25

||Sh<br>All|are of hou<br>Expendi<br>elect|sehold ex<br>ture on<br>ricity|penditur<br>Gr<br>conne|e<br>id<br>ction|of<br>All|househol<br>Expendi<br>elect|ds for whi<br>ture on<br>ricity|ch share<br>Gr<br>conne|5<br>id<br>ction|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Country||Yes|No|Yes|No||Yes|No|Yes|No|
|Niger|4.8|1.8|5.2|1.6|5.2|68|97|64|98|64|
|Nigeria|0.6|0.4|0.8|0.4|0.8|100|100|99|100|99|
|Rwanda|14.1|2.4|15.3|2.6|15.4|21|90|14|88|13|
|São Tomé and Príncipe|1.8|1.3|2.0|—|—|97|99|96|—|—|
|Senegal|3.3|2.1|5.0|2.0|4.9|85|94|72|95|73|
|Sierra Leone|6.2|2.9|6.7|2.9|6.7|50|90|43|90|43|
|Swaziland|2.4|0.9|3.1|—|—|89|100|84|—|—|
|Tanzania|4.5|1.1|5.2|1.1|5.3|78|100|73|100|73|
|Togo|8.8|3.7|12.0|3.8|12.0|46|79|25|79|26|
|Uganda|7.9|1.9|8.5|2.2|8.6|51|97|47|94|46|
|Zambia|8.0|1.0|9.1|1.3|9.9|52|99|44|99|39|
|Median|3.9|1.3|5.1|1.6|5.3|81|98|74|96|72|

_Source_ : World Bank staff calculations based on household survey data. _Note_ : — = Grid connection status not available in the survey.

# Affordability at higher levels of consumption

Corresponding results for 50, 100, and 250 kWh are shown in Table A.9–Table A.12, Table A.13–Table A.14, and Table A.15–Table A.16, respectively, in the annex. Although this paper uses monthly consumption of 30 kWh to define affordability, higher consumption levels were also tested to see how many households could “afford” (that is, pay no more than 5 percent of total household expenditures to purchase) more electricity. The number of countries in which electricity consumption becomes unaffordable (exceeding the 5‐percent threshold) to the poor, based on total household expenditures (including imputed values), nearly doubles from 7 to 13 at 50 kWh. At 100 and 250 kWh a month, electricity is unaffordable to the poor in all but Angola and South Africa (where the poor are entitled to varying amounts of free electricity, depending on the municipality). The number of countries in which electricity becomes unaffordable to urban households doubles from three at 30 kWh to six at 50 kWh, and more than doubles to 14 at 100 kWh a month.

Table A.10 in the annex enables a limited degree of comparison with the findings of Briceño‐Garmendia and Shkaratan (2011). That study covered 18 countries, 14 of which are also in this study. Briceño‐Garmendia and Shkaratan found that monthly consumption of 50 kWh would be affordable to about one‐third of unconnected households on average, whereas this study found that the median for 50 kWh being affordable would be two‐thirds of unconnected households and the average would be three‐fifths. These results suggest that electricity tariffs became more affordable in the intervening years.

# Grid‐electricity poverty measures

The electricity poverty gaps for different levels of consumption are shown in Figure 5. In the figure, each rectangle for different monthly consumption is incremental. For example, the poverty gaps in Rwanda for 50, 100, and 250 kWh are 46, 67, and 85 percent, respectively. Table A.17 in the annex provides the results by location (urban and rural). Figure 6 contrasts the poverty gap and headcount. The highest poverty gap for 30 kWh is less than 30 percent, but the corresponding poverty headcount is in excess of 70 percent.