Power Africa Transaction and Reforms Program 
(PATRP) Performance Evaluation Report
February 2020
This report was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was 
prepared independently by Integra LLC under the Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project (LEAP III). The authors’ views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
1
POWER AFRICA TRANSACTION AND
REFORMS PROGRAM (PATRP)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FINAL REPORT
Contract Title: LEAP III: Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project
Contract Number: GS-10F-083CA / 7200AA18M0004
Activity Number: LEAP III 2018-11 – 1009.1029
Submitted: February 4, 2020
Contractor: Integra Government Services International LLC
1100 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20005
Limestone Analytics LLC (Subcontractor)
USAID Office: Power Africa
COR: Dr. Yoon Lee, ylee@usaid.gov
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
ACRONYMS 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
1. EVALUATION PURPOSE & QUESTIONS 9
2. PROGRAM BACKGROUND 13
3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 15
4. FINDINGS FROM KENYA 18
5. FINDINGS FROM ETHIOPIA 24
6. FINDINGS FROM NIGERIA 31
7. FINDINGS FROM GHANA 38
8. OVERARCHING FINDINGS 46
9. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61
ANNEX I: STATEMENT OF WORK 64
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 75
ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 82
ANNEX 4: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 89
ANNEX 5: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 94
3
ACRONYMS
AIP USAID’s African Infrastructure Program
ATC&C Aggregate Technical, Commercial, and Collections 
BTG Beyond the Grid
CES Community Engagement Strategy
COR Contracting Officer's Representative
DISCO Distribution Company
DT Distribution Transformer
ECG Electricity Company of Ghana
EEA Ethiopian Energy Authority
EEP Ethiopian Electric Power
EEU Ethiopian Electric Utility
EQ Evaluation Question
ESRP Energy Sector Recovery Program
FC Financial Closure
Forex Foreign Currency and Exchange
GLOS Government Letter of Support
GMP Gas Master Plan
GMSP Grid Management Support Program
GW Gigawatt
GWh Gigawatt-Hour
IA Implementation Agreement
IPP Independent Power Producer
KenGen Kenya Electricity Generating Company
KETRACO Kenya Electricity Transmission Company
KII Key Informant Interview
kv Kilovolt
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
KWPP Kipeto Wind Power Plant
LEAP III Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis project
LTWP Lake Turkana Wind Power
LTWPP Lake Turkana Wind Power Plant
4
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
M2C Meter 2 Cash
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
MMscfd Million Standard Cubic Feet Per Day
MoE Ministry of Energy
MoWIE Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Electricity
MW Megawatt
NBET Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc.
NERC Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission
PATRP Power Africa Transactions and Reforms Program
PATT Power Africa Transition Tracker
PCOA Put-Call Option Agreement
PDS Power Distribution Services 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PPP Public-Private Partnership
RFP Request for Proposals
SAAR South Addis Ababa Region
SHS Solar Home System
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
TA Transaction Advisor
TTIP Tema Takoradi Interconnection Project
USG United States Government
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WAGP West African Gas Pipeline
WAPCO West African Pipeline Company
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the findings of a 2019 evaluation of the Power Africa Transactions 
and Reforms Program (PATRP) contract, implemented by Tetra Tech between 2014 and 
2019. This evaluation focuses specifically on the work of PATRP in Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, 
and Nigeria. The goal of this evaluation is to answer nine evaluation questions (EQs). The 
EQs and associated findings are briefly summarized below. 
The evaluation is based on numerous primary and secondary sources of evidence. The primary source of 
data was key informant interviews (KIIs) with more than 60 individuals affiliated with PATRP and its 
partners between September 30 and November 5, 2019. Secondary sources include numerous project￾and transaction-related documents and datasets. 
OVERVIEW OF PATRP
PATRP provided technical assistance, training, capacity 
building, and transaction support services under Power 
Africa, a U.S. government-led partnership coordinated by 
USAID that aims to increase access to electricity. PATRP 
activities fell under four main categories:
1. Institutional support to the Power Africa 
Coordinator’s office
2. Late-stage transactional support
3. Small-scale projects, rural electrification, and 
mini-grids support
4. Regulatory and institutional strengthening and 
policy reform
PATRP tracked “a pipeline of power generation projects 
from the concept phase to bring late-stage power 
generation, transmission, and distribution projects to 
financial closure (FC).” This transaction-focused approach is meant to spur “systemic changes and 
fundamental reforms in the power sector that will facilitate even greater private sector involvement and 
investment over the long term.” The map above illustrates the span of PATRP’s work through Transaction 
Advisors (TAs), as well as utility, Beyond the Grid (BTG), and gas advisors.1
1 Copied from the 2018 PATRP Annual Report.
6
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS BY EQ
Evaluation 
Question Key Findings
1. To what extent 
was the 
transaction￾focused approach 
to advancing 
megawatt (MW) 
deals successful? 
● Eight major transactions, with a combined capacity of 
approximately1,700 MW, closed in the four countries covered in this 
report. Five were in Kenya, and none were in Ethiopia.
● In Kenya, some transactions closed primarily due to the efforts of the 
TA.
● In Ghana, overcapacity makes a transaction-focused approach an 
ineffective strategy for improving the country’s energy situation, at 
least in the short term.
● In Nigeria, high aggregate technical, commercial, and collections
(ATC&C) losses, primarily tied to distribution companies (DISCOs), 
which are not reflected in tariffs has led to payment issues that add 
risk to any new generation transactions. The enabling environment in 
Nigeria makes a transaction-focused approach significantly less 
impactful than in other countries. 
● No generation capacity reached financial close in Ethiopia.
● Partners in the public and private sectors placed high value on TAs, 
although their impact may not always have been best captured 
through the transactions that closed.
● The focus on “closure” of transactions is not typically representative 
of the complex environment within which each project exists and 
simplifies the nature of the problems Power Africa addresses.
However, the involvement of PATRP in some cases (such as Kipeto), 
led to FC.
2. How effective 
was PATRP’s 
approach to 
strengthening 
utility viability, as 
evident in their 
work in Nigeria and 
Ethiopia?
● Clear quantitative improvements to key performance indicators 
(ATC&C losses, revenue) were seen across multiple DISCOs in 
Nigeria during the period of PATRP involvement. However, the 
overall situation for DISCOs in Nigeria is still dire, and the 
sustainability of marginal improvements from technical assistance is
jeopardized by an unstable financial environment in the power sector 
that is overrun by insolvent entities.
● Improvements in revenue collections in Ethiopia occurred as a result
of PATRP’s diagnostic assessment of the utility’s operations and the 
implementation of the Meter 2 Cash pilot project in the South Addis 
Ababa Region (SAAR). However, the underlying data assumes are
not verified by accurate meter reading, and attributes 100 percent of 
increased revenue to PATRP support.
7
Evaluation 
Question Key Findings
● The PATRP work demonstrated the possible benefits of working 
with utilities, but also showed the limitations of this approach if the 
enabling environment is not addressed.
3. How effective 
was PATRP’s 
approach to 
expanding off-grid 
connections? 
● Off-grid connections established in the four countries examined in 
our study (Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia, Nigeria) comprise over 96 
percent of all PATRP off-grid connections.
● PATRP’s counting methodology leaves room for doubt with regard
to its role in the connections measured.
● BTG advisors were generally responsible for the kinds of major 
successes observed for off-grid work.
4. How effective 
was PATRP’s 
approach to policy 
reform? 
● Some notable efforts shaped the policy direction.
● Enabling environment issues are difficult to overcome with the 
limited resources available in each country.
● Stakeholders observed that PATRP’s efforts were more effective
when the advisors were local residents with international experience, 
or when advisors spent a longer time in the country. 
5. What were the 
positive and 
negative 
consequences of 
achieving targets? 
Were those 
intended?
● Not all transactions offer good value for money, and adding MWs of 
generation capacity to the grid can have both positive and negative 
impacts on the overall health of each country’s power sector.
● Adding more capacity in Ghana may have further burdened an 
already overwhelmed electricity market.
● Closing the Azura gas deal in a non-competitive and non-transparent 
way in Nigeria may have created an unrealistic standard for future 
power purchase agreement pricing, setting is a bad precedent for the 
sector.
● In Kenya, Cummins Baringo Biomass Plant technology was not 
properly vetted, and feedstock was incompatible with the 
technology. As a result, the plant is not operational. 
● However, multiple stakeholders in Kenya reported that they have 
seen increased interest from US firms in investing in the country's 
power sector.
6. Is there evidence 
that PATRP’s 
achieved results 
had a wider effect 
than anticipated? 
If so, in what way? 
● TAs adapted to the unique context of each country and pursued 
various policy or regulatory goals in consultation with local partners.
● In Ghana, for example, the TAs contributed significantly to the 
development of the natural gas sector, the Energy Sector Recovery 
Program (ESRP), reforms to the Gas Pricing Policy, and the 
relocation of the Karpowership, which is expected to save the 
country more than $100 million. 
8
Evaluation 
Question Key Findings
● In Ethiopia, TAs provided valuable input on geothermal and public￾private partnership (PPP) proclamations, paving the way for improved
transactions in all sectors.
7. What is the 
possibility of 
positive effects 
being likely to 
continue after the 
program has 
ended?
● Generation deals typically involved PPAs and other guarantees that 
ensure they will operate in the future.
● The sustainability of utility work is threatened by an ineffective 
payments system in Nigeria’s energy system.
● In Ethiopia, the sustainability of utility improvements is seen as 
dependent on the implementation of activities under the East Africa 
Energy Program.
● Many policy efforts will continue to influence the power sector in 
each country going forward.
● The experience accumulated through PATRP is expected to shape 
many future interventions in the power sectors of these countries.
8. To what extent 
were program 
activities adapted 
for the local 
context? 
● In Ghana, TAs addressed the significant financial issues in the sector 
by participating in the ESRP efforts, proposing a cost-saving 
relocation of an existing generation facility, modeling sector finances, 
and participating in numerous policy efforts that key stakeholders
valued highly. 
● In Nigeria, TAs were able to help with gas flaring auctions. However, 
the difficult enabling environment in Nigeria meant transactions were 
difficult to advance, although the subsequent Nigeria Power Section 
Program (NPSP) shifted its focus to the enabling environment.
9. How well did the 
program develop 
and make use of 
monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E)
systems?
● Generation capacity is a poor metric for capturing program success 
because it equates all generation efforts, regardless of value, price, 
political context, and overall impact to the health of each country’s 
electricity sector. 
● Connections as a measure is also somewhat problematic, or at least 
unclear. For much BTG work, estimates of new connections relied 
on questionable assumptions that can lead to significant 
overestimation of attributable connections. 
● Some actors believed that the centralized nature of PATRP meant 
that data was not shared as well as was expected. Distribution of 
data may have improved with the transition to a new program that 
adopted a more decentralized approach.
9
1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND
QUESTIONS
Power Africa, a United States Government (USG) entity, solicited the services of Integra to conduct a 
performance evaluation of a USAID-funded project, PATRP. The findings of this evaluation will be used to 
judge the effectiveness of PATRP’s transaction-focused approach to improving the accessibility of 
electricity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
The results of this evaluation will be shared with Power Africa’s leadership to improve internal capacity 
to make programmatic adjustments, inform future project design and strategies, and assist in evidence￾based decision-making. 
The transaction-focused approach is a relatively new concept to USAID and divergent from other foreign 
assistance models. This evaluation will be a valuable addition to the research literature on the subject and 
can be used to address the value of replicating the model within USAID, and across other development 
programs. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
In the Statement of Work, USAID requested that the evaluation team address nine EQs (some with 
component sub-questions) in its study. These nine questions are presented with the evaluation team’s 
interpretation of their intent and meaning.
EQ 1: 
To what extent was the transaction-focused approach to advancing MW deals successful? 
To answer the first EQ, the report will need to define the “transaction-focused approach” is and how it 
differed from traditional approaches to a program of this nature. The report describes examples of 
transactions, and the support they received, to help readers better understand the nature of this approach. 
Given that this question leaves some room for interpretation, as part of its response the evaluation team 
will explain its definition of “successful” before judging the overall extent of PATRP’s success. 
The first EQ is accompanied by two sub-questions that further clarify the type of knowledge USAID is 
seeking:
Do parties to financially closed transactions that received PATRP support feel that PATRP’s 
involvement expedited or otherwise assisted the transaction? Why or why not?
This sub-question seeks input from those partners that were part of transactions that reached FC and 
asks them to reflect on the value of PATRP support. To address this sub-question, the report will 
comment on the extent to which PATRP can be causally linked to the FC of transactions. The extension 
of this sub-question is asking why PATRP involvement was valued (or why it wasn’t). In doing so, the report 
can define the conditions and actions that led to PATRP’s successes, as well as its failures.
10
What have been the most effective factors in expeditiously closing transactions? What 
challenges did PATRP encounter? How did it overcome them?
The second sub-question asks for a list of the most important factors to PATRP’s closing transactions 
“expeditiously” (which refers to both speed and efficiency). Correctly defining success factors can improve 
the ability of USAID to forecast successful programming in future efforts, as a function of definable pre￾conditions. 
This sub-question also asks for an explanation of the challenges that PATRP faced, and the ways that they 
were overcome (assuming they were). This line of inquiry will define, and consider methods for 
overcoming, the obstacles that prevent successful achievement of PATRP’s goals. Where solutions were 
effectively implemented, they can be highlighted and analyzed for reuse. Where obstacles were not 
overcome, we will discuss whether appropriate solutions may have existed and whether the design of the 
program was conducive to overcoming these obstacles. 
EQ 2: 
How effective was PATRP’s approach to strengthening utility viability, as evident in its work 
in Nigeria and Ethiopia?
The second EQ is concerned with the effects of PATRP’s work with utilities in Nigeria and Ethiopia. The 
effectiveness of the work may not be the same in both countries given the notably different contexts. To
address this question, it will, therefore, be important to provide an in-depth descriptive account of the 
interventions in Nigeria and Ethiopia, and a list of quantifiable outcomes for the utility and the electricity 
sectors. We will also include anecdotal information from the KIIs to clarify how partners’ subjective
feelings about the impact of the work.
To what extent did PATRP’s work to strengthen the utility lead to and/or is expected to lead 
to new grid connections and the ability of the Government to add MWs to the grid?
This sub-question is asking for a link between PATRP’s work and key output metrics for the program, 
such as connections or generation capacity. This sub-question will force the evaluation team to quantify
the impacts of utility work. By articulating the impacts of PATRP’s work in this way, the evaluation team 
will have the opportunity to discuss the PATRP theory of change and explore the causal links among
inputs, outputs, and outcomes. The evaluation team will also be able to comment on the appropriateness 
of defining success by metrics such as the number of MWs or connections. 
To what extent are PATRP’s achievements (e.g., loss reduction, system improvements) 
expected to be sustainable? 
Sustainability is a key consideration for programming of this nature, especially given USAID’s promotion 
of self-sufficiency. This sub-question seeks judgment on the nature of PATRP’s achievements. Are some 
benefits expected to continue in the future? If so, which ones? Once the program ends, which will change 
without the presence of the embedded advisors? By answering these sub-questions, the evaluation can 
discuss which activities engendered benefits that were not measured during the program's lifespan. The 
evaluation team will also address how to promote the sustainability of outcomes to maximize overall 
impact.
11
What key challenges did PATRP encounter in implementing this work, and how did it seek 
to overcome them? To what extent were those efforts successful? 
As with the sub-question from EQ 1, the evaluation team will consider obstacles to success and how to 
overcome them, with specific focus on the challenges relevant to utilities. 
EQ 3: 
How effective was PATRP’s approach to expanding off-grid connections? 
EQ 3 seeks clarification on PATRP’s impact with respect to off-grid customers. This will involve looking 
at the ways PATRP supported off-grid companies and seeing how this work is tied to outcomes in the 
sector. The evaluation team will make a judgment about the outcomes attributable to PATRP relative to 
their efforts in the off-grid sector. 
How effective were PATRP’s efforts to bring lending institutions into the off-grid sector to 
finance off-grid companies—solar home system (SHS) and micro-grid?
The first sub-question for EQ 3 asks about PATRP’s work to connect off-grid companies with financing, 
with an emphasis on companies that produce SHS and microgrids. The evaluation team will consider 
anecdotal evidence from interviews with relevant stakeholders, contextualized by data about the sector 
overall.
To what extent do off-grid companies that received PATRP support feel they benefited, and 
how? 
To address this sub-question, the evaluation team will present anecdotal evidence from representatives 
of off-grid companies about the benefits of PATRP activities. This can be contextualized by anecdotal 
evidence provided by PATRP representatives, and data that includes metrics like number of new 
connections, grids, customers, etc. Relevant work with policy or enabling environments can also be 
considered. 
What key challenges did PATRP encounter in implementing this work, and how did it seek 
to overcome them? To what extent were those efforts successful? 
Again, the evaluation team is asked to consider obstacles in the off-grid sector and solutions to them.
EQ 4: 
How effective was PATRP’s approach to policy reform? Which PATRP interventions had the 
most significant impact on policy reform, and why?
The fourth EQ considers the work done through PATRP to advance policy reforms in the four evaluation 
countries. In order to judge whether PATRP had an effective approach to policy reform, we will need to 
define what mechanisms were used to influence policy, what resources were available to policymakers, 
and what legal or institutional frameworks contextualized policy work in each country. Then, the 
evaluation team will need to judge whether, given the resources available and context of each country, 
policy achievements were satisfactory. The second part of the question asks which interventions had the 
most impact on policy reform. The evaluation will address this question by considering the different 
interventions that PATRP implemented, and evaluating which ones generated tangible impact and any
common characteristics of those interventions.
12
EQ 5: 
What were the positive and negative consequences of achieving targets? Were those 
intentional?
EQ 5 asks for feedback related to the targets set by the program, and the results of pursuing those targets. 
In some cases, the metrics targeted by PATRP may not have produced the results expected at the 
conception of the project. Some discussion will occur related to the “correct” approach to targeting, and 
the perverse incentives that can emerge if targets are improperly defined.
EQ 6: 
Is there evidence that PATRP’s achieved results had a wider effect than anticipated? If so, in 
what way?
EQ 6 captures what is not addressed in the previous question, that is, what accomplishments of PATRP 
are not measured by the chosen metrics or do not align with the program targets. 
EQ 7: 
What is the possibility of positive effects being likely to continue after the program has 
ended?
