energy

Artificial Intelligence, Real Climate Impacts

BenTestani — Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:11:39 +0000

Artificial Intelligence, Real Climate Impacts

04/19/2024

Artificial intelligence can do some pretty amazing things, including for the climate. But, as with most technology, there are significant trade offs. The energy used by AI is massive and growing.

Tech giants like Microsoft, Google and Amazon are building enormous data centers to make AI possible. Karen Hao, a contributing writer for the Atlantic who also has an engineering degree from MIT, visited one of these data centers in Arizona. It was a 97 degree day, and the data center stretched on into the desert. Hao decided she would walk around it to get a visceral idea of how big it is. She says, “Within two legs of the rectangle. I just started feeling very, very heat exhausted and I'd run out of water. It had already taken me around 20, 25 minutes and I was like, I gotta get out of here.” Companies are making huge investments in giant data centers. Hao says Microsoft alone is spending around 10 billion a quarter now on data centers.

Most of the hype right now is around generative AI. Think: ChatGPT. As a matter of fact, the G in ChatGPT stands for generative. The basic idea is that AI is being fed our data to train models that generate more data like that. Karen Hao says, “It's taking our writing to generate more writing. It's taking our images to generate more images.”

But not all flavors of AI use the same amount of energy. Much of theAI that might benefit the reasons is referred to as predictive AI. Predictive AI tends to use existing data to help it make predictions, rather than generating new sentences or images the way generative AI does. For example: it might use our images to make a prediction about what's in another image. Hao says, “Like cancer detection systems or facial recognition systems.” And predictive AI uses far less energy. This is because predictive AI is trained on a specific task, and once it achieves the desired accuracy, its energy use falls dramatically.

Predictive AI is also being used to track emissions. Climate TRACE, an independent greenhouse gas emissions tracker backed by former Vice President Al Gore, is one such organization. Gavin McCormick, Co-Founder of Climate TRACE, says, “we can see that some steel facilities pollute about 10 times more emissions than others to produce the same product.” That data helped companies like GM and Tesla switch to steel factories that produced less emissions. McCormick says, “Our hope is that this is a way that data can make it kind of painless to reduce emissions.”

“AI is being used in all sorts of ways to facilitate climate action from things like helping us better forecast solar power on electric power grids in order to help us balance grids with large amounts of renewables,” says Priya Donti, Assistant Professor at MIT and Co-founder and Chair of Climate Change AI. Efficiency is one of the best ways to reduce carbon pollution. If we didn't need so much power, we wouldn't need to burn so much fossil fuel. With more efficiency we could switch to renewable energy more quickly. AI can help do that, even with simple tasks like optimizing heating and cooling systems in homes and buildings to save energy.

Nowcasting is a weather forecasting model that combines a description of the current state of the atmosphere and a short-term forecast. Amy McGovern, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Oklahoma, says, “our current average [nowcasting] warning is about 15 minutes. Can you imagine if you could bring that up to 30 minutes or 60 minutes?” McGovern also says, “As our climate is changing, a lot of these extreme weather events are changing. And I think AI can be used to help us improve our prediction and understanding of these events and, and be able to weather them better.”

Guests

Karen Hao

Contributing Writer, The Atlantic

Gavin McCormick

Cofounder and Executive Director, WattTime; Cofounder, Climate TRACE

Priya Donti

Assistant Professor, MIT; Co-founder and Chair of Climate Change AI

Amy McGovern

Professor of Computer Science, University of Oklahoma

AI is taking water from the desert (theatlantic.com)

Artificial Intelligence is Booming - So is its Carbon Footprint (bloomberg.com)

Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning (dl.acm.org)

Climate Change AI (climatechange.ai)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Male AI Voice: I’m not Greg Dalton.

Female AI Voice: And I’m not Ariana Brocious.

Male AI Voice: But this is Climate One

Female AI Voice: Today’s episode is all about artificial intelligence and how it’s going to solve the climate crisis.

Male AI Voice: That’s right — how harnessing the amazing power of AI will lead all of humanity into a greener, cleaner world.

[music change ]

Ariana Brocious: Whow, it's so strange. The intonation is totally wrong.

Greg Dalton: What is that thing? That didn't sound like me.

Ariana Brocious: Also, that's not how we feel.

Greg Dalton: No, I'm not buying that hype at all of, you know, the AI is going to do wonderful things in the Bay Area. That AI hype is just everywhere.

Ariana Brocious: And yeah, there is a lot of hype. There's a lot of hype around what AI can do, right? Artificial intelligence has a lot of powerful applications and we're starting to see some of those right now.

Greg Dalton: A lot of hype and a lot of fear, particularly around computers taking jobs from knowledge workers. A lot of technological displacement has been factory workers, blue collar jobs. Now it's coming for us, white collar workers.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, it is. It's concerning for a lot of people, though. I will say selfishly, from what we just heard, I think that radio host jobs are safe for the time being, Greg. I think we still sound pretty human, so that's good.

Greg Dalton: Maybe true for me for however many working years I have. For younger people like you, I'm less sure. My bigger worries are around AI's impacts on the climate. No, I do care about your career.

Ariana Brocious: Thanks, Greg. Yeah, there are climate impacts and they cut both ways. And as we'll hear on the show today, AI can help optimize the electric grid, make heating and cooling buildings more efficient, and do really cool things like detect where emissions are coming from. And it's able to complete these assessments in a fraction of the time it would take for a normal human.

Greg Dalton: Like most things in life, there are trade offs. The energy use of AI is massive and growing. A recent study estimates that in just a few years The extra energy need will equal whole countries the size of Sweden or Argentina.

Ariana Brocious: That's unbelievable. That is a lot of power.

Greg Dalton: I'm personally terrified that AI's insatiable power demand will more than outweigh any societal benefits.

Ariana Brocious: And that's the central question of today's episode. How do we weigh AI's environmental costs versus benefits?

Greg Dalton: And it's a complex topic we'll do our best to unpack for you today.

Ariana Brocious: So we're going to start with the fact that not all AI is created equal. There are different kinds of AI tailored for different goals.

Greg Dalton: And before we started working on this, I lumped all AI together. I thought AI was like Siri or ChatGPT, where you put in a question and then AI gives you an answer in written or spoken form.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, it's still a really new field for most of us, and we're just kind of getting up to speed. ChatGPT uses what's called generative AI, and that's actually what the G stands for. And GPT stands for, so it's supposed to generate new sentences or new images. And this is what has my journalist and copywriter friends really scared, right? Because it's kind of coming for their, their jobs, their work. There's also predictive AI, which uses existing data to do things like predict the weather or detect cancer in a mammogram.

Greg Dalton: Predictive AI uses far less energy than generative AI, and it's also probably where the most useful climate applications are.

Ariana Brocious: Right, you can think about the climate applications of better knowing the weather, right? That's going to be increasingly useful in the years ahead. So this balance of whether AI will be good or bad for the climate will probably depend on what kind of AI we're talking about and how it's being used.

Greg Dalton: To help us get a better idea of the overall AI picture, We want to start today's episode with Karen Howe. She's a contributing writer for the Atlantic who also has an engineering degree from MIT. These days, her writing focuses on the intersection of AI and society, and her reporting has taken her deep into the heart of artificial intelligence, including to the huge computing facilities that make it run.

Karen Hao: I'd never been to a data center before, um, and I really wanted to see it in person. And right before I went, I actually was speaking with a scholar, Mel Hogan, who had, has been writing about data centers for a long time. 10 years and I was asking her, Oh, like how big is the data center going to be? Like, what should I be expecting? And she was like, Oh, when I first started writing about data centers, I used football fields as a comparison. and now football fields don't make sense anymore. Now it's like university campuses.

Greg Dalton: Wow.

Karen Hao:and so when I arrived at the corner of this data center campus, it was like, I was in the middle of this really kind of desolate area within Arizona where there's farm fields on one side and then there's kind of just desert land, for miles and miles and miles. and when I stepped out, it was like 97 degrees and it was, that was actually the coldest, coldest day of that week. and the first thing that I thought was, well, let me try walking around the status center just to get a bodily sense of how big this is, because I could see it stretching out further than I could see. But I couldn't really, you know, when you're in a place that there's not really a lot of landmarks, you can't really assess like, how large is this space that you're in? So I just started walking and thinking, Okay, I'm just going to time myself and see how long it takes me to walk around the whole thing. And it did not work. Within,two legs of the, of the, um, rectangle, I just started feeling very, very heat exhausted, and I'd run out of water. It had already taken me around 20, 25 minutes, and I was like, I gotta get out of here. I'm gonna pass out if I don't leave. And it was, it was a really stark kind of illustration of how big these things are and also where we're actually building these giant silicon monstrosities. Like we are choosing quite intense, hot, dry areas to build these things.

Greg Dalton: So I got, I got to ask, why did they build this thing in the Arizona desert?

Karen Hao: So Arizona has actually become a really popular place for data centers. and part of the reason is because of its proximity to California. It also has cheap land. It has very importantly, a large enough utility company, to provide the type of infrastructure that you need to deliver the energy density, to a data center. And also it doesn't have earthquakes, it doesn't have floods. Like Arizona, other than the heat, has a lot of other things going for it. But of course the heat and the lack of water, and the sheer amount of energy that data centers are now requiring also makes Arizona sort of a controversial. place to have something like this.

Greg Dalton: And you've written that Microsoft alone is on pace to build between 50 and 100 new data centers each year for the foreseeable future. How much of that growth is due to AI?

Karen Hao: A significant amount of that growth is due to AI. Of course, we can't fully ascertain because these companies, and Microsoft in particular, does not actually have any transparency into the amount of AI growth that they're experiencing and what share of their data center growth is driving or supporting the AI development and AI use, but you can just see kind of from the historical patterns for Microsoft that once they made this all encompassing commitment to support it. Open AI, which is the main driver of the AI revolution right now, the amount that Microsoft has been spending on data centers has dramatically increased. So they're spending around 10 billion a quarter now.

Greg Dalton: So AI is not just one thing, yet people talk about it as it is. You know, how do you define different, the main categories of AI?

Karen Hao: Yeah, this is a great point. AI has many different technologies. and right now we're seeing this huge wave of what we're calling generative AI technologies. And that, generative AI, you can boil it down to the idea that it's just taking a lot of our data, to train models that generate more data like that. So it's taking our writing to generate more writing. It's taking our images to generate more images. But before that, there were what we now call predictive AI technologies, which is just taking our data to then make predictions about the world. so it might take our images to make a prediction about what is in another image or what people might may have heard of before is things like cancer detection systems or facial recognition systems. These are all of the category of predictive AI, where you're just trying to identify and classify something in the world.

Greg Dalton: And is there a meaningful difference in energy consumption between generative and predictive AI?

Karen Hao: The way that AI is being developed has completely changed. So before, when you're talking about predictive AI, you start with a problem, like, I want to detect cancer in this MRI scan, and then you collect data that's very well scoped to solve that particular problem. You train an AI model to do that specific thing, and you measure it on a benchmark that is to measure that performance. So you, you will ultimately do all the work and then you might develop an AI system that can do 99% accuracy on identifying breast cancer in an MRI scan, for example. and because it is like very narrowly and well scoped as a problem, the energy consumption is significantly less than what we're doing now. Now with generative ai. when you try to teach a system to be able to generate. any kind of writing or any kind of image, the sheer amount of data that you are feeding into these systems has already dramatically increased orders of magnitude. and we see stories about how these companies are running out of data on the internet to consume because of the sheer data imperative of these technologies. And once you have that much data, you also have a far larger AI model. And that means the amount of energy that goes into training it and also running it after it's finished developing has dramatically increased multiple fold.

Greg Dalton: And you, you said that Microsoft has been the primary vector for conflating the kind of AI that can be good for climate solutions, like optimizing the grid, maybe predicting weather, with the type of AI that like chat GPT is the greater villain when it comes to energy use, as you've just been describing. what do you think about Microsoft conflating the different types of, you know, sort of good energy, good AI and energy, bad AI?

Karen Hao: Yeah, I think what Microsoft has done that's quite clever, I guess you could say, is they Talk about AI as though it's one thing and they'll go to these, these forums like the World Economic Forum or COP, and they'll say, it is critical to accelerate the advancement of AI to combat climate change to make sure that we attain sustainability. And if you go into the weeds, what they're talking about, is there are many types of predictive AI technologies that are in fact great at optimizing, um, the grid to make sure that as more electric vehicles plug into the grid, you actually can distribute the power in a way that doesn't affect the, the grid resilience too much or they're talking about optimizing the energy consumption of a building to make sure that it drops by 40 or even 60%. But when they say accelerating the advancement of AI, what people register in the public is they think that they're talking about something like ChatGPT, because that is what Microsoft is supporting the development of right now, and so they think, oh, we need more ChatGPTs, we need more generative AI, we really need to double down on this in order to solve climate change. And that's actually not at all, they are not talking about the same thing. They're talking about a fundamentally different category of AI technologies that might be helpful. And they're using that as a cover to then allow or excuse the kind of investments that they are pumping into a much more energy consumptive version of AI.

Greg Dalton: I usually think I've thought about Microsoft as a climate leader. They were early to have an internal carbon price. They used to have people track the flights they took. They said they were going to zero out the carbon emissions of the entire history of the company. I think Microsoft's been a pretty legit climate leader. Is the pursuit of AI putting that at risk?

Karen Hao: That is absolutely what I heard from Microsoft employees, both current and former. There are a lot of employees that are very deeply concerned from what they're seeing within the company, and they think that there was a time when Microsoft was taking remarkable strides and pushing the industry forward, in terms of sustainability commitments, but that now, the imperative to support this AI development, because it is just so profitable and it's done wonders for Microsoft's share price, is starting to consume the original commitments in sustainability.

Greg Dalton: Right. And you also quote Sam Altman, who said at Davos that quote, we still don't appreciate the energy needs of this technology, end quote, and he then goes on to seem to suggest that we need an energy breakthrough such as fusion. So we're building these things that are going to need this energy supply that doesn't yet exist. We're creating these. I'm just getting all worked up here talking with you about how we're creating these beasts and the implications of what's being created and how it seemed to be that the seduction of AI and the profits is taking Microsoft off course of its sustainability commitments,

Karen Hao: And not just Microsoft, I think the entire tech industry, Google, Amazon, all of these companies also made sustainability commitments at one point. and that also did wonders for their share price. They were rewarded for that in financial markets for making these really strong commitments and they were rewarded in their brand, for making these strong commitments. And now all of them are in this race to the bottom to basically lay down as many data centers as they can to support, a technology, a version of AI, generative AI, that still has not fully demonstrated clear value to people, proportional to the amount of resources that it uses.

Greg Dalton: Right. Well, we've lots of hype cycles from Silicon Valley. They don't pan out the way the tech bros promise. Um, so. Do you ever get angry reporting on this?

Karen Hao: yeah, whenever I, I mean, recently, there was this article from The Information scooping the fact that Microsoft is sketching out plans to build a data center that would cost 100 billion, just a single data center that would cost 100 billion, and it would be the most expensive, and the largest and the most powerful data center that has ever been built in the history of humanity. And just seeing this kind of headline, it, it make, it does make me angry because I'm like, what are we doing here? Have, has no one noticed what we are allowing these companies to do? Are we just going to continue sleepwalking into this future where we end up with no energy or we end up consuming more and more and more and more fossil fuels into our oblivion? And whenever I, I get angry, my husband's always like, take that energy, convert it, and write it into your next story. Like, keep doing what you're doing. And, um, and that's what keeps me motivated. But it is, it can be kind of disheartening and demoralizing because sometimes I'm writing these stories and I'm like, is anyone paying attention? Like, we are it. in a massive planetary crisis right now. And yet we're still just talking about, ooh, like a hundred billion dollar data center. Wow. So powerful. So cool. Like what, where? Yeah. It's just, it's like really unfathomable to me.

Greg Dalton: So, not all flavors of AI are the same. Generative AI, like ChatGPT, uses a lot more energy than predictive AI, which is trying to answer more specific questions with smaller sets of data. How do you personally balance AI's potential for reducing the climate crisis with its potential to make it a whole lot worse?

Karen Hao: There are so many AI technologies that we already have that could improve things from an energy and climate perspective, like we already have algorithms that reduce the energy consumption of a building and optimize it, or we already have technologies that can optimize the grid to bring more renewables onto the grid. We should just be more clear eyed about the differences between the different AI technologies and where we should be applying what.

Greg Dalton: Mm hmm. Karen Howe, thank you so much for sharing your insights with us on Climate One.

Karen Hao: Thank you so much for having me.

Greg Dalton: Coming up: Researchers are using AI to help track emissions, and to see who is being dishonest about their pollution …

CLIP: The type of misinformation we are actually seeing is typically corporate.

A really disproportionate share comes from oil and gas companies.

Greg Dalton: How watchdogs can use AI. That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Ariana Brocious Please help us get people talking more about climate by sharing this episode with a friend. And we’d love to know what you think of the show. Please give us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device – and it really helps people find the show. Thanks!

Ariana Brocious: This is Climate One. I'm Arianna Brocious. AI use is growing and growing. That means it needs more energy, more resources, and produces more emissions. Yet, it's also being used to track emissions. One of the groups using AI in this way is called Climate Trace. It's an independent greenhouse gas emissions tracker backed by former Vice President Al Gore. Their data is available to everyone for free, and the results they've published in just the last few years have created a whole new level of staggering transparency. Polluters who are able to mask their emissions through their own reporting or misinformation campaigns can no longer lie and hide. And even honest players have more accountability tools at their disposal. Gavin McCormick is co-founder of Climate Trace. I asked him how AI is making emissions tracking on a large scale possible, and what results he's seeing.

Gavin McCormick: One of the things that has happened for a long time in climate change is we've had good monitoring of the total emissions in the atmosphere. We've had pretty good monitoring at a country level of what's going on, but the difference between what's the total industrial output of China versus what is this factory's carbon footprint, is it's way more actionable. So just to give you one among many examples, we've been working with a bunch of companies who buy a lot of steel and we can see that some steel facilities pollute about 10 times more emissions than others to produce the same product. So now that we have data like this, we've been able to help a lot of companies like Tesla and GM, start to buy steel from steel factories that were really clean, but actually had more capacity. And our hope is that this is a way that data can make it kind of painless to reduce emissions because nobody had to go build a new clean steel factory to get more steel. We're just using what we already have smarter.

Ariana Brocious: So shifting the sourcing to a source that is less greenhouse gas intensive, uh, or emitting. I was recently at an oil and gas conference and there was a lot of discussion about methane emissions in particular, and the rise of more monitoring like climate trace. And, my guess is that big industries are concerned and aware that they're now going to be monitored more closely. And so they may need to rein in some of their practices. But when we talked before, you also mentioned that there are just sort of unknown emissions, even by companies or, um, practices that may be trying to kind of keep their emissions in check. So tell me a bit about what you found when you've been able to point source these emissions.

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, one of my favorite examples is landfills. So landfills turn out to be a surprisingly significant source of emissions. The biggest thing we've found using satellites to look from space is there's just a lot more landfills worldwide than were commonly known. So we've compared to a lot of nations inventories of landfills, and in some cases there's four times more than were known. What I think is interesting about landfills, it's not like anyone was trying to hide those emissions. They were just kind of forgotten. And so I think one of the most interesting things data does is it doesn't just answer the question that you thought to ask, it sort of says, what emissions are you maybe not paying attention to that, uh, maybe you're not opposed to doing better.

Ariana Brocious: So that's great. That's a great example. And then let's return to this idea of the sort of keeping people honest, you know, for lack of a better word. So how has the data that Climate Trace has been gathering helped, industries or countries maybe from a regulatory side, be able to better track and monitor emissions.

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, so, we've worked, for example, with one country that did not know how, uh, intensive its own oil and gas sector was in terms of emissions. I can't promise that the next step is they're going to clean it up, but I can tell you that the regulators literally had no idea, and we were able to quietly, behind the scenes, inform them that there's a lot more methane coming out of their facilities than they thought. We worked with another country, who, uh, suspected that the states of that country were lying to the federal government about their own emissions, and the federal government was interested in cracking down on emissions, and what we were able to do was give them sort of objective third party validation to which of their states were probably giving them accurate data, and which of their states maybe were fudging some numbers. We will never know behind the scenes what the next step is, but we can tell you that a year later that country announced some pretty significant environmental policies, and we like to think we might have had a hand in that.

Ariana Brocious: Cool. Okay. So landfills, as you were talking about, are a huge source of methane. Another big source is feedlots and dairies, particularly here in the US. There's a lot. When we look at a country like the US and these sources, are there any kind of national inventories of emissions data for those industries that this is complementing, checking, and so forth?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, it's a mix. So we've really seen different countries are in different places. So, for example, for factory farms, the country worldwide that does it best is Uruguay. They have a really, really good inventory of every cow in the country. A country that does it really badly is the United States. Where, uh, for political reasons, uh, there's been a lot of pressure to actually forbid the government from keeping, the federal government from keeping a detailed inventory of factory farms and their emissions. That's fairly complicated. But the United States actually is quite good at monitoring, uh, transparently power plants, which other countries don't do very well. And we see patterns like that all the time.

Ariana Brocious: So you're saying, just to underscore this, that the US prohibits the collection of emissions data from factory farms, from large dairies and, and feedlots.

Gavin McCormick: The EPA is not allowed to have a list, and that is clearly not a scientific, that is clearly a political decision.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, interesting. Okay. so. This episode is about the role of artificial intelligence. Climate Trace went from publishing data about thousands of emitters to 350 million emitters in just over a year. How did AI enable that?

Gavin McCormick: So AI, and really all software is like this, but AI is a good example, really has this property where it can take a long time to make a model, but then running that model many, many times is actually quite easy. So it took us more years to set up the ability to monitor a facility from space. Then it took us to go towards more than half of global facilities, and we're hoping this year to more or less finish the job.

Ariana Brocious: So we've talked on this show about the energy demands of AI, and the concerns around how much it can consume. And when we talked before, you were very helpful in sort of explaining that there are differences in where the power is coming from, how clean it might be at any given time. and then also the sort of power needs of different aspects of AI implementation. So you were just describing building the tool. And from my limited understanding, that takes a lot of power, right? Whereas maybe running it doesn't. So could you unpack that a bit, the sort of complexities behind the concern around AI's energy usage?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah. So first of all, I think that energy usage is the environmental issue here. We as a society are using so much more AI now. All signs are pointing towards more and more. And it's really that electricity consumption that, uh, could cause such environmental harm. And in general, the pattern of AI is training a model is very, very electricity intensive, whereas using a model, not necessary, very electricity intensive. Kind of similar to building a factory is harder than using a factory. and so what I think is really interesting there is that, uh, that means that in many cases you have an enormous amount of electricity consumption at a particular time. And then kind of like a little dribble of electricity consumption later. And, the carbon footprint of that totally depends on, well, what time was it? Was it a time when the solar panels were shining and the wind was blowing and there were relatively clean power plants on the grid? Or was it a time when it was peak energy demand and they were running extra oil plants and coal plants to run that power? You could have a radically different carbon footprint for the exact same AI model training, um, which is kind of a new thing. We're not used to thinking about electricity that way as a society.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. So you're a co-founder of climate trace, which is mostly what we've been talking about. You're also co-founder and executive director of Watt Tme, which is a separate nonprofit that helps people in companies and governments slash their emissions. So tell me how the work of Watt Time can address some of this, you know, less carbon intensive energy sourcing on the grid.

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, so we're a non profit trying to raise awareness at this point that, um, Watt time you use electricity really affects its carbon footprint. And so a great example of that is, if you have data, well, when was the wind blowing? When was the sun shining? What is the moment that they were throwing away surplus renewable energy because nobody was using it? And if you train your AI models at that time so much cleaner, then you can Then running the exact same model at another time, and it's actually the same way that you reduce the carbon footprint of charging an electric vehicle, charging a battery, running a thermostat. But what's particularly interesting about AI is so much of the electricity consumption happens in a really short time, and you can even do crazy things like you could even choose to, you know, train a model in a different location. So, we're also working with companies like Microsoft to say, hey, if it's a really clean grid in France right now, and a really dirty grid in Germany right now, uh, maybe you want to run that compute job in France today. And that's a very different way of thinking about energy than we're used to.

Ariana Brocious: This sort of gets at this like meta idea of, you know, AI being used to make AI better. Um, is that in practice happening? Are we seeing AI being implemented to make itself cleaner?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah. We are now using A. I. to figure out how to run A. I. to have a lower carbon footprint. and there's this wonderful, eat your own dog food component of it.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. As we know, there's been commitments made by countries all around the world to reduce their emissions by certain targets to hope to meet the Paris Accord goals of keeping global warming under 1. 5 degrees. how are governments using Climate TRACE’s information so far?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, the main thing that we've heard so far is it is difficult to affect the official system of country. There's often years of inertia in the ways that the books are kept, but a lot of what actually happens in the Paris agreement is about reputation. So the secretary general of the UN in particular has been very insistent that having an open transparent data set like Climate TRACE that makes it really clear which countries are lying about what really changes the politics in a hurry. One thing I'm delighted to share is that the outcome of that has been different than we expected. So we went into this thinking that we were going to find a bunch of liars and that there was going to be really awkward conversations at the next COP. That's really not what happened. So one of our biggest findings is that the vast majority of countries have been much more honest with each other. Then the climate negotiators themselves thought. And so oddly, the political implications have been a higher level of trust between countries trying to figure out whether they want to kind of like, uh, trust each other more and commit to deeper cuts, which is not the way we expected this project to go, but that's science.

Ariana Brocious: That's great. I mean, that's, uh, yeah, counterintuitive, but, nice to hear that the countries are sort of, being honest about what they're doing. Yeah.

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, you know, trust is the foundation of the Paris Agreement. I think it's easy to, a lot of folks kind of think of it as like, there's some set of rules or some cop who's going to force us to cut emissions. There's nothing like that. Yeah. Yeah. The only thing the U.N. has is reputation and trust, and it turns out if we have that, that really matters.

Ariana Brocious: hmm. So we touched on the concerns around energy consumption of AI. There are some other concerns as well. One of those is misinformation. So my brain goes to things that got a lot of attention, you know, like videos that have been edited, um, to make somebody sound different or to say something different than they actually did, um, or images that have been altered to misrepresent something. But when we're speaking about misinformation, particularly in the climate space that is aided by AI, what does that look like?

Gavin McCormick: In this case, I actually think that AI is more of a solution than a problem. I think in the specific space of climate, we've been up against misinformation for a long time. This goes back to the 70s. And the general playbook is just kind of obfuscate, deny, pretend nothing's happening. And AI that can just show you real imagery, not tampered with, of what actually happened. It really tends to empower those seeking truth more than those seeking, um, the opposite. And so as a general rule, I'm actually not terribly worried about misinformation from AI in the climate space, although it probably is a big problem in other fields.

Ariana Brocious: So you, you feel that way because you think that the power of AI, it can, validate truthful data,

Gavin McCormick: Yeah. And I think one of the things that is really interesting is the only place I am seeing some misinformation is As it gets harder and harder to deny the real world physical emissions, we're seeing more corporate shell games on saying, Ah, those emissions might be happening in the real world, but due to some funny accounting rule, they're not my fault. They're not my problem.

Ariana Brocious: or I've offset them over here.

Gavin McCormick: or I've offset them over here. My favorite new trick is one company is trying to cite data centers, the ones powering AI near nuclear power plants or windmills because they argue that that makes them clean. That doesn't do anything for the windmill or the nuclear power plant.

Ariana Brocious: Right, right, right. Unless they're connected directly to it, which they probably are not.

Gavin McCormick: Right. Which they never are.

Ariana Brocious: Well, speaking of the energy consumption, How concerned are you about the actual amount of energy that AI is going to continue to consume?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah. So this is another area where trying to follow the data, I reached a conclusion that is not what I originally would have expected. So I think the volume is going to be large, but also I am really seeing serious activity by most AI companies to, to really try to power it with renewable energy and it helps the renewable energy so much cheaper now. So I actually think as a society we are doing pretty well on the carbon from AI and people actually maybe should be relaxing about it a little bit. I do think that other industries like Bitcoin are very different. We've noticed a real difference in, you know, if Bitcoin and AI both use a bunch of electricity, how much are different companies trying to power it from clean sources or not? It's Bitcoin where I'm seeing more powering it on coal and oil, and in AI I'm seeing a lot of powering it on solar and wind.

Ariana Brocious: Interesting. Well, and also with Bitcoin, it's sort of in an exponentially more energy needed to crack the code, right? As it, I don't think AI works quite the same way. So, how do you personally balance AI's potential for mitigating the climate crisis with some of these risks we've talked about?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, so we actually just, last week, tried the exercise of counting our own carbon footprint. It turned out that, we can measure about 50 million tons of emissions that we've reduced and something like three tons of emissions that our AI carbon footprint has caused. So it's not zero, but that ratio is pretty staggering. so we actually concluded that flying is a bigger source of carbon footprints for our team than all the AI compute we use. And, I don't mean to say we shouldn't be cleaning up AI, but I do think that, when you actually look at the numbers, particularly given how much of it is powered on clean energy, it's probably not as bad as you think.

Ariana Brocious: And then hopefully there's this potential for continued optimization of these other renewable energy systems that we want, to actually improve the grid and emissions writ large, right?

Gavin McCormick: Yeah, and so, you know, a different category is AI is also very much used by the coal industry and the oil industry. And what generally happens is that doesn't get talked about, whereas the AI power of the wind industry gets talked about. So I couldn't tell you how many extra tons of pollutions are we going to have because the oil industry has better technology now, but that's probably a large number too.

Ariana Brocious: Mm hmm. Yeah, that's a good point. Gavin McCormick is co-founder and executive director of WattTime and co-founder of Climate TRACE. Gavin, thanks so much for joining us on Climate One.

Gavin McCormick: Thanks so much for having me, this was fun.

Greg Dalton: You're listening to a conversation about the climate implications of artificial intelligence. Coming up, we know that burning fossil fuels continues to amplify fires, floods and droughts. Can AI help protect us?

Amy McGovern: A lot of these extreme weather events are changing, and I think AI can be used to help us improve our prediction and understanding of these events and be able to weather them better.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Ariana Brocious: This is Climate One. I'm Arianna Brocious. One of the best ways to reduce planet warming emissions is through efficiency, basically using less energy. If we didn't need so much power, we wouldn't need to burn so much fossil fuel. And predictive AI can help us understand how to do that. Priya Donti is an assistant professor at MIT and co-founder and chair of Climate Change AI. A global nonprofit trying to foster the responsible use of AI for impactful climate action. Her own research focuses on optimizing the country's electric grid and maximizing efficiency throughout our energy system. She sees countless ways AI is already being used to advance the cause.

Priya Donti: AI is being used in all sorts of ways to facilitate climate action, from things like helping us better forecast solar power on electric power grids in order to help us balance grids with large amounts of renewables, to helping us better optimize things like heating and cooling systems in buildings in order to improve their efficiency by taking into account things like the occupancy of the building, the temperature of the building, in order to improve things like the, thermal comfort of the building while still reducing the overall energy use, to helping us do things like accelerate the discovery of next generation clean technologies like batteries by helping us to analyze the outcomes of past experiments and then suggest which experiments we should try next, but also helping us adapt to the effects of a changing climate through things like extreme event forecasting, through flood forecasting and flood mapping, as well as strengthening things like, policy, education, and finance by helping us get more fine grained information to provide an input to those kinds of strategies.

Ariana Brocious: So one area I'm really fascinated by that I know you work in is grid optimization. Specifically looking at that area. Can you tell us a bit more how AI is being used?

Priya Donti: When we think about our power grid, it's the system that needs to be maintained at this sort of exact balance between supply and demand at every single moment in time. And so AI is being used in a couple of ways across this. So one, is sort of helping us to forecast things like solar power or electricity demand. So in the case of solar power, for instance, what you would do is you say, I might have some historical data about how much solar power was produced. And related to that is information about things like how sunny was it? Were there clouds overhead? And I can basically take in the same kind of information. Maybe I have a forecast of how sunny it'll be. Maybe I have a video of how clouds are moving overhead. And I can try to learn patterns in that underlying data to figure out, in the past, how did it relate to how much solar power I actually got, and then use that same kind of relationship between the data to make predictions in the future of if the cloud cover looks a certain way and the sun looks a certain way, what will my solar power output look like?

Ariana Brocious: So that makes total sense to me. I'm also thinking about applications of balancing that grid, And that is currently handled by humans, right? With the help of computers and software. But is there a significant leap forward that can be made with artificial intelligence in this space? Or is it just kind of making better what we already do?

Priya Donti: Yeah, So right now what tends to happen is that a power system operator has sort of a view of what the power generators are on the system as well as some aggregated notion of what demand will be, and as well as some notion of what the solar power production will be and the wind power production will be. And then they figure out how to kind of control your controllable power generators, like your coal plants, your natural gas plants, your nuclear plants, in order to balance the overall system. And this is done, as you said, by humans who are aided by computers. So there's some optimization algorithm that is running, that's actually taking in information about the system and its physics and the costs of different power generators, and actually spitting out a suggestion of how you should actually schedule your power generators. And then that might be modified by humans based on knowledge they might have that's not in the system, or based on considerations like, okay, 24 hours ahead, there's a different person at a different desk who thinks about one hour ahead, and so you need to coordinate with each other. and there are a couple of ways that this kind of needs to change going forward. So one is that the computational tools that power grid operators are using today, they are not scaling to meet some of the kind of requirements that we have for managing a grid that needs to be managed faster because you have more and more variability from things like renewables and also at larger scale because you have more devices, more batteries, more electric vehicles, more things that are plugged into the grid that you have to account for. and there are ways that AI and machine learning can help to speed up some of the algorithms behind some of those computational tools in order to enable them to run faster and deal with a larger scale system.

Ariana Brocious: So there's a lot of discussion right now about AI. It's kind of viewed as this next big thing. There's excitement. There's also a lot of trepidation around how much energy it uses or can use. And I'm wondering how much you personally worry about the energy demands of AI.

Priya Donti: Yeah. So I definitely worry about this, and not necessarily because I necessarily know that the impact is going to be big or small. But precisely because we don't know, and as a result, we actually don't, I think, have as good a sense of what specific levers we can really be taking in order to address some of the growing computational impacts. I mean, fundamentally, we have to drive every single sector. to net zero when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. That includes AI, and so we need to know what's going on underlying in terms of how compute loads are being run and things like that in order to do something about it.

Ariana Brocious: Another aspect of the potential downsides of AI revolve around its use in misinformation, particularly in the climate space. And I'm curious what your thoughts are there. And if you've seen any positive developments in, um, maybe limiting the spread of, of AI generated climate misinformation.

Priya Donti: Yeah, climate misinformation is something that I, again, really do worry about. I mean, climate misinformation and sort of misinformation in general, its effects on how we relate to each other, how we relate to facts, and that the broader implications of that for not just climate action, but many other kind of aspects across society. so I think this is another example of a place where you have an algorithm that's embedded in some broader context. So, for example, Often social media platforms are optimizing for clicks or engagement, and incendiary content tends to be more engaging in various ways, and so the algorithms underlying learn that. It's like, okay, you're optimizing for engagement, so what is more engaging? And you kind of tend to trend towards more incendiary or potentially false content. And so that's, I think, really concerning, but something that sort of, in theory, a change in the thing you're optimizing for can help with. There are some ways that AI is being used, I think, to, to positively help with this issue. So things like, um, AI is used for, in some cases, misinformation detection. and then as a result if you detect something that might be misinformation that gives you the opportunity to do something like annotate it and kind of display that information to people. And so I think there are some good applications here but I think fundamentally without changing the objectives of the platforms that AI algorithms are accelerating, that misinformation is going to be a huge issue and changing objectives, in a situation where engagement, is ads, is money, and that's how these companies are profiting. You really have to change the underlying incentives in order to really change what's going on here.

Ariana Brocious: Tricky. So overall, how do you balance the potential risks of applying artificial intelligence to climate challenges with the potential benefits?

Priya Donti: Yeah, so fundamentally, when it comes to AI, there's an extent to which the cat is out of the bag, right? It is used across society, and I think while, I understand the rationale for doing things like saying, let's halt the development of AI, given that it's accelerating systems across society and disproportionately accelerating, again, things for people with money and power already, I do think the cat is out of the bag there. And so then the question is, you know, how do you make sure to sort of steer the way society uses AI in the potentially most beneficial directions? And I think that has to do with a combination of how do you get people who are, first of all, like working in AI. to actually leverage those tools for beneficial causes like climate action and sort of channel that interest, make it an attractive and viable career to be someone who works in climate using those skills. But then making sure that we don't just think of, AI be used for good as layering a couple of AI for good applications on top of business as usual, but we really need to think about how we actually manage our business as usual as well.

Ariana Brocious: Priya Donti is an assistant professor at MIT and co founder and chair of Climate Change AI. Priya, thank you so much for joining us on Climate One.

Priya Donti: Absolutely. Thank you.

Greg Dalton: We know that weather is becoming more and more extreme as the planet heats up. That extreme weather has a real human cost, especially in poor areas. Places that don't have the resources to protect themselves from the worst of the damage. What if AI could help make weather predictions more accurate and make them sooner? That's what I wanted to talk about with Amy McGovern. She's a professor of both computer science and meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. She researches developing trustworthy AI for severe weather.

Amy McGovern: I want AI to be able to make a positive difference in the world. I want it to be able to save lives and save property. And my personal experience with weather isn't just living in Oklahoma, although I think I get every single piece of weather in Oklahoma that I got anywhere else I ever lived. We just get it all at once and sometimes in the same day. And because you experience it every year and particularly every spring, everybody knows that. So, oh, today's the day, you know, and we're, we're worried about the hail. We're all cleaning our garage out. We're getting our shelters clean. We're getting our cars fixed up. We had a storm come through about three years ago, came through town, destroyed all the roofs on the north side of town and all of the cars that were out. Because you're talking about like baseballs that came down and just destroyed all the glass. We're on roof number four in nineteen and a half years.

Greg Dalton: Wow, How is AI improving weather predictions with all this volatility around the country?

Amy McGovern: AI is being used to improve weather predictions. across a wide, wide variety of predictions, right? So you're talking about severe weather and we can talk about that specifically, like trying to improve the predictions multiple days in advance so that we could tell you, you know, eight to 10 days in advance, for example, that there's likely to be severe hail so that you could start to think about your emergency preparedness preparations. Those probably don't matter so much to the individual homeowner, but imagine you're an airline, and you know that, you know, a large chunk of the area where your planes are gonna be is under the place where there might be four inch hail. Planes don't like four inch hail for the record. Um, so you'd like to have them out. And if you have 30 planes parked somewhere overnight and there's likely to be storms coming through, you can't fly them all out in five minutes. That doesn't work that way. So you know, those kinds of operations. We had a discussion with a car manufacturer who was looking to get forecasts both multiple days in advance and then they wanted multiple hours in advance, which is another place AI can help. And then AI can help with the now casting scale, which is trying to help us, you know, our current average warning is about 15 minutes. Can you imagine if you could bring that up to 30 minutes or 60 minutes, um, with a high rate of being right, right? If AI could help you with that, then people could take more protective action. And I think at that scale, you're talking about the individual homeowners. You're talking about the people who say, okay, I have an hour to quickly clean my garage and throw everything from my garage into my house. So my car fits.

Greg Dalton: Right. I get the the time scale longer, better, with high degrees of accuracy to give people more time to prepare, move cars, move planes if you have them. And how about a spatial dimension? Is it really going to affect me in my path? So let's talk about the spatial scale in terms of, you know, my street, my neighborhood, what can you tell me about my risk?

Amy McGovern: Yeah. So the spatial scale tends to correlate with the temporal scale, right? So we're getting a lot broader and the multiple days in advance, you're going to get a really broad spatial scale. Something like the Eastern third of Oklahoma is likely to have these storms and, you know, four or five days in advance. You're likely to get that. The scale that you're talking about at the street level doesn't really exist yet in the sense of we can tell you precisely 30 minutes or 60 minutes in advance that it's going to come down your street. That's just not possible yet. But it will be. and it's certainly a goal that the weather service is working towards. I think the predictability is so low for something like hail and tornadoes that we're not going to be able to get that street level prediction multiple days in advance. It's just not, there's too much chaos in the atmosphere right now.

Greg Dalton: Sure, things are moving around. So expanding the time window, narrowing down the geography in place so I can know about my path, or at least maybe my town, if not my street. And AI has potential to improve these things. I imagine it's an exciting time for you as an AI expert working on meteorology. What gives you lumps in your stomach about AI and weather?

Amy McGovern: I'm worried that. Somebody might misuse it. So AI and weather is looking so promising and it's getting deployed in so many ways and there aren't really safeguards and we don't have any legislation. The EU just passed something called the AI Act that's gonna have a lot of legislation on different AI and it's based on the the risk that you're gonna have. Like they don't even allow things that are unacceptable risk if they're high risk, that get to go through certain amounts of review and things like that. We don't have that in the United States yet. I'm concerned somebody's going to deploy a model. It might not even be weather, but I'm concerned on the weather scale.Imagine that somebody sells you an app on your phone and tells you, this is going to tell you all your warnings and you don't need to worry about it because it's AI and it's going to be right. And then somebody is going to trust it and it's going to be wrong. And I'm not saying AI is always going to be wrong. Just, it's just like any other forecast, right? But it's going to get it wrong sometimes. And then there's going to be a lack of trust, but I also worry that people are going to lose their lives to it, that they put too much trust into it. And I, that worries me.

Greg Dalton: Some studies say that AI's energy use and understand that AI is a broad set of different types of technologies that get lumped together They all require a lot of computer processing power that could take this amount of energy of a country like Sweden, and I hear other talk about AI's potential to solve some really wicked problems. How do your peers and you think about the possible trade off of making climate worse with a bunch of data centers creating emissions while also trying to use the tool to do some good?

Amy McGovern: I think a lot of people just try to stick their head in the sand and pretend that it's not happening. that the cost doesn't exist, but that isn't the right answer. The right answer is to pay attention to the cost and to try not to just train my AI models over and over again. The other answer is to try to look for sustainable data centers. And just trying not to waste cycles. Oh, well, that computing's free. I think for many years people have kind of thought that. It's free. It's free disk space. It's free GPUs, but it's not. It costs energy and people need to realize that.

Greg Dalton: Right?, we don't often think about, all the files we store in the cloud, for example, that's using some data somewhere, right? Using energy. It's not, not free storage in an energy sense or a climate sense. I've read that AI models can be biased. For example, a lot of us have heard about facial recognition and, whether it recognizes primarily white faces, I don't really understand what that means for applying AI to climate problems. Can you talk about how bias could affect climate and weather modeling?

Amy McGovern: Yeah, I'd be happy to. So, It doesn't come into it the same way that it does for the faces that you're talking about, right? Because we're not recognizing white faces and black faces, although that is definitely a problem for AI in general. But if there's an underlying bias in the data set, then the AI models are going to replicate that. That's all they were doing with those face data sets. So if you're trained on only white faces, you just have no clue. concept of what a blackface looks like, because you haven't been trained on it. And the same is true if you're trained on only data from a certain part of the world, So for example, uh, crowdsourced data, anything that's crowdsourced, which means that you've had somebody provide the sensor to you, like the general public, tends to be more clustered in the more affluent areas because it's the people who have the money to buy the crowdsourced, you know, instruments. So if you were trying to do, An air pollution sensor, uh, you know, prediction problem for AI. Maybe you only got your data from the affluent areas because that's where you had the crowdsourced data. That could be a problem. That could create a bias that then your model will then not give you good values for places where there might be really big problems.

Greg Dalton: So how do we build trust into AI in this context?

Amy McGovern: That's a large question. Trust is not a binary, trust is a spectrum, and trust is something that we really need to work with our end users. We need to make sure we're meeting their needs, we need to make sure that they're, you know, seeing what we're doing with the AI that, that they're co developing is the word that, that we're using, that they are part of the development process and that they are putting their thoughts into it so that the AI we develop does meet their needs and that they're evaluating that the AI that you develop and give back and say, here's our model, let's try it. They have feedback that, okay, well that didn't really meet our needs. So let's talk about how we can adjust it. Or here's all the ways in which it's wrong. Let's fix it. You know, things like that. That will really help with trust. and also I don't think you can just develop something and hand it to somebody and say, here's your AI model. You should trust it. That's actually gets us back to the lumps in the stomach question you asked earlier, right? Because I'm going to hand you that model, but it might not work for what you need.

Greg Dalton: Right. So as we wrap up, you know, is there one place you come to about this mix of excitement and, and concern about where AI and weather are going?

Amy McGovern: I'm excited. I mean, you asked me for the concerns, so I gave you some concerns, but I'm excited that AI is going to be really able to improve our predictions, both on the short term and on the longer term, so that we can be better resilient as a species and as an environment, like not just our human species, but all the species. As our climate is changing, a lot of these extreme weather events are changing, and I think AI can be used to help us improve our prediction and understanding of these events and be able to weather them better.

Greg Dalton: Thank you very much, Amy, for sharing your excitement and concern with us candidly appreciate it. Thank you.

Female AI Voice: So, Artificial Greg Dalton, where does this leave you?

Male AI Voice: Well, I see both sides now. AI can be used to solve some tricky problems. But in the process, it may create others. How about you, Artificial Ariana Brocious?

Female AI Voice: I agree. I think the problem is not the computers. It’s how they are used.

Male AI Voice: In other words, it’s the humans.

Female AI Voice: Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes. It’s always the humans.

Male AI Voice: But I still worry about where all my energy is going to come from…

Ariana Brocious: And that’s our show. Thanks for listening. Talking about climate can be hard, and exciting and interesting — AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. Or consider joining us on Patreon and supporting the show that way.

Greg Dalton: Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Ariana Brocious is co-host, editor and producer. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is producer and production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Jenny Lawton is consulting producer. Our theme music was composed by George Young. Gloria Duffy and Philip Yun are co-CEOs of The Commonwealth Club World Affairs, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

Explore the ClimateTRACE Map

3:53 - Karen Hao on visiting a data center in Arizona
7:40 - Karen Hao on the main categories of AI
10:26 - Karen Hao on the energy usage of different types of AI
18:34 - Gavin McCormick on the state of emission tracking with the help of AI
31:19 - Gavin McCormick on the energy consumption of AI
35:13 - Priya Donti on using AI to help optimize the grid
42:44 - Priya Donti on the pros and cons of AI
44:46 - Amy McGovern on using AI to help predict weather
52:21 - Amy McGovern on the future of AI and weather

Play

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

Jenny Park — Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:51:50 +0000

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

02/23/2024

Searching for Solutions

When most people hear the phrase renewable energy, they imagine fields full of solar panels or giant spinning wind turbines. But another source is heating up: geothermal.

According to Amanda Kolker, Laboratory Program Manager for Geoscience and Geothermal Technologies at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), geothermal energy has been used for a long time. “The first generation, the conventional kind of older technology, started in 1906,” she says.

Most forms of electricity generation require the turning of a turbine, often by using steam. Geothermal is no different. Traditional geothermal energy production, as Kolker explains, “requires drilling a well in a place where steam exists in the subsurface at relatively shallow depths, and then this steam is channeled to a turbine generator where it pushes a series of blades mounted on a rotor shaft. And then the force of that steam on the blades spins the rotor shaft to the generator, which in turn converts that energy into electrical energy.”

“Everywhere in the world, below the surface, geothermal exists. Everywhere. The question is only, how deep is it?” says Jamie Beard, founder of Project InnerSpace. In a bit of a twist, technological advances made by the oil and gas industry might have unlocked the ability to build scalable geothermal energy, just about anywhere. Kolker says, “We're actually in an exciting period because I think we're undergoing a new revolution in geothermal power technology.”

Because the technology used in these new geothermal systems originates in the oil and gas industry, it offers workers in the fossil fuel sector a way to work in the clean energy space without having to completely be retrained. “Everybody feels and sees a way that they can win in supporting geothermal climate groups, environmental groups, oil and gas groups. People see a path,” says Beard.

As with the other sources of clean energy, permitting is once again a hurdle to be overcome. “On federal land, you can develop an oil and gas project at lightning speed compared to geothermal. Geothermal projects can take 10 or more years to work through the permitting process on federal land, which kills projects,” says Beard. But geothermal power stations may be able to avoid the community pushback that goes on over solar farms and wind fields. Beard says, “These are not invasive projects; they're pretty cool once you have them installed. Would I have a 50 megawatt geothermal power plant on my property operating and connected to the grid? For sure.”

Generating electricity is not the only application people have been using the earth's heat for. Some use it directly for heating. In Boise, Idaho, geothermal heating has been used since the 1890s. Mayor Lauren McLean, says, “My office, like the entire city hall, is heated with geothermal heat. You've got all the pipes, it looks like a puzzle, with a whole bunch of hot water coming in and that hot water and those pumps heat the city hall building as well as just under a hundred buildings downtown.”

Guests

Amanda Kolker

Laboratory Program Manager for Geothermal Technologies, NREL

Jamie Beard

Founder, Project InnersSpace

Lauren McLean

Mayor of Boise

Project InnerSpace (projectinnerspace.org)

Geothermal in Boise, Idaho (cityofboise.org)

Biden puts $60M into three geothermal energy projects (thehill.com)

NREL: Geothermal Research (nrel.gov)

Geothermal is the hottest thing in clean energy. Here’s why. (canarymedia.com)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. When it comes to clean energy, solar and wind tend to dominate the headlines, but another source may be heating up.

Amanda Kolker: Right now we're actually in an exciting period because I think we're undergoing a new generation, a new revolution in geothermal power technology.

Greg Dalton: Geothermal. We used to think that you could only harness the earth’s heat in very particular places, but that turns out not to be the case.

Jamie Beard: Everywhere in the world, below the surface, geothermal exists. Everywhere. The question is only, how deep is it?

Greg Dalton: And the key to unlocking that clean power comes from a surprising place: the fossil fuel industry.

Jamie Beard: What we need to do is a lot of technology transfer, learning transfer, and workforce transfer from oil and gas into geothermal.

Greg Dalton: Geothermal Energy: The Heat Beneath Your Feet. Up next on Climate One.

I'm Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: I'm Arianna Brocious.

Greg Dalton: And this is Climate One.

Greg Dalton: When most people hear the phrase renewable energy, they imagine fields of solar panels or giant spinning wind turbines. But today we're talking about an often overlooked source of clean energy. It's underground: geothermal.

Ariana Brocious: So let's quickly start by unpacking what geothermal is.The word itself offers some big clues. Geo meaning earth and thermal meaning heat. So basically geothermal energy is derived from heat within the earth.

Greg Dalton: Right. Often in the form of steam. And if you go to a hot spring or see the geysers in Yellowstone, you can see it bubbling up right from the ground. In other cases, it's deep beneath the earth's subsurface.

Ariana Brocious: Later in the episode, we'll get into exactly how we turn that heat or steam into electricity and how some people are using it to heat homes and buildings. And I'll admit this was a new field for me and I found it fascinating, particularly to learn how long we've been using geothermal energy.

Greg Dalton: And pretty widely too, geothermal is a bigger deal than many people realize. In California, it generates around 5 percent of the state's electricity. But I thought of steam as old school technology, choo choo trains. As I learned researching this episode, the technology has advanced.

Ariana Brocious: Right, and one of the more surprising twists in the climate space is that a lot of the technological advances that have helped geothermal improve and innovate have come from the oil and gas sector and fracking. Which is a contentious form of energy extraction and also a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Greg Dalton: Right, and it's also made the U. S. a leading energy exporter. It's complicated. Jamie Beard is founder of Project Innerspace. Her organization is trying to get people in the oil and gas industry to turn their knowledge and skills to geothermal.

She made a similar pivot herself almost two decades ago.

Jamie Beard: I was at a startup company, an MIT spinoff that was working on high temperature energy storage. And it turns out there's a lot of applications for that sort of thing, defense and space and all these cool things. And one of the applications was oil and gas drilling. And so I found myself suddenly, as a startup founder thrust into the world of oil and gas, and you know, I had been an environmentalist all my life, so that was a weird experience at first, but it was right at the beginning of the shale boom, when there were all sorts of really cool, innovative things happening in the field. And around that same time, there was a report published. And it also came out of MIT called the future of geothermal energy. And this report laid out a really big vision for what geothermal could be for the world, really big. Like, you know, it could solve all of our energy needs many thousands of times over, but it's you know, it's just a set of engineering challenges. And for me, it was this kind of eureka moment where you had me watching oil and gas in the field innovating through the shale boom, solving engineering challenges in real time, and then reading this report saying, wow, if we only knew how to solve really tough drilling challenges, we could solve energy. And it was just like, bam, I got to move to Texas.

Greg Dalton: Right,

Jamie Beard: So that’s how I got into geothermal.

Greg Dalton: That's interesting because you say you were an environmentalist. A lot of environmentalists hear about the shale boom as this terrible thing that made America the world's biggest oil supplier. And you're talking about it as this exciting technological innovation that related to this other cleaner energy source, geothermal that we're talking about today, that’s an interesting contrast.

Jamie Beard: Yeah, and you know, it wasn't, It did not happen overnight. This was a process for me psychologically, frankly, to make the jump, um, from oil and gas as villain to oil and gas as massive opportunity in terms of mitigating climate change.

Greg Dalton: And 15 years ago, the consensus among energy people I talked to was that geothermal works well, but it's kind of geographically limited to maybe 10 percent of places on land. How has your understanding of that changed where we can get geothermal?

Jamie Beard: Yeah, so this is the really cool part about geothermal. And I think this is what the world doesn't yet know, but really urgently needs to hear. So right now in, in the world, geothermal exists where it's really close to the surface. So most of the time, if you think about geothermal, you think about that hot spring you sat in on vacation, likely in Iceland or something, right? Something, something like that

Greg Dalton: or Old faithful. And Yellowstone. Yeah.

Jamie Beard: These, these dramatic surface manifestations of what we call geothermal energy, which by the way, is derived by this massive molten ball of energy in the center of the earth, right? And that happens to be the temperature of the surface of the sun. So it's a massive source of energy. And we see in some places in the world surface manifestations of that massive ball of energy. And those are erupting volcanoes and geysers and things, right? And so in the world right now, we have geothermal energy in places where it's literally bubbling up to the surface and we can see it there. But everywhere in the world, below the surface, geothermal exists. Everywhere. The question is only, how deep is it? You know, and in some places it's not very deep at all, it's really easy to get to, in other places it's deeper, but it's always there, everywhere in the world. And I think that is the opportunity that makes geothermal really promising and really massive, because that means that we don't need to go to the windiest places, we don't need to go to the sunniest places, we don't need to go to the places in the world where there's oil and gas, right? Geothermal can be produced. You could drill for and produce geothermal feasibly anywhere in the world where there's demand. So that means geothermal could be relevant near the biggest population centers in the world. And that's something that is totally overlooked, but massive opportunity in terms of growth and clean energy. And so the, you know, the way that I look at it, Greg, is like this. If you think of the way the world developed oil and gas over the last century, we didn't start with deep water oil and gas platforms offshore, right? We started with oil and gas laying on the ground in puddles, right? And, and someone walked up and said, look, there's oil and we burned it.

Greg Dalton: We've all seen that the Beverly Hillbillies bubbling up in the backyard. So,

Jamie Beard: And then the spindle top and the, you know, and all this. So this was, 100 year long process of realizing something was laying on the ground, drilling for it. And now we drill billion dollar ultra deep water, incredibly complex oil and gas wells.

Greg Dalton: So that gets to the question I have of costs, you saying geothermal power generation can be nearly anywhere. It's a matter of depth, which raises the question of, okay, deeper cost more.

Jamie Beard: Yeah, well that's true. And so if we go back to that analogy of it took us 100 years to get to offshore drilling, what does that mean for geothermal? Well, the way I look at it is this: Right now it's laying on the surface just like oil and gas was 100 years ago. And we're drilling for it in those places like in Iceland. But we don't have to reproduce the last hundred years of technology development that it'll take to drill for geothermal, even in deep places. What we need to do is a lot of technology transfer, learning transfer, and workforce transfer from oil and gas into geothermal. And therefore we can make technological leaps and save a whole lot of time developing those technologies.

Greg Dalton: We’ll hear the rest of my conversation with Jamie Beard later in the show. But I want to step back and talk through all the different ways to use the heat that’s naturally underground.

Ariana Brocious: I talked about this with Amanda Kolker of the National Renewable Energy Lab. She explained that there are two basic flavors of geothermal energy: It can be used directly to heat buildings. Or the heat can be used to make electricity.

Amanda Kolker: The first generation, the conventional kind of older technology, started in 1906. very mature technology, but it requires drilling a well in a place where steam exists in the subsurface at relatively shallow depths, and then this steam is channeled to a turbine generator where it pushes a series of blades mounted on a rotor shaft, and then the force of that steam on the blades spins the rotor shaft to the generator, which in turn converts that energy into electrical energy.

Ariana Brocious: This Is how we generate a lot of our electricity: Whether it’s a coal plant or a nuclear plant, for over a hundred years, we’ve used heat to boil water, to make steam, to turn turbines to make electricity. Traditional geothermal power works the same way, except it uses steam that’s already coming up out of the ground.

Amanda Kolker: And that was the first generation. That was in places where we had steam deep in the earth, which is not everywhere, right? So right now we're actually in an exciting period because I think we're undergoing a new revolution in geothermal power technology. Right now there's technologies that, rather than looking for hot water, hydrothermal resources underground, which aren't found everywhere, they're looking for just hot rocks. And in theory, that's everywhere in Earth's crust.

Ariana Brocious: And here’s where the technology gets a little more complex. Steam and water don’t exist everywhere underground. That’s what limited geothermal energy so far. But the earth is hot everywhere, if you go deep enough. So a newer form of geothermal injects water down hot rocks to produce the steam.

Amanda Kolker: So two technologies you might be hearing about that is part of this new generation are enhanced geothermal systems or otherwise known as EGS, and then closed loop geothermal systems. The way that enhanced geothermal systems work is, you're looking for hot rocks underground and you're engineering a man-made geothermal reservoir where there is none, creating one by injecting cold fluids into hot rock and heating them up through circulation in these engineered reservoirs. Closed loop geothermal doesn't actually require engineering underground reservoirs, but rather relies on a series of closed looped pipes that are drilled deep into the earth and that hot rock.

Ariana Brocious: That’s an important distinction. One criticism of geothermal has been how much water it uses. But closed loop systems could go a long way toward avoiding that downside because the water is used over and over.

Amanda Kolker: What's interesting is, this could revolutionize geothermal power and it could also revolutionize geothermal heat. A lot of times when you've invested in a geothermal well to bring up hot water to the surface, you send it around in a series of interconnected pipes. It's called district heating, and that's nothing new either. This is old technology. This is actually, there are systems that are still running today that have been around for over a century.

Ariana Brocious: This was news to me – I had no idea geothermal had been around that long, but later in the show, we’ll talk with the mayor of Boise, Idaho, which has used geothermal heat since the 1890s. Today they have nearly a hundred buildings all connected to one series of pipes that bring hot water from deep underground to heat the buildings. It’s called “district heating”. Amanda Kolker says there’s also innovations in that space.

Amanda Kolker: Now a lot of the modern district energy systems provide heating and cooling, and they use this ambient loop that allows very efficient heat exchange. And you can actually use different buildings as heat sources and heat sinks and get highly efficient, you know, zero emissions heating and cooling,

Ariana Brocious: It's really exciting. For example, let's say like you had a system of residential properties connected to a big office building or a university or something where you have all of our body heat concentrated in this building because there's so many people and then you could essentially trap that and then maybe distribute it to people's homes when they leave?

Amanda Kolker: Exactly, or say like a data center has tons of waste heat coming out and you can put that into the ambient system and then use it somewhere else where they have a heating requirement.

Ariana Brocious: And there’s at least one more way to take advantage of connecting buildings together with heating pipes: storing that heat for months.

Amanda Kolker: When you have a large field of pipes buried in the ground, you actually can use that earth medium, which is a fairly good insulator, as a storage device. So you can seasonally inject your heat, say in the summer, waste heat coming from your buildings or other sources, and store it in earth’s subsurface and then extract it in the winter.

Ariana Brocious: So if we have a district again, this is an interconnected network, and we're cooling a bunch of buildings in the summer. You're taking the heat and actually putting the heat underground in like a series of pipes? And it would stay hot? And then you would pull it back out and it would heat the buildings in the winter.

Amanda Kolker: Yeah. That's the idea. it depends what your subsurface looks like. But there are places where the heat is stored efficiently and effectively in subsurface media that can be used later.

Ariana Brocious: That’s so cool! Or warm, depending on the season. And this gets me thinking about another technology that’s already in use today: ground-source heat pumps – also called geothermal heat pumps.

Amanda Kolker: Geothermal heat pumps are really interesting. They allow both heat exchange at the individual building scale, but they can also be networked, and used at the district scale.

Ariana Brocious: So I have a heat pump in my house. I got one last year. And this is an air source heat pump. So as best I understand the way it works is it's like an air conditioner part of the time and then a reverse air conditioner. So it exchanges heat from inside my house to outside my house in the summer. And in the winter it does the opposite. It brings heat from outside into my house. So this is much more efficient and safer for my family than the gas furnace I had before. How does an air source heat pump work compared to a geothermal heat pump?

Amanda Kolker: Great question. In some ways are very similar. They both move heat from one place to another using electricity and refrigerants, right? So in heating mode, the heat pump works kind of like you said, like a refrigerator in reverse, where instead of cooling a space, it uses refrigerants to warm your home. The difference is, is that geothermal heat pumps, they are placed underground and therefore they can take advantage of constant underground temperatures because there's a constant 55 give or take temperature and earth subsurface, um, it can exchange that heat a little bit more efficiently than exchanging with outdoor temperatures, which might be, you know, substantially lower than what you're trying to heat your indoor spaces to or higher.

Ariana Brocious: Let's turn to some of the benefits as we move toward a fossil free future. Where do you think geothermal fits in this broader energy generation system?

Amanda Kolker: When it comes to all of the geothermal technologies, we have to understand that this is a reliable, baseload, always available resource. And so from the power perspective, what that means is geothermal power can provide reliable, you know, renewable power and provide that stability that's needed for our power grids. And then also provide resilience to communities with a source of heat or cooling that's always available 24/7. So that's one pro, you know, around energy security and resilience. In addition to those, all of the geothermal technologies have a very small surface footprint. Since most of the magic happens underground, this means they're fairly resilient to things like weather disruptions.

Ariana Brocious: That's a big pro in an increasingly climate disrupted world, right?

Amanda Kolker: Yes, Another benefit is the long lifespan. These power plants, there's many that have been going for a half century, some for longer than that. Same goes for direct heat,, also geothermal heat pumps tend to be long lived. So all, all of the flavors of geothermal technologies operate for a long time with high reliability, and then I would bring in two other benefits that we're currently looking into at the labs. And so, you know, because of all these benefits, whether it's the resilience or energy security benefits I talked about, grid stability, or community resilience, we think that geothermal technologies may be able to ensure a just energy transition.

Ariana Brocious: Well, this is really exciting. And thanks for sharing your expertise around geothermal technology and all the really interesting ways it can be deployed.

Amanda Kolker: Thank you.

Ariana Brocious: Amanda Kolker is Laboratory Program Manager for Geoscience and Geothermal Technologies at the National Renewable Energy Lab.

Greg Dalton: You’re listening to a Climate One conversation about the heat beneath your feet. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods.

Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend.

Coming up, it seems nearly impossible to get people on the same page about climate solutions. But could geothermal be the exception?

Jamie Beard: Everybody feels and sees a way that they can win in supporting geothermal: climate groups, environmental groups, oil and gas groups, every right and left, dogs and cats, red and blue, whatever you want to call it. People see a path.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

In 1989, an oil tanker called the Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The collision tore the ship’s hull and 11 million gallons of crude oil gushed into the ocean. It devastated a vast area and the cleanup took years. Founder of Project Innerspace, Jamie Beard, says that environmental disaster made a huge impact on her.

Jamie Beard: I was a child during the Exxon Valdez, and that was my entry point into environmentalism. So, you know, oil soaked birds and oil and gas is going to burn kind of mentality when I was young. And, you know, I wanted to devote my career to putting an end to oil and gas and everything related to oil and gas. It's very easy to regard oil and gas as a monolith. And it's very easy to place an us and them mentality on it, right? What I've found in engaging with oil and gas, meaning the individuals that are working in these entities, right, is as soon as you get across the table from geophysicists who are really excited about making geothermal work, but they just so happen to work for the big bad guys, right? They're no longer villains. You can't even try to say villain because they're not. They're just people. They're people with a really awesome skill set that we need. And so, you know, it's, it's, it's hard, it's hard for me to even regard oil and gas as villainous anymore because now I'm engaging with hundreds of individuals, right? So it's,

Greg Dalton: Real people. Yeah. Mm-Hmm.

Jamie Beard: with skills that we need. So I'm, I'm, I've, I've switched my mentality there to there is a massive opportunity and these folks can solve our problems in geothermal. So we need them, right?

Greg Dalton: It sounds like you're saying that geothermal could provide an off ramp for oil and gas individuals. How about at the company level?

Jamie Beard: So off ramp or opportunity, right? So it might even be an on ramp to a future of doing the same thing that they know how to do, which is searching for, drilling for, and producing a subsurface energy asset. But instead of hydrocarbons, It's heat, right? So it's like do everything you know how to do, everything you've built your career doing, everything your education supports, but for geothermal instead of oil and gas. So, right. It's, it's, it's, it's in my view on ramp into something that could be really, truly a massive opportunity in terms of global scale. And if you think about it. potentially bigger than oil and gas. Oil and gas is limited geographically too, just like geothermal is now. It's in very specific places in the world where oil and gas exists under the ground.Geothermal is everywhere, meaning that it's an opportunity that could be really massive.

Greg Dalton: At the UN climate conference in Dubai last year you announced a project you're doing in collaboration with Google called GeoMap, what is GeoMap and what's it gonna do?

Jamie Beard: There are some things that are holding geothermal back in terms of its ability to scale. And, you know, what, what I'm focused on at Project Innerspace is actually addressing those barriers, and we're trying to do that before the end of this decade. So we've, we've given ourselves an expiration date to achieve our mission. And the mission is to remove the major barriers that are standing in the way of exponential growth of geothermal. And one of the, one of the major barriers, and it's going to sound weird that we don't know this, um, in the world right now, but there is no single source, no global atlas or map of where geothermal exists in the world. So you can't, before GeoMap, you couldn't go to a website and click on a place in the world and see, you know, what the subsurface looked like with regard to the geothermal resource below. And because of that, there's not a very good understanding in the world right now. I mean, it's very exciting geothermal and all these new technologies. But a fundamental question is, well, where should we try to do this first? Like where's the low hanging fruit? Aside, aside from Iceland, where all the, you know, these are obvious places, but what about in places where it's not obvious, where we can't see it, where should we go first and where should we try different concepts first? That didn't exist. So Innerspace set out to try to build such a tool and make it freely accessible to the public and world. And we did build that partnership with Google to build GeoMap. So it's essentially the Google Earth for geothermal. So you can go to the, go to the, go to GeoMap, press on a place in the world. Not only does it show you geothermal resources below the surface, but it also shows you what's on the surface, right? Which matters because we don't want to be in protected areas. We do want to be near population centers and transmission lines. You know, there's a lot of ways that the subsurface resource and, and what's happening on the surface are really related in terms of geothermal prospecting. So GeoMAP tries to solve for that barrier in geothermal.

Greg Dalton: And you know, this is something that came up recently. Someone said why isn't there a you know, Google Map overlay for like indigenous lands? Does GeoMap take into consideration you because Indigenous people have been trampled on for so long with oil and gas and it's like, Oh, here's another way that you're going to come after our land to take something. Does that exist in GeoMap?

Jamie Beard: Yes. So GeoMap is rolling out continent by continent. We just announced Africa at COP28. The United States rolls out later on this year, and one of the surface layers in the United States, um, of course, protected areas, national parks, but also indigenous lands. So yes, that's that's something that's part of the of the surface package.

Greg Dalton: Good to hear. You mentioned about the scale of large oil and gas wells and how that could be replicated in geothermal. Yet small modular geothermal plants also seem really intriguing as a distributed power source. That's part of what happened in the shale revolution. You talked about poking, lots of um, sort of fast wells, small quickly, you know, how promising are these modular designs?

Jamie Beard: There's a controversy now in geothermal about who's going to win. Is it going to be micro grids? So, a regional or, or town based or even military based geothermal power plant that serves a micro grid that is not connected with the proper grid, um, in, in the location, also for critical infrastructure, like data centers and hospitals. So a geothermal power plant to serve those needs and those needs only that's not connected to the grid. I love the idea. And I think geothermal is a really great contender for those types of applications. They also, and this is really helpful for geothermal, at least in the early days when you're doing first of a kind concepts that tend to be more expensive than a proven and optimized system, critical infrastructure, data centers that really benefit from baseload energy sources, but also that are run by companies who have made massive carbon neutrality commitments. So you have to have clean baseload – and military bases. So if you think about national security, these entities will pay a premium to have clean, firm power. And so it very well may be that geothermals, you know, niche opportunity over the first five or 10 years of development are these types of applications.

Greg Dalton: So what I heard there is that, you know, we know that sun shines during the day, wind often blows at night. And there's sort of this intermittency that's talked about with wind and solar. You're saying that, that geothermal could be steady and reliable, sometimes called baseload. But how do you compare the environmental pros and cons?

Jamie Beard: This is one of geothermal's really strong points, in my view. We're talking about very, very low carbon emissions, you know, 99. 9 percent carbon-free emissions from hydrothermal plants.

Greg Dalton: But aren't there water and land impacts if you're, you're poking holes all over the place, there's, there's going to be the surface impact of all these wells.

Jamie Beard: yeah, any, any energy source, hard stop, even, even renewables like solar and wind have, have a surface footprint and, and geothermal if it goes head to head with solar and wind, you're talking about. between 1 percent and 10 percent of the surface footprint, depending on the size of the plant, the type of plant, megawatt for megawatt, compared to solar and wind. I will say, though, water is a good one to bring up, and I think that's really important, and it's part of the reason why geothermal has kind of progressed into this next generation stage of concepts and technologies. Many of these technologies are aimed at actually reducing geothermal's consumption of water. So, as geothermal exists today in the world, hydrothermal, they are producing water from, from under the ground that is there naturally and making energy out of it. And a lot of hydrothermal plants re-inject that water, so they put it back into the aquifer, but it's not perfect and you can't get it all back. So there is a decline over time in the amount of water in the aquifer. And some geothermal plants don't put it back at all. So they, they put it in pools on the surface. If you think of Iceland's Blue Lagoon, that's a geothermal power plant, and the water that's in the Blue Lagoon is actually the effluent from the power plant. So it's the water they've already, they've made, they've made electricity with it, and they flow the water into the Blue Lagoon, and you sit in it with, with your glass of wine. So that's an example of not re-injected water. Right? But if you think there, there are places in the world that are very wet in the subsurface, Iceland is one of them. They have no shortage of aquifers, but there are places in the world that do. And if we start looking at, you know, 2050 fresh water demands on the world and we think of population density, we need to be very careful about using subsurface fresh water for energy production. And so that's why, um, you know, many of the next generation geothermal concepts, and like the closed loop systems, for instance, that Amanda mentioned are, are considering using not only water in a closed loop, so you're not losing any of it, you're recycling it fully, but some concepts aren't even using water. So they're using engineered working fluids that are not water based. Think supercritical CO2 as a working fluid, which is super cool. So replacing the water use entirely with something else and just producing the heat without the water.

Greg Dalton: I don't know what supercritical CO2 is, but if you think it's cool, I'll take it. You're a founder and executive director of Project Innerspace, which funds disruptive research and collaborations that aim to jumpstart the growth of next generation geothermal energy as we've been talking about. I would think that a high tech venture like next generation geothermal energy, particularly with the potential you've mentioned, would be attractive to venture capitalists, yet you've chosen to pursue philanthropic funding instead. Why?

Jamie Beard: Yeah. Um, well, there don't get me started on this one, Greg. But there's a, there's a lot of unfamiliarity with geothermal and the venture capital community. Early in the days of getting some startups spun out of oil country, um, led by oil and gas veterans who are now leading geothermal startups. I sat in on quite a few pitches. It's not like we didn't try. We tried, so some, some pitches to VC firms in Silicon Valley. And I, you know, I'll say the culture clash between those two, um, parts of the world, so the buttoned up, suited, oil and gas veteran, um, pitching to the hoodie wearing, uh, Silicon Valley venture capitalists, these were probably the most cringe worthy meetings I've ever, you know, I, I'm saying this laughing now, but it, they were really, really uncomfortable. I mean, there's just a, there was a clear mismatch in

Greg Dalton: I'm seeing episodes of the satire documentary Silicon Valley coming into my mind. Yeah.

Jamie Beard: I mean, it's funny thinking back on it, but it's really not funny at all, because what we're getting at there is bias and polarization. Coming from both sides, but what that meant is very few deals. It means almost no deals for venture capital. There are other reasons venture capital has declined to engage so far: very capital intensive projects, the risk profile isn't quite right. I mean, there are some issues and there's a valley of death. Which brings, which brings me to why a non profit then. And that's because there are enormous pools of capital in the world that are philanthropic that are increasingly looking at climate as a way to invest funding and they don't have the adversity to risk as much as venture capital. They don't expect 20 plus percent returns like venture capital and it's very well positioned to take on these big vision problems like, wow, we could solve energy and climate if we could just do these couple of really, really hard, potentially high risk things, right? So, GeoMap, for instance, the global atlas of geothermal resources. This is a community asset and community assets are actually quite hard to fund with a for profit motive. They benefit everybody, but they're expensive. Nobody really wants to pay to do it. And, you know, so there are

Greg Dalton: As someone who gives away a podcast for free, I can relate to that. Yeah, creating public goods that people, yeah, yeah. And so,

Jamie Beard: And that's not really the VC thing, right? It's not the, that's not the flavor.

Greg Dalton: because they don't, yeah, they don't capture the returns of their investment. So speaking of these cultural classes between Silicon Valley, you know, investors and the oil and gas industry, Palo Alto and Houston. Um, another dimension to that. is, is gender. LinkedIn recently released a report on the gender gap in renewable energy. Women are underrepresented in green jobs and skills underrepresented at the conference of parties. I'm curious as a female founder in a male-dominated field of energy, how has that experience been for you?

Jamie Beard: This comes up all the time. Every, in every, almost every conflict or tension that has come up over the past years, there has been some layer of insidious bias there, right? And some of it is not outward, but you know it when you feel it, and you know it when you see it, and it might be disguised as something else, but you know it, right? And so it's very real. The funny thing is, for geothermal, it's a really interesting development. There are many female founders and leaders in geothermal. There are many female CEOs of geothermal startups. And, I would say some of the most bold leaders in the space are women, and you're right that we are attempting to engage with a male-dominated industry. And navigating that is not entirely straightforward. But it's something that is, is, is happening and it's working. It just requires patience and, uh, a focus on the bigger vision, I think.

Greg Dalton: You were involved in a bipartisan legislation passed in Texas, and I want to say that again, bipartisan legislation passed in Texas, to support geothermal energy. That happened in a session that you say was hard on renewables. So what is it about geothermal that it hasn't been dragged into the culture conflicts as wind and solar have?

Jamie Beard: All right, so this, this is the amazing thing about geothermal, and I'm glad you brought that up. So Interspace published a report called The Future of Geothermal in Texas, and it was, you know, a collaboration of, of many research institutions and, and oil and gas entities and scientists to talk about what it would look like if oil and gas engaged at scale in the opportunity of geothermal. And it was written by Texans for Texans, right, which is important when you're thinking about engaging with oil and gas and being bipartisan in the state of Texas. Now, that report served as the foundation for the launch of an alliance, an advocacy group called the Texas Geothermal Energy Alliance, that then went and built a legislative agenda in support of geothermal in the last Texas legislative session. And that entity is supported and funded by all types of entities. I mean, oil and gas, but also utilities, and with the support of environmental groups. That in itself was amazing and interesting. But yes, the outcome in Texas in the first try, so this is the first legislative session after the report was published. And in the first year of existence of this Geothermal Alliance in Texas, we saw all of the efforts that were being pursued by the alliance passed in the state of Texas with bipartisan support in a legislative session where solar and wind were targets, and they they lost legislative support in the state of Texas, geothermal advanced. Why is that? It's because it's everybody feels and sees a way that they can win in supporting geothermal and everybody meaning everybody, right? So climate groups, environmental groups, oil and gas groups, every right and left, dogs and cats, red and blue, whatever you want to call it. People, people see a path.

Greg Dalton: So what policy and regulatory strategies have you seen that work best to incentivize new geothermal development?

Jamie Beard: We need to do a lot on this topic. So, geothermal is very far behind in terms of incentives and regulatory support. And, and this is federally, but also in the states,

Greg Dalton: kind of the poor, the poor stepchild, it seems. Yeah.

Jamie Beard: For sure. Um, completely neglected stepchild of renewables. Um, now that, that, um, is changing slowly, and it's changing faster in the states, so it's why Innerspace is focused on states, and we're in particular focused on states with robust oil and gas industries, like Texas, but also Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. And others, And it's because it's very easy to get traction for incentives and support and supportive regulatory environments in states. On the federal side, there have been decades of efforts to try to come to an agreement about how to support better support incentivize geothermal, and that's a really complicated and slow issue that has not advanced terribly quickly. But we need to be doing all kinds of things in the United States. both on the state and federal level, in terms of, you know, subsidy, yes, but I just mean removing red tape to make sure that we're able to develop projects as quickly as we can develop, say, oil and gas. So this is a, here's a, here's a factoid for you: On federal land, you can develop an oil and gas project at lightning speed compared to geothermal. Geothermal projects can take, you know, 10 or more years to work through the permitting process on federal land, which kills projects.

Greg Dalton: Would you, would you have one in your backyard? Or drill.

Jamie Beard: Sure. Yes, absolutely. I can't, I could not be in my job without being able to say that with certainty. When it comes to the everyday person's engagement with geothermal, it would probably be through a heating and cooling system for your home, with a ground-source heat pump. These are the types of engagements that, like, folks in your neighborhood might have with geothermal. And these are not invasive projects; they're pretty cool once you have them installed. And, you know, wholeheartedly, yes. Would I have a 50 megawatt geothermal power plant on my property operating and connected to the grid, Greg, for sure. If I had the ability to have that, yes. Because geothermal is quiet and small and a huge benefit to community. So if I had the opportunity to do that, you have me on the record saying I would. Any geothermal developers out there who want to plop one down right here in Massachusetts, you can, you can borrow my, you can borrow my place.

Greg Dalton: Jamie Beard, founder of Project Innerspace, thanks for sharing your passion for geothermal.

Jamie Beard: Thanks, Greg.

Greg Dalton: You're listening to a conversation about an often overlooked source of clean energy: Geothermal. Next, geothermal is heating up in Boise, Idaho.

Lauren McLean: We we rely on geothermal heat that's deep, deep, deep into the earth.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

I used to think that geothermal technology was something that could only be deployed in a couple sites around the world – remote places like Iceland or The Geysers in California. But as we heard from Jamie Beard earlier in the show, geothermal energy is everywhere in the world – if you just go deep enough. The question then is: how do we tap into it? To find out, reporter David Condosbtakes us to a research project in western Utah.

David Condos: There's a new hotspot in the world of geothermal energy, a seemingly sleepy valley in Beaver County, Utah. Its secret: It sits on bedrock that reaches temperatures up to four hundred and sixty five degrees.

Joseph Moore: So if you think about ovens and turkeys, you can cook a turkey in that well if you wanted one.

David Condos: Site manager Joseph Moore points across a dirt parking lot to a well at the Utah Forge Project. It's the University of Utah's subterranean lab. The mission here is to test geothermal technology through trial and error, paving the way for other projects that could someday power your home or office without greenhouse gas emissions.

Joseph Moore: This is the best site in the country. There are hundreds and hundreds of square miles of area that could be made into a reservoir.

David Condos: Geothermal has been around for decades, but it's generally been limited to places that naturally have hot water below the surface. Think a geyser or hot springs. So these researchers are here to answer a big question. Can you pipe cool water through cracks in underground rock? And heated enough to create a geothermal plant almost anywhere? That’s called enhanced geothermal. And American researchers have been trying to make it work for five decades. High up on the site's drill rig, a team of workers screw together pipes taller than a two story house. Giant pieces of metal swing into place suspended from wires. Twist. Lock, then plunge underground.

John McLennan: Pull the slips, and now he'll

David Condos: John McLennan, the project's technical lead, watches it all through a window while monitoring readings on a computer screen.

John McLennan: So we've drilled to just under 11,000 feet in depth.

David Condos: Six years after drilling began, his team recently completed a major milestone. They proved for the first time they can, in fact, pump water from one well through underground cracks to a second well. Now, this type of geothermal system does require quite a bit of water, which may set off alarm bells in the parched West Utah desert. But there are two big reasons why McClennan says it still works. One, it draws from aquifers where the water quality is too low to use for drinking. And two, it's a closed loop system. So the same water keeps recycling through over and over, cooling, heating, and becoming steam that turns turbines. But remember, this is a research lab. So it's more guinea pig than power plant.

John McLennan: What we're doing here, we are not producing electricity, we are developing the technology so that the private sector can adopt this methodology.

David Condos: One of the private companies building on the FORGE project's research is Fervo Energy. It recently hit a milestone of its own, generating power for the first time at its geothermal pilot plant in Nevada. Fervo government affairs and policy manager Ben Serrurier says these recent breakthroughs are proving it’s possible to drill deeper and more efficiently than before.

Ben Serrurier: There is no longer that technology question. We answered that question. Can you reach temperatures to produce electricity, in our case 375 degrees Fahrenheit? Yes. Can you produce flow rates over 60 liters a second that are required to produce electricity? Yes.

David Condos: And Fervo has already broken ground on its next geothermal project, right here in Beaver County. But even as the technology catches up, there are still more hurdles before geothermal power becomes a bigger part of the country’s energy mix. One is easing the regulations around building geothermal projects, says Jeremy Harrell. He's chief strategy officer for ClearPath, a DC-based research and advocacy group focused on clean energy. Harrell says it's often harder to get permits to drill for underground heat than it is to drill for oil or gas. In a climate crisis, he says that's not going to cut it.

Jeremy Harrell: Our regulatory structure in this country was created in the 70s when climate was an urgent problem, right? And so now we need a different structure in place.

David Condos: Geothermal can have some environmental impacts, from habitat loss to an increased risk of earthquakes. But Harrell says geothermal's impacts pale in comparison to those from fossil fuels.

Jeremy Harrell: Everything has trade offs, right? Like, you're not going to have zero environmental impact on building anything. And so we need to look for the forest over the trees, right? Like, climate is a central challenge ahead.

David Condos: The Department of Energy's long-term goal is to multiply domestic geothermal capacity nearly twenty-five fold by 2050. But Harrell says if regulators don't speed up the permitting process, the U.S. will have a hard time tapping into geothermal's potential fast enough to curb global warming. For Climate One, I'm David Condos in Beaver County, Utah.

Ariana Brocious: This story was originally produced by KUER Public Radio. Thanks to David and the team there for sharing it with us.

Now let’s travel from Beaver County Utah, 500 miles north to Boise, Idaho where geothermal heating has been used for quite a long time.

Lauren McLean: I get so excited when I talk about our system because in Boise itself, we have the sixth largest geothermal system in the world and the largest geothermal system in the United States.

Ariana Brocious: That’s Lauren McLean, mayor of Boise.

Lauren McLean: But in addition to ours, the state of Idaho has one, our state capital, it's a gorgeous building is heated with geothermal heat. The Veterans Administration campus. that's near downtown has their own system. We have a neighborhood that has a system that was started by the folks that built the houses there over 100 years ago.

And we rely on geothermal heat that's deep, deep, deep into the earth. It comes up and it heats, it heats our buildings.

Ariana Brocious: So, how do you get heat in your office?

Lauren McLean: My office, like the entire city hall is heated with geothermal heat. on the kind of basement floor of city hall. You've got all the pipes. It looks like a puzzle. With a whole bunch of hot water coming in and that hot water and those pumps heat the city hall building as well as,just under a hundred buildings downtown.

Ariana Brocious: So, what's the potential to expand the amount of geothermal heating within Boise?

Lauren McLean: Yes, we look often at how we can expand this because in our own climate action plans, where we seek to be a carbon neutral municipal government by 2035, and a carbon neutral city by 2050, we're going to rely on that. And so we look for opportunities to expand the system, which we've done. We've expanded our system over the years across the river to Boise State University. They have some buildings now that are heated with geothermal clean heat. And we've expanded it to other districts downtown to do the same. It depends on water rights too. So we're innovating in that we're, we pull the hot water up, it heats a building, we inject it back in slightly cooler and we can pull it up again. And so we've innovated around reuse of the water. And, but we're always looking for additional water rights to be able to give us more opportunities to expand the system even further into the future.

Ariana Brocious: So what do you hear from constituents about their concerns around pollution, carbon pollution, and climate?

Lauren McLean: Boiseans have been loud and clear. in terms of their expectations that we lead when it comes to climate action.

Ariana Brocious: So you're mayor, an environmentally focused mayor in Boise, in the capital of a fairly red state. How do you sort of place yourself within that wider context

Lauren McLean: I often get that question from folks that are, you know, from other places. You know, how does this translate across political boundaries and politics, but in Idaho, it crosses in many ways so easily because we are tied to the land, to open space, to nature in ways that I, that I believe in the West are unique. And so whether you live in Stanley, Idaho or Sandpoint, Idaho or Boise, Idaho, you value clean water. You value access to public lands and open space. You want the same for your kids and grandkids. And you're seeing it change with our days getting hotter and skies getting smokier. And know that action needs to be taken. And so Boiseans, you know, look to me and want, want me and the city council and the folks that they elect to lead.

Ariana Brocious: As we wrap up, based on Boise's experience, what advice do you have for mayors of cities that don't have this geothermal legacy Boise has?

Lauren McLean: All of us as mayors have to look at the tools in the toolbox that we have, um, and figure out how to meet the shared goals that so many cities have now, which is being carbon neutral by 2050 because we must, we know we must, I find it super fascinating to see how mayors and other towns that don't have these systems are looking at how they can tap into geothermal anyway, building by building, using heat pumps to use geothermal in a different way than we do, but to still cool or heat their buildings into the future. And I just encourage all of us to work together to expand the opportunity to take advantage of the natural systems that exist in the country while also working together to do as much research and development for solutions that'll work in cities that don't have the systems as well, because ultimately, while ours is unique, it will help our state and our country meet carbon neutral goals as we continue to rely on it.

Ariana Brocious: Lauren McLean is mayor of Boise. Thank you so much for joining us on Climate One.

Lauren McLean: Thank you.

Greg Dalton: On this Climate One... We’ve been talking about geothermal energy.

Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency.

Ariana Brocious: Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend.

Greg Dalton: Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Ariana Brocious is co-host, editor and producer. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Jenny Lawton is Consulting Producer. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy and Philip Yun are co-CEOs of The Commonwealth Club World Affairs, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

1:52 - Jamie Beard on her journey to geothermal energy

4:27 - Jamie Beard on what makes geothermal cool

8:41 - Amanda Kolker on how geothermal energy works

14:08 - Amanda Kolker on geothermal heat pumps

18:38 - Jamie Beard on what made her an environmentalist

27:12 - Jamie Beard on the surface impact of geothermal wells

41:38 - David Condos reports on geothermal energy testing in Utah

47:01 - Lauren McLean on geothermal heating in Boise, Idaho

Play

Let’s Talk Dirty to Clean Energy

BenTestani — Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:44:25 +0000

Let’s Talk Dirty to Clean Energy

02/16/2024

After more than a century, the U.S. is moving away from coal, the dirtiest and most dangerous form of power generation.

“We are now at a point where we are getting less than 20 percent of our electricity from coal in the United States. A decade ago, coal was providing half of our electricity,” says Mary Anne Hitt, Senior Director of Climate Imperative, a foundation that provides expertise, funding and support on climate policy. She spent a decade as director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, working to retire existing coal plants and block new ones. She says today in the U.S., coal is simply not economical.

“It is now cheaper just about everywhere in this country to build new wind, solar and storage than it is to run an existing coal plant.”

More than 23 states have 100% clean energy goals, and in order to reach those goals, some states are starting to convert what was once considered “dirty” into “clean” energy generation. As fossil fuels are phased out, shuttered coal plants, contaminated landfills, and abandoned mine lands across the U.S. are finding new life as renewable energy projects.

Just one example is in Wise County, Virginia, where a new solar array is being built on a former coal mine to power a nearby data center. There are many more coal-to-solar examples across the country. Even hazardous waste sites, known as Superfund sites, are getting new lives as solar farms.

Using old fossil fuel sites can have advantages over finding new places to build, like the fact that they’re already connected to the grid. The new clean power economy can also employ some of those who used to work in the fossil fuel industry.

Thomas Ramey’s family has worked in coal for generations. But he chose a different path, becoming a commercial home evaluator for renewable energy company Solar Holler, a company that has prioritized hiring out-of-work coal miners. He says it’s taken a while for his community to accept this new form of power generation, but it is happening.

“Slowly over the years, the area has embraced the idea that West Virginia, and this region, has always been a leader when it comes to energy across the nation. And this is just another way for us to look at that,” Ramey says.

New money and programs from the Inflation Reduction Act are helping some of this change take place, like providing tax breaks to companies that build clean energy in communities that have historically been economically reliant on coal, oil or gas. As this transition happens, there’s a push to make sure the changes benefit everyone, particularly those who have to change jobs or careers.

“It's one thing to pivot from fossil fuels to clean energy, but it's another thing to do it in a humane way where we're bringing everyone in the state along while continuing to create economic opportunities,” says Delmar Gillus, chief operating officer of clean energy consulting firm Elevate. In 2021 he was involved in getting the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act passed in Illinois.

“In my role as an in-room negotiator, one of the things I focused on were the equity and job components, as well as the just transition from coal to solar, from fossil fuels to renewables. And so a lot of where I focused my energy was really on making sure that everyone across the state had full access to the benefits of the clean energy economy, whether that was the educational tools, whether that was the job creation aspects, whether it was the grant funding for contractors,” he says.

Mary Anne Hitt of Climate Imperative lives in West Virginia, and says it’s been remarkable to see how many clean energy companies are popping up all over the state.

“The Sparks battery plant, for example, that's been unionized by the United Mine Workers, is an incredible example, an incredible story. We've also got electric school bus factories,” she says. “So it really does feel like a new day here in West Virginia. And I expect the same is true in coal mining states all over the country.”

This episode also features a reported piece by Jordan Gass-Pooré from the "Hazard NJ" podcast, an investigative podcast and multimedia project from NJ Spotlight News.

Guests

Mary Anne Hitt

Senior Director, Climate Imperative

Thomas Ramey

Commercial Home Evaluator, Solar Holler

Nick Mullins

Teacher, Writer, Former Coal Miner

Delmar Gillus

COO, Elevate

Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition (ilcleanjobs.org)

The Resurrection of Price's Pit (njspotlightnews.org)

The Digital Library of Appalachia (dla.contentdm.oclc.org)

Solar Holler (solarholler.com)

Thoughts of a Coal Miner Blog (thoughtsofacoalminer.com)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. After more than a century, the U.S. is moving away from coal, the dirtiest form of power generation:

Mary Anne Hitt: 2024 is looking like it will be a turning point when we get more electricity from wind and solar than we do from coal.

Greg Dalton: Across the nation, coal-fired power plants, mines and hazardous waste sites are being turned into solar farms and renewable energy hubs.

Jackie Kondrk: We want to use these sites that would otherwise not be used likely at all.

Greg Dalton: And as this transition happens, there’s a push to make sure the changes benefit everyone.

Delmar Gillus: It's one thing to pivot from fossil fuels to clean energy, but it's another thing to do it in a humane way where we're bringing everyone in the state along while continuing to create the economic opportunities.

Greg Dalton: Moving from Dirty to Clean Energy, Up next on Climate One.

This is Climate One, I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious. We talk a lot about the “energy transition” – meaning moving away from burning fossil fuels that are warming the planet as well as hurting our health and the environment. And replacing that energy with renewable sources. It’s a big, broad undertaking, and the projects tackling it are big too.

Greg Dalton: Right. And this big move leaves behind shuttered coal plants, contaminated landfills, and abandoned mines. But across the US, these sites are finding new life in renewable energy projects. One of those is in Wise County, Virginia, where a new solar array is being built on a former coal mine. The power generated from the array will support a nearby data center.

Ariana Brocious: And that’s actually not the only coal-to-solar project in that Virginia county. There’s five more in the works right now.

Greg Dalton: Wow. This is happening. I know these sites are usually already remediated – meaning mostly cleaned up and the land replanted, etc., but those can be passive or less-bad uses of land. It’s cool to see them being turned into something so positive and active, and generative.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. It’s a literal, physical manifestation of this “transition” we so often talk about. I mean, we are taking places that used to extract or burn coal and using them to make power from the sun. And old fossil fuel plants can have advantages over finding new places to build – like the fact that they’re already connected to the grid.

Greg Dalton: And there's a big push for this dirty-to-clean power generation, because more than 23 states have 100% clean energy goals. So they need more renewable power on the grid. This is the market working.

Ariana Brocious: But like many things, while this sounds clear in theory, it can be more complicated on the ground. Today we’re talking about what happens to infrastructure, workers, and communities in the wake of this transition.

Greg Dalton: Later in the hour we’ll hear directly from members of coal mining communities about the industry and what it means to change to something new. Some of them are going into solar. And they call themselves sun miners.

Ariana Brocious: And because billions of dollars flow into these projects through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, we want to know what’s being done to ensure that the same communities who have historically been left behind are included this time around.

Ariana Brocious: Someone who knows a lot about this transition is Mary Annee Hitt, Senior Director of Climate Imperative, a foundation that provides expertise, funding and support on climate policy. Before that, she spent a decade as director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, working to retire existing coal plants and block new ones. She says all that work is starting to pay off.

Mary Anne Hitt: We are now at a point where we are getting less than 20 percent of our electricity from coal in the United States. A decade ago, coal was providing half of our electricity. So it's down below 20%. Two thirds of the coal fired power plants in the United States are retired, or slated to retire this decade and 2024 is looking like it will be a turning point when we get more electricity from wind and solar than we do from coal consistently for the year 2024, for the first time ever.

Ariana Brocious: Wow. So what's driven that change?

Mary Anne Hitt: So there have been three big drivers of this move away from coal to clean energy. The first has been grassroots leadership on the ground, people working hard to replace coal plants with clean energy. The second has been stronger pollution standards. For a long time, coal plants were allowed to release all of their mercury pollution and coal ash and lots of other dangerous pollution without very strong standards. And those have been strengthened. So coal plants are having to deal with their pollution. And last but certainly not least has been economics. It is now cheaper just about everywhere in this country to build new wind, solar and storage than it is to run an existing coal plant. So coal just can no longer compete with clean energy.

Ariana Brocious: So we're seeing this shift as we've said away from coal to other sources of energy, especially renewables. Let's talk a bit about what it means for those communities where this has been, in many cases, the primary economic driver. So there's a difference between what can happen for a community where coal is mined versus one where it's burned at a power plant. Can you help me walk through the differences there and the sort of reemployment prospects for those different workers?

Mary Anne Hitt: Absolutely. In the case of coal fired power plants, obviously a coal plant retiring is a big challenge for a community because folks work in those plants, and they also contribute a lot to the tax base. At the same time, often those coal plants are operated by large utilities that have a very large operation, and so oftentimes the workers either can retire or can have other jobs within that utility’s business somewhere. So it is a challenge, but it is a challenge that if a utility is responsible, they can manage the retirement and manage the transition and make sure that they do right by the workers and the community. It is a bigger challenge in coal mining communities. If you think about the hundred-plus years we've been mining coal in the United States, these are resource extraction based economies. Here in Appalachia, where I live, we have a long history of company towns where coal companies literally built towns, paid the miners in money called script that was their own money that they could only spend in the company store. So these are their generations of folks who have worked in these communities without a diverse economy. And so diversifying the economy in coal mining communities is a bigger challenge. And at the same time, you know, we finally have new resources and tools to help do that, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Ariana Brocious: Tell us a bit about how that money and those resources are being used to help people in coal communities.

Mary Anne Hitt: A couple of the key programs to note. One is tax credits for energy communities. So if you were building a wind or solar or clean energy project, you get bigger tax breaks if you are building them in a community that has been historically reliant economically on coal or oil or gas. So that improves the prospects for building projects in those areas. And we are seeing clean energy projects pop up all over Appalachia and other fossil fuel regions for that reason. Second, there are loan programs at the department of energy, which again are, you know, in places where they can help support coal communities are available. And then last but not least, the U.S. department of agriculture has a large program for rural electric co-ops, which still own a lot of the remaining coal plants in the United States that don't yet have retirement dates. And they have an almost 10 billion program for those co-ops to submit proposals to build clean energy in their districts. And that can also be used to retire the coal plants and replace them with clean energy in those areas. So there are a lot of programs that are specifically targeted to coal communities, coal mining areas and states and communities are taking advantage of those.

Ariana Brocious: So, one example: Sparks is a battery manufacturing startup and they made a labor agreement with the United Mine Workers of America to prioritize displaced miners for jobs at their upcoming West Virginia battery plant. How are you seeing that particular project play out?

Mary Anne Hitt: I live in West Virginia and it has been remarkable over the past year to see how many clean energy companies are popping up all over the state. The Sparks battery plant, for example, that's been unionized by the United Mine Workers is an incredible example, an incredible story. We've also got electric school bus factories. We have a lot of companies that are taking a look at West Virginia for the first time and that's combined with some groundwork that was laid by organizations and companies in the state like Coalfield Development Corporation, which has been training workers in the anticipation and hopes of these kinds of jobs coming to our state. And Solar Holler, which is a solar company that is a unionized solar company that is hiring folks from the coal fields. And I think is also poised to hit the ground running with all this new interest in the state. And so even the governor of West Virginia was just bragging about all of these new economic opportunities in his State of the State at the beginning of this year. So it really does feel like a new day here in West Virginia. And I expect the same is true in coal mining states all over the country.

Ariana Brocious: Coal mining and coal fired power plants are often located in communities that have less resources and they also bear a lot of the brunt of local pollution and health impacts.Can you tell me about the coal to solar conversion at Reid Gardner in Nevada and how that project alleviated the health impacts for an indigenous community?

Mary Anne Hitt: Yes, this is a project that we were part of when I was at the Sierra Club, the Moapa Band of Paiutes were living right next to the Reed Gardner coal plant, which was owned by NV Energy. And there was coal dust and coal ash, which is full of toxic heavy metals and other harmful particles, blowing over their community for years, they had a long record of health problems and health issues in the community. They had been calling for action for a very long time on that pollution. And so we joined up with them, not only to retire that Reid Gardner coal plant, but also help them get the first tribally owned solar project in the United States off of the ground. And that included a march at one point from the site of the coal plant to the place where the tribe planned to build this large solar project.

And that all took place over, in the 2010 to 2020 sort of decade. And now not only has the Reid Gardner plant closed, it stopped operating in 2017 and was demolished in 2020, but the Moapa have built not one, but two large solar projects on their lands, which are now providing economic revenue to the tribe. And that is one example of the kind of transition that's possible when we move away from this very polluting source of energy, that's also a huge threat to our climate and bring clean energy onto the ground in these communities.

A couple of other examples of places where this transition is happening: One is the Mount Tom coal plant in Massachusetts that is now home to a huge solar farm and a site for battery storage. The San Juan generating station is retired and now there's a slate of clean energy solutions that are being explored to replace that. In Colorado, the utility Tri-state, which operates a lot of coal plants has, I believe, submitted a big package to the Department of Agriculture for loans to speed up coal retirements and replace them with clean energy. So this is really happening all over the country. And I think again, as these IRA programs over the course of this year start to make announcements, we're going to see that drumbeat continue.

Ariana Brocious: So living in West Virginia, what have you seen or heard from people about just the challenge, maybe the difficulties of making that switch?

Mary Anne Hitt: It is a profound change. In many places in this country, here in West Virginia, coal has not only been a big part of our economy, but it's a big part of the cultural history. It's a big part of people's identity. There's a lot of patriotism around having mined the coal that built the planes that won World War Two. It's obviously interwoven into our politics. And so definitely do not want to understate just what a profound change this is. And it's one that is creating a lot of turmoil and tension in coal states and coal communities. And at the same time, coal is in decline. It's going to continue to decline both because it can't compete with clean energy and because it's what the climate and the public health imperative demand, that we move beyond coal. And so this is the time, I think, to be having those honest conversations in our states and communities about how do we make sure that we are part of the new clean energy economy? How do we make sure that, you know, having provided energy for this country for, for generations, how do we make sure that we continue to be part of providing the new generation of electricity and energy that this country needs? That's something that we can definitely do here in West Virginia and in other energy states. And make sure that we do so in a way that does not leave folks behind.

Ariana Brocious: Why might a former coal plant be an attractive location for a renewable energy project?

Mary Anne Hitt: One thing to remember about a coal plant is there are lots of power lines connected to that site, and that makes it an ideal place to locate clean energy. RMI actually just released this report on clean repowering, and here in the United States, we have a big problem with long waiting lines to get new clean energy on the grid. There's a huge amount of clean energy that's waiting three, four, five years to get on the grid. And this study from RMI found that there are 250 gigawatts, which is enough electricity to power 43 million homes, of potential clean energy that could be connected to the grid at these fossil fuel plant sites and could essentially skip that line. And so we would not only be bringing new economic opportunities to those communities, but we would also be getting more clean energy on the grid faster, which is essential for tackling the climate crisis.

Ariana Brocious: There's a huge backlog of getting new projects on the grid. So this is very exciting. So, the fate of coal power is often decided at the local and state levels. What have you observed about how these conversations are happening? Who's making these decisions?

Mary Anne Hitt: Having led the beyond coal campaign for a decade, I saw firsthand how pivotal local grassroots folks, local elected officials, could be in really tipping the scales to speed up retirement of coal and to replace that coal with clean energy. A third of the coal plants in the United States are still operating with no plans to retire this decade and I know advocates and local leaders are still working very hard on those remaining coal plants. Some of them still do not have modern scrubbers and so they are still contributing to heart attacks and strokes and asthma attacks and premature deaths, not to mention climate change. And if they are not taking a hard look at all these new incentives from The Inflation Reduction Act to build clean energy and retire coal, not only are they missing the boat, but they're not doing right by their customers because, coal again is more expensive than clean energy in most parts of the United States at this point. And so consumers are paying higher electric bills to keep these old coal plants running.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, I think you said that is actually true in your case, right?

Mary Anne Hitt: Yes, I am in West Virginia. I am a First Energy customer. And here in West Virginia, we consistently have our electric bills raised because our two utilities here, First Energy and American Electric Power, are basically being required to keep running the coal plants by our state legislature, even though they are more expensive than clean energy that they could be buying instead. And so our electricity bills keep going up because we are being forced essentially to run these coal plants. And here in West Virginia, we are one of the poorest states in the country. That is something we can ill afford and those who have managed to break through and bring clean energy to the state like solar power are really helping out a lot in lowering the electric bills here for folks in West Virginia.

Ariana Brocious: Mary Anne Hitt is Senior Director of Climate Imperative. Thank you very much for joining us on Climate One.

Mary Anne Hitt: Thank you so much for having me.

Greg Dalton: Today on Climate One – transitioning from dirty to clean energy, and what that means for people and the land. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods.

Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend.

Coming up, how does a community that was founded on coal embrace a whole new economy, and identity?

Thomas Ramey: Slowly over the years, the area has embraced the idea that West Virginia and this region has always been a leader when it comes to energy across the nation. And this is just another way for us to look at that.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious. When we talk about moving from dirty to clean energy, it’s worth taking just a moment to remind ourselves why this is necessary.

Greg Dalton: It’s not just the emissions caused by burning fossil fuels. Coal, in particular, is harmful on many levels. Mining on mountaintops destroys landscapes and ecosystems to get at the coal deposits. And even the mining we can’t see – underground – hurts the environment and human health. In northeastern Pennsylvania, there’s an underground coal deposit that’s been burning for decades – and most residents have had to abandon the town.

Ariana Brocious: And mining is dangerous. Workers suffer serious and often deadly health impacts of coal mining – like black lung disease, caused by inhalation of coal mine dust. Miners risk their lives and limbs every day. They work with huge equipment in tight spaces often underground. I used to live in a coal mining community in western Colorado, and I remember one local mine would have a drawing for a big prize like a new pickup truck after so many days without accidents – to incentivize safe practices. But even with strict safety protocols, accidents happen.

Greg Dalton: Then once coal is out of the ground it often has to be shipped long distances by train to get to coal plants. And when it’s burned, it releases coal ash and other harmful air pollutants like mercury into the air – that’s, of course, in addition to other climate-harming emissions like carbon dioxide.

And the human impacts are massive: A recent article in Science found that coal-fired power plants killed nearly half a million Americans in the last twenty years. And the Sierra Club estimates that coal-fired power plants still cause nearly four thousand premature deaths every year because of particulate pollution.

Ariana Brocious: And yet, even given this massive and undeniable environmental and public health threat… coal remains entrenched in many parts of the country. Many of the communities where coal is mined or burned have a long relationship with the industry, and a lot of pride in the power they’ve provided to the country. And it's important to recognize how much of our country's economy was historically built on coal and the miners who did the labor.

Greg Dalton: As an outsider I had a hard time understanding that pride. The first time I ever talked to a coal miner was 3 years ago… Nick Mullins is a former fifth-generation coal miner from Clintwood, Virginia - a small town of about 13-hundred people. Nick’s father was a coal miner too – and he taught his son to love the land around them.

Nick Mullins: He'd take me and my brother to the top of the ridge line, show us the trees. We would play in the streams. I really got really got connected to nature that way.

Greg Dalton: Nick’s family also hunted and fished there. He says as a kid, he had a lot of pride and respect for his forefathers who supported their family by working in the coal mines. But as he grew older, his views changed. When he was 19, a coal company opened a mine on the mountain above his family home.

Nick Mullins: It devastated me. I wasn't really up on any of the fight against mountaintop removal coal mining. I remember whenever they first started logging hiking up to the top of the ridge and seeing what was left of landscape. And they had just obliterated all the oaks and all the poplars and it didn't look like the same place. And then as the months continued, they started stripping away the top soils and it just became and as some people have said, like a moonscape. And they just chiseled away at the mountain. And it would never be the same again, only in memory.

Greg Dalton: It sounds like this is still upsetting for you even just to talk about those memories.

Nick Mullins: It is. You know, when people talk about a sense of place, I don't think people often think about how that place can be just utterly destroyed. And thinking about those kinds of things still bit of a raw emotion for me, knowing that me and my brother we’re the only ones or of course some other surviving family members are the only ones who are gonna be able to remember some of those places that no longer exist. And I won’t be able to show them to my children.

Greg Dalton: Coal miners are often portrayed as American heroes keeping the lights on fueling the Industrial Revolution. To what extent do you think coal miners see themselves that way as heroes?

Nick Mullins: They absolutely see themselves that way. I mean it's one of the things that kind of helps keep you going. Anytime that you’re having to face a difficult situation day in and day out and face such dangers as coal mining you certainly have to feel some pride in that what you're doing is good and worthwhile. It’s not unlike a veteran status to some degree. It’s that sense of sacrificing for you and your family and the nation at large.

Greg Dalton: You eventually became a miner yourself, why?

Nick Mullins: Well, it’s purely economical, you can really delve into a lot of history to contextualize the situation in Appalachia currently. But essentially the coal industry owns the majority of the region; they own the majority of the mineral rights under the ground. And so, there is a tremendous amount of power that they hold in terms of land ownership, economics and politics. So, the mono economy of coal that is in our region, it was created. So, there are really very, very few job alternatives in the region for anyone that wants to continue living there.

Greg Dalton: And you must've known you were taking personal health risks but how did you weigh the personal economic benefits and personal health risks?

Nick Mullins: I mean I really didn't weigh them out, you just did what you had to do for your family. You try not to think about it too often and you did your best to stay out of the dust and not put yourself in the more dangerous situations. And once you get into the mode, you’re just doing what you have to do. And if you think about it too often it will scare you and make it difficult to go in the mine. So, you just work.

Greg Dalton: When I talked with him in 2021, Nick described how few opportunities he saw, given his education and experience, to work outside of the coal industry in Virginia. Nick is now an Energy Systems Technology Instructor at a technical school in Maine, but it’s been a bumpy transition. And the landscape is evolving – in just the last couple years, there are jobs in other kinds of energy emerging. I talked with Thomas Ramey, who works for a company called Solar Holler, focused on building solar in Appalachia.

Thomas Ramey: I grew up in a very small coal mining community in Southern West Virginia, It's a very close knit community where people know each other. It's not the kind of place where people just live along the road and they happen to see each other at Walmart or somewhere. People would know the sound of your truck and they would know your family. And if you did something you shouldn't have done before you would get home, everybody in the area would know what you had done.

Greg Dalton: Sounds lovely and a little worrying.

Thomas Ramey: Yeah, depending a little bit of both.

Greg Dalton: What's it like there now? Outside the region, we hear a lot about, you know, war on coal, et cetera, that changed. What's it like there now?

