Daily electricity
consumption per capita
Average Monthly
electricity consumption
per capita
Average Annual
electricity consumption
per capita
Nbr kVa Nbr kWh kWh kWh kWh
Clara Town/Jallah/
Saye Town
8 3 2,4 1,6 0,22 6,60 79,2
Neezoe 18 2,4 4,3 2,1 0,29 8,70 104,4
Police Academy 22 2,5 3,5 2,2 0,30 9,00 108,0
New Georgia 8 3 3,8 2,9 0,33 9,90 118,8
Stephen Tolbert 7 3,1 3,4 2,1 0,39 11,70 140,4
All respondents 63 2,7 3,6 2,1 0,3 9,0 108,0
n.a 4
Own generator customer Electricity Monthly expenditure
Table 70: Average Electricity expenditures and cost of kWh of households with own generator
Location
Respondents Average Daily Household
Fuel expenditure
Average Daily Household
Repair/ maintenance
Cost
Average daily Household
total expenditure
Average Daily Household electricity
consumption
Average cost per
kWh
Multiplier of LEC
electricity cost
Nbr USD USD USD kWh USD
Clara Town/
Jallah/Saye Town
8 3 0,41 3,41 1,6 2,1 3,7
Neezoe 18 3,1 0,41 3,51 2,1 1,7 2,9
New Georgia 22 4,2 0,58 4,78 2,9 1,6 2,9
Police Academy 8 3,6 0,51 4,11 2,2 1,9 3,2
Stephen Tolbert 7 3,8 0,35 4,15 2,1 2,0 3,4
All respondents 63 3,5 0,46 3,96 2,1 1,9 3,3
n.a 4
150 Contract 2012/284032
ALL ELECTRICITY SOURCES MONTHLY EXPENDITURES
Table 71: Average Monthly Household and Per capita Electricity
expenditure by location
Location
LEC IPP Own generator
Household Per capita
Household Per capita
Household Per capita
USD USD USD USD USD USD
Clara Town/Jallah town
34,8 6,2 38,8 8,4 82,7 11,4
Jallah town/Saye town
40,0 6,8
Neezoe 40,0 4,5 83,7 11,7
Police Academy 86,0 12,0
New Georgia 46,7 6,5 45,3 9,1
Stephen Tolbert 44,2 6,2 84,5 14,1
All respondents with electricity
42,3 6,3 47.02 7,8 84.6 11,1
Nbr with electricity 204
OTHER ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Lighting
Table 72: Respondents without electricity:
Average Monthly Household Lighting
expenditure by location
Location
Lighting Total
Dry cell battery
Candle
USD USD USD
Clara Town/Jallah town
3,2 0,7 3,9
Neezoe 3,1 0,3 3,4
Police Academy 3,3 0,5 3,8
New Georgia 2,7 1,0 3,7
Stephen Tolbert 4,9 0,3 5,2
All without electricity 3,5 0,5 4,0
Nbr without 157
Final Report – August 2012 151
Table 73: Average monthly lighting expenditures (apart electricity spending) by category of
respondents
Category of respondents
Lighting Total
Dry cell battery
Candle Kerosene
USD USD USD USD
Withhout electricity
3,5 0,5 4,0
Own genset 1,3 0,1 0,1 1,5
IPP 0,4 0,4
LEC 0,5 0,5
All respondents 1,8 0,2 2,0
Nbr respondents 354
Cooking
Table 74: Average monthly cooking spending by category of respondents
Category of respondents
Charcoal
USD
Without electricity 11,5
OWN genset 13,9
IPP 12,7
LEC 15,4
All respondents 12,7
Nbr respondents 354
152 Contract 2012/284032
HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY ALL ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Table 75: Monthly household energy spending by category of energy expenditures and by
Quartile
All respondents : 354
QUARTILE ELEC
TRICITY*
LPG DIESEL GASO
LINE
DRY CELL BATTERY
KERO
SENE
CHAR
COAL
CANDLE TOTAL ENERGY
USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD
Q1 11 0 0 0 2 0 8 1 23
% on total Q1 48% 0% 0% 2% 10% 0% 37% 3% 100%
Q2 27 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 41
% on total Q2 67% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 28% 0% 100%
Q3 37 1 0 2 2 0 12 0 54
% on total Q3 68% 2% 0% 3% 3% 0% 23% 0% 100%
Q4 51 1 1 7 1 0 19 0 80
% on total Q4 64% 1% 1% 9% 1% 0% 24% 0% 100%
Average
on total
31,4 0,4 0,2 2,4 1,8 0,0 12,7 0,2 49,2
% on total 64% 1% 0% 5% 4% 0% 26% 0% 100%
*LEC, IPP, Own generator, solar households
12.4.3 Impacts of electricity on household living conditions perception by customers
Figure 18: Impacts of electricity on household living conditions by category of impact
27%
17%
7%
14%
5%
8%
3%
7%
3%
2%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
security
keep family home
children study longer
more appliances
buy TV and refrig
improve business
work easy
all appliances be used
saving increase
health
others
Final Report – August 2012 153
12.4.4 Willingness to get connected to lec grid and affordability
Table 76: Willingness to get connected to LEC grid per category of respondents
Category of respondents
Without electricity
Own genset/solar
IPP
connected
Total
Yes 142 64 46 252
No 15 0 0 15
Total 157 64 46 267
Table 77: Willingness to get connected to LEC grid per category of respondents
Category of respondents
Without electricity
Own genset/solar
IPP Total
