Statizoid

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania

Lithuania: Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
1 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 186 countries
All-time high
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania, 2014–2019

00.20.40.60.812014201620192014: 1 DB16-20 methodology2015: 1 DB16-20 methodology2016: 1 DB16-20 methodology2017: 1 DB16-20 methodology2018: 1 DB16-20 methodology2019: 1 DB16-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.

Analysis

In 2019, getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania stood at 1 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

Lithuania ranks 1st of 186 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania, year by year

Year DB16-20 methodology Change
2014 1 DB16-20 methodology —
2015 1 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2016 1 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2017 1 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2018 1 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2019 1 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%

Countries ranked near Lithuania

  1. 1 India 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 Indonesia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 Pakistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 United States of America 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Russian Federation 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Brazil 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Albania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Angola 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Argentina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Armenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Australia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Barbados 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Belarus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Belgium 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Bhutan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Brunei Darussalam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Bulgaria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Cameroon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Chile 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Colombia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Costa Rica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Côte d'Ivoire 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Croatia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Cyprus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Czechia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Ecuador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 El Salvador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Estonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Finland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 France 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Georgia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 Germany 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 Greece 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Guatemala 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Guyana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Hong Kong, China 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Hungary 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 Israel 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 Italy 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Jamaica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 Kazakhstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Kiribati 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 Republic of Korea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Kosovo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 Malaysia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 Mauritius 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 1 Republic of Moldova 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 1 Montenegro 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 1 Morocco 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 1 Mozambique 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 1 Netherlands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 1 New Zealand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 1 North Macedonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 1 Norway 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 1 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 1 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 1 Papua New Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 1 Peru 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 1 Philippines 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 1 Poland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 1 Portugal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 1 Romania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 1 Rwanda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 1 Sao Tome and Principe 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 1 Saudi Arabia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 1 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 1 Singapore 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 1 Slovakia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 1 Slovenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 1 Spain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 1 Sweden 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 1 Taiwan, China 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 1 Tanzania, United Republic of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 1 Thailand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 1 Togo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 1 Türkiye 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 1 Ukraine 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 1 United Arab Emirates 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 1 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 1 Uruguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 1 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 1 Vanuatu 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 1 Viet Nam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for Lithuania

All data for Lithuania →

Frequently asked questions

What is getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania?
Getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages recorded in Lithuania?
The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages recorded in Lithuania?
The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Lithuania rank for getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages?
Lithuania ranks 1st out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Is getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages rising or falling in Lithuania?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Lithuania data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania. Statizoid. Retrieved 22 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/getting-electricity-financial-deterrents-aimed-at-limiting-outages-0-1-db16-20-methodology/lithuania/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/getting-electricity-financial-deterrents-aimed-at-limiting-outages-0-1-db16-20-methodology/lithuania/">Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Lithuania</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 1,116 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

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.