This one’s a little off topic, but it might be of interest to graduate students, post-docs, and junior faculty navigating academia.

The end of the academic year 2015-2016 was the low point of my career. By then I was certain that I was going stay at Columbia as Associate Professor of Political Science, with tenure.

Both my department and the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences had supported my case, and the statistics were clear: The Provost’s advisory committee pretty much never denies anyone who has made it that far. Confused about the long wait, my colleagues told me we should celebrate before the summer since it’s clearly a done deal.

But there it was: I got the bad news at the end of May. That itself was a source of concern, given that it was quite late for schools interested in my services to start preparing for a senior faculty search.

The practical problem at hand, of course, was the least of my concerns on that dark day. What went wrong? Would anyone actually want to hire me now?

I recovered from the worst shock pretty quickly, partly because tenure denial is a pretty minor setback compared to what I’ve had to weather in the recent past. But equally important was the flood of messages expressing compassion and, in many cases, asking if I was interested in a position at the sender’s institution. I knew that many of these questions would not turn into actual interviews, but it was still reassuring to see that so many people did not agree with the Provost’s decision.

In August and September, I actually sent out more applications than eight years ago, fresh out of grad school. The market in 2008 was awful, but this year there were jobs everywhere for someone with my profile. I had also expanded the range of my interests quite a bit.

I applied to all kinds of jobs, from quantitative international relations to vanilla comparative politics, and most importantly — energy and environment policy. I applied to political science departments and policy schools alike. I applied to North American, European, and Asian positions.

The annual meeting of the American Political Science Association was a seemingly endless series of meetings with possible employers, and everyone else I met wanted to know why Columbia had denied me. Some of the far out conspiracy theories from the rumor mill were pretty entertaining, too.

The fall semester was grueling. I gave job talks — some very formal, some very informal — around the world. I had already scheduled a large number of regular talks and run-of-the-mill workshops before the Provost gave me the boot, so finding time for everything was a royal mess. On the upside, my frequent flyer status went up one level.

Visiting Singapore for a job talk was fun, but I don’t recommend spending only 36 hours there and then heading back to teach two classes straight out of the airplane. My teaching assistant for mathematical methods deserves a medal for filling in for me so many times. As for my students, they deserve an apology for my sleep-derived rants.

My first breakthrough came early. Johns Hopkins SAIS had reached out to me pretty much within days after my tenure denial to see if I would be interested in a Full Professor’s position in Energy, Resources and Environment. After both I and them had done our background research, and very much liked what we saw, I gave a very early talk and met with everyone there.

It was a great deal of fun, and less than two weeks later the Dean called to share good news: the SAIS Academic Board had unanimously recommended an offer. I then negotiated as hard as I possibly could, knowing that I had no competitors because there was no formal search. The deal was very sweet, so my wife and I had every reason to celebrate.

I gave a number of other talks as well, but at some point fatigue kicked in and I started rejecting invitations. Unless I thought there was a chance that an institution might match the SAIS offer — all things, not just money, considered — I did not interview.

I learned that the big difference between the senior and junior markets in political science is the level of organization. Junior searches follow a reasonable schedule and the ads contain relevant information, but this is not true of senior searches.

The whole process takes a long time, and is very confusing. Several places (no names) advertised a Full Professor job, and then the search committee told me that the best they can do is Associate without tenure. Almost the same thing, yeah — and a waste of everyone’s time.

By January, it was very likely I would take the SAIS offer. However, SAIS had to complete a formal tenure review. While their leadership did an admirable job reassuring me that the decision would be positive, I ended up irrationally stressed out about the tenure review. Publication machine or not, I’m also a human being with a brain evolved to survive in the jungle, not to deal with academic bureaucracy.

Waiting for the tenure review was more stressful than waiting for the offers, especially after I began to imagine myself at SAIS, finally doing the energy/environment policy work that is my real passion.

So when I got the good news that the tenure review was over and the decision positive, I was ecstatic. The day before I signed the contract I also learned that I actually had an endowed chair waiting for me at SAIS. For a lifetime environmentalist, being the Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Professor is good fun for sure.

