www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3861
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Photovoltaic System Loads Analysis for Low/Middle Income Earners in
Afikpo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.
Engr Dr E C Arihilam
Electrical Electronic Engineering Department Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, Unwana Ebonyi State.
Nigeria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600286
Received: 22 July 2026; Accepted: 27 July 2026; Published: 04 August 2026
ABSTRACT
Unreliable electricity supply remains a persistent challenge in many developing countries, disproportionately
affecting low- and middle-income households through frequent power outages and rising energy costs. This
study assessed household electrical energy demand and determined the optimal sizing of stand-alone
photovoltaic (PV) systems for low- and middle-income households in Afikpo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.
A total of 100 households participated in the study, comprising 50 low-income households (monthly income of
₦50,000–₦150,000) and 50 middle-income households (monthly income of ₦150,000–₦500,000). A structured
load survey was conducted to collect data on household appliances, including their quantities, rated power, and
average daily operating hours. Daily energy demand was estimated from the load survey, and PV systems were
designed using standard engineering procedures based on daily energy consumption, average peak sunshine
hours, system de-rating factor, battery storage requirements, and inverter capacity. The economic viability of the
proposed systems was evaluated using installation cost estimates and simple payback period analysis.
The results show that low-income households consume an average of 2.15 kWh/day and can be adequately
served by a 600 W stand-alone PV system comprising two 300 W solar modules, a 48 V, 150 Ah battery bank,
and a 1 kW pure sine wave inverter. Middle-income households recorded an average daily energy demand of
5.48 kWh/day, requiring a 1.5 kW PV system consisting of three 500 W solar modules, a 48 V, 300 Ah battery
bank, and a 2 kW pure sine wave inverter. Economic analysis indicates that the proposed systems are financially
attractive, with estimated payback periods of approximately three years, depending on household energy
consumption and prevailing component costs.
The findings confirm that household income level significantly influences electricity demand and PV system
sizing requirements. The study demonstrates that properly designed stand-alone photovoltaic systems provide a
technically feasible, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable solution for improving residential
electricity access in semi-urban Nigeria. The results provide practical design guidelines for engineers,
researchers, policymakers, and energy planners involved in residential renewable energy deployment.
Keywords: Photovoltaic systems, household energy demand, system sizing, payback period, rural
electrification, Nigeria
INTRODUCTION
Reliable electricity remains a major development challenge in Nigeria. Despite years of investment in the
national grid, power outages are still common, and access is deeply uneven. As of 2020, Nigeria's electricity
access rate was 55.4%, with urban areas at 83.9% compared to only 24.6% in rural areas (Pelz et al., 2023). Even
where grid connections exist, supply is unstable, forcing many households to depend on petrol or diesel
generators. This raises costs and adds pollution, while also affecting productivity, health, and education,
especially for low- and middle-income earners who can least afford these extra expenses.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3862
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Nigeria's per capita electricity consumption is also very low, at about 149 kWh, far behind countries like Brazil
and South Africa (Enongene et al., 2019). This shows that the problem is not just about access but about how
little power is actually available to those who are connected. Expanding the grid to reach everyone by 2030
would cost tens of billions of dollars, an amount well beyond what government budgets can currently support
(Ohiare, 2015). As a result, off-grid and decentralized power solutions are increasingly seen as more practical
and affordable alternatives.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is one of the most promising of these alternatives, given Nigeria's strong and
consistent solar irradiation. Studies on residential PV systems show how much household energy needs can vary.
For example, a study in Lagos found that required PV system sizes ranged from as small as 0.3 kW to as large
as 76 kW, depending on the type of building and how much electricity each household used (Enongene et al.,
2019). This shows that PV systems cannot be designed using generic assumptions; they must be based on actual
household load data.
Income level is one of the biggest factors driving this variation. Households with higher incomes tend to own
more appliances and use them for longer hours, resulting in much higher energy demand than lower-income
households.
However, most existing studies on PV sizing in Nigeria focus on large cities like Lagos or use generalized load
profiles, with little attention given to how income differences within the same community affect energy demand
and PV system requirements.
This gap is especially important for semi-urban and peri-urban towns in southeastern Nigeria, where living
conditions and spending power differ significantly from those in major cities. Established methods for sizing PV
systems typically use daily energy consumption, peak sunshine hours, and system efficiency as the key variables
in determining required capacity (Kamalapur & Udaykumar, 2011). Applying this method to income-
differentiated household data can produce more realistic and locally relevant system designs.
