PAKISTAN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SERIES PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework PAKISTAN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SERIES PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Hyun Jin Choi, Saadia Qayyum, Bryan Bonsuk Koo ©2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Publication date: May 2024 Disclaimer This work is a product of the staff of the World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes, and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Report and Cover design: Lauren Kaley Johnson, GCSPM, The World Bank Group Text Layout: Duina Reyes Cover photo: © Oliver Knight CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii ABBREVIATIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 COUNTRY CONTEXT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Electricity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Clean Cooking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPROACH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 REPORT OUTLINE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Access to Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Household Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Public Institutions Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Microenterprise Survey .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 III. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ACCESS BY TECHNOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Provincial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Expenditure Level.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 MTF ASSESSMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Household Distribution by Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 i PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Provincial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Household Distribution by Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 USE OF ELECTRICITY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Expenditure on the National Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appliance Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 IMPROVING ELECTRICITY ACCESS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Improving Access to the National Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Informal Connections to the National Grid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Providing Electricity Access to Households Without Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 IV. ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ACCESS BY TECHNOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 STOVE STACKING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 COOKING FUEL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Fuel Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Cooking Fuel Expenditure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 MTF ASSESSMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Cooking Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Household Distribution by Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 IMPROVING ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Limited Availability of Piped Natural Gas Stoves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 LPG Stove as a Clean Cooking Option, But High Fuel Cost as a Barrier.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Low Affordability and Lack of Awareness of the Need for Improved Cookstoves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 APPENDICES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 REFERENCES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 ii BOXES Box 1. Minimum Electricity Requirements, by Tier of Electricity Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Box 2. Typology of Off-grid Solar Devices and Tier Calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Box 3. Holistic Criteria to Measure Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Box 4. Pakistan Cookstove Typology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Box 5. Electricity Access by Sex of Household Head .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Box 6. Electricity Access of Public Institutions in Pakistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Box 7. Electricity Access of Enterprises in Pakistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Box 8. Impact of Floods on Access to Electricity .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Box 9. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services by Sex of Household Head .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 TABLES Table 1. Appliances by Load Level, and Associated Capacity Tiers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 2. Household Survey Sample Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3. Education Facilities Sample, by Level and Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 4. Health Facilities Sample, by Level and Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 5. Microenterprise Survey Sample, by Business Sector.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 6. Most Serious Problems with Electricity from the National Grid, Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 7. Barriers to the National Grid Access for Households Without Any Source of Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 8. Reasons for Not Accepting the Offer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 FIGURES Figure 1. Nationwide Electricity Access Based on Households’ Main Source of Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 2. Nationwide Access to Off-grid Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 3. Access to Electricity Technologies, by Locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 4. Access to Off-grid Technologies, by Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 5. Access to Electricity Technologies, by Province.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 6. Access to Electricity Technologies in Sindh.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 7. Electricity Access, by Expenditure Quintile and by Technology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 8. The MTF Electricity Tier Matrix for the Pakistan Survey Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 9. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 10. Households’ Main Electricity Source, by Aggregate Electricity Tier, Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 11. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Expenditure Quintile.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 12. Distribution of Households Based on All-day Availability.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 iii PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Figure 13. Distribution of Households Based on Evening Availability.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 14. Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Affordability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 15. Nationwide Household Distribution Based on the Reliability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 16. Nationwide Distribution of Households Based on the Quality Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 17. Nationwide Household Distribution Based on the Capacity Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 18. Nationwide Distribution of Households Based on the Formality Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 19. Nationwide Distribution of Households Based on the Safety Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 20. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 21. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier in Sindh.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 22. Household Distribution Based on the Aggregate Availability*, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 23. Household Distribution Based on the Reliability Attribute, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 24. Household Distribution Based on the Quality Attribute, by Province.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 25. Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Affordability Attribute, by Province. . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 26. Household Distribution Based on the Formality Attribute, by Province.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 27. Nationwide Electricity Access, by Technology and by Sex of Household Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 28. Nationwide Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Sex of Household Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 29. Average Monthly Expenditure on National Grid Electricity (PKR).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 30. Monthly Grid Expenditure (PKR) and Grid Share.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 31. Highest Load Level of Appliances Owned by Grid-connected Households, Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 32. Appliance Ownership of Grid-connected Households Based on Load Levels, by Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 33. Appliance Ownership of Grid-connected Households, by Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 34. Appliance Ownership Based on the Load Level, by Expenditure Quintile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 35. Proportion of Households Spending 5% or More of their Household Budget on the National Grid, by Expenditure Quintile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 36. Nationwide Distribution of Households Using the National Grid as the Main Electricity Source Based on the Quality Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 37. Nationwide Distribution of Household Using the National Grid as the Main Electricity Source Based on the Reliability Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 38. Informal Connections to the National Grid, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 39. Households Distribution Based on Expenditure Level, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 40. Distribution of Households Connected to the National Grid Based on Affordability Tier, by Formality of the Grid Connection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 41. Proportion of Households with Meter, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 42. Billing for Electricity Use (% of Households). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 43. Monthly Grid Expenditure, by Formality of the Grid Connection (PKR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 44. Daily Electricity Availability, 24-hour Period (Hour). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 45. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on Load Level of Household Appliances, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 46. Use of Appliances, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iv Figure 47. Most Serious Problems with Grid Electricity, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 48. Main Electricity Source of Informally Grid-connected Households.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 49. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 50. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Capacity Attribute by Formality of the Grid Connection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 51. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Aggregate Availability Tier, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 52. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Reliability Attribute Tier, by Formality of the Grid Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 53. Grid Availability of EAs Where Households without Electricity Reside, Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 54. Nationwide Distribution of Households without Any Sources of Electricity, by Expenditure Quintile.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 55. Primary Electricity Sources of Health Centers, by Locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 56. Distribution of Health Centers Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 57. Distribution of Health Centers Based on the Availability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 58. Distribution of Health Centers Based on the Reliability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 59. Distribution of Health Centers Based on the Quality Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 60. Electricity Access of Education Centers, by Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 61. Primary Electricity Sources of Education Centers, Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 62. Distribution of Education Centers Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 63. Distribution of Education Centers Based on the Availability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 64. Distribution of Education Centers Based on the Reliability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 65. Distribution of Education Centers Based on the Quality Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 66. Main Electricity Sources, by Sector of Enterprises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 67. Enterprise Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 68. Enterprise Distribution Based on the Reliability Attribute, by Sector.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 69. Enterprise Distribution Based on the Quality Attribute, by Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 70. Main Stove Use, by Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 71. Main Stove Use, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 72. Main Stove Use, by Expenditure Quintile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 73. Types of Stacked Cookstoves, Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 74. Main Cookstove of Households Stacking LPG Stoves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 75. Reason for Not Using the Stacked LPG Stove Most of the Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 76. Fuel for Biomass-based Primary Stoves, Nationwide.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 77. Cooking Fuel Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 78. Monthly Spending on Cooking Fuel, by Expenditure Quintile (PKR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 79. Monthly Cooking Fuel Expenditure, by Main Stove, Nationwide (PKR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 80. The Multi-Tier Framework Clean Cooking Tier Matrix for the Pakistan Energy Survey Analysis. . . . . . . . . . 60 v PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Figure 81. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Cooking Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 82. Household Distribution Based on the Exposure Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 83. Household Distribution Based on the Convenience* Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 84. Household Distribution Based on the Fuel Availability Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 85. Household Distribution Based on the Safety Attribute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 86. Household Distribution Based on the Affordability Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 87. Main Stove Use, by Sex of Household Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 88. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Cooking Tier, by Sex of Household Head.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 89. Time on Fuel and Stove Preparation—and Cooking Meals—in a Typical Day (Minute).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 90. EAs with PNG Stove Availability, by Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 91. EAs with PNG Stove Availability, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 92. EAs with At Least One Household Using LPG Stoves, by Locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 93. EAs with At Least One Household Using LPG Stove, by Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 94. Households Using LPG Stoves in Areas with the Stove Availability, by Locality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 95. Distribution of Households Using LPG Stoves as the Main Stove Based on the Affordability Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 96. Willingness to Pay for an Improved Cookstove (% of Households).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 97. Households Never Willing to Pay for an Improved Stove, by Expenditure Quintile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is based on a comprehensive energy survey carried out in Pakistan from mid-2021 to early- 2022 by Associates in Development (AiD) Pvt Ltd, under contract to the World Bank. The energy survey was based on the methodology developed under the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) for Energy Access, a global initiative technically and financially supported by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) and administered by the World Bank. The survey findings have been analyzed and presented in this report by World Bank staff from ESMAP and the Pakistan energy team, drawing on prior reports prepared for other countries. The lead authors for this report were Bryan Bonsuk Koo (Energy Specialist), Hyun Jin Choi (Data Analyst Consultant), and Saadia Qayyum (Energy Specialist). The field coordinators and data analysts for the energy survey were Ibrar Khattak (Energy Access Consultant), Maha Arshad (Energy Access Consultant), Sied Hassen (Data Analyst Consultant), and Yuhan Wang (Data Analyst Consultant). The report was peer reviewed by Tu Chi Nguyen (Senior Energy Economist), Umul Awan (Operations Officer, IFC), and Zijun Li (Energy Specialist). Review, feedback and editing were also provided by Afsana Afshar (Energy Specialist), Alisha Pinto (Energy Specialist), Clara Galeazzi (Consultant), Crispin Pemberton-Pigott (Senior Technical Consultant), Minahil Raza (Energy Specialist), Niki Angelou (Consultant), and Oliver Knight (Senior Energy Specialist). This study is part of a series of deliverables on sustainable energy commissioned by the World Bank under the Pakistan Sustainable Energy Program (P169313), a multiyear technical assistance program in support of the government of Pakistan. Funding for this study was generously provided by ESMAP. Copy edit services were provided by John Steinhardt, and design services were provided by Lauren Kaley Johnson and Duina Reyes. ESMAP is a partnership between the World Bank and over 20 partners to help low- and middle-income countries reduce poverty and boost growth through sustainable energy solutions. ESMAP’s analytical and advisory services are fully integrated within the World Bank’s country financing and policy dialogue in the energy sector. Through the World Bank Group (WBG), ESMAP works to accelerate the energy transition required to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. It helps to shape WBG strategies and programs to achieve the WBG Climate Change Action Plan targets. The financial and technical support provided by ESMAP and the MTF team for the Pakistan Energy Survey is gratefully acknowledged. The team would like to thank the government of Pakistan, especially the Ministry of Energy (Power Division), for its enthusiasm and support for the project. The acknowledgment also extends to the Alternate Energy Development Board, especially Shahjahan Mirza (CEO) and Naeem Memon, (Director Solar PV/CDM), who facilitated the energy survey. Finally, the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics offered valuable support on the survey preparations. vii PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective on Jan, 2023) Currency Unit = Pakistan Rupees (PKR) US $1 = PKR 176.53 viii ABBREVIATIONS DISCO Distribution Company EA Enumeration Area ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program FPA Fuel Price Adjustments GDP Gross Domestic Product ISO International Organization for Standardization kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hour LED Light-Emitting Diode LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas MTF Multi-Tier Framework MECS Modern Energy Cooking Services PKR Pakistan Rupee PNG Piped Natural Gas QTA Quarterly Adjustments SDG Sustainable Development Goal SDG 7 Sustainable Development Goal 7 SHS Solar Home System SLS Solar Lighting System W Watt ix PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on an extensive energy survey commissioned by the World Bank and carried out across Pakistan during 2021-2022. The survey has enabled a comprehensive analysis of electricity access and clean cooking in Pakistan using the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) for Energy Access. The findings provide valuable insights into the current state of access to electricity for households, public institutions, and microenterprises, as well as access to clean cooking solutions across the country. This is the first such survey to be conducted in the country, and it provides granular information on the extent of energy access in Pakistan. This is critical for informing progress toward achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7), which includes universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services by 2030. The findings can also help inform policy-making by the federal and provincial governments in Pakistan in support of universal energy access. The MTF evaluates access to energy based on multiple dimensions, or tiers, considering various attributes such as capacity, availability, reliability, quality, affordability, formality, and safety. Households are scored in tiers for each attribute, and the lowest score among the six becomes the final tier classification, or aggregate tier (from Tier 0—meaning no access—up to Tier 5—full access). Measuring Energy Access: the Multi-Tiers TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 4HRS 4HRS 8HRS 16HRS 23HRS x National Grid 89.2% Executive Summary ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Pakistan has made significant progress toward universal electricity access, with 97.6 percent of the population having access to one or more sources of electricity. The survey shows that 89.2 percent of households 2.6% nationwide are connected 2.0% to the national grid, while 8.5 percent of households are using off-grid 10.5% technologies. 3.5% solar home systems are the Stand-alone most commonly used off-grid electricity source. However, 2.4 percent of the population continues to have no access to electricity. Both rural and urban areas have high electricity access rates, at 97.4 and 98.1 percent respectively. They No Electricity 94.5% The national do not show substantial differences in their use of grid or off-grid sources. grid is slightly Off-grid (94.5 percent) than rural households (86.9 percent). Conversely, more prevalent among urban households 86.9% off-grid energy is more common in rural areas (10.5 percent) than in urban areas (3.5 percent). National Grid Although most provinces have high rates of access to some source of electricity, the availability of grid electricity varies: Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have 97.6 percent and 81.4 percent access to grid electricity respectively, while Sindh has 77.6 percent grid and 15.1 percent off-grid access, and Balochistan percent off-grid access. In Urban has 54.7 percent grid and 42.7 Rural Sindh, the grid electricity access rate falls to 67.7 percent if Karachi is excluded. Electricity Access, by province 0.4% 0.2% 1.0% 2.6% 0.6% 1.4% 7.3% 42.7% 18.4% 15.1% No Electricity Off-grid 54.7% 99.0% 81.4% 97.6% 77.6% National Grid Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Punjab Sindh Pakhtunkhwa Note: Provinces are alphabetically ordered. xi Access PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY into the Technologies, to Off-grid | Insights locality in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework bysituation true energy access 5.7% 80 percent of households Despite the high percentage of households covered by the national grid, almost have only Tier 2 access or less, indicating difficulties with affordability, capacity, and availability of supply. 