EQ 7 addresses sustainability. Will the work that PATRP completed lead to results that last beyond the 
life of the program? The evaluation team will address which PATRP efforts are expected to generate long￾term impacts, and what factors will influence sustainability. 
EQ 8: 
To what extent were program activities adapted for the local context?
EQ 8 asks for examples of ways that the program adapted to the specific needs of the countries it operated 
in. The evaluation team will address this question by providing examples of ways PATRP implementation
differed in each country and discussing the impacts of these differences. This question can also be 
addressed by discussing contexts to which PATRP did not adapt well, with a view to future improvements. 
EQ 9: 
How well did the program develop and make use of monitoring and evaluation systems?
M&E systems can improve transparency and adaptability throughout the lifespan of a project. In addressing 
EQ 9, the evaluation team will consider what data was collected to aid M&E efforts and discuss whether 
this data was appropriate for the needs of key stakeholders.
13
2. PROGRAM BACKGROUND
POWER AFRICA
Power Africa is a collaborative initiative that aims to support the addition of 30,000 MW and 60 million
connections across SSA. The expressed purpose of Power Africa is to promote sustainable development, 
increase trade linkages, and end extreme poverty. To attain this goal, Power Africa pools resources from 
12 USG agencies; multilateral, bilateral, and international institutions; African governments; and over 150 
private sector partners.
PATRP
“In 2014 the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) selected Tetra Tech to serve as the prime contractor for 
the Power Africa Transactions and Reform Program (PATRP), which provides technical assistance, capacity building, and 
transaction support services under Power Africa.” 
-—Tetra Tech Website
PATRP’s activities are organized under four main objectives2:
Objective 1: Institutional Support to the Power Africa Coordinator’s Office
Objective 2: Late-Stage Transaction Support
Objective 3: Small-Scale Projects and Rural Electrification / Mini-Grids Support
Objective 4: Regulatory and Institutional Strengthening and Policy Reform
Under Objective 1, PATRP leads and directs partner country activities, including transaction-centered 
support to the energy sector and BTG initiatives. Additionally, PATRP is responsible for M&E, technical 
support, and reporting.
Objective 2 deploys TAs who connect investors and lenders to energy projects and help remove 
roadblocks to the FC of energy investments. Although TAs primarily support transactions led by the 
private sector, they also develop power generation projects at all stages, and may be embedded within 
financial institutions, national utilities, or government ministries.
Activities associated with Objective 3 increase sources of generation and improve access to energy for 
rural and peri-urban communities with no connectivity to the national grid.
Objective 4 enhances the enabling environment for energy sector development. For example, activities 
under this objective include regulatory reform (e.g., tariff structure), policy and legal reviews, and 
improvement programs at electric utilities. 
RESULTS FRAMEWORK
PATRP’s performance management plan and M&E activities are based on the Power Africa Initiative results 
framework. Specifically, PATRP’s performance is tracked by its activities supporting Power Africa’s 
Development Objective and Intermediate Results. In total, PATRP has eight intermediate and sub￾intermediate results, each with associated performance indicators, as shown in Figure 2.1.
2 USAID PATRP Power Africa Transactions and Reforms Program (2018). 2018 Annual Report: October 1, 2017–September 
30, 2018. Prepared by Tetra Tech ES, Inc., Contract AID 623-C-14-00003.
14
Figure 2.1: PATRP Results Framework
The results framework for PATRP is a hypothesis that links key intermediate results to an overarching 
development objective. PATRP’s development objective is to “increase the quantity and quality of 
transmission, distribution, and cleaner generation projects to expand access to electricity and spur 
economic growth.” The two main results that the Theory of Change assumes are prerequisites for this 
objective are: 
1. Increase investment in the power sector in SSA
2. Improve capacity to grow and manage the power sector in SSA
This evaluation includes empirical evidence that can be used to either support or reject the results 
framework, which can then be refined for future Power Africa initiatives. 
15
3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The goal of this evaluation is to study the progress of PATRP in improving the supply of, and access to, 
electricity in SSA, and to better understand the ways PATRP has been both effective and ineffective in 
achieving its goals. The evaluation team developed an evaluation methodology that seeks to address nine 
EQs, selected by USAID. This approach can be characterized as a mixed-method approach that combines 
a review of existing secondary data sources as well as a number of semi-structured KIIs. It reflects USAID’s 
parallel combinations approach, which uses two approaches to collect and analyze information that is then 
synthesized to answer individual EQs.3
This study has compiled information about how PATRP activities were implemented with respect to each 
program objective. The evaluation team will assess whether PATRP activities align with the stated goal 
and targets of improving the supply of, and access to, electricity through transaction-based support, policy 
reforms and institutional strengthening, and the provision of on-grid and BTG energy solutions.
DATA SOURCES
Program Documents/Data and Information (Secondary Sources)
The performance evaluation team analyzed numerous sources of information, including program and 
administrative documentation, reporting data from the Power Africa Transaction Tracker (PATT) 
database, and qualitative research. Key secondary data sources include:
● Program materials that document the transactions, projects, and policy reforms supported by 
PATRP. Examples include country investment plans, quarterly and annual reports, M&E and 
performance monitoring plans (PMPs).
● Administrative documents from national electric utilities, national regulatory agencies, and off-grid 
energy providers provide descriptions of partner performance and progress toward common 
objectives. For example, annual reports from utilities and off-grid energy companies document, 
among other important details, customer growth and financial viability. 
● The PATT database provides source material for all qualified Power Africa transactions, including 
partner involvement for each PATRP-supported transaction or project. PATT data can be used 
to identify the generation capacity, cost, technology, and other details for each transaction under 
Power Africa.
KIIs (Primary Qualitative Sources)
This performance evaluation includes information obtained by interviewing key stakeholders in order to 
understand how PATRP was implemented and how program partners and participants believe the program 
has met its objectives. Key stakeholders interviewed represent diverse interests and perspectives. They
include:
● PATRP TAs from each country
● Representatives of corporations that were part of PATRP-linked transactions
3 See USAID Technical Note: Conducting Mixed-Method Evaluations, Version I, June 2013. 
16
● Representatives of electric utilities in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Ethiopia that received PATRP 
support
● Off-grid energy company staff who interacted with PATRP
● Representatives of governments, ministries and regulatory commissions that received PATRP 
support
● USG staff and implementing partners
This performance evaluation report identifies implementation successes, findings, and observations, and a 
number of challenges in the program. It also outlines lessons learned and key takeaways that provide 
further insight. Additionally, the performance evaluation report recommends actions and next steps for 
consideration by technical teams, activity managers, and senior management in the design of future Power 
Africa programs. 
LIMITATIONS OF THIS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In a number of ways, the data and information collected through the mixed-methods performance 
evaluation approach may be unsuitable to providing accurate, concrete, and conclusive answers to the 
EQs. Some of these limitations are summarized below:
The Content of KIIs Includes Subjective Accounts of PATRP 
KIIs allow stakeholders, with significant knowledge and experience, the opportunity to share their 
thoughts and experiences directly with an evaluation team, typically in a partially open format that is not 
restricted by the conventions associated with quantitative data collection. A feature of the resulting data 
that is both a strength and a weakness is that responses will reflect the key informants’ individual beliefs, 
values, feelings, biases, and interests. If these responses are equated with objective facts, the resulting 
analysis can be distorted.
To avoid confusion that may affect the analysis in the report, this document strives to provide relevant 
context to information gathered through KIIs with secondary sources where possible. The report also 
indicates when a statement refers to a comment that the evaluation team heard in an interview as opposed 
to facts that are verifiable through secondary sources. To make this distinction, the report uses quotation 
marks or describes the source of information (for example, “The evaluation team heard...”, “key 
stakeholders expressed...”, etc.) 
The large number of stakeholders interviewed allows for improved accuracy in many cases. One 
interviewee may provide an inaccurate account of an event or may share a recommendation that would 
poorly serve the program. However, when the same event is described numerous times from different 
perspectives, the overall result provides a much clearer picture that should better reflect objective reality. 
When such comments are combined with secondary sources and quantitative data, the risk of subjective 
accounts distorting the analysis of the evaluation decreases significantly.
KIIs Drew from a Limited Sample
Time and resource constraints meant that the evaluation team was able to interview approximately 70 
people as part of our evaluation. This number is sufficient to learn some lessons and gather information 
about some results of the program but does not guarantee that every activity or output associated with 
the PATRP program has been closely examined or discussed with all relevant stakeholders.
17
The qualitative data in this report reflects a fraction of the knowledge that exists about the PATRP 
program. However, when combined with secondary sources and relevant quantitative data, the evaluation 
team believes the number of KIIs was sufficient for the purpose of answering EQs.
Selection Bias(es)
The list of interviewees contacted was assembled from a contact list provided to the evaluation team by 
Tetra Tech and another from the Power Africa mission offices. Interviewee selection was therefore 
influenced by these organizations, both of which have interests that may have potentially affected the 
contacts they chose to share. However, given that the interests of both groups are likely to be significantly 
different, and because the evaluation team had access to numerous secondary sources to validate what 
was said in KIIs, the evaluation team believes that the list of stakeholders invited for interviews was 
adequately constructed. Interviewees provided diverse answers and perspectives that do not seem likely 
to significantly bias the analysis in this evaluation.
The KIIs were conducted on a voluntary basis, and not all key stakeholders who were invited to interviews 
responded or made themselves available. This means that interviews that were conducted may represent 
a subgroup whose characteristics or properties are not representative of the entire pool of stakeholders. 
The stakeholders in our interviews may have elected to respond or participate because they have strong 
feelings about the program, or because they have special interests that they feel may be best represented 
by influencing the program’s evaluation. The group of interviewees may have also been more involved 
with the program and therefore easier to locate. The evaluation team acknowledges this limitation. 
Timing
KIIs were conducted in October of 2019. In many cases, key PATRP stakeholders had already left their 
positions with PATRP, in some cases for work in other countries. Where possible, interviews were 
conducted with key staff, such as former TAs, by telephone or over the internet, but the evaluation team 
acknowledges that the timing of the evaluation means there is a higher likelihood that the voices of some 
key stakeholders may not have been included. 
18
4. FINDINGS FROM KENYA
Kenya’s electricity comes predominantly from renewable sources. With an installed capacity of roughly 
2.8 Gigawatt (GW)4 and a peak demand of around 1.8 GW5, the country generates two-thirds of its power 
from geothermal and hydro, with the rest coming from thermal and renewable resources, such as wind 
and solar. The Kenyan Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) is majority government-owned 
and is the primary power producer in the country, providing about 60 percent of Kenya’s power.6 Kenya 
has been open to independent power producers (IPPs) since the 1990s, and major IPPs in the country 
include Lake Turkana Wind Power (LTWP) and Kipeto Energy Limited. However, lack of transparency in 
procurement processes and gaps in feasibility assessments remain problematic, perhaps most clearly 
evidenced by the controversial Lamu Coal Power Station, which was slated for development but is 
currently on hold due to public backlash over environmental concerns.7
At the national level, the energy sector is governed by the Ministry of Energy (MoE). The Kenya 
Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO) is responsible for high-voltage transmission, and the 
Kenya Power and Lighting Company (Kenya Power) is the sole off-taker in the country. Aging 
transmission infrastructure, public budget constraints, and increased intermittency of the power supply all 
pose significant challenges to the stability of the national grid in the coming years. In an effort to adapt to 
these barriers, KETRACO is undertaking procurement for five privatized transmission lines under a PPP
pilot program. Under the new Energy Act 2019, the former Energy Regulatory Commission has become 
the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority.
The new Energy Act also introduced the Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation
as the successor to the Renewable Energy Authority, as Kenya strives to achieve its goal of universal 
access to electricity by 2025.8 Whether Kenya will reach this ambitious goal depends to a great degree on 
the success of the off-grid energy sector in reaching remote rural citizens. A newly drafted grid code has 
filled a gap in the regulation of off-grid energy supply, but providers of SHS and mini-grid technology may 
face challenges in navigating the regulatory environment in this relatively young market.
4 “2018 Integrated Annual Report and Financial Statements.” Kenya Electricity Generating Company Plc, June 30, 2018.
5 “Maximizing Financing for Development in Action: The Kenya Energy Sector Experience.” World Bank Group, April 2019.
6 “Women in Energy: $1 billion dollars in negotiations.” Mining Review Africa, August 2019.
7 “Kenya halts Lamu coal power project at World Heritage Site.” BBC News, June 2019.
8 “Highlights of Kenya’s Energy Act 2019.” Rodl & Partner, 2019.
19
Kenya Overview
Population ~50 million GDP per Capita $1,507.81
Map from: The World Factbook (CIA)
Generation 
Capacity ~2,800 MW Peak Demand ~1,800 MW
Capacity per
Capita 56 watts Annual Demand
per Capita 164 kWh
Key Issues
● Low transparency in procurement
● Gaps in feasibility assessments
● Aging transmission and distribution infrastructure
● Budgetary constraints
● Increased intermittency of the power supply
● Evolving off-grid energy regulatory environment
4.1 PILLAR 1: GENERATION
Five large-scale transactions that PATRP supported in Kenya reached FC. Of those, only the Lake Turkana 
Wind Power Plant (LTWPP, 310 MW) is currently in commercial operation. The Cummins Baringo 
Biomass Plant (8.4 MW) is not in operation because the mathenge weed feedstock contained too much 
moisture to be compatible with the plant’s technology. The remaining transactions that reached FC are 
progressing toward commercial operation.
LTWPP (310 MW)
The LTWPP, the largest grid-connected wind farm in SSA, reached FC in December 2014. PATRP 
provided support to the Grid Management Support Program (GMSP), which was a precondition to the 
project’s financing agreement to prove that Kenya’s grid could support the load from LTWPP. PATRP also 
provided support in establishing operational procedures for the plant, including system emergency 
procedures and real-time data exchanges between the plant and Kenya Power’s substation.
However, despite reaching FC in 2014, the LTWPP did not come online until 2019 due to significant delays 
in the construction of the 434-km transmission line connecting the plant to Kenya Power’s Suswa 
substation. The contractor that KETRACO initially hired to construct the line went bankrupt in 2016, 
leaving the plant disconnected from the grid until a new contractor could be brought in to finish the job 
in 2018, and tests could be run and completed in early 2019. The delays also left taxpayers responsible
for compensation payments from Kenya Power to LTWP under the terms of the power purchase 
agreement. The LTWPP has also faced criticism for failing to properly engage with local communities 
20
impacted by the project.9 The issues associated with bringing LTWPP to commercial operation might raise 
concerns about the way in which the project feasibility and procurement process was undertaken.
Olkaria V Geothermal Plant (158 MW)
KenGen’s Olkaria V Geothermal Plant was brought to FC in December 2017. PATRP helped craft the 
strategy for the project, identifying three clear strategic dimensions that align with the Government of 
Kenya’s objectives. PATRP also offered critical assistance to KenGen in interpreting the technical 
specifications provided by the project financiers, which helped foster understanding between KenGen and 
the financiers. Perhaps most significantly, PATRP helped KenGen draft its Community Engagement 
Strategy (CES), which enabled KenGen to effectively engage with the Olkaria communities that would be 
affected by the geothermal project. The CES helped KenGen demonstrate to community members how 
communities in other jurisdictions have worked well with utilities to ensure projects result in win-win 
circumstances. The CES is greatly valued by KenGen, and other stakeholders in the sector have reportedly 
recognized a need for their own CESs.
Kipeto Wind Power Plant (KWPP, 100 MW)
Key informants widely acknowledged the KWPP as PATRP’s biggest success story in Kenya. PATRP’s 
support for this transaction demonstrates how effective the transaction-focused approach can be when 
the efforts of embedded TA are collaboratively defined and effectively targeted. However, the KWPP 
project ran into significant, simultaneous problems that threatened to derail progress toward FC. The first 
dilemma resulted from the spillover effect of backlash from the local community at the site of another 
wind power project being financed by Kipeto’s primary shareholder. For political reasons, the need arose 
for the initial primary shareholder to be replaced if the project was to reach FC. During this turbulent 
period, PATRP advocated on behalf of the project developer to maintain support for the project from 
government, regulatory and financial stakeholders. Key informants saw this advocacy as invaluable and a 
significant reason why the PPA was not re-opened for negotiation, and why US lenders did not withdraw
their funding for the project.
Meanwhile, in 2015 the status of two endangered species of raptors that are native to the proposed Kipeto 
site area was downgraded from “endangered” to “critically endangered.” At the request of the new 
majority shareholder, Actis, PATRP supported the drafting of a Biodiversity Action Plan to identify and 
mitigate the risks that the wind farm posed to those raptor populations. PATRP also helped produce the 
National Strategic Environmental Assessment for Windpower and Biodiversity in Kenya, which helped guide the 
Kipeto project’s environmental risk management and will continue to serve as a resource to the sector.
Early and frequent community consultation throughout this process was crucial to ensure that the findings 
of the Biodiversity Action Plan and environmental assessment were accepted by nongovernmental 
organizations and conservation advocates.
As was the case at Lake Turkana, KWPP’s success was jeopardized by delays in building the transmission 
line. Lenders did not want to commit funds for the project until it was clear that the transmission line 
would be built and that the grid could support the load from KWPP. Again, PATRP’s work on the GMSP 
and the System Integration Study helped address the lenders’ concerns and secure the project funding.
9 https://qz.com/africa/1700925/kenyas-huge-wind-power-project-in-turkana-hurts-local-people/.
21
Finally, the project needed a government letter of support (GLOS) in order to be implemented. PATRP
TAs were instrumental in wording the GLOS in a way that satisfied lenders. Once the letter was drafted, 
there was a lengthy delay in obtaining an opinion from the attorney general on the GLOS. A PATRPs TA
leveraged local connections to expedite receipt of the opinion, which cleared the way for the project to 
move ahead.
Cummins Baringo Biomass Plant (8.4 MW)
The Cummins Baringo Biomass Plant was an innovative project that promised to create multiple benefits 
for Baringo County. The plant was designed to convert a local invasive weed, methenge, into electricity, 
heat, and residual char.10 It was anticipated that harvesting the weed would employ 2,500 local workers 
and open land for agricultural purposes. PATRP provided technical and financial support to the transaction, 
including the project feasibility study and negotiation of the PPA with government officials.
However, the biomass plant is not yet in commercial operation, because the methenge feedstock is 
incompatible with the plant’s technology.11 The evaluation team was not able to meet with anyone who 
was directly involved with the project, but the current status suggests there must have been flaws in the 
project screening process.
