Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Electricity for all: The contribution of large-scale planning tools to the

energy-access problem
Pedro Ciller *, Sara Lumbreras
Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), ICAI School of Engineering, Comillas Pontifical University, Santa Cruz de Marcenado 26, 28015, Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is a huge need for investment for the electrification of rural areas in developing countries. Any effective
Electricity access approach to this enormous task requires strategic planning that combines diverse electrification modes: grid
Rural electrification extension, mini-grids, and stand-alone systems. Advanced computer tools are necessary to support planners. This
Electrification methodology
paper reviews the existing techniques, software tools, and approaches that can contribute to this job. We propose
Energy technology
Planning model
a comprehensive but compact mathematical formulation of rural electrification planning as an optimization
Software tool problem. This general formulation establishes a common ground for a critical review of the different tools and
solution methods and allows the identification of the primary research needs in this field.

Decision-makers must be aware of different factors that define the

1. Motivation: the challenge of access to electricity
About 840 million people worldwide lack access to electricity,
mainly in rural areas in Sub-Saharan Africa [1], and it is systematically
in the rural areas where the deficit of electrification is the most preva­
lent. There is not a globally accepted definition of access to energy,
which may be translated into an erroneous perception of the problem
since a village with 10% of electrified households may be considered to
be electrified [2]. Indeed, electricity is often used to meet the basic needs
of households and other facilities (such as schools and health centers),
often neglecting the remaining needs. The Sustainable Energy for All
(SE4All) project introduced a multi-tier framework with several levels of
electricity access (or tiers) to consider the different levels of electrifica­
tion. This multi-tiered framework [3] has been officially adopted by the
World Bank (WB) to get a more accurate representation of electrification
in its projects.
Establishing the planning agenda of a large-scale rural electrification
project is a complex issue that requires a multidisciplinary approach.
problem, such as cost, long-term sustainability, regulatory issues, local
constraints, or specific preferences to determine the best course of action
[4]. These factors strongly relate to each local context and, therefore,
each region requires a unique tailor-made solution. In principle, a rural
electrification plan must search for the best compromise between
minimizing the cost of supply and the quality of the service provided.
There is a growing consensus on the fact that a plan should be a com­
bination of off-grid and on-grid systems [5]. Social preferences and other
human factors should also be considered [6,7]. The value that con­
sumers give to the reliability level depends on many factors, as well as
their preference for a particular electrification mode or a specific gen­
eration technology despite a higher cost. Moreover, the existing regu­
latory framework can profoundly impact the selection of an
electrification plan. Some policies can promote specific renewable en­
ergies such as solar or wind or encourage the reduction of fossil fuels.
Besides, the beneficiaries of the electrification project can and should be
involved in the process. Although policymakers and utilities play the
most prominent role in electrification planning, other players such as

Abbreviations: AC, Alternating Current; CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energ� eticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol�ogicas; DC, Direct Current; DER-CAM,
Distributed Energy Resources - Customer Adoption Model; DL, Distribution Layout; DP, Development Pole; EF, Electric Feasibility; EFOM, Energy Flow Optimization
Model; GIS, Geographic Information Systems; HOMER, Hybrid Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources; HV, High Voltage; IED, Innovation Energie
D�
eveloppement; IIT, Instituto de Investigaci�on Tecnol�
ogica; KTH, Royal Institute of Technology; LAPER, Logiciel d’Aide �
a la Planification d’Electrification
� Rurale;
LCOE, Levelized Cost of Electricity; LV, Low Voltage; MARKAL, MARKet Allocation; MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MILP, Mixed Integer Linear Pro­
gramming; MINLP, Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming; MV, Medium-Voltage; NGO, Non-Governmental Organization; NL, Network Layout; NSE, Non-Served
Energy; OSeMOSYS, Open Source Energy Modelling System; OnSSET, Open Source Spatial Electrification Tool; REM, Reference Electrification Model; RLI, Renier
Lemoine Institut; RNM, Reference Network Model; SDG 7, Seventh Sustainable Development Goal; SE4All, Sustainable Energy for All; T, Topography; TE, Trans­
mission Expansion; TIMES, The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System; UR, Upstream Reinforcements; WB, World Bank.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pciller@comillas.edu (P. Ciller).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109624
Received 10 June 2019; Received in revised form 21 November 2019; Accepted 24 November 2019
Available online 19 December 2019
1364-0321/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
Nomenclature:
SETS
N supply and demand nodes
I2N demand nodes (households, schools, health centers, etc.)
S2N supply nodes (already existing network candidate
connection points)
Y off-grid elements (generation technologies and batteries)
and grid extension components (MV/LV substations)
G2Y off-grid elements (generation technologies and batteries)
and on grid generation
Z2Y other elements related to the grid-extension designs
(namely MV/LV substations)
O2G components of the off-grid system that are not generation
technologies (namely batteries)
T2G generation elements, both off-grid (namely diesel, solar
and wind) and on-grid (where the category used will be
grid extension)
C available elements of the catalogue for each generation
technology (including lines for grid extension)
H hours for the period considered (usually one year: 8760 h)
V Voltage levels (namely low voltage and medium voltage)
PARAMETERS
annualfactory fraction of the cost of the y-th element that is
amortized in one fiscal year. It depends on its lifetime, the
discount rate considered and its total cost
capyc capacity of the c-th element of the catalogue associated
with the element y [kW]
cinvyc investment cost required to acquire an element y of
capacity c [$]
cfuel market price for diesel [$/liter]
clijvc investment cost of the c-th catalogue line of voltage v
between nodes i and j [$]
cO&My annual operation and maintenance cost of element y
expressed as a fraction of investment cost [p.u.]
demandih demand of node i at hour h [kWh]
emissions diesel emissions per liter [emissions/liter]
εdiesel efficiency of diesel generators [liters/kW]
εnetwork network efficiency [p.u.]
εcharge efficiency of battery charge [p.u.]
εdischarge efficiency of the battery discharge [p.u.]
M big-M parameter (sufficiently large number used in
disjunctive constraints)
capacityy maximum capacity of generation, batteries, and
substations installed [kW]
capacity y minimum capacity of generation, batteries, and
substations installed [kW]
chargei maximum hourly charge for the battery located in node i
[kWh]
charge i minimum hourly charge for the battery located in node i
[kWh]
local entrepreneurs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may
intervene as well. The adopted business model varies with the structure
of the power sector or the level of participation of private investors in
the typically publicly-owned incumbent distribution utility [8].
Fig. 1 shows the different steps of the rural electrification process.
Although they are represented as independent steps in a sequential
process, in practice, these are usually implemented in a series of itera­
tions during the timeframe of the process, which may take several years.
For example, the definition of the problem may change in the middle of
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
soc maximum allowed state of charge of the battery [p.u.]
soc minimum allowed state of charge of the battery [p.u.]
profileiht maximum generation profile in node i at hour h for
generation technology t [kWh]
profile iht minimum generation profile in node i at hour h for
generation technology t [kWh]
plimijvc capacity limit of the c-th catalogue line of voltage v
between nodes i; j [kW]
reactanceij reactance of the candidate line between nodes i; j [Ω]
sbase base power [kW]
xijvc reactance of the c-th catalogue line of voltage v between
nodes i; j [p.u.]
VARIABLES
CAPiy positive variable that accounts for the capacity of the y-th
element installed at node i [kW]
CDECiyc positive variable used to express the capacity cost CAPiy
with a piecewise linear function
BINCiyc binary variable that takes the value 1 if CDECiyc (and
therefore CAPiy ) is between capyðc 1Þ and capyc
Вiz binary variable that takes the value 1 if an only if there is a
z element (namely an MV/LV substation) located in node i
CHARGEih positive variable that accounts for how much the battery
is charged in node i at hour h
DISCHARGEih positive variable that accounts for how much the
battery is discharged in node i at hour h
CINViy positive variable that accounts for the investment cost
associated with element ylocated at node i
TOTCINVy positive variable related to the total investment cost
associated with element y
CFUELi positive variable related to the fuel cost associated to the
diesel generator located at node i
Ξihðt¼gensetÞ binary variable that describes the commitment of a diesel
generator (it takes the value 1 if the generator at node i is
on at hour h, and 0 otherwise)
TECHGENihg positive variable related to the real power generated at
node i by technology g at hour h [kWh]
GENih positive variable related to the real power generated at
node i in hour h, either with a microgrid generator or with
a grid extension of the distribution network [kWh]
Pijhvc free variable related to the directed power flow that goes
through node i to node j at hour h through the c-th
catalogue line of voltage v [kW]
Pþ
ijhvc positive variable that takes the value Pi;j;h;v;c if Pi;j;h;v;c is
positive and takes the value 0 otherwise
SOCih positive variable related to the state of charge of the
battery located at node i in hour h [p.u.]
Θih phase angle at node i [radians]
XLijvc binary variable that takes the value 1 if nodes i; j are
connected with the c-th catalogue line of voltage v
Fig. 1. Rural electrification process. Source: adapted from Ref. [9].
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
the process to accommodate to a new political scenario and, although
this may not affect the second step, it may be necessary to incorporate
new political constraints into the techno-economic solutions provided in
the third step.
The first step consists in defining the problem. The main goals of the
project are established, defining the region to be analyzed (which may
be a large-scale area or even an entire country), the electrification target,
the available budget and the timeframe of the process. The regulatory
framework and political context shape the problem as well. Some
countries may subsidize the use of green energy or penalize emissions; if
this is the case, such constraints should be incorporated into the process.
The second step is related to collecting the relevant data such as the
location of the consumers and their demand profiles, the location of the
existing power grid, renewable source availability such as solar irradi­
ance and wind speed, the available components for generation and
network and the topography of the region. The available components
limit the feasible techno-economic solutions in step 3. Data gathering
turns out to be one of the most time-consuming tasks in the whole
process since accurate data are usually scarce and hard to find. Some­
times it is necessary to cross information from several databases and
process it to obtain an estimation of the relevant inputs. The authors
think that the data gathering process has not received enough attention
in the literature, being section 3.3 from Ref. [10] an exception. In order
to deal with this issue, some tools exploit Geographic Information Sys­
tems (GIS) capabilities to provide instant access to updated geospatial
information and combine it with, for example, the multi-tier approach
proposed by the WB for demand estimations [11].
The third step calls for the application of rural electrification plan­
ning tools. They assist in finding the best electrification planning solu­
tion for the problem defined in the first step with the data gathered in
the second step. To achieve this, it is necessary to determine which
consumers are better electrified with grid extensions designs and who
would benefit more from off-grid systems.
Next, the solution is implemented. It is essential to consider the
preferences of the consumers since, for example, some villages could
prefer to be electrified with mini-grids, although the best techno-
economic solution involves grid extensions to electrify them. In prac­
tice, it may be necessary to conduct field interviews for the final
implementation.
Universal access to energy is recognized as a key development goal,
and as such has been included in the seventh Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG 7) established by the United Nations. The SDG 7 urges for
universal access by 2030, which implies formidable short and medium-
term investment (about 55 billion dollars per year [12]). Without a
substantial effort, 650 million people will not have access to electricity
by 2030 [1]. Moreover, the number of people without access to clean
cooking facilities is around 3 billion, and it has not improved substan­
tially in recent years. This poses considerable health risks, as the use of
polluting technologies to cook causes around 4 million deaths per year
[1]. Air pollution is the most important environmental cause of death in
developing countries, identified as the cause of most chronic lung dis­
eases and respiratory tract cancers [13]. The rural electrification prob­
lem has grown to be one of the most impending challenges in power
systems planning, even expected to grow in importance given the elec­
trification targets that should be met in the next few decades.
The magnitude of the problem justifies the use of tools that can
support electricity planning initiatives to make the necessary investment
as efficient as possible. Although there are political and social factors
that may condition these plans, the process can be improved with the use
of rigorous data and tools [14]. Since incorporating all the relevant as­
pects into a single model is unfeasible, the existing software tools tend to
focus on the techno-economic part of the problem, trying to find some
least-cost solution. These models undoubtedly facilitate the planning
process, but they do not substitute human intervention, which must be
able to incorporate into the final solution all the additional factors
mentioned above.
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
Several reviews deal with specific aspects of rural electrification. As a
particular issue that can have important uses in rural electrification, the
use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in renewable energy pro­
jects has been studied [15]. An overview of different types of energy
models is provided in Ref. [16], and a meta-analysis of the most relevant
studies that compare both grid-connected and off-grid systems has been
published [17].
A part of the literature addresses the rural electrification planning
problem at a small scale (i.e., focusing on an individual system that
usually represents a village or a community). Ref. [18] presents the main
techniques used to find the best generation design for a hybrid system.
These techniques are the basis of many generation sizing software tools
[19] that have been applied in numerous projects [20]. Ref. [21] clas­
sifies the main methodologies for off-grid electrification projects.
However, there are still no publications that consider the large-scale
(i.e., aiming at an entire country or region) techno-economic rural
electrification planning problem as a whole, defining it in its most
general scope and linking its different dimensions to the tools that have
been proposed to tackle it in the academic literature and as software
tools. Ref. [22] tries to establish a framework to analyze energy planning
tools in the context of developing countries, but it does not perform a
sound technical analysis, and the number of tools and methods it con­
siders is reduced. Ref. [23] analyzes several general energy planning
models and their application to developing countries, but the analysis is
performed from a broader perspective and does not include the specific
tools mentioned in this paper. This paper provides a comprehensive
overview of the problem and the tools available to solve it at the
large-scale level, and it points to the most critical areas where additional
research is needed.
The contributions of this paper are the following:
� It comprehensively defines the techno-economic rural electrification
problem, including a general formulation that provides a common
ground to compare tools and methodologies. This formulation was
missing in the literature.
� It includes a critical review of academic studies and software tools
related to the large-scale techno-economic rural electrification
planning problem, incorporating considerations about both
modeling and solution methods.
� As a result of this analysis, this paper provides a list of what the
authors consider the main challenges that should be addressed by the
rural-electrification community.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, Section 2 gives an
overview of the techno-economic rural electrification planning problem.
Section 3 defines the variables involved and proposes a formulation to
encourage a common basis for discussion. Then, section 4 presents the
most important works and classifies them according to their modeling
complexity and computation speed. Both academic studies and com­
mercial tools are included in this classification. When presenting the
classification, the main advantages and caveats of each modeling or
solution choice are discussed. In addition, a concise summary of this
analysis is presented in the form of summary tables for easy inspection.
Section 5 extracts conclusions and presents a list of what, according to
the authors, should be the main future lines of research to be able to rise
to the challenges that rural electrification will present in the next
decades.
2. The rural electrification problem
From a strictly techno-economic point of view, the rural electrifica­
tion problem consists of determining the combination of stand-alone
systems, microgrids and grid-extensions, and their corresponding spe­
cific designs, which optimizes the trade-off between cost and reliability
of supply to some pre-specified ensemble of consumers, subject to any
constraints that may exist. Planning for an isolated region would
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624