2.0% 2.5% 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 0% The survey shows that nationwide only three percent of households have Tier 4 access or higher, with 97 percent of the populationGenerator Mini-grid 3 Lantern Solar falling into Tier Other or below. Tier Solar 01 still Solar accounts forHome Rechargeable 7.3 percent of households Lighting Systems Systems Battery that barely have any access to electricity owing to low capacity to power appliances or availability, or both. In rural areas, access is worse, with a higher share of households in Tier 0 than in urban areas. Rural Urban Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% Nationwide 8.8% 20.7% 51.0% 17.6% 1.9% Rural 3.7% 16.8% 56.2% 17.7% 5.6% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Balochistan and Sindh have the largest electricity access deficit, with more than 30 percent of households falling into Tiers 0 and 1. 1.4% 67.8% 1.0% 7.9% 21.8% survey also shows provincial variation across MTF attributes, with Balochistan and Sindh hosting the TheNationwide largest proportions of households 1.7% 10.4% 20.2% 66.8%and 88.1 percent respectively). with Tier 2 access or less (79.5 percent 0.8% The picture of low access in these two provinces is reinforced by the fact that they also have the largest Rural percentage of population in Tier 0 (20.3 percent and 15.6 percent respectively). Even Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—despite 0.7% 25.7% higher grid electricity access—show rather their 1.6% with 70.2% mediocre levels of access, 1.9% roughly one percent of households having Tier 4 or 5 access. Urban Disparities are also found across income groups, with lower electricity access reported among low- Tier 0 (<4 income and vulnerable hr) Tier 2 (4-8 hrs) households. Tier 3 (8-16 hrs) Tier 4 (16-22 hrs) Tier 5 (≥23 hrs) The analysis shows that in the lowest two expenditure quintiles (the lowest 40 percent), there is a comparatively large proportion of households falling into Tier 2; while in the lowest quintile (the bottom 20 percent), the proportion of households in Tier 0 is a far from negligible 17.9 percent. The cost of grid electricity is a burden, especially for the bottom quintile, where almost 13.8 percent of total household expenditure goes on electricity alone (the nationwide average being 7.9 percent). The government has provided subsidies to lower income households, but not enough to fully cover the electricity tariff increases of over 50 percent in July 2022. Tier 0 households have electricity for less than four hours a day and use kerosene lamps, candles, or firewood as backup. 1 xii Executive Summary Pakistan has a high percentage of informally connected households, resulting in high commercial losses. Nationwide, 9.6 percent of households are connected to the national grid informally and use grid electricity without paying official service providers or their authorized representatives. That figure breaks down as 6.9 percent who pay nobody, plus another 2.7 percent who pay the lineman of the Kunda system—the illegal grid connections obtained by hooking up directly to overhead distribution lines. Sindh shows the highest informal connection rate at 33.2 percent. The rate is higher in areas outside Karachi (44.1 percent) than within Karachi (16.3 percent). In Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa more than one in 10 households uses electricity informally taken from the national grid. While loadshedding is a problem for the entire country, areas with more informally connected households experience longer durations of loadshedding (approximately 17 hours per day) compared to those with more formal connections (roughly six hours). These outages are merely rational attempts by the distribution companies (DISCOs) to stem their commercial losses in such areas. Among informally grid-connected households, 82.3 percent were reported to be paying a fixed monthly fee (instead of metered consumption). Unexpectedly high bills were reported by formally connected households to be the most serious problem with grid electricity. By contrast, for informally connected households unscheduled loadshedding and the quality of electricity supply were the primary concerns. Among formally connected households, 43.1 percent identified high bills as their primary concern with grid electricity. Additionally, 27.1 percent of these households reported voltage issues as a major concern. Among informally connected households, 48.4 percent expressed unpredictable interruptions as their main problem, while 35.5 percent cited electricity quality as the most significant issue. Schools, health facilities, and microenterprises show high rates of electricity access. However, reliability, availability and quality of electricity are key issues. The surveys of public institutions and microenterprises reveal that 96.3 percent of health facilities nationwide have access to electricity, and most health centers use electricity from the national grid. Across rural and urban areas, many hospitals lie between Tier 0 and 2, which indicates that availability or capacity problems, or both, are prevalent. Availability and reliability issues are common among urban hospitals, while voltage fluctuations are more of a concern for rural hospitals. Compared to health centers, education facilities show lower rates of electricity access. Nationwide, 75.4 percent of schools have access to electricity, and the rate is higher in urban areas (93.1 percent) than in rural areas (73.6 percent). The national grid is the predominant source of electricity in schools. The analysis shows that comparatively more schools fall into Tier 0 in rural areas than in urban areas (39.6 percent versus 15.9 percent). In urban areas, about one-third of education centers only have Tier 1 access because of poor electricity availability. Pakistani enterprises show high electricity access. The manufacturing sector has 98 percent access, agro-processing and services slightly lower rates of access (90.4 and 90.3 percent respectively). All sectors rely chiefly on the national grid as the primary electricity source, notwithstanding widespread problems with reliability and quality. xiii PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Achieving universal electricity access in Pakistan will require the government to address the issues of affordability, reliability, and availability of supply. Unlike many countries, Pakistan has the basic infrastructure in place to provide at least 50 percent of the population with Tier 4 or higher-level electricity access in the short and medium term, while aiming for 100 percent Tier 5 access by 2030. To achieve this, the government needs to: Improve the quality and reliability of electricity​supply • Upgrade the distribution network, metering and billing to reduce technical and commercial losses; and • Bring in private sector participation and investment in the modernization and operation of the distribution network, to stem commercial losses. s Address affordability issue​ • Accelerate implementation of the Indicative Generation Capacity Expansion Plan (IGCEP), the government of Pakistan’s annually updated least-cost generation plan, to increase the share of renewable energy from 30 percent to 60 percent by 2030, thereby lowering the cost of generation; • Provide the option of prepaid meters to consumers, particularly to low-income households, to help them avoid unexpected fluctuations in monthly electricity expenditure; and • Encourage the adoption of energy-efficient appliances and technologies through consumer awareness campaigns, labeling programs, and financial incentives. Formalize informal connections​ • by providing financial incentives to encourage households to Address the connection cost barrier ​ formalize their connections. This could include reduced connection fees, or installment payment options; and • Foster community participation and cooperation through outreach programs to encourage community members to report illegal connections and promote collective responsibility toward formalizing legal connections. Expand electricity access in the two provinces with least access, Balochistan and Sindh • Deploy a combination of grid extension, mini-grids and stand-alone solar home systems to electrify remote areas based on a geospatial least-cost electrification plan. The World Bank has prepared such a plan and will be publishing this soon to support policymakers and inform further analysis. xiv Executive Summary ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING Nationally, less than 50 percent of households have access to clean cooking (a clear contrast to the relatively high rates of access to electricity). Among Pakistani households nationwide, 44.3 percent use clean fuel stoves with low emissions as their primary method of cooking, comprising 38.6 percent using piped natural gas (PNG), and 5.7 percent liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). In urban areas, PNG stoves are predominantly used, with a penetration rate of 80 percent, by contrast to rural areas, where 21.3 percent of households use PNG stoves, and 71.8 percent of households use traditional/locally built stoves or three-stone/open-fire stoves. Thus PNG is the main cooking fuel in urban areas, while in rural areas firewood still predominates. The use of clean fuel stoves shows substantial differences across provinces. In Sindh, more than half of the population has access to clean stoves. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, the adoption of clean stoves is still low, and households mainly use three-stone/open-fire stoves or traditional/locally built stoves. Most Pakistani households own just one stove. The minority of households that own and use more than one stove (‘stacking stoves’) commonly keep the LPG stove as a backup, while the lower performing one serves as their primary stove. The main disincentive to a transition to everyday use of an LPG stove is the high fuel cost.2 A far starker rural–urban divide is seen in access to clean cooking than in access to electricity. Taking account of cooking exposure, convenience, safety, fuel affordability and fuel availability, the analysis shows that in Pakistan, 34.3 percent of households are aggregate Tier 5, and 55.7 percent of households that do not have access to clean cooking fall into aggregate Tiers 0 and 1. By locality, access to clean cooking shows a big disparity; 69.3 percent of urban households are aggregate Tier 5, while in rural areas, 71.8 percent of households fall into aggregate Tiers 0 and 1. The primary obstacles to more widespread adoption of clean cooking options are the affordability challenges faced by most households and their lack of awareness of the benefits of improved cookstoves. For the survey, households were asked about their willingness to pay for improved biomass stoves if given the option. The survey revealed that 72.2 percent of households were willing to pay for an improved stove at the lowest price point. However, this percentage decreased to 59.7 percent for a more expensive cookstove. Among the households that were not willing to pay for the improved stoves, 68 percent cited lack of affordability as the main reason, with more than half of these households belonging to the bottom 40 percent income group. Additionally, 26.6 percent of households reported that they did not perceive the need for improved stoves, even at the lowest price point. These findings highlight the importance of considering affordability and addressing skeptical views of the need for improved stoves when promoting their adoption among households using three-stone/open-fire and traditional/locally built stoves. In July 2023, the price of LPG was approximately US$ 13.4/mmbtu (per million British thermal units) compared to US$ 10.9/mmbtu for the natural gas tariff of the 2 highest domestic consumption category (Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority 2023a; Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority 2023b). xv PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The government should prioritize efforts to enhance access to clean cooking solutions to address the detrimental health impacts associated with air pollution from traditional fuels. The following measures can be undertaken to increase clean cooking access: • Encourage the adoption of clean fuels—a comprehensive campaign should be initiated by the government to promote the transition from traditional fuels to cleaner alternatives such as LPG, biogas, or electricity. • Redirect subsidies to low-income rural households—given the concentration of piped gas networks and LPG usage among wealthier urban households, the government should redirect the current subsidy provided on piped gas consumption toward low-income rural households that still rely on traditional cooking methods. This redirection can be achieved through well-targeted subsidies, direct cash transfers, or other incentives to enhance affordability and accessibility of clean fuels for low-income households. • Promote the use of efficient stoves—the government should actively promote the adoption of more efficient stoves that minimize emissions and optimize fuel efficiency. Emphasis should be placed on developing indigenous solutions that align with local preferences and cooking practices. • Establish microfinance schemes—the government can establish microfinance schemes aimed at providing loans to economically disadvantaged households for the purchase of clean cooking stoves. This approach would enable households to access clean cooking options without bearing the burden of the entire upfront cost. • Raise awareness—consideration should be given to launching a comprehensive awareness-raising campaign to educate households about the multiple benefits associated with clean cooking practices. Such campaigns can highlight the health advantages, environmental sustainability, and potential cost savings linked to clean cooking technologies. By implementing these measures, the government can effectively enhance access to clean cooking solutions, mitigating health risks, reducing environmental impacts, and improving overall well-being for households across the country. xvi xvii I. INTRODUCTION COUNTRY CONTEXT Access to energy is crucial to promoting economic growth, overcoming poverty, and supporting human development in a country. Thus, energy access is a precondition for attainment of many development goals, and sustainable energy is the seventh of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by 2030. In 2016, the government of Pakistan adopted the SDGs including the mandate to provide universal access to energy to its people (Government of Pakistan 2019). Poverty reduction in Pakistan has slowed after initial progress between 2001 and 2018. The country has experienced recurrent macroeconomic crises and poor human capital outcomes with high levels of stunting and learning poverty. Over the past two decades, Pakistan has struggled to sustain growth, with short spells of faster growth regularly followed by a crisis. General macroeconomic instability has therefore given rise to repeated boom–bust cycles. As a result, Pakistan’s real per capita GDP growth rate between 2000 and 2018 was only 2.1 percent on average—substantially below the performance of other countries in the region (World Bank 2020). Per capita GDP was US$ 1,798 in 2021–2022 (Government of Pakistan Finance Division 2022). In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic and climate-induced shocks have adversely affected Pakistani households, especially the poor. The start of the pandemic in 2020 marked an end to Pakistan’s track record of consistent year-on-year poverty reduction. Poverty was projected at 40.1 percent in 2023, alongside widening inequality. ELECTRICITY Over the past few decades, Pakistan has achieved outstanding development in connecting its population to the electricity grid. The 2013 Global Tracking Framework report ranked Pakistan fourth in the world in terms of the number of people who gained access to electricity between 1990 and 2010, when approximately 92 million people received electricity services for the first time (World Bank and International Energy Agency 2013). By 2010, 87.1 percent of the population had access to electricity, and over the past ten years, the distribution companies have rapidly expanded grid connections, increasing the coverage to 95 percent by 2021 (“Access to electricity (% of population) – Pakistan,” n.d.; IEA et al. 2023). In 2022, the Pakistan Energy Survey showed that electricity access had improved, giving 97.6 percent of households nationwide access to at least one source of electricity (“Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022). The result is consistent with the access rate reported in government-led surveys including the Demographic and Health Survey 2017–18 (National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) - Pakistan and ICF 2019) and Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement 2019–20 (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics 2021). These report nationwide access to some form of electricity for 96 percent and 91 percent, respectively, of households. 1 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework CLEAN COOKING According to the 2023 SDG7 Global Tracking Report (IEA et al. 2023), access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking in Pakistan stood at 51 percent in 2021. Biomass-fired cooking stoves are common in rural areas, where a major portion of the population cooks by burning wood, cow dung and other biomass options. In rural areas, various types of stoves are in use such as clay stoves, galvanized iron sheet stoves fueled by biomass gasification and kerosene, and LPG cylinder stoves. By contrast, in urban areas, conventional gas cooking stoves are frequently supplied by piped natural gas (predominantly supplied by two state owned utilities, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and Sui Southern Gas Company). In these areas, people also use LPG to some extent, mostly when piped gas is not available. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY In the absence of a decent electricity service, Pakistani households spend an estimated $2.3 billion annually on alternative lighting products/services such as kerosene, gas lights, and battery powered torches (World Bank 2017). There is a significant deficit of information on the overall level of energy access in Pakistan (regarding both electricity and cooking), and on more granular information regarding reliability, energy services, and fuel choice, all of which are necessary data for effective policymaking and project design. Even the reported national electricity rates show major discrepancies. The government-led surveys, the Demographic and Health Survey 2017–18 (National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) - Pakistan and ICF 2019) and Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement 2019–20 (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics 2021), report nationwide access to some form of electricity for 96 percent and 91 percent, respectively, of households. In contrast, according to the 2021 Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report (IEA et al. 2021), only 74 percent of the population had access to electricity in 2019. Based on domestic electricity connections reported by the National Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), 28 million of the country’s 35 million households had access to electricity in 2020, setting the national electrification rate at 81 percent (National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) 2020). This disparity in the reported access rates is further widened when urban and rural electricity access, both in terms of grid connections and uninterrupted supply, is taken into account. The objective of this study is to provide insights on the rate of energy access in Pakistan, how energy is utilized, and consumer preferences related to energy use with a focus on households, public institutions, and microenterprises, as well as access to clean cooking solutions across the country. The study provides an accurate depiction of energy access by examining multiple dimensions, or tiers, including capacity, availability, reliability, quality, affordability, formality, and safety. The first of its kind, this study will serve as a benchmark to provide guidance on setting access targets, policies, and investment strategies for increased energy access in the country. The study is intended to help inform the government of Pakistan, the provincial governments and other public and private stakeholders in the provision of universal electricity access and modern energy cooking services. 2 I. Introduction APPROACH For achieving universal electricity access, it is crucial to determine the current rate of access to electricity in Pakistan, at the granular level. Segments of the population lacking electricity predominantly reside in remote and sparsely populated areas, while regions connected to the grid frequently encounter challenges regarding reliability and availability. To accurately portray the authentic energy access landscape in Pakistan, it is imperative to conduct a nationally representative survey to measure the current level of access to electricity as well as its characteristics. The survey covers the provinces of Balochistan, Islamabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh. It covers three components -- household survey, public institutions, and microenterprise surveys to collect information on electricity connections and consumption, spending and usage on alternate forms of electricity (grid and off-grid), data on non- electricity energy usage, and the demand and willingness to pay for electricity for lighting and other needs, including for productive use. The results of the survey will provide detailed information on the state of energy access in the country for provincial and national policymaking, and national and international reporting (including on SDG 7). It will also provide information on the demand, behaviors, and attitudes of households, businesses, and public facilities with low levels of electricity access to inform the country’s energy access strategy. REPORT OUTLINE Following the introduction, Section II explains the methodology of the survey. Section III analyzes access to electricity in Pakistan and provides policy recommendations. Section IV presents findings on access to modern energy cooking services and policy insights. 