Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology) by country
Th financial deterrents index evaluates whether financial deterrents exist to limit outages. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility compensates customers when outages exceed a certain cap, if the utility is fined by the regulator when outages exceed a certain cap or if both these conditions are met. The index is...
Countries reporting
90
Highest
1 DB16-20 methodology
Norway
Lowest
0 DB16-20 methodology
Sudan
Median
1 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
6
2014–2019
Data points
1,116
What the numbers show
Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 90 countries. The highest value is 1 DB16-20 methodology in Norway; the lowest is 0 DB16-20 methodology in Sudan.
The median across all reporting countries is 1 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 0.9889 DB16-20 methodology.
Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages: full country ranking
| # | Country | Latest | Year | 10-year change | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Norway | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Russia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Romania | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Portugal | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Poland | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Papua New Guinea | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Philippines | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Peru | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Panama | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Pakistan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Oman | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | New Zealand | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Rwanda | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Netherlands | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Malaysia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Mauritius | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Mozambique | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Montenegro | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | North Macedonia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Republic of Moldova | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Morocco | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Lithuania | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Angola | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Trinidad and Tobago | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Taïwan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Kosovo | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Vanuatu | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Viet Nam | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Uzbekistan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | United States | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Uruguay | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Ukraine | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | United Republic of Tanzania | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Türkiye | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Republic of Korea | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Thailand | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Togo | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Sweden | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Slovenia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Slovak Republic | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Sao Tome and Principe | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | El Salvador | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Singapore | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Senegal | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Saudi Arabia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Barbados | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Germany | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Czechia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Cyprus | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Costa Rica | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | rising |
| 1 | Colombia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Cameroon | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Côte d'Ivoire | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Chile | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Bhutan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Brunei Darussalam | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Ecuador | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Brazil | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Bolivia (Plurinational State of) | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Belarus | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Bulgaria | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | rising |
| 1 | Belgium | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Australia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Armenia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Argentina | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | United Arab Emirates | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Albania | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Hong Kong (China) | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Kyrgyzstan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Kazakhstan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Japan | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Jamaica | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Italy | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Israel | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Ireland | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | India | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Indonesia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Hungary | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Croatia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | Kiribati | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Guyana | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Guatemala | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Greece | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Georgia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | — | volatile |
| 1 | United Kingdom | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | France | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Finland | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Estonia | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 1 | Spain | 1 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | unchanged | flat |
| 90 | Sudan | 0 DB16-20 methodology | 2019 | down 100.0% | volatile |
About this data
Th financial deterrents index evaluates whether financial deterrents exist to limit outages. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility compensates customers when outages exceed a certain cap, if the utility is fined by the regulator when outages exceed a certain cap or if both these conditions are met. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.