Volts

BIPOC communities are most likely to bear the effects of climate change, but BIPOC-led environmental justice groups are severely underfunded in climate philanthropy. In this episode, Abdul Dosunmu of the Climate Funders Justice Pledge talks about his group’s aim to challenge big donors to give more equitably.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsWhether it’s suffering the effects of fossil fuel pollution or fighting back against it, black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) are on the front lines of climate change. Yet they are starved for resources. More than a billion dollars a year goes toward climate philanthropy, but of that amount, little more than 1 percent goes to BIPOC-led environmental justice groups.The two-year-old Climate Funders Justice Pledge, run by the Donors of Color Network, is trying to change that. It challenges big donors to a) be more transparent about where their grants are going, and b) within two years of signing the pledge, raise the amount going to BIPOC-led groups to 30 percent.The pledge, featured in a just-released report from Morgan Stanley and the Aspen Institute on how to increase the impact of climate philanthropy, has already led to more than $100 million in annual commitments to BIPOC-led groups.I talked with Abdul Dosunmu, who runs the pledge campaign, about why BIPOC leadership is important to the climate fight, how transparency changes the behavior of foundations, and how to improve the relationship between environmental justice groups and big funders.Alright. Abdul Dosunmu. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Abdul DosunmuThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThis is an interesting topic to me with lots of ins and outs, but let's start with just, I'd like to get a sense of what is the pool of philanthropic money available to climate and environmental organizations? And then how much of that currently is going to EJ groups?Abdul DosunmuThe Morgan Stanley-Aspen report, that we were honored to be part of, and was just released really details a stark challenge in terms of what the author of the report, Randall Kempner, says is both the quantity of climate philanthropy and the quality of climate philanthropy. So, on the quantity side, according to the report, only about 2% of all global philanthropy is focused on climate.David RobertsThat's wild to begin with, honestly.Abdul DosunmuInsanely wild. And what's interesting about that, what's hard to square about that is the fact that if you ask philanthropists how urgent the crisis is, 85% of them say it's extremely urgent. So they're talking one game but walking another game.David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuSo, of all global philanthropy, only about 2% is focused on climate. And then of that 2%, only about 1.3% of it is focused on BIPOC-led environmental justice organizations. So if you think about the quantity versus quality framework that Randall has, the Morgan Stanley-Aspen report is really focused on the quantity side of it. The climate funders justice pledge, which I lead, is focused on the quality side of it.David RobertsRight. We'll get to that in just one second. I got a bunch of questions about that, but I just want to in terms of quantity, do we know that 2% that goes to climate related stuff. Do we know what that number is? I don't have any sense of scale at all.David RobertsIs that a billion dollars? A few million?Abdul DosunmuSo our data, and I'm not sure Randall goes into this in the report, but our data is really focused on about 1.3 billion or so of climate funding.David RobertsGot it.Abdul DosunmuSo we're looking at single digit billions. But we also know that in recent years, frankly in recent weeks, that number is steadily escalating as new Climate Funders come onto the scene with last names like Bezos, and Powell, Jobs, and others. And so we really don't have a solid sense of what that new number is.David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuBut in terms of the 1.3% number that we focus on at CFJP, we're looking at about 1.34 billion of that which was awarded to National Climate Funders. And of that, only about 1.3% is going to BIPOC-led environmental groups.David RobertsSo that's less than 20 million. Say something in that neighborhood, right?Abdul DosunmuAbsolutely.David RobertsOne other distinction on this is I know that there is giving that gets categorized under EJ activities, which is separate from money actually going to EJ led groups.Abdul DosunmuThat's right. So that's a critical distinction, and you've really just jumped in on the core part of the work that I do. We believe that it's important that EJ work is funded when it is BIPOC-led just as much as it's funded when it's not. And currently what we have is a system where EJ work led by communities of color, conceptualizing communities of color is not funded at the same scale that other work might be funded. And the reality of that is that there are deep consequences because as we often say, the communities that are closest to the problem are closest to the solutions, but they're also the furthest away from the resources.David RobertsSo let's get right into that then. I guess probably a lot of listeners will take this as self-evident, but when you go to big funders, people sitting on big endowments and stuff, and you are trying to make the case that BIPOC-led groups are important to tackling climate change, what's the case? What's the evidence? What do you tell them?Abdul DosunmuWell, we start with a basic concept that says that the climate does not discriminate, people and systems do. And the reason we start there is that we really want to drive them to the data that most of your audience will probably be familiar with around the fact that most frontline communities, the communities that are hit first and worse by the effects of climate change are Black and Brown communities. Most fenceline communities are Black and Brown communities that when it comes to the ways in which this crisis is manifesting itself on the ground and in people's lives, it disproportionately impacts BIPOC communities. So we start there.That if you're actually interested in mitigating the effects of this crisis, by necessity, you would start with BIPOC communities, right? The second piece is if you're actually interested in shifting the systemic landscape that has led to this crisis, you would start with BIPOC communities. And here's what I mean by that. Power differentials in society is what has created the condition for exploitation, extraction, and pollution. It's the power differentials that have created the foundations of this crisis. It's the fact that certain communities have been politically disenfranchised and subjugated and those are also the communities that have been impacted by environmental exploitation and extraction.David RobertsYeah, I feel like this is an important point because sometimes what you hear from, I don't know that they'll say it publicly a lot anymore, but sometimes what you hear in private from climate people is climate is about emissions. And we should attack emissions, right? We should be lowering emissions. And insofar as you are being distracted by other social, like you're mixing your ice cream of peanut butter or whatever, like you're letting your social issues get involved in your emissions issues, you're just going to be less effective at reducing emissions. I think that mindset still has quite a hold on quite a few people.So this point that they're linked is important, I think.Abdul DosunmuYou said. You don't know if people will actually share it publicly. I hear it almost every day.David RobertsSo they still do say it publicly.Abdul DosunmuThey still do say it publicly.David RobertsRight, that there is a sense that you can somehow disconnect the climate crisis from the social and racial inequities that exist in our society, when in fact, the communities that have been the most exploited and the most extracted have been communities that have been denied political voice, right. And they've been BIPOC communities. I often tell the story of a neighborhood in my hometown, Dallas, Texas, called the West Dallas neighborhood. And it's largely Black and Brown, historically has been as a result of housing segregation. And this community was home for 50 years to a lead smelter plant. And this lead smelter plant obviously polluted the environment.Abdul DosunmuIt also poisoned generations of young Black and Brown kids growing up in that community. And it was the political powerlessness of that community, it was the political subjugation of that community that allowed that lead smelter plant to operate with impunity for 50 years. And this is the critical point that we make. It was the rising up of that community. It was the mobilization of that community that ultimately booted that lead smelter plant from the community. And so it's important for us to see that these things are linkedDavid RobertsJust to sort of restate, the whole problem of environmental pollution generally, including climate, is this ability to basically produce waste and impacts that you don't pay for.Abdul DosunmuThat's right.David RobertsBut you can't do that unless there's some community that's disempowered enough that it can't stop you from doing it, right? I mean, the whole setup relies on there being disempowered communities that have no choice but to accept this junk.Abdul DosunmuThat's exactly right. I have a dear friend in the movement, Felicia Davis from HBCU Green Fund, who says we don't just have a climate crisis, we have a power injustice crisis.David RobertsRight. And relatedly, I think, another old piece of conventional wisdom, though, this I think has been changing in recent years. But if you go back I've been doing this for close to 20 years now, and if you go back like 15 years, I think the sort of conventional wisdom was climate is something that educated, affluent, White people worry about because they have the luxury and time to worry about it. And BIPOC communities, vulnerable communities, EJ communities have other things to worry about that are more proximate and more difficult and they don't have time to worry about climate change.And thus those communities are not going to be a big part of a social movement for climate change. And of course, now the data shows that that's wrong, like almost inversely wrong. So what is the level of kind of knowledge and engagement among these communities on the subject of climate change?Abdul DosunmuWell, and this is a key point that I like to make. The first part of that that I would like to deconstruct is this notion that climate is separate from the other issues that impact these communities, right? That in many ways, part of the innovation and the imagination that these communities are bringing to the fight is to recognize the interconnections between climate and housing, climate and labor policy, climate and transportation, right? That they are uniquely positioned to see that climate is connected to a whole range of other systems that decide and define how we live. So that's part of the deconstruction that has to be made.David RobertsAnd you might also say that a White affluent businessman is uniquely positioned to want to not see those interconnections, right? Like there's a lot of incentive not to see them if you benefit from them, basically.Abdul DosunmuRight. There is a desire to focus the fight against the climate crisis on a little intervention here, a little technology here. And the reality is that the crisis is the result of systems that shape how we live. And in order to fight the crisis, we've got to actually change those systems, right? And communities of color are uniquely positioned to be able to understand that and to lead that fight.David RobertsAnd that shows up in the data, and surveys, and polls and stuff. Do you feel like that sentiment, that knowledge is pretty widely dispersed in those communities at this point?Abdul DosunmuOh, absolutely. I think one of the things that we do at CFJP is we actually look at and profile a lot of the movement work that is happening on the ground in communities. And so we're not just talking at a level of theory, we're talking at a level of understanding the movements that are being led by communities of color. So there is a reason that billions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions are disrupted every year by indigenous organizers. There is a reason that it was the BIPOC-led organizations that pushed President Biden on Justice40, and that conceptualized the New Jersey and California environmental justice laws that preceded Justice40.There is a reason that the Climate Justice Alliance, for instance, has had a massive impact on shifting away from extractive energy practices. And so it's important for us to see that we don't need a poll to tell us, all we need to do is look at the work and the organizing that is happening in these communities and see the ways in which it is moving the needle on this conversation.David RobertsYeah, and I'll just say, from my perch, my perspective, like, I remember when the climate bill was being put together back in 2008 and 2009, I don't know if you were unfortunate enough to be in this area when that was happening, but EJ was it wasn't absent, but it was clearly an add on, right? It was like an amendment. It was like a thing you stick on at the end as an afterthought. And it's been remarkable to me just to see, over the years, EJ just becoming much more assertive and having a much bigger place at the table.David RobertsTo the point now that the Democratic, official sort of Democratic Party climate agenda has it right there at the core, and it's included in a lot of these Inflation Reduction Act grants. So it's like night and day in terms of the engagement on both sides. To me, obviously there's a long way to go, but I've seen the change.Abdul DosunmuThat's absolutely right. And that change was led by BIPOC-led organizations. And here's why that's important, right? Obviously, you know this better than I do. We're dealing with a movement that has historically excluded and alienated the voices of People of Color. And there are organizations out there that are doing this work around diversity, equity, and inclusion in the environmental movement, right? And the data has never been good. It's always been bad. And here's the core point that we make. I draw an analogy. One of my favorite football teams, I'm a great Texan, I'm a great Dallasite.So the Dallas Cowboys, what we're doing right now in the climate movement is the equivalent of the Dallas Cowboys finally making it to the Super Bowl but fielding only about a 10th of a team on the field. That's what we're doing right now in the movement. Our best players, our most imaginative players are not on the field because we have historically excluded them.David RobertsLet's talk about that. So the Climate Funders Justice Pledge, what is it specifically? What is it asking of large philanthropies?Abdul DosunmuSo it's pretty simple, which is not to say that they always receive it as such.David RobertsNot easy. Easy and simple are different.Abdul DosunmuEasy and simple are different. But it's pretty simple. It says two things. Number one, it says commit to transparency. So we call on the nation's top climate funders, primarily institutional funders, so we're talking foundations, big foundations to commit to transparency, right? And what that means is we ask them specifically, "how much of your current climate giving is focused on BIPOC-led environmental justice organizations? Not just environmental justice organizations, but BIPOC-led EJ organizations." And we define that very concretely.We say 50% of your board has to be People of Color, 50% of your senior staff has to be People of Color, and you have to have an explicit mission of serving communities of color. So how much in dollar amounts of your current climate