Yes 90% 100% 100% 94%
No 10% 0% 0% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 78: Can you afford the costs – connection,
upgrading or new wiring of the house,
miscellaneous
Category of respondents
Without electricity
Own genset/solar
IPP Total
Yes 111 59 46 216
No 46 5 0 51
Total 157 64 46 267
Table 79: Can you afford these costs : connection,
upgrading or new wiring of the house, miscellaneous
Category of respondents
Without electricity
Own genset/solar
IPP Total
Yes 71% 92% 100% 81%
No 29% 8% 0% 19%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 80: If credit was available, average monthly affordable payment
Expenses USD
Median 10,0
Average 17,2
Nbr respondents
51
154 Contract 2012/284032
12.4.5 Households expenditures: budget effort by level of income and category of respondents
HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY TOTAL EXPENDITURES (proxy for income level)
Table 81: Household monthly total expenditures by location
AVERAGE MINIMUM Q1 Q2 MEDIAN
Q3 Q4 MAXIMUM
Urban pattern Location USD USD USD USD USD USD
« low income » communities
Bushod Island and center of Monrovia
CLARA TOWN 364 133 251 302 437 917
JALLAH SAYE TOWN
513 211 348 460 649 956
Non grid peri urban communities Paynesville
NEEZOE 353 80 183 307 454 909
POLICE ACADEMY 460 122 284 383 599 1072
Grid urban settlements “estate housing »
North Somalia Drive Road
NEW GEORGIA 434 108 287 396 526 1181
STEPHEN TOLBERT
443 103 268 378 564 1227
Table 82: Household monthly total expenditures by category of respondents
All
respondents LEC customers IPP customers Own generator Without
electricity
USD USD USD USD USD
Average on total
422 508 426 542 323
Median 372 437 427 514 288
Q1 266 333 296 356 194
Q2 372 437 427 514 288
Q3 535 642 506 684 408
Q4 1227 1227 751 1072 953
Final Report – August 2012 155
HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY SPENDING BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES
Table 83: Household monthly total expenditures by category of expenditures and by level of
income
QUAR
TILE*
FOOD ENERGY
WATER SCHOOL FEES
TRANS PORT
MEDI
CAL CARE
COMMU NICA
TION
ENTER TAIN
MENT
CONTRI BU
TIONS
SOCIAL FESTIVI
TIES
RENT NEW ASSET
HOUSE MAIN
TE NANCE
TRANS FER OF MONEY
TOTAL
USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD
Q1 100 23 4 10 14 12 12 1 3 3 4 0 1 1 188
% on total
53% 12% 2% 5% 7% 6% 6% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Q2 135 41 8 26 30 20 25 4 9 8 6 1 0 3 316
% on total
43% 13% 2% 8% 9% 6% 8% 1% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 100%
Q3 166 54 10 51 52 28 39 8 14 10 11 2 1 2 447
% on total
37% 12% 2% 11% 12% 6% 9% 2% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 100%
Q4 235 80 18 82 119 58 57 16 30 21 13 3 1 10 743
% on total
32% 11% 2% 11% 16% 8% 8% 2% 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 100%
Average on total
158,5 49,2 9,9 41,9 53,4 29,5 33,0 7,3 14,1 10,5 8,6 1,7 0,7 3,9 422,4
% on total
37,5%
11,6%
2,3% 9,9% 12,6%
7,0% 7,8% 1,7% 3,3% 2,5% 2,0% 0,4% 0,2% 0,9% 100,0%
*average expenditures in each Quartile
Figure 19: Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures
All respondents : 354
38%
12%
2% 1% 3%
13%
10%
7%
8%
2%
5%
1%
FoodEnergyWaterHouse repair & maintenanceRentTransportSchool & educationMedical careCommunicationEntertainmentSocial contributionsTransfer of money
156 Contract 2012/284032
Figure 20 : Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures
LEC customers
Figure 21: Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures (IPP)
Figure 22 : Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures (own generator)
35,0%
12,0%
3,0% 2,0% 2,0%
14,0%
10,0%
5,0% 8,0%
1,0%
7,0%
1,0%
FoodEnergyWaterHouse repair & maintenanceRentTransportSchool & educationMedical careCommunicationEntertainmentSocial contributionsTransfer of money
36%
15%
2% 1% 2%
11%
9%
7%
8%
3%
5%
1%
Food
Energy
Water
House repair & maintenance
Rent
Transport
School & education
Medical care
Communication
Entertainment
Social contributions
Transfer of money
33%
18%
2% 0% 3%
13%
9%
6%
8%
3% 4% 1%
Food
Energy
Water
House repair & maintenance
Rent
Transport
School & education
Medical care
Communication
Entertainment
Social contributions
Transfer of money
Final Report – August 2012 157
Figure 23 : Household average monthly spending by category of expenditures (wo electricity)
12.4.6 Advantages and disadvantages of energy source according to its use : respondents key judgments
Lighting
LEC
Current is constant and 24h
