Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Rural electrication options in the Brazilian Amazon

A multi-criteria analysis
Francesco Fuso Nerini a,, Mark Howells a, Morgan Bazilian a,c, Maria F. Gomez b
a
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Energy System Analysis (KTH-dESA), Sweden
b
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Energy and Climate Studies (KTH-ECS), Sweden
c
Columbia University, New York, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Worldwide, approximately 1.2 billion people still lack access to electricity. Recognized by the Brazilian Government
Received 2 September 2013 as a citizen's right, access to electricity was extended to almost 15 million people since 2003 as a result of the Luz
Revised 17 January 2014 Para Todos (Light for all LPT) program. However, considerable parts of the Amazon region still lack access to
Accepted 21 February 2014
electricity services, largely due to the long distances that need to be covered and to challenging topography. This
Available online 19 March 2014
paper explores electrication using selected renewable sources, both for new installations and for hybridization of
Keywords:
existing diesel generators. We present results from a multi-criteria analysis that explores trade-offs associated
Rural electrication with electrication options. Techno-economic, environmental, social and institutional criteria and attributes are
Multi Criteria Analysis explored. We nd that renewable and hybrid systems present a number of advantages for application in isolated
Brazilian Amazon areas of the region.
2014 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction new connections for rural households where requested by rural

In 2003 electricity access was recognized as a basic human right in
Brazil. Since then, the government has undertaken an extensive effort
to provide electricity to the entire population (Gomez and Silveira,
2010). The current Brazilian rural electrication program, Light for All
or Luz Para Todos (LPT), was designed to achieve universal electricity
access in the country. By December 2012, approximately 3 million fam-
ilies, representing roughly 14.7 million people, had received access to
electricity (ANEEL, 2012a, 2012b). It is estimated that over 400,000
new jobs have been created directly or indirectly. For this effort, the
Brazilian government allocated signicant resources with federal gov-
ernment contracts reaching R$ 14.5 billion, equivalent to approximately
6.3 billion US$ (Ministerio de Minas e Energia, 2013).
Most of the progress to date has been accomplished by the conces-
sionaries1 through grid-extensions. However, signicant effort is still
needed to reach the goal of universal access to energy services. Over
350,000 new connections are to be made during the years 20132014
(ANEEL, 2012a, 2012b), and new connections are constantly being re-
quired from rural communities (e.g. in 2011 alone, approx. 360,000
Corresponding author at: Brinellvgen 68, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.
E-mail address: f.fusonerini@desa.kth.se (F. Fuso Nerini).
1 2
LPT is currently based on a government-supported private sector concession model.
Concessionaires, the main providers of electricity in the country, are required to fully sup-
ply electricity services to citizens living in their concession area, guaranteeing low tariffs
for low-income population (Brazilian Presidency, 2002, 2010). The government provides
nancial support to the concessionaires in the form of both connection and consumption
subsidies.
communities (ANEEL, 2011)).
In the Amazon region,2 where most of the connections are requested,
grid extension is, in many cases, no longer an economically feasible
option. This is due to the long distances between the communities and
the grid, as well as a relatively challenging topography. After reaching
all the communities close to the national grid, each new community
connected represents a substantial cost (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009).
Off-grid solutions are therefore now perceived as an integral part of the
rural electrication policy in Brazil. Technologies including small-scale
hydropower, biomass based power generation, wind, solar cells, and hy-
brid systems are considered as potential solutions to achieve universal
electrication goals in the region (Ministrio de Minas e Energia, 2011a).
Where connecting to the national grid is not an economically feasi-
ble option, concessionaries have tried to meet the LPT targets using
primarily diesel fuelled micro grids (Gmez and Silveira, 2011). Diesel
solutions are chosen mainly due to low capital cost, a consolidated
supply chain in the region and a working subsidy system for the pur-
chase of Diesel (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009). Lower capital cost implies
a clear advantage for concessionaries, as low up-front costs are small
compared to the costly nes that are applied to the concessionaries
For the purpose of this study, the Amazon region is dened as equivalent to the North
region in the ofcial macro-region division of the country. As a result, our study covers
Acre, Rondnia, Roraima, Amazonas, Par, Amap, and Tocantins states. The Brazilian Am-
azon region is characterized by a very low population density, that is, about 4 inhabitants
per square kilometer in comparison with a national population density of about 22 inhab-
itants per square kilometer (IBGE, 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2014.02.005
0973-0826/ 2014 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648
Criteria for the
Literature search
Interviews with
and user interviews
to compare in the
Fig. 1. Schematic of research methodology.
that do not reach LPT connection targets. However, maintaining the die-
sel system has been proven to be very costly for the concessionaries due
mainly to the high fuel costs. In fact, the transportation of fuel to those
remote locations may take several days by boat (Di Lascio and Barreto,
2009). The result is that the cost of diesel for isolated communities,
once the transportation costs are considered, may be two or three
times greater than prices charged at gas stations (Silva et al., 2010).
In addition, in many cases where concessionaries have not yet
complied with the obligation to provide universal electricity access
electricity is provided with small private diesel generators. Similarly,
these solutions are preferred for the low capital cost, and for the consoli-
dated supply system of diesel in the region. However fuel cost for these
small systems are extremely high as they are often powered by fuel
from the black market, without any subsidies from the government. It is
not uncommon that energy generated by privately owned diesel genera-
tors is informally sold to neighbors, with no quality, price or environmen-
tal controls (Schmid and Hoffmann, 2004). Also, where electricity access
is not available, approximately 80% of the households use candles and
kerosene lamps to have basic lighting services (IDEEAS PSA, 2006). Both
the usage of private diesel generators and basic lighting systems such as
kerosene lamps have negative impacts on the economy of rural families,
on the local ecosystems and a direct health impact3 on users (Rosa, 2007).
This research focuses on identifying and highlighting some of the
main positive and negative aspects of using different renewable and
conventional energy solutions for providing energy services to the
rural population of the Amazon region.
Methodology
A schematic of the methodology is presented in Fig. 1. The initial step
of this work includes a techno-economic analysis of existing electrica-
tion solutions used in the Amazon. Derived from national strategy
documents, analyses of past projects and interviews with regional
stakeholders, ve promising energy solutions have been chosen for
this work's comparative approach (Table 2). Based on weights obtained
from an interview process, a simple multi-criteria analysis was under-
taken and each of the chosen systems has been evaluated. This enabled
the comparison of the different electrication options across individual
criteria as well as a composite index.
Finally, we suggest tentative conclusions, assessing the appropriate-
ness of each option in the Amazonian context. A list of pros and cons for
each electrication option is drawn from the analysis thereby highlighting
both positive and negative aspects of the considered solutions.
3
Especially when those systems are located near or inside the houses.
37
analysis
Multi Criteria
Analysis
stakeholders
(MCA)
analysis
Multi Criteria Analysis
The MCA (Multi Criteria Analysis) methods aim to improve the quality
of decisions involving multiple criteria by making choices more explicit,
rational and efcient. This is accomplished through (Hobbs and Horn,
1997):
Displaying trade-offs among candidate attributes. These are linked to
clear criteria, that are valued to dene an objective so that planners,
regulators and the public can understand the advantages and
disadvantages of alternatives
Helping people to reect upon, articulate and apply value judgments,
resulting in a ranking of alternatives
Moving the discussion away from alternatives and towards
fundamental objectives and corresponding trade-offs.
Implementing one instance of this methodology requires the identi-
cation of various assessment criteria. These elements are assigned
weights and aggregated into corresponding macro criteria, which in
turn receive relative weights. Finally, the resulting alternatives are
prioritized and ranked (Amer and Daim, 2011).
In this analysis we aggregate criteria with a simple weighting to de-
rive single values for macro criteria, and those in turn are given weights
to arrive to the nal index of the analysis. This methodology enables the
comparison of alternatives both on single-criteria (e.g. fuel cost) as well
as the macro criteria of the analysis (e.g. economics) while showing a
nal weighted aggregate index. Finally the transparent assignment of
weighting allows quick sensitivity analyses.
Following interviews with decision makers listed in Table 4 and a
limited contextual literature review (Afgan and Carvalho, 2002; Amer
and Daim, 2011; Daim et al., 2009; Ilskog, 2008; Nutt, 1979), 16 criteria
were identied as most relevant (Table 1). The 16 criteria are aggregat-
ed into 5 macro-criteria, namely: Technical, Economic, Environmental,
Social and Institutional.
A simple weighting methodology is applied (Fig. 2). Criteria are
weighted (with a weight Wi [%]) to form the respective macro-
criterion. The macro criteria are in turn weighted to reach the nal
index of this analysis. All the parameters are normalized in percentages
so as to be aggregated in the nal index (0% to 100%).
Albeit limited, this approach makes it possible to derive comparisons
of electrication options on criteria, macro-criteria and on the nal
composite index which expresses an overall judgment for the options
in the region. It has to be emphasized that this nal index is not intended
to indicate the best solution over the possible alternatives, but to help
contextualize relevant pros and cons when supporting decision-making.
The weights Wi for the analysis have been chosen pursuing a partic-
ipatory approach: questionnaires had been lled out in order for the
interviewed decision makers (DMs), listed in Table 4, to express their
 38
Table 1
Chosen criteria for the analysis, brief description, relevance and numerical evaluation for the analysis.

Macro-criteria Criteria Brief description Relevance Evaluation

Technical T1: Reliability Capability of the system to work in a specic In rural areas, having robust systems with high Relative to the life expectancy of the system in the Amazon and on an
region (Amazon). Comprehensive of the life reliability is an important advantage due to the estimation of the % of spare parts to be substituted after a number
expectancy of the system and the need of logistical difculties in providing O&M and the working years (to consider, for instance, the need of exchanging batteries
exchange of spare parts. harsh environmental conditions in the region. in isolated PV systems). A scale varying from 0% (non reliable) to 100%
(fully reliable) was created to represent these factors.
T2: Resource availability Energy source availability and ease of access Using local resources can have a number of Creation of an evaluation scale ranging from The primary energy source is not locally
as part of local resources advantages, as fuel import in the Amazon can available (0%) to The primary energy source is locally available, and it is enough to supply
be costly, difcult and time-consuming. all the needed electrical power for the community (100%)
T3: Scalability System adequacy to follow rural settlement It is important that energy systems are able to Creation of an evaluation scale ranging from The system cannot adapt
evolution. adapt to the growing needs of rural communities. to the growth of the community (0%) to The system is modular and
can easily adapt to the growth of the community (100%)
T4: O&M needs Expert human resources needed on site for the Having the availability of expert human resources, Relative to the amount of specialized people needed (or not) in loco to
system to work properly. skilled for the operation and maintenance of a operate the system, plus the need of periodical specialized maintenance
system, can be an issue in remote rural areas. to the system. A scale ranging from 0% (high O&M needs) to 100% (low
O&M needs) was created to represent these factors.