constitute a particular case of this problem since, in this case, grid- are few references related to clustering applications to the rural elec­
extension is not a feasible electrification solution. Even when limiting trification planning problem in the literature such as [24], although this
the scope of the problem to the techno-economic aspect, the number of process has manual steps and cannot be adapted easily to large-scale
decision variables that are needed to characterize an electrification plan cases. Another example is [25], but this reference does not consider
is very high. The most important ones are: the off-grid technologies and their costs in the process. Most tools and
methodologies require the user to define the clusters beforehand and
� The chosen electrification mode for each consumer (grid extension, introduce them as inputs (villages, settlements or cells), although a few
mini-grid or stand-alone) and the set of consumers it belongs to (grid tools such as GEOSIM, the Open Source Spatial Electrification Tool
extension feeder or mini-grid). (OnSSET) and the Reference Electrification Model (REM) include a
� The generation design for each off-grid system (generation and clustering algorithm. Fig. 3 shows a clustering example obtained with
storage technologies, capacities and locations) and its dispatch the REM model. The grid-extension clusters are obtained by grouping
strategy (i.e., which generation technologies are used to satisfy de­ the consumers for candidate grid-extension designs. It is important to
mand at each specific hour). highlight that the final electrification mode of a grid-extension cluster
� The network design of each microgrid and grid extension: voltage, does not need to be a grid extension (REM decides that later with a cost
type, and layout of distribution lines, as well as the location and the comparison between off-grid and grid extension solutions). Consumers
capacity of any new substations. that belong to the same cluster are represented as points that have the
� Upstream reinforcements or additional generation resources that same color in Fig. 3. The location of consumers often follows roads or
might be needed upstream. rivers, which is reflected in their spatial representation.
The off-grid generation design or generation sizing problem consists
Some of the decision variables of this problem, which corresponds to
the third step shown in Fig. 1, are related to the three subproblems
shown in Fig. 2, which include (a) the generation sizing problem, (b) the
network design problem and (c) the clustering problem. Fig. 2 also
shows the most frequent objective functions considered for this problem
in the context of rural electrification. These three problems are inter­
connected: their solutions are not independent of the remaining prob­
lems. For example: in order to determine the generation and the network
of a mini-grid, it is necessary to solve the generation sizing and network
design problems for that specific mini-grid. However, it is necessary to
group the consumers first to determine the candidate mini-grids (clus­
tering problem), but a proper clustering of consumers into mini-grids
needs to consider all the costs related to mini-grids in the process, so
the clustering problem depends on the generation sizing and network
design results. It is important to highlight that the generation sizing and
the network design problems need to be solved a significant number of
times in the large-scale rural electrification planning problem, so a
direct application of methods that were designed to solve a single
instance of these problems may fail for computational reasons.
The clustering problem consists in grouping the consumers into the Fig. 3. REM’s grid extension clusters and the already-existing distribution
best candidate systems (isolated, microgrids, and grid extensions). There network (represented with black lines).

Fig. 2. The rural electrification problem.

4
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
of calculating the best generation design for a given off-grid system and
its corresponding demand. The inputs of the tools that aim at this
problem usually include demand patterns, costs, and technical charac­
teristics of the generation technologies. There are reviews related to the
methods used to sizing hybrid energy systems [18] as well as their
configurations and control methods [26]. The main software tools that
aim at sizing hybrid energy systems are discussed in Ref. [19]. Some of
the most widely-known microgrid generation design tools are the
Hybrid Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER)
[27] and the Distributed Energy Resources - Customer Adoption Model
(DER-CAM) [28]. Fig. 4 shows an example, obtained with the REM
model, of the daily dispatch of a mini-grid where a load-following
strategy is applied. A load-following strategy is a heuristic dispatch
where the resources used to meet the demand always follow the same
order: solar, battery, and diesel. If there is solar energy available after
meeting the demand, then it will be used to charge the battery. The
diesel generator is not used to charge the battery in the load-following
strategy. The dispatch shown in Fig. 4 uses solar energy to meet the
demand and charge the batteries during the day. The energy stored in
the batteries is used to meet the demand in the evening, and the diesel
generator meets the demand at night. However, the diesel generators
make noise when they operate, which is particularly unpleasant during
the night. A cycle-charging dispatch strategy could be implemented to
avoid using the diesel generator during the night. The circle-charging
dispatch strategy can operate the diesel generator at its maximum ca­
pacity when it is used, and charge the battery with the energy left after
meeting the demand. With the cycle-charging strategy, the diesel
generator could operate at its maximum capacity to meet the demand
and charge the batteries during the evening, and using the batteries to
Fig. 4. REM’s daily sample dispatch of a mini-grid. The black line represents its total demand.
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
meet the demand during the night.
The network design problem consists of obtaining the best power
distribution network for a given set of consumers. This definition in­
cludes the calculation of a network for a microgrid and a grid-extension.
The input of the tools that focus on this problem usually includes the
location of the consumers, the costs, and the technical information about
the available network components (lines and transformers). These tools
also require information about the already existing network to calculate
grid-extension designs. A review of the methodologies and tools used to
calculate the power distribution network has been recently published
[29]. One of the most powerful existing network design tools is the
Reference Network Model (RNM) [30], which is used in the REM model
to calculate network designs for grid extensions and mini-grids. Fig. 5
shows the projection onto Google Earth Pro of a grid-extension design
calculated with RNM, which calculates the layout of the Medium
Voltage (MV) and Low Voltage (LV) lines, and the location of the
transformers.
This review focuses on tools and methodologies that address the
large-scale techno-economic rural electrification planning problem.
There are several reasons to include only large-scale tools and methods
in the review. In the first place, some reviews already deal with the
methods [18] and tools [19] at a small-scale level. In the second place,
the nature of the problem is different since, in most cases, there is no
need to cluster the consumers when a village or a settlement is electri­
fied because all the village or settlement is electrified altogether as a
single system. Finally, the computational resources needed to solve a
small-scale problem are lower, allowing the use of classical optimization
techniques or computationally intensive procedures that would fail in a
large-scale problem.
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
Fig. 5. REM’s network design for a grid extension. The already-existing distribution network is represented with black lines.
The next section introduces a formulation of the techno-economic
rural electrification planning problem, which is used in Section 4 to
classify the tools and methodologies that address this problem at a large-
scale scope.
3. The rural electrification problem: a comprehensive
formulation
This section aims to provide a general perspective of the rural elec­
trification problem, pointing to the main approaches in the literature.
The existing mathematical formulations available describe the problem
only partially as they focus on a single village or community [31,32], or
include a reduced level of detail [33]. A general formulation –which was
missing in the literature– is very valuable to build comparisons and focus
discussions.
Large-scale tools deal with an extensive area such as a region or a
country and consider only a purely economic criterion for computa­
tional reasons. On a smaller scale, it is possible to consider other factors
Fig. 6. An example of a rural electrification problem and solution.
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
that go beyond cost, such as environmental impact. Other relevant
factors are social impact (measured by the amount of Non-Served En­
ergy (NSE) or job creation) and regulatory conditions (such as subsidies
or tax reduction for certain types of technologies).
In addition, it is vital for the success of a project to consider stake­
holder preferences. Often, this is undertaken by generating a small list of
non-dominated, feasible solutions. Then, the preferred solution is
identified as the candidate solution with the highest acceptance among
stakeholders [6]. However, Section 4 shows that there is no rural elec­
trification planning tool or methodology that optimizes a multicriteria
objective function that involves several of these factors.
As mentioned in Section 2, there are three different possibilities or
modes when it comes to providing access to electricity: though an
extension of the already existing network, using a microgrid or with
isolated systems. Fig. 6 shows an example of a mixed rural electrification
plan.
The electrification plan comprises the following decisions:
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624

