The dust has settled on our national election, and the Republican Party has officially completed a trifecta — winning the White House and Senate, and keeping control of the House.
As a result, the GOP will have enormous power to shape energy and climate policy in the next session of Congress. While many of the specifics are still coming into focus, the House Natural Resources Committee will certainly play a central role.
In today’s episode, the hosts are joined by the committee’s chairman, Republican Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, to discuss some of the most pressing questions facing the energy sector: from the future of the IRA, to a pathway to permitting reform and the future of domestic mining and geothermal.
Also in the show, we take a quick look at a few of President-elect Trump’s choices for Cabinet positions, and their potential — and nuanced — impact on energy and climate.
Political Climate is co-produced by Boundary Stone Partners, a leading bipartisan climate change strategic advisory and government affairs firm. Their mission-driven approach combines innovative solutions with expertise in technology, finance, policy, federal funding, and advocacy. Learn more and get in touch today at BoundaryStone.com.
Concerned about how the 2024 election might impact the programs, policies, and incentives that matter most to you? Let Boundary Stone Partners’ Climate24 service help you navigate the political landscape with their policy navigator tool, resources, and bespoke services. Learn more at BoundaryStone.com/Climate24.
Transcript
Julia Pyper: Okay guys. We’ve all been really distracted by the election. What’s your favorite way to find a distraction? What’s your Zen moment? How do you decompress from the drama in DC? Emily, you’re in DC, so what do you do?
Emily Domenech: I don’t know that I’m a good example of this because I love the drama. I find it interesting. But I’m a big outdoor girl, so I’m always open for a hike or a walk or exploring around DC, which it’s part of why I love this city. It’s a beautiful place.
Julia Pyper: Brandon, out here on the West Coast?
Brandon Hurlbut: Well, I’m a boxer. I’m a boxer, so I get in there, I hit things. Just so our listeners know because I got a lot of questions after the last podcast like, “Are you okay?” I’m back off the mat. I’m off the mat. I was in DC all of last week. We had our Overture annual meeting with our investors and our founders, and we had Senators Schatz and Heinrich and Wyden… along with Republicans like former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler spoke, along with former FERC chair Neil Chatterjee. So we’re back in it.
Julia Pyper: Back in the ring. I love it. I’ve actually watched for the first time, the entire season of Love is Blind because there is a clean energy advocate on the show, Taylor.
Brandon Hurlbut: She worked with us.
Julia Pyper: I know.
Brandon Hurlbut: Taylor worked at Boundary Stone.
Julia Pyper: She did well. It’s not a competition, but she crushed it.
Brandon Hurlbut: What happened?
Julia Pyper: You’ve got to watch. You’ve got to watch. But it’s good fun.
Brandon Hurlbut: That’s not going to happen. Shrinking is more my speed.
Julia Pyper: Are you sure you’re okay? That is a psychology show (laughs).
Welcome to Political Climate. I’m Julia Pyper. The dust is settled on the election and the Republican Party has officially completed a trifecta winning the White House and the Senate and keeping control of the House. This means the GOP will have enormous power to shape energy and climate policy in this next session of Congress. While many of the specifics remain unknown, the House Natural Resources Committee will certainly play a central role in the legislation to come. We’re thrilled to be joined today by the committee’s chairman, Republican Bruce Westerman of Arkansas.
On today’s episode, how does Westerman approach the future of the Inflation Reduction Act? Does he see a pathway to permitting reform, and what other priorities are at the top of his list? But before Westerman joins us, we’ll take a quick look at a few of President-elect Trump’s choices for cabinet positions and the impact they could have on the future of American Energy. That’s all coming up on Political Climate.
As always, I’m joined by my co-hosts, Brandon Hurlbut and Emily Domenech. Brandon served as chief of staff and President Obama’s Energy Department and went on to found Boundary Stone Partners and Overture VC. Hey Brandon, I hear you’re back up off the mat. That’s great. How’re you doing?
Brandon Hurlbut: Good. Getting a lot of phone calls. About a third of them are for therapy. A third of them are, they need a job, which we are hiring. So contact me. A third of them are, what’s the way forward? And very interested in that last part.