F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648

Economic Ec1: Capital cost Total capital cost required to set up a plant, Finding capital for starting Rural Electrication The capital costs have been estimated for each of the considered options,
considering labor, equipment and installation. projects is an issue, and lower capital costs can and then normalized to obtain criteria values ranging between 0% and 100%.
mean the possibility to provide more people
with energy services
Ec2: O&M and fuel cost Costs for replacing parts, for O&M labor, and for Considering the limited nancial resources, the The O&M costs have been estimated for each of the considered options,
fuel purchase (if any). cost of operating the system is a key factor of and then normalized to obtain the criteria values ranging between 0% and 100%.
success for correct usage during its lifetime.
Ec3: Economic value Economic benets for the community, or the The economic benets of each system directly Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from Both the community and the concessionary
concessionary providing energy services, for inuence its scalability, and the sustainability have economic disadvantages of some type due to the usage of the energy system (0%)
the considered system on the long term of the approach on the long term to Both the concessionary and the community have economic advantages of some type
on the long term due to the usage of the energy system (100%)
Ec4: Accessibility to credit and subsidies Possibility of access to credit and subsidies for Ease of access to credit and subsidies for an energy Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from It is difcult to receive
the realization of the project system is key for the adoption and scalability of a governmental support for the projects (0%) to Most of the capital
certain electrication option and O&M costs can be covered by accessible governmental funds (100%)
Environmental En1: Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Quantity of GHG emissions consequent to the Relevant to sustainable development issues The GHG emissions have been estimated for each of the considered options,
operation of the compared energy systems and then normalized to obtain the criteria values ranging between 0% and 100%.
En2: Land requirement Quantity of land necessary for system operation It is not always easy in rural areas of the Amazon The land requirements have been estimated for each of the considered
to access big areas without compromising the options, and then evaluated in a scale ranging from The system has
local ecosystem incompatible land requirement with the Amazon eco system (0%) to
No need of dedicated structures and additional land (100%)
En3: Stress on the eco-system Direct environmental impacts of the energy Especially in a delicate ecosystem like the Amazon, Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from The usage of the system has
system on the eco-system it is key that energy systems have the lowest an high impact on the local ecosystem (0%) to The System creates no
possible impact additional stress to the local ecosystem (100%)
Social S1: Presence of harmful emissions to health Types and quantity of emission that can be Systems with high health impacts should be Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from Considerable presence of
hazardous for the health of rural communities discouraged emissions potentially harmful for the health (0%) to Absence of harmful
emissions for the health (100%)
S2: Support to local productive Estimation of the amount of local jobs created It is key in the Amazon region to stimulate Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from The energy system cannot
activities/Job creation and how the productive activities have been productive activities in order to increase the support any productive activity (0%) to The system has the potential to
stimulated from a specic electrication option quality of life of its inhabitants both support all kinds of local productive activities, and create new
productive activities linked to the energy system (100%)
S3: Services that are possible to provide New public services that can be supplied to a It is key in the Amazon region to increase public Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from Low/no possibility for the
to communities community (e.g. public lighting, electricity in services in order to enhance the quality of life energy system to support energy services for the community (0%) to The
schools & community centersetc.) of its inhabitants system has the potential to support all kinds of services public lighting,
production facilities, medical centers, community centers, water
pumping stations, refrigeration etc. (100%)
Institutional/ I1: Institutional barriers for the Which kind of institutional barriers, if any, make Support from the local institutions is crucial for Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from The current regulative
political electrication option it difcult to adopt the electrication option, and spreading specic technologies across the framework makes it very difcult to adopt such a technology (0%) to
which technologies are easier to introduce Amazon region There are no institutional barriers, and the government supports the
under technology politically and economically. The support from the
the current regulation framework government is not expected to change in the future (100%)
I2: National economic benets Which benets would the overall Brazilian National benets are important to push policy Creation of an evaluation scale, ranging from The large adoption of the
economy have from the use of a specic makers to support a solution. These benets evaluated energy system in the Amazon would have some disadvantages
electrication option on a large scale could be of various types such as economic, social, for the region and the state, that could be political, economic or of energy security (0%) to
and relative to national energy security The large adoption of the evaluated energy system in the Amazon would have overall
political, economic and energy security benets for the region and the state (100%)
 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648 39

Fig. 2. Algorithm.

