Optimal Electrification

Planning Incorporating
On- and Off-Grid
Technologies: The Reference
Electrification Model (REM)
This article describes and demonstrates an optimization model and program for
electrification planning that identifies the lowest cost system designs for electricity access.
By P EDRO C ILLER , D OUGLAS E LLMAN , C LAUDIO V ERGARA , A NDRÉS G ONZÁLEZ -G ARCÍA ,
S TEPHEN J. L EE , Graduate Student Member IEEE, C AILINN D ROUIN , M ATTHEW B RUSNAHAN ,
YAEL B OROFSKY, C ARLOS M ATEO , R EJA A MATYA , R AFAEL PALACIOS , ROBERT S TONER ,
F ERNANDO DE C UADRA , AND I GNACIO P ÉREZ -A RRIAGA , Fellow IEEE

ABSTRACT | In many parts of the world, access to basic
electricity services remains a significant challenge. The status
quo mode of electrification is central grid extension; how-
ever, in many areas, off-grid (OG) technologies like minigrids
(MGs) and standalone (SA) systems are more suitable for
promoting electricity access under cost constraints. Unfortu-
nately, these opportunities are often overlooked due to the
complexities of electrification planning, especially for large
areas. Researchers have designed technoeconomic planning
tools that can be scaled to cut through aspects of this
complexity and be fit to address different places and con-
Manuscript received October 1, 2018; revised June 3, 2019; accepted
June 3, 2019. Date of publication July 12, 2019; date of current version
September 4, 2019. This work was supported in part by the MIT Tata Center for
Technology and Design, in part by the Enel Foundation, in part by Iberdrola,
in part by the World Bank, in part by the Spanish National Plan of Research,
Development and Innovation, in part by General Electric, in part by Shell, in part
by the Shell Foundation, and in part by the German Corporation for International
Cooperation GmbH (GIZ). (Corresponding author: Fernando de Cuadra.)
P. Ciller, A. González-García, C. Mateo, R. Palacios, and F. de Cuadra are
with the Instituto de Investigación Tecnológica, Universidad Pontificia Comillas,
28015 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: cuadra@comillas.edu).
D. Ellman, C. Vergara, C. Drouin, and Y. Borofsky were with the Universal
Access Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA.
S. J. Lee, M. Brusnahan, R. Amatya, and I. Pérez-Arriaga are with the
Universal Access Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA 02139 USA.
R. Stoner is with MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JPROC.2019.2922543
texts. This paper describes a computer-based optimization
model—named the reference electrification model (REM)—
which performs automatic electrification planning and is able
to identify lowest cost system designs to most effectively
provide desired levels of electricity access to populations of
any given size. In doing so, REM determines the most suit-
able modes of electrification for each individual consumer by
specifying whether customers should be electrified via grid
extension, OG MGs, or SA systems. For each system, REM
supplies detailed technical designs at the individual customer
level. We have used this model in real planning activities in
sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The description of REM’s
capabilities is supported by case examples. REM stands apart
from other electrification planning models because of its high
granularity and its capability to provide concrete plans for a
wide range of geographical scales. Because of these benefits,
REM has the potential to help rationalize electrification plan-
ning and expedite progress toward universal electricity access
worldwide.
KEYWORDS | Electricity access; electrification planning;
geospatial planning model; off-grid (OG) electrification; opti-
mization planning
I. I N T R O D U C T I O N
The lack of electricity access for populations in many
low-income and developing countries is a major contem-