Julia Pyper: I hear you. In my day job at GoodLeap, we’re all about figuring out what comes next. For reasons we talked about on the show, it’s a lot of opportunities in some places. We’re looking also at the state levels and a lot of unknowns at this point in time, but that’s what we’re here to unpack with Emily, who served as Senior Energy Advisor to speakers of the House, Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson, and is now a senior vice president at Boundary Stone. Emily, I know you’re a Politico person, you’ve been in the mix. What are the last couple of weeks looked like for you?
Emily Domenech: A lot of people who I sent emails to suddenly want to get back in touch. It’s been an interesting ride.
Julia Pyper: Phones ringing off the hook.
Emily Domenech: Yeah, it’s a good time to be a Republican in Washington, for sure.
Julia Pyper: Yes. Well, glad to have your insights here as we wade through what a lot of the future looks like. So let’s get right into it. While there’s been a flurry of activity since the election, including names that have been proposed for key roles in the Trump administration, although they’ve been overshadowed by his more divisive picks, President-elect Trump has selected three potential cabinet members who would have a significant impact on climate and energy policy. Former New York representative, Lee Zeldin, has been tapped to lead the EPA. Outgoing North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, is set to lead the Department of Interior, and Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright, to lead the Department of Energy. Zeldin Doesn’t bring much direct experience to the role, but he has said that he wants to pursue energy dominance, make America the AI capital of the world and increase autoworker jobs. Zeldin has previously acknowledged that climate change is real and Politico reports that he’s also supported regulating forever chemicals during his time in Congress.
The League of Conservation Voters for their part gave him a 14% score, however. As for Governor Burgum, Trump has picked him to run both the Department of Interior and head up a new National Energy Council that aims to cut regulations and boost US energy. And then there’s Wright. Even though the CEO has denied the climate crisis, his nomination has been met with enthusiasm from some clean energy proponents and industry leaders. Here’s Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition who Emily interviewed at the RNC.
He said, “From nuclear to solar to geothermal to oil and gas, Chris Wright has been a pioneer of American energy. He added Chris Wright plus Doug Burgum is literally the dream team. Okay. What are your initial reactions to these picks from the Trump administration? Obviously, they still have to be confirmed, but this is the lineup for the Trump administration on energy. So Emily, let’s go to you first.
Emily Domenech: Yeah, I think these are all really serious picks. I think you have people with experience in management, people who have experience in senior levels of government, both in Congress and running state governments. I think you’ve got some really thoughtful folks who have taken a really all of the above approach on energy. People want to talk about Chris Wright being an oil and gas executive, but he’s an investor in a nuclear company and invested in a geothermal company, and he’s written a lot about taking this all of the above approach. I think it’s a good day to be somebody who’s making investments in building things in America. I particularly love seeing Doug Burgum taking on a leadership role from the White House because I hope that that means we get a more coordinated approach to streamlining the permitting process across the board. And giving somebody with a little seniority to lead that effort, I think will make it move faster and really prioritize it in this administration. So I think that’s a great sign. They’re all really serious folks, and I’m excited to see them get to work.
Julia Pyper: Yeah, it definitely seems like folks who at least are in line with the industries… There’s some other controversial picks out there, but energy seems fairly straightforward. Should expect these folks all have fairly easy confirmations, I would imagine. Brandon, what do you think?
Brandon Hurlbut: There are things I like about them. When it comes to Chris Wright’s profile, I was working closely with the Kamala transition team and my strong advice for the DOE secretary was to pick somebody from the industry. We have to build a lot of things in this country and there’s a lot of projects that need to get done, and having somebody with that experience I think is important. So I like that he’s from the industry. I like that he wants to support AI dominance. I think that’s something that we can all agree on. I like that he’s on the board. Emily mentioned a geothermal company. It’s Fervo. That’s a Boundary Stone client. That’s a great company. So he’s got exposure to advanced geothermal and renewable energy. So one of the questions that I have is Chris Wright said, there is no climate crisis and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, so what does that mean?
Emily Domenech: I think you’ll hear there are very few Republicans who want to use the phrase energy transition. I certainly don’t use it myself because I think when we look at this issue, we look at it as a need to grow our energy supply and be able to support an increasingly innovative US economy. Very rarely will you hear Republicans embrace that transition terminology because it doesn’t line up with our worldview when it comes to how we support our energy mix. It also frankly, doesn’t line up with the facts on the ground. The Energy Information Agency predicts that we’re going to have growth in oil and gas use globally until 2050. So if you’re talking about a realistic view of the world, the goal here should be figuring out how we bring down our emissions, not figuring out how we frankly pick and choose who the best source of emissions.