preferences.4 The DMs had different backgrounds (academia, local
concessionaries, and local government5) so as to reect a diversity of
stakeholder views. For weighting the criteria, we chose the direct meth-
od of Anchored Rating Scale (ARS) for its simplicity, for its demonstrated
low induced variance and ability to predict decisions (Nutt, 1979). The
short analysis and numerical weights are reported in Annex B.
Electrication options compared in the analysis and simple
load calculation
Derived from national strategy documents (Eletrobras, 2012;
Ministrio de Minas e Energia, 2011a, 2013), semi-structured interviews
with stakeholders of the region,6 literature review of past electrication
projects in the Amazon and other rural areas (ANEEL, 2012a, 2012b;
Bacellar and Rocha, 2010; Blanco et al., 2008; Casillas and Kammen,
2011; CELPA rede, 2011; Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009; Eletronorte, 2010;
Filhoa and Badr, 2004; Gonzalez et al., 2007; Matos et al., 2012; Ministrio
de Minas e Energia, 2008; Pinheiro et al., 2012; Plovnick, 2010; Quintas
et al., 2012; REDE Empresas de Energia Eletrica, 2012; Rendeiro et al.,
2011; Schmid and Hoffmann, 2004; Van Els et al., 2012), and evaluation
4 dustries (i.e. the cosmetic industries) and their direct use for the pro-
Decision makers where asked to quantify their relative importance of the chosen
criteria trough the questionnaire shown in Annex A.
5
The decision makers considered covers the range of actors that are most able to direct-
ly inuence policy and projects decisions on rural electrication in the Brazilian Amazon,
and so from Government, Concessionaries and Academia. At this stage of the research peo-
ple in rural communities where not interviewed. It would be, however, interesting in fu-
ture studies to insert those population groups in the study in further researches, and see
how that inuences the weighting structure.
6
See Table 4 for a list of interviewed people.
of the energy potential of the electrication options in the region
(ANEEL, 2009), ve energy systems were chosen for the MCA (Table 2).
These electrication options do not cover the whole range of possible so-
lutions for the Brazilian Amazon, however they have been selected as the
relevant ones for this analysis assessment. In fact, among other factors, all
the solutions compared rely on mature technologies, and have already
been successfully employed in the Amazon.
A few considerations regarding the choice of solutions to compare:
Wind energy was not considered due the scarce wind resource in the
Amazon: although a detailed study on the use of wind energy has
not yet been carried out, wind power does not appear as an attrac-
tive option in the Amazon Forest, due to the weak observed wind
regimes and the typical plant cover of trees with heights that vary
from 50 to 70 m (Matos et al., 2012).
The production and use of Biodiesel was not considered due to the
alcohols required for production of Bio Diesel and the difculty to
import them into remote areas (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009).
Systems with direct use of local vegetable oils in internal combustion
engines are not considered due to the ndings from past projects in
the Amazon. Vegetable Oils are a very valuable product for other in-
duction of energy does not have an economic advantage. A
successful scheme could be the use of residuals from the production
of vegetable oils in conventional energy cycles (and this system is in-
cluded in the Biomass systems electrication option. (Di Lascio and
Barreto, 2009; Ministrio de Minas e Energia, 2008).
Gasication technologies are not considered. Historically syngas
pilot plants have failed due to technical problems of gasication
40 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648

Table 2
Compared electrication options.

Electrication option Power applications for Connected with micro-grid/ Additional comments
rural communities stand alone system

Diesel generators (DG) From a few kW to some MW Connected with a micro-grid This option refers to the diesel generators provided in rural areas. The private household
(benchmark solution) owned diesel generators are not considered in the benchmark solution.
Solar PV systems From a few W to some kW Both Generally consisting of a PV generator, battery bank, charge regulator and inverter.
Biomass systems From a few kW to some MW Connected with a micro-grid Systems working based on a steam cycle using biomass as a feedstock. Various types of
biomass can be used for these systems. The most common are: residuals from local
agricultural production activities (i.e. production of vegetable oils, or local agriculture),
oating residuals of the rivers, and residuals from the rainforest.
Micro hydro electricity From a few kW to some MW Connected with a micro-grid These systems usually consist of a water intake, some waterway, a turbine and a generator.
systems The systems are designed for the low pressure heads which typical for the region, and to face
the inter-seasonal variability (Usually a small intake structure is necessary).
Hybrid systems From a few kW to some MW Both This system consists of a Hybridization of the DG solution with PV panels. Only one type of
(diesel + PV) hybrid system (DG + PV) is considered for simplicity of analysis, and to evaluate the effect
of adding a renewable source to conventional sources. These systems are found in literature
either with or without a battery storage unit.

Fig. 3. Values and structure of the nal aggregate index of the MCA.

systems in harsh Amazon conditions.7 However, new promising
technological options are being developed, but were not considered
in this analysis due to the lack of regional experience and data.
Production of Biogas from human waste is not considered in the
study due to the very low population densities in the region
(which can limit feedstock availability and affect economies of
scale). In addition, the Biogas technology is badly accepted in the
Brazilian culture. This social constraint has previously limited its
use in the country (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009).
Regarding the parameter calculations for the research, we evaluate
the supply of energy services to one standard household8 and all the
factors in the analysis are calculated accordingly9 in order to normalize
the resulting values.
Further, the use of 60 kWh/month/household10 is considered a
benchmark in terms of electricity supply, which corresponds closely to
the medium electricity consumption for a rural isolated system of
59 kWh/month/household (CELPA rede, 2011). Also, a basic load
calculation showed that 60 kWh/month is more than enough to provide
basic energy services to rural households in the Amazon.11
Results of the Multi Criteria Analysis
All criteria have been evaluated individually for each of the
compared systems presented in Table 2. Final values of the aggregate
index of the analysis are reported in Fig. 3. Selected outstanding positive
and negative aspects of each electrication option are then highlighted
in Table 3.
Biomass systems and PV systems have registered the highest
scores in the nal index, respectively 77% and 76%. Micro Hydro
Installations and Hybrid Power Plants have an overall value for
the nal index of 69% and 65% respectively. The lowest value for
the index is registered to the DG systems, which scored an overall
value of 53%.