Thomas Ramey: So most of the easier to access coal has already been gotten. So, we see a decline in the number of active coal mines and we see a decline in the number of individuals working in those areas. And as technology continues to advance, fewer and fewer people are employed in that sector. So it's a sad situation across some of the Appalachian counties, especially in Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia, schools are closed. Businesses are closed. Lots of houses are empty. There's still a lot of people in those areas, people that have a great connection and roots, and they're fighting to make those areas the best possible places to live and remain and call a home. But economically, it's a difficult area.

Greg Dalton: You said your dad worked in a mine. I believe your grandfather did also. Tell me about what kind of jobs they had and how did working in coal affect them?

Thomas Ramey: Yeah. So my dad retired from being a deep miner. He has a portion of his lungs that's affected by black lungs. My grandfather retired from the coal mine several, several years before my dad started. So it was a different level of care and they didn't wear the masks and things like they should have to protect themselves. So my grandfather ended up being diagnosed and having a very advanced form of black lungs that eventually resulted in him not being able to continue on with us, and he passed away as a result, which was super tough.

Greg Dalton: What was that like for you watching your grandfather?

Thomas Ramey: It was extremely painful to watch someone that you respect and you love, just struggle to catch a breath. If you would see him, you would think, wow, he's physically fit. And, he was a slim person, wasn't overweight, did not smoke, but just to walk across a room in his later years, he would be out of breath and had to use oxygen pretty often. So it was, it was tough for the entire family to witness.

Greg Dalton: Oh, I'm sorry. That must be rough. It's grandpa that you look up to so much to see him that way. Did you ever consider following your grandfather and dad into the mind?

Thomas Ramey: No. From an early age, and I think partially because my father was active with the UMWA and he was very active with just trying to fight for better wages and benefits, I was exposed to a picket line at a very young age, so I was able to quickly get the passion of social justice. And so I started in the path of just doing things for the community and before I came to Solar Holler, was directing a homeless veteran program for the region and ended up going solar at my home. And I was extremely happy with the outcome that ended up transitioning over and deciding that I could still do social justice work, but I could do it from this perspective and do it from helping my neighbors and them save money, but also help the environment at the same time.

Greg Dalton: Interesting. At UMWA, is that the United Mine Workers of America. So what do your friends in coal think about you, your advocacy, and particularly your Solar Holler work?

Thomas Ramey: So I think it at first because, solar five years ago, even though Solar Holler has been around for 10, solar wasn't really talked about a lot across the coal fields and it was seen a lot when it was talked about as just an environmental slant and it was those people from somewhere else that was coming here to tell us what to do. Slowly over the years, the area has embraced the idea that West Virginia and this region has always been a leader when it comes to energy across the nation. And this is just another way for us to look at that. We don't have to limit ourselves as Mountaineers and Appalachians to traditional ways. And while we see so many of our young people have to leave after graduating high school or college, this is a way for us to finally tap into something that is meaningful, that will give them a wage that they can afford to have a great life and that they'll stay here. There are still some that will push back. I work with municipalities, school systems, businesses and nonprofits, and most of the conversations around going solar with that group focuses on the financial impact and due to traditional electric rates continually going up and businesses and individuals being pushed to the limit of being able to afford to pay their bills month to month, it's opened up people's eyes to at least give it a chance.

Greg Dalton: So you go in dollars and cents money. It's not about environment or virtue or, you know, polar bears.

Thomas Ramey: It's not. But for me, I always keep the conversation around the bottom line and the ways they can save money and what that money could be used for in their nonprofit or their business.

Greg Dalton: I watched one of your videos and got a sense of pride and this term I love, “sun miners.” Tell me about that.

Thomas Ramey: Yeah, we wanted to make sure we, it showed the area that we truly respect the history and the heritage of the coal miners and all of the sacrifices that were made. And we are just a different version of an energy provider. We're an energy miner versus a coal miner. And we do have a lot of former coal miners who work with us. Coalfield Development, which was a partner early on, is a group that goes into the coalfields and works to rejuvenate the economy. And they did a training program for us. So we did an aggressive push early on to find out of work coal miners to come into the workforce with us. And, um, that's been a really good partnership.

Greg Dalton: I think people outside the region don't understand the pride that people have for sort of powering America's iconic, you know, with building the Empire State Building, that sort of thing. Yeah, I think it's a little hard for me outside to understand that pride.

Thomas Ramey: Yeah, and even as someone who grew up in West Virginia, it's sometimes hard for me to wrap my head around the intense support and love of coal. But I think that that is in place a lot because of what I watched even my grandfather go through. We have watched so many of the people in our families and our loved ones sacrifice so much. So it's almost a love-hate relationship.

And you would probably not imagine West Virginia as a place where you have school systems and cities and county governments aggressively pursuing solar, but it's happening. Um, just at the end of last year, Wayne County schools in West Virginia signed a power purchase agreement with us. There's no financial obligation from the school system other than buying the electric from us at a reduced rate. They're going to save 150,000 a year by doing that. And for a school system that continues to see less and less financial benefit from coal, this is a good way for them to start feeling some of the budget shortfalls.

Greg Dalton: So is that displacing coal?

Thomas Ramey: It is. And unfortunately, with multi story buildings, a lot of times you can't offset 100 percent but we are offsetting a very large percentage of the traditional electric they would have been getting. So yes, they're still going to buy a portion of the electric from the grid, which will be coal produced, but um, a large chunk of their electric now will come from the sun.

Greg Dalton: What did your family think when you first told them you're going to work in solar?

Thomas Ramey: Well, they thought I was crazy to leave the position I was in working with the homeless veterans to go into the solar field, but they didn't understand the technology. They didn't understand the savings. They didn't understand the growth in the industry. So what I did was, I had went solar on my own home. I was able to monitor the production from my own system on my home. It's a 15 minute interval data upload of how much you're producing versus how much the home is using. I gave my family members that were the most skeptical access to that. So, and my dad being one of them. And soon after he monitored for a couple months, he reached out to Solar Holler to go solar himself.

Greg Dalton: So the data convinced your dad?

Thomas Ramey: Yep. He is a very hard numbers guy. He wanted to see that it actually worked. And now he not only believes that he hands my cards out and talks about solar all the time.

Greg Dalton: Thomas Ramey, thank you so much for sharing your insights on Solar Hollar and your personal story.

Thomas Ramey: No problem. So good to meet you.

Ariana Brocious: This is Climate One. If you’ve made a transition from fossil fuels to renewables we’d love to hear your story–email us at greg at climate one dot org and tell us what the move has meant to you and what you’re doing now. We may share it in a future episode.

Coming up, how do you make massive, systemic change without leaving anyone behind? You need a good negotiator and a good strategy:

Delmar Gillus: We came up with solutions that we considered win win. You can create jobs and opportunities, but also create economic value. You can have prevailing wage, but also make sure new black and brown businesses could be successful.

Ariana Brocious: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious.

Greg Dalton: Superfund sites are some of the most contaminated places in the country. That contamination can come from all kinds of sources: industrial pollution, factory operations, chemical leaks, am I grossing you out yet?

Ariana Brocious: As of 2023, there are one thousand, three hundred and thirty six superfund sites in the U.S. And MOST of them are in New Jersey. But the state is actually ALSO the birthplace of the federal Superfund program, which helps pay for the cleanup of hazardous sites.

Greg Dalton: Which is why we’re going to New Jersey for the next segment of our show today. Reporter Jordan Gass-Poore [goss-pour-ray] is host of the Hazard N J podcast. It’s a show about the impacts of climate change on superfund sites.

Ariana Brocious: And she’s watched how the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the program, has helped transform these sites from waste deposits to sources of renewable energy. Here’s Jordan:

jgp vo: New Jersey's price landfill… commonly known as Price’s Pit… was one of the first designated superfund sites in the country.

Back in the early seventies... chemical waste leached from the bottom of Price landfill… through the sandy soil underneath… and into the domestic wells of residents in the small town of pleasantville.

It's taken decades to clean up the twenty-six acre site… as lawsuits wound their way through the courts and a tangle of federal and state agencies worked out a permanent fix to the toxic stew.     

Today… Price landfill is an innocuous grassy field with a fence around it.  

It looks like any other grassy field… except for the hundreds of solar panels. Price's Pit has found new life as a solar farm… generating some of the carbon-free electricity that climate experts say we so desperately need. 

Perry Katz, EPA project manager for price landfill, says the land isn’t suitable for much else.  

Perry Katz: You're limited in what you can do once they're cleaned up in the sense that they’re, you know, capped and contained.

JGP VO: The contaminated groundwater still at the site means that breaking ground isn’t an option.  

But it is still possible to put solar panels on top of the old dump.

Perry: You know, we wouldn't be building houses out there, but in the context of what type of beneficial uses available, I mean, from an economic standpoint, this is more beneficial than if it were just a walking trail, which they do at some landfills.

There's a, you know, kind of the greater good benefit where you're using renewable energy to put into the, you know, energy grid. There's beneficial reuse to the landfill.

JGP VO: The solar panels at price landfill began operating in mid 20-20… and produce enough power for about four-hundred-and-twenty households every year.  

This is part of a national trend to reuse former toxic sites. 

There are at least one hundred and eighteen solar projects at federal superfund sites across the country.

The conversion of these sites is part of the EPA’s re-powering America's land initiative. The decades-old program encourages renewable energy development on formerly contaminated lands.

As of 2023, the combined solar projects on federal superfund sites provided enough energy to power one million eight hundred and eighty six thousand homes across the country for one year.

Jackie Kondrk: A lot of these properties are large and flat, and that's really the most feasible property that you're looking at for a solar project.

JGP VO: That’s Jackie Kondrk . She's the EPA’s remedial project manager who oversees the redevelopment of superfund sites in New Jersey.  

Jackie Kondrk: Solar is really a great option because there's not much else you could do with it. We want to use these sites that // would otherwise not be used likely at all.  

JGP VO: Jackie says locals also benefit economically from putting solar on superfund sites in their communities.  

Jackie Kondrk: I think there's multiple benefits. One is a more affordable energy, hopefully. There's also jobs that come in through doing those projects, and there's a program through the Superfund redevelopment program that actually helps train people to do the cleanup at the sites and to facilitate these types of reuse too.

JGP VO: Many of the superfund sites that dot the garden state are becoming solar farms.  

not far from price’s pit… the delilah road superfund site became home to a solar farm in 20-16.  

solar panels now cover large parts of the infamous ciba-geigy site in toms river. 

And just last month in North Jersey… the Combe Fill North superfund site became the largest landfill-solar conversion in North America. 

The site has more than fifty-thousand solar panels… enough to generate electricity to power four thousand homes. 

These projects and others like them are critical to reaching a newly set state target. The goal is to build forty-megawatts worth of solar power on landfills and other contaminated sites in the next three years.

Speaking at the Combe Fill Site in 2021... New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy emphasized the potential of polluted places to be redeemed.

Gov. Murphy: For most of its // life, this site represented our throwaway culture, with all the long-term challenges that that way of living produced. But today, it represents a more sustainable and energy resilient New Jersey and all the opportunities that we are just beginning to realize.

JGP VO  In February, Governor Murphy committed to shift the state away from fossil fuels by 2035. To reach that target, he called for all electricity sold in the state to come from renewable energy. Conversions like these could help meet that goal.

For Climate One, I'm Jordan Gass-Poore.

Ariana Brocious: One President Biden’s priorities has been environmental justice and worker rights. His administration is putting money and programs behind these larger transitions we’ve been talking about. But not all that action is at the federal level.

Greg Dalton: I talked about this with Delmar Gillus, COO of the clean energy consulting firm Elevate. In 2021 he was involved in getting the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act passed in Illinois.

Ariana Brocious: Or, CEJA for short.

Delmar Gillus: In my role as an in room negotiator, one of the things that I focused on were the equity and job components, as well as the just transition from coal to solar, from fossil fuels to renewables. And so a lot of where I focused my energy was really on making sure that everyone across the state had full access to the benefits of the clean energy economy, whether that was the educational tools, whether that was the job creation aspects, whether it was the grant funding for contractors. It's one thing to pivot from fossil fuels to clean energy, but it's another thing to do it in a humane way where we're bringing everyone in the state along while continuing to create the economic opportunities that a new economic engine like solar or renewables can create.

Greg Dalton: Right. And I've done a fair number of conversations around this and this is the first I've learned of the Displaced Energy Worker Bill of Rights to help support coal workers doing this transition that was part of this. I'm curious, you know, what actual guarantees does that provide to workers and what is sort of the cost of that to the companies that are making this switch?

Delmar Gillus: Yeah, the Clean Energy Bill of Rights or the Displaced Energy Workers Bill of Rights, as you rightly called it, was a provision within the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act. When you have a power plant in a small community, it's often the foundation of the tax base. It's often paying for things like the fire, police, schools, etc. So the goal isn't to just shut them down and shutter them and move forward. It's what is the state doing economically for the community. So it's things like re education and providing training and support. It's things like giving enough lead time from the point that the plant closure is announced until the plant actually shuts down. It's things like providing support to the community, in the form of its tax base to make sure that there wasn't a significant hit. And hopefully through this process, it's also creating new renewable jobs. at the sites using the workers that were at the plants for the next generation of energy generation and power generation.

Greg Dalton: And is that happening? Are companies shutting down coal plants in Illinois, are they adhering to that bill of rights?

Delmar Gillus: The quick answer is yes, but I would also say it's at the beginning of the process. What we are starting to see though is that companies like Vistra and others are putting in applications for RECs and projects and whether that's battery storage facilities or solar generation, we're starting to see some movement in that direction.

Greg Dalton: And RECs, we should say, are renewable energy credits that give companies incentives for doing solar, wind, et cetera. So what I'm hearing you saying is it's early, companies are doing it, they can apply for some governmental support to help them through this transition as well as the workers.

Delmar Gillus: Yes, that's absolutely correct.

Greg Dalton: And let's talk about the scope and scale of the jobs here, obviously burning coal requires a lot of huge fires and heat and continuous flow of coal into the furnaces. That's very different than a solar or wind farm where you kind of, once you build it, you turn it on and there's not a lot of jobs operating those things. So you know, what's the scale of the workers who can make this transition? Because it seems like there's a mismatch in terms of the number of jobs and also the skills.

Delmar Gillus: When we were working on CEJA, roughly about 9 percent of our energy was being generated by renewables in the state of Illinois. Over the next 20 plus years, that capacity is going to be increased to at least 50 percent and possibly beyond that. What we're looking at is an economy that's going to be growing, faster than the rate of the rest of the economy in the state of Illinois. There's going to be a lot of jobs created in this space. And then these jobs are going to be ongoing for the next 20 plus years. Once these facilities are built, there's also going to be a need for the maintenance to continue to keep these panels up to date, or one of the more lucrative jobs that's available now are technicians that can repair wind turbines. That's going to be a very sizable job. And one of the –

Greg Dalton: But let's just be, let's just be clear, that, that involves climbing up some pretty tall turbines, like, that's not a, that's not a desk job.

Delmar Gillus: It definitely is not a desk job to be a wind turbine technician.

Greg Dalton: And that's one thing for a 50 year old worker versus, say, a young worker. What's the generational line here in terms of, if I'm 55 and, you know, I realize coal is sunsetting in Illinois, it looks different for me than if I'm younger.

Delmar Gillus: Yeah, it's important to be mindful that the types of jobs are different. When you're used to, say, going to a plan or a facility every day for 30 years, and you kind of know what to expect. You have a very well defined role and job. It can be a little bit of a transition to go from that to a clean energy job. A lot of the clean energy jobs in solar, for instance, are often projects that can move around the state. They require retraining in some instances, but the good news is that these are good paying jobs, thanks to the work of organized labor in the state of Illinois, the jobs are mostly prevailing wage jobs. A lot of the specialized skills say that engineers and highly trained technicians acquired a lot of those technical skills are needed. Granted, they may be used in a different way, but those skills are critically important. So in one way, I could see how we can think of it in the context of age or a number, but in many ways, I think it comes down to a person's comfort level and kind of diving into this new, innovative type of work and their interest in some of the jobs in EV, solar and battery storage.

Greg Dalton: Well, what are the retraining obstacles? We see this in the automotive industry, people who are designing internal combustion engines or drivetrains are not needed because so many of the new EVs are coding and programming and electrical. They're not the same as internal combustion jobs. Same in, in energy, you know, and installing solar is not the same as running coal. So what are the obstacles in retraining workers?

Delmar Gillus: What we learned from previous workforce development efforts is that you can't have all the educational opportunities centralized in two or three locations. So one of the first things that we're doing to break down these barriers is make sure that the training is provided across the state at 13 different locations. The other thing that's being done is that the state is partnering with community based organizations that understand the workers. And they're also partnering with local community colleges. I live outside of Chicago and city colleges of Chicago has extensive training programs for EV technicians. They have solar training programs. They have energy efficiency training. All of these jobs and roles are necessary, and most if not all of them are very much roll up your sleeves, hands on, get your hands greasy, and work on equipment. The other thing that I want to mention is that there's a lot of opportunities for folks that manufacture. What we’re trying to do and thanks to the Biden administration, is actually have the solar panels and solar arrays built in the U.S. and then preassembled also in the U.S. And so that way we're not only creating the jobs to install them, but they're going to be opportunities to actually build and manufacture the very equipment that's being used for all of these technologies that we're discussing.

Greg Dalton: So we've talked about the skill gap in a way, or the skill transition. We've talked about the geography, perhaps having to drive to different locations, new locations. If you're going from fossil to wind or solar, there's also a time gap. You know some of the fossil fuel facilities are shutting down now. A lot of the battery and solar is still ramping up. Is there a time gap as well in terms of, I lose my fossil job today, but, Oh, that, that new clean energy job is not until 25 or 26?

Delmar Gillus: That's an excellent question and definitely something that we're working through. And in many ways, Greg, these things are connected. As you're losing fossil fuel capacity in our electric grid, you need to make sure that you are bringing online the solar and the wind. And so there's a concerted effort through the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act to make sure that we're building up our solar capacity and our wind capacity as these plant closures are taking place. The other thing is, there is the capability and capacity that if it's going to put the state's electric grid at risk. Then there's a way to kind of slow these things down. What we don't want to do is cause harm. There's a direct connection between the timing of the solar and the wind capacity coming online with the economic needs of these companies to shut these plants down.

Greg Dalton: Previously, you mentioned the prevailing wages in Illinois and the strength of organized labor. The harsh reality is that a lot of clean energy companies are hostile to unions. They won't unionize unless they're really forced to by taking some government money, etc. So how is that playing out? Because there's a big gap between wages and unionization and sort of the old line manufacturing and fossil fuel jobs and the new clean energy jobs.

Delmar Gillus: Yes, there's definitely a natural tension there between some of these jobs and opportunities and organized labor. But what I would say, Greg, is that as part of the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, all of the stakeholders work toward yes. And what I mean by that is, one, Illinois is a strong union state. There was a concerted effort by the environmental community, by the legislative partners, by the governor's office and organized labor to find solutions that work. So what we did was we balanced the prevailing wage requirements with the need to make sure that small businesses would not just be able to sustain themselves, but would be able to grow. So there's additional grant funding and incentives, especially for small businesses that will help them attain prevailing wage and the ability to pay prevailing wage.

Greg Dalton: Right. Though, you know, some people might say, Ooh, drive up energy prices too high with that. And companies might move, et cetera. The Double Black Diamond Solar Project, which is quite a name for anyone who's a skier, it suggests dangerous terrain ahead, will be the largest solar project in Illinois. It's currently under construction. By completion, it's set to provide over 70 percent of the electricity for the city of Chicago. It's a huge opportunity for workers and contractors. Livewire is a Black-owned and run electrical firm that will be finalizing that project. Can you walk us through how they won that project and what their significance is?

Delmar Gillus: Yes, one of the things that was critically important for the city of Chicago as it relates to the Double Black Diamond project is that there is equity and inclusion and one of the foundational principles of CEJA or the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act was providing equitable access to contractors. So as you mentioned, there are Black and brown and woman owned construction firms that are in discussions with the ownership group of Double Black Diamond to have significant roles in the construction of these solar farms. And that really does a couple of things. One, it helps in the completion of this huge solar array. This is the largest one in Illinois and one of the largest in the country. But in addition to providing the jobs and opportunities for organizations like Livewire and other Black and brown construction firms, what it also does is it provides a foundation for Black and brown contractors and that foundation allows them to get access to other opportunities across the state and also nationally if they choose. And it also creates an opportunity where they can help seed other diverse businesses. The other thing that I'm really excited about is once diverse contractors start partnering with these developers and site implementers, these partnerships can be carried over to other projects. So in addition to Double Black Diamond, the ownership group that is responsible for that site also is working on other programs and projects, both in Illinois and neighboring states. And so now they've started to create these partnerships with diverse businesses. And that was one of the major focus areas of CEJA.

Greg Dalton: There was a saying that you kept repeating throughout the negotiations for the climate equity and jobs act: “you need an equitable process to get equitable outcomes.” Why did that become your mantra?

Delmar Gillus: One of the things that I have seen is if you want an outcome, your process has to align with that outcome. And when you start looking at what we were trying to accomplish with CEJA, we wanted to make sure we were creating jobs. We wanted to make sure we were training. We needed a pathway and a process that was aligned with that. So historically, what would happen is that oftentimes legislation was negotiated with a small handful of stakeholders and community leaders were left out. People of color were often left out and women often didn't have the voice that they should have in the process. So what we did with CEJA that was different was that we made sure that we were coalition building. With community advocates, we had the leadership of many strong, dedicated, committed, and knowledgeable women and people of color in the process. And when we started to see ourselves starting to go back to the old way of problem solving, we would hold each other accountable and say, hold on a second. Do we have the right representation at the table to reach a decision? There's a lot of zero sum thinking that's occurring right now, especially in politics, where I need to take something from you in order for me to get something. We fought against that zero sum thinking. We came up with solutions that we considered win win. You can create jobs and opportunities, but also create economic value. You can have prevailing wage, but also make sure new Black and brown businesses could be successful. So we came up with ways of creating opportunity across the board and making the pie bigger. And that was the key is get away from zero sum thinking and get the key stakeholders at the table as part of the decision making process.

Greg Dalton: Delmar Gillis is COO of Elevate. Thank you so much for sharing your insights with us today on Climate One.

Delmar Gillus: And thank you, Greg, for the opportunity.

Greg Dalton: On this Climate One... We’ve been talking about making the transition from dirty to clean energy. If you’ve made this transition we’d love to hear your story–send me an email at greg at climate one dot org.

Greg Dalton: Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe wherever you get your pods.

Ariana Brocious: Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend.

Greg Dalton: Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Ariana Brocious is co-host, editor and producer. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Jenny Lawton is a consulting producer. Our theme music was composed by George Young. Gloria Duffy and Philip Yun are co-CEOs of The Commonwealth Club World Affairs, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

03:10 – Mary Anne Hitt on why the U.S. is moving away from coal
05:45 – Programs in the Inflation Reduction Act to help fossil fuel communities and workers transition
07:30 – Clean energy projects and companies coming to West Virginia
09:00 – Coal-to-solar conversion at Reid Gardner plant in Nevada
13:00 – Why old fossil fuel plants are good to repurpose for renewable energy
16:00 – Consumers are paying higher electric bills to keep old coal plants running
20:30 – Nick Mullins on his changing views on coal mining
26:00 – Thomas Ramey on his upbringing in a coal community and work with solar
30:00 – Changing views on solar energy in coal field communities
37:30 – Jordan Gass-Pooré on Superfund solar project at New Jersey’s Price Landfill
43:00 – Delmar Gillus on negotiating the Illinois Climate and Equitable Jobs Act
47:00 – New jobs created in renewable energy space
50:00 – Ways to help retrain workers
53:00 – Role of unions in new clean energy jobs
57:30 – “You need an equitable process to get equitable outcomes.”

Play

Rep. Ro Khanna on AI, Misinformation and Holding Big Oil Accountable

Megan Biscieglia — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 23:30:56 +0000

Rep. Ro Khanna on AI, Misinformation and Holding Big Oil Accountable

10/06/2023

The U.S. is in the midst of yet another election season, with the presidential primary campaigning well underway. Now that big pieces of legislation like the Infrastructure and Jobs Act, the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have become law, the upcoming elections will help determine how those laws are implemented – and whether they will be built upon or scaled back. The climate stakes are high.

Congressman Ro Khanna rose to prominence as a vocal progressive who actually gets things done in Congress. He got more bills passed than any other Democrat during the previous administration.

In 2021, as chair of a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, Khannapresided over historic hearings where the CEOs of the big oil companies testified under oath about climate misinformation their companies were responsible for. Khanna compared the hearings to the Big Tobacco hearings of 1994. “For many, many decades these oil companies knew that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Their scientists have the most up-to-date science and yet they’d have executives go out and mislead the American public.”

At one pivotal moment in the hearings, Khanna asked the oil company CEOs if any of them would stop funding theAmerican Petroleum Institute’s disinformation campaign. The response? “There were crickets,” Khanna says. “I was hoping a few of them would at least say yes, we agree with you; API shouldn’t be engaged in climate disinformation.”

In March, the Biden Administration approved a controversial oil drilling project in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve known as the Willow Project. The approval caused a significant outcry among climate and environmental activists. The administration claimed that its hands were tied because ConocoPhillips, the company behind the Willow Project, had already purchased the right to drill in that area. But recently the administration made the decision to permanently ban oil and gas drilling on 10 million acres in the reserve. It also plans to cancel seven leases the previous administration issued for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Khanna is a vocal critic of the Willow Project. He says, “There was no reason for the administration for the Department of Interior to approve that; it was a mistake.”

Congressman Khanna was also instrumental in working with Senator Joe Manchin’s office during negotiations over what would eventually be the Inflation Reduction Act. He was the only progressive to do so, at a time when other progressives were raging against Senator Manchin who saw him as standing in the way of President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda.

Khanna represents Silicon Valley and came into office with backing from big tech executives who are known for their hostility toward labor unions. Despite that, he is a staunch supporter of labor unions. Khanna says, “When I was in the Obama administration I had advocated for unionization at Tesla. I said we should be conditioning the Treasury Department funding to allowing Tesla workers to unionize.”

Looking to the implementation of the big legislative climate wins, Khanna is worried about losing aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act if Republicans gain control of Congress and the presidency. He says, “The stakes are too high to move backwards. We have had progress. We finally have climate front and center in Washington. We need to build on that progress.”

Guests

Ro Khanna

U.S. Representative (D-CA 17th District)

Green New Deal for Health (markey.senate.gov)

Oil companies face 'big tobacco moment' in Congress over their climate policies (npr.org)

Record auto profits should be used to address inequality and the climate crisis (theguardian.com)

Willow Project Explained (cnn.com)

Biden Administration to Bar Drilling on Millions of Acres in Alaska (nytimes.com)

Battle Over Electric Vehicles Is Central to Auto Strike (nytimes.com)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I'm Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I'm Ariana Brocious.

Greg Dalton: Well, the first presidential primaries are just three months away, and I'm starting to think about what the election might mean for our climate.

Ariana Brocious: I don't want to go through another election cycle. I feel like at this point they are just never ending, and they are so negative most of the time, and there's a lot of stuff that just kind of dominates the news cycle.

Greg Dalton: Right, and divides us, and it seems like every election is the most important one of our lifetime, and yet this, there's a lot at stake for the climate and energy and a lot more. And with elections, now come fake news and misinformation campaigns trying to sway voters on social media.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, and it's actually kind of frightening how successful some of those strategies are. Just in the renewable space alone, there have been wind and solar projects delayed or even canceled because of misinformation on social media. So it's kind of amazing how much people can be swayed.

Greg Dalton: And it's disturbing that a lot of the social media companies have laid off people recently that are content moderators whose job is to find out and suppress misinformation.You know, a little doubt can go a long way in keeping people clinging to fossil fuels. People are wary of change, and uncertainty favors the status quo. On today's episode, I have a conversation with someone who's uniquely positioned to speak about the intersection of misinformation, artificial intelligence and climate disruption.That's Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna.

Ariana Brocious: Congressman Khanna represents California's 17th district, which includes much of Silicon Valley and the first Tesla factory.

Greg Dalton: And I toured that factory years ago when it was a dark, abandoned, former GM and Toyota factory. A new assembly line was being installed for this little company that was just starting to make cars called Tesla. I was surprised by his comments about Tesla and unions. Tesla's status as a non union automaker, which gives it a cost advantage, is a big factor in the UAW strike now against GM, Ford, and Stellantis.

Ariana Brocious: And what surprised you about his comments about Tesla?

Greg Dalton: He came into office with backing from big tech executives who are known for their hostility toward labor unions. So I thought with a big factory in his district, I was a little surprised how clearly pro union he was taking the side of workers rather than the big company in his district.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, Khanna won his seat from an eight term incumbent Democrat, who was supported by California's political establishment and labor unions. So Khanna is kind of known as a pragmatic progressive.

Greg Dalton: He is, and that irks people sometimes. He worked with Joe Manchin's office during negotiations for what eventually would become the Inflation Reduction Act at that time, progressives and many Democrats were raging against Joe Manchin.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, he was. It's seemingly standing in the way of a lot of climate legislation. In 2021, Khanna was chair of a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, and he brought some attention to the role social media platforms play in spreading disinformation about fossil fuels and clean energy.

Greg Dalton: That role of social media companies doesn't get a lot of attention in the energy conversation. Images of wind turbines on fire are one example of smear campaigns on social media that sow doubt about renewables. And in fact, renewables are safe and clean.

Ariana Brocious: And maybe the more well known thing he's done recently is that Khanna presided over historic hearings where big oil executives testified under oath about their company's role in climate misinformation. This was a big deal.

Greg Dalton: It was a big deal. Let's hear a moment from the hearing when Congressman Kana asked Exxon CEO Darren Woods if the company would admit that it was a mistake when a former CEO denied the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change.

[PLAYBACK]

Ro Khanna: When I make a statement that's wrong, that most people make a statement that's wrong, they say, okay, it's a mistake. We regret it. I'm just asking you for that. You, I assume now that it's a false statement, that the company regrets making it and would acknowledge that, right.

Darren Woods: I think the expectation would be that we'd, we'd look at that at the time it was said and years ago that wasn't the case.

Ro Khanna: But forget, forget whether it was consistent or not. Can you just acknowledge that it was a mistake to make? If someone makes a mistake, just say it was a mistake. And, and you regret that that statement was out there. Would you say that?

Darren Woods: I don't think it's fair to judge something 25 years ago with what we've learned since that time.

Ro Khanna: I'm disappointed that you're not even willing to say that something is a mistake.

Greg Dalton: I have two things to say about that. First, the basic science of greenhouse gasses goes back a century and scientist Edward Teller warned the oil industry about that in the 1950s.

Ariana Brocious: So Exxon knew.

Greg Dalton: Totally Exxon knew. Second, if Exxon CEO Darren Woods makes the admission Khanna was seeking, the company could be legally liable.

Ariana Brocious: But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? That Congressman Khanna and others believe Big Oil should be liable for the harm its products have caused.

Greg Dalton: It is indeed the point. Oil companies are trapped by decades of deceit, and that’s what made these hearings so compelling and interesting.

Ro Khanna: Well, it’s a historic hearing similar to the big tobacco hearings. Until then these big oil CEOs had never been brought to the United States Congress to explain their lies about the cause of climate change for many, many decades these oil companies knew that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Their scientists have the most up-to-date science and yet they’d have executives go out and mislead the American public. So we threatened to subpoena them and we got all of the big executives in front of us and millions of documents where they more or less admitted that in the past they had misled the American people about burning fossil fuels and the cause of climate change. And we try to hold them accountable for their statements. A lot of that the evidence that we discovered is now part of efforts by activists in litigation to hold these big oil companies accountable.

Greg Dalton: And there's an amazing moment in that hearing where you go and kind of, for that kind of nicotine is not addictive moment where you tell the big oil CEOs they could stop funding the American Petroleum Institute's disinformation campaign

[PLAYBACK: You could tell them to knock it off. For the sake of the planet. Would any of you take the opportunity and look at API and say ‘stop it? ANY of you??”

Greg Dalton:What did you expect would happen and what happened in that moment?

Ro Khanna: Well, there were crickets. I was hoping a few of them would at least say yes, we agree with you, API shouldn’t be engaged in climate disinformation. But these big oil companies have become very sophisticated. They don't engage directly now in the climate disinformation they used to in the past, just tell outright lies. Now they have a third-party group that is doing the campaign to spread this misinformation to try to block legislation. They have a fee on methane or to block climate legislation ending fossil fuel subsidies. They let the American Petroleum Institute do their advocacy, put out misinformation and they fund these groups and it’s a really cynical strategy.

Greg Dalton: The committee released a report detailing some of that strategy. What do you believe are some of the most important takeaways from those millions of documents that you obtained?

Ro Khanna: The most important takeaway’s that these companies still they have not come clean. I mean they were plotting against Sunrise kids when the Sunrise Movement was mobilizing and talking about how they could stop these kids from activism. They are continuing to mislead the American public now is claiming that they are clean companies and yet devoting a very small fraction of their budget actually to clean technology. They talk about “regulating” Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions which are basically the emissions coming out of their actual facilities. But not the emissions that are caused by the burning of oil or gas themselves, which is the vast majority of emissions. So these companies are continuing to engage in misinformation and there was no accountability.

Greg Dalton: Well, what personal responsibility do, I drive electric cars, I don't know what you drive or for people who fly and do burn fossil fuels. Isn’t there some also personal responsibility? I mean, I understand that there's deception from the suppliers. But what's the responsibility of individuals?

Ro Khanna: Oh, I think there is obviously some responsibility to have carbon offsets or to live responsibly. But I don't think that this issue is an individual responsibility issue. I mean when you said, well, let’s recycle or let's do small things. This is a systemic issue where you had certain corporations make billions of dollars on basically being able to pollute the climate. And what we really need is policy, a macro policy that is gonna change that. The most important thing being massive investments in renewable energy is in public transportation. But the second thing being having some price on carbon. And if we have that kind of price on carbon, then we don't have these negative externalities. So I think it's important for all of us to be conscientious but it's really a societal issue.

Greg Dalton: Big oil companies like BP are now reducing their promise to reduce emissions given their $27 billion in profits in 2022. Others are also walking back their emission reduction goals as well. They’re also doing what the stock market incentivizes them to do, right, they’re making profits. That's what they're in the business to do and that's what, you know, some retirees who own oil and stock companies for their dividends are investing them to do. So what do you say about that they're just responding to the market doing what they're supposed to do?

Ro Khanna: Well, first I say that we need to stop subsidizing them. I mean the US taxpayer shouldn’t be giving them the kind of depreciation tax exemptions and tax credits that we do. So we have all these kind of subsidies. Those need to stop. The second thing is that they need to be transparent. It's fine for them to be able to make a profit, but they shouldn't be making profits by misleading the American public. Either there should be an accountability for the past lies that some of these companies have told and there should be a check on what they're saying about their climate goals and whether they’re meeting them. I mean they have to have transparency. And the third thing is they should not be allowed to have excess profits in making an advantage in taking advantage of a war. So a lot of these companies after we went to war with Ukraine started to have extraordinary profits in a time of emergency. And that's why a proposal with Sheldon Whitehouse, the windfall profits tax saying you can't just have these record profits at a time where Americans are hurting.

Greg Dalton: Right. And there's been a lot of talk about reducing subsidies globally fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7% of GDP according to the IMF. I just want to say that again, 7% of GDP is fossil fuel subsidies. US is one of the biggest offenders, though politicians live in fear of drivers angry about gas prices. If fossil fuel subsidies go away there could be some increase in fossil fuel prices that leads to angry voters, Yellow Jackets in France etc. Is there a political system really ready for that?

Ro Khanna: Well, one, we could stop the export of oil. We used to have the ban on the export of oil from 1973 to 2015. That would reduce CO2 emission and it also would help with gas prices. Second, there are ways of having some price and carbon without having the working-class and middle-class suffer. You could tax the large corporations and provide a dividend to the working and middle class from that taxation to make sure that the burden is really falling on those who are profiting. And I don't think that ending some of these subsidies would really drive up the price of gas at the pump. These companies are making record profits. And the challenge on the price of the pump was the decisions in Ukraine, the war in Ukraine and the Saudi decision to cut in OPEC. And that's where we need to be tougher and that we shouldn’t be exporting our oil.

Greg Dalton: I interviewed a board member of ConocoPhillips earlier this year. And he would say actually that oil companies are not very good at making money. While they have some years like 2022 eye-popping profits, there are some years, they lose a lot of money. And critics of the industry often look at the profitable years and ignore the years where they lose money. And over time, you know, this is Arjun Murti, he’s on the board of ConocoPhillips is actually oil companies are not so good at making money. So, you know, are you cherry picking your timeframe there and if you look broadly they don't make as much money, you know, they make a lot they lose a lot over time.

Ro Khanna: Well, that's an argument for diversification of these companies into renewable energy. And it is an argument for American consumers of why we want to transition to a less volatile energy supplies. I mean we don't want a situation where you got three bucks gas going up to 4, 5, 6 bucks gas and wildly fluctuating profit. So that is an argument for why we shouldn’t be subsidizing the oil and gas industry and should be having more investment in renewable energy.

Greg Dalton: So what's happening now? You're in the minority. Republicans are in control of the House. They have a very different agenda. They got this project 2025 looking at setting an agenda for Republican agenda if they win the White House next year. So how’s the energy landscape shifted now that you're in the minority and Republicans are in charge of the House?

Ro Khanna: Well, there’s no attention to the climate. I mean my committee was disbanded. The committee I chaired where we had the historic hearings on big oil now no longer exist is now called the energy subcommittee where the goal is just to see how you can have unimpeded support for the big oil and gas industry. So there is no talk about emissions. There's no talk about the 162 million greenhouse gases that are emitted every day. It is just a denial of climate.

Greg Dalton: You represent Silicon Valley, you know, your family traces back to India. There’s been horrific heat impacts in India. We’ve seen what happened in Maui. The Canadian wildfires. How have you personally experienced the impacts of climate change from Pakistan around the world, it seems like every day we open the paper there's something happening.

Ro Khanna: Well, the impacts haven’t just been international, they've been local. I mean, obviously the wildfires in California have been awful. The smoke in Washington DC from the Canadian wildfires has been devastating. I have had people I know in Vermont in New Hampshire who have flooding. And then it’s just been heartbreaking to see what's happened in Hawaii. And you point out that there are drought conditions in other parts of the world and this is gonna hurt, particularly farmers in our ability to produce enough food in different parts of the world. So climate change is already taking place. We’re seeing the consequences. And the real question is are we finally gonna have the will to act. I mean I was very disappointed with the decision to have the Willow Pipeline, which is one of the largest oil projects on public land. I mean that is just a punch to the gut for those of us who believe that we need to be investing in renewable energy and transitioning away from an entrenched fossil fuel future.

Greg Dalton: On Climate One today, a conversation with Rep. Ro Khanna. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods.

Ariana Brocious: Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. On our new website you can create and share playlists focused on any topic.

Greg Dalton: Coming up, young voters are demanding politicians do more to address the climate crisis.

Ro Khanna: They are right to be angry at Washington not doing enough to recognize the climate crisis or to take the types of action we need which is to end the fossil fuel subsidy. Declare a climate emergency. Stop drilling on public lands.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious.

Greg Dalton: In March, the Biden Administration approved a controversial oil drilling project in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve known as the Willow Project. The approval caused a significant outcry among climate and environmental activists.

Ariana Brocious: Yes, though the administration claimed that its hands were tied because ConocoPhillips, the company behind the Willow Project, had already purchased the right to drill in that area.

Greg Dalton: Joe Biden was elected to restore the rule of law. Still, environmentalists say this commits us to burning more fossil fuels at a time when we need to be dramatically cutting emissions.

Ariana Brocious: But recently the administration made the decision to permanently ban oil and gas drilling on 10 million acres in the reserve. It also plans to cancel seven leases the previous administration issued for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Greg Dalton: Which means the administration is doing what it said it couldn't do when it approved Willow. Let’s get back to my conversation with Congressman Ro Khanna, who is a vocal critic of the Willow project.

Ro Khanna: The president ran on saying no new drilling on public lands. No new oil drilling there. Yet the Conoco could have taken the administration to court and the authority may have been challenge and we could've seen how it would have resolved. But there was no reason for the administration for the Department of Interior to approve that; it was a mistake.

Greg Dalton: Right. But there is definitely a shift. Do you think that the Biden administration is worried? What I've heard is they have a problem with young voters who turned out for him in 2020 and they look at Willow and saying, you know, there’s already an enthusiasm gap for Joe Biden’s administration. Are you concerned about young climate conscious voters turning out in ’24?

Ro Khanna: I am. They really were disappointed with the Willow project. They really were disappointed with Mountain Valley Pipeline. Which is a shame because the Inflation Reduction Act was such a win, such a win for climate. The fact that the president is trying to create the Climate Civilian Core through executive order is a win for climate. But these moves were really unforced errors and they sent a very disheartening message to young activists. And when I meet young activists it’s one of the first things they bring up. And so we need to address it, and I'm glad the administration is taking corrective action.

Greg Dalton: You mentioned young activists. There’s a group called Climate Defiance and we’ve seen recently people gluing themselves to airplane runways, you know, disrupting even going after Democrats governor of Massachusetts, etc. I saw a video on Instagram or TikTok where they actually were more friendly toward you. There's a growing somewhat radical youth protest movement because they're scared and they don't see change happening. How do you see that Climate Defiance group and those kinds of more confrontational protests even going after Democrats?

Ro Khanna: I respect them. I mean they’re nonviolent protests. So obviously I don't agree with anything that crosses the line into violence or vandalism. Climate Defiance has been perfectly peaceful. All they’re doing is disrupting a speech or a hearing to make their point. And they are right to be angry at Washington not doing enough to recognize the climate crisis or to take the types of action we need, which is to end the fossil fuel subsidy. Declare a climate emergency. Stop drilling on public lands. These are very commonsense demands that a lot of the young folks have. And they’re frustrated that we haven't been able to do that even with a Democratic administration.

Greg Dalton: Right. The president says he effectively has declared a climate emergency though that doesn't unlock kind of the emergency powers. But, you know, some of those people that are being targeted by young protesters say, hey, we’re the good guys we’re doing as much as we can within the constraints that we have, you know because we have to worry about, I don’t know, swing voters, suburban women in ‘24 who might be, you know don't want prices to go up or are more moderate. Do you recognize a line the administration is trying to walk there looking at the whole political landscape and swing moderate suburban voters?

Ro Khanna: No, because I think one of the things that a climate emergency would allow them to do is put a ban on exporting oil, which is a Richard Nixon policy in 1973 in which we had until 2015. And the reason that was overturned was basically a handout to big oil companies to be able to export this oil for massive profits. And that is increasing the export, the climate carbon footprint, but it's also raising the price of gas because we’re selling it on a global market instead of domestically. So I believe there are solutions that both are good for American consumers and also good for the climate. The Willow project had nothing to do with swing voters. All of that, even by ConocoPhillips would be used for export. It's not gonna help reduce the price and it's years and years down the line. So my sense is that these are areas where we wouldn't be losing swing voters and could be standing with the climate activists.

Greg Dalton: In the first half of 2023, the US became the world's largest exporter for liquefied natural gas. Now a massive new LNG export terminal called CP2 is proposed for the Louisiana coast. Bill McKibben wrote about this in The New Yorker. It would have 20 times a lifetime emission of the Willow project underway in the Arctic that you mention. The US Department of Energy is expected to approve or deny an expanded export permit for CP2 this fall. What's at stake and what should the Biden administration do?

Ro Khanna: It would be a big mistake for them to approve a carte blanche export license there. This is as Bill McKibben writes the fight for like the Keystone Pipeline. And young activists are already paying attention to this. It's one thing to have some liquefied natural gas going to our European allies in a time where we have a war in Ukraine. But we don't need something that's going to have these 20 times the impact and it's a horrible message on reducing emissions. What the climate activists are saying is it's not enough just to have investments in electric vehicle battery plants and investments in solar and wind. That we can't continue to entrench and build new fossil fuel infrastructure and expect that CO2 emissions are going go down or that we’re gonna make any dent in the 162 million number of greenhouse gas particles that we emit every day.

Greg Dalton: Right. Though some would say that's really investors problem whether they gonna invest in that facility or not. Investors might lose money if that gas becomes unburnable on markets there. Is it really the government to say, you know, tell people whether you’re gonna win or lose on that? Granted, the International Energy Agency has said we don't need more fossil fuel infrastructure. We don't need to discover more. There are already enough fossil fuels on the balance sheets of these big companies to fry our home. So it does seem to be insanity to continue doing it. But isn’t that the choice of companies in a free market to do it?

Ro Khanna: Well, it would be the choice of company if it was appropriately priced. But the companies are bearing the gains of selling liquefied natural gas or the oil out without the cost of the harm they're doing to the environment than all of us. And that's because there's no price on carbon. And so if there were an appropriate price then you’d have a functional market. But you don't, and that's why the government has to step in. And this president has said that he did not want more public drilling, drilling on public lands. I'm not sure on the CP2 if that's in private land or public land. But the administration should be taking actions to stop further entrenching fossil fuel infrastructure that is clearly destructive to the environment.

Greg Dalton: Sen. Joe Manchin who was frustrated a lot of people in his own party and sort of scaling down and shaping what became the Inflation Reduction Act. You say that there is a place for Joe Manchin in the Democratic Party. How do you approach him and other Democrats from fossil fuel states, you know, Robert Byrd before him? Jon Tester is facing a tough fight in Montana. You’re part of the Progressive Caucus in the House. How do you see moderate Democrats who are in perhaps a different place on fossil fuels and climate than you are?

Ro Khanna: Well, first of all we need to recognize that the voters get to decide who to send up here and we've got to work with who comes here to make progress. And that's why for almost a year I was the only one Democrat in meetings with Joe Manchin and bipartisan meetings saying whatever is going to come in the Inflation Reduction Act, Manchin’s gonna have to sign off. That was just the reality. And when a lot of other people in the progressive world in the House even some in the White House said, written them off, I was there some criticism on my left saying, no, we’ve got to work with him, we've got to figure out how to do it. And I give Sen. Schumer credit for pulling that deal together. And where I say I played some role is then to get progressives to help support that deal that Schumer and Manchin came up with. Had we not done that we wouldn’t have had any of the Inflation Reduction Act. So I do believe we have to work in the system we have to make progress and that's why often described as progressive was reasonable or wants to compromise to get things done. One more point, we have a massive investment in places like West Virginia places that are traditionally fossil fuel states in new industry disproportionate investment to incentivize them for making this kind of a transition.

Greg Dalton: As we record this President Biden is joining a UAW picket line in Michigan. Donald Trump is going there tomorrow. We have this kind of interesting theater with presidents joining UAW striking workers on strike against GM and Stellantis the owner of Dodge and Jeep Fords, you know, seems to be on a path toward some kind of deal a little bit to the side here now. But workers are concerned about EVs that require fewer workers to build fewer parts, fewer mechanics to take care of them. So how do you address the organized labor demands and the real concerns about this transition to electric vehicles and job security?

Ro Khanna: I was out there in Wayne, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio with the United Auto Workers. And I'm proud of them standing up for fair wages. And it's wonderful actually in this country that we have a president and a former president, both rushing and eager to go there. I mean I believe President Biden has done a lot more actually for workers. But it just shows the sympathy that America has for the workers. Here's what I’d say about electric vehicles. Obviously, it takes less autoworkers to make an electric vehicle. And even if you factor in the battery plant and the supply chains it’s still probably less. But the reality is electric vehicles are going to exist. They’re a percentage of the global market. We can debate whether they’re gonna be 50%, 30% 20% 10%. No one really knows. But there are certainly gonna be a significant percentage. You yourself said you have an electric vehicle. So the question becomes, should those electric vehicles be made in the United States or in China. In my view, they should be made in the United States and they should have good union jobs. Then yes, if you want to make internal combustion engines while those are being made those are good jobs. So the new jobs for this new market should be American jobs and pay well. And that's the debate with UAW at the heart of the debate is should these battery plants should the electric vehicle supply chain be unionized. I believe it should.

Greg Dalton: Though a lot of the investment as, you know, is going to the southeast and right to work states. And the Biden administration through Inflation Reduction Act try to have some domestic content rules, labor rules, etc. But the reality is that, you know, even Ford and some of these US companies are moving to the southeast where there is unions or if not outlawed, make very difficult. That’s just where the industry is going, right. And there’s a concern that this strike could make Ford and Stellantis a unionized car less competitive against other companies.

Ro Khanna: Well, the master agreement would cover those plants in Kentucky and Tennessee and the south. And that's why it's important that they get the master agreement the UAW. In terms of the competitiveness. I mean you have record profits for the big three. You’ve got CEOs that are making $30 million a year. You've got $5 billion in stock buyback. So it's hard for these companies to plead poverty or competitiveness when the workers took massive cuts in 2008 and still haven't been made whole and people see these record profits of these companies. I do believe the administration should have had more safeguards to make sure that if you’re gonna get taxpayer money there needs to be the right to organize. There need to be prevailing wages.

Greg Dalton: Are you concerned about, say, partnering with companies from China as Ford has done?

Ro Khanna: I am, especially if the labor standards aren’t being met. And if the workers aren’t getting a fair wage, I mean, there are also alternative companies that Ford and other companies can look at. Look, there are two competing issues. One is that we have as strong and robust green transition. And the other is how do we have workers paid appropriately and with dignity. And I don't think that in the rush to just try to achieve one goal we can overlook the other goal. Because if you don't have workers buy-in, then you're not gonna get the support public support for the clean policies, clean energy policies. And Shawn Fain and I wrote an op-ed saying the two big challenges of our time are income inequality and the climate crisis. We need to tackle both the Gen Z for change groups, the young voters on climate recognize that. If you go to their social media pages, you'll see some of the strongest support from Gen Z voters for the UAW workers.

Greg Dalton: The largest EV manufacturer in the world is Tesla whose first factory is in your district. The California Department of Fair Housing and Employment sued Tesla last year, alleging discrimination against black workers who are severely underrepresented in the ranks of executive senior officials and managers. Company’s faced other litigation regarding worker safety. As a person who represents Tesla workers presumably if you live around that Fremont factory, how concerned are you about Tesla and its place in this ecosystem and its labor practices?

Ro Khanna: Well, when I was in the Obama administration I had advocated for the unionization at Tesla. I said we should be conditioning the Treasury Department funding to allowing Tesla workers to unionize. And I was outspoken about that and I have remained outspoken about it, and it is unfortunate that the Tesla workforce hasn’t unionized. That's a real concern in this electric vehicle transition.

Greg Dalton: Legacy auto companies and even oil and gas companies have more diverse workforces than some of the solar and what’s called clean energy companies. So where's the US making progress on that front bringing workers, workers of color into this new economy so that they’re not left behind. President Biden, you know, has this Justice40 Initiative trying to put a lot of placement on that. What do you think is happening and where does more work need to be done?

Ro Khanna: Well, we need to make sure that these funds that are going from the IRA are going to places that are union-friendly towns that are going to communities of color. And the investments are going into cities that have large diverse populations. And that we have to be intentional about that, and we need to be intentional in the funds for workforce training. And metrics in measuring that so that we don't just have all of this funding go without any concern about the geography or the inclusivity of the support.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. Coming up, what would a Green New Deal for Health mean for victims of climate disasters?

Ro Khanna: We need to have that kind of a infrastructure so that when there are climate emergencies people can get the health care that they need. We don't have that. We didn't have that with the flooding in Vermont. We didn't have that with the emergency that we saw in Hawaii. (:16)

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton. The Inflation Reduction Act is the biggest energy and climate bill this country has ever passed. It’s a huge bill and success will depend on how it's implemented. In my conversation with Congressman Ro Khanna, I asked him what the law gets right and where it can be improved.

Ro Khanna: It was a historic investment. I mean the largest investment ever. I think it does an incredible job in getting solar and wind and electric vehicle and battery plants off the ground in the United States. What it needs to improve is more labor checks so that the money shouldn’t have just been going without conditions for allowing the right to unionize, allowing for prevailing wage. And there needs to be more scale of the investment. I mean to put it in context it's $300 billion over 10 years. Our defense budget in the same time will be close to eight or $9 trillion. So it's an investment. But it still dwarfs the investments we’re making in our military when the climate crisis is a huge existential threat. And we need to have more investment in public transportation and also ending the fossil fuel subsidies and taking policy. So we aren’t just entrenching new fossil fuel infrastructure which the Inflation Reduction Act didn’t really address.

Greg Dalton: Implementation of the IRA the Inflation Reduction Act is going to be critical to meeting US emission reduction goals. About 43% the EPA believes the law is capable of. But what are some of the obstacles are buried you see to implementing the IRA because certainly there are Republican governors who and others who may not be so invested in the success of it.

Ro Khanna: One is the workforce. I mean we need to have training and investment in making sure that we have the workforce to be able to do all the new industrialization that is there. Second is to make sure that the wages are good and that people have the right to organize and bargain so that these new jobs are considered good jobs not just a numerical job but a job that can be family supporting for the middle class. And third, that there is accountability and that we're monitoring the timelines of these projects and not getting delayed in bureaucracy and red tape. So that the American people know we’re capable of doing big things. I mean the Empire State building, most famously was built in a year. And there was a sense at one point in time that America could do big things fast. We've got to have that same kind of urgency. When Gov. Shapiro got the I-95 correctly built after the huge storm in a few weeks there was such a national pride because we weren’t used to that. And we need to be able to do that at the federal level.

Greg Dalton: Utah Republican John Curtis is chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus in the house. He’s less concerned about getting all fossil fuels and I am and we had a good conversation recently on the show. Do you talk to him do you think you can find common ground with conservatives and other Republicans on energy and climate?

Ro Khanna: It’s been hard on climate. I talked and work with Republicans all the time. I work with Nancy Mace on child care. I work with Marco Rubio on economic development. I guess one place there is possible common ground is on the steel bill that I'm talking about. Build new steel plants in America for national security. And it just so happens that those things will have a lower carbon footprint. But if you lead with the Republicans with less lower carbon footprints they’ll probably walk away. If you say let's produce things in America build things in America. They may be open to it and then it turns out the new technology is better on CO2 emissions. The other places, clean air, clean water, let's get PFAS out of communities. Those arguments also can appeal sometimes to more Republican leaning voters and members of Congress who come from a tradition of sometimes stewardship of the land stewardship of the air from a faith tradition. I mean my faith in terms of my Hindu faith is certainly one of respect for the world and planet that we live in and all living organisms that there is a divinity to that. And other faith traditions have the same kind of reverence for the land and the water and our obligation to it. And that is a language that sometimes finds common ground with Republicans.