0018-9219 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

1872 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019

 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
porary issue, with complex social, ethical, environmental,
economic, and technical dimensions. Despite significant
investments by private and public organizations and wide-
spread global progress, current efforts are moving too
slowly to meet the United Nations’ Sustainable Develop-
ment Goal 7, which in part targets to ensure universal
access to electricity by 2030 [1]. It is imperative to “think
big” when considering solutions for this problem if we
hope to make compelling progress toward achieving these
international goals.
“Thinking big” is not always easy, however. Viewing
the problem of universal electricity access from a system-
level perspective reveals significant complexities related to
humans, businesses, governments, and other institutions
across a number of cultural, geographic, and legacy con-
texts. The implications of these considerations are com-
pounded by significant technical and economic dimensions
of complexity arising from the dynamic and networked
nature of large-scale electricity infrastructure planning.
Cost-optimal technoeconomic plans can serve as the foun-
dation for holistic planning approaches that further con-
sider nontechnical factors.
The technical complexity of electrification planning can
be exemplified in part by the range of electrification modes
available today. In addition to traditional electrification by
grid extension, off-grid (OG) minigrids (MGs) and stand-
alone (SA) home systems have recently gained momen-
tum as effective, alternative ways of providing access to
energy. Challengingly, institutions in developing regions
today are generally ill-equipped to take full advantage of
these opportunities, as grid extension has represented the
status-quo electrification mode across the world for well
over a century. Rural electrification agencies, energy min-
istries, private investors, and entrepreneurs could benefit
from the knowledge of what the least cost electrification
modes and system designs are over their territories of
interest, to be used as a basis upon which to add further
considerations.
The scale of the challenge associated with universal
energy access, the amount of information involved, and
the diversity of options for intervention compel the use of
computer planning models. As a result, research organi-
zations have started to build and provide several of these
automated tools, the number and quality of which have
evolved rapidly in recent years. Utilities, governments, and
development organizations have also responded to these
opportunities by collecting information and improving the
availability of digitized and georeferenced data for their
jurisdictions.
This paper describes one of these computer models—
the reference electrification model (REM), developed by
the MIT-Comillas Universal Energy Access Laboratory
(UEA Lab)1 —which we consider represents the state of the
art in electrification planning. REM performs automated
least cost electrification design; it determines cost-optimal
1 http://universalaccess.mit.edu
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
combinations of electrification modes for a given study
region, including single building SA systems, isolated grids
with local electricity generation or MGs, and extensions of
the existing distribution network (GE). REM performs this
task with a very high level of spatial granularity, producing
detailed designs down to the individual consumer level.
It prescribes network infrastructure layouts, local genera-
tion configurations, and storage options. These capabilities
are intended to allow planners to make better-informed
decisions about electrification modes, budget allocations,
and bills of materials; ministries and regulators can get
quantitative support for policy design; and developers can
gain detailed insights into the potential for OG systems
in a region. REM can also facilitate participatory plan-
ning approaches by providing references for least cost
electrification designs that can be evaluated by different
stakeholders.
REM considers the specific demand profile of each
customer (incorporating residential, commercial, and
industrial loads) and determines the least cost grid/OG
electrification plan by comparing a large number of
clustering alternatives through a combination of heuris-
tic optimization, mathematical algorithmic optimization,
and simulation algorithms. These algorithms account for
estimated yearly weather conditions and demand pro-
files, targets of quality of electricity supply, the reliabil-
ity performance of local distribution feeders, voltage and
capacity constraints of lines and transformers, catalogs
of power system components for grid-extension and OG
systems, any existing limits or targets in the use of fossil
fuels or renewables or carbon emissions, and implications
of the topology of the terrain: forbidden and penalized
areas, use of prescribed paths such as roads or streets, and
extra costs due to factors like altitude or the slope of terrain
being considered.
REM has been applied to multiple real electrification
planning problems, ranging from cases representing small
areas with hundreds of customers to comprehensive analy-
ses of entire countries with millions of them. A particular
configuration of REM, named local REM (LREM), has
been applied to many cases representing villages or small
regions to provide detailed electrification designs where all
customers are connected to the same MG.
This paper is structured as follows. Section II reviews
existing computer-based electrification planning meth-
ods. An overview of REM is provided in Section III.
Section IV introduces the input data that REM needs for
a case study. The algorithms of the model are illustrated
in Sections V–VII. Section VIII describes how the solutions
that the model provides can be processed and presented
to the user in detailed reports. We present a case example
representative of the actual regional electrification plan-
ning studies performed with REM, including descriptions
of the input parameters (Section IV), the lookup table
of representative MG generation designs (Section V), the
clustering results (Section VI), and the final electrification
plan (Sections VII and VIII). Section IX discusses the appli-
1873
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
cations and limitations of the model, as well as enhance-
ments that are still outstanding. Section X describes LREM,
i.e., the use of REM in a local MG context. The conclu-
sions (Section XI), the acknowledgments, and references
conclude this paper.
II. S O F T W A R E S U P P O R T M O D E L S F O R
E L E C T R I F I C AT I O N P L A N N I N G
As OG electrification has increasingly entered the main-
stream of electrification planning, there have been substan-
tial developments addressing the unique challenges that
both MGs and OG systems present. The work reported
in this paper contributes to two active areas of research:
large-area electrification planning and single-system elec-
trification planning. Large-area approaches deemphasize
local accuracy and instead prioritize the identification of
trends over large regions, while single-system approaches
lend themselves to more detailed data collection and
scrutiny. REM contributes to both bodies of knowledge
since it is capable of producing very detailed cost-optimal
solutions at all scales.
A. Large-Area Planning
Large-area planning models evaluate various electrifica-
tion options for a region and aim to identify the “best”
(in some prescribed sense, typically least cost) delivery
modes for each considered consumer. Given their broad
geographical scope, they frequently have to rely on highly
aggregated or incomplete data about the layout and char-
acteristics of the existing distribution network and targeted
demand.
Several software models have been developed to deal
with this problem. Those based on geographic information
systems (GIS) typically group consumers into geometric
cells that often represent villages, calculate the levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) with grid extension and with OG
alternatives, and suggest least cost electrification modes.
One of the most widely employed computer-based mod-
els that make use of this general approach is the OpeN
Source Spatial Electrification Toolkit (OnSSET), which was
developed by the KTH Royal Institute of Technology and
released as open-source software. OnSSET is affiliated with
several projects and studies [2]–[5]. OnSSET makes use of
geospatial information such as proximity to roads and the
power grid, population density, and wind, solar, and hydro
potential to determine appropriate electrification solutions
for each cell.
Another model that relies on this approach is
IntiGIS [6], an evolution of the SOLARGIS tool [7] and
further efforts [8]. IntiGIS also operates with cells and
minimizes their LCOE to obtain the electrification solution,
emphasizing the relevance of GIS technology in rural elec-
trification when gathering data such as wind speed and
solar irradiation.
1874 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Similar procedures are followed by other methods
described in the literature [9]–[15] as well as software
tools [16]–[18].
Other large-scale approaches compare the cost-
effectiveness of village OG electricity supply to grid
extension by estimating tradeoffs between the cost of
local generation and grid-extension layout [19], [20].
Logiciel d’Aide à la Planification d’Électrification Rurale
(LAPER) determines the best electrification mode for a set
of villages or settlements minimizing total investment and
operation expenses [21]. Challengingly, LAPER requires
its users to provide an initial network that connects all
(or most) the settlements and then the model evaluates
sequentially if they are worth disconnecting one line at a
time. LAPER was used for rural electrification planning in
Morocco [22].
Network Planner [23] is an open-source model devel-
oped at Columbia University, which minimizes a cost
function to determine the least cost electrification mode
of a set of villages and the layout of the correspond-
ing grid-extension network. Network Planner has been
used to provide assistance in electrification planning
processes in Nigeria [24], Liberia [25], and Ghana [26].
Parshall et al. [27] describe the heuristic that Network
Planner uses to calculate the grid-extension layout. The
researchers use minimum spanning trees (MST) to eval-
uate the cost of extending the medium-voltage (MV) grid
network to some area and to compare with that of elec-
trifying that area with either diesel-powered MGs or solar
home systems. While the model endeavors to make village-
level decisions, the data in [27] are aggregated at the
sublocation level (within an average area of 15 km2 ),
differentiating sublocations only as high or low income.
Furthermore, Network Planner does not account for grid
reliability, a factor that can play an important role in grid-
extension decisions in rural areas.
Another tool that follows a similar approach
is GEOSIM [28], which has been used in several
countries in Africa and Asia, and the model has been
applied to electrification projects for the World Bank
and the European Commission. GEOSIM sorts villages
according to their Indicator for Potential Development,
selects a few of them to be “Development Poles,” and
clusters the villages around them using an algorithm
based on the Huff model [29] before determining the
electrification solution for each village.
There are also attempts to deal with this problem using
classical optimization techniques. Zeyringer et al. [30]
formulate a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP)
problem and group the consumers into square cells. How-
ever, these cells are very large and solar is the only OG
technology considered. Abdul-Salam and Phimister [31]
apply the hierarchical lexicographic programming to the
problem with three different objective functions, although
the number of settlements that are electrified with grid-
extension designs is an input in this formulation. Finally,
Abdul-Salam and Phimister [32] introduce a mixed-integer
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
nonlinear programming (MINLP) formulation and com-
pare the results with those in [27], although this
approach assumes that the already-existing network con-
sists of one single node to reduce the computational
burden.
These models work at the village, settlement, or cell
level, instead of operating at the individual consumer level.
Their network designs are based on geometric consider-
ations involving distances and demand sizes, instead of
applying power flows and electrical constraints. They do
not optimize the generation designs of OG systems, and
they do not account for nonserved energy in their decision-
making logic. In summary, electrification planning models
have traditionally made overly strong assumptions with
unknown implications regarding the quality of their results
and recommendations.
The most direct approach to overcome this limitation
is to take the spatial granularity and the specification of
the demand patterns to the individual consumer level.
In contrast with the above-mentioned tools, the REM
model described in this paper: 1) operates at the individual
consumer level instead of using aggregate villages or cell
representations; 2) calculates network designs considering
electrical constraints and specifications of real equipment;
3) incorporates topography in the optimization process;
and 4) obtains generation designs using optimization tech-
niques and simulation instead of rules based on a priori-
determined analytical expressions. An early version of
REM is described in [33] and further developments are
presented in [34]. This paper presents the current level
of development of REM, which is still being enhanced in
several aspects.
B. Local OG Electrification Planning
Single-system design models are particularly useful
once a site has been identified for OG electrification,
but they are also an integral part of large-area elec-
trification planning processes. Local models have to
solve two quasi-independent problems: the design of the
local distribution network and that of local generation
systems.
The general methodology for designing a local gener-
ation system consists of determining candidate designs
and evaluating their performance. A variety of meth-
ods has been described in the literature for the optimal
selection of local generation and storage. Upadhyay and
Sharma [35] and Luna-Rubio et al. [36] classify the main
methods of solving this problem. Some of them apply
classical optimization techniques such as linear program-
ming [37], [38] or metaheuristic algorithms [39]–[44].
The moderate size of the local OG electrification problem
allows employing multicriteria approaches, involving other
objective functions that go beyond costs, such as emissions
minimization [45].
A few mature models have exclusively focused on
the local supply generation problem. The best known
is HOMER [46]. This tool has been downloaded over
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
150 000 times from users of more than 190 different
countries [47]. Other models that are worth mentioning
are the Distributed Energy Resources Customer Adoption
Model (DER-CAM) [48], which uses an MILP formulation,
and iHOGA [49], which applies genetic algorithms.
Other models are also relevant in the context of local
OG generation. RETScreen makes use of feasibility analy-
sis [50], [51] and Hybrid2 uses simulation [52]–[54].
Hybrid2 is no longer supported. A comprehensive review
of these software tools is provided in [55].
The network component of the MG design problem
obtains the network layout, given the location and demand
of the consumers and oftentimes the location of the
generation site in addition. There is plenty of literature
about network distribution planning [56], where both
classical optimization techniques [57] and metaheuristic
methods [58], [59] have been applied. However, this
problem has not been thoroughly studied from the rural
electrification perspective.
Village power optimization model for renewable
(ViPOR) [60] designs distribution networks for OG systems
with a simulated annealing algorithm [61], although this
software is currently unsupported. There are other meth-
ods for rural electrification network design [62] but they
do not guarantee feasibility with respect to the technical
constraints of electric power systems.
Mateo-Domingo et al. [63] describe the reference net-
work model (RNM), which is a software tool for large-
scale network design developed at IIT-Comillas in Madrid,
Spain, which can also be used in the design of the network
component of MGs. This model designs the minimum-
cost network that meets demand under quality-of-service
specifications, using a user-provided catalog of equipment
to specify distribution infrastructure down to the individ-
ual consumer level. A key feature in the development of
RNM pertains to the high levels of scrutiny it received: its
results were validated by the Spanish distribution utilities;
RNM was then accepted by Spanish regulators as a
decision-support model to determine appropriate remuner-
ation figures for electric power distribution. RNM has been
used for this same purpose in several other countries and
in many technical studies.
REM uses RNM as a submodule to calculate network
designs for MGs and grid extensions, as we describe in this
paper. When applied to large-scale electrification planning,
REM has to evaluate MG configurations numerous times,
each of which requires the design of generation assets
and network layouts using RNM. REM can also be used
for smaller scale MG design as LREM (its “local” mode).
This configuration optimizes the generation design of a
given MG, its associated hourly dispatch, and the net-
work layout. While doing this, LREM considers investment
and operation costs plus penalties for nonserved energy.
Li [64] describes the LREM functionality and applies it to
the village of Karambi in Rwanda. Brusnahan [65] and
Cotterman [66] also perform MG analyses using LREM in
villages located in India, Nigeria, and Rwanda.
1875
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
It can be concluded from this review of large-
area and local OG electrification planning models that
REM stands out from previously existing approaches by
providing system designs at any geographical scale, work-
ing at the individual customer level, employing full rep-
resentations of each customer’s hourly demand patterns,
respecting the physical laws and constraints of power
systems, explicitly modeling reliability targets and costs
of unserved energy, accounting for the consideration of
topographical characteristics, and employing optimization
methods to find least cost combinations of electrification
delivery modes.
III. R E M O V E R V I E W
REM finds the electrification plan that meets a given esti-
mated demand for individual customers in a territory at
minimum total cost while satisfying the power system tech-
nical constraints as well as other user-defined constraints
regarding the reliability of supply, generation mix, admin-
istrative requirements, and priorities or limits regarding
modes of electrification (e.g., a preestablished target for
grid extension or a limit to the number of households to
be supplied with MGs). The demand is defined at very
high levels of spatial and temporal granularity: hourly
demand patterns for each individual customer (building).
In general, the electrification plan consists of a combina-
tion of electrification modes: extension of the existing grid,
OG MGs, and SA systems. Systems prescribed may range
in size from small home solar kits to large and sophisti-
cated MG and grid-connected systems for schools, clinics,
mines, and other commercial, industrial, or institutional
facilities.
When deciding among the alternative electrification
modes REM may consider the following factors.
1) For grid connection:
a) layout and technical characteristics of the
existing grid and the cost of extending the MV
and low voltage (LV) networks;
b) required upstream supply costs of generation
and networks;
c) reliability of the existing grid;
d) catalog of available equipment with technical
and economic characteristics and applicable
grid codes.
2) For OG supply systems:
a) costs of local generation, with costs and avail-
abilities of local resources including solar and
diesel. Biomass, wind, and minihydro will be
included in future versions;
b) costs of extending the local network to every
customer with either dc or ac components;
c) customer preferences between SA systems
and MGs;
d) extra costs for making MGs “grid-compatible,”
so they have the flexibility to connect to the
main grid at a future date;
1876 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
e) dispatch strategies of local generation and stor-
age, as well as for any applicable demand
management schemes;
f) desired reliability of supply.
When evaluating the cost of the internal network of
an MG or of a grid extension, REM has to design the
minimum cost network that meets all prescribed techni-
cal requirements. This network-design process has to be
done numerous times (many alternative subsystems or
clusters), even for problems of moderate size. For this task,
REM employs the greenfield network-design software
called RNM, as mentioned previously. RNM employs equip-
ment from a prescribed catalog, designs networks that
meet electrical constraints, and accounts for topological
features in the considered region: slope and altitudes of
the terrain, forbidden and penalized zones, and adminis-
trative data such as village boundaries (different technical
requirements may apply in rural, semiurban, and rural
areas, for instance).
When addressing the different procedures embedded in
the determination of an electrification plan, REM uses a
mix of established mathematical optimization algorithms
and heuristic methods. REM seeks the minimization of a
combination of actually incurred costs and social costs.
In fact, incurred costs are related to investment, opera-
tion, maintenance, and management activities, which can
be directly quantified. Social costs measure the loss of
utility or welfare to the end consumers resulting from
poor service quality and potential limitations in electricity
utilization associated with their mode of connection.
The following outputs are typically obtained when
REM is applied to some specific territory.
1) The optimal groupings of individual consumers into
electrification cluster so that total system costs are
minimized. These clusters may denote groups of
customers to be connected to the same MG systems,
groups to be connected to the existing grid, or clus-
ters of single customers to be supplied with
SA systems.
2) The optimal generation mix and network layout for
each of the OG MGs.
3) The optimal network layout for each cluster that will
be connected to the grid.
4) A detailed description of the optimal plan with infor-
mation pertinent to decision-making including total
cost breakdowns, expected reliability data, GIS files
specifying network layouts, generation and storage
specifications, bills of materials, summary charts,
georeferenced maps of system designs, and reports
in text and spreadsheet formats.
The standard REM process is structured into five
sequential stages, which will be explained in detail in
Sections IV–VIII with the help of a case example.
A. Data Preparation
This stage includes partially automated tools used to
generate required inputs. For example, a computer vision
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
system that extracts building footprints from satellite
images is used to identify customers when such infor-
mation is not readily available and doing so manually is
too expensive or time-consuming. Other models employ-
ing machine-learning concepts classify customers as either
electrified or nonelectrified given correlated geospatial
features. Subsequently, customers may be characterized
as belonging to one of several customer types and to be
of a certain size. Each customer can then be assigned a
characteristic demand profile derived from empirical data;
demand profiles may also be estimated by aggregating
typical consumption patterns from constituent electrical
appliances.
B. Minigrid Generation Design
Optimal generation and storage have to be determined
for each potential grouping of customers that are eval-
uated, considering its aggregated load profile, the avail-
able catalog of system components, and some preselected
dispatch strategy. In order to save the computation time,
the designs for some number of representative combina-
tions of consumers are solved in advance and stored in a
lookup table so that future designs for other combinations
of customers can be quickly obtained by interpolation.
Although the lookup table represents only approximate
designs, it is used in the clustering process to speed up the
estimation of local generation cost for each candidate MG.
REM considers solar panels, batteries, and diesel genera-
tors as available technologies for the generation mix of the
OG systems.
C. Clustering
The customers are grouped into a hierarchical struc-
ture of OG and grid-extension clusters. Both cluster-
ing processes consist of bottom-up greedy algorithms
(the term “greedy” means here that it is based in irre-
versible decisions seeking immediate and local benefits,
not guaranteeing global optimality) that join customers
into groups if the expected cost of being connected is
lower than the expected cost of being electrified separately.
Here, robust cost estimations (using partial and uncertain
information) are critical to make sound decisions.
D. Final Designs
REM explores the structure of clusters obtained in the
previous stage and calls RNM to evaluate precise network
designs and costs. It then determines the optimal combina-
tion of SA systems, MGs, and grid extensions. During this
process, proposals for mergers of clusters and proposals for
grid connections of clusters are accepted or rejected based
on design cost.
E. Postprocessing and Reports
REM generates several reports containing plots, tables,
geospatial data files, and other items, providing all infor-
mation of interest on the cost-optimal designs that REM
has found.
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
The modular structure of REM allows alternative strate-
gies for these steps. For instance, instead of the bottom-
up clustering approach used originally in REM pertaining
to (C), a full grid-extension solution can be generated
initially, with subsequent and systematic disconnection
algorithms to identify OG solutions (a “top-down” cluster-
ing approach) as described in [67].
IV. D A T A P R E P A R A T I O N
A REM study case is characterized by a set of files
describing the existing and potential electrical demand
in a region, physical characteristics of the region, exist-
ing infrastructure, available electricity supply technologies,
and information regarding design preferences.
The different types of files are classified into the follow-
ing categories.
1) Local Information: Information particular to a given
analysis region.
a) Demand (buildings, types of customers, and
demand patterns).
b) Existing network (line segments and their
types and transformers).
c) Topography and geography (local solar input
characterization, elevation, slope of the ter-
rain, and forbidden and penalized areas).
2) Equipment Catalog: Technical and economic parame-
ters of available electrification components for both
distribution network extension and OG electricity
supply.
a) Networks (types of lines and transformers that
can be used, at the different voltage levels).
b) OG generation (solar panels, diesel generators,
batteries, and power electronic equipment).
3) User Options: User options are specific to the partic-
ular case study and are structured into eight blocks
of related configurations as follows.
a) Workspace definition.
b) Electrification problem.
c) Case-study specification.
d) Electrification criteria.
e) Financial, business, and general cost parame-
ters.
f) Topography/geography.
g) Network design.
h) MG generation.
Fig. 1 shows how the parameters of the “User Options”
file are organized in blocks, and how the different blocks
contain references to the rest of input data files used
by REM.
A detailed description of the contents of different blocks
of parameters and the types of data files they refer to
can be found in [68]. Here, we shall explain the data
requirements and typical sources for each one of the major
blocks, with the help of case examples of the application
of REM.
Recent experience in the utilization of REM for diverse
situations has shown that at least 80% of the time
1877
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 1. Organization of REM inputs.
and effort required to produce an electrification plan is
spent in data gathering and preparation. This process
includes the following: 1) identifying the existence of data;
2) identifying and contacting its sources; 3) defining what
is needed; 4) obtaining permission to use proprietary
data or eliminating confidential information; 5) collecting
data; 6) verifying and cleaning it; and 7) making the data
ready to be used in REM. In some cases, the required
data are already available and only needs to be adapted
to the required format for REM. In other cases, specialized
algorithms have had to be developed to obtain the data by
combining information from different sources.
A. Determining Building Locations and Building
Electrification Status
Planners need to know where buildings are located
in order to plan on how to provide them with electric-
ity. They also need to make determinations on whether
these buildings are already serviced with electric power.
In this section, we discuss three steps along our automatic
data procurement pipeline for REM: 1) building footprint
extraction from satellite imagery; 2) load localization; and
3) electrification status estimation. This procedure pro-
duces approximate inputs for REM quickly and with suf-
ficient quality for many large-scale plans. Ongoing efforts
are aimed at improving each of these steps.
Choices on whether to pursue such automatic methods
as opposed to manual ones depend on resource constraints
and study requirements. Automatic methods afford the
ability to scale technoeconomic analyses to large regions
at low cost; however, they are generally less accurate
than manual methods (e.g., human annotations, ground
surveys, etc.). In many cases, it is appropriate to pur-
sue hybrid automatic-manual approaches and iterative
methodologies.
1) Building Footprint Extraction: Building footprint
extraction involves the pixelwise classification of
satellite and aerial imagery. Building pixels of high-
resolution imagery are classified as either belonging to
buildings or to background. Building footprint extraction is
commonly done using both manual and automatic
methods. The largest and most notable manual building
labeling endeavor is the OpenStreetMap (OSM) project.
1878 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
OSM provides free and open detailed building and street
annotations using a crowdsourcing-based approach:
millions of participants conduct ground-based surveys and
perform manual labeling on the top of aerial imagery [69].
While OSM rivals proprietary sources in terms of size
and granularity of its map data, the quality of its data
is inconsistent [70]. The availability of OSM’s data is
limited in developing countries and this is especially
true in rural areas. Automatic methods are required to
procure complete building data sets in these regions for
large areas, without performing resource-intensive surveys
and manual labeling. Convolutional neural networks
(ConvNets) are the most accurate and effective automatic
methods to date for building footprint extraction from
satellite and aerial imagery.
Here, we describe a basic system for georeferenced
building footprint extraction based on fully convolu-
tional networks (FCNs) for semantic segmentation [71].
Although FCNs are no longer state of the art for semantic
segmentation tasks in computer vision, the general method
is well documented, easy to use, proves to be effective for
building-footprint extraction, and serves as a benchmark
for further research. Extended descriptions of each of these
topics are given in [72], and a more detailed review of
these methods in [68].
The procurement of training data for building extraction
is often a time and resource-intensive endeavor. The mod-
els described for semantic segmentation require training
data where annotations are captured at the pixel level.
While the OSM data set provides manual labels that
may seem promising for model training, its sparsity and
inconsistency in developing countries and its potential
misalignment with satellite imagery decrease its usefulness
for our application. Due to these considerations and the
fact that our building extraction models may not be highly
generalizable across regions, we find it is often beneficial
to procure training data for regions of interest using anno-
tation tools for binary image classification and for drawing
polygons, as described in [72].
Our results [68], [72] demonstrate that contemporary
ConvNet models for semantic segmentation are capable
of automatic building footprint extraction from satellite
imagery and that image quality is highly important. The
ultimate benefit of using these tools is that they can scale
massively in the presence of satellite imagery of adequate
quality and with enough training data. Investments in
improved image quality and training data should be made
with consideration of alternatives and available resources.
2) Load Localization: Load localization refers to the
process of identifying connection points for individual
buildings and characterizing the potentially latent load
profile associated with each of them. This is challeng-
ing because the process of converting building footprint
extractions (which may reflect multiple buildings within
a single contiguous group of pixels) to individual cus-
tomer points is nonobvious and because information for
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

Fig. 2. GP results corresponding to the survey data zoomed into the capital city, Kampala [72].

determining load profiles is likely not present in satellite
imagery alone. While the problem of load profile assign-
ment has been largely unstudied and currently requires a
number of assumptions, a few potential solutions exist for
identifying individual buildings [68], [72].
Connection points for individual buildings may be
obtained by defining polygons that characterize building
shapes, producing rasters for building boundaries, or by
sampling points from contiguous groups of pixels denoting
building footprints. The efficacy of different approaches
for identifying connection points on individual buildings
has not yet been compared for master planning and is the
subject of future work. The choice of approach is likely also
dependent on the method used for characterization of load
profile, which itself may be dependent on data availability,
generalizability, and other factors. Approaches for estimat-
ing load using building polygon or boundary information
may rely on characterizing relationships between elec-
tricity consumption and building footprint area, location,
and neighborhood building density. If a linear relationship
is assumed between electricity consumption and building
footprint area, the connection point sampling approach
proposed in [72] may be appropriate. This assumption
would imply that buildings with twice the footprint area
would have twice the load and can effectively be modeled
as two separate neighboring buildings. Load localization
and characterization are an important area for contin-
ued research.
3) Electrification Status Estimation: Electrification status
estimation corresponds to the classification of the iden-
tified buildings as currently electrified or nonelectrified.
Information regarding the current electrification status
of buildings is imperative for planning activities. This
information allows planners to avoid designing duplicative
infrastructure and ensure their plans meet the public’s
needs. Electrification status information also enables the
assessment of technology choices; it can inform the use
of technoeconomic models such as REM that determine
the attractiveness of OG technologies relative to modes
of grid extension. Although distribution companies in
developed parts of the world generally have a wealth
of digitized infrastructure data, their counterparts
in developing regions are consistently less informed.
Numerous distribution companies in regions with low
rates of electricity access lack adequate structured
information regarding their LV distribution lines. Although
data collection and digitization efforts have commenced
in some of these regions, requisite data on electrification
status are still largely missing.
Only a few approaches for electrification status esti-
mation have previously been reported in [68] and [72].

Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 1879

Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 3. Left: manually annotated coordinates of all buildings,
visualized using Google Earth. Right: randomly sampled building
locations, distributed within the polygon line that delimits the
boundary of Zugu (Rungan-Gazo) in Nigeria.
We have performed experiments with multiple model
types for building level and ∼1-km resolution in the
estimation of electrification status, comparing results
for models based on logistic regression (LR), Gaussian
Processes (GPs), and probabilistic graphical models
(PGMs) for case studies in Uganda. The GP approach
demonstrates improved performance metrics relative to LR
due to its ability to capture spatial correlations in electrifi-
cation status. However, we hypothesize that LR approaches
may be able to better incorporate multimodal data and
generalize to regions outside of those close to direct survey
measurements. Ongoing work on a PGM model promises
to combine multimodal and multiscale features (such as
aggregate census statistics, existing grid information, pop-
ulation density, nighttime lights values, and satellite image
features) in addition to capturing spatial correlation [72].
Fig. 2 shows the example output for a GP classifier
trained with survey data and zoomed into Uganda’s capital
city, Kampala. Such electrification probability maps can
be compared to expert elicitations and used to inform
master planning efforts. For use with REM, we can use
probabilistic models such as GPs for electrification status
estimation by simulating electrification data sets [72].
4) Combining Information From Different Data Sources:
Sometimes requisite information for areas in need of
electrification is inaccurate, outdated, or not available.
Examples include poor-quality imagery due to blurred
images, clouds, or other artifacts. Even if the quality is
acceptable, readily available imagery may be outdated
and not reflective of the situation on the ground. There-
fore, it is necessary to collect information from differ-
ent data sources to corroborate the validity of buildings
data and to make estimations. Relevant features include
population and population density, which correlate with
the number of buildings and its distribution. Since image
processing algorithms can be adjusted in sensitivity to
detect a given number of buildings, if the results do
not match expected population values, it is possible to
adjust sensitivities to improve the accuracies of these
methods.
If buildings cannot be identified accurately using images
(e.g., due to image quality issues, tree or cloud cover,
1880 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
algorithmic constraints, etc.) but population densities and
applicable population boundaries are known, it is possible
to estimate building positions by assuming uniform distrib-
utions of building densities and randomly selecting points.
Fig. 3 shows the difference between manually annotated
building locations and estimated building locations for the
village of Zugu in Nigeria. This procedure is less accurate
in the case of nonuniform buildings distributions, which is
more likely to occur when population density and bound-
ary information is known at less granular scales.
Comparing REM runs using manually annotated build-
ing locations with those using building locations that
were randomly sampled according to uniform distribu-
tions within village boundaries has shown similar results
in terms of electrical network design for the metrics of
interest in planning. For the same number of buildings
modeled, there is a small difference in the total length and
type of the power lines prescribed, but the costs for the
generator and transformer are the same. These preliminary
results suggest that it is still possible to produce useful
electrification plans in areas with poor quality satellite
imagery if population and village boundary information
is known. In addition, if there are accurate estimations of
population growth, it may be possible to produce electri-
fication plans for expected future populations in a similar
way. Nevertheless, when it comes to real implementations,
the design of the local network for each cluster has to
be based on highly accurate location information for each
building to be electrified.
Population data can typically be obtained from the
region’s most recent census as long as it may be considered
accurate and up to date. It is also possible to obtain
future population estimates from demographic studies.
However, the most valuable information for building loca-
tion is population density that can be obtained from
several geospatial data providers, such as LandScan [73]
and the high-resolution settlement layer (HRSL) [74].
Estimating household locations based on the freely avail-
able HRSL information is significantly faster than per-
forming building extraction from raw satellite imagery;
however, it is generally less accurate.
B. Demand Profiles for Each Type of
Building/Load
One of the most important inputs to an electrification
model is the expected demand for every customer mod-
eled. In the case of REM, customers are categorized into
broad archetypes with unique hourly consumption trends.
The demand of each archetype is modeled either as a single
power utilization pattern or as a linear combination of
several patterns.
The decision to use a linear combination of demand
patterns has two primary reasons as follows.
1) There is limited information available on how
specific types of customers are expected to use
(or have previously used) electricity. As such, the lin-
ear manipulation of data can be a useful method of
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

extrapolating reliable load information to different Table 1 Classification of Customers. Source: African Utilities

groups. For example, an assumption can be made

that large households consume three times as much
as small residential customers.
2) To reduce computation time. During the clustering
process, REM calls on a lookup table that includes a
set of typical electrical generation mixes. The model
will then interpolate capacities from the table and
design the future electrification system. To simplify
this process, only a set number of demand pro-
files (i.e., patterns) are allowed. Linearly combining
these patterns allows for more granular demand
projections.
Each demand pattern is characterized by several
demand samples. The samples provide alternative con-
sumption chronologies to account for the uncertainty
in customer usage, for each profile. Each demand
sample specifies two consumption series: critical and
noncritical electricity demands. The series consists
of 8760 values, one for every hour in a year. Demand
profiles identify the minimum amount of electric-
ity needed to satisfy the customer’s load at 100%,
24 h a day. However, REM is not constrained to meet all
the demanded capacity. Instead, it optimizes for cost and,
therefore, may choose to reduce the reliability of the elec-
samples. It should be noted that demand samples are
tricity to avoid significantly scaling system components.
precomputed and act as an input to REM.
User-defined costs of nonserved energy (CNSE), for critical
How people consume electricity varies as temperatures
and noncritical demands, translate these supply failures
change and as sunlight fluctuates. Therefore, climate data
into social costs.
are also factored into expected hourly demands. During
Several methods can be employed to obtain the demand
the analysis of appliance usage, the following factors
profiles that REM needs, as it is described in the following
are considered: 1) the power that each appliance needs;
sections.
2) criticality, i.e., whether the appliance is critical for daily
1) Demand Profile Methodology Based on Appliance use; 3) average number appliances that customers in each
Utilization: One way to obtain demand patterns for a profile are expected to own; 4) probability that a cus-
given profile is by estimating the power of the appliances tomer in the respective demand profile owns the appliance;
expected to be used [33] and by combining them randomly 5) average number of hours the appliance is typically used
to generate a representative, unbiased set of demand for; 6) enabling factor determining that the appliance will
not be used if some condition is not satisfied (e.g., a fan
will not be used if the temperature is lower than 29 ◦ C);
and 7) variability factors in the use of the appliance or in
the household global level of activity. Finally, the profiles
are interpolated across an entire year’s worth of usage.
Fig. 4 shows an example of residential demand including
lighting, television, and fan usage [33]. The input sources
include census data, peer-reviewed studies, surveys, and
demand data captured on the field.

2) Demand Profiles From External Sources: When field

survey data on expected power consumption and appliance
usage are limited, trivial, or not available, commercial
and feeder records can prove useful at estimating nat-
ural demand (i.e., demand of similar customers in sim-
ilar socioeconomic and geographic situations). Some of
the sources used are: 1) commercial information, pro-
viding average energy consumptions per month or year,
Fig. 4. Example of demand samples based on the use of peak load, and installed limiters for different customer
appliances. types; when information about the nature of demand is

Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 1881

Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
available (e.g., classification of households with different
peak demand levels, community, and productive uses),
different hourly load patterns per customer type can be
calculated as an input for REM and 2) feeder infor-
mation when distribution companies can make available
hourly records of the energy supplied by different feeders;
these data are often supplemented with the number (and
archetype) of customers per feeder; these records can then
be disaggregated downstream to the individual house-
hold or commercial level, by assuming similar customer
characteristics. It is especially helpful to have information
about dedicated feeders for agriculture, commercial, and
industrial customers. Feeder information is also useful to
determine the reliability of the supply, and how it relates
to the type of customers on the feeder.
For planning purposes, decision-makers may decide to
deviate from using the natural or expected demand for
certain types of customers. For instance, they may decide
to plan for a certain target or tier either above or below the
natural demand.
A case example has been prepared by the REM team and
can be assumed representative of a rural area in many
sub-Saharan African countries. The considered area has
65 km × 40 km. All the data, including the layout of the
existing network, the location of buildings, the catalog of
components, and the demand profiles, have been obtained
from actual studies in some of these countries.
Employing the methods described in Section IV-A, it was
determined that the area contains 52 709 nonelectrified
consumers, most of them rural but some of them periur-
ban. There are 17 different customer types (see Table 1),
including several residential customers (types 1 and 2),
community customers (types 3–10), and productive cus-
tomers (types 11–17). Their respective energy demands
have been estimated considering the consumption of sim-
ilar loads in other rural areas already electrified (natural
Fig. 5. Sample demand profiles for domestic, community and
productive loads in Karambi village [64]. The x-axes are measured in
hours and the y-axes are measured in kilowatts.
1882 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Fig. 6. Demand profile samples at the final year of demand
growth.
demand). The data was provided by African utilities, with
additional consideration of results from a field study devel-
oped by the UEA Lab in the Rwandan village of Karambi,
Gicumbi district, and detailed in [64] and [75]. Satel-
lite imagery alone was not sufficient to assign customer
types to consumers. It was necessary to interact with the
African utility to determine which loads were community
customers or productive customers. The remaining loads
were assumed residential, and their type (1 or 2) was
estimated with census data.
Fig. 5 shows a sample of hourly profiles obtained from
the Karambi field study, which have been used to compute
the hourly demand curve for a whole year considered
for this case. It resembles the average use of appliances
reported by the different customer types in the canvased
village in week and weekend days, also considering
seasonality in daylight hours (e.g., for the hourly profile
of household lighting) and temperature (e.g., for the use
of fans).
The objective is to design the cost-optimal electrifica-
tion plan for the demand that is expected to be reached
in 10 years from the present time. The demand pro-
file sample derived, represented in Fig. 6, results from
applying a constant growth rate of 2% per year to the
estimated present demand over the ten years’ period
(22% of accumulated growth). The figure shows the result-
ing profiles of the daily critical and noncritical demands.
C. Existing Distribution Network
REM considers three different electrification modes: SA
systems, MGs, and grid extensions. Unlike the former two
modes of electrification, grid extensions require REM to
both models and interpret already existing infrastructure:
specifically, the location and capacity of connected trans-
mission and distribution lines.
A few simplifications were included when creating REM
and RNM. For instance, both models (REM and RNM)
can apply only one voltage value to each voltage level in
the distribution network (i.e., HV, MV, and LV). Existing
electrical grids, however, may use several voltage levels in
different feeders. Typically, MV lines are set at three-phase
12.47 kV and LV lines are set at 3-phase 0.4 kV. The use
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
of other voltages or number of phases must be emulated
using equivalent components.
REM also requires its users to define explicitly where the
potential connection points are (i.e., extensions). In our
scenarios, this only includes the MV lines. In general,
the per-unit wholesale cost of energy ($/kWh) could
be different for each connection point in an area of
study if there was information to estimate the required
reinforcement infrastructure. The cost of these extra
investments is assumed to be proportional to the amount
of energy provided.
To characterize the existing grid, the user can obtain the
electrical details from available databases or can manually
draw it by inspection of images and line diagrams. In REM,
the existing MV network is represented by a set of line
segments, each one defined by two coordinates.
REM uses the candidate MV connection points to eval-
uate the network cost (and layout) of a grid-extension
solution for all consumer clusters considered. In order to
do so, REM chooses an appropriate subset of representative
MV points for each cluster as potential connection points;
it then submits the problem to RNM, which is free to use
any of them to provide an optimized layout.
Each MV segment is allocated an energy price in $/kWh,
which could depend on the supply connection point to
account for differences in the locational price of deliv-
ering electricity. REM does not deal directly with the
upstream transmission network and generation but this
feature allows the user to translate different generation
costs into local wholesale energy costs at MV distribution
level. Although the price of delivering electricity is only
considered to compute the cost of energy losses in RNM,
this price is critical in REM decisions to determine cost-
optimal supply designs.
Each MV segment also exhibits a specific reliability level.
The reliability level is inputted as a vector of 24 elements
that characterizes the hours of a representative day. The
reliability level must be within the range [0, 1], where
this value indicates the fraction of demand that is sup-
plied during that hour. “0” means that no demand can
be supplied, while “1” means that all demand is supplied.
Fig. 7. Nonelectrified consumers (green dots) and MV power grid
(black lines).
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Fig. 8. Examples of catalog components: lines and transformers.
The reliability of feeders can either be based on actual
measurements or estimated through customer surveys.
Fig. 7 shows the location of the 52 709 nonelectrified
consumers and the existing MV distribution power grid in
the considered case example. The main grid is assumed
to be available at any time with a probability of 90% and
the wholesale energy cost at the MV distribution level
is 0.10 $/kWh at any connection point. Although REM
allows for the hourly specification of reliability and the
specification of different reliability and electricity costs for
each feeder, the same constant reliability and electricity
cost values were assumed for all supply connection points
in this case study.
D. Catalog of Components: Networks and
Generation Sites
The importance of the cost and technical constraints
associated with the physical assets in the distribution net-
works requires an accurate technoeconomic characteriza-
tion of the equipment that can be used in the electrification
plan.
1) Catalogs of Network Components:
a) Lines and transformers are described in
terms of electrical parameters (power and
impedances) and cost parameters (investment
and maintenance).
b) Separate catalogs can be defined for grid
extensions and MGs. This is a strategic deci-
sion since the advantages of grid-compatible
MGs should be weighed against the use of low-
cost isolated networks.
c) REM assumes standard three-phase networks
with only three voltage levels (HV, MV, and LV).
The data in the catalog have to be verified so that
economies of scale are respected. This is mandatory to
avoid difficulties in REM’s optimization processes. The
components must be ordered by increasing capacity, and
the cost/capacity ratio must decrease or remain constant.
Care must be exercised in curating this catalog since mix-
ing products from different vendors or technologies may
cause inconsistencies.
Fig. 8 shows the portions of a line catalog and a trans-
former catalog, which exhibit the level of detail handled
by REM.
1) Catalogs of Generation-Sites Components:
a) The standard MGs modeled are ac and three-
phase. Solar kits in dc are modeled separately
and considered only in the final electrification
phase of the algorithm.
1883
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 9. General structure of a generation site in REM.
b) The local generation site has a flexible
structure. Its maximum complexity is shown
in Fig. 9: diesel generator, photovoltaic (PV)
panel, battery, charge controller, and inverter.
Five simpler designs are allowed: 1) only a
diesel generator; 2) only a PV panel; 3) PV +
diesel; 4) PV + battery; and 5) diesel + battery.
c) For PV panels and batteries, only two options
for each (defined by their technical characteris-
tics and size) are allowed in the current version
of REM: the first is more adequate for small
SA systems and the second for large generation
sites.
The above-mentioned requirement about economies of
scale (as in lines and transformers) also applies to diesel
generators, charge controllers, and inverters: all compo-
nents must be ordered by increasing capacity, and the
cost/capacity ratio must decrease or remain constant.
Efficiency should increase or remain constant with increas-
ing size.
Fig. 10 shows the portions of a diesel generator catalog
and a battery catalog.
In the case example, the generation and network cat-
alogs have been built by blending data gathered by
members of the MIT/Comillas Universal Energy Access
Lab team from several studies conducted in sub-Saharan
African countries and India.
E. Cost Drivers and Financial Models
REM considers direct monetary costs and indirect soci-
etal costs in the economic evaluation of electrification
plans.
1) Direct Monetary Costs: The direct monetary
costs include both initial investments and on-going
expenditures. The costs are categorized as investment
costs, operations and maintenance costs, management
Fig. 10. Examples of catalog components: diesel generators and
batteries.
1884 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
costs, and energy costs. To account for the time value
of money, REM discounts future expenditures based
on an appropriate discount rate for each technology.
By allowing different technologies to be discounted with
independent discount rates, REM accounts for the diverse
ownership structures and risk profiles that are possible in
the studies to be performed with the model. For instance,
utility-owned grid-extension projects should have a
lower discount rate than privately owned solar home
systems.
REM is a “static optimization planning model,” which
determines the minimum cost solution for just a future
snapshot situation, i.e., one year in the future. Due to the
wide range of equipment lifetimes used in the electrifica-
tion space, an annuity for that future year is computed
for each technology. This allows to jointly accounting for
shorter lived products, such as solar home systems, and
assets with longer economic lives, such as lines and trans-
formers in the distribution networks.
For expenditures occurring on a nonannual basis,
the expenditure is converted to a yearly annuity A
A = C · r/(1 − (1 + r)−L ) (1)
where C is the periodic expenditure, r is the discount
rate, and L is the period. Direct monetary costs include
investment, operation and maintenance (O & M), manage-
ment, and energy costs:
1) Investment costs, or capital expenditure (CAPEX),
are determined directly from the system design and
associated cost catalog. For grid extension, this is
often dominated by the cost/km of the distribution
network, whereas for MGs, the $/kW for solar PV
and $/kWh for battery storage are often the most
significant components of the total cost of supply.
As mentioned above, these CAPEXs are converted to
annuities to compare projects in the static optimiza-
tion procedure performed by REM.
2) Each equipment type is assigned an annual
O&M cost based on the local equipment charac-
teristics and necessary expenditures to maintain
equipment in working condition. For distribution
lines, this is defined by ($/km)/year, but for trans-
formers, batteries, or diesel generation sets, this
is defined simply as $/year for a given piece of
equipment.
3) Annual management costs differ by system type
and size due to the nature of different pieces of
equipment and different business structures. When
modeling the management cost for grid-extension
projects and solar home systems, REM assumes
that economies of scale have been reached, and
the marginal management cost of each additional
customer is uniform. When considering the manage-
ment cost associated with MGs, REM assumes that
each MG will have some fixed management cost,
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Table 2 Generation Design Samples in the Lookup Table
plus a monotonically decreasing marginal cost per
additional customer. In this way, the model acknowl-
edges the economies of scale associated with MGs of
increasing size.
4) Direct energy and fuel costs are accumulated in
grid-extension projects and in MGs with diesel gen-
eration. For grid-extension projects, the cost per
kilowatt hour of energy is the wholesale electricity
price when delivered at MV level (which includes the
true price of energy at wholesale level, plus trans-
mission and HV distribution costs). REM currently
assumes a flat cost of electricity regardless of the
hour of day or time of year and of the amount of
energy demanded. REM accepts different values of
this wholesale electricity costs at different connec-
tion points as inputs. For MG systems with diesel
generation, the cost of the diesel fuel consumed is
the only energy cost.
2) Nonmonetary Costs: The least cost optimization per-
formed by REM also includes nonmonetary costs. The
main social cost is the CNSE, which is associated with
the reliability of supply. REM imposes this penalty on a
per-kilowatt hour basis for every unit of energy demand
that is not supplied. This penalizing factor ensures that
system reliability is properly accounted for while making
sure that supply does not become prohibitively expensive
as direct monetary costs grow rapidly with very high levels
of reliability.
A single value of CNSE cannot capture the diversity
of situations of supply failure, as perceived by different
customers with different needs and at different times.
To approximate to this complex reality, REM distinguishes
between critical and noncritical loads for all customers
and applies a different value of CNSE to the curtailment
of critical and noncritical demands. The determination of
the appropriate value for CNSE is a difficult task, and it
would theoretically require extensive and well-designed
surveys or experiments of the customers involved. Fortu-
nately, REM allows users to vary the values of CNSE until
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
the model delivers reasonable combinations of cost and
reliability of supply. We often employ this latter method
in our case studies.
As an additional feature related to CNSE, REM allows
the definition of supply limits on demand, in terms of the
maximum power and time intervals (different for grid-
extension and MG solutions). This allows modeling the
following.
1) Power limiters, i.e., devices installed at the house-
hold connection point that prevent power con-
sumption to exceed a threshold established by
contract.
2) Low-cost supply contracts that cover only partial
electricity needs.
A different CNSE penalty is defined for the demand that
is not served due to supply limitations, to account for its
equivalent social cost. This penalty is generally set to be
lower than the critical and noncritical ones since the lack
of supply is known in advance by contract.
In the considered case example, there is a 0.30-$/kWh
penalty for not meeting the noncritical demand and
0.75-$/kWh penalty for failing to meet critical demand.
In other words, these are the social CNSEs for these two
different demand types.
In the case example presented, the economic life
span for main distribution network components is set
to 40 years, whereas for MG network components, it is
assumed to be of 20 years. The lifespans of batteries,
PV panels, and other components are defined in the corre-
sponding catalogs. The financial discount rate is assumed
to be 10% for grid extensions and MGs and 15% for
isolated systems.
Furthermore, the case example assumes that the
individual connection costs are $65 per consumer for
those serviced by both MGs and grid extensions. The
management annual cost is $9 per consumer for those
serviced by grid extensions and very large MGs and
$16 per consumer for medium-sized MGs of about
150 consumers (values estimated from MG operators in
1885
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