Lighting is bright and much better for study or work
It provides light and makes my life comfortable
There is no problem with LEC, when I come back home after my day work I feel now alive, I can watch films (DVD)
Current is available for safety
Power is affordable for me
House has light, community has street light
LEC is always available but it sometimes shut down power without information
It gives light and families are happy, but sometimes it goes off unnoticed
Light always on here
Regular power/
When there is rain LEC power shut down, take away current for few hours some days
Current is constant, but using heavy appliances increase consumptions
Own generator
I see better at night that using candle of lantern or Chinese light
It provides current for me, but is very expensive to operate
Less risky than candle and kerosene but very expensive
44%
5%
2% 0% 1%
12%
10%
10%
8%
1%
6%
1% Food
Energy
Water
House repair & maintenance
Rent
Transport
School & education
Medical care
Communication
Entertainment
Social contributions
Transfer of money
158 Contract 2012/284032
No actual advantages, the disadvantages are many: it is not safe not reliable
Provide security at night
Use it for lighting/ sometime it damage my appliances
To provide light for the home, for security, very expensive to maintain, no security for the generator
IPP
IPP is less costly than the genset
Must paid for current not been use
I use my appliances at night/when the current is off the areas is dark
IPP is more effective and efficient in comparison of having its own genset
IPP can sometime be poorly control, and cause problems for the users
I don’t have control over the time my light stays on
Prefer the IPP system to chinese lamp or own genset
Provide light,but current not stable
No maintenance of genset, IPP is irregular
Makes the place clearer at night but current not available at all time
Chinese lamps
It gave me light and is affordable
Doesn’t not cause fire
Cheaper to get at time but lamp spoil quickly
Very limited only provides light to a particular
This is the only way for me getting light in my home
No fire damage and we use it for our children study
Light quick to get spoiled
Produce light at night/too expensive
Just provide light to some extent very quick to damage
Source of light is weak, but it is not an efficient source of light
It is long lasting and provides lights
It does not damage the house like fire
Risk is less, provide light at night but quick to damage
Safety and less expensive
Final Report – August 2012 159
Cooking
LEC: Current is too expensive for use in cooking
IPP: Current of IPP is too expensive and too low
OWN GENERATOR: Too expensive
CHARCOAL
Coal is one of best means of sources of cooking because it is less expensive
It is less expensive, but unsafe to use it in the room
The only mean of cooking now
Can get access to coal easily for cooking/hard to determine quality
Cheaper than any other, last longer, easily found around, difficult to light, went wet becomes problem
It is time consuming, but less expensive
Darken of pots, smoke,
It causes lot of heat
Easy to buy/ashes dirty the house/and smoke also
It is the only source affordable for cooking for me..
160 Contract 2012/284032
12.5 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Final Report – August 2012 161
162 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 163
164 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 165
166 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 167
168 Contract 2012/284032
12.6 ENTERPRISE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
EUROPEAN UNION DELEGATION TO LIBERIA
EVALUATION OF EC PROJECTS IN ELECTRICITY SECTOR IN LIBERIA
END USER SURVEY MONROVIA
April-May 2012
MWH International
SURVEY FORM N°
A IDENTIFICATIONS
A1 SURVEY: Date of interview: / 2012 Start at : End at:
A2 SURVEYOR Name:
A3 SURVEY ZONE Code Name of the survey zone: City/township/communities
A4 FIELD COORDINATOR Name:
A5 TYPE OF UNIT PRIVATE ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE = E SOCIAL INSTITUTION = I:
A6 RESPONDANT NAME:
A7 POSITION OF THE RESPONDANT: SENIOR MANAGER: SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR:
OTHER (specify)
A8 SEX OF THE RESPONDANT MALE FEMALE Age (range)
A9 QUALITY CHECK: Date: Signature
A10 ENTRY DATA Date: / 2012
Final Report – August 2012 169
B. UNIT GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
B3. Type of
dwelling unit
B4. Occupation
status
B5.For how
long your I or E
is here ?