3 II. METHODOLOGY This section covers the methodology of the survey. It describes the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF), which provided the conceptual foundation of the survey and facilitated a comprehensive analysis of energy access. Then the section explains the survey design. MULTI-TIER FRAMEWORK The Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), a global knowledge and technical assistance program in the World Bank, in consultation with multiple development partners,3 has developed the MTF to measure energy access in a more intricate and detailed manner. Unlike the traditional binary measurement of energy access—revealing, for example, either having or lacking a connection to electricity, and using or not using clean fuels when cooking—, the MTF approach measures energy access provided by any technology or fuel at different levels, using a set of attributes that capture key characteristics of energy supply affecting the user experience. Each attribute is assessed separately in tiers, and the lowest applicable tier attained among the attributes is the aggregate tier of a household, ranging from Tier 0 (no access) to Tier 5 (full service) (Bhatia and Angelou 2015). Grounded in the MTF, the global energy survey was developed to capture countries’ energy access situations. The energy survey collects data on access to electricity and modern energy cooking services including households’ primary energy sources, their problems, energy-related spending, and willingness to pay for the grid, off-grid, and improved cooking services, and the collected data are analyzed with the MTF approach. A key issue that the survey explores is the nature of the barriers that prevent a household from moving to a higher tier of access to electricity and clean cooking. By capturing full-spectrum data, it empowers policy makers to pursue data- informed energy policies and to design interventions that remove barriers, so households can graduate to higher tiers. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Access to electricity is defined by analyzing the following seven electricity attributes on the basis of responses elicited to the energy survey: • Capacity: The capacity of the electricity supply (or peak capacity) is the ability of the system to provide a certain amount of electricity to operate various appliances, ranging from a few watts for light-emitting diode (LED) lights and mobile phone chargers to several thousand watts for space heaters or air conditioners. First, appliances are classified into tiers based on their power ratings (Table 1). Then each household is assigned a Capacity tier on the basis 3 The development partners include organizations such as Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Lighting Africa, Practical Action, Clean Cooking Alliance, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and the World Health Organization (WHO). 5 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework of its highest capacity appliance.4 Capacity is measured in watts for grids, mini-grid, and fossil fuel generators, and in watt-hours for rechargeable batteries and off-grid solar devices (See Box 2 for a typology of off-grid solar devices). It may be difficult to determine the Capacity of the system by simple observation. An estimate of available Capacity may be based on the supply source (for example, grid power is considered ≥2,000 watts) or the appliances used (Table 1). • Availability: The availability of supply refers to the amount of time during which electricity is available. It is measured through two separate indicators: hours per day (during each 24-hour period) and the number of hours per evening (defined as the four hours after sunset). • Reliability: The reliability of supply is a combination of the frequency and duration of unexpected disruptions. In this report, the Reliability attribute is measured only for households connected to the grid. • Quality: The Quality refers to the absence of severe voltage fluctuations that can damage a household’s appliances. Electric appliances generally require a specific voltage to operate properly. Low or fluctuating voltages can damage appliances and even result in electrical fires. A low or fluctuating voltage supply tends to result from an overloaded distribution system or from long-distance, low- tension cables connecting spread-out households to the grid. The survey does not measure voltage fluctuation directly but uses incidents of appliance damage as a proxy. In this report, the Quality attribute is measured for households connected to the grid or mini-grid. • Affordability: The Affordability of the electricity service is determined by comparing the price of a standard electricity service package (one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity per day or 365 kWh per year) with household expenditure. The price of the package is determined from the prevailing lifeline tariff. An electricity service is considered unaffordable for any household that needs to devote more than five percent of its expenditure to it. For the Pakistan Energy Survey analysis, instead of the price of the standard electricity service package, the price of consuming 100 kWh per month— determined from the protected tariff—was compared with total monthly household expenditure.5 • Formality: If households use electricity from the grid but do not pay anyone for it, their connection could be defined as an informal connection. The Formality of the grid connection is important since it ensures that the electricity authority is paid for the services provided, besides providing for the safety of electric lines. A grid connection is considered formal when the bill is paid to the utility, a prepaid card seller, or an authorized representative. Informal connections pose a significant safety risk and affect the financial sustainability of the utility. Reporting on the Formality of a connection is challenging. Households may well be reluctant to disclose such information in a survey. The survey therefore infers information on Formality from indirect questions that respondents may be more willing to answer, such as what method a household uses to pay its electricity bill. • Health and Safety: This attribute refers to injuries to household members from using electricity during the 12 months preceding the survey. An injury could mean limb injury or even death from a burn or electrocution. Such injuries can result not just from faulty internal wiring (exposed bare wire, for example) but also from incorrect use of electrical appliances or negligence. Electricity access is considered safe when users have not suffered any significant or lasting injury due to their electricity supply. 4 Households’ MTF Capacity tier is based on their appliance tier and the main source of electricity. While a household’s appliance tier is the major determinant of its allocation in the MTF ranking, this does not imply a one-to-one correspondence, since the source of electricity plays a role, too. Please note that grid-connected households are automatically assigned to Tier 5 for Capacity attribute regardless of their appliance ownership, so Capacity is discussed for off-grid households only. 5 This was based on the average grid consumption of Pakistani households. The Pakistan survey showed that nationwide, households consume an average of 105 kWh of grid electricity per month based on households’ most recent monthly electricity bill (generally this was a winter month). 6 II. Methodology For each of these attributes, households are placed in a tier depending on the level of service as defined by the different thresholds. (See Figure 8 for thresholds in the multi-tier matrix for measuring access to electricity.) The lowest tier value households obtain among the attributes becomes their aggregate electricity access tier. Table 1. Appliances by Load Level, and Associated Capacity Tiers Capacity tier Load level Indicative electric appliances typically needed to power the load Task lighting, radio, lightbulb or incandescent lightbulb, Very low load fluorescent tube, compact fluorescent lamp, light-emitting TIER 1 (3–49 W) diodes (LEDs), smartphone (Internet phone) charger, regular mobile phone charger Black-and-white television, computer, fan, flat-screen Low load color television, regular color television, DVD, printer, TIER 2 (50–199 W) electronic tablet, satellite dish Indoor air cooler, refrigerator, water pump, rice cooker, Medium load sewing machine, electric water cooler, freezer, electric hot TIER 3 (200–799 W) water pot or kettle, blender, electric food processor High load Washing machine, electric iron, microwave oven, electric TIER 4 (800–1,999 W) toaster, dishwasher, electric hairdryer Very high load Space heater, electric water heater, solar-based water TIER 5 (2,000 W or more) heater, electric stove Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015 7 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Box 1. Minimum Electricity Requirements, by Tier of Electricity Access the Tiers MEASURING ENERGY ACCESS: THE TIERS Improving attributes of energy supply leads to higher tiers of access. Improving attributes of energy supply leads to higher tiers of access. TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 4HRS 4HRS 8HRS 16HRS 23HRS Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Electricity is not available or Electricity is available for at least Electricity is available for at is available for less than four four hours a day, including at least four hours a day, including hours a day (or less than one least one hour per evening, and at least two hours per evening, hour per evening). Households the capacity is sufficient to power and capacity is sufficient to cope by using candles, task lighting and phone charging power low-load appliances as kerosene lamps, or battery- or a radio. Sources that can be needed during that time, such powered devices, such as used to meet these requirements as multiple lights, a television, flashlights and radios. include an SLS, a solar home or a fan (see Table 1). Sources system (SHS), a mini-grid (a that can be used to meet small-scale, isolated distribution these requirements include network that provides electricity rechargeable batteries, an SHS, a to local communities or a group of mini-grid, and the national grid. households), and the national grid Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Electricity is available for Electricity is available for at Electricity is available for at at least eight hours a day, least 16 hours a day, including least 23 hours a day, including 4 including at least three hours at least four hours per evening, hours per evening, and capacity per evening, and capacity is and capacity is sufficient to is sufficient to power very high sufficient to power medium- power high-load appliances load appliances as needed load appliances as needed as needed during that time, during that time, such as air during that time, such as such as a washing machine, conditioners, space heaters, a refrigerator, freezer, food iron, hairdryer, toaster, and vacuum cleaners, and electric processor, water pump, rice microwave. There are no long stoves. The most likely source cooker, or air cooler (see Table or frequent unscheduled for meeting these requirements 1). In addition, the household interruptions, and the supply is the national grid, though a can afford a basic consumption is safe. The grid connection generator or mini-grid might package of 365 kilowatt- is legal, and there are no suffice as well. hours per year. Sources that voltage issues. Sources that can be used to meet these can be used to meet these requirements include an SHS, a requirements include diesel- generator, a mini-grid, and the based mini-grids and the national grid. national grid. Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015 8 II. Methodology Box 2. Typology of Off-grid Solar Devices and Tier Calculation For the present analysis, solar devices are classified into three types based on the number of light bulbs and the types of appliance or electricity service a household uses: solar lanterns, other solar lighting systems (SLSs), and solar home systems (SHSs). This typology is also used to measure electricity access with the MTF approach, especially the Capacity attribute. • Solar lanterns power a single light bulb and are commonly also able to power radio or phone charging, or both. Under the MTF methodology, the capacity tier of a solar lantern is calculated based on the household size to capture the number of household members relying on the service and the ability to power radio or phone charging. • Solar lighting systems (SLSs) power two or more light bulbs and are commonly also able to power radio or phone charging, or both, but SLSs cannot power any other appliances. The capacity tier of a SLS is likewise calculated based on the household size and the ability to power radio and/ or phone charging. • Solar home systems (SHSs) power two or more light bulbs and appliances such as televisions, irons, microwaves, or refrigerators. (See Table 1 for the load level associated with each Capacity tier.) ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES Beyond the stove and fuel technologies, many contextual factors contribute to the household cooking experience, including human behavior (e.g., who cooks; what is cooked; and how, for how long, and how often it is cooked), housing conditions (e.g., kitchen location, arrangement and size of rooms, construction materials, and quality of ventilation), and other types of energy demand that may equally contribute to HAP (e.g., lighting, space heating, and water heating). Other dimensions of household choice, adoption, and adherence—including economic conditions (e.g., income/affordability and proximity to fuel markets)—should also be captured. Modern Energy Cooking Services (MECS) integrate technical and contextual attributes that consider users’ cooking experience, environment, and the market and energy ecosystems in which they live. MECS define access to modern cooking energy based on six attributes: (i) exposure, (ii) efficiency, (iii) convenience, (iv) safety, (v) affordability, and (vi) fuel availability (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) 2020). • Exposure: This attribute assesses personal exposure to pollutants from cooking activities, which depends on both stove emissions and ventilation in the cooking area. Higher tiers indicate lower exposure. • Efficiency: Combination of combustion and heat-transfer efficiency determines cookstove efficiency. • Convenience: This attribute is measured by the amount of time a household spends collecting or purchasing fuel and preparing the fuel and stove for cooking. • Safety: Safety is measured by severity of injuries caused by the stove over the past year. • Affordability: This attribute measures the share of the household budget on cooking fuel. Cooking fuel is considered affordable if a household spends less than 5% of its total expenditure on it. Higher tiers indicate proportionally lower spending. 9 and cooking-environment conditions, as well as convenience and safety aspects. Based on the MTF’s multidimensionality, a household that meets the standards of Tier 4 or higher across all six measurement attributes can be considered to have gained access to MECS, while one that scores at least Tier 2 but not Tier PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 4 or higher across all six attributes is considered in transition, with access to improved cooking services (box ES.1). • This allows The framework Availability: for disaggregate attribute assesses the andavailability aggregate analyses that can yield of households' detailed information primary fuel when about needed for various parameters and indexes that facilitate comparison over time and across geographic areas. Thus, it cooking purposes. not only enables tracking of progress toward access to MECS to complement the current approach of tracking SDG 7.1.2.3 It also provides sufficient detail for understanding contextual household-level impact and setting The Pakistan Energy Survey did not collect data to analyze the efficiency attribute, so for the present sectorwide aspirations. analysis, access to modern energy cooking services was measured using five attributes: exposure, Utilizingavailability, convenience, affordability these analytical and presents tools, this report safety. Each newlyattribute is scored compiled evidence across and six in-depth tiers (Tiers 0–5), insights. and these These canare tiers measured contribute using onesector to better-informed or more indicators,and decision-making eachthe spanning a lower design and delivery and of more upper threshold effective solutions that accelerate progress (see Figure 80) for detailed metrics. toward meeting the aspirations of the SDG 7.1 target. FIGURE ES.1 Holistic Criteria to Measure Access to Modern Energy 3. Holistic Box Cooking Criteria to Measure Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services Services Performance-based, Attributes critical to Assessment of technical attributes that understanding the household MECS access across shape most definitions of user’s cooking context the six attributes “clean” cooking solutions AFFORDABILITY AFFORDABILITY EMISSIONS EXPOSURE CONVENIENCE CONVENIENCE SAFETY SAFETY EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY AVAILABILITY AVAILABILITY Note: “Exposure” considers the contextual factors of ventilation and contact time, in addition to the technical attribute of “emissions.” Note: “Exposure” considers the contextual factors of ventilation and contact time, in addition to the technical attribute of “emissions.” Source: Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) 2020 xviii Box 4. Pakistan Cookstove Typology Cookstoves in Pakistan are classified into following categories (illustrated in Appendix 6): Three-stone/open-fire stoves: Three-stone stoves consists of a pot balanced on three stones. The pot sits on the flames, and the fuel rests on the ground. In general, this stove uses firewood and has a low combustion temperature; much heat is lost because the fire is not shielded from (often cold) air currents. Traditional/locally built stoves (biomass, artisan or self-built stoves): A traditional stove typically uses conventional materials to insulate the fire, and the pot rests above the flames. It is produced locally using available, low-cost materials and fuels, reflecting cultural practices. Improved cookstoves (manufactured biomass stoves): The conventional improved cookstove is a wood, charcoal or pellet stove with an insulated combustion chamber. The pot resides above the fuel. Clean fuel stoves: Clean fuel stoves use clean and efficient fuels, such as piped natural gas (PNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), or electricity. 10 II. Methodology PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY The Pakistan Energy Survey was implemented in Balochistan, Islamabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh from mid-2021 to early-2022. Its three component surveys examined households, public institutions, and microenterprises, respectively. HOUSEHOLD SURVEY The household survey was conducted in the five provinces from January to April 2022. The sampling strategy was designed to generate nationally representative data to underpin reliable rural, urban, provincial and nationwide estimates. The survey used the sampling frame managed by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics based on the 2017 Population Census. Household samples were randomly selected through two-stage stratification. First, enumeration areas (EA) were allocated proportionally to urban and rural areas in each of the five provinces using 2017 census results (Table 2). The listing activity was conducted in a selected total of 420 EAs to make a list of households per EA and identify the electrification status of households. Subsequently, 12 households were sampled from each EA. Households in the electrified EAs were stratified into electrified and unelectrified groups based on access to the grid and randomly selected from each stratum. For the unelectrified EAs, 12 households were randomly selected from the list. This method yielded a representative sample of 5,040 households as survey targets, and 4,983 households were interviewed. In this report, 4,977 of the interviewed households were analyzed (after exclusion of any doubtful or problematic data). The nonresponse rate was roughly two percent. Table 2. Household Survey Sample Distribution Number of Households Province Number of EAs Targeted Number of Households Targeted Surveyed Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Total Balochistan 55 20 75 660 240 900 900 Islamabad 25 25 50 300 300 600 600 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 62 13 75 744 156 900 864 Punjab 75 45 120 900 540 1,440 1,440 Sindh 49 51 100 588 612 1,200 1,179 Total 266 154 420 3,192 1,848 5,040 4,983 Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd. 2022; Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd. n.d. 11 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS SURVEY The public institutions survey was undertaken in public education facilities and health facilities from August to November in 2021. Samples for both education facilities and health centers were stratified based on the level of facilities and their location. Education facility samples were stratified into five facility levels: (1) primary, (2) middle, (3) high, (4) higher secondary, and (5) vocational/technical school. Health facility samples were stratified into three levels: (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) tertiary healthcare. The sample size for each level of facility was allocated in proportion to the size of the location; this yielded a total sample size of 339 education facilities and 327 health centers (Tables 3 and 4). Table 3. Education Facilities Sample, by Level and Province Higher Vocational/ Primary Middle High Secondary Technical Total Balochistan 31 11 17 0 5 64 Islamabad 2 1 10 4 10 27 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 72 4 6 1 12 95 Punjab 35 11 12 2 20 80 Sindh 51 0 9 1 12 73 Total 191 27 54 8 59 339 Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd. n.d. Table 4. Health Facilities Sample, by Level and Province Primary Secondary Tertiary Total Balochistan 47 22 2 71 Islamabad 9 1 0 10 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 56 11 4 71 Punjab 52 42 7 101 Sindh 50 11 13 74 Total 214 87 26 327 Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd. n.d. 12 II. Methodology MICROENTERPRISE SURVEY The microenterprise survey entailed interviewing enterprises in the agro-processing, manufacturing and service sectors from August to November in 2021. For the sampling frame, a complete list of enterprises in each sector was developed through the listing activity. In the sampling design, enterprises were stratified by size and electrification status. Enterprises were first stratified into small (fewer than five employees) and large (five or more). Subsequently, enterprises were stratified in the second stage based on their connection status to the national grid. Random selection of firms in each of the three sectors yielded 641 sample enterprises, comprising 198 in agro-processing, 248 in manufacturing, and 195 in services (Table 5). Table 5. Microenterprise Survey Sample, by Business Sector Business Sector Surveyed Enterprises Agro-processing 198 Manufacturing 248 Service 195 Total 641 Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd., n.d. 13 III. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY This section presents an analysis of survey data on electricity access for households in Pakistan. It describes their access to electricity technologies, the level of electricity access assessed with the MTF, and a breakdown of the analysis by locality and expenditure levels. The section also discusses households' grid electricity use, areas for improvement in grid access, and profiles of households without electricity and their barriers to electricity access. Then it provides policy recommendations based on the data analysis. This section includes a disaggregated analysis by the sex of the household head and examines the electricity access of Pakistani public institutions and micro-enterprises as well. ACCESS BY TECHNOLOGY NATIONWIDE The household survey shows that Pakistan has high electricity access overall, with 97.6 percent of households connected to at least one source of electricity nationwide (Figure 1).6 Most households use the national grid as their main source of electricity, and 8.5 percent of households use off- grid solutions such as mini-grids (0.5 percent), solar technologies (6.7 percent) and rechargeable batteries (1.2 percent) (Figure 2). Among the off-grid electricity sources, solar home systems are the most widely used as the primary electricity source. Households without electricity, including those without any source of electricity and those relying solely on dry-cell batteries, account for 2.4 percent of the total. Figure 1. Nationwide Electricity Access Based on Households’ Main Source of Electricity No Electricity Off-grid 2.4% 8.5% National Grid 89.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 This is based on households’ main electricity source. The options for main electricity sources in the survey were: the national grid, off-grid technologies 6 (mini-grid, generator, solar lantern, other solar lighting systems, solar home system and rechargeable battery), dry-cell battery—or none (‘no electrici- ty’). Households that reported dry-cell batteries as their main2.6% 2.0% alongside those who selected the ‘no source were regarded as living without electricity, electricity’ option. 3.5% 10.5% 15 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Access to Off-grid Technologies (nationwide) Figure 2. Nationwide Access to Off-grid Technologies 4.8% 1.5% 1.2% 0.5% No Electricity 0.5% 0% Off-grid 2.4% Mini-grid 8.5% Generator Solar Lantern Other Solar Solar Home Rechargeable Lighting Systems Battery Systems National Grid 89.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Both rural areas and urban areas have high electricity access. In rural areas, 97.4 percent of households have access to at least one electricity source, while in urban areas, 98.1 percent of households do. Reliance on the national grid as the main electricity source is high in both localities, and off-grid solutions are Access to Off-grid Technologies, by locality slightly more widely adopted in rural areas (Figure 3). Solar home systems are the off-grid solution most often used by rural households (Figure 4). 5.7% Figure 3. Access to Electricity Technologies, by Locality 2.5% 2.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 2.6% 0% 2.0% 3.5% Generator Access 10.5% Off-grid Technologies to Lantern (nationwide)Solar Home Mini-grid Solar Other Solar Rechargeable Lighting Systems Systems Battery Rural Urban 4.8% No Electricity 94.5% Off-grid1.2% 1.5% 0.5% 86.9% 0% 0.5% 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% National Grid 17.7% 3.0% Mini-grid Nationwide Generator Solar Lantern Other Solar Solar Home Rechargeable Lighting Systems Battery 8.8% 20.7% 51.0% Systems 17.6% 1.9% Rural Rural Urban 3.7% 16.8% 56.2% 17.7% 5.6% Urban Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Tier 0 Tier 2 Technologies, Tier 1 Access to Off-grid Tier 3by locality Tier 4 Tier 5 Figure 4. Access to Off-grid 2.6% Technologies, 0.4% by Locality 0.2% 1.0% 0.6% 1.4% 7.3% 42.7% 18.4% 5.7% 15.1% 1.4% 7.9% 21.8% 67.8% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% No Electricity Nationwide 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0% 1.7% 10.4% 0% 0%20.2% 0.2% 0% 66.8% Off-grid 0.8% Mini-grid Solar Lantern 81.4% Other Solar 97.6% Solar Home 77.6% Rechargeable 54.7% Generator 99.0% National Grid Rural Lighting Systems Systems Battery 0.7% 25.7% 70.2% 1.6% 1.9% Urban Rural Urban Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Punjab Sindh Pakhtunkhwa Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Tier 0 (<4 hr) Tier 2 (4-8 hrs) Tier 3 (8-16 hrs) Tier 4 (16-22 hrs) Tier 5 (≥23 hrs) Note: Provinces are alphabetically ordered. 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% 16 Nationwide 2.6% 2.0% 3.5% 10.5% III. Access to electricity No Electricity PROVINCIAL 86.9% 94.5% Off-grid National Grid In most provinces, electricity access is high. Sindh lags behind somewhat, with 92.7 percent of households connected to at least one electricity source (Figure 5). In Islamabad and Punjab, most households use the national grid as their main electricity source, and off-grid solutions are hardly adopted. Compared to the other states, Balochistan has the lowest national grid access rate (54.7 percent), and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh also have comparatively low Rural grid access, at 81.4 percent and 77.6 percent, Urban respectively. However, these provinces have high off-grid access rates, the highest being in Balochistan. Figure 5. Access to Electricity Technologies, by Province 0.4% 0.2% 1.0% 2.6% 0.6% 1.4% 7.3% 42.7% 18.4% 15.1% No Electricity Access to Electricity by technology and by expenditure quintile Off-grid 54.7% 99.0% 81.4% 97.6% 77.6% National Grid 0.6% 0.02% 0.5% 1.8% 5.7% 5.4% 9.1% 9.7% 7.1% 14.3% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Punjab Sindh Pakhtunkhwa No Electricity Note: Provinces are alphabetically ordered. Note: Provinces are alphabetically ordered. Off-grid 93.8% 92.4% 94.6% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 88.5% 76.6% National Grid In Sindh, areas in the major city of Karachi have greater grid access than elsewhere. In Karachi, the vast majority of households rely on the national grid as the primary electricity source, whereas elsewhere only 67.7 percent of households have grid access (Figure 6). Non-Karachi areas have many households using off-gridBottom 20% instead. solutions 2nd Quintile The share of3rdhouseholds Quintile 4th Quintile without Top of 20% any source electricity is much higher outside Karachi; thus any efforts to substantially increase access in Sindh will need to target households outside Karachi. Access to Electricity Technologies in Sindh Figure 6. Access to Electricity Technologies in Sindh 0.9% 2.3% 10.6% 21.7% No Electricity Off-grid 96.7% National Grid 67.7% Within Karachi Outside Karachi Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 17 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework EXPENDITURE LEVEL To capture differences in electricity access across households by their levels of consumption and expenditure, their total annual expenditure was computed by adding value of food consumption and expenditures on electricity, fuels, and different goods and services. Households were then divided into quintiles based on their expenditure levels. The analysis by expenditure level shows that electricity access is positively correlated with household expenditure. As expected, in the bottom expenditure quintile, the proportion of households with access to electricity technologies is the lowest (90.9 percent), and the share rises with increasing expenditure (Figure 7). Households in higher quintiles are more likely to use the national grid as their main electricity source and rely less on off-grid technologies. The lowest expenditure group shows the highest use of off-grid solutions. Figure 7. Electricity Access, by Access to Expenditure Quintile Electricity by technology and and by Technology by expenditure quintile 0.6% 0.02% 0.5% 1.8% 5.7% 5.4% 9.1% 9.7% 7.1% 14.3% No Electricity 93.8% 94.6% 92.4% Off-grid 88.5% 76.6% National Grid Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Access to Electricity Technologies in Sindh 0.9% 2.3% 10.6% 21.7% No Electricity Off-grid 96.7% National Grid 67.7% Within Karachi Outside Karachi 18 III. Access to electricity MTF ASSESSMENT The MTF measures households’ level of electricity access based on the seven attributes shown in Figure 8. Households are scored in tiers for each attribute, and the tier range is different by attribute. The lowest tier among the seven becomes the households’ final tier classification, or the aggregate Tier. A household with aggregate Tier 1 or higher is regarded as having access (of some sort), whereas a household with aggregate Tier 0 has extremely little access with poor capacity or availability, or none at all (Figure 8). Figure 8. The MTF Electricity Tier Matrix for the Pakistan Survey Analysis TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTE TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Capacity <3W 3W-49W 50W-199W 200W-799W 800W-1999W ≥ 2kW Day <4 hrs - <8 hrs <16 hrs <23 hrs ≥23 hrs Availability Evening <1 hr <2 hrs <3 hrs <4 hrs - 4 hrs (4-14 disruptions) (Disruptions OR ≤ 3) Reliability Disruptions (≤ 3 - AND > 14 disruptions & (duration < 2 hrs) ≥ 2 hrs duration) With voltage No voltage Quality - - issues issues Affordability ≥ 5% of < 5% of (Cost of a standard - household - household consumption package of expenditure expenditure 100 kWh/month) Formality - Informal - Formal Had past Safe, no Safety - - accidents accidents Note: Each attribute has a different tier score range. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that are not required to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers. Hence the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015 19 Systems PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework NATIONWIDE Access to Off-grid Technologies, by locality Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier 5.7% The MTF measurement shows that although the vast majority of Pakistani households have electricity access, that access is often far from perfect. As Figure 9 shows, nationwide 2.5% 92.7 percent of Pakistani 2.0% households 0.8%fall into aggregate Tier 1 or above. More than 0.7% half of Pakistani households 0.8%to Tier belong 1.4% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 2, which indicates that many households experience problems 0% with electricity affordability, availability and/or capacity. Generatorthe status Mini-grid Tier 0 remains 7 for 7.3 percent Solar Lantern Otherof households, Solar meaning that Solar Home they endure Rechargeable very little access, owing to poor capacity and/or low availability. Slightly more rural households are in Lighting Systems Systems Battery this predicament than are their urban counterparts (Figure 9). Rural Urban Figure 9. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% Nationwide 8.8% 20.7% 51.0% 17.6% 1.9% Rural 3.7% 16.8% 56.2% 17.7% 5.6% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 1.4% 7.9% 21.8% 67.8% 1.0% A major share of households in aggregate Tiers 1–4 use the national grid as their primary electricity Nationwide source (Figure 10). Nevertheless, many of these have low levels of electricity access, reflecting problems 1.7% 10.4% 20.2% 66.8% 0.8% with grid quality and affordability. Off-grid technologies serve as the main electricity source for some Ruralin Tier 0 and 2, and about one-third of Tier 0 households do not have any electricity source households whatsoever. 0.7% 25.7% 70.2% 1.6% 1.9% Urban Tier 0 (<4 hr) Tier 2 (4-8 hrs) Tier 3 (8-16 hrs) Tier 4 (16-22 hrs) Tier 5 (≥23 hrs) While the share of Pakistani households in aggregate Tier 1 or above is similar to that in nearby South Asian countries such as Bangladesh (87.9%), and Nepal 7 (93.7%), the proportion of Tier 2 households in Pakistan is much higher than the 26.6% in Bangladesh or the 11.5% in Nepal (see Appendix 1) (Pinto et al. 2019; Samad et al. 2019). 20 III. Access to electricity Figure 10. Households’ Main Electricity Source, by Aggregate Electricity Tier, Nationwide 2.8% 0.1% 1.8% 1.0% 1.5% 0.6% 7.4% 1.8% 2.0% 0.1% 32.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2.0% 5.5% 2.4% 2.8% 0.1% 1.8% 1.0% 100% 14.8% 91.5% 0.6% 97.5% 1.5% 7.4% 1.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.1% 32.6% 0.6% 0.6% 91.3% 2.0% 41.9% 5.5% 2.4% 100% 14.8% 91.5% 97.5% TIER 0 0.3% TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 No electricity Dry-cell battery 91.3% Rechargeable battery Solar Home System Solar Lighting System Solar Lantern Mini-grid National grid 41.9% Note: Analysis of Tier 5 households was limited due to the small sample size. Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 Disparities in the level of access clearly reflect household expenditure level. Households in aggregate Tier 2 or below No electricity are disproportionatelyDry-cell battery represented Rechargeable in the bottom battery Solar Home quintiles System two expenditure (Figure 4.7%Lighting Solar 17.3% System Solar Lantern 48.8% Mini-grid 22.0% grid National 7.3% 11). From the relative preponderance in the lowest expenditure quintile of households that endure a 20% Top of situation very little access, it can be straightforwardly concluded that any efforts to expand access 3.6% should focus disproportionately23.3% 44.6% on the poorest households. 25.5% 3.0% 4th Quintile 4.3% 20.7% 47.2 25.1% 2.7% Figure 11. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Expenditure Quintile 3rd Quintile 5.9% 4.7% 21.4% 17.3% 48.8% 55.1% 22.0% 15.5% 2.1% 7.3% 2nd Quintile Top 20% 3.6% 17.9% 23.3% 15.0% 44.6% 66.9% 25.5% 0.2% 3.0% Bottom 20% 4th Quintile 4.3% 20.7% 47.2 25.1% 2.7% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 3rd Quintile 5.9% 21.4% 55.1% 15.5% 2.1% 2nd Quintile 17.9% 15.0% 66.9% 0.2% 3.1% 19.5% 44.6% 21.9% 10.9% Bottom 20% Nationwide Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 4.0% 20.4% 42.1% 23.0% 10.4% Rural Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 1.1% 17.3% 50.6% 19.2% 11.8% Urban 3.1% 19.5% 44.6% 21.9% 10.9% Nationwide Tier 0 (<1 4.0% hr) 20.4% Tier 1 (1-2 hrs) Tier 2 (2-3 hrs) 42.1% Tier 3 (3-4 hrs) 23.0% Tier 5 (4 hrs) 10.4% 21 Rural 2.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 0% 5.5% Mini-grid Generator 2.4% Solar Lantern Other Solar Solar Home Rechargeable Lighting PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true situation inSystems Systems energy access Battery 100% Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 14.8% 91.5% 97.5% 0.3% Rural Urban Household Distribution by Attribute 91.3% 41.9% Availability 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% Availability attribute captures households’ electricity availability from their main electricity source TheNationwide during the whole 8.8% TIER day 0 (24 hours) and 20.7% TIER 1 in the evening TIER 2 (6pm to 10pm). 51.0% For households TIER 3 TIER relying 17.6% 4 on the national grid, the analysis was based on the average of electricity availability in summer 1.9% and winter. Rural No electricity Dry-cell battery Rechargeable battery Solar Home System Solar Lighting System Solar Lantern The tier distributions 3.7% worse in rural areas. In National is Mini-grid show 16.8%that electricity availability56.2% grid 17.7% the proportion rural areas, 5.6% of households with less than eight hours of electricity during the whole day is higher by about 10 Urban percentage points than among their urban counterparts (Figure 12). Evening electricity availability is also slightly worse for rural areas (Figure 13). Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Figure 12. Distribution of Households Based on All-day Availability 4.7% 17.3% 48.8% 22.0% 7.3% Top 20% 1.4% 7.9% 21.8% 67.8% 1.0% 3.6% 23.3% 44.6% 25.5% 3.0% Nationwide 4th Quintile 1.7% 10.4% 20.2% 66.8% 0.8% 4.3% 20.7% 47.2 25.1% 2.7% Rural 3rd Quintile 0.7% 5.9% 21.4% 25.7% 55.1% 70.2% 15.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.9% 2nd Quintile Urban 17.9% 15.0% 66.9% 0.2% Bottom 20% Tier 0 (<4 hr) Tier 2 (4-8 hrs) Tier 3 (8-16 hrs) Tier 4 (16-22 hrs) Tier 5 (≥23 hrs) Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Source: Tier “Pakistan 5 Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 13. Distribution of Households Based on Evening Availability 3.1% 19.5% 44.6% 21.9% 10.9% Nationwide 4.0% 20.4% 42.1% 23.0% 10.4% Rural 1.1% 17.3% 50.6% 19.2% 11.8% Urban Tier 0 (<1 hr) Tier 1 (1-2 hrs) Tier 2 (2-3 hrs) Tier 3 (3-4 hrs) Tier 5 (4 hrs) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 22 III. Access to electricity Affordability The Affordability attribute evaluates whether electricity from the national grid is affordable, meaning that it requires a reasonably low proportion of household expenditure. In this analysis, to calculate the grid electricity cost, a protected tariff is applied for all households regardless of their electricity consumption history, so that the cost burden from the lowest tariff can be assessed (Appendix 2). Taking the average monthly grid consumption of Pakistani households of about 100 kWh (based on the survey results), this analysis assumes that if a household spends five percent or more of its total expenditure every month on the consumption of 100kWh, then grid electricity is not affordable for those people.8 National grid electricity is too expensive for many households. Nationwide, 22.2 percent of Pakistani households on the national grid spend five percent or more of their household budget on the consumption of 100 kWh (Figure 14). Rural and urban areas do not show substantial differences in their Tier distribution. Figure 14. Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Affordability Attribute 22.2% 77.8% Nationwide 23.5% 76.6% Rural 19.3% 80.7% Urban Tier 2 ( ≥ 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Reliability 10.9% 80.8% 8.4% The Reliability attribute measures the frequency and duration in a typical week of unscheduled Nationwide to the current on the national grid and mini-grids. The analysis shows that very few people interruptions in Pakistan live without frequent electricity interruptions. About 11 percent of households nationwide experience more than 14 unscheduled outages weekly, and 80.8 percent face four to 14 interruptions per week lasting more than Tiertwo hours 3 (> 14 (Figure 15). Any interruptions) rural–urban Tier 4 discrepancy (4-14 interruptions) in this respect or ( <4 interruptions is only slight. & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Quality 16.9%captures voltage quality of electricity The Quality attribute 83.1%from the national grid and mini-grids during the 12 months prior to the survey. Nationwide, 16.9 percent of households experience voltage Nationwidethat damage household appliances (Figure 16). The proportion of households with voltage fluctuations problems is similar across localities. Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) The Affordability analysis of the MTF compares the price of a standard electricity service package of one kWh of electricity per day—or 30 kWh per month—with 8 household expenditure. However, for this Pakistan Energy Survey analysis, instead, the price of a 100 kWh monthly package was used for comparison purposes, in view of Pakistani3.4% households’ higher average monthly grid consumption. The Pakistan survey showed that nationwide, households consume about 105 kWh of 1.6% grid electricity per month based on5.1% 89.7% households’ most recent monthly electricity bill (generally, this was a winter month). 0.2% Nationwide 23 Tier 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3W-49W) Tier 2 (50W-199W) Urban 19.3% 80.7% Urban Tier 2 ( ≥ 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Tier 2 ( ≥ 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) Figure 15. Nationwide Household Distribution Based on the Reliability Attribute 10.9% 80.8% 8.4% Nationwide 10.9% 80.8% 8.4% Nationwide Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) 16.9% 83.1% Figure 16. Nationwide Distribution of Households Based on the Quality Attribute Nationwide 16.9% 83.1% Nationwide Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) 3.4% 1.6% 5.1% 89.7% 0.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Nationwide 3.4% 1.6% Capacity 5.1% 0.2% 89.7% Nationwide Tier 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3W-49W) Tier 2 (50W-199W) The Capacity attribute represents the ability to power various electric appliances. The analysis shows Tier 3 (200W-799W) Tier 4 (800W-1999W) Tier 5 ( 2kW) that nearly 90 percent of Pakistani households have access to high (Tier 5) capacity of more than 2 kilowatts (Figure 17). This could Tier 0 ( 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) 28.5% 71.5% Figure 24. Household Distribution Based on the Quality Attribute, by Province Balochistan 28.5% 71.5% 17.0% 83.0% Balochistan Islamabad 17.0% 83.0% 9.2% 90.8% Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 9.2% 90.8% 21.0% 79.0% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab 21.0% 79.0% 6.4% 93.6% Punjab Sindh 6.4% 93.6% Sindh Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) 22.0% 78.0% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Balochistan 22.0% 78.0% 1.6% 98.4% Balochistan Islamabad 1.6% 98.4% 7.7% 92.3% Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 7.7% 92.3% 22.3% 77.7% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab 22.3% 77.7% 30.9% 69.1% Punjab Sindh 30.9% 69.1% 28 Sindh Tier 2 ( 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) 17.0% 83.0% Islamabad III. Access to electricity 9.2% 90.8% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Affordability 21.0% 79.0% Affordability is a big issue, particularly in Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan. When a protected tariff is Punjab 6.4% 30 percent of households in Sindh 93.6% offered to all, more than connected to the national grid allocate five percent or more of their household budget to pay for electricity consumption of 100kWh (Figure Sindh 25). In Punjab and Balochistan, more than one in five households find that electricity is not affordable. Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) Figure 25. Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Affordability Attribute, by Province 22.0% 78.0% Balochistan 1.6% 98.4% Islamabad 7.7% 92.3% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 22.3% 77.7% Punjab 30.9% 69.1% Sindh Tier 2 ( 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Formality Informal use of electricity from the national grid or mini-grids is a problem, particularly in Sindh. Sindh has the highest proportion of households either paying unauthorized representatives for their grid electricity use, or not paying for it at all (Figure 26). The share of informal electricity use is also comparatively high in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Figure 26. Household Distribution Based on the Formality Attribute, by Province 16.6% 83.4% Balochistan 0.2% 99.8% Islamabad 8.7% 91.3% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 0.3% 99.7% Punjab 29.1% 71.0% Sindh Tier 3 (Informal) Tier 5 (Formal) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 29 Balochistan 0.2% 99.8% 99.8% 0.2% Islamabad Islamabad PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true 8.7%8.7% energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 91.3%91.3% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 0.3% 99.7% 99.7% 0.3% 5. Electricity Box Punjab Punjab Access by Sex of Household Head 29.1% 71.0% 71.0% 29.1% Both female-headed Sindh households and male-headed households show high electricity access nationwide, Sindh 96.5 percent and 97.6 percent respectively.a They do not show substantial differences in their access to the national grid and off-grid technologies (Figure 27). The MTF analysis shows that sex of household Tier 3 (Informal) 5 (Formal) Tier Tier head is not associated with considerableTier 3 (Informal)in level differences 5 (Formal) of access to electricity (Figure 28). Due to the small number of female-headed households in the sample, regionally disaggregated analysis was limited. Figure 27. Nationwide Electricity Access, by Technology and by Sex of Household Head 94.7% 94.7% 89.0% 89.0% 0.5% 1.5%1.5% 0.5% 0% 0% 0.5% 4.8% 1.9%1.9% 4.8% 1.3%1.3% 2.4% 3.5% 0% 0% 0.