East Africa). REM has been set not to accept MGs with five
consumers or fewer. In the clustering algorithm, the annual
management cost for individual lower demand households
(customer type 1) with solar panel and battery has been
set to $60. In the final stage of REM, once the clusters have
been obtained, SA systems for lower income households
are turned into solar kits for the final electrification
plan.
Note that the comparison between solar kits and the
other two delivery modes (i.e., grid extensions and MGs)
is not straightforward. The choice of solar kits cannot
be determined solely by the CNSE. Solar kits, with what
many households might consider acceptable reliability lev-
els for basic energy services, exist at modest prices and
with attractive financing schemes. Solar kits are individ-
ually managed without any external dependencies and the
scarce supplies can be prioritized for individual house-
hold priorities. However, solar kits can only supply appli-
ances with low electricity intensities. In the case example
described, a solar kit is available in the component catalog
with an investment cost of $86.40, which can meet 68% of
the lower demand household’s (customer type 1) demand.
A conventional solar home system using the same MG
technology would meet 95% of the demand with an invest-
ment and operation cost of $181/year, as shown in Table 2
[CAPEX + operational expenditure (OPEX)].

F. Topography and Administrative Divisions

REM and RNM can adjust network costs in accordance
with information about altitude, ground slope, and
forbidden and penalized zones. These adjustments can
be accounted for in the network routing and clustering
algorithms.
The objective function for optimizing the layout and
size of candidate power lines is guided by the net present
value of investment and preventive and corrective main-
Fig. 11. Influence of altitude, slopes, and forbidden zones in the
tenance costs. Apart from other concepts (e.g., the cost network topology. Top image: omits the forbidden zones and the
of the equipment required to improve system reliability, altitude. Bottom image: considers the forbidden zones and the
the cost of ditches, façades and posts, capacitors and altitude [84].

voltage regulators, etc.), the model considers investment

and maintenance costs that depend on the type of power
line. One type of penalty factor is defined for capturing
additional costs related to building lines over changing alti-
tudes and a second type is defined for crossing forbidden
and penalized zones (i.e., areas where it would be more
expensive to construct and maintain lines such as lakes,
rivers, and forests). Two types of input files are required
to calculate these penalty factors: an altitude raster and
zone-definition polygon files.
The model currently accepts altitude information in the
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Amer-
ican Standard Code for Information Interchange raster
format. The file stores topographic data information in a
numerical matrix where each pixel indicates the altitude
of the raster map in a manner that allows rebuilding
the slopes and elevation of the terrain. The basic infor-
mation to enable reconstructing the raster map includes
the number of pixels in rows and columns, the coor-
dinates of the southwest corner in a predefined geo-
graphical system, the size of each pixel, and elevation
values.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) pro-
vides digital elevation data covering all countries. In the
case example, the topographical data used (altitude raster
map and forbidden and penalized zones) are from [76].
The impact of topography and penalized zones in the
network topology is shown in Fig. 11. Note how the layout
of the network changes dramatically when considering
forbidden and penalized zones.
The penalized area factor depends on the existence of
geographical features, such as lakes, wetlands, national
parks, or other designated zones. RNM and REM use a file

