Examines community welfare impacts of a smart grid microgrid, suggesting new governance strategies.
Counting electricity connections is easy. Understanding what those connections actually do for people is harder—and more important. This study examines how a 450 kWp Smart Grid Hybrid Microgrid on Semau Island, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, shaped the daily lives and economic futures of a community in one of the country’s most geographically isolated 3T territories (Frontier, Outermost, Underdeveloped), using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (SEM-AMOS, n = 123; key informant interviews, n = 4)—and we find that forty percent of households have shifted from passive consumption to productive agricultural use within five years of grid connection, a rate that challenges common assumptions about rural electrification in eastern Indonesia. The data also reveal a troubling pattern at the heart of Indonesia’s subsidy architecture: the 450 VA tier, which absorbs the highest per-kWh State Budget subsidy (IDR 10,518/kWh; 96.2% of Cost of Supply), is associated with the weakest welfare returns. Meanwhile, an estimated IDR 1.87 billion per year in lost capacity—a figure we term the Governance Maintenance Loss (GML)—is linked to governance shortfalls rather than hardware failure. SEM-AMOS results (χ2/df = 1.613; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.973; TLI = 0.983; SRMR = 0.043) indicate that, among the constructs examined, Energy Diversification Policy shows the strongest association with community welfare (β = 0.718, p < 0.001)—more so than the physical infrastructure itself. In response, this study proposes three governance instruments: the MIDEK framework, a Knowledge Transfer Mandate (KTM), and a Productive Energy Tariff (PET). Together, these tools offer a replicable, low-cost pathway for Indonesia’s 1200 planned island installations under Presidential Regulation No. 112/2022—one that is simultaneously revenue-positive for PLN, budget-positive for the State, and welfare-positive for the communities these systems are meant to serve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Likadja et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: