Pando, and it represents the seemingly less-developed, less-populated departments of the country
and the ones that have traditionally contributed less, on aggregate terms, to national income, but
whose economic performance have improved in the last years. The evolution of coverage for
these three groups as well as for the country as a whole are presented in Figure 3.3.
As shown in figure below, there are significant differences among the three groups. While in
2000 coverage reached 50% for Group 1, only around 23% was experienced for Group 2. Group
3, which includes departments not considered in the NIS system, had over 32% coverage. In all
cases, however, coverage increased, albeit at varying rates.
Figure 3.3
—G— Group 1 —■— Group 2 —G— Group 3 —X— National
Source: Superintendency of Electricity
In terms of the difference between the “before regulation“ period and the “regulation period“,
coverage growth rates for all groups were more pronounced the latter part of the decade - the
regulation period. For Group 1, a growth rate of 4.6% was experienced between 1992 and 1995.
After 1995 the growth rate increased to 6%. Similarly, Groups 2 and 3 experienced growth rates
of 0.6% and 1.9% respectively for the “before regulation“ period, and growth rates of 3% and
4.2% for the years after 1995.
It must be noted that urban coverage is significantly higher than rural coverage, and no particular
improvement has been experienced in the last few years. Figures 3.4 below illustrates this point
and it is immediately apparent that neither the transfer of electricity operation to the private sector
nor the establishment of a regulatory framework for the industry has generated any significant
12