1886 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019

 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
that contains a set of polygons. Each polygon is defined
by a set of coordinates preceded by a header where the
user can specify the penalty multipliers for the zone. Large
multipliers (for instance, 100) may be used to completely
avoid penalized areas in network routing decisions, while
moderate multipliers (for instance, 1.5) may account for
realistic extra costs. The outline of the countries can also
be used to define the forbidden and penalized zones. This
is especially relevant if the country has a coastline.
In some cases, it is necessary to consider the
administrative boundaries in the clustering process.
For instance, REM can be forced to obtain independent
electrification solutions for different administrative
regions. This requires delimiting them with polygons,
which are used in the model to split the whole problem
into smaller subproblems, each of them processed and
analyzed independently. For this purpose, the model
requires as input data the polygons that define the
boundaries of the administrative divisions.
G. General Electrification Criteria
Additional parameters can be used to define overall tar-
gets of the electrification plan, which constrain the primary
objective of cost minimization. The most important ones
refer to required levels of quality of service and the mix of
delivery modes (i.e., grid extension, MGs, and SA systems)
used to meet the targets.
Reliability of supply is dealt with by setting minimum
acceptable levels of quality of supply in OG systems and
including the social CNSE in the optimization. Nonserved
energy costs are further differentiated for critical and
noncritical demands.
By default, REM will search for the least cost electri-
fication plan. Ad hoc input “policy penalties” or “cus-
tomer preferences” allow the user to bias the final solution
toward fewer or more customers served by grid extensions,
MGs, or SA systems. Other parameters can define rela-
tive or absolute budgetary thresholds for the entire plan,
establish a minimum size for the MGs, force connectivity
within the administrative boundary of a village, or force
grid connections for buildings situated within a short dis-
tance to the existing grid.
An electrification plan extends over many years. Since a
plan includes a variety of technologies and delivery modes,
it is not trivial to compare different plans in terms of total
cost over a long period. REM addresses this difficulty by
minimizing the cost of supply for just some chosen future
year by comparing the equivalent annuity (i.e., assuming
some evolution of costs in time and the different economic
lives of the physical assets employed in the plan) for
each plan for that future year and choosing the plan with
the lowest annuity. Strategic input parameters define the
design horizon (i.e., the future year for which REM obtains
the optimal plan): demand growth rate, physical compo-
nent lifetimes, and discount rates that are appropriate for
the considered planning situation.
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
V. M I N I G R I D G E N E R A T I O N D E S I G N
The design of MG generation depends on demand, avail-
able technology, and local conditions such as the cost of
fuel and the hourly solar irradiance. REM assumes that
MGs have centralized generation and operate in islanded
mode. The adopted general architecture for any OG system
in REM was shown in Fig. 9. REM does not include all the
components in every generation design. For instance, if an
MG only has diesel generation and no other generation
technology type, converters and inverters are not neces-
sary. In the case example, any combination of PV, battery,
and diesel generation options is permitted; however, diesel
is constrained to be only used as a back-up supply option,
with a utilization limit of no more than 30% of the total
demand.
A. Generation Sizing Algorithm
The method that REM uses to determine the generation
design of an MG is a variation of the Hooke and Jeeves
algorithm [77]. It starts by picking an initial point in
the multidimensional space of the MG design variables
and then calculates the value of the objective function
(i.e., the total cost of investment and operation of the MG)
for several points around the initial point before moving
along the direction of minimum cost. For each candidate
point in the search space (with as many dimensions as
design variables for the MG), REM performs an annual
simulation of the operation of the MG, adopting some
generation dispatch strategy, and calculates the total cost
of that point including investment and operation costs plus
a penalty for the nonserved energy.
This algorithm moves in a 3-D search space where the
dimensions are the diesel generator capacity, the total
capacity of the solar panels, and the battery capacity.
REM sizes the remaining components of the design
afterward. The first step of the sizing algorithm is to
establish the boundaries of the search space, estimating
the maximum and minimum possible value in each of the
three dimensions.
The possible values that the diesel generator could take
in the search space are provided by the user in the gener-
ation catalog; as a result, the diesel axis is not necessarily
equally spaced. On the other hand, the possible values that
the solar panels and the batteries could take in the search
space are given by combining several units of a single solar
panel or battery in a row. This implies that the points along
the dimensions of solar and batteries are equally spaced.
Moving from a given diesel generator to one that is
immediately larger or smaller could produce significant
variations of capacity (for example, from 5 to 10 kW).
In order to avoid local minima, the algorithm that REM
uses is based on a master–slave decomposition where the
master problem controls the diesel axis, and the slave
problem moves inside a solar-battery plane with a fixed
diesel capacity and an initial search point that the master
level provides. This nested optimization decomposition,
1887
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 12. Master–slave decomposition.
which is shown in Fig. 12, has been successfully used in
problems of different nature [78], [79].
Some components of the cost of the candidate designs
depend on operational aspects of the MG considered,
such as fuel, component replacements, and nonserved
energy. These terms are estimated by simulation, using, for
instance, the “load following” dispatch strategy [80]. For a
given generation design, the load following strategy first
uses solar energy to meet the demand and, if the battery
is not fully charged, the remaining solar energy is used
to charge it. If there is not enough solar energy and the
battery is not fully discharged, the battery is used to meet
the demand. Finally, if there is still demand that cannot
be met, the load following strategy either uses the diesel
generator or allows some nonserved energy (minimizing
cost according to the penalties for nonserved energy).
There are other ways of dealing with the generation
sizing problem. Instead of using this heuristic approach,
the investment and the operation problems can be formu-
lated as a classic optimization problem that considers the
generation design and the dispatch at the same time. This
formulation has already been implemented in [81] with
satisfactory results.
B. Lookup Table
In a large-scale rural electrification planning problem,
the task of calculating accurate generation designs for
all the candidate MGs is computationally infeasible and
unnecessary. This implies that the iterative application of
a generation sizing tool such as HOMER would be impru-
dent, and there is a need for finding a new methodology
that balances accuracy with computation time.
Fig. 13. Electrification problem example.
1888 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
REM solves this problem by calculating only a few gen-
eration designs for a representative number of candidate
MGs and, if it needs the information of another design,
the model will obtain it using multi-linear interpolation.
Fig. 13 shows a small electrification planning problem that
we will use to illustrate this concept. There are 32 resi-
dential consumers in this problem with the same demand
profile.
Since all the consumers have the same demand,
there are also 32 candidate OG systems with differ-
ent aggregated demands (those with 1, 2, . . . , 31, and
32 consumers). Instead of calculating these 32 generation
designs, which would be a feasible strategy for this toy
example but not for a large-scale problem, REM could
calculate the generation designs related to 1, 2, 5, 15,
and 32 consumers. If it needs information for a generation
design with, for instance, 25 consumers, the model will
interpolate the values, using the data from the designs with
15 and 32 consumers.
In this example, the lookup table would have a single
axis with five representative points related to residential
consumers. Things, however, are more complicated if we
introduce other types of consumers, such as productive
loads or bigger households, with different corresponding
demand profiles. Specifically, adding a new consumer type
to the lookup table implies adding one more dimension in
the space of consumers, and the total number of genera-
tion designs that REM would need to calculate could be
significantly larger.
C. Dealing With Multiple Types of Consumers
The number of customer types that REM can process is
a limitation of the lookup table approach. A case example
with five different consumer types would imply a 5-D
lookup table and significantly increase computation times.
In order to overcome this limitation, it is important to
realize that generation designs are related to the aggre-
gated demand of candidate MGs and not to specific com-
binations of consumer types. This implies that it is worth
associating the axes of the lookup table with “demand
patterns” instead of customer types. By doing so, REM can
operate with a number of customer types that is higher
than the number of axes of the lookup table, as far as the
demand of any customer type can be expressed as a linear
combination of a set of “basic” demand patterns.
For example, we could have two different types of res-
idential households, large and small, and assume that the
demand for a large household is five times that of a small
one. Then, REM could have one demand pattern related to
the small household profile and the point “5” of the lookup
table could be either five small households or one large one
since the demand is the same in both cases.
Future work is motivated by exploring this idea using
dimensionality reduction techniques that decompose a
large number of demand profiles related to customer types
into a few basic demand patterns associated with axes of
the lookup table. Both the basic demand patterns and the
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 14. OG system cost per kilowatt hour of demand served.
linear combinations are specific inputs to REM. Patterns
may be defined directly by the user, using problem-domain
expertise, or computed separately with optimization
algorithms.
D. Minigrid Design in the Case Example
In the case example, REM creates a lookup table cal-
culating generation designs for 1, 10, 50, 100, 250, 500,
5000, and 50 000 sample demand profiles, which are cho-
sen sequentially from those shown in Fig. 6. As mentioned
earlier, when REM needs to estimate the cost of a candi-
date MG with a different number of aggregated demand
profiles, it will interpolate between the two closest designs
unless the number of aggregated demand profiles is larger
than 50 000. For larger numbers, REM assumes that there
are no more economies of scale in generation, so the per-
unit investment and operation costs are the same as in the
generation design for 50 000 aggregated demand profiles.
Table 2 gives the characteristics of the designs for the
lookup table samples. Note that the management costs
(part of the OPEX shown in Table 2) are calculated assum-
ing that each sample profile corresponds to a low-demand
residential consumer. Internally, REM uses the actual num-
ber of consumers of a cluster to compute management
costs, not the number of sample profiles (since a type of
consumer may comprise multiple sample profiles).
Generation designs meet almost all the demand, which
is reasonable given the high penalties for nonserved
energy. Diesel generators are part of the generation designs
for the 5000 and 50 000 points of the lookup table. In both
cases, they cover 26% of the total demand, which is below
the maximum allowed (30%). The constraint on diesel
utilization is active since the optimum unconstrained value
has 74% of diesel production (as shown in Section IX). This
case does not reach exactly the 30% limit because: 1) the
discrete sizes of diesel generators and 2) the shortsighted
hourly logic of the load-following dispatch is not able to
meet medium-term targets accurately.
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Fig. 15. Daily sample dispatch of an MG with 10 demand profiles,
where the black line represents the total demand (critical plus
noncritical).
The cost per kilowatt hour, as expected, decreases when
the number of demand profiles increases. This is due to
a combination of the economies of scale in management
costs, some economies of scale in the electronic equipment,
the profile aggregation, and the existence of diesel genera-
tors in the large generation designs. Fig. 14 shows the costs
of generation (CAPEX and OPEX) plus nonserved energy
for OG systems (network costs will be calculated later for
each candidate MG).
REM provides the hourly generation dispatch of each
MG and SA system. The detailed simulation that REM
performs over 1 year (with some optional simplifications
to reduce the computational burden) allows the user to
analyze days with different patterns of demand coverage,
as shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
Fig. 15 shows the dispatch for a couple of days in an MG
with 10 demand profiles. Solar panels serve the demand
and charge the batteries during the day. At night, batteries
meet most of the demand.
Fig. 16 shows the dispatch for a couple of days in an
MG with 5000 demand profiles. This generation design
also meets the demand and charges the battery with solar
panels during the day, but now the demand after midnight
is mostly covered with diesel.
In addition, REM calculates the statistics for the esti-
mated annual reliability performance (average amount of
demand served for each hour of the day) of the two MGs
as discussed in Figs. 15 and 16. Fig. 17 shows this REM
output, which could be useful to inform developers and
prospective beneficiaries of the expected performance of a
future MG.
1889
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 16. Daily sample dispatch of an MG with 5000 demand
profiles, where the black line represents the total demand (critical
plus noncritical).
VI. C L U S T E R I N G
The goal of the clustering process is to determine
which consumers should be electrified together (i.e., with
the same system) and what is the most efficient way
to electrify them. Evaluating all the possible combina-
Fig. 17. Demand served each hour of the day for 10 (top) and
5000 (bottom) demand profiles.
1890 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Fig. 18. Clustering candidate connections.
tions would be computationally infeasible in large-scale
problems.
REM uses a Delaunay triangulation to obtain the poten-
tial connections among consumers. This procedure has
already been used in clustering algorithms related to dis-
tribution networks [63], [82].
Fig. 18 adds the candidate connections to the example
shown in Fig. 13. In Fig. 18, it is clear that consumers
labeled as 1 and 2 could be electrified together, but a direct
connection between them and consumers 31 and 32 is
not worth considering. However, by following the logic
explained in Section VI-A, consumers 1 and 32 could be
electrified together if economies of scale justify the gradual
aggregation of more customers until all of them happen to
be connected in one large cluster.
Fig. 19 shows the Delaunay triangulation for the case
example.
A. OG Clustering Process
The first step of the clustering process (OG cluster-
ing) temporarily assumes that all the consumers will be
electrified individually with OG systems. The algorithm
makes customer-grouping decisions on the basis of two
conflicting driving factors: 1) the savings in generation,
operation, and management costs brought by economies of
scale and customers’ simultaneity factors in larger MGs and
Fig. 19. Nonelectrified consumers (green) and the corresponding
Delaunay triangulation (black).
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 20. OG clustering configurations.
2) the increase in network costs associated with grouping
customers together.
REM begins by evaluating the arcs of the Delaunay
triangulation that are more likely to be activated by join-
ing the corresponding clusters, i.e., from the shortest to
the longest link (the effect of the order of evaluation is
mitigated by running several passes). In each evaluation,
the model compares the costs of the configurations shown
in Fig. 20 to determine if the connection should be acti-
vated. In the figure, triangles represent generation sites.
Configuration 1, where the clusters are separately elec-
trified, has larger generation and management costs.
On the other hand, the network cost of configuration 2 is
larger (the line approximates the incremental network
costs). REM estimates the cost difference between both
configurations (generation costs are obtained from the
lookup table described in Section V) and joins th OG
clustering solution with seven OG clusters for the example
under consideration, and the Delaunay arcs that have not
been activated.
Delaunay arcs are used as potential clustering connec-
tions; therefore, some of them may be redundant (if they
link the same pair of clusters) and just ignored. The
clusters at the end of this step are the OG clusters, and
they are the starting point of the grid-extension clustering
process. Fig. 22 shows the OG clusters for the case example
(colors of the clusters are randomly assigned).
B. Grid-Extension Clustering Process
The second step of the clustering process, grid-extension
clustering, starts from the existing network and the OG
clusters obtained in the first clustering step. Note that REM
does not decide the final electrification modes in the clus-
tering process. This is determined in the final design phase,
Fig. 21. OG clustering example.
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Fig. 22. OG clusters.
described in Section VII when the different alternatives
derived from the clustering process are examined and final
detailed comparisons are made.
The grid-extension clustering makes use of the arcs of
the Delaunay triangulation that join pairs of two different
OG clusters. It calculates the cost of several configurations
to determine if it is economically beneficial to join both
clusters, under the assumption that at least one of them
is going to be connected to the grid. In the first set of
configurations, which is shown in Fig. 23, both clusters
are connected with a line (triangles here represent MV/LV
transformers; thick lines are MV lines and thin ones are
LV lines). This implies that REM will join both clusters if a
configuration from this set ends up being the least cost one.
On the other hand, Fig. 24 shows several configura-
tions with the clusters not connected to one another.
In configurations 3 and 4, one of the clusters is indeed
electrified with an OG system (here triangles may be either
transformers or generation sites). Hence, if a configuration
in Fig. 24 is the least cost one then REM will not connect
both clusters.
The clusters at the end of this step are named grid-
extension clusters (admittedly, a term that may seem con-
fusing since many of these clusters may end up not being
grid connected). Following the example, Fig. 25 shows
the corresponding grid-extension clusters at the end of
Fig. 23. Set of alternative configurations that support merging
grid-extension clusters together.
1891
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 24. Set of alternative configurations that support keeping
grid-extension clusters separate.
the grid-extension clustering process and the Delaunay
arcs that have not been activated. In Fig. 25, none of
the clusters appears as connected to the MV grid, as the
purpose of this grid-extension phase is not to decide on
grid connection but to get a good set of candidate clusters
that will be thoroughly analyzed in the final design phase.
Fig. 26 shows the grid-extension clusters for the case
example (again, the colors of the clusters are randomly
assigned). Note that, in contrast to other electrification
planning methods that are rule-based, REM may find OG
electrification solutions for consumers that are close to
the network, if the OG solution is less expensive. This
typically happens when the aggregated demand of these
customers is so low that—following a cost minimization
logic—it does not justify the investment in the minimum
size transformer in the catalog and the corresponding
wiring cost.
Fig. 27 shows the cumulative share of consumers per
cluster size at the end of the two clustering phases. In OG
clusters, about 70% of the consumers are in groups of at
most 100 consumers; the reason being that the economies
of scale in generation shown in Fig. 14 are weaker beyond
this point and typically not enough to overcome the extra
network cost required for connection.
Grid-extension clusters (i.e., the clusters generated in
the grid-extension clustering process) are significantly
larger than OG clusters. This is to be expected since the
lower cost of energy from the main grid compensates
for higher costs of connection. Fig. 27 shows that grid-
Fig. 25. Grid-extension clustering example.
1892 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Fig. 26. Grid-extension clusters and MV power grid (black lines).
extension clusters are about five times larger than OG
clusters on average.
The clustering process creates a hierarchical structure
of clusters where the first level contains the grid-extension
clusters, the second level contains the OG clusters,
and the third level contains the individual consumers.
Fig. 28 shows the structure that corresponds to the
example.
This cluster structure is used to determine the electri-
fication mode of each consumer and the final solution.
However, it is important to note that the origin of each
cluster—either GE or OG—is completely ignored in the
final design phase, and both electrification options (OG
and grid extension) are tried and evaluated in detail for all
the clusters. The only goal of the clustering processes is to
deliver a well-defined, compact, and meaningful structure
of clusters to be thoroughly explored in the final design
phase.
C. Other Approaches
The hierarchical structure of clusters shown in Fig. 28 is
created using a bottom-up greedy approach, where individ-
ual consumers form the initial clusters. However, a differ-
Fig. 27. Cumulative number of consumers per cluster size.
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
ent strategy, currently under development [67], is to start
with a large grid-extension cluster that contains all the
consumers and then proceed with a bottom-up evaluation
of disconnections.
VII. F I N A L D E S I G N S
In the “final designs” process, REM exploits the hierarchical
structure of clusters in Fig. 28 to determine the least
cost electrification mode for each customer, which belongs
to three nested clusters: the individual customer, its OG
cluster, and its grid-extension cluster. Since the number of
candidate systems is now significantly lower than it was
initially, REM can afford to compute OG and grid-extension
solutions for each cluster regardless of its position on
the hierarchical structure. This implies that grid-extension
designs and MG solutions are calculated for all the clusters,
whether OG or grid-extension clusters.
Specifically, REM obtains the least cost electrification
solution for a cluster by comparing its least cost electri-
fication mode (MG or grid extension) with the sum of the
optimal electrification solutions of the clusters that are in
the immediately lower level as shown in Fig. 28. Therefore,
cost evaluations are propagated bottom-up in the cluster’s
structure.
Although this may seem counterintuitive at first (OG
clusters were calculated without considering the grid), it is
sensible to proceed this way. For instance, isolated con-
sumers might be large factories, so their best electrification
solution could be a grid extension even if there are no other
consumers close to them.
In the example in Fig. 28, let us consider the structure
below GE1. First, REM would find the cost of individually
electrifying the consumers below OG1. Each one could be
provided with an individual generation set or connected to
the grid. The optimal combination of individual solutions
is defined to be the temporary optimal solution for the
OG1 set of consumers, and it is compared with the opti-
mal electrification solution for OG1 as a single connected
system, either OG or grid extension. The least cost solution
becomes the temporary optimal solution for the OG1 set of
consumers.
The same process is applied to the consumers in OG2,
OG3, and OG4, respectively. The resulting group of least
cost solutions becomes the temporary optimal solution for
the GE1 set of consumers (note that this solution may
Fig. 28. Hierarchical structure of clusters in the example.
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Fig. 29. Final electrification solution.
include a combination of isolated consumers, MGs, and
grid extensions).
The final step is to compare this temporary optimal
solution with the best electrification option for GE1 as a
single connected system, either OG or grid extension. The
least cost solution becomes the final optimal solution for
the GE1 set of consumers.
Fig. 29 shows a possible final electrification solution for
the example under consideration. In this case, the cluster
GE1 is electrified with a grid-extension design, whereas the
remaining grid-extension clusters have lower costs when
electrified with OG systems that are coherent with the
hierarchical structure.
In this stage, accurate network designs are calculated
for the cost comparisons performed to determine the final
electrification mode of each consumer. REM uses the RNM
to obtain the optimal network layouts and the correspond-
ing costs.
A. RNM as a Network Designer
RNM is a flexible model that is able to design a
quasi-optimal distribution network from scratch, calculat-
ing the corresponding costs. RNM can design the entire
distribution network starting from the transmission/HV
distribution substations, or only the medium and LV com-
ponents, or only the LV network. In this case, RNM needs
as input the location of the transmission substations and
the customers, as well as technoeconomic information
related to the catalog of components (mainly lines and
substations/transformers). If RNM is used to design only
a part of the distribution network, the locations of the
corresponding upstream substations are required too.
RNM minimizes cost (CAPEX+OPEX), subject to elec-
trical constraints such as maximum allowed voltage drop
and maximum capacity. The model selects cost-optimal
elements among a defined catalog of components and it
considers the influence of topography when calculating a
network layout. RNM also allows forbidden and penalized
zones, as previously explained for REM.
B. Network Design for Minigrids and Grid
Extensions
In order to obtain the network design for an MG, REM
uses RNM twice with different configuration parameters.
1893
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 30. Two examples of MG network layouts. MV line (red line),
LV line (blue line), generation (green triangle), and MV/LV
transformer (purple triangle).
REM assumes that all the MGs have an LV generation
system and evaluates two possible networks.
1) LV Network: REM assumes that the MG has an
LV distribution network. Generation is also con-
nected in LV, so no transformers are needed.
2) MV and LV Networks: REM assumes that the MG
has an MV network, and MV/LV transformers with
LV subnetworks to reach the customers. Gener-
ation is assumed to be connected at LV, so an
extra MV/LV transformer is needed to feed the MV
network.
The final network design for the MG is the less expensive
one of the two. As expected, REM selects LV designs for
smaller MGs and MV designs for larger ones, where the
“size” of an MG here must be understood as a combi-
nation of distance, number of consumers and total load.
Fig. 30 shows examples of both types of networks, one with
only LV and the other one with MV and LV.
Note that REM uses RNM only once when calcu-
lating a grid-extension design. RNM computes the MV
and LV distribution networks of the corresponding grid
extension.
1894 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
C. Dealing With Solar Kits
For low levels of demand, dc solar kits could be pre-
ferred to ac generation systems. Although ac SA systems
can provide more electricity, solar kits are more portable
and less expensive, especially when it comes to O & M
costs. As a result, they may suffice for the small demands
of many households with low levels of affordability. This
implies that solar kits are an option that is worth consider-
ing in rural electrification plans [83].
The CNSE is critical when considering solar kits in
electrification plans since most solar kits are designed to
provide less energy at a very low cost, and for only a few
hours per day. Energy consumption levels from users of
solar kits will typically differ widely from their expected
demand since solar kit users will have to adapt their use
of electricity to the availability of energy both in terms of
peak energy and of total available hours of use. This is a
particular case of supply limitation, and as such, solar kits
should be handled differently from grid-extension or MG
solutions during planning. REM defines a different value
of nonserved energy applicable to solar kits to estimate the
social CNSE due to supply limits.
The solar kits option is not fully compatible with a
bottom-up clustering strategy since they may break the
monotonicity of the function for economies of scale, which
is necessary for the clustering logic previously described.
Because of this, REM only considers solar kits as an electri-
fication option in the final phase, when deciding the cost-
optimal electrification mode of isolated consumers.
D. Description of the Final Solution
REM explores the structure of clusters and calls RNM
(for precise network designs and costs) in order to deter-
mine the optimal combination of SA systems, MGs, and
grid extensions.
The main outputs generated by RNM for each subsystem
(MG or grid extension) are as follows.
1) Detailed network layout in several shapefiles (differ-
ent infrastructure types are represented in separate
files).
2) Detailed list of components, in HTML files, for MV
and LV networks. They include the list of transform-
ers, lines, posts, and other elements such as break-
ers, capacitors, voltage regulators, and maintenance
brigades.
3) Cost breakdowns per types of components.
4) Losses, reliability, and quality analysis.
The main outputs generated by REM are:
1) Clustering and electrification mode for all the cus-
tomers.
2) Results per system: generation design, cost, and
quality parameters.
VIII. P O S T P R O C E S S I N G A N D R E P O R T S
The plots and figures shown for the case example rep-
resent only a fraction of REM’s capabilities to produce
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 31. Case example electrification solution. MV grid extension
(red line), MV existing grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line),
LV MG (green line), and isolated (purple dot).
useful information for its users. Each stage of the plan-
ning process produces intermediate and final results and
outputs. REM generates text files in different formats,
spreadsheets, and figures. Some of these files are processed
further to generate more elaborated reports, via scripts
and tailored applications. Some of these processes are
exclusively intended for debugging and troubleshooting.
Figures are in MATLAB formats, Shapefiles, and KML files.
GIS files store multiple attributes of the infrastructure
represented, which is useful for an interactive analysis of
the solutions.
Fig. 31 shows the final electrification solution prescribed
in the case example.
REM’s outputs can be visualized with Google Earth.
Fig. 32 shows a prescribed grid-extension design and the
surrounding area.
Table 3 provides a summary of the final electrification
solution, where isolated systems are electrified with a
combination of solar kits for the residential low-demand
households and ac systems for the remaining loads (note
that the fraction of customers sums up to 1.01 because of
round-off errors).
Fig. 32. Projection onto Google Earth. MV grid extension (red
line), MV existing grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line),
transformer (red triangle), and isolated (yellow dot).
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Table 3 Case Study Electrification—Solution Summary
The “Final Cost” row is calculated by adding the total
investment and operation cost and the nonserved energy
cost. Total investment (CAPEX) and operation (OPEX)
costs include: 1) network costs, which are computed
with RNM; 2) connection costs, on a per-customer basis;
3) generation costs, which are generation investment and
operation cost in OG systems, and “wholesale energy
costs,” which include also transmission and HV network
costs in grid extensions; and 4) management costs.
Note that the average final cost per consumer provided
in Table 3 is higher for grid extensions than MGs and SA
systems. This should not lead to the erroneous conclusion
that it would be better to replace prescribed grid-extension
designs with OG solutions. REM chooses the most cost-
effective electrification options for each cluster, so any
incremental change would result in a more expensive
technoeconomic solution on net. In this case, the higher
cost per consumer serviced by grid extensions is due to the
presence of several customer types with different demands.
Fig. 33. Total costs per demand served in different systems:
investment, operation, and nonserved energy.
1895
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

those new consumers to the grid. A more accurate model

of reinforcements could change the number of consumers
in grid extensions. On the other hand, the percentage of
OG systems could increase if we considered resources such
as wind, biomass, or minihydro, which are not included in
the current version of REM. Finally, considering MGs with
several generation sites (instead of just one) could also
increase the percentage of OG systems as well.

