Making clean cooking affordable: finding the right support for the right problem

By Dr. Will Clements (Gamos Ltd.) and Dr. Simon Batchelor OBE (Gamos Ltd. / Loughborough University).

Making clean cooking affordable means enabling households to acquire and keep using a cooking system that works. A new study by Greencroft Economics and Audax Consulting, commissioned by MECS, the IEA and the CCA, reviews 191 sources and six national case studies. It finds that there is no single best affordability mechanism; the right support depends on the barrier.

It identifies three tenets of affordability: 1 – upfront cost; 2 – ongoing cost; and 3 – the timing and size of payments. For eCooking, upfront cost can include the appliance, but also the cookware, wiring and electricity connection. Payment timing matters where incomes are irregular or energy has to be bought in large amounts, such as an LPG cylinder refill, or a sack of charcoal.

However, in addition to those monetary factors, affordability also depends on willingness to pay and socio-economic influences. A household may be able to afford a technology but still reject it if it does not trust it, value its benefits or just prefers an alternative. In some rural settings firewood may require little cash, and the monetary value of the often considerable time and labour required may not be calculated by the household. In urban and peri urban settings households have real visible expenditure on charcoal, firewood or LPG. Here, affordability is likely about matching or reducing monthly spend. MECS research in Uganda found monthly expenditure on the main cooking fuel fell from UGX 135,000 to UGX 53,000 when households cooked entirely with electricity using efficient appliances such as EPCs and rice cookers, a 60% reduction.

We still do not have a robust way of measuring affordability across different clean cooking contexts. Benchmarks such as energy spending below 5-10% of household expenditure aid comparison but inadequately capture collected fuels, fuel stacking, willingness to pay and cash-flow constraints. The report therefore identifies better affordability metrics as an important area for further research.

First understand the barrier

The report unpacks the ability to pay with the cost of serving a customer – see the diagram below.

A household that can afford an electric cooker and is easy to reach may simply be part of a commercial market (a). If it can pay but is expensive to reach, the problem is supply-side (b); if it is easy to serve but cannot afford the technology (c), consumer finance, an appliance subsidy or a cooking tariff might help. Where both problems exist, both sides may need support (d).

This helps clarify that different mechanisms suit different markets: preferential tariffs where electricity access is widespread but energy poverty remains; tax reductions in nascent markets; and targeted demand-side support where household ability to pay is the main barrier.

For eCooking, the connection matters

For electric cooking, the upfront cost is not necessarily just the appliance: tenet 1 includes both connection to infrastructure and appliance acquisition. This is important as major electrification programmes like Mission 300 expand. If a government, utility or development bank is already investing heavily to connect a household, why not spend a relatively small amount more to include an efficient eCooking appliance and enabling infrastructure which increases electricity usage and improves the economics?

Brazil’s Luz para Todos subsidised electricity connections, including in remote communities, followed by a Social Tariff providing larger discounts to eligible households, partly through cross-subsidies. The programme reached more than 16 million people by 2017 and was associated with improvements in human development, income, education, health access and appliance use. Surprisingly, eCooking was not an explicit component: it is increasingly clear that there can be an opportunity missed when electricity access and cooking are planned separately.

Cheap appliances do not guarantee sustained use

An early pilot in Ecuador (Plan Fronteras) gave households free induction stoves and cookware and six months of free electricity. Afterwards, only 22% reported continuing to use the stoves, and none used induction as their primary cooking technology.

The later national programme offered government-backed credit repaid through electricity bills, plus up to 80 kWh of free electricity each month and a heavily subsidised tariff. Three quarters of purchases used credit, highlighting the importance of liquidity.

Uptake was still slower than intended due to hydro construction delays, limited promotion and appliance-quality concerns, as well as competition with an entrenched LPG system. The subsidy covered around 90% of a 15 kg cylinder and cost about $700 million a year. More than 90% of households cooked primarily with LPG, while demand exceeded domestic supply. Previous attempts to remove the subsidy had triggered major public protests.

Interestingly, a study cited in the report estimated that eCooking running costs were more than 20% lower than LPG costs even with the subsidy. Without the subsidy, the gap would have been much larger.

