But I cannot help thinking this is a bit of a non-blogbattle. Both Moss and Ryder agree on the importance of addressing energy poverty and on the need for additional investment to achieve this. Both agree that electricity generated from fossil fuels can play a role in delivering electricity to poor families. (Neither mentions energy for cooking, which is the largest single use of energy by poor households and in most low-income countries.)

Moss argues that limits to support for investment in fossil fuel-based electricity in developing countries is an unnecessary constraint. Ryder may not to disagree. On the other hand, the assumption Moss makes that renewables = off-grid is not universally applicable. This Ryder recognises. Nor does Moss really reflect, at least in the blog and reply, that while 5 times more investment in energy access is necessary to eradicate energy poverty, this is a very small proportion of the total investment in energy required. Since his focus is grid-based electricity for the urban poor, he does not address the question of how to ensure that expansion in generation for the grid will actually reach the poor. A power station burning fossil fuels feeds into the grid, but who receives the electricity is a distribution question. Hence Ryder’s highlighting of inequality.

There is a real policy question here, for both donors and developing country governments. To what extent should low-income countries be investing in renewable electricity generation now, with medium to longer-term objectives in mind; or should they focus only on the immediate energy poverty challenge? If there is a disjuncture between the immediate and longer-term objectives because of costs, what kind of support should donors be providing that addresses both poverty and long-term sustainability?

Now, I would really welcome debate about this question.

It’s worth noting that the IEA (World Energy Outlook 2011) also estimates that globally, 55% of all new electricity generated will need to be by mini-grid and isolated off-grid solutions if everyone is to enjoy access to sufficient electricity by 2030.

So yes, there will be a role for grid extension, for example, in reaching the urban poor.

However, funding flows have historically been hugely skewed towards grid extension. It would be good to see the balance adjusted to something like the proportions the IEA estimates are required.

Also, electricity is only a part of the picture. For energy access to fulfil its potential as a powerful catalyst for development, we need to consider the full range of energy services that people need, want and have a right to – at a minimum level including fuels for cooking and mechanical power. This is the line we’ve been pursuing very strongly through, for example, our ‘Poor People’s Energy Outlook’. Incidentally, gas can play a role in that picture in terms of clean cooking fuels (never mind its use in electricity generation).