Greg Dalton: I think language is key and often a barrier that we use it, that language be some coded, you know, you could do a lot about climate if you don't use that C word and use other words.

Ro Khanna: Well, I talk about production and new industrialization and the opportunity to build new things because those are values that many Americans have that Republicans have too. I talk about being stewards of the land and stewards of the planet that we've inherited and responsible stewards about it. I talk about clean air and clean water and healthy communities which we all want. I also acknowledge that there’s genuine room for debate that a lot of times these are values issues and you can't just as scientists have the last word. A lot of time what we’re debating is the probability risk of some really bad consequence worth avoiding and the cost of it may be some economic short-term tax or short-term cost. And that's a values question. It's not simply a scientific question. And a lot of times I think when the other side when you disguise a values question for a scientific question and call people ignorant of science when really, they’re expressing a desire for different values it’s not as persuasive and it actually has the perverse consequences of politicizing science. So a lot of times my view is we should be debating the values and not just hiding behind the science. A lot of that was COVID, I mean, I was very much for masking and I was for a shutdown when it happened. But those are values decisions. Those are saying I’m comfortable with those decisions and that trade-off. It wasn't just a scientific question.

Greg Dalton: That's different than what we often hear from the left, which is, you know, march on science defend science. The reality is most Americans don't know a scientist, don't ever talk to a scientist don't particularly like or fondly remember high school chemistry and physics. So you’re saying talk about values. Science is important, but don't lead with science which is a lot of climate conversations, people are waving that climate stick.

Ro Khanna: Well, this comes from the sense of how do we understand science in a democracy. Of course, we need more scientific literacy. Of course, we need more climate literacy in our schools and people should have that. But we run the risk of politicizing science when we lead with the scientist. Instead scientists should be experts that people can look to but there should be a recognition of values. Then we can make the argument about why we should care about these issues.

Greg Dalton: The Biden administration recently issued a directive requiring the US federal government which purchased $600 billion in goods and services annually to include the social cost of carbon and construction purchasing and other activities. This is kind of a wonky number but it's basically some of the extra turnout we’re talking about earlier the social cost, Biden has set the new number reportedly close to $190 a ton more than four times what it was in the Obama years. So how important is the social cost of carbon and how do you explain it to people because it’s kind of hard to follow.

Ro Khanna: That’s a big step by the president. Sheldon Whitehouse, the senator from Rhode Island, has been pushing this for years. And all it says is that when you're doing business with the federal government, we should look at what the actual cost of what you're selling is. And that's not just the price you're charging. But it's also the carbon that you’re emitting into the atmosphere. And the federal government has huge influence because we’re a big purchaser of goods and services. And so if we can help incentivize people to lower their carbon footprint. that can have a dramatic impact on CO2 emissions in the United States.

Greg Dalton: In April of 2023, you and Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal for health. Green New Deal is kind of a rallying cry. It seems to be not really active policy inside Washington. Can you explain what the Green New Deal for health contains and why you're proposing it now.

Ro Khanna: All the Green New Deal means as I understand it, is that we need massive reindustrialization and development in the United States that can lower the carbon footprint. And there's this opportunity as we have to make the new steel new aluminum new cement to do so and processes that will actually lower the carbon footprint and create jobs. With the Green New Deal for health, it actually was a bit prescient, and we did it in April of 2023. And then you have the awful heartbreaking tragedy in Maui. And you saw the need for healthcare systems and emergency response systems to be adaptive to climate emergencies. We don't have that. We didn't have that with the flooding in Vermont. We didn't have that with the emergency that we saw in Hawaii. We didn't have it fully on the storms we saw in Florida. So this is just saying that we need to have that kind of a infrastructure so that when there are climate emergencies people can get the health care that they need.

Greg Dalton: Right. And those costs are just soaring. And we don't seem to sort of, people don't personally feel that cost. They think it comes from, I don’t know, Uncle Sam's pocket somehow that's not related to their taxes. How long can the federal government continue to run to the rescue of these disasters that are happening with increased intensity and frequency?

Ro Khanna: Well, that’s exactly the point of why we need the climate investment. Because if we don't have these investments the cost of these catastrophes is gonna be far more. Now people say, well, even if we do it, what about China, what about India, what about the rest of the world? Well, America will lead. We always have lead. And that leading shapes the markets shape the behavior of other countries, especially if we end up including a carbon tax at the border. We can really shape global markets to reduce global emissions. We are the largest economy in the world. And especially working with Europe we can have that kind of impact.

Greg Dalton: And speaking of the global impacts of this. Climate is obviously a global issue. Vladimir Putin has weaponized fossil fuels in his invasion of Ukraine, you referenced that earlier. Republicans have gone squishy on supporting the Ukrainian people defending their homeland and public support for US funding is softening. The AI tools in deep fakes are much more sophisticated than they were in the 2016 election. Is that on your radar this potential what some people, Scott Galloway, a podcast who I listen to and others have said, there’s a coming wave of Russian disinformation on oil and gas motivated by Ukraine and aimed at the US election.

Ro Khanna: I'm very concerned about the Russian disinformation. I’m concerned about Chinese disinformation. When I was in Taiwan there was so much concern about Chinese propaganda. And there’s gonna be concern about Russian propaganda in the United States. And that's why we need to have some rules adopted by Congress about the use of deep fakes, about the use of AI for propaganda and disinformation. And we need our federal agencies FTC, FEC to try to have those rules before 2024. I fear we can barely keep the government open. It's gonna be hard to come to that consensus with Republicans who may have an incentive in doing anything to aid the Trump campaign. But we really need to have some rules of accountability.

Greg Dalton: So as we look forward, you know, there’s concern about Russian disinformation energy and this clean transition is gonna be very much at the center of the election, as you see with Donald Trump and Joe Biden going to Michigan this week. You know, how do you think that energy is gonna play out in the 2024 election?

Ro Khanna: We are going to have new energy sources in the world. That is obvious. The question is, will America lead in them or are we going to say, well, we just want to lead in oil and gas and let China and other countries lead in the new energy sources. That has never been the American way. That would be like saying well, we should just continue to lead in the analog world and let China lead in technology. What a colossal mistake that would have been. I want America to lead in the clean energy race. I want those jobs to be good paying union jobs or high-paying jobs in communities. And I want us to help re-industrialize and reinvigorate this country's economic prosperity with this opportunity that we made a mistake by hollowing out our middle-class working-class industrial base. Now we have this opportunity to rebuild it in a way that has a lower carbon footprint. Let's take this opportunity not just to tackle climate but to transform the economy in a way that’s gonna uplift people like the UAW autoworkers who are striking. And that's why that strike is so critical. These new EV jobs these new solar jobs. These new climate jobs have to be good paying jobs and they have to be at least as good as the old jobs.

Greg Dalton: And a lot of those jobs are happening in red districts, even perhaps represented by members of Congress who voted against that. But there's gonna be a significant effort to repeal, to claw some of that back. What are you most concerned about losing in the IRA if it gets, you know, rolled back?

Ro Khanna: I’m most concerned about losing some of the tax incentives for electric vehicles that could just shut down or reverse the market. I'm concerned about losing the funding for new solar and wind plants. I'm concerned about losing the incentives to invest in new clean technology. And if we had that happen, if we had Donald Trump come and had a Republican House and Senate, and that was set back. It could set us back decades because the cleantech investors and the private sector will say we can’t trust Washington they do one thing and then they'd take it away. Let's stay away from this industry. So that's really what's at stake. That's what I tell my friend, my younger climate activist friends whose frustrations I share about Willow and Mountain Valley Pipeline and the expansion of oil drilling in the IRA. And who I believe are right to be demanding climate emergency. I say the stakes are too high to move backwards. We have had progress. We finally have climate front and center in Washington. We need to build on that progress.

Greg Dalton: Congressman Ro Khanna, thanks for coming on Climate One today and sharing your insights. We appreciate it very much.

Ro Khanna: Thank you. Really appreciate you having me.

Greg Dalton: Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe wherever you get your pods.

Ariana Brocious: POD version: Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. On our new website you can create and share playlists focused on topics including food, energy, EVs, activism. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Greg Dalton: Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Ariana Brocious is co-host, editor and producer. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

4:58 - Ro Khanna on the historic big oil congressional hearings
11:40 - Ro Khanna on fixing energy policy
18:21 - Ro Khanna on the Willow Project
21:28 - Ro Khanna on banning the export of US Oil
25:54 - Ro Khanna on working with members of congress who don’t share his views
27:57 - Ro Khanna on the UAW strikes
32:20 - Ro Khanna on Tesla and Unions
34:42 - Ro Khanna on what the IRA gets right and what can be improved
41:20 - Ro Khanna on communicating values
46:10 - Ro Khanna on misinformation and the 2024 election

Play

Building a Better Battery Supply Chain with JB Straubel and Aimee Boulanger

BenTestani — Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:49:29 +0000

Building a Better Battery Supply Chain with JB Straubel and Aimee Boulanger

07/28/2023

Batteries are a critical part of the transition away from fossil fuels. From electric vehicles to grid scale storage for wind and solar, demand for batteries is expected to grow 500% by 2030. In order to meet that demand, we’re going to need a lot more batteries. And while companies like JB Straubel’s Redwood Materials are building capacity for recycling, for now that means a lot more mining. How do we build a battery supply chain that meets demand and reduces harm?

This episode is underwritten by ClimateWorks.

Guests

JB Straubel

Founder and CEO, Redwood Materials

Aimee Boulanger

Executive Director, Initiative for Responsible Mining

The DRC Mining Industry: Child Labor and Formalization of Small-Scale Mining (wilsoncenter.org)

Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (responsiblemining.net)

Supply Chain Traceability (rmi.org)

Tesla cofounder’s Redwood shows 95% efficiency in battery recycling pilot (electrek.co)

Dead EV batteries turn to gold with U.S. incentives (cnbc.com)

How does an EV battery actually work? (technologyreview.com)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Ariana Brocious: This is Climate One. I’m Ariana Brocious.

Batteries are a critical part of our transition away from fossil fuels. From EVs to grid scale storage for wind and solar, demand for batteries is expected to grow 500% by 2030. While there are some exploring new battery technologies, for now, making lithium ion batteries requires a lot of earth-bound materials. Lithium mines around the world are opening or expanding, and in the Congo, children as young as six carry sacks of cobalt-laced rocks on their backs. Whether in the U.S. or abroad, the mining industry has a bad humanitarian and environmental track record.

Aimee Boulanger: There is not a country in the world with laws sufficient to prevent significant harm where mining happens.

Ariana Brocious: That’s Aimee Boulanger, Executive Director at the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, who is working to change that. We’ll hear more from her later in the episode. Part of this supply challenge could be addressed by reusing materials from batteries that have already been made. That's what JB Straubel, Founder and CEO of Redwood Materials, hopes to accomplish.

JB Straubel: The batteries technically they're 99 or more percent reusable. All the lithium, the nickel, the copper, and cobalt, all those critical metals.

Ariana Brocious: Straubel is also former Chief Technology Officer and current board member at Tesla. This episode is underwritten by ClimateWorks. Greg Dalton spoke with JB Straubel in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, starting with how Straubel became dedicated to focusing on climate solutions.

JB Straubel: Well, probably a passion for the technology in the engineering first. You know, that’s kind of what drew me into climate and sustainability. had a lot of friends in college that were hardcore environmentalists and even activists. I didn't totally understand where they were coming from initially, but I think I've kind of, you know, migrated to really see that side of things. And initially for me it was just a love for the technology and feeling like it was the right way to engineer systems. Where you didn't have sort of some open-ended waste or some, you know, constrained material that would eventually run out. It was very elegant.

Greg Dalton: Right. So there’s many different pathways. People come through technology or a connection to the earth, or perhaps economic opportunity. So how have you come to realize, like your environmental friends, the urgency that they are feeling or they’re conveying.

JB Straubel: Well, I think it's a combination of watching some of the effects you know, basically the commutative effects of what we’re doing. Seeing the trajectory and how difficult it is to actually change some of these industrial systems to me that really resonates. And brings a sense of urgency to this whole problem which is we can't just sort of wake up one day and flip a switch and decide, oh, okay, yeah, we really should stop burning fossil fuels let's do that today. It's a very pervasive very challenging problem. And it touches so many parts of our lives that we need to prepare and really engineer toward a solution way, way ahead of time.

Greg Dalton: Right. And without that scientific urgency business will go at the rate that's comfortable for business which is not fast enough. Tesla's first production model the Roadster used about 6800 batteries essentially laptop battery strung together.

JB Straubel: 6831, actually.

Greg Dalton: 6831. My producer wrote that I rounded it up. Looking back now, how crazy does that sound?

JB Straubel: I mean in hindsight it was --

Greg Dalton: Or genius maybe.

JB Straubel: Well, I don’t know about genius. Many people said it was nuts at the time. You know these were laptop batteries basically way back then. They were slightly tuned and improved laptop batteries, but stringing together thousands of those at the time when laptops were catching fire in airports and causing other problems. Many people were skeptical and they had some data to be skeptical. But in the end, it turned out to be a really quite robust solution. And as far as I know there's never been a Roadster fire in the entire history of that small fleet of cars anyway.

Greg Dalton: Right. and there’s kind of an interesting narrative of how people talked about the company, particularly people in the industry. So tell us about how the auto incumbents, the giants kind of shifted their narrative of Tesla from the Roadster days to today.

JB Straubel: It was fascinating to watch. You know was kind of the innovator's dilemma played out, I mean in live feed. in the beginning we were completely dismissed almost mocked if there was any opinion whatsoever, was impractical it was unsafe. It would never work. I was amazed at how many people thought we were outright lying about, you know, we’d say okay it’s gonna go 200 and some miles 250 miles. And they’d say, ah, that’s a lie. I’m like well no, it’s not. We’ve engineered it it's going to do it we’ll build it and show it. But that was interesting in the very beginning. It was kind of kind of mockery dismissal, and that evolved over time. But there was always the sense of --

Greg Dalton: Then came the Model S and you were like, oh, like a rich boy’s plaything.

JB Straubel: Yup, I mean that, certainly the Model S was 10 times the volume or more. One MotorTrend car of the year, you know, this impeccable safety record had obvious data really supporting it. But still there were a lot of reasons why that couldn't change the industry. Doesn’t have enough range or what about charging or what about, XYZ. It was kind of a lesson really how powerful momentum and even maybe denial could be for whole industries that had so much going in their direction.

Greg Dalton: And what I remember is like yeah but you can't scale. It's one thing to make 50,000 cars a year which is not that long about to what Tesla was making. But making 500,000 that's a whole different game. We've been doing this for 100 years. We know how to scale manufacturing. And Tesla had some challenges.

JB Straubel: Yeah, they were almost right.

Greg Dalton: Right. A couple near-death experiences there

JB Straubel: Well, I mean truly scale is enormously difficult. That is another I think underappreciated challenge. If I can zoom out on the history of Tesla, you know, getting the technology right was a relatively small percent of the problem. It took a small team and a small amount of resources and then getting scale correct and doing that profitably enormously difficult. Took a thousand times more resources and people.

Greg Dalton: And did you think that the GMs and Toyotas of the world would respond faster would change faster to what you were doing?

JB Straubel: Oh, absolutely. We were almost maybe idealistic internally and we kind of, oh, okay, we’ve really shown them now. And this car, you know, will move the whole industry and look at this and then it would be kind of frustrating when we see the reality that no one would change. And everything would kind of, you know, continue on the same way more or less and it's only been quite recently. i think due to customer pressure and economic pressure that a lot of the OEMs have truly and generally started shifting and changing.

Greg Dalton: So what change do they get scared I mean you’re clearly taking away market share from BMW, Mercedes, these premium luxury brands. And now you're moving into the Model Y is what, almost the most best-selling car in a lot of places that's like there’s a new Toyota Camry, the utilitarian affordable vehicle for the masses.

JB Straubel: It’s an incredible vehicle. As you said, best-selling in many different countries and regions. So I think the data on what customers are choosing the fact that that's lasting year on year and growing and not some fad, it’s lasting through high prices of oil and low prices of oil. That’s I think what's finally shifting is really customer voice and the customers demanding this of other brands that they may be are loyal to.

Greg Dalton: Bloomberg has written about the tipping point. Now we’re seeing, you know, what 20% or so of new car sales in California approaching and companies saying they’re gonna stop selling gasoline cars pretty soon 2035. There’s no way that happens without well Tesla. And as a CTO for 15 years you were instrumental in everything from the Roadster, 6830 batteries to other things. I think this is achieved, the speed and scale that is often talked about by investor John Doerr and others to address the climate emergency, we need things at speed and scale. And few companies and honestly few individuals have achieved speed and scale like you and Tesla. So what lessons do you learn from that?

JB Straubel: Well, it was definitely difficult. You know that was more difficult to do both those things than we would've assumed in the beginning. But to make an impact on sustainability on global climate you need scale. Ideas and startup ideas are relatively more common, but we need things that can scale and do it enormously quickly to actually make a dent on the whole problem.

Greg Dalton: Yet the brand has also been damaged by politics, the offensive comments of Elon Musk recently. Why did you step down from your position in 2019 and then you recently came back on the board?

JB Straubel: Well, I mean I love Tesla. I always have. it had some sort of place in my heart and really will for the rest of my life. I love the team there. I love the mission, the products. It’s awesome. Doesn't mean it's an easy place to work, you know, it's challenging. It kind of needs to be to be successful I think. Part of why I decided to leave back in 2019 and it was incredibly difficult personal decision. Probably the most difficult decision businesswise in my life was really reflecting on what I enjoy and what I'm good at. I love being entrepreneur and I love creating and building and being an engineer. Actually, being hands-on and really tinkering and building things. Certainly, that was still possible to some degree at Tesla, but more and more the company needed execution at scale. It needed vehicle deliveries, it needed sales, it needed manufacturing ramp. And there were people that are more passionate about that and frankly much better at it than me. And, you know, that’s kind of a difficult thing to admit sometimes when you’re in the midst of it, and especially if you kind of like grown in an organization that have a position where maybe you're managing these people or alongside them. Yet kind of have to realize that, you know, wow, these people are they’re really passionate about doing the thing that I have to kind of force myself to do because I know it's important. So for me all part of that calculus. I also from a topic point of view, really, I love learning. And I wanted to kind of go into an adjacent supportive, I thought, field where I could do something that would potentially kind of float all the ships and help electrification help sustainability more broadly using kind of what I've seen and what I learned in our struggles and some of our challenges at Tesla.

Greg Dalton: Redwood is positioning itself as a battery component manufacturer though it’s grabbed a lot of headlines on recycling. And so I want to start there. According to one Stanford professor 95% of lithium ion batteries currently end up in landfill. Why is that and how are you planning to change it?

JB Straubel: Yeah, it's pretty amazing. And I think largely that happens because there's no obvious place of where people should take them. If you think about it and you had a lithium-ion battery today where would you take it? Most people don't know. So a lot of people are storing them up. They maybe don't want to throw it in the garbage can. For those people that feel guilty though they’ll put it in a box in their garage or in a drawer somewhere.

Greg Dalton: I have a box at home that goes back to the Trio, yeah. Because I don’t know what to do with them because of the batteries.

JB Straubel: So that’s an opportunity. All those batteries their materials are still in there. They're still usable as long as they get reprocessed and remanufactured.

Greg Dalton: Okay. And a battery is more complicated than a beer bottle or pay for or aluminum so there are more components far more materials. But as new battery chemistries are developed how big a challenge is it for you to separate all these different materials because batteries are changing so quickly.

JB Straubel: Well, that’s part of I think kind of the technology fun of it all is making sure our ways to recycle and separate all these things can adapt. But we also get this weird looking in history of personal electronics because what is largely being recycled is hopefully what's worn out. So we’re getting Trios and blackberries and flip phones, and things like that occasionally. So we have to kind of be relevant and applicable to technologies that were quite old. We still see things like nickel cadmium batteries coming in and even lead acid batteries from huge old devices. The reality of it is a lot more messy than taking a brand-new clean feedstock and then doing something precise to it. And I was used to working in building factories and building automation where we had the parts presented in pristine trays and everything was perfect and even that still a robot would have enormously hard time picking up the part that was in the perfect place brand-new and putting it in the right place on the products and not somehow screwing it up. Here we have a barrel full of damaged effective dirty materials and trying to automate that is a whole different type of challenge.

Greg Dalton: Redwood Materials recently announced that after a year-long pilot program. It was able to recover important metals from used batteries at a rate of more than 95%. And last I checked gasoline is 0% recycled.

JB Straubel: What’s so interesting I think about battery recycling and especially as it relates to EVs is we can imagine this future where you don't need to continually extract and supply some chemical into a whole fleet of cars. The batteries today might be economically 95% but technically they’re 99% or more reusable. All the lithium, the nickel, the copper and cobalt all those critical metals. So what goes into that is quite complex. We have to invent ways to neutralize the battery to separate out electrolyte which is somewhat hazardous to make sure they don't catch fire at the wrong time in the process. And then purify and separate each one of these metals from each other. It is a lot harder than notionally taking an old beer can and melting it and then stamping it into a new beer can. You can kind of look at that and very clearly say, oh, it’s aluminum it's probably gonna be aluminum in a new shape. But batteries are a kind of a complex mixture of chemistry and chemicals all together.

Greg Dalton: So this really is like a dream circular economy. So how does this work? I bought a Nissan Leaf very early EV. It’s ranged kind of around 100 miles. It went down 2016 or so. Time to, I actually gave it away to a public radio station, because I didn’t know what to do with it. So what would happen to that Nissan Leaf or another used EV. Will you take it back to a dealer? How does the battery get in your hands?

JB Straubel: It has a lot of different pathways. We work with auto dismantlers. We work with sometimes consumers directly if that's relevant, we work with service centers that might be associated with an OEM if it’s a warranty battery.

Greg Dalton: A carmaker.

JB Straubel: Carmaker. So it's quite complex. And it's kind of the wild West right now because people haven't really evolved this at scale. we’re even having to kind of invent efficient low-cost packaging to be able to get like your old Nissan Leaf battery back from maybe an auto dismantler or wrecking yard where the battery might turn up sort of dead or a scrap and we need to get it from there to a recycling facility. But I'm confident we will electrify everything. That’s where we’re headed. Every passenger vehicle, every truck boat I think trains it’s all going to electrify; it really has to. And once we’re in that more steady-state where everything is already been electrified, we don't need to keep mining those materials to make the modern version of the fleet.

Ariana Brocious: You’re listening to a Climate One conversation about improving the battery supply chain. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. On our new website you can create and share playlists focused on topics including food, energy, EVs, and more. Coming up, the critical role of batteries in the energy transition,

JB Straubel: I don't see how we make the world sustainable without storage. And right now, batteries, lithium ion batteries largely are the scalable economic solution.

Ariana Brocious:: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Creating a circular battery production process where the materials from decommissioned batteries are recycled to create new batteries would be the most sustainable way to meet our energy storage needs. But at the moment there simply aren’t enough batteries to recycle to meet growing demand. And the recycling process isn’t anywhere near the scale it needs to be. So what do we do in the meantime? Let's get back to Greg’s conversation with Redwood Materials Founder and CEO JB Straubel.

JB Straubel: That’s the complexity of this transition as we have to do both things. We have to both support and realize that mining responsibly has to happen or else we won't have a transition to recycle. But we also have to be planning ahead and really keeping an eye toward what is that future look like to be ready to recycle every one of those batteries. The worst thing we could do is go to all this destruction and trouble to mine it refine it build the product and then throw it away. That’s the worst pathway.

Greg Dalton: So Redwood Materials, your company, is investing three and half billion dollars in a gigantic new South Carolina manufacturing facility that will produce enough battery components to power a million electric cars. What percentage of the raw materials for those million batteries will actually come from recycled batteries and in what timeframe?

JB Straubel: Well, we’re also building up a large campus in Northern Nevada. So we have sort of two main facilities. Northern Nevada and South Carolina. As part of the materials we make for batteries, the cathode material or the foils that they make up the we’ll target between 30 and 50% recycled material. So we blend some mined material along with the material we recycle and refine to go into a new battery. Now there’s no reason it has to be blended like that but that's basically the sort of balance that we see is about the maximum rate that we can ramp up the feedstock of recycled material.

Greg Dalton: And so I’m thinking about a soda bottle that's like 30% recycled plastic. Will I be able to go to EV and see that like the battery has X percent recycled material. Would that be visible to customers?

JB Straubel: There are already some regulations in Europe starting to happen where certain mandates exist around percent recycled content in things like a battery. I don't know if that’ll be made visible to the consumer. The batteries generally if it’s doing its job right it's pretty out of sight out of mind. It's usually complex. This whole business is the need to get started around basically supply chain traceability and understanding how to really figure out where the materials come from. Was it at the mine that people liked or didn't like or did it route through some country that other people don't like.

Greg Dalton: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, US has only about 7% of the global battery recycling capacity while China has 80%. How can US compete China has such a head start and so much lower labor costs?

JB Straubel: China in particular but Asia broadly has been investing in the space for decades. Very strategically there have been consistent incentives and consistent support from the governments in those countries to build these industries. The one thing that we have is we’re the consumers. we’re buying these cars we’re bringing them here we’re using them. And that is a really unique advantage. So there's sort of an inherent benefit and economic benefit and industrialization benefit to locally reprocessing these materials once they’re in a region. That’s I think is really part of the toehold. And it's part of why in Redwood we’re focused on linking recycling with the material manufacturing. I think we just attacked material manufacturing we’re competing head-to-head with China. It's a brutal battle. I don't think it's the best battle to fight if you're linking recycling materials that are already in the region we have a toehold and a leg up to make this economic and to make it scale.

Greg Dalton: So you’re combining the recycling and the manufacturing. According to testimony you submitted to the U.S. Senate battery minerals typically travel 50,000 miles from mine to refining to cathode production to sell manufacturing. How do we shorten that supply chain? Things are taken from the Global South they go to China perhaps assembled in Japan Northern Europe come to the US. They move like that’s just mind-boggling.

JB Straubel: Yeah, it's almost a comical supply chain. If you drew this it would look like a joke. It’s like a joke of a supply chain you don't want. partly driven by the geology. These minerals are scattered around in their prevalence. Lithium is super prevalent in South America and nickel and Indonesian region or Russia or parts of Canada. The other problem is the countries that have invested very strategically in refining and converting them like in China and other parts of Asia. So you kind of have a geologic spreading mixed with centralization of refining and manufacturing That’s all separated from the consumer. So by the time you have the poor consumer buying an EV in California this atom of lithium or nickel has traveled all the way around the world perhaps several times to really make it into that final product before it even drives a mile. And of course, that all has some impact that has, you know, can be somewhat negative. And it contributes to sort of the energy payback in an electric vehicle. Which is still very positive. I want to make sure that’s super clear. But, you know, the reason that an electric vehicle has any concept of energy payback just like a solar panel or a wind turbine or something like that is largely because of the embedded energy it took to mine, refine, move these materials around and make the battery itself.

Greg Dalton: So some people are saying we should do more mining in the United States. We have stronger environmental protections. There’s controversial in Nevada where you spent a lot of your time important is it to have more mining in the US?

JB Straubel: I think personally it would be great if we could do more of it responsibly. I think it's going to be very difficult. We don't have excellent deposits of some of these critical metals. We don't really have excellent broad deposits of nickel or cobalt. There are some it’s not zero. But that coupled with just a very complex expensive often times process to develop those mines.

Greg Dalton: So there’s limits to what we can do here. We’re gonna need to have get some of it overseas. This is all moving very quickly. I read about iron-air batteries on the horizon and solid-state batteries. have made progress on this front. I'm not sure Toyota seem to maybe recycling some of its announcements. possible chemistries and how close our solid-state batteries and how could they accelerate the transition we’re talking about?

JB Straubel: There are a lot of different possible chemical couples to make new batteries, but the process to mature a battery into really make sure it's robust and get it to scale is very, very long. There's a lot of companies that have struggled with this and it's I think surprised even some of the smartest people that I know how long that can take. So, I learn to take new battery announcements with a little bit of a grain of salt. frankly we’re also at a bit of a tipping point where coming back at the beginning of our conversation almost more about scale right now than it is about a slightly better newfangled battery. If I had a choice of an electric vehicle that cost half as much, or one that went twice as far. and it's a no-brainer. One of these would result in dramatically, greater adoption The other one, eh, moderate impact.

Greg Dalton: Right. And I think this is a real trouble in the whole climate conversation. That we’re sort of have this pull toward the shiny new thing out there rather than the more known, maybe less sexy thing that we need to do more of right now. I saw a presentation recently on solar power from outer space can beam down without wires. And I’m like, yeah, sounds cool. But what about the solar we have today that is economic. Let's do that.

JB Straubel: Which is already the cheapest source of energy, yeah.

Greg Dalton: As we're talking about electrified system. We’ve been talking about electrifying mobility, but also batteries have important applications in homes on the grid. So what advances are you seeing in batteries for stationary applications?

JB Straubel: Well, it’s vast. I mean energy storage and I think electrochemical batteries are kind of the central technology into many, many sustainability products. And I don't see how we make the world sustainable without storage. And right now, batteries, lithium-ion batteries largely, are the scalable economic solution to that. Doesn't mean it’ll be the only one forever. As you said there's new technologies coming. But right now, this is kind of the core technology in grid storage at the utility scale, grid storage at the home scale, electric vehicles. It's quite pervasive when you really look across all these different products. It’s part of why the bottleneck in getting enough materials to make those batteries and having access to batteries at all is such a scary bottleneck to me. When I looked at this whole transition I said, geez, that could derail simultaneously a whole bunch of different industries and slow this whole transition down.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, we saw that in solar. Solar price has been going down, down, down for decades and then solar ticked up because of the supply constraints. How concerned are you that this country or even your own company will overinvest heavily in a supply chain based on current lithium-ion technology, only to have newer cheaper battery into the market.

JB Straubel: I mean that one I’m really not worried about that one. the timeline is so long on some products like a new EV to conceive of it to build a model year to ramp it, lifetime of that product. Even if the battery technology sort of matured and changed of solid-state promises everything it can do it will be wonderful, but it's relevant a product generation or two in the future. So I don't see really any risk right now that overinvesting, in scaling some of these products. From every angle I look at it dramatically underinvesting. And, you know, underinvesting in the supply chain underinvesting in refining infrastructure products. So that's what keeps me up at night. It's not an overinvestment concern.

Greg Dalton: Sounds like you’re a technologist. You believe in technology. But there's also the other side of JB the human personal side. How do you feel about the broader transition we’re making? Are we going fast enough?

JB Straubel: As you said, I'm an optimist on the capabilities of what technology can do. I can see a pathway. It's kind of frustrating to both see a pathway that can solve things with known technology. We don’t have to invent new physics or chemistry.

Greg Dalton: Just use what we have today.

JB Straubel: We can do it today. But at the same time, we are not going fast enough. We're absolutely not going fast enough. And I don't think we may be collectively realize how bad it probably will get. There are so much inertia in the system that we’re meddling with.

Greg Dalton: Or how bad it is 100 million Americans were under heat watches this week.

JB Straubel: Yeah. it’s part of what lights the urgency for me. Seeing and feeling the fact that this problem is so big it touches every part of our economy. Really, it’s not a dramatization to say that. I think it's something we’ll be grappling with and changing and working to solve decades. Our kids and our kids are going to be working to solve and transition around this problem.

Greg Dalton: There’s a handful of people on this planet who’ve done a lot. And certainly, Tesla has disrupted and changed the whole industry. Not perfect, created a lot of wealth, but certainly Detroit and Tokyo are moving a lot faster. Thanks to you and your work. One of the reasons it is going slow is there is real organized, well-funded opposition. The International Energy Agency, the world's foremost authority in all things energy recently issued a milestone forecast saying it predicts global demand for oil to be burned will peak in just five years. So oil companies are facing a shrinking demand. You and I watched a recent advertisement by an oil company that associates plug-in cars with chains basically enslaved. And that driving a fossil car is liberty and freeing. And this is part of the campaign that really is going more directly at the companies that you're part of Tesla and Redwood saying basically you’re enslaving us.

JB Straubel: I must take that as a little bit of respect. It’s like okay we finally gotten to them a little bit. But unfortunately, it's going to take so long for us to reduce the entire, because really the amount of oil consumption scales with the fleet of cars. Not with the new cars sold. And a lot of times we track our progress on EVs against new cars sold. And we’re celebrating 20% which is huge. It's a great milestone. But that's 20% of the new cars going into a pool that takes perhaps 15 years to turn over. So, you know, that's the sort of math around that has a much bigger inertia to it. But anyway, I can’t imagine what's more free though than driving an EV powered on solar energy at your own house. I mean to me that’s the most free set of products and technology you can possibly have. A cord is linking to your own roof; it's not linking to the Middle East or even a different part of the US.

Greg Dalton: UAW negotiations are heating up around job transition to the EV this so-called battery belt. The region with new battery and EV factories in the southeast right to work states are not welcoming to unions. Tesla has been hostile to unions. Where do you and Redwood Materials stand on worker unions?

JB Straubel: I mean I think it's important to figure out how we fairly transition. Essentially if you look at this whole movement then it has to happen. We have to transition a whole bunch of people who are working on various fossil fuel products and technologies and minerals. And somehow move all of them, if they’re not retiring move them into sustainable industries and sustainable products. So, broadly to me that's sort of probably the most key metric of success is where and when we can do something like that. it’s hard to do because their jobs aren’t in the same regions or maybe the skill sets are different.

Greg Dalton: Very different, yeah.

JB Straubel: But I mean that I think is what has to happen for success here. We can't just sort of say okay those jobs all go away and those people won't do anything. But the other problem is we need huge amounts of jobs to do these new things. So we end up spending a lot of time training and recruiting and hiring. And it's a blend of almost vocational training starting even in trade schools and in community colleges and universities. Because we as a country we don't have enough of the right skills to do some of these things. I would sort of implore students out there right now to really start try and learn little bit more about chemistry, electrical engineering. Some of these sorts of different disciplines that maybe weren’t as trendy over the last few years.

Greg Dalton: Tesla is battling at least for racism-based lawsuits, including allegations that black workers at the company's Fremont factory are segregated into the hardest, most dangerous and lowest paid jobs in an area of the factory that managers allegedly called the plantation. I recognize that as a board member, you won't comment on ongoing litigation, but generally clean tech companies have less diverse workforces than even fossil fuel companies, old-line auto companies. So as CEO of Redwood Materials what are you doing about equity and inclusion?

JB Straubel: Well, I think, you know, basically working to create jobs and to build a company that can grow to me as the first mission. We have to be a sustainable company that can actually provide a sustainable job for someone in the first place. That’s what I worry about the majority of my time and then making sure that we are focusing on the sustainability of our overall company. And maybe totally incorrect but I think some of the skewing on this might be that there aren’t quite as many manufacturing jobs in some early cleantech companies. We’re building a lot of manufacturing very, very hands-on work that has to happen, especially with manufacturing battery components, recycling them. So we’re welcoming to any people. In fact, frankly right now the challenge is how do we find enough employees. really a fairly key challenge as we scale this up. And I hear that same refrain from a lot of other leaders who are launching new battery factories or new EV factories.

Greg Dalton: You said that you don't think anyone's moving fast enough. How can we move faster?

JB Straubel: You know, so much this is driven by consumer choice. It feels both simple and hard. But I really do think that things could move faster if people understood a little bit better how to make truly sustainable choices. That leads to more products that leads to driving behavior of other large companies. So I think we need more investment as I said before in all these different areas, but I'm not sure I have a magic bullet for how to suddenly get more investment. I can see that it's needed but that itself is a slow process.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, we’re all clinging to the things that we know and kind of the things that got us to where we are. How optimistic are you that technology can make the change and what are the kind of changes do you think we need?

JB Straubel: Well, I'm incredibly optimistic about what the technology can do. I'm pessimistic about the speed.

Greg Dalton: You’re pessimistic about the human part of it?

JB Straubel: Well, it’s a good question. I think yeah maybe I guess that is one of the complexities. It’s the human preferences and choices and all the complexity of changing behavior. As we talked about earlier, this transition will move a lot of wealth from company to another. It moves jobs from one region to another as political impacts it has government impacts. So any time that there is something that some technical shift that affects people in such, you know, personal, visceral ways, it's a very complex thing to affect. So I guess I am a little bit concerned about how fast all those human complexities can sort of work themselves through.

Greg Dalton: Yeah. There’s lots of systems we need to change. The economy, water, food, the system between our years is one of the most challenging systems to address. Thank you, JB for joining us on Climate One and sharing your insight and stories. And really one of like true climate heroes for your passion for all that you've disrupted and done.

Ariana Brocious: This is Climate One. Coming up, as battery demand grows, how can mining be done more responsibly?

Aimee Boulanger: We don't need 20 years of research and technology to get at best practice mining. This is not nuclear fusion. We absolutely know already how to do mining with less harm.

Ariana Brocious: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

This is Climate One. I’m Ariana Brocious.

As the demand for batteries continues to grow, mining for the raw materials to make them will be a necessity. Industrial mining has had a troubled history with humanitarian and environmental abuses. Existing oversight and standards are insufficient and vary widely country by country. But Aimee Boulanger, Executive Director at the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, wants to change that.

Aimee Boulanger: Well I understand the skepticism people have around this. Industrial scale mining is inherently destructive on a landscape. It leaves the impacts that last not just decades, but centuries. It's why we never use the word sustainable, because unless we are doing a lot better recycling and circular economy, it's not sustainable. but we are in industrialized societies using these materials every day. And so we are complicit in that use and we're talking about using it a lot more for energy transition, for wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles. And so if that's gonna happen, We're gonna need to talk about how do we access those materials in a fundamentally more responsible way.

Ariana Brocious: One interesting aspect of your organization is that it has representatives from both industry and environmental advocacy groups, and you've described these as having sort of six houses of bosses. So how do you listen to what each member or organization wants?

Aimee Boulanger: So IRMA is governed by these six houses, and they agreed to sit at the table to find value together in a system, while also inherently saying they see value in different ways. but the opportunity moment is that that differences can be complimentary to each other. So you've got mining companies, who are being asked to do something very difficult, which is provide materials that people use every day out of the earth, like broken out of the earth. It's really difficult to get these materials and they're frequently in tiny quantities locked in rock, and a lot of the sector knows how to do that in ways that, reduce harm, but the market hasn't really created value for that, and our laws haven't created value for that. So it's about then how do their customers who buy mind materials, which is another house in IRMA, or how do their investors, which is another house in IRMA, lean in to create value for that and how those, customers and investors are moved by nonprofit, environmental and social justice groups, or the communities who are most affected, or indigenous rights holders, sort of using those tensions between them to leverage a market for these materials that cares more about protecting the earth than the people who live on it.

Ariana Brocious: Well, so speaking to that power of the purchaser, seven car companies are members of your organization B M W, Mercedes Ford, gm, Tesla, Rivian, and Volkswagen. Those are some of the largest companies and we know that a lot of those are really actively committed to transitioning to EVs. So how much power do they have in determining where the materials come from that go into the cars that they make?

Aimee Boulanger: It's really difficult to trace back up a supply chain to where the raw materials come from, and until recently it really wasn't happening. You had. Companies like car makers, who were buying bolts, who were buying sheet metal. They weren't buying raw material from a mining company. And in many cases they wouldn't know the mining companies who were providing the raw material that went into the bolts or the sheet metal they bought. But increasingly they've grown aware that some of the greatest harm and the risks in their supply chain are back at that mine level. And Leveraging their influence there to, expect better performance, to expect more honesty and transparency in the impacts there, and then increasingly they are leaning in, to create value for best practices and for reduced harm.

Ariana Brocious: And when we talked before this interview, you mentioned just the simple quantity that car makers purchase and use as opposed to other kinds of precious metal users like electronics or jewelry. Can you explain just like the scale we're talking about there?

Aimee Boulanger: So in IRMA's earliest years, the leading companies who were purchasing mined material who got engaged were in the jewelry sector first. they really saw that there's a disconnect between trying to craft something beautiful and something that was gonna stand for love and long-term commitment if those materials that go into that ring, that necklace are inherently tied to harm. And so they really led in this space of saying we're going to drive our suppliers, to meet our values and to reduce harm at the mine level. and then you had the electronic sector coming in, particularly when increasing attention was going to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and cobalt mining there and harm there, but also tin in Indonesia, but they also make small things, you know, the electronics we carry in our hand so to have the car makers come in and say, We also want to leverage improved practices. That completely changed the conversation because of the volume of what car makers buy. They just buy so much more. It was a really important signal to the mining industry over the last couple of years that their customer base cares about these issues and is interested to lean in and provide support to them to do better.

Ariana Brocious: So speaking of the Democratic Republic of Congo, there are an estimated 45,000 children involved in cobalt mining, which is just a really horrible thing to think about. What would be the best way to end that practice?

Aimee Boulanger: Well, that's really complicated question because, in the mining sector, There, first of all are, are two different kinds of ways and gross generalization that mining happens. There's mining that's done by mining companies who tend to be large corporations. And then there's also what's called artisanal scale mining, which might be an individual or a family or a small cooperative with pick and shovel, and there are challenges in both spaces and there's need for work in both spaces to improve practices, but it needs really different strategies. Where you see child labor most often is not in the mining company, although it can happen. And in that case, we have requirements in our standard for how you monitor that and how you look for young workers because any place where, Where income security is a huge risk, where you've got poverty, you're gonna have people incentivizing for younger and younger people to come in and help support their families. But those companies have an easier way to look at papers, to look at age, and, oversight. But at the artisanal scale site, where you might have a family trying to basically do the subsistence farming version of mining where they're out with a pick and shovel, You may have their children along with them simply because they don't wanna leave them home or alone. So you've got kids there, you've got people hand digging tunnels and things like that. They may be the smallest human that's there. So if you're trying to get into a tight spot, you've got children who may be lower down into holes and things because they're smaller to get into tight spaces. So really, I mean, how you eradicate child labor in these spaces is really about. What kind of formalization do you have at the artisanal scale side? Like what kinds of support do you have for those people to have training, to have incentives for their kids to be in school, for their kids to be safe? Because while the large scale mining companies provide the greatest volume and majority of the flow of our mine materials, the greatest number of jobs actually is over on the artisanal scale side. So people are going to keep doing this. The question is, what support do they have for their children to be in safe places? And what kind of benefit sharing might be going on between a mining company where there is one, and the government and individual pick and shovel miners like that.

Ariana Brocious: So let's get back to the work of IRMA, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, and to give an example of how members get audited, can you tell us about the audit that Albemarle's Lithium Mine in Chile's. Salar de Atacama recently went through?

Aimee Boulanger: Yeah. So, in the case of Albemarle and Chile, First of all, they're the third, company to release an IRMA audit report. So while our work building the IRMA standard for responsible mining and the rules for how it's measured started 16 years ago, it's taken much of that time just to get to agreements on that, what is the shared definition of what is responsible mining and what's a trusted way to measure that? So Albemarle was willing to step into that. and in part because the materials they're providing go directly to energy transition. One of the first things that meant for them is that the whole process is going to be transparent. So that means this is not secret. Most audits are secret, they end up being between like an end brand that we buy our stuff from and their suppliers secretly looking at who is the supplier, what impacts, how can I help them do better? But in this case, we say in order to have truthful information that's gonna be meaningful and trusted, the world needs to be able to participate in this process from the beginning. So Albemarle stepped into that. So they knew, we say to the world, hello world. This lithium extraction operation in Chile is beginning. an IRMA audit. If you would like to comment in any way you can. Here is the emails to the auditors or the WhatsApp for those who aren't, using email and on with easy wifi connection. And they can comment on anything. They can comment about is the company responsive to our concerns? What about noise? What about the impacts to flamingos in the region, or the fact that the Atacama is one of the driest places on earth? How do they respond to indigenous rights holders who are in this region who are concerned with extraction and its impact on cultural heritage and the long-term economy after lithium extraction. So, any are welcome to participate in that process. Auditors are then looking at how the company performs over 400 different requirements. So, and they're looking at that from their desks. They're pouring through documents the company has uploaded and turned over to those auditors. But then they go on site and they're on site for several days. It might be a team of four to six auditors who walk the ground, who will talk to indigenous rights holders, who will talk to workers, who will talk to community members willing to speak, and the company. Then they're using that information to basically triangulate what are the stories here, what can we tell that's really going on. And then the audit report that comes out from that is more than a hundred pages long detailing both what the company achieves, but also what they don't achieve. So you can very much see against the IRMA standards best practice definition, how they have their strengths and also where their challenges are. But even as I say that, this is early days, and so if you're an auditor working against the IRMA system and you go out to rural indigenous communities in Chile and say, we wanna get your perspective, we work for IRMA, of course they're gonna go IRMA, who? like, this is not anything I know about. Why would I think I should talk to you? Why would I think I'm safe to talk to you? What's gonna happen with this information? Is there gonna be some kind of repercussion on me for talking? So we know that these first audit reports may not yet have robust community involvement. And we have to be honest, contextualizing that and hope that we build the trust of local communities and nonprofit groups to feel safe. And same of course for workers as well to feel safe that they can participate and offer honest perspectives. And we count on the companies being audited to help us reassure people in their region of the same.

Ariana Brocious: And I noticed that looking in the list of participating companies, I didn't see any US or Canadian companies and I wanted to check that that's true and ask why that might be that those companies aren't yet members of IRMA. So

Aimee Boulanger: So there are both US and Canadian companies who are confidentially involved using the IRMA self-assessment tool and preparing for independent audit. but. It's a fair question to ask why are US and Canadian companies slower in, and I think some of it is because there has been a perception by some, like maybe we don't need to do this IRMA audit and review because we operate in the US and Canada. So people are probably pretty confident we don't have child labor or gross human rights abuses and that probably our workers are safe and we must be following the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act if you're here in the US. In fact, the US has seen a hundred years of impacts from industrial scale extraction. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that nearly half of Western watersheds are impacted with mine waste and the pollution that comes from that. and heavy metals that are in our waterways. and even recent mines have had bankruptcies and left impacts for us taxpayers to pick up. And contamination, which continues to flow onto indigenous lands, places like Nevada and Montana, California and otherwise. And so we know we still need to strengthen our laws right here In the US we have the 1872 Mining law, which just like its name says, goes back to 1872. It just infamously celebrated its hundred 50th birthday. It was passed at a time when mining was done with a pick and shovel. It was passed with a set of philosophies of 1872 and European-descended leadership at that time, which was to extract more materials, move more white settlers west, and to, better, control what they saw as a problem with indigenous people in the west and to increase the power of white settlers over Indigenous people. And so the 1872 mining law is outdated for the values of America today. The values of diversity, the values of cultural heritage, the values of protecting our water, um, and the multiple uses of public lands, after a mining company leaves Industrial extraction is a temporary set of jobs. And we wanna know that after those materials come out, can that land be restored in some way to provide economy and wellbeing to the communities who live near?

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. And I wanna spend just another minute on this cuz I think it's important and there have been efforts to update the 1872 mining law that have not happened yet, and though the US is often maybe seen as a safer place, a better place to do some of this mining. As you mentioned, there are innumerable impacts that we've seen, including one listeners might recall hearing about in the news, which was the Gold King mine spill in 2015, where 3 million gallons of contaminated mine runoff poured out of a mine that was in the progress of being cleaned up by the EPA, and it turned the Animus river in Colorado bright orange for a while. environmentalists hoped that would spur more effort to continue these reforms and I don't think we've seen significant reforms. So what kind of pressure can be brought here in the US to improve the laws we have on the books?

Aimee Boulanger: Well, I think first of all, people have to understand what mining is. I mean, most people really don't know where their stuff comes from if it's mined. They don't know both the countries that it comes from, the process that it comes from. To care about changing the laws, they have to see themselves as connected to the impacts from that industry and to the people who live around that. And most Americans, even though we live in a large mining country, don't feel connected to it and don't see that. you mentioned the Gold King mine that actually was a historic mine. It's many decades old. It was left behind as a mess without a company left to pick it up. So that's what you had the US Environmental Protection Agency in there doing that cleanup. Because there was no longer a company to clean up after itself And that's part of why the IRMA standard has requirements in there that we're measuring against for reclamation and closure. What's the plan even before the mining company starts mining to return this land into some kind of. constructive, useful, productive, healthy state for whatever kind of economy or biodiversity or human settlement is around it in the future. Because we're left with a legacy of abandoned mines across the United States and across the world right now that weren't cleaned up.

Ariana Brocious: 79% of extractable lithium in the US is within 35 miles of Indigenous reservations. The Ninth Circuit Court just denied a bid by tribes to block a new lithium mine at Thacker Pass in Nevada. Do you think there's enough industry oversight to ensure that Indigenous people won't once again bear the burden of consequences of this kind of industrial action?

Aimee Boulanger: There is not enough oversight to ensure that Indigenous people won't bear the burden of extraction. There is not a country in the world with laws sufficient to prevent significant harm where mining happens. And you have Indigenous communities who are saying, We are being asked to provide our lands and the resources under them to address the climate crisis. We are not ignorant of the climate crisis, but this still looks like the same white guy with the same briefcase and the same shovel who arrived here a hundred years ago looking for gold and now says, I'm looking for lithium, or I'm looking for nickel, or I'm looking for cobalt, and I'm doing so in the name of protecting the planet from a climate crisis. It sure seems like this is what brought us the climate crisis in the first place. So it is a difficult sell to these communities and it's a particularly difficult sell when we don't have a lot of existing mines that we can show have not harmed water, that their communities are happy to have them as a neighbor. But it doesn't have to be that way. We don't need 20 years of research and technology to get at best practice mining. This is not nuclear fusion. We absolutely know already how to do mining with less harm, and there are a set of companies who are stepping into that space right now, but they haven't had markets that valued it that much. There was a lot of pressure for least cost production of materials that could be sold at the lowest cost. I feel like part of my work is to write a permission slip through markets to lean in and give reward to those geologists and economists working in those companies who already know how to do it better, and who often live in these communities where extraction is happening themselves and who are ready to go and we need to create a set of values that support them to do it better.

Ariana Brocious: What do you think of the idea of sacrifice zones, where those in power agree that, you know, this particular place we can allow destruction to happen here in the, for sort of the greater benefit?

Aimee Boulanger: I think there's a lot of talk about sacrifice zones right now. I mean, I think one hard thing is when it comes to mining, minerals are in the ground where they are. So first of all, you're not gonna just go choose a sacrifice zone. You're not gonna say, okay, over here, no one's living here. So this is a convenient place. I mean, I could do that, you know, with a different kind of manufacturing plant, for example, I'm gonna place this away from human society, or I'm gonna place this in the least biodiverse place. Minerals are in the ground where they are. and I haven't heard too many people who live around those places saying, I'm raising my hand to be a willing participant in a sacrifice zone. in addition, while our soaring temperatures and changing precipitation and floods and fires of climate change are a global experience for us all, so is this tremendous risk moment for biodiversity. we've got, you know, habitats under great stress. We have watersheds that aren't our drinking water right now, but they might be our drinking water in 10 years or 20 years as the planet continues to change, we have watersheds that span hundreds if not thousands of miles or kilometers across countries where we need that clean water for agriculture in the future as well. So while I agree we don't have time to waste in addressing the climate crisis, and we must move off of fossil fuels saying we will just extract lithium, cobalt and nickel with the same disdain and with the same carelessness that we extracted oil and gas is not a path you take when your planet is already living through the climate crisis right now, especially since we have the technology to do it better. Writing permission slips to say we'll just waive permit requirements and we'll say it can be weaker water laws and a planet that's already struggling right now doesn't add up to a solution that is really a solution. We may be trading one problem off of another, which is still global in nature.

Ariana Brocious: You mentioned that, it took 16 years to get to the point now where these companies are submitting themselves to some voluntary audits and beginning to do reviews of the practices under IRMA's standards. What is your projected timeline, if you have one, for when we might see, you know, a significant number of these companies participating in the process and having sort of that tipping point moment where really we begin to see a big shift?

Aimee Boulanger: We are definitely in the middle of a tipping point moment right now. I mean if you and I spoke three years ago, the IRMA standard wasn't really known. It was very much driven by jewelry based materials. The early attention that came to issues like blood diamonds and jewelry really had stayed just around gold and diamonds. And climate change and Covid arriving at the same time in the sense of a global crisis, which was then a sense of a need of global action and that future plans should have resilience, future plans, should have environmental health, and social wellbeing at their core mean that all of a sudden the attention was right onto well, what is gonna happen with wind and solar and electric vehicles? How are we gonna power ourselves in a different way? So while the first 15 independent audits are happening in IRMA right now, there are more than 70 companies with more than 95 mine sites who have already registered in and started their self-assessments are coming over and they are looking at the first mines coming out saying, okay, what happens when you're honest? What happens when you say, out of a potential a hundred points in the water chapter or the waste chapter, human rights, what happens if you only get 35% against the best practice measure, or 41% there, or 18% there. How does the world react? Can we tolerate hearing the truth about how we've allowed existing practices to do harm now, but how we want to create incentive to reduce that harm? Because the truth is, existing mines right now are the places where we've got existing jobs and we have existing impacts. so while we might be able to create a set of better mines that are better designed and constructed in the future, and we will, because we're gonna need those materials, It will be less harm as well to take those existing mines and really invest in getting efficiency out of those, getting more materials out of those ones, keeping jobs there where they are and ensuring those communities who've already hosted the mining industry for the last a hundred years feel that they get some kind of benefit sharing and it's not a resource curse, that there really is some kind of shared value for them and investment in their future. And when that reclamation finally does need to be done there, that it happens and it's not just move on to the next site, which will be done better than we did 30 years ago.

Ariana Brocious: Last June, Nauru, the smallest island nation in the world, invoked a legal provision that forces the hand of regulators to finalize rules for deep sea mining. But the International Seabed Authority missed its July 9th deadline to finalize the mining code. Could you give us an update on where that stands and where you stand on deep sea mining?

Aimee Boulanger: The initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance does not currently allow its standard to be used to measure how responsible would a deep sea mining operation be. Foremost, that's because it was not written with the sea in mind when it was constructed some 15 years ago it was written thinking about mining on land. And it is a completely different context when you take this to the sea and miles down into the ocean. If deep sea mining is going to happen on a commercial scale, it absolutely needs something like IRMA, because existing laws and structure to protect the oceans are not sufficient on their own right now, the same way they're not sufficient on land. But at this moment right now, what we do know about the ocean and the seas, as we know, they're under tremendous stress. We know they are suffering from increasing temperatures from ocean acidification, from increasing pressures of different commercial and military uses of the ocean. And it's its own carbon sink for us, it's its own biodiversity. and this is a space where we don't know what we don't know there right now. We know it's fragile, but we don't know how this industry is going to impact that. We also do hear the case that if we are taking some of these nodules off the sea floor in some way, well it will do less harm and have fewer human rights abuses than if we take them from the Congo or we take them from the Atacama. But I haven't heard any companies operating in the Congo or the Atacama agreeing that if deep sea mining goes forward, they'll opt out and stop mining on land. It will be most like a both and obviously it will force those on land to have to compete at a different level. But I think we'll see more. And I think until we feel some confidence that we've got assurance of best practices in place, I think we better walk pretty soberly into our oceans under stress.