Olkaria I Unit VI (83.3 MW)
This expansion of the Olkaria I geothermal power complex reached FC in December 2018; as of early 
2019, PATRP was still providing TA services to this transaction. PATRP’s main contribution was providing 
technical support to KenGen staff for a detailed capital expenditure optimization during the project design 
phase. This support not only strengthened the financial viability of the Olkaria I expansion but also 
strengthened KenGen’s capacity and desire to undertake similar exercises on all future geothermal 
projects.
4.2 PILLAR 2: CONNECTIONS
PATRP’s BTG partners reported adding over 559,000 new off-grid connections in Kenya in 2017 and 
2018. These connections are attributed to PATRP’s support of 14 projects during this time. Figure 4.1 
shows the breakdown of these connections by technology. The numbers are based on the total 
connections recorded in the PATT database as of the end of October 2019.
10https://ke.usembassy.gov/cummins-cogeneration-kenya-limited-cckl-12mw-biomass-fueled-on-grid-electricity-generation￾project-in-baringo-county-kenya/
11https://www.nation.co.ke/counties/baringo/Baringo-residents-hopes-for-income-fade-Mathenge-factory-stalls/3444812-
4752950-15njw8d/index.html
22
Figure 4.1: Off-Grid Connections Added in Kenya, by Technology
The evaluation team attempted to meet with representatives from several off-grid energy technology 
providers that received support from PATRP, but ultimately met with only one. However, the evaluation 
team received additional input on the off-grid sector from the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority
and financiers. From these perspectives, PATRP’s presence was regarded as useful for proactively 
facilitating connections and information sharing among stakeholders in the off-grid sector; several 
described PATRP as a “connector-of-dots.” Key informants felt that this type of intangible support helped 
de-mystify the off-grid market for investors, while simultaneously helping off-grid providers attract 
investment and adapt to changes in the evolving regulatory framework.
Although not a direct form of support to off-grid providers, PATRP’s efforts developing the mini-grid 
regulation under the new Grid Code was acknowledged and appreciated. The Power Africa Enabling 
Environment Data Tracker12 shows that Kenya now has the highest ranking among Power Africa countries 
for the strength of its mini-grid regulatory framework. The new regulation was not yet gazetted at the 
time of this evaluation, and key informants commented that off-grid providers, particularly smaller 
companies, will face challenges navigating the new regulation.
4.3 PILLAR 3: POLICY REFORM 
PATRP supported a wide variety of activities that fall under the category of “enabling environment” or 
“policy.” Highlights of these activities that were discussed with key informants are described in Table 4.1.
12 “Power Africa Enabling Environment Data Tracker.” USAID Data Services, 2019.
23
Table 4.1: Policy Reform Work in Kenya
Institution Area of PATRP Support Perceived Outcomes and Sustainability
Kenya Power ● 5-year Corporate 
Strategic Plan
● Helping Kenya Power look at opportunities for 
cooperation with other utilities at the international level, 
new focus areas for business
● Contract extension was needed to sort out strategies
and initiatives in key areas
● Use restrictions and lack of training on executive 
management software is a current barrier to effective 
implementation of the Strategic Plan
KenGen ● Good to Great 
Transformation Strategy
● CES
● Olkaria VI PPP
● Identified seven new priority initiatives that are being 
followed through on to increase competitiveness
● Built capacity to engage with communities to ensure 
projects are win-win
● KenGen now has the capacity to analyze and understand 
PPP documents, providing a path for increased private 
investment; seeing more interest from US firms
KETRACO ● Wheeling fee calculation 
methodology, model, 
and agreement 
document drafts
● Transmission line PPP 
strategy paper and 
workshop
● Improved comprehension of wheeling arrangements, 
which will assist in formulating wheeling tariffs for other 
regional transactions. 
● Enabled KETRACO to identify the best structure for 
PPPs in transmission lines, identify screening criteria and 
understand the implications of risk allocation.
Energy and 
Petroleum 
Regulatory 
Authority
● GMSP
● Tariff Reduction Plan
● Anticipated gazetting of the new mini-grid regulation will 
encourage greater participation in the off-grid market
● Revision committee has been formed to look at emerging 
issues and incorporate them into the new Grid Code
MoE ● Kenya National 
Electrification Strategy
● PPP Framework
● KOSAP
● High-level Sector 
Finance Steering 
Committee
● IPP task force
● Moe’s understanding of private sector alternatives to 
traditional debt facilities improved
● Drafting of technology-specific PPAs is anticipated to cut 
negotiation times and improve IPPs’ risk allocation
● Convening power of financial TA was integral to getting 
buy-in from top-level stakeholders on the Sector Finance 
Steering Committee
24
5. FINDINGS FROM ETHIOPIA
Approximately 86 percent of Ethiopia’s 4.3-GW installed capacity comes from hydropower.13 The 
remaining 14 percent of capacity is provided by renewable (8 percent) and thermal (6 percent) plants. 
Although the country maintained a relatively low retail tariff rate (3 cents per kilowatt-hour) for many 
years, electrical connectivity was at 23 percent (8 percent for rural citizens) when Power Africa began 
providing support to the sector. The country’s hydro-dominated energy mix has been severely affected 
by drought, leading to power cuts as it struggles to serve a population of over 100 million and meet 
growing electricity demand, which is forecasted to grow about 30 percent per year.14
The sector is overseen by the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity (MoWIE), which is in charge of 
the development, planning, and management of the country’s energy resources, and oversees the four 
main public electricity sector institutions. The Ethiopian Energy Authority (EEA) is Ethiopia’s energy sector 
regulatory body. EEA is responsible for issuing licenses; reviewing and approving PPAs; proposing tariff 
methodologies and levels for government approval; and overseeing the generation, transmission, and 
distribution of electricity to domestic and foreign consumers. Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) is the fully 
state-owned enterprise responsible for constructing and operating the country’s generation, transmission, 
and sub-transmission infrastructure. EEP’s distribution counterpart is the Ethiopian Electric Utility (EEU), 
which is also fully state-owned and handles day-to-day operation and maintenance of Ethiopia’s distribution
network, billing and collection, client relations, and associated functions.
The Government of Ethiopia has set ambitious generation capacity expansion targets, with a goal of over 
10,000 MW of installed capacity by 2022 and expanded regional power exports.15 The government 
recognizes the need to encourage private investment in the sector to achieve these goals, but has limited 
experience negotiating deals with IPPs and is wary of signing bad deals. From the perspective of IPPs and 
financiers, high commercial losses, low collections, and outdated tariff rates have prevented EEU from 
achieving creditworthiness. In the off-grid sector, the foreign exchange shortage and complex regulatory 
environment make it challenging for small off-grid technology providers to become profitable.
13 “Power Africa in Ethiopia.” Power Africa, March 2016.
14 “Ethiopia—Energy.” The International Trade Administration, October 2019.
15 Tsagas, Ilias. “Ethiopia’s first 100 MW auction to conclude in June; scaling solar tender to follow in the summer.” PV 
Magazine, June 2017.
25
Ethiopia Overview
Population ~ 110 
million
GDP per Capita $1,902.50
Map from: The World Factbook (CIA)
Generation 
Capacity
~4,300 
MW
Peak Demand ~5,000 
MW
Capacity per
Capita
38 watts Annual 
Consumption
per
Capita
69 kWh
Key Issues
1. Grid power supply volatility
2. Limited understanding of project finance in the public 
sector
3. Public utility has not been creditworthy
4. Forex and regulatory obstacles hinder the off-grid sector
5.1 PILLAR 1: GENERATION
PATRP provided technical advisory support to several large transactions in Ethiopia. However, none 
reached FC.
Corbetti and Tulu Moye Geothermal (2x150 MW)
PATRP provided a technical and financial advisory team to EEP to support negotiations with Tulu Moye 
and Corbetti Geothermal on two four-phase, 500+-MW geothermal power plants. PATRP TAs worked 
with the African Development Bank to secure funding to retain external legal counsel for the transactions 
and helped structure and negotiate the PPAs and implementation agreements (IAs). It was during the 
process of developing a management framework for the Corbetti project that the Government of Ethiopia 
recognized a need to create a broader framework for geothermal projects rather than negotiating 
frameworks on a project-by-project basis. This gap in the enabling environment was addressed through 
the drafting of the Geothermal Proclamation, which separates geothermal law from mining law and clears 
the way for more efficient negotiation of geothermal projects in the future.
The negotiations for Corbetti and Tulu Moye were delayed during and after the drafting of the Geothermal 
Proclamation. The IAs developed under the mining law contained elements that were inconsistent with 
the new geothermal law, so the Government of Ethiopia worked with the IPPs to align the IAs with the 
new legislation.16 During this time, the projects were scaled back to two phases totaling 150 MW each. 
PATRP trained representatives from government and publicly owned enterprises in project finance, but 
high administrative turnover has left gaps in understanding of project finance in these institutions.
16 Richter, Alexander. “Corbetti geothermal project resolving issues with Government of Ethiopia.” Think Geoenergy, August 
2017.
26
Despite these setbacks, Corbetti and Tulu Moye reached commercial close in 2017. However, nearly two 
years later FC has not been achieved and both projects face pressure from the government to re-negotiate 
the PPAs. (Corbetti initially signed a conditional PPA in 2015, one month before President Obama was to 
visit Ethiopia.)
Metehara Solar (100 MW)
The Metehara Solar PV Power Plant project is one of five Ethiopian projects under the International 
Finance Corporation-funded Scaling Solar initiative. Metehara Solar was the first large-scale solar IPP 
tendered by the Ethiopian government, but it has not closed due to inefficiencies in the tendering and 
procurement process and a significant flaw in land procurement process. 
EEP approached PATRP for assistance to competitively tender Metehara Solar, since EEP had no prior 
experience negotiating an IPP contract. EEP was rushed to issue a request for proposals (RFP) in two to 
three months, so the tender documents were issued before they were complete, with the expectation
that EEP would finalize them while IPPs prepared their bids. During this time, EEP negotiated with the 
Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation and the National Bank of Ethiopia, which led to 
adjustments in the RFP documents and delays of eight to nine months before IPPs could submit their bids.
The project was eventually awarded to ENEL Green Power, but it was soon discovered that the site that 
selected for the project could no longer be used. The land authority for Oromia Region was not properly
consulted during the RFP process, and local communities did not want the project implemented on their 
land. PATRP provided guidance to EEP on best practices in environmental compliance and helped prepare 
an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, which informed the selection of the new site. It is not 
clear why PATRP’s technical advisory team did not identify the land procurement issue before awarding 
the contract. The need to identify an alternative site led to significant and costly delays.
The project continues to face substantial challenges. The International Finance Corporation withdrew 
from financing the project, and the Government of Ethiopia expressed interest in renegotiating the terms 
of its agreement with ENEL. Multiple stakeholders stated that such a move by the government would send 
a strongly negative signal to the market, with potentially lasting negative consequences for private sector 
involvement in Ethiopia’s power sector.
5.2 PILLAR 2: CONNECTIONS
PATRP’s main contribution to increasing on-grid connections in Ethiopia was through its support to EEU 
with the pilot Meter 2 Cash (M2C) program. PATRP’s utility reform team undertook a diagnostic 
assessment of the utility’s commercial operations and identified several significant problems limiting EEU’s 
ability to accurately bill customers and generate revenue:
Lack of meter reading oversight—Key informants reported that, although meter inspections were 
taking place, there was no supervisor to hold meter readers accountable and validate the meter readings.
Missing, damaged, and corrupt meters—EEU had no processes in place to identify and repair or 
replace non-functional or missing meters.
Poor customer service and collection policies and procedures—Key informants stated that the 
main barrier to connecting new customers is not the connection fee, but rather wait time; there is a 
backlog of 20,000 to 30,000 customers waiting to be connected to the grid. Most customers are required 
27
to pay their monthly electricity bills at a payment center by a specific date. However, EEU was not 
following up with unpaid accounts for collection or disconnection.
Low capacity for energy accounting—EEU staff lacked the technical knowledge to perform energy 
accounting calculations, and meters were not installed at the distribution transformer (DT) level to enable 
such calculations.
PATRP worked with EEU management and staff to address these problems through the M2C pilot 
program in the SAAR. Key informants were aware that, by targeting these problems, PATRP’s support to 
the utility produced significant improvements in collection in the region. Indeed, based on PATT database 
records, EEU saw over 13,000 new connections in SAAR and an increase in revenue of over $5 million 
during the two-year pilot program. However, it is unclear how much of the increased revenue can be 
attributed to the M2C program, as other factors, including an increase in EEU’s residential tariff rates in 
December 2018, may have increased EEU’s revenue. It is not possible to quantify loss reductions since 
meters were not installed at DTs during implementation of the program.
The increase in EEU’s residential tariff rates in December 2018 was the first of four annual increases
through 2021. PATRP advocated for and provided capacity building to EEU, EEP, EEA, and MoWIE on the 
tariff review exercise that led to MoWIE’s authorization of the tariff increases. Table 5.1 shows the 
increases in the EEU’s tariff rates over the four-year period. Informants saw PATRP’s support to the tariff 
review as another important contribution to enhancing EEU’s commercial viability, and that of Ethiopia’s 
electricity sector as a whole.
28
Table 5.1: EEU’s Tariff Amendment Schedule17
December
2018 Onward
December
2019 Onward
December
2020 Onward
December
2021 Onward
Tariff Category kWh/Month Birr/kWh
1. Residential Tariff Block
1.1 1st block Up to 50 kWh 0.273 0.273 0.273 0.273
1.2 2nd block Up to 100 
kWh 0.459 0.562 0.664 0.767
1.3 3rd block Up to 200 
kWh 0.781 1.062 1.344 1.625
1.4 4th block Up to 300 
kWh 0.913 1.275 1.638 2
1.5 5th block Up to 400 
kWh 0.975 1.383 1.792 2.2
1.6 6th block Up to 500 
kWh 1.042 1.497 1.951 2.405
1.7 7th block Above 500 
kWh 1.141 1.588 2.034 2.481
2. General Tariff
2.1 Flat rate 1.035 1.398 1.761 2.124
3. Low-Voltage Industry Tariff
3.1 Flat rate 0.816 1.054 1.293 1.531
3.2 Demand 
charge rate 50 100 150 200
4. Medium-Voltage Industry Tariff 15 kilovolts (kv) and 33 kv
4.1 Flat rate 0.605 0.801 0.997 1.193
4.2 Demand 
charge rate 36.885 73.77 110.655 147.54
17 “Current Tariffs.” Ethiopian Electric Utility, 2019.
29
December
2018 Onward
December
2019 Onward
December
2020 Onward
December
2021 Onward
Tariff Category kWh/Month Birr/kWh
5. High-Voltage Industry Tariff Above 66 kv
5.1 Flat rate 0.517 0.654 0.791 0.928
5.2 Demand 
charge rate 21.91 43.82 65.73 87.64
6. Streetlight Tariff
6.1 Flat rate 1.035 1.398 1.761 2.124
7. Bulk Supply Tariff
7.1 Demand 
charge rate per 
kWh
39.291 78.582 117.872 157.16
7.2 Generation 
tariff per kWh 0.222 0.444 0.665 0.887
PATRP’s support to the off-grid sector in Ethiopia was hindered in the early stages by a primary focus on 
mini-grids rather than SHS. One PATRP staff member expressed frustration at the initial focus on mini￾grids and suggested that Ethiopia would have achieved more off-grid connections if SHS had been 
considered earlier. In fact, PATRP began providing support to SHS suppliers in 2017. The PATT database 
lists 1,662 off-grid connections—all of them SHS—attributed to PATRP support.
Despite recording a relatively small number of off-grid connections, the key informants spoke highly of 
the assistance provided by PATRP TAs. One small solar company reported receiving input from a PATRP 
TA that supported on company’s successful application to the Off-Grid Energy Challenge Grant program. 
Key informants from this company also reported that PATRP provided technical support on its flagship 
mini-grid project, including for tariff-setting. The successful mini-grid project connected 198 households,
and the company was selected as the IPP for four of 12 mini-grids tendered by the government under a 
pilot program. 
Key informants from both small solar companies with which the evaluation team met suggested that there 
is a need for advocacy to improve the off-grid regulatory environment. The foreign currency and exchange 
(Forex) shortage in Ethiopia was cited as one of—if not the most—significant barriers to growth as a small 
solar company. PATRP started work on a program that seeks to leverage remittance funds to pay for SHS; 
this and other creative solutions to the Forex shortage are necessary if Ethiopia’s off-grid sector is to 
grow.
30
5.3 PILLAR 3: POLICY REFORM
PATRP supported a wide variety of activities that fall under the category of “enabling environment” or 
“policy.” Highlights of these activities that were discussed with key informants are described in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Policy Reform Work in Ethiopia
Institution Area of PATRP 
Support
Perceived Outcomes and Sustainability
EEP Hydropower plant 
diagnostic assessment
Clearer understanding of operational issues at hydropower plants, 
and the potential improvements that can be achieved
EEU Institutional gender 
assessment
EEU worked with the World Bank to develop a Gender 
Mainstreaming Policy and Procedure18 as a result of PATRP’s 
recommendations
EEA GMSP
Tariff review
Tariff rates have been increasing gradually over four years,
beginning December 2018
The outputs of GMSP have the potential to improve operation of 
the national grid and capacity to forecast demand, but outcomes 
are yet to be seen
MoWIE Geothermal 
Proclamation
PPP Proclamation
Energy law amendments
New legislation and amendments to existing energy law provide a 
framework for improved negotiation of geothermal projects 
specifically and IPP projects more generally
18 “Strengthening Gender Equality and Increasing Women’s Participation in the Ethiopian Power Sector.” Power Africa, 
December 2017.
31
6. FINDINGS FROM NIGERIA
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa with a population of roughly 200 million. Despite its
abundant oil and gas resources, Nigeria lags significantly behind most of the world in energy access and 
consumption. Many of the numerous reasons for gap directly contextualize the work of PATRP.
Nigeria’s electric power sector is characterized by significant challenges and inefficiencies related to 
distribution and transmission, as well as the overall macroeconomic challenges and liquidity shortages that 
plague the country. While there is significant unfilled demand for electric power, additional generation is 
unlikely to improve the difficulties of the power sector in a meaningful way until the overall health and 
performance of the transmission and distribution sub-sectors improve.