� the best electrification mode for each building considered (grid Table 1
extension, microgrid or standalone system); Formulation constraints.
� the distribution network design for each microgrid and grid Group Description
extension;
Distribution network They determine the layout and capacities of lines and
� the generation design and dispatch strategy of each microgrid and constraints transformers included in distribution networks of
stand-alone system (including technology, size, and location); microgrids and grid extensions. They include geometric
� the location and characteristics of any additional MV/LV substations. considerations (constraints from 1 to 5) and electric
criteria (constraints from 6 to 13) that are frequently
considered in the network design problem shown in
The rest of this section comprehensively describes the rural electri­ Fig. 2.
fication problem. The formulation proposed has been developed to serve Generation constraints They determine the capacities of the off-grid equipment
as an illustration for the general statement of the problem and its most (constraints from 14 to 17) and the hourly dispatch
important features. The following simplifications, accurate but useful, (constraints from 18 to 24) of each microgrid and isolated
system. They are related to the generation sizing problem
have been adopted:
shown in Fig. 2.
Cost constraints They model the way that costs are computed (constraints
1. The formulation considers only generation costs and disregards the from 25 to 31) for each isolated system, microgrid, and
cost of other elements such as inverters and charge controllers, which grid extension design. The costs included account for the
are comparatively much cheaper. investment and operation cost of the elements of the
network and generation equipment.
2. Only one line can be installed between each pair of nodes. Parallel
lines are not considered in most projects, as demand profiles are
usually low compared to line capacities, so that parallel lines are not
usually useful. XLmnvc � Вmz 8ðm; n; c; zÞ 2 N 2 CZ; v ¼ fMVg 2 V (3)
3. The cost of losses is calculated in a simplified way.
4. The formulation assumes that upstream impacts are negligible. This XLmnvc � Вnz 8ðm; n; c; zÞ 2 N 2 CZ; v ¼ fMVg 2 V (4)
includes changes in the system-wide dispatch or needs for rein­ If a supply node does not have an MV/LV substation, then it cannot
forcement in the transmission network. be connected to a low-voltage line:
5. Standard network constraints such as voltage drops and reliability X
constraints are not considered given that they increase problem XLsnvc � Вnz ​ ​ ​ 8ðs; nÞ 2 SN; v ¼ fMVg 2 V (5)
complexity considerably. They can be included in subsequent c2C

analyses. The balance of generation minus demand at each node and the power
6. The capacity of the generation elements of the microgrid is consid­ used to charge batteries is equal to the power transmitted to the nodes
ered continuous, and linear piecewise functions approximate the that are connected to it (Kirchhoff’s First Law):
investment cost of these elements.
GENih þ DISCHARGEih CHARGEih demandih þ NSEih
7. Generators installed in a microgrid can be located only in buildings
that belong to the microgrid itself, and not outside of it. εnetwork
X (6)
8. The existing distribution network is discretized into a finite number ¼ Pijhvc 8i; h 2 NH
of candidate connection points, which are considered for grid-
j;h;v;c 2 NHVC

extension designs. Power flow equations must be satisfied (Kirchhoff’s Second Law):
� Θih Θjh
These simplifications are relatively widespread and appear in most plimijvc ⋅ 1 XLijv � Pijhvc ⋅ sbase � plimijvc
xijvc (7)
related works on this subject. �
Subsection 3.1 details the formulation. ⋅ 1 XLijv 8ði; j; h; v; cÞ 2 N 2 HVC

Θih ¼ 0 8h 2 H; i ¼ f1g 2 N (8)

3.1. Formulation
Power flows are bounded by capacity:
It is important to highlight that, although the rural electrification
planning problem has a dynamic and stochastic nature, the authors have plimijvc ⋅ XLijvc � Pijhvc � plimijvc ⋅ XLijvc 8ði; j; v; cÞ 2 N 2 VC (9)
opted for a static formulation, which is consistent with the approach The variable Вiz takes the value 1 if and only if CAPiz is strictly
found in the full list of the literature surveyed: for the time being, no greater than zero:
large-scale tool or methodology can handle multiple time horizons or
include robust optimization methods to effectively cope with un­ CAPnz
� Вnz � M⋅CAPnz 8ðn; zÞ 2 NZ (10)
certainties, which are frequent in developing countries due to the lack of M
reliable data. In this subsection, the constraints are classified into several The capacity of each MV/LV substation (if installed) is greater than
groups, which are described in Table 1, and the objective functions or equal to the power flow that flows from it:
considered are introduced later. X
CAPiz � Pþ
ijhvc M ⋅ ð1 Вiz Þ 8ði; zÞ 2 NZ (11)
j;v;c2NVC
3.1.1. Distribution network constraints
Demand nodes can host generation technologies different from grid
Pþ 2
ijhvc � Pijhvc 8ði; j; h; v; cÞ 2 N HVZ (12)
extension:
Demand at each node bounds NSE:
CAPig ¼ 0 8i 2 I; g ¼ fgrid extensiong 2 G (1)
NSEih � demandih 8ði; hÞ 2 IH (13)
Two nodes can only be connected through one line:
X
XLmnvc � 1 8ðm; nÞ 2 N 2 (2) 3.1.2. Generation constraints
v;c2VC The total generated power is the sum of the power generated by
If a node does not have an MV/LV substation installed, then it cannot technology:
belong to the medium voltage distribution network:

7
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624

X
GENih ¼ TECHGENiht 8ði; hÞ 2 IH (14)
t2T

Limits for the capacity of the generation elements and the battery:

capacity g � CAPig � capacityg 8ði; gÞ 2 IG (15)

The maximum generation allowed for each technology depends on

the capacity installed and a generation profile that depends on technical
parameters of the generation technology and resource availability (such
as solar irradiance or wind speed, among others). In the cases of MV/LV
substations and diesel generators, the generation profile may be
constant: Fig. 7. Linear interpolation of the investment costs.

TECHGENiht � CAPit ⋅ profileiht 8ði; h; tÞ 2 IHT (16)

X
The minimum generation allowed for each generation technology BINCiyc ¼ 1 8ði; gÞ 2 IðYnfgrid extensiongÞ (25)
depends on the capacity installed and a minimum generation profile.
c2C

This bound might not be useful if there is no actual minimum generation Only the capacity that is related to the active cost segment is
for a capacity: effective:
CAPit ⋅ profile iht � TECHGENiht 8ði; h; tÞ 2 IHðTnfgensetgÞ (17) cinvyðc 1Þ ⋅ BINCiyc � CDECiyc � cinvyc ⋅BINCiyc 8ði; y; cÞ

The state of charge of the battery at any hour depends on the state of 2 IðYnfgrid extensiongÞC (26)
charge of the previous hour and on how much the battery has been The capacity of an element is equal to its active capacity:
charged or discharged in the previous hour: X
CAPiy ¼ CDECiyc 8ði; mÞ 2 IðYnfgrid extensiongÞ (27)
SOCih ¼ SOCiðh 1Þ c2C

εcharge ⋅CHARGEiðh 1Þ þ DISCHARGEiðh εdischarge

1Þ =
The investment cost of an element is calculated using linear inter­
þ 8ði; hÞ
maxcapacityo polation between the nearest two elements of the catalogue:
2 IðHnf1gÞ; o ¼ fbatteryg 2 O (18)
X �
Constraints on the state of charge of the batteries: CINViy ¼ cinvyðc 1Þ ⋅BINCiyc þ CDECiyc cinvyðc 1Þ ⋅BINCiyc

(28)
c2C
!
soc � SOCih � soc 8ði; hÞ 2 IH (19) cinvyc cinvyðc 1Þ
⋅ 8ði; yÞ 2 IðYnfgrid extensiong Þ
Limits for the speed of charge/discharge: capyc capyðc 1Þ

charge i ⋅CAPig � CHARGEih �chargei ⋅CAPig 8ði;hÞ 2IH;g ¼fbatteryg 2 G The total investment cost associated with an element is the sum of
(20) the corresponding investment costs through all nodes:
X
TOTCINVy ¼ CINViy 8y 2 Ynfgrid extensiong (29)
discharge i ⋅ CAPig � DISCHARGEih � dischargei ⋅ CAPig 8ði; hÞ 2 IH; g i2I
¼ fbatteryg 2 G
The investment cost of the lines is calculated using the binary vari­
(21) ables related to their connections:
If a diesel generator is installed, there is a minimum load restriction X �
CINVy ¼ XLijvc ⋅ Clijvc ; y ¼ fgrid extensiong 2 G (30)
that must be met if the generator is on: m;n;v;c2 N 2 VC