Brandon Hurlbut: If almost all the new capacity is solar, how are we not in an energy transition?
Emily Domenech: Do you want to talk about what percentage that actually provides for our power globally?
Brandon Hurlbut: Right. At one point, cell phones were 4% of phones, but then they-
Emily Domenech: Again, I think it’s one thing to think about this as a market driven effort to make sure we have the most affordable, most abundant, most reliable energy available. I think what most Republicans hear when they hear âenergy transitionâ is the federal government’s going to tell you what type of energy you can use, and that’s why we don’t like it because that’s not how we think about this issue.
Julia Pyper: It’s more about having the market drive, whatever purchasing decisions they’re going to make to solve a problem. Is that how you’re thinking about it? Let the best solution win, and they’ll pick what they’re going to pick rather than trying to frame it as there’s this transition, we are intentionally ushering along.
Emily Domenech: Absolutely. I also think that, again, it’s a recognition that every part of this country is different. We have regional energy mixes that are based on regional resources and regional grids and all of these other issues. Frankly, every time we have the federal government come in and try to put their thumb on the scale, they often ignore those things. So I think it’s very much a mindset approach. It’s why you don’t hear Republicans use that term.
Brandon Hurlbut: Right. What I don’t understand about that is that we’re trying to beat China. They do put their thumb on the scale. The nominee for the EPA, he mentioned wanting to revitalize our auto industry. That’s the quote that Julia said up top. The Chinese have gone all in on EVs. They’re trying to dominate that market. It has scared the US auto industry. How are we going to compete with China if we’re going to remove those incentives?
Emily Domenech: This is an interesting idea where we hear people say, “How are we going to compete with China?” And their solution is to be more like China. I don’t think the United States’ economy should be like China, and I don’t think the US government should be like China. I think we have a very different approach to economic growth and innovation here in this country. Frankly, when we look at all of the achievements we’ve had in innovation and research here in the United States, many of those were driven by the private sector. So I actually think the US model is better, and I think being China-lite doesn’t always answer all of the mail here.
Brandon Hurlbut: Does that mean that you think there’s a disagreement on industrial policy? Emily, is that something that Republicans don’t support? Because that was really the crux of the Biden policy and the Inflation Reduction Act. It was really industrial policy.
Emily Domenech: I think it depends a little bit on what you mean when you say industrial policy. I don’t think subsidizing the end of a supply chain while China controls the rest of it is good industrial policy. That’s some of what we’ve seen from the IRA. So I think that’s where you’re going to see Republicans take a different pathway to saying, if we’re really serious about right-shoring or reshoring our manufacturing capacity, we have to be honest about the whole supply chain. We can’t just ignore half of it and pretend like we got some big win by subsidizing the end result. So that’s where I think you’ll see a difference in approach.
Julia Pyper: One other thing that comes to my mind thinking about the EPA is this $27 billion bucket of money in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It’s something that I know a lot of Republicans take a big issue with. Those funds are obligated. However, that actually happened around the two-year anniversary of the IRA. The Biden administration got the money largely out the door. They got contracts signed. I’m curious to think, do you think Lee Zeldin coming in or the EPA or writ large would try to somehow change those contracts? There’s reporting in Canary Media today that that would be legally difficult. They would face lawsuits for changing contracts. There could be some other acts that Congress tries to take. But Emily, what do you think about that bucket? Just because it has been front of mind for some Republicans.
Emily Domenech: I think it’s incredibly unlikely that you will see an effort to reclaim obligated funds that have gone out the door. It’s incredibly difficult to do. Even just today. I think Senator Shelley Moore Capito said that they had no desire to do that. Also, frankly, there’s lots of other money that hasn’t been spent and lots of other places that you can look rather than going down a legally tenuous road to pull back funds that have been obligated. I do think though that in cases where funds have not been obligated and have not gone out the door, you should absolutely expect to see a pause and a re-evaluation of the criteria for which those grants have been considered or awarded before they move forward with those funds. It doesn’t mean that they can press pause indefinitely, but it does mean that they can go back and say, Hey, what were the criteria for qualifying here? Do we think that those meet our agenda for energy dominance?
Julia Pyper: Going back to these Trump Administration picks, what could they do in the meantime? Would they just suspend issuing grants? What should you expect from the folks we’re talking about today? Burgum, Zeldin, Wright, for whatever’s under their control.
Emily Domenech: Yeah, there’s not a ton of grant-making authority in Department of Interior, or even at the EPA under this clean energy umbrella. There’s plenty of grant-making authority for other programs, but outside of this space. At the Department of Energy, I think you should expect to see what they did under the last Trump administration, which was essentially say, “Okay, we’re pushing pause. We’re doing an evaluation of every program to look and see. Do our due diligence and figure out if these are grants or program structures that we want to continue within the authority we’ve been given by Congress to do that.” I actually think this is really normal and it’s something that every administration should do because again, when we have a change in leadership, we have the ability for these agencies to change where they focus this money.
Now, it doesn’t mean that they can’t spend most of it because frankly, if Congress appropriates it, you have an obligation in the executive branch to spend that money. But it does mean that they can change what they focus on and change the criteria and change the direction. So we should expect them to take their time to do that due diligence. I think it’s the right way to do business.
Julia Pyper: And then we’re talking about spending here because that feeds into the discussion around a tax bill, but what about just rules, regulations? Let’s talk about the power plant rules, the EPA. Emily, this has been bouncing back and forth in the courts. What should we expect there? What’s a teaser you can offer us?
Emily Domenech: Yeah, I think you should expect to see the Trump administration pull back every significant rulemaking that’s been done by the Biden administration, much like the Biden administration pulled back every significant regulation that had been done by the Trump administration. This is just how it works. They’ll redo the NEPA rule. They’ll redo the power plant rule. They’ll reexamine the NAAQs. They’ll do exactly what they have authority to do under that regulatory structure. Again, this is not abnormal. This is what happens when you switch in power. It happened under Biden, it happened under Obama, it happened under Trump. So I think this is very much business as usual, and I wouldn’t at all be surprised by that outcome.
Brandon Hurlbut: Julia, can I add something else?
Julia Pyper: Yeah, please.
Brandon Hurlbut: One thing I do like is the idea of the White House Council on National Energy. My experience with this is that the DOE is the only agency that sits on both the national security and defense side of the world and the domestic side. So what that means is if you’re on the national security side, you are part of the National Security Council, and that functions really well on policymaking. It’s got a long history. They have deputies meetings. There’s a way to appeal. There’s memos that go to the president for decision-making. It’s a well-run process. On the domestic side, you have the Domestic Policy Council, but they don’t really do energy. So that area, you have the Council on Environmental Quality, which has a different mission almost. So the idea that if you could put something together like this Council on National Energy that brings together those relevant agencies and functions like the National Security Council, I think there could be some really great advantages to that where you can get the principles in a room, get some decisions made.
Julia Pyper: Some longer-term strategic planning.
Brandon Hurlbut: And there’s a lot of overlap with the agencies where the DOE and the Department of Transportation on EVs, that might not be a thing in this administration, but there are these things where the agencies have to work together. If you have a structure that facilitates that, that could be some good governance. So that was one thing that stuck out to me that I think could be a positive development. Under the Trump administration, they had the National Space Council, and I know it functioned really well and the space community was really happy with it. They actually did better on that policy than the Obama administration did. So for those looking for a ray of hope, this could be maybe one of them.
Julia Pyper: Great. Well, we’ll round out this section with a couple other highlights. On the administration front, we’ll be keeping an eye on President Trump’s nominee for UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, the five-term Republican representing a Northern New York district. If confirmed to that role, she’d be guiding US climate policy on the international stage. Trump also announced he plans to nominate Cantor Fitzgerald CEO, Howard Lutnick, to serve as Commerce secretary. In that role, he would oversee US trade policy and new tariffs on imported goods. We’ll also be watching to see who the president picks to lead the treasury department, which oversees rules and regulations for the implementation of clean energy tax credits. Something I know a lot of folks will be looking at. This position will also play a central role in dealing with the debt limit tax cuts and the economic agenda under the new administration writ large.
So a lot to look at in that role. As of this recording, however, there is no announced pick. All right. Let’s turn into our interview now with Congressman Bruce Westerman, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. A member of the Conservative Climate Caucus Chairman Westerman has represented his home state of Arkansas in the House since 2015. Westerman received his master’s in forestry from Yale University and worked as an engineer prior to joining Congress. According to his Democratic colleague and former Political Climate guest Representative Scott Peters, “He knows more about forestry than anybody in Congress.” Chairman Westerman, welcome to the show.