But households were choosing between a familiar, heavily subsidised system and one requiring a new appliance, suitable electricity infrastructure, information, confidence and changes in cooking practice. The reports broader definition of affordability (upfront, monthly expenditure, payment timing and soft factors) and the necessity of a systems approach is woven into the recent MECS work in Tanzania. Similarly, ATEC’s Cook-to-Earn model uses carbon finance to reduce the upfront induction cooker price, while IoT-enabled appliances link payments to verified use, and carbon finance flows down to the user and reduces monthly expenditure. Such an approach encourages a transition – an assessment of the options and an evaluation compared to the familiar. A MECS/ATEC study found use up to 56% higher among new customers and 21% higher among existing customers than among comparable customers outside the scheme.

So, affordability support can be linked to sustained use, as well as appliance distribution. Private finance and digital technologies can contribute significantly.

Who pays – and what happens when support ends?

Affordability support shifts costs to government budgets, utility cross-subsidies, development partners suppliers or investors. Some interventions are catalytic; others may need to be permanent where households cannot afford the cost of service.

Results-based finance illustrates the tension. RBF can rapidly stimulate a market, but demand can be difficult to sustain once subsidies disappear. Experience in Nepal and Uganda suggests that companies can downsize and reduce after-sales support when subsidies are withdrawn. Future RBF design should look beyond just rewarding sales, to helping to build viable supply chains, finance and after-sales systems.

The subsidy has an opportunity cost

Indonesia’s LPG conversion programme moved millions away from kerosene through free stoves, subsidised cylinders and smaller 3 kg cylinders that reduced payment sizes. But the subsidy later exceeded $5 billion a year as LPG demand and international prices increased. The recent global energy crisis has reinforced the risk: governments can protect households from international fuel-price shocks through LPG support, but the cost is transferred to public budgets.

This does not mean subsidies are inherently bad. It means policymakers should ask what kind of energy system public money is helping to build.

For LPG, tenet 1 includes infrastructure from import terminals and storage through bottling and distribution to cylinder delivery and replacement. eCooking requires generation, networks, connections and wiring. Both require investment, but electricity infrastructure can also support lighting, refrigeration, communications, productive uses and other appliances. And eCooking can turn those connections into regular electricity demand.

Could resources supporting imported cooking fuels also build electricity infrastructure, connections, appliances and support systems whose benefits extend beyond cooking? Clean cooking pathways should be judged on their full costs and benefits, including exposure to fuel-price shocks. Health, environmental and energy-security benefits exceed the monetary value households immediately perceive, creating a role for carbon and other outcome finance to close affordability gaps.

Who benefits?

Universal support can be easy to administer and effective at creating markets quickly, but may disproportionately benefit households that already have greater access to modern energy. In Indonesia, subsidised 3 kg LPG cylinders intended for lower-income consumers also benefited higher-income households. Brazil’s Social Tariff was more targeted, but targeting requires administrative capacity, accurate data and effective delivery systems.

There may also be a middle group: poor, though not the poorest, households for whom modest support could unlock sustained adoption. Where the affordability gap is larger, much more substantial and potentially permanent support may be required. The objective should determine the mechanism, rather than assuming the most targeted mechanism is always the right one.

Better affordability planning

The report reveals gaps around affordability metrics, willingness to pay, sustained use, price sensitivity, subsidy exit and the costs of different forms of support.

Energy-system models can increasingly show how countries could achieve clean cooking access, but are less good at answering the key affordability questions.

 Bringing affordability further into models could help, including ability to pay, the three tenets, financing constraints, technology stacking and cost to serve. The aim would be a clearer picture of the costs and distributional consequences of different transition pathways.

Affordability is asking: what is preventing this household or community from adopting eCooking? What would address that barrier? Who would pay for it? And can the eCooking remain affordable (across all tenets)?

We have to look beyond the appliance to the connection, grid, tariff, finance, appliance quality, cooking experience, preferences and supply chain – while recognising the wider value electrification can create.

………………………….

Featured image, top: ATEC business model with carbon finance. Source: MECS/ATEC study.

AI disclaimer: AI was used to identify key points from the report to include in the blog, refine them, produce the first draft, and improve subsequent drafts. The authors verified, refined and finalised AI’s outputs.