At the end of the day, I cannot say the Columbia tenure denial bothers me. I had a great time at Columbia and will miss my colleagues and students, but I’m also very excited about the opportunity at SAIS. I’ve wanted to work in a great policy school for a long time, and that’s were I’m heading now.

Dealing with the denial is also a lot easier because the decision was made at the administrative level. It would have been much more difficult if my senior colleagues, all of whom I respect and admire, had decided that I’m just not good enough to be there.

Note: this is a guest post by Nikhil Jaisinghani, a co-founder of Mera Gao Power, on our Science Advances impact evaluation. Read the study here:

I want to thank Dr. Urpelainen for all allowing me to post my thoughts on his blog. I have followed his team’s study for a number of years as the survey was planned, executed, and analyzed. The data is credible and well analyzed in the study, but I am concerned about how many readers may interpret (and a few publications already have interpreted) the results.

The study wasn’t a comparison between the 24 hour unlimited electricity that the grid promises and focused electricity services such as what MGP provides. Yet many of the newspaper and magazine headlines imply that the study did exactly that. In order to provide some level of comparison, I’d like to take a crack at highlighting what social benefits have and have not been found to be impacted by electrification. For those interested in reading more, I suggest three papers which review a breadth of data and reports on the subject:

  1. The Impact of Small Scale Electricity Systems”, The World Resources Institute
  2. The Evidence of Benefits for Poor People of Increased Renewable Energy Capacity: Literature Review”, Institute of Developed Studies
  3. Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification”, The World Bank’s Internal Evaluation Group

But in case you don’t have time to read a hundred pages of reports, let me summarize some of the themes. First, the income benefits of electrification are disproportionately enjoyed by richer households, the offered explanation being that poorer households such as the ones MGP serves cannot afford the larger appliances that use the larger power loads and instead simply use electric lighting. A second commonality across studies is that when rural communities are electrified, the poorer communities almost exclusively benefit through improved lighting. Third, electrification has not been found to spur new enterprise creation in the short term. New businesses take many years to spring up in any significant number and are more reliant on roads and customers than they are on power. Of course there are always outlier studies. I’m sure if I searched, I would find one study that links ice cream consumption with cognitive ability. That’s why macro studies are important; they pull the findings from a large number of studies to identify what findings are consistent (I’m pretty sure there aren’t multiple studies linking ice cream to cognitive ability, as much as I wish it were true).

Education, measured in the number of hours children spend studying and how many years children spend in school, was in fact the most commonly found benefit of electrification. That benefit is the outcome of electric lighting that enables students to study longer and better each night. It is important to note, however, that studying is a choice and the child and the parents must choose studying over socializing and playing. Previous studies have not found children who choose not to study with kerosene to be more likely to study with electric lighting, whether it be MGP, the grid, a solar lantern, or other. The common finding has been that those children who do choose to study – with or without electric lighting – study longer with electric lighting. Though Dr. Urpelainen’s study did not measure that variable, we did our own randomized control trial in 2012 and made our best attempt at measuring it. We aren’t survey experts or econometricians, but we did find a dramatic increase in the number of hours those children spent studying (as an aside, that RCT found consistent results as Dr. Urpelainen on enterprise creation and income).

It was because of this global evidence, coupled with my own experience living in a poor, remote off-grid village, that we created MGP with the intention of offering the electricity services that poor communities benefit from at a price that would allow them access. But actually doing that – delivering great service to customers – is actually pretty complicated (for those of you who think our jobs are easy, I invite you to come help us out). The data from this survey implies MGP was not delivering on its promise to provide 7 hours of service per night. When Dr. Aklin described the service provided as “paltry”, it initially caused me to bristle. But when I looked at the data, I realized he was right; customers responded that they were only getting 1 to 2 hours of service per night. In 2014 when this survey was conducted, we were a young company still solving many problems. Our batteries were stored in wooden cabinets in a customer’s house– we were testing an assumption that communities would protect the assets in order to maximize service. What we found was that these cabinets would often be broken into by people (not always customers) connecting additional devices directly to our battery banks. Customers also found ways of charging batteries from our system (there was a marked increase in battery ownership over the survey period, possibly because customers could now charge them in their homes). These uses were not what our micro grids were designed for, of course. Further, our construction teams would build micro grids quickly, and we had no quality control processes to ensure the micro grids were built properly. The 1 to 2 hours customers reported receiving may have been the consequence of us being at the beginning of a sharp learning curve. Since then, we have taken significant steps to better secure our equipment, control power theft, and improve our construction quality. With these improvements in place, we tested the performance of our micro grids in 2015 and measured our service delivery to customers through the foggy winter season. We found that with these improvements, we are now able to provide the promised service to customers. And the value our customers are receiving is therefore significantly greater now than it was a few years back.

There are many fair conclusions here, including the importance of quality service delivery, that electrification is not a silver bullet to end poverty, and that in addition to electrification other investments are required to help those customers in the bottom few quintiles to prosper. But one conclusion that is not justified is that the focused electricity services that we provide to customers are significantly less valuable or impactful than grid electricity.

Our customers value our service, and the lighting we aim to provide our customers is life changing; not only has the importance of lighting to poor households already been established, but we see if first hand. There are hundreds of millions of people in India still reliant on kerosene for household lighting; over a hundred million children studying by kerosene. These people cannot affordably be served by the grid. Dr. Urpelainen’s earlier publications have shown how few people are connected to the grid even when they live in grid connected villages. These people shouldn’t be left out, especially since we have an affordable option for them. Don’t dismiss us just yet; hang in there with us, be open to learning with us, and don’t be too quick to rush to conclusions. It is a long journey, and we are working hard and against great odds to make a difference. We are optimists by nature and are optimistic about what we can achieve. But we can’t do it in a world that doesn’t believe that this work is important.

Solar Power provided by Mera Gao in UP, IndiaMera Gao Power lighting in rural India.

Globally, over a billion people lack household electricity to this date, and most non-electrified households are found in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The high capital cost of extending a national or regional electric grid to remote rural communities is an important barrier to progress in household electrification.

No wonder, then, that the collapse of the cost of solar panels has created enthusiasm for off-grid electrification. Combined with ultra-efficient energy technologies, such as LED lights, less expensive solar panels have brought back the idea that countries could ‘leapfrog’ by supporting communities’ local off-grid electrification schemes instead of extending the electric grid.

Many scholars and practitioners are enthusiastic about this approach. Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley write in Nature Climate Change that “the present day is a unique moment in the history of electrification where decentralized energy networks are rapidly spreading, based on super-efficient end-use appliances and low-cost photovoltaics.” The environmental group Sierra Club states that “off-grid renewable energy technologies … are better suited to meeting the challenges of energy access than centralized coal projects and grid extension. That means we can solve energy poverty and climate change at the same time.”

An important question for the enthusiasts is how much energy is enough for off-grid electrification to make a real difference. LED lights are ultra-efficient but freezers, welding machines, and many other appliances still require substantial amounts of power. If off-grid electrification can deliver results for minimal loads of power, such as domestic lighting, the case for replacing or at least delaying grid extension is much stronger than if large loads of power are necessary for beneficial impacts.

In a recent Science Advances paper (open access), we (Aklin, Bayer, Harish, and myself) collaborated with an Indian solar microgrid company, Mera Gao Power, to assess the impact of basic energy access from a very small microgrid. In a randomized controlled trial, previously non-electrified households in Barabanki district of the state of Uttar Pradesh in India were offered, for 100 Indian rupees (about 1.5 U.S. dollars) a month, two LED lights and a mobile charger powered by a small solar panel and a battery.


Solar panels for a micro-grid that offers two bright LED lights and mobile charging to villagers in Barabanki district of the state of Uttar Pradesh, India.

We found that access to a minimal level of solar power did reduce kerosene expenditures, as households replaced their kerosene wicks with the solar-powered LED lights. The reductions were pretty substantial, too: where MGP installed solar microgrids, monthly kerosene expenditures decreased by almost fifty rupees (about 45%) relative to the control group.

This estimate is one-half of the MGP monthly fee and does not even consider that many households did not subscribe – so that many MGP customers with high previous kerosene expenditures likely reduced their expenditures even more. These reductions were achieved without government subsidies and at a low capital cost.