11
Calculated for providing at least the following energy services: Basic lighting (3 uo-
7
Rendeiro, Personal Interview, July 2012. rescent lamps for usage 6 h/day), phone charging (2 h/day for household), radio/television
8
Household composed of 34 people (average data among the states of the Amazon re- (4 h/day for household), refrigerator with low energy consumption and shared water
gion are from a minimum of 3.1 people/hh in the state of Amap to a maximum of pumping for the community. This representative value was used for the calculations of cer-
4.4 people/hh in the state of Amazonas) (IBGE, 2011). tain parameters, such as O&M costs, Land Requirement or GHG emissions. However this is
9
Due to simplicity of data handling and calculation, this basis for the analyses is used in not the superior limitation of energy that can be provided for each connection. The possi-
most of the documents of the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy in the contest of the bility of providing additional services to the rural community, than just the ones that is pos-
Luz Para Todos program. sible to provide with 60 kWh/month/household, is considered in a series of criteria of the
10
To be noticed that in the renewable supply options storage systems have been consid- analysis, namely: Scalability, Support to local productive activities/job creation, and Ser-
ered, so that the load could be met when needed. vices that are possible to provide to communities.
 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648
Table 3
Main positive and negative aspects encountered for each electrication option during the MCA.
Electrication option Positive aspects
Biomass systems Good technical performances (High life expectancy,
possibility of using various feedstock)
Carbon neutral technology (if there is no land
use change)
Possible to produce at various capacities
High possibility of integration with local production
activities (i.e. refuse from vegetable oils)
PV systems Good environmental performance, if coupled with
a good managing system (No stress on the
ecosystem, Carbon neutral technology, low land
requirement)
Low Operation and Maintenance (O&M) needs
and no fuel costs
High life expectancy
High average solar irradiation in the Amazon
(approx. 5.5 kWh/m2/day)
Micro hydro Good economic performance (lowest capital cost/
installations household connected among the renewable
systems, and low O&M costs)
Mature technology with high life expectancy
Can support power intensive and productive
activities
Hybrid power plants Higher power output than a PV system without DG
(DG + PV) Less environmental externalities than the DG
solution due to the inclusion of the solar resource
Modular system
Reduced capital costs in respect to the PV solution,
and reduced fuel costs with respect to the DG
solution
Diesel systems High governmental support for the use of this
technology in isolated areas
Lowest capital cost among the compared systems
80%
Value of the final index [%]
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Diesel Generators
Fig. 4. Results of the sensitivity analysis.
Sensitivity analysis of the results
Even if the main goal of this research is to assess positive and
negative aspects for different electrication options in the Amazon
with the guidance of the structured MCA framework, a consistency
analysis of the nal numerical results was carried out using a sensitivity
analysis varying the weighting structure of the sub/macro criteria while
evaluating how this might affect the nal results (Fig. 4).
41
Negative aspects Main references
High capital cost Interviews with experts in Table 4; Bacellar
Appropriate gaseous emissions control and Rocha (2010), Filhoa and Badr (2004),
system required Gonzalez et al. (2007), Gustavsson (2000),
Difcult to access credit and subsidies Ministrio de Minas e Energia (2008),
for this electrication option under the Pinheiro et al. (2012), and Rendeiro et al. (2011)
current regulative framework
Power limitations for economic reasons Interviews with experts in Table 4; Casillas
not suited to support power intensive and and Kammen (2011), CELPA rede (2011),
productive activities and Di Lascio and Barreto (2009)
Requires both exchange and correct
maintenance of the battery banks every
few years
Low support from the government for small Interviews with experts in Table 4;
hydro systems (b1 MW power production) ANEEL (2012a, 2012b), Blanco et al. (2008),
Difcult to expand the system more than the Di Lascio and Barreto (2009), and
originally installed capacity Drinkwaard et al. (2011)
High inter-seasonal variations of the primary
energy source
The need of a small dam causes a relevant
stress on the eco-system (variations of the
natural equilibrium of the exploited river)
Environmental externalities related to the use Interviews with experts in Table 4;
of diesel Eletronorte (2010), Martins et al. (2005),
High fuel costs related to the use of diesel Ministrio de Minas e Energia (2008),
and Ruther et al. (2003)
No resource availability in the region Interviews with experts in Table 4; CELPA
Highest O&M and fuel costs among the rede (2011), Di Lascio and Barreto (2009),
compared solutions Drinkwaard et al. (2011), Gonzalez et al.
Difcult fuel supply to the communities, (2007), International Energy Agency (2012),
and requires storage Matos et al. (2012), Ministrio de Minas e
High environmental externalities (emissions Energia (2008)
of CO2, CO, HC, NOx, Sox, VOCs)
PV Biomass system Hydro power plant Hybrid Power plant
Electrification option
For this analysis, the weights previously assigned to each electrica-
tion option where randomly exchanged among the different options.12
In the graph in Fig. 4 the triangles represent the starting results of the
12
A weighting matrix was created containing all possible combinations substituting
weights previously assigned to one of the criteria with those from another criteria. This
has been done to verify nal result consistency even in cases where the original weighting
structure is inverted completely.
42 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648

Table 4
Interviewed experts during the analysis.