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Julia, thank you so much for having me on your show. I don’t know what kind of bar that is that Representative Peters set for me, but I think I’m still the only forester in Congress. It’s something I’m passionate about, and thankful I’ve got that background to be able to share with other members.
Julia Pyper: Let’s maybe start there. Can you tell us a little bit more about your background in forestry, and how does that influence how you think about natural resources in America and by extension energy policy in America?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Well, I always say that forests are the greatest tool that we have. They’re God’s original carbon sequestration machine. So when you think about clean air and clean water, forests are vital to that. Teddy Roosevelt called them the lungs of the Earth because through photosynthesis, they breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. We all know the benefits that forests provide for clean air, but also they’re critical for clean water. Most of our nation’s water supply comes from water that runs off of forested land. So the forest help to hold the soil in place, filter the water. And then a healthy forest also gives you great wildlife habitat, and it gives us those beautiful places we like to do outdoor recreation in. I’m an avid outdoors man. I like to hunt and fish. Forests are vital to that, and forests are vital to our economy. Most of our homes in America are built using sustainably harvested wood out of our forests. So there’s many, many winning environmental solutions that come from healthy forest, and I’m glad to be able to spread that message in Congress.
Emily Domenech: Well, sir, you know I’m going to get right into the meat of it here. Obviously, Republicans won majorities in the House and the Senate, and that impacts what we get done here in this lame duck session. You’ve been asked a lot about whether or not there’s a chance to move anything on permitting reform. Is anything going to get across the finish line before we end the 118th Congress?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: I wish I knew the answer to that, but I can tell you we’re working very diligently to try to make that happen. I’ve been working with Senator Manchin. He’s pushing in the Senate to get things done. He and Senator Barrasso have a bill that addresses more of the energy side of permitting. What we’re concerned with mostly in the Natural Resources Committee, has to do with NEPA, which affects energy. It affects infrastructure. Everything that you can think of that requires a permit, NEPA pretty much is involved in that. So we’re pushing for NEPA reforms. Senator Manchin knows that. He’s trying to help us work that issue in the Senate, and we’ll see where it all ends up.
Emily Domenech: Looking ahead, since you’re going to be Chairman again next Congress and have the opportunity to work with Republicans in the Senate, you’ve been quoted in Politico by saying that you’re looking to include some permitting reform in a reconciliation package. Are there specific ideas that you have in mind or things that you’re looking to push as Republicans get a chance to move a reconciliation bill?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Well, as you’re more than aware, Emily, to get something in reconciliation it has to have a budget nexus. There were things that we used to think weren’t permissible in reconciliation, but with the IRA that the Democrats passed under reconciliation, they had 12 committees of jurisdiction involved in that bill. To compare that to the tax cuts bill in 2017, ’18, there were two committees of jurisdictions that Republicans had involved in, and one of them happened to be the Natural Resources Committee because we were working on producing oil off of the North Slope in Alaska and everything else was ways and means. But under the leadership of Leader Scalise and the speaker, we’re really focusing on what all we can include in reconciliation, and we believe there’s a budget nexus for permitting. If you go back to the H.R. 1 bill that we passed this previous Congress, we had a lot of permitting reforms in it.
And then on the budget caps deal, there was some permitting reform, and CBO actually scored the permitting. We know that and common sense tells you there’s definitely a federal budget nexus with permitting reform because you’re going to be developing resources, you’re going to be… There’s going to be a lot of money spent in the economy, which is going to generate tax revenue. But as you also know, CBO and joint tax, they don’t really look at any dynamic effects, but they do look at direct spending effects, and we think there are things that we can include in reconciliation on permitting reform.
Brandon Hurlbut: Mr. Chairman, a number of your colleagues in the House talked about the Inflation Reduction Act in the context of a reconciliation bill and advocated for more of a scalpel approach. What do you think is going to happen to those tax credits and other incentives in the reconciliation bill?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: I think we will take an aggressive look at IRA, but it’s like when Obamacare passed and there was talk of repeal and replace. But a lot of these programs get put in place. You get funds committed, and when you really start getting into the intricate details… Repealing the IRA may not be possible. I guess I wouldn’t say possible, but it might not be pragmatic to do that. So I think it will be some kind of a scaffold approach. It just depends on how big the scaffold is and how deep the cuts can be. But I think there will definitely be some things in the IRA that’s used to offset taxes and other things in any reconciliation package that we use. But I’m not going to say, “Yeah, we’re we’re going to dismantle the whole IRA and all the programs are going to stop,” because I just don’t think that’s totally realistic.