ATC&C losses in Nigeria are high. In the first quarter of 2019, DISCO collection efficiency stood at 64 
percent, while remittance to Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc. (NBET) and market operators was 27.8 
percent. This inefficiency strains the power sector, since the revenue shortfall significantly limits NBET’s
ability to commit to new power purchasing agreements. PATRP embedded technical advisors in Nigerian 
DISCOs and other key institutions in an attempt to address these and other related concerns. 
In April 2018, PATRP transferred TA and transmission support to a new implementing partner, NPSP, 
which is managed by Deloitte. The new program places increased emphasis on reforms to the enabling 
environment and targeted policy work, which are necessary to address serious bottlenecks throughout 
the Nigerian energy sector. Supporting transactions to add generation capacity has reduced urgency until 
the overall enabling environment improves.
Nigeria Overview
Population ~200 
million GDP per Capita $2,028.18
Map from: The World Factbook (CIA)
Generation 
Capacity 5 GW Peak Demand >5 GW
Capacity per 
Capita 25 watts
Annual 
Consumption
per Capita
145 KwH
Key Issues
1. Pervasive financial issues throughout the system due to 
ATC&C losses and non-cost-reflective tariffs.
2. Infrastructure issues in transmission and distribution 
subsectors, tied to lack of capital
3. Low energy penetration, especially in rural areas
4. Underdeveloped gas sector that is unable to capitalize 
on Nigeria’s resource wealth
32
6.1 PILLAR 1: GENERATION
In interviews, most relevant stakeholders considered PATRP’s overall impact on generation generally 
underwhelming. Only one major deal (Azura-Edo) reached FC. Stakeholders who were interviewed 
believed some of the factors that enabled the deal to close were not likely to be replicated. It appeared 
that certain allowances were provided to Azura-Edo, given the relative novelty of the IPP in Nigeria.
Azura-Edo Gas Plant (459 MW)
Azura-Edo Gas-Fired Power Plant Phase 1 (459 MW) is an open-cycle gas-turbine power station. 
According to the World Bank, “Azura-Edo is the first wholly project-financed IPP in Nigeria. As such, it is 
regarded as a ground-breaking project set to pave the way and set important benchmarks for future 
private sector driven, project financed IPPs in Nigeria.”19
The Azura-Edo transaction is the only generation deal that reached FC in Nigeria during PATRPs tenure. 
As such, it has received significant attention, and hopes were high for it to serve as a model for future IPP 
projects. 
However, some actors in the Nigerian power sector suggested that the Azura Edo project benefitted 
from certain allowances and conditions that were unlikely to be afforded to future IPP projects. For 
example, Azura Edo received tax and fiscal considerations that, according to a former TA, “cannot and 
should not be repeated for future projects.” Political issues surrounding the project were also addressed 
directly through the White House; this is unlikely to be a sustainable strategy moving forward.
The Azura-Edo power plant had a 72 percent dispatch rate for Q1 2019, approximately two percentage 
points above the industry average.20
“Azura got a lot of ‘cut-off’ because it was the first of its kind. Those exemptions could not and should not be replicated for 
other projects. There were transmission risks that were taken by the government just to give Azura the first go that would 
not be replicated in other projects.” 
—Former Transaction Advisor
19 Molle, Anthony, “Financial Solutions Brief for Azura-Edo IPP”, World Bank Group, 2018.
20 “Quarterly Report (2019 Q1)”, Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission.
33
Figure 6.1 maps the complex financing structure of the Azura Edo Transaction, which involved numerous 
actors, contracts, and guarantees. A TA can play a valuable role in such a transaction, liaising among entities 
and ensuring the proper documents are signed and circulated.
Figure 6.1: Complexity in Financing Arrangements: Financial Structure of Azura Edo21
14 Stalled Solar IPPs (1,125 MW)
In 2016, Nigeria signed PPAs worth $2.5 billion with 14 IPPs to add 1,125 MW of installed solar capacity 
to the national grid. However, the majority of these projects have yet to reach FC due to an ongoing 
dispute with NBET about the tariffs that were originally agreed upon through a presumably long-term fill￾in tariff structure. The 2016 PPAs had priced solar power at 11.5 cents per kWh; however, the federal 
government set the price at 7.5 cents per kWh.22
This is an example of how closing deals can be exercises in futility when the legal and regulatory enabling 
environment is seriously flawed. The PPAs were ultimately meaningless, and significant time, effort, and 
other resources were wasted for the majority of these IPP projects.
21 Molle, Anthony, “Financial Solutions Brief for Azura-Edo IPP”, World Bank Group, 2018.
22 Babalwa Bungane, “Nigerian Gov Continues to Battle Tariff Structure with Solar IPPs,” ESI-Africa.com (blog), October 5, 
2018.
34
Table 6.1: Stalled Nigerian Solar IPPs with Obsolete PPAs
Company Capacity State
1 Afrinergia Power Limited 50 MW Nasarawa
2 CT Cosmos Limited 70 MW Plateau
3 Pan Africa Solar 75 MW Katsina
4 Nigeria Solar Capital Partners 100 MW Bauchi
5 Motir Desable Limited 100 MW Nasarawa
6 Nova Scotia Power Devevelopment Ltd 80 MW Jigawa
7 Anjeed Innova Group 100 MW Kaduna
8 Nova Solar 5 Farm Limited 100 MW Katsina
9 KvK Power Limited 100 MW Sokoto
10 Middle Band Solar One Limited 100 MW Kogi
11 LR Aaron Power Limited 100 MW Abuja
12 En Africa 50 MW Kaduna
13 Quaint Abiba Power Limited 50 MW Kaduna
14 Oriental Renewable Solutions 50 MW Jigawa
6.2 PILLAR 2: CONNECTIONS
The majority of the on-grid connections that PATRP claims to have established were located in Nigeria. 
(279,645). However, on further examination, it may not be clear whether these “new” connections are 
necessarily increasing access to electric power. Customers previously connected to the grid but not paying 
for power have been added to DISCOs customer records as a result of revenue protection exercises, 
which may account for many of these connections. 
The metering gap for end-user customers continues to be a key challenge for the electric power industry. 
Nigerian Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC) records indicate that, of 8,840,801 registered electricity 
customers, only 3,793,895 (42.9 percent) had been metered by the end of the first quarter of 2019. The 
remaining 57 percent still received estimated billing, which “has contributed to customer apathy towards 
payment for electricity.”23
DISCO Work
Nigeria’s 11 DISCOs are a serious bottleneck in meeting the goal of improving access to affordable and 
reliable grid electricity. As part of PATRP’s work in Nigeria, advisors were embedded in four of the 
23 “Quarterly Report (2019 Q1)”, Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission.
35
country’s 11 DISCOs. The aim of these assignments was to reduce average technical and commercial 
losses at the DISCO level, which can be as high as 60 percent. Of course, failures in cost recovery impose 
significant financial strain on the DISCOs and, as a result, impact their ability to make payments to the rest 
of the upstream electric power sector.
Table 6.2: DISCO Collection Efficiency in Nigeria, 2019/Q124
DISCO
Total Energy Received
(GWh)
Total Energy Billed
(GWh)
Billing Efficiency
(%)
2019/Q1 2018/Q4 2019/Q1 2018/Q4 2019/Q1 2018/Q4 Change
Abuja 1,002 955 782 739 78.0% 77.4% 0.7%
Benin 680 631 575 517 84.6% 81.9% 2.6%
Eko 873 856 762 707 87.3% 82.6% 4.7%
Enugu 609 587 413 370 67.8% 63.0% 4.8%
Ibadan 879 860 738 660 84.0% 76.7% 7.2%
Ikeja 930 942 893 850 96.0% 90.2% 5.8%
Jos 329 324 223 194 67.8% 59.9% 7.9%
Kaduna 604 595 418 417 69.2% 70.1% -0.9%
Kano 474 526 396 415 83.5% 78.9% 4.6%
Port Harcourt 507 504 378 357 74.6% 70.8% 3.7%
Yola 306 280 185 164 60.5% 58.6% 1.9%
DISCOs 7,193 7,062 5,762 5,391 80.10% 76.30% 3.80%
PATRP’s advisors addressed ATC&C losses by implementing revenue protection strategies. These
included working with technicians to inspect power lines and residential connections, audit meters, and 
use other methods to check for electricity theft. 
“That’s been one of the major reasons for success: they were not office guys, you know, [Laughs] they were field guys. If 
you were in a meeting and a marketer or manager says I have not been able to reach this environment, they would say 
“let’s go together.” They were really hands-on.”
—DISCO Representative
24 “Quarterly Report (2019 Q1)”, Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission.
36
DISCO representatives expressed the opinion that the in-the-field hands-on approach was crucial to the 
success of the program. Advisors would frequently go into the field to ensure that the training they had 
provided to technicians was being implemented correctly. Many embedded advisors had worked as police 
officers or lawyers, and this experience with enforcement was considered an asset for revenue protection 
efforts and preventing illegal hook-ups.
The DISCOs’ ATC&C loss reduction is a major success story for Nigeria that could be emulated 
elsewhere if appropriate. While the overall performance for DISCOs in Nigeria is still poor, the PATRP 
intervention shows how utility viability can gradually improve with the right assistance. Slow and steady 
improvements can, over time, bring Nigeria’s distribution subsector in line with international standards. 
Risks posed by an unstable system make such a scenario less viable, underscoring the need for a multitude 
of improvements including systemic reform and sustainable training. 
“They broke down the whole commercial value chain, from when you contract a customer to when you are getting a bill, 
and we developed a strategy for all the pain points. So, for example, for customers that were not on our grid, they 
recommended interventions, for example from the revenue protection side. How do you do inspections to ensure that you 
bring all those free riders that are not connected to your grid? So, one of the key activities they focused on was revenue 
protection.”
—DISCO Representative
37
Figure 6.2: Nigerian ATC&C Loss Reductions with PATRP25
25 “PATRP Annual Report 2018.”
38
7. FINDINGS FROM GHANA
Ghana is an interesting case study among the diverse challenges that afflict energy sectors in Africa. The 
country has seen feast and famine in terms of electricity supply within the last decade. 
PATRP embedded two TAs in Ghana’s MoE from November 2014 to October 2019. The purpose of this 
assignment was to support the MoE and other sector entities in the context of the Government of Ghana’s 
stated desire to increase private sector investment in the power and natural gas sectors. PATRP’s effort 
was well-received by the MoE.
Ghana Overview26
Population ~30 
million GDP per Capita $2,202.3
Map from: The World Factbook (CIA)
Generation 
Capacity ~5 GW Peak Demand ~2.7 
GW
Capacity per
Capita
~167 
watts
Annual 
Consumption
per Capita
~351 
kWh
Key Issues:
1. High cost of excess capacity threatens financial stability
2. Distribution companies’ inefficiencies
3. Many PPAs signed during dumsor are not competitive
4. Nascent gas market requires infrastructure and 
regulatory attention
26 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=GH
39
Dumsor [doom-sō], noun.
1. A period of time in which darkness is more prevalent than light.
As of the writing of this report, Ghana’s installed generation capacity was nearly double the peak demand. 
However, this has not always been the case. In the past decade, Ghana has experienced numerous 
periods of generation capacity deficit, which had detrimental impacts on commercial and industrial activity
and, more generally, on quality of life. These periods were due in part to an electricity generation mix 
that depended heavily on hydropower, which can fluctuate heavily, especially in periods of drought.
During a period of shortages (2013–2015), known as dumsor the government signed numerous 
emergency PPAs to compensate for the lack of generation. However, as one stakeholder explained, these 
purchases were akin “to buying an umbrella during a thunderstorm,” meaning that the buyer was at the 
mercy of the supplier and could easily end up being gouged. The result has been excess capacity, which 
comes at a high price in the form of capacity charges (a price paid to a producer whether or not electricity 
is generated), resulting in significant impact on the government’s finances.
Figure 7.1: Ghana Electricity Generation and Consumption, 2006–2016
40
“2,300 MW of the installed capacity has been contracted on a take-or-pay basis. On average, less than 40 percent of the 
contracted take-or-pay capacity is actually used, meaning that we are basically throwing away money by paying for the 
remaining 60 percent of excess capacity, which we do not actually consume. In monetary terms, what this means is that 
we are paying over half a billion US dollars or over GH¢2.5 billion annually for power generation capacity that we do not 
need.”
—Ken Ofori-Atta, Minister of Finance, 2019 Mid-year Budget Review
7.1 PILLAR 1: GENERATION
Kpone (350 MW)
The Kpone IPP is a $900 million, 350 MW combined cycle gas turbine project located in the Tema power 
enclave to the east of Accra. 
The project reached FC in 2014, before PATRP’s TAs were embedded in the MoE. Key stakeholders 
explained to the evaluation team that negotiations had been ongoing for the project since it received a 
generation license in 2003. Thus, negotiations went on for more than a decade before PATRP began.
PATRP helped the government develop a generic PPA template that may have helped close the project. 
However, as with all transactions, attributing the financial closure of the project to a specific activity or 
actor is difficult.
Other stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team pointed to the work of USAID’s African 
Infrastructure Program (AIP),27 which preceded PATRP, as a contributing factor in the closure of Kpone. 
AIP’s legal and financial support to the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) was of particular value in
helping the offtaker better understand the needs of the private sector partners.
According to the AFC website,28 Kpone is, among other things,
● The first private sector greenfield IPP to be project-financed in Ghana
● The first IPP in Ghana to obtain a generation license
● The first IPP to be developed on a build-operate-transfer basis, meaning that the plant will be 
returned to the Ghanaian government after 20 years of operation
● The largest privately financed IPP in SSA in the last 10 years
Bridge Power (~400 MW over four stages)
Bridge Power is a multi-stage, ~400 MW thermal generation deal with an expected overall cost of $953 
million. The facility will use a mix of liquified petroleum gas and natural gas and operate in both standard 
and combined cycle modes in different stages of the project. Like the Kpone IPP, Bridge is sited in the 
Tema power enclave, where the majority of Ghana’s thermal generation is located. 
27 AIP provided capacity building and late-stage transactional services on clean and conventional energy projects to countries in 
sub-Saharan Africa. AIP started in September 2008.
28 https://www.africafc.org/What-We-Do/Projects/Cenpower-Kpone-IPP.aspx
41
The first phase of the project reached FC under PATRP. However, based on the current conditions in 
Ghana, including a recent government moratorium against new PPAs or other contracts, many 
stakeholders we spoke with were not optimistic about prospects for the project in the near future. 
Some stakeholders mentioned the significant costs created by the perception of high political risk in 
response to the government's recent statements. As a result of the government’s threats to renegotiate 
contracts, financial stakeholders may require higher investment guarantees, which further increase the 
costs of new transactions and create a vicious cycle.
Relocation of Karpowership (470 MW)
In June 2014, during the period of emergency generation contracting, Ghana signed a PPA with 
Karpowership for two 225-MW dual-fuel barges to supply to ECG over ten years. These generation 
facilities were initially fired by heavy fuel oil, which costs significantly more than Ghana’s abundant supply 
of natural gas. In an attempt to save costs, the barges were relocated west to take advantage of the 
availability of natural gas in Takoradi.
PATRP Tas embedded in the MoE wrote the original relocation proposal, which the cabinet approved. 
The project aimed to fully offtake 180 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd) of OCTP Sankofa gas, 
but was constrained due to infrastructure bottlenecks. PATRP assisted the MoE and contracting parties 
in contract negotiation and supervised implementation to ensure timely completion of the project. 
Karpowership relocated to Takoradi in August 2019. Connection to the grid was completed in September, 
with conversion to gas expected by December 2019. According to one estimate, as a result of reductions 
in imported heavy fuel oil consumption, this initiative will save nearly $100 million per year in fuel costs.
7.2 PILLAR 2: CONNECTIONS
The PATT database lists 8,452 new connections in Ghana attributable to PATRP, although this number 
may not reflect Power Africa’s overall achievement. The number is relatively small compared to the targets 
set for PATRP and achievements in other countries. More than 90 percent of the new connections were 
in the form of SHS, with the remaining through microgrids and solar lanterns. 
PATRPs efforts in this area were primarily associated with its BTG effort. Two embedded advisors began 
work there in late 2017, but the program was active in Ghana before its on-the ground presence.
Off-Grid Solar
The evaluation team spoke with some representatives of off-grid solar companies that had worked with 
PATRP. Stakeholders generally appreciated the support they had received and the networking 
opportunities that PATRP created, although they did not always explicitly link PATRP support to the 
creation of new connections. Gender work with one company was particularly well received, and the 
evaluation team heard from interviewees that other firms are introducing gender-specific interventions.
As a result of interest in gender work, new financing opportunities arose. More than $10 million was
raised, due in part to the events that Power Africa helped set in motion.
Some important feedback concerned challenges present in Ghana’s mini-grid regulatory environment. 
Current regulation of mini-grids is not adequately developed, and mini-grids are subject to many of the 
same rules as on-grid activities. This makes the investment viability of mini-grid electrification especially 
challenging, given the heavy subsidy for lifeline energy consumers. While some mini-grid commercial 
42
activities have been permitted to continue, the regulatory framework makes it impossible for the nascent 
industry to expand further, a significant roadblock that is an ongoing area for Power Africa in Ghana.
As in Nigeria, company representatives with whom we spoke mentioned that access to affordable capital 
is the main constraint to scaling up. Although the BTG program attempted to connect some companies 
with financing, none of these efforts had yet resulted in new financial partnerships.
7.3 PILLAR 3: POLICY WORK
Reverse Flow of West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP)
PATRP TAs embedded at the MoE were instrumental in effecting the WAGP flow reversal, also known 
as the Takoradi–Tema Interconnection Project. WAGP allows natural gas to flow from Takoradi, in the 
west, where the majority of Ghana’s natural gas is processed, to Tema, in the east, where most thermal 
energy generation projects are being implemented. This work will significantly improve the reliable supply 
of affordable natural gas to Ghana’s power producers, thereby improveing the overall health of the energy 
sector by reducing the cost of fuel for generation. 
PATRP TAs assisted the MoE to evaluate, approve, and contract the construction of the Tema Takoradi 
Interconnection Project, which will allows the transport of up to 120 MMscfd of gas from Takoradi to the 
Tema power enclave over the existing delivery capacity, which can fuel roughly 600 MW of generation. 