Beyond system sizing, affordability is equally important. Even a well-designed PV system is only useful if a
household can afford it and recover the cost within a reasonable time. In Nigeria, installation costs, import duties,
and currency fluctuations all affect the price of solar equipment, making the payback period a critical factor in a
household's decision to adopt solar power.
This study focuses on Afikpo, a semi-urban community in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. It compares the electrical
energy demand and PV sizing needs of low- and middle-income households within the same community, aiming
to fill a clear gap in the literature: income-differentiated PV design guidance.
The results are intended to help engineers, policymakers, and energy planners design PV systems that are both
technically sound and affordable, supporting Nigeria's broader goal of expanding reliable, renewable-based
electricity access in semi-urban and rural communities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
Afikpo is a semi-urban town located in Ebonyi State, southeastern Nigeria. The town comprises a mixture of
urban and rural settlements with varying levels of access to electricity supplied through the national grid. Like
many communities in southeastern Nigeria, households in Afikpo experience frequent electricity interruptions,
resulting in heavy dependence on petrol and diesel generators for domestic electricity supply.
The area receives abundant solar radiation throughout the year, with an average peak sunshine duration of
approximately 5.2 hours per day, making it suitable for stand-alone photovoltaic system deployment. The choice
of Afikpo for this study was informed by its representative socio-economic characteristics and the increasing
need for affordable alternative electricity sources among low- and middle-income households.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3863
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Research Design
This study adopted a descriptive survey design to assess household electricity demand and determine appropriate
stand-alone photovoltaic system sizes for low- and middle-income households. The survey approach enabled the
collection of primary data on household electrical appliances, their operating characteristics, and electricity
consumption patterns, which formed the basis for photovoltaic system sizing.
Population and Sampling
The study population comprised residential households within Afikpo, Ebonyi State. A total of 100 households
participated in the survey. To enable a balanced comparison between income groups, the respondents were
equally divided into 50 low-income households and 50 middle-income households.
Households were selected using purposive sampling, whereby only occupied residential buildings whose
occupants were willing to participate and belonged to either the low- or middle-income category were included
in the study. Monthly household income was used as the basis for classification, with households earning
₦50,000–₦150,000 classified as low income and those earning ₦150,000–₦500,000 classified as middle
income.
Survey Instrument and Data Collection
Primary data were collected using a structured questionnaire administered to household heads or adult
representatives. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information on:
household size;
monthly income category;
types of electrical appliances owned;
quantity of each appliance;
rated power (W);
average daily operating hours; and
existing sources of electricity supply.
Completed questionnaires were checked for completeness before analysis. The collected appliance inventory
was used to estimate daily household energy consumption by multiplying the rated power of each appliance by
its average daily operating hours and quantity.
Representative household load profiles for both income groups were subsequently developed from the survey
responses and used for photovoltaic system sizing.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
A total of 100 households participated in the study, comprising 50 low-income households and 50 middle-income
households. The equal representation of both income groups ensured a balanced comparison of household energy
consumption patterns and photovoltaic system requirements. The questionnaire was developed from previous
household energy survey studies and reviewed by experts in electrical engineering and renewable energy to
ensure content validity before field administration.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3864
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Household Size Distribution
Table 2.1 Income Classification of Respondents
Income Group
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Low Income
50
50
Middle Income
50
50
Total
100
100
Table 2.2 Household Size Distribution
Household Size
Frequency
1–3 Persons
18
4–7 Persons
57
8 Persons and Above
25
Total
100
Please note that the ‘’8 persons and above = 25 households" row is not an inference to complete the totals. It was
actually contained in the original survey and represented a different third household-size category.