Date Interviewed Organization Position

25/06/12 Eng. Luiz Fernando Galiza dos Santos Eletronorte Assistant of the coordinator of the program Luz Para Todos in the state of Par
25/06/12 Eng. Igvi Chavaglia Eletronorte Coordinator of the program Luz Para Todos in the state of Par
26/06/12 Prof. Manoel Fernandes Nogueira EBMA Universidade Federal Do Par Researcher, Grupo de Energia, Biomassa & Meio Ambiente EBMA
26/06/12 Giselle Rodriguez Cattanio Eletronorte Lawyer for Eletobras
26/06/12 Eng. Antonio Jos De Abreu Neves Eletronorte Electrical Engineer, in the context of the program Luz Para Todos
02/07/12 Eng. Angelandre Quaresima CELPA Centrais Eletricas Do Par Responsible for the Luz Para Todos program at CELPA
02/07/12 Alvaro Bressan CELPA Centrais Eletricas Do Par Director of CELPA
03/07/12 Jorge Silva Junior Eletronorte Technical Assistant for the Luz Para Todos program
03/07/12 Giorgiana Pinheiro CELPA Centrais Eletricas Do Par Responsible for the alternative energy projects at CELPA
04/07/12 Prof. Gonalo Rendeiro EBMA Universidade Federal Do Par Coordinador, Grupo de Energia, Biomassa & Meio Ambiente EBMA
05/07/12 Prof. Marcos Gallardo GEDAE Universidade Federal Do Par Researcher, Group of Studies and Development of Energy Alternatives (GEDAE)
05/07/12 Prof. Wilson Negrao Macedo GEDAE Universidade Federal Do Par Researcher, Group of Studies and Development of Energy Alternatives (GEDAE)
09/07/12 Eng: Fares Maluf Neto Eletrobras Head director of the program PRODEEM

MCA, and the lines represents the range of solutions that where
obtained when varying the weighting system.
It becomes clear that, even when completely reversing the
weighting structure, the nal results remain consistent. This indicates
a level of robustness. In fact, for most cases analyzed with a different
weighting structure, the dispersion of the results is relatively small
(Ranging from values of standard deviation of a minimum = 0.0035
for the evaluation of Hybrid Power Systems, to a maximum of =
0.0072 for Biomass Systems).13
Discussion
It remains challenging for the Amazon region to introduce new
locally sourced and renewable forms of electrical energy generation
on a large scale, while also moving away from the current situation
predominantly reliant on fossil fuel based generation. This research
helped support policy and investment decision-making related to
the implementation and use of these new electrication options.
One of the key ndings that emerged from the multi-criteria analysis
is intuitive, namely that, for isolated areas of the Amazon, diesel fuelled
power solutions present drawbacks when compared to renewable or
hybrid solutions under most of the criteria. Indeed, this technological
option offers the worst results when graded with all of our technical,
environmental and institutional criteria while coming second to lowest
in the economic and social scales.
Under the current regulatory framework diesel gen set solutions
have been adopted mainly due to some key advantages they present
for the concessionaries. These systems are the most convenient short
term solution for trying to meet LPT program targets of universalization
within the short governmental deadlines. In the Amazon region, these
diesel systems are a well-known technology, with low capital cost and
with a consolidated supply chain for fuel distribution and systems
13
The same analysis has been done for the evaluation of each criteria (the analysis pre-
sented in the main text has been done on the nal results of the analysis), and similar re-
sults where found, with modest values of standard deviation from the original results of
each technology:
Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the technical macro criteria: Min =
0.0058 (PV); Max = 0.03 (DG)
Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the social macro criteria: Min =
0.0032 (hydro); Max = 0.0085 (PV)
Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the economic macro criteria: Min =
0.0061 (PV); Max =0.0159 (biomass)
Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the institutional macro criteria: Min =
0.0001 (PV); Max = 0.09 (DG)
Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the environmental macro criteria: Min
= 0.0066 (PV); Max = 0.01 (biomass)
maintenance among the villages. On the other hand, concessionaries
have failed to take into consideration the high fuel costs. Thus an eco-
nomic trade-off exists between the high operation and maintenance
costs of diesel systems in the long term,14 and the costly nes that are
applied to the concessionaries that do not reach LPT connection targets
in the short term. This policy failure (governance/informational) tends
to push the energy use pattern in a sub-optimal manner and distorts
the energy user's choice (Howells et al., 2010). In this context new insti-
tutional schemes for providing energy services to the rural population
are necessary (Gmez and Silveira, 2012).
The key limitations for the implementation of renewable and
hybrid energy solutions are their high initial investment cost, the
lack of a mature supply chains for renewable options in the region,
and the lack of long term incentives for the concessionaries to im-
plement them. However such systems have some clear advantages.
First, fuel costs are considerably lowered through using local
energy sources thereby erasing (for fully renewable systems) or
diminishing (hybrid systems) the need to purchase and supply fos-
sil fuels to remote communities which can cost up to approximately
500$/year for each serviced household.15 Other key advantages of
using local sources include, for instance16: the support and creation
of new productive activities that can support rural communities on
different levels,17 lower environmental and health impacts, and im-
proved energy security in an area where reliable supply can be an
issue due to climatic and other factors (Di Lascio and Barreto,
2009).
There are a number of possible areas for further work. First, new
electrication solutions could be included into the analysis. One ex-
ample could be the inclusion of the connection to the national grid
of those communities that are located within some relatively low
distance from the grid. In addition, other types of hybrid solutions
could be added to the analysis. Second, it would be useful to devel-
op a dynamic analysis allowing for uctuating performance or cost
parameters, changes in system size (growth and interconnection of
micro-, mini-, and national-grids) as well as changes in consump-
tion patterns.
14
See Introduction section.
15
With an average household electricity usage of 60 kWh/month, and an average diesel
generators consumption in the region of 350 g fuel/kWh (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009; In-
ternational Energy Agency, 2012).
16
See Table 3 for a more comprehensive list of pros and cons for each electrication
option.
17
e.g. with the usage of biomass systems coupled for to the necessary removal of oating
objects from the river, or coupled to the sustainable production of vegetable oils or to
existing local agriculture.
 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648 43