PATRP TAs produced or provided: 
● A concept paper
● A cabinet memorandum
● Negotiation support for the construction management agreement between the West African 
Pipeline Company (WAPCO) and Eni
● Negotiation support for the gas transportation agreement between Ghana National Petroleum 
Company and WAPCO
● Negotiation support for gas supply agreements between the Ghana National Petroleum Company
and gas power plants
Two of the three stages of the project were completed in April 2019, enabling 60 MMscfd of gas to flow 
from to Tema. The third stage is underway with completion expected by December 2019. At that time, 
the full flow of up to 120 MMscfd is expected to result in annual fuel cost savings of approximately $250 
million.
Stakeholders considered PATRP TAs valuable assets for the reverse flow work because of their technical 
knowledge and project management ability. The evaluation team heard that undertakings of this nature,
which involve the coordination of multiple private and public sector actors, benefit from a third party that
can keep the project moving forward.
43
Figure 7.2: The Tema Takoradi Interconnection Project (TTIP, or Reverse Flow)
Power Distribution Services (PDS)-ECG Privatizatio
ECG's losses are exacerbated by high technical losses; poor revenue collection, from government entities 
and consumers; and rising dollar-denominated payment obligations. Tariff policies that provide subsidies 
to consumers have damaged the financial health of ECG and NEDCo.
29
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreed in 2014 to provide $498 million in funding to 
Ghana’s power sector to help stimulate further private investment. One reform under the agreement 
handed over operations at state-run ECG in March to Ghana PDS, a consortium led by the Philippines￾based electricity company Meralco.
On March 1, 2019, PDS took over electricity distribution and collection operations from ECG under a 
20-year concession agreement. Ghana’s finance minister, however, informed US officials that the 
government was cancelling the 20-year concession, saying the payment guarantees provided were not 
satisfactory. In a statement, the US Embassy said the decision to terminate the contract was unjustified 
29 Aaron Yaw Ahali. Improving Electricity Access in Ghana Challenges and the Way Forward. International Journal of Energy 
and Power Engineering. Special Issue: Electricity Market. Vol. 5, No. 2-2, 2016, pp. 9–17. doi: 10.11648/j.ijepe.s.2016050202.12 
44
and that the MCC was therefore cancelling a second tranche of $190 million.30 The Privatization effort 
was not a PATRP initiative, although the embedded TAs were in communication with key stakeholders 
given the privatization effort’s strong relevance to the entire sector.
Gas Master Plan (GMP)
PATRP TAs supported the then-Ministry of Petroleum to obtain, and later implement, the GMP—a 25-
year road map of Ghana’s strategic development and natural gas resources management.
TAs initially reviewed a document submitted by a World Bank-funded consultant. The TA’s submitted a 
report indicating that the plan was generally sound and suggested only minor improvements. The plan was 
then workshopped through a MoE committee and submitted to the Cabinet. A PATRP TA who was part 
of the implementation committee was selected as the primary resource, with responsibilities including 
drafting a new pricing policy, as suggested in the GMP. The new policy is expected to save up to $430 
million over the next four years.
The evaluation team heard that the GMP stalled after the election of a new government in Ghana in 2017. 
A revised plan was submitted, but it remains unapproved.
Energy Sector Recovery Program (ESRP)
The Ghanaian energy sector is afflicted with serious financial difficulties, in part as a result of expensive 
PPAs that were typically signed during periods of energy insecurity that have affected the country over 
the last two decades. Another contributing factor is been foreign exchange losses, as generation costs are 
billed in US funds but the distributors charge consumers in Ghanaian Cedis, which have depreciated against 
the dollar. Other issues include the high cost of fuel, non-cost-reflective tariffs, transmission and 
distribution losses, and low recoverability of consumed power cost by distribution companies, especially 
ECG. 
To address ongoing financial challenges in the power sector, Ghana is implementing an ESRP—a time￾bound, milestone-based set of over 20 reform measures intended to help reduce the cycle of debt in the 
power sector, from generation to distribution, over the next five years. 
The ESRP relies heavily on financial analysis conducted by PATRP embedded advisors, who made key part 
contributions to ESRP arrangements and implementation. Time will tell how effective this program will 
be, but MoE stakeholders clearly considered the embedded PATRP TAs valuable assets.
30 “Ghana Loses $190 Million U.S. Grant over Canceled Power Contract.” Reuters, October 23, 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ghana-power-idUSKBN1X225D
45
SPOTLIGHT: POWER SECTOR CASH FLOW MODEL IN GHANA
One of the major issues faced by Ghana power sector is financial instability. As a result of poor forecasting, the 
country signed an excessive number of PPAs during the period of load shedding in the first half of the decade. 
Expensive contracts led to annual shortfalls in excess of $1 billion, causing an existential threat to the financial 
viability of the sector and placing a significant burden on the country's finances.
One of PATRP’s embedded advisors at the MoE in Accra led the development of a series of models that can be 
used to calculate key financial indicators and map connections among actors in the sector, including:
● IPPS
● Generation companies
● DISCOs
By defining the detailed financial structure of the industry, these models improve understanding of the sector’s 
financial woes. The models can be used to conduct sensitivity analysis (a way of analyzing the impact of different 
policy approaches) and to understand the consequences of possible scenarios that could contextualize the sector 
in the future.
Stakeholders told the evaluation team that the power sector models were instrumental in the creation of the 
ESRP reform package. Several commented that modelling is one of P most impactful outputs that PATRP delivered 
in terms of potential long-term impact on the Ghanaian power sector. 
This kind of technical support, if not otherwise provided, can add significant value to a government or struggling 
energy sector. In future programming in Ghana and elsewhere, Power Africa could consider ways to integrate this 
kind of cash flow modelling into its programming from early stages to inform the goals set in each country and 
the work plan.
46
8. OVERARCHING FINDINGS
EQ 1. TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE TRANSACTION-FOCUSED APPROACH
TO ADVANCING MW DEALS SUCCESSFUL?
“In sub-Saharan Africa, a power project can stall for a variety of reasons. By addressing the critical impediments that 
hinder progress of a particular deal, we create a ripple effect for other deals facing similar issues in the country. Our 
approach to reforming Africa’s energy sector is to tackle one power project at a time.”
— “About Us: Power Africa.” U.S. Agency for International Development, 
https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/aboutus.
Defining Success
Answering EQ 1 will require a functional definition for “success” as it is used in the question. Among the
ways one could judge the “success” of the program are whether:
1. PATRP achieved contractual targets for generation capacity, connections, and other key 
performance indicators
2. PATRP’s transaction-focused approach generated positive results for each country of operation
that are considered good value relative to the resources the program was provided and in the 
context of each country’s unique energy challenges
3. The program improved the overall health of the energy sector, the general level of prosperity, or 
the quality of life of citizens in its operational countries
The answer to each of these questions can differ, underscoring the need to carefully explain what is meant 
by “success.”
Success can be measured on a number of axes, including achievement of performance metrics, resource 
efficiency, the closing of transactions, quality and reliability, and improvement in the overall health of the 
power sectors in each country.
47
Looking at the Quantitative Data
Table 8.1: All Financially Closed Transactions in Evaluation Countries
FY Country Project Name Transaction Technology MW
2015 Ghana Kpone Independent Power Plant Natural Gas 350.0
2019 Ghana Early Power Phase 1 Natural Gas 202.0
2015 Kenya Lake Turkana Wind 310.0
2017 Kenya Olkaria V Geothermal 158.0
2019 Kenya Kipeto Wind 100.0
2019 Kenya Malindi Solar 40.0
2020 Kenya Olkaria 1 Unit 6 Geothermal 83.3
2016 Nigeria Azura-Edo Natural Gas 459.0
Figure 8.1: Generation Capacity Reached FC (MW), by Country and Technology
PATRP saw eight significant generation transactions reach FC during its operation in the four countries 
considered in this evaluation, with a combined generation capacity of just over 1,700 MW. More than half 
of this capacity came through three large gas projects in Ghana and Nigeria, and the rest from a more 
diverse mix of renewable transactions in Kenya. No transactions reached FC in Ethiopia during the 
program period. 
Given that approximately 1,700 MW reached FC, we might consider the outcome of the transaction￾centered approach a qualified success. If the overall goal of the PATRP program was to get 6,421.2 MW 
of generation capacity to FC between 2014 and 2018, and if we consider that the countries in our 
evaluation are only four of more than 20 countries where PATRP operated, this achievement might seem 
48
proportionate. However, the four countries also received the highest level of PATRP engagement and had 
dedicated TAs. In this light, perhaps 1,700 MW is not a very good outcome. 
It is also important consider the nature of the added MW. In Ghana and Nigeria, all generation capacity 
was added through three large natural gas thermal generation projects. Natural gas is somewhat cleaner 
than oil or other heavy fuels but is not truly “clean” and not renewable. The accomplishments in Kenya 
are more impressive. Kenya added 691 MW to its generation capacity with a mix of geothermal, solar,
and wind—all renewable sources of electricity. The fact that multiple generation deals were closed across 
various technologies, seems to indicate that PATRP’s approach can be successful in the right 
circumstances. 
In Ethiopia, no generation deals were closed with PATRP’s assistance. This might imply that PATRP’s 
approach was a failure; however, numerous stakeholders expressed gratitude for the support provided 
and commented that, despite deals not reaching FC, the focus on transactions helped stimulate and guide 
policy reform work in numerous ways. Thus, although the transaction-focused approach may not have 
been a success as measured in MW, it may have made tangible improvements to the sector overall.
“The approach that they take is extremely important. They take a broad transaction approach. They don’t just give you 
money. They know that to address the difficulties in the power sector, you need to look at it broadly across the chain. 
They do transmission, they do distribution, they do MW, which is all important to address the problems of the African 
electricity sector.”
—Private Partner
Attribution of Closed Deals to PATRP
In answering EQ 1, the evaluation team had difficulty attributing the main outcomes measured (MW) to 
the actions of PATRP TAs. In many cases, the stakeholders told us that, while TAs were often helpful and 
easy to work with, it was not always possible to identify whether their involvement pushed a specific 
project toward FC. Many of the projects PATRP counts toward its overall achievements were valued at
hundreds of millions of dollars and involved dozens of stakeholders involved from institutions around the 
world. While TAs may have helped with some part of the process, it is possible in many cases that a deal 
might have reached FC even without the PATRP program.
In some cases, especially for projects that reached FC in PATRP’s early years, key stakeholders often cited
previous USAID initiatives as the primary sources of assistance with which they were familiar. For example, 
in Nigeria, we heard that USAID programming helped close the Azura Edo deal. However, multiple 
stakeholders referred to AIP program activities, not PATRP. It is difficult to attribute success to one 
program rather than the other, especially given that many of AIP personnel transitioned to PATRP. 
Ultimately, this evaluation is not designed to answer the attribution question conclusively. However, there 
are clear examples of transactions in which PATRP was instrumental, if not necessarily essential in all 
cases.
49
“Without that support, I think I can say we probably wouldn’t have reached financial close, or it would have at least been 
more difficult. It would be much more difficult for the offtaker to understand what is needed by a private entity.”
—IPP Developer
Table 8.2: Challenges and Success Factors for TAs 
Key Factors for TA Success Challenges for TA Success
● TAs’ affiliation to a third party with nothing to 
gain established confidence among project 
stakeholders, particularly those with little prior 
exposure to project finance or the local 
regulatory environment.
● TAs added capacity in resource-constrained 
environments
● A mix of foreign and local technical experience 
enabled TAs to effectively diagnose problems and 
propose best-practice solutions
● TAs with strong political acumen and 
longstanding local influence were capable of 
strategically overcoming barriers to FC
● Enabling environment for private sector 
participation in the sector was not sufficiently 
mature for TAs’ influence to be fully accepted 
and acted on
● Misalignment of expectations, ambiguity of 
objectives or lack of buy-in from receivers of 
PATRP support led to underutilization of TA 
services
Key Factors for Expeditiously Closing Transactions
1. Enabling environment
○ Openness to private sector participation
○ Existing supply of and demand for electricity in the relevant country 
2. Good TAs
○ Knowledge of project finance
○ Ability to build trusting relationships 
3. Government Support
○ High-level support for the Azura Edo deal (White House)
Major Challenges in Closing Transactions
1. Lack of alignment with government
o Azura Edo had government holdout
o In Ethiopia, the government's priority is hydropower
o Early/bridge power is currently under government review 
50
o NBET signed PPAs with solar IPPs in Nigeria, but these have not been able to close due 
to government opinion that the price is not right
2. High costs associated with risk mitigation
o Put-call option agreements (PCOA) needed in many cases
o Insurance costs add significantly to project financing
3. Changing conditions
o Election of new governments 
o Renegotiated PPAs
o Constant decreases in solar prices
“If you want more MW, you need open, transparent, and streamlined procurement, where everyone knows the process, 
rather than bilateral projects where everyone has a deal with a minister and every PPA is unique.”
—-Former Transaction Advisor
EQ 2. HOW EFFECTIVE WAS PATRP’S APPROACH TO STRENGTHENING
UTILITY VIABILITY, AS EVIDENT IN THEIRWORK IN NIGERIA AND ETHIOPIA?
PATRP’s work with distribution utilities in Nigeria and Ethiopia demonstrated the potential benefits of 
embedding advisors to support utilities. However, serious challenges remain, especially for DISCOs in 
Nigeria. 
Nigerian DISCOs Decreased ATC&C Losses and Increased Revenues
PATRP’s utility support in Nigeria succeeded in reducing ATC&C losses at four of the 11 state DISCOs
that distribute Nigeria’s electricity. A team of advisors devised business plans for the DISCOs and then 
worked with management and staff to implement commercial loss reductions. The program was 
considered a success.
However, DISCOs are still a key bottleneck for the Nigerian energy sector; even while the evaluation 
team was on the ground in Nigeria, NERC was threatening to revoke their licenses. The DISCOs have 
not paid NBET in full for the electricity they obtain from the Transmission Company of Nigeria, increasing
cash flow issues in the sector. The piloted approach to DISCOs’ loss reduction may be one way to improve
their commercial performance, but the sector may be past the point of recovery. Improvements that are 
too gradual may result in collapse—or reform. A top-down regulatory reform project may be necessary 
before significant resources can be invested in technical capacity.
“If you just add more generation, but the wires are still damaged, you are pouring water into a bucket with holes.”
—DISCO Representative
The Ethiopian Pilot was Successful, Although Some Data is Lacking
EEU collections rate was reported at about 60 percent when PATRP began providing support. The project
worked with EEU management to conduct a diagnostic analysis of operations and maintenance gaps at the 
51
utility. The assessment found that, while many necessary policies and procedural structures were in place, 
not all were being followed. For example, although EEU employed meter inspectors, there was no 
supervisor to hold inspectors accountable. As a result, meter readings were often erroneous or 
unvalidated, and inoperable meters were not repaired. EEU also identified gaps in customer service policies 
and procedures, which limited the utility’s ability to collect revenue from customers.
In light of these issues, PATRP worked with EEU under the M2C pilot program in the SAAR region to 
build the capacity of EEU staff. The training sessions improved meter reading practices and lines of 
accountability within the utility. PATRP also identified DTs where meters should be installed to improve 
EEU’s capacity to perform energy accounting activities. EEU followed up on this recommendation by 
installing meters at substations throughout Addis Ababa.
While EEU stakeholders attributed increased revenue to PATRP support, it is certain that this was entirely 
the case. PATRP has not been involved with other initiatives to increase EEU revenue, such as prepaid 
metering. Furthermore, is impossible to quantify PATRP's impact since meters were not installed at DTs 
in SAAR throughout PATRP implementation.
Challenges in Utility Work
1. Perceived aggressiveness—Teams of advisors were embedded with Nigerian DISCOs with 
the goal of improving commercial performance. We heard that advisors’ “aggressive” performance 
management approach contrasted with the previously “relaxed” culture at DISCOs. Some 
perceived a “punishing” approach as advisors worked to introduce a culture of accountability, and 
their departure was celebrated because “now, nobody is watching us.” However, this attitude 
apparently subsided as the value of the advisors’ approach became apparent. 
2. Cultural and communication issues—Key informants described communication issues with 
some embedded advisors. Communication sometimes suffered when English was not their first 
language. Additionally, advisors took an informal approach to titles, which could offend
counterparts and strain communication. However, in time these issues were resolved through 
increased familiarity and understanding, underscoring the benefits of sustained interventions. 
3. Disagreement with project pace—Embedded advisors had targets and goals to achieve within 
a relatively short tenure (two years). However, the DISCOs they worked with were not limited
by this timeframe and felt the advisors’ pace was too aggressive. However, stakeholders believed 
that the timeframe ultimately improved performance management. 
“In Africa we like titles, so you’d want to be addressed as “engineer” or whatever your title is. When someone calls you by 
your first name, you get offended, so you don’t even listen to what they are saying because you’re offended.[...] But as we 
got used to each other that barrier was overcome.” 
—DISCO Representative
Did PATRPs’ Utility Work Affect Connections or Generation Capacity?
Fonitoring and evaluation data corresponding to the PMP found that PATRP added more than 500,000 
new on-grid actual direct connections in Nigeria through work with DISCOs. However, PATRP embedded 
advisors’ work was primarily in revenue protection, which in many cases addressed energy theft by 
52
eliminating the connections of non-paying customers. It was not clear that the work with DISCOs was
actually been designed to increase connections. 
Discussions with stakeholders and some secondary sources revealed that many of the connections that 
DISCOs added were accounts that had been cut off for stealing electricity and subsequently added as 
paying customers. Therefore, “new connections” may more accurately refer to new customers. This 
metric then also ignores the reduction in customers that resulted from revenue protection efforts. AEDC 
alone saw more than 600,000 disconnections during the period when it received provided assistance.31
This is not to suggest that energy theft should not be addressed, or that adding customers is not a valuable 
benefit; ATC&C losses are extremely high, and commercial losses comprise the majority of their value. 
Rather, it is useful to understand the nuances of this potentially confusing metric. 
EQ 3. HOW EFFECTIVE WAS PATRP’S APPROACH TO EXPANDING OFF-GRID
CONNECTIONS?
As in other areas of the evaluation, the evaluation team heard success stories tied to BTG work under 
PATRP, as well as challenges that prevented the program from being more effective. The evaluation team 
sees room for improvement, particularly with regard to promotion of off-grid connections. 
Looking at the Data
According to the PATT database, 1.1 million actual connections were recorded. Figure 8.2 shows that 
more than half of these connections were recorded in Kenya—more than the next 14 countries listed.