TECHGENtih � CAPit ⋅ profile iht Mð1 Ξiht Þ 8ði; hÞ 2 IH; t ¼ fgensetg 2 T The diesel cost for a diesel generator depends on the fuel cost, the
(22) efficiency of the generator and how much power is generated by the
diesel generator:
TECHGENiht � M⋅Ξiht 8ði; hÞ 2 IH; t ¼ fgensetg 2 T (23) �X �
CFUELi ¼ TECHGENiht ⋅cfuel⋅εdiesel 8i 2 I; t ¼ fgensetg 2 T (31)
The diesel generator produces emissions when it operates: h2H

DEih ¼ GENtih ⋅εdiesel⋅emissions 8ði; hÞ 2 IH; t ¼ fgensetg 2 T (24)

3.1.4. Objective functions
3.1.3. Cost constraints Regarding the objective functions, this formulation considers three
As shown in Fig. 7, the investment cost related to generation tech­ main possible terms in the objective function, describing the economic,
nologies and batteries is interpolated using linear piecewise functions. social, and environmental factors associated with the electrification
These piecewise linear functions should reflect the economies of scale solutions. The economic term in the objective function minimizes the
associated with larger capacities in generation technologies. total investment and running costs of the electrification plan. Since the
Where cinvyc is the investment cost of the y-th generation technology useful life of the elements can be very different (for example, the useful
that has capacity c (which is the element capyc ). The formulation uses a life of a line can be over 20 years whereas the useful life of a battery is
binary variable BINCiyc that takes the value 1 if y-th generation tech­ usually around 5) the economic parameter that is minimized in this
nology installed at node i has a capacity that lies between capyðc 1Þ and formulation is the total annualized cost, which is composed of invest­
ment, operation and maintenance and fuel costs (which result from the
capyc . The formulation also uses a positive variable CDECiyc that is equal
use of diesel generators).
to the capacity of the y-th generation technology installed at node i if
that capacity lies between capyðc 1Þ and capyc , and takes the value zero in X CINVy X X
f1 ¼ þ CINVy ⋅cO&My þ CFUELi (32)
the remaining cases. Specifically, the equations are: y2Y
annualfactory y2Y i2I
Exactly one of the cost segments is active:

8
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
The social term weights in NSE:
X Regarding generation sizing, the most frequently considered tech­
f2 ¼ NSEnh (33)
n;h2NH
Finally, the environmental term incorporates the effects of emissions:
X sizing methods range from not sizing it but calculating the LCOE to
f3 ¼ DEnh (34)
n;h2NH
These functions are the ones usually considered in small-scale
problems. Although they could also be used in a large-scale project,
finding a subset of the Pareto frontier to decide the final solution usually
requires solving several mono-objective problems and this task could
require an unmanageable amount of computation time for a large-scale
case.
In addition, it should be noted that many large-scale tools and
methodologies use the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for deter­
mining the best electrification mode in a simplified manner. The
formulation presented here does not use this concept but instead cal­
culates a total cost comprehensively.
This general formulation of the problem can serve as a common
ground to discuss the different perspectives of the problem, as well as
providing a starting point to describe tools and methodologies for rural
electrification planning in Section 4.
4. Classification of tools and methodologies
There is an array of tools and methodologies that provide valuable
assistance in rural electrification projects. The adequate tool or combi­
nation of tools for a specific project depends on its scope. This section
analyses the main features of rural electrification planning tools and
methodologies to provide useful insights to the readers.
In this section, the tools and methodologies are classified according
to their modeling complexity. They range from first-pass tools, which
offer information for a pre-feasibility analysis with a short computation
time, to the detailed analysis tools, which provide a rural electrification
plan with electric designs for all the grid extensions and microgrids.
Fig. 8 provides an overview of the complexity levels. Although the
proposed classification is undoubtedly useful, the boundaries among
levels are not clear-cut, so there could be cases where a tool or meth­
odology could arguably belong to one or another level. It is important to
highlight that a higher modeling complexity comes at the expense of
higher computation time.
For each level, a classification framework based on the formulation
introduced in Section 3 is proposed, which is coherent with the problem
definition established in Section 2. This framework applies an expert-
assigned score to each tool and methodology in three different di­
mensions associated with its generation sizing procedure, its network
design algorithm, and its objective function. Then, each tool is ranked on
each dimension with an average weighted sum of the corresponding
criteria which is scaled to the interval [0, 1], where the value zero
corresponds to the worst possible score, and the value one corresponds
to a perfect score. Table 2 shows the criteria considered for each
Fig. 8. Classification of tools by modeling complexity.
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
dimension and their corresponding weights.
nologies include solar panels, wind, diesel generator, hydro, and
biomass. Here it is also valued how easy it is to incorporate a new
generation technology into the tool or methodology. The generation
classical optimization methods that guarantee the optimum solution at
the expense of a high computation cost and the possibility of considering
several architectures (that could be in Alternating Current (AC) and
Direct Current (DC)) or customizing it is very valuable. The generation
equipment may be located in several spots or a single place, and the most
common criteria considered when solving this problem are cost, NSE,
and emissions.
Regarding network design, network layout calculation methods
range from not calculating it and just providing an LCOE of the network
cost to using classical optimization techniques that ensure optimality at
the expense of a very high computation cost. Some tools consider usual
electric constraints such as maximum voltage drop allowed when
designing the network of a mini-grid or a grid extension, and they ensure
the electric feasibility of the network performing power flows. Others
rely entirely on geometric calculations, but their network designs would
need to be checked before implementation since they could be electri­
cally unfeasible. Most tools only consider the impact of grid extensions
on the distribution network, but connecting large regions to the current
distribution network could imply reinforcing the transmission network
and installing new generation power plants. Although upstream re­
inforcements may be neglected in small-scale projects, they may have a
significant impact on the electrification solution of a large-scale rural
electrification plan. Similarly, the viability and cost of a network design
may be heavily influenced by the terrain slopes, and forbidden zones
such as the lakes and mountains of the analysis region. In addition,
future expenses may be avoided if the networks of mini-grids are grid-
compatible. The most common criterion considered when solving this
problem is cost.
Regarding the objective function, there are two ways of dealing with
a multicriteria problem. The first one consists of defining a scalar
objective function that includes all the criteria involved; an example
would be the weighted sum method. The second one involves working in
a multidimensional solutions space where each axis relates to an
objective function. Here, multicriteria optimization techniques are
applied to obtain the Pareto frontier or set of non-dominated solutions,
and the user eventually selects one of these solutions. Some tools such as
Logiciel d’Aide � a la Planification d’Electrification
� Rurale (LAPER) and
GEOSIM include terms associated with non-techno-economic factors
such as political and development criteria for villages, allowing the user
to perform sensitivity analyses and measure the impact of these factors
in the electrification solution. Most tools and methodologies perform a
cost minimization, but other criteria such as minimizing emissions and
NSE are relevant too.
A crucial point that should be highlighted is that all existing rural
electrification planning models fail to deal with uncertainty, although it
Table 2
The classification framework.
Dimension Aspects Weight
Generation sizing Generation technologies considered 5
Generation sizing method 5
Location of the generation site 3
Mini-grid architecture 3
Criteria considered 3
Network design Layout calculation method 5
Network levels considered 3
Topography 2
Criteria considered 3
Objective function Multicriteria approach 2
User-defined terms 2
Criteria considered 3
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
plays a critical role in energy planning [34]. This limitation can be
mitigated using scenario analysis, which involves defining several sce­
narios where the uncertain parameters take several values and analyzing
the corresponding impact on the planning solution. However, this is only
a partial solution [35].
The critical uncertainty in the problem is introduced by demand.
Demand is hard to estimate in developing countries, as it depends on
several socio-economic factors such as population growth. An inaccurate
forecast of demand could translate into an oversizing of the systems if
the estimated demand is higher than the real one. On the other hand, it
could also lead to and undersizing of the systems, which will have lower
reliability than expected [36].
Other relevant parameters are related to off-grid technologies used in
mini-grid. Regarding the diesel generator, there is uncertainty related to
the fuel cost and fuel transportation from the nearest supply point to the
mini-grid [37]. Wind profiles are very locational and can be modeled
following a Weibull distribution, whereas solar irradiance can be
modeled following a Beta distribution [38]. There is plenty of literature
that deals with these uncertainties when optimizing the generation size
of a single mini-grid [39], but those techniques are yet to be imple­
mented into large-scale rural electrification planning tools. Uncertainty
has been thoroughly studied in the related problems of distribution
planning [40] or transmission planning [41,42]. These methods could
also be adapted to rural electrification planning tools.
The remaining of this section is devoted to analyzing the features of
tools and methodologies that belong to each level with the proposed
framework. As the modeling complexity increases, so does the number
of constraints considered from the comprehensive formulation.
4.1. Pre-feasibility studies
Pre-feasibility tools offer a first-pass information grouping the con­
sumers into villages or cells and estimating the lowest-cost electrifica­
tion mode for each client using approximated LCOEs or similar
economic indicators. Their main advantages are low computation time
and usability. Moreover, some of them exploit the benefits of GIS tech­
nologies to access the necessary data, which could include the location
of power plants, the layout of the power grid, solar irradiance, wind
speed, hydro potential, the layout of the roads and population density,
among others. This feature allows the user to obtain immediate esti­
mations for large-scale areas and perform a sensitivity analysis on the
spot. This feature is the one that adds more value for some of these tools
since it eliminates the need to gather specific data from different
sources.
These tools can virtually consider any off-grid technology or com­
bination of technologies if there are analytic expressions that allow the
economic calculations and input data for the case study although they
provide an estimation of the cells that should be electrified with grid
extensions, they do not consider the possibility of electrifying several
cells in the same grid extension. They generally do not provide a grid
extension layout or generation designs for the off-grid systems.
These tools do not consider most features of the formulation intro­
duced in Section 3. Specifically, they only consider constraint (1) from
the distribution network constraints, and they do not include any gen­
eration constraint, being IntiGIS an exception since it sizes off-grid
generation with analytic expressions.
Perhaps the most advanced tool of this category is OnSSET [43],
which was developed at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) as an
open-source tool. OnSSET can estimate the electrified consumers using
GIS data, group the unelectrified consumers in square cells of 1 km2 and
calculate the LCOE of off-grid technologies that include solar, wind,
hydro, and diesel. This model also incorporates the effect of the topog­
raphy when estimates the LCOE of electrifying a cell with grid extension,
adding cost penalties on areas of high elevation and slope gradients.
However, it does not consider alternative routes between the network
and a cell that could lower cost. Ref. [11] shows detailed information
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
related to the expressions involved in the LCOEs calculations. Recently,
OnSSET has been updated to include a clustering algorithm that merges
nearby cells and adapted its grid-extension cost estimations to deal with
clusters [44].
The OnSSET methodology has been applied to Sub-Saharan Africa
[45], Nigeria [46], Ethiopia [47]. This model has also been applied in
combination with a more general energy modeling tool, Open Source
Energy Modeling System (OSeMOSYS), to produce more detailed results
in Sub-Saharan Africa [48] and Kenya [49], and the Division of Energy
System Analysis of KTH has carried out projects applying it to Nigeria,
Tanzania, Zambia, Afghanistan [50] and Benin [51] in cooperation with
the WB, among others [52].
Another relevant tool that belongs to this level is IntiGIS [53], which
was developed at Centro de Investigaciones Energ� eticas, Medi­
oambientales y Tecnolo �gicas (CIEMAT). Preliminary versions of this tool
are SOLARGIS [54] and SOLARGIS2 [55]. Ref. [56] shows an applica­
tion in Lorca (Spain). IntiGIS is a more advanced version with enhanced
capabilities, which also groups consumers into cells and estimates their
LCOE with analytic expressions. This model considers wind, solar, and
diesel as off-grid technologies and the grid extension possibility as an
on-grid solution. An application of IntiGIS to Latin America is presented
in Ref. [57]. An upgraded version, IntiGIS 2.0, has been developed
recently [58,59], but the authors have not found publications in the
literature related to it. The IntiGIS tool includes several
hybrid-configurations as off-grid alternatives and applies analytic ex­
pressions to size their components.
LAPER [60] also belongs to this level since the user has to input the
initial grid-extension network manually. Afterwards, the model starts
disconnecting villages based on cost comparisons. LAPER also estab­
lishes an electrification schedule, ranking villages according to several
criteria that are weighted with user preferences. Ref. [61] shows an
application of the LAPER model in Morroco.
The Rapid Electrification Screening Tool (REST) was created to
provide a quick first-pass estimation that includes the detailed cost of
several electrification solutions. Although it was developed to work at a
local level (focusing on a single village or community), this tool has been
included in this review as it can be applied iteratively to produce results
similar to the ones provided by other tools included in this section. The
REST tool was developed with the aim of fighting against energy poverty
in Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya [62].
There are also several methodologies in the literature that apply
similar procedures. Electrification planning methods based on spatial
analysis have been applied to Burkina Faso [63] and Africa [64,65].
Ref. [66] studies the influence of several factors in the best electrifica­
tion mode, including the distance to the grid and the life cycle cost of
system. A summary of these tools is provided in Table 3. All of them
minimize a cost-related function to obtain the solution, which is usually
the LCOE although it may be a net present value or an annuity.
Fig. 9 shows the pre-feasibility classification according to the
framework proposed in Table 2. LAPER is the most complete tool in
terms of network design and objective functions, although it does not
provide geospatial capabilities that facilitate data acquisition. IntiGIS is
the most remarkable one regarding generation designs since it includes
several hybrid configurations among its off-grid candidate solutions, and
it uses analytic expressions to size off-grid components, going one step
beyond other pre-feasibility tools.
Fig. 9 shows that there is room for improvement in the objective-
function dimension. There is a trade-off between accuracy and compu­
tation time in the generation sizing and network design dimensions, but
the addition of user-defined criteria in a similar manner as LAPER and
Ref. [66] should improve the tools without a significant increase in
computation time. However, the planer can also consider those criteria
later, post-processing the electrification solution that the tools provide.
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624