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Federal University of Par and Eletronorte
for providing valuable support during the research period in the
Amazon. We are grateful to Prof. Enrique Velo of the Polytechnic
University of Catalonia, and Prof. Semida Silveira of the Royal Insti-
tute of Technology for their guidance during this analysis. Finally, a
special thanks to all those who provided their time and expertise
during the semi-structured interviews in the Amazon region
(Table 4).

Annex A. The used questionnaire1817

18
The ARS approach uses a continuous scale to encourage the decision makers to make ne discriminations in an attempt to create interval scale properties in the weights assigned. The
DMs are asked to draw a line from each of the criteria to a point on the linear scale, which express their view of its importance.
44 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648
F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648 45
46 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648
 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648 47

Annex B. Considerations on the nal weighting system for the analysis

The weighting system shown in Table B.1 was established after analysis of the compiled stakeholder questionnaires. It was calculated in a two
steps process: rst the weighting system for each stakeholder group was calculated as an average of the results for each single interviewed member
of that stakeholder group. Afterwards the nal weights where calculated as an average of the results from the different stakeholder groups.

Table B.1
The nal weights used for the MCA.

Macro criteria Relative weight Criteria Relative weight

Technical 22% Reliability 26%

Resource availability 27%
Scalability 20%
O&M needs 28%
100%
Economic 22% Capital cost 27%
O&M and fuel cost 29%
Economic value 22%
Possibility to access to credit and subsidies 22%
100%
Environmental 20% Green House Gasses Emissions 36%
Land requirement 30%
Stress on the eco-system 34%
100%
Social 17% Presence of harmful of emissions for the health 32%
Support to local productive activities/Job creation 33%
Services that are possible to supply to the communities 35%
100%
Institutional 19% Institutional barriers for the technology 59%
National economic benets 41%
100%
100%

Though this effort was limited, it remains possible to see different patterns of response amongst different stakeholders. In Table B.2 we can see the
criteria which was given the highest and lowest weight among the different criteria categories for each stakeholder group.1918

Table B.2
Most and least important criteria for each criteria group, depending on the considered stakeholder group.

Stakeholder group Governmental institution Academia Concessionary

Highest weight Lowest weight Highest weight Lowest weight Highest weight Lowest weight

Macro-criteria Economic Political Technical Political Economic Social

Technical Resource Availability Scalability Reliability Scalability Reliability Scalability
Resource availability O&M needs
Economic Capital cost Economic value Capital cost Possibility to access to Capital cost Economic value
O&M and fuel cost O&M and fuel cost credit and subsidies O&M and fuel cost
Environmental Green House Gasses Land requirement Stress on the eco system Land requirement Land requirement Stress on the
Emissions eco-system
Social Institutional barriers National economic Institutional barriers National economic Institutional barriers National economic
for the technology benets for the technology benets for the technology benets

Considering these differences, it is important to note that the different weighting systems of stakeholder groups under consideration do not affect
the consistency of the nal results, as shown in the sensitivity analysis in the Sensitivity analysis of the results section.

