Council on Energy, Environment and Water Integrated | International | Independent
Suggested Citation: Borgohain, Hladinee, Adya Sharma, Rahul Das, and Abhishek Kar. Are Clean Cooking Fuels Reaching India's Urban Poor? Access and Willingness to Pay Across 10 Indian Cities. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), 2026.
Cooking with solid fuels causes household air pollution (HAP), which is associated with negative externalities on health and the environment. To ease access to clean cooking fuels, the Government of India (GoI) launched the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) in 2016. Aimed at providing poor women subsidised LPG connections, the PMUY has benefited over 105 million women from economically deprived households till July 2026. Yet, according to NSS 79th Round 2023, 37 per cent of households rely primarily on polluting solid fuels—reflecting persistent challenges with affordability, access, and sustained usage.
In India, 41 per cent of the urban population (203 million) lived in informal settlements in 2022. Urban informal settlement households represent a particularly underserved and understudied population in the energy access literature as most studies focus on rural populations or broader urban samples that fail to capture the specific constraints faced by informal settlement dwellers. From previous research by CEEW and reports from Press Information Bureau (PIB), we observe that sustained use of LPG is low—due to the high cost of refills, delays in home delivery of refills, and limiting social barriers. This study draws on a survey of 1,116 households in informal settlements across 10 major Indian cities and attempts to understand the enablers and challenges to the adoption and sustained use of LPG, as well as PNG and electric cooking. We use willingness to pay for LPG to gauge the price point at which a domestic LPG cylinder would be affordable for households in urban informal settlements. Additionally, we use data on demographics, household characteristics, sources of household income, and perspectives on different fuels to understand the factors that shape their cooking fuel choices.
In India, many people still rely on fuels such as charcoal, coal, kerosene, firewood, and agricultural waste. Using these fuels for cooking causes household air pollution (HAP), releasing pollutants like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate matter (PM) (UNEP 2021). PM2.5 in such a setting can exceed WHO recommended levels by 100 times (WHO 2025). Additionally, about 30 per cent of ambient PM2.5 is attributable to HAP that reaches outdoor air and contributes significantly to ambient pollution (Chowdhury et al. 2023; McDuffie et al. 2021). In India, HAP is a leading risk factor for death; in 2023, it accounted for over 9 lakh deaths, one of the highest attributable to a single source (SoGA 2025). Using these fuels for cooking leads to other negative externalities on health and the environment (Kar et al. 2019); and it also affects economic growth by reducing productivity, decreasing labour supply, and increasing health-care expenditure.
To ease access to clean cooking fuels, the Government of India (GoI) launched the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) in 2016. Aimed at providing poor women subsidised liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) connections, the PMUY has benefited over 105 million women from economically deprived households (PPAC 2026).
Several reports by CEEW and the Press Information Bureau indicate that sustained usage has been low, due to the high cost of refills, delays in home delivery, and cultural preferences (MoPNG 2024; Mani et al. 2021; Kar et al. 2024). And 37 per cent of households still rely primarily on polluting solid fuels—reflecting persistent challenges with affordability, access, and sustained usage of clean fuels (NSS 79th Round 2023).
Several studies discuss the need to make LPG affordable, but little research has been conducted to determine what price point or price range is acceptable for the primary or exclusive use of alternative clean cooking fuels such as LPG, PNG, or electricity, particularly in informal settlement households,1 which represent a particularly underserved and understudied population in the clean cooking transition. In 2022, 41 per cent of the urban population (203 million) lived in informal settlements (UN-Habitat 2024). However, despite their scale and distinct socioeconomic and household characteristics, urban informal settlement households have received limited attention in the energy access literature (Jha et al. 2021): most studies focus on rural populations or broader urban samples that fail to capture the specific constraints faced by the population in informal settlements.
Therefore, this study attempts to address the gap by examining the fuel use patterns, affordability and related constraints, perspective on cooking fuels, and the willingness to pay (WTP) for clean cooking fuels2 among urban informal settlement households across 10 Indian cities. The COVID-19 pandemic also triggered a significant decline in the use of clean cooking fuels, with a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations (Das et al. 2023). The findings are drawn from a larger survey of more than 4,000 respondents across urban informal settlements, migrants and rural households. The three respondent groups were selected as they represented the vulnerable population who had higher likelihood of reverting to solid fuel usage after the pandemic in 2020. This issue brief presents findings from 1,116 households living in urban informal settlements across 10 cities in 10 states. Here, we aim to answer three questions.