Table 3
Pre-feasibility tools and methodologies. NL¼Network Layout, T ¼ Topograhy
Year Tool Granularity Level Network Design Generation Design Objective Function Additional references

NL T Solar Wind Hydro Diesel Biomass

2017 OnSSET [23] Cell No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Cost [11,44,46,47,49]
2016 [63] Cell No No Yes No Yes Yes No Cost –
2013 [64] Cell No No Yes No Yes Yes No Cost [65]
2012 [66] Village No No Yes No No No Yes Costb –
2011 IntiGIS [33] Cell No No Yes Yes No Yes No Cost [56–59]
2008 REST [62] Village No No Yes Yes No Yes No Cost –
2001 LAPER [40] Village Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Costa [61]
a
LAPER includes user-defined terms that measure political, financial resources and development criteria to calculate an electrification schedule, but the final
electrification mode of each village is calculated solely with a cost minimization criteria.
b
The impact of carbon emissions is considered, including cost terms in the calculations of the LCOEs.

Fig. 9. Pre-feasibility tools classification according to the classification framework.

4.2. Intermediate analysis tools
Intermediate analysis tools operate similarly, but they apply more
complicated calculations to network designs, calculating the layout of
the grid extension solution usually with heuristic methods based on
minimum-spanning-tree algorithms. However, the network design al­
gorithms that these tools apply are limited to distance-based constraints,
which implies that a proposed design may not be viable from an electric
point of view. On the other hand, a tool that calculated off-grid gener­
ation designs with an algorithm that went beyond rules of thumb would
belong to this category too. Unfortunately, the authors have only iden­
tified one methodology with this level of complexity in generation de­
signs [67], even though incorporating an iterative application of
generation sizing algorithms seems reasonably straightforward [18,26].
As these tools are at an intermediate level, there is a partial corre­
spondence between the aspects they consider and the formulation
introduced in Section 3. Specifically, they usually consider distribution-
network constraints (1–5) and generation constraints (14, 15) plus a
stylized version of constraints (16) and (17), which bound the genera­
tion capacity between zero and peak demand) and (18) (that ensures
that the demand is met and enables the possibility of transferring energy
from one node to another). On the other hand, most of the tools in this
section focus on cost minimization and consider neither NSE nor
emissions.
Ref. [67] presents the most dominant method in this category,
developed by researchers from the Renier Lemoine Institut (RLI). It
generates a raster map to determine the layout of the network. The raster
map is created considering topography information such as terrain
elevation, slopes, and location of protected areas and forests. This
method applies an iterative process to determine the generation design
of each mini-grid, simulating one year on an hourly basis for each
candidate generation design. The method also includes an initial clus­
tering algorithm, and it can divide the plan into several implementation
phases to facilitate project execution. Researchers from the RLI
previously developed similar (albeit less sophisticated) methodologies
and applied them in Nigeria [68] and Sub-Saharan Africa [69].
Network Planner [70], which was developed by the University of
Columbia, is an open-source tool that belongs to this category. When
calculating off-grid generation designs for villages, it considers diesel,
solar and batteries as off-grid technologies, and the model sizes the
generation with rules of thumb such as the capacity of the battery is a
multiple of the capacity of the solar panel, which is sized for peak
demand.
On the other hand, Network Planner uses an iterative algorithm to
calculate grid extension layouts [71]. This algorithm compares the best
off-grid solution for a village with its internal grid-extension cost, which
consists of a transformer and the low-voltage network cost, but it does
not include the cost of the medium-voltage line that connects the village
to the power grid or another grid-electrified village. For those villages
with an internal network cost lower than its best off-grid cost, the model
calculates the maximum length that this medium-voltage line could
have, so that grid extension is the best option. Then, the model iterates
connecting villages where the maximum length is larger than its dis­
tance to the network or a village that was connected in a previous
iteration. Network Planner has been applied in Nigeria [72,73], Liberia
[74] and Ghana [75].
The iterative procedure that Network Planner uses to connect vil­
lages to the grid is also applied in Ref. [76], which was one of the first
electrification planning methodologies proposed in the literature. A
similar method is presented in Ref. [77], which introduces an algorithm
that tries to emulate the development of the power systems to determine
the expansion of the power grid.
Another important tool that belongs to this level is GEOSIM, which
was developed by Innovation Energie D�eveloppement (IED). This tool
labels some villages as Development Poles (DPs) according to their inner
potential, which is calculated based on health, local economy and ed­
ucation indicators, as well as the distances to the remaining villages.
Then, it creates clusters of villages that are electrified together around

11
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624

DPs using an algorithm based on the Huff model [78]. The idea of

Intermediate analysis tools and methodologies. NL¼Network Layout, TE ¼ Transmission Expansion, DL ¼ Distribution Layout, UR¼Upstream Reinforcements, EF ¼ Electric Feasibility, T ¼ Topography, HV¼High Voltage,

This method includes a cost input parameter, in $/kWh, to account for power generation and transmission costs. This parameter may be used to include an estimation of the reinforcement costs in an approximate way.
clustering villages is entirely coherent when working with

Additional
references
low-populated settlements that are close to each other and it is not

[71–75]
[68,69]

[80,81]
present in most tools of this category or the previous one.
GEOSIM has been applied in several countries [79], developing

–
projects and selling licenses. Particularly, it was applied in Benin, Bur­
kina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia [80], Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Tanzania,

Composite
Cambodia, and Lao People’s Democratic Republic [81].

Objective

functionb
objective
Function
A summary of the tools and methodologies that correspond to this

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost
Cost
section is provided in Table 4. It is worth noticing that some interme­
diate analysis tools use classical optimization to obtain the layout of the
network, but this comes at the expense of high computation times and a

Sizing Method

Optimization
calculations

calculations

calculations

calculations
Expressions
reduced number of villages that the methodology can process. One of

Exogenous

Exogenous

Exogenous

Exogenous
Classical
Iterative

Analytic
process
these methodologies [82] even considers three different objective

Noc
functions using hierarchical lexicographic programming (the first level
is to maximize the aggregated demand electrified with grid extension,
the second level is to minimize the sum of the distances between grid

Biodiesel
extension villages and the power grid, and the third level minimizes the

Yes
No

No

No

No

No

No
No
inter-distance among grid extension villages). However, in this meth­

Maximize demand covered by the grid, minimize distance among villages and the grid, and minimize dispersion among villages connected to the grid.
odology, it is necessary to know the number of villages that are elec­

Biomass
trified with grid extension beforehand or perform a sensitivity analysis

Yes
No

No

No

No

No

No

No
modifying these parameters. Another methodology that applies opti­
mization to calculate the network layout is [83], minimizing a cost

Diesel
function and comparing the results with the heuristic presented in

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
No

No

No
Ref. [71]. However, this methodology only considers one point to con­
nect villages to the existing grid. Another methodology that uses clas­

Hydro
sical optimization is [33], which applies a Mixed Integer Linear

Yes
No

No

No

No

No

No

No
Programming (MILP) model to determine which cells should be elec­
trified extending the transmission network and which ones should have Generation Design

Wind

Yes

Yes
No

No

No

No

No
No
solar panels. However, the size of the cells is considerably large (2000

It estimates the LCOE to provide the best off-grid supply alternative, but it does not provide optimal generation sizes.
km2), and the off-grid generation is limited to solar panels. There are
Solar

also generic models that use classical optimization techniques such as

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Energy Flow Optimization Model (EFOM), MARKet ALlocation (MAR­
KAL) or The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System (TIMES) that were

Classical Optimization (MILP)

developed to provide assistance in a wide range of energy planning programming) þ MST-based
(hierarchical lexicographic

problems and allow the user to customize specific parts to develop a

MST-based calculations

MST-based calculations

MST-based calculations

MST-based calculations
MST-based calculations
Classical Optimization

Classical Optimization
tailormade application for their specific problem. Although some of
Layout calculation

them could be adapted to deal with the techno-economic rural electri­

fication planning up to a certain extent [84], the authors have not found
calculations

any large-scale application in this regard in the literature, although they

(MINLP)

can be combined with the tools described in this review as in the case of
OSeMOSYS and OnSSET [48,49] mentioned in Section 4.1. Generic
models have been applied to small-scale problems (i.e., a problem with a
Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No
No
single village or settlement) [85], although large-scale applications that
T

address this problem have not appeared.