Figure 8.2: Actual Connections, by Country and Technology32
31AEDC Board Presentation from Tetra Tech, April 26, 2017.
32 PATT Database
53
PATRPs BTG Program Created Networks and Helped “Connect the Dots”
Working with individual companies and trade associations, PATRP TAs provided frequent, reliable and 
helpful information to sector stakeholders at no cost on topics such as emerging regulations, risks, and 
opportunities, and provided this information. Some of the smaller companies appreciated the opportunity 
to build their organizational capacity by collaborating with PATRP TAs. Multiple stakeholders used the 
phrase “connected the dots” to describe the impact of PATRP’s presence in the off-grid sector. Although
PATRP support did not always do so, its work connecting stakeholders should not be underappreciated 
in a market populated with small companies working to overcome evolving challenges with limited 
resources. Representatives of solar companies and Stanbic in Kenya noted that PATRP helped facilitate 
investment in that type of business. Respondents from Stanbic said PATRP helped de-mystify the sector 
and understand risks and opportunities in the emerging market. Small solar providers in Ethiopia said that 
PATRP helped them connect with investors, develop creative business models to overcome the Forex
shortage, and obtain input on funding applications and investment pitch slide decks.
Methodological Issues in Measuring New Off-Grid Connections
Measurement of off-grid connections is plagued by attribution issues. PATRP defines “anticipated 
connections” in a given year as the number of sales of a certain type of off-grid system made by the 
company in the base year before PATRP started supporting it. PATRP then defines “actual connections”
as the actual number of sales in a given year when the company received PATRP support. The number of 
connections attributed to PATRP support is calculated as the difference between actual and anticipated 
connections, or the incremental number of sales above or below the number of sales reported in the base 
year. Attribution of connections to PATRP does not depend on whether the support was major or minor 
and does not account for other factors that might influence changes in a company’s sales over time.
Figure 8.3 explains Power Africa's connections measurement methodology, as described in an internal 
memo shared with the evaluation team.
Figure 8.3 Connections Methodology
OPERATIONS SUPPORT TO SHS/LANTERN COMPANIES 
PATRP calculates connections achieved from operational support to companies through a baseline methodology. 
PATRP’s attributable connections are calculated each quarter over the reporting period (between the start and 
end dates of our support), using the following formula:
𝑃𝐴𝑇𝑅𝑃 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠34563 − 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠89
Where,𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠34563 is the total quarterly sales from the reporting period and𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠89 is the total quarterly from
the baseline period for the corresponding quarter.
In the case of a newly established company (i.e., a zero baseline), this calculation yields 100 percent attribution 
of sales to PATRP.
FINANCING SUPPORT TO SHS/LANTERN COMPANIES
When PATRP supports a specific financial transaction (e.g., a fundraising round), we can claim 100 percent of the 
sales attributable to that particular transaction. 
54
MICRO-GRID SITE DEVELOPMENT 
Micro-grid sites are treated as traditional power projects, with PATRP claiming 100 percent of new connections 
at the site.
Increasing Off-Grid Electricity Connections
Stakeholders commented on progress in increasing BTG connections in Kenya, particularly though PATRP 
support for BTG connections for off-grid pilot projects and solar home system installations. Similarly, in 
Ethiopia PATRP successfully supported several small renewable energy start-ups. However, many 
challenges remain for solar start-up companies in Ethiopia, including Forex constraints, lack of adequate 
working capital, and difficulties associated with obtaining approval to import solar systems and associated 
components.
A common theme for the future is the need for coaching and advisory support to the trade association of 
small solar companies, which expected to grow from 20 to 70 members by early next year. There is also 
a need to provide a detailed road map to small renewable energy start-up companies on how to navigate 
the governmental import and approval process.
EQ 4. HOW EFFECTIVE WAS PATRP’S APPROACH TO POLICY REFORM?
WHICH PATRP INTERVENTIONS HAD THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
POLICY REFORM, AND WHY?
Based on what the evaluation team heard from key stakeholders, some of PATRP's greatest successes 
may have been related to policy work. 
Embedded Advisors
Embedded advisors were the key to policy success. Stakeholders described the TA’s role as that of an 
independent party who can interact with the government and private sector. Advisors embedded with 
government or state-owned enterprises were highly valued, key informants told us. The most successful 
TA were typically embedded for significant periods; indeed, longer engagements resulted in more informed 
recommendations.
“It took me at least nine months to figure out how to do the job.”
—Embedded Transaction Advisor
Some stakeholders expressed frustration about advisors who flew in for temporary engagements. 
Stakeholders recommended the use of local advisors with international experience, when possible, as a 
way to retain knowledge within the country.
Challenges
A common impediment to policy work was lack of governmental support or alignment. In Nigeria, Ghana,
and Ethiopia, changes in government during PATRP implementation stalled a number of policy initiatives. 
For example, in Ghana, significant work went into the review and revision of the GMP, which was 
resubmitted after the change of government in 2017. However, the plan has not yet been approved. In 
55
Ethiopia, major efforts were made to sensitize government officials on project finance but, while they
understood the need to encourage private investment in the power sector, they were wary of entering 
into bad deals. The change of administration in 2017 had created the need to reinforce training and 
awareness among government staff.
“If you don’t have the full commitment of the government, you have a big hill to climb. In Nigeria, that was the 
biggest challenge. It always seemed like you were rowing upstream.”
—Former Transaction Advisor
Government Involvement and Alignment
● A common theme in East Africa was that PATRP interventions at the technical working committee 
and mid-management levels were very effective, but that the project should have pursued greater 
interventions at the higher political level to “open their eyes.” Many mid- to upper-level managers 
with whom the team spoke at state-owned utilities commented that PATRP needed to involve 
politicians more—not just technocrats who understand the problems and issues in the sector. 
● Many government stakeholders also saw a greater need for longer-term interventions and study 
tours to observe similar emerging markets in countries that have successfully implemented policy 
reforms. Such activities would promote new thinking among key government decision-makers. In 
this regard, some stakeholders felt that PATRP did not spend enough time bringing the whole 
management onboard with respect to several policy reform initiatives. 
● Stakeholders in Kenya felt abandoned after PATRP delivered the PPP framework, which was 
initially well received, but lacked continuing support for implementation.
EQ 5. WHAT WERE THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF
ACHIEVING TARGETS? WERE THOSE INTENTIONAL?
The PATRP program had numerous targets, of which the most commonly mentioned were the number 
of MW reaching FC and the number of new connections. Other targets included risk measures used, 
transmission lines added, employees trained, and policy reforms written and adopted.
Positive Consequences of Targets
PATRP had three general goals: helping generation transactions reach FC, increasing access to electricity 
by expanding the number of households with connections, and improving the overall enabling environment 
of the sector through policy reform work. 
Program targets aligned with these areas imperfectly, but in a general sense directed mostly positive 
efforts. The PATRP program worked with late-stage transactions in an effort to meet their targets for 
generation capacity reaching FC and, in some cases, the program was considered instrumental to 
achievement of FC. 
Negative Consequences of Generation Targets and Focus
Not all transactions give good value for money, and adding MWs of generation capacity to the grid can 
have both positive and negative impacts on the overall health of a country’s power sector. For example:
56
● Adding capacity in Ghana may have further burdened an already overwhelmed electricity market. 
● The Azura gas deal in Nigeria may have benefited from certain allowances that created an 
unrealistic standard for future PPA pricing in the sector. More transparent, competitive 
procurement processes could help address this potential issue.
● In Kenya, Cummins Baringo Biomass Plant technology in was not properly vetted, and feedstock 
was incompatible with technology. As a result the plant is not operational.
● Emphasis was on MW of generation capacity without consideration of affordability. If an electricity 
supply is not affordable, additional generation capacity is irrelevant.
Consequences of Policy Target
The consequences of policy targets are unclear to the evaluation team. It is difficult to find evidence that 
the policy work done by PATRP was in any way contextualized by a need to meet quantitative targets for 
policy reforms. Setting a number for policies proposed and implemented appears to be a generally 
ineffective approach that could be replaced by a target with a clearer relationship to impact, or to better 
measures of input (level of effort, et.), which could at least direct resource allocation.
“If you get too stuck on metrics, then you get into very specific activities.”
—Former Transaction Advisor
“MWs is a good target in ‘Africa,’ where there is a deficit everywhere, so you want to put in as many MW as possible, but 
you need to go beyond the numbers to see what success is. Here [in Ghana] the economy is reeling under the costs of all 
these MW we’ve got. In my mind, in Ghana, success is minimizing the cost, or optimizing the use, or building capacity, or 
building the capability, so that in the future we don’t get into this mess again. You can’t have a cookie-cutter approach 
where you say ‘Let’s build more power plants’ where no power plants are needed.”
—IPP CEO
EQ 6. IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT PATRP’S ACHIEVED RESULTS HAD A WIDER
EFFECT THAN ANTICIPATED? IF SO, IN WHAT WAY?
Given the broad scope of the PATRP program and its ambitious approach to everything from generation 
capacity to policy reform, it is setting a high bar to ask if the project “had a wider effect than anticipated.” 
Some stakeholders believed the program produced success beyond their expectations, while others 
disagreed.
The PATRP Results Framework quotes the Development Objective: “to increase the quality and quantity 
of transmission, distribution, and cleaner generation projects, to expand access to electricity and spur 
economic growth.” Intermediate results were expected to add actors to the sector; attract new 
investment opportunities; reduce risk and transaction costs; and improve technical and planning capacity, 
the viability of financial utilities, and regulatory frameworks. Once we account for these results, not many 
others remain. However, several results are standouts: 
57
The Karpower Relocation in Ghana Reduced Costs Significantly 
In Ghana, TAs proposed the relocation of the Karpowership generation facility, which is expected to save 
the country at least $100 million in coming years. While such policy proposals are not exactly outside the 
scope of the program, the success of this proposal represents the kind of impact that might not have been 
predictable or anticipated at the start of the PATRP program. 
Input on Geothermal and PPP Proclamations is Paving New Paths in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, TAs provided valuable input on the geothermal and PPP proclamations, paving the way for 
improved transactions in all sectors. PATRP helped draft the Geothermal Proclamation, which stemmed 
Corbetti geothermal transaction. Geothermal law was previously included under the Mining law, which 
required a unique management framework to be developed for each geothermal project. The Geothermal 
Proclamation eliminates the need for separate management frameworks, which reducing the time needed 
to negotiate future geothermal projects. PATRP also provided support to but was not directly involved in 
drafting the PPP Proclamation, which provides previously missing legislation on structuring PPPs and led 
to the creation of a PPP unit within Ethiopia’s Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation. Both the 
PPP Proclamation and PPP Unit are significant achievements that institutionalize some of the knowledge 
that PATRP transferred to the Government of Ethiopia.
Lesser Effect than Anticipated in Nigeria Overall, Despite Some Successes with DISCOs
In Nigeria, the program was generally viewed as having failed to meet expectations, given that no 
generation capacity was added after the closing of Azura-Edo, in addition to many remaining challenges in 
the sector. However, the success of the DISCOs’ embedded advisors was welcome—and perhaps
surprising in this context.
“I think it's been tough for me, as someone who’s worked in Nigeria for many years, knowing that it has the 7th largest 
population in the world, and yet only has 4000 MW of reliable capacity. From that standpoint, the program did not exceed 
expectations. We didn’t get them to 8000 MW.”
—Former Transaction Advisor
EQ 7. WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF POSITIVE EFFECTS BEING LIKELY TO
CONTINUE AFTER THE PROGRAM HAS ENDED?
Sustainability is difficult to forecast. The PATRP program made numerous impacts on the power sectors 
in supported countries, some of which will continue into the future. For example, generation deals that 
were closed during PATRP should have a longer impact window than the program itself due to the 
contractual mechanisms underlying PPAs and other guarantees. Many of the policy reforms should also 
have an extended impact, assuming some level of stability around their implementation. 
However, in some cases the sustainability of impacts is uncertain. For example, the sustainability of utility 
loss improvements in Nigeria, sustainability is threatened by significant instability in the country’s energy 
system, which could pose existential threats to future utility operation. If the health of the Nigerian energy 
sector does not improve, the benefits (and sustained impact) of PATRP support could be undone by future 
changes to the system. Similarly, the sustainability of utility improvements in Ethiopia is seen as dependent 
on implementation of activities under the East Africa Energy Program.
58
Embedded Advisors and Sustainability
Embedded advisors can be a valuable resource for ministries, utilities, regulators, and other entities at the 
heart of a developing country’s energy sector. Those advisors often have technical and administrative 
capacities that significantly improve an organization’s ability to achieve its goals. However, embedded 
assignments are temporary, and if an organization integrates an advisor into its core operation, the end of 
the assignment can be difficult. 
Ideally, advisors should be able to operate independently of the entity in which they are embedded so 
core functions are not impacted by their presence and they can pursue projects outside the mandate of 
the partner organization. However, embedded advisors typically form close working relationships in the 
entity that may blur the distinction between advisory work and providing an extra pair of hands. In many 
cases, the quickest way to achieve objectives is for skilled TAs to do that others may not be doing, or may 
do poorly. If this becomes a pattern, the entity may come to depend on the advisor’s skills or output;
which could be an issue if major reforms or negotiations are incomplete when TAs finish their assignments.
Ensuring that well-structured transitional plans are agreed to well in advance of advisors finishing their 
engagements can limit this issue.
“I think that concept of embedded advisors really, really helped. They gave you a theory and then they practicalized it. They 
tell you disconnect like this. You go with them to the field with you and they say, ‘When I said disconnect like this, this is 
what I meant.’ So it sticks”
—DISCO Staff
EQ 8. TO WHAT EXTENT WERE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ADAPTED FOR THE
LOCAL CONTEXT?
The problems addressed by PATRP varied significantly across countries given the varied challenges that 
contextualize different energy sectors. Overall, the evaluation team saw significant evidence that PATRP 
staff were allowed the flexibility to address the challenges in front of them, and that the program was able 
to tailor support by adapting program activities to the local context. 
In Ghana
TAs worked to address significant financial issues in the sector by supporting ESRP development, 
proposing a cost-saving relocation of an existing generation facility, creating a set of well-used financial 
models, and other policy efforts that key stakeholders valued highly. There was less imminent pressure to 
focus on closing transactions, given Ghana’s generation overcapacity. While the embedded TAs were 
involved with the transaction pipeline, they rightly prioritized policy work. Stakeholders in Ghana observed
that the country’s needs are mostly related to optimizing existing generation capacity, which advisors 
accomplished through policy work related to the fuel supply as well as 
In Nigeria
TAs supported attempts to launch gas flaring auctions, although progress has been limited. Generally, the 
enabling environment in Nigeria made it difficult to advance transactions. As a result, the subsequent NPSP 
program shifted its focus to the enabling environment.
59
EQ 9. HOW WELL DID THE PROGRAM DEVELOP AND MAKE USE OF M&E
SYSTEMS?
The evaluation team had concerns about some of the metrics and key performance indicators found in 
the PMP. These are discussed below.
Generation Capacity Metrics Do Not Sufficiently Reflect PATRP Impact
Generation capacity to reach FC is an insufficient metric to capture program success because it equates 
all generation efforts—regardless of value, price, political context, and overall impact on the health of each 
country’s electricity sector. While it has the benefit of simplicity, this metric does not sufficiently align
with the key metrics that sector planners and policymakers look at (resource adequacy, affordability, and 
reliability).
In most cases, the reason for such low consumption of electricity in SSA is not simply that generation 
capacity, measured in MW, is insufficient. In Ghana, generation capacity in MW is nearly double peak 
demand. In Nigeria, the contracted generation capacity in MW is approximately 13 GW, yet only 4 GW 
are delivered to customers as a result of a number of issues related to transmission and distribution, 
regulation, and political interference.
This criticism is addressed to some degree in the more recent Power Africa 2.0 strategy, which broadens 
the focus of the program to a larger group of issues in the power sector, including transmission. 
It Is Difficult to Accurately Measure and Attribute Connections that Resulted from PATRP 
Connections as a measure is also somewhat problematic, or at least unclear. In some cases, DISCOs that 
helped disconnect non-paying electricity users were subsequently used to report new on-grid connections
despite a net-negative impact on electrical connections when customers were “regularized.”
Similarly, for much of BTG off-grid work, estimates of new connections made dubious assumptions about 
the attributable impact of PATRP support, often claiming all new connections created by a partner business
that provided relatively limited support. This most likely led to an overestimate of the impact of Power 
Africa’s effect on new connections. 
The evaluation team acknowledges that accurately measuring attributable connections would be difficult
and, if done in a methodologically valid way, quite costly. However, given that connections are one of the 
main targets for Power Africa, decision-makers should consider whether they are comfortable with the 
current methodology for measuring program impact. Alternative ways to quantify success include: 1) 
setting targets for the percentage of people who can access electricity in each country, which would 
capture policy work and other changes to the sector, or 2) measuring reductions in the cost of accessing 
electricity for strategically selected markets, which would better reflect improvements to the supply side 
of the market and demonstrate that electricity is becoming more accessible for the poor. 
Monitoring the Enabling Environment and Policy is Important, and there is Room for 
Improvement
PATRP counted the number of policy proposals drafted and adopted but did not their evaluate quality, 
which is problematic. One well-targeted, high-quality policy will have a more significant impact than a 
numerous bad ones. The PATRP program saw some important successes in its work with governments, 
which are not well represented in current data. In future programming, one option to improve 
60
measurement of policy and enabling environment achievements efforts would be to introduce a road map
for each country, with energy sector issues identified, and reforms proposed. Then, rather than measuring 
the general number of policies proposed or moved into legislation, the monitoring and evaluation 
framework could measure progress toward overcoming major challenges. This would enable decision￾makers to better understand progress on the enabling environment and the performance of Power Africa 
related to policy reform.
Decentralization Improved Access to Relevant Data for Key Decision-Makers
In cases where new programming replaced PATRP, such as in Ghana or Nigeria, we heard multiple times 
that decentralization had improved the accessibility of useful resources or relevant data. CORs and other 
staff commented that the PATRP model of placing a centralized management team in Pretoria led to data 
sharing issues.
61
9. LESSONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
VARIED CONTEXTS ACROSS COUNTRIES REQUIRE TAILORED
APPROACHES
The PATRP program was implemented across multiple unique countries in SSA. It set overall goals for 
generation capacity, connections, and policy work, yet such aggregate measures did not capture many of 
the successes and failures that occurred in the unique context of each country.