B6. Type of wall B7. Type of
roofing
B8. Nbre of
employees
1.Separate building
2. Part of
commercial complex
3. Part of other
residential unit
4 .Part of OWN
residential unit
5.Other
1.Ow ner
2. Renter
3.Free occupation
Nbr of Years 1.Concrete/ciment
2.Corrugated iron
sheet/zinc/tin
3.Mud bricks
4.Mud and Wattle
5.Other
1.Concrete
2.Zinc
3.Tarpaulin
4.Thatch
5.Other
Nbre
…………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………..
C. ELECTRICITY : ALL SOURCES
C1. Do you have
electricity in your
I/E?
C3. When did
you had access
to this(these)
sources of
electricity ?
C4. If soon
connected with
LEC, when
approximatively ?
C5.What is
electricity used
for in you I/E t?
1.Yes 2.No 1.Yes 2.No Year Year/month 1. Lighting only
2. Lighting AND
other
3. Other only
………………………
1.LEC (ow n)
If No 2.LEC (neighbour)
3.IPP
Go to C4 THEN to
G1
3.Shared generator
4.Ow n generator
5.Solar
6.Storage car
battery
7. Other
……………/………………………………………………….
C2. Does your E/I get electricity
from …….?
D1. ACTUAL CUSTOMER/: What
were the expenses you undergo
when you get connected to LEC
?
DETAIL ALL THE COSTS the
customer has supported (fee,
deposit, poles, w irings, transport ,
tips,…
D2. FUTURE CUSTOMER What did
LEC asked you to pay for your
future connection to LEC grid ?
WRITE the explanations the
respondant got from LEC
D. ON GRID : CONNECTION COSTS TO LEC
B1. SOCIAL SERVICES INSTITUTION
Nature of the institution
B2. ENTERPRISE
Nature of the enterprise
SPECIFY
1. Manufacturing
2. Service
3.Trade
Specify nature of products:
SPECIFY nature of establishment
For school, specify type
(elementary,…)
………………………………………………………………….
170 Contract 2012/284032
E. ON GRID: ELECTRICITY EXPENSES
E1. How many
hours per day
do you receive
electricity from
your suplier ?
E2.Who do you
pay for your
electricity
service ?
E3. Do you
receive a bill for
electricity
services ?
E4. On what
basis are you
billed ?
1.Flat fee
2.Number of
appliances
E5. What is the
billing period ?
IPP
Electricity
suppliers
Nbr hours 1.LEC
2.IPP
3.Neighbour
4.Ow ner of the
house
5.Other
1.Yes
2.No,Prepaid
cards
3.No bill
4. Others
4.Amp
Precise Nbre
Amp
5.Included in rent
6.Other
1.Day
2.Week
3.Month
4.Other
1.LEC (ow n)
2.LEC (neighbour)
3.IPP
3.Shared generator
SHARED GENERATOR 4.Other
E. (continue)E7. What was
your last
electricity bill?
OTHER
Electricity
suppliers
Amount USD/LD
1.LEC (ow n)
2.LEC (neighbour)
3.IPP
3.Shared generator
4.Other
E6. How much electricity did your
I/E consume from [this sourceof
electricity ] during 30 days of the
last billing period?
Kilowatt hours (kWh)
Calculate from bill.I If bill not available,
leave blank
ON GRID: CONNECTION COSTS(continue) TO
OTHER SUPPLIERS
E8.FOR ENTERPRISES ONLY
Approximately, what is the
proportion of electricity cost to
total cost of running business
(ask as 1/10th, 1/4th, 1/3rd if
easier)
1.Less than 10%
2.10-25%
3.25-33% 4.More
than 33%
D3. What di you pay to get connected to your
supplier (ENUMERATE AND WRITE ALL EXPENSES
UNDERGONE BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME IT GET
CONNECTED)
Final Report – August 2012 171
F. OFF GRID: OWN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
F1.Is your
[genset,
solar,….]
suppplying
electricity for
your E/I only ?