No

No

No

No

No

No

No
No
EF

There are network design algorithms in the literature [86] that could
be extended to consider off-grid electrification solutions and become
Yes
UR

rural electrification planning tools but, since they have not been applied
No

No

No

No

No

No
No
a

to a rural electrification planning problem considering off-grid solutions

so far, they are not included in Table 4.
HV/
MV

MV

MV

MV

MV
MV
MV
No
DL
Network Design

Fig. 10 shows the intermediate analysis classification according to

MINLP ¼ Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming.

the framework proposed in Table 2. Attempts to deal with this problem

Yes

Yes
No

No

No

No

No
No
TE

with more accuracy when calculating network designs come at the

expense of less detail when computing the generation design. It is worth
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
NL

to notice that some intermediate analysis tools rank higher in network

design than pre-feasibility tools, but this does not happen in generation
Granularity

designs.
Village

Village

Village

Village

Village
Village
Level

Cell

Cell

4.3. Detailed generation and network designs

Some other tools attempt to incorporate the maximum possible level

Network

GEOSIM
Planner

of granularity, offering detailed consumer-by-consumer network designs

Tool

[67]

[82]

[83]

[33]

[77]

[76]

that consider the usual electric constraints (such as maximum voltage

drop allowed) and generation designs based on weather conditions such
Table 4

2019

2016

2016

2015

2013

2011

2010
2000

as solar irradiance levels. This level of detail is obtained, however, at the

Year

expense of much longer computation times and a steeper learning curve

b
a

12
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
Fig. 10. Intermediate analysis tools classification according to the classification framework.
for the user. Besides, these models require a significant amount of input
data which are considerably difficult to obtain.
The REM model, which was developed by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT)/Comillas- Instituto de Investigacio �n Tecnolo �gica
(IIT) Universal Energy Access Lab as a commercial tool, is the only tool
that arguably can be classified at this level [10].
This tool is the closest match to the formulation provided in Section
3. All distribution-network and generation constraints are considered
except equation (24), which incorporates diesel emissions. Regarding
the objective functions, REM minimizes the total investment and oper­
ation cost plus a penalty for NSE. Therefore, although it is a cost-
minimization tool, it also considers the impact of NSE in the final
solution.
The core of this tool has three blocks that perform sequential tasks.
The first block calculates generation designs for a set of representative
candidate off-grid systems using an ad-hoc adaptation of the Hooke and
Jeeves heuristic algorithm [87] and simulating the behavior of the sys­
tem for each candidate solution to obtain the amount of NSE and the
investment and operation cost. The information related to the remaining
generation designs, if needed, is interpolated linearly.
One of its drawbacks is that the generation technologies considered
are limited to solar and diesel. Adding wind or hydro in REM could
imply a significative increase in computation time since it implies
increasing the number of search dimensions in the generation sizing
heuristic that REM uses to obtain quasi-optimal generation designs.
The second block groups the consumers into clusters that represent
the candidate systems (stand-alone systems, microgrids, and grid ex­
tensions) for the final electrification solution. REM builds off-grid clus­
ters considering only off-grid electrification solutions and, in a later
stage, the model considers the possibility of grouping off-grid clusters
forming the grid extension clusters by evaluating the cost of different
configurations (this time, the possibility of grid extension is considered.
By doing this, REM creates a hierarchical structure of clusters where one
grid extension cluster may contain several off-grid clusters, each of them
having one or several consumers.
The third block evaluates the costs of the clusters and determines the
best electrification solution. Specifically, REM compares the cost of a
grid extension design for a grid extension cluster with the cost of off-grid
solutions (either solar-home-systems or a microgrid) for the off-grid
clusters that belong to this grid extension cluster. This implies that a
grid extension cluster could be electrified with off-grid systems if their
electrification cost is lower, and a combination of off-grid clusters could
be electrified with a grid extension if the cost of their grid extension
cluster is lower. REM also allows an exhaustive evaluation of clusters
that considers, for example, the possibility of electrifying off-grid clus­
ters with grid extensions [10]. REM calculates accurate network designs
for each candidate microgrid and grid extension design to perform
cost-comparisons among clusters. Specifically, REM calculates network
designs using RNM [30]. RNM considers electric constraints and
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
optimizes the network considering catalogues with several lines and
transformers, which is a capability that no other large-scale rural elec­
trification planning tool has so far.
REM also goes one step further than other tools when incorporating
topography, introducing topographical considerations when clustering
consumers and when calculating detailed network layouts with RNM
[88]. RNM also incorporates forbidden zones (areas that lines cannot
trespass) in its calculations.
Another drawback of REM is that RNM was not designed for rural
electrification planning but to help regulators of developed countries
estimate the distribution network cost of large regions. Hence, its al­
gorithms could produce results that are not optimal when designing the
network of small microgrids, for example. The network design methods
with a focus on rural electrification described in Section 4.2, however,
are not as sophisticated as RNM.
In addition, when connecting many consumers to the existing
network, it may be necessary to reinforce the upstream distribution and
transmission network. It may even be necessary to consider new power
plants to satisfy the expected demand in a developing country. There is
plenty of literature related to the problems of reinforcing the network
and expanding the generation, but this problem has not been studied in
the context of rural electrification. Although in a preliminary stage,
several strategies related to considering upstream reinforcements in
REM have already been considered [89]. At this point, no rural elec­
trification tool that was mentioned in Sections 4.1 And 4.2 incorporates
an accurate calculation of costs related to these reinforcements.
REM has been applied to case studies in the Vaishali district in India
[90], Kenya and Colombia [91,92], Rwanda [93], Uganda [94] and Peru
[95].
Fig. 11 shows the detailed generation and network designs tool
classification according to the framework proposed in Table 2.
Fig. 11. Detailed generation and network design tools classification according
to the classification framework.
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
Although REM calculates generation designs more accurately than
most tools analyzed here (the procedure presented in Ref. [67] also
simulates the behavior of the system for a whole year), this comes at the
expense of a limited number of generation technologies that could only
be increased with a significant burden of computation time so, in the
framework, this tool does not outrank the remaining ones studied in
Section 4 regarding generation designs. However, there is a significant
difference when it comes to network designs since REM considers
electric constraints and optimizes the layout, considering the topo­
graphical features of the terrain.
5. Conclusions and needs for further research
After presenting a comprehensive but concise definition of the rural
electrification planning problem and a comprehensive formulation that
was missing in the literature, this paper has reviewed the main software
tools and methodologies that have been applied to solve it. This paper
classifies them using three levels, based on modeling complexity and
computation speed.
The first level contains pre-feasibility tools, which usually group the
consumers into cells and calculate their LCOE with several off-grid
technologies as well as with a grid extension solution. These tools
offer valuable first-pass information, but they do not calculate a network
layout for the grid extension, and they do not size off-grid generation.
The second level contains intermediate analysis tools, which generally
calculate the grid extension layout using minimum-spanning-tree stra­
tegies. Some of them also size the generation of off-grid systems with
analytic expressions and iterative methods. The third level contains
detailed generation and network analysis tools. They operate at the
maximum level of granularity (consumer by consumer) instead of
grouping consumers into villages or cells, and they calculate accurate
generation designs using optimization and simulating the hourly
dispatch of the system. They also calculate network designs considering
the usual electric constraints, the effect of the topography when calcu­
lating the best layout, and the possibility of having lines and trans­
formers of different sizes.
As shown in this review, many tools are currently emerging to tackle
the global electrification challenge. However, there are several spots
where these developments are lagging, and several needs for research
are identified.
� Most rural electrification planning tools focus solely on economic
parameters when designing the best rural electrification plan for a
given region. Some of these indirectly consider other factors into the
global cost, such as a penalty for NSE. However, there are no tools
that perform multiobjective optimization (for instance, considering
cost, emissions, or NSE) allowing them to analyze their trade-offs.
� Existing rural electrification planning tools and methodologies are
static and do not consider the effects that a multi-stage rural elec­
trification plan could have on the final solutions. However, doing this
would be relevant, given that the electricity demand in rural areas
can be expected to increase through time. Moreover, none of them
considers grid-compatible microgrids in their calculations since they
only consider microgrids or mini-grids that operate on islanded
mode, although in the long term these microgrids could be replaced
with grid-extension designs.
� No rural electrification tool or methodology can estimate accurately
the costs of the upstream reinforcements that would be necessary to
implement in the power network or the generation system if many
consumers are connected to the grid. These reinforcements are
negligible in small-scale projects, but their effect is certainly worth
considering in large-scale projects. New developments are necessary
to incorporate the effects of rural electrification on the transmission