giving is going to BIPOC-led environmental justice organizations? That's a transparency component.David RobertsAnd that information is not available today.Abdul DosunmuIt's not easily available. And to be honest with you, most funders have not asked themselves those questions, right?So one of the things that has been a learning journey for us is actually getting feedback from funders that have taken the pledge. And what they tell us is that for them, the most transformative part of it has been the transparency component because they had never actually looked at the data.David RobertsI bet they're not finding out good things, right? They're not pleasantly surprised.Abdul DosunmuNo, they're not. In the main, they are not pleasantly surprised. I mean, the data is what it is, right, nationally. And part of what we wanted to do with this pledge is we wanted to make that data available to communities and movements so that they could actually hold these funders accountable, right? And so that the funders who are committed to environmental justice can hold themselves accountable. So it matters that a Kresge Foundation, for instance, says, "you know what, what has been most imaginative about this for us is that it has forced us to go internal and look at our data."So that matters. And we don't just ask for the data, and hoard it, or put it in a report that we release annually. We actually post that number on our website. So if you go to our website, you can find that number for each of the funders that have taken the pledge. And then we do a whole bunch of media amplification around it because we actually want communities to organize around this data.David RobertsWhat's a typical number, like Kresge or whatever, once they looked, what are they finding?Abdul DosunmuWell, Kresge is actually, they're an anchor pledger of ours, which is great. And I don't want to misquote their number. If I'm remembering correctly, they were under the 30%, probably in the 20s range. And it's important to note that, again, they have had this as a commitment for a very long time. So actually challenging them to, "okay, let's look at the data," has been super helpful for them.David RobertsInteresting. Okay, so transparency is step one.Abdul DosunmuStep one is transparency. And I actually looked at the number. They're actually at 33%. Let me give Kresge their credit, they're at 33%.David RobertsI'm going to guess that's unusually high.Abdul DosunmuThey are one of the leaders in the field, no question about it. It is very high for the pledgers that we have, and they are making continued strides. So the transparency piece is very important because it allows us to have conversations like this one. "Where is this funder? Where is that funder, and how can we hold them accountable to the commitments that many of them have?" Right? So let me just put a pin in this and say after George Floyd, we saw a number of funders make new commitments around environmental justice, around BIPOC communities. And in the couple of years since, we've seen most of those commitments fade into the background, right?And so this has become a tool that communities can use to actually hold funders accountable to what they say they're going to do.David RobertsGot it.Abdul DosunmuAnd then the second component of the pledge is the 30% requirement. So what we say is after you tell us your number, if you're not at 30% and a good number or not, we challenge you to within two years of taking the pledge to get to 30%. So scale your grant making to at least 30% going to BIPOC-led environmental justice organizations over the course of two years.David RobertsCan I ask where 30% came from? I mean, is it just sounds reasonable or is there something more to it than that?Abdul DosunmuYou know, if you look at it, BIPOC communities, about 40% of the population, what we said was 30% seems like a good floor. It is not intended to be a ceiling. And what we hope to see is that over time, that number is far exceeding 30%. But at least as a floor, 30% felt right to the networks of movement organizers and leaders that we pulled together to help develop this campaign.David RobertsAnd so this funders pledge has been going on for how long, and what's the state of play? Are foundations signing on? How much money have you shifted? How long has this been running?Abdul DosunmuSo you're talking to me pretty much on the eve of our two year anniversary. And so we've been around for a couple of years. And to date, twelve of the Top 40 climate funders have taken the pledge.David RobertsInteresting.Abdul Dosunmu32 foundations overall have committed to at least one portion of the pledge. And so some of them will say we'll do transparency, but we're not quite ready to go to 30%.David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuAnd we accept that because sunlight is the best disinfectant.David RobertsYeah, I think you're right that transparency is the big piece here. It's like that dream where you wake up in school, and you're naked in school or whatever, all of a sudden everybody can see ... that alone, I think is going to create a lot of push.Abdul DosunmuRight. Nobody wants to be at the bottom of the list, right. Nobody wants to be in single digits when everybody else is in double digits. And the ones who are in double digits, like Kresge, they want to do better, right? They want to get more shine. They want to tell their story, more impactfully. And so we offer the transparency piece not just as stick, but also as carrot to those who are doing well in this fight, and want to help us tell the story, and amplify the mission. And so what we have seen is that there is momentum around the pledge.And we're very proud to say that we have helped to catalyze a new baseline, funding baseline through the pledge for BIPOC-led organizations of around $100 million in the two years that we have been around. But $100 million is really just a drop in the bucket because right now we're seeing, again, as I said earlier, new funders come into the field every single day.David RobertsWell, this was my very next question, is do we have any sense of what sort of dollar figure we would be talking about if this succeeded, if all the big philanthropies signed on, and if all the big philanthropies actually did it? Do we have any idea sort of like, what the ultimate pool of money is?Abdul DosunmuSo I don't have that hard number, but I can tell you that our campaign has a goal, right? An aim of catalyzing $500 million. So if we could get to $500 million, we feel like we would be radically transforming the possibilities for BIPOC-led environmental justice organizations. But that's going to require that we make the transition, the pivot, from what I would call the legacy funders, right? So legacy funders like Pisces, and Kresge, and Schmidt, and Rockefeller Brothers and Hewlett and ... a number of the ... MacArthur, a number of the others that have Heising-Simon's Energy Foundation, Packard Foundation, a number of those that have taken the pledge.We've got to make the transition from just those to now some of these more entrepreneurial startup funders in the space, like a Bezos, like a Waverley Street, like a Sequoia.David RobertsHave you talked to any of them? I mean, I assume you're reaching out. I guess one of the questions I'm sort of curious about is, is there a big difference in culture that you found between these established groups and the new ones coming in?Abdul DosunmuThere is. We are outreaching every day to the new funders. One of the reasons I make the distinction between legacy and entrepreneurial is that when you're a legacy funder, you have deeper roots in communities because you've been funding them for a long time, or at least you've been giving lip service to funding them for a long time, right? And so you're more susceptible to their accountability, right?David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuYou're more accountable to them than a new funder who's coming in, who is somebody who's made a bunch of money in tech and just wants to give it away out of a good spirit and a good heart. But there isn't the same level of connectivity there to communities, and so that has been the biggest challenge. And then the other piece of this is when you're an entrepreneur and you've come in right on the heels of having made a lot of money, a lot of money in business, you tend to think you know how to do things.David RobertsWhat? Tech guys?Abdul DosunmuI know, it's a crazy thought, right?David RobertsYeah. I was going to say I don't want to cast aspersions, or use any stereotypes, but when I think about tech-bros fresh off making billions of dollars like sensitivity to racial justice is not what leaps to mind.Abdul DosunmuWell and they may have the sensitivity, some of them, but they also have the kinds of neurosis that come from having made a lot of money and been very successful, and you think you kind of know everything, right? And so oftentimes they will come into the field and say, "here is what I want to do on climate," and it has no relationship to what communities actually are doing and need to do. That's really probably the biggest culture challenge that we face is that it's both the accountability piece, and it's the part of this that understands that, ultimately, this is a learning experience both for the funder and for the broader field. This is not top down, it's bottom up, and the best solutions come from the bottom up.David RobertsAs you've talked to foundations, have you received any straight up kind of disagreement about your goals?Abdul DosunmuWell, we mostly don't get that, right. We mostly get, "well ... we're going to work on ... " That's my impersonation. "We're going to work on it, and we're going to see, and talk to us in six months and ..." that sort of thing. But every now and then you do just hear "no, we're just not going to do it."David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuBut generally that doesn't come from a disagreement with the goals or the objectives of the campaign because it's hard to disagree with the goals and objectives of the campaign. It generally comes from a sense of, "you know what, this is just not part of our agenda. This is not what we do, and we're not going to have anybody external to our organization directing our strategy."David RobertsYeah.Abdul DosunmuAnd so that's generally where most of the resistance comes from.David RobertsIf you imagine a huge new flood of money descending on these groups, over the course of the next two or three years, you can imagine ways that that could go poorly. That's a big disruptive thing. And one of the things I was thinking about is when you talk to these small groups, often what they'll tell you they need is just operating expenses. Like they need to be able to pay decent salaries, right? Just to begin with. Trying to run a whole movement on underpaid people is difficult, and they need sort of just like cost of living, cost of operations, operations money.Abdul DosunmuRight.David RobertsAnd what you often find, or what they tell me they run into when they talk to funders is, of course, funders are wealthy, and therefore overestimate their own cleverness, and often have their own ideas about what they want groups to do. So I worry, like, is this going to be the right kind of support? And you can certainly imagine a big new pot of money coming with a bunch of sort of big footed demands about how these groups do things, right? Like, you can imagine big funders trying to sort of dictate the strategies of these groups rather than listening and learning from them.So I don't know how you go about, I mean, I don't know exactly what I want you to say in the switch, but are we confident that this support is going to be the kind of support that these sort of small struggling groups need most?Abdul DosunmuRight. You are really touching on a critical part of this that our campaign is going to be doing more work on. It hasn't been a core part of it thus far because we really see ourselves as the accountability mechanism in the field, but we do think there's an opportunity for us to engage on these questions. So to start, what we really need is a shift in the culture of philanthropy, right? And so part of that shift is a shift in the "philanthropy knows best" mindset. And we've been talking about that. Part of that shift is a shift in the desire of philanthropy to really dictate all of the terms of engagement. And they do that primarily by focusing most of their grant making on program grants.Right.And so you might get a grant to run a specific program, but you're not going to get a grant to actually scale your organizational capacity.David RobertsRight. This is a notorious complaint from nonprofits across the board from time immemorial, right. They're like, we can get a grant to do a specific thing, but we just need, like, printer paper,Abdul DosunmuRight! "We can get a grant to do a specific thing, but we need to hire people to do the thing, and we need to be able to offer them insurance, health insurance, and we need to be able to keep the lights on in the building." And that is a part of this conversation that, again, we have not touched on, but we see there's an opportunity for us to touch on as we continue to move forward. So those are really the two of the areas where there's room for additional intervention. The other thing I'll say is this. It's a bit of a vicious cycle that these groups are in because they don't get the funding, so they can't build the capacity. And because they don't have the capacity, that lack of capacity is used as a pretext to deny them more funding, right?So it's a vicious cycle. And now we're in a moment where there's some $500 billion coming down from the federal government, on climate related resources. And a lot of that is sort of focused on, or earmarked on a climate justice lens. And we're happy about that, right? We fought for that, the movement organized for that. But the concern that we have now is that because of this disparity in funding and private philanthropy, many of the organizations that are BIPOC-led, that are going after these grants won't be able to successfully compete because they've been locked out of the private funding, right?And so a lot of work is being done on the ground, and movements, and organizations to actually try to help organizations build capacity over time to be able to compete for these new dollars that are coming down and to actually be able to fulfill the spirit of Justice40, but we need more funding to do that, and the private funding market is critical.David RobertsYeah. And another thing I've heard from these groups, these are most often pretty small under-resourced groups. And another thing I've heard is that even the process of applying ...Right ...For these things, is burdensome, and difficult, and expensive. Like, if you're a two, or three, or four person operation, it's nothing for a Kresge to sort of send someone out to hear your pitch. But for you to make the pitch is a lot of hours of labor which you can't really well afford. And I've heard from groups where they say, they'll come consult with us and ask us how to do better in their EJ funding and et cetera, et cetera, and we make these elaborate presentations and then they vanish and we never hear from them again.So I just wonder, are there broader ... you could imagine a regime where a big wealthy funder pays some small stipend to a group to offset the cost of consulting, the sort of free consulting they do, or the cost of applying for grants or something like that. And that would just be can you think of are there larger ways that we need to change the relationship between small EJ groups and big funders, beyond just the monetary beyond just giving them money, in terms of just the kind of social aspects and cultural aspects of their interaction? Are there larger reforms we need in that aspect?Abdul DosunmuHow much time do we have?David