Hong Kong, China vs Latvia: Getting electricity: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1)
Hong Kong, China
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Latvia
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
1st
Latvia rank
1st
Getting electricity: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Latvia
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Latvia, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Latvia ranks 1st of 187 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: mechanisms for restoring service (0-1), Hong Kong, China or Latvia?
- Hong Kong, China, at 1 DB16-20 methodology against 1 DB16-20 methodology in Latvia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) between Hong Kong, China and Latvia?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Latvia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Latvia rank globally for getting electricity: mechanisms for restoring service (0-1)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Latvia ranks 1st of 187 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The mechanisms for restoring service index evaluates what tools are used by the distribution utility to restore power supply. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility uses automated tools, such as an OMS/IMS or SCADA system. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.