The Benefits and Complexities of Distributed Generation: Two Energy Trajectories in Laos and Thailand

Abstract

This article aims to offer insight into the benefits and complexities of distributed generation and provide a critique of mainstream theories about energy transitions. It does so through the analysis of two village-based case studies, in Laos and Thailand, respectively. The term ‘energy trajectory’ is introduced to analyse how changing energy systems in the two villages are related to changing energy practices and socio-economic development. A combination of data on energy use, interviews and observation in the villages provides a deep historical perspective of these changes over time. In both cases, decentralised micro-hydropower systems were built, followed later by connection to the national electricity grid. These changes provide an opportunity for close-up investigation of local energy transitions over a relatively short period of time. In addition to some similarities, there are also major differences between the two energy trajectories. Besides the different economic and political contexts of Laos and Thailand, there is more involvement of development actors in the case of Laos than in the case from Thailand. However, the latter case shows more success in creating ownership for the people in the village. Both cases highlight the need to look at distributed generation projects as embedded in the wider development context and the political economy of electricity generation. The findings of this article challenge common conceptions and theorisation of energy transitions, related to contingency and the complexity of scalar interactions of the energy trajectories analysed. Finally, the article argues for better integration of distributed generation in policy and planning.

Keywords:

• energy trajectory
• energy transition
• decentralised electricity generation
• distributed generation
• energy practices
• Thailand
• Laos

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Hanna Kaisti and Mira Käkönen for putting together this special issue and for their comments on the concept and early draft of this article. The author cordially thanks Lada Phadungkiati, Busarin Lertchavalitsakul, Samuel Martin, Somsanith Mounphoxay and Somsy Manivanh for their help with data collection and interpretation. The author also thanks Professor Philip Hirsch and two anonymous referees for their constructive criticism and comments which helped to improve this article significantly.

Notes

¹The name Laos will be used as a shorthand for the full name Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (Lao PDR).

²Only recently, a deliberate effort is being made to use the sustainability transitions approach to engage with issues in Asia, for example, through a special issue of Technological Forecasting and Social Change (Berkhout et al., 2009)

³There was also a Nam Ka 2 dam, connecting four lowland Lao villages in the area. In this article, only Nam Ka 1 is discussed and subsequently referred to as Nam Ka micro-hydropower generator or simply ‘the system’.

⁴Exchange rate as per 1 July: 1 USD = 8000 LAK.

⁵Exchange rate as per 1 January 2011: 1 USD = 30.0 THB

⁶Different data sources have been combined to create the graph in Figure 6. The first 6 months of energy use have been collected by Sunlabob and Helvetas after that. There are several data points missing: June and July 2007, and between January 2008 and May 2009, there is only 1 month of data available, August 2008. The available data points have been connected, assuming similar electricity use during those periods.

⁷Two types of data have been used to create this graph. The first set of data is based on the money collected by the micro-hydropower cooperative. In order to convert this data into kWh, it has to be divided by the electricity price, 0.067 USD/kWh. One of the complications with this method is that the base payment is 0.33 USD per household per month for the first 5 kWh, regardless of usage. Interviews indicate that many people do not actually use electricity but still pay for the monthly upkeep. Therefore, the calculations assume that 50 people pay 0.33 USD per month, but do not use the electricity. The data from the Provincial Electricity Authority are more straightforward, but are unfortunately only available since January 2009. Therefore, a linear trend line has been added to avoid the impression that no PEA electricity was used before 2009.

⁸This issue is described in more detail in Smits (2011).

⁹This is also the reason why it is inappropriate to call it a national electricity grid.

¹⁰This graph does not include the Nam Theun 2 dam, which started operating in March 2010.

¹¹Which can be quite substantial, taken into account not just the infrastructure, but also avoided future electricity generation costs and environmental impacts (e.g. carbon) associated with this.

¹²An exception to this is pico-hydropower turbines in Laos which have actually flourished in spite of the lack of institutional support (Smits and Bush, 2010).