In Ghana, for example, over-contracting in recent years led to an excess supply and burdened government
finances through capacity payments. In such a context, adding MWs of generation capacity might be 
considered an actively harmful outcome, despite the fact that it would be seen as a step toward achieving 
PATRP’s overall targets. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to endorse country-level objectives and 
targets, which could vary significantly for each country's power sector. Key objectives in Ghana, for 
example, could include
1. Oversee the privatization of ECG as it transitions to PDS
2. Oversee reforms to the natural gas regulatory framework to align with international best practices
3. Support the development and implementation of a mini-grid legal framework
4. Support the government in designing and operationalizing a full set of reforms for least-cost 
procurement of new energy resources
5. Support efforts to achieve a reduction in the electricity sector’s annual operating deficit
In Nigeria, objectives could relate to financial insolvency among DISCOs or a much-needed review of the 
tariffs system to reflect costs. In each country, the highest priority needs will differ, as will the resources 
and time required to address them. 
Recommendation 1: Improve Country-Level Planning
In future contracts that are similar in nature to PATRP, we recommend that Power Africa create a country-level 
plan that would contain:
● Country-level targets that address the unique context and obstacles in each country that impede the 
overall success of the power industry
● A road map to success for each country that identifies key milestones toward the development of its 
power sector
● An assessment of stakeholder support or buy-in for the country to ensure alignment
● An assessment of the resources necessary to accomplish the objectives in each country
GOVERNMENT ALIGNMENT IS CRITICAL
The PATRP program included a set of targets for success applied to its programming across SSA. However, 
each country where PATRP operates is a sovereign entity, and PATRP ultimately had no authority to 
62
change its regulatory or legal frameworks. PATRP can offer support, advocate for specific policy reforms, 
or connect key stakeholders, but at the end of the day, the program delivered will fail if it does not align 
with the wishes of each country’s government. 
Government positions often change when new lawmakers are elected. In some of the countries we 
studied, PATRP faced challenges related to changes in government in the midst of the contract. Newly 
elected lawmakers were often reluctant to implement policies or regulatory reforms that were developed 
in consultation with previous regimes. 
In order to improve the overall impact of future efforts, USAID could consider aligning future 
programming with electoral cycles. Consultations could occur with new governments to develop 
objectives that satisfy the interests of both Power Africa and the governing body, assuming such overlap 
exists. This would reduce political risks that affect the overall success of policy work and ensure that 
Power Africa does not commit resources to work that does not align with the will of governments. If an 
elected government does not agree with Power Africa’s overall objectives or approach, it would be more 
effective to allocate aid resources where they are better able to achieve an unambiguously positive result. 
Some governmental stakeholders recommended that Power Africa endeavor to involve more political 
appointees in its transaction and policy interventions, possibly through the creation of, and support for, a 
senior-level coordination committee that meets regularly. Future transaction and policy intervention 
efforts should attempt to be more inclusive of host government stakeholders and be made at higher levels, 
particularly among political appointees.
Recommendation 2: Define Objectives in Consultation with Governments
We recommend that, for future contracts similar in nature to PATRP, Power Africa align its activities with the 
objectives of elected governments before committing resources to maximize the overall efficiency of its 
activities. 
Governments ultimately have jurisdiction over the regulatory and legal frameworks that control outcomes in 
the power sector; without their involvement, Power Africa is unable to generate significant results. 
Government consultations could include:
● Defining the key goals that governments have for the power sector during their tenure
● Assessing political abilities required to generate movement on key issues
● Signing memoranda of understanding to establish partnerships between Power Africa and government 
bodies
● Establishing which ministries, agencies, or other institutions are instrumental in overcoming key road
blocks and possibly establishing embedded advisors in strategic locations
NOT ALL MW AND CONNECTIONS ARE THE SAME, AND NOT ALL ARE
BENEFICIAL
The primary goal of Power Africa is defined as MW of generation capacity, as well as the number of new 
connections. While additional generation capacity is certainly needed in many parts of SSA, there are many 
locations where it is not a key bottleneck for economic prosperity. In some countries, there are significant 
issues with distribution or transmission subsectors where adding more generation will not solve 
underlying issues. In other countries, overcapacity has created significant financial challenges for public 
63
sectors, adding to the financial pressures of the government. Similarly, connections to electricity are 
valuable in many contexts, but it is difficult to measure the number of connections attributable to Power 
Africa work, compared to those that were established by the many private partners in the energy sector. 
As a result, the estimates of new connections are highly disputable. On their own, neither metric is capable 
of capturing the programs overall impact without further contextualization.
Recommendation 3: Improve the Alignment of Metrics with Impact
We recommend that, in the future, Power Africa avoid giving contractors targets for generation capacity or 
connections. Power Africa could instead choose qualitative goals or milestones as targets for each country and 
then create an M&E system for each country that aligns with these goals. These could include:
● Country-level targets that address the unique context and obstacles in each country that restrict the 
overall success of the power industry
● More price-related targets. For example, what is the levelized cost of new generation added? What is 
the average cost of electricity in urban areas? What is the average price of electricity in rural areas?
64
ANNEX I: STATEMENT OF WORK
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION METHODS
AND LIMITATIONS
EVALUATION METHODS
The goal of this study is to assess the progress of PATRP in improving the supply of and access to electricity 
in sub-Saharan Africa. To accomplish this task, the evaluation team has developed an evaluation approach 
that seeks to address a set of nine pre-subscribed evaluation questions provided by USAID (Annex 1).33
The evaluation team is proposing a mixed-methods approach to include a review of existing secondary 
data and semi-structured key informant interviews. This approach is reflective of USAID’s parallel 
combinations approach where two different approaches are used to collect and analyze information, which 
is then synthesized to answer individual evaluation questions.34
The performance evaluation is designed to answer research questions directly related to PATRP objectives 
two through four. To properly identify sample populations and data sources, the evaluation team has 
developed an evaluation design matrix linking each evaluation question to a PATRP objective (Annex 2). 
Of the nine pre-subscribed evaluation questions, numbers one through four are directly related to PATRP 
objectives. The remaining questions apply to participants or stakeholder under each objective and have 
been subsumed under a general question – Question 5: did PATRP produce impactful and accountable 
results? This approach has been taken to effectively communicate the evaluation approach and to identify 
potential stakeholders for interviewing. Table 1 presents a summary of the evaluation design matrix, 
including the main evaluation question, the associated program objective, and the key approaches to 
answering the question. 
Table 1: Summary of Evaluation Design Matrix 
Evaluation 
Question: 
Objective: Performance Evaluation Approach:
Did PATRP's 
"transaction-focused" 
approach help 
generation deals reach 
financial closure?
Objective 2: Late-Stage 
Transaction Support
Conduct in-depth interviews with transaction 
partners, USG staff, and implementing partners
Quantitative and qualitative review of the PATT 
database (Pillar I) for partner countries 
Review USAID administrative documents
Did PATRP 
strengthen utility 
viability in Nigeria and 
Ethiopia?
Objective 4: Regulatory 
and Institutional 
Strengthening and Policy 
Reform
Conduct in-depth interviews with electric 
utilities, USG staff, and implementing partners
33 See Performance Evaluation Statement ofWork (Annex 2) 34 See USAID Technical Note: Conducting Mixed-Method Evaluations, Version I, June 2013. 
76
Quantitative and qualitative review of the PATT 
database (Pillar 3) for partner countries 
Review of Nigeria Electricity Regulatory 
Commission (NERC) and EEA documents
Review of Administrative Documents for Utilities 
in Nigeria and Ethiopia (e.g. load growth; losses)
Review USAID administrative documents
Did PATRP's work 
increase off-grid 
connections?
Objective 3: Small Scale 
Projects and Rural 
Electrification / Mini￾Grids Support
Conduct in-depth interviews with electric 
utilities, USG staff, and implementing partners
Quantitative and qualitative review of the PATT 
database (Pillar 2) for partner countries 
Review administrative documents for off-grid 
energy providers (e.g. connections; financial 
viability)
Review USAID administrative documents
Did PATRP impact 
policy in a meaningful 
way?
Objective 4: Regulatory 
and Institutional 
Strengthening and Policy 
Reform
Conduct in-depth interviews with host-country 
officials, electric utilities, USG staff, and 
implementing partners
Qualitative review of the PATT database (Pillar 3) 
for partner countries 
Review USAID administrative documents
Did PATRP produce 
impactful and 
accountable results?
Questions address the 
following for objectives 
2 through 4:
• Impact
• Sustainability
Conduct in-depth interviews with USG staff, 
partners, electric and off-grid energy providers, 
and implementing partners
Review USAID administrative documents
77
• Local 
Adaptation
• M&E
The team has also designed a general questionnaire addressing evaluation questions that are pertinent to 
each stakeholder group (Annex 3). Evaluation questions five through nine, which are presented as one 
over-arching question in the Evaluation Design Matrix, are included in this general questionnaire with the 
understanding that some questions (e.g. M&E) will not be asked of all stakeholders. 
The performance evaluation will collect information about how PATRP activities were implemented with 
respect to each program objective. The evaluation team will assess if PATRP activities align with the stated 
goal and targets of improving the supply of and access to electricity through transaction-based support, 
policy reforms and institutional strengthening, and the provision of on-grid and BYG energy solutions. The 
performance evaluation will analyze various sources of information, including program and administrative 
documentation, reporting data from the PATT database, and qualitative research. A summary of key data 
sources includes: 
• Program materials will document the transactions, projects, and policy reforms supported by 
PATRP. Additionally, these sources will document key partner involvement with each activity. 
Examples include country investment plans (CIPs), quarterly and annual reports, and monitoring 
and evaluation (M&E) and performance monitoring plans (PMP).
• Administrative documents from national electric utilities, national regulatory agencies, and off-grid 
energy providers will describe partner performance and progress towards common objectives. 
For example, annual reports from utilities and off-grid energy companies document customer 
growth and financial viability. Similarly, regulatory agencies often provide source materials 
regarding energy transactions and regulatory reforms. 
• The PATT database will provide source material for all Qualified Power Africa Transactions, 
including partner involvement for each PATRP-supported transaction or project. For instance, 
PATT data can be used to identify the size (MW), cost (US$), and technology (e.g. solar, gas, etc.) 
supported for each transaction.
• The evaluation team will use qualitative data to understand how PATRP was implemented and 
how program partners and participants believe the program has met its objectives.
o Key informant interviews with participants to PATRP-supported financial transactions will 
help the evaluation team understand the type of support provided to transactions and the 
perceived effectiveness of this approach. These interviews will focus on partners to 
transactions that are active or have achieved financial closure in Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, 
and Nigeria. 
o Key informant interviews with electric utilities and off-grid energy providers receiving 
PATRP support will help the evaluation team understand the type of support provided 
energy providers and perceived effectiveness towards increasing the supply of and access 
to energy. While interviews for off-grid energy providers will occur in each of the four 
78
focus countries of this evaluation, interviews with the electric utilities will only occur in 
Ethiopia and Nigeria. 
o Key informant interviews with host-country governments receiving PATRP support will 
help the evaluation team understand the types of actions supporting policy reform and 
the perceived effectiveness of this support. These interviews will focus on host-country 
government officials in each of the four partner countries where PATRP-supported policy 
reforms occurred.
o Key informant interview with USG staff and implementing partners will help the evaluation
team understand the challenges to program implementation and M&E processes for 
tracking progress towards each objective. These interviews will focus on personnel based 
in South Africa, Washington, D.C., and each of the four focus countries of this evaluation.
The performance evaluation will identify implementation successes and challenges, demonstrating lessons 
learned from the program to inform technical teams, activity managers, and senior management on the 
design of future programs of Power Africa. Furthermore, the performance evaluation will provide policy 
recommendations for the direction and structure of any future programming. A special emphasis will be 
placed on an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the activity’s transaction focused approach in 
improving the supply of and access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa, including documentation of the 
value of replicating the transaction-focused model within the Agency. The evaluation team will also provide 
recommendations for monitoring, evaluation, and learning for future programming.
STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLE
The performance evaluation will focus on the assessment of outcomes of major activities under PATRP 
objectives two through four. The performance evaluation will also address a series of questions assessing 
common outcomes across each of these objectives. Under the current design, the performance evaluation 
will focus on program participants, beneficiaries, and partners under each respective objective. Moreover, 
USAID has instructed the team to concentrate its assessment of evaluation question two in only Ethiopia 
and Nigeria, while the remaining evaluation questions will apply to PATRP activities in the following 
countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria. Therefore, study populations will be based upon the 
identification of key PATRP activity stakeholders under each objective in the relevant partner countries. 
In Annexes 4 through 7, the evaluation team has identified a list of potential bilateral, multilateral, and 
private sector stakeholders to interview by country and PATRP objectives. 
For evaluation question one, which evaluates PATRP’s transactions-based approach, the initial study 
population will be identified through the assessment of the PATT database. Specifically, the evaluation 
team will estimate the total number of PATRP-supported projects and partners for Pillar I who reached 
financial close. After this population is identified, we will work with USAID to identify stakeholders to 
interview under each transaction
According to the PATT database for Pillar I (Objective 2)35, there are currently 59 PATRP-supported 
transactions that are financially closed or active.36 Nigeria and Kenya had the highest number of PATRP￾assisted transactions (20 each), followed by Ghana (11) and Ethiopia (8). Of these 59 transactions, there 
are an estimated total of 137 partners, including actors from the private sector, bilateral and multilateral 
35 Objective 2 represents the population for evaluation question 1. 36 Based on PATT estimates as of August 9th 2019. 
79
organizations, and other organizations.37 Table 2 provides a summary of the total number of partners by
technology and country. Solar and natural gas account for the highest share of PATRP-supported 
transactions at 38 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria all had over 40 PATRP￾assisted transactions, while Ethiopia had only 8.
Table 2: Number of Partners for PATRP Transactions by Technology and Partner Country
The evaluation team proposes the random selection of 50 percent of financially closed transactions in Ethiopia and 
Ghana, representing almost 10 transactions. In Kenya and Nigeria, the evaluation team proposes a random selection 
of 33 percent of financially closed transactions, which represents a total of 12 transactions. For each of these 22 
transactions, the evaluation team will attempt to interview one government partner and one private sector partner. 
In total, this would produce 44 interviews related to PATRP’s transaction activities.38 The evaluation team will work 
with USAID for final approval of this list and introductions. The team also acknowledges the potential for non￾responses from counterparts and therefore the total number of interviews will likely be less than 44. 
For evaluation question 2, PATRP activities to strengthen utility viability in Nigeria and Ethiopia, the 
evaluation team will initially estimate the total study population by identifying utilities supported by PATRP 
in the PATT database, Pillar 3. The evaluation team will work with USAID and the implementing partner 
to identify at least 5 utilities in Nigeria and Ethiopia for interviews. For each utility, the team will attempt 
to interview at least 2 stakeholders with knowledge of the PATRP initiative. 
For evaluation question 3, PATRP's work to increase off-grid connections, initial estimates will be based 
upon the total number of PATRP-supported projects and partners in the PATT database, Pillar 2. 
According to the PATT database for Pillar 2 (Objective 3)39, there are currently 53 PATRP-supported 
projects. Of this, there are an estimated total of 121 partners, including off-grid energy providers, 
investors, and other donors.40 Kenya represents the partner country with the most PATRP support 
projects under Objective 3 (20), followed by Nigeria (14), Ethiopia (10), and Ghana (9). Table 3 provides 
a summary of the total number of partners by technology and country. Solar home systems account for 
largest share of PATRP-supported transactions at 76 percent, while the micro-grid and lanterns account 
for 17 percent and 7 percent, respectively. 
37 This estimate does not exclude organizations that may be involved in multiple transactions in any one country. 38 137 partners / 59 PATRP transactions = 2.32 partners per transaction. Twenty-two transactions * 2 = 44 
partner interviews (rounded). 
39 Objective 3 represents the population for evaluation question 3. 40 This estimate does not exclude organizations that may be involved in multiple transactions in any one country. 
Technology Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Nigeria Total
Wind 1 0 11 0 12
Solar 7 11 19 15 52
Natural Gas 0 21 0 20 41
Biomass 0 2 4 5 11
LPG 0 7 0 0 7
Hybrid RE/RE 0 0 6 3 9
Geothermal 0 0 2 0 2
Hydro 0 0 1 2 3
Total 8 41 43 45 137
80
Table 3: Number of PATRP-supported Projects for Objective 3 by Technology and Partner 
Country
Country Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Nigeria Total
# of Projects by Technology
Lanterns 0 1 0 5 6
Solar Home Systems (SHS) 10 6 15 7 38
Microgrid 0 2 5 2 9
Total 10 9 20 14 53
# of Partners by Technology 53
Lanterns 0 4 0 5 9
Solar Home Systems (SHS) 32 17 35 8 92
Microgrid 0 4 14 2 20
Total 32 25 49 15 121
The evaluation team proposes the random selection of 33 percent of off-grid projects, representing around 16 BTG
projects. For each of these 16 transactions, the evaluation team will attempt to interview one off-grid energy provider 
and another private sector partner (e.g. investors or bilateral donor). In total, this would produce around 32 
interviews related to PATRP’s BTG activities. The evaluation team will verify the list of off-grid contacts with USAID. 
The team also acknowledges the potential for non-responses from counterparts and therefore the total number of 
interviews will likely be less than 32. 
For evaluation question 4, the evaluation will need direction from USAID regarding the host-country 
government agencies, regulatory institutions and policies receiving PATRP support. The team will ask 
USAID to work with PATRP in compiling a list of all relevant stakeholders that had an extensive 
engagement with the PATRP program. From this list, we will randomly select at least 10 stakeholders per 
country to reach out to for interviews. We anticipate that we will not be able to reach all stakeholders. 
LIMITATIONS
Key informant interviews and site visits will be a major data source for the PATRP evaluation. The 
evaluation team will likely depend on USAID advisors and implementing partners to identify and 
communicate with some key stakeholders. There is thus some risk of selection bias due to the potential 
of selecting a large proportion of interviewees with only positive opinions of the program. Although the 
evaluation team will invite a variety of stakeholders to participate in the interview process, individual 
stakeholders are the ultimate decision-makers as to whether they would like to be interviewed. This 
creates the risk of interviewing a significant proportion of stakeholders who are motivated by their strong 
opinions about the program. PATRP is also near the end of its program lifecycle. This presents a risk of 
recall bias in that stakeholders may not remember how PATRP supported their projects or the extent to 
which this support was effective. 
