Despite the rapid expansion of electricity generation and near-universal electrification across much of Southeast Asia, many households and essential public services continue to face unreliable or unaffordable electricity.  

A report by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and the NewClimate Institute, published under the project “Clean, Affordable and Secure Energy for Southeast Asia” (CASE), titled Powering Wellbeing: Rethinking Electricity Planning Beyond GDP in Southeast Asia, argues that the region’s electricity challenge is no longer primarily about generating more power but about how electricity is allocated, priced and governed. 

Focusing on Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam the report examines how GDP-centred electricity planning can obscure persistent inequalities in affordability, reliability and access. Drawing on the Decent Living Standards framework, the authors introduce the concept of a “sufficiency floor”, the minimum level of electricity required to support basic well-being across households, healthcare and education. 

We spoke with the authors of the report, Nabila Salsabila, Nisita Ramadhani, Yudiandra Yuwono, and Hanna Fekete, about why Southeast Asia needs to move beyond GDP-centred electricity planning, the growing importance of affordability and equitable allocation, and how policymakers can better align energy systems with well-being, inclusion and decent living standards. 

What is the “affordability study” about? Who is it for, and what does it aim to achieve? 

The study examines why electricity affordability remains a persistent challenge across Southeast Asia despite the rapid expansion of generation capacity and near-universal electrification. We focused on Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam, and looked specifically at three sectors that are foundational to daily well-being: households, education and healthcare. 

The guiding question was quite straightforward: if electricity systems have expanded so much, why do many households and essential services still experience unreliable or unaffordable electricity? What the analysis shows is that generation capacity has expanded faster than the institutions responsible for allocating it equitably. In other words, the problem is increasingly one of allocation and affordability, rather than aggregate generation scarcity. 

The report is intended for policymakers, energy planners and regulators in the region, as well as development practitioners working on energy equity. Drawing on the “decent living standards” literature, it provides a framework for shifting electricity planning from continuous supply expansion towards the guaranteed delivery of a “sufficiency floor”, which is the minimum electricity required to secure decent living for people and essential services. 

What motivated you to focus on going beyond GDP? 

Electricity planning in Southeast Asia still often treats rising consumption as a proxy for progress. Across the region, electricity demand is frequently projected based on economic growth. In Indonesia, for example, the relationship between provincial GDP targets and electricity demand projections is almost linear. This embeds the assumption that more aggregate economic activity is the planning goal, and it obscures whether those kilowatt-hours are actually reaching the people and services that need them. 

The problem with GDP-centred indicators is that they can mask what is happening underneath. Per-capita consumption and electrification rates may look adequate in aggregate and if averaged, but they tell us very little about how electricity is distributed across sectors, whether supply is reliable, or whether households can afford to use enough of it. 

Therefore, we started from a different question: how much electricity is required to secure a decent standard of living? This led us to a bottom-up approach based on essential end-uses in households, schools and primary healthcare facilities, resulting in a sufficiency floor of around 945 kWh per capita per year. 

Why is it critical to align electricity planning with broader development objectives, such as equity, inclusion, and quality of life, particularly in the Southeast Asian context? 

Because electricity access does not automatically translate into well-being. Across Southeast Asia, electrification rates are high, and consumption continues to rise. But these indicators do not show whether electricity is reliable, affordable, or available where it matters most.  

A closer look at Indonesia’s provinces shows the picture is uneven: lower-income provinces often operate very close to, or below, the minimum needed for basic living standards, while wealthier provinces have much larger margins. Even in well-supplied regions, many households appear to consume below the floor, suggesting that affordability remains a key constraint. 

This bias is also reflected in pricing. Across Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam, large industrial users often receive discounted or negotiated rates, while households and essential public services pay relatively more. Utilities and planners tend to be more responsive to large industrial consumers, who carry more economic weight, than to households or underfunded public services. If planning continues to follow mainly industrial demand, it risks missing the sectors and regions where reliable electricity would have the strongest impact on people’s lives. 

How do institutional and regulatory factors influence the implementation of the report’s recommendations? 

They determine whether the recommendations can move from analysis into practice. Integrating beyond GDP indicators requires buy-in from planning agencies. Introducing obligations for essential services means expanding what regulators are accountable for, beyond supply adequacy and cost recovery. Tariff reform also depends on utilities and finance ministries balancing affordability with fiscal sustainability.  

The underlying challenge is a governance gap: these institutions do not currently operate under a framework that clearly assigns responsibility for protecting essential electricity use. Electricity is governed primarily as a commodity for revenue generation, with no clear obligation to ensure that it serves as basic infrastructure for decent living. Without this, households, schools and healthcare facilities can be deprioritised in favour of higher-revenue users. 

This is why tariff reform alone is not enough; affordability measures are unlikely to be sustained if the wider governance framework continues to treat essential services as secondary. 

How can national/regional policymakers build on the insights provided in the report? 

The report proposes three entry points: 

• First, policymakers can complement GDP-based planning metrics with indicators that make service adequacy visible. The World Bank’s Multi-Tier Framework is one example, as it captures electricity access across capacity, availability, reliability, quality, affordability, and health and safety, rather than treating electrification as a binary question of whether households are connected or not.
• Second, governments can introduce statutory obligations requiring regulators and public bodies to guarantee reliable and affordable electricity for essential services.  
• Third, targeted tariff reforms, such as lifeline blocks aligned with sufficiency benchmarks, can help protect vulnerable households and essential public services.  

Taken together, these measures can help reorient electricity governance from aggregate growth towards sufficiency. However, they also depend on a deeper shift: replacing a planning logic built around projected demand growth with one built around adequacy of service. Without that, sufficiency floors risk being gradually eroded as growth pressures continue to shape planning decisions. 

Download the report here: https://caseforsea.org/post_knowledge/powering-wellbeing-rethinking-electricity-planning-beyond-gdp-in-southeast-asia/