44

- Tariffs do not have to be exceptionally low. Where consumption at the subsistence level is a very small share of monthly household cash expenditures, consideration may be given to raising tariffs. In the sampled countries, Angola and Nigeria have exceptionally low unit tariffs in absolute terms and relative even to the income of the poor.

- Volume‐differentiated tariffs at the high end may be considered. Several countries have volume‐ differentiated tariffs between the first and the second block, followed by increasing block tariffs thereafter. But if households are individually metered so that high monthly consumption signals a household with many appliances, their ability to pay can be exploited more to cross‐subsidize the low end of monthly consumption by switching the order: increasing block tariffs between the first and the second block, followed by volume‐differentiated tariffs.

- Reallocation of cross‐subsidies can help make electricity affordable in most countries. Targeted subsidies needed to make 30 kWh a month of grid electricity affordable to all urban residents, are not large in most countries. While recognizing that perfect targeting is not possible, the subsidies calculated in this study point to the potential for achieving universal access in urban and peri‐urban areas.

- Eliminating operational inefficiencies may not eliminate underpricing, but can make subsidies to the poor more financially viable to utilities.

- Many Latin American countries treat assets associated with new connection no differently from all other assets—high‐ and medium‐voltage transmission lines, for example—and capture them in the regulatory assets for tariff setting. Such an approach spreads the costs of new connection and helps reduce multiple connections by making the initial connection much more affordable in countries where connection fees are currently high.

Lastly, this paper found areas where questions in household surveys delivered ambiguous or questionable answers. A standardized approach to data analysis would also be helpful. Some examples follow.

- Quantitative information on kWh consumed seems difficult to obtain. Enumerators should be better trained to spot implausible answers if this question is asked. Without information on kWh consumed, it is not possible carry out the distributional analysis of subsidies outlined by Komives et al. (2005). In this paper, multiple schedules in many countries and the widespread practice of sharing meters meant that kWh consumed could not be back‐calculated (except in Rwanda), because there is no way of telling which tariff schedule was applicable to each household.

- Given the policy implications of pervasive use of shared meters, the wording of questions concerning shared meters can be tightened, for example by distinguishing between “private” meters on one’s premises to which other households connect and unshared meters on one’s premises.

- It would be useful to distinguish between solar lanterns and solar panels, and avoid using the term “solar energy.”

- In countries where generator ownership is prevalent, it would be useful to separate spending on automotive fuels from spending on fuels for generators.

- In countries with large commercial and bill collection losses, it might be worth asking questions about nonpayment in a way that would enable more robust conclusions. Separating electricity from water where the questionnaire currently reads “free electricity/water” as employment benefits and inclusion in the rent are two examples.