Now, the bad news: we found no evidence of broader economic benefits on outcomes such as savings, spending, business creation, and time spent working. The estimates were either zero or, in some cases, modestly positive but subject to large uncertainties.

While the basic energy access afforded by the MGP microgrids offered a substitute for kerosene, we did not find evidence of substantial effects on rural development. While we did not conduct a systematic study of educational (e.g., more study hours) or health benefits (e.g., less indoor air pollution), the evidence for benefits in other areas was weak.

These results do not mean off-grid solar power is useless, but they do raise two important questions. First, can larger systems that generate more energy produce better results? If households could run appliances and machines, they would be able to use solar power for a wide range of economic activities, making electricity access more appealing. However, larger systems are also more expensive and households – many of whom are poor – would have to pay higher fees to participate.

Second, could off-grid solar power furnish more benefits with complementary policies? The lack of electricity is far from the only constraint on economic growth in these communities. Access to finance, roads, water infrastructure, supply of skilled enough labor, and markets for products are all inadequate in the area that we studied. Solar power might have produced better development outcomes if some of these other problems had also been solved – be it by the government or a private company.

An important lesson from the study is how much India’s heavily subsidized kerosene hurts the growth of off-grid lighting solutions. We found that people reduced their kerosene expenditure by no longer buying kerosene from the private market, but by continuing to purchase their heavily subsidized quota from the government’s public distribution shops.

If India were to succeed in replacing traditional kerosene subsidies with cash transfers, or perhaps even vouchers for off-grid lighting solutions, the market for off-grid lighting would grow much faster. This change would not only bring environmental and health benefits, but also likely boost technology and business model innovation in off-grid electrification. Just replacing kerosene subsidies with more flexible social policy might make basic energy access through solar microgrids much more beneficial to the society.

When sustainable energy companies sell their products, such as solar home systems, a lack of awareness among consumers can create complications. If households are unfamiliar with the features and quality of a new technology, they may hesitate to spend money to purchase it. For example, a rural household may wonder how long the battery of a solar home system lasts or how well the system works during the cloudy monsoon season.

In an article forthcoming in Energy Policy, Semee Yoon and I tested whether solar product demonstrations might solve the problem. Collaborating with the Indian social enterprise Boond in Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh, India, we randomized the conduct of solar product demonstrations in a sample of 75 villages. We then measured the sales of solar home systems over a period of 12 months.


A Boond solar product demonstrations in Unnao district, Uttar Pradesh.

We found that solar product demonstrations were ineffective. The treatment group – villages with demonstrations – did not see higher sales than the control group – villages without demonstrations. People’s awareness and perceptions of solar products also did not change.

The most likely explanation for this result is lacking access to finance. We saw high sales in villages that had active rural bank managers who helped households gain access to credit for their purchases. Because rural households usually have few savings, the ability to pay for solar products in installments over time appears critical to sales.

These results lend support to the hypothesis that liquidity constraints, instead of lacking awareness, are impeding the growth of rural markets for sustainable energy technologies in Uttar Pradesh. Policymakers should thus use India’s extensive network of rural banks to help households pay for their solar products gradually over time.



One of the most exciting and enjoyable parts of my quest for sustainable solutions to the problem of energy poverty is that I get to visit India twice a year. Tomorrow’s the great day: I’ll be flying to Delhi and then Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh. On a 0-100 scale, my excitement score is 999.

This visit has three legs. The first one, in Uttar Pradesh, has two primary goals. For one, we pilot a major survey of rural and urban public opinion on power sector reform — a huge challenge for Uttar Pradesh, where electric utilities are deep in debt and their revenue is nowhere near enough to cover the cost of generation, transmission, and distribution. Our survey covers both the rural and the urban population, is statistically representative of the state, and will produce the most comprehensive database on public opinion about India’s greatest energy challenge.

Another pilot in Uttar Pradesh focuses on ways to improve rural electrification rates. We work with the electricity distribution companies and state government to help people connect their homes to the national electric grid. Besides an innovative intervention, a really exciting component of this project is how positive the state government’s response has been. It’s incredibly motivating to do research that really interests the authorities with the ability to change policy and shape outcomes on the ground, big time.