RobertsI thought you might have something to say about that.Abdul DosunmuRight. I have the privilege of wearing a bunch of hats in my work.David RobertsYeah, I meant to say, I read your LinkedIn page. I had to take a nap halfway through. You're a busy man.Abdul DosunmuI'm a busy man. I do a lot, and I sit across a lot of different buckets, right. And so on the CFJP side of things, obviously, I'm wearing a bit of a philanthropic hat. We don't necessarily consider ourselves philanthropy, but we're not movement. We're somewhere in between, right. But we definitely wear a philanthropic hat. And then in my other work, I actually lead a grassroots voting organization of Black lawyers and law students. And so on one side of my work, I am challenging funders to do more. And then on the other side of my work, I am living every day the ways in which this system is inequitable toward founders of color and leaders of color.And so I see this from both sides. Really, I think the first place to start in this conversation is with a conversation. And so typically the exchange between funder and organization is a one-way conversation, right. It's a one-way street.David RobertsYeah. Speaking of power differentials.Abdul DosunmuExactly. These broader power differentials in society are being replicated in how foundations engage with organizations. "And so you can apply for a grant if we invite you to apply, we want it in this 60-page application format."David RobertsAnd then you get the grant. And like we need a 60-page report every year.Abdul DosunmuThat's right, "we need the 60-page report every year. Oh, and by the way, you probably won't get the grant in time to actually do the work you need to do with it because we're going to take our time delivering the grant to you, and you interface with us and interact with us when we invite you to."David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuThat has to change. And so part of the culture change that you're talking about that so many organizations are advocating for, starts with making that one-way conversation, a two-way conversation, and actually listening to organizations on the ground and having those organizations inform your grant making practices, right?So let me go back to Kresge for a minute. One of the other things that they have said to us has been impactful for them is actually the transformation that the pledge has wrought in their grant making practices, in their day to day grant making practices, and how they engage, and how they interact with grantees.David RobertsSo that just means they've been learning by doing, they've been learning by interacting with these groups?Abdul DosunmuThat's right. That's right. Absolutely. And we've heard that from multiple funders. And so really what has to happen is that the funder has to become a learner, right. And that's what we're pushing through this pledge. We're challenging funders to become listeners and learners and actually hear from the organizations on the ground about what needs to change in their grant making practices in order to be more equitable. And a lot of them are making changes. I think that's really where this starts is the conversation, shifting it from one-way to two-way.And one of the things, by the way, that we have tried to do is that a number of these funders have said, "well, how do I actually get this data? How do I actually get the demographic data information? How do we kind of navigate that?" And what we have done is actually provide resources for them, so that when they're seeking out this data, they're not creating more layers of burden on these groups, right? So we have tried to incorporate that even into our own program.Right, so these groups don't have to sort of do another report on our demographic makeup, et cetera, et cetera. So that's a little bit more public. And it also occurs to me I mean, maybe this is even too obvious to point out, but it also occurs to me that it would be nice if these big funders going to these groups were not like 18th century British royals visiting the islands like strangers in a strange land. Like, it might be nice if they were composed if the makeup of the actual big funders changed.Well, there you go. There you go. I mean, you've made exactly one of the critical points, which is that the work that Green 2.0 and so many other organizations are doing to actually change the makeup of these funders is directly connected to our work. Because you're absolutely right. You should not be visiting these communities as though you're visiting from Mars. You should have people on staff in senior positions who are deeply rooted in these communities, that know the work that's happening, that know the challenges facing these organizations and are directly invested in this work, right? Part of what I have seen in the time that I've been doing this work is that there are so many brilliant folks across the country who are directly and deeply invested in this work, and they are the people who have been laboring in obscurity.They are the people who've been laboring without resources. And in order for this system to change, the system of philanthropy to shift, part of what we've got to do is bring those voices from the outside in and make sure that they actually have the ability to transform these funding institutions. And that last point is critical because it is not enough to have People of Color faces in high places if they do not have the ability to actually engineer change.David RobertsI used to work for a nonprofit. The first journalistic organization I worked for, Grist, was a nonprofit. And especially back when I first started, we were very small. There's like four or five of us. So I became intimately familiar with the grind of begging foundations for money. Luckily, I didn't have to do that part for long, but I saw enough of it. And one thing that just struck me immediately and overwhelmingly is that we were an organization that was specifically targeting young people. We wanted to be sort of irreverent, and funny, and just all these kind of things that appeal to young people.But the people we're talking to and begging for money are, to put it bluntly, White boomers. They're older White people who are not necessarily who you'd go to to learn about what the youth of today want out of a journalistic outlet, right? And so I wonder if you have gotten any sense that younger people in general are hipper to this issue than their elders?Abdul DosunmuIn some ways, yes, and in some ways, no, right. And so what's clear is that younger people just generally understand the climate crisis better than their elders. So we start there, right. You have less of a case to make to younger folks about the urgency of this crisis, but I think it's important for us to be clear that when it comes to age, that does not necessarily portend more enlightenment on racial justice issues.David RobertsYes.Abdul DosunmuAgain, I work in sort of the democracy space, and I think there's always this assumption that the younger the electorate gets, the more progressive it's going to get, just because younger people have grown up in more diverse environments. On some level, I think that is true, but I would not want to bet the house on that. And I think we have to continue to be more intentional about cultivating, even among younger people, an understanding of the racial justice implications of this crisis. And so, as a case in point, I was in Miami for the Aspen Climate Conference last week.David RobertsYes.Abdul DosunmuAnd I did a number of panels during the week, and most of the programming had a climate justice angle to it, right. Most of the speakers referenced it. It was rare that you would sit through an hour long panel, and it wouldn't come up.David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuBut I'll be honest, there were still rooms that I walked into where I was the only Black person in the room. And I don't want to put any blame on anybody. This is not me trying to do that. This is not about assigning blame. But it is about recognizing that even among the cool, hip kids who are invested in the climate movement, that investment in racial justice still needs to be intentionally and actively cultivated. And we cannot assume that it is going to happen by osmosis.David RobertsRight.Abdul DosunmuOr that it will happen just because younger people are younger people, right.David RobertsJust because the arc of history right.Abdul DosunmuThe arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. I firmly believe that. But I also believe that we have to bend it.David RobertsYeah, there's a reason it bends towards justice, because all the people are working to bend it, right?Abdul DosunmuAll the people are working to bend it. And so I think there is more consciousness than ever about climate, and there's more consciousness than ever about racial justice, but we still have to do the work to actually translate that consciousness into action.David RobertsWell said. Well said. Thank you. Abdul Dasumo, thank you so much for coming on. This is very illuminating. I'm glad you took the time.Abdul DosunmuThank you so much for having me. Thank you for the platform. It was an honor to be with you.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

In this episode, Erik M. Conway discusses his new book The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market, coauthored with Naomi Oreskes.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsIn 2010, historians of technology Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes released Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, a book about weaponized misinformation that proved to be extraordinarily prescient and influential.Now Oreskes and Conway are back with a new book: The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market. It's about the laissez-faire ideology of unfettered, unrestrained markets, which was invented and sold to the American people in the 20th century through waves of well-funded propaganda campaigns. The success of that propaganda has left the US ill-equipped to address its modern challenges.On March 8, I interviewed Conway at an event for Seattle's Town Hall, where we discussed the themes of the book, the hold free-market ideology still has over us, and the prospects for new thinking. The organizers were kind enough to allow me to share the recording with you as an episode of Volts. Enjoy!Megan CastilloGood evening, everybody. My name is Megan Castillo. I'm Town Hall's program manager. On behalf of the staff here at Town Hall Seattle and our friends at Finney books, it's my pleasure to welcome you to our presentation with Eric Conway and David Roberts. Conway's new book, "The Big Myth," is the subject of tonight's talk. Please join me in welcoming Eric Conway and David Roberts.David RobertsHey, everybody. Thanks. I'm just going to jump right in. Several things I'd like to get into, but just to start, one of the things that really the book really gets across well, I thought, which I don't know that I fully appreciated, is the extent to which this idea of unfettered, unregulated free capitalism is an invention of the 20th century. It's not what capitalism ... the founders and architects of capitalism, it very much goes against their larger philosophy and their larger kind of moral sentiments. And the way it does this is by elevating property rights, basically trying to they call it the "indivisibility thesis" that property rights and political freedom are one and the same.And any limitation on property rights is de facto a limitation on political freedom. That's new, that was not original to capitalism. So maybe talk a little bit about property rights and how they sort of what the pivot these groups did with that concept in the 20th century, in the early 20th century.Erik ConwayOkay, so that's a jump forward from a book that starts with child labor laws in the 19th century. What I think you're bringing up is the tripod of freedom that the National Association of Manufacturers concocts in the late 1930s as part of their effort to undo the New Deal of the Roosevelt administration. And the idea of the tripod of freedom was, if you think about a three-legged stool there's what they would call industrial freedom or business freedom, religious freedom, and political freedom are the three legs of the stool. So if you remove industrial freedom, businesses freedom to do what they want, then the stool falls.This is a slippery slope argument that equates business freedom with the other two first amendment freedoms. That's what they spent a decade and millions of dollars, 1930s dollars, promoting through billboard campaigns and materials made for schools and movies and so forth in order to try to convince the public that that's the American way, even though it is a pure invention. In the 19th century, of course, lots of business was regulated and the corporate form itself was primarily a tool used by states. States would create a corporation to accomplish a thing like the Erie Canal Corporation to build and run that canal system for the state.And roads were done this way and so forth. And through a whole complicated process, the corporation sort of slowly gets disentangled from the state in the 19th century so that by 1935, we can imagine corporations that are no longer state functions.David RobertsYeah, one of the wild things is learning that early corporations had to go to states and say, "Can we be a corporation?" And the states would be like justify why? Like tell us why. What public good are you serving? It's just a wild inversion of things. And also another piece of this is, and maybe this doesn't come into it as much until the Austrian economists that get brought over, and I guess this would be in the 60s, kind of 50s and 60s, Hayek and the other one whose name is not coming to my mind. Yeah, but this idea that not only is business freedom core to American freedom but the role of the business person, businessman, I guess they always said back then, is explicitly not to be decent, not to be good, solely to make money.So the idea is that if you have these like purely self-interested actors, the magic of aggregating them produces social good, but the individual not only has no obligation to do public good with their business or their corporation, in a sense they're sort of like violating the spirit of capitalism if they do it. Which again is like would send Adam Smith rolling in his grave. Only if you could just say a little bit about how they conceive of the morality of the business person or the morality of business and how that changed from what Adam Smith laid out.Erik ConwaySo that invention of what we now call shareholder value we can trace really back to Chicago school economist. It's mostly popularized by Milton Friedman, though he didn't concoct the term. The idea is, in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom he takes a more extreme view of that than the Austrian economist did. Hayek, for example, actually thought there was grounds for workmen's rights of some kind and that there were some justifiable kinds of social mitigations of industrial freedom, as did Adam Smith. Yet Friedman's ideals are what take over in the course of the early eighties. I think it's in the 1980s that the idea really takes off around General Electric Corporation.For example, those of us of a certain age remember Neutron Jack just dismantling General Electric and removing the basic ideas that the company had served in the 30s and 40s, for example, of investing in its community in order to have healthy communities around its plants and so forth. And all that goes away in that era of the 80s. So you can see, for example, in the movie "Wall Street," if anybody remembers that from the 80s, there's a great speech about Teldar paper by Michael Douglas and how it exists only to serve its shareholders. And that's where all the profits should go, and its only social good should