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.4% 3.5% National GridGrid National Mini-grid Mini-grid Solar Lantern Other Lantern Solar Other Solar Solar Solar Home Solar HomeRechargeable Rechargeable No electricity No electricity Lighting System System System Lighting System Battery Battery MaleMale Female Female Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 28. Nationwide Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Sex of Household Head 7.3%7.3% 19.6% 19.6% 52.4% 52.4% 17.7% 17.7%3.0%3.0% MaleMale 8.2%8.2% 15.6% 15.6% 61.0% 61.0% 12.8% 2.4% 12.8% 2.4% Female Female 0 0 Tier Tier 1 1 Tier Tier 2 2 Tier Tier Tier Tier 3 3 4 4 Tier Tier 5 5 Tier Tier Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 a In Pakistan, the head of a typical household is a man. Nationwide, only 2.2 percent of households, which corresponds to 101 sample households, are led by a woman (Appendix 3). Rural and urban areas scarcely differ in this respect. 30 Rural Urban III. Access to electricity Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) 99.3% 98.1% 99.2% 98.9% 78.7% 84.2% USE OF ELECTRICITY 70.2% 74.6% 4.4% 6.4% EXPENDITURE ON 0.5% THE NATIONAL 12.9% 8.9% GRID 72.7% 5.0% Rural Urban Nationwide In the survey, householdsVeryreported Low (3–49W)their estimate of expenditure Low (50–199W) Mediumon the national grid in a typical (200–799W) month. Nationwide, Pakistani households on average spend PKR 2,541 (equivalent to approx. USD 14) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) theLow monthly on electricity fromVery (3–49W) grid, which national accounts forMedium 7.9 percent Low (50–199W) of monthly household (200–799W) expenditure (Figure 29). Rural (800– 1,999W)and urban households High households Very High (2,000W<) do not show substantial differences in their monthly grid spending and its share of household expenditure. Figure 29. Average Monthly Expenditure on National Grid Electricity (PKR) 12.9% 8.9% 72.7% 5.0% 0.5% 2,995 Nationwide 2,541 2,339 Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Nationwide Rural Urban Nationwide Rural Urban 2,995 2,541 Note: Based on households' estimate of grid spending in a typical month 2,339 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 As can be expected, expenditure on the national grid increases along with households’ total expenditure 4,061 (Figure 30). The cost of grid electricity 13.8% for poor households (as a percentage of is more of a burden their total expenditure). Households in the bottom expenditure quintile spend PKR 1,483 (equivalent to approx. USD 8) on it per 2,725 month, and this accounts for 13.8 percent of total monthly household 2,378 Nationwide Rural 8.1% 7.7% Urban expenditure—higher than the grid share of any other expenditure groups (Figure 30). 6.3% 1,719 1,483 Nationwide Rural Urban 5.2% Figure 30. Monthly Grid Expenditure (PKR) and Grid Share Monthly Bottom 2ndExpenditure 3rd 4th Electricity, on Grid Top 20% Average Bottom Share of3rd 2nd Spending on the 4th National Top 20% Grid, 20% Quintile Quintile Quintilequintile by expenditure (PKR) 20% Quintile Quintile Quintile by expenditure quintile (%) 4,061 13.8% 2,725 2,378 8.1% 7.7% 1,719 6.3% 1,483 5.2% Bottom 2nd 3rd 4th Top 20% Bottom 2nd 3rd 4th Top 20% 20% Quintile Quintile Quintile 20% Quintile Quintile Quintile Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 31 99.3% 98.1% 99.2% 98.9% 78.7% 84.2% 70.2% 74.6% PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 4.4% 6.4% APPLIANCE USE Rural Urban Based on the maximum Veryload level of households’ Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) appliances, 72.7 Medium percent of Pakistani households (200–799W) nationwide using the national grid as their main electricity source own appliances requiring high High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) capacity above 800W (Figure 31). The other households own appliances that need medium-level capacity or lower (for their maximum load). Figure 31. Highest Load Level of Appliances Owned by Grid-connected Households, Nationwide 12.9% 8.9% 72.7% 5.0% 0.5% Nationwide Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Note: The analysis is based on households whose main electricity source is the national grid. Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 2,995 Rural and urban households relying on the national grid do not show major differences in their appliance 2,541 ownership across load levels (Figure 32). Urban households 2,339 own slightly more appliances requiring load levels between 200W and 2,000W than do rural households. More specifically, urban households show higher ownership of electric irons, washing machines, refrigerators, and flatscreen color televisions compared to rural households (Figure 33). Appliances more commonly owned by rural households are lower-spec color televisions, mobile phone chargers, and incandescent light, which are lower load appliances with low specs. Nationwide Rural Urban Nationwide Rural Urban Figure 32. Appliance Ownership of Grid-connected Households Based on Load Levels, by Locality 99.3% 98.1% 99.2% 98.9% 78.7% 84.2% 70.2% 74.6% 4,061 13.8% 2,725 4.4% 6.4% 2,378 8.1% 7.7% 1,719 Rural Urban 6.3% 1,483 5.2% Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Bottom 2nd 3rd 4th Top 20% Bottom 2nd 3rd 4th Top 20% 20% Quintile Quintile Quintile Note: The analysis is based on households 20% whose Quintile main electricity Quintile Quintilesource is the national grid. Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 12.9% 8.9% 72.7% 5.0% 0.5% Nationwide Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) 32 High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) III. Access to electricity Figure 33. Appliance Ownership of Grid-connected Households, by Locality Fan 97.5% 96.6% LED Light Bulb 79.6% 77.0% Electric Iron 73.5% 66.1% Washing machine 70.4% 51.7% Refrigerator 58.8% 44.4% Electric Water Pump (non solar) 51.0% 45.2% Flat color TV 40.8% 13.2% Typical Color TV 31.0% 38.5% Smartphone/internet phone charger 28.6% 21.8% Typical mobile phone charger 22.3% 33.0% Incandescent Light Bulb 18.0% 21.7% Microwave oven 10.0% 4.7% Freezer 9.3% 9.9% Fluorescent Tube 8.4% 5.8% Indoor Air cooler 7.0% 4.5% Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb 6.1% 7.0% Black & White TV 5.9% 9.3% Air Conditioner 5.8% 2.2% Computer 4.2% 1.5% Hair dryer 3.4% 1.9% Rice cooker 3.3% 3.1% Urban Rural Note: The analysis is based on households whose main electricity source is the national grid. Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 33 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework By expenditure level, low load devices are owned by most households regardless of their expenditure level, but the ownership of appliances with medium load level or above tends to be higher among richer households (Figure 34). Figure 34. Appliance Ownership Based on the Load Level, by Expenditure Quintile 99.1% 97.9% 98.6% 97.9% 99.2% 98.3% 99.8% 98.8% 99.6%98.8% 95.1% 89.1% 90.2% 86.4% 80.7% 66.9%66.2% 67.4% 56.0% 45.1% 15.9% 0.7% 1.7% 2.5% 3.5% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 88.4% 74.3% 64.9% 51.8% 42.1% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% 16.9% 83.1% Nationwide Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) 10.8% 80.7% 8.4% Nationwide 34 Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) III. Access to electricity IMPROVING ELECTRICITY ACCESS IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE NATIONAL GRID Challenges The major challenges presented by the national grid are the cost burden and poor power quality. Among Pakistani households relying on the grid as the main electricity source, about 40 percent nationwide report that high electricity bills are the most serious problem (Table 6). Households also point out uncertainty as a problem. The end consumer electricity bill in Pakistan consists of various components including electricity cost, fuel price adjustments (FPA), quarterly adjustments (QTAs), surcharges, and sales tax. There is a lag of at least two months in the application of FPA and QTAs, which may surprise households with a bill heavier than their recent consumption. Additionally, about a quarter of households identified high electricity costs to be the main problem. The low quality of electricity from the grid is another issue. Nationwide, more than a quarter of Pakistani households using the grid electricity report voltage fluctuations and unscheduled electricity interruptions to be the most serious problem (as shown in Table 6); 16.2 percent of households have supply shortage concerns. Table 6. Most Serious Problems with Electricity from the National Grid, Nationwide (% of households connected to the national grid) Unexpectedly high bills 40.1% Low/high voltage problems or voltage fluctuations 27.9% High cost of electricity 25.8% Unpredictable interruptions/unscheduled load shedding 25.6% Supply shortage/not enough hours of electricity 16.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 35 99.1% 97.9% 98.6% 97.9% 99.2% 98.3% 99.8% 98.8% 99.6%98.8% 95.1% 89.1% 90.2% 86.4% 80.7% 66.9% PAKISTAN ENERGY 66.2% 67.4% SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 56.0% 45.1% Electricity Cost Burden 15.9% 99.1% 97.9% The survey shows that currently 0.7% 98.6% 97.9%many1.7% grid-connected 99.2% 98.3% 2.5%households spend3.5% 99.8% 98.8% 99.6%98.8% five percent or more of their 95.1% 89.1% 90.2% monthly household budget on electricity, which indicates that grid electricity 86.4% 80.7% is expensive. Nationwide, Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% 62.7 percent of households are in that situation, and the proportion is likely to be higher for poorer 66.9%66.2% 67.4% For the bottom households. 56.0% expenditure Very Low (3–49W) quintile, the burden is Low (50–199W) particularly Medium heavy (Figure 35). (200–799W) 45.1% High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Figure 35. Proportion of Households Spending 5% or More of their Household Budget on the National Grid, by Expenditure Quintile 15.9% 0.7% 1.7% 2.5% 3.5% 88.4% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% 74.3% 64.9% Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) 51.8% High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) 42.1% 88.4% 74.3% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% 64.9% 51.8% 42.1% Energy Survey” 2022 Source: “Pakistan Low Power Quality 83.1% grid as their main electricity source, the 16.9% at households relying on the national Looking exclusively analysis shows that Nationwide than one more20% Bottom in Quintile 2nd 10 households fluctuations; face voltage4th 3rd Quintile Quintile and reliability Top 20% problems are prevalent at different levels across Pakistan (Figures 36 and 37). Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) Figure 36. Nationwide Distribution of Households Using the National Grid as the Main Electricity Source Based on the Quality Attribute 16.9% 83.1% 10.8% 80.7% 8.4% Nationwide Nationwide Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) 10.8% 80.7% 8.4% Nationwide Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) 36 Nationwide III. Access to electricity Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) Figure 37. Nationwide Distribution of Household Using the National Grid as the Main Electricity Source Based on the Reliability Attribute 10.8% 80.7% 8.4% Nationwide Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 INFORMAL CONNECTIONS TO THE NATIONAL GRID Another critical issue to address is households’ informal use of the national grid without payment, which leads to commercial losses for distribution companies and the curtailment of electricity supply. Nationwide, 9.6 percent of grid-connected households in Pakistan have informal connections; 6.9 percent of grid-connected households do not pay, and 2.7 percent of households on grid pay to the lineman of the Kunda system—the illegal grid connections obtained by hooking up directly to overhead distribution lines. Of all the provinces, Sindh has the highest informal grid-connection rate of 33.2 percent (Figure 38). Non-Karachi areas of Sindh show high informal grid use of 44.1 percent, while in Karachi areas, the share is much lower (16.3 percent of households). Informal connections are also a problem in Balochistan (15.5 percent), and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (16.6 percent). Figure 38. Informal Connections to the National Grid, by Province 33.2% Informal Connection Rate in Sindh 15.5% 16.6% Karachi 16.3% 0.2% 0.3% Non-Karachi 44.1% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Punjab Sindh Pakhtunkhwa Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 13.9% 21.7% 11.3% Top 20% 21.9% 14.0% 4th quintile 21.0% 3rd quintile 21.6% 2nd quintile 19.8% Bottom 20% 39.8% 14.9% Formally Connected Informally Connected 37 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Characteristics of Households with Informal Connections Households with informal connections tend to be poorer. More than 60 percent of them fall into the bottom 40 percent of the expenditure quintile, and 39.8 percent are from the lowest expenditure group (Figure 39). 33.2% For many households informally using the national grid, electricity from formal connections is not connections, almost half affordable. Based on the affordability analysis of the MTF, to use formal grid 33.2% 15.5% 16.6% of households with informal connections would have to spend five percent or more of their household budget on electricity consumption 15.5% 0.2% 16.6% with a protected tariff (Figure 40). Compared to of 100 kWh, even 0.3% households with formal connections, the national grid is not affordable for twice as many informally grid-connected households. Islamabad Balochistan 0.2% Khyber Punjab 0.3% Sindh Pakhtunkhwa Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Punjab Sindh Pakhtunkhwa Figure 39. Households Distribution Based on Expenditure Level, by Formality of the Grid Connection 13.9% 21.7% 11.3% Top 20% 13.9% 21.7% 21.9% 14.0% 11.3% 4th quintile Top 20% 21.9% 14.0% 21.0% 3rd quintile 21.6% 4th quintile 2nd quintile 21.0% 3rd quintile 21.6% 19.8% Bottom 20% 39.8% 2nd quintile 19.8% 14.9% Bottom 20% 39.8% Formally Connected 14.9% Informally Connected Formally Connected Informally Connected Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 40. Distribution of Households Connected to the National Grid Based on Affordability Tier, by Formality of the Grid Connection 19.7% 80.4% Formal 19.7% 80.4% Formal 46.3% 53.7% Informal 46.3% 53.7% Informal Tier 2 ( 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) Tier 2 ( 5% of household expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of household expenditure) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 91.8% 8.2% 91.8% 8.2% Formally Formally 98.9% 1.1% 98.9% Informally 1.1% Informally With Meter Without Meter 38 With Meter Without Meter Formal 46.3% 53.7% III. Access to electricity Informal that Whereas most households Tier 5% formally 2 (are connected of household Tiernational expenditure) to the grid own 5 (< 5% of household a meter, very few expenditure) informally connected households have one (Figure 41). Figure 41. Proportion of Households with Meter, by Formality of the Grid Connection 91.8% 8.2% Formally 98.9% 1.1% Informally With Meter Without Meter Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Unlike formally grid-connected households who in most cases pay for their electricity service based on metered consumption, 82.3 percent of informally grid-connected households pay a fixed monthly fee. The remaining 16.9 percent are not billed for their electricity use (Figure 42). Figure 42. Billing for Electricity Use (% of Households) 0.9% 7.1% 16.9% 17.2% 0.8% No bill for electricity Utility estimates consumption 82.3% Fixed monthly fee 74.8% Pay based on metered electricity consumption Formal Informal Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 2,588 1,019 Formal Informal Unelectrified EA 39 Grid-electrified EA 45.9% 54.1% 17.2% 0.8% No bill for electricity PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Utility estimates consumption 74.8% 82.3% Fixed monthly fee Expenditure on the Informal Connections and Electricity Availability Pay based on metered electricity consumption Households with informal connections spend substantially less than half as much as formally connected households do (Figure 43). Meanwhile, electricity availability from informal connections is less than half of that experienced through formal summer and winter (Figure 44). connections, both inInformal Formal Figure 43. Monthly Grid Expenditure, by Formality of the Grid Connection (PKR) 2,588 1,019 Formal Informal Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 44. Daily Electricity Availability, 24-hour Period (Hour) Unelectrified EA Grid-electrified EA 19 45.9% 1754.1% 8 7 Summer Winter Formal Informal Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 4.5% 0.2% Informally grid-connected households are mainly likely4.9% to use their electricity to power low-load The electrical devices.99.2% 98.5% appliances owned by most of those99.6% households 14.7%94.9% require less than 200W (Figure 45). A limited number of informally Top 80.4% grid-connected households have access 20%to higher-load appliances. 76.0% 4th Quintile Households with informal connections use about four appliances on average, 43.9% while formally grid- 3rd Quintile 30.2% connected households use more than six. Fans and LED light bulbs are the most commonly used 75.8% appliances among informally connected 2nd 38 5.2% households (Figure 46). Roughly percent of Quintile the households 5.5% use incandescent light bulbs and an electric iron. These devices are mostly low-load appliances, which Bottom 20% Formal well by the limited electricity supply and could be explained equally Informal the relative unaffordability for high-capacity poor households ofVery Low (3–49W) appliances. Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Nationwide 0.3% 98.2% 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% Formal 40 74.5% 1.9% 19.7% 0.2% 3.2% 0.6% III. Access to electricity Summer Winter Formal Informal Figure 45. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on Load Level of Household Appliances, by Formality of the Grid Connection 99.2% 98.5% 99.6% 94.9% 80.4% 76.0% 43.9% 30.2% 5.2% 5.5% Formal Informal Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 0.3% 98.2% Use of Appliances, by formality of the grid connection 1.3% Figure 46. Use of Appliances, by Formality of the Grid Connection 0.1% 0.1% Formal 92.0% Fan74.5% 1.9% 19.7% 0.2% 3.2% 84.2% 0.6% Informal 79.6% LED Light Bulb 63.7% 70.5% Electric Iron National Grid Solar Lantern Solar Lighting System 38.4% Solar Home System Rechargeable battery Dry-cell battery 59.4% Washing Machine 25.0% 49.4% Refrigerator 19.0% 49.1% Electric Water Pump (Non-solar) 12.5% 36.8% Typical Color TV 14.4% 30.6% Typical Mobile Phone Charger 14.8% 25.3% Smartphone (Internet Phone) Charger 12.5% 22.0% Flat Color TV 12.9% 18.4% Incandescent Light Bulb 37.7% 10.8% Dry-cell Torch/Flashlight/Lantern 13.4% Formal Informal Note: The analysis is based on appliances used by households during the six months prior to the survey. Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Unexpectedly high bills 43.1% 11.8% High cost of electricity 28.3% 3.1% Low/high voltage problems or voltage fluctuations 27.1% 41 35.5% 23.2% 49.1% Electric Water Pump (Non-solar) 12.5% 36.8% Typical Color TV 14.4% PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 30.6% Typical Mobile Phone Charger 14.8% 25.3% Poor Quality of Electricity from Informal Smartphone Connections (Internet Phone) Charger 12.5% 22.0% TV Flat Color poor-quality Informal connections to the national grid provide 12.9% electricity. Almost half of informally connected households report unpredictable interruptions as the most serious problem with their grid 18.4% Incandescent electricity, and around one-third report voltageLight Bulb problems and supply shortages 37.7% (Figure 47). 10.8% 19 Dry-cell Torch/Flashlight/Lantern 17 poor quality of electricity from the informal connection are reflected Households’ concerns with the 13.4% in their choice of main electricity source; 25.4 percent of informally connected households choose Formal Informal technologies other than the grid for their primary electricity source despite their grid connection (Figure 48). 