network.
� The existing generation sizing algorithms that optimize the design by
performing a detailed simulation of the entire year can only cope
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
with a limited number of generation technologies (solar panels,
batteries, and a diesel generator). It would be interesting to upgrade
them so that they include more generation technologies, although
this could increase significantly the computation time needed in a
large-scale planning case.
� The network design algorithms that have been incorporated into
rural electrification tools either neglect electric constraints or were
created for developed countries (this is the case of RNM, which is
used in REM). It would be interesting to develop network design
algorithms that are specifically aimed at rural electrification projects
that can cope with voltage regulations and power-flow constraints.
� Future large-scale rural electrification planning tools should be bet­
ter equipped to deal with uncertainty as there is a scarcity of data in
developing countries, and the existing information is not always
reliable. However, the addition of robust optimization or stochastic
techniques could be a challenge as it would involve a significant
increase in computation time. Although there are already methods in
the literature that successfully address the uncertainty of specific
parameters, they were designed to deal with a single mini-grid or
grid-extension. In the large-scale rural electrification planning
problem, however, tools may deal with a vast number of mini-grids
and grid-extensions so a straightforward application of these
methods may fail for computational reasons.
The authors hope that these outstanding issues are tackled soon by
new research works so that the challenge of universal access to elec­
tricity can be better addressed efficiently and comprehensively.
Declaration of competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ignacio P�
erez Arriaga for reviewing a preliminary
version of this paper.
References
[1] International Energy Agency, , International Renewable Energy Agency, United
Nations Statistics Division, World Bank, and World Health Organization [Online].
Available:. Tracking SDG7. The Energy Progress Report 2019. World Bank; 2019.
https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/data/files/download-documents/2019-Tracking%
20SDG7-Full%20Report.pdf [Accessed: 10-Aug-2019].
[2] Livemint. The problem of lack of rural electricity demand [Online]Available:
https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/nrgFBVsILzEtbJf7pwfH3H/The-problem-of-
lack-of-rural-electricity-demand.html [Accessed: 10-Aug-2019].
[3] International Energy Agency and World Bank. Sustainable energy for all
2015—progress toward sustainable energy 2015: global tracking framework
report. 2015 [Online]. Available: https://www.seforall.org/sites/default/files
/GTF-2105-Full-Report.pdf. [Accessed 17 August 2019].
[4] Urpelainen J. Grid and off-grid electrification: an integrated model with
applications to India. Energy Sustain. Dev. Apr. 2014;19:66–71.
[5] Tenenbaum B, Greacen C, Siyambalapitiya T, Knuckles J. From the bottom up: how
small power producers and mini-grids can deliver electrification and renewable
energy in Africa. World Bank; 2014 [Online]. Available: http://elibrary.worldbank
.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-1-4648-0093-1. [Accessed 11 June 2017].
[6] Santos P�erez FJ. Metodología de ayuda a la decisi� on para la electrificaci�
on rural
apropiada en países en vías de desarrollo. PhD thesis (in Spanish). Universidad
Pontificia Comillas, Madrid. School of Engineering.; 2015.
[7] Borofsky Y. Towards a transdisciplinary approach to rural electrification planning
for universal access in India. Master thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Department of Urban Studies and Planning.; 2015.
[8] European Commission and Energy Facility. Sustainability - business models for
rural electrification. 2012 [Online]. Available: https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/fi
le/10582/download?token¼yK25eQn9, . [Accessed 18 April 2018].
[9] Gonz�alez-García A, P�erez-Arriaga I. Sistemas integrados de suministro el�ectrico
aislado y conectado a la red: innovaci�on y gobernanza organizativa para el acceso
universal. Econ Ind 2018;408:101–12 (in Spanish).
[10] MIT & IITComillas Universal Energy Access Lab. Computer-aided electrification
planning in developing countries: The Reference Electrification Model (REM).
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
Working paper. Ref. IIT WP 18-112-A.; 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.iit.
comillas.edu/docs/IIT-18-112A.pdf [Accessed: 10-Oct-2019].
[11] Nerini FF, Broad O, Mentis D, Welsch M, Bazilian M, Howells M. A cost comparison
of technology approaches for improving access to electricity services. Energy Jan.
2016;95:255–65.
[12] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2018. International Energy
Agency; 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publ
ication/weo-2018-en.
[13] Gordon SB, et al. Respiratory risks from household air pollution in low and middle
income countries. Lancet Respir. Med. Oct. 2014;2(10):823–60.
[14] Chattopadhyay D, Kitchlu R, Jordan RL. Planning for electricity access. Live wire,
2014/35. World Bank; 2014 [Online]. Available: https://openknowledge.wor
ldbank.org/handle/10986/20596. [Accessed 28 April 2018].
[15] Resch B, et al. GIS-based planning and modeling for renewable energy: challenges
and future research avenues. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf May 2014;3(2):662–92.
[16] Jebaraj S, Iniyan S. A review of energy models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Aug.
2006;10(4):281–311.
[17] Kaundinya DP, Balachandra P, Ravindranath NH. Grid-connected versus stand-
alone energy systems for decentralized power—a review of literature. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev Oct. 2009;13(8):2041–50.
[18] Luna-Rubio R, Trejo-Perea M, Vargas-V� azquez D, Ríos-Moreno GJ. Optimal sizing
of renewable hybrids energy systems: a review of methodologies. Sol Energy Apr.
2012;86(4):1077–88.
[19] Sinha S, Chandel SS. Review of software tools for hybrid renewable energy
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Apr. 2014;32:192–205.
[20] Neves D, Silva CA, Connors S. Design and implementation of hybrid renewable
energy systems on micro-communities: a review on case studies. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev Mar. 2014;31:935–46.
[21] Bhattacharyya SC. Review of alternative methodologies for analysing off-grid
electricity supply. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jan. 2012;16(1):677–94.
[22] Moner-Girona M, Puig D, Mulugetta Y, Kougias I, AbdulRahman J, Szab� o S. Next
generation interactive tool as a backbone for universal access to electricity. Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. Nov. 2018;7(6):e305.
[23] Debnath KB, Mourshed M. Challenges and gaps for energy planning models in the
developing-world context. Nat. Energy Mar. 2018;3(3):172–84.
[24] Parreno Jr RP, Del Mundo R. Clustering algorithm as A planning support tool for
rural electrification optimization. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. Dec. 2015;4(12):
112–20.
[25] Govender KM, Meyer AS, Dwolatzky B. The automatic clustering of uniformly
distributed loads for the use in rural electrification planning. In: Transmission and
distribution conference and exposition, 2001 IEEE/PES, vol. 1; 2001. p. 450–5
[Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumbe
r¼971276. [Accessed 18 December 2016].
[26] Upadhyay S, Sharma MP. A review on configurations, control and sizing
methodologies of hybrid energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Oct. 2014;38:
47–63.
[27] Lambert T, Gilman P, Lilienthal P. Micropower system modeling with HOMER.
Integr. Altern. Sources Energy 2006;1(15):379–418.
[28] Distributed energy resources customer adoption model (DER-CAM) | building
microgrid. 2017 [Online]. Available: https://building-microgrid.lbl.gov/project
s/der-cam. [Accessed 19 February 2017].
[29] Georgilakis PS, Hatziargyriou ND. A review of power distribution planning in the
modern power systems era: models, methods and future research. Electr Power Syst
Res Apr. 2015;121:89–100.
[30] Mateo Domingo C, G� omez San Rom� an T, Sanchez-Miralles A,
� Peco Gonzalez JP,
Candela Martinez A. A reference network model for large-scale distribution
planning with automatic street map generation. IEEE Trans Power Syst Feb. 2011;
26(1):190–7.
[31] Ferrer-Martí L, Domenech B, García-Villoria A, Pastor R. A MILP model to design
hybrid wind–photovoltaic isolated rural electrification projects in developing
countries. Eur J Oper Res Apr. 2013;226(2):293–300.
[32] Triad�o-Aymerich J, Ferrer-Martí L, García-Villoria A, Pastor R. MILP-based
heuristics for the design of rural community electrification projects. Comput Oper
Res Jul. 2016;71:90–9.
[33] Zeyringer M, Pachauri S, Schmid E, Schmidt J, Worrell E, Morawetz UB. Analyzing
grid extension and stand-alone photovoltaic systems for the cost-effective
electrification of Kenya. Energy Sustain. Dev. Apr. 2015;25:75–86.
[34] Mirakyan A, De Guio R. Modelling and uncertainties in integrated energy planning.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jun. 2015;46:62–9.
[35] DeCarolis J, et al. Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization
modelling. Appl Energy May 2017;194:184–98.
[36] Louie H, Dauenhauer P. Effects of load estimation error on small-scale off-grid
photovoltaic system design, cost and reliability. Energy Sustain. Dev. Oct. 2016;34:
30–43.
[37] Fioriti D, et al. Stochastic sizing of isolated rural mini-grids, including effects of
fuel procurement and operational strategies. Electr Power Syst Res Jul. 2018;160:
419–28.
[38] Khatod DK, Pant V, Sharma J. Analytical approach for well-being assessment of
small autonomous power systems with solar and wind energy sources. IEEE Trans
Energy Convers Jun. 2010;25(2):535–45.
[39] Sharma N, Varun, Siddhartha. Stochastic techniques used for optimization in solar
systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Apr. 2012;16(3):1399–411.
[40] Gholizadeh-Roshanagh R, Najafi-Ravadanegh S, Hosseinian SH. Optimal robust
integrated power distribution network planning under load demand uncertainty.
J. Power Technol. 2016;96(2):115–23.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
[41] Tsamasphyrou P, Renaud A, Carpentier P. Optimization. In: Nguyen VH, Strodiot J-
J, Tossings P, editors. Transmission network planning under uncertainty with
benders decomposition, vol. 481. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg;
2000. p. 457–72 [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/9
78-3-642-57014-8_30. [Accessed 13 August 2019].
[42] Lawson A, Goldstein M, Dent CJ. Bayesian framework for power network planning
under uncertainty. Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. Sep. 2016;7:47–57.
[43] Mentis D. Spatially explicit electrification modelling insights. PhD Thesis. Sweden:
KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Division of Energy Systems Analysis.; 2017.