High penetration of LPG masks stacking behaviour and informal usage of domestic cylinders
Our study reveals that 70 per cent of urban informal settlement households use LPG exclusively for their cooking purposes; 2 per cent use electricity (exclusively or as a part of their fuel mix); around 12 per cent rely on solid fuel exclusively for cooking; and the remaining households (16 per cent) display stacking behaviour with several combinations of clean and solid fuels (Figure ES1)
While LPG access is widespread among urban informal settlement households, two important challenges persist:
Figure ES1. About 16% of urban informal settlement households use a mix of clean and solid cooking fuels (fuel-stack)
Affordability and documentation constrain the adoption of/exclusive usage of clean cooking fuels
Cost remains the most consistently cited barrier to adopting clean cooking fuels, and its burden falls disproportionately on the low-income households.
Documentation requirements present another barrier: 31 per cent of informally connected users reported that they were denied a formal LPG connection because they did not have the documents required such as proof of identity, proof of address (present address in the city), ration card and bank account details. Another 50 per cent who use informal LPG connections say they cannot afford the installation costs of a formal connection.
The eligibility criteria of the PMUY are women (1) aged 18 years or older, (2) possessing a ration card, (3) holding an Aadhaar card, and (4) not already being a PMUY beneficiary or having a formal connection from an oil marketing company (OMC). Around 13 per cent of respondents are eligible for PMUY but remain unenrolled, representing a significant and addressable policy gap. Notably, 40 per cent of respondents (445 respondents) reported receiving subsidy against their refill and showed markedly higher rates of exclusive use of clean fuels; 83 per cent of subsidy recipients were exclusive users of clean fuels, demonstrating that affordability is a crucial barrier to the sustained usage of LPG. Additionally, income irregularity can be a relevant factor in the pattern of cooking fuel use as 47 per cent of the total households are engaged in the informal sector and exclusive use of solid fuels for cooking is highest among this population (20 per cent of the informal workers). Households engaged in the informal sector also show comparatively more fuel stacking behaviour (21 per cent), a higher share than other income groups such as formally employed, self-employed households or households running on passive income.
Figure ES2. The price paid by respondents using an informal LPG connection is the highest at INR 1,040, paying a premium of INR 190 per cylinder
Urban informal settlement dwellers’ willingness to pay reveals their affordability issue.
The WTP indicates stated preferences for domestic cylinder refill prices. To analyse WTP, households were asked the price they would be willing to pay for a 14.2 kgs LPG cylinder to transition to exclusive LPG use. Our study makes use of the ‘affordability limit’—a price point that would be affordable for 80 per cent of households to use LPG exclusively—calculated as the 20th percentile of the stated WTP for exclusive LPG use. In other words, if the price of LPG is at the given price point or lower, 80 per cent of surveyed respondents self-report that they will move to exclusive LPG use. Setting the inclusion threshold any higher would decrease feasibility from a fiscal standpoint (Figure ES3). Anchoring the analysis to a 80 per cent threshold instead centres the policy question on inclusion—at what price point does moving to exclusive LPG usage become viable for the vast majority of the urban informal settlement population.
We observe that the affordability limit varies by LPG connection types and non-users of LPG—INR 450 for general connection users, INR 400 for PMUY and users with no formal connection, and at INR 300 for non-LPG users.
Figure ES3. The affordability limit varies across different LPG user groups but 80% of the respondents are willing to use LPG exclusively at INR 400
Ease documentation requirements.
Documentation requirements remain a primary structural barrier: 31 per cent of households without a formal LPG connection were denied LPG due to insufficient paperwork. To obtain a formal connection from an OMC, customers are typically required to present proof of identity, proof of address, ration card and bank account details (as per PMUY eligibility criteria). As many informal settlement dwellers live in non-notified slums, they may lack legal recognition of their residence. This can pose a challenge when providing the required proof of address when applying for a formal LPG connection.
The OMCs and distributors could provide additional assistance to households from informal settlements with the documentation process to obtain a formal LPG connection. Periodic enrollment drives could be introduced to reach the remaining households in urban informal settlements that do not use LPG or use LPG without a formal connection.
Strengthen last-mile delivery infrastructure.
Along with documentation, it would be equally important to bridge the delivery gap, as informal users are far less likely to receive doorstep delivery (21 per cent) than general connection holders (78 per cent). Strengthening the accountability of last-mile distributors would directly improve the reliability of supply for newly formalised households.
Stronger last-mile delivery infrastructure as a supply-side intervention by exploring a differentiated distributors’ commission model for home delivery (Kar et al. 2024) could meaningfully extend reach to hard-to-access households that currently rely on informal channels by necessity.
Design subsidies to reflect actual affordability thresholds.
The upfront refill cost still remains a barrier, especially for low-income households. When asked to choose between interventions, more respondents preferred a reduction in upfront cost compared to buy now pay later option (56 per cent versus 41 per cent), suggesting subsidies at the point of purchase could address the irregular income cycles, liquidity constraints, and present bias among the households. Deferred payment alternatives can still play a complementary role, particularly for households that prefer to smooth costs over time or face liquidity constraints that make lump-sum payments at the point of purchase difficult.
To ease liquidity constraints and break down payment cycles, households can leverage India’s digital public infrastructure (DPI) to use mobile phone-based microsavings and make micropayments towards LPG distribution systems. In addition, smaller cylinder sizes—5 kg and 2 kg, used by 11 per cent of respondents—should be incentivised as an affordable and flexible entry point for the sustained adoption of clean fuels.
Build pathways beyond LPG.
Currently, adoption of PNG and electric cooking is negligible in the sample: no one reported using PNG, and only 2 per cent of respondents use electric cooking. The WTP for the two alternative fuels ranges between INR 250—500 per month for PNG and INR 100—300 per month for electric cooking, reflecting that a latent demand exists.
City-level pilots covering urban informal settlement areas should be prioritised in areas with a stable electricity supply and an existing LPG user base. For alternatives like biogas, a lack of space and lack of access to feedstock can impede uptake of such a technology in urban informal settlements. Additionally, there is also a lack of proper infrastructure to support piped gas connections in informal settlements (Mathur 2026). Electric cooking remains one of the viable options in such a setting and the households can be provided with a choice of e-cooking capital subsidy to PMUY customers to add electric cooking as part of their clean cooking stack, rather than substituting LPG completely with electric cooking. A significant share of respondents report safety concerns around electric appliances and perceive electricity as too expensive. City-level pilots that combine subsidised induction cookstoves with targeted behaviour change communication (BCC) interventions would help address both financial and informational barriers simultaneously. Initial deployment should target existing clean fuel users who demonstrate the highest WTP and require the smallest behavioural shift, followed by scaling the intervention to households currently dependent on solid fuels.
Fostering an environment in which households can realistically transition to clean cooking fuels requires addressing challenges to access, adoption, and usage. The government needs to move beyond only supplying connections for clean fuels to solutions that incentivise consumers and account for behavioural changes for sustained and exclusive use of clean fuels
The urban poor referred to in the study are households living in urban informal settlements. UN-Habitat defines "informal settlements" as households that lack secure tenure; neighbourhoods that are cut off from formal basic services and do not comply with housing/planning standards; and settlements that are often located in hazardous areas without municipal permits. It is broadly synonymous with slums, where households face one or more deprivations, according to UN-Habitat's operational definition: inadequate water, sanitation, living space, housing durability, or tenure security.
Yes, 70 per cent of households in urban informal settlements use LPG exclusively, and 16 per cent use it as part of their fuel mix alongside solid fuels. Despite high reliance on LPG cylinders, not all households procure it through formal channels – 11 per cent still rely on informal LPG cylinders for cooking.
Fuel stacking is when a household uses a mix of clean and unclean fuels for cooking – for example, LPG for some meals and firewood for others rather than using clean fuel exclusively. It matters because household air pollution exposure is driven by solid fuel use, so realising the full health benefits of cleaner cooking fuels like LPG requires exclusive use rather than just access to a cylinder.
No. General users who buy cylinders from official OMC distributorships pay the market price, which, around the time of the survey, was INR 850 (median), while informal users paid a median of INR 1040. Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) beneficiaries receive a subsidy of INR 300 and pay INR 540 (median).
Willingness to pay is the stated price point at which the respondent will switch to exclusive use of LPG (14.2 kg domestic cylinder). Exclusive usage is defined as twice the household size (two cylinders per person per year), which is based on a baseline cooking energy requirement of 3,500 MJ per year for an average 5-person household, or ~700 MJ/year per individual. We found that the median WTP is INR 500, but the range varies across different fuel user groups.
Inability to produce the required documents, high levels of informal use, high upfront costs, and lack of doorstep delivery are barriers to the exclusive use of LPG in urban informal settlements. Additionally, no respondents use PNG, and the lack of piped gas infrastructure in informal settlements makes the technology largely unavailable. A small share of households (2 per cent) use electricity for cooking (exclusively or as part of their fuel mix), and many cite cost as a barrier to adoption of electric cooking.
Understanding Clean Cooking Fuel Usage Among Migrants
Strengthening Air Emissions Disclosures in ESG Reporting
Behaviour Change Approaches to Tackle Stubble Burning at Scale
Organic Waste Circular Economy for Viksit Bharat