8 7 Figure 47. Most Serious Problems with Grid Electricity, by Formality of the Grid Connection Unexpectedly high bills Summer 43.1% Winter 11.8% Formal Informal High cost of electricity 28.3% 3.1% Low/high voltage problems or voltage fluctuations 27.1% 35.5% 99.2% 98.5% Unpredictable interruptions/unscheduled load shedding 99.6% 23.2% 94.9% 48.4% 80.4% 76.0% 14.6% Supply shortage/not enough hours of electricity 31.5% 43.9% 30.2% No problems 11.0% 5.2% 11.4% 5.5% Formal Informal Formal Informal Very Low (3–49W) Low (50–199W) Medium (200–799W) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 High (800– 1,999W) Very High (2,000W<) Figure 48. Main Electricity Source of Informally Grid-connected Households 0.3% 98.2% 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% Formal 74.5% 1.9% 19.7% 0.2% 3.2% 0.6% Informal National Grid Solar Lantern Solar Lighting System Solar Home System Rechargeable battery Dry-cell battery Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 42 III. Access to electricity The MTF assessment of electricity access shows that informally grid-connected households have a lower level of electricity access compared to households with formal connections. Most informally connected households are below aggregate Tier 3, unlike formally grid-connected households, and the share of Tier 0 is higher for informally grid-connected households by 12.8 percentage points (Figure 49). Figure 49. Nationwide Distribution of Grid-connected Households Based on the Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Formality of the Grid Connection 2.6% 18.5% 55.1% 20.2% 3.6% Formal 15.4% 33.0% 48.2% 3.5% Informal Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 0.2% 98.2% 1.4% 0.1% Formal By MTF attribute, informally grid-connected households have lower electricity capacity, availability and reliability. Roughly 1.8% a quarter 4.1% 19.1% of households with informal connections 0.6% 74.5% have access to capacity falling below 200W, while almost all households with formal grid connections have high electricity capacity Informal of 2kW or higher (Figure 50). The number of hours of available electricity is also lower for a large share of households with informal 2.6% 18.5% 51). connections (Figure 55.1% 20.2% 3.6% Tier 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3W-49W) Tier 2 (50W-199W) Formal Tier 3 (200W-799W) Tier 4 via (800W-1999W) Tier 5 ( 2kW) Grid electricity is also comparatively unreliable informal connections. The proportion of households facing more than 2.6% 14 unscheduled 15.4% 18.3% 33.0% per week is larger among informally outages 47.2% 48.2% grid-connected 25.1% households 3.5% 6.4% 0.4% than formally connected households (Figure 52). Informal Formal 14.0% 30.5% 38.1% 10.7% 3.3% 3.4% Figure 50. Nationwide Tier 1 of Grid-connected Tier 0 Distribution Tier 2 Households Tier 3 Based on the Tier 4 Capacity Tier 5 Attribute Informal of the Grid Connection by Formality 0.2% 98.2% 1.4% 0.1% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Formal 1.8% 19.1% 0.6% 74.5% 4.1% 10.3% 80.8% 9.0% Informal Formal 17.4% 80.5% 2.1% Tier 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3W-49W) Tier 2 (50W-199W) Informal Tier 3 (200W-799W) Tier 4 (800W-1999W) Tier 5 ( 2kW) 2.6% 18.3% 47.2% 25.1% 6.4% Source: “Pakistan 0.4%Survey” 2022 Energy Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Formal 14.0% 30.5% 38.1% 10.7% 3.3% 3.4% Informal Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 94.4% 99.5% 92.2% 10.3% 80.8% 9.0% 43 Formal Formal Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 1.8% 19.1% 0.6% 74.5% 4.1% 0.2% 98.2% Informal 1.4% PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 0.1% Formal Figure 51. NationwideTier Distribution 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3W-49W) Households of Grid-connected Based on the Aggregate Tier 2 (50W-199W) 1.8% 19.1% 0.6% 74.5% Availability Tier, by Formality 4.1% of the Tier 3 (200W-799W)Grid Connection Tier 4 (800W-1999W) Tier 5 ( 2kW) Informal 2.6% 18.3% 47.2% 25.1% 6.4% 0.4% Formal Tier 0 (< 3W) Tier 1 (3W-49W) Tier 2 (50W-199W) Tier 3 (200W-799W) Tier 4 (800W-1999W) Tier 5 ( 2kW) 14.0% 30.5% 38.1% 10.7% 3.3% 3.4% 2.6% 18.3% 47.2% 25.1% 6.4% 0.4% Informal Formal Tier 0 Tier 1 0.9% Tier 4 Tier 2 Tier 5 Tier 3 14.0% 30.5% 7.1% 10.7% 3.3% 3.4% 38.1% 16.9% Informal 17.2% 0.8% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 10.3% 80.8% 9.0% No bill for electricity Figure 52. Nationwide Formal Distribution Tier 0 of Grid-connected Tier 1 Tier 2 Households Tier 3 Based 4 the Reliability Tieron Tier 5 Formality of the Grid Connection 80.5% Attribute Tier, by17.4% Utility estimates consumption 2.1% Informal 10.3% 80.8% 82.3% 9.0% fee Fixed monthly 74.8% Formal Pay based on metered electricity consumption 17.4% Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) 80.5% Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) 2.1% & <2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions Informal Formal Informal Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) 2,588 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 99.5% 94.4% 92.2% PROVIDING ELECTRICITY ACCESS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT ELECTRICITY 1,019 Nationwide, 2.4 percent of Pakistani households 99.5% 94.4% 92.2% still do not have access to any source of electricity (Figure 1). Of the households 4.5%without electricity, 54.1 percent are from grid-electrified enumeration areas 6.2% 1.1% 1.6% 0.5% 0% (EAs) where at least one household has access to the national grid (Figure 53). 9 In other words, these households are not on grid Formal the grid is available although Nationwide Rural in their villages. Informal Urban National Grid Solar Home System Solar Lighting System 4.5% Figure 53. Grid Availability of EAs 6.2% without Where Households Reside, Electricity0.5% 1.1% 1.6% 0%Nationwide Nationwide Rural Urban National Unelectrified EA Grid-electrified EA Grid Solar Home System Solar Lighting System 45.9% 54.1% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 In this analysis, if at least one in 12 sampled households in an EA has access to the national grid, the EA is assumed to be grid-electrified. 9 4.5% 0.2% 44 4.9% 14.7% Top 20% 45.9% 54.1% III. Access to electricity Households without access to electricity are likely to be poor. More than 90 percent of them are in the two lowest expenditure quintiles, while the bottom quintile accounts for 75.8 percent (Figure 54). Figure 54. Nationwide Distribution of Households without Any Sources of Electricity, by Expenditure Quintile 4.5% 0.2% 4.9% 14.7% Top 20% 4th Quintile 3rd Quintile 75.8% 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Nationwide Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 For many households without electricity, the major barrier to access is distance (Table 7). Additional obstacles are clearly the cost of the grid connection and monthly payments. Table 7. Barriers to the National Grid Access for Households Without Any Source of Electricity Nationwide Proportion of Households Grid is too far from household/not available 41.6% Cost of initial connection is too expensive 13.6% Monthly fee is too expensive 13.6% Renting, Landlord decision 13.0% Submitted application and waiting for connection 11.1% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 45 14.0% 30.5% 38.1% 10.7% 3.3% 3.4% Informal PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 10.3% 80.8% 9.0% Box 6. Electricity Access of Public Institutions in Pakistan Formal 17.4% 80.5% 2.1% Health Facilities Informal Nationwide, 96.3 percent of health facilities have access to some form of electricity, and across the localities, the access rate is about the same. The national grid is the most widely used source in both Tier rural 3 (> and urban settings 14 interruptions) (Figure Tier 4 (4-14 55); meanwhile interruptions) 5.6 percent or ( <4 interruptions & of health centers >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4use off-grid & interruptions solar <2 hrs) technologies such as solar home systems (4.5 percent) and solar lighting systems (1.1 percent). Off- grid solar solutions are adopted far more frequently by rural health centers (7.8 percent) than by their urban counterparts (0.5 percent). Figure 55. Primary Electricity Sources of Health Centers, by Locality 94.4% 99.5% 92.2% 4.5% 6.2% 1.6% 1.1% 0.5% 0% Nationwide Rural Urban National Grid Solar Home System Solar Lighting System Note: Mini-grids and generators are not used by health centers Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 The MTF analysis shows that 91.6 percent of health facilities nationwide have electricity access falling into aggregate Tier 1 or above as described in Figure 56 (See Appendix 4 for the tier matrix). Across rural and urban areas, many hospitals lie between Tier 0 and 2, which indicates that availability and/ or capacity problems are prevalent. Given that 94.4 percent of health facilities nationwide have the highest Tier score for their capacity attribute, electricity availability is likely to be the major challenge for many hospitals. Figure 56. Distribution of Health Centers Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier 8.4% 20.8% 5.2% 51.6% 10.1% 3.9% Nationwide 8.6% 18.2% 3.6% 56.6% 9.2% 3.7% Rural 8.1% 26.7% 8.8% 40.1% 11.9% 4.3% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 4.9% 21.0% 4.3% 21.5% 35.6% 12.8% Nationwide 46 42.9% 5.1% 18.0% 2.1% 19.5% 12.4% III. Access to electricity 8.4% 20.8% 5.2% 51.6% 10.1% 3.9% 8.4% 20.8% 5.2% 51.6% 10.1% 3.9% Nationwide Nationwide The Availability analysis demonstrates that nationwide, about 30 percent of health centers operate 8.6% 18.2% 3.6% 56.6% 9.2% 3.7% with electricity available18.2% 8.6% for less than 56.6% By locality, the share 3.6% half of operational hours. of hospitals 9.2% 3.7% below Tier 3 of the Availability attribute is higher in urban areas (41.5 percent) than in rural fallingRural Rural percent) (Figure 57). areas (25.2 8.1% 26.7% 8.8% 40.1% 11.9% 4.3% 8.1% Along with availability, 26.7% is more of 8.8% reliability an issue in urban areas, 4.3% 11.9% are 40.1%while voltage problems more common in rural areas. A higher proportion of urban health centers face more than 14 outages per Urban Urban week than do rural hospitals (Figure 58). On the other hand, voltage fluctuations are more common in rural areas by 26.9 percentage points compared to urban areas (Figure 59). Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Figure 57. Distribution of Health Centers Based on the Availability Attribute 4.9% 21.0% 4.3% 21.5% 35.6% 12.8% 4.9% 21.0% 4.3% 21.5% 35.6% 12.8% Nationwide Nationwide 5.1% 18.0% 2.1% 19.5% 42.9% 12.4% 5.1% 18.0% 2.1% 19.5% 42.9% 12.4% Rural Rural 4.5% 27.8% 9.2% 26.0% 19.0% 13.6% 4.5% 27.8% 9.2% 26.0% 19.0% 13.6% Urban Urban Tier 0: <2 hours Tier 1: Min 2 hours Tier 0: <2 hours Tier 1: Min 2 hours Tier 2: Min 4 hours Tier 3: Min 50% of working hours Tier 2: Min 4 hours Tier 3: Min 50% of working hours Tier 4: Min 75% working hours Tier 5: Min 95% of working hours Tier 4: Min 75% working hours Tier 5: Min 95% of working hours Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 58. Distribution of Health Centers Based on the Reliability Attribute 19.6% 60.8% 19.6% 19.6% 60.8% 19.6% Nationwide Nationwide 12.4% 67.6% 19.9% 12.4% 67.6% 19.9% Rural Rural 34.9% 46.3% 18.7% 34.9% 46.3% 18.7% Urban Urban Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 47 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Figure 59. Distribution of Health Centers Based on the Quality Attribute 60.2% 39.8% Nationwide 68.8% 31.2% Rural 41.9% 58.2% Urban 60.2% 39.8% Nationwide Tier 3: Voltage Problems Tier 5: No Voltage Problems 31.2% 68.8% 60.2% 39.8% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Rural Nationwide 41.9% 58.2% Educational Institutions 68.8% 31.2% Urban 93.1% Nationwide, Rural 75.4 percent of educational institutions in Pakistan have access to some source of electricity 75.4% 73.6% (Figure 60). But that figure brushes over a notable rural–urban discrepancy. In rural areas, 73.6 percent of education centers have 41.9% Tier 3: Voltage Problems electricity, Tier compared to 93.1 58.2% 5: No Voltage percent in Problems urban areas. Urban Educational institutions predominantly use the national grid as their main electricity source nationwide (Figure 61); 13.8 percent of schools adopt off-grid solutions including generators (0.5 percent), solar home systems (5.8 percent), and solar lighting systems (7.5 percent). Due to the data limitations, Tier 3: Voltage Problems Tier 5: No Voltage Problems regionally disaggregated results were not captured. 93.1% Nationwide 75.4% Rural Urban 73.6% Figure 60. Electricity Access of Education Centers, by Locality 93.1% 75.4% 73.6% Nationwide Rural Urban 86.2% Nationwide Rural Urban Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 5.8% 7.5% 0.5% 0% Figure 61. Primary Electricity Sources of Education Centers, Nationwide 86.2% Grid National Generator Solar Home Solar Lighting Mini-grid System System 86.2% 5.8% 7.5% 0.5% 0% National Grid Generator Solar Home Solar Lighting Mini-grid System System 5.8% 7.5% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 0.5% 0% National Grid Generator Solar Home Solar Lighting Mini-grid 48 System System III. Access to electricity The MTF analysis shows that nationwide, 62.6 percent of educational institutions fall into aggregate Tier 1 or above (Figure 62). By locality, the level of electricity access is lower for rural schools; almost 40 percent of rural schools are classified as aggregate Tier 0. While the share of Tier 0 is comparatively lower among urban schools, the proportion of Tier 1 is high, which suggests that many urban schools experience availability and/or capacity problems. Considering that nationwide all education centers lie between Tier 4 and 5 for their Capacity attribute, poor availability is the main factor for the high share of aggregate Tier 1 among urban schools. Figure 62. Distribution of Education Centers Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier 37.4% 19.3% 0.2% 21.6% 19.9% 1.6% Nationwide 39.6% 17.9% 21.3% 20.2% 1.1% Rural 15.9% 33.6% 2.5% 24.4% 17.1% 6.7% 37.4% 19.3% 0.2% 21.6% 19.9% 1.6% Urban Nationwide 37.4% 19.3% 0.2% 21.6% 19.9% 1.6% 39.6% 17.9% 21.3% 20.2% 1.1% Nationwide Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Rural Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 39.6% 17.9% 21.3% 20.2% 1.1% 15.9% 33.6% 2.5% 24.4% 17.1% 6.7% Many Pakistani Rural schools experience problems with electricity supply and quality. Nationwide, 42.8 Urban percent of education15.9% with electricity available centers operate 33.6% 2.5% for less than 50 percent 24.4% of working 17.1% 17.1%6.7% hours (Figure 63); 67.116.9% 25.6% centers percent of education 8.5% 0.3%nationwide face at 31.6% least four outages per week of longer than Urbantwo Nationwide hours (Figure Tier 0 64), and 64.5 Tier 1 percent of schools Tier 2 experience Tier 3 voltage fluctuations Tier 4 Tier (Figure 5 65). Disaggregated analysis by locality was limited due to the small sample size. Tier 0 Tier 0:Tier 1 <2 hours Tier 2 Tier Tier 3 2 hours Tier 4 1: Min Tier 5 Figure 63. Distribution of Education Centers Based on the Tier 2: Min 4 hours Availability Attribute Tier 3: Min 50% of working hours 16.9% 75% working Tier 4: Min25.6% hours 0.3% 8.5% 95% of working hours Tier 5: Min 31.6% 17.1% Nationwide 16.9% 25.6% 0.3% 8.5% 31.6% 17.1% 17.6% 49.5% 33.0% Nationwide Tier 0: <2 hours Tier 1: Min 2 hours Nationwide Tier 2: Min 4 hours Tier 3: Min 50% of working hours Tier 4: Min 75% working hours Tier 5: Min 95% of working hours Tier 3 (> 14 Tier 0: <2 hours interruptions) Tier 1: Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions)Min or2( hours <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 2: Min 4 hours Tier 3: Min 50% Source: “Pakistan of working hoursEnergy Survey” 2022 Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Tier 4: Min 75% working hours Tier 5: Min 95% of working hours 17.6% 49.5% 33.0% Figure 64. Distribution of Education Centers Based on the Reliability Attribute Nationwide 64.5% 35.5% 17.6% 49.5% 33.0% Nationwide Nationwide Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Tier 3: Voltage Problems Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) or ( <4 Problems Tier 5: No Voltage Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) 64.5% 35.5% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Nationwide 64.5% 35.5% 49 Nationwide Tier 3: Voltage Problems Tier 5: No Voltage Problems 17.6% 49.5% 33.0% Nationwide PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Figure 65. Distribution of Education Centers Based on the Quality Attribute 64.5% 35.5% Nationwide Tier 3: Voltage Problems Tier 5: No Voltage Problems Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 10.1% 2.0% 11.1% 55.6% 5.6% 15.7% Agro-processing 3.2% 5.2% 54.0% 19.4% 18.2% Box 7. Manufacturing Electricity Access of Enterprises in Pakistan 10.3% 0.5% 42.1% 18.0% 27.2% 2.1% Enterprises in Pakistan show high electricity access, but many firms across sectors fall into aggregate Service Tier 3 and face frequent outages and voltage fluctuations. The electricity access rate is highest in the manufacturing sector (98 percent), followed by the agro-processing sector and the service sector with 90.4 percent and 90.3 percent, respectively (Figure 66). In all sectors, the national grid is the most widely usedTier 0 electricity main Tier source, 1 Tier 2the agro-processing though Tier 3 Tier 4 shows aTier sector 5 relatively lower grid use rate. Figure 66. Main Electricity Sources, by Sector of Enterprises 9.6% 2.0% 2.0% 9.7% 0.5% 0.5% 5.1% 0.5% 2.0% 1% No electricity Rechargeable battery 96.0% 88.2% UPS 82.8% Solar energy Generator Mini-grid National grid Agro-processing Manufacturing Services Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Many enterprises experience reliability and quality problems with their electricity (See Appendix 5 for the tier matrix). The MTF analysis demonstrates that while the majority of enterprises across sectors are classified as aggregate Tier 1 or above, the largest share of enterprises are aggregate Tier 3 (Figure 67). Reliability problems are the most prevalent in the agro-processing sector, where 47.5 percent of enterprises face more than 14 unscheduled outages in a week, more than twice as many as in the manufacturing or services sector (Figure 68). 47.5% Voltage fluctuations 24.2% are also common across 28.3% all sectors, but here again it is the agro-processing sector, at 60.4 percent, that experiences the worst Agro-processing voltage instability (Figure 69). 20.6% 50.4% 29.0% Manufacturing 50 22.6% 34.9% 42.6% Service 9.6% 2.0% 2.0% 9.7% III. Access to electricity 0.5% 0.5% 5.1% 0.5% 2.0% 1% No electricity Figure 67. Enterprise Distribution Based on Aggregate Electricity Tier, by Sector Rechargeable battery 10.1% 2.0% 11.1% 55.6% 5.6% UPS 15.7% 96.0% 88.2% 82.8% Agro-processing Solar energy 3.2% 5.2% 54.0% 19.4% 18.2% Generator Manufacturing Mini-grid 10.3% 0.5% 42.1% 18.0% 27.2% grid National 2.1% Agro-processing Manufacturing Services Service Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 68. Enterprise Distribution Based on the Reliability Attribute, by Sector 9.6% 2.0% 2.0% 9.7% 47.5% 0.5% 24.2% 0.5% 28.3% 5.1% 0.5% Agro-processing 2.0% 1% 20.6% 50.4% 29.0% No electricity Manufacturing Rechargeable battery 22.6% 34.9% 42.6% UPS 96.0% 88.2% 82.8% Service Solar energy Generator Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) or ( <4 interruptions & >2 hrs) Mini-grid Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) National grid Agro-processing Manufacturing Services Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 69. Enterprise Distribution Based on the Quality Attribute, by Sector 60.4% 39.6% Agro-processing 53.8% 46.2% Manufacturing 47.5% 24.2% 28.3% Agro-processing 43.0% 57.0% Service 20.6% 50.4% 29.0% Manufacturing Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) 22.6% 34.9% 42.6% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Service Tier 3 (> 14 interruptions) 55.7% Tier 4 (4-14 interruptions) 5.7% 38.6% & >2 hrs) or ( <4 interruptions 0.1% Tier 5 ( <4 interruptions & <2 hrs) Nationwide 51 71.8% 6.8% 21.3% 0.1% PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Box 8. Impact of Floods on Access to Electricity Pakistan's worst flooding event occurred in July and August 2022 due to unusually heavy and prolonged rains. According to the National Disaster Management Authority, around 33 million people were affected by the floods, including nearly 8 million displaced from their homes (Pakistan Ministry of Planning, Development, and Special Initiatives 2022). The floods took the lives of more than 1,700 people and caused widespread destruction of housing and human settlements. In the 94 calamity- hit districts, approximately 780,000 houses were destroyed, and more than 1.27 million houses were partially damaged. In the power sector, most of the direct damage was done to the distribution network and hydroelectric power generation stations in the north of the country. Due to distribution network outages, most of the affected population in Sindh, Balochistan, southern Punjab, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suffered from electricity blackouts. Damage was also observed in several micro- and mini-hydroelectric power generation facilities: although this had minimal impact on national generation capacity, it nonetheless adversely affected many remote communities that were serviced solely by these facilities. Severe floods endangered grid stations and exacerbated power shortages at a time when the country was already grappling with an acute energy crisis. Sindh and Balochistan provinces, where load shedding of up to 18 hours a day for both technical and commercial reasons was already commonplace in many districts, were the hardest hit by floods. Studies have indicated that natural disasters can significantly increase the use of off-grid solar lanterns and solar home systems (SHSs).  This implies that SHSs are adopted by flood-prone households as a way of coping. Indeed, anecdotal and photographic evidence from Sindh in the aftermath of the 2022 floods shows that a significant minority of households already owned a SHS and prioritized this as one of the few possessions they managed to salvage from the rains, thereby providing them with a basic source of power over the following weeks and months. Among the impacted areas, Ghot Mubarak Majeedano, a rural village in District Sanghar of Sindh province where multiple Lighting Global certified solar home systems had been installed, was under one meter of water but able to provide continuous power to flooded households because the rooftop solar panels kept operating, unlike other emergency energy sources (diesel generators) that were damaged by the floods. This implies that installing distributed solar systems and renewable energy-run micro/mini-grids as a primary or secondary source of power can help to ensure that rural communities maintain access to modern sources of energy, fuel and food supplies when natural disaster strikes.  52 III. Access to electricity POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Improve the quality and reliability of electricity. To improve the quality and reliability of supply, the distribution network should be upgraded, and concerted efforts should be made to curtail commercial losses. Improving operational efficiency should include efforts to introduce private-sector participation in the management of the distribution companies, and a renewed push to modernize metering, billing and the energy sector's transmission and distribution infrastructure. Improving the quality and reliability of the electricity supply, by addressing voltage issues and reducing outages, would shift a large population of grid-connected households to higher Tiers 4–5. Address affordability issues. The cost of electricity in Pakistan is the highest in the region, and unfortunately the electricity tariff continues to increase to ensure cost recovery. Under these circumstances, it is vital that Pakistan reduce electricity costs by fast-tracking the implementation of the government’s Indicative Generation Capacity Expansion Plan (IGCEP) to include more renewable energy. Though affordability is a general problem, it is particularly acute for the poorest. Increasing households’ access to energy efficient appliances can also help reduce their electricity cost burden. Lastly, given that the majority of households reported unexpectedly high bills as the foremost problem associated with grid electricity, introducing prepaid meters, especially for low-income households, could help them to avoid that billing uncertainty. Formalize informal connections. Informal connections should be formalized to improve access to the national grid in Pakistan. Quality and reliability are a much bigger issue for informally connected households than their formally connected counterparts. The distribution companies and the government can address the connection cost barrier ​ by providing financial incentives that encourage households to formalize their connections. This could include reduced connection fees, or installment payment options. The distribution companies can also foster community participation and cooperation through outreach programs by encouraging community members to report illegal connections and promoting collective responsibility toward formalizing legal connections. Expand electricity access in Balochistan and Sindh As the MTF measurement of electricity access by province showed, Balochistan and Sindh have the highest proportion of households with low access to electricity. A combination of grid extension, mini- grids and stand-alone solar systems should be deployed to electrify remote areas based on a geospatial least-cost electrification plan. As per World Bank’s Least-Cost Electrification Study (forthcoming), the total investment required to achieve universal access to electricity by 2030 is estimated at US$13.75 billion, of which US$5.92 billion will be required just for Sindh and Balochistan. 53 IV. ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES This section presents findings on access to modern energy cooking services based on household survey data. It examines Pakistani households' access to clean cooking technologies and evaluates their clean cooking practices using the MTF. The section also analyzes households' stove stacking practices and cooking fuel use and identifies challenges to promote clean cooking practices. Then policy suggestions follow. The section includes clean cooking analysis disaggregated by sex of household head. ACCESS BY TECHNOLOGY 60.4% 39.6% Agro-processing The Pakistan Energy Survey shows that nationwide 44.3 percent of Pakistani households have access to clean technologies 53.8% with low emissions, including 38.6 percent46.2% of households using piped natural gas (PNG) stoves and 5.7 percent with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves as Manufacturing their primary stove (Figure 70).10 Major Pakistani populations still rely on traditional/locally built 57.0% 43.0% stoves with high pollutant emissions. stoves, or three-stone/open-fire Service In urban areas, however, PNG stoves are predominantly used (in 80 percent of cases), whereas in rural areas PNG stove use is much lower (Figure 70). Instead, a high proportion of rural households Tier 3 (Voltage Problems) Tier 5 (No Voltage Problems) still rely on traditional cooking methods. Usage of LPG stoves remains low across localities. Figure 70. Main Stove Use, by Locality 55.7% 5.7% 38.6% 0.1% Nationwide 71.8% 6.8% 21.3% 0.1% Rural 17.1% 3.0% 80.0% Urban 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or Traditional/Locally Built Stove Manufactured Biomass Stove LPG Stove Piped Natural Gas Stove Other Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 83.4% 1.0% 15.6% Balochistan 10 In the survey, the answer options for households' primary stove were: three-stone/open fire stove, traditional/locally built stove, manufactured bio- mass stove, kerosene stove, LPG stove, PNG stove, electric stove, solar cooker, hybrid cooking stove, or any others. The survey showed that no Pakistani 9.5% households use manufactured 20.3% biomass 70.2% stoves, kerosene stoves, solar cookers or hybrid cooking stoves. Islamabad 55 74.9% 10.2% 14.9% Khyber 71.8% 6.8% 21.3% 0.1% Rural 17.1% 80.0%situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 3.0% SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access PAKISTAN ENERGY Urban Access to clean cooking stoves is unequal across provinces. Islamabad is particularly high in its clean 3-stones/Open stove access, but other provincesFire Stove need or Traditional/Locally improvements (FigureBuilt Stove 71). Manufactured Traditional Biomass Stove cooking methods are widely LPG Stove used in all other provinces, Piped Natural and in Balochistan and Gas Stove Pakhtunkhwa,Other Khyber the share of households using those traditional stoves is particularly high. Figure 71. Main Stove Use, by Province 83.4% 1.0% 15.6% Balochistan 9.5% 20.3% 70.2% Islamabad 74.9% 10.2% 14.9% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 55.1% 6.6% 38.2% 0.1% Punjab 42.6% 1.6% 55.8% Sindh 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or Traditional/Locally Built Stove Manufactured Biomass Stove LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove Other Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 By expenditure level, households with higher expenditure are more likely to use PNG stoves as their main cookstove, while lower expenditure groups tend to rely more on traditional cooking methods (Figure 72). Figure 72. Main Stove Use, by Expenditure Quintile 44.5% 8.9% 46.3% 0.2% Top 20% 46.8% 7.8% 45.4% 4th Quintile 50.3% 6.4% 43.3% 3rd Quintile 59.0% 4.3% 36.7% 2nd Quintile 77.8% 1.1% 21.1% Bottom 20% 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or Traditional/Locally Built Stove Manufactured Biomass Stove LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove Other Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 56 IV. Access to modern energy cooking services 44.5% 8.9% 46.3% 0.2% Top 20% STOVE STACKING 46.8% 7.8% 45.4% 4th Quintile 50.3% 6.4% 43.3% Stove stacking—the concurrent use of multiple stoves and fuels—could reflect a household’s desire to 3rda use stove with better performance, alongside the need for a back-up method. Nationwide, however, Quintile stove stacking is not common, and 93.8 percent of Pakistani 59.0% households depend 4.3% 36.7% on just one stove. 2nd Of theQuintile 6.2 percent of households stacking stoves, nearly 60 percent keep LPG stoves as a backup (Figure 77.8% fire stoves as their primary 73), with the majority using three-stone/open 21.1% 74). stove (Figure 1.1% Bottom 20% Households that keep LPG stoves as a backup and currently use PNG stoves could be interpreted as having already transitioned to more convenient stoves. Conversely, those using either three-stone/ open fire stoves or other traditional stoves despite ownership of LPG stoves are seemingly loyal to less 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or Traditional/Locally Built Stove Manufactured Biomass Stove efficient stoves. Here, the main barrier to a transition to LPG stoves is highly likely to be the fuel cost. LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove Other Among households stacking LPG stoves, 81.5 percent reported not using the stoves most of the time because the fuel is too expensive (Figure 75). Figure 73. Types of Stacked Cookstoves, Nationwide 3-Stones/Open fire stove 17.3% Traditional/Locally built stove 12.5% LPG stove 58.9% Piped Natural Gas stove 10.9% Others 0.4% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 83.4% 1.0% 15.6% Figure 74. Main Cookstove of Households Stacking LPG Stoves Balochistan 9.5% 20.3% 56.2% 22.5% 70.2% 21.3% Islamabad 74.9% 10.2% 14.9% 3-stones/Open Fire Stove Traditional/Locally Built Stove Piped Natural Gas stove Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 55.1% 6.6% 38.2% 0.1% Punjab Figure 75. Reason for Not Using the Stacked LPG Stove Most of the Time 42.6% 1.6% Animal 55.8% Others waste/dung Sindh 1.1% Reason for Not Using the Stacked LPG Stove Most of the Time 3.1% (% of households using LPG stove as their extra stove) Electricity/fuel for this stove is too Wood expensive. collected Wood 81.5% 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or Traditional/Locally Built Stove 42.3% Manufactured Biomass Stove purchased I prefer another cookstove (but the electricity/fuel for that stove is too expensive or 11.1% LPG stove often not available). Piped Natural Gas stove Other 53.5% Electricity/fuel for this stove is unavailable. 5.7% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 57 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework COOKING FUEL 56.2% 22.5% 21.3% FUEL USE For households whose 3-stones/Open primary Fire Stove stoves use biomass Traditional/Locally fuels Built (such as Stove traditional Piped Natural Gasstoves), stove wood is the most widely used fuel. Households both purchase and collect wood (Figure 76). Figure 76. Fuel for Biomass-based Primary Stoves, Nationwide 56.2% 22.5% 21.3% Animal Others waste/dung 1.1% 3.1% 3-stones/Open Fire Stove Traditional/Locally Built Stove Piped Natural Gas stove Wood collected Wood 42.3% purchased 53.5% Animal Others waste/dung 1.1% 3.1% Wood collected Wood 42.3% purchased 53.5% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 80.6% Investigation of households’ cooking fuels (in main or subsidiary stoves alike) reveals that PNG and wood are the most widely used (Figure 77). PNG use is high in urban areas, while in rural areas, wood, either collected or purchased, is commonly used. The usage of LPG and other types of fuels is relatively 44.1% across localities. low 39.1% 37.7% 33.8% 29.7% 21.7% Figure 77. Cooking Fuel Use 9.1% 10.5% 12.6% 14.3% 8.6% 4.9% 6.5% 1.0% 80.6% Piped Natural Gas Wood Collected Wood Purchased LPG/ Cooking gas Animal waste/ Dung Nationwide Rural Urban 44.1% 39.1% 37.7% 33.8% 29.7% 21.7% 9.1% 10.5% 12.6% 14.3% 8.6% 5,087 4.9% 6.5% 1.0% Piped Natural Gas Wood Collected Wood Purchased LPG/ Cooking gas Animal waste/ Dung 2,812 Nationwide Rural Urban 1,552 1,110 618 Note: Less than 1% of households nationwide use kerosene, gasoline, paraffin, coal, crop residue, sawdust, pellets, biogas and garbage for cooking fuel. Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% 5,087 58 2,812 80.6% IV. Access to modern energy cooking services 44.1% 39.1% 37.7% 33.8% 29.7% 21.7% COOKING FUEL EXPENDITURE 9.1% 10.5% 12.6% 14.3% 8.6% 4.9% 6.5% 1.0% Nationwide, Pakistani households spend on average PKR 2,235 (equivalent to approx. USD 13) per month Piped Natural Gas Wood Collected Wood Purchased on cooking fuel. Households in the top and bottom expenditureLPG/ Cooking gas quintiles Animal waste/ Dung respectively show major fuel. The topRural differences in their spending on cookingNationwide quintile households Urban spend about eight times more than do the poorest (Figure 78). Figure 78. Monthly Spending on Cooking Fuel, by Expenditure Quintile (PKR) 5,087 2,812 1,552 1,110 618 Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Focusing on households’ main stove, the survey shows that monthly cooking fuel spending is the highest for LPG stoves and the lowest for PNG stoves (Figure 79). Households using three-stone/open-fire stoves and traditional/locally built stoves spend PKR 2,521 (equivalent to approx. USD 14) monthly on average on the cooking fuel, which could be explained by the high use of purchased firewood (Figure 76). Monthly Cooking Fuel Expenditure, by main stove (nationwide) Figure 79. Monthly Cooking Fuel Expenditure, by Main Stove, Nationwide (PKR) 6,674 2,521 1,167 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove Traditional/Locally Built Stove Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 38.0% 17.7% 4.3% 5.7% 34.3% Nationwide 48.3% 23.5% 4.2%4.3% 19.8% Rural 13.3% 3.7% 4.6% 9.0% 69.3% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 59 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework MTF ASSESSMENT In the MTF assessment of access to clean cooking services in Pakistan, households are evaluated through the lens of the five attributes in Figure 80. The lowest tier score among the five is a household’s final tier classification, or the aggregate cooking Tier. Households in aggregate Tier 4 or 5 have access to clean cooking services, while those in aggregate Tier 2 or 3 at least have improved cooking services and are probably in transition to clean cooking. Households below aggregate Tier 2 very rarely have access to clean cooking services and are typically exposed to health threats from the use of high emission stoves without a good ventilation system. Figure 80. The Multi-Tier Framework Clean Cooking Tier Matrix for the Pakistan Energy Survey Analysis TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTES  TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 International Organization for Standardization’s voluntary performance >1030 ≤1030 ≤481 ≤218 ≤62 ≤5 targets on emissions >18.3 ≤18.3 ≤11.5 ≤7.2 ≤4.4 ≤3.0 (default ventilation) PM2.5 (mg/MJd) CO (g/MJd) Exposure High Ventilation >1489 ≤1489 ≤321 ≤92 ≤7 PM2.5 (mg/MJd) ≤733 >26.9 ≤26.9 ≤10.3 ≤6.2 ≤4.4 CO (g/MJd) ≤16.0 Low Ventilation >550 ≤550 ≤252 ≤115 ≤32 ≤2 PM2.5 (mg/MJd) >9.9 ≤9.9 ≤5.5 ≤3.7 ≤2.2 ≤1.4 CO (g/MJd) Fuel acquisition & - ≥7 <7 <3 <1.5 <0.5 preparation time (hr/week) Convenience Stove preparation time - ≥10 <10 <5 <2 (min/week) Safety (Harm from stove) Death - Serious Minor - None Affordability - ≥10% 5% & <10% - < 5% (Share of expenditure on cooking fuel) Availability (Fuel availability) - Rarely Sometimes Mostly Always Note: Each attribute has a different tier score range. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that are not required to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers. Hence the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. Source: Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) 2020 60 Monthly Cooking Fuel Expenditure, by main stove (nationwide) IV. Access to modern energy cooking services 6,674 HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION BASED ON AGGREGATE COOKING TIER 2,521 The MTF measurement shows that nationwide, 34.3 percent of households have access to clean cooking 1,167 to clean cooking. The (Figure 81). Nationwide, more than half of Pakistani households still lack access regional disparity is evident. In urban areas, 69.3 percent of households have access to clean cooking, whereas in rural areas, the share is small, and 71.8 percent of households instead lie between aggregate 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove 1. Tier 0 and Traditional/Locally Built Stove Figure 81. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Cooking Tier Monthly Cooking Fuel Expenditure, by main stove (nationwide) 38.0% 17.7% 4.3% 5.7% 34.3% 6,674 Nationwide 48.3% 23.5% 4.2%4.3% 19.8% Rural 2,521 13.3% 3.7% 4.6% 9.0% 69.3% 1,167 Urban 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove Traditional/Locally Built Stove Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 38.0% 17.7% 4.3% 5.7% 34.3% HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION BY ATTRIBUTE Nationwide 38.0% 17.7% 44.3% Cooking Exposure Nationwide 48.3% 23.5% 4.2%4.3% 19.8% Rural 48.3% 23.5% 28.2% The Exposure attribute captures the health impacts of cooking activities based on cookstove emissions and ventilation Rural of cooking 13.3% areas. 3.7% 4.6% The 9.0% analysis shows that harmful cooking 69.3% practices are more common in rural areas. Almost half of rural households fall into Exposure Tier 0 from cooking with either three- Urban 13.3% 3.7% 82.9% stone/open-fire stoves or traditional/locally built stoves inside the house without any ventilation (Figure 82). In contrast, in urban areas with major PNG stove adoption, a large population is system Urban classified as Exposure Tier Tier 0 5. This Tier suggests 1 Tier 2 cookingTier that clean practices 3 should Tier 4 be more widely Tier 5 promoted, particularly targeting rural households. Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Figure 82. Household Distribution 45.0% Based on the Exposure 10.6% Attribute 44.4% 38.0% 17.7% 44.3% Nationwide Nationwide 58.4% 13.4% 28.2% 48.3% 23.5% 28.2% Rural Rural 12.9% 3.9% 83.1% 0.1% 13.3% 3.7% 82.9% Urban Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 45.0% 10.6% 44.4% 61 Nationwide Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Convenience 38.0% 17.7% 44.3% Nationwide The Convenience attribute measures a household’s cooking convenience on the basis of time spent on acquisition and stove preparation. fuel preparation, including fuel48.3% more of a problem for 23.5% Convenience is28.2% rural households; 58.4 percent of rural households fall into Convenience Tier 1, meaning that households Rural spend seven hours or more per week on fuel acquisition and preparation (Figure 83). Rural households’ 13.3%wood reliance on collected 3.7% as fuel could explain the high Tier 1 proportion (Figure 77). In urban areas 82.9% where the adoption of PNG stoves is prevalent, the share of Tier 1 households is relatively small, and Urban most households fall into Tier 5 (Figure 83). Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Figure 83. Household Distribution Based on the Convenience* Attribute 45.0% 10.6% 44.4% Nationwide 58.4% 13.4% 28.2% Rural 12.9% 3.9% 83.1% 0.1% Urban Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 * Convenience Tier Chart: TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Fuel acquisition & preparation time - ≥7 <7 <3 <1.5 <0.5 Convenience (hr/week) Stove preparation - ≥10 <10 <5 <2 time (min/week) Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015 Fuel Availability This attribute captures fuel availability for households using three-stone/open fire stoves or traditional/ locally built stoves in 12 months prior to the survey. Many Pakistani households find that their fuel is available most of the time. Nationwide, 98 percent of the Pakistani households find their cooking fuel mostly or always available (without any rural–urban discrepancy) (Figure 84). Safety This attribute evaluates the safety of the primary cookstove on the basis of harm or injury, if any, during the 12 months prior to the survey. Overall, cookstoves are reasonably safe in Pakistan, and nationwide 83.5 percent of households experience no harm from their stoves (Figure 85). The share of households that experienced minor harms such as minor injuries, or fire with no injuries, is slightly higher in rural areas than in urban areas. 62 IV. Access to modern energy cooking services Affordability This attribute measures the affordability to a household of cooking fuel by looking at share of expenditure. The analysis shows that fuel affordability is a problematic issue for rural households. More than one- third of rural households spend five percent or more of their household budget on cooking fuel, rising to a spend of 10 percent or more for one-fifth of rural households (Figure 86). Figure 84. Household Distribution Based on the Fuel Availability Attribute 0.3% 30.3% 67.7% 1.7% 0.3% 30.3% 67.7% Nationwide 1.7% Nationwide 0.3% 30.3% 67.7% 0.2% 1.7% 30.4% 67.6% 1.7% 0.2% 30.4% 67.6% Nationwide 1.7% Rural Rural 0.2% 30.4% 67.6% 0.6%1.7% 29.4% 68.6% 1.4% 0.6% 29.4% 68.6% Rural 1.4% Urban Urban 0.6% 29.4% 68.6% 1.4% Tier 2 (Rarely Available) Tier 3 (Sometimes Available) Tier 4 (Mostly Available) Tier 5 (Always Available) Urban Tier 2 (Rarely Available) Tier 3 (Sometimes Available) Tier 4 (Mostly Available) Tier 5 (Always Available) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Tier 2 (Rarely Available) Tier 3 (Sometimes Available) Tier 4 (Mostly Available) Tier 5 (Always Available) Figure 85. Household 1.4% Distribution Based on the Safety Attribute 83.5% 15.1% 1.4% 15.1% 83.5% Nationwide Nationwide 1.4% 15.1% 83.5% 1.6% 17.7% 80.7% Nationwide 1.6% 17.7% 80.7% Rural Rural 1.6% 0.1% 80.7% 17.7% 0.9% 8.8% 90.3% Rural 0.1% 90.3% 0.9% 8.8% Urban Urban 0.1% 90.3% 0.9% 8.8% Tier 0 (Death) Tier 2 (Serious) Tier 3 (Minor) Tier 5 (None) Urban Tier 0 (Death) Tier 2 (Serious) Tier 3 (Minor) Tier 5 (None) Tier 0 (Death) Tier 2 (Serious) Tier 3 (Minor) Source: Tier “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 5 (None) 16.7% 10.9% 72.4% 16.7%Distribution Figure 86. Household 10.9% Based on the Affordability Attribute 72.4% Nationwide Nationwide 16.7% 20.0% 10.9% 12.9% 72.4% 67.1% 20.0% 12.9% 67.1% Nationwide Rural Rural 20.0% 12.9% 67.1% 8.7% 6.2% 85.2% Rural 8.7% 6.2% 85.2% Urban Urban 8.7% 6.2% 85.2% Tier 2 ( 10% of Household Expenditure) Urban Tier 3 ( 5% & <10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of Household Expenditure) Tier 2 ( 10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 3 ( 5% & <10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of Household Expenditure) Tier 2 ( 10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 3 ( 5% & <10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of Household Expenditure) 55.6% 5.8% 38.6% 0.1% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 55.6% 5.8% 38.6% 0.1% Male 63 Male 55.6% 5.8% 38.6% 0.1% 61.7% 1.4% 36.9% 16.7% 10.9% 72.4% PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Nationwide 20.0% 12.9% 67.1% Box 9. Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services by Sex of Household Head Rural 8.7% 6.2% 85.2% Overall, stove use is similar across sex of household head. Male-headed households score slightly Urban in their use of clean stoves, including LPG stoves and PNG stoves, by 6.1 percentage points higher (Figure 87). The MTF analysis on clean cooking shows that by sex of household head, access to clean cooking does not differ substantially (Figure 88). Tier 2 ( 10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 3 ( 5% & <10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of Household Expenditure) Figure 87. Main Stove Use, by Sex of Household Head 55.6% 5.8% 38.6% 0.1% Male 61.7% 1.4% 36.9% Female 3-stones/Open Fire Stove or Traditional/Locally Built Stove Manufactured Biomass Stove LPG stove Piped Natural Gas stove Other Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 88. Household Distribution Based on Aggregate Cooking Tier, by Sex of Household Head 37.9% 17.6% 4.4% 5.7% 34.4% Male 42.8% 18.8% 2.4% 3.9% 32.1% Female Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 144 In Pakistan, cooking is an activity predominantly undertaken by women. Nationwide, female family members spend on average 144 minutes on cooking in a typical day, which includes time for fuel and stove preparation and cooking (Figure 89). In contrast, male members spend on average seven minutes on cooking per day. Clearly, women will benefit the most if the cooking environment improves. 