Reliable electricity isn’t created the day a new line, transformer, or substation comes online. The challenge for governments and funders investing in power systems is not only to build new assets but to address critical risks in the system that can determine whether service improvements last after construction ends. Upgrading the distribution network can reduce outages, improve voltage, and make it easier for supply to reach customers. But the durability of those gains depends on whether utilities can improve their finances, establish cost-reflective tariffs, maintain assets, and resolve power supply and transmission issues.
Recent independent evaluations of energy investments supported by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) in Ghana and Benin offer useful evidence on programs that are meant to strengthen multiple parts of the power system at once, from infrastructure to finances. The evaluations showed that the projects improved electricity service in important ways. But they also point to a practical lesson: Future investments must identify potential barriers early to help ensure any service gains are sustained over time.
Infrastructure can improve service, but local risks shape what lasts
In Ghana, targeted network upgrades improved electricity service, with some investments reducing outages and most improving voltage quality across much of the project area. In Benin, distribution investments expanded grid capacity and improved electricity quality and reliability in several project areas.
Ghana’s experience shows both the potential and the limits of infrastructure-led reform. The program paired major grid investments, supported by MCC funding, with efforts to strengthen the utility’s long-term financial and operational performance. The idea was that tangible improvements in service would build support for reforms needed to sustain the gains. However, a private-sector management arrangement intended to improve utility operations ended early amid political opposition, which included concerns about public reaction to higher electricity tariffs. As a result, the expected improvements to the utility’s financial health and the reductions in losses did not materialize. Even so, the new infrastructure expanded system capacity and improved electricity quality, as well as reliability, in some areas—but under very different conditions than originally envisioned.
Benin faced a different constraint. Distribution investments supported by MCC improved electricity quality and reliability in several project areas, and the country’s energy regulator strengthened its independence and generated enough revenue to fund most of its operations. However, maintaining and expanding those gains remained difficult because Benin continued to face broader supply constraints, including generation challenges outside the direct control of the distribution investments. At the same time, the upgraded network left Benin better positioned to meet growing demand and improve service quality, as additional generation and supply become available. This distinction matters for program design.
Ghana’s experience points to possible political risks as well as risks related to utility finance. Benin’s experience indicates supply and generation risks. In both cases, the lesson is not that infrastructure lacks value. It is that infrastructure delivers more durable value when programs account for the conditions that determine whether the improved service can be maintained.
Outages are only one measure of electricity use
These evaluations also raise an important question about how power-sector programs define success. Electricity investments are often judged by whether outages decline. But what ultimately matters is the quality of electricity delivered to consumers. A school, clinic, or business can have power yet still struggle to operate if voltage is unstable. Poor voltage quality can damage equipment, disrupt services, and limit the benefits of an infrastructure investment even when electricity remains technically available.
In Ghana, independent sensors and household surveys revealed dimensions of service quality that outage data alone, as reported by the utility, did not fully capture. For governments, funders, and evaluators, this finding has practical implications. Measuring only interruptions may miss potential improvements (or persistent problems) that shape whether users experience electricity as reliable and usable.
Future evaluations should measure interruptions, voltage quality, and user experience together. That fuller picture can help decision makers assess whether investments are improving service in ways people and institutions can use and whether more action is needed before early gains erode.
Design power investments for service quality and adaptation
Future program design should continue to view power sector investments as system-level service delivery problems. That means asking what risks could weaken the link between construction and reliable electricity. Can the utility maintain the new infrastructure? Are tariffs and revenues enough to support operations? Are supply and generation constraints likely to limit distribution gains? Will measurement capture whether users experience power as reliable and usable?
Those questions can help governments and funders make stronger design choices before investments are locked in. They can also guide monitoring during implementation, when early warning signs such as political resistance, utility losses, maintenance gaps, voltage instability, or supply shortages, might call for course correction.
Grid upgrades remain essential. They can expand capacity, improve service quality, and create visible benefits that open the door to broader reform. But construction is only one part of the service-delivery chain. Power-sector investments are more likely to endure when they pair infrastructure with realistic reform plans, better measurement, and adaptive strategies for mitigating the risks that can determine whether improved electricity lasts.
Connect with us to learn more about how programs can sustain energy reforms during times of change.