Ariana Brocious: We recently had Ian Urbana, founder of the Outlaw Ocean Project on Climate One, and he spoke about the difficulty of enforcing environmental laws on the high seas, How difficult do you think it would be even if there were a set of agreed upon practices to enforce those for deep sea mining?

Aimee Boulanger: At this moment right now, it's difficult to enforce best practices no matter where in the world we're talking about mining. What I'm doing with IRMA will never replace the critical role of laws and government enforcing those laws and holding accountability because I don't have that authority. and when you don't have that authority, it offers an awful lot of latitude for people to just opt out when they don't like it, or when the market signals to them they just don't need to do as much, and we need to send really clear signals right now. The market expects that if you're providing materials that are supposed to be part of the climate solution, they better not be adding to the problem.

Ariana Brocious: As we wrap up here, are there any examples of countries or companies that are moving in the right direction when it comes to mining?

Aimee Boulanger: Oh, there's some great examples of things going well right now. First of all, we don't need 20 years of new research for best practice mining. We've got companies who already know how to do it. We have companies who are being open. That alone is a best practice that is underrated, who are being open about how hard it is to get these materials out and what the impacts are. So transparency itself is a best practice. And then that offers space for innovation to come up with new ways to reduce harm. There are companies who are providing resources to community-based environmental groups to then hire their own scientists to review water quality data, air quality data, to negotiate with a mining company. That is a wonderful construct. It's happening right here in the US right now. It's not a company buying off a community. It's a company investing in basically a watchdog group who has their own independent rights to use those resources to be able to operate on a more level playing field by hiring their own PhD hydrologists to look at the water data and to press companies to do better. And in the places where we've seen companies do that, we have some of the better operating mines, of any in the world.

Ariana Brocious: Well, that's very encouraging to hear. Aimee Boulanger is Executive Director of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance. Aimee, thank you so much for joining us on Climate One.

Aimee Boulanger: Thanks so much for having me.

Ariana Brocious: On this Climate One... We’ve been talking about building a better battery supply chain.

Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe wherever you get your pods. Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. On our new website you can create and share playlists focused on topics including food, energy, EVs, activism. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Our theme music was composed by George Young and arranged by Matt Willcox. Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Ariana Brocious.

1:41 JB Straubel on he chose to work on climate solutions
4:33 JB Straubel on his history with Tesla
9:43 JB Straubel on why he left Tesla and then rejoined
11:25 JB Straubel on battery recycling and starting Redwood Materials
17:19 JB Straubel on responsible mining
18:06 JB Straubel on Redwood Materials expansion and battery components
24:58 JB Straubel on new battery applications
36:16 Aimee Boulanger on industrial mining standards
38:56 Aimee Boulanger on supply chain traceability
52:12 Aimee Boulanger on mining oversight
56:44 Aimee Boulanger on reaching mining standards tipping point

Play

Green Energy / Red States

BenTestani — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 22:58:12 +0000

Green Energy / Red States

07/14/2023

Billions of dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act have started flowing into renewable energy projects and manufacturing. That’s bringing jobs and revenue back to the country and to some areas abandoned by the oil, coal and gas industries. Despite the massive investments in their districts, some Republican politicians aren’t fans of the green energy companies moving into their backyards and are doing everything they can to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act – putting them at odds with their constituents. How do we advance the clean energy transition when it’s seen as a partisan issue?

Guests

Emma Dumain

Reporter, E&E News

Heather Reams

President, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions

Terry Weickum

Mayor, Rawlins, Wyoming

One Reason the Debt Fight is Getting Awkward for Republicans (politico.com)

Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (carbonwyedc.com)

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (cresenergy.com)

Republicans in the US “Battery Belt” Embrace Biden’s Climate Spending (theguardian.com)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious. The Inflation Reduction Act is the largest government expenditure EVER on climate and green industry.

Greg Dalton: The law has unleashed a wave of spending for established renewable energy like solar and wind and newer technologies such as green hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel.

Ariana Brocious: And much of that money is flowing to states whose Congressional delegations actually voted AGAINST the IRA.

Greg Dalton: That’s right. They voted no, but are happy to take the dough. One utility, Florida Power and Light, is taking advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act solar tax credits and actually refunding $400 million in savings back to ratepayers – nearly 6 million customers. Fifteen Florida Republicans voted against that law. Other examples abound. Texas alone could see $131 billion from the law.

Ariana Brocious: And Texas is already a leader in wind and solar. An analysis by POLITICO found two-thirds of green-energy projects announced since passage of the IRA are going to Republican-held congressional districts.

Greg Dalton: Despite the investments in their districts, some Republican politicians aren’t fans of the green energy companies moving into their backyards – putting them at odds with their constituents, says energy reporter Emma Dumain.

Emma Dumain: The disconnect between what we talk about in Washington and what people talk about back home is very stark.

Ariana Brocious: Some of these investments are bringing jobs and revenue back to areas abandoned by fossil fuels and its associated industries, says Terry Weickum, mayor of Rawlins, Wyoming. And many people in these communities want and need new jobs, factories, and reliable, affordable renewable energy.

Terry Weickum: Quality of life begins with the paycheck. And when you lose thousands of jobs it makes you more open to other types of job producing industries.

Ariana Brocious: It’s kind of similar to Obamacare. When that federal health care program was rolled out, many Republicans opposed it for lots of reasons, but probably in part because it came from a Democratic administration. But many aspects of the law were – and remain – popular across the political spectrum.

Greg Dalton: And to be fair, if the bill had been passed by Republicans, Democrats would probably have reacted the same way initially. We are in a period of hyper-partisanship and political tribes reflexively oppose what others support.

Ariana Brocious: That’s something I talk about on today’s show with Heather Reams, President of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. We talk about the importance of the messenger to help get all of us working toward the same end goal – a livable planet.

Heather Reams: The alarmist tone that comes with it just gets tuned out. So you’ve got to figure out how you bring the right message with the right messenger.

Greg Dalton: The Biden administration has embarked on a campaign across the country to let the people know which party is really responsible for the growth in jobs and reshoring manufacturing. President Biden recently spoke in a Republican-held Congressional district in South Carolina, promoting $60 million in investments by the solar tech firm Enphase Energy.

Joe Biden [Playback]: Since I took office, we’ve seen over 60 domestic manufacturing announcements all across the solar supply chain. One of the biggest is in Dalton, Ga. You may find it hard to believe, but that’s Marjorie Taylor Greene’s district. I’ll be there for the groundbreaking.

Greg Dalton: Emma Dumain is a reporter with E&E news, a leading-edge publication on energy and clean tech.She says while many of the benefits from the IRA may flow to Republican-led states, the message coming from the White House and Congressional democrats is that the law benefits everybody.

Emma Dumain: It doesn't matter if you're in a red state or a blue state you're going to see the benefits of this bill. That said a lot of the geography of states that happen to be controlled right now by Republican lawmakers. Those are areas that are ripe for expansions of major clean energy manufacturing facilities. The production of the parts for electric batteries for electric vehicles for solar power for chip manufacturing that is used in clean energy endeavors. Either are in rural areas these huge swaths of land where you can build a facility and do this type of construction and hire people from those communities to work there. So my colleague Timothy Cama and I actually wanted to see where the money was going. Who is benefiting from this? Was it true that Republican led districts were really standing to reap these benefits? And what we found was pretty interesting. We confirmed that there were at least 37 congressional districts now represented by Republicans who were welcoming these expansions of these new clean energy operations fostered by these three major Biden era laws. We also found that 21 projects in Republican led districts were direct results of the benefits of the IRA. And 15 were made possible by the Infrastructure Law. Some Republicans had multiple projects in their districts due to one or both of these two laws. Since that time this reporting that we did was a couple of months old. The numbers are probably higher now. Every day we’re seeing different press releases, announcements, ribbon cuttings. And Republicans are having difficulty squaring the benefits they’re seeing that come with their fierce opposition to this law, both of these laws, in many cases.

Greg Dalton: So what I’m hearing is dozens of projects directing billions of dollars and thousands of jobs into red districts. And so what are the politics of that. I mean some people might say, well, if you’re in a safe district either like voters don't vote on these issues or some of the Republicans and Democrats are only vulnerable from a primary threat from their extreme flank. So I can vote against my voters because I’m not gonna lose my job if I do it.

Emma Dumain: It's really tough because you know I have covered congressional politics since 2010. And the disconnect between what we talk about in Washington and what people talk about back home is very stark. I think that if you were to see a repeal of these clean energy tax incentives and these thousands of jobs in billions of dollars’ worth of investments evaporated in communities that were reaping these benefits. I think you would immediately see political backlash. Georgia is like a perfect example of a state that is getting enormous investments in the clean energy industry. You have press release after press release on Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s website. praising this company and that factory and this company and that manufacturing facility choosing Georgia, his state to break ground and expand flagship domestic production of an international conglomerate, etc. etc. without mentioning where the money is coming from and what made this investment possible. And you have members of Congress who are attending the ribbon cuttings and the opening ceremonies in their district saying the same thing tweeting and press releases of their own, not citing the Biden administration and congressional Democrats who supported and carried this law single-handedly. So as long as you have that sort of echo chamber, you're not gonna hear the whole story. And the dearth right now of local news reporting to provide an additional layer of accountability isn't really there either in a lot of these places.

Greg Dalton: Marjorie Taylor Greene who’s another one who's gone to lot of factory going into her district cut the ribbon and then go on Twitter or social media or TV and bash the very policy that made that possible. And the voters either don't connect the dots or they don't care. Reminds me a little bit like Obamacare where the elements of Obamacare were very popular policy across the spectrum and there was an attack on Obamacare. But to your point Obamacare never was repealed, but the policies of keeping kids on your insurance until 26, pre-existing conditions, etc. are all very popular but there was this real attack in attempt to repeal it that never happened.

Emma Dumain: Well, and, you know, you mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene. I had a chance to connect with her on Capitol Hill for the story and she said explicitly this was going to happen in my district, no matter what this was not the result of the IRA, which isn’t correct. The organization Qcells the company that expanded in her district has said explicitly we are here because of the IRA. So whether she was not telling the truth or didn't realize what the circumstances were, you know, I don't know. But not all of the narratives are truthful or hold up in fact. At the same time, you have someone like Mark Amodei, a fairly middle-of-the-road as they come these days Republican Congressman from Nevada who has two or three projects in his district alone as a result of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the IRA telling me in an interview that he would sacrifice those jobs to repeal the law wholesale people hate it that much.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, maybe it’s a little bit like people supporting a carbon tax. They do it because they know it'll never happen. He could support the repeal and knowing that it might never happen.So what is the Republican energy and climate agenda now?

Emma Dumain: The Republican energy and climate agenda now largely is bashing the Democrats energy and climate agenda. They're talking about energy and climate through the lens of energy security and national security. The need to boost domestic energy production to avoid a reliance on foreign entities like Russia and China. That means producing more oil and gas at home to lower prices at the pump is something you hear a lot. Democrats of course say that you know energy reliance is a problem but disrupting public lands and waters to produce oil and gas here and critical minerals for EV battery production isn't the right way to go where you see a lot of breakdown there. They also were talking about how the permitting process that they are supporting through a reopening of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, would also benefit Democrats. They say that Democrats want renewable energy deployment that also relies on a permitting process. They say that everybody wants this everybody should support permitting that gets a little stickier a lot of what Democrats want out of the permitting process is coming through powers by this other agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It wouldn't really benefit much from the NEPA changes But when something interesting is happening among Senate Republicans many of them are rallying around this idea of putting a tariff on the carbon intensity of imported goods in the industrial center like cement, aluminum, iron, oil, plastics.

Greg Dalton: And there are some bipartisan support there I think. Trade has not been part of climate policy it seems to be coming in there now. And so is there a convergence and some bipartisan support on taxing cement, steel, other things that have a high carbon impact.

Emma Dumain: Yeah, so they want to be careful not to use the word tax. Because tax is a scary word, Greg.

Greg Dalton: It’s a tariff, okay. Tariff.

Emma Dumain: It’s a tariff. but the reason why there is becoming bipartisan support around this idea is Senate Republicans borrowing this rhetoric of House Republicans, which is you know pro-America anti-China. You have the competitiveness against the Chinese government, accusing China of being, you know, the worst emitter in the world and not paying the price for it. What can the United States do to level the playing field with a competitor like China while getting them to lower their emissions. So you have a bill from Sen. Bill Cassidy this Republican from Louisiana that he has not introduced yet but it's going to be called the foreign polluter fee, you know, sort of specifically looking at what they can do to frame this narrative around what bad actors are doing overseas not at home.

Greg Dalton: And particularly China there’s one area that Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on in Washington these days is bashing China, at least in -- I was careful to say it as communist government of China not Chinese people we’ve seen a lot of AAPI hate in this country. So climate progresses in China hawks are coming together with this, make China for and polluter fee, I like, what a title.

Emma Dumain: Yeah, well, no, and I mean and you’re exactly right and fortunately, you know, we’re seeing a lot of Democrats and Republicans making that very important distinction about who the US should be competing against the government, not the people. Democrats are more than happy to go along with that because it serves their purpose, which is climate action. And not to be unfair to Republicans, the Republicans working in the space see it as a win-win. But for their base they are more incentivized to focus on this more geopolitical lens than the climate lens. But, you know, you said it's easy to support repealing something that you know is never gonna happen. There's a lot of politics happening around this idea as well. We saw last week a bill introduced. It was the first bipartisan bill to be introduced around this idea it was called the Prove It Act. It was introduced by Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware and Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota. The bill is being touted as the first step in instituting a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Which is the fancy word for you know the framework to slap these carbon tariffs on imported goods for their emissions intensity. The bill that we’re talking about now would require the treasury department to conduct a study of the carbon intensity of certain materials and how they would differ from foreign counterparts. They say that any bill that would achieve a carbon border adjustment mechanism blueprint needs to have this information anyway. So this is kind of like a great first step. On the other hand, it's a study. And from a lot of people I've talked to, it seems like this could be like the bare minimum that members of Congress are able to do in this kind of political environment is let’s study the emissions intensity levels of these industrial products rather than let's move forward with a carbon tariff framework that can take the kind of climate action that we all want to see.

Greg Dalton: Right. But this is why this discussion matters to put it in a little bit of context here. Because it’s been the problem that if we slap emissions or regulations on US companies they’ll just move overseas where the environmental regulations are more laxed and then those products come back to the US. So this is getting at that kind of international equity issue which goes all the way back to Kyoto's like why is the US burdened when China isn't and the whole question of like leakage, you know, we’re just kind of squeezing the toothpaste tube and emissions go somewhere else. And so it sounds like a lot of the energy bills introduced in the House seems like there's no chance of getting through Democratic Senate or being signed by Democratic president. So what's really going on are they laying the foundation for a Republican president and perhaps Congress in ’24.

Emma Dumain: Yeah. So I think that everything that they want to do to speed up the permitting processes around NEPA I think that that's real. I think that there is an appetite to go even further than what Republicans were able to extract from the debt ceiling agreement.

Greg Dalton: NEPA just being the National Environmental Policy Act.

Emma Dumain: That’s right.

Greg Dalton: The rule about how to environmental review of projects.

Emma Dumain: That’s correct. So I think that that’s sincere. I think as we talked about actually repealing the IRA and the clean energy tax credits and the IRA would be more difficult. I think that we would see a problem there politically the same way that we did when it came time to actually repeal the Affordable Care Act. And Americans you know everywhere were going to be left without health insurance. The same way, you know, repealing these tax credits you know you’re gonna have people out of jobs out of work. Local economies really hit hard to say the least. A lot of this is messaging stuff. Republicans in the House just passed a bill in early June that would prohibit the federal government from setting new rules and regulations that would be in gas stoves. This is one of these like big culture war things about you know don't take away my gas stove even though the emissions are really detrimental to the environment, to the atmosphere.

Greg Dalton: And the people breathing them inside the homes increasingly.

Emma Dumain: Yes, that’s right. It’s a public health issue as well as a climate issue.

Greg Dalton: So stoves is an interesting example of energy entering the culture wars. It used to be that a lot of the argument was around affordability. It will hurt clean energy cost more will hurt regular Americans, lower-income Americans. So the arguments the opposition seems to have shifted from affordability to part of the culture war. Have you observe this shift and what does that mean now that energy is part of the culture wars where it used to be part of more than economic frame rather than a cultural frame?

Emma Dumain: Yeah, I mean I think that you know what we’re seeing right now is the federal government using its executive authorities to change the way we live and work to meet the moment of the climate crisis. The same way that there are Republicans saying don't take away my gas stove. You have Republican saying don’t tell me what car to drive. There's a lot of debate right now about the proposed rulemaking that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing around limiting tailpipe emissions.

Greg Dalton: Let me just jump in and say that the IRA was intentionally constructed as carrots. And people aren’t told what kind of car to drive, they're incentivized you get $7500 if you buy an EV. But the tax incentives are voluntary. You get them if you do something and if you don't, you can keep on living the way you do.

Emma Dumain: But when it comes to what the EPA is doing right now to limit emissions, they are going to make it impossible for gas-powered vehicles to survive in a meaningful way, if this rule is finalized and a Republican administration doesn't come in in 2025 to roll it back. You could also argue that some of the tax incentives as you say, not mandates in the IRA are also designed to have a chilling effect on traditional oil and gas.

Greg Dalton: Emma Dumain is a reporter at E&E News. Thanks for sharing your insights on the politics of green energy in red places in America.

Emma Dumain: Thanks for letting me on to talk about it.

Ariana Brocious: You’re listening to a Climate One conversation about green power in red states. Our podcasts typically contain extra content beyond what’s heard on the radio. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods.

Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. On our new website you can create and share playlists focused on topics including food, energy, EVs, activism.

Coming up, will the economic benefits of green energy projects being built in conservative areas change the calculus for politicians?

Heather Reams: We have this interesting dichotomy of Republicans not necessarily being in favor of these tax credits through the IRA, but red states has so much to gain from the investment that's there.

Ariana Brocious: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

This is Climate One. I’m Ariana Brocious. We know we have to make major changes to most of our systems very quickly to avert the worst impacts of a disrupted climate. But we’re still not all working together on this.

Greg Dalton: Democrats often fault Republicans for slowing down the decarbonization of the US economy. That is largely but not always true. Even when Democrats have the upper hand in Washington DC, two US Senators from West Virginia - first Robert Byrd and recently Joe Manchin - have obstructed their party’s clean energy pushes for three decades. But it is the case that more Republicans resist efforts to act on climate through regulations or restricting fossil fuel supplies, especially when those policies come from across the aisle.

Ariana Brocious: Heather Reams is one of the Republicans working to narrow that divide. She’s president of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, a non-profit that works to engage Republican policymakers about how to increase the nation’s economic, energy and environmental security.

Heather Reams: As a parent, I decided that I wanted to do something about the environment and how I was raising my kids. It was just one of these things where you’re like wow everything we’re doing today affects tomorrow affects the next generations. And as a Republican I saw that Republicans aren’t really engaging on climate change or thinking about the outcomes of kids in dealing with the changing climate the health concerns. And I thought we should be more engaged on this issue. So when this opportunity came for me, I’m like, you know what I'm just a mom who’s been working in Washington DC who understands this is a value and I want to change the hearts and minds of Republican, so I'm in.

Ariana Brocious: Well, I wanna say that “just a mom” is an understatement for any mom because it’s a big job as I can attest. But what was it that made you think that this was the place to put your effort?

Heather Reams: Well, I thought there was an area that there was just I think the problem with being the message and the messenger. Like we can have all the great messages we want about why the climate is changing and why we should change it. But the messengers were always off. They were not trusted messengers going to Capitol Hill talking to Republican legislators. And there was always an assumption that someone who is from a different side of the aisle or someone that you don’t ideologically agree with that there is something nefarious going on. So we really had to line up the politics and the policies and the messenger and that wasn't happening. My background has been in Washington DC for the last 25+ years is communications. So I recognize that there was a gap there but I can actually feel this gap. I don't have to be the communications professional kind of in the background. I can be actually, the lead communications person on it. And as a result, over seven years, man, have I learned a lot. I certainly know more about energy than I ever have, certainly more than turning on the lights, which is where I started. And then really understanding the nuances of what's going on with climate. It's not, you know, I'm not a scientist and thinking about that in a lot of other places where Republicans get uncomfortable. But telling Republicans like I started where you are, I wasn't really sure why I cared but I knew I had to care. Let me help you walk through some of the science, some of the facts, and some of the benefits of addressing climate change that all boats can rise if we think about deploying clean energy all around the country.

Ariana Brocious: A study by researchers at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program showed red states will be most exposed to economic and environmental risks from a changing climate. Yet many of these areas also have the greatest potential for clean energy production. In spite of that, climate does not seem to be a serious consideration in many red states. Why do you think climate messaging has failed in these areas?

Heather Reams: Well, I go back to the message and messenger in some of that too. We really don't have the right messengers bringing forward like this is the why. There's also a lot of you’re thinking about left to center if you’re a Republican. And there's a lot of Republicans in its red states that’s why they’re called red states. And thinking about who’s talking to them and if you’re hearing from a further left of center organization and the alarmist tone that comes it just gets tuned out. So you’ve got to figure out how you bring the right message with the right messenger. And that was one of the reasons why Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions is so valuable because we’re all Republicans who believe that the climate is changing and want to help bridge that gap, that information gap, and really the authentic messengers were typically Republicans. We're with you. We understand that you may not think this is a threat that it is. But let's talk about what's really going on. And having these conversations a lot of times behind closed doors. And over time we've seen Republicans go no one's ever talk to me this way about it. No one's ever said this to me before. We’re seeing a shift in that now. If you don't want to address it. Don't talk about it. It will probably can't get fixed. So it's been a combination of things that have happened. But to your point, the red states are at a tremendous risk, particularly in coastal areas. And that’s where we see the most traction and the quickest traction with Republicans was in those areas like lower coastal areas Florida, South Carolina. Hurricane prone areas as well where we’re seeing hurricanes that may cross as a 1 or 2 category are now crossing always as 4s and 5s and creating catastrophic damage in areas. So I think there's something like, wait a minute, something is different. Who can I trust to talk to tell me what's going on. And hopefully and oftentimes the first call is to us.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, you’re underscoring things we've heard from past guests. I mean Katharine Hayhoe speaks a lot about the importance of messengers and climate communication. And we had representative John Curtis on recently and he was saying similar thing about the alarmism that can be really off-putting when it comes from you know the other side of the aisle.The Inflation Reduction Act has the potential to send more money and jobs actually to some Republican districts despite being a law passed by Democrats. How will that affect the implementation of renewable energy projects in some of these states?

Heather Reams: Well, the IRA is gonna continually be under threat. These tax credits are so valuable for the expansion of clean energy. They've created an incentive and a lot of certainty at first off for industry to think about investing where maybe it wasn't as profitable to invest before. So they are incredibly important tax credits despite the fact that they were passed in a partisan manner through IRA and signed into law by President Biden with only Democrats voting for it. So as an advocate for clean energy we saw that this could be a real challenge moving forward but these tax credits could be at risk. And here we are certainly they are at risk. But it is interesting to see a lot of the investment are going into red states. So we have this interesting dichotomy of Republicans not necessarily being in favor of these tax credits through the IRA, but that red states have so much to gain from the investment that's there. So there needs to be a lot of education happening in trying to get the politics out of the way so good policy can take root. For example, a lot of the tax credits, let's take the tax credit for energy storage for instance, had enjoyed bipartisan support; both House and Senate Republicans supported this bill. And it had a good chance of passing on its own. We’ve been working on that bill for a while. Well, now it's passed through IRA. So we need to talk to Republicans and remind them that this was actually a bipartisan bill, but the process in which it was passed ultimately was partisan. And also talk about the value of investments that are going to go into their districts. This is called retail politics by the way, now we have to talk to a lot of Republicans individually about the investments that are going into their states because of the process.

Ariana Brocious: And so you’re mentioning the opposition that we’re seeing at the congressional level at national level which is very true. What are you hearing from elected officials at the state and local level about the money coming from the IRA into their states and districts?

Heather Reams: Very different actually. At the state level we have governors who are the CEO of their states. Governors talk about this all the time and this means more economic opportunity, workforce development, a strong tax base. So usually these governors are all in for it. And they are quick to point out that a lot of these tax credits were bipartisan before they got wrapped into a partisan process in a partisan bill. And also, at the local level as well. At the local level we’ve seen have more challenges with like citing issues that are very much more than NIMBYism and others. But at the state level we see a lot of support. So really, we need to marry and this is one of the strategies that we’re looking at is marrying what's going on at the state level and making sure that they're communicating with their federal delegation talking about the benefits. And I think time is our friend here. The more time that these projects take root into these districts into the red districts if you will, they're going to create a tax base they’re going to create jobs. They're going to create economic opportunity. They are gonna likely start producing lower energy costs if you’re producing wind or solar. It’s gonna lower costs to produce goods and services. And of course, the tax base schools, healthcare, community services. This all starts to come into play. And man do you know that governors and state legislators and mayors and city councils love that stuff. They need it and they’re banking on it, particularly in rural areas where we’re seeing a lot of investment. So time is also our friend but there's a lot of education that needs to be done to create the certainty and make sure these tax credits take hold.

Ariana Brocious: So let's talk a little bit about the jobs and the economy because I think this is really important. The Department of Energy just released a report showing clean energy job growth. And while that was occurring in all 50 states and DC two of the top three states were West Virginia and Texas which both saw pretty big gains. And Texas is already a big leader in renewable energy, as well as oil and gas. So what does that say to you about what we’re seeing happen, even in the short term the last several months?

Heather Reams: Well, we’ve had a number of bills that have been passed that are investing into energy development. We earlier had the Clean Energy Act of 2020 that passed that had some development for clean energy. We also had the IIJA which is also known as the Infrastructure Act also contributing to a lot of the infrastructure pieces for energy. So I think that's what we’re seeing primarily right now is the benefits of those laws passed particularly IIJA. But we’re already seeing benefit after two years. So imagine with IRA going in and these tax credits and investments that are starting to happen. Wow we could really see a lot growing exponentially year over year over year. What's holding back a lot of projects though and it's something we need to be as a country concerned about is permitting. Permitting is not just holding up fossil fuels, permitting is delaying renewable projects all across the country. So we need to get real serious about what permitting is helping to do and hurting to do and deploying clean energy is really a problem right now with permitting.

Ariana Brocious: And this is a really powerful and contentious point of discussion right now because both sides of the aisle want permitting reform. We've been hearing a lot about it, especially in some of the talks around the debt ceiling. But yes, there is sort of really different approaches to what should be happening and which kinds of projects should get streamlined. So give us your perspective on where this divide stands and what do you think we can make headway on with Republicans you talk to in getting not just additional reforms for traditional industries gas and oil, but renewables as well.

Heather Reams: Well, the good news is that both Republicans and Democrats recognize that permitting is an issue. So neither side needs to be convinced that there needs to be some changes going on. That is, a huge step in Washington to legislating in some way. But the devil is gonna be in the details here. And there's going to need to be some kind of I get this you get that in trading in some way. And what we see a lot of times is you see traditionally, Republicans leaning in more in fossil fuels and Democrats leaning in more in renewable energy. Although those lines are starting to blur. I think you're gonna see it kind of loud and clear those traditional lines when it comes to permitting. So there are gonna be some give-and-take there. Transmission is something that means a lot to Democrats right now and it means a lot to renewable energy. So I see that it would be a lot of give to be able to get the transmission. Republicans want more than anything right now some kind of legal reform. Ability to sue and the timeframes where judicial changes can be made. And there are lobbyists that want to keep that in place as well that are loyal typically to Democrats. So these are tough politics. And the fact that we didn't see them in the debt ceiling negotiations while it's not unusual because it’s such a complicated issue, it just goes to show in both sides of the aisle want something that even in serious negotiations day after day after day they still couldn't get it done. And I've heard from those who have been in the room or close to the room with the president and the top negotiators Republicans saying that they were not far apart in what we want to do, but getting there is a long slog. So I'm not saying this is not gonna happen. I’m not saying that could happen this year. But there's gonna have to be some give-and-take of what one side wants and wants the other side. And if both sides actually walk away unhappy it's probably a good deal. But we’ll see though.

Ariana Brocious: That’s always the case, right? Both unhappy. I do want to drill in for one second here because I know one thing that has been brought up in permitting reform is this comparison or analogy that natural gas pipelines have essentially this kind of one-stop shop when they go to get permitted and the same is not true for renewable energy projects. Do you see like that specific issue having any chance of movement on both sides of getting to a place of unity?

Heather Reams: I absolutely do. One thing that I think that Republicans pride themselves on is fostering more government efficiency and lowering costs and lowering cost for industry generally to get things built. So I think that's probably one of the easiest lifts that we can see in the permitting discussion. But to give that they’re gonna want something in return. So it's not just one issue by one issue we have to look at all this in a large like what's on the table here and then what will come off the table and we can get to some agreement.

Ariana Brocious: There's a group called Citizens for Responsible Solar, which has a name similar to your organization, but is not in any way affiliated that has been spreading misinformation about solar energy in rural areas to get residents there to oppose new solar projects. What do you think of that effort and what has your experience been with those types of misinformation, challenging the transition to renewable energy?

Heather Reams: Well, it's really unfortunate. I mean first of all; the name is too darn close but there’s nothing I can do about it because I’ve checked. But, you know, it's unfortunate to spread false information about the solar industry and what it can bring. Interestingly, if you have all of these jobs in your districts or you’re producing solar wind or a nuclear plant. Whatever it is there's always sometimes a NIMBYism when it's being built. But once it's there do people appreciate tax base it brings, the jobs and you know whatever other benefits of those we’d think about. In our polling we did earlier this year I think in March showed that 82% of Republicans and 90% of independents have a favorable view of solar power. So this is just Republicans and independents. When you start to talk about those who live near a facility for solar those numbers increase 88% of Republicans support it and 93% of independents support solar because they live near a facility. So that’s the opposite of NIMBYism, that's YIMBYism, yes, right? So I think that the misinformation is probably getting to a few individuals and they are starting to be very noisy. But when you really deal with rank-and-file Republicans and independents for instance, they have no problem with this. But citing is a powerful issue you’re building in our backyard, you're changing the way we live. And there's a lot of fear that can be built on by a few. And this organization is certainly doing a very good job in some areas of trying to scare off local residents about the benefits. So it's fight fire with fire and that’s exactly what we see with a lot of other right of center organizations like the Land & Liberty Coalition that are on the ground, talking about and countering that narrative. These are Republicans also talking about the values of solar as well. So we talked about the message and the messenger. Here's a perfect example where the messenger matters as well. We have Republicans potentially on both sides for and against solar. Let the citizens make the best decision and not use their fear mongering but facts. Facts and figures about really what happens. And I think ultimately, the renewable energy particularly solar in this case will win.

Ariana Brocious: interestingly solar can be very small and locally owned and operated, which can really dovetail with a lot of values of people who live in rural areas who want to be self-sufficient who don't want to have to depend on transmission towers who don’t want their view shed in that sense may be disrupted. And we spoke with a woman named Michelle Moore who is CEO of a group named Groundswell, who's working to do some of this in rural areas. Trying to actually get churches and small organizations to own their own panels and become self-sufficient. So it's interesting to me that there's a divide there when it would seem to be in alignment with some of these other values, right?

Heather Reams: For sure. And another area and there is an independence piece for sure that is attractive to a lot of Republicans. It's also a lot of folks who are getting tired of the power going off during storms because the storms are getting more violent. And in Puerto Rico everyone wants solar right now because of what they've gone through the last several years. And they want the reliability of electricity. Who can blame them? Especially when you've always had it. Solar is also being considered almost like a crop. Like you’re having land that's no longer being used for farming or at the family farm that just not able and doesn't want to farm anymore. But they don't want to let go of the land they want a rural lifestyle and they can lease out their land and still have the lifestyle they want. We saw this earlier with cell phone towers. Leasing your land to have cell phone towers there. It's not that different doing that. So I think it gives people choices about how they want to use their land and how they want to generate their electricity. And I think that’s for Republicans I know a huge issue when it comes to economic choice and energy choice. And like, yeah, if I can have more options, bring them to me and I’m gonna pick the best one for my family and maybe for my budget.

Ariana Brocious: Heather Reams is President of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. Heather, thank you so much for joining us on Climate One.

Heather Reams: Thank you.

Greg Dalton: You're listening to a conversation about green energy in red states. This is Climate One. Coming up, the view from Wyoming, a major coal, oil and gas state that will soon be home to the largest wind farm in the country:

Terry Weickum: This thing is a history maker. It’s almost surreal, you know, you set there and you think man, 14 years ago we dreamed of this happening. And then I thought to myself, and today it's happening.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Ariana Brocious: This is Climate One. In spite of how easy it is to brand climate or green energy as a strictly partisan issue, people from all parties care about our current environment and future climate. And as we’ve talked about today, in many communities local economic realities may override national politics.

Greg Dalton: That seems to be true of Terry Weickum, mayor of Rawlins, Wyoming, where the largest wind farm in the country is currently being built – the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project. He lives in Carbon County – an apt name in a state that has long derived much of its revenue from exporting fossil fuels. He says at first the wind industry was intimidating.

Terry Weickum: You know, there were some wind towers standing before I was a Commissioner and I marveled at them. Actually, one of the largest wind towers in the northern hemisphere was stood up over by Medicine Bow. It was kind of an experiment. AndI don't know as much about that as I should know, but it was very intriguing. And then all of a sudden wind energy starts coming and we had some put up a footbridge which is by Arlington on Interstate 80. And just mesmerizing to watch and to see and just kind of an amazing feat of engineering. And then all of a sudden there's 52 wind farms being scoped out in Carbon County, which is very intimidating when you think about what would be left of our wide-open spaces with 52 wind farms.So they kind of scared the heck out of us. The fact is that it was a new industry to us, but it wasn't new to the world. And so it just took a tremendous amount of effort on our part to research and to decide what is good about and what isn’t good about them. Where should they be where should they not be.Minimum regulations far as spacing from houses and subdivisions and such like that. It was an open book. None of us knew anything about it. And So it was quite a learning process. It was very intimidating to be honest.

Greg Dalton: So I can see how that's intimidating, new industry coming in. Windfarms potentially all over the beautiful landscapes of Wyoming.What did the ranchers and hunters think and how their attitudes changed over time?

Terry Weickum: Well, as far as the ranchers it kind of depended upon whether they were in the process of leasing their land to windfarms. If they were in that category. were very quietly all forum. And then if they were ranchers that didn't have that possibility of wind energy coming to their ranch they weren’t quite as positive.

Greg Dalton: So if I have a ranch next to yours, Terry, don't want to look at the wind turbines that are making you money and not me money. Is that one way to look at it?

Terry Weickum: Yeah, that kind of describes every industry really. But where the wind towers are so tall and visible for, you know, distances people were pretty passionate one way or the other about them.

Greg Dalton: Well, just last week something quite remarkable happened near your town where Pres. Biden's Energy Sec. Jennifer Granholm and Wyoming's Republican Governor Mark Gordon officially broke ground on a transmission line that will carry electricity from the country's largest wind farm near your town the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre wind farms backed by the billionaire oil man out of Colorado Philip Anschutz. What did you think at that moment where there was one of Pres. Biden's cabinet secretaries, your Republican governor getting there to celebrate a big wind transmission and generation facility there in Wyoming?

Terry Weickum: Oh, it was incredibly exciting. You know 15 years ago is when they started this project or became visible to us in our county. And so amazing perseverance and just tenacity in getting this thing this wind farm built where, you know, it is one of the larger ones in the United States or the largest one I believe in the United States. But you have to understand in Wyoming some big projects are commonplace. This thing is a history maker. I mean it was so exciting we made history that day. The ribbon-cutting for the Gateway West power line because until the power line’s there the wind towers won't go up because they have to hook to the grid within a certain amount of time or lose their federal tax credits. So it’s almost surreal, you know, you set there and you think man, 14 years ago we dreamed of this happening. And then I thought to myself, and today it's happening.

Greg Dalton: Coal jobs and production in Wyoming are declining. Coal companies have declared bankruptcy. Is this a turning point for Wyoming from coal to wind?

Terry Weickum: Well, there's a huge difference between coal production and wind energy production. One is in the way of coal production, it makes a lot more jobs. The coal industry has you know hundreds of people per shift or thousands per shift and such like that. And the wind energy is different. It takes quite a few people to build these windfarms, but not very many people to run them when it's over. So as far as filling one void with this it does different things, but it's not an exact match.

Greg Dalton: What I hear you saying there is that one generates revenue. The other generates jobs. And those are not the same thing for the same people.

Terry Weickum: Well, they both generate revenue. But with the windfarms what they do is create a lot of taxes. Then those taxes do also create other jobs to help support the infrastructure, the people coming and going, the impacts of the construction workers and whatnot. And so it ends up being a very positive thing also, but in a different way.

Greg Dalton: And Wyoming has a wind production tax. It’s one or one of the very few that does that. That’s often seen to be as hostile to industry. Can you say a little more about that?

Terry Weickum: When I was appointed to the County Commissioners Association Wind Task Force Committee, they were paying a property tax. And that was the only tax they were paying. They were sales tax exempt so they didn't pay any sales tax and there was no production fee. All they paid was property tax fees. The problem with that is there a piece of an equipment and they depreciate. So as an example, there were 192 of them on this one wind farm up there by Arlington. In the last year I was a county commissioner the total amount of taxes the county received was $30,000, which would pay for about 30 feet of road. Therefore,if they're not paying their fair share of taxes grandma at the end of the block on a fixed income gets to help pay for some of those things; that just was not fair. So we looked at how best to tax them and it seemed like the best way was to reinstate the sales tax fee because they were exempted and then to add on a dollar a megawatt hour of production fee to help the ongoing expenses of supporting these industries. A lot of people poked fun of us at charging for the wind and whatnot. There are several ways to charge for that. But that was the most fair and equitable way. I don't know if you all studied oil. But in the day when oil first came along, they had the same struggles. You know where do they charge for the oil is it when it comes out of the ground when it goes into the pipe out of the pipe in the truck out of the truck. Where do they and how do they account for all that? This is almost carbon copy of what happened in that industry.

Greg Dalton: I will admit I was one of the people who when I read the stories about Wyoming taxing the wind that I sort of, you know, laughed or snickered at Wyoming tax the wind. But if you view wind as a resource like minerals in the ground or fossil fuels in the ground that are extracted and sent somewhere else, it makes sense that the local economy ought to have a piece of that action. And how do local Republicans and Democrats view wind energy in Wyoming?

Terry Weickum: Well, there's probably six Democrats here. No, not really. There's more than that but they’re by far the minority. And in Wyoming the difference between a Republican and Democrat is almost you almost can't distinguish between the two of them. I mean let’s just face it, quality of life begins with the paycheck. And when you lose thousands of jobs it makes you more open to other types of job producing industries.

Greg Dalton: Then is this transition to wind something to accelerate and embrace?

Terry Weickum: Well, change doesn't come easily to really anybody. And when this wind energy stuff started, we didn't know anything about it, nobody knew anything about it. And so you know the worst fear in the world is the fear of the unknown. You know, we didn't know anything about it. How long do they last? How dangerous are they? What do they do? We heard all kinds of stories but, you know when people talk about this energy transition. It's like one day we’re going to just not have fossil fuels. And if that's the case, I don't know what we'd be talking on because this headset I got on and this computer I'm looking at it’s all plastic. So guess what that was made out of fossil fuels. And if everybody today went out and bought electric car 99.9% of the people in Wyoming would be walking because there isn't enough places to charge them.

Greg Dalton: Ford and General Motors are both selling electric trucks. There’s a big waitlist for the F-150 Lightning when it was announced. Would you buy an electric truck? Do you think your neighbors would?

Terry Weickum: Not living here because you have to buy a wrecker too. You know our town is 100 miles from any other town.

Greg Dalton: One of our producers, Austin, actually charged an EV at a Tesla supercharger in Rawlins as part of a cross-country trip. Both Ford and GM have a new deal with Tesla to use the Tesla supercharging network, which is pretty strong around the country. I’m currently driving from Idaho through Nevada using that charging network. Maybe that day is closer than you might think.

Terry Weickum: How many, when you pull up and you’re filling up with electricity how many people are there charging their car when you're there?

Greg Dalton: It depends. But on the application, I can always know in advance how many are gonna be there. And I never pull up and it's full because I know before I go there. If one is full, the most I’ve ever had to wait is five minutes and there’s usually another one down. I'm driving across Haiti right now on a road trip and that hasn't been a problem.

Terry Weickum: So how many electric cars did you see out there percentagewise?

Greg Dalton: Yeah, small. Totally small in Idaho and Nevada, small.

Terry Weickum: So if you go from the 1% of electric cars and you go up to say 75% electric cars.

Greg Dalton: That’s a growth to manage that could cause some difficulty which is why we need a lot of that wind you're going to generate there in Rawlins.

Terry Weickum: All I'm trying to tell you is that if we all tomorrow in Wyoming switch to electric cars there would be a line from here to California, waiting to charge your car. This electric energy is it's great it’s fun. I've played with wind chargers since I was a little kid. But that transition is not a five-year transition. It's gonna take a long time to get the infrastructure right. I believe the transition may take place in my lifetime but I don't think so.

Greg Dalton: So to sum up, Terry, it sounds like you think wind is a good thing in certain places. It should be in other places not. And that this transition is happening the direction there seems to be a lot of agreement toward wind, solar, etc. There's differences about the pace of that transition and how fast it will happen. Is that a fair summary of your view?

Terry Weickum: Yeah, and I think some of the discrepancy and how long it's going to take in this and that maybe I have a different view because I'm not running for election. I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. It’s just not gonna happen that fast. took 14 years to get to the point where they now have the permit to start building a power line from here to California or Nevada and that will allow them to put up these wind towers. Now that took 14 years, maybe 15. So how long is it going to take before we do enough of those to be able to drive around with a bunch of electric cars.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, I think there is agreement that things take too long to build in this country and environment has need to start saying yes instead of saying no all the time.

Terry Weickum: Yeah, we can be too careful. We can be too careful. You know, so I just dealt with this at City Hall a few minutes ago everybody was like, well, we got to be careful. We got to be careful. Well, if we want to be as careful as we can possibly be we all need to go in and get a cement box, bury it and get in it. Then probably lightning won’t strike you or any of that sort of stuff.

Greg Dalton: Terry, thank you so much for sharing your insights from Rawlins, Wyoming with us here on Climate One.

Terry Weickum: Well, thank you for having me.

Greg Dalton: On this Climate One... We’ve been talking about green power in red states.

Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Ariana Brocious is co-host, editor and producer. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida [Shey-duh] is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

3:38 Emma Dumain on who benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act
10:12 Emma Dumain on Republican energy and climate agenda
16:59 Emma Dumain on Republican permitting reform
22:40 Heather Reams on why she works on climate issues
25:24 Heather Reams on why climate messaging struggles in conservative areas
35:42 Heather Reams on permitting reform
41:59 Terry Weickum on his first encounters with the wind energy industry
45:10 Terry Weickum on his connection to the largest wind farm in the country
47:39 Terry Weickum on wind farm taxes
50:33 Terry Weickum on the energy transition

Voices from the Right

6 Episodes

Play

Missed Connections: Modernizing Our Multiple Grids

Megan Biscieglia — Sun, 23 Apr 2023 04:39:32 +0000

Missed Connections: Modernizing Our Multiple Grids

04/21/2023

Thousands of renewable energy projects are ready to be built and start producing fossil-free power, but they’re stuck in a long limbo for one essential piece of the puzzle: getting connected to the grid. José Zayas, Executive Vice President of Policy and Programs at the American Council for Renewable Energy says, “The thing that at least keeps me up at night is that transmission expansion is hard to do and it takes a long time.”

One reason why connecting new renewable energy projects to the grid is so difficult is because the grid itself is so complex. In the U.S. there is not just one national grid. In fact, there are three major regional grids: The Eastern Interconnection, Western Interconnection and the Texas Interconnection. The Texas Interconnection is overseen by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. Within those regional grids, there are also regional transmission organizations, or RTOs, that control and coordinate the flow of energy, which can help different users share power.

Think of it like our roads and highways – with a national interstate system, smaller highways and local streets and roads. But imagine if parts of the country were totally split from each other, that’s what's happened with the grid. Pat Wood, CEO of Hunt Energy and a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, says “Across the boundary lines, those bridges are pretty rickety compared to the nice big ones inside these regions.”

The Bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act both have provisions that will help modernize the grids, but a big obstacle to getting energy projects online is getting them through the permitting process, which is currently very slow and tedious. Recently, a top trade group for renewables called on environmentalists and progressive Democrats to support permitting reform – something Republicans have been advocating for – to fast track new energy infrastructure. There is a real chance for some bipartisan policymaking to help relieve permitting roadblocks. Wood says, “We've committed to a low carbon agenda. We've got a continent worth of low carbon resource. If we can’t connect the dots, shame on us.”

At the same time that renewable projects are waiting to come online, there has also been growth of a decentralized “small grid.” Think solar panels on rooftops and battery walls. Jennifer Gardner, Vice Chair of Western Energy Imbalance Market, says, “Some combination of what I’m gonna call big grid and small grid efforts will be necessary to reach our decarbonization goals.”

Rural America currently has the burden of the highest energy bills at a time when the cost of everything else is rising and wages aren’t keeping pace. Michelle Moore, CEO of Groundswell and author of Rural Renaissance: Revitalizing America's Hometowns through Clean Power, says, “It's not because rural utilities charge more for energy, it's because people are living in older, less efficient housing.” The Inflation Reduction Act includes incentives to help bring more energy efficiency to those homes.

It’s easy to forget that less than 100 years ago, much of the country didn’t have electric power. Now the transition to clean energy offers another opportunity to include rural communities in a just and equitable way. Moore says, “It will be an opportunity to really reinvest in our rural communities and help bring prosperity back.”

Guests

L. Michelle Moore

CEO, Groundswell

José Zayas

Executive Vice President of Policy and Programs, American Council on Renewable Energy

Pat Wood III

CEO, Hunt Energy Network

Jennifer Gardner

Attorney and independent consultant

Rural Renaissance (islandpress.org)

Western Energy Imbalance Market (westerneim.com)

FERC Interconnection Rulemaking Explainer (ferc.gov)

Reality Check: The United States Has the Only Major Power Grid without a Plan (rmi.org)

DOE touts grid expansion plans as operators raise concerns (eenews.net)

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report: Queued Up (emp.lbl.gov)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious

Greg Dalton: When we flip the switch at home or the office, we expect the lights to come on. It wasn’t always that way.

Michelle Moore: Not even 100 years ago the vast majority of America didn't have electric power.

Ariana Brocious: As we’ll talk about with author Michelle Moore, electrifying rural America in the 1930s – one of FDR’s New Deal projects – transformed life for so many people. And for decades our national infrastructure of transmission lines has done a good job, though it's increasingly affected by climate-fueled severe weather events.

Greg Dalton: Those have been very damaging. And in order to slash emissions and stave off the worst of climate disruption, we’re going to have to switch to renewable energy and electrify just about everything.

Ariana Brocious: And there’s been a boom in renewable energy projects in the last couple decades. But what people often forget is that the electricity generated by those renewable projects has to get to the people who need it. That’s where the grid, as it currently exists, might fall short.

José Zayas: As we think about the needs and the opportunities that face all of us the thing that at least keeps me up at night is transmission expansion.

Greg Dalton: That’s Jose Zayas with the American Council on Renewable Energy. Transmission expansion is hard partly because we actually have multiple grids that deliver electricity to different regions.

Ariana Brocious: Right. And there are also regional transmission organizations that control and coordinate the flow of energy, which can help different users share power.

Greg Dalton: So even talking about the grid can get complicated pretty fast.

Ariana Brocious: And our current system needs to be expanded and modernized in order to support the coming electric future. The bipartisan infrastructure bill and the IRA both have provisions that will help modernize the grids, but a big obstacle to getting energy projects online is getting them through the permitting process, which is currently very slow and tedious.

Greg Dalton: Recently a few big transmission projects have been finally greenlit–like TransWest, which will move power from Wyoming across Colorado and Utah to Nevada. That took 18 years to approve.

Ariana Brocious: And it’s only one of several projects that are finally shovel-ready, and yet still have to be BUILT.

Greg Dalton: That’s why there’s a lot of buzz right now about permitting reform. Of course, like everything else, that has become politicized and polarized between the renewable and fossil supporters. But there is a growing consensus that permitting changes need to happen.

Ariana Brocious: Just recently a top trade group for renewables called on environmentalists and progressive democrats to support permitting reform – something Republicans have been advocating for – to fast track new energy infrastructure.

Greg Dalton: Tight. That was from Jason Grumet is the new President of the American Clean Power Association, which represents large corporations supplying fossil and clean energy. He basically called out progressives for having what he called “solution denial,” saying they don’t acknowledge the scale and scope needed to drive solutions.

Pat Wood: We've committed to a low carbon agenda. We've got a continent worth of low carbon resource. If we can’t connect the dots, shame on us.

Greg Dalton: That’s Pat Wood, a guest on the show today and former advisor to Governor George W. Bush.

Ariana Brocious: In order to better understand what needs to be done to modernize the grid, I talked with Pat – he’s also a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - the most important agency in this area - and he led the Texas Public Utilities Commission. Now he’s chief executive at Hunt Energy Network. Our conversation also includes Jennifer Gardner, Vice Chair of Western Energy Imbalance Market, and Jose Zayas, Executive Vice President of Policy and Programs with the American Council on Renewable Energy.

Greg Dalton: Before we get into it, a few acronyms you should know… FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ISO, an Independent System Operator - people who manage the electrons moving around and make sure the grid stays up and balance and especially RTO…a regional transmission organization. There are a few different ISOs and RTOs around the country that help control and coordinate the flow of power across regions.

Ariana Brocious: Texas produces more wind power than any other state – and more than a quarter of the total U.S. wind power supply. But because of the lack of grid connection, it can’t sell or send that power to the east coast or to California. I asked Pat Wood how we could change that.

Pat Wood: Political desires in Texas like to keep the federal government out. That's probably a sentiment that many in the West chair Texas was lucky enough to be big enough to be able to actually do it. But as a practical matter, and this is true not just from Texas to the two grids but within the large Eastern grid, is there's just not a real strong program to plan and pay for transmission that crosses the large regions. Within ERCOT, the Texas grid, within PJM the large market in the mid-Atlantic within New England, there's a lot of good transmission planning and payment and reimbursement so that the utilities can invest. But across the boundary lines those bridges are pretty rickety compared to the nice big ones inside these regions. So, inter regional transmission is an absolute requirement. But it was hard for me to try to get that done at FERC because FERC didn’t do the permitting, the states do. That's another --

Ariana Brocious: FERC being the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Pat Wood: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The regulator there which I headed back in the early part of the century.The ability to give a utility rights away and permitting and then the tariff to actually pay for it is really not deeply embedded in the federal law; it's a state prerogative. And so, a state like Illinois or Colorado or Texas can deal with these matters within their state fine and pay for them and get them built. But it's when you become between two states that the tug-of-war starts.

Ariana Brocious: So, Jennifer following up on what Pat said, Texas and California have pretty different approaches to energy, taxes, guns, lots of things. And as Pat was saying in several parts of the country electric providers are organized under these operators that control and coordinate the flow of power across regions. The West in particular has resisted efforts to do this, and it's partly because they don't want to be led by California or may be doing exactly the California way. How does that tension influence this discussion around modernizing the electric grids?

Jennifer Gardner: In the West we do have a grid operator the California ISO as you mentioned is an independent system operator. Which for all intents and purposes, is the same as a regional transmission organization or an RTO. But outside of California we lack that sort of centralized operator framework to manage the grid and to truly optimize it which is really critical for integrating the increasing amount of renewable energy that we’re seeing, especially in the West. So, there is resistance to joining a potential RTO that could be run by California. You mentioned some of California's policies possibly being an impediment to that, you know, we have a nice mix of blue and red states in the West. And so, those policies are still quite different. I mean we’re seeing a really big growth in clean energy policies across the West but there are certain states that remain resistant to that. So, I think on the one hand there’s concern that if you join an RTO that’s operated by a very blue state such as California that you end up having some of those policies sort of seep into other states that that might currently still be resistant to them. But I think perhaps the most important impediment that we see today to an RTO potentially being operated by California in the West is that of governance. And when I say governance, I'm talking about the way that the market is really overseen. And so, right now we've got a California law that essentially says that the California ISO has to be operated by a board that’s appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature, the state Senate. And What that does is it really prevents a truly independent board from being formed over a possible Western RTO. And so, until we can fix that which require a legislative change it’s going to be, I think increasingly challenging to realize that RTO in the West.

Ariana Brocious: Jose, give us your perspective from the American Council on renewable energy.What are the major impediments to getting more transmission, more electricity shared across the regions in the country?

Jose Zayas: just from a pure reliability and resiliency that's really needed across our grid. We’ve seen points of moving renewable clean, affordable renewable energy across the country from places that are really have an abundant resource such as Texas. And how do we get that to the places a large low center for rehab the large populations and the large energy demands. And until we recognize as a country that there has to be just a commitment to transmission expansion, one that not only accelerates and deals with some of the shortcomings that we have in our processes and impediments that we have to that expansion both regionally and inter-regionally but at the same time how do we do this in a cost-effective way that we don't do it on a project by project basis. There is just significant amount of challenges across the entire system. Our country is experiencing more and more storms that are quite damaging that put people at risk not only from their livelihood, their expectations, their needs, but in some cases cost of life. What we have seen in many of those cases and we have released several studies here at the organization. That if we had that capability to really bring in or move power from regions to regions that resilience would be incredibly valuable to allow some of those very catastrophic events to really not have the kind of impact that we are seeing having particular in Texas couple years ago with winter storm Uri and others. So, those are some of the things that we believe are incredibly important. We are excited that we are seeing a few members of Congress pushing bills in this direction, such as the more recent bill by Senator Heinrich and Representative Cason the Interregional Transmission Planning and Improvement Act which really would help FERC issue some of the rulemaking to evaluate some of these interregional transmission planning processes. We also most recently saw an interim report that’s out for comment by the Department of Energy on the opportunities for interregional transmission. It’s another one that we’re very supportive of as well. Great. And we’ll get into that Department of Energy study here in another second and what's happening at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Ariana Brocious: Pat, as you mentioned, Texas has its own grid called ERCOT. It’s kind of an island that has allowed Texas to do things like add a lot of wind and solar quickly and spread costs for power distribution out among all customers, which is something that might be harder to sell in different areas. So, give us your perspective on sort of these pros and cons of that single stake grid and we can learn from that.