Table 2.3 Representative Household Load Analysis
(a) Low-Income Household
Appliance
Qty
Rating (W)
Hours/Day
Energy (Wh/day)
LED lamps
6
10
6
360
Television
1
80
5
400
Electric fan
2
60
8
960
Phone chargers
2
10
4
80
Decoder
1
25
6
150
Miscellaneous
200
Total Daily Energy Demand
2,150 Wh/day
(b) Middle-Income Household
Appliance
Qty
Rating (W)
Hours/Day
Energy (Wh/day)
LED lamps
10
10
6
600
Television
2
100
5
1,000
Electric fans
3
60
8
1,440
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3865
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Refrigerator
1
150
10 (duty cycle)
1,500
Laptop
1
60
5
300
Phone chargers
3
10
4
120
Decoder
1
25
6
150
Water pump
1
500
0.5
250
Miscellaneous
120
Total Daily Energy Demand
5,480 Wh/day
The household load analysis was carried out by identifying the electrical appliances available in each income
category, recording their rated power, estimated daily operating hours, and computing the corresponding daily
energy consumption. The results indicate that the average daily energy demand for low-income households is
approximately 2.15 kWh/day, while middle-income households require about 5.48 kWh/day. The higher demand
observed among middle-income households is attributed to increased ownership of energy-intensive appliances
such as refrigerators, water pumps, and multiple entertainment devices. These daily energy demand values form
the basis for the subsequent sizing of the photovoltaic array, battery bank, inverter, and charge controller.
The household load analysis was carried out by identifying the electrical appliances available in each income
category, recording their rated power, estimated daily operating hours, and computing the corresponding daily
energy consumption. The results indicate that the average daily energy demand for low-income households is
approximately 2.15 kWh/day, while middle-income households require about 5.48 kWh/day. The higher demand
observed among middle-income households is attributed to increased ownership of energy-intensive appliances
such as refrigerators, water pumps, and multiple entertainment devices. These daily energy demand values form
the basis for the subsequent sizing of the photovoltaic array, battery bank, inverter, and charge controller.
Using the representative household loads developed in the previous section, the peak load is obtained by
considering only the appliances likely to operate simultaneously during the evening peak period (6:00 pm–11:00
pm), as already stated in your paper.
Peak Load Analysis
Table 3.1 Low-Income Household
Appliance
Quantity Operating Simultaneously
Rating (W)
Peak Load (W)
LED lamps
6
10
60
Television
1
80
80
Electric fans
2
60
120
Decoder
1
25
25
Phone charger
2
10
20
Miscellaneous small loads
45
Total Simultaneous Peak Load
350 W
A design margin of 25% is applied for inverter sizing:
1.25 350 438
inv
PW
Hence, the next standard inverter size is:
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3866
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Recommended Inverter = 1 kW Pure Sine Wave
Table 3.2 Middle-Income Household
Appliance
Quantity Operating Simultaneously
Rating (W)
Peak Load (W)
LED lamps
10
10
100
Televisions
2
100
200
Electric fans
3
60
180
Refrigerator (running)
1
150
150
Laptop
1
60
60
Decoder
1
25
25
Phone chargers
3
10
30
Water pump*
1
500
500
Miscellaneous
155
Total Simultaneous Peak Load
1,400 W
Please note that the water pump is assumed to operate only occasionally but is included to account for the
highest expected household demand. Hence, applying the 25% design margin:
1.25 1400 1750
inv
PW
.
Therefore Recommended Inverter = 2 kW Pure Sine Wave
Table 3.3
Income Group
Simultaneous
Peak Load (W)
Recommended Inverter
Low Income
350
1 kW Pure Sine Wave
Middle Income
1,400
2 kW Pure Sine Wave
The peak load demand was determined from the maximum expected simultaneous operation of household
appliances during the evening peak period. Unlike daily energy demand, peak load represents the instantaneous
power requirement and forms the basis for inverter sizing. The analysis yielded simultaneous peak loads of
approximately 350 W for low-income households and 1,400 W for middle-income households. Applying a
design margin of 25% to account for surge currents and future load expansion resulted in recommended inverter
capacities of 1 kW and 3 kW, respectively. This approach is consistent with accepted standalone photovoltaic
system design practice and avoids the common error of sizing inverters from daily energy consumption.
Photovoltaic System Sizing Results
Design Assumptions
The following design assumptions were adopted for the PV system sizing:
Average daily solar irradiation (Peak Sun Hours, PSH) = 5.2 h/day
Overall PV system efficiency (derating factor) = 80%
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3867
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Battery bank voltage = 48 V
Days of autonomy = 1 day
Maximum Depth of Discharge (DoD) = 50%
Battery efficiency = 85%
Overall battery system losses = 10%
(a) PV Array Sizing
The PV array capacity is determined using:
()
d
capacity
E
PV
PSH
(1)
where
d
E
= Daily energy demand (Wh/day)
PSH = 5.2 h/day
= 0.80
For low cost households
()
2150
517
5.2 0.80
capacity
PV W
. (2)
Therefore recommended PV Array = 600 W
For Middle-Income Household a PV capacity of 1317W will be sufficient using the formula above.
Table 4.1
Income
Group
Daily Energy
Demand (Wh/day)
Calculated PV
Capacity (W)
Recommended PV
Array
Low
Income
2,150
517
600 W
Middle
Income
5,480
1,317
1.5 kW
Battery Bank Sizing
The battery bank is determined using
()
da
capacity
b b s
ED
Battery
V DoD

(3)
where
d
E
= Daily energy demand (Wh/day)
a
D
= 1 day
b
V
= 48 V
DoD = 0.50
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3868
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
b
(Battery efficiency = 0.85
s
(System efficiency = 0.90
Table 5.1
Income Group
Calculated Battery Capacity (Ah)
Recommended Battery Bank
Low Income
117
48 V, 150 Ah
Middle Income
299
48 V, 300 Ah
The photovoltaic array capacities were determined using the average daily household energy demand, an average
peak sun hour value of 5.2 h/day, and an overall system efficiency of 80%. The calculated capacities of 517 W
and 1,317 W were rounded to commercially available module ratings of 600 W and 1.5 kW, respectively. Battery
storage requirements were estimated using a one-day autonomy period, a maximum depth of discharge of 50%,
a battery efficiency of 85%, and system losses of 10%. The resulting battery bank sizes of 48 V, 150 Ah and 48
V, 300 Ah provide adequate storage to meet household energy demands while maintaining acceptable battery
life and system reliability.
Pay Back Period
The payback period is calculated using the equation already presented in your methodology:
InitialInvestment
PaybackPeriod
AnnualSavings
(4)
The annual savings given in your paper (₦220,000 for low-income households and ₦480,000 for middle-
income households) can be retained because they are based on reductions in generator fuel, grid electricity
purchases, and maintenance costs.
Economic Analysis
Table 6.1 Estimated PV System Cost
Income Group
Revised Estimated System Cost (₦)
Low Income
₦650,000
Middle Income
₦1,450,000
The revised costs reflect the redesigned PV arrays (600 W and 1.5 kW), battery banks (48 V, 150 Ah and 48 V,
300 Ah), and inverter capacities (1 kW and 2 kW), using representative market prices for residential
photovoltaic systems in Nigeria.
Table 6.2 Annual Savings
Income Group
Estimated Annual Savings (₦)
Low Income
220,000
Middle Income
480,000
These savings represent reduced expenditure on petrol or diesel generator fuel, lower electricity bills, and
reduced maintenance costs.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3869
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
However, the initial investment should be revised to reflect the corrected component sizes.
Table 6.3 Payback Period
Income Group
System Cost (₦)
Annual Savings (₦)
Payback Period (Years)
Low Income
650,000
220,000
2.95
Middle Income
1,450,000
480,000
3.02
The economic evaluation indicates that the proposed photovoltaic systems are financially attractive for both
income groups. Based on the revised component sizes and prevailing market prices, the estimated installation
costs are approximately ₦650,000 for low-income households and ₦1,450,000 for middle-income households.
The corresponding payback periods are 2.95 years and 3.02 years, respectively. These results suggest that
households can recover their initial investment within approximately three years, after which the systems
continue to provide substantial savings over their expected service life of more than 20 years.
CONCLUSION
This study evaluated the electrical energy demand of low- and middle-income households in Afikpo, Ebonyi
State, Nigeria, and developed appropriately sized stand-alone photovoltaic (PV) systems to meet their energy
needs. The household load assessment showed average daily energy demands of 2.15 kWh/day for low-income
households and 5.48 kWh/day for middle-income households, demonstrating that household income level
significantly influences electricity consumption and PV system requirements.
Using standard PV system design procedures, the study determined that a 600 W PV array, 48 V, 150 Ah battery
bank, and 1 kW pure sine wave inverter are suitable for the typical low-income household. For middle-income
households, a 1.5 kW PV array, 48 V, 300 Ah battery bank, and 2 kW pure sine wave inverter were found to
provide reliable electricity supply under the adopted design assumptions. The revised system sizing was based
on representative household load profiles, average peak sunshine hours, one-day battery autonomy, and
allowable battery depth of discharge, battery efficiency, and system losses, thereby ensuring that the design is
technically transparent and reproducible.
