Sector Results and Learning:
Energy

This Energy Sector Results and Learning page is a repository of evidence generated by all MCC-funded energy interventions. To promote learning and inform future program design, this page captures monitoring data from key common indicators, showcases recent and relevant evaluations, and includes all agency lessons from completed energy evaluations to-date.

What Do We Invest In?

MCC has funded $1.4 billion in energy interventions as of December 2022. These interventions fall into the following categories: off-grid power infrastructure; on-grid power infrastructure; other energy infrastructure; and technical assistance.

Off-grid Power Infrastructure

These programs support the provision of electricity to areas that are not reached by the grid. This includes mini-grids and individual systems, such as solar photovoltaic systems.

On-grid Power Infrastructure

These programs address power generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure needs to promote the accessible, reliable, and sustainable provision of electricity.

Other Energy Infrastructure

These programs support non-electricity energy needs, including gas for cooking and heating, as well as energy efficient appliances.

Technical Assistance

These programs complement infrastructure investments to support affordable, financially sustainable, and reliable electricity service provision.

What Have We Completed So Far?

MCC and its country partners develop and tailor Monitoring and Evaluation Plans for each program and country context. Within these country-specific plans, MCC uses common indicators to standardize measurement and reporting within certain sectors. See below for a subset of common indicators that summarize implementation achievements across all MCC energy investments as of December 2022.

113

megawatts of generation capacity added

2,756

megavolt amps of substation capacity added

6,083

kilometers of electricity lines upgraded or built

44,507

customer connections added by project

What Have We Achieved?

MCC commissions independent evaluations, conducted by third-party evaluators, for every project it funds. These evaluations hold MCC and country partners accountable for the achievement of intended results and also produce evidence and learning to inform future programming. They investigate the quality of project implementation, the achievement of the project objective and other targeted outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of the project. The graphs below summarize the composition and status of MCC’s independent evaluations in the energy sector as of November 2022. Read on to see highlights of published interim and final evaluations. Follow the evaluation links to see the status of all planned, ongoing, and completed evaluations in the sector and to access the reports, summaries, survey materials, and data sets.

Go to our List of Evaluations to see the status of MCC’s energy sector evaluations

Highlighted Evaluations

Dozens of solar panels face the sun amongst a backdrop of mountains and a lake

October 1, 2022 | Indonesia Compact

Understanding the Sustainability of Off-grid Energy in Indonesia

Most infrastructure faced significant operational challenges.

  • Evaluation Type:
  • Evaluation Status: Final

MCC’s $474 million Indonesia Compact (2013-2018) included the $288 million Green Prosperity (GP) Project that aimed to increase economic productivity and reduce land-based greenhouse gas emissions. The project funded 23 community-based off-grid renewable energy grants totaling $85.3 million. Some were designed as community-owned renewable energy projects, while others were renewable energy components of natural resource management projects. These grants sought to substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels in remote and rural communities, opening opportunities for social and economic improvements through access to electricity.

Read Evaluation Details or the Evaluation Brief

A bird’s eye view of an electrical substation, surrounded by power lines.

April 25, 2022 | Ghana Power Compact

Supporting Electricity Sector Regulatory Reform in Ghana

Tariff reform and expected changes in electricity regulation did not take hold 

  • Evaluation Type:
  • Evaluation Status: Final

MCC’s $316 million Ghana Power Compact (2016–2022) funded the $2.8 million Regulatory Strengthening and Capacity Building Project to ensure the sustainability of compact investments by supporting electricity sector regulatory reform, particularly tariff reform. The project provided tariff studies, technical assistance, and capacity building for Ghana’s electricity sector regulators. These activities supported the theory that an improved regulatory environment would lead to improved electricity quality and sector financial health, ensuring the sustainability of the power sector.

Read Evaluation Details or the Evaluation Brief

A large power generator against a grey, cloudy sky.

March 17, 2022 | Sierra Leone Threshold Program

Reforming the electricity sector in Sierra Leone

Electricity utilities’ capacity improved, but sustainability is in question

  • Evaluation Type:
  • Evaluation Status: Final

MCC’s $40.5 million Sierra Leone Threshold Program (2016–2021) focused on establishing a foundation for the effective and financially viable provision of electricity and water services in Freetown. The $11.9 million Electricity Sector Reform Project (ESRP) aimed to improve the electricity sector’s institutional and legal frameworks, planning capacity, and operational efficiency. The $7.6 million Regulatory Strengthening Project (RSP) aimed to build the capacity of the new regulator, improve sector governance and support the long-term financial sustainability of the electricity sector.

Read Evaluation Details or the Evaluation Brief

Go to our Evaluation Brief page to see all completed energy sector evaluations

What Have We Learned from Our Results?

To link the evidence from the independent evaluations with MCC practice, project staff produce an MCC Learning document at the close of each interim and final evaluation to capture practical lessons for programming and evaluation. Use the filters below to find lessons relevant to your evidence needs.

  • The FS initiative was designed to help address the high cost of connecting, however the activity achieved about 37 percent of its goal of connecting 35,000 households by the time of the follow-up survey.

    The FS initiative was designed to help address the high cost of connecting, however the activity achieved about 37 percent of its goal of connecting 35,000 households by the time of the follow-up survey. If the FS initiative had been implemented in all T&D communities, it seems likely that Activity would have reached nearly three quarters of its goal.

  • Build in time and flexibility in support of long-term change management: Reform interventions should be of sufficient duration and flexibility to respond to obstacles and new information, and to adapt to changing circumstances. In line with the evaluation’s finding suggesting reduced focus on deliverable quality and greater focus on outcomes, experience on the PSRP clearly demonstrated the challenges associated with implementation of activities designed to achieve sound technical goals.

    Build in time and flexibility in support of long-term change management: Reform interventions should be of sufficient duration and flexibility to respond to obstacles and new information, and to adapt to changing circumstances. In line with the evaluation’s finding suggesting reduced focus on deliverable quality and greater focus on outcomes, experience on the PSRP clearly demonstrated the challenges associated with implementation of activities designed to achieve sound technical goals. It is critical that MCC and its partners at MCA give sufficient consideration to implementation modalities in addition to identifying needed technical fixes. The PSRP experienced numerous difficulties where recommendations or new policies were not implemented due to lack of uptake by partner organizations, driven in part by inadequate implementation strategies and in part by lack of demand and accountability for change. Contractor terms of reference should be designed to allow ample time and effort for long-duration, on-the-ground support where technical assistance (TA) can align with opportunities to support ‘learning-by-doing,’ in parallel with ongoing sector initiatives (e.g. tariff reviews) so that partners can actively apply new skills and consultants can adequately follow through on key initiatives. In addition, TA and capacity building efforts should be tailored to enable a learning and feedback process whereby consultancies can identify, adapt to and address emerging issues. In Malawi, initial results yielded useful information that could inform future TA, but shorter, less flexible interventions meant the information could not be used to influence activities that were underway or already completed.

  • To be successful, reform programs require continuous stakeholder engagement by both MCA and MCC staff (including the Resident Country Mission), particularly as many critical reform interventions do not fit neatly within the bounds of specific technical assistance activities.

    To be successful, reform programs require continuous stakeholder engagement by both MCA and MCC staff (including the Resident Country Mission), particularly as many critical reform interventions do not fit neatly within the bounds of specific technical assistance activities. Engaging with the general public (including citizen groups) is also important to generate support for Compact initiatives and to avoid creating backlash where Compact activities are not well understood. These efforts should ideally be led by the host-country stakeholders but with Compact encouragement.

  • Work closely with local organizations to ensure capacity for post project monitoring and follow-up.

    Work closely with local organizations to ensure capacity for post project monitoring and follow-up. MCC should identify, and in some cases provide training for, local entities that can assume responsibility for following up and monitoring proper use of solar panels as well as facilitate access for participants to technical maintenance and spare components.

  • When program “treatment” and/or implementation occurs prior to EIF or early in the program implementation period, independent evaluator assessments of implementation progress can be useful and can be used to inform programmatic decision-making and budget reallocations.

    When program “treatment” and/or implementation occurs prior to EIF or early in the program implementation period, independent evaluator assessments of implementation progress can be useful and can be used to inform programmatic decision-making and budget reallocations. This baseline/interim evaluation was timed at a point where other activities had already started and therefore contained both data establishing a baseline for certain outcomes, as well as interim findings assessing progress-to-date on implementation.  MCC was then able to use and learn from these early findings to support project implementation. Going forward, MCC may consider collecting interim evaluation data early in the implementation period to capture early learning.