Pat Wood: The beauty of the single state for me, having been a regulator, I’m probably the only human that got to do both. Both at the federal level with multistate jurisdictions and within the one state that it's not in that fabric. Is it allowed us to unify the regulatory approach at the wholesale level which is the level between and among power generators and the big customers and the individual retail customer. And so, there is a unified vision there, which was very customer centric from Governor’s Bush's lips to me and to the other commissioners to really focus on the whole ball of wax. And so, in the federal jurisdiction the feds do their wholesale part and the states do the retail part. it works and it works actually okay up in the particularly in the mid-Atlantic states for example, where competition started back in the 90s. So, it's not impossible, but it just was easier for us to have that unified vision, Ariana. And then with regard to these issues that we’ve been talking about on transmission. Clearly that’s a wholesale issue and I tried to bring some of that simplicity of the Texas model to FERC when I took over up there in 2001. It wasn't as easy to import those ideas because the made in Texas label wasn't usually a popular thing it’s saying in Washington DC even with Bush as president. But nonetheless we were able to get some relatively straightforward cost recovery mechanisms for expanding the transmission grids all over the country, both in California. New England came forth with a relatively straightforward ways of paying for those transmission expansions. And again, transmission is a relatively minor cost of the retail customers bill. So, that didn’t make it easier to get through. We weren’t talking about half the bill going up to three force the bill. We’re talking about 6% of the bill going to maybe 8% of the bill so that we had a robust backbone for customers to benefit from competitive and clean power. So, those policies actually the same in a lot of the country now. While some of those were baked in our oven in Texas, but a lot of these we all worked on together and just try to figure it out as we got this huge onslaught of good technology allowing renewables to be cheaply obtained and used has just transformed the last 25 years. I mean now wind and solar are the two cheapest resources so you know it's an economic imperative that we get those and bring that value to our customers. So, it's been nice to figure these things out together but you are right, transmission and how to pay for it is a big piece of that.

Ariana Brocious: Jennifer, you’re vice chair of the Western Energy Imbalance Market. Can you give us the sort of layperson elevator pitch for what that market is and why it's important?

Jennifer Gardner: So, what the EIM does is it’s a real-time market. And what this means is that it allows utilities to buy and sell energy close to the operating hour. And they’re doing this essentially instantaneously rather than having to do it through bilateral contracts. By exchanging energy close to the operating hour they're able to balance supply and demand in real time, as we say, and that's really important. Because a lot of times when we can't keep energy and demand in constant balance that’s when we risk reliability events. And also, that’s also when we’re likely to see renewable energy curtailment which essentially just means that we have to turn off our windfarms or our solar farms because we don't need that excess generation. So, the EIM is not only great for greater liability by enabling those transactions to happen so that utilities can keep their supply and demand balance. But it’s also helping us take full advantage of the renewable energy capacity that we have in the west. I think about it as an RTO kind of training wheels.

Ariana Brocious: So, it's basically letting power companies sell power to each other directly quickly to keep that supply and demand imbalance, but it's an easier way of doing that than having some kind of long complicated contract or some more official thing. So essentially, it’s just like buying and selling what they need when they need it.

Jennifer Gardner: Yeah, I think that's a really nice way to sum it up. Thank you. And I would add that, you know, I said it was like an RTO with training wheels because it doesn’t offer all of the market services of an RTO. We don't need a coordinated transmission planning that we've been talking a lot about. And we’re really missing out on most of the energy transactions that occur in the market. When you look at the EIM only 5 to 10% of energy actions are occurring in real time, which is what the EIM encompasses. But when you look at day ahead operations which is an important market attribute we can add to the EIM we’re actually dealing with around 90 to 95% of energy transactions. That's where the real benefits can be obtained.

Ariana Brocious: Right. So, utilities want to be able to plan ahead by a day. Plan ahead by a day so that they can better manage their flow of power and supply their customers. That makes sense.

Jennifer Gardner: That’s right.

Ariana Brocious: So, Jose, you mentioned that the Department of Energy is studying where to build some high-capacity power lines to help bring more renewables onto the grid. This would also lower costs for customers hopefully and improve resilience especially during extreme weather events. DOE has about 15 billion authorized for grid expansion under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So, tell us what your hopes are for this work ongoing at DOE?

Jose Zayas: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law stood up many offices at DOE including the grid deployment offices and many other enhancements of the loan program office as you alluded to. There's significant amount of resources that have to be mobilized and I’ll just highlight a few of them. And specifically, to the deployment of new technologies and the role of innovation because that's also something that's incredibly important to kind of also work in conjunction with transmission expansion. There's 10 1/2 billion dollars out of those 15 that are really on grid resilience and innovative partnership. This is going to be the place where the department is looking at everything from high voltage DC transmission lines and innovation. What could be done within the existing infrastructure to enhance the capability of the existing grid itself as we deal with expansion. That’s going to be incredibly, incredibly important.

Also, on the Inflation Reduction Act, there's nearly a billion dollars in grant to facility siting and permitting. Interstate both on onshore and offshore transmission lines as well as $5 billion for guaranteed loans that will be administered to the loan program office. The other thing that’s important here is that there is $100 million for convening and stakeholder groups. So, applications that states could work with the department and the federal agencies to work together that’s something that hasn't been available before because we know that some of these challenges are not only driven by technology or opportunities or challenges that we have on our cues, etc. convening some of the resources are not there to allow folks to engage in a meaningful way and have state collaborations and so forth. So, we’re tracking all of these. I think the department is gonna have a critical role to play. to designate in essence different corridors of national interest that hopefully could facilitate some of the opportunities to build out new transmissions and we’re closing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on those.

Greg Dalton: You’re listening to a Climate One conversation about modernizing the grid. Our podcasts typically contain extra content beyond what’s heard on the radio. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods.

FOR POD: Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Coming up, how do smaller sized projects, like residential solar and battery walls, fit in with the bigger regional grids?

Jennifer Gardner: Some combination of what I’m gonna call big grid and small grid efforts will be necessary to reach our decarbonization goals.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious.

Greg Dalton: One of the fundamental elements needed to bring the grids into the future is to have connections and flows that are similar to our interstate freeways.

Ariana Brocious: RIght. These high-voltage transmission corridors would allow power to move across regions and bring electricity from where it’s plentiful, often rural places, to where it’s needed, like big cities. Let’s get back to my conversation with Pat Wood, Jose Zayas, and Jennifer Gardner. As we were discussing before the break, the Department of Energy is currently studying where some of these corridors could be put. I asked Pat Wood the likelihood of that kind of system being built.

Pat Wood: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines, which is relatively complete. So, if you're building a pipeline from say Utah to Oregon or from Texas to New York, FERC is kind of the one-stop shop where you get that done. There's not an equivalent process for the multistate transmission lines. I think we probably left too much on the table was forced compromise on jurisdiction with states such that a court two years, three years later effectively gutted the law. And so, we've now been sitting for almost two decades now trying to get that back. And so, I'm really hopeful that what Jose described can really play out where DOE does the hard-core technical analytical work to figure out where are the right corridors. And then FERC goes to the normal environmental siting process to get those lines routed correctly to minimize the impact in the environment and to customers and the citizens landowners and to get them built. Because we've got a continent where so much the resource is where the people aren't. So, the wind is in the middle part of the country go from Texas straight up to Manitoba and this great big sunshine smiling on San Diego to about Austin. And we just need to move that around to where the people are. And so, that requires big transmission, and that's a lot of work. I will tell you from those that built the highways 75 years ago, the country had a lot less people 75 years ago and so it was easier to route those. That’s true of transmission lines too. Just 20 years ago when we had this law the first time. It would've been so much easier to do than it is today. But there's no turning back now. We've committed to a low carbon agenda. We've got a continent worth of low carbon resource. If we can’t connect the dots, shame on us.

Ariana Brocious: True. Jose.

Jose Zayas: The reality is that you know, this thing is blessed with an abundant domestic resource. And it’s just in some cases as Pat alluded to, not in the right place to connect it to where the large load centers are. And as we think about the needs and the opportunities that face all of us the thing that at least keeps me up at night is that transmission expansion is hard to do and it takes a long time. When we look at the Inflation Reduction Act it really now has provided certainty where certainty really hasn't been afforded to many of these industries. We have a decade of set of policies that can bring forth not only existing technologies like land-based wind and land-based solar which we have an abundance, as well as emerging technologies such as storage and hydrogen and offshore wind and others. When we look at that opportunities the reality is doing these large transmission lines in the framework that we have to take can take over a decade. And we just don't have that kind of time we’re talking about meeting the decarbonization goals that we put forth as a country. Or if you want to talk about climate change. there's a huge mismatch where the opportunities and the timing realities are. And that’s something that we as a society and as a country need to reflect on.

Ariana Brocious: I’m so glad that you mentioned the timeliness of this and the urgency because that's really critical. so we've been talking about transmission which is basically getting power from one place to another. And there's other elements part of this grid modernization discussion and one of them is what's called interconnection. And so, this is actually for projects that are built, whether it's coal or solar or wind they have to be connected to those big transmission lines or to local transmission lines and be able to send that power to different places. And there is a huge backlog of these projects waiting to get connected to the grid. A lot of them are wind, solar and battery. I think New York Times estimated them like 8000. So, Pat, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is currently working on accelerating and streamlining their process. As a former FERC chairman do you think that what they're working on is going to help resolve this backlog?

Pat Wood: Well, it can’t get worse. I will say that when I got there in ’01 we did put the process in place that has been working since that time. So, hopefully each step is better than the one that preceded it. And what's happening now is that multiple projects are coming in and this is a competitive market that work so this is a good thing. But multiple projects are coming in, kind of like a CVS and Walgreens all like to be built on the same corner. They look at the same engineering data and said this is a good place to build so they all apply to be at that same place. And so, the utility studying it for engineering is going well, I’ve got to look at that and study that but which one do I study first? So, FERC’s got to give some clarity about how do we and the right answer honestly is cluster. Do it all and look them all collectively together. Don't worry about who came in first in line. And if you have to allocate the cost among the people, allocate them just kind of pro rata. the engineering study parts hard enough, but the other part that's really hard at the federal level, and is that the cost allocation for those upgrades for that interconnection is not free. And so, in Texas we just passed the cost to all the end use customers because they’re the ones that are going to pay anyway at the end of the day. So, let's just short-circuit the process and get it over with. That is a showstopper in other parts of the nation. So, I would say keep the engineering things as simplified as you can by studying things at the same time. And then to the extent there is a cost, spread that cost fairly among the others, not like the musical chairs game when the last guy standing gets the bill and everybody else gets it for free. That creates just a lot of gaming behavior. People spend more time worrying about the game than they worry about getting good clean power to the customer, which is wrong. then we can really shorten this interconnection queue process which has now moved from months to years in some parts of the country.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, So, José and Jennifer, how do renewable energy developers work around this backlog and does it deter project development?

Jose Zayas: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory just issued what they call their queued report. And this report really tries to at least create awareness and quantify exactly what Pat was alluding to. And the challenges and that the queue is quite large it’s growing at a very large rate. Just to put it into perspective I believe that last year there was about 13050 GW or 1.3 TW And this year it’s close to 2000 GW or 2 TW. So, it’s grown almost by 600 in one year, which is daunting. Many of the projects that were seen today are projects that have new approaches such as hybrid energy systems, solar plus batteries and so forth, so it’s also changing. So, I think there's a lot of opportunities you know for FERC to really look at these processes, you know, develop standards, rules of engagement for lack of a better word. And how do we handle with the ever-growing queue and how do we create certainty to the industry because that's incredibly needed; you know, the numbers we’re talking about under the IRA that we will more than double the amount of generation that we’re seeing. And that's gonna create only more pressure in a system that's already quite inefficient. Certainty is incredibly important for these projects and for developers who have a significant amount of investment that is put forward either from a project or everything that we’re talking about. So, I think that’s gonna be key to provide that kind of clarity that these projects need and also to meet the timeline that we were talking about earlier,

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. And I think I’ve seen estimates that we need something like four times the amount of transmission. So, Jennifer.

Jennifer Gardner: Yeah. I would argue that CAISO is kind of known for being ahead of the curve, particularly when it comes to renewable energy integration within its markets. One thing that they struggle with however, just like every organized market in the country is this interconnection queue issue and the backlog of interconnection queue request. So, just to give some data unique to California over the past decade, the CAISO, the California Independent System Operator, has received an average of 113 interconnection proposals per year. But in 2021, so this is a couple years ago, as the state was accelerating its procurement for renewable energy and storage resources to meet the state's clean energy goals. The applications for new projects more than tripled to 373.

Ariana Brocious: Tripled. That’s a lot.

Jennifer Gardner: Yeah, it is a lot. And interestingly, you know, Pat and José have been talking about the need to move towards a clustering process when we’re analyzing these requests. And CAISO has actually been using that clustering process since 2008. And I think it works but it's not fail-proof by any means. And so, CAISO has initiated a stakeholder process to further refine the way that it handles interconnection queue requests because they have quite a backlog that they need to work through as well.

Ariana Brocious: House Republicans recently passed a bill that, among other things, sought to streamline the federal permitting process for energy infrastructure in this case, particularly oil and gas. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared that bill dead on arrival. But Democrats want to see reform of permitting renewables. Next week the Senate is beginning hearings on permitting reform and this is kind of been in the news lately. Pat, where is their middle ground between Republicans and Democrats on permitting reform here?

Pat Wood: Well, its classic set up for middle ground. I think that's where Joe Manchin was trying to go with this because, you know, he is a Democrat so he knows where the people in his party or on the clean energy agenda but he’s also from a carbon state and understands those issues. So again, it is classic paralysis by just lack of bipartisanship that's keeping that from going forward. Where to focus, one-stop shop as we talked about with regard to FERC on natural gas. Clear direction on what to do with regard to climate impacts of whether it's transmission for renewables or a natural gas or oil pipeline under the ground. or whichever agency in that case it’ll be the FERC, tell them what you need them to find out to do their NEPA review. The National Environmental Policy Act. To do their environmental reviews that are required under federal law don't short-circuit them do the reviews. But do them within a timeframe have one agency be in charge not give a veto power to three different agencies at the state or federal level but just to say, hey, buck stops with you FERC. But you’re required under law to take everything into consideration and you have the ability to say no. And this is true for whether it's a gas pipeline or for a big power line bringing in wind power from the Midwest. They should both be subject to the same fair review and the same environmental analysis for the impact on wildlife on people on water and air that everything else is responsible to. And that kind of one-size-fits-all approach, it strikes people as fair. And so, the thing in the middle is that solution that appeals to the people in the middle which is what's the fair shot for the utility to develop or trying to improve the infrastructure here. Because that's what the point is with it’s not a wire or a pipe for the pipe's sake. It's to facilitate modern life in a modern nation that is less impactful to the environment than what we did a decade ago or a century ago. And so, we should all be embracing that vision.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. Yeah. Jennifer, elsewhere in the show we talk with Michelle Moore. She’s CEO of Groundswell which is working to connect solar energy efficiency with economic development and affordability in rural areas. And she's a big proponent and advocate for decentralizing some of this power generation having organizations, churches, nonprofits own their own panels for example with solar and provide power hyper locally. If we were to build that sufficient power like this in a decentralized fashion, how much do you think we could reduce our dependence on the larger grid on larger projects that can sometimes be controversial? Big huge solar and wind fields can be controversial.

Jennifer Gardner: So in my personal opinion I believe that, you know, some combination of what I’m gonna call big grid and small grid efforts will be necessary to reach our decarbonization goals. I don't think it boils down to necessarily one or the other, Ariana, I think that they need to try to work together which is of course an increasingly challenging thing to do.

Ariana Brocious: Pat,

Pat Wood: This is the part of the world where I'm spending most of my career now, which is in the small grid, as Jennifer was calling it, I really do see that like the rest of our society the world is decentralizing. Whether it's in the media and other parts of our culture in the economy everything is decentralizing. And so, while I agree with Jennifer that you can’t go all the way in fact, that would be like putting all your IRA in bonds instead of a mixture stocks in cash and bonds is you want to kind of bet on both. We did do some steps for it back in the early 2000s to lay the groundwork for standard interconnection process for little assets as well as big parts big generators on the grid. So, the place to hurry is on the smaller grid, I think. The interconnection timelines are shorter are queues are much shorter at the distribution level than they are. The unfortunate thing though is the distribution grid wasn’t really built for that. You think about the transmission grid it's like a kind of a web. So, things come and move in all directions. The transmission grid fed the distribution grid and pushed the power one way to your house. Well, gosh now we've got people with solar panels on their house like I do, or people with the battery in their garage like I do, or electric vehicles in the garage. And you got, you know, farms that generate some wind power that they want to put back on the grid. So, you got a lot of things going in two directions now in the distribution grid. So, that investment in that grid is just is a big dollar price tag that’s about to come. But we’ve got to do it because we want to have this highly resilient decentralized like, you know, I like to quote daddy Bush “thousand points of light” where you got not just the central grid, keeping everybody alive but everybody on the edge keeping the whole grid up. So, let's double down, invest on both the big grid and the small grid and serve our customers the way they need to be, which is reliably and sustainably.

Ariana Brocious: There's been this push by some Midwestern states to consider right of first refusal laws. These essentially would like privilege, the local power utilities, which are often monopolies as opposed to allowing more competition from outside markets. is that gonna ultimately end up hurting the customer more than these utilities?

Pat Wood: You know, I’ve long been a fan that the competitive market serves customers better than a regulated one. We still got to regulate the power lines and impose some business because it’s a natural monopoly still. But power generation is not a monopoly. Power sales is not a monopoly. It was designated one under laws century ago. But customers are better served by letting creators and entrepreneurs and innovators into the world to really push the technology and push the business models and push the savings in the same way that it has in the telecom industry for example. Yeah, there will be great big players like there are in that industry, but there also be tons of people playing in the margin in that interstitial space where the creativity sparks can happen. So, let's keep the regulated entities doing the delivery of power. That's plenty money to be made there as we’ve just talked about billions if not trillions to be built in our continent alone much less the rest of the world to facilitate this transition to a cleaner environment. But let’s let the innovation and the generation and the marketing of the products and the cells of power be done by creative people who can do that and know how to do that.

Ariana Brocious: What’s one high point listeners should take away from this conversation we’ve had today? Jennifer.

Jennifer Gardner: I think just speaking from the perspective of what's happening in the west. I am encouraged to see what I view as an increasing momentum towards not only more organized market frameworks but also additional transmission infrastructure.

Ariana Brocious: Jose, how about you?

Jose Zayas: Yeah, I would just add that you know with the recent passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on the IRA. I think now and the fact that these technologies are now really got into a very cost competitive landscape coupled with the fact that as I shared earlier our nation has an abundant resources of wind and solar and many other resources that we can depend on that have showcase at scale that they can provide cost-effective, reliable electricity.

Ariana Brocious: And Pat, one highlight for people to take away.

Pat Wood: At the turn of the millennium, there were a handful of wind farms in California and maybe a couple of other states. And there were a number of hydroelectric dams particularly in California and New York and some of the northern states, and in the Pacific Northwest. And there were maybe a solar farm or two. In 23 years, we've come a long way. So, we don't want the listener to walk away and think, oh gosh, this is never going to happen. Tremendous progress has happened in the last quarter century. I think both within the organized markets and outside the organized markets, renewable energy is that irrepressible force that cannot be stopped. At the end of the day I'm very optimistic that as history proves the good guy wins. And so, this will happen.

Ariana Brocious: Well, great, we’ll leave it there. Pat Wood is CEO of Hunt Power. Jennifer Gardner is Vice Chair of the Western Energy Imbalance Market. And Jose Zayas is Executive Vice President of Policy and Programs with the American Council on Renewable Energy. Thank you all so much for joining us today on Climate One.

Jose Zayas: Thank you.

Jennifer Gardner: Thank you.

Pat Wood: Thanks, Ariana.

Greg Dalton: You're listening to a conversation about the future of the U.S. power grids. This is Climate One. Coming up, what might the energy transition look like in rural America?

L. Michelle Moore: We're in the middle of an extraordinary transformation of our energy systems from fossil fuel to clean power. One that in and of itself will also create haves and have nots. Or it will be an opportunity to really reinvest in our rural communities and help bring prosperity back.

Greg Dalton:: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Rural America currently has the burden of the highest energy bills at a time when the cost of everything else is rising and wages aren’t keeping pace. As we transition to renewable energy, there is a chance for rural areas to get a seat at the table in a just and equitable way.

I had a conversation with Michelle Moore, CEO of Groundswell and author of Rural Renaissance: Revitalizing America's Hometowns through Clean Power. I asked Michelle to explain the history of the massive electrification projects that brought power to so many homes.

L. Michelle Moore: Not even 100 years ago the vast majority of America didn't have electric power. Our rural communities, our farms couldn’t turn the lights on at night. I had to wash clothes by hand and heat water and food by the fire, and it was just an extraordinary, hardship And one that exacerbated the economic divide between the haves and have nots. And as a part of the New Deal. And thanks to the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his administration, at the time America lunched the Electrification Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and in just under 15 years, Brought electric power to more than 99% of America It was an extraordinary great public work that lifted communities across this country out of poverty.

Greg Dalton: And that was coming out of the Great Depression. We’re now coming out of Covid. What about our current moment is similar to that electrification era and what's different?

L. Michelle Moore: The Inflation Reduction Act, which just passed the Congress and was signed into law last year, is the biggest investment in rural power in America in 100 years. It's extraordinary. clearly today the vast majority of Americans, more than 99.9% have access to electricity but we're in the middle of an extraordinary transformation of our energy systems from fossil fuel to clean power. From centralized systems to rooftop solar and energy storage at your home, at your school, or at the hospital, And it's a similar scale of transformation and one that in and of itself will also create haves and have nots. Or it will be an opportunity to really reinvest in our rural communities and help bring prosperity back at the same time, we're distributing clean power, so many, many parallels. but the choices that we make and how we implement, like how do we transform our energy systems, that's gonna tell the tale about whether the inflation reduction act will help to reinvest in our rural communities at the same time.

Greg Dalton: What specifically is going to be in this inflation reduction act for rural communities to address the justice issue you're talking about?

L. Michelle Moore: The Inflation Reduction Act was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages long. So, I’m just gonna highlight a few things that are particularly important for rural communities to be aware of. One, and I think this is one of the most powerful policy changes in that whole bill is that the federal tax credits that are a very important and a very significant incentive for solar electricity and for energy storage and for all kinds of other clean power technologies can now be directly paid to nonprofits including churches, including rural electric cooperatives and including municipal utilities. Now before tax credits were only available to individuals and institutions who were wealthy enough to have a big tax bill. And what that meant is that wealthy people and wealthy companies could own their solar assets and everybody else had to pay rent. And the direct pay option for the solar tax credit means that everybody can participate. and that really levels the playing field. And so rural cooperative utilities, local churches, other nonprofit institutions, can own solar, can own clean energy systems and can participate in the full wealth building potential of asset ownership. It's a game changer.

Greg Dalton: How can energy efficiency measures also help address this persistent poverty?

L. Michelle Moore: When we look at a map and we examine where do the poorest people pay the most for electricity, it's in our rural communities, it's in rural counties across the country. And it's not because rural utilities charge more for energy, it's because people are living in older, less efficient housing. And when I talk about a high-energy burden I'm talking about states where on average low-income households pay 20+ percent of their entire household income just to keep the lights on. With that level you're choosing between. Paying your car note and paying your electricity bill or paying for groceries or paying for your electricity bills. and it's choices that people just really shouldn't have to be making and investing in energy efficiency, you know, is a way to improve housing quality and also to bring that electricity bill back into alignment. because on average, More affluent households in America only pay about 3% of their total income for electricity, and anything above 6% is considered to be an untenable energy burden.

Greg Dalton: Many electric utilities don't actually make the electricity they deliver it’s bought on the wholesale market. In the case of rural electric cooperatives many have power agreements with larger generation and transmission authorities in their region meaning they buy most or all of their power from these bigger largely fossil fuel powered utilities. That makes it hard for local co-ops to move to more renewables, because they're often limited by how much they can buy outside their main contract. But some are starting to fight that. Tell us about the case of Delta-Montrose Electric Association.

L. Michelle Moore: The types of contracts that you're talking about, Greg, are called all requirements contracts. And they can be very long-term up to 20 years, sometimes even more. And not only are they long contracts, but sometimes small utilities, you know, rural utilities where imagine communities where populations have gone down, and economic opportunities gone down every time. Maybe they’re not using all the power that they're contracted for either. So, they have an excess of generation on top of it all. And Delta-Montrose filed a lawsuit against the utility that they bought their power from. And because they had locally committed to a specific percentage of clean power, and their primary utility contractor couldn't provide that clean power, so they wanted out of their contract because their contract wasn't giving them what their community had decided that they wanted, and what was really a landmark case. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. Because the energy landscape is full of crazy acronyms, y'all. but FERC decided that, if the generating utility couldn't provide clean power, then local utilities have the ability to get out of this contracts produce a specific amount of clean power within their own territory. And this really freed up utilities all over the country to be able to have a cleaner power mix and also to be able to build it themselves, to keep the value of that generation and the value of the projects that were generating power more local. And more than 90% of the persistent poverty counties in America are served by rural electric cooperatives. So, that means a small local ultimately nonprofit 501[c] 12 utilities have an incredibly important economic development mission. So, it's not only about generating more clean power, you know, where that is the goal that we are moving towards as a country or where that is the goal that the local utility has set forth for itself. But it's also about making sure that that clean power is connected to local economic opportunity. because that's really what these small utilities were created for in the first place.

Greg Dalton: And the counter narrative is often from proponents of fossil fuels. They. Will say affordable, reliable, affordable, reliable, affordable, reliable. And they argue that it's fossil fuels that are most affordable, that green costs more.

L. Michelle Moore: Clean power is extremely affordable. And in many states, it's even more affordable than fossil fuel sources of electricity. In my home state of Georgia solar power, particularly big solar power installations, you know, are helping to reduce bills. And if we think about some of the big companies out there that have committed to 100% renewable energy or 24 by 7 renewable energy, you know, they’re not paying more for solar power. They're not paying more for wind power. They’re signing long-term power purchase agreements as their energy contracts that are committing them not only to 100% clean but also at significant savings. And when we talk about reliability, I think we also have to talk about resilience, And when we pair onsite renewables like solar on your rooftop, or solar on the roof of a hospital or at the school building that's used as a shelter. With energy storage like a battery you're able to keep the lights on at your home no matter what happens on the grid, so you're getting affordable. Reliable and resilient energy. And that works at a large scale too.

Greg Dalton: And there's been a lot of handwringing about the depopulation of rural America and what that means for small towns and rural economies. Some of that's due to the commodification and industrialization of agriculture, which employs fewer people. Describe your vision of how that trend can be reversed with clean power development.

L. Michelle Moore: Well, when we look at actually what’s happening there have been more people moving back to smaller towns and rural communities since COVID. For the first time in decades actually, you know, so there’s a desire out there and we'll see if that trend continues. But clean power can be an important part of it in two ways. Number one, think about remote work. And think about even running a small business somewhere. You know, to quote one mayor in North Carolina, “no business wants to be located where the Internet sucks.” And there are awful places in rural America where the Internet sucks. That's what many rural Americans are dealing with, many rural schoolchildren too. So you got to have broadband. And broadband is actually a really critical part of the clean energy future because we can't have all these smart appliances, we can't have all these super energy-efficient systems that talk to the grid and talk to one another without having broadband connections. So that's number one. And number two, by having cleaner power and distributed power, available throughout rural America, we're also investing those jobs in rural communities too. We think about rural communities often as being primarily agriculture in terms of, where the economic opportunity is coming from. But an awful lot of manufacturing companies cite their facilities and rural communities. too. Just look at where all these EV factories, battery factories, solar panel factories are going. It's rural Tennessee, northern Alabama, north Georgia. Kentucky, many communities, whereas before a lot of their jobs came from coal mining and from burning coal. You know, we're now gonna be from manufacturing batteries. And so thinking about economic justice, right? Where are we building our clean energy future? Where are people losing opportunity because the extractive, economy of our past is going away. We have an opportunity to connect those dots while we build a clean energy future too.

Greg Dalton: Michelle Moore is CEO of Groundswell, a nonprofit that builds community power by connecting solar and energy efficiency with economic development, affordability, and quality of life. She's author of Rural Renaissance: Revitalizing America's Hometowns through Clean Power. Thank you so much for sharing your insights on Climate One

L. Michelle Moore: Thank you. It's been a blessing to be with y'all today.

Greg Dalton: On this Climate One... we’ve been talking about modernizing our multiple grids.

Greg Dalton: Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency.

Greg Dalton: POD version: Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe wherever you get your pods. Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Greg Dalton: Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Ariana Brocious is co-host, editor and producer. Austin Colón is producer and editor. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager, Ben Testani is our communications manager. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

4:43 - Pat Wood on transmission between the national grids

6:54 - Jennifer Gardner on grid operation in the western states

9:03 - José Zayas on the impediments of transmission between regional grids

14:13 - Jennifer Gardner on the Western Energy Imbalance Market

16:45 - José Zayas on grid expansion and the Department of Energy

19:56 - Pat Wood on getting energy from where it’s produced to where it’s needed

29:30 - Pat Wood on middle ground policy and permitting reform

39:45 - Michelle Moore on how electricity was brought to rural America.

43:45 - Michelle Moore on the effects of energy efficiency on rural poverty.

Play

Bitcoin Uses a Ton of Energy — On Purpose. Is it Worth It?

Megan Biscieglia — Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:33:14 +0000

Bitcoin Uses a Ton of Energy — On Purpose. Is it Worth It?

04/14/2023

Crypto mining for bitcoin uses a TON of energy, as much as whole countries, like Argentina and Sweden. The vast majority of bitcoin mining is still powered by fossil fuel generation – contributing an estimated 65 megatons of carbon emissions to the atmosphere, precisely at a time when we need to be dramatically cutting emissions to address climate disruption. But the validation method upon which new bitcoins are made is actually designed to use more and more energy to be super secure:

“It’s almost like converting electricity, and the waste of electricity, if you will, into security. And there’s so much electricity being used, that no one can use enough to corrupt it,” says Rolf Skar, a senior advisor with Greenpeace.

“Bitcoin mining is now contributing a lot of greenhouse gas emissions where it wasn't just a few years ago. To the point where they’re actually restarting fossil fuel power plants like coal plants that were on their way to retirement here in the US. So, it’s taking us exactly in the wrong direction at exactly the wrong time in the climate crisis,” he says.

Last fall, Ethereum, which is the world's second-largest cryptocurrency, moved from one validation protocol to another which reduced its emissions more than 99%. Skar is part of a campaign created by Greenpeace, the Environmental Working Group and others advocating to change the code behind bitcoin to make it more climate-friendly.

Even when bitcoin mines use renewable power, which many do, environmentalists and others argue that renewable energy could be put to better use:

“It's sucking up energy that could otherwise be used to power people's homes and their workplaces. And what we need to be doing at this stage in order to decarbonize our grid is prioritizing the building of transmission and taking up as much of that energy as possible,” says Thomas Cmar, a senior attorney for the Earthjustice Clean Energy Program.

Bitcoin proponents like Brittany Kaiser of Gryphon Digital Mining say the value of such a secure digital currency is worth it.

“If you start to look at the benefits of this type of technology completely outweighing most of the technologies that we use today for auditability, permission structures, tracking and traceability, crime prevention, you wouldn't say that this is wasted energy at all,” she says. Kaiser agrees with some critics who point out that the crypto mining is opaque and under-regulated in terms of energy use and says the right rules can clean it up, noting that her industry isn’t the only one that uses lots of energy:

“Every single industry, including bitcoin mining, has good actors and has bad actors. And the entire point of having common sense regulation is to block out bad actors and incentivize good actors to make even better decisions.”

Contributing Producer: Lily Jamali

Guests

Rolf Skar

Senior Advisor, Greenpeace USA

Brittany Kaiser

Chair of the Board, Gryphon Digital Mining

Thomas Cmar

Senior Attorney, Earthjustice

Clean Up Bitcoin (cleanupbitcoin.com)

Gryphon Digital Mining (gryphondigitalmining.com)

Molly Wood on Tech, Money and Survival (climateone.org)

Corporate Net Zero Pledges: Ambitious or Empty Promises? (climateone.org)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One, I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious.

Greg Dalton: And today, we’re talking about cryptocurrency and climate. As you may or may not be aware, crypto mining, particularly for bitcoin, uses a TON of energy, as much as whole countries, like Argentina and Sweden.

Ariana Brocious: This totally shocked me–I had no idea it was so energy consumptive. But it turns out Bitcoin is designed that way on purpose to be super secure:

Rolf Skar: It’s almost like converting electricity, and the waste of electricity, if you will, into security. And there’s so much electricity being used, that no one can use enough to corrupt it.

Ariana Brocious: That’s Rolf Skar of Greenpeace–we’ll hear more from him in just a minute.

Greg Dalton: The vast majority of bitcoin mining is still powered by fossil fuel generation. All that mining contributes an estimated 65 megatons of carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

Ariana Brocious: Right, this is the decade when we need to be dramatically cutting emissions to address climate disruption. And even when it’s using renewable power, environmentalists and others argue that it’s drawing that power away from our energy transition.

Greg Dalton: Seems like there are so many better things to do with that energy. But Bitcoin proponents like Brittany Kaiser of Gryphon Digital Mining say the value of such a secure digital currency is worth it, and the right rules can clean it up:

Brittany Kaiser: Because every single industry, including bitcoin mining has good actors and has bad actors. And the entire point of having common sense regulation is to block out bad actors and incentivize good actors to make even better decisions. (:14)

Ariana Brocious: I’m gonna be honest Greg, and say that before we did research for this episode, a lot of this crypto discussion was over my head. It’s not the most intuitive system.

Greg Dalton: I used to cover tech and it's confusing to me too. For listeners in the same boat, one of the important distinctions in the crypto world is the different ways you can validate transactions. There are two main ways of doing this–called proof of work and proof of stake. I don’t think you really need to understand the intricacies of each, so long as you know that one of them–proof of WORK, which is what bitcoin uses–requires a TON more energy.

Ariana Brocious: I talked with Rolf Skar, a senior advisor at Greenpeace, who helped me understand the fundamentals of cryptocurrency and bitcoin mining. He’s with a campaign created by Greenpeace, the Environmental Working Group and others advocating to change the code behind bitcoin to make it more climate-friendly.

Rolf Skar: Bitcoin mining is now contributing a lot of greenhouse gas emissions where it wasn't just a few years ago. To the point where they’re actually restarting fossil fuel power plants like coal plants that were on their way to retirement here in the US. So, it’s taking us exactly in the wrong direction at exactly the wrong time in the climate crisis.

Ariana Brocious: And just how much energy does bitcoin consume?

Rolf Skar: It changes all the time but it uses about as much electricity as midsize countries like Sweden at this point.

Ariana Brocious: Wow!

Rolf Skar: So, it's a lot, and it's growing. And that's part of our concern is not what so much it's doing right now, but where this is all going.

Ariana Brocious: So, for someone who is like me, not that well-versed in crypto currency. Can you explain why it's so energy intensive?

Rolf Skar: Yeah, you’ve probably heard the term cryptomining, and most of the crypto currencies out there don't do mining anymore. So, just last year the second biggest one, Ethereum, switched away from mining to be much more energy-efficient. So, right now when you hear cryptomining you really talk about Bitcoin. And there aren’t shovels or picks involved; this is just a term referred to the busywork done by machines. Like very specialized computers that are helping to keep the whole system going. These mining machines are guessing random numbers essentially, it's like rolling a dice that has millions of sides on it as quickly as you can. And then about every 10 minutes one of the miners and they’re competing against each other globally is rewarded by guessing the right number essentially through a newly issued bitcoin. And what they're doing is providing security and a record of the transactions since there’s no centralized bank that's checking on where the money is going. They need this ledger, as they call it, to be maintained. You need to have some way for the community to check. And importantly a way that no one actor like a bad actor who wants to game the system or grab all the bitcoins for themselves can actually do that. So, you have to make it difficult, by using all of this electronic work, the proof of work that goes into you know who gets to validate the next transaction and get a newly minted bitcoin. So, the idea was this will be too hard for any group of people even if they had a lot of money to actually take over. At this point if you're using as much electricity as Sweden that's difficult for any one company even to do. So, it's almost like converting electricity and the waste of electricity if you will, into security. And there is so much electricity being used that no one can use enough to corrupt it. It’s kind of crazy.

Ariana Brocious: So, is there like an endpoint at which it's just gonna be too energy intensive or too hard or too time-consuming to get more bitcoin?

Rolf Skar: Yeah, it’s starting to get there. So, as the price goes up and down that's the other important thing if you’re a mining company and the big large some publicly traded companies now. And you're looking at two things essentially, the price of bitcoin and the price of electricity. And those two things are mainly what determines whether you're making money or not. As the price goes up, it’s more profitable to spend more money on mining machines to pay more for electricity. As it goes down, similarly, it inverses the case. There are a fixed number of bitcoins that are planned to be issued. But the process is supposed to continue for over 100 more years. And I think sometime between now and then the proof of work approach is not gonna be tenable on a finite planet. And we’re seeing miners already getting kicked out of entire countries like China; they're running out of cheap electricity. States are taking action, New York issued a two-year moratorium on new fossil fuel linked cryptomining operations. So, I don't think this is going to continue forever and that's why we’re suggesting a code change makes a lot of sense even if you like bitcoin a lot.

Ariana Brocious: When we talk about the energy usage for bitcoin mining is it the computer processing or server farm cooling or both or what’s actually going into that?

Rolf Skar: Yeah, it’s both I mean it’s a good question. So, these machines are very hungry for electricity. They are guessing as quickly as possible like trillions of guesses a second. And you probably have the experience of like your laptop overheating when you have too many tabs open. These things get very hot very quickly. And then depending on the cooling system the fans everything else that’s like just trying to maintain these machines, but the bulk of it is the machines themselves that are, you know, really supposed to run 24/7 because none of these miners want to drop out of the system. Every guess that they make is another chance to be rewarded. And so, it's around-the-clock operation. Communities that are being affected by bitcoin mining the number one complaint that they have is noise. Some have described it as being next to a plane that's getting ready to take off but it never leaves the airport because it’s just sitting there buzzing 24/7. And it makes living near these things oftentimes untenable for people. So, it’s not just a couple of computers. It's like giant warehouses of buzzing machines.

Ariana Brocious: So, I want to back up one second to something you mentioned earlier, which is that we've seen cryptomining operations restart some decommissioned fossil fuel plants, especially coal plants to make this power that they need. If these are private companies buying private power plants. How is this regulated?

Rolf Skar: Regulation in the US is really local. Like here in California where I live there's some large utilities that control essentially in a monopolistic fashion large swaths of this big states’ electricity. But in rural parts of the country there is rural electrical co-ops, and we've seen bitcoin miners go to the places where the regulatory environment is favorable, and where electricity rates are cheap. And in some cases where they can actually take advantage of essentially subsidies from ratepayers.

Ariana Brocious: So, as you’ve also mentioned, last fall Ethereum, which is the world's second-largest cryptocurrency, moved from one validation protocol to another and that reduced its emissions something like 99.9%. That's staggering. What did it take for that to happen?

Rolf Skar: Well, it has even though it's similar to bitcoin in many ways and was using proof of work. There's a little bit more of a leadership body that sort of steered this process. It’s not as formal as some other companies we’re familiar with, but essentially it had a foundation and some leadership that pushed this process. And they tested it for several years. You had to get the bugs out and kind of run two systems in parallel. And then yeah there was a moment last fall where they just flipped the switch and about 99.99% of its electricity it uses just went away overnight. So, that's the real opportunity for us. We're looking at the opportunity upside as well in a climate crisis when we need all the help we can get. Bitcoin could do the same thing, something similar, maybe even better, and really help out our fight against climate change.

Ariana Brocious: So bitcoin could do this?

Rolf Skar: Yeah, there’s nothing technically getting in the way. This is essentially a social problem. So, the system itself doesn't have formal leadership and it responds to this distributed social ecosystem if you will. So, if enough companies and institutions and stakeholders within the system said, yeah, we think this is a good idea, code can be developed tomorrow and suggested and tested and can move very quickly, but it's mostly something that needs to come from the community itself and the stakeholders involved in it recognizing that there is a need for change.

Ariana Brocious: So, given that there’s sort of this lack of centralized authority with bitcoin are we seeing pressure among these other stakeholders to make that change?

Rolf Skar: Well, there's a lot of stakeholders but we’re hoping that this is a growing movement really. And in particular we’re looking at some of the financial institutions, the banks, the asset managers and those who kind of support the whole system to take action. You know many of the big banks that are actually moving into the space increasingly, not running away, even in the aftermath of some of the dramatic collapses of Silicon Valley Bank or FTX the trading platform. They're moving in big and they often have very specific climate commitments. And they haven’t acknowledged that the climate impacts and the community impacts from bitcoin mining has anything to do with them, but we think it does. Because if it doesn't belong to them and it doesn't belong to anybody then whose emissions are these, you know. So, we think they can play an important role in incentivizing and making the process move forward to test out what might make sense for bitcoin in the future.

Ariana Brocious: What percentage of stakeholders would need to be on board to make this code change and who's against it?

Rolf Skar: Yeah, it's an open question, you know, it’s not an election it’s not like a shareholder, you know, vote or something like that. We don't know yet. We do know that bitcoin has changed significantly in the past. So, there's regular code updates to fix little bugs and things like that. And they all go through a relatively small, very small group of gatekeepers or custodians about six people, some of whose names have been shrouded in mystery and some who are have been identified publicly. These are real humans who are essentially custodians of the whole system and do things like code updates. So, in 2017 there was a really big one; it was contentious. Some people within the community call it the bitcoin Civil War. And it resulted in sort of a new form of bitcoin that we all call bitcoin now and then some other versions of bitcoin like bitcoin cash is an example of a different sort of bitcoin that still survives to this day, but is not as popular as the big one. So, we anticipate something similar maybe happening in the future where there's an efficient form of bitcoin that makes sense during a climate crisis to everyone from everyday investors to big financial situations. We think people will be more and more concerned about climate change and will want to make sure that when they’re participating in the crypto economy that it's aligned with their values and the realities of a world dealing with the climate crisis.

Ariana Brocious: Who would be in favor of keeping the current system and why?

Rolf Skar: Well, there’s a vocal I think it's a minority, a vocal group of mostly folks online who have sort of an orthodox approach to bitcoin where it's perfect just the way it is and even constructive criticism and debate is not welcome. And so, there's a rigidity there, a cognitive rigidity that would have to be overcome. But again, even with a code change they could probably stick with an older version of bitcoin just wouldn't be as popular. The mining companies themselves are probably resistant to change because right now their business model has everything to do with mining. And in the future the whole idea would be to sidestep the need for all that electricity usage and the rest of it. However, that said, I think there are some upside for them too in a transition away from bitcoin mining could be designed to provide financial incentives and essentially a soft landing for them. I mean all of their electricity bills would go away essentially and they wouldn't have to keep buying these expensive machines. So, I think there’s a way for them to participate in the system and benefit from a transition as well.

Ariana Brocious: So, as a casual reader of financial headlines. My impression is that the bitcoin bubble burst and with the collapse of trading platforms like FTX. Is there any reason to believe that cryptocurrencies will just be a fad that will go away on their own and we don't need to worry too much about the carbon footprint?

Rolf Skar: I don't think so. You know the headlines touting bitcoin or cryptocurrencies' demise seem to come out every couple of months and they've done that for years now. I think there is real value in these systems to people. Now, maybe not you and me, but certainly many millions of others and there’s a lot of potential upside. And there’s a lot of people who see that there's money to be made. I mean FTX collapsed, but then after that we saw banks and financial institutions move into the space not move away from it. Buying up distressed assets, setting up their own trading platforms like Fidelity, the big 401[k] and benefits provider retirement packages, things like that debuted its own trading platform and is offering it to their tens of millions of 401[k] customers. So, I trust that the likes of Goldman Sachs and Fidelity as they’re moving into the space have done their homework and they know that this is not going away anytime soon.

Ariana Brocious: So, even if bitcoin moved to some lower energy protocol. Every transaction uses some energy, right? And I'm curious how much and how the energy use of a single Ethereum transaction, for example, compares to like a Visa or MasterCard transaction.

Rolf Skar: Yeah, that's a good question. So, it depends. there's a bunch of different popular cryptocurrencies. Some of them arguably are using less energy than a Visa transaction, for example, because they were designed to be highly efficient. And there’s a lot of upside to that. Right now a single bitcoin transaction depending on how you define it uses as much electricity as an average household in the US over about 27 days. So, almost a month’s worth of electricity for one transaction.

Ariana Brocious: Wow that’s a lot. That is a lot of energy.

Rolf Skar: Yeah. Depending on how slice it that's 70,000 plus, you know, Visa transactions for one bitcoin transaction.

Ariana Brocious: So, do you think we should get rid of bitcoin altogether?

Rolf Skar: Nah, not really. I mean I think there’s a lot of people who are finding a lot of benefit in it. And this campaign is really about like the community and climate impacts and the upside of a switch, a switch away from the current way of doing things to a more efficient future.

Ariana Brocious: Rolf Skar is a Senior Advisor with Greenpeace USA. Thank you so much for joining us on Climate One.

Rolf Skar: Thank you.

Greg Dalton: You’re listening to a Climate One conversation about the climate impact of crypto mining. Our podcasts typically contain extra content beyond what’s heard on the radio. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods.

Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Coming up, two perspectives on the impact of bitcoin’s high energy use:

Thomas Cmar: It's sucking up energy that could otherwise be used to power people's homes and their workplaces. And what we need to be doing at this stage in order to decarbonize our grid is prioritizing the building of transmission and taking up as much of that energy as possible.

Brittany Kaiser: This is not the only industry that uses a significant amount of energy, but this is an industry that is self-organizing in order to become more environmentally friendly and to have a positive impact on society around the world.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton. Now that we have a grounding in the basics of bitcoin and crypto mining, we’re going to dig into the arguments for and against this digital currency when viewed through a climate lens. Joining me is Thomas Cmar, a senior attorney for the Earthjustice Clean Energy Program, and Brittany Kaiser, Chair of the Board at Gryphon Digital Mining, a Bitcoin miner pursuing a negative carbon footprint. As we just heard from Rolf Skar of Greenpeace, Bitcoin has gotten a bad rap among environmentalists because of its massive energy use. I asked Brittany to respond to that depiction of her industry.

Brittany Kaiser: You can build all of the best technologies in the world but education and legislation and regulation go hand-in-hand with the building of those new technologies in order to make sure we’re actually solving problems in a way that has larger impacts. And unfortunately, even though bitcoin has been around for over 13 years now there's still a very small population around the world that is fully clued in on how these technologies function. Once people actually understand how these technologies function and how important they are for the progression of society past some of the unfortunately unethical technologies that are mostly used today, everyone will see that this is a huge opportunity for society for freedom and for the ability for technology to become more ethical and congruent with the type of world we want to see.

Greg Dalton: So, are you saying that the environmentalists who point to the energy impact of bitcoin are overstating the climate impacts of bitcoin?

Brittany Kaiser: I would say that they are concentrating on just a few of the bad actors that happen to be in the industry. There are tons of companies and individuals that are in the space that have been seeking to do it in a better way. Bitcoin mining can use any type of energy and actually in plenty of business models, we are incentivized to use carbon free energy sources to use stranded renewables to be able to balance grids in places where there is instability. I think it's really important for us to recognize the use cases of this technology. And that this is not the only industry that uses a significant amount of energy, but this is an industry that is self-organizing in order to become more environmentally friendly and to have a positive impact on society around the world.

Greg Dalton: Right. So, you want to sort of separate the energy used and the service of the technology and have that distinction. Tom, How big a problem is bitcoin?

Thomas Cmar: What we've seen just over the last few years is an explosive growth in cryptomining in the United States that's impacting utilities, energy systems, emissions, communities and ratepayers. Just in the year prior to July 2022, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club put out a report in September of 2022 that looked at the bitcoin mining that had taken place over the previous year. And just over that previous year, bitcoin had consumed an estimated 36 billion kWh of electricity which is as much as all the electricity consumed in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island combined. And this leads to massive carbon dioxide emissions. The vast majority of the bitcoin mining that’s happening is still powered by fossil fuel generation. We’re at a time right now where we have no time to waste to clean up and decarbonize our grid if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. And what we’re seeing is that these mining facilities are chasing loopholes in our energy system, looking to set up shop in places where they can get the cheapest energy prices and, in the process, slowing down the transition away from dirty fuels and toward clean energy. That we need to be getting the clean energy to people who need it. And Bitcoin mining has popped up as a major obstacle that’s dragging us in the wrong direction.

Greg Dalton: Brittany, your response.

Brittany Kaiser: So, much of the bitcoin mining operations that have gone for stranded renewables. The reason why they’re able to set up shop there is because there is no other client for that energy. And so, when that is set up it allows those renewable facilities not only be further developed but hopefully to fund those facilities until they eventually could be connected to the grid or to any local neighborhoods that would be able to use it. But there are tons of facilities all over the United States I mean North America in general, Europe, South America, all over Africa and Asia that are specifically being funded by new bitcoin mining operations but then are selling renewable energy back to the grid or funding stranded operations until it might be possible to fund that grid connection. Which is usually not a quick or simple decision for a local government to make or even for big power companies to make. So, I think it’s really important to think about the fact that there is a financial incentive to scale out renewable facilities to scale out carbon free facilities that are being powered by both nuclear and renewables. And that that opportunity is really unrivaled and it's only going to come to fruition if we have the correct legislation and regulation that help us prevent bad actors that are using too many fossil fuels or even setting up new facilities with fossil fuels. We want to incentivize companies not just in this industry, but in all industries to decarbonize and to create the opportunity for more carbon free power sources to be available for everyone.

Greg Dalton: I mean it seems to me that like what both of you are saying could be true. Yes, there are some developers that are developing bitcoin for renewables and what Tom is saying that there's a lot of bitcoin mining that happens fossil fuels. Both can be true if we’re looking at different halves of the pie. But Brittany, I’m still unclear if stranded coal is cheaper, certain people without the regulation that you're talking about are gonna go for that. And I'm not clear also, where the incentive comes from who pays a green premium for bitcoin that is mined using renewable energy.

Brittany Kaiser: So, right now there is a market for green coins that is something that is very early and not something that anyone that specifically choosing to decarbonize their operations is shooting for. What we’re really shooting for is the ability to be an ESG friendly company where we are proven to be sustainable and therefore most of the biggest funds around the world that are ESG mandated would then be able to not just invest in our companies but also in bitcoin as an ESG friendly asset class. That's really what everyone is working towards so I think it's really important that all companies are treated individually because every single industry, including bitcoin mining has good actors and has bad actors. And the entire point of having common sense regulation is to block out bad actors and incentivize good actors to make even better decisions.

Greg Dalton: Right. And you might be doing that with Gryphon, your company, to be an environmental, social and governance or ESG certified business so you can attract certain kinds of capital people who want to align their values with yours. And it still seems that, there’s other companies out there that are going to go for the cheapest path and that is as Tom saying, let’s get you in here Tom, hooking up, you know, dormant coal plants and getting the cheapest, dirtiest energy.

Thomas Cmar: Yeah, so we have seen throughout the United States that there've been a number of coal-fired power plants that were slated to retire because they are no longer cost-effective to serve regular customers that have had their lives extended. Meaning millions of tons of carbon emissions per year because of what's called behind the meter bitcoin mining where bitcoin mining operation sets up shop right next to the coal-fired power plants and then runs it 24/7 at a rate that it would otherwise be running at a much smaller percentage and moving into retirement. But I wanted to circle back to the idea of curtailed renewable energy. We have not seen any examples that have been verified of a new wind or solar installation that has been developed primarily by a bitcoin operation. Even if there were any, they would be the major exception not the rule. The fact is that mining operations operate and draw on the grid at all hours, not just when there's excess solar or excess wind. And the companies that are developing solar and wind have an incentive to try to connect up to the grid as quickly as possible. The idea that a bitcoin mining operation which is inherently wasteful by design it's using 99.95% more energy than what's called the proof of stake model, the Ethereum approach to verifying transactions, currently uses. The idea that using dramatically wasteful amounts of energy in order to encourage new renewables is in our view, deeply flawed and bad public policy.

Greg Dalton: We’ll get back to my conversation with Thomas Cmar and Brittany Kaiser later in the show. But because a lot of this discussion can be abstract, we wanted to visit a couple of these crypto mines on the ground. As Lily Jamali reports, “mining” of cryptocurrencies has become big business here in the U.S. But communities where these crypto miners have moved in have misgivings about their new neighbors.

NATS: Hum of crypto mining machines

Lily Jamali: Inside an old aluminum smelting plant in the upstate New York town of Massena, thousands of high-powered computers are in the hunt to generate the next bitcoin.

NATS: More humming

Lily Jamali: A year ago, Ben DeGraw – who was then the facility director at North Country Colocation Services – gave me a tour. Stacks of these mining machines are organized along giant wings of the plant called potlines.

Ben DeGraw: These potlines used to hold what was known as smelters, and they used to process aluminum and other metal materials. Rather than starting over, we were able to use a little bit of this infrastructure and expand on it to basically, you know, suit our mining needs here today.

Lily Jamali: The operators of this crypto mining facility were drawn here by the space, the cold weather – good for keeping all those machines from overheating – and above all, the cheap power. Over the last few years, as crypto has caught on, operations like this have sprouted up across the country, with their numbers exploding after China banned crypto mining in 2021.New York, with its abundance of affordable hydroelectric power, became one popular location.

NATS: PROTEST

Lily Jamali: South of Massena in New York’s Finger Lakes, a group called Seneca Lake Guardian helped rally support for the first partial crypto mining moratorium by any state in the nation. The group has been organizing against a local operation that brought a retired fossil fuel plant back to life to mine crypto, saying its presence hurts the local agritourism industry. The plant was grandfathered in under the moratorium and is still in operation.

NATS KAYAKING

Lily Jamali: Last summer, I kayaked there with Kim Holtzman, a member of the group.

She says the plant runs around the clock, making the lake water warmer. And the constant noise affects neighbors like her who live along the lakeshore.

Kim Holtzman: In the winter, we constantly see a plume of smoke from the smokestacks. It's frustrating it's, it's, it makes me sad. It makes me angry. I'm It just changes the whole environment.

Lily Jamali: While New York has had some success in regulating crypto mining, Lee Reiners, a lecturing fellow at Duke Law School, says increasingly, crypto miners are drawn to smaller, more conservative communities, promising jobs and tax revenue.