Emily Domenech: We’ve got to work within political reality, right?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Right. There’s a lot of post-election adrenaline right now. A lot of people are feeling good, but I think the ones of us that have been around here a while, who’ve been here with the Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican administration, realize that you’ve still got three distinct entities there that all have to agree, and we have to agree in the House. We’re going to have a very slim majority in the House. So we’ve got to come together on legislation that we can get out of the House, and then we got to work with the Senate and the White House. I think having President Trump leading the charge is going to help us come together better in the House and probably help in the Senate as well.
Julia Pyper: Could I ask, if you’re a clean energy company right now… Not a clean energy company. Even an investor, billions and billions of dollars are starting to mobilize into American manufacturing for all kinds of energy sources. Jobs have been created, a lot of them actually in red states as we’ve covered on this show. In fact, a majority are usually because those states are often very business friendly. If you’re a clean energy company though or someone operating in this space, do you have a message for them? They’re reading the headlines and maybe getting a little wondering about the pendulum swinging very quickly. Businesses, as you know, love certainty. So what would you say to them?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Well, I would say, produce all the energy you can from whatever source you can produce it because we’re in dire need of more energy in our country. Historically, electric demand has increased 0.5% per year. We’re up to 1.5% per year right now. So that’s three times more energy we’re needing that’s needed to come on the grid. We’re all familiar with the data centers and AI, and they’re going to create another huge demand for energy. I happened to be at an event last night where Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google… I guess he’s former CEO of Google. He was talking about his book, Genesis, that he wrote in conjunction with Henry Kissinger before he passed. It was the most eye-opening presentation I’ve had regarding AI, and I’ve had a lot of briefings on AI. But he made a remarkable statement in this meeting, which was a bipartisan meeting.
He said, the demand for energy is so critical that our focus right now should be just producing more energy, any kind of energy. He said, if we get to the highest level of AI technology, he said, we can use that as a tool to solve climate change. He said, but if we fall behind the Chinese and leading the world in AI development, that climate change will be a moot point, at that point. As one member who asked a question said, “Now that you’ve scared us to death, let’s get into the details a little bit more.” So there’s tremendous upside potential to do good things as well as do bad things with AI. But the fact is, the rest of the world, especially China, is not slowing down on developing AI, and we really do need to be the leaders in developing the technology, and it’s increasing at exponential rates.
I spoke at a conference in Norway back in August and got some of these questions about what would happen under a Trump administration with the programs in the IRA. But one of the key pieces of information that came out of that conference I thought was… Somebody pointed out that when you do an AI search, it uses enough electricity to power an EV a kilometer. So every single AI search uses that much electricity, and the investment in new data processing centers is phenomenal as you can imagine. We saw where Microsoft’s entering into an agreement to restart Three Mile Island to dedicate all the energy to go to data processing.
Brandon Hurlbut: Mr. Chairman. Are there certain incentives within the Inflation Reduction Act that you like and don’t like?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: I’ll start with this. I’m not a big fan of government incentives. I’m more a fan of the free market, and when there’s a demand for something that technology will develop, I understand some of this technology that we need to develop puts us at a competitive advantage with the rest of the world. So if I was directing all of the government funds to economic development, I would probably put more of it into research and development to come up with the solutions and to help the private sector commercialize these solutions. At the end of the day, if you’re subsidizing something that’s throwing a wet blanket on innovation, because if you can get an economic return with a subsidy, it takes the incentive away to do it better.
Emily Domenech: Sir, I want to ask a little bit about some of these other sources of energy that I think could really succeed under a Trump administration. Last week you managed two bills on the House floor, geothermal energy generation bill and a domestic mining for critical minerals bill. Can you talk about those bills and how you think those policies could play into growing some of these markets from the bottom up, not with a federal incentive?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Yeah, the geothermal energy is something that’s fascinating, and I’ve learned a lot more about that through the Natural Resources Committee. But the thought is there’s 90 gigawatts of geothermal potential in the United States. A lot of that’s in the west on public lands, but geothermal energy is obviously very renewable, very clean, no carbon energy source, and we need to be developing more of it. So we’re working on ways to help states with permitting to make sure that the federal government receives the royalties that they deserve. But one of those bills you talked about says if less than 50% of the geothermal energy is coming off of federal lands, then the state permitting process will work on the facility. As long as the facility is built on state or private land, you don’t have to go through duplicative permitting with both the state and the federal government.