January 2017. Productive discussions with the field team and the electricity station manager near Lucknow on ways to increase household electrification rates within villages.

After a week in Uttar Pradesh, I’ll head to Madhya Pradesh to develop measurement tools for a project on deforestation and migration. In a collaboration with ecological scientists and remote sensing specialists, our team examines how rural-urban migration patterns shape land use and forest degradation rates. I’m very excited about the explosion of rigorous interdisciplinary research, and this project scores high on that front – we bring together latest advances from multiple natural and social sciences to address the problem of deforestation.

After all this fieldwork, which will be hot and chaotic, I’ll head to Delhi for a series of seminars, meetings, and negotiations. I’m hoping to deepen my collaborations with some of the best Indian researchers and change agents, so I’ll dedicate a week to planning the coming years.

The last weekend I’ll spend in the city of Jaipur, Rajasthan – just for fun and excitement. That’s where my Hindi teacher lives, so perhaps I’ll be blessed with a chance to meet this brilliant young man.


January 2017. Field team and a Boond repesentative with a solar panel powering dozens of households through a solar microgrid.


Public opinion plays an important role in environmental politics of democratic countries. Legislators, fearing an electoral backlash, often hesitate to support bills that impose direct and visible costs on consumers. Environmental economists have dreams of carbon taxes to mitigate climate change, but elected officials worry about losing the next election if they vote for such policies.

Understanding the relationship between public opinion and legislators’ choices requires good data on public opinion and votes taken in the legislature. We have compiled and made freely available a comprehensive dataset of (i) important environmental roll-call votes in the U.S. Congress, (ii) state-level environmental public opinion, (iii) and campaign contributions by the oil/gas industry.

Consider an example. In a forthcoming RPR article, we used the data to examine patterns of partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress. Using a regression discontinuity analysis, we found that the effect of electing a Democrat in close elections over a Republican on the probability of a pro-environment vote is over 40 percentage points, a massive difference. We also found that the gap is the widest when fossil fuel interests strongly support the Republican candidate and public opinion itself is polarized over the environment.

The dataset, which we use for an analysis of partisan polarization over the environment in the U.S. Congress, enables scholars of environmental politics to examine the role of public opinion, interest groups, and electoral competition in environmental policy. For example, the dataset allows anyone to identify a given legislator’s environmental roll-call votes and link them to conservative, liberal, and moderate public opinion is his/her state. The researcher can find both the legislator’s margin of victory in different elections and campaign contributions from the powerful fossil fuel industry.

With this information, scholars of environmental politics can now conduct rigorous tests of hypotheses from sophisticated theories of environmental politics. With over three hundred thousand individual roll-call votes across a spectrum of environmental issues by thousands of legislators between 1971-2013, our dataset offers lots of statistical power and thus allows researchers to test contingent hypotheses on the interactions between different factors.

The dataset is freely available for non-commercial use, provided you cite the following:

Kim, Sung Eun and Johannes Urpelainen. 2017. Roll Call Votes on Environmental Issues by the U.S. Congress, 1971-2013. Harvard Dataverse, V1.

im, Sung Eun and Johannes Urpelainen. 2017. “The Polarization of American Environmental Policy: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Senate and House Votes, 1971-2013” Forthcoming. Review of Policy Research. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12238

The codebook contains information on our sources, so that you can also locate and cite the original dataset for any particular variable. We are much obliged to the scholars and practitioners who have made their data available for anyone to use. That’s the future of social science.

We hope that the dataset encourages graduate students and junior faculty to do theoretically ambitious and empirically rigorous work on environmental politics. The environment is an inherently political subject fraught with conflict, so we badly need cutting-edge political science to inform environmental policy design. At the same time, political science as a field can reap enormous benefits from the rigorous analysis of high-quality data on environmental issues.

Note: This is a joint post with Eugenie Dugoua, a Ph.D. student in Sustainable Development in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

There is no doubt that India has made rapid progress in rural electrification in recent years. Comparing the 2001 and 2011 Censuses of India, the household electrification rate in rural areas increased from 43.5% to 55.3% despite rapid population growth at the same time. Since then, progress in rural electrification has continued thanks to the government’s flagship electrification programs. By now, almost all villages in India are electrified.