[44] Korkovelos A, Khavari B, Sahlberg A, Howells M, Arderne C. The role of open
access data in geospatial electrification planning and the achievement of SDG7. An
OnSSET-based case study for Malawi. Energies Apr. 2019;12(7):1395.
[45] Mentis D, et al. Lighting the World: the first application of an open source, spatial
electrification tool (OnSSET) on Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ Res Lett Aug. 2017;
12(8):085003.
[46] Mentis D, et al. A GIS-based approach for electrification planning—a case study on
Nigeria. Energy Sustain. Dev. Dec. 2015;29:142–50.
[47] Mentis D, et al. The benefits of geospatial planning in energy access – a case study
on Ethiopia. Appl Geogr Jul. 2016;72:1–13.
[48] Mentis D, et al. Linking the open source, spatial electrification tool (ONSSET) and
the open source energy modelling system (OSeMOSYS), with a focus on Sub-
Saharan Africa. Presented at the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts
2017;19:15758 [Online]. Available: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..
1915758M. [Accessed 27 March 2018].
[49] Moksnes N, Korkovelos A, Mentis D, Howells M. Electrification pathways for
Kenya–linking spatial electrification analysis and medium to long term energy
planning. Environ Res Lett Sep. 2017;12(9):095008.
[50] Korkovelos A, Bazilian M, Mentis D, Howells M. A GIS approach to planning
electrification in Afghanistan.. 2017 [Online]. Available: https://energypedia.info
/images/d/d6/A_GIS_approach_to_electrification_planning_in_Afghanistan.pdf.
[Accessed 16 August 2019].
[51] KTH Royal Institute of Technology and SNV Netherlands Development
Organisation. Electrification pathways to Benin.. 2018 [Online]. Available: http://
www.onsset.org/electrification-pathways-for-benin.html. [Accessed 16 August
2019].
[52] ‘OnSSET projects’, OnSSET projects. 27-Mar-2018 [Online]. Available: http://
www.onsset.org/projects.html. [Accessed 27 March 2018].
[53] Pinedo Pascua I. Intigis: propuesta metodol� ogica para la evaluaci� on de alternativas
de electrificaci�on rural basada en SIG. PhD thesis (in Spanish). Madrid: Universidad
Polit�ecnica de Madrid. School of Agricultural Engineering; 2012.
[54] Monteiro C, Saraiva JT, Miranda V. Evaluation of electrification alternatives in
developing countries-the SOLARGIS tool. In: Electrotechnical conference, 1998.
MELECON 98., 9th mediterranean, vol. 2; 1998. p. 1037–41.
[55] Domínguez Bravo J, Pinedo Pascua I, Augusto Gonz� alez J. Herramientas SIG para
la integraci� on de energías renovables en electrificaci�
on rural. IntiGIS., presented at
the XIII Congreso Nacional de Tecnologías de la Informaci� on Geogr� afica (in
Spanish). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; 2008.
[56] Amador J, Domínguez J. Application of geographical information systems to rural
electrification with renewable energy sources. Renew Energy Oct. 2005;30(12):
1897–912.
[57] Domínguez J, Pinedo-Pascua I. GIS tool for rural electrification with renewable
energies in Latin America. Cancun, Mexico, 2009. In: International conference on
advanced geographic information systems & web services; 2009. p. 171–6
[Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4782711/. [Accessed 15
August 2019].
[58] Page Arias A. IntiGIS 2.0: objetivos y propuesta metodol� ogica. An� alisis de
competitividad tecnol� ogica en Ghana., Master thesis (in Spanish). Madrid:
Universidad Complutense. Faculty of Geography and History; 2015.
[59] Romero Otero L. Sistemas de informaci� on geogr�afica y electrificaci�
on rural.
An� alisis, desarrollo y estudio de caso con IntiGIS., Master thesis (in Spanish).
Madrid: Universidad Complutense. Faculty of Geography and History; 2016.
[60] Fronius Rainer, Gratton Marc. Rural electrification planning software (LAPER).
Electricit�e de France - Research and Development; 2001.
[61] Soler R, Thomas F, Dhaiby N-E, Bakri M. Optimizing the place of PV systems in
rural electrification planning in Morocco. In: Photovoltaic energy conversion,
2003. Proceedings of 3rd World conference on, vol. 3; 2003. p. 2574–7 [Online].
Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber¼1305116.
[Accessed 18 December 2016].
[62] Syngellakis K, Ribeiro A, Arvidson A, Nordstr€ om M, Marcel J-C. ENABLE project
summary report. Apr-2008 [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/inte
lligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/enable_final_report.
pdf. [Accessed 28 April 2018].
[63] Moner-Girona M, B� odis K, Huld T, Kougias I, Szab� o S. Universal access to
electricity in Burkina Faso: scaling-up renewable energy technologies. Environ Res
Lett Aug. 2016;11(8):084010.
[64] Szab� o S, B�odis K, Huld T, Moner-Girona M. Sustainable energy planning:
leapfrogging the energy poverty gap in Africa. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Dec.
2013;28:500–9.
[65] Szab� o S, B�odis K, Huld T, Moner-Girona M. Energy solutions in rural Africa:
mapping electrification costs of distributed solar and diesel generation versus grid
extension. Environ Res Lett Jul. 2011;6(3):034002.
[66] Mahapatra S, Dasappa S. Rural electrification: optimising the choice between
decentralised renewable energy sources and grid extension. Energy Sustain. Dev.
Jun. 2012;16(2):146–54.
P. Ciller and S. Lumbreras
[67] Blechinger P, Cader C, Bertheau P. Least-Cost electrification modeling and
planning–A case study for five Nigerian federal states. Proc IEEE Sep. 2019;107(9):
1923–40.
[68] Bertheau P, Cader C, Blechinger P. Electrification modelling for Nigeria. Energy
Procedia Aug. 2016;93:108–12.
[69] Bertheau P, Oyewo A, Cader C, Breyer C, Blechinger P. Visualizing national
electrification scenarios for sub-saharan african countries. Energies Nov. 2017;10
(11):1899.
[70] Network planner website. 2017 [Online]. Available: http://qsel.columbia.edu/net
work-planner/. [Accessed 29 April 2018].
[71] Parshall L, Pillai D, Mohan S, Sanoh A, Modi V. National electricity planning in
settings with low pre-existing grid coverage: development of a spatial model and
case study of Kenya. Energy Policy Jun. 2009;37(6):2395–410.
[72] Ohiare S. Expanding electricity access to all in Nigeria: a spatial planning and cost
analysis. Energy Sustain. Soc. Dec. 2015;5(1):1–18.
[73] World Bank. Achieving universal access in the Kaduna electric service area. 2016
[Online]. Available: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/78249148
7138851242/Achieving-universal-access-in-the-Kaduna-electric-service-area.
[Accessed 28 April 2018].
[74] Modi V, Adkins E, Carbajal J, Shepa S. Liberia power sector capacity building and
energy master planning. Final Report. Phase 4: National Electrification Master Plan.
2013 [Online]. Available, http://sel.columbia.edu/assets/uploads/blog/2013/09/
LiberiaEnergySectorReform_Phase4Report-Final_2013-08.pdf. [Accessed 18
December 2016].
[75] Kemausuor F, Adkins E, Adu-Poku I, Brew-Hammond A, Modi V. Electrification
planning using Network Planner tool: the case of Ghana. Energy Sustain. Dev. Apr.
2014;19:92–101.
[76] Banks DI, Mocke F, Jonck EC, Labuschagne E, Eberhard R. Electrification planning
decision support tool. In: Domestic use of energy conference; 2000 [Online].
Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.195.21
37&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf. [Accessed 19 January 2017].
[77] Deichmann U, Meisner C, Murray S, Wheeler D. The economics of renewable
energy expansion in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Policy Jan. 2011;39(1):
215–27.
[78] Huff DL. A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas. Land Econ 1963;
39(1):81–90.
[79] GEOSIM projects. 2018 [Online]. Available: http://www.geosim.fr/index.php?
page¼references-en. [Accessed 29 April 2018].
[80] Innovation Energie D� eveloppement. Capacity building for Off-grid rural
electrification planning at the regional level in Ethiopia. 2007 [Online]. Available:
http://www.euei-pdf.org/en/seads/capacity-building/capacity-building-for-off-gri
d-rural-electrification-planning. [Accessed 28 April 2018].
[81] Innovation Energie D� eveloppement. CAP-REDEO results report. 2010 [Online].
Available: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/cap
-redeo. [Accessed 28 April 2018].
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120 (2020) 109624
[82] Abdul-Salam Y, Phimister E. The politico-economics of electricity planning in
developing countries: a case study of Ghana. Energy Policy Jan. 2016;88:299–309.
[83] Abdul-Salam Y, Phimister E. How effective are heuristic solutions for electricity
planning in developing countries. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. Sep. 2016;55:14–24.
[84] Howells MI, Alfstad T, Victor DG, Goldstein G, Remme U. A model of household
energy services in a low-income rural African village. Energy Policy Sep. 2005;33
(14):1833–51.
[85] Fuso Nerini F, Dargaville R, Howells M, Bazilian M. Estimating the cost of energy
access: the case of the village of Suro Craic in Timor Leste. Energy Jan. 2015;79:
385–97.
[86] Kocaman AS, Huh WT, Modi V. Initial layout of power distribution systems for
rural electrification: a heuristic algorithm for multilevel network design. Appl
Energy Aug. 2012;96:302–15.
[87] Hooke R, Jeeves TA. “Direct search” solution of numerical and statistical problems.
J ACM Apr. 1961;8(2):212–29.
[88] Drouin C. Geospatial Cost Drivers in Computer-aided Electrification Planning: The
Case of Rwanda. Master thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department
of Mechanical engineering; 2018.
[89] Cotterman T. Enhanced Techniques to Plan Rural Electrical Networks Using the
Reference Electrification Model. Master thesis. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society.; 2017.
[90] Ellman D. The Reference Electrification Model: A Computer Model for Planning
Rural Electricity Access. Master thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Engineering Systems Division.; 2015.
[91] Mwalenga L, Amatya R, Gonz� alez-García A, Stoner R, P�erez-Arriaga JI.
A Comprehensive Computer-Aided Planning Approach for Universal Energy
Access. Case study of Kaloleni, Kilifi County, Kenya. Enel Foundation Working
Papers. Enel Foundation; 2016 [Online]. Available: http://universalaccess.mit.
edu/#/publications [Accessed: 04-Apr-2018].
[92] REM. Test cases Colombia and Kenya. 2016 [Online]. Available: https://www.iit.
comillas.edu/proyectos/mostrar_proyecto.php.es?nombre_abreviado¼ENEL%20
Kenya-Colombia%20Test%20Cases. [Accessed 4 April 2018].
[93] Assistance to the government of Rwanda to develop a national electrification
strategy (NES) and related investment plans. 2017 [Online]. Available: http
s://www.iit.comillas.edu/proyectos/mostrar_proyecto.php.es?nombre_abreviado
¼Rwanda%20NES%2017. [Accessed 4 April 2018].
[94] Promotion of mini-grids for rural electrification. 2017 [Online]. Available: htt
ps://www.iit.comillas.edu/proyectos/mostrar_proyecto.php.es?nombre_abreviado
¼2017%20GIZ%20Uganda. [Accessed 4 April 2018].
[95] Gonzalez-Garcia A, Amatya R, Stoner R, Perez-Arriaga JI. Evaluation of universal
access to modern energy services in Peru. Case study of scenarios for Electricity
Access in Cajamarca. Enel Foundation Working Papers. Enel Foundation; 2016
[Online]. Available: http://universalaccess.mit.edu/#/publications.