IX. U T I L I Z A T I O N O F R E M I N
A REGIONAL CONTEXT
REM is a very versatile tool. With REM, a planner can
address electrification cases ranging from the OG supply of
a small village with only tens or a few hundred customers
Fig. 34. System cost per kilowatt hour of demand served:
to the master electrification plan of an entire province,
generation, network, and connection.
state, or country. REM can work at very high levels of
spatial (i.e., customer or building), temporal (i.e., hourly
patterns of demand or solar irradiation), and utilization
Since larger demand loads are typically in grid extensions, (i.e., different customer types) granularity. If necessary to
their cost per consumer is higher, but the cost per kilowatt mitigate computational burdens, REM could also aggre-
hour is lower, as expected. gate individual demands into clusters although so far this
Fig. 33 shows the total system cost per kilowatt hour possibility has not been used in practice.
of demand served for grid extensions and MGs. This cost The flexibility in the level of granularity modeled, the
is calculated by adding the nonserved energy costs to cost-optimization approach (total supply cost minimization
investment and operation costs. Nonserved energy cost per subject to diverse incentives and constraints that include
kilowatt hour is constant for grid extensions because the explicit treatment of reliability or limitations in the use of
grid reliability is uniform. In the case of MGs, nonserved certain fuels or technologies), the engineering design capa-
energy cost is very low due to the high penalties imposed bilities (choice of generation dispatch strategies, physical
to nonserved energy. constraints of power flows, use of actual catalog of existing
Fig. 34 presents a different cost breakdown for grid components, or compliance with grid codes), and the com-
extensions and MGs to show the relative weight of gen- prehensive output capabilities (detailed generation design,
eration, network, and connection costs for different types dispatch, and reliability analysis, lines and transformers
and sizes of systems (management costs and CNSE are not layout, and summary reports with breakdown of costs and
represented here). The individual connection costs are an bill of materials) allows REM to offer an ample range
input and, in this example, they are the same for all grid of modeling capabilities for governments, electrification
extensions and MGs (although REM allows different values agencies, distribution companies, developers, investors,
for each). The energy cost for grid extensions is also an
input, and it has been assumed uniform all over the grid.
Network costs dominate in grid extensions and they show
a large diversity due to the dispersion of consumers (the
case study is in a predominantly rural area). Generation
accounts for the main part of investment and operation
costs in MGs.
Fig. 35 shows the total system cost per kilowatt hour
of demand served for isolated systems. Low-demand
residential consumers (customer type 1) have solar kits
and the remaining loads have ac systems. In the case of
solar kits, “CAPEX” actually represents the total cost of
acquisition of the kit, which includes any support service
that comes with it.
The most dominant electrification option for the case
study is the grid extension, which accounts for 51% of
the consumers. These results, however, should be framed
under the assumption that the wholesale MV energy cost
(0.10 $/kWh) includes the HV distribution and transmis- Fig. 35. Cost per kilowatt hour of demand served of isolated
sion reinforcements that would be necessary to connect systems.

1896 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019

 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

donors, regulators, policy-makers, academics, think tanks,

and other stakeholders.
The human planner is the final decision-maker. Although
REM has numerous capabilities, it is still a computer-based
model and is only intended to help in the electrifica-
tion planning process. REM can explore how a cost-
optimal plan would behave if some of our input data and
assumptions were wrong. REM can be adapted to meet
requirements of users working under specific constraints.
The static plan that REM provides—i.e., the optimal power
system design for a given future snapshot scenario—can be
later transformed into an implementable plan consisting of
projects that are developed during the planning horizon.
REM can further support a diversity of regulatory and
policy decisions. This paper describes the capabilities of the
current version of REM. It also elucidates possible future
capabilities with the ongoing enhancements to REM.

A. Sensitivity Analysis
Most of the input data, restrictions, and assumptions
in REM are uncertain and can be inaccurate. However,
with REM, one can explore multiple scenarios based on
variations of the input data set. Additional computation
time is usually immaterial when compared to the effort Fig. 36. Daily sample dispatch with unconstrained diesel usage of
an MG with 5000 demand profiles. Black line: total demand (critical
devoted to gathering and processing data and formulating
plus noncritical).
assumptions. Using REM, the planner can evaluate how
initial plans respond to different “what if” questions to
better understand the effects of input data, restrictions,
assumptions, and scenarios on prescribed cost-optimal share of grid-extension, MG, and SA systems for a specific
plans. scenario; however, a policy-maker may want to reach a
A glimpse of the capabilities of REM for sensitivity certain set of target shares that might be above or below
analysis will be presented here using the same case exam- this optimal mix because of reasons other than cost. Two
ple as described previously. A more detailed account of extreme possibilities are examined here. First, the optimal
these sensitivity analyses with complete information on plan of the case example is compared with one where every
the assumptions and the results can be found in [68]. The customer is connected to the grid. The result is shown
analyses have been organized according to the topic being in Fig. 37, which can be compared with the optimal one
examined. shown in Fig. 31 and has an increased cost of 13.5%.
The opposite situation is one with complete OG electrifi-
1) Restrictions to the Use of Diesel: Many jurisdictions cation with MGs and SA systems, perhaps due to financial
ban or strongly limit the use of diesel for electricity difficulties of the incumbent distribution company or to a
production. This may be motivated for various reasons
including energy dependence and security, complex supply
logistics, cost, theft and security hazards, maintenance
requirements, and environmental concerns.
REM allows the decision-maker to introduce limits to
the use of diesel (e.g., only as a back-up, with an upper
utilization limit) and to examine the sensitivity of the
reference electrification plan to diesel price.
Fig. 36 shows the dispatch for a couple of days in an MG
with 5000 demand profiles in the case example, but now
with no limits to diesel usage (in contrast with the 30%
limitation of the case example). In this scenario, the diesel
generator serves 74% of the demand, only subject to
economic criteria. Note that the new optimal technology
mix does not include batteries.
Fig. 37. Full grid-extension solution. MV grid extension (red line),
2) Preestablished Targets for Grid-Extension or OG Elec- MV existing grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line), LV MG
trification Shares: REM calculates the optimal (least cost) (green line), and isolated (purple dot).

Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 1897

Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fig. 38. Full OG solution. MV grid extension (red line), MV existing
grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line),
LV MG (green line), and isolated (purple dot).
serious deficit of centralized generation.
The solution of this scenario is shown in Fig. 38,
which can also be compared with the optimal one shown
in Fig. 31 and has an increased cost of 8%.
3) Sensitivity to Demand Levels: Errors in the forecast
of demand for different types of customers, or in over-
all demand growth rates, might lead to very different
planning results. For instance, if there is no information
at all about the location of each type of demand of the
future customers in a region, the planner may assume
some average demand for all of them (e.g., one of the
lower SE4all tiers or a natural average customer profile
extrapolated from close-by grid-connected populations).
Fig. 39 shows the electrification solution following this
approach for the demand in the case example, where it
has been assumed that all consumers are high-demand
residential loads. Again, the solution can be compared with
the one shown in Fig. 31. The differences highlight the
importance of collecting information about the nature of
each load. The experience in using REM indicates that the
existence of large communal, commercial, and industrial
customers in a region has a significant impact on electrifi-
Fig. 39. Solution assuming that all the consumers are of type 2
(higher income households). MV grid extension (red line),
MV existing grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line),
LV MG (green line), and isolated (purple dot).
1898 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Fig. 40. Solution assuming double-demand (for the 17 types of
consumers of the case example). MV grid extension (red line), MV
existing grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line), LV MG
(green line), and isolated (purple dot).
cation plans.
The correct estimation of future demand growth is
equally important. Fig. 40 shows the minimum cost
plan when demand is double than in the reference case
(17 types of consumers). In this scenario, the percentage of
consumers electrified with grid extensions rises from 51%
(case example) to 73%, favored by the strong economies
of scale in the transport capacity of the electricity
networks.
4) Sensitivity to Reliability Levels: REM can consider
reliability either as a cost (the CNSE, with differentiation
of critical and less critical loads), as a target or constraint
to be met, or both simultaneously.
The reliability of the main grid is considered an input
to the model. Its impact depends on the values chosen for
CNSE. When the main grid is very reliable, OG solutions
only can compete economically in isolated areas far from
the grid. In the case example, the reliability of the main
grid has been set to 90%. Fig. 41 shows the solution when
this reliability is set to 100%. In this scenario, the percent-
age of consumers electrified with grid extensions rises from
51% (case example) to 70%.
The discussion about reliability for OG technologies is
Fig. 41. Solution for 100% grid reliability. MV grid extension
(red line), MV existing grid (black line), LV grid extension (blue line),
LV MG (green line), and isolated (purple dot).
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
different. REM users may specify a minimum reliability
target level to be achieved by MGs and SA systems, or alter-
natively, define the profiles of critical and noncritical loads
to represent consumer preferences and set values for
critical and noncritical CNSE that lead to desirable reli-
ability levels. Highly reliable OG generation systems are
costlier, so the customers may prefer a less reliable system
tailored to their needs or to their critical demand hours.
REM can be used iteratively until a satisfactory trade-off is
attained.
5) Other Sensitivities: Other factors can substantially
affect an electrification plan. One key factor is the price of
wholesale energy, which depends on the generation mix,
the prices of fuels, and the required upstream investments.
A higher price of energy supplied at MV or high-voltage
distribution level will result in a lower share of grid-
extension solutions.
The price of diesel, limits on carbon emissions, and
budgetary constraints are other factors that can be rep-
resented in REM with input parameters, specific purpose
penalties, or explicit constraints.
REM can also be used to perform sensitivity analysis
on special planning requests by decision-makers, such as:
1) prescribed percentages of one or more of the electri-
fication modes, as it was illustrated above; 2) choice of
catalog or of grid code in the main network or in MGs; and
3) adoption of solar kits of prescribed minimum sizes for
small residential customers.
B. Specific Design Requirements
Some planners may request REM to adapt to specific
design requirements, which, in some occasions, have cre-
ated the need for minor enhancements or modifications of
the original processes.
For instance, a policymaker might want to model a case
where all customers within the administrative boundary of
a village or a district be supplied with the same delivery
mode, although the least cost solution from REM might
indicate otherwise. This additional constraint implies an
increase in technoeconomic cost, but it may also facilitate
implementation and avoid social conflicts.
REM has been adapted also to “utility in a box” require-
ments. The “utility in a box” approach considers that
all MG generation and storage has a prescribed stan-
dard design, preinstalled in a “box” or container that
is deployed, operated and maintained according to pre-
scribed standard procedures. In this case, REM only sup-
plies OG clusters with a single box, and the clustering
process groups consumers accordingly, seeking aggregated
demands that match the capability of the box as close as
possible—or multiple boxes of the same standard size.
C. Temporal Implementation Strategy
REM is a static model that provides a cost-optimal
electrification plan for a prescribed future demand level,
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
which in principle corresponds to some future date
(e.g., 2030 for Universal Access in the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals). Once REM delivers an optimal solution
for the target year, the planner can make use of the
detailed output information of REM to design a temporal
investment trajectory leading from the present moment to
the target date.
REM output is detailed down to a number of individual
lots or electrification projects. This level of granularity
allows the planner to decide how to prioritize the different
lots, for instance, according to the annual investment
budget available, the existence of community or productive
loads, or the maximization of the number of connections.
D. Policy and Regulatory Support
The detailed output of REM can help in identifying,
evaluating, and supporting different regulatory and policy
measures.
The most significant contribution of REM to mainstream
regulation of the provision of electricity access is an accu-
rate determination of the cost of service of the differ-
ent delivery modes for each considered scenario, and its
breakdown into cost components at any required level
of detail. Based on this information, policy-makers and
regulators can estimate the financing needs of a national
electrification strategy or electrification plan, which is the
first step for the corresponding allocation of resources
(not only financial) to their implementation. The planner,
as indicated above, can use sensitivity analysis to search
for alternatives to the initial plan provided by REM, in case
that it does not meet what policymakers want in terms of
cost, mix of delivery modes, fuel use, or any other metric.
Establishing the cost of service is a major component in
determining the viability gap, i.e., the difference between
the cost of service and what the beneficiaries of the service
are willing to pay. The quantification of the viability gap
for different scenarios is necessary to establish a financing
scheme for the plan.
Once the cost of service and the viability gap have been
estimated, it is possible to define sustainable tariffs and
targeted subsidies for different customer types aimed at
enabling universal electricity access at the national level
within an acceptable time range.
E. Future Enhancements to REM
Despite having numerous present capabilities, enhance-
ments and improvements to REM are still being devel-
oped. These are the major identified shortcomings of the
current model and our focus for ongoing enhancements:
1) only solar PV, battery, and thermal generation have
been included in the present version of the model; 2) REM
assumes that there is only one generation site in each MG;
3) REM only considers the customers that are assumed
to be nonelectrified and also assumes that any existing
LV lines cannot be extended to connect any nonelectrified
customers; 4) the design for and the cost of upstream
1899
Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
network and generation reinforcements in REM can be
improved to represent better the impact of electrification
by grid extension on the bulk power system; and 5) a new
version of the clustering algorithm has been developed and
is being tested and compared with the current bottom-
up algorithm; they can complement each other, and it is
possible that each one of them will have advantages for
different kinds of electrification problems.
X. “ L I T T L E ” O R “ L O C A L ” R E M
REM includes extensive MG design capabilities that are
also relevant for the design and planning of a single
MG project. This section describes the alternative use of
the REM model which focuses on the design of a single
MG at the local level and, therefore, does not use all
the features of REM (no lookup table, clustering, or final
design phase are needed). This use of REM is called “little”
REM or LREM (see [68]).
The limited size of the problem allows LREM to:
1) use any number of customer types, each one with its
specific demand profile (no need for linear combina-
tions of basic patterns);
2) make use of street maps to define corridors for lines
and posts location, a feature of RNM that is often
not worth using in large-scale runs, and for which
detailed information is rarely available.
Given a fixed cluster of customers and the associated
demand characteristics, LREM utilizes the MG generation
optimization algorithm described previously to find the
least cost design. This generation provides electricity ser-
vice to each customer given user-specified constraints such
as reliability level and renewable energy thresholds. The
final designs are heavily influenced by the generation asset
cost, distribution network cost, geographic characteristics
of the cluster, and customer demand patterns.
Given the existing customer locations and demand pat-
terns, REM produces a least cost network design for the
local MG. Absent a specified location for the generation,
REM places the generation assets (solar PV, batteries, and
diesel generation) at the demand-weighted center of the
village. This location typically results in the least cost net-
work design, but this design may not be feasible due to the
location of households, roads, or other existing infrastruc-
ture. In cases where a generation site is specified and infor-
mation is available regarding the roads, streets, or paths
along which the poles can be placed, LREM designs the
LV networks accordingly. An example of this detailed
design is shown in Fig. 42. This type of design is often
necessary due to limitations of the placement of generation
assets and local preferences and constraints on corridors
for the distribution network.
The detailed technical design provided by REM allows
the planner to supplement the design process with a
financial analysis of the revenue sources (customer tariffs,
potential subsidies, and any other financial arrangements)
necessary for an economically sustainable MG project. This
1900 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Fig. 42. Network design in which the generation site and streets
are designated.
financial analysis yields insights into the impact of discount
rates, ownership structures, tariffs, connection priorities,
cross-subsidization strategies, government subsidies, and
concessional loans/grants. See [65] and [68] for details.
XI. C O N C L U S I O N
It can be concluded that the electrification access problem
is huge and that sound and efficient planning are critically
important. The increasing abundance of geospatial data
and other digital information allows the use of advanced
computer-based approaches to electrification planning. In
our view, the model presented in this paper—the REM—
represents the state of the art. REM leverages newly avail-
able geospatial information and processing techniques and
is able to work at very high granularity levels in both time
(hourly demand, weather patterns, and supply reliability)
and space (individualized supply to each building).
We claim that this level of detail is not in excess. The
results obtained with REM demonstrate the importance
of temporal and spatial granularity in obtaining accu-
rate results. The location of singular loads (i.e., schools,
health centers, official buildings, commercial loads, and
industrial loads such as trade centers or mines, etc.) and
their consumption patterns have a significant impact on
the required technology (grid-extension, MGs, and SA
systems) and geographical layout of the least cost plan.
REM is supporting the design of master national elec-
trification plans and MG initiatives in several developing
countries. REM can also assess the feasibility of novel
approaches to transform bankrupt incumbent distribu-
tion companies into economically viable business models.
Specifically, REM has been used (or is currently being
used) to develop National Electrification Plans in Rwanda,
Mozambique, and Indonesia, as well as several other
studies in India, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, Colombia, and
Peru, among others. The research team has been working
with planning departments in utilities, ministries, and
regulatory bodies in some of those countries to develop
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