And yet, hundreds of millions of households remain without electricity. Understanding the factors that contribute to low electrification rates in some areas is thus a necessary input to any policy framework that aims to universalize energy access within India. Why do some communities have stubbornly low electrification rates, and why do some households within electrified communities remain without domestic electricity?

In a recent paper (Energy Policy, forthcoming), we examined patterns of rural electrification using data from the 714 villages covered in the freely available ACCESS dataset. With the ACCESS survey conducted in 2014-2015, we matched all 714 villages to the 2011 Census data to assess changes in household electrification rates. For all villages in the dataset, we thus had information on changes in the household electrification rate between 2011 and 2014-2015.

Our analysis shows that geographic inequalities in household electrification have decreased significantly. While distance to the nearest town and the geographic area of the village are robust predictors of low electrification rates in the 2011 Census, they no longer predict such rates in the ACCESS survey. India’s rural electrification programs have been successful in extending the grid to remote households in sparsely populated areas.

Unfortunately, other inequities remain. Both household income and caste composition remain predictors of electrification. Villages populated by poor and/or low-caste households have lower electrification rates both in the 2011 Census and the more recent ACCESS survey. The same pattern holds if we look at differences between households within electrified villages.

To the extent that India’s rural electrification program seeks to universalize access to modern energy, these results suggest that finding solutions to social, as opposed to geographic, inequities should be the government’s next top priority. Policies that allow poor and socially marginalized households, instead of just villages, to benefit from household electrification are the next step on the path to offering every Indian affordable and abundant modern energy.

Note: This is a joint post with Sandra Baquié, a Ph.D. student in Sustainable Development in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

One of today’s great energy crises is the continued use of traditional biomass for cooking by one-third of the world’s population. When people use firewood and other forms of biomass to cook inside their homes, they generate huge amounts of indoor air pollution, and the World Health Organization estimates that over four million deaths a year can be attributed to the damage done.

What can be done to solve the problem? Modern cooking fuels and technologies, such as efficient cookstoves, can substantially reduce indoor air pollution. The problem is that households – mostly rural – in different countries are not using these so-called “improved” technologies. If people consider modern technologies too expensive or inconvenient, they will not use them, regardless of what public health experts say.

In a recent paper coming out in Energy for Sustainable Development, we assess the relationship between modern cooking fuels and households’ subjective satisfaction with their cooking arrangement. The goal of this analysis is to test a simple but important hypothesis: households with access to modern cooking fuels are happier with their cooking than other households.

For the data analysis, we use the freely available ACCESS dataset of energy access among 8,568 rural households in six Indian states. We estimate statistical models to test whether access to modern fuels – most importantly, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) – is associated with subjective satisfaction. In our dataset, 19% of households report using LPG for cooking.

The results are striking: LPG access is by far the most important predictor of subjective satisfaction. Households with LPG at home are much more satisfied with their cooking arrangement than other households, and the key reasons appear to be reduced smoke, faster cooking, and ease of cooking.

The very strong association that our data reveals suggests that modern cooking fuels can be very convenient and beneficial for rural households. Based on this reasoning, it seems that the cost of cooking with LPG might be a more significant obstacle to adoption than any perceived problems with the technology. There is, after all, nothing to prevent households from “stacking” biomass and LPG whenever necessary,

Our simple result is a first step, and future studies should rigorously investigate the causal impact of modern cooking fuels on subjective satisfaction, along with more objective indicators. Given the very strong association between subjective satisfaction and LPG access, there is every reason to be optimistic about the desirability of LPG as a clean cooking fuel in rural India.

The study of energy poverty is difficult because measuring the degree of access to modern energy is difficult. Wouldn’t it be awesome if there were detailed, representative, and freely available data on energy poverty?

Even in countries like India, where data on rural households is generally available, there are very few detailed and representative data sets on energy poverty. Census and National Sample Survey data are representative of the population, but they contain few details on energy access. More detailed surveys typically focus on small areas or their sampling fails to be representative.

To relax the data constraints that have impeded social science research on energy poverty, I and my collaborators are delighted to introduce ACCESS, a freely available data set on energy poverty in rural India.