be ensuring the continued flow of finance to the shareholders.And all other good things are supposed to fall out of that, except what else actually fell out of that is workers livelihoods and so forth. It's a fascinating reinvention. In fact, as we begin to bring those Austrian ideas into the US in the 30s and 40s, they become simplified, and they become oversimplified as they're put through the businessmen cycle. Because the businessmen in the United States were simply unwilling to accept even the social protections that Hayek and Adam Smith and so forth had thought were necessary in that decade. And so they commissioned economists to essentially rewrite Hayek.David RobertsGlobalization goes with this too, because the more you're a multinational company, the less pretense or need you have to pretend like you need to nurture a particular community, right? If one falls apart, you just go find cheap workers somewhere else. Another thing the book really brought home that I did not fully appreciate... I mean, I guess I knew just from being a journalist that business is out there advocating for leave us alone. But I don't think I appreciated the scale and how long that's been going on. I mean, your book sort of describes waves starting in the late 19th century of government would try to do some decent thing.There'd be a huge propaganda effort against it. Finally, government would win some new protection for workers. Then business turns around, claims moral credit for the protection against workers, and argues against the new thing that's about to happen via billions of dollars of propaganda over and over. There's like three or four waves of this. So maybe just talk a little bit about how extensive this effort was. Like they're going after schools and libraries, morning cartoons. I mean, they really thought it through about how to go wide.Erik ConwayWell, so we started the book with child labor laws in the 19th century because it's the beginning of the conversion of the National Association of Manufacturers from what had originally been a very protectionist organization. They were founded not at all for free markets, they were founded to promote tariffs, the idea being that tariff walls would protect American manufacturing during the period in which the United States developed. And they begin turning against the idea of government itself around the issue of child labor and workplace safety because those things both threatened to cost the money in various ways. They used child labor in order to reduce wages, and they used well, frankly, they managed to convince the courts that workplace safety problems were actually the fault of the workers and not themselves.And so there's a long fight by reformers in the United States to both provide better workplace protections and to eliminate child labor that ultimately businesses lose and then basically change their tune and decide that, well, we supported removal of child labor all along. That's sort of the first wave of the story. And that first wave takes it set in in the 1930s and then NAM changes actually kind of fundamentally in the 30s for a very internalist sort of reasons. The National Association of Manufacturers had originally largely represented small businesses, not large. They have a leadership change in the 30s in which essentially they're taken over by large manufacturers.And then those large and much wealthier manufacturers begin to believe that it's in their interests to try to change the political tone of the United States. And World War II really helps them show how the Roosevelt administration engaged in an enormous public propaganda campaign to support the war. And our manufacturing friends learn a whole lot about how to spread messages. And we don't get into it a great deal in the book because there's so much material. But for example, I pick up with a story of a congregationalist minister in los Angeles becomes quite famous nationwide for setting up an organization known as Spiritual Mobilization.Spiritual Mobilization's idea was to try to reconvince Americans of the moral basis for free market capitalism and to spread that through the churches. He was a minister. He attracted, of course, the interest of the National Association of Manufacturers, very key to our story. And in particular, one of their leaders by the name of J. Howard Pew, who is president of Sun Oil and Pew, becomes Fifield's biggest backer for spiritual mobilization. Spiritual mobilization operates throughout World War II, actually and into the 1950s. And they tried to develop curriculum to push out into seminaries as well as putting materials out into churches and so forth for free market ideals.Now, it's important to understand that as a congregationalist, Fifield was a theological liberal and J. Howard Pew was not. He was very much a theological conservative. So he takes that idea in 1946 and he starts founding new organizations to do the same thing but into the conservative churches. And so the Christian Freedom Foundation was one of his creations. Magazine Christianity Today is one of his creations. He attracts Norman Vincent Peale from the first marble church and so on. And he becomes an enormously successful entrepreneur of the idea of shoving free market capitalist views into American religion.And that's just one thread of the propaganda story that we tell.David RobertsYeah, I was going to say it's creepy enough trying to sort of conflate free market capitalism with America, with America's founding and America's founding values, but then it gets conflated with Christianity. They get merged in a way that only has gotten creepier and creepier over time. I frequently look around today at various and sundry propaganda campaigns still ongoing and wish to myself that the institutions we have set up to seek truth and accuracy, namely academia and journalism, would be more stalwart in their resistance to propaganda campaigns. And it's tempting for people in the present day to say, oh, what's happened to the media?What happened to the old media? But you read through your book and you sort of realize, like academia and journalism were never particularly they didn't put up a very good fight, let's say, against all this stuff.Erik ConwayNo. Another of the stories we tell again about the breadth of these campaigns, it's around the National Electric Light Association, which doesn't exist anymore. It folded after its propaganda campaign was exposed. This is an organization that existed into the 1920s, like the National Association of Manufacturers. It took up the effort to prevent regulation of the electrical utility industry. And one of the ways they did it was by paying academics to author studies that they could use to prove, quote unquote, "that privately provided electrical power was cheaper and more reliable than publicly provided and produced power." Except there was lots of evidence that that wasn't true for both Europe and Canada, which not only tended to have cheaper electricity rates, but also much more widespread electrification.One of the things that we've all forgotten by now, because we were almost all, maybe all of us, were born after electrification is completed. But in the United States, electrification stalled at the city borders and it stalled at the city borders for decades because utilities figured it simply wasn't profitable for them to string lines across rural America.David RobertsEurope beat us to rural electrification. I don't think I really knew that before I read ...Erik ConwayYeah, well, most people have forgotten, but they beat us to rural electrification because they saw it, well, in a couple of different ways. One was program of improvement, but another big one was, remember, there really was a threat of the communists and socialists taking over in Europe, and that was, of course, used as a foil here in the United States, too. But what the European politicians did was they simply decided, well, we're going to take on some of the claims of the reformers and actually do them in order to forestall the revolution. Bismarck was actually pretty successful for a while, and many other of the European countries were successful at more than a little while.And we kind of tell that story, too. But to answer your question is there were paid academics then as well who were not only not attempting to get at the truth, but were fairly well, I would say that they had already been indoctrinated. They already believed that free market, if you couldn't even say such a thing existed, was the proper way. I would say the better way to say it really is private enterprise is a better way to do it. It's a better frame. One thing I haven't said yet, but I want to make sure I do, is that Naomi and I don't believe there's such a thing as a free market.Markets are constructs. They're social constructs. Birds and bees and so forth don't have them. We all regulate markets in some way, either by law or by the guys that break your knees if you don't pay up. They're all forms of market regulation, and some are preferable to others.David RobertsYeah, and they bought off so many editors and newspapers, too, in just like the chintziest ways. They just mail them a pamphlet or take them out to dinner and boom, they got great press coverage. It's very disheartening.Erik ConwayBut I would even say that they didn't have to be bought off, necessarily. Partly that's social pressure you're talking about, which we've all experienced, being invited to the right parties and so forth, and we don't really get into that because sociology is not our subject. But it's also the case that many of these editors were raised in the same propaganda, especially nowadays were raised in the same propagandaized malu that everybody else was. And it's hard to decide that all these things you've been taught for most of your life are wrong. It's very hard to decide that.I'm sure that most of what I've been taught through most of my life is sort of true, at least. But I'm not always sure, and I have to think hard about it nowadays.David RobertsOne thing that comes across also is big business has been organized and at this for a long time, well over a century now. But they weren't really successful for a while. Like, they fought and fought and fought against the New Deal. But the New Deal mostly went forward and mostly remained popular. And it's like wave after wave of propaganda until around, like, the 70s Carter era and Reagan era. So what converged there in history to allow this to break out from basically being kind of a fringe view to it's common sense now, sort of common wisdom, meddlesome bureaucrats and government inefficiency and picking winners.These are all phrases that ordinary people know now sort of sifted down into the popular consciousness now. So what was it that allowed it to finally overwhelm resistance and win?Erik ConwayWell, I think the first thing we've already said we've had this decades long propaganda campaign that helped lay the groundwork, and that's the main subject of our book. And then part two is the 70s. We have a whole series of intersecting crises in the United States. And we talk about the inflation of the 70s from the economic perspective being that big crisis. And the advantage that the free marketeers had was that they had an answer that was different than the standard answer. And Naomi and I are not the first to think about it this way. They had a different answer than the economics of the last 40 years, which had been successful, maintained a relatively growing and prosperous economy, much more prosperous for how do I want to put it more equitable prosperity than what we have now or prior to World War II, frankly.And yet that seemed to be breaking down in the so that's the way we see it. And because they had an answer and because Carter then has, of course, a great foreign policy crisis as well. And honestly, I think Jimmy Carter believed some of the free market mantra in that his administration really launches the era of deregulation, right? It's the Carter administration that undoes airline regulation and trucking regulation and begins undoing rail regulation. And there's even banking deregulation in the Carter administration. And so they begin getting rid of a lot of, in fact, the leftover artifacts of the New Deal in the Carter administration.And what Naomi and I do is we discuss that, what was done, what effects they began to have. And honestly, to some degree, we are supporters of it. Except there's one place that we think they went wrong, really, and that is they didn't apply labor protections that had existed under the New Deal laws. So trucking, for example. And that's they're kind of the poster child for deregulation because ten years after the trucking deregulation law, most of the trucking unions had collapsed. Most of the trucking businesses that had existed collapsed and they'd been reformed into new nonunion trucking organizations.Wages collapsed and so on. And so deregulation helped reduce the inflationary period. Trucking is a major expense to move stuff around, but at the same time it also crushed wages, which benefits inflation, but not the workers and so on. So that's our story of the conversion. And I'm sure you could write others because in the couple of chapters we had, we could barely scratch the surface of what it was, I think, a very complex and challenging period.David RobertsI know you're a historian, so history is your thing. But as you look around now, maybe you and Naomi have talked about this. Do you feel like the hold of kind of the free market mythology is loosening? Do you think we're heading in another direction now? What's your take on the current state of this? Because it seemed to sort of hit its peak in sort of like Bill Clinton. When you got a Democratic president saying the era of big government is over, you've sort of, like, won at that point. You've won the argument. Where do you think we are now with all this stuff?Erik ConwayBoy, I wish I knew. Being a historian, we're bad at crystal ball kinds of things. It's certainly interesting to me that the current president and his predecessor are not free marketeers, neither of them, but in quite different ways. Right. Trump is still backers of kind of Reagan style deregulation gutting environmental agencies and that sort of thing. He did those kinds of things but at the same time was almost doing the 19th century idea of tariff protectionism.David RobertsReally old school.Erik ConwayReally old school. I know some people have called it neo-feudalism, but I don't see it that way. But then again, since I'm a 20th century guy, there wasn't a lot of feudalism for me to study. So maybe I'm wrong. But I do find it intriguing that it's no longer the default position of either party, that the idea of unregulated markets are to continue to be dominant. But what comes next? I don't know. That's the challenging and terrifying part to some.David RobertsAnd neither of them seem to get much internal pushback from their own party over that.Erik ConwayNo, exactly.David RobertsThere doesn't seem to be like an organized presence for it anymore.Erik ConwayRight. And instead it's patchwork. But that's not the word I want. It's more a matter of what they perceive to be immediate self interest at the party level. And so there's lots of discussion now of big-tech regulation and to some degree I would support it depending on the details, but it's not clear to me what that would be. For example, it's an interesting political moment to live in.David RobertsAntitrust is sort of poking its head up again.Erik ConwayYeah, we might actually enforce antitrust statutes for the first time in decades, maybe.David RobertsFinal question, and this is my plaintive question I ask everyone, and especially when I spend a lot of time talking about the media environment, the sort of epistemic environment and Fox and the right wing media and all of this misinformation and stuff. But one thing