Lee Reiners: And that's a very enticing message, especially if you're in a struggling rural area, if you're a local politician. And so they’ve had a lot of success in rural communities.

Lily Jamali: But it’s hard to know if those benefits actually play out. Reiners says there’s a lot we don’t know about how much power crypto miners use, what the source of that power is, and the amount of jobs and revenue they actually bring to communities.

Lee Reiners: We're really operating in this, this gray area.

Lily Jamali: In rural Navarro County, Texas, local Jackie Sawicky has been fighting the arrival of a crypto mining facility planned by a company called Riot Platforms.

Jackie Sawicky: This is an indigent county. We have absolutely crumbling infrastructure. The roads are terrible. We have local power infrastructure issues on top of the Texas grid issues. And those things aren't being addressed.

Lily Jamali: Neither Riot Platforms nor Navarro County’s economic development officer responded to a request for comment. But they’ve said the new facility will bring millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs to the area. Sawicky calls those empty promises, and says the crypto miners want cheap power and cheap water, too.

Jackie Sawicky: it's gonna raise our electricity bills, they're gonna use a ton of water when we don't have water to spare.

Lily Jamali: Crypto miners say much of the backlash against their industry is coming from people who just don’t get crypto. Ben Gagnon is chief mining officer at Canada-based Bitfarms.

Ben Gagnon: For people who don't see any value in Bitcoin It's very easy to ascribe any amount of energy usage as wasteful.

Lily Jamali: Gagnon says 5% of the energy Bitfarms uses comes from natural gas, a fossil fuel. The rest comes from renewables.. and might go unused if not for companies like his.

Ben Gagnon: When we want to maximize profit, we want to seek those sources of energy that nobody else wants, right? That means energy that is often wasted.

Lily Jamali: That argument falls flat in Plattsburgh, New York. The city enacted a temporary crypto mining moratorium after residents saw power prices skyrocket following the arrival of a mining operation in 2017. Even when a mining operation is using 100% carbon-free power, it’s increasing overall demand, compelling grid operators to put more fossil fuel generation online to meet the needs of other consumers, says economist Colin Read; he’s the former mayor.

Colin Read: Even though this industry could claim in Plattsburgh that they're 100% of sustainable energy, it forces peaker power plants, natural gas plants to stay online, we're using a lot more natural gas power in New York State, since Bitcoin came to the state than we were before.

Lily Jamali: That’s even as New York’s population is declining. He says that’s proof that crypto mining’s environmental impacts are very real. For Climate One, I’m Lily Jamali.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. Coming up, weighing the value of bitcoin’s security as a digital currency against its massive energy use:

Brittany Kaiser: The entire point of creating a solid technology like bitcoin and why everyone's been following it for the past 13 years is specifically because it is so incredibly secure and we don't have anything like it.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton. Let’s get back to my crypto mining discussion with Thomas Cmar of Earthjustice and Brittany Kaiser of Gryphon Digital Mining. Last fall, Ethereum, the world's second-largest cryptocurrency, changed their code in a way that reduced its emissions by 99.9%. I asked Brittany why Bitcoin couldn’t also change its code from the energy-intensive “proof of work” validation method, and reduce its own emissions in a similar way.

Brittany Kaiser: It sounds pretty good if you’re not interested in the future of data protection and privacy. The entire point of proof of work is that it is the most secure technology that we have in the world today. The bitcoin blockchain has never been hacked because of the layered encryption that is inherent in the proof of work model. If you start to look at the benefits of this type of technology completely outweighing most of the technologies that we use today for auditability, permission structures, tracking and traceability, crime prevention, you wouldn't say that this is wasted energy at all. In fact, the fact that bitcoins are an asset class that is traded around the world and considered one of the best performing assets of our lifetime is one thing. The second thing is what the technology actually enables, which is freedom, transparency and real data protection and privacy, which there are no other technologies that actually enable that today.

Greg Dalton: Right. So, it seems like if you optimize for climate you go down one path you try to solve data and climate at the same time. That takes us to a different place, Tom.

Thomas Cmar: Well, it's important not to conflate wasteful proof of work mining with all digital currencies. From an environmental standpoint we are in favor of using technology in a smarter and more efficient way, but the idea that an operation that has very high energy use isn't going to have negative consequences for our grid and for the people who have to pay for electricity to live their lives is problematic. Increased load is increased load, and you see all over the country that states like Texas, Kentucky where there's excess coal-fired capacity where there's in Texas a deregulated energy grid where bitcoin miners are able to set up shop and take advantage of prices that are lower in one place at one time and then switch their operations as prices shift across the grid. What it's doing is it's sucking up energy that could otherwise be used to power people's homes and their workplaces. And what we need to be doing at this stage with in order to decarbonize our grid is prioritizing the building of transmission and taking up as much of that energy as possible, not allowing companies to come in and profit off of the existing weaknesses and inefficiencies in our power grid.

Greg Dalton: Right. We have a regulatory regime for utilities that was designed on affordability and reliability. And the regulations, Brittany, never envisioned these companies coming in kind of behind the meter, so to speak, and developing these mining operations. So, it seems like they are exploiting a loophole, something never anticipated when America's electrical grid was designed and regulated. Is that fair?

Brittany Kaiser: I'm not sure that's completely fair and applicable to every state in the US. I think that the legislators and regulators in Texas are incredibly thankful that bitcoin mining has come in in such a big way in the state because unfortunately without the winterization of the grid in Texas where I am right now and that has gone through incredibly destructive storms over the past three winters. Without bitcoin mining last year we wouldn't have been able to actually power large parts of the Texas grid. The largest bitcoin mining operators in the state reached an agreement with the governor and many other legislators specifically to push their power back to the grid, power that wouldn't have otherwise existed. Not that was being eaten up off of the grid, but from power capacity that was created for these bitcoin mining companies where on a dime, you're able to stop bitcoin miners and just switch them off and then push that energy back to the grid. So, it was able to stabilize Texas in the worst winter storm that they had ever seen. And therefore, bitcoin mining saved lives this past winter in Texas which I think is very exciting and something that we should look to see as a huge opportunity for stabilizing grids in places that have similar scenarios. No, that's not the same everywhere and I totally agree with you that coming in and taking advantage and mining on the grid when there are local towns that are in need shouldn't be a practice that happens. I honestly do not see that many examples of that being the problem. Usually bitcoin mining operations have to build out extra capacity for their operations and therefore that operation can produce excess energy and that energy can be turned off the energy usage can be turned off and it can be fed back to the grid in an emergency scenario.

Greg Dalton: Tom, your response, can bitcoin be kind of a battery that helps out in certain times like when the Texas grid freezes?

Thomas Cmar: I think that's the sort of distorted picture in the sense of, to give you an analogy, it's like saying that in your home, in your families’ home you're trying to save money on energy bills you’re switching out lights to more efficient LEDs, but then you have a teenage son or daughter who brings home 10 computers and leaves them turned on all the time with all of the energy use that that entails. And then when there's a need to save money the teenage son or daughter asks to be paid in order to turn them off. That's what this demand response is: it's paying major energy users to turn off their operations to allow that power to shore up the rest of the grid. To me that sounds like bitcoin miners are claiming squatter's rights on the grid where they’re saying we’re here and we’re gonna use all this energy, but if you pay us, we’ll turn it off. And to me that's not a valuable activity or something that should be applauded.

Greg Dalton: Brittany, isn’t there a growth problem here with just the load change because as bitcoin evolves and becomes more complex that it’s kind of this beast that has more and more energy appetite over time. And that growth itself you know some people say that’s why it’s wasteful by design that there’s a growth problem here just the vast sheer amount of energy needed to sustain this activity.

Brittany Kaiser: Well, until all 21 million bitcoins are actually mined, yes, the difficulty tends to go up. And that is why it is the most secure technology that we have in the world today. So, thinking about how we value privacy and its relationship with ethics, its relationship with the environment. I think everything that we can possibly do on the legislative and regulatory front to incentivize bitcoin miners to be good actors and to do the right thing and to choose to develop renewables to choose to develop nuclear sites and have carbon-free operations as well as being able to pay to develop enough where we can push more green energy back into the grid that that's really the ideal scenario. It's something that our company is certainly doing at Gryphon Digital Mining and it's something that there are more and more big bitcoin mining companies that are self-organizing specifically to do that. And by self-organizing, I mean this organization started before there was any draconian regulation about something out bitcoin mining if they continue to use fossil fuels like the bill that got passed in New York which you know I see the intention behind that bill. Our operations in New York are hundred percent hydroelectric, so we continue to bitcoin mine in New York despite that bill. But it means that other people in the industry that were using fossil fuels were not able to do so. And so, looking at regulation that instead of being completely draconian like that but still incentivizes good behavior and productive behavior and the protection of the environment I think is the right way to do this because bitcoin mining isn't going anywhere. No one is going to stop mining bitcoin, no one is gonna change proof of work to proof of stake. Proof of stake can be spoofed and the entire point of creating a solid technology like bitcoin and why everyone's been following it for the past 13 years is specifically because it is so incredibly secure and we don't have anything like it. So, to maintain the bitcoin network in the most responsible way possible and to be able to produce the data that proves that bitcoin is a green asset class is definitely where a lot of the energy should be going. And what are the best regulations and incentives that’s completely up for debate. And I think it's something that we shall all be spending more time on.

Greg Dalton: Tom, your response?

Thomas Cmar: We’re hitting on a really important point here, which is the lack of consistent monitoring and regulation of this industry. The crypto asset mining industry continues to be nebulous and opaque and has very little regulation in reporting standards. There's no single agency that is tracking. We don't even know where all of the facilities are let alone what energy they're using where it’s being sourced from what their emissions are. And that makes it very difficult to track and get a complete picture of this full impact. We know there's been this massive explosion in this industry. We know that as of last year 38% of bitcoin mining in the world is taking place in the United States and it has this massive energy use and CO2 emissions impact associated with it, but we don't know enough to be able to point to exactly where the largest users are where the facilities are and how to most effectively regulate. There is legislation pending now in Congress that Earthjustice and a number of other environmental groups have supported called the Crypto Environmental Transparency Act introduced by Senator Markey that would be a first step towards answering some of these important questions. And we would think that that would need to be in place as a baseline. You need to have agencies that are tracking where this energy use is taking place because only then can we truly understand the impacts that's having on our grid, on our ratepayers and on our emissions.

Greg Dalton: And Brittany, you seem like the kind of person that would support that kind of transparency and data collection. But a lot of actors in the space seem to be of different stripe that they’re more under the radar antiestablishment more independent types. It would not I think submit to voluntary disclosure of what they're doing and where.

Brittany Kaiser: Yeah, of course. Our team at Gryphon Digital Mining where we are soon to be going public on NASDAQ. We definitely are submitting ourselves purposefully to all of the audits and public reporting and public data that we can possibly do. We are going above and beyond what anyone else in this industry has ever done, hoping to be one of the leaders in the industry and show other people how it should be done. In creating those tools that you rightly pointed out, Tom, that are still lacking and still opaque. One of the technical consultations that we’ve been doing for the past two years, specifically with the energy web nonprofit a group of energy industry professionals that created a nonprofit to help the crypto industry decarbonize. We’ve been creating tools with them some of the largest auditing firms and the biggest asset managers specifically to have those tools that trace and turn exactly where those ASIC computers are being plugged in. What is the exact energy mix of those power plants if they are off grid if they are plugged into grids? What is the most granular data we can get about the grid mix and extrapolate that to actually have some numbers for those different sites. And that that would then be reported publicly alongside the data of where those machines came from, how they were created, where they got to where they’re plugged in. The energy usage that they have while they are plugged in and how they are retired or recycled at the end of the computer’s lifecycle which is usually around three years plus, depending on how the machines are treated. I just wanted to respond to that particular bill because I'm a big fan of Senator Markey. He's done some incredible work in data protection and privacy and technology over his lifetime. And I really believe that this bill has good intentions but it forgets to mention that somehow the crypto industry or bitcoin mining are somehow being the first industries to be subjected to these types of transparency protocols. I think it’s important that if we’re going to think about this for the crypto industry, we should think about this for all industries. And if we’re really going to reach our climate goals and work together with the private and public sector that everyone should have more energy transparency in tracking and traceability of the energy that they're using because it's definitely not just bitcoin mining that is completely un-transparent about what energy is being used, where their computers are located in which data centers and how those data centers are being powered.

Greg Dalton: Brittany, you have also been an environmental activist in addition to being the whistleblower in the Cambridge Analytica debacle with Facebook. And there's a certain stream of environmentalism, which is all toward efficiency using less doing less walking more lightly on the earth. Frankly the math of eight, 10 billion people living like you and Tom and me and the people listening to this doesn't really add up. And yet it seems that digital mining and bitcoin is this curve going in this other direction with exponential growth resource growth in consumption at a time when we’re all trying to kind of be more efficient and get to consume less. I just want to ask you philosophically it’s like we’re trying to go in this one direction, but bitcoin is this curve going in this entirely different direction. Does that resonate with you?

Brittany Kaiser: For me, I see that the future of technology is not just the crypto industry. It's AI, it’s data science, it's robotics, it's electric cars. Every industry is actually using exponentially more energy every day than the day before as we go into a world where emerging technologies are touching absolutely everything. And that means that we’re going to have to become more responsible about our energy regulation in the legislation that governs how every industry can use energy. I do believe that we’re currently creating tons of different tools to help bring transparency and accountability to at least technology industries. Because I do believe that large-scale data centers are going to be one of the biggest issues when we’re thinking about energy consumption and fossil fuels consumption and moving to carbon free energy sources. So, the more that we can actually collaborate on creating a green future, the better. But pretending like shutting down industries is the best thing that we can do to positively impact the environment without thinking about what is the purpose of these industries, what are the positive impacts of these industries does this industry have much higher positive impact than tons of other industries that could be squashed out to achieve our climate goals. Yes, but I'm not talking about stopping industries, I'm not talking about ending jobs or ending entire innovations. What I think instead, is that we have the ability to make all of these industries, auditable, transparent, responsible, and of course green.

Greg Dalton: Tom, if you accept as Brittany stated the bitcoin mining isn't going away, banning it unlikely though some states like New York might try to prohibit from using fossil fuels. What is the path forward?

Thomas Cmar: Well, I would say that you know one of the basic principles of energy policy is that the cheapest form of energy is the energy that you never have to generate in the first place. Energy efficiency has long-standing been a major way that we've made progress in our country on climate for decades. And the wasteful proof of work mining is taking us in the other direction. So, I agree that we need to find a middle ground. We need to find ways to provide the digital services of the 21st century and in ways that will benefit people. But simply saying that we have to accept the status quo of proof of work mining with the massive explosion that we've seen just in a few years we've seen enough energy consumption to power five states come from this one industry. It’s having an impact on the ground. It's slowing down our ability to clean up the grid. It's raising people's electricity prices and it’s generating millions of tons of CO2 emissions. And so, from the standpoint of the communities who are being impacted from all of that, it's simply not acceptable to say that the industry has to be allowed to continue going forward as it is. We need much stronger regulation to get to the heart of this issue of not allowing the types of practices that we've seen that where companies have been able to exploit loopholes in regulation and squat on the grid where it's possible for them to do so. It’s simply not acceptable to allow that to continue.

Greg Dalton: Brittany, the protocol that bitcoin uses to verify transactions as we’ve been saying is proof of work which essentially requires a computer is running the system do a lot of what seems like meaningless work guessing really big numbers. I hear you saying that the system is more secure. That's why it's preferred for bitcoin There’s a new proposed framework called proof of useful work like verifying CO2 removal. Can you explain how that can work?

Brittany Kaiser: So, if you can prove that you are using carbon free energy sources. Or you can prove that in your business, you are removing carbon from the atmosphere, then you are actually more likely to win those mining rewards. So, for those that don't know how bitcoin mining works. There are tons of computers all around the world in data centers. All these computers compete in order to solve the cryptographic equation that encrypts all of that data and creates a new bitcoin. In order to change from proof of work to something like proof of useful work that would have to be proposed to the public and bitcoin miners would have to signal for it. You’d have to have a majority of bitcoin miners around the world signal and say yes, we would like to do this network upgrade and then the network upgrade is implemented. So, technically it is possible there was in upgrade that was implemented to the bitcoin network last year and I think that anything that could possibly save energy is something that is hundred percent worth exploring. but I think people would be very afraid and very skeptical of anyone trying to upgrade the bitcoin network with a change in proof of work.

Greg Dalton: As we get to the end here to sum up, what do you each think that you can agree on. Brittany, what have you heard from Tom that you think you agree with him on?

Brittany Kaiser: What we definitely can agree on is that it’s always possible to do better. And companies are becoming more responsible. Our grid is decarbonizing. And that ideally, we have common sense regulation that is incentivizing good actors to continue to be good actors and those that haven't been good actors in the past have those incentives to drive them towards better behavior. So, everything that we've been working towards at Gryphon Digital Mining is to make sure that this industry can show thought leadership and that we can be green we can be ESG friendly and that in general bitcoin can be a green asset and ESG mandated asset class.

Greg Dalton: Tom, what can you agree on with Brittany?

Thomas Cmar: I think I've been heartened to hear agreement around the idea that we need transparency and we need effective regulation. One of the major challenges to environmental regulation is you have to first be able to measure pollution or measure a problem before you can begin to effectively regulate it. And I was heartened to hear Brittany speak to the idea of being transparent with the carbon accounting that her company uses internally. I would love to see more companies do that but ultimately, it's something that has to be universally required in terms of we need to know where these facilities are getting their energy from we need to have a full accounting of those emissions in order to have a better debate about how ultimately to solve the challenges and problems that we’re facing.

Greg Dalton: Well, I’d like to thank you both for coming and having this very candid and lively conversation Tom Cmar and Brittany Kaiser, thank you so much for sharing your insights on bitcoin and blockchain today on Climate One.

Brittany Kaiser: Thank you, Greg and thank you, Tom for all the work that you're doing. Pleasure to be here today.

Thomas Cmar: Thank you so much for having me.

Greg Dalton: Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe wherever you get your pods. Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Our producers and audio editors are Ariana Brocious and Austin Colón. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

4:10 – Rolf Skar on bitcoin’s energy use and security

10:30 – Rolf Skar on getting support to change the code for bitcoin

19:00 – Brittany Kaiser on characterization of bitcoin by environmental community

25:30 – Thomas Cmar on bitcoin mining energy sources

27:30 – Lily Jamali story on bitcoin mine opposition in New York and other places

34:00 – Brittany Kaiser on the value of bitcoin’s digital security

41:00 – Discussion about regulations for bitcoin mining

51:40 – Using bitcoin mining to validate CO2 removal

Play

Two Voices on Climate That Will Surprise You

Megan Biscieglia — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 23:42:14 +0000

Two Voices on Climate That Will Surprise You

04/07/2023

It’s easy to write off people outside our own ideological bubbles, even when we may have things in common. But as the effects of the climate crisis become more apparent, we need leaders from all political and industrial perspectives to work together.

In the US, climate is a polarizing issue where it is assumed that one side is working to reduce emissions and the other side is defending the status quo. But that’s only a caricature of reality. Where people land ideologically on energy and climate policy is much more a spectrum than a binary.

Arjun Murti is a partner at Veriten, an energy consultancy, and holds board or advisory positions at ClearPath, ConocoPhillips – the large oil company developing the new Willow project in Alaska – and the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Murtis says, “I don't think this stuff has to be ideological. I don't think being affiliated or covering or investing in oil and gas companies makes you good or evil. It's a critically needed energy source for the world.”

Murti tends to defy ideological pigeonholes. While he does sit on the board of a major oil company, he also is a fan of EVs, “I'm personally a very happy owner of an electric vehicle and I will never or very unlikely to ever drive a gasoline car again because I simply enjoy driving the electric vehicle better. And I think that’s the type of positive engagement and positive consumer choices I'd like to see.”

Republicans led on the passage of a bill that would make the consideration of ESG, or environmental, social and governance, issues illegal. President Biden went on to veto the bill, but the bill was a surprising attack on Wall Street from a usually pro-Wall Street party. Murti says, “It is deeply unfortunate that somehow environmental, social, and governance, which is a pretty obscure element of Wall Street stock analysis, has somehow become part of our culture war.”

Discussions with those you don’t always agree with can be uncomfortable. But civil conversation is so important to finding common ground. Without it, we end up in stalemate, or with one side pushing through policies the other tries to stop – all of which slows progress towards a goal we all share, which is keeping the climate habitable. Murti says, “We absolutely can have a sustainable future that does eliminate the worst risks of climate change, while ensuring we do have a healthy economy. Those are absolutely compatible goals and let's stop fighting about this.”

House Representative John Curtis, who represents Utah’s 3rd district, is chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus. The caucus has about 80 members in the House, and has a stated goal of “reducing emissions, not energy choices.” Curtis says, “Those that are part of our caucus first of all, we’re not all completely like-minded, there's obviously many different opinions within the caucus. But as a general rule, I think it's fair to say that we care deeply about this earth.”

Curtis admits that the Republican party has been bad at branding on the climate issue. “The extremism sometimes in this conversation scares Republicans away. And extremism is not good on either side. But the reality is, if we want to make a long-lasting change, we need to be in a bipartisan mode on this.”

Guests

Arjun Murti

Partner, Veriten; Director, ConocoPhillips board

John Curtis

U.S. Representative (R-UT)

Wall Street’s Role in the Energy Transition (energypolicy.columbia.edu)

Willow Project Explained (cnn.com)

Conservative Climate Caucus (curtis.house.gov)

White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi on Willow and Biden’s Climate Agenda (climateone.org)

Note: Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the actual audio before quoting it.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Ariana Brocious: And I’m Ariana Brocious

Greg Dalton: In the US climate is a polarizing issue. Addressing the transitions we need to make requires engaging with people who see things differently. That requires looking beyond villainization, listening more, judging less.

Ariana Brocious: But let's face it, judging is easy and listening can be hard. And sometimes these conversations can be really uncomfortable. Still civil conversation is so important to finding common ground. Without it, we end up in a stalemate, or with one side pushing through policies that the other side tries to stop when they get into power. And all of that slows the progress toward a goal that we all share, which is keeping our planet habitable.

John Curtis: I'm involved in this because somebody appealed to what I think we were all born with, which is an innate desire to be good stewards over this earth.

Greg Dalton: In this episode we’re going to hear from two people who are not typical voices on a climate show. These two guests were recommended by a center-right think tank, Clear Path.

Ariana Brocious: Right. Because climate can be seen as a political issue, in the US especially, and it’s often framed as an issue that the liberal or the left cares about more than the right. That’s not actually true in all cases. It just depends on how we’re talking about the issue. A lot of the things we want to do are actually similar. We just maybe use different words for them.

Greg Dalton: Later in the episode we’ll hear my conversation with John Curtis, Representative from Utah and chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus.

John Curtis: The extremism sometimes in this conversation scares Republicans away. And my extremism is not good on either side. But the reality as you know, if we want to make a long-lasting change, we need to be at a bipartisan mode on this. And clearly to the extent that we’re bipartisan we’ll make quicker action.

Greg Dalton:To unpack what I think he's saying there, bipartisan legislative action is slower to achieve and more durable once policy’s in place, and that durability will lead to faster emission reductions. Because there's consistency over time and administration.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah, and I think there's a lot of evidence to show that even oil and gas companies, I mean, any kind of business industry wants predictability, right?

So the more that we can come together around some of these issues and pass bipartisan policy, the better it'll be for really all players.

Greg Dalton: Right. And although the Inflation Reduction Act was one party, it does seem to be pretty durable and popular on the other side, in part because there's a lot of Republican tax friendly ideas in there. I also spoke with Arjun Murti who is a partner at Veriten, an energy consultancy who holds board or advisory positions at ClearPath, ConocoPhillips - the large oil company developing the new Willow project in Alaska - and the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

Arjun Murti: There are so many things we can do from a positive standpoint. I get excited about it but then get frustrated when I see the kind debate being either on the left fossil fuels are evil or on the right, solar and wind are dumb climate is always changing let's do nothing. (:14)

Greg Dalton:Arjun says things that will definitely challenge even upset our regular listeners.

Ariana Brocious: Yeah. It's a perspective we don't always have here on Climate One, and I'm kind of curious, Greg, what it was like just having that conversation and interviewing him.

Greg Dalton: It was challenging for me. I wanted to jump in and say but but but and counter, and I think that kind of challenge is constructive, honestly. How often do our listeners, even we hear from a board member at a major oil company or a Republican member of Congress talking about energy and climate. This is really hard and really important.

Ariana Brocious: Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released a new synthesis report emphasizing that decarbonization has to speed up dramatically to keep global heating under dangerous levels. So we are in a moment of real urgency and we have to act.

Greg Dalton: Right. I asked Murti his opinion of the pace of the energy transition.

Arjun Murti: I think we’re currently on track for what I’m gonna call worst of all worlds where we've done nothing to bend the curve on greenhouse gas emissions due to what I might call a war on fossil fuel supply. We’re on track to simply have high and volatile prices. And so, I think in a world where we are trying to provide energy for all available abundant, secure, reliable, but to do so within improving environmental footprint and a decreasing carbon intensity. I don't think we’re currently on track for that. So, if the IPCC report is calling for a need to accelerate the transition. So far, I think progress is lacking.

Greg Dalton: And that's lagging so some people would say that's lagging because the industry is trying to slow it down and in Washington and elsewhere, and you're saying that villainization of supply is the problem that's why we’re not going faster?

Arjun Murti: There’s so much focus on fossil fuel supply, as if changing fossil fuel supply will somehow lead to a changing greenhouse gas emission. And I think what I’d say is to me the question is demand. Why do we demand fossil fuels in the first place? It is the power economies both at an advanced level and a basic level the world needs energy. And it is why we use crude oil, natural gas and coal. What the world needs is to find alternative sources supply to compete effectively with oil and natural gas and coal. We’re making some progress. But there’s still a long way to go. Where I think there's a real missed opportunity is to address the demand side of the equation. And I feel like this, especially perhaps the environmental community, this idea that all we need to do is stop supply and somehow magically demand will go away. And I would actually flip that on its head and say until you attack the demand side of the equation until you move off for example, sport-utility vehicles, until you truly address what are some low hanging efficiency gains that can happen and until we have really an abundance of alternative forms of energy that actually compete effectively with fossil fuels, it's not going to be a question of trying to kill fossil fuels or not. And I would like the conversation to eventually evolve to addressing the demand side of the equation as much time as we spent on the supply side.

Greg Dalton: What often happens is electricity and liquid transportation fuels are conflated. And I would say that if you take the electricity side, there has been a change in supply. I now have solar on my roof a lot of people do around the country. Solar and wind have created alternative supply for electricity. But the problem is where liquid transportation fuels petroleum's had a monopoly for a century and there isn’t the same level of – biofuels haven't really materialized the way we thought they would 10 years ago. Kind of disappointing. So, isn’t it the supply and demand different when you're talking about electricity versus transportation fuels?

Arjun Murti: Greg, this is such a great point and thank you for raising it because it gets to a heart of a bunch of different issues. Electricity tends to be local both in its production and its use. And it is possible to change your electricity grid to move away from fossil fuels if that's a goal to other forms of energy. Now, I would say that today solar and wind can be a portion of electricity mix. But until we get real gains in storage or other forms of ensuring its 24/7 electricity, we’re probably gonna need nuclear which is zero carbon to be part of the mix. And that’s probably a bigger conversation than we’re track to have right now. I think for the developing world the question is why did China add so much coal in the last 25 years as it industrialized. It was an abundant large inexpensive resource and it employs lot of people and generates tax revenues and so forth. And I think when I look at the developing world. They also are gonna want 24/7, 365 so I like solar and wind I'm in no way here to knock it. What I would argue though is if you're a developing country and you have really inexpensive coal I think it's a big challenge of how you’re gonna get them to do other stuff that is lower carbon, most notably solar and wind in the absence of a low-cost storage solution that can compete with both the cost of coal and the jobs and tax benefits of coal. I think that’s challenge number one. I think for transportation fuels this is where I would, I wish there was more of an appreciation that those are global markets. Whereas electricity tends to be local oil and gas tends to be global. And one of the frustrations I have is that we often see attacks on I'll just say US, Canadian and European oil companies when all that happens is production get shifted to other countries and the rest of the world. I would think a global approach to crude oil, natural gas, and that part of the equation would be a better way to go.

Greg Dalton: Right. And that's very much as a global commodity and natural gas is kind of transitioning from a regional commodity to perhaps a global commodity. Oil and gas companies are raking in record profits. President Biden's 2024 budget proposes an elimination of “special tax treatment for oil and gas company investments” that’s probably referring to accelerated depreciation. The White House noted oil and gas companies cut their investment as a share of operating cash flows to the lowest level in a decade, while undertaking record stock buybacks that benefited executives and shareholders. What do you think of the way that oil and gas companies are deploying their capital?

Arjun Murti: You know, I would push back on the narrative that I think you correctly articulated in terms of how it's projected by the Biden administration to the general media. This is an industry that from 2010 to 2020 had a zero, these are US companies 0% return on capital, really poor profitability and why? They actually over invested as a result of the boom that happened in the 2000s and the profits from production were actually pretty poor. You actually want to use ironic points where the environmental and climate community would like less oil and gas investment and traditional investors say, hey you guys wasted a bunch of money last decade, don’t waste it this time around. 2020 companies lost billions of dollars this was our COVID year when the world economy shut down. And from that very deep trough we had a pretty dramatic rebound to 2022. So, it’s accurate that in 2022 profits were at very high levels. But if you took even a 10-year average that included 2022 I believe the average is 2 1/2 to 3% return on capital, which is still pretty poor by any standards. So, if you’re a traditional investor there is still the mantra, hey, companies don't waste money you wasted money last decade and, if I’m a traditional investor, not a climate person, a traditional investor. I am uncertain as to what the pace of oil demand growth will be. I am uncertain whether some of the policies some of the net zero objectives some of the climate initiatives maybe they will start to bite on demand. Maybe they will maybe they won't. But as long as I’m unsure of that and as long as I know that you wasted money last decade. I don't want you to invest currently or at least not for the foreseeable future. Let’s say, that is the number one reason, I think, why CapEx has felt slower to respond. There’s also the need to repair over pretty weak balance sheets from last decade to hide the debt level so that debt paid down. And you’re correct, investors have said instead of wasting your money in oil and gas like you did last decade. I'd rather see it come back to me in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, so that is accurate.

Greg Dalton: The Biden administration recently approved the controversial Willow project, which is an oil extraction project on Alaska's North Slope in the national petroleum reserve. As a board member of ConocoPhillips, a corporation developing Willow, I understand you can't comment directly on that project because directors are not authorized to speak for the company on that. So, let me ask you this way: oil executives, like all corporate executives, run the company to increase the stock price. You’re a Wall Street analyst, you know that better than I do. And that stock price is valued on future revenues derived from extracting and burning oil and methane gas. The science is really clear that we can't burn the deposits already on the balance sheets of the investor and state-owned oil companies. So, what point is it irresponsible for companies to kind of refill that balance sheet the reserves every year. And I've even heard this kind of indirectly from some people inside Conoco is like we'd like to get off this but the whole system is built on replenishing reserves that we know someday can't be burned.

Arjun Murti: You correctly note that I can't speak about specific projects be it on a company I'm involved with, or for that matter other companies. But I think it gets to the heart of the issue of where we source our global oil and supplying gas from. So, even in the IEA’s net zero report that lays out a scenario for 2015 net zero 1 1/2° a scenario I think we’re not on track to achieve. But let’s just take that scenario. Even in that scenario, there is something like 30 million barrels a day of oil demand still produced.

Greg Dalton: What we have today, right?

Arjun Murti: That is correct. Our US production is 12 million barrels a day of crude oil and another five or 6 million barrels a day of natural gas liquids. So, I would say it’s, let’s just call it 80 million barrels a day versus the 30. I believe it should be our national objective that the US is the last barrel produced in the energy transition whether that's 2050 or 2100 or some different year. The cleanest best barrels most secure, most reliable should come from I’m gonna say the United States plus Canada and we don't produce it here. We could talk about any project it could be Marcellus gas, it could be things like Keystone XL, any of these pipelines or infrastructure projects that are faced environmental protest. My question always is, why would you rather be produced, and I apologize I'm an American in Russia or Iran or Iraq or other countries with the environmental the geopolitical and other measures are far more lax or unfavorable to Americans. And I think this is what I feel most strongly about. Saudi Aramco has a target to grow its supply by a million barrels a day over the next five years. The United Arab Emirates is looking to grow its supply. I actually think they’re gonna do it in a low carbon way. I want to give UAE credit for having some excellent decarbonization plans and I actually think it's gonna challenge our companies to match what they’re doing. But countries like Russia, countries like Iran, why don't environmentalists go protest in those countries.

Greg Dalton: Because they don’t have any influence in those countries. And every country wants to be the last producer of the last barrel. And the Saudis would say they'll be the ones because they’re lifting costs, the cost of getting it out of the ground are lower than everybody else. So, low cost win.

Arjun Murti: Low cost will absolutely win. And I think that’s where whether it’s a company in our country or a company in another part of the country low-cost is absolutely gonna win. Now, whether some of those other countries subsidize their production or of other things that’s probably for another podcast. But I will say though the other fundamental thing we started with is demand is a 100 million barrels a day today it's not 30. And it's not on track whether I wanted to be whether you want it to be whether scientists wanted to be or not it's not on track to go down. It will go down, most likely in Europe and Japan and it's possible that in the United States we may be past sort of our peak demand type environment due to population maturity and increasing efficiency, but it is absolutely gonna grow. There's 3 billion people there’s 5 billion people who use a heck of a lot less energy than we do and they’re gonna demand something. And it gets back to let’s provide alternate forms of supply and whatever supply we have wherever it's from, it should have zero or near zero methane and I believe our company should be held to a scope one net zero type of standard. The exact year we can probably debate, but I have no issue with holding our companies to very strict environmental standards. And I think they themselves want to be held to those kinds of standards. But let’s not pretend by protesting individual projects in our country or Canada that somehow that changes the demand to check rate by a single barrel.

Greg Dalton: Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Coming up, can focusing on consumer experience facilitate decisions that are also good for the climate?

Arjun Murti: I'm personally a very happy owner of an electric vehicle and I will never or very unlikely to ever drive a gasoline car again because I simply enjoy driving the electric vehicle better. And I think that’s the type of positive engagement and positive consumer choices I'd like to see.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next.

Let's get back to my conversation with energy consultant Arjun Murti.

Pressure on investor-owned energy companies in the United States has risen recently through environmental, social and governance, or ESG, issues that have been quite popular on Wall Street. Yet, Republicans in the House passed a bill that would make consideration of those ESG issues illegal. I asked Murti his view of the bill and the broader condemnation of ESG.

Arjun Murti: I think much like climate and energy. It is deeply unfortunate that somehow environmental, social, and governance, which is a pretty obscure element of Wall Street stock analysis has somehow become part of our culture war. I mean, Greg, I cannot explain it other than everything's part of the culture war. And I will say, I will push back on both sides, as I do on climate and energy policy and I’ll do so here on ESG. So, I think it’s unfortunate when the left, for example, tries to pressure companies to basically take on policy choices that were not passed through legislation. And I think we should be very concerned about increasing corporate power and having de facto policy legislation being run through some ESG initiatives. So, some of that I pushback on. For people on the right I’ll push back and say, we’ve always considered these factors. Governance has always been an important issue for any stock you're covering. People have always cared about environmental issues. I used to own a refining company early in my career. We wondered, hey, they’re cutting costs, are they cutting costs too much to where the refinery may not run safely. And that was something I wondered about when I was 25 years old I didn’t call it ESG at the time but I think I will push back on both writing quality yesterday at the time but I think I will push back on both sides. Why would we want corporations to have more power by de facto implementing policies that have not been legislatively passed? And on the right side these are normal stock market considerations, outlawing it is the wrong reaction to what you might perceive it to what people on the right might perceive as the excesses of the left.

Greg Dalton: Right. And I will agree with you on the sort of the concern of kind of corporations as avenues for public policy. Isn't it true that companies that have good strong diverse boards that consider impact on community environment don’t they also perform better? This is not about virtue this is like, you know, hasn’t Larry Fink, the head of BlackRock and other said, this is just sound business.

Arjun Murti: You know, whenever I've evaluated a company or a management, I’ve wanted to see that there has been diversity of perspective. Now that doesn't mean in 100% of the cases that that is always the best performing stock, but certainly the situations I've been involved in I appreciate hearing perspectives from those in the environmental and climate community that is not my core group. I think having Wall Street type people can be helpful. I think having folks who run companies are helpful. So, to your point having on a board, having as part of your management team people that can bring a range of skill sets, I think it's critically important. The one specific element of traditional diversity that I think is very important is actually gender diversity. And I don't mean to overstate it. I think there are differences in how genders approach things. I absolutely have been a big advocate of ensuring that gender diversity is well represented.

Greg Dalton: Right. And that’s something that hasn't been the case so much in energy. And I think it is gradually changing. So, what kind of risk are companies facing by not doing something? Because we often talk about the cost, oh, we can't change because there's a cost. But there's also the status quo has costs; we’re seeing more and more billion-dollar disasters. The floods and fires in the West everywhere. So, how do you think about the cost of inaction as well as the cost of action?

Arjun Murti: You know I’m gonna frame it from the perspective of looking at companies here. And I think you said it really well which is you cannot live in the past and you cannot live on the status quo. It is always a question of where is the world going. And we’re going to a world where the certainty of traditional commodity demand growth is not what it once was. I may have a personal opinion that all demand is likely to be flat or up, but I could also be wrong on that. And so, can companies be nimble. There's no question that companies gonna have to compete on low-cost supply. There are a number of exciting new technologies that so far I don't think we've had the true breakthrough besides Tesla, which is taken a dramatic share of the luxury electric vehicle market. And Greg, I have to say that I'm personally very happy owner of an electric vehicle for the past seven years and I personally out of personal choice will never or very unlikely to ever drive a gasoline car again because I simply enjoy driving the electric vehicle better. And I think that’s the type of positive engagement and positive consumer choices I'd like to see. So, if you’re a company and if you’re an analyst looking at companies, I'm always gonna be monitoring where is an area of better opportunity and growth. And I think it is about trying to figure out where the world is gonna go. Now, a lot of people want traditional companies to transition more quickly to newer areas. I think that's where I might be a little more skeptical. There isn’t a lot of evidence of old-line companies being the leader in the next technology. So, it's not that they should do nothing. They clearly should be looking at it, but I think we have to be careful about wanting traditional energy to maybe be the leaders in new areas. We should want new companies like a Tesla in the case of the auto sector to be the leaders in the new sector and then we'll see perhaps that’s the catalyst for others to follow.

Greg Dalton: So, what I hear you saying is that don't count on oil and gas companies becoming energy companies and moving into say Shell is not gonna become, you know, a leader in EV charging distributions like they are gas stations or so you don't really think that these large energy oil and gas companies are really good at transitioning to cleaner energy.

Arjun Murti: I might say it slightly differently. I think we don't know what they’re gonna be good at or not. We do know that last decade in the business they're involved in the return on capital was 0%. I don’t think you have to be a Wall Street analyst to know that 0% profitability is a really low number. And so, the first order of business is do better in the business you know best. I think you do have to keep an eye on the future. And so, I look at a company like Occidental Petroleum, which has an expertise in enhanced oil recovery. They've got a carbon capture direct air capture strategy. I don’t know if it’s gonna be successful but to me it's a logical extension of what they're doing. There are other big companies that have these venture capital type operations that are funding new technology companies; that to me make sense. Some of the large companies may not be experts but being a venture capital backer of new technology that is something I generally get excited about. I will say when you think of things like EV charging as someone who has first-hand experienced EV charging for the last seven years I have never tempted to want to go to a gas station. I don't know why anyone who want to replicate the gas station model. And so, I think when we think about future technologies let’s not make the mistake of thinking we had to replicate the old way of doing things and this is often cited as a reason for why EVs won't take greater market share. I disagree. I think they can take a reasonable amount of share over a long period of time. But we don’t need to wait for every gas station to have an “EV pump.” What I worry about EVs is I think for those who are of more modest means, and especially low-income folks and a huge chunk of the developing world. I'm skeptical that they're gonna be able to switch to EVs. So, let’s include hybrids. Let's have much stricter regulation on heavier vehicles. How do we allow sport-utility vehicles to basically get no extra consideration for their extra weight in the environmental damage they do? Why are we subsidizing EV SUVs? I mean there’s probably nothing more insane than that? And so, I think it’s a whole bunch of things we can do to motivate a more positive future. How about this? How about we have free tuition for electricians in trade schools that are gonna be needed to implement our electricity future. Why are we worried about college tuition what about the trade schools? Those are generally people who are not from the most affluent communities. They might need some help from what they, I think there are so many things we can do, Greg. There are so many things we can do from a positive standpoint. I get excited about it but then get frustrated when I see the kind debate being either on the left fossil fuels are evil; end fossil fuels now. Or on the right, solar and wind are dumb climate is always changing let's do nothing. Neither of these extremes make sense. There is a positive middleground and a pragmatic middleground that can actually result in real progress.

Greg Dalton: Right. And you’re on the advisory board of an organization ClearPath that is that kind of center-right position that approaches energy from a different perspective but wants to solve the problem through exports and perhaps more nuclear and more carbon capture different set of tools and solutions. And we appreciate you coming on. It is interesting to have you a board member of a major oil company who loves EVs, doesn't like gas stations. I wonder if you share that in the board room or they knew that about you before they let you come in.

Arjun Murti: You know what I’d say is again I don't think this stuff has to be ideological. I don't think being affiliated or covering or investing in oil and gas companies makes you good or evil. It's a critically needed energy source for the world. 83% of our energy comes from some combination of oil, gas and coal. The world needs it. We've had the least number of people in poverty that we’ve ever had. We had rapid population growth because of our industrial revolution fueled by fossil fuels. We now know that there's some limit to how much CO2 we want to put into the atmosphere. So, there is absolutely a goal to decarbonize going forward. But let’s not forget all the benefits and all the gains that we in the United States and Europe have clearly benefited from and that the rest of the world is going to want to benefit from going forward. And so, I’m very proud to be affiliated with oil and gas industry, but I'm not ideological about it. So, if the electric car is more enjoyable to drive, I like the one pedal on off. I like charging on, who likes to go to a gas station. Then I’m gonna drive an electric car. And I'm excited to do so. I would look forward to like understanding heat pumps. Another area where when your heater or furnace breaks you have like one minute to get it fixed because there’s no way you want your family to freeze. How do you motivate local installers to really have these more energy-efficient climate friendly type options to be viable choices for consumers? It’s not gonna be true everywhere. Again, a pushback on the climate movement will be there is no such thing as hundred percent solution for any of our problems. We need a range of solutions and they should be centered around ensuring energies available and affordable but that it's also environmentally friendly and lower carbon, all those metrics that we’re trying to solve for.

Greg Dalton: And as a driver of EV for 10 years now I share your enthusiasm. EV is just better whether you care about virtue or not. I want to push back a little bit on your point that EVs are for elites or premium products. That has been the case Tesla started up around hundred thousand dollars now you can get a Tesla for less than the average cost of a new American car. Prices are coming down thanks to a scale more products coming online and then Inflation Reduction Act did put in some income caps to get that $7500 tax credit. So, I guess I think EVs started as elite products, but now they’re becoming, you know, you can get a Chevy Bolt in the, you know, low 30s somewhere, they’re becoming more accessible and affordable.

Arjun Murti: So, couple different things here. I do live in a single-family home. I live in the Northeast state. My garage happens to be heated, which on the one hand is ridiculous on the other hand we’re not gonna remove the heat at this point in time. The one night I left it outside because we had some work being done it lost half its battery overnight. And so, there are some challenges I think again if you are not lucky like I am to live in a suburban single-family home with its own garage, you know, that might be a challenge if people live in apartment buildings. It's not that it’s not solvable I actually think it can be. I think the question is, I'm very concerned about these 100% EV mandates by some year. California’s got one. I think New York State now has one. I don't like that as a metric. That to me is the kind of I think big government top-down initiative that I think is likely to fail.

Greg Dalton: Hold on. California said we’re gonna ban sales of new gasoline engines, but GM already said we don't want to sell them. So, the industry is ahead of government on this transition to electric mobility. It's not government saying, I mean, in some places it’s governments saying you got to do this but GM and Mary Barra, CEO, like we don’t want to build gasoline cars anymore.

Arjun Murti: Hundred percent agree with you. Let's keep it the way the industry says I can see consumer preferences, maybe they’re gonna be right on that opinion. Maybe they’re gonna be wrong. But let's have it stay that way. The problem with the mandate again is I do not believe it solves for the middle and least fortunate among us.

Greg Dalton: So, what I heard today is you are a Wall Street analyst who is on the board of a major oil company. You have and love EVs. You think they're better for people who can afford them. You don't like going to a gas station. You really need to decarbonize the economy it might differ about how and how fast. And big oil companies are not as big as they used to be. Did I get all that right?

Arjun Murti: I think you did get it alright. And again, I’d say, first of all, thank you for having me. What are the positive solutions? Where do we agree? How do we stop making this a vitriolic fight to the death right versus left and then nothing gets done and we end up in this worst of all worlds of simply high and volatile commodity prices with no change or greenhouse gas emissions? That doesn't help anyone and by the way, it doesn’t even help oil companies for one year they might get high oil prices and then the next year they have recession. That does not do any company any good. What is good is to have sustainable economic growth lifting people out of poverty. That is why we use fossil fuels in the first place. We now recognize we need to do a much better job in the environmental side. I will say that will always be better or usually be better if we’re doing that in the US and Canada versus the rest of the world. And then lastly, let's do it with a small carbon footprint and let’s motivate new technologies. I think nuclear is beyond the scope of this podcast that’s gonna have to be part of the conversation. we absolutely can have a sustainable future that does eliminate the worst risks of climate change, while ensuring we do have healthy economical. Those are absolutely compatible goals and let's stop fighting about this.

Greg Dalton: Right. Arjun Murti is a partner Veriten an energy consultancy and holds board or advisory positions at ClearPath, ConocoPhillips and the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Arjun, it’s been a pleasure to have this very vigorous debate with you and discussion. Thanks for coming on Climate One.

Arjun Murti: Greg, thank you so much for having me and I appreciate all you do with the Climate One podcast and I will remain an avid listener. Thank you.

Greg Dalton: The conservative climate caucus includes around 80 Republicans in the House of Representatives with a stated goal of “reducing emissions, not energy choices.” They emphasize innovation and exporting American know-how. Utah Representative John Curtis chairs the conservative climate caucus in the House. Before going to Washington, he served eight years as mayor of Provo City. I asked him how that experience informs his work in Congress.

John Curtis: Well, I made the mistake of thinking Congress would be like serving as mayor and it’s not anything like that. But the only thing that’s similar is you have to go through an election to get there. But when you serve as mayor you work on issues that I would call or more call it like life issues people care if their trash cans picked up. They care about crime they care about parks and recreation and things that are very, not always do, but frequently different than what we’re doing with here in Congress. They also tend to be more aligned. In Utah, the mayor is nonpartisan, so it's much easier to align people behind issues. But I did learn quite a bit there that's helpful here. For instance, I learned not to fear town hall meetings. I learned not to fear standing in front of a bunch of people who are mad at me and found that dialogue solves a lot of problems. And I think that's been very instrumental in my work here having served there.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, mayors have to deliver like governors as well. Was there a particular moment when you realized I need to do something on climate?

John Curtis: I don't know that it was a moment, but it was, clean air in Utah has been an issue for many years. And for many people I would say that's kind of the point the entry point for these environmental issues. They didn't, and we still don't talk as much about climate as we do some of the other environmental issues such as clean air. But as mayor I was fortunate to develop a reputation for being good on clean air. And I think that’s my standards for coming here that I would also be good on other issues dealing with the environment.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, I certainly seen that flying into Salt Lake, the basin in the air is as you’re flying it’s visible. And on that epic wild fires have been choking the American West. The great Salt Lake is drying up amid a megadrought and we got big snow this year, though, as you know as the chair of the ski and snowboard caucus the ski industry is openly scared about declining snowpack in the end of winter as we know it due to heating caused by burning fossil fuels. So, how of all these climate impacts affected you personally and your constituents?

John Curtis: Well, first, I'd just going to take this little window to push back on something that you just said. I think you just ascribed the changes in the climate the fossil fuels. And the science that I followed, says it’s the emissions that's causing climate change. I think it’s a very important distinction. So, just for the record, I think it's emissions and --

Greg Dalton: Which comes from burning. So, it’s not the fossil fuels themselves, but it's the burning that causes the emissions that causes the heating.

John Curtis: Most often but you referenced forest fires were certainly emitting a lot of greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires. Fossil fuels burned at very different levels of greenhouse gas emissions depending upon the fossil fuel and the way that they’re produced has a tremendous influence also for instance in methane leakage. And for instance, I know that natural gas that we use here produced here in the United States is substantially less methane than that of Russia. So, that's why I make that distinction. I don't think it's as simple as saying fossil fuels. I think it's better to pinpoint emissions and then deal with emissions.

Greg Dalton: Fair. So, they’re not inherently bad but it's how we use them and how we extract them and what we do with them. You started the Conservative Climate Caucus in 2021. It now boasts around 80 members with the stated goal of “reducing emissions not reducing energy choices.” How do you propose reducing emissions and not energy choices? What does that mean?

John Curtis: That dovetails nicely with my previous little rant about it’s not fossil fuels. So, I think it's been a mistake to focus solely on fossil fuels is the problem here. The reality of it is, as I said before emissions cause the problem. And not just US emissions, worldwide emissions. And so those that are part of our caucus first of all, we’re not all completely like-minded, there's obviously many different opinions within the caucus. But as a general rule, I think it's fair to say that we care deeply about this earth. We care deeply about our stewardship, but we have some ideas that may differ about how we reduce emissions and what path will reduce emissions, quickest and most efficiently.

Greg Dalton: Right. And so, what are those things is that sort of, you know, so what's the pallet of things that you would like to see particularly as we have a new Congress right now.

John Curtis: No one should be surprised that there's actually more we agree with than disagree with many of my Democratic colleagues. And maybe just to throw out some of those real common areas. I think the caucus in general is really pleased with renewables. We like renewables. We feel like they're a very important part. We may disagree with some in the sense that we don't think they're the only answer. They have an Achilles’ heel that's not that I think will be resolved at some point but it's not fully resolved in that storage right now but we like renewables. We like nuclear and more and more of my Democratic colleagues are joining us on that and realizing you really can't get to a green future without nuclear being part of it. And quite frankly without additional innovation with fusion or something else nuclear currently has to be a big part of it if we’re gonna be green. I think we share that with our Democratic colleagues. I certainly know we share innovation and advancements that we would like to see happen with I mentioned fusion and hydrogen that we share with our Democratic colleagues, in common. I think probably the one area where we would disagree and not completely, but to some degree is the use of fossil fuels. We would point out that the US has reduced more greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade or 15 years than anybody would've ever dared dream. And we've done that by using a natural gas and using natural gas to replace other fossil fuels, particularly coal. And if we want to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, we have to have a conversation about using US fossil fuels to do that. I like to point out that they can be part of the solution and not part of the problem. And replacing for instance Russian natural gas with US natural gas would reduce dramatic amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. We’re perfecting techniques like carbon sequestration and direct air capture. And I’ll be the first to admit it still got a ways to go, but I don't think they should be ruled out. And I think, you know, you heard President Biden with some interest say fossil fuels will be with us for the next 10 years. And I got a little bit of a laugh in the state of the union because I don't know a single energy expert who doesn't say fossil fuels will be with us in the year 2050. And so, I think the bigger question is not will they be with us but will we have figured out how to use them cleanly.

Greg Dalton: Right. I think even the Energy Information Agency says fossil fuels, even the low carbon scenarios there are still some use of fossil fuels in hard to decarbonize areas, aviation, etc. You mentioned carbon capture has ways to go. Taxpayers have put billions of dollars into carbon capture and storage. So far, the results have been underwhelming. In 2017 coal giant Southern Company suspended work on the carbon capture portion of a $7 billion plant in Kemper, Mississippi. It’s a private corporation pulling the plug on carbon capture. It had support from President Trump and previous Republican Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. So, how much taxpayer money and investor money should more should be put into carbon capture?

John Curtis: Well, listen if it were up to me, I would take all the incentives away from everybody. I would line everybody up on the starting line and say look, the end goal is clean, reliable, affordable, safe, go and let’s see who can get across that finish line with those parameters. I don't think you can find a single energy source that doesn't have as a mentioned an Achilles' heel for renewables, which is storage. Nuclear, you could point to safety, right? I mean all of our energy sources have some flaws. And if it were up to me, we would let this free market decide which of these will actually prevail. The fossil fuel industry is willing to invest on their own billions and billions of dollars into direct air capture and carbon sequestration. If we simply use the litmus test of is it taken a while to work. I'm not sure that solar would've advanced to where it is today, right. And so, I think we have to be careful really in these things out too quickly and I think you're wise to point out there has to be some limitations on and what we subsidize in the free marketplace should have a pretty good hand in which of these prevail. Our current lawmaking is trying to pick winners and losers. There's some wisdom to that but I do think we have to be careful. The IRA for instance, did a lot for carbon sequestration direct air capture nuclear right really for a lot of these things there was --

Greg Dalton: Hydrogen too.

John Curtis: Hydrogen, there's quite a bit of money in there. So, in a way, government’s trying to pick winners and losers, but like I say, if I had my way, we’d line them all up on a starting line and say, go. And here again I refer to clean, reliable, affordable, safe energy and what's going to be able to deliver that.

Greg Dalton: You mentioned the IRA that there's three big pieces of energy related legislation that have happened under the Biden administration, infrastructure, CHIPS and the IRA. You're on the energy and commerce committee. What's gonna happen there in terms of those big bills is they’re gonna be repealed, kind of tweak what's gonna be the approach?

John Curtis: You know, that’s a near impossible to predict. But I like to go back and look at history. If you look at the Affordable Care Act, I think you'll see a very similar situation where it was kind of one party that pushed it through. The other party, Republicans, were very opposed to it and threatened to repeal it. At the end of the day they were unable to but that doesn't mean both Republicans and Democrats haven't made substantial improvements to the Affordable Care Act along the way. So, I would say look, any piece of legislation isn’t perfect, particularly one that comes out really without much time and is thousands of pages. And I would expect that both Republicans and our Democratic colleagues would continue to try to refine and improve that piece of legislation.

Greg Dalton: Right. And, you know, Politico did a story that a lot of the benefits of the IRA is gonna be in Republican districts or members who -- I guess you saw that article.