a user-friendly version of the tool. The targeted users are
decision makers and planners in those departments,
with mid to advanced knowledge in distribution power
systems and geospatial analysis. Other tools will be
made available for specific purposes as satellite imagery
processing, demand forecasting, implementation monitor-
ing, decision and policy-making postprocessing tools, and
scorecards. The final architecture and user specifications
of the REM platform, including the interaction between
the geospatial database for inputs and outputs, the user
interface, the interaction with the REM core server, and
the integration with end-customer systems, are presently
under review by a variety of these prospective customers.
They will test and refine the final tool delivered to the
market.
The REM model will be commercialized by Waya Energy
Ltd., a startup incorporated by members of the UEA Lab,
including customer support services, as well as optional
expert consultancy in planning and regulatory decision
making. Waya Energy Ltd. will also offer the possibility of
developing specific gateways to integrate REM with other
power systems and geospatial tools in use by the utilities,
governments, and international development institutions.
The fee for use will be adjusted to sustainably cover the
model development, customer support, upgrades, and sys-
tem costs, and tailored to the needs and sizes of a variety
of customers. Although REM is still in the initial stages of
its deployment to real-world problems, we hope that it can
be used to deliver value for newly emerging applications
and users worldwide.
Acknowledgments
Many people and institutions have contributed to make
the reference electrification model (REM) a reality. The
Enel Foundation, the MIT Tata Center for Technology and
Design, and Iberdrola believed in this project when it only
was a bunch of ideas and much enthusiasm. The Shell
Foundation has brought REM and the authors’ team to a
new dimension in electrification planning, now trying to
define the “electric company of the future” for the develop-
ing world. The authors would like to thank P. Sinha, G. Das,
and other numerous professionals from Tata Power Delhi
for their continuous support in many forms, where a team
is developing an industrial–grade interface for the REM
model. The authors would like to thank other members of
their team who have also contributed to or are presently
working on the development of new capabilities of REM:
P. Dueñas, O. Oladeji, V. Li, T. Cotterman, and M. Barbar.
The authors would also like to thank the many profes-
sionals in electric utilities and ministries that have worked
long hours with them providing the data needed to make
the model useful. The authors have exchanged ideas and
received useful feedback from so many experts that they
cannot name them here. The authors thank all of them.

REFERENCES
[1] International Energy Agency. World Energy
Outlook 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iea.org/weo2017/
[2] D. Mentis et al., “Lighting the world: The first
application of an open source, spatial
electrification tool (OnSSET) on sub-saharan
Africa,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 12, p. 085003,
Jul. 2017. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7b29.
[3] D. Mentis et al., “The benefits of geospatial
planning in energy access—A case study on
Ethiopia,” Appl. Geogr., vol. 72, pp. 1–13,
Jul. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.04.009.
[4] D. Mentis et al., “A GIS-based approach for
electrification planning—A case study on Nigeria,”
Energy Sustain. Develop., vol. 29, pp. 142–150,
Dec. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2015.09.007.
[5] F. F. Nerini et al., “A cost comparison of technology
approaches for improving access to electricity
services,” Energy, vol. 95, pp. 255–265, Jan. 2016.
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.068.
[6] I. Pinedo-Pascua, “Intigis: Propuesta metodoloǵica
para la evaluacioń de alternativas de
electrificacioń rural basada en SIG,” (in Spanish),
Ph.D. dissertation, School Agr. Eng., Univ.
Politecnica Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2012.
[7] C. Monteiro, J. T. Saraiva, and V. Miranda,
“Evaluation of electrification alternatives in
developing countries-the SOLARGIS tool,” in Proc.
9th Medit. Electrotechn. Conf. (MELECON),
Tel-Aviv, Israel, 1998, pp. 1037–1041.
[8] J. Amador and J. Domínguez, “Application of
geographical information systems to rural
electrification with renewable energy sources,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 30, pp. 1897–1912, Oct. 2005.
doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2004.12.007.
[9] T. Huld, M. Moner-Girona, and A. Kriston,
“Geospatial analysis of photovoltaic mini-grid
system performance,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 218–223, Feb. 2017. doi:
10.3390/en10020218.
[10] P. Bertheau, C. Cader, and P. Blechinger,
“Electrification modelling for Nigeria,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 93, pp. 108–112, Aug. 2016. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2016.07.157.
[11] C. Cader, P. Blechinger, and P. Bertheau,
“Electrification planning with focus on hybrid
mini-grids—A comprehensive modelling approach
for the global south,” Energy Procedia, vol. 99,
pp. 269–276, Nov. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.
2016.10.116.
[12] E. A. Martinez-Cesena, P. Mancarella, M. Ndiaye,
and M. Schläpfer, “Using mobile phone data for
electricity infrastructure planning,” Apr. 2015,
arXiv:1504.03899. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03899
[13] S. Szabó, K. Bódis, T. Huld, and M. Moner-Girona,
“Sustainable energy planning: Leapfrogging the
energy poverty gap in Africa,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 28, pp. 500–509, Dec. 2013. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.044.
[14] S. Szabó, K. Bódis, T. Huld, and M. Moner-Girona,
“Energy solutions in rural Africa: Mapping
electrification costs of distributed solar and diesel
generation versus grid extension,” Environ. Res.
Lett., vol. 6, p. 034002, Jul. 2011. doi:
10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034002.
[15] E. Kaijuka, “GIS and rural electricity planning in
Uganda,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 15, no. 2,
pp. 203–217, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.
2005.11.057.
[16] The World Bank Group. (2016). Off-Grid Market
Opportunity Tool. [Online]. Available:
http://offgrid.energydata.info
[17] Joint Research Centre (European Commission).
(2016). RE2nAF. [Online]. Available:
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/re2naf.html
[18] Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency. (2012). ECOWREX. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ecowrex.org/acp-eu
[19] U. Deichmann, C. Meisner, S. Murray, and
D. Wheeler, “The economics of renewable energy
expansion in rural Sub-Saharan Africa,” Energy
Policy, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 215–227, Jan. 2011. doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.034.
[20] D. I. Banks, F. Mocke, E. C. Jonck, E. Labuschagne,
and R. Eberhard, “Electrification planning decision
support tool,” presented at the Domestic Use
Energy Conf., Cape Town, South Africa, Apr. 2000.
[21] R. Fronius and M. Gratton, “Rural electrification
planning software (LAPER),” in Proc. 16th Int.
Conf. Exhib. Electr. Distrib., Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, Jun. 2001.
[22] R. Soler, F. Thomas, N. E. Dhaiby, and M. Bakri,
“Optimizing the place of PV systems in rural
electrification planning in Morocco,” in Proc. 3rd
World Conf. Photovoltaic Energy Convers., Osaka,
Japan, 2003, pp. 2574–2577.
[23] Columbia University. (2017). Network Planner
Website. [Online]. Available:
http://qsel.columbia.edu/network-planner
[24] S. Ohiare, “Expanding electricity access to all in
Nigeria: A spatial planning and cost analysis,”
Energy Sustain. Soc., vol. 5, p. 8, Dec. 2015. doi:
10.1186/s13705-015-0037-9.
[25] V. Modi, E. Adkins, J. Carbajal, and S. Shepa,
“Liberia power sector capacity building and
energy master planning,” Columbia Univ.,
New York, NY, USA, Final Rep., 2013. [Online].
Available: http://sel.columbia.
edu/assets/uploads/blog/2013/09/
LiberiaEnergySectorReform_Phase4Report-
Final_2013-08.pdf
[26] F. Kemausuor, E. Adkins, I. Adu-Poku,
A. Brew-Hammond, and V. Modi, “Electrification
planning using network planner tool: The case of
Ghana,” Energy Sustain. Develop., vol. 19,
pp. 92–101, Apr. 2014. doi:
10.1016/j.esd.2013.12.009.
[27] L. Parshall, D. Pillai, S. Mohan, A. Sanoh, and
V. Modi, “National electricity planning in settings
with low pre-existing grid coverage: Development
of a spatial model and case study of Kenya,”
Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 2395–2410,

Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 1901

Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Jun. 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.021.
[28] (2010). GEOSIM. [Online]. Available:
http://www.geosim.fr
[29] D. L. Huff, “A probabilistic analysis of shopping
center trade areas,” Land Econ., vol. 39, no. 1,
pp. 81–90, 1963. doi: 10.2307/3144521.
[30] M. Zeyringer, S. Pachauri, E. Schmid, J. Schmidt,
E. Worrell, and U. B. Morawetz, “Analyzing grid
extension and stand-alone photovoltaic systems
for the cost-effective electrification of Kenya,”
Energy Sustain. Develop., vol. 25, pp. 75–86,
Apr. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2015.01.003.
[31] Y. Abdul-Salam and E. Phimister, “The
politico-economics of electricity planning in
developing countries: A case study of Ghana,”
Energy Policy, vol. 88, pp. 299–309, Jan. 2016.
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.036.
[32] Y. Abdul-Salam and E. Phimister, “How effective
are heuristic solutions for electricity planning in
developing countries,” Socio-Econ. Planning Sci.,
vol. 55, pp. 14–24, Sep. 2016. doi:
10.1016/j.seps.2016.04.004.
[33] D. Ellman, “The reference electrification model:
A computer model for planning rural electricity
access,” M.S. thesis, Dept. Syst. Develop. Eng.,
Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2015.
[34] P. Ciller-Cutillas, “Clustering-related
improvements in the reference electrification
model,” M.S. thesis, School Eng., Universidad
Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain, 2016.
[35] S. Upadhyay and M. P. Sharma, “A review on
configurations, control and sizing methodologies
of hybrid energy systems,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 38, pp. 47–63, Oct. 2014. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.057.
[36] R. Luna-Rubio, M. Trejo-Perea, D. Vargas-Vázquez,
and G. J. Ríos-Moreno, “Optimal sizing of
renewable hybrids energy systems: A review of
methodologies,” Sol. Energy, vol. 86, no. 4,
pp. 1077–1088, Apr. 2014. doi:
10.1016/j.solener.2011.10.016.
[37] F. Huneke, J. Henkel, J. A. B. González, and
G. Erdmann, “Optimisation of hybrid off-grid
energy systems by linear programming,” Energy
Sustain. Soc., vol. 2, p. 7, Apr. 2012. doi:
10.1186/2192-0567-2-7.
[38] M. Erol-Kantarci, B. Kantarci, and H. T. Mouftah,
“Cost-aware smart microgrid network design for a
sustainable smart grid,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM
Workshops (GC Wkshps), Houston, TX, USA,
Dec. 2011, pp. 1178–1182.
[39] Y. A. Katsigiannis, P. S. Georgilakis, and
E. S. Karapidakis, “Hybrid simulated
annealing-tabu search method for optimal sizing
of autonomous power systems with renewables,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 330–338, Jul. 2012. doi:
10.1109/TSTE.2012.2184840.
[40] Y. A. Katsigiannis, P. S. Georgilakis, and
E. S. Karapidakis, “Multiobjective genetic
algorithm solution to the optimum economic and
environmental performance problem of small
autonomous hybrid power systems with
renewables,” IET Renew. Power. Gener., vol. 4,
no. 5, pp. 404–419, Sep. 2010. doi:
10.1049/iet-rpg.2009.0076.
[41] H. Nasiraghdam and S. Jadid, “Optimal hybrid
PV/WT/FC sizing and distribution system
reconfiguration using multi-objective artificial bee
colony (MOABC) algorithm,” Solar Energy,
vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 3057–3071, Nov. 2012. doi:
10.1016/j.solener.2012.07.014.
[42] Y. Li and B. Zhou, “The application of improved
clonal genetic algorithm in distributed generation
planning,” in Proc. Asia–Pacific Power Energy Eng.
Conf., Shanghai, China, 2012, pp. 1–4.
[43] S. M. Moghaddas-Tafreshi, H. A. Zamani, and S.
M. Hakimi, “Optimal sizing of distributed
resources in micro grid with loss of power supply
probability technology by using breeding particle
swarm optimization,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 3, p. 043105, Jul. 2011. doi:
10.1063/1.3610979.
[44] B. Bala and S. A. Siddique, “Optimal design of a
1902 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
PV-diesel hybrid system for electrification of an
isolated island-Sandwip in Bangladesh using
genetic algorithm,” Energy Sustain. Develop.,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 137–142, Sep. 2009. doi:
10.1016/j.esd.2009.07.002.
[45] L. Wang and C. Singh, “Multicriteria design of
hybrid power generation systems based on a
modified particle swarm optimization algorithm,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 1,
pp. 163–172, Mar. 2009. doi:
10.1109/TEC.2008.2005280.
[46] T. Lambert, P. Gilman, and P. Lilienthal,
“Micropower system modeling with HOMER,” in
Integration of Alternative Sources of Energy.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2006, pp. 379–418.
doi: 10.1002/0471755621.ch15.
[47] (2018). Homer. [Online]. Available:
http://www.homerenergy.com
[48] O. Bailey, C. Creighton, R. Firestone, C. Marnay,
and M. Stadler, “Distributed energy resources in
practice: A case study analysis and validation of
LBNL’s customer adoption model,” Lawrence
Berkeley Nat. Lab., Berkeley, CA, USA.
Tech. Rep., 2003. [Online]. Available:
https://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/publications/
report-lbnl-52753.pdf
[49] Universidad Zaragoza. (2018). iHOGA. [Online].
Available: https://ihoga.unizar.es/en/.
[50] A. Adam, N. M. Galal, and M. S. Hamad, “Rural
electrification using a stand-alone photovoltaic
system: Case study of Cameroon,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manage. (IEOM), Dubai, UAE,
2015, pp. 1–8.
[51] D. Thevenard, G. Leng, and S. Martel, “The
RETScreen model for assessing potential PV
projects,” in Proc. Conf. Rec. 28th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conf., Anchorage, AK, USA, 2000,
pp. 1626–1629.
[52] University of Massachusetts Amherst. (1998).
Hybrid2. [Online]. Available: http://www.umass.
edu/windenergy/research/topics/tools/software/
hybrid2
[53] E. I. Baring-Gould, H. J. Green, and
V. A. P. van Dijk, “Hybrid2—The hybrid power
system simulation model,” National Renewable
Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep., 1996.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
legosti/old/21272.pdf
[54] H. J. Green and J. Manwell, “Hybrid2—A versatile
model of the performance of hybrid power
systems,” Nat. Renew. Energy Lab., Golden, CO,
USA, Tech. Rep., 1995.
[55] S. Sinha and S. S. Chandel, “Review of software
tools for hybrid renewable energy systems,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 32, pp. 192–205,
Apr. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.035.
[56] P. S. Georgilakis and N. D. Hatziargyriou,
“A review of power distribution planning in the
modern power systems era: Models, methods and
future research,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 121,
pp. 89–100, Apr. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.
2014.12.010.
[57] P. C. Paiva, H. M. Khodr, J. A. Dominguez-Navarro,
J. M. Yusta, and A. J. Urdaneta, “Integral planning
of primary-secondary distribution systems using
mixed integer linear programming,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1134–1143,
May 2005. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846108.
[58] N. C. Koutsoukis, P. S. Georgilakis, and
N. D. Hatziargyriou, “A Tabu search method for
distribution network planning considering
distributed generation and uncertainties,” in Proc.
Int. Conf. Probabilistic Methods Appl. Power Syst.
(PMAPS), Durham, U.K., 2014, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1109/PMAPS.2014.6960627.
[59] J. E. Mendoza, M. E. López, S. C. Fingerhuth,
H. E. Peña, and C. A. Salinas, “Low voltage
distribution planning considering micro
distributed generation,” Elect. Power Syst. Res.,
vol. 103, pp. 233–240, Oct. 2013. doi:
10.1016/j.epsr.2013.05.020.
[60] A. K. Rout and M. K. Parida, “Design and analysis
of SPV-diesel hybrid system for rural
electrification in Odisha,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.,
vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 129–131, Dec. 2013.
[61] T. W. Lambert and D. C. Hittle, “Optimization of
autonomous village electrification systems by
simulated annealing,” Sol. Energy, vol. 68, no. 1,
pp. 121–132, Jan. 2000. doi:
10.1016/S0038-092X(99)00040-7.
[62] A. S. Kocaman, W. T. Huh, and V. Modi, “Initial
layout of power distribution systems for rural
electrification: A heuristic algorithm for multilevel
network design,” Appl. Energy, vol. 96,
pp. 302–315, Aug. 2012. doi:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.029.
[63] C. M. Domingo, T. G. S. Roman,
Á. Sanchez-Miralles, J. P. P. Gonzalez, and
A. C. Martinez, “A reference network model for
large-scale distribution planning with automatic
street map generation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 190–197, Feb. 2011. doi:
10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2052077.
[64] V. Li, “The local reference electrification model:
Comprehensive decision-making tool for the
design of rural microgrids,” M.S. thesis, Inst. Data
Syst. Soc., Massachusetts Inst. Technol.,
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.
[65] D. M. Brusnahan, “Minigrids for electrification:
Policies to promote industry growth,” M.S. thesis,
Inst. Data, Syst. Soc., Massachusetts Inst.
Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.
[66] T. Cotterman, “Enhanced techniques to plan rural
electrical networks using the reference
electrification model,” M.S. thesis, Inst. Data,
Syst., Soc., Massachusetts Inst. Technol.,
Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep., 2017.
[67] O. Oladeji, “Network partitioning algorithms for
electricity consumer clustering,” M.S. thesis, Inst.
Data, Syst., Soc., Massachusetts Inst. Technol.,
Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep., 2018.
[68] “Computer-aided electrification planning in
developing countries: The reference electrification
model (REM),” Working Paper. MIT & IIT-Comillas
Universal Energy Access Lab., 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.iit.comillas.edu/
publicacion/mostrar_publicacion_working_
paper.php.en?id=347
[69] (2017). OpenStreetMap. [Online]. Available:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/
[70] J. Yuan, “Automatic building extraction in aerial
scenes using convolutional networks,” Feb. 2016,
arXiv:1602.06564. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06564
[71] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully
convolutional networks for semantic
segmentation,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis.
Pattern Recognit., Boston, MA, USA, Jun. 2015,
pp. 3431–3440.
[72] S. J. Lee, “Adaptive electricity access planning,”
M.S. thesis, Dept. Elect., Eng. Comput. Sci.,
Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2018.
[73] Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2018). LandScan.
[Online]. Available: https://landscan.ornl.gov/
[74] Center for International Earth Science Information
Network, Columbia University. (2018). High
Resolution Settlement Layer. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/hrsl/
[75] F. J. Santos-Pérez, “Metodología de ayuda a la
decisión para la electrificación rural apropiada en
países en vías de desarrollo,” (in Spanish), Ph.D.
dissertation, School Eng. Universidad Pontificia de
Comillas, Madrid, Spain, 2015.
[76] (2018). DIVA-GIS. [Online]. Available:
http://www.diva-gis.org/
[77] R. Hooke and T. A. Jeeves, “Direct search solution
of numerical and statistical problems,” J. ACM,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 212–229, Apr. 1961. doi:
10.1145/321062.321069.
[78] I. P. Nogueira, “Aerodynamic design optimization
based on multi-attribute structured hybrid direct
search. application to industrial problems,” Ph.D.
dissertation, School Eng. Universidad Pontificia
Comillas, Madrid, Spain, 2017.
[79] X. Liu and Z. Zhang, “A hybrid reliability approach
for structure optimisation based on probability
and ellipsoidal convex models,” J. Eng. Des.,
vol. 25, nos. 4–6, pp. 238–258, Sep. 2013. doi:
10.1080/09544828.2014.961060.
[80] C. D. Barley and C. B. Winn, “Optimal dispatch
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies

strategy in remote hybrid power systems,” Sol.
Energy, vol. 58, nos. 4–6, pp. 165–179, Oct. 1996.
doi: 10.1016/S0038-092X(96)00087-4.
[81] L. Moretti, M. Astolfi, C. Vergara, E. Macchi,
J. I. Pérez-Arriaga, and G. Manzolini, “A design
and dispatch optimization algorithm based on
mixed integer linear programming for rural
electrification,” Appl. Energy, vols. 233–234,
pp. 1104–1121, Jan. 2019. doi:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.194.
[82] J. Peco, “Modelo de cobertura geográfica de
una red de distribución de energía eléctrica,”
(in Spanish), Ph.D. dissertation, School Eng.
Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, Madrid, Spain,
2001.
[83] P. T. Sun. (2018). Solar Kits to Change the Situation
in Cameroon Rural Areas. [Online]. Available:
https://www.plugthesun.com/blog/rural-
electrification-cameroon/
[84] C. Drouin, “Geospatial cost drivers in
computer-aided electrification planning: The case
of Rwanda,” M.S. thesis, Dept. Mech. Eng.,
Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2018.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Pedro Ciller received the B.S. and M.S. Andrés González-García received the B.S.
degrees in industrial engineering from Uni- and M.S. degrees in industrial engineer-
versidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain, ing and the M.S. degree in energy and
in 2012, the B.S. degree in mathemat- power systems from the ICAI School of
ics from Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Comillas,
in 2014, and the M.S. degree in research in Madrid, Spain, in 1995, the M.A. degree in
engineering systems modeling from Univer- international cooperation from Universidad
sidad Pontificia Comillas, in 2016, where he Complutense, Madrid, in 1997, and the Exec-
is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree utive M.B.A. degree from the ICADE Business
in power systems. School, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, in 2000.
In 2015, he joined the Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), He holds an Executive in Driving Government Performance by the
ICAI School of Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Comillas. He is Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA, USA, and
currently a member of the Universal Energy Access Lab, a joint IESE, Madrid. He is currently an Invited Professor and Researcher
research group of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- with the Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), ICAI School of
bridge, MA, USA, and IIT. He has participated in several projects Engineering, an Independent Consultant with the Asian Develop-
related to rural electrification. ment Bank, and a member of the Universal Energy Access Lab,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, and
IIT. He is the Co-Founder and the Board Member of Waya Energy
Ltd., Cambridge. He specializes in sustainable development, off-
grid and grid electrification planning, business models, regulation,
and energy policy. He has been responsible for the development
of the National Electrification Plan of Rwanda and participated
Douglas Ellman received the A.B. degree
in the Geospatial Electrification Planning of Mozambique and of
in physics from Princeton University,
the regions of Maluku and Papua in Indonesia. He has worked in
Princeton, NJ, USA, in 2009, and the M.S.
Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, India, Peru, and Colombia.
degree in technology and policy from the
Mr. González-García is the President of the Spanish Federation of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Fair Trade and a member of the Spanish Table for Universal Access
Cambridge, MA, USA, in 2015. He is
to Energy.
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering from the University
of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA.
He is currently a Research Assistant with the Hawai‘i Advanced Stephen J. Lee (Graduate Student Mem-
Wireless Technologies (HAWT) Institute, Honolulu. His current ber, IEEE) was born in Newton, MA, USA,
research interests include applying optimization and machine in 1991. He received the B.S. degree in
learning to the integration of distributed energy resources and materials science and engineering with a
renewable energy into electric power systems. second major in economics from Johns Hop-
kins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, in 2013,
and the M.S. degree in technology and policy
and the M.S. degree in electrical engineer-
ing and computer science from the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, in 2018.
From 2013 to 2015, he was a Consultant with Deloitte Consulting
Claudio Vergara was born in Santiago,
LLP, Arlington, TX, USA. Since 2018, he has been a Fellow with The
Chile, in 1982. He received the Professional
Energy for Growth Hub, Washington, DC, USA. His current research
degree in electrical engineering from the
interests include machine learning, remote sensing, energy eco-
Universidad de Chile, Santiago, in 2008, and
nomics and policy, and sustainable development.
the Ph.D. degree in sustainable energy sys-
tems from the Universidade do Porto, Porto,
Portugal, in 2015, with extended research
periods at the Massachusetts Institute of Cailinn Drouin was born in Lawrence, KS,
Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, and Uni- USA, in 1984. She received the B.A. degree
versidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain. in French literature and francophone studies
He joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a Post- and the B.S. degree in mechanical engineer-
doctoral Associate and developed design and simulation computer ing from the University of Kansas, Lawrence,
models for distributed energy resources and electricity distribution KS, USA, in 2007 and 2012, respectively,
networks. He is currently the Lead Product Architect at Zola Electric, and the M.S. degree in mechanical engineer-
San Francisco, CA, USA, where he develops ac photovoltaic and ing with a research focus on energy access
battery energy-storage hardware for electricity access applications in developing countries from the Massa-
in developing countries. chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, in 2018.

Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 1903

Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Matthew Brusnahan received the B.S.
degree in mechanical engineering from the
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA,
USA, in 2008, the M.S.E. degree in mechani-
cal engineering from the University of Michi-
gan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, in 2011, and the
M.S. degree in technology and policy from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA, in 2018.
He was with EnerNOC (EnelX), Boston, MA, USA, consulting on
energy management and has recently been responsible for the
master electrification plans in several countries throughout Africa
and Asia. From 2016 to 2018, he was a Tata Fellow with the Tata
Center for Technology and Design, Cambridge. He is currently a Co-
Founder of Waya Energy Ltd., Cambridge, a software company that
provides electricity distribution planning software to governments
and utilities.
Yael Borofsky was born in Philadelphia, PA,
USA, in 1987. She received the B.S. degree
in human development from Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, NY, USA, in 2009, and the M.C.P.
degree in urban studies and planning and
the M.S. degree in technology and policy
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, Cambridge, MA, USA, in 2018. She is
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree
at ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
From 2015 to 2016, she was a Researcher with ETH Zürich,
Zürich, Switzerland, where she has been a Research Scientist since
2017. From 2016 to 2017, she was a Researcher and Instructor
with the MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy. Her current research interests include infrastructure planning
in informal settlements, sociospatial inequality, and energy eco-
nomics and policy. Since 2018, she has been a Fellow with The
Energy for Growth Hub, Washington, DC, USA.
Carlos Mateo received the Ph.D. degree
in industrial and computer engineering
from Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid,
Spain, in 2007.
He is currently a member of the Insti-
tute for Research in Technology (IIT), ICAI
School of Engineering, Universidad Pontificia
Comillas. He has participated in several
European research projects, collaborated
with the industry and with Spanish institutions, and participated
in international research projects with prestigious and renowned
institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA, NREL, Golden, CO, USA, and the World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA. He has collaborated in the creation of the
DSO Observatory for the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission, and has taken part in the SMART-DS project with NREL
and MIT to build large-scale synthetic distribution networks for the
U.S. Department of Energy. His current research interests include
modeling, simulation, and algorithms, especially in the fields of
electricity distribution networks and distributed energy resources.
1904 P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE | Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019
Reja Amatya received the B.S. degree
in engineering science from Smith Col-
lege, Northampton, MA, USA, in 2005, and
the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA,
in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
She is currently a Research Scientist with
the MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and is leading energy projects within
the initiative with the focus on rural electrification in emerging
economies. Her current research interests include power systems
involving renewable energy within on and off-grid settings. She has
been involved in universal access projects focused in India, Kenya,
Rwanda, and Nigeria.
Rafael Palacios was born in Madrid, Spain,
in 1966. He received the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in engineering from Universidad
Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, in 1990 and
1998, respectively.
He was with the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, where
he was a Visiting Professor with the Sloan
School of Management from 2001 to 2002,
the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department from 2009 to 2010,
and with the MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, from 2017 to 2018. He is a Senior Associate Professor with
the Department of Computer Science, and a Researcher with the
Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), ICAI School of Engineer-
ing, Universidad Pontificia Comillas. He is currently the Head of the
programs in telecommunications engineering (undergraduate and
master’s), and Coordinator of the master’s degree in cybersecurity.
His current research interests include advanced data analysis in
many different fields, including image processing, geographic infor-
mation systems (GIS), artificial intelligence, and data mining.
Robert Stoner received the B.S. degree in
engineering physics from Queen’s Univer-
sity, Kingston, ON, Canada, in 1986, and the
Ph.D. degree in condensed matter physics
from Brown University, Providence, RI, USA,
in 1992.
From 1995 to 2002, he was an Adjunct
Member with the Engineering Faculty,
Brown University. He is currently the
Deputy Director for science and technology with the MIT
Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA, and the Founding Director of the MIT Tata
Center for Technology and Design, Cambridge, MA, USA. He is
currently a member of the MIT Energy Council, the Science and
Technology Committee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy that
oversees the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the MIT
Future of Storage Study, the Technical Advisory Board of the India-
based Center for the Study of Science, Technology and Energy
Policy, and the Rockefeller Foundation funded Global Commission
on Universal Electricity Access. He is a Serial Entrepreneur and the
Inventor and Co-Inventor of numerous computational and ultrafast
optical measurement techniques. For the past decade, his research
at MIT has been at the intersection of energy technology, society,
and computation, with an emphasis on power system design,
optimization and regulation in developing countries.
 Ciller et al.: Optimal Electrification Planning Incorporating On- and Off-Grid Technologies
Fernando de Cuadra was born in Madrid,
Spain, in 1961. He received the B.S., M.S.,
and Ph.D. degrees in industrial engineering
from the ICAI School of Engineering, Univer-
sidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain, in
1985 and 1990, respectively, and an Exec-
utive MBA degree from the ICADE Business
School, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, in
2010.
Since 2001, he has been a Full Professor with the ICAI School of
Engineering and the Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), Uni-
versidad Pontificia Comillas. From 2001 to 2010, he was the Dean
of the ICAI School of Engineering. In 2016, he joined the Universal
Energy Access Lab, a joint research group of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, and IIT, where he
has mainly been involved in the design and specification of gen-
eral models, methods, and tools. His current research interests
include operations research techniques (large-scale simulation and
direct-search optimization) applied to diverse sectors, such as the
aerospace industry, power systems, and railway systems.
Dr. de Cuadra is a member of the Board of Trustees of Universidad
Loyola, Andalucía, Spain.
Vol. 107, No. 9, September 2019 | P ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga (Life Fellow, IEEE)
received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in indus-
trial engineering from the ICAI School of
Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Comillas,
Madrid, Spain, in 1970, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA, in 1978 and 1981,
respectively.
He was a Professor with Universidad Pontificia Comillas. He was
the Founder of the Institute for Research in Technology (IIT), ICAI
School of Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, where he
was Director from 1984 to 1994. He was a Professor and the
Director of training with the Florence School of Regulation, Flo-
rence, Italy. Since 2008, he has been a Visiting Professor with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a Consultant and
a Lecturer in about 40 countries. His current research interests
include future trends in power systems, electrification planning
in developing countries, and strategic issues in universal energy
access.
Dr. Pérez-Arriaga is a Life Member of the Spanish Royal Academy
of Engineering. He was Commissioner at the Spanish Electricity
Regulatory Commission from 1995 to 2000, an Independent Mem-
ber of the Irish Single Electricity Market Committee from 2007 to
2012, and a member of the Board of Appeal of the EU Agency for
the Coordination of Energy Regulators from 2011 to 2016.
1905