Energy Access in the 21st Century - Todd Moss

Summary

---

The CGD Podcast – Energy Access in the 21st Century: Todd Moss Testifies

Date: March 10, 2014
Host: Lawrence MacDonald (A), Center for Global Development
Guest/Testimony: Todd Moss (B), Chief Operating Officer and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development

---

Episode Overview

In this special episode, host Lawrence MacDonald presents the testimony of Todd Moss before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Moss discusses the critical issue of energy access in Africa, the role of the United States in supporting electrification efforts, and the complex trade-offs between climate policy and poverty alleviation. Moss urges practical and balanced solutions, emphasizing the need for US leadership without imposing unrealistic energy transitions on the world’s poorest nations.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Magnitude and Impact of Energy Poverty

[02:12–03:30]

• Scale of the Problem: Over 1 billion people worldwide lack electricity. In Africa alone, 600 million people—nearly twice the US population—live without power.
• Energy Inequality: Moss provides a personal anecdote:
  “My new fridge uses five times more power per year than the average person in Tanzania or Liberia.” (B at 02:48)
• Health Impacts: Reliance on wood and charcoal for cooking causes indoor air pollution, leading to 3.5 million premature deaths annually—more than AIDS and malaria combined.
• Economic Consequences: The lack of affordable, reliable electricity is highlighted as the top constraint on business growth in Africa, according to World Bank data.

2. The US Role in Expanding Energy Access Abroad

[03:32–05:10]

• Leadership Opportunity: Other countries (European, China) are scaling their commitments; Moss urges the US to match these efforts, drawing parallels to historical domestic expansion of electricity.
• Power Africa Initiative: President Obama’s program to double African energy access is “very promising,” but bureaucracy limits its effectiveness.
• Key Agency Hindered: OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation), the best-positioned US agency, needs more authority and flexibility, not just funding.
• Legislative Momentum: The Electrify Africa Act would empower OPIC and ensure longevity of current initiatives.

3. Contradictory US and Global Policies

[05:11–06:09]

• Policy Restrictions: While pushing for expanded energy access, the US is simultaneously restricting financing for natural gas and hydropower.
• Local Resource Utilization: Many African countries, like Ghana, want to harness newfound natural gas for electricity, but face opposition from climate advocates. Moss points out:
  “In the United States we have...more than 3,400 fossil fuel plants. Ghana has two.” (B at 06:03)
• Balancing Growth and Sustainability: Moss stresses the need for realism:
  “We cannot wish away these trade offs of our energy policy choices.” (B at 06:14)

4. Pragmatic Solutions and Necessary Trade-Offs

[06:10–07:05]

• Beyond Renewables: Clean tech should be supported, but “the scale of the problem is so great that those approaches will simply not be enough.”
• Urban and Rural Realities: Many without power are in cities; extending the grid, often using locally available resources, is essential.
  “Even in rural areas in Africa, people are not as spread out as some people imagine… 75% of the population lives within a mile of an existing transmission line.” (B at 06:28)
• Limits of Solar Solutions: While solar lamps are helpful, consumers want more than “a single light bulb and a cell phone charger.” No country would accept such minimalism in place of modern energy systems.

5. Cost-Effectiveness and Equity

[07:06–07:40]

• Flexible Investment: Moss and his colleague estimate that permitting OPIC investment in natural gas projects could deliver access to “60 million more people for the exact same money over a renewables only strategy.”
• Policy Recommendation:
  “At the very least, we should make an exception to any public financing restrictions for the poorest countries with the least emissions.” (B at 07:22)

---

Memorable Quotes

• Todd Moss on Fairness and Realism:
  “No one would openly argue that we should fight climate change on the back of the world’s poor. But we must be very careful not to burden the poorest nations with romantic notions of an energy future that does not yet exist.” (B at 07:48)

• Host’s Reflection:
  “I find that hard to argue with, despite the fact that I'm a climate hawk.” (A at 00:44)

• On US Policy Choices:
  “If an all of the above approach is good enough for the United States, how can we in good conscience stand in the way of the world's poorest countries using locally available energy sources to provide electricity for their own people.” (B at 08:15)

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:17–01:41] – Introduction & context from Lawrence MacDonald
• [01:41–07:59] – Todd Moss’s testimony
• [07:06–08:15] – Moss’s concluding remarks and policy recommendations
• [08:28–08:52] – Outro and further resources

---

Overall Tone

Moss’s testimony is pragmatic and empathetic, emphasizing both the huge scope of energy poverty and the moral/strategic necessity for the US to act. He argues for policy realism—supporting clean energy while recognizing that fossil fuel investments may be necessary for rapid, large-scale electrification in Africa. The episode is informative, solution-focused, and avoids polemics, striving for a balanced approach between environmental goals and human development.

---

For Further Exploration

• Read Aaron Collinson’s blog and see photos from the testimony on the CGD website.
• For continued updates, follow the CGD Podcast (“Wonkcast”) on your preferred platform.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the Global Prosperity wonkast. I'm Lawrence McDonald. We have something totally different today. Instead of having a guest in the studio, I'm bringing to you the testimony of Todd Moss, the Chief Operating Officer and Senior Fellow here at the center for Global Development. When Todd spoke in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in fact, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power in the US Congress, Todd spoke about the US Initiative to provide power to Africa and his concluding statement. Statement When I watched the YouTube video, struck me. He said no one would openly argue that we should fight climate change on the back of the world's poor, but we must be very careful not to burden the poorest nations with romantic notions of an energy future that does not yet exist. I find that hard to argue with, despite the fact that I'm a climate hawk. And I commend to you this brief seven minute testimony that Todd provided to the Congress. We also have a blog post by our colleague Aaron Collinson about the testimony on the CGD website, and Todd has livened that up with some photographs of him testifying. And in the background, you can see his son making funny faces as his dad speaks to the Congressman. I commend that to you as well. Enjoy listening.