To put 90 gigawatts into perspective, the last coal plant in the US was built in my district around 2010, and it was 600 megawatts. That’s 150 of those coal-fired plants. That’s how much energy we’re talking about with just geothermal. By the same token, we know that China’s building 40 plus gigawatts of coal power every year. So that 600 megawatt plant in my district, they’re building one of those every five days. Going back to what Eric Schmidt said, we’ve got to develop the energy that we need to be able to win this battle on AI with all kinds of energy because what’s happening in the rest of the world, if we’ll just be realistic, we’re losing the battle on reducing carbon right now. If we don’t get to a point where we have more influence of what goes on and that being the leaders in AI, then all the efforts we make to create a cleaner environment might be for naught. The big thing out there…
I think if people are intellectually honest about clean energy, then nuclear should be much, much more in the center of the discussions. The amounts of energy that we need, the need for baseload energy to help balance intermittent energy generation is tremendous. When I was in Scandinavia, I visited with the Finns and the Swedes who both built nuclear power plants. They’re getting ready to build another nuclear power plant. Finland’s over 50% nuclear power, and they’re looking at building another nuclear power plant to produce hydrogen to send to Germany who will not operate their nuclear power plants. But they were complaining about how long it took to permit a nuclear power plant there.
I said, “Well, how long is that?”
And they said, “It can take up to two years.”
I’m thinking, “Wow, we would take that deal here in America any day.”
Emily Domenech: Yeah, two years versus 20, sounds pretty good to me.
Julia Pyper: Well, talking about doing big things, I do want to ask you, Chairman, your home state of Arkansas recently discovered vast lithium deposits. There’s been a resistance, I think, in America to producing critical minerals. I think Emily alluded to this in passing. What do you think about leveraging more of the resources in America under this Republican administration, Senate and House? How do you see that moving forward? Will there be more mining in America including for technologies and including for resources that feed into the clean energy economy?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Great question, Julia. Mining is as critical as drilling oil and gas wells. When we talk about energy, I think of energy and mining as one subject because we can’t have an electrified economy. We can’t have supercomputers, transmission lines. All of that requires an abundance of minerals and natural resources of which we’re blessed to have here in America. We’re just not getting them out of the ground. Because of that, we’re heavily dependent on China and other countries for the very materials needed to make the products that we need. There’s a race on superconductors and on chips for the computers. You’ve got to have certain materials to be able to make those chips. We have them here in the US. We’re just not taking them out of the ground, and there has been a huge pushback on any new mining operations, but the not in my backyard mentality when it comes to mining is really putting America at a competitive disadvantage. But it’s also an opportunity for huge national security and economic growth potential.
I’d like to refer to the report that USGS and the Department of Commerce puts out every year. The latest report shows that we had 129 billion worth of ore and recyclable metals. That’s net of imports and exports. That $129 billion of raw material was worth $900 billion when it got processed into refined metals. The $900 billion worth of refined metals added $3.9 trillion to the US economy. We’re barely scratching the surface on the deposits of minerals and rare earth elements that we have in the United States. By tapping into those resources, we can become less dependent on our adversaries, and we can create economic growth and development here at home. It’s one of those things you would almost say should be a no-brainer that we do it. And then there’s exciting news. I talked about R&D earlier. I got a chance to go out to Pacific Northwest National Laboratories back in August, spend a day with them. They’ve actually got a process to mine copper, nickel and cobalt, and really it can be used for any kind of mineral or element.
Where they drill wells much like you would do in a fracking operation, and they pump in a slurry of high-pressure carbon dioxide with chemicals in it. These chemicals go through the rock fissures dissolve the target element. The one they’re working on is nickel, and they’ve got a mine up in Minnesota where they’re doing this. They pump the chemical back out. The carbon dioxide calcifies in the rock formation, so it stays in the ground. And then they just separate the nickel from the liquid, and they’ve got the chemical to use in the process again. So imagine a mine where you’re getting these valuable elements out of it and you’re never digging a hole in the ground. You’re just drilling a hole and pumping the liquid back to the top. Those are the kind of innovations that’s always kept America in the lead, and that’s the very innovations that we need.