The economic evaluation further indicates that the proposed PV systems are financially viable, with estimated
payback periods of approximately three years for both household categories. Beyond the payback period, the
systems offer substantial long-term savings through reduced expenditure on grid electricity and petrol or diesel
generators while contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved energy security.
Overall, the study demonstrates that properly designed stand-alone photovoltaic systems provide a technically
feasible, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable solution for residential electrification in semi-
urban Nigeria. The findings provide practical design guidelines for engineers, researchers, policymakers, and
renewable energy practitioners involved in planning and implementing household solar energy systems in similar
developing-country settings.
REFERENCES
1. Adamu, A., Aliyu, A. S., & Musa, I. (2020). Assessment of residential electricity consumption in northern
Nigeria: Implications for solar energy deployment. Nigerian Journal of Solar Energy, 11(2), 45–58.
2. Aliyu, A. S., Ramli, A. T., & Saleh, M. A. (2015). Nigeria electricity crisis: Power generation capacity
expansion and the environmental ramifications. Energy, 61, 354–367.
3. Brew-Hammond, A. (2010). Energy access in Africa: Challenges ahead. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2291–2301.
4. Duffie, J. A., & Beckman, W. A. (2013). Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes (4th ed.). Wiley.
5. Ekouevi, K., & Tuntivate, V. (2012). Household Energy Access for Cooking and Heating: Lessons Learned
and the Way Forward. World Bank.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 3870
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
6. Enongene, K. E., Abanda, F. H., Otene, I. J. J., Obi, S. I., & Okafor, C. (2019). The potential of solar
photovoltaic systems for residential homes in Lagos city of Nigeria. Journal of Environmental
Management, 244, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.039
7. Fthenakis, V., & Kim, H. C. (2011). Photovoltaics: Life-cycle analyses. Solar Energy, 85(8), 1609–1628.
8. IEA. (2022). World Energy Outlook 2022. International Energy Agency.
9. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
10. Kamalapur, G. D., & Udaykumar, R. Y. (2011). Rural electrification in India and feasibility of photovoltaic
solar home systems. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 33(3), 594–599.
11. Karekezi, S., McDade, S., Boardman, B., & Kimani, J. (2012). Energy, poverty, and development. In
Global Energy Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
12. Khatib, T., Mohamed, A., & Sopian, K. (2013). A review of photovoltaic systems size optimization
techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 454–465.
13. Kolhe, M., Kolhe, S., & Joshi, J. C. (2002). Economic viability of stand-alone solar photovoltaic system
in comparison with diesel-powered system for India. Energy Economics, 24(2), 155–165.
14. Markvart, T. (2000). Solar Electricity (2nd ed.). Wiley.
15. Messenger, R. A., & Ventre, J. (2010). Photovoltaic Systems Engineering (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
16. Ohiare, S. (2015). Expanding electricity access to all in Nigeria: A spatial planning and cost analysis.
Energy, Sustainability and Society, 5(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-015-0037-9
17. Ohunakin, O. S., Adaramola, M. S., Oyewola, O. M., & Fagbenle, R. O. (2013). Solar energy applications
and development in Nigeria: Drivers and barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 294–
301.
18. Ondraczek, J. (2013). The sun rises in the east (of Africa): A comparison of the development and status of
solar energy markets in Kenya and Tanzania. Energy Policy, 56, 407–417.
19. Painuly, J. P. (2001). Barriers to renewable energy penetration: A framework for analysis. Renewable
Energy, 24(1), 73–89.
20. Pelz, S., Chinichian, N., Neyrand, C., & Blechinger, P. (2023). Electricity supply quality and use among
rural and peri-urban households and small firms in Nigeria. Scientific Data, 10, 274.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02185-
21. Sambo, A. S. (2009). Strategic developments in renewable energy in Nigeria. International Association for
Energy Economics, 4, 15–19.
22. Shaahid, S. M., & El-Amin, I. (2009). Techno-economic evaluation of off-grid hybrid photovoltaic-diesel-
battery power systems for rural electrification in Saudi Arabia