[B]

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and other members of the subcommittee. Energy access is increasingly relevant to American business and US Foreign policy interests, especially in the fast growing emerging markets. As a development policy scholar at the nonpartisan center for Global Development and a former State Department official, I'm going to focus this morning on the international dimensions and what the US should really can and should be doing about it. Three three points this morning. One, the energy gaps are huge and very harmful. Second, the US can and should be a leader in expanding energy access abroad. And three, to succeed, we have to be honest about how our policy choices may have the practical effect of denying power to the world's poorest. First, more than a billion people today live without electricity. Turning on a light, heating our homes, using a computer or a fridge are things that we in the United States view as simple conveniences of modern life in Africa. As we've heard, some 600 million people, almost twice the population in the United States, live with no electricity at all. Even those with access to power use absolute fraction of the power that we do. I was recently shopping for a new refrigerator with my son who's here with me today, and I was reading those little yellow Energy Star tags and my new fridge uses five times more power per year than the average person in Tanzania or Liberia. This lack of electricity is devastating to both lives and to livelihoods. Without electricity, people are forced to cook with wood and charcoal. This creates indoor air pollution, which then leads to premature death. The best global estimate we have is that there are three and a half million premature deaths every year from indoor air pollution. So energy poverty kills more people than AIDS and malaria combined. The effect on jobs and economic growth is stifling. World bank data show that the lack of affordable and reliable electricity is the top constraint to business expansion in Africa. Second point, the US Government has a very vital role to play in closing this energy gap. African governments are prioritizing electricity investment. European countries, China and other nations are increasing their commitment to energy access. And it's time for the US to play its part too. In our own history, our government has been fundamental in the expansion of electricity to underserved areas and ensuring that American industry has sufficient and affordable energy to be competitive. This policy had both a human face and was pro growth. Last June, President Obama launched Power Africa. This very promising initiative supports a doubling of energy access in the continent. Unfortunately, the agency best positioned to lead this effort, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or opic, is hamstrung by outdated policies and legislation. This little known but high performing agency supports the American private sector through insurance and project finance, not aid. This is commercial finance and what OPIC needs is not more money, but they need more authorities and flexibility to fulfill their mission. Fortunately, the Electrify Africa act introduced last year by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Angle, is being marked up today. Congressional action is important because it will empower OPIC and provide a foundation. So these efforts outlive the current administration. Momentum in Congress is encouraging. Yet just as the US is pushing expanded access, other policies are adding restrictions on financing for natural gas and even hydropower. This comes unfortunately at just the moment when many African countries are discovering natural gas. And understandably, they want to use some of those resources to produce electricity at home. Indeed, all six of the Power Africa focused countries are either producing or exploring for oil and gas today. Ghana, a close US ally, is a good example. Ghana wants to use its newly discovered natural gas to expand access and grow its industry. Yet the US is limited in our ability to assist them. And many advocacy groups concerned about greenhouse gas emissions are pushing to prevent any new gas fired power plants in Ghana. As we consider our position, it's worth noting, in the United states we have 3,000 more than 3,400 fossil fuel plants. Ghana has two. My final point is that we cannot wish away these trade offs of our energy policy choices. An emphasis on clean technology is a very good idea where it's feasible, and it deserves active US Support. The scale of the problem is so great that those approaches will simply not be enough. People living without power are not all in isolated villages. As we've heard from Mr. O', Brien, some 200 million Africans living without electricity are in cities and towns. Connecting these fast growing urban areas will require more large scale generation and expanding the grid. Even in rural areas in Africa, people are not as spread out as some people imagine. In Kenya, only 20% of the population has access to power. But a careful study by the University of California, Berkeley, shows that 75% of the population lives within a mile of an existing transmission line. Solar lamps also very, very popular. It's a fine invention, but consumer demand is going to be much greater than having a single light bulb and a cell phone charger. No country would rationally accept solar lamps in lieu of a modern energy system that can generate jobs and growth. A final common mistake is assuming that universal energy access can be achieved through entirely through renewables. Instead, there is a clear trade off between strictly focusing on renewables and expanding access. My colleague Ben Leo and I estimate that allowing OPIC to invest in natural gas power projects could provide for the exact same money access for 60 million more people over a renewables only strategy. At the very least, we should make an exception to any public financing restrictions for the poorest countries with the least emissions. To conclude, no one would openly argue that we should fight climate change on the back of the world's poor. But we must be very careful not to burden the poorest nations with romantic notions of an energy future that does not yet exist? If an all of the above approach is good enough for the United States, how can we in good conscience stand in the way of the world's poorest countries using locally available energy sources to provide electricity for their own people. Thank you.

[A]

This has been the Global Prosperity Wonkcast from the center for Global development. I'm Lawrence MacDonald and you've been listening today to Todd Moss in his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. You can find the Wonkast online on itunes and on stitcher. Just search for wonkcast or CGD and sign up to hear a new interview every week. Until next time, thanks for listening.

[B]

SA.