John Curtis: I didn’t see that but I’ve heard that reference. And, you know, I don’t know if that was intentional but to the extent it was it was really pretty wise because you know people respond to what's happening in their districts.

Greg Dalton: I've driven through your district, I guess it’s Heber City. There are a lot of oil rigs and trucks there and there’s also the Grouse Creek South wind energy zone. How do you balance the needs in your district today when it comes to the energy transition.

John Curtis: So, my original district up until this last year didn't have very much oil and gas, it had coal. And I’ve watched firsthand really the demonization and the destruction of communities that produce coal for decades and decades. And I think we forgot rather quickly how important these people were in our lives. And I see the same thing happening to oil and gas. It's what I would call a demonization of oil and gas. And I inherited with redistricting the Uinta Basin, which does a lot of oil and gas. And during my first visit they looked at me and they said, “Sorry you're the climate guy this isn’t gonna work." And as they listened more and more to me, they realized how important it was for Republicans for conservatives for people in oil and gas to be talking about the climate. And this is where I like to point out, look, we have a choice here. We can make them part of the solution or we can make them the problem. They are anxious to be part of the solution. They are anxious to clean up. They are anxious to be an energy source for decades and decades into the future. And I talked with the same principles with them, reliable, affordable, safe, clean. And they’re game. They’re ready to compete on that level. And when you talk to them like that and don't come to them saying like we’re gonna wipe you out they’re remarkably responsive. And they want to be in the game. Listen, these are good men and women they want to leave this earth better than they found it just like everybody else. They want to be good stewards and they will strive for that given the opportunity.

Greg Dalton: You're listening to a conversation about different perspectives on climate policy. This is Climate One. Coming up, what role does messaging play in motivating climate action?

John Curtis: If you want to motivate somebody to engage in this you appeal to this just innate desire to leave this earth for our grandchildren better than we found it. And I wish sometimes the climate movement spent more time appealing to that.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

Politicians often say provocative things in order to grab headlines. But John Curtis, Utah Representative and Chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, doesn’t fit that mold. I asked him what some of his peers say in private that they wish they could say in public, and why there aren’t more republicans like him.

John Curtis: I think the reality is timing. I think I found Republicans quite quick to engage this caucus that I’ve started, the Conservative Climate Caucus has 80 members. Most of those came to me and asked me if they could be part of it. I think the time is right for Republicans to speak out. I think Europe has been a great example of why we’re needed in this conversation. Look, we can make mistakes and Europe's made some mistakes. And I think Republicans and conservatives do want to lower emissions, but they want make sure we don't duplicate some of those same mistakes.

Greg Dalton: You came up with a six-step plan to address climate change. Can you explain what those six steps are and how you arrived at those points?

John Curtis: They deal with six very, very important issues. Let me just mention a couple of them. And one of them is the hot topic of the day and that's permitting reform. My colleagues on all sides know that we have some serious problems with permitting. The way I like to describe it is if you lined up all of your climate goals, all of your energy goals, permitting reform is in the way of every single one of them. It doesn't matter if it’s solar farm or wind farm or a pipeline. Permitting reform is keeping all of these from coming to fruition. So, there's some really good bipartisan. I actually left a hearing to do this podcast where we were talking about a Republican proposal. And many people, many colleagues understand this has to be bipartisan and want to find a bipartisan path forward on permitting reform. The other pillars deal with using our resources here we've got things these critical minerals are a very interesting discussion. There’s no scenario which we don't need vast amounts of these critical minerals and currently we’re dependent on countries where we don't control the regulatory standards, the emission standards, the human rights standards. And, you know, there are a lot of people who feel like it's very hypocritical to be buying these overseas and prohibiting them here in the United States, and I tend to agree with that. And those are just a couple of principles from that that I think our Democratic colleagues would join us on. And it's important that we find that consensus.

Greg Dalton: You stated that “The impact of preventing climate change is worse than the impact of climate change. It doesn't need to be that way.” Can you explain what you mean by that?

John Curtis: Well, absolutely. Listen, the climate movement, if not careful defaults to calamity crisis what was right, I mean you hear all sorts of things that just aren't science. And the reality of it is we have some serious changes coming. And I don't mean to make a light of those. But if you look at particularly at some low-income communities where they can't afford their heating bills and they can’t afford gas, they prefer climate change. I actually spoke to an activist who represents them and she and I agreed that sometimes the medicine is worse than the disease. And we have to be careful with that and realize that we need to be talking more about adaptation. Look, if we stopped all the greenhouse gas emissions today worldwide, we’re still in the trajectory of warming. And what are we doing about that, right? Very little. And I think that it’s important to deal with that and also to realize. Look, what’s happened in Europe was not good, and that is no affordability, no reliability dependent on an enemy for fuel and now producing more greenhouse gas emissions than ever. And that's what I mean when I say look, we want to be in this debate to make sure we don't duplicate those same mistakes.

Greg Dalton: Well, certainly Germany did a deal with the devil that hurt them. Though in terms of alarmism I would say that's true. I think climate people sometimes want people to move and the only way they think they can make the move is to make them scared.

John Curtis: So, I have some strong thoughts about that. Listen, first of all, if everything is a crisis then nothing is a crisis. I don't believe that scare tactic motivates people. I just don't. I'm not involved in this because somebody scared me. I'm involved in this because somebody appealed to what I think we were all born with, which is an innate desire to be good stewards over this earth. And I think if you want to motivate somebody to engage in this you appeal to that what I believe we were all born with, which is this just innate desire to leave this earth for our grandchildren better than we found it. And I wish sometimes the climate movement spent more time appealing to that. And quite frankly that's what I do. That's why I found 80 Republicans as part of my caucus is not trying to scare them or threaten them, but rather to just say, look, we’ve got a responsibility here. And we do care deeply we’ll show people that we do.

Greg Dalton: Yeah, opportunity often plays better than fear. If I can just circle back to one thing you said about reliability and affordability. There are some studies that say that the cheapest power on earth today is solar utility scale solar it beats even operating and certainly new coal plants even operating coal plants there’s challenges getting it to the load centers that gets to permitting reform and distribution. And with batteries, you know, solar, wind are getting pretty reliable. I have batteries at my house when the PG&E either burn something up or blow something up, you know, I still get electricity. So, I think the reliability and affordability isn’t that changing on renewables?

John Curtis: So, it is, just as the cleanliness is changing on fossil fuels. Everybody has a lot of work to do. And the reality of it is you're very fortunate that you can afford batteries. Most can’t afford batteries because the technology is still too expensive. Yet on large scale we’re storing, you know, I heard people putting in these battery storage things which is great but we’re storing power for only about four hours, right. And so, we have work to do and I think the more successful we are the more solar and wind these renewables will be part of that mix in 2050. And the less successful we are the less of a role they’ll play. And I think this is where you said earlier on Republicans are all in on this. And we’re all in on working on innovation for storage. There's a couple of interesting things. I was in Europe and I saw really, they’ve almost moved past lithium batteries and to hydrogen for storage. And I don't think we talk about that enough here in the United States is that, you know, it may be that hydrogen is the real storage opportunity. I was in Taiwan a couple months ago and saw a hydro project where the water is released in the day and pumped back up at night for storage. And I think our paradigms will very likely will change over the next decade or two based upon new innovations about how we store things. And the more successful we are the more role these renewables will play.

Greg Dalton: Well, I’m certainly feeling comforted talking to you, Congressman, here substantively about real issues and having a back-and-forth and it's making me encouraged about the hope for some bipartisan progress. So, I look forward to seeing what happens and hope that this caucus can do something in Congress. Because we’ve been hearing for a long time I remember since Pope Francis came to Washington DC in 2015 there was gonna be a Republican breakout. Republicans are gonna come out strong on climate, never quite happen, but it sounds like maybe you're putting some together now.

John Curtis: You know this is where I’d like to point out. I'll give you that we have been terrible at branding here. But we have always cared. I think what I would say the extremism sometimes in this conversation scares Republicans away. And my extremism is not good on either side. We have it on our side as well and kind of the denial category but there's extremists on both sides. But the reality as you know, if we want to make a long-lasting change, we need to be at a bipartisan mode on this. And clearly to the extent that we’re bipartisan we’ll make quicker action. I also like to point out that we have had some successes. I'd point to the Energy Act of 2020, which was a bipartisan work that was really substantial. We reduced hydrofluorocarbons by 85% in the United States that was bipartisan. And I think another problem with this movement we’ve got kind of the one hand, right, the fearmongering and on the other hand, we have this whatever you do, it's never enough. And people sometimes get discouraged by saying, I can never please you, I can't do enough. And I do think it's important to point out. I know in my personal journey. I'm very grateful that I ran into people who rewarded me for good behavior early on instead of criticizing me for what I wasn't doing. And that motivated me to want to do more and I think too often we do just the opposite. We kind of push people away from this.

Greg Dalton: Well, Congressman, thank you very much. John Curtis is House of Representatives from Utah's third Congressional District and chair and founder of the Conservative Climate Caucus. Please do come back and we’ll continue this conversation.

John Curtis: Perfect. Look forward to it.

Greg Dalton: On this Climate One... We’ve been talking about different perspectives on climate and energy policy.

Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe wherever you get your pods. Talking about climate can be hard-- AND it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Greg Dalton: Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Our producers and audio editors are Ariana Brocious and Austin Colón. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Wency Shaida is our development manager. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

3:47: Murti on the pace of the energy transition

9:06: Murti on the profitability of oil companies

16:44: Murti on environmental, social and governance, or ESG

20:17: Murti on EVs

30:38: Curtis on his work in Congress

35:22: Curtis on common ground with Democrats

44:14: Curtis on the state of climate awareness in the Republican party

Voices from the Right

6 Episodes

Play

Patti Poppe: Reinventing Utilities During a Climate Emergency

Otto Pilot — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 07:01:00 +0000

Patti Poppe: Reinventing Utilities During a Climate Emergency

07/29/2022

In 2006, PG&E was perceived to be one of the most progressive utilities in the country. They supported California’s landmark climate law AB 32, and a few years later, quit the US Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to climate action. But recently, a string of self-imposed disasters has damaged the company’s image and public trust. A company gas line exploded in San Bruno, killing eight people, and failure of PG&E equipment caused a rash of deadly wildfires — Butte, Camp, Kincade and Dixie — killing 91 people and burning nearly 1.5 million acres. The company’s 2019 bankruptcy was one of the largest ever in US history and seen as the first corporate bankruptcy driven by climate disruption.

Katherine Blunt, a reporter at the Wall Street Journal and author of the book California Burning, says that while PG&E was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, “Nobody served time. And to consider that, it really speaks to this kind of difficult understanding and convoluted world of corporate liability. This wasn’t a financial crime or you know a white-collar crime that was victimless. I mean these are homicide charges. And it’s kind of remarkable to consider the process the prosecutors had to go through to convict the company on these charges.”

One victim of the Camp Fire, artist Jess Mercer shared her personal experience: “I lived and resided in Paradise, California for a majority of my adulthood. When I was 34 years old unfortunately, on November 8, 2018. My town burned to the ground, consuming 94%. This included buildings, this included businesses, schools, homes, bikes, anything that you can think of that would be in a town that makes up the fabric of a town. Personally, my father's home burned with everything in it. We did not retrieve anything from that.”

As the relatively new CEO of PG&E, Patti Poppe is charged with navigating the company through such epic wildfires, along with disrupted energy markets and lingering public distrust of the utility. Poppe describes her leadership philosophy as “leading with love.” She explains, “I think if more companies lead with love, the world might just be a better place. Companies can be a force for good and trust me, I get a few raised eyebrows as I'm out in the field with my crews and that our power plants and people wonder hey lady what's with this love business. But let me tell you something. We need more human in the equation of the work that we do.”

Though it can be hard to see how a company that the judge overseeing its probation said “has gone on a crime spree and will emerge from probation as a continuing menace to California” could be associated with love. Poppe says, “I think the effects will be felt for a generation at the company of those horrible effects of the wildfires. And I think what we have to do is stay focused on the future and what we can do to make the system safer every single day.”

One of Poppe’s plans for making the service safer is undergrounding 10,000 miles of electric lines, which help prevent the sparks that lead to wildfires. Though, skeptics argue that the undergrounding is a move to improve their cost basis by deploying capital. Katherine Blunt adds, “There’s no question that this is a big capital project on which they will earn a return.”

PG&E is also working with GM and Ford on incorporating power from electric vehicles into homes and the grid, deploying batteries at large power plants, and pushing to change net metering rates that pay homeowners for electricity generated on their roofs.

Guests

Patricia Poppe

CEO, PG&E

Katherine Blunt

Reporter, Wall Street Journal

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton.

In 2006, PG&E was perceived to be one of the most progressive utilities in the country. They supported California’s landmark climate law AB 32, and a few years later, quit the US Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to climate action. Since then, a string of self-imposed disasters has damaged the company’s image and public trust. A company gas line exploded south of San Francisco, killing eight people, and failure of PG&E equipment caused a rash of deadly wildfires named Butte, Camp, Kincade and Dixie, killing 91 people and burning nearly 1.5 million acres. The company’s 2019 bankruptcy was one of the largest ever in US history and seen as the first corporate bankruptcy driven by climate disruption. Later in this episode, we’ll hear directly from the current PG&E CEO, Patti Poppe,about the past, present and future of the utility giant - and the future of fossil and renewable power throughout the country.

But before we get to my conversation with Patti Poppe, I invited Katherine Blunt, a reporter at the Wall Street Journal, to give us some historical perspective on PG&E.

In 2018 the Camp Fire killed 86 people in and around Paradise, CA. Blunt wrote that the County Dist. Atty. Mike Ramsey ordered the transmission tower that ignited that fire to be treated as a crime scene. I asked her why she thought he did that, rather than chalk it up as a natural disaster or accident.

Katherine Blunt: Very shortly after the Camp Fire ignited, there was a PG&E helicopter seen around the tower. So, there were supervisors who'd ordered emergency patrol of that particular line because earlier in the day shortly before the Camp Fire was reported it recorded an outage on that line and they wanted to go see if there were any issues. And the trouble men who they dispatch to go to that tower did see that there was an abnormality in the sense that the part of the line had failed. So, then after that inspection by PG&E a few hours later a Cal Fire crew made their way over there and saw the same thing. Shared their findings with the district attorney and he said well, if there was a problem on this line there's a good indication that it could be implicated in the ignition of the fire and we should take this pretty seriously.

Greg Dalton: In 2020, PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter. Did anyone serve time as they would presumably do if the guilty party were an individual rather than a corporation?

Katherine Blunt: No. Nobody served time. And to consider that, it really speaks to this kind of difficult understanding and convoluted world of corporate liability. This wasn’t a financial crime or you know a white-collar crime that was victimless. I mean these are homicide charges. And it’s kind of remarkable to consider the process the prosecutors had to go through to convict the company on these charges. The thing about a company like PG&E is that it is so large there's a great deal of diffusion of responsibility in terms of you know who manages what, who makes decisions. Who knows what, you know, what do the executives know, what do the middle level managers know? What do the inspectors know. And in terms of you know pursuit of criminal charges. It's on the prosecutors to prove knowledge and intent. I mean that is the basis of this crime and many others. And so, what they were able to prove was that many employees of the company did have knowledge of the risks inherent within the transmission system. They had knowledge that they weren't doing adequate inspections. But in terms of, you know, who made that choice, you know, who did what. That's where that diffusion becomes many layers of plausible deniability. Many layers of decision-making and you know for that reason they didn't feel they could bring charges against any one individual but rather, you know, there were individuals who did know. And who could I mean kind of collectively have intended to do this. You can’t put it on any one person and certainly not some of the executives who are too far removed from that granular decision-making that resulted in the failure of the hook that dropped the wire that ignited the fire. So, it's a complicated space and it's certainly frustrating I think for many observers who want to see some greater level of personal responsibility of those within the company. But from a strictly legal standpoint that's very, very hard to come by.

Greg Dalton: So, it sounds like the company is a serial killer. Maybe that's a little strong but certainly they’ve been prosecuted twice for killing innocent people and it doesn't sound like there's a deterrent of having individual accountability to prevent this from happening again.

Katherine Blunt: Oh, what's remarkable is that to your point, yes, this is the company’s second conviction, second felony conviction after the disaster that killed a number of people. The first was after a pipeline explosion south of San Francisco in 2010 that killed eight people. And in both cases, you know, for these crimes right in the case of the pipeline explosion it was violating the Federal Pipeline Safety Act. In the case of the Camp Fire it was involuntary manslaughter. The statutory maximum fines for these crimes are just a few million dollars. And so, it has almost just from a strictly financial standpoint has next to no effect on the company this size. And so, in both cases prosecutors had initially pushed to try to seek larger fines from the company, but that proved really difficult. And so, ultimately the company kind of the fine aspect of the whole thing is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And of course, it causes pretty serious reputational damage. But for utility it’s not like the customers have a choice after the company's convicted, you can't say well, I’m not gonna do business with that company anymore. You have to.

Greg Dalton: And it may be hard for many people to fathom these days, but once upon a time I’ve been covering this long enough that PG&E was a highly respected institution. It was one of the most progressive cleanest, most climate-friendly utilities in the country. So, how did PG&E go from being this climate leader and relatively progressive utility to being where they are now to being this twice convicted murderer?

Katherine Blunt: Yeah. Well, that's a really interesting question. And to understand the story holistically I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that PG&E actually has done a lot of great work on climate issues over the years. PG&E over more than a decade procured a huge amount of wind and solar before a lot of other utilities were doing so. And in doing that helped create the economies of scale needed to drive down the cost of future projects. Now, there's some irony here in a couple of ways. One thing that is ironic is in thinking about climate long-term, the company kind failed to recognize the extent to which the it's in Northern California service territory was changing in part as a result of climate change. So, there are couple of periods of really severe drought that are made worse by climate change that are hotter, longer and really stressed the forests in terms of hydration in creating an environment in which the invasive pests killed millions of trees. So, the consequence of a single spark became much higher over the course of a relatively short period of time. The other thing is that in procuring wind and solar relatively early. Some of these early contracts were pretty expensive. And so, that was a cost ultimately borne by customers and later on created some pressure within the company to keep certain expenses low. And some of those expenses included the kinds of maintenance and inspection work that would make the system safer.

Greg Dalton: How about now, how is the company, you know, they brought in this new CEO, Patti Poppe. What are they doing differently now?

Katherine Blunt: So, after what's transpired over the last two years. First, it really, a fire siege in 2017 that destroyed a lot of the wine country areas in Napa and Sonoma. Of course, the Camp Fire of 2018, the conviction that resulted of that. Those within the company are well aware of the risk, the extent of the risk and what can be done about it in a way that may not have been consistently true over the last couple of decades. So, there's a greater awareness for one. And that’s I think really important. And there's also greater interest in tempting to do anything from, you know, try new technologies and different you know means of managing employees and contractors who need to go out and make sure that lines are kept clear of trees and making sure that inspections are completed on time with the proper modes of, you know, proper inspection modes. So, I think that there's a greater dedication to making sure that everything is done right. That being said, there is it is a huge challenge to make sure that these lines are always cleared of trees in the way they're supposed to. Making sure that contractor stay on schedule. Making sure that, you know, I mean all kinds of things can cause delays and there's very little room for error. Now you mentioned the new CEO. She's been really fascinating to watch as a leader. Shortly after she joined the company last year in July, a tree fell in a distribution line very close to Paradise which was destroyed in the Camp Fire. It ultimately ignited the second largest fire in California history. The company actually took a really long time to respond to the outage that they recorded on the line that caused the fire. Cal Fire was pretty critical of that and its ultimate report on what transpired to allow this fire to blade out of control in the way that it did. And after that she made a fascinating executive decision in which she said, we’re gonna bury 10,000 miles of distribution wire. She basically looked across the service territory and said it’s just too much risk to manage. You know, there's millions of trees. We have to have eyes on them all the time. It’s just kind of like Sisyphus rolling the rock up the hill, right. You clear the tree and it grows back and it has to be done year in and year out. And so, I think theoretically it's a great idea. There's just a lot of challenges associated with it. There's engineering challenges, labor challenges and cost management in a time when the company has to do a lot of other safety work at a time when rates are very high to begin with.

Greg Dalton: I actually live on a road where that undergrounding is happening so I've been watching that happen in a wooded area north of San Francisco. I can see you know how much time it takes and how much money it must be costing, you know, millions of dollars per mile. Skeptics might say that that undergrounding is a good way for utility to make money because it increased their cost basis, they get rewarded by deploying capital. So, is this a money making move on the part of the company. The more capital they deploy, the more they get to increase their rates they put into their rate, right?

Katherine Blunt: That’s absolutely true. So, there’s no question that this is a big capital project on which they will earn a return. Utilities earn an authorized rate of return on large capital investments. You know, building new power lines in some cases, building power plants if they're allowed to do that. Undergrounding, as we’re speaking about right now. They do not earn those returns on what are considered operations and maintenance expenses, which is basically just day-to-day programs, keeping pipelines and power lines running, little projects to go replace certain parts here and there on any given piece of infrastructure. And so, what unfortunately happens is that utilities will maybe, you know, cut corners on O&M where they’re not earning returns and use that additional money saved to invest in large capital projects.

Greg Dalton: O&M being operations and maintenance, that sort of boring stuff.

Katherine Blunt: Operations and maintenance. Yeah. And so, you know in an ideal world, the private interest and public interest can be balanced. It is a hard balance to strike. And not every utility has done it well and PG&E it seems over the last 20 years has done it exceptionally poorly.

Greg Dalton: So, I want to pick up a little bit on the bankruptcy. This is one of the top five bankruptcies in the country just under General Motors bankruptcy, around $70 billion. One of the largest bankruptcies in US history. How did the fire victims compare to the hedge funds and investors?

Katherine Blunt: Man, this was a challenging bankruptcy. And there are interesting winners and losers. And I think you can really argue that the fire victims very much got the short end of the stick in this one. So, what happened was --

Greg Dalton: Because they took stock as part of the deal.

Katherine Blunt: Yeah, I mean, the attorneys negotiating on their behalf ultimately negotiated a deal that did involve shares in the company. There were a lot of financial players involved in this reorganization that, you know, they gained a lot financially or at least something, or at least didn't lose anything. Now, some of the fire victims really lost everything and are still waiting on the full compensation of the value of their claims. So, there was a lot, a lot of victims are really upset. I mean just in principle, having indirectly owned shares in this company. And there’s a certain irony, right. I mean victims of past fires are kind of bearing the risk of future fires by virtue of the fact that the value of their compensation, their prospect for compensation is tied to the value of the company's share price which depends on investor perception of risk. And so, there's a lot of sadness within the fire victim community about this. And, you know, the trust is working hard to you know, liquidate the stock best it can and to make cash distribution payments and to work through just the complexities of managing this trust, but it has been a slow process.

Greg Dalton: How is this process for you writing the story, one of the sorts of great kind of corporate stories of recent years. How was it for you when you connected with fire victims? Was there a time you just like, wow, how was this emotional journey for you? Here on Climate One, I should say we try to bridge that personal and systemic I see you were affected by this.

Katherine Blunt: Yeah, absolutely. Jst having to just really walk through exactly what happened the night of a particular 2017 fire in which one victim who I include, you know, fled his house. And the fact that one thing that really got me was his son, of all things as they are driving away forgot to save a teddy bear that had been in the family for a long time and he just, that's all he could think about. And of course, it didn't survive. Which is like, you know, those little details of you know what people think about in the throes of crisis, especially a nine-year-old child who awoke to his house on fire. You know, I mean there were times in which I was writing and editing that chapter in which I had to take I had to break. I was, I was pretty emotionally touched by that in a very sad way.

Greg Dalton: Sure. So, you quote MarK Noel, who successfully prosecuted PG&E for its role in the 2018 Camp Fire. “We made history,” he said shortly after the Dixie Fire ignited a few years later, just after Patti Poppe became CEO. And he continued, “But we didn't an effing thing.”

Katherine Blunt: That’s Mark for you.

Greg Dalton: To what extent do you agree with MarK?

Katherine Blunt: So, just by way of context. So, you know, Mark was pretty instrumental in prosecuting the Camp Fire case. He worked very closely alongside district attorney Mark Ramsey. And, you know, they did an enormous amount of work and then the company pleads guilty to the 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter in June of 2020. 13 months later, all of a sudden, he's requesting documents again, right. He’s requesting documents related to distribution. And I think that the conviction ultimately on those involuntary manslaughter counts, it changed a few things. I think it helps those who remained with the company after all of this to kind of understand better understand the risks better understand the consequences of their actions. Certainly, you know, it made it so that any executive either coming in who remains probably reoriented their thinking. But I think his overall point is that this sort of conviction doesn't eliminate the risk. It doesn't eliminate the risk.

Greg Dalton: Katherine Blunt is a reporter at the Wall Street Journal and author of California Burning: The Fall of Pacific Gas & Electric -- and What It Means for America's Power Grid. Katherine, thanks for sharing your personal story and the stories of PG&E and the people affected by its fire. Thank you.

Katherine Blunt: Thank you very much. Really enjoyed the conversation.

Greg Dalton: You’re listening to a Climate One conversation about PG&E and reinventing utilities for the climate emergency. Our podcasts typically contain extra content beyond what’s heard on the radio. If you missed a previous episode, or want to hear more of Climate One’s empowering conversations, subscribe to our podcast wherever you get your pods. Coming up, Patti Poppe, CEO of PG&E, one of the country’s largest utilities, lays out her vision for moving the US economy away from fossil fuels to cleaner power.

Patti Poppe: As we transition to a carbon free economy and a carbon free energy system, we do it in an optimized way. And until now I think we've been doing it in a sub-optimized way partly because energy companies like PG&E have been resistant to sort of share the space, we need to share the space.

Greg Dalton:That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton

As the CEO of PG&E, Patti Poppe is charged with navigating the company through massive wildfires, disrupted energy markets, and lingering public distrust of the utility. The company is undergrounding 10,000 miles of electric lines, working with GM and Ford on incorporating EV batteries into homes and the grid, deploying batteries at large power plants, and pushing to change net metering rates that pay homeowners for electricity generated on their roofs.

In 2016 PG&E was put on probation after being convicted for a fatal pipeline explosion. During that probationary period, the company's equipment ignited fires that killed 91 people. The judge overseeing PG&E's probation said the company “has gone on a crime spree and will emerge from probation as a continuing menace to California.” Crime spree and menace. Those are strong words from a federal judge who knows the company deeply.

In front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, I asked Poppe what she is doing to change one of the country's most prominent corporate criminals.

Patti Poppe: Well, I came to fix it. I looked on from afar. I was previously a CEO of a utility in Michigan. Actually, in my hometown I thought I had achieved my professional dreams come true. I lived on the street where I grew up. My dad had retired from that company. And I was so proud to lead that team in that company. And I thought I had fulfilled my professional ambitions. Then I kept receiving calls to come to PG&E. I think a lot of people in the industry know me as an operator and one who leads with equal parts heart and head. And I actually think that's what's required for PG&E right now. And so, from afar I watched the challenging situation, the accelerating climate change. The effects it was having on people's lives. The devastation that was caused. I was heartbroken when I observed and watched both the San Bruno explosion and its aftereffects and then obviously the wildfires that have been so devastating here in California. And so, I came to make it right and to make it safe. And I can tell you that the team that I am so proud to lead at PG&E gets up every single day to do exactly that.

Greg Dalton: Last year in the aftermath of the Dixie Fire you pledged to underground 10,000 miles of power lines or about an eighth of the overhead lines in your system. How quickly will that happen and how much will it cost?

Patti Poppe: Yeah, well, a couple things. One, we’re ramping the plan right now and so it'll be less than 10 years. Somebody somehow jumps to a ten-year conclusion but it will be less than 10 years. We’re already making progress on that. This year to date we've already buried more lines than we buried all last year.

Greg Dalton: But it's only like 100 or 200 miles a year?

Patti Poppe: This in the early years and so we’re gonna ramp up to about 1200 miles a year in the next four years. And people ask about the cost, all the time. I want to frame up something. And Greg, I know you understand utility economics better than a lot of people. But it is a little complicated but what I can tell you is today what is expensive for customers is the fact that we spend $1.7 billion a year at PG&E trimming and removing trees from lines. That is an annual expense that our customers are bearing. By undergrounding the lines, though there's an upfront capital cost, the long-term maintenance expense on that and the 99 plus percent risk reduction makes it a very economic choice.

Greg Dalton: there are estimates of about $3 million per mile I guess you're saying that's coming down. So, that gets put into your rate base, right, capital structure. So, that's also good for the business, right, because then you get a return on that capital, whereas you don't get the same return on cutting trees.

Patti Poppe: Well, and it's good for customers, that's who it's good for because it spreads the cost out over a longer time and they get a permanent repair. One of the challenges I discovered at PG&E is our financial structure is much over the years maybe it's because of the challenges the company has faced but it drifted to a heavy expense percentage. The best of the best utilities in the nation are at about 2 to 1 capital to expense ratio because those are better permanent repairs for customers. It's actually the utility is designed to invest in infrastructure. PG&E is at about a .9 which means, for every dollar of expense only $.90 goes to capital infrastructure which means we are bandaiding as a practice as opposed, we’re not investing and people have said PG&E didn't invest in the infrastructure. I agree and we have to fix that. And so, undergrounding actually becomes a very economic part of our re-imagination of the grid.

Greg Dalton: You’ve acknowledged that the company hasn't been in touch with its customers. In 2020 nearly 5 million Americans receive their electricity through a program called community choice aggregation. These are local alternatives to monopoly utilities and they exist in California, Illinois, New York, Ohio and Virginia. They're actively being considered in Arizona, Colorado, and your former state, Michigan. The US EPA says that these local power companies provide potentially lower costs, faster shift to greener power, local control of electricity generation and expanded consumer choice - green local choice. What's your view on these local competitors really?

Patti Poppe: Well, they’re not necessarily competitors. They’re part of the fabric of the way we deliver energy in California. And I do think the big change that's gonna happen for utilities and for energy providers and for the grid is an opportunity as we decarbonize the economy is to have our hometown utilities play a very important air traffic control if you will, in the grid. And because we don't make profit on the sale of energy, so a community choice aggregator doesn't actually affect our profitability. They're not competitors. They actually can be partners. And it might be better for us to deploy our dollars to the grid and allow those community choice aggregators as we've supported deliver energy in a different form. Now, I would argue that the energy that we do produce at PG&E is 93% GHG free, that which we delivered to customers last year, that might surprise people. But what I get excited about is imagining what that grid of the future is going to look like and we need to make sure that we are investing in that. And so, let me just give you an example. I know your family is from Michigan, Greg. And so, maybe at one point or another you traveled along I-80 in Iowa. And so, when you think about I-80 in Iowa it’s a long straight thoroughfare with a few off ramps, a few on ramps and that’s a little bit like what the grid has been for a long time. You’ve got one-way flow of power from big bulk power stations onto that big superhighway and off to some off ramps and then gets down to the little towns that surround the freeway. I imagine the grid of the future to look a lot more like downtown San Francisco. We’re gonna have multimodal energy forms and we need all of it. We need all of it. We need all the clean energy that we can muster. We need to find a way to deliver it with one very important caveat: That as we transition to a carbon free economy and a carbon free energy system, we do it in an optimized way. And until now I think we've been doing it in a sub-optimized way partly because energy companies like PG&E have been resistant to sort of share the space, we need to share the space. And as we share the space we can reinvent and reimagine how we distribute energy in these multimodal forms, but we have to optimize it. It can't be kind of a fixed pie mindset where there's winners and there's losers. We need all of it but there are ways to do it that are the lowest societal cost. And I get pretty excited when I think about kind of being air traffic control for new forms of energy, optimizing the forms that we have today and bringing the cleanest energy system to the people of California at the lowest cost.

Greg Dalton: And our system is to regulate those companies to be reliable and everywhere not to be dynamic or entrepreneurial like reliability: keep the lights on that’s like the base thing not to create new ways of delivering that energy. PG&E is an investor-owned utility though there are some questions now about whether investor-owned utilities are the best sort of capital structure or model, right, given that there’s other models out there. What’s the case for investor-owned utilities when there are some municipals and other ownership structures that have done pretty well serving their customers?

Patti Poppe: Yeah, you know, I used to ask myself this very same question. I spent the first 15 years of my career at General Motors in the automotive industry and then I switched to the utility. So, coming from a very hypercompetitive industry to investor-owned utility. And I remember having to learn the finances and I kept having meetings with these regulatory finance guys and I’m like wait, tell me one more time. I don't understand. Doesn't profit minus expense equal or doesn't revenue minus expense equal profit. They’re like no, not here it’s a different formula. So, I really had to learn all that. And as I learned all of that I realized that though we call them monopolies because we have a monopoly that's designated in a geographic area. We do compete for capital. And an investor-owned utility one of the advantages to the customers of an investor-owned utility is the transparency of our performance relative to peers. So, I can tell you we have to fill out a FERC form one that shows all of our costs and our investors make choices about where to deploy capital based on the most effectively operated utilities. So, for customers there actually is a real gauge of our effectiveness, both from the customer perspective, but from an investor perspective as well. And I do have to just make one pitch for investors. I think sometimes we think investors we imagine these fat cats on Wall Street, you know, raking in the dough at the expense of the little guy. Let me tell you who the utility investor is. It is a mom-and-pop it's probably all the people who are here. Anybody who has a retirement fund is a utility investor. And utility investors do not expect profit maximization, they expect a steady fair return and good safe dividend. And so, from my perspective, that then does not put in conflict in investors and customers. It actually puts them on the same side of the equation both wanting the same outcome. That's well served customers and a well operated utility. And so, for that reason, I think the investor-owned utility model has tons of advantages for the people that we serve.

Greg Dalton: Some people who’ve been in California before you got here would say that PG&E cut corners to divert money to investors that didn't go to safety. And that was partly some regulatory problems, but there’s incentive to cut corners on safety if you’re shareholder driven.

Patti Poppe: And this is where I think our new leadership team is probably gonna have the biggest impact at PG&E. When I went out to the market so I was hired in November of 2020 and I started January 1st. Well, I spent from November 2022 to January 1st recruiting a management team. All of the positions, but for our General Counsel and our chief financial officer were open, which ended up being a good thing. I didn't have to go to this evaluation phase, I could just bring in a great new team. And I was able to attract some of the top industry performers and industry leaders from the best, most well-run utilities in the nation. The people of California should be very grateful that these people came and have signed up for this challenge and this mission because we know what good looks like and what good looks like is customers are always first. There's never a trade-off between safety and profit. I can tell you 100% there is no contest, safety is always first. The safety of my coworkers, and the safety of our communities. And the management team at PG&E is committed to proving that and proving and earning the trust and proving ourselves trustworthy by the people of California that we are here to serve. We know what good looks like and we’re about implementing all of the processes and systems to make PG&E the safest utility in the world.

Greg Dalton: So, I believe you. I want to believe that you hired a great team. What happens when the next fire? Odds are you got a lot of lines and a lot of forests that are hot and dry and there's a lot of fuel there. What happens then to the individuals that you're talking about and to the company. What happens next?

Patti Poppe: Yeah, a couple things. First of all, there are a lot of positive signs about the progress we've already made. We have taken some very significant actions in the last 18 months, one of which was implementing a system called our enhanced powerline safety settings. We call it EPSS. We have activated these settings and engineered our power lines in all of our high fire threat areas. In addition to that additional about 10,000 additional miles adjacent to those high fire threat areas that if anything makes contact with those lines, they deenergized in less than 10th of a second. And as a result, we’ve seen ignitions dropped 80% year-over-year, and this year we’re adding new technologies and new devices to get that 80 closer to 100. And that progress is real and it's happening so that's thing one. But thing two, I'm gonna tell you just a little story. One of our new board members we replaced the entire board two in 2020. One of our new board members is a four-star admiral Mark Ferguson who is the chief naval officer for the U.S. Navy. He's been on a few missions, Greg. And one day when I was coming to terms with risk and the hazards and the trauma that my coworkers have experienced and our customers have experienced. I call them. I just said Mark, I need to know or how am I supposed to think about the risks that exist on the system and the hazard of things going wrong. And he said two things to me that I will never forget and it really encouraged me. One was he said, first Patti, you have to ask yourself, is it safer because you're there? I said, well, yes. It is like, yes, and I know that our leadership team is making a huge difference for the people of California. And then he said, well, in that case real leaders thrive in that environment. So, I was like, oh geez, okay, this is me thriving, alright. And then he said, Patti, every great mission, every great mission that was ever executed in the history of missions and he said you know I have studied every military mission in the history of the world. He said had two key fundamental attributes. One, they had setbacks. And two, they had leaders with resolve and they had leaders who were unwilling to give up the mission because there was a setback.

Greg Dalton: Well, let’s hope that, yeah, we’ll see.

Patti Poppe: You won't be rid of me very easily, Greg, that’s what I’m telling you. We’re sticking here until we close it up and we get the job done.

Greg Dalton: You're listening to a conversation about the past, present and future of the electric grid with Patti Poppe, CEO of PG&E, one of the largest utilities in the country. This is Climate One. Coming up, how does the company answer for the pain it's caused by igniting deadly wildfires?

Patti Poppe: one of the most important things to provide healing in a time like this for the people of Paradise is that they can be safe at home again. That when the wind blows, they know that there will be no risk of a fire due to their power lines and they don't have to have a trade-off.

Greg Dalton: That’s up next, when Climate One continues.

Greg Dalton: This is Climate One. I’m Greg Dalton. Patti Poppe, CEO of California utility PG&E, often talks about “leading with love.” I asked her where that empathy comes from and does it have a place in running a Fortune 500 company.

Patti Poppe: I think if more companies lead with love, the world might just be a better place. Companies can be a force for good and trust me, I get a few raised eyebrows as I'm out in the field with my crews and at our power plants and people wonder hey lady what's with this love business. But let me tell you something. We need more human in the equation of the work that we do. And I think born out of the Industrial Revolution there's a mindset that work is work and life is life. And I believe that people bring their life to their work whether they want to or not. And if we can acknowledge the human experience of people who are doing very mission-critical, purpose-driven work then we have a much higher likelihood of achieving our ambitions. And, you know, we just had several retirements at the end of June. And look, when you say goodbye to your dear friends that you work shoulder to shoulder with to change the world together. You can't tell me that you don't love them. And so, let's just acknowledge that and create a space for people to be human while we do what we do. And I think people are safer then to be themselves to bring their best ideas to make a difference that's gonna last and to hold each other accountable. We had a leadership team meeting earlier this week. And I was talking on the subject of leading with love. When you put your child in the backseat of your car in their safety seat, you buckle the seatbelt you would never pullout of the driveway without buckling your child in because you love them. When you're working on a job site with a coworker and you see them doing something unsafe, darn straight you're gonna say something because you love them. And when you acknowledge before something happens that there is love in this space, then you're gonna do better work and it’s gonna be safer for our communities and for our coworkers.

Greg Dalton: And having that leading with love slogan, some of the fire victims have questioned whether you're leading with love and they've been traumatized in many cases retraumatized when litigation drags on and payments are not delivered as promised. And to be clear you don't control the victim compensation fund; that was part of a bankruptcy deal negotiated with the state etc. I'd like to play a clip and a question from one victim, Jess Mercer, who lost her family home in the Paradise fire.

Jess Mercer: My name is Jess Mercer. I lived and resided in Paradise, California for a majority of my adulthood. When I was 34 years old unfortunately, on November 8, 2018. My town burnt to the ground, consuming 94%. This included buildings. This included businesses, schools, homes, bikes, anything that you can think of that would be in a town that makes up the fabric of a town. Personally, my father's home burnt with everything in it. We did not retrieve anything from that loss. The night of the fire I did receive my father. He's in his late 70s and upon getting him into my safe dwelling he threw his keys out. And in that moment, I realized that that was one of the most parallel things that all of us still shared regardless of where we went is that most of us grabbed our keys, our phone or our wallet. So, I did a call for art thinking that I could give those keys a new home, considering they no longer had entrance into a home or into that bike lock to go for a nice ride through the community or open a diary to tell their secrets that no one else would see. I constructed a Phoenix sculpture out of those keys that were engraved with initials and addresses and smiley faces just to give us some hope that not only were we overcoming a fire for climate change and poor caretaking of our equipment in our area in regards to electrical. But it's also a symbol of unity and it took the thousands of people to come together to give the thousands of keys to stand tall once again. The one main question that I have is the response that PG&E has done, not just in the physical equipment and underground lining is what type of funding are you planning on putting forth for trauma and for programs for the future generations of the community. Those that did stay and their children that were highly affected to lower their traumatic responses moving forward and to actually help propel them to have successful lives. I would just really like to know how that's gonna happen.

Greg Dalton: That’s Jess Mercer, who lost her family home in Paradise fire. Patti Poppe, your response to Jess’ story?

Patti Poppe: Yeah, well first of all, Jess, if you're listening, that's a beautiful work of art and I'm so sorry for everything you've been through. I have a couple of thoughts about this. Number one, one of the most important things to provide healing in a time like this for the people of Paradise is that they can be safe at home again. That when the wind blows, they know that there will be no risk of a fire due to their power lines and they don't have to have a trade-off. And so, the work that we’re doing there to underground the lines was the precursor to us making the 10,000-mile commitment. And I think that is an important part of the healing for that community and the healing of the people. I think Jess asks an interesting question that we've been busy thinking about the infrastructure and what can we do to further assist our communities. We do a lot of work with a lot of organizations in a variety of areas supporting both post-disaster relief during a disaster during a public safety power shut off emergency. I’m proud of how my team shows up in those moments, but I think it's a good prompt for me to think about what can we do to help with the emotional healing of the children who experienced such a traumatic event. It’s hard to fathom. And I'll tell you, you know, Greg, I wear this ladybug on my shirt suit, what have you every day as a reminder -- pardon me.

Greg Dalton: It’s okay. Take a moment.

Patti Poppe: About a girl named Feyla, Feyla McLeod, who was attempting to get out of the Zogg Fire in 2020 when a tree fell on normally operating power lines. And she died that day in the car with her mother. And I met with her family and she loved ladybugs. And I promised her grandmother that we would work every day to make it right and make it safe.

Greg Dalton: And when you’re talking to investors do you think of Feyla?

Patti Poppe: Of course, and investors want us to. Investors’ interests are aligned with our customers and our communities. They want a well-run safe energy provider who is going to be part of not just fixing the infrastructure to not cause fires but to actually thwart the root cause of climate change at its core. So, I think of it like a tree. At the branches we have all our public safety prevention measures, the vegetation management, all the inspections that we do, the extraordinary lengths we go to make the system safe. But the trunk of the tree is the actual system itself and its re-imagination maybe not wireless power, but a lot less wires. Whether they're underground or we’ve got distributed energy that's at the trunk. But the root is the climate and what has changed and we have to decarbonize the system as fast as we can at the lowest societal cost.

Greg Dalton: And speaking about the root cause of climate change PG&E has hydroelectric power. It's pretty green relative to utilities in the country. We’re in a situation where there is a -- what are you doing to use your platform profile within the industry to decarbonize because there's still some clinging to coal that's happening. We’re not gonna get much support from Congress or the Supreme Court right now so it's kind of a moment where industry needs to lead and is industry gonna go faster than it absolutely has to?

Patti Poppe: You know you might be surprised about this. My peers across the industry are extraordinarily committed to decarbonizing the energy resources. When I was in Michigan, and so here I was in a Michigan utility I had total support to retire our coal plants. And we retired while I was there five or seven of our 12, we had five remaining those dates have been set. The company made even more aggressive ambitions to retire the coal faster since I left. The ambitions of the sector are pretty extraordinary and the carbon reductions that have occurred in the nation have been predominantly driven by the transition away from coal in power generation. And in fact, just a few years ago in 2018 the carbon emissions from power generation exceeded that of transportation. That's not true anymore. The greatest reductions have been made in the power sector. So, I think you would find a willing group of very ambitious leaders actively pursuing the decarbonization of our generating fleet nationwide.

Greg Dalton: And those companies actually sat on the sidelines when there is this case, West Virginia versus EPA recently where one state and some Republican governors Atty. Generals, you brought this case industry is kind of set on the sidelines, which –

Patti Poppe: Oh, there were several of us who several of my peers. And I supported the EPA's position and frankly, the ship has sailed. It's already happening.

Greg Dalton: Coal is dying.

Patti Poppe: Coal is dying. It's definitely the economics even changed. There's not a future for coal.

Greg Dalton: We've talked about the underinvestment in the grid and the need to modernize the grid. You know the Camp Fire that killed 80 people was started in part by a part the cost $.56 in 1919. So, what should be done to modernize the electric grid?

Patti Poppe: You know, I stood at the base of that transmission tower and I looked at that C-hook -- actually I was on a cliff that was near it so I could actually see it. I wasn't at the base of the tower, I was up in the hills in the Feather River Canyon. And it occurred to me that those power lines at one time when they were originally imagined and installed were a pathway to prosperity for the people in our rural communities and across the globe, but particularly obviously in California, and now they’re a hazard. And as I stood there you know I thought about the C hook and it felt like a needle in a haystack like how do you find that. But we have systems, we have processes but I learned the concept in lean manufacturing in my early professional years as an industrial engineer, eliminate the hazard. And in that case, that means eliminate the line, challenge the notion that we need every one of those lines, and instead use new technologies. And so, I imagine Thomas Edison coming back today and frankly he'd recognize most of the stuff it would be pretty familiar but not for long. And as we deploy distributed energy resources microgrids, as we underground the power lines as we have resilient redundant power supply that's mobile. When we deploy the full potential of electric vehicles to not just use power from the grid but put it back on the grid when we need it. Flex alerts become a thing of the past, that we have a resilient reliable energy system that is clean and affordable. We actually get to do that right now. We get to do something that we’re disrupting ourselves and it is so exciting.

Greg Dalton: And you come from the auto industry I think one of the biggest positive changes in the last 10 years is the auto industry really getting serious about electrification. So, talk about the role of cars in that transformation of the grid.

Patti Poppe: Yeah, I think they're essential. In fact, PG&E, this is part of the fun of being a California company leader. People want to do business in California. And so, we’ve been able to sign an agreement or make agreements with both General Motors and Ford and we were already doing work with BMW to provide bidirectional charging wherein the vehicle both powers the house and ultimately can power the grid. So, I think a lot of people have heard about the Ford Lightning and Jim Farley, the CEO Ford and I made a big announcement in Houston last year or in March of this year. The first Ford Lightnings would be plugged into the PG&E grid. And we’re excited about that. I call it the triple stack of value that certainly decarbonizing transportation is important, but imagine as a resilience play powering your house and then on a hot summer day it powers the grid. That changes the value proposition of an electric vehicle and it changes the role of the interface between the electric vehicle and our grid. And we get to reimagine that. We in fact are working with Microsoft and Schneider electric to optimize the system that can accelerate the distributed energy resources being optimized. It is such an exciting time for customers to have solutions that they want, the power the way they want it and in a way that when we do it in an optimized way where we have one system in real architecture to how all of these distributed resources interface one another. We can have a much lower societal cost to decarbonizing our economy. It’s like the chance of a lifetime to have that kind of impact on the world and to lead the team who’s gonna lead California through that transition.

Greg Dalton: And a big part of that transition in California is rooftop residential solar. The industry thinks and a lot of people I know and respect think that PG&E is trying to strangle rooftop solar. Net metering was a big debate in the state and the state was about to make a decision put it on hold. So, how do you balance the need to pay for the grid. People like me who have solar use it as a battery we should pay a price, but the PG&E is trying to muscle in and try to really hurt rooftop solar deployment in the companies and jobs involved in that.

Patti Poppe: I am so glad you asked me this question, Greg. Because I want to set the record straight on a couple things. And I know you know this is a complex subject.

Greg Dalton: It is.

Patti Poppe: And just like I couldn't deny climate change with the soundbite it's you know improper it's improper to boil this thing down to a soundbite. So, if you'll permit me, I'm gonna give you a little bit of an extended answer, but let me just share my thinking on this and it might surprise people. First and foremost, the utility makes no profit on the sale of that energy. So, there's no profit motive here. I just need to and that surprises people and people think I'm not being accurate. Trust me I know. And the people who say that we are profit motivated in this and that we’re fighting this because we’re protecting profits are not correct. They are not correct when they say that. So, let’s just -- so, given the backdrop that I do not have a profit motive in this argument, it gives me a pretty interesting vantage point to think about what is best for all customers. And let me make it simple. I'll try and say it in a plain way. Imagine there's two kinds of energy. One is produced when the sun is shining and a different kind of energy that's produced when the sun is not shining. Think of them in buckets. So, we had this bucket here in California that is full and overflowing with energy that can be produced by the sun, and while the sun is shining. In fact, on many days of the year we have so much power that we can't use it all and we have to export it. It's free, negative pricing. So, in that context NEM worked. It was good policy. Did you hear me say that?

Greg Dalton: Mm-hmm.

Patti Poppe: Yes. It was good policy at the time. Today, the price of that energy in that bucket the price to make the equipment to produce that energy has dropped 70%. The incentive actually needs to shift. The incentive needs to fill up this other bucket because the other bucket is empty, not empty, but it’s definitely not overflowing. So, on the same day when you have free power because you have so much of it is overflowing the bucket. The other bucket when you hit 8 PM does not have enough energy to serve the state. We need to invest in storage. We have Flex alerts in the world's fifth largest economy, we cannot meet all our needs every day, that makes no sense. We have still a reliance on fossil fuel. We need to accelerate the retirement of fossil fuels. We still have prices rising when in fact, prices are dropping of the power sources. This is an equation that can be solved but it’s not simple and you don't solve it with single solutions you have to have optimized solutions. And because we are not profit motivated, because we do not have a profit dog in this fight, people would benefit from doing their homework, learning a little more about this issue, not being tempted by the simple soundbites that PG&E doesn't like solar, not true. PG&E loves solar, but we need to make sure we have distributed resources that are balanced with dispatchable resources like batteries. And there's a technology cost curve that's happening in batteries that makes us able to fill that bucket, particularly with the right incentives and we can have a balanced clean energy system that is reliable every day for California but somebody's got to be air traffic control. And the interesting thing about the business construct for a utility, an investor-owned utility is by design from the earliest days we were the ones expected to serve everyone. We are the provider of last resort. We are the ones who have to make sure it's fair. And that is why we don't have a profit motive. That's why it's designed that way so that we can be agnostic to who produces the energy and where it comes from. We can choose and make sure that we would make the best choices for the people of California to have an optimized clean, affordable grid.

Greg Dalton: I’m not sure I buy the not profit motive part by an investor-owned utility but and we can have a whole conversation and we needed --

Patti Poppe: Yes, I should come back. Let’s have another show about that.

Greg Dalton: Net metering whole conversation. Patti Poppe. Let’s give a round of thanks to Patti Poppe for coming here, doing a tough job in an important time.

[Applause]

Patti Poppe: Thank you, Greg. Appreciate it.

Greg Dalton: On this Climate One... We’ve been talking about the past and future of the electric grid with Patti Poppe, CEO of the California utility Pacific Gas and Electric.

Climate One’s empowering conversations connect all aspects of the climate emergency. To hear more, subscribe to our podcast on Apple or wherever you get your pods.Talking about climate can be hard-- but it’s critical to address the transitions we need to make in all parts of society. Please help us get people talking more about climate by giving us a rating or review if you are listening on Apple. You can do it right now on your device. You can also help by sending a link to this episode to a friend. By sharing you can help people have their own deeper climate conversations.

Brad Marshland is our senior producer; Our managing director is Jenny Park. Our producers and audio editors are Ariana Brocious and Austin Colón. Megan Biscieglia is our production manager. Our team also includes consulting producer Sara-Katherine Coxon. Our theme music was composed by George Young (and arranged by Matt Willcox). Gloria Duffy is CEO of The Commonwealth Club of California, the nonprofit and nonpartisan forum where our program originates. I’m Greg Dalton.

Play

energy

Artificial Intelligence, Real Climate Impacts

Artificial Intelligence, Real Climate Impacts

Guests

Karen Hao

Gavin McCormick

Priya Donti

Amy McGovern

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

What’s in My Air?

Busted: The Newest Emission Cheaters

Rep. Ro Khanna on AI, Misinformation and Holding Big Oil Accountable

Building a Better Battery Supply Chain with JB Straubel and Aimee Boulanger

Green Energy / Red States

Bitcoin Uses a Ton of Energy — On Purpose. Is it Worth It?

Hot Cities, Methane Leakers and the Catholic Church

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

Guests

Amanda Kolker

Jamie Beard

Lauren McLean

Artificial Intelligence, Real Climate Impacts

Building a Better Battery Supply Chain with JB Straubel and Aimee Boulanger

Green Energy / Red States

Two Voices on Climate That Will Surprise You

Electrify Everything

Cool Clean Tech

Has Hydrogen’s Moment Finally Arrived?

Let’s Talk Dirty to Clean Energy

Let’s Talk Dirty to Clean Energy

Guests

Mary Anne Hitt

Thomas Ramey

Nick Mullins

Delmar Gillus

Green Energy / Red States

Journey of a Former Coal Miner

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

Rethinking Economic Growth, Wealth, and Health

Missed Connections: Modernizing Our Multiple Grids

Two Voices on Climate That Will Surprise You

White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi On Willow And Biden’s Climate Agenda

Patti Poppe: Reinventing Utilities During a Climate Emergency

Rep. Ro Khanna on AI, Misinformation and Holding Big Oil Accountable

Rep. Ro Khanna on AI, Misinformation and Holding Big Oil Accountable

Guests

Ro Khanna

White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi On Willow And Biden’s Climate Agenda

Cory Booker: Taking on Big Ag & Going Big on Climate

The Inflation Reduction Act Passed. Now What?

Green Energy / Red States

Nearly 2 Years In… Is the Inflation Reduction Act Delivering Yet?

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

Busted: The Newest Emission Cheaters

Reporting from COP28: The People at the Heart of It All

Building a Better Battery Supply Chain with JB Straubel and Aimee Boulanger

Building a Better Battery Supply Chain with JB Straubel and Aimee Boulanger

Guests

JB Straubel

Aimee Boulanger

Can We Get Clean Energy Without Dirty Mines?

No Going Back: EVs and Clean Tech Tipping Points with Albert Cheung

Insane Mode: Tesla’s Wild Ride

Tesla: Impossible Until It's Not

Geothermal: So Hot Right Now

Rep. Ro Khanna on AI, Misinformation and Holding Big Oil Accountable

Green Energy / Red States

Artificial Intelligence, Real Climate Impacts

Busted: The Newest Emission Cheaters

Missed Connections: Modernizing Our Multiple Grids

Green Energy / Red States

Green Energy / Red States

Guests

Emma Dumain

Heather Reams

Terry Weickum

Voices from the Right

Voices from the Right

Bridging The Great American Divide