F2. If Not does
your [genset,
solar,….] supply :
F3. % of use each F4. How old is
your [genset,
solar,...] ?
Nbre of years
…………………..
F5. How much
did it cost ?
F6. How many
hours do you
run the genset
?
F7. What fuel
does it use ?
F8. How much
do you pay
for the fuel
AND for which
period? (w rite
f irst the nbre of
the period, then
the amount)
F9. How much
do you pay for
the Repair AND
for which
period ?
(w rite f irst the
nbre of the period,
then the amount)
1. Yes
>>>> Go to F4.
2. No >>>>
Go to F2.
1. Your I/E only
2. Your I/E and
your home
3. Your I/E and
another I/E
4.Other
1. ………/………….
2…………/………
3…………/………
F4bis. What is
the rating of
your [….]
Amount USD/LD 1.Day
2.Week
3. Month (/Day,
/Week, /Month)
1.Diesel
2.Gasoline
3.Other
1.Day
2.Week
3. Month
USD/LD
1.Month
2.Year
USD/LD
GENSET………………………………………………………………………… .…………/……………………………/ kVA…………………………………… ……/……………………………………………… ……/………………… ……/………………
SOLAR………………………………………………………………………… …………/……………… ……………/Wp
……………………………….……………………………….……………………………….……………………………….…………………
Volt/Amps
………………………………………………………………………… …………/……………… ……………/…………… …………………… ……………………
G. OFF GRID : OTHER ENERGY SOURCES CONSUMPTION AND COSTSH. PERCEPTION BY CUSTOMERS FOR ALL ENERGY SOURCESG2. How much
did your
establisment
pay for that
enregy in the
last 30 days ?
G3.Is this or
these energy
source(s) used
for :
1. Establishment
only
2. Establisment and
household
3. Other
G4.What is the %
of this/these
energy
source(s)] used
for your
establisment
needs
1.Yes 2. No Amount USD/LD Number %
LPG
Diesel
Gasoline
Dry Cell Battery
Kerosene
Other
H1. What are the main advantages
of your present energy source
(Write the name of the energy source
-LEC, IPP, Ow n genset,…-: then the
answ er)
H1. What are the main disadvantages of your
present energy source (Write the
name of the energy source -LEC, IPP, Ow n genset,…-:
then the answ er)
G1.During the last 30 days,has
your I/E used one or several of
these energy sources ?
STORAGE
BATTERY COST
C29.Battery
charging
costs/30 days
US$/LD$
172 Contract 2012/284032
I. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
SOCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ENTERPRISES
I1. Average
number of
beneficiaries/
service users/
visitors per
month?
I3. How much
were your
company sales
last month ?
(monthly turnover)
Amount USD/LD
I3.How much
are the sales
during a "good"
month ?
Amount USD/LD
I3.How much are
the sales during
a "bad" month ?
Amount USD/LD
(e.g. number of
students, church 1. Salaries
visitiors, patients to
clinic, etc.)
2. Materials/
equipment
Specify number and
category3.Maintenance
………………………………4. Rent
………………………………5. Other
G. FOR ALL I/E NOT CONNECTED TO LEC GRID :WILLINGNESS TO GET CONNECTED TO LEC GRID AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY
G1. If your neighborhood is energized by LEC are you willing to :
1. to switch from your IPP/own genset to LEC grid ? 1.Yes 2.No 2. to get connected to LEC grid ? 1.Yes 2.No
G3. If yes why G5. If yes why
G4.IF no why G6.IF no why
G2. Can you afford to pay the connection fees (the surveyor give the amount) AND if necessary the wirings of your I/E ? 1. Yes 2. No
G3. Discussion with the respondant : LEC CUSTOMER: what have been the impacts on
your I/E to get LEC electricity DESCRIBE HOW
G4. Discussion with the respondant : "FUTURE"/WILLING TO BECOME LEC CUSTOMER:
What w ill be/what would be the impacts on your I/E to get LEC electricity DESCRIBE
HOW
I3.What are the 3 key problems
faced by your I/E ? (list
them in order or priority)
I3.What are the 3 key problems
faced by your I/E ? (list them
in order or priority)
I2. How much is your total cost
per month ?
Amount USD/LD
Final Report – August 2012 173
12.7 ATTENDANCE LIST TO THE PRESENTATION OF RESULTS – JULY 24TH 2012
174 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 175
12.8 SLIDES OF THE PRESENTATION ON THE 24TH OF JULY 2012 AT THE EU DELEGATION IN MONROVIA
176 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 177
178 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 179
180 Contract 2012/284032
Final Report – August 2012 181