19
When two criteria are listed it means that those where considered almost equally important.
48 F. Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 3648
References
Afgan N, Carvalho. Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants.
Energy 2002;27(8):73955.
Amer M, Daim TU. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: a
case of Pakistan. Energy Sustain Dev 2011;15:42035.
ANEEL. Atlas de Energia Eletrica do Brasil; 2009.
ANEEL. Informativo N. 37; 2011.
ANEEL. Informativo n 40; 2012a.
ANEEL. Power generation database. [Online] Available at: http://www.aneel.gov.br/area.
cfm?idArea=527&idPerl=2, 2012.
Bacellar AA, Rocha BRP. Wood-fuel biomass from the Madeira River: a sustainable option
for electricity production in the Amazon region; 2010.
Blanco CJC, Secretan Y, Mesquita ALA. Decision Support System for micro-hydro power
plants in the Amazon region under a sustainable development perspective. Energy
Sustain Dev 2008;XII(3):2533.
Brazilian Presidency. Lei n 10.438, de 26 de Abril de 2002. [Online] Available at: http://
www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/L10438.htm, 2002. [Accessed 2012].
Brazilian Presidency. Lei n 12.212 de 20 de Janeiro de 2010. [Online] Available at: http://
www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Lei/L12212.htm, 2010. [Accessed
2012].
Casillas CE, Kammen DM. The delivery of low-cost, low-carbon rural energy services.
Berkeley, USA: University of California; 2011.
CELPA rede. A Viabilidade do uso de energias alternativas para atendimento do Maraj;
2011.
Daim T, Yates D, Peng Y, Jimenez B. Technology assessment for clean energy technologies:
the case of the Pacic Northwest. Technol Soc 2009;30(3):23243.
Di Lascio MA, Barreto EJF. Energia e Desenvolvimento Sustentavel para a Amazonia Rural
Brasileira; 2009.
Drinkwaard W, Kirkels A, Romijn H. A learning-based approach to understanding success
in rural electrication: Insights from Micro Hydro projects in Bolivia. Energy Sustain
Dev 2011;14(3):2327.
Eletrobras. Eletrobras programas. [Online] Available at: http://www.eletrobras.com/elb/
data/Pages/LUMIS32AB99AAPTBRIE.htm, 2012.
Eletronorte. Demanda De Projetos Especiais De Gerao Descentralizada Com Energia
Renovvel E Distribuio Por Microrredes; 2010.
Filhoa PA, Badrb O. Biomass resources for energy in North-Eastern Brazil. Appl Energy
2004;77(1):5167.
Gomez MF, Silveira S. Rural electrication of the Brazilian Amazon achievements and
lessons. Energy Policy 2010;38:625160.
Gmez MF, Silveira S. Increasing human development in isolated communities through
electricity access: the case of the Amazon region; 2011.
Gmez MF, Silveira S. Delivering off-grid electricity systems in the Brazilian Amazon.
Energy Sustain Dev 2012;16(2):15567.
Gonzalez WdA, Borges LEP, Correia JdC. Centrais Termoeletricas a Biomassa; 2007.
Gustavsson L. Emissions from small biomass boilers. Swedish National Testing and
Research Institute; 2000.
Hobbs BF, Horn GTF. Building public condence in energy planning: a multimethod
MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy Policy 1997;25(3):
35775.
Howells MI, et al. Calabashes for kilowatt-hours: rural energy and market failure. Energy
Policy 2010;38(6):272938.
IBGE. Statistics. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/download/
estatistica.shtm, 2011. [Accessed 1 January 2012].
IDEEAS PSA. Status report; 2006.
Ilskog E. Indicators for assessment of rural electrication an approach for the compar-
ison of apples and pears. Energy Policy 2008;36:266573.
International Energy Agency. IEA energy prices and taxes statistics. [Online] Available at:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/data/iea-energy-prices-and-taxes-statistics_
eneprice-data-en, 2012.
Martins DC, Bazzo E, Rther R. Technical and economic analysis of a PV/diesel hybrid
system Applied to rural electrication for isolated communities in Northern
Brazilian region. Power Electronics Specialists Conference. PESC '05. IEEE 36th;
2005. p. 25761.
Matos FB, Camacho JR, Rodrigues P, Guimares SC. A research on the use of energy
resources in the Amazon. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;15(6):3196206.
Ministrio de Minas e Energia. Tecnologias de Energias Renovveis Solues Energticas
para a Amaznia; 2008 [Brasilia].
Ministrio de Minas e Energia. Manual de Operacionalizao LPT 2011 a 2014. [Online]
Available at: http://luzparatodos.mme.gov.br/luzparatodos/Asp/documentos.asp,
2011. [Accessed 2 January 2012].
Ministerio de Minas e Energia. Programa Luz Para Todos. [Online] Available at: http://
luzparatodos.mme.gov.br/luzparatodos/Asp/o_programa.asp, 2013.
Nutt PC. Comparing methods for weighting decision criteria. USA: Ohio State University;
1979.
Pinheiro G, Rendeiro G, Pinho J, Macedo EN. Sustainable management model for rural
electrication: case study based on biomass solid waste considering the Brazilian reg-
ulation policy. Renew Energy 2012;37(1):37986.
Plovnick A. Renewable energy in Rural Amazonia, a case study of its advantages and lim-
itations in Santo Antonio. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, (Paper 932);
2010.
Quintas M, Blanco CJC, Mesquita ALA. Analysis of two schemes using micro hydroelectric
power (MHPs) in the Amazon with environmental sustainability and energy and
economic feasibility. Environ Dev Sustain 2012;14(2):28395.
REDE Empresas de Energia Eletrica. Atendimento ao Arquiplago do Marajo; 2012.
Rendeiro G, Macedo EN, Giorgiana P, Pinho. Analysis on the feasibility of biomass power
plants adding to the electric power system economic, regulatory and market
aspects State of Par, Brazil. Renew Energy 2011;36(6):167884.
Rosa F. IDEAAS and PSA: replication in the Amazon. STANFORD Graduate School of
Businness; 2007.
Ruther R, Schmid A, Montenegro A, Oliveira A. Cutting on diesel, boosting PV: the
potential of hybrid diesel/PV system in existing mini-grids in the Brazilian Amazon.
3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion; 2003.
Schmid A, Hoffmann C. Replacing diesel by solar in the Amazon: short-term economic
feasibility of PV-diesel hybrid systems. Energy Policy 2004;32(7):88198.
Silva S, Oliveira M, Severino M. Economic evaluation and optimization of a photovoltaic
fuel cellbatteries hybrid system for use in the Brazilian Amazon. Energy Policy 2010;
38:671323.
Van Els RH, Vianna JNDS, Pinjo AC. The Brazilian experience of rural electrication in the
amazon with decentralized generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:145061.