7 Male Members Female Members 90.1% 64 47.0% Male 42.8% 18.8% 2.4% 3.9% 32.1% IV. Access to modern energy cooking services Female Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Figure 89. Time on Fuel and Stove Preparation—and Cooking Meals—in a Typical Day (Minute) 144 7 37.9% 17.6% 4.4% 5.7% 34.4% Male Male Members Female Members 42.8% 18.8% 2.4% 3.9% 32.1% Energy Survey” 2022 Source: “Pakistan Female 90.1% Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 IMPROVING ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY COOKING SERVICES 47.0% 28.9% 144 LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF PIPED NATURAL GAS STOVES PNG stoves could be a clean cooking option Nationwide for Pakistani households, Rural but natural gas is available only in Urban limited regions. If at least one household reported using a PNG stove as its primary stove in a surveyed village (of 12 households), then the village was assumed to have access to PNG stoves. Based on the analysis, in urban areas, most villages have access to PNG stoves, whereas in rural areas, less than 30 7 percent of villages have the stove available (Figure 90). The gap in PNG stove access is noticeable across provinces. Islamabad has a large share of villages where the stove is available, whereas the percentage is low in Balochistan and Male Pakhtunkhwa Khyber 83.4% Members (Figure 91). Female Members 65.2% Figure 90. EAs with PNG Stove Availability, by Locality 47.0% 90.1% 18.5% 21.4% 47.0% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh 28.9% Nationwide Rural Urban Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 83.4% 65.2% 65 47.0% Nationwide Rural Urban PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework Figure 91. EAs with PNG Stove Availability, by Province 83.4% 65.2% 47.0% 18.5% 21.4% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 LPG STOVE AS A CLEAN COOKING OPTION, BUT HIGH FUEL COST AS A BARRIER LPG stoves could be expanded as a clean stove option, especially for regions where extension of the piped gas network is difficult. However, the higher cost of LPG compared to piped gas poses a challenge. For LPG (as with the analysis described above for PNG availability), if at least one out of 12 sampled households in an EA used LPG stove as its main stove, then the EA was categorized as having LPG stove access. The analysis demonstrates that, nationwide, 27.8 percent of EAs have access to LPG stoves, and the share is higher in rural areas than in urban areas by 17.3 percentage points (Figure 92). Sindh and Balochistan have the lowest share of EAs where LPG is available (Figure 93). Although LPG stoves are available in villages, they are not widely adopted. In EAs with access to LPG stoves, currently 20.5 percent of households use LPG stoves nationwide (Figure 94). No substantial EAs with at Least One Household Using LPG Stoves, by locality rural–urban divide is observed here. EAs with at Least One Household Using LPG Stoves, by locality Figure 92. EAs with At Least One Household Using LPG Stoves, by Locality 32.9% 27.8% 32.9% 27.8% 15.6% 15.6% Nationwide Rural Urban Nationwide Rural Urban Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Figure 93. EAs with At Least One Household Using LPG Stove, by Province 48.1% 48.1% 39.7% 39.7% 34.3% 34.3% 5.4% 8.4% 5.4% 8.4% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 66 20.5% 20.8% 18.9% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh IV. Access to modern energy cooking services48.1% 39.7% 34.3% Figure 94. Households Using LPG Stoves in Areas with the Stove Availability, by Locality 5.4% 8.4% 20.5% 20.8% 18.9% Balochistan Islamabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh Nationwide Rural Urban Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 One major challenge for households who would otherwise use LPG stoves is the high fuel price. As 20.5% 20.8% 18.9% Figure 79 showed, households’ cooking fuel expenditure is the highest for those using LPG stoves compared to households using other types of stoves. Also, based on the MTF cooking Affordability analysis, many households using LPG stoves as their main stove find that they cannot afford the fuel (Figure 95). Nationwide, 42.4 percent Nationwide 42.4%of households Rural allocate 10 percent or 30.2% more of their total Urban 27.5%household budget on cooking fuel, and 30.2 percent spend five percent or more of their total expenditure on the Nationwide fuel. Expansion of access to LPG stoves would thus be predicated largely on mitigation of the fuel price burden. Tier 2 ( 10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 3 ( 5% & <10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of Household Expenditure) Figure 95. Distribution of Households Using LPG Stoves as the Main Stove Based on the Affordability Attribute 42.4% 30.2% 27.5% Nationwide Tier 2 ( 10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 3 ( 5% & <10% of Household Expenditure) Tier 5 (< 5% of Household Expenditure) Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 LOW AFFORDABILITY AND LACK OF AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR IMPROVED COOKSTOVES For Pakistani households relying on traditional cooking methods, improved biomass cookstoves could serve as a cleaner cooking option. Improved stoves will reduce households’ exposures to pollutant emissions and save fuel expenditure by increasing cookstove efficiency. However, any such transition is hampered by the twin problems of affordability and scant awareness of the need for these stoves. Households using a firewood stove were asked if they would, in principle, be willing to pay for an improved stove. Two types of improved stoves were offered at different price points with different payment plans (Appendix 7). When households were offered an improved cookstove at the lowest price point of 1,320 PKR (equivalent to approx. USD 8), 72.2 percent of households were willing to pay for it (Figure 96); 41.3 percent of households were willing to pay in full, while 31 percent chose installment payments; 27.8 percent of households expressed no interest whatsoever. As the stove price increased, the proportion of households willing to pay in full decreased, while the share of households never willing to pay for the stove increased. 67 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework For another type of improved cookstove, offered at higher prices, the proportion of households never willing to pay for it was larger. At the stove’s lowest price point of PKR 2,772 (equivalent to approx. USD 16), just 20.8 percent of households were willing to pay in full, while 40.3 percent of households expressed no interest in purchase. At higher price points, more than half of Pakistani households were not willing to pay for the stove. Figure 96. Willingness to Pay for an Improved Cookstove (% of Households) 27.8% 31.8% 39.1% 40.3% 50.6% 5.8% 56.3% 12.8% 14.3% 18.0% 10.2% 12.4% 20.2% 17.2% 13.2% 16.9% 27.1% 9.2% 11.5% 8.6% 41.3% 14.4% 11.0% 24.5% 21.2% 20.8% 4.4% 1.8% 8.0% 9.5% 1,320 PKR 2,640 PKR 4,000 PKR 2,772 PKR 5,544 PKR 8,400 PKR Type 1 (1,320 - 4,000 PKR) Type 2 (2,772 - 8,400 PKR) Never Over 24 Months Over 12 Months Over 6 Months Paying in Full Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Affordability is the biggest challenge to transition to an improved cookstove. Among households never willing to pay for the improved stoves, 68 percent of households reported that this was because they could not afford it (Table 8). More than half of households not accepting the improved stove offers belong to the bottom two expenditure quintiles (Figure 97). Another barrier to the transition is that people do not perceive a need for improved stoves; 26.6 percent 12.7% of households gave this reason (Table 8). To increase clean cooking practices in Pakistan, it would be crucial to financially support poor households making a transition to improved stoves, and to actively implement campaigns to advertise the positive 16.9% Top 20% health impact of clean stoves. 15.3% 4th Quintile 3rd Quintile Table 8. Reasons for Not Accepting the Offer (% of households 21.0% never willing to pay for an improved stove) 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% 34.2% Cannot afford the payment 68.0% Do not need an improved cookstove 26.6% Fuel for this stove is unreliable 4.2% Fuel for this stove is not available 1.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% Pakistan 12.1% 5.4% 26.6% 47.1% 6.3% 2.6% Bangladesh 68 6.3% 15.3% 11.5% 31.7% 17.9% 17.3% Nepal IV. Access to modern energy cooking services Figure 97. Households Never Willing to Pay for an Improved Stove, by Expenditure Quintile 12.7% 16.9% Top 20% 15.3% 4th Quintile 3rd Quintile 21.0% 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% 34.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% Pakistan As demonstrated by the survey, only 44.3 percent of households in Pakistan have access to clean cooking options,12.1% 5.4% with the access rate26.6% 47.1% falling in rural areas to 28.1 6.3% 2.6% needs to percent. The government make a concerted effort to improve access to clean cooking, given that the use of traditional fuels for Bangladesh cooking is a major cause of indoor air pollution associated with respiratory disease. The government 6.3% 15.3% 11.5% 31.7% 17.9% 17.3% should develop a comprehensive strategy to address this issue. The following are a few of the steps the government Nepal can take to increase access: • Encourage the use of clean fuels: The government of Pakistan can launch a campaign to encourage Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 households to switch from traditional fuels to cleaner alternatives such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, or electricity. These are feasible options for relatively better off households who can afford to pay for these alternative solutions (provided that accessibility is not an issue). • Promote the use of efficient stoves: For many low-income and vulnerable households, clean cooking options such as LPG and electricity will be unaffordable and inaccessible, so they would continue to rely on biomass. For such households, the government should work to develop and promote low-cost, efficient, low-emissions cookstoves, especially indigenous solutions. • Promote research and development: Allocate resources for research and development activities focused on indigenous solutions that help to reduce the capital cost for the end-user. This can involve collaborating with local universities, research institutions, and experts to identify and develop innovative, culturally appropriate, and efficient cooking technologies. • Launch awareness and education campaigns: The government should initiate campaigns to educate the public about the benefits of indigenous clean cooking solutions. It should promote traditional cooking methods that are sustainable, use locally available resources, and have a low environmental impact. Highlight the cultural significance, health benefits, and cost-effectiveness of such solutions. • Collaborate: Foster partnerships between the government, non-profit organizations, community- based organizations, and local businesses to promote indigenous clean cooking solutions. These collaborations can help in scaling up production, distribution, and marketing of the technologies while ensuring community engagement and ownership. 69 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework • Provide targeted subsidies for clean cooking solutions: In view of the concentration of the piped gas network and LPG among richer urban households, the government should redirect the current subsidy for piped gas consumption to low-income rural households using traditional methods for cooking. This could include well targeted subsidies, through direct cash transfer, or other incentives to make clean fuels more affordable and accessible for low-income households. • Set up microfinance schemes: Pakistan could establish microfinance schemes that would provide loans to poor households to purchase clean cooking stoves. This would enable households to access LPG without burdensome upfront costs. 70 APPENDICES 71 12.7% PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework 16.9% Top 20% APPENDIX 1. 15.3% 4th Quintile 3rd Quintile Nationwide Aggregate Electricity Tier 21.0% Distribution 2nd Quintile of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal Bottom 20% 34.2% Nationwide Aggregate Electricity Tier Distribution of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal 7.3% 19.5% 52.5% 17.7% 3.0% Pakistan 12.1% 5.4% 26.6% 47.1% 6.3% 2.6% Bangladesh 6.3% 15.3% 11.5% 31.7% 17.9% 17.3% Nepal Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022; Pinto et al. 2019; Samad et al. 2019 72 Appendices APPENDIX 2. Electricity Cost Calculation and Protected Tariff ELECTRICITY COST CALCULATION 1. Notified protected tariff for the survey period Consumed Unit per Month (kWh) Unit Charges (PKR/kWh) 1 to 100 7.74 kWh Source: Pakistan National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), n.d. 2. Other taxes and charges 1) Financing cost surcharge (FC Surcharge): 0.43 Rupee per unit = 0.43 x unit 2) Sales Tax (GST): 17% of the electricity cost = 0.17 x (unit x tariff) 3. Consumption of 100 kWh per month = (Unit of 100 x Tariff) + (FC Surcharge) + (GST) = (100 x 7.74 PKR) + (0.43 x100) + (0.17 x (100 x 7.74 PKR)) = 948.58 PKR ~ 949 PKR 73 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework APPENDIX 3: Pakistan Gender Overview Nationwide Distribution of Households, by Sex of Household Head 97.8% 2.2% Nationwide 97.8% Female-headed Male-headed 2.2% 97.8% 2.2% Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 Nationwide Nationwide 0.2% 3.4% 91.6% 4.7% 0.2% Male-headed Female-headed Male Head Male-headed Female-headed Marital Status of Household Head, by Sex 2.2% 1.6% 20.5% 75.8% 0.2% 3.4% 91.6% 0.2% Female Head 3.4% 91.6% 4.7% 0.2% 4.7% 0.2% Male Head Male Head Unmarried/Never Married Currently Married Widow/widower 2.2% 1.6% 20.5% 75.8% 2.2% 1.6% 20.5% Divorced Separated 75.8% Female Head Female Head Unmarried/Never Married Currently Married Widow/widower Unmarried/Never Married Currently Married Widow/widower Divorced Separated Divorced Separated Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 7.7% 20.3% Top 20% 19.8% Nationwide Distribution of Household Based on Sex of Household Head, by Expenditure Quintile 20.0% 4th Quintile 20.3% 20.0% 3rd Quintile 7.7% 15.8% 20.3% 7.7% Top 20% 20.3% 20.0% 19.8% Top Quintile 2nd 20% 19.8% 36.4% 20.0% 4th Quintile 20.0% 19.7% 20.3% Bottom 4th 20% Quintile 20.3% 20.0% 3rd Quintile 20.0% 15.8% 3rd Quintile Male-headed Female-headed 15.8% 20.0% 2nd Quintile 20.0% 36.4% 2nd Quintile 19.7% 36.4% Bottom 20% 19.7% Bottom 20% Male-headed Female-headed Male-headed Female-headed Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 63.0% Ever Attended School 23.5% 85.5% Employed for the Last 12 Months 35.2% 63.0% Ever Attended School 23.5% 63.0% Ever Attended School 23.5% Male-headed Female-headed 85.5% Employed for the Last 12 Months 85.5% Employed for the Last 12 Months 35.2% 74 35.2% Male-headed Female-headed Male-headed Female-headed Appendices Household Head’s Education and Employment, by Sex of Household Head, Nationwide 63.0% Ever Attended School 23.5% 85.5% Employed for the Last 12 Months 35.2% Male-headed Female-headed Source: “Pakistan Energy Survey” 2022 75 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework APPENDIX 4: MTF Electricity Tier Matrix for Public Institutions Surveys TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTE TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Appliance ≥ 3W & ≥ 50W & ≥ 200W & - ≥800W - Capacity < 50W < 200W < 800W Capacity Main Off-grid Off-grid Off-grid National Off-grid solar, Electricity - solar, solar, solar, Grid or generator Source generator generator generator Mini- Grid Min 50% Min 75% Min 95% Availability < 2 hrs Min 2 hrs Min 4 hrs of working of working of working hours hours hours (4-14 disruptions) (Disruptions OR ≤ 3) Disruptions (≤ 3 Reliability - AND > 14 disruptions & (Duration < 2 hrs) ≥ 2 hrs duration) With voltage No voltage Quality - - issues issues Formality - Informal Formal Had past Safe, no Safety - - accidents accidents Note: Each attribute has a different tier score range. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that are not required to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers. Hence the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015 76 Appendices APPENDIX 5. MTF Electricity Tier Matrix for the Microenterprise Survey TIER SCORE ATTRIBUTE TIER 0 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5 Power ≥ 3W & ≥ 50W & ≥ 200W - ≥800W - Capacity < 50W < 200W & < 800W Daily Supply Capacity - Min 12 Wh Min 200 Wh Min 1.0 kWh Min 3.4 kWh Min 8.2 kWh Capacity Electricity Solar Solar home Generator Generator or - Grid Source lanterns systems or mini-grid grid min 50% Min 75% Min 95% Availability < 2 hrs Min 2 hrs Min 4 hrs of working of working of working hours hours hours (4-14 disruptions) (Disruptions OR ≤ 3) Disruptions (≤ 3 Reliability - AND > 14 disruptions & (duration < 2 hrs) ≥ 2 hrs duration) With voltage No voltage Quality - - issues issues Formality - Informal Formal Had past Safe, no Safety - - accidents accidents Note: Each attribute has a different tier score range. A gray cell or block refers to a tier or tiers that are not required to contribute to the relevant score range. For example, a binary/bipolar situation will require only two tiers. Hence the apparently discontinuous or partial sequences of tiers illustrated. Source: Bhatia and Angelou 2015 77 APPENDIX APPENDIX 6: Picture References Picture References 6:Pakistan of of Pakistan Cookstoves Typology Cookstoves Fuel Type Pictures Commented [HC1]: Pictures in thi photo file We can d Traditional/locally Firewood, an internal report, and I do not ha Typology built stove Fuel agricultural waste, Type Pictures photo files. Let me know if this wo Typology Fuel TypePAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into thePictures true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier sawdust bricks, Framework Traditional/locally Firewood, twigs We can discuss. Traditional/locally Firewood, built stove agricultural waste, built stove agricultural waste, APPENDIX 6:sawdust bricks, sawdust bricks, twigs twigs Picture References of Pakistan Cookstoves APPENDIX 6: Picture References of Pakistan Cookstoves Commented [HC1]: Pictures in this section an internal report, and I do not have their o Typology Fuel Type Pictures photo files. Let me know if this would be a p Typology Fuel Type Pictures We can discuss. Traditional/locally Traditional/locally Firewood, Firewood, built stove built stove agricultural agricultural waste, waste, sawdust sawdust bricks, bricks, Improved Biomass: firewood; twigs twigs cookstoves dung cakes; coal; (manufactured other types of biomass stoves) biomass Improved Biomass: firewood; Improved Improved Biomass: firewood;Biomass: firewood; cookstoves cookstoves dung cakes; coal; dung cakes; coal; cookstoves dung cakes; coal; (manufactured Clean fueother other (manufacturedtypes of other types of (manufactured l stoves types of biomass stoves) PNbiomass G, LPG Clean biomass fuel stoves stoves) PNG, LPG biomass biomass stoves) biomass Improved Biomass: firewood; Clean fuel stoves cookstoves PN dung G, LPG cakes; coal; (manufactured other types of Clean fuel stoves biomass stoves) biomass PNG, LPG Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd., 2021 Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd., 2021 78 Source: Associates in Developme nt (Aid) Ltd., 2021 Appendices APPENDIX 7. Improved Cookstoves Offered for the Willingness-to-pay Module APPENDIX 7. Improved Cookstoves Offered for the Willingness-to-pay Module APPENDIX 7. Improved Cookstoves Offered for the Willingness-to-pay Module Type 1 Type 1 Jaan Jaan Pakistan Pakistan Supreme Supreme CookingStove Cooking Stove(Tier 1, (Tier1, pricepoints price offered:PKR pointsoffered: PKR1,320–4,000) 1,320–4,000) Type 1 Item Jaan Pakistan Supreme Description Image 1,320–4,000) Cooking Stove (Tier 1, price points offered: PKRImage Item Description Jaan Pakistan - Price: approx. PKR 3,500 Item Description Image Supreme Cooking Jaan Pakistan - Fuel • Price: PKR 3,500 1.5 kg firewood consumption: approx. Supreme Jaan Pakistan Cooking - Price: approx. PKR 3,500 Stove • Fuel (about 40% less 1.5than a conventional Stove Supreme Cooking (about - consumption: Fuel consumption: kg firewood 1.5 kg firewood cooking 40% less stove) than a conventional Stove (about 40% less than a conventional - Meal cooking size: 6–8 persons stove) cooking stove) - - size: • Meal Cooking6–8 Meal size: time: persons 40–50 minutes 6–8 persons - Expected - Cooking • Cooking average time: 40–50 life period 40–50 time: minutes minutesof the product: - Expected 3–5 years average life period • Expected average life period of the of the - Benefits: product: small, portable, less hazardous 3–5 years product: 3–5 years - to health, tested Benefits: at a regional small, portable, lesslaboratory hazardous • Benefits: small, portable, less in toNepal health, tested at a regional laboratory hazardous to health, tested at a in Nepal regional laboratory in Nepal Type Type 22 Royal Royal Bio BioEnergy EnergyGasifier DomesticStove GasifierDomestic Type Stove(Tier (Tier2,2price 2, pointsoffered: pricepoints offered: PKR PKR 2,772–8,400) 2,772–8,400) Royal Bio Energy Gasifier Domestic Item Stove (Tier 2, price points offered: PKR Description 2,772–8,400) Image Item Item Description Description Image Image 4G Royal Bio - Price: approx. PKR 6,000 before tax 4G Royal Energy Bio Price: - - Fuel 6,000 before tax approx. PKR0.75–0.85 4G Royal Bio Gasifier • Price: PKR 6,000 before taxkg consumption: approx. Energy Gasifier Fuel consumption: - pellets/wood 0.75–0.85 kg a Energy Domestic Gasifier • Fuel consumption: chips (50% 0.75–0.85 less than kg less than a Domestic Cookstove pellets/wood conventional chips cooking (50% stove) Domestic pellets/wood (50% less chips cooking than a Cookstove conventional stove) Cookstove - Meal conventional size: 6 persons cooking stove) - Meal size: 6 persons - Cooking time: 45–60 minutes • - size: Meal 6 persons Cooking time: 45–60 minutes - Expected product life: 2–3 years • - Cooking Expected product time: 45–60 life: 2–3 years minutes - - Benefits: High fuel efficiency, high Benefits: High fuel efficiency, high • Expected product intensity life: flame, 2–3 years and low ecofriendly intensity flame, ecofriendly and low • greenhouse Benefits: High fuel greenhouse gas emissions efficiency, gas emissionshigh intensity flame, ecofriendly and low greenhouse gas emissions Source: Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd. 2021 Source: Source:Associates Associatesinin Development (Aid) Development Ltd. (Aid) 2021 Ltd. 2021 i i 3 3 79 PAKISTAN ENERGY SURVEY | Insights into the true energy access situation in Pakistan based on the Multi-Tier Framework REFERENCES “Access to electricity (% of population) – Pakistan.” n.d. World Bank Open Data. The World Bank. Associates in Development (Aid) Ltd. 2022. “Household Survey Field Completion Report.” ———. n.d. “Inception Report.” ———. 2021. “Market Research Report for Updation of Survey Questionnaires – National Energy Survey Pakistan.” Bhatia, Mikul, and Niki Angelou. 2015. “Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined.” ESMAP Technical Report 008/15. Washington, DC: World Bank. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). 2020. “The State of Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. Government of Pakistan. 2019. “Pakistan’s Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - Voluntary National Review.” Government of Pakistan Finance Division. 2022. “Pakistan Economic Survey 2021-2022.” IEA, IRENA, UNSD, World Bank, WHO. 2021. “Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report.” Washington DC: World Bank. IEA, IRENA, UNSD, World Bank, WHO. 2023. “Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report.” Washington, DC: World Bank. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). 2020. “State of Industry Report 2020.” National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) - Pakistan, and ICF. 2019. “Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2017–18.” Islamabad, Pakistan, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: National Institute of Population Studies and ICF. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority. 2023a. SRO NOTIFICATION FOR PUBLIACTION IN THE GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN (EXTRA ORDINARY). Vol. OGRA-10-3(8)/2020. ———. 2023b. SRO NOTIFICATION FOR PUBLIACTION IN THE GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN (EXTRA ORDINARY). Vol. OGRA-Fin-28-11(6)/2018. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. 2021. “Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) 2019–20.” Islamabad: Pakistan Ministry of Planning Development & Special Initiatives. “Pakistan Energy Survey.” 2022. Washington, DC: Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) and World Bank. Pakistan Ministry of Planning, Development, and Special Initiatives. 2022. “Pakistan Floods 2022: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA).” Pakistan National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). n.d. “Consumer-End Applicable Tariff.” Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pinto, Alisha, Han Kyul Yoo, Elisa Portale, and Dana Rysankova. 2019. “Nepal – Beyond Connections.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. Samad, Hussain A., Bryan Bonsuk Koo, Dana Rysankova, and Elisa Portale. 2019. “Bangladesh – beyond Connections.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. The World Bank. Forthcoming. “Least Cost Electrification Study.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. 80 World Bank. 2017. “Pakistan Off-Grid Lighting Consumer Perceptions: Study Overview.” Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2020. “Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Leveling the Playing Field. Systematic Country Diagnostic.” Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank, and International Energy Agency. 2013. “Global Tracking Framework 2013.”