I'm constantly lamenting or wondering about is why, when you look back over this 150 year period almost, and you see these repeated waves of propaganda against government, basically against government as such, not against this or that in particular, but just government is bad. Like government's inefficient and bad, wave after wave. Why do liberals or progressives or whatever you want to call them, why does the left, why do the people who believe that government can improve people's lives as it demonstrably has many times through our history?Where are their propaganda campaigns? Where is the think tank that's just devoted to arguing that government is good? I can name ten on the right that are devoted purely to the subject of how government is bad. Is there one on the left that's just government is good as opposed to this immigration group and this crime group, whatever? Why does the side of social democracy, mixed capitalism, the stuff that seems to work, why does it not have a propaganda arm or effort? Or why does it never seem to fight for itself as such? Do you have an answer to that question?Erik ConwayI don't have a good answer. The usual joke you get is that they just don't have the money. And maybe that's true, but I think there's actually a better argument in another book, and I'm really hoping the name of this author comes to me. But unfortunately, I read this. It was published after we'd finished our manuscript. But there's an argument about back in the 1970s that the Consumers Rights Movement undermined precisely that argument because the government was so complicit in allowing itself to be used by corporate lobbyists because the corporate lobbyists had been so successful in ensuring regulations were written in ways that benefited the incumbents right.The existing big three carb manufacturers and so forth. And I can remember when we were doing the book tour for what little book tour we had for Merchants of Doubt. I was up in, I think, Alberta province in Canada, and I wish I knew who this was, but I was talking to an economist over a beer who told me a great story about one of the Carter administration's economists. And the person I was talking to was saying that really, it's not that he believed in free markets, it's that he believed that corporations could rig government to do essentially whatever they want to use the government to build and sustain their own monopolies.And the only solution to this was to sweep away all the rules. The problem with that is that then you have to keep doing that, right? Because every generation of corporate titan gets the rules written again to protect itself. And I mean, that was the only fly I could see in that argument. But to go back to your question, the problem that liberal activists would have is that because a lot of people on the left, I think, actually agree with that. And I even think that there's merit to it because I've seen it so often in my own research career.Corporations do get state and federal governments to write rules that benefit them. And so that undermines the whole notion of a pro government propaganda campaign, right? Because maybe it's just that all of the leftists have very mixed feelings about it. And honestly, I think we should I don't want to say one of the things I hope you will get out of our book is that we're not saying that all corporations are bad or that the government is always good because neither of those positions are true. They're not.David RobertsOkay, well, I'd love to hear from the audience. Let me just say this is a subject about which I feel many people will be tempted to have more of a comment than a question. And I just want to get out ahead of that and say, if you have comments, save them for afterwards. You can talk to us afterwards. People came to hear Eric talk, so try to keep your questions concise. Yeah, just come on up to the podium if you have questions, or if not, I'm going to keep asking them.Audience MemberI have a process rather than content question. So I'm a retired oceanographer. I'm familiar with your co-authors work in the scientific field. So it's kind of a dual question of, you guys seem to be stepping out of your area of technical and scientific expertise into the economic world, and I'm curious about the process of how the two of you work together on this?Erik ConwayOkay, so we did the book because we wanted to follow up "Merchants of Doubt", in which, if you're not familiar, was really a history of four physicists and how they spent their retirement careers working to cast doubt about the truth of environmental problems. And what we concluded was that they were believers in market fundamentalism, the idea that only free markets could protect political freedom. In other words, basically a 1980s version of the Tripod of Freedom from 1935. And so in this book, we wanted to tell the history of market fundamentalism, so that's why we did it.Audience MemberCan you tell us who we is?Erik ConwayOh, sorry. Naomi Oreskes. She's the lead author in the book, and I'm Eric. Process, so I guess I'm the one who had spent a lot of time or a lot more time in economic history initially because I'm a historian in technology, and you really can't separate technology from business and economics to a lesser degree. So I guess to some degree, you can blame me for the initial ideas. And then once we had sort of gotten the book proposal sold, process was we separate the chapters, figure out who's doing what, whose expertise more aligned to one idea or the other.And then it's a whole lot of researching and writing and mailing chapter drafts, back and forth and so on. Kind of the early core of the book is built around material from the Hagley archives, which it's a business history library and archives on the Dupont family estate in Delaware. The Dupont family did History of the United States enormous favor, frankly, in turning over some of their original powder factory buildings to be a business history archive. And that's how I can tell you exactly what J. Howard Pew was doing and setting up these organizations, because he was proud of it.He wrote to people about it. He helped get a textbook by an economist by the name of Tarshis removed from university curriculum on grand claims to trustees and so forth, that the guy was a communist when actually he was just a Keynesian economist. And that prepared the way for Paul Samuelson's textbook to become the dominant textbook in American economic education for most of our lifetimes. But Samuelson, seeing what happened to Tarshis, revised it to make it satisfactory to the market fundamentalists who'd gone. After Tarshis and Samuelson told us that story. But we can know these things because archives exist.And sometimes even the people that we criticize are the people that made it possible for us to know that.David RobertsYeah, they don't come across in the book as any of them as particularly bashful or embarrassed about the fact that They're ...Erik ConwayThey're proud of it.David RobertsWaging massive propaganda campaigns.Erik ConwayNo, they're proud of it because they believe in what they're doing.David RobertsI have another question, which maybe is more philosophical, but this is something I've gone back and forth over the years too, which is at no point from the late 19th century forward, really, at no point ever are any of these business titans who are waging these propaganda campaigns acting consistently according to free market principles. All of them happily welcome subsidies. When subsidies are available, all of them will happily tax their competitors. None of them ever in history have turned down something that would benefit them on the basis of free market principle. So you could make the argument that what's going on here is about power.They have power and the microphones and the money. They don't even really believe the arguments. So in a sense, the only thing that can counteract that, insofar as you view it as a bad thing, is counterpower. And in a sense, arguing as though sincere ideas are in the driver's seat here is kind of like a bait and switch. I feel like they just laugh when we go off and write arguments and research things and care about facts like they're just playing us. They don't care about the facts. They're just exercising power. How central is the argument to all this?And how much of it is just a cover for corporate power that can only be sort of restrained by power?Erik ConwayWell, first off, self interest is fundamental to their depiction of free market capitalism, right? One thing they certainly internalize is that everyone acts in their own self interests, including themselves, and they happen to be in a position to use their power to maximize their self interest, even if it harms others. So you can argue that they are actually acting according to principle. It just isn't a very satisfactory answer, right?David RobertsWell, it's not a free market principle, right?Erik ConwayIt's not a free market ...David RobertsPrinciple of self interest.Erik ConwayYes, that's right. It's not really a free market principle. So you can see, for example, in the paper of J. Howard Pew, and he's writing to Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. He goes through some contortions at times to defend his own or what she perceives to be his own violations of principle because, whereas J. Howard Pew is willing to compromise to improve his standing, in a lot of ways, Lane wasn't, she really was an ideologue. Well, she kind of drives herself out of the movement, in a sense, because she's more extreme than they were and continue to be.So it gives you an example that there actually were people even inside, for a while, even inside this conservative movement, who were principled and would actually manage to drive themselves away because they wouldn't make those compromises. But they're not the ones that had power, or rather that retained power, as you say, because they were acting in the those that remained were acting more in the interests of power than in pursuit of the free market principles. So, again, I keep saying that there's no such thing as a free market. There's always a regulated market. And it's just how and by whom that we're talking about.David RobertsWell, to this day, I think there are like seven true libertarians somewhere in DC. Who are constantly pained by their betrayal by the Republican Party, which is coming up on 150 years now. You'd think they would see the next one coming, but still .. Hi.Audience MemberSo I'm a little bit outside of my element here because I've not read the book, but usually in a big myth, and I look forward to it that you and Naomi arrestes have written what were the little myths? What are the little myths, and can you articulate them that are backing up that big myths? I mean, we can come to our own conclusions, but can you articulate those?Erik ConwayOh, they're legion. Well, I kind of told you one. There's the Tripod of Freedom. That's a set of mythologies that the National Association of Manufacturers concoct in 1935. The idea that industrial freedom has anything to do with the Bill of Rights is laughable.It just doesn't exist there any more than the kind of maximalist interpretation of property rights. My character, Fifield, to give you another example of a myth, tries very, very hard in his campaigns to bring the clergy around to the idea that property rights are sacred, that they descend from God and not from the fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which makes them, if you ever bother to read it, modifiable by act of law, which we can't modify God by active law. So there's another myth. The individualist mythology is another one. And we don't explicitly criticize that in the book.It's already too big a book. But rugged individualism is another area of mythology that is built into this idea of the free market in the so there are a whole network of sub-myths that go into what they are. What we don't do is we don't make give you a typology, a chart of all the different sub-myths, and we just didn't think about the problem that way. We were trying to tell you partly a story and partly a well evidenced history and less rigorous philosophical analysis, I guess you can say.David RobertsYeah, well, one thing that comes across is you'd like to think there's a marketplace of ideas, speaking of myths, just a marketplace of ideas where ideas compete based on their rigor. But of course, these ideas were at every juncture, very well funded and pushed. And I always thought it's not hard to understand why rich, powerful people in society welcome a philosophy that characterizes success in a market as a matter of heroic overcoming individual effort. I mean, of course, the people who won want to believe that, right? In that sense, it's in a tradition of hundreds of years of mythologies that mainly serve to justify the place of the people in charge.Erik ConwayWell, so I guess there's two stories built into that question. In the marketplace of ideas, milton Friedman didn't rise to the top in a free market because the Chicago School of Economics program was built on the funding of a foundation, the Voelker Foundation, which was run by a gentleman, by named Harold Luhnow. And it's their money that got the Chicago School's free market program going and supported Friedrich Hayek there at the School of Social Thought ...David RobertsGot us into Readers Digest, which I thought was just excellent detail.Erik ConwayWell, yes, this is the power of money, right? Because not only could they afford to support faculty members for a decade or two to get the free market ideals built into academia, they could spread them through cartoons and so forth. Right. So none of us live in a free marketplace of ideas anyways, because money can boost the ideas that people with money want boosted. And Milton Friedman is a great example of how that came about. So marketplace of ideas? Well, it's a very rigged market, much like General Electrics, electricity markets,Much like all markets.Audience MemberYou brought up Milton Friedman. So shock therapy, right?Erik ConwayYeah.Audience MemberRight. All over the world, or especially South America. But I wanted to ask you, your historian, I mean, the more you read, you can become depressed. But one question to you about could potentially the reason why there is no thorough backlash or a fight against this propaganda is because a lot of the intellectual stuff that we learn about just they're so wrapped up in the hypocrisy of all the stuff that we've done as a society, including propaganda, capitalism, that they're just, like, useless, that they can't germinate, they can't forment this type of backlash that you're talking about.David RobertsWell, your colleague up here, what do you think about that?Erik ConwayI would say that they would have a hard time selling it here. I'll take back to the idea. Remember I told you this story briefly about Lorie Tarshis being having his textbook suppressed by a propaganda campaign and aimed at trustees of universities and so forth in the 1950s, and therefore Samuelson's textbook becoming dominant. That's an American story, and it largely didn't happen in the rest of the world. So economics programs in Europe are much more intellectually diverse than they are here because that kind of story didn't happen. Right. The rigged market here resulted in one outcome, a very similar thought throughout most of American academics, which is not really so much true in Europe.Now, the question was about the public. But ideas generally have to come from somewhere, right? And if all the economic departments in the United States basically think the same way then where do the ideas get started? In left wing think tanks. There's not very many of those, as we were discussing earlier. And they start out from a position of less credibility precisely because they're think tanks. Right. There's no independent work on that kind of going on.David