There are also data collection challenges related to complexity of the program and the limited amount of 
time the evaluation team will spend in each country. The PATRP performance evaluation assesses three 
81
objectives with distinct outcomes and stakeholder groups. Identifying and coordinating interviews with 
individuals representative of each PATRP objective will be challenging.
Realizing these limitations, the evaluation team will work with USAID and implementing partners to 
conduct interviews with stakeholder groups representative of the greater population. The evaluation team 
will be cognizant of situations where biases may still exist and note this information in the PATRP 
performance evaluation. The team will mitigate the potential risk of recall bias by selecting key informant 
interviews representative of activities across the entire program lifecycle. Finally, the evaluation team will 
work diligently to identify and analyze secondary information that can be triangulated with data from key 
informant interviews. This will include the desk study performed prior to country visits.
82
ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION
INSTRUMENTS
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW SCRIPT - PATRP EVALUATION
Introductions and Participant Consent
“Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today about your experiences related to the PATRP 
program.
My name is _________ and I am working with Integra Government Services, which has been 
contracted by the US Agency for International Development to collect data on the PATPR initiative to 
date. The purpose of our interview is to learn more about the effect of capacity building, technical 
assistance, and transaction support provided by the PATRP initiative. I encourage you to be open and 
honest in your reflections on both successes and challenges your organization has experienced while 
working with the PATRP initiative. Unless you specify otherwise, feedback will remain confidential and 
reported in aggregate. Before we begin with my questions - do you have any questions for me about this 
data collection effort?”
Consent
Do you understand the purpose of this interview and wish to proceed?
❏ Yes
❏ No
Are you willing to speak on the record during the interview?
❏ Yes
❏ No
Identification
Country
❏ Ghana
❏ Nigeria
❏ Kenya
❏ Ethiopia
❏ Other ___________
Name of Key Informant (s):
83
Institution(s) Represented:
Power Africa Transactions Affiliated with:
EQ1
1.1 Which types of transaction support were provided by PATRP? 
No Yes, 
significant 
impact
Yes, limited 
impact
Yes, no 
impact
N/A
Drafting 
project 
documents
Credit 
analysis for 
letters of 
comfort 
Feasibility 
studies 
Risk 
mitigation 
Assistance 
developing 
power 
procurement 
tenders 
84
Other 
(manually 
specify)
1.2 What does it take to close a transaction in your country? How does this compare to PATRP’s past 
efforts?
1.3 Reflecting on your experience, do you feel that PATRP's involvement had a significant impact, had a 
limited impact, or had no impact on the closing of transactions? 
❏ Significant impact
❏ Limited impact
❏ No impact
1.4 Why do you feel that PATRP's involvement had the impact (or lack of impact) noted in the previous 
question?
1.5 What key challenges did you and your organization encounter when closing PATRP transactions?
1.6 What kinds of solutions did you and your organization use to overcome challenges related to closing 
PATRP transactions?
1.7 How did PATRP support the solutions used to overcome these challenges? 
EQ2
2.1 From your observations, did PATRP's work lead to new grid connections? 
85
❏ Yes 
❏ No 
❏ N/A 
2.2 From your observations, did PATRP's work lead to new electricity generation? 
❏ Yes 
❏ No 
❏ N/A 
2.3 To what extent did PATRP's work strengthen "the utility"? 
❏ Helped overcome a financial barrier 
❏ Helped build capacity 
❏ Improved customer service 
❏ Reduced losses 
❏ Other (manually specify) 
❏ Did not strengthen the utility
2.4 Are PATRP's achievements (e.g. loss reduction, system improvements) expected to be sustainable? 
❏ Yes
❏ No
❏ Don't Know 
2.5 Why do you feel that that PATRP's achievements are expected (or not expected) to be sustainable?
2.6 What key challenges did PATRP encounter in implementing this work?
2.7 How did it seek to overcome the previously mentioned challenges?
2.8 Was PATRP able to overcome these challenges? Please describe.
EQ3
3.1 How effective were PATRP's efforts to bring lending institutions into the off-grid sector to finance 
off-grid companies (solar home system and micro-grid)? 
86
❏ Very Effective
❏ Somewhat Effective
❏ Ineffective
3.2 Why do you feel that that PATRP's efforts were effective (or not effective) in bringing lending 
institutions to the off-grid sector?
3.3 To what extent do off-grid companies feel they benefited from PATRP support in the following 
areas? 
No impact Yes, 
significant 
impact
Yes, limited 
impact
Yes, no 
impact
N/A
Capacity 
building
Financial 
support
Technical 
assistance
Developing 
new 
partnerships 
or markets
3.4 What key challenges did PATRP encounter in implementing this work?
3.5 How did it seek to overcome the previously mentioned challenges?
3.6 Was PATRP able to overcome these challenges? Please describe.
87
EQ 4
4.1 What type of policy reform did PATRP support? 
❏ Energy sector law
❏ Energy policy 
❏ Strategies or plans 
❏ Regulations
❏ Other (manually specify) 
4.2 What were the outcomes of these policy reforms?
4.3 Reflecting on your experience, do you feel that PATRP's policy support had a significant and positive 
impact, a significant and negative impact, or an insignificant impact? 
❏ A significant and positive impact
❏ A Significant and negative impact
❏ An Insignificant impact
4.4 Why do you feel that PATRP's policy support had the impact (positive or negative) noted in the 
previous question?
4.5 In your opinion, what is the most effective ways to support policy reforms? How does this compare 
to PATRP’s past efforts?
EQ 5
5.1 What were the positive consequences of achieving targets?
5.2 What were the negative consequences of achieving targets?
5.3 Were these consequences intentional? Explain.
88
EQ 6
6.1 Did PATRP's achieved results exceed your expectations? 
❏ Yes
❏ No 
6.2 How did PATRP exceed (or not exceed) expectations as noted in the previous question? 
EQ 7
7.1 Do you believe the positive effects generated by the program are likely to continue beyond it's 
program completion? 
❏ Yes
❏ No
❏ Unsure 
❏ N/A 
EQ 8 
8.1 Do you believe PATRP activities were well-adapted for the local context? 
❏ Yes
❏ No
❏ Unsure
❏ N/A 
8.2 Please elaborate.
EQ 9
9.1 How well did the program make use of monitoring and evaluation systems? 
❏ Used well 
❏ Used poorly 
❏ Did not use 
❏ Don't know 
❏ N/A 
9.2 Please elaborate. 
89
ANNEX 4: SOURCES OF
INFORMATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
“2018 Integrated Annual Report & Financial Statements.” Kenya Electricity Generating Company Plc, 
June 30, 2018. Https://Www.Kengen.Co.Ke/Images/Annual_reports/2018-full-year-kengen-integrated￾report.Pdf.
“2020-2024 Performance Improvement Plan.” Abuja Electricity Distribution Plc, 2019.
A. K. Ofosu Ahenkorah. “Integrated Power System Master Plan For Ghana.” Energy Commission, Usaid, 
December 6, 2018.
Http://Www.Energycom.Gov.Gh/Files/Ghana%20integrated%20power%20system%20master%20plan%20
_volume%202.Pdf.
Ahali, Aaron. “Improving Electricity Access In Ghana Challenges And The Way Forward.” International 
Journal Of Energy And Power Engineering 5 (January 2, 2016): 9–17.
Https://Doi.Org/10.11648/J.Ijepe.S.2016050202.12.
Ajayi, Adewale, Chibuzor Anyanechi, Segun Sowande, And Nike Oyewolu. “A Guide To The Nigerian 
Power Sector.” Kpmg Nigeria, September 2016.
Https://Assets.Kpmg/Content/Dam/Kpmg/Ng/Pdf/Tax/A-guide-to-nigerian-power-sector.Pdf.
Bungane, Babalwa. “Nigerian Gov Continues To Battle Tariff Structure With Solar Ipps.” Esi-africa.Com
(Blog), October 5, 2018. Https://Www.Esi-africa.Com/Industry-sectors/Renewable-energy/Nigerian-gov￾continues-to-battle-tariff-structure-with-14-solar-ipps/.
Chijoke Mama. “Solarplaza On-grid Solar In Nigeria: Two Years After The Ppas.” Accessed November 
15, 2019. Https://Www.Solarplaza.Com/Channels/Markets/11772/-grid-solar-nigeria-two-years-after￾ppas/.
Chinedu Nebo, And James F. Entwistle. Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Federal 
Government Of Nigeria And The Government Of The United States Of America Regarding Power 
Africa (2014). Https://Www.Usaid.Gov/Sites/Default/Files/Documents/1860/Nigeria-mou.Pdf.
“Current Tariffs.” Ethiopian Electric Utility, 2019. http://www.eeu.gov.et/index.php/current-tariff
Dioha, Michael O., And Nnaemeka Vincent Emodi. “Investigating the Impacts Of Energy Access 
Scenarios In The Nigerian Household Sector By 2030.” Resources 8, No. 3 (July 18, 2019): 127.
Https://Doi.Org/10.3390/Resources8030127.
Eberhard, Anton, Katharine Gratwick, Elvira Morella, And Pedro Antmann. “Independent Power 
Projects In Sub-saharan Africa,” N.D., 385.
Eberhard, Anton, And Marek Raciboski. “Emergence and Sustainability Of Independent Power Projects 
In Nigeria,” N.D., 39.
90
“Ethiopia - Energy.” The International Trade Administration, October 2019. 
https://www.export.gov/article?id=Ethiopia-Energy
Ezekiel Adesina, Ben Asante, Natalia Camba, And Fisoye Delano. Understanding Natural Gas and Lng 
Options. Power Africa Understanding Series 1, 2017.
Https://Www.Energy.Gov/Sites/Prod/Files/2017/11/F46/Understanding%20natural%20gas%20and%20lng%
20options%20october%2011%202017_1.Pdf.
Frederick A. Okang, Frank Otchere, And Kassim Abubakar. “2019 Electricity Supply Plan for The Ghana 
Power System.” Energy Commission, 2019.
Http://Www.Energycom.Gov.Gh/Files/2019%20electricity%20supply%20plan.Pdf.
“Frequently Asked Questions (Cenpower).” Faq. Cenpower, 2015.
Http://Www.Cenpowergen.Com/Press/Cenpower_faq.Pdf.
“Funding Proposal For Nigeria Solar Ipp Support Program.” Accessed November 7, 2019.
Https://Www.Greenclimate.Fund/Documents/20182/574760/Funding_proposal_-_fp104_-_afc_-
_nigeria.Pdf/9245df67-82fd-282f-4103-ab4122a3e662.
“Ghana Loses $190 Million U.S. Grant Over Canceled Power Contract.” Reuters, October 23, 2019.
Https://Www.Reuters.Com/Article/Us-usa-ghana-power-iduskbn1x225d.
“Highlights of Kenya’s Energy Act 2019.” Rodl & Partner, 2019. 
https://www.roedl.com/insights/erneuerbare-energien/2019-05/highlights-of-kenyas-energy-act-2019
Jim Jewell, And Natenna Dobson. “Lng Handbook Slides.” December 2016.
Https://Www.Energy.Gov/Sites/Prod/Files/2016/12/F34/Lng%20handbook%20slides%20december%20201
6awl.Pdf.
Kapika, Joseph, And Anton Eberhard. Power Sector Reform And Regulation In Africa. Capetown: Hsrc, 2013.
“Karpowership Prepares To Relocate, Shuts Down For 17 Days.” Accessed November 11, 2019.
Https://Www.Ghanaweb.Com/Ghanahomepage/Newsarchive/Karpowership-prepares-to-relocate-shuts￾down-for-17-days-771401#.
Ken Ofori-atta, (Minister For Finance). “Mid-year Fiscal Policy Review Of The 2019 Budget Statement 
And Economic Policy & Supplementary Estimates Of The Government Of Ghana For The 2019 Financial 
Year.” Ministry Of Finance, Ghana, July 29, 2019. Https://Drive.Google.Com/File/D/10bsdwq1wohs￾ijk2haz-uyks7sldjtym/View?Usp=Embed_facebook.
“Kenya halts Lamu coal power project at World Heritage Site.” BBC News, June 2019. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48771519
Kingsley Asare. “Ghana Bridge Power Project Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.” Jacobs 
Consultancy Ltd., August 7, 2017.
Https://Www3.Opic.Gov/Environment/Eia/Bridgepower/Esia_vol_2.Pdf.
Kingsley Osei. “Will the Put/Call Option Agreement (‘pcoa’) Adopted In The Early Power Consortium 
Ipp In Ghana Set A New Trend For Mitigating Project Risks In Africa?” Accessed October 31, 2019.
Https://Www.Linkedin.Com/Pulse/Putcall-option-agreement-pcoa-adopted-early-power-consortium￾osei.
91
Lovemore Seveni, Miguel Franco, And Carolina Barreto. “Power Africa Africa Off-grid Project Fact 
Sheet,” August 2019. Https://Www.Usaid.Gov/Sites/Default/Files/Paop_fact_sheet.Pdf.
Majzoub, Yousef, Colin Mccollester, Grayson Heffner, And Peter Graham. “Nigeria Power Sector 
Program (Npsp) Distribution Subsector Assessment,” N.D.
Map Design Unit Of The World Bank. “Ethiopia Geothermal Sector Development Project.” Ethiopia: 
World Bank Group, January 2014. Https://Development-data-hub-s3-
public.S3.Amazonaws.Com/Ddhfiles/145078/Eth40624.Pdf.
“Maximizing Financing for Development in Action: The Kenya Energy Sector Experience.” World Bank 
Group, April 2019. https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2019/04/18/maximizing-financing-for￾development-in-action-the-kenya-energy-sector-experience
Mohamed Badissy, Lucy Chege, Patrick M. Dougherty, Alex Evans, And Nnaemeka Ewelukwa. 
Understanding Power Project Financing. Power Africa Understanding Series 2. Accessed November 5, 2019.
Https://Cldp.Doc.Gov/Sites/Default/Files/Understandingpowerprojectfinancing.Pdf.
“Nigeria Power Sector Program Gas Sector Assessment.” Npsp End to End Sector Assessment. Deloitte 
Consulting Llp, April 2019.
“Nigeria Power Sector Program Legal and Enabling Environment Assessment.” Npsp End to End Sector 
Assessment. Deloitte Consulting Llp, April 2019.
“Nigeria Power Sector Program Long-term Planning Assessment.” Npsp End to End Sector Assessment. 
Deloitte Consulting Llp, April 2019.
“Nigeria Power Sector Program Off-grid Sector Assessment.” Npsp End to End Sector Assessment. 
Deloitte Consulting Llp, March 2019.
“Nigeria Power Sector Program Sector Financial Assessment.” Npsp End to End Sector Assessment, 
April 2019.
“Nigeria Power Sector Program Technical System Operations Assessment.” Npsp End to End Sector 
Assessment, April 2019.
“Nigerian Energy Sector’s Crippling Debts Delay Next Power Plant.” Voice ff America. Accessed 
November 4, 2019. Https://Www.Voanews.Com/Africa/Nigerian-energy-sectors-crippling-debts-delay￾next-power-plant.
Oliver Irwin. “Nigerian Solar: The Path to Bankability.” Proximo (Blog). Accessed November 15, 2019.
Https://Www.Proximoinfra.Com/Articles/6766/Nigerian-solar-the-path-to-bankability.
“Power Africa Annual Report 2017.” Power Africa, August 2017.
“Power Africa Enabling Environment Data Tracker.” USAID Data Services, 2019. 
https://public.tableau.com/profile/eads#!/vizhome/PowerAfrica_0/EnablingEnvironmentDataTracker
“Power Africa in Ethiopia.” Power Africa, March 2016. 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Ethiopia%20Country%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf
Tetra Tech. “Power Africa Transactions and Reforms Program.” Accessed August 7, 2019.
Https://Www.Tetratech.Com/En/Projects/Power-africa-transaction-and-reforms-program.
92
“Power Africa Transmission Roadmap.” Power Africa, November 2018.
“Quarterly Report First Quarter 2019.” Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, Q1 2019.
Richter, Alexander. “Corbetti geothermal project resolving issues with Government of Ethiopia.” Think 
Geoenergy, August 2017. http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/corbetti-geothermal-project-resolving-issues￾with-government-of-ethiopia/
Sarkodie, Samuel Asumadu. “Lessons to Be Learnt From Ghana’s Excess Electricity Shambles.” The 
Conversation. Accessed November 6, 2019. Http://Theconversation.Com/Lessons-to-be-learnt-from￾ghanas-excess-electricity-shambles-121257.
Shinya Nishimura, And Paivi Koljonen. “Combined Project Information Documents / Integrated 
Safeguards Datasheet (Pid/Isds).” The World Bank, December 2017.
Http://Documents.Worldbank.Org/Curated/En/953141527091798128/Pdf/Project-information￾document-integrated-safeguards-data-sheet-ghana-energy-sector-transformation-initiative-project￾p163984.Pdf.
“Strengthening Gender Equality and Increasing Women’s Participation in the Ethiopian Power Sector.” 
Power Africa, December 2017. https://medium.com/power-africa/strengthening-gender-equality-and￾increasing-womens-participation-in-the-ethiopian-power-sector-fdc4f4049e55
Tsagas, Ilias. “Ethiopia’s first 100 MW auction to conclude in June; scaling solar tender to follow in the 
summer.” PV Magazine, June 2017. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/06/09/ethiopias-first-100-mw￾auction-to-conclude-in-june-scaling-solar-tender-to-follow-in-the-summer/
“Women in Energy: $1 billion dollars in negotiations.” Mining Review Africa, August 2019. 
https://www.miningreview.com/energy/women-energy-1-billion-dollars/
93
DATABASES REVIEWED 
All data was extracted between September and October 2019.
1. Power Africa Tracking Tool (PATT) - The PATT contains records of all officially 
recognized Power Africa transactions. PATT is a source of quantitative data that underlies 
analysis of generation and connections results. 
2. PATRP Life of Program M&E Dashboard Summary (PATRP_MEC_190926.xlsx)
Shared by Tetra Tech with the evaluation team. Summarizes PATRPs accomplishments relative 
to the PMP. This database contained unique data not found in the PATT regarding the success of 
utilities and the policy work of TAs.
94
ANNEX 5: CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST
95
96
97