The ACCESS data set contains detailed information on energy for 8,565 households from 714 villages across six states of India (Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, and West Bengal). The sampling is conducted such that the data are representative of rural areas in the six states, and we have also validated the representativeness with comparisons to recent household data from the National Sample Survey of India. Village identifiers from the 2011 Census of India are included.

Besides socio-economic characteristics and comprehensive modules on access to electricity and cooking fuels, the data set also contains information about subjective satisfaction and policy preferences. The data set also contains details on the use of decentralized energy technologies, such as solar power and efficient cook stoves.

The data set is described in a recent Nature Energy study (gated content) and an earlier report on rural energy access published by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water.

Besides studies of energy access, the data can be used for power analysis and as a baseline for field experiments.

Anyone can use the data for any non-commercial purposes, provided you cite the originaL NE study:

Aklin, Michaël, Chao-yo Cheng, Johannes Urpelainen, Karthik Ganesan, and Abhishek Jain. 2016. “Factors Affecting Household Satisfaction with Electricity Supply in Rural India.” Nature Energy 1, Article number: 16170. DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2016.170. (

Energy poverty is one of today’s great global challenges and a key component of sustainable development, so we need all hands on deck. Making ACCESS freely available to anyone is but one step in the right direction.

If anyone’s interested in discussing new ideas on what to do with the data, what kind of data we should collect next, and – most importantly – how we can make progress in ending energy poverty in a sustainable fashion, please get in touch.

Tuesday night was a huge disappointment for so many of us. I personally never gave Trump a chance, and as the bad news kept coming in, I realized that I had no Plan B. My future plans as an environmentalist and a social scientist were based on the assumption that the next government would rely on academic researchers to offer advice on good policies and strategies.

I was wrong. It’s pretty clear that we all will be playing defense instead.

Over the past 48 hours, many people have shared their thoughts and ideas on the challenges that lie ahead. I am not going to comment here on what to expect under President Trump, as that issue has been covered more than thoroughly (NYT; Vox; Vox-2; Revkin; Stavins; Hale) and now we just have to wait and see.

Instead, I am going to talk about what we all can do. These thoughts are preliminary but at least I can say that this has been my obsessive focus for the past 48 hours.

There is little reason to expect President Trump to support the Paris Agreement, but international action on climate mitigation and sustainable energy remain critical. Renewable energy, fuel subsidy reform, and preventing deforestation are just some examples of approaches that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These approaches also promise many tangible benefits, such as reduced air pollution and improving energy access, to major emitters from China to India and Brazil. They are not critically threatened by President Trump, so those of us working on them should move ahead, full steam.

At the same time, President Trump resurrects an old question: what should global climate cooperation look like without American leadership? This question was hot in the days of the Bush administration, but the world has changed and the United States is not as pivotal as it was in, say, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol has disappeared and we now have the Paris Agreement. Practical, policy-relevant analysis of strategies is very important, and I intend to start new work on this topic pretty much immediately.

In the United States, the federal government will probably not do much in the coming four years and Obama’s signature contributions, such as the Clean Power Plan, are in grave danger. However, total paralysis across all levels is not in the cards. Exploiting opportunities for climate policy at the state level is more important than in a long time, so it’s time to ramp up research, advocacy, and policy work in the states. Many of us worked on this topic in the Bush era, and it’s time to revisit these lessons and adjust them to new realities.

The third issue that cannot be avoided under President Trump is opposition to fossil fuel projects. Recently, these projects had lost their momentum because of low energy prices and new environmental regulations. Under President Trump, mobilization against coal-fired power plants and tar sands may again become very important. Supporting organizations that engage in this kind of work, such as the Sierra Club, whether financially or by volunteering or with research, is a priority for me.

Finally, there is the question of electoral politics. Climate and energy issues played virtually no role in the campaign, so it seems that focusing on educating voters or trying to encourage climate voting is a lost cause. The reality is that one of the two political parties is committed to sustainable energy and climate mitigation – and the other is not. The implication is pretty clear: without a Democratic Congress and President, the federal government is not going to be in the high-ambition coalition.