RobertsNo liberal "Little House on the Prairie."Erik ConwayWell, there's not that either. So I would say to you that part of the problem is you start out with having fewer ideas that can be marketed and then you don't have the infrastructure for marketing them to get the change across that you might want. But again, that's beyond our subject. Other people have written about the think tank world than not us.Audience MemberI'm curious in your research for this book whether you came across any industries where deregulation and free market ideas actually made a more equitable or efficient outcome. You talked about how the electricity market is not a good market for free market principles but I'm curious whether you researched anything where it did improve it.Erik ConwayWell, so efficiency is a difficult term because efficiency is often well, the definition of efficiency matters, doesn't it? If you're talking about cost effectiveness, for example it's much more cost effective to buy property in poor neighborhoods or near poor neighborhoods and make them dumps. Right? So efficiency often leads to inequity. And so we don't often see efficiency and equity going hand in hand at least not in the United States. But to be honest, we weren't looking for that because our story was built around a propaganda campaign by people who weren't interested at all in equity. Not at all.In fact, they discuss and we have a little bit about this in the Christian capitalism chapter they openly discuss the idea that some people really are superior and should rise to the top and equity is simply not equity is not the American way. So following that thread we would never have found what you're asking about. So I hope it's true that at some level you can have relative efficiency and relative equity. But that's not what our actors were talking about.David RobertsYeah, they very explicitly say attempts to improve equity are ipso facto going to suppress economic growth. Like they don't they don't even allow the possibility that you can do both at once. They set them up as being diametrically opposed.Erik ConwayYeah, which I actually which I believe, anyways is a fundamental misunderstanding of Adam Smith's capitalism. His basic idea is that the circulation of capital improved everything. But what he meant, I think, was circulation top to bottom. Right. The money has to reach the people at the bottom because that's where most people are and improve their lives and that's what drives the system. If you have the concentration of wealth at the top then it becomes not only less equitable, it becomes a less efficient and less generative economy. But that's me. I think a great many economists don't think in terms of top to bottom circulation of wealth that's more circular in their minds or something, but I don't think that's what Smith meant.The concentration of wealth strikes me as being less effective long term and it's certainly less stable. I'm sure I've got more questions though.Audience MemberSo it's certainly easy to be cynical about corporations talking about ESG. But overall would you say that the increasing talk about and emphasis on ESG is a bit of a backlash to some of this capitalism and free market mythology? Or is it pure whitewashing?Erik ConwayOh, I wish I knew. But being a historian, even the present is blurry to me. It's easier to see the past in a lot of ways, but it seems to me at one level a welcome response to the shareholder value idea in which the company only has the interests of its shareholder at stake. And the EEC movement strikes me as being at least better than that, that there is some other set of interests and values at stake there. I hope it's not all whitewashing or greenwashing rather as the term goes. But like I said, I don't study the present particularly strongly.So people ask me questions like what are the best companies for environmental things? And I have no idea, none whatsoever.David RobertsIt's worth pointing out though that as we speak the usual suspects are mounting an enormous very well funded propaganda campaign against ESGs. Specifically like there's Republican states passing laws against it. So it's real enough to cause them to mobilize against, I guess so something.Audience MemberYeah. Comment question. Since 1968 I'm looking at the Gini coefficient from FRED database here. It's risen from 38.6 to 49, which is incredibly high measure of inequality. And since that time there's been six different agencies added to the federal government. And you just discussed heavily on we don't have a free market and we have a very strong governmental regulatory capture system.How do we overcome that? And probably the biggest beneficiary we see today is the world's richest man, Elon Musk. With SpaceX, with governmental money. We've got all kinds of carbon capture systems with these batteries and his new cars. All we doing, we're just handing him money. And isn't government the problem there? I mean you talk about this okay ...David RobertsI think we got it. What do you think, Eric?Erik ConwayAbsolutely. We have a less and less equitable society and we don't spend a lot of the book trying to figure out what's at fault there. Personally, I would blame capital gains tax more than just Elon Musk or the expansion of or the addition of federal agencies. Don't get me started on Musk because I have always seen him as being nothing really but a successful harvester of federal dollars and also a really good propagandist, until recently.David RobertsHe's really off his game lately.Erik ConwayYes, he used to be good at the whole fanboy thing, and maybe he still is and I'm just left the family, I don't know. But regulatory capture, real problem.David RobertsCan we throw in the Supreme Court removing all limits on campaign, on finance spending, and we throw that in there. If you don't like corporate capture, then.Erik ConwayThat's another again, we don't go there in the book. It's already too big a book. But yes, the equation of money and speech is a whole other level of corporate capture. Right. It doesn't just allow unlimited lobbying spending, but an unlimited political advertising spending. And that just reinforces the propaganda power of things. And I guess I would say back to the original question, I actually don't know how you break the cycle here. It's one of those things where historians can help you diagnose the way the world is, but not necessarily help you fix it. Because I don't know how to undo the equation of money and speech.I don't know how you build a government that can't be captured somehow.David RobertsBut I mean, there are governments out there in the world that are more competent, that are less wasteful, that are less captured, like there are better and worse administrative states. So at the very least, you can do better than we're doing.Erik ConwayYeah, that's right. And so one of the things we intended to do with the book and ultimately didn't because we decided other people were already writing about it is that the idea that there are varieties of capitalism and Europeans practice much different varieties by and large, than we do and that is wrapped up in the kinds of states they have built, right. And that just takes us back to the idea that there aren't actually any free markets. Markets are embedded in states, they're embedded in particular cultures, and those things can be changed. It's just a question of so what I posed to my audience is the question really is what kind of state versus-slash market do we want?Because we're the ones that have to choose and then have to figure out how to make the politicians do what we want. And that's a tough road to haul, particularly when we have this basic problem of the equation of money and speech and therefore the richest man in the world gets to decide who gets heard. And by unabout what.David RobertsI'll get to your question one second. But I also just wanted to throw in that some of these big states that have huge taxes and robust welfare programs actually have the freest markets, like Finland or whatever. They have fewer regulations on business. They have enormous taxes and enormous redistribution. But the business sector itself is relatively free compared to ours. So we're not even getting the free market we're promised, much less all the rest of it. Alright, final question.Audience MemberSo I'll get historical 60, 70 years back, the straw man of communism gets beaten to death for a couple of decades. And to what role did business, American big business, play in that particular bonfire? Or was there another path? Or was that whole anti-communism deal more of an invention of the wealthy?Erik ConwayWell, so the anti-communist crusade of the business community goes back well into the 19th century because they were terrified of the communist potential revolution of eliminating private business. So they were always leaders of the anti-communist charge, and they used that as a foil to oppose unionization.They would use it to oppose they did, in fact, use it to oppose child labor laws because it was taking children away from their families and making them wards of the state and so on. We tell all that story. So it's been that rhetoric, that anti-communist rhetoric has been a big business rhetoric for more than a century. They were fundamental to helping spread that set of ideas throughout the United States for longer than any of us have been around.David RobertsYeah, there's another thing I discovered through the book is how far back the knee-jerk response of socialism goes. They were using that from the jump. I didn't know how recent that was. It turns out that's been all the way through.Erik ConwayIt's been a universal curse. Now for conservatives for more than a century. It's lost, as far as I can see, any meaning or any relationship to what the socialists actually originally wanted or intended.David RobertsAlright, last question. Sneak one more.Audience MemberI mean, there's a lot of corporations that one would argue do a lot of good things. Like Boeing has been a corporation that's provided an immense amount of jobs and pensions, and it's a lot of our economy. And then you could argue that corporations just need regulation by government to be good to create wealth. But I guess my question is, as a historian, what countries in the world have done a better job than the United States on all these things we're talking about? I mean, it's good to criticize all this stuff, and it's definitely lots to criticize, but are there any countries that stand out as an example of what we should be more like?Erik ConwayWell, first I want to say again, I don't want to come across with the idea that all corporations are bad or that everything corporations do is bad because markets are tools, there are constructs, and they can be very powerful tools for positive things when they're well run. And the second thing I would say is that it's also a mistake to think that government can do everything. Boeing was run by engineers for about half a century and that Boeing did enormously positive things. By and large. I used to study aviation history, and they're still around because actually for a long time, they didn't have a lot of military contracts.They managed to survive on just commercial businesses, which almost nobody in aerospace did. And that's a positive thing. And as you were saying, help really build this city. Well, that's a whole other story. Well, Boeing bought Douglas or Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money or something. Yeah. Anyway, where I wanted to go with that was that I wish we could also talk about corporate culture changing because in what you see in Germany, for example, is the corporations, the corporate leaders don't fight particularly hard against their unions. They have a different, completely different, really set of social contracts there in which they still are very productive and yet they don't have the very hostile labor management relationships that we do.And that's fundamentally to me about the internal culture of corporations and also what business leaders are taught in business schools and economics departments and so forth. So again, I don't want to convince you that the government is always right or that the government is the only thing that can save us, but there are a lot of changes that that would need to be made, one of which is corporate culture. Another of course is would be a better culture of public service and in the government because a lot of the government either stopped doing its regulatory job like FERC and the California Energy Crisis in 2000, decided, well, it just wasn't going to regulate. And that's a failure of the idea of service, public service too, as well as corporate penetration of companies.David RobertsI mean that's a classic example of Enron out there propagandizing for markets and just rigging ...Erik ConwayUnregulated markets.David Roberts... up one side and down the other, like farthest thing from a free market participant you can imagine.The question was about what about employee-owned corporations.Erik ConwayWhat I'd say is a little bit of a dodge of the question because I don't know a lot about the longevity of such companies or what kinds of goods or bads that they do. But what I would say is that again, our study was really of propaganda and we have this idea of private free markets and yet we live in a very mixed economy, as you say. There are not just shareholder owned companies, there are worker owned companies, there are nonprofit companies all over the place. I actually work for one. So that's not the free market mantra we're talking about, is not the whole story of America.And sometimes we not just Naomi and I, but we all forget that there are other kinds of business and capitalism possible. And that's what I'd say, that there are other opportunities to build businesses that aren't shareholder valued returns to private shareholders.David RobertsAlright, thank you everyone. Thanks for coming. Thanks Eric for coming out. Thanks for the book.Erik ConwayThanks for coming.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf. So that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Every year, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy partners with BloombergNEF to produce the Sustainable Energy in America Factbook, a compilation of charts, graphs, and statistics about the US clean-energy industry and where it's headed.The 2023 edition is out and it shows a record year for investment in clean energy and installations of renewables — alongside record demand for natural gas and record investment in gas infrastructure.To chat about some of the numbers, I contacted Lisa Jacobson, president of BCSE. We talked about the momentum behind clean energy, the enormous investments uncorked by the Inflation Reduction Act, the supply-chain difficulties that plagued the industry this year, the backlash to ESG investing, and the surge in energy storage. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Under a new partnership, Heirloom Carbon Technologies captures carbon dioxide from the air, then passes it to CarbonCure Technologies, which permanently sequesters it in concrete. In this episode, CEOs Shashank Samala of Heirloom and Robert Niven of CarbonCure give the lowdown on this pioneering carbon removal project. (PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsLast month saw the announcement of a pioneering project: a company called Heirloom Carbon Technologies will capture carbon dioxide from the ambient air and then hand it off to a company called CarbonCure Technologies, which will inject the CO2 into concrete made by a company called Central Concrete. It will mark the first time ever that carbon from the air is permanently sequestered in concrete.Heirloom, with runs the US’s only operating direct air capture (DAC) facility, does not use the familiar capture technique that involves giant fans. Instead, it binds carbon to exposed rock and then cooks it out using electric kilns — and then binds more carbon to the rock, in a circular process. It claims the capture is cheaper and more efficient than previous methods.CarbonCure injects the CO2 into a concrete mixer, where it mineralizes, becoming permanently captured even if the building using the concrete is demolished. In the process, it strengthens the mix, requiring less cement and cutting costs.Direct air capture (DAC) has faced a great deal of skepticism, and concrete has the reputation as one of the worst carbon offenders, so this project — one of the first that can fairly be called carbon removal — could go a long way toward convincing investors that the former can help the latter change its ways, with a technology that is, at least some day, commercializable.I talked with Heirloom CEO Shashank Samala and CarbonCure CEO Robert Niven about their respective processes, how they work together, and what the project says about the future of carbon removal.All right, Shashank Samala, CEO of Heirloom Carbon Technologies, and Robert Niven, CEO of CarbonCure. Welcome to Volts. Thank you guys for coming.Robert NivenThanks very much for having us.David RobertsThis is really a nifty project you guys are working on together. It's two separate pieces that normally I would probably do a pod on each. So we're going to have to, or at least I'm going to have to be less wordy than normal to squeeze it all in in 1 hour. I want to talk about both halves of it. So let's start with Shashank. The first half of this process is Heirloom’s process of removing carbon from the air. Can you just explain quickly how that process works, what it looks like?Shashank SamalaSure. So, Heirloom, if you're not aware of who we are, our goal is to basically remove a billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually by 2035. And our whole goal is to help reverse climate change. And the way we do that is through a process called limestone looping. Essentially what that means is we use a rock that is very abundant in nature, limestone, that has a natural propensity to pull carbon from the air. What we do is we basically give superpowers to limestone to pull a lot more carbon than it otherwise would naturally.So how it works is we start with limestone, we put that into a kiln, we heat it up, and we pull out the CO2 that's already sequestered in the limestone, which makes the leftover lime highly thirsty for CO2. So we take advantage of that natural property by laying it out on trays. Think about baking trays. I lay them out on trays, and then we vertically stack those trays, very tall, and the air brings in the CO2. And the the lime sitting on the tray acts as a sponge, pulls up the CO2 molecules. From there, it becomes limestone again after it pulls it up. And we do that in about three days.Naturally, it would take many months to pull carbon from the air. We did that in three days using our well treated algorithms and technology.David RobertsSo in three days means the lime is full, absorbed as much CO2 as it can.Shashank SamalaExactly. We don't go all the way up to 100%. We go up to about 85%, which is sort of the optimal point, we realized. And then, yeah, it becomes limestone again, which is great, because that's what you started with. So we can recycle limestone by putting it back into the kiln, pull out the CO2 we captured, and then store it underground or store it into concrete, which you're doing with Carbon here.David RobertsRight. So one of the questions I had is you crush up this lime and spread it out on, well, calcium carbonate is limestone. Calcium carbonate ...The chemical formula. Exactly right, the calcium carbonate.And then after you bake it, take CO2 out. Then what is the chemical remainder?Shashank SamalaCalcium oxide.David RobertsCalcium oxide. Right. So you have calcium oxide laid out on trays, becoming calcium carbonate. Then you take the calcium carbonate, cook it, get the CO2 out of it, and then do the whole thing over again.Shashank SamalaExactly. We just keep doing that. It's a super simple chemical process to pull carbon from the air.David RobertsYou have this calcium oxide, and it's absorbing CO2 from the air. That just sounds like an ambient chemical process. How can it be accelerated? What does it even mean to accelerate that?Shashank SamalaSo, technically, calcium oxide, we hydrate it, it becomes calcium hydroxide. Basically, there's a water molecule binding onto the calcium oxide. But essentially what we realized is that there's a specific parameter space where particle size, particle size distribution, thickness of the bed, humidity, temperature, airflow, there's all these different variables that dictate how fast calcium hydroxide likes to bind on to CO2 molecules. So it just so happens that in nature, there's a specific parameter space where this happens, and in nature, it doesn't see that parameter space as often. What we do is essentially make it see that all the time.And how we specifically do that is really the IP. But we've collected millions and millions of data points over the last few years, doing lots of small experiments, adjusting thickness, adjusting particle size, surface area, all of these things. And we found that parameter space. And as the weather changes throughout the day, we have to change that parameter space. So essentially, we babysit these trays. If you look at, essentially, what this technology looks like is you have these tall stacks of trays, and in the middle, you have a little robot that goes up and down, and every few hours, it's babysitting these trays so that they can be carbonating as fast as they possibly could.David RobertsSo is this all in a big climate controlled facility of some kind? I mean, presumably, you have to control the climate because you need specific conditions.Shashank SamalaYeah. So, fortunately, we were able to not have it be fully climate controlled. So if you actually if you come to Brisbane, our headquarters, where we have this pilot facility, this is actually sitting outside in ambient conditions. Yes. So this robot is actually creating a microclimate for each tray every few hours. So because what we're trying to do is try to symbiotically work with nature to pull carbon, right. And nature gives you humidity and temperature and airflow. Right. We don't want to put forced airflow, these large fans, pushing air through. We want to leverage wind. We want to leverage humidity.And then when it doesn't get enough from nature, we complement it. We accelerate it with a few things.David RobertsAnd so when you have this calcium carbonate that's absorbed all the CO2 and you put it in the kiln, what does that kiln look like? How's it powered? And how hot does it have to get?Shashank SamalaSo the kiln is actually super simple. It's like your toaster oven. Effectively, it's electric. It can be run by renewable energy. Essentially, it's a metal tube, and you have an electric heating element, and just like your toaster oven, that sort of surrounds it. And then you have insulation ceramic that keeps the heat inside. And then that's it. You essentially send calcium carbonate through that metal tube. It stays in there for the order of minutes.David RobertsAnd how hot is the inside?Shashank SamalaIt's about 850 to 900 degrees C.David RobertsOh, wow. Really hot.Shashank SamalaIt's hot. Electric kilns can actually go way higher than that. That's one of the questions we get. It's like, oh, you're using electricity. Why are you not? You would think that you would use natural gas or some other form of combustion to get that temperature. It's like no, the electric arc furnaces for steel actually go up to, like, 14,000, 15,000 degrees C. So, yeah, we need about 850, 900 C. And then, you know, it's only there for seconds to minutes.David RobertsOh, really? So the CO2 comes out pretty easily.Shashank SamalaYeah, exactly. So there's only two things that come out. It's CO2 and calcium oxide. The CO2, it's pure. We capture that gas and compress it. And then the calcium oxide, we reuse it again.David RobertsAnd what's the sort of energy balance here? It just strikes me that it must take a lot of you're saving energy by letting natural conditions do the air circulation and humidifying and all that, but you're using a lot of energy in the kiln. I'm just sort of curious how energy intensive this is per sort of captured ton of CO2. I guess there's not a big comparison base of other carbon capture technologies to compare it against, but well, the lens.Shashank SamalaWe when we first started looking for which approach to use to pull carbon from the air, two things were important to us. One was use abundant, abundant minerals, abundant processes.David RobertsDid you start with the idea of mineralization, or did you just come to this with just a blank sheet of paper and say, what's the best way to capture carbon?Shashank SamalaSo I actually came in from the mineralization perspective. So I was looking at rocks. I was talking to lots of scientists working on using rocks to pull carbon because it's just like an abundant mineral to start. And if you want to pull gigatons of CO2. You need to have abundant minerals that are also trillions of tons of rock in the Earth's crust. And then we realized, actually, just using rocks won't get you the economics and the land. We wanted to use as little land as possible. We want to use as little water and energy as possible.So we needed to engineer it a little bit to ensure that we use as little energy as possible.David RobertsIn terms of materials, how much is lost in the full cycle of sort of you're mining the limestone to begin with, I guess, right? There are limestone mines around already. Limestones abundant. So you're mining the limestone to begin with. Once the limestone goes through, one of these whole cycles gets cooked, replaced, absorbed, absorbed again, cooked again. How much material is lost in those cycles?Shashank SamalaSo, so far we found very small material losses. Essentially, that's one of our main metrics over the last couple of years as we were scaling it up to actually putting this outside. And one of the things we get, it's like, hey, if you put these rocks out there, doesn't the wind blow everything off? Essentially what happens is when this is hydrated, it actually turns into a crust. It's like a cake. So, yeah, we've seen very small material losses, and we will continue to tweak the entire process to reduce it even further.David RobertsBut your materials are pretty cheap. They're not the big cost center.Shashank SamalaIt's not. I mean, the material itself is like less than half a percent of the entire CapEx. Limestone is, You can buy it for $20 or $30 a ton. It's the second most mine material on the planet. You have way more than you need.David RobertsOne additional question I wanted to ask about the process is you make a big deal about modularity. And this is a subject close to the heart of Volts listeners. We just did a pod a few weeks ago about sort of what kinds of technologies get on learning curves and what kinds don't and sort of what features of a technology lend it to rapid learning. And one of those features is of course modularity is it have easily reproducible bits. So just say a little bit about how you sort of had that in mind as you designed the process.Shashank SamalaIt was absolutely number one for me. I come from a manufacturing background. Before this I had an electronics manufacturing company where we basically built lots of circuit boards in a factory. One of the things that humanity really understands and knows is how to build things in mass volumes with a very steep learning curve. Right? And we saw that with solar panels, lithiumion batteries, cars. Tell the team here it's like you're trying to build cars, not airports. Right? Airports are on site custom construction and the folks who are working on one airport are not going to the next airport.The learnings don't don't translate.David RobertsWhen people think about a big direct air capture facility. I think probably what comes to mind is something like an airport, a big bespoke one time thing, but you are trying to avoid that.Shashank SamalaYeah. So there's a difference between modularity and the plants, right? So the plants themselves need to have modules that are mass produceable or built in a factory so they can just be brought to the site, bolt them to the ground, ready to go, instead of having to build up from the ground up on the site. So essentially you're trying to minimize on site construction. So there's always like solar panels, right? They need to be bolted down to the ground. There is some concrete slabs involved and wiring and plumbing, et cetera. But you want to minimize that as much as possible and that's the fundamental idea behind Heirloom.Like our tray is basically the smallest module and we make lots and lots of trays.David RobertsOne doesn't think of trays as something that have a lot of room for innovation. Is there anything special about the trays?Shashank SamalaThere's a few things that are custom and it so happens that the world, we needed such large trays that we went to the vendor that makes the largest trays in the world and they just would not make the trays that we needed. So we actually make custom trays. Yeah, they're large, so we make the world's largest trays. They use traditional manufacturing processes, extrusion, thermal, formula, et. They're not complicated and that's one of the principles behind Heirloom too. We don't want to come up with a new manufacturing process. The world has immense just lots and lots of experience building all sorts of things and we just want to leverage them and scale them to the max because that's how you get 2 billion tons of CO2 remove it as fast as possible.David RobertsSo the trays a module, the trays stack.Shashank SamalaAre also and the next level of module.David RobertsIs a module. And presumably the kilns are pretty standard issue. They don't have to be tweaked or whatever for individual.Shashank SamalaYeah, traditionally, if you go to a cement factory, kilns are actually these massive onsite built kilns. But we use an electric kiln technology that we're actually going to be releasing a few weeks here that is modular. So you essentially stack a couple of cylinders on top of each other.David RobertsOh, interesting. So you did a little design work of kilns of your own?Shashank SamalaYeah, we did some here. We were working with a technology partner to do that too.David RobertsThis whole process, presumably, if you sat down to try to figure out what's the best process for capturing air carbon, you looked at the traditional. I think when most people think of direct air capture, if they think of it at all these days, the few people who think about it at all think about the big machines out in the desert with the fans sort of pulling air over a sorbent. Is your process more efficient than that in terms of sort of energy and material input versus CO2 output?Shashank SamalaYes. At the end of the day, what we're trying to do is use abundant materials that are incredibly cheap and use as little energy. That is thermodynamically possible. Really, all of our energy is in that back end where we are regenerating the sponge, which is common across all directory capture technologies. That's sort of second law of thermodynamics. You have to put in some energy to regenerate the sorbent. And for us, we want to essentially lower that regeneration energy as much as possible and then not use energy when we can leverage nature and other things.David RobertsIt strikes me then that the cost of energy is going to be one of your big top line items. How big is the cost of energy in your overall picture?Shashank SamalaAt scale, it's more than half. And that's exactly where you want to be, right? Because laws of physics tells us that you have to put in energy to do gas separation, especially gas separation that is as hard as 400 parts per million. So if you design a system and you look at the long term economics, you want to make sure that, you know, at long term, almost all of all of that is energy, because that's something you cannot beat. Like energy creates your cost floor.David RobertsRight.Shashank SamalaIf your CapEx ends up being a much bigger proportion, well, you haven't really designed or engineered it. Well, that's what I tell the team. It's like you want your cost floor to determine by physics and not engineering. So that's why we use very simple trays. We're just putting a bunch of rocks and a bunch of trays and using a metal tube, on the other hand, and putting some insulation around it. So you want to keep that as low as possible so that your your $100 a ton. That's really our cost target. You've probably heard of the cost target.