TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Foreword -- Abstract -- Acknowledgments -- Acronyms and Abbreviations -- Executive Summary -- 1. The Promise of Reform -- ECA is Different -- Power Sector Reforms are Urgent -- Proper Sequencing is Critical -- Net Political Benefits Explain Variation in Progress -- Taking Care of Institutions in the Energy Reform Roadmap -- Identifying Outcomes is Difficult -- 2. Getting the Utilities off the Books -- Quantifying the Sector Losses -- Deficits Declined for Different Reasons -- Relationship Between the Electricity Sector Deficit and the Fiscal Deficit -- Reform Savings Did Not Go to Social Spending -- Conclusions -- 3. Creating More Efficient Companies -- Improve Transparency and Accountability -- Revenue per kilowatt hour Rose -- Generation Costs Declined -- System Losses Held Steady -- Collection Rates Varied -- Mixed Results on Operational Efficiency -- Focus on Service Quality -- Regional Companies Take on the Challenge -- Conclusions -- 4. Maintaining Power to the Poor -- Household Energy Use Patterns Differ -- Tariffs Rose -- The Burden Increased -- Consumption is Low -- Gas May Be Filling the Gap -- Enforcement is Necessary -- Searching for Better Transfers -- Conclusions -- 5. Local Versus Global Environmental Benefits -- Did the Reforms Achieve Environmental Benefits? -- There Were Unintended Environmental Costs -- Damage from Dirty Fuel Use May Be Large -- Conclusions -- Annexes -- Annex A: Overview of the Reform Process in Eight ECA Countries -- Annex B: Proceeds from Privatization of Electric Utility Companies -- Annex C: Tariff Losses, Commercial and Collection Losses, as Share of Total Losses -- Annex D: Fiscal Balance and Electricity Sector Financial Deficit (Million USD and share of GDP -- Annex E: Efficiency Indicators -- Annex F: More on the Methodology for Estimating Health Effects.

Annex G: Base Emission Factors -- Annex H: More on Factors Leading to Low Contribution of Power Sector Toward Health Damages -- Annex I: Changes in Generation Mix in the Past Decade -- Annex J: Proposed Energy Issues to be Addressed and Sample Questions in LSMS/HBS Surveys -- References -- TABLE OF FIGURES -- Figure 1.1: Suggested Sequencing of Power Sector Reforms in ECA -- Figure 2.1: The Electricity Sector's Losses Declined,1993-2001 -- Figure 2.2: Power Sector Losses are Weakly Correlated with Fiscal Deficits,1995-2000 -- Figure 2.3: Poor Countries Spend Less on Poor People (1997-2000) -- Figure 2.4: Social Spending on Education, Health and Social Assistance Did Not Increase (as percent of GDP) -- Figure 3.1: Nominal Revenues Increased Marginally, 1991-2001 -- Figure 3.2: System Losses Stayed Stable, 1990-2002 -- Figure 3.3: Collection Rates Differ by Country, 1990-2002 -- Figure 4.1: Residential Electricity Tariff -Index of CPI Adjusted Real Tariffs -- Figure 4.2: Enough for Three Light Bulbs and a Refrigerator -- Figure 4.3: Electricity Tariffs are Higher Than Those for Gas, 1992-2002 -- Figure 4.4: Burden of Arrears is the Same for the Poor and Non-poor, 2000-2002 -- Figure 4.5: Alternative Subsidy Scheme -- Figure 5.1: Fuel Required to Produce 1 Megawatt-hour of Electricity, 1992-98 -- Figure 5.2: Electricity Contributes in Small Measure to Health Damages -- TABLE OF TABLES -- Table 1.1: ECA is Different -- Table 1.2: Timeline of Reforms in the Electricity Sector in ECA -- Table 1.3: Independence of Regulatory Institutions: Paper and Practice -- Table 1.4: Investment Climate Varies Among Reformers -- Table 3.1: Suggested Indicators of Production Efficiency -- Table 3.2: Reported Generation Costs Went Down, 1990-2002 (cents/kilowatt hour) -- Table 3.3: Aggregate Impact of Reform on Collection Rates in Tbilisi.

Table 3.4: Service Quality Improved -- Table 4.1: Urban Network Energy Use in ECA, (percent of households) -- Table 4.2: Urban Non-network Energy Use in ECA (percent of households) -- Table 4.3: Shares of Spending on Electricity Went Up, 1993 -2002 -- Table 4.4: Consumer Surplus Fell -- Table 4.5: Electricity Expenditure as a Share of Total Energy Expenditure, 1993-2002 -- Table 4.6: Simulation of Subsidy Cost-effectiveness for Tbilisi, Georgia -- Table 5.1: Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution is High -- TABLE OF BOXES -- Box 2.1: Untangling the Quasi-fiscal Deficit -- Box 2.2: Calculating the Implicit Subsidies (Sector Losses) -- Box 2.3: Social Spending in Latin America Increased Since the 1990s -- Box 3.1: Private Sector Improving Household Collections in Georgia -- Box 3.2: Opportunistic Behavior by the Private Sector? -- Box 4.1: Simulation of Alternative Subsidy -- Box 5.1: Reform Measures Expected to Result in Environmental Quality Improvements -- Box 5.2: Estimating the Power Sector's Contribution to Air Pollution and Health Damage -- Box 5.3: Methodology for Calculating Damages from Indoor Air Pollution.