That’s why I say we’re better off investing in research and development and new technologies that are going to give us a huge competitive advantage, not only economically, but also environmentally. As you talked about, the lithium deposits in Arkansas, this lithium is actually dissolved in a heavy water brine that they’ve been pumping out of the ground to get bromine out of it for a long time. It’s very similar to the process that the National Laboratories are working on, where you’re dealing with a liquid that’s being pumped out of the ground and then pumped back in the ground after you get the target element out of it.
Emily Domenech: Well, sir, I know we’re running short on time, so we will give you one last question and then let you go. What advice do you have for the incoming members of the Trump administration? I think it’s exciting to see some of these picks. Any tips for them as they approach the climate and energy issue from their new roles?
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Well, I’ve talked to folks in the transition team before and after the election and hopefully, we’ll have close working relationships with them. There’s such tremendous national security and economic growth issues at stake here that we need to be very smart. We want to follow all the environmental guidelines, but we want to make those reasonable, so that we can actually build things and get things done here. We don’t need to miss this opportunity. It’s too critical for our country and for the world, for us not to lead in these areas. You throw my newfound information about AI in there with it, and it just makes it all that more important that we get energy right because that is the foundational part of our economy that drives everything else. I’ve been talking with folks, and we’ll continue having those dialogues and looking at the best ways to move forward.
Julia Pyper: Much to come. Chairman Westerman, thanks so much for taking time out of your busy day to join us.
Rep. Bruce Westerman: Well, thank you for having me on. I look forward to doing it again someday.
Julia Pyper: Absolutely. Brandon, what did you take away from that? Thinking about your portfolio companies thinking about the clean energy issues you’ve worked on for so long, what do you think?
Brandon Hurlbut: Good stuff. What I heard him say is, on the Inflation Reduction Act, more scalpel than repeal. So that’s encouraging. And then I think there’s a lot of agreement on critical minerals, geothermal. We have some Overture portfolio companies that are innovating with those technologies and doing vegetation management. So I’m encouraged that there’s things to work on together.
Julia Pyper: AI clearly is a game changer with the need for more energy. It feels like it has shifted the dynamic around have and have not, who’s eating different pieces of the pie versus just expanding the pie overall. Something we’ve talked about is getting more mining and mineral development happening in the US, which I think will still be a flash point with local communities. So we’ll have more to talk about. But Emily, what did you take away from that?
Emily Domenech: Yeah, I think there’s a reason that Chairman Westerman runs the committee that manages so many of these critical energy issues and that he’s incredibly knowledgeable. He spends a lot of time reading and researching. He’s a really smart guy, but I also think he looks at it from a practical standpoint. How do we make sure that the federal government is not an impediment to economic and energy growth? How do we make sure that it’s helping the process not hurting? I think that’s a mindset that you will hear more broadly from Republicans and from the incoming Trump administration as we look to meet these growing energy demands.
Brandon Hurlbut: Julia, at what point do you think with AI that they just replace us? I understand you can upload podcasts into Google now, and there’s a program where they can just do your voice, so-
Julia Pyper: Yeah, they’ll just take all your historical comments and play the tape forward, and you’re useless, you’re irrelevant.
Emily Domenech: But can AI give us the hot takes and jokes? Who knows?
Julia Pyper: Definitely not. Actually, I did actually ask it for some speech recommendations for a wedding, and it has some decent jokes, I’ve got to say.
Emily Domenech: Oh, God. We’re doomed.
Julia Pyper: We’re doomed, Brandon. Once it can tell jokes, you and I are obsolete.
Brandon Hurlbut: We’re out. Yeah.
Julia Pyper: All right. We’ll leave the show there. Political Climate is a co-production of Latitude Media and Boundary Stone Partners. Max Savage Levenson is our producer, Sean Marquand is our technical director, and Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. You can get all of our show notes and transcripts at latitudemedia.com, and if you want us to talk about a specific topic, please email us at politicalclimatepodcast.gmail.com. Please also feel free to help spread the word about Political Climate on LinkedIn, X and beyond. I’m Julia Pyper. See you in two weeks.