$100 per ton. That's really the cost point where it's affordable for humanity to do this at a billion ton scale and actually make a meaningful impact.David RobertsAnd of course, it's like renewable electricity is galloping down the aforementioned cost curve. So insofar as you can hit your ride to it, it's going to tear you down the cost curve too.Shashank SamalaYeah, exactly. The nice thing about renewable energy for us is you can pull carbon from the air anywhere, right? It can be in the Gulf Coast. It can be New Zealand, it can be South Africa, India, Indonesia. Wherever you go, the concentration of CO2 in the air is exactly the same. And that's what our technology works with. So we will go to places where renewable energy supply is high, but the demand is low, so we don't take away the supply that could have been used for food production or putting our buildings.David RobertsSo ideally then, these facilities would be colocated with some big renewable energy just to minimize ...Exactly.Transmission costs and all that. Two final questions. One is, you mentioned the $100 cost per ton target. Can you give us a sense of where you are on the road to that? Is there a number?Shashank SamalaYeah, so we're in the sort of high hundreds of dollars per ton right now and essentially we are at the demonstration scale, right? We are building this by hand, engineers are building them. We built a couple of Formula One cars effectively, and we need to get to a stage where we can mass produce Toyotas off of the factory line. What is Formula One cars cost these days? Like millions of dollars versus $20,000 Toyota. So at the end of the day, the material inputs are so cheap, limestone and trays and metal tubes, that at scale, we should be able to hit that cost.And for us, it's all about how do you get there as fast as possible.David RobertsYeah. And if you're chosen super cheap material and renewable energy, which is super cheap, and if those are your only two inputs, logic says you're going to get cheap eventually as you approach the cost of the materials. So the final question is this. At the end of this process, you have CO2, which you can do anything with. Are you deliberately staying out of the business of doing something with it? I mean, is the model always to just hand off the CO2 to someone else who's going to do something with it?Shashank SamalaYeah, there's a lot of things you can do with CO2, but for us, there's only two things you can do so far. One we are looking at is concrete, working with folks like CarbonCure and putting it underground. And both are permanent. And an incredibly important principle is permanence because CO2 stays in the air for 1000 years. So you don't want to pull carbon from the air only for that gas to go back in the air ten years later, 100 years later, we're just pushing the buck into the future. So for us, it's incredibly important that we permanently sequester it into something so it doesn't come back out.And the only two things we've found so far with that type of over 1000 year durability is concrete, where essentially you're binding CO2 into a rock, it mineralizes and then putting it underground. And that is something that humanity has over five decades of experience putting CO2 underground. And it's permanent and we know it's safe.David RobertsBut are you planning at all to get into the permanent storage business? Or is the idea that you produce the carbon and some other entity is running the storage facility, how does that work?Shashank SamalaSome other entity is running the storage facility. We're going to be focused on really building an incredibly efficient, cost-effective capture system. And we will work with a whole set of partners to put a billion tons of CO2 stored somewhere permanently.David RobertsI've heard you say this in other interviews, too. But just to be clear, the vast bulk of it, especially once we get scaling up towards whatever, billions and billions of tons, the vast bulk of that is going to be stored in underground caverns. The amount that can be used in a way that permanently sequesters it is a relatively small fraction of the total amount that's going to be produced.Shashank SamalaYeah, I mean, as much as possible, every ton of concrete we can put CO2 into, we will do that. That is our first priority. Right? Because essentially you're creating a stronger building material. It's a value added product and it's permanent. You're checking all the boxes and that's better than putting the waste underground. So every ton of concrete, we can do that. We will absolutely want to do that. And when we can't, we will put that underground. And most likely at a gigaton scale, most of that will likely be underground, but it's hard to predict the future, right?David RobertsRight.Rob, let's talk to you then, because here is where we get to the part of the relay race where Shashank hands you the baton, or rather hands you a bunch of tanks of CO2. So describe for us then the CarbonCure process, which starts with a source of CO2. You get the CO2 from Heirloom and then what?Robert NivenSure, I'd be happy to jump into that just to help the audience understand, is we're both carbon removal companies, but coming at it from both ends of the process.Shashank on the capture ourselves on the relay race, receiving that CO2 and doing something with it. CarbonCure has been in business for about ten years. We're a Canadian company and we have about 700 plus customers worldwide that every day are using CO2 to mineralize it in concrete. To make a better, stronger concrete that provides some cost efficiencies by cement efficiency. By making stronger concrete, you need less cement which provides that economic incentive.And low carbon concrete is in great demand in the market, not only private sector, but we're seeing a lot of policy incentives as well.David RobertsSo you're in the business, you're sequestering carbon, you're doing it today, you're getting CO2 from someone and sequestering it in concrete. Do you have any what's the current scale so we can get our heads around kind of what's involved there?Robert NivenWe have everything connected through the cloud and you can actually pull up our our home page and you can see the numbers go up every second about how many metric tons and it's just about 250,000 metric tons to date. So the key difference here is that most of our CO2 to date is received from what's called post-industrial sources. So these are our large emitters and rather than diverting those emissions into the atmosphere, they're capturing it, compressing it. And companies that are industrial gas companies are taking that CO2 and selling it to a multitude of different industries.And we're a relatively new user of that CO2.David RobertsThe big one is beverages.Robert NivenFood and beverage is a big one. Yes, food and beverage. Also some CO2 is used in things like enhanced oil recovery which some other DAC companies are pursuing. So lots of different ways that you can use CO2. But the main point is there's a large existing commodity market for CO2. The key thing here and what's really special about our work with Heirloom is that this is direct air capture source of CO2, right? And by getting CO2 from the air it allows you to actually reverse the effects of climate change and pull down the parts per million of CO2 in the air rather than limiting and reducing the rate of emissions that go into the air, so there is a distinction.David RobertsAdditionality is the term of art here. This is 100% additional CO2.Robert NivenWell, I would still say that it's also additional if you're using postindustrial CO2. The key difference here is like this actually enables you to get into removal, a pure removal kind of category.David RobertsRight.Robert NivenFor ourselves, we've always seen this as we'll develop huge and a multitude thousands of storage centers, which is also called a concrete plant to most people. We'll run ahead as fast as we can and develop all of this demand for CO2. And then as DAC gets online is that we'll have the optionality to be able to use that CO2 when it's available.David RobertsWill there be degrees of greenness of concrete depending on the source of CO2? Have you thought about that? Sort of like different levels of concrete?Robert NivenI think so. We sell carbon credits as part of our business model and we definitely hear from our credit buyers is that they're willing to pay more if it's using atmospheric sources of CO2.David RobertsInteresting.Robert NivenSuch as DAC or biogenic source or whatever it is, whatever can get CO2 out of the air. There is a demand for that. The other group that really matters are the people that purchase the concrete. So these would be architects, engineers, building owners. They're also really excited and probably not as sophisticated on the CO2 sourcing question, but I wouldn't be surprised if that starts to become higher in their consideration. The other point that was brought up by Shashak earlier was permanence. That is very, very important for everybody is we don't want to be going through all of this trouble to put away CO2 for it to just bubble out again in 30 days, like what's the point? So that's very important.David RobertsSo when you say you inject CO2 into the concrete process, spell out a little bit what that means, what that looks like for people who are not that familiar.Robert NivenMost people, if they're familiar with CarbonCure are aware of our readymix technology. But CarbonCurever the last three years has expanded by creating technologies that use CO2 in the concrete value chain in different ways. But let's start off with the ready mix technology. So whenever concrete, if anyone's visited a concrete plant, there's about 125,000 of these locations worldwide, about 7000 of them in the US. They're basically all the same. They are mixing sites that take aggregates, rocks, cement, water and a few performance enhancing chemicals to mix those all up in a huge mixer. And then they pour that into a concrete truck, which you are all aware of and seen driving around the road.And then that's delivered to the construction site so that if we go back and look at that mixer is all those ingredients are being added. And just like Shashank is like if we're really going to meet scale is we want to have a modular system that in our case retrofits these existing concrete plants very, very cheaply and very very quickly without disrupting their production. In fact, it takes us a day, we don't charge any CapEx and the system starts to use that is enabled to start using that CO2 and becomes a carbon removal factory. It starts mineralizing CO2 the next day and it has all these value added benefits without creating a price premium on the product.David RobertsOh, interesting. So this is not some bespoke process that you have to build a concrete plant around. You're literally just going to an existing concrete plant, slapping something on that takes a day to add and then from the concrete plant owner's perspective, that's it. Nothing else changes. They don't have to do anything else operationally to accommodate this at all.Robert NivenWe automate everything. That's the key. And it's the same design principles that Shashank has brought into his company. Of course, he's done it fully, separately is you want to make this as simple as possible to scale because the concrete industry just does not have the discretionary budget to start. Spending a lot of risk capital in these kinds of solutions. So we've done all that for them.David RobertsAnd they're very small C conservative too, for obvious reasons.Robert NivenPerhaps it comes in all different flavors of concrete producers, but they all want to work on this, but they have a lot of limitations. So what we've tried to do is make it as simple as possible, but also do it in a way that they receive the most rewards and that can be in the form of cost efficiencies and production, being able to tap into this rapidly growing demand in the market for low, so they can sell more. We always recommend to keep the price at parity and also participate in carbon markets. So we create the incentive structure and make it really simple to adopt and quick so that producers can start to mineralize CO2 as quick as possible.So back to your question how the process looks like is we're actually adding CO2 into the mixer and please come to our website as well. We actually have footage and video of what's happening and then we also have some animation on what's happening at the chemical level. But essentially by adding CO2, it's a very similar type of reaction and thermodynamics as Heirloom. And that that CO2 is very quick to react in seconds with the concrete and it reforms a mineral, a calcium carbonate, if we go back to that again, but in a specific size called it's a nanomaterial, which provides all these performance benefits for concrete as it develops its strength, which then leads to some commercial benefits.And then we also use CO2 to treat the main wastewater from the plant and that's called our reclaimed water technology. So it's a second way that we can mineralize a lot more CO2 on the concrete plant, but at a different site of the concrete plant where all their wastewater is being collected is we can actually treat that water to have it upcycled so it can be reused instead of version cement and water. And then finally we can make CO2 into aggregates, but all three of those can be bundled together to be able to drive down the carbon footprint of concrete.David RobertsYeah, this was my question when I was looking at your website. If I'm a concrete plant owner, can I get all of those versions? Like, can I get CO2 in my wastewater and CO2 in my mixer and CO2 in my aggregate? And are they additive? Like, will that result in three times the carbon removal?Robert NivenYeah. And that's how we're building this business, is to create multiple ways to mineralize CO2 in the concrete value chain and then surround that by doing all the enabling work. So we make it a very easy decision for concrete producers to do that. I will caveat that we don't have the aggregate technology commercialized, but the other two we do. In fact, we had the first pilot with Heirloom that was at the Central Concrete Facility, which is a division of Vulcan Materials in San Jose, California. That plant is the first in the United States to have the reclaimed water and the ready mixed technology.So they're one of now two plants in the US. That are able to provide that combo, which is really exciting,David RobertsInteresting and do the strengthening benefits you're talking about, do you get double those too? When you do both the stages of adding carbon.Robert NivenThe ready mix technology gives you that strength benefit and then on the reclaimed water, jury is still out on redefining the strength benefit. But what it definitely does is it allows you it's a substitution effect, is that you're actually able to recover the cement in that wastewater and then use that instead of virgin cement. So at the end of the day, it's the same effect using less virgin cement to make concrete.David RobertsRight.Robert