The COVID-19 pandemic, beyond its immediate health impacts, caused significant socioeconomic disruption globally, particularly affecting low- and middle-income countries. In India, despite progress towards universal electrification and clean cooking access through initiatives like the Saubhagya and PMUY schemes, the pandemic's effect on household energy patterns and the potential reversal of clean fuel adoption remained unclear. This study aimed to address this knowledge gap by examining the changes in household energy use in rural Jharkhand and Bihar, two states in India, during the pandemic. Understanding the stability of clean energy transitions in response to external shocks like pandemics is crucial for designing effective policy interventions that build resilience and promote sustainable energy access for vulnerable populations. India's significant investments in clean energy access are contingent on sustained usage, making it imperative to analyze disruptions to those transitions. The pandemic and its associated lockdowns prompted the Indian government to introduce a three-free-cylinders scheme as part of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, providing free LPG refills to PMUY beneficiaries. This policy intervention presented a valuable opportunity to study the impact of targeted subsidies on clean fuel adoption during times of crisis.

Existing literature documents the pandemic's impact on household energy use in various settings, showing reversions to unclean fuels in some regions. However, the impact on regions where clean fuel use was already tenuous and biomass fuels are prevalent was less well-understood. Studies highlighted the need for integrated approaches to address energy insecurity and the importance of considering affordability and access to clean fuels. Research on India's energy access policies, such as Saubhagya and PMUY, pointed towards progress but also emphasized the need for consistent clean fuel usage to realize their full health and welfare benefits. The study builds upon this body of work by focusing specifically on the impact of a major external shock (the COVID-19 pandemic) on household energy choices in rural India.

The study employed two distinct panel phone surveys. The Jharkhand survey involved 600 households surveyed approximately every two months for a year, while the Bihar survey included 200 households surveyed weekly for two months. Both surveys focused on household lighting and cooking, the costs and accessibility of modern fuels, and the reasons behind fuel choices during the pandemic. The Jharkhand survey drew from a previously surveyed sample of rural households, providing a baseline for comparison. The Bihar survey randomly recruited households from a pool of phone numbers, focusing on primary cooks who used both biomass and clean fuels. Surveys were conducted by local enumerators and lasted between 5 and 15 minutes. The study design considered the overlap between survey rounds, COVID-19 case numbers, LPG refill prices, and government policies (specifically the three-free-cylinders scheme). Data analysis included characterizing household energy use patterns, assessing the impact of socio-economic hardships on fuel choices, analyzing the uptake and effectiveness of the three-free-cylinders scheme, and exploring the motivations behind fuel stacking behaviors (using both clean and polluting fuels simultaneously). Regression models were used to analyze associations between socioeconomic hardship and energy use outcomes.

In Jharkhand, two-thirds of households reported pandemic-related economic hardships, including job losses and reduced income. These hardships correlated with increased use of polluting cooking fuels and kerosene lamps. Despite near-universal preference for gas and electricity, LPG cylinder refill prices increased, and access to refills became more challenging. However, 90% of households were aware of and utilized the three-free-cylinders scheme, demonstrating its potential to alleviate clean fuel access barriers. In Bihar, while nearly all households initially reported using both biomass and clean fuels, a significant proportion used LPG exclusively for several days at a time. Fuel switching occurred frequently. Motivations behind fuel stacking were primarily driven by the cost of LPG and the perceived suitability of biomass for specific cooking tasks. Both samples highlighted the significant impact of cost and access on fuel choices, with participants consistently indicating higher LPG prices and challenges related to refills as obstacles to adopting clean cooking exclusively.

The study's findings highlight the fragility of clean energy transitions in the face of socioeconomic shocks. While most households preferred clean fuels like LPG, economic hardships and reduced access led to increased reliance on polluting fuels, potentially impacting public health through increased air pollution exposure. The high awareness and uptake of the three-free-cylinders scheme underscored the effectiveness of targeted subsidies in promoting clean energy access, especially during crises. The study's results reinforce the necessity of addressing cost and accessibility challenges to ensure sustained clean fuel adoption. The findings also suggest that policymakers need to account for the complex interplay between fuel preferences, economic circumstances, and the availability of support schemes, in order to create more resilient transitions. The high frequency of fuel-stacking highlights the complex realities faced by households and the need to design interventions that address affordability and access concerns comprehensively.

This study provides timely evidence on the pandemic's impact on household energy use in rural North India. High-frequency surveys proved valuable for capturing nuanced changes, revealing the importance of addressing LPG affordability and accessibility. The success of the three-free-cylinders scheme suggests that targeted subsidies can be effective in building resilience. Future research could examine the long-term impact of the pandemic, investigate optimal survey frequencies, and explore interventions to improve the affordability and accessibility of clean cooking fuels in various contexts.

The study's geographic scope is limited to Jharkhand and Bihar, and the survey timing differed between the states. The reliance on phone surveys might underrepresent households without mobile phones. The lack of in-person verification could introduce some response bias. The study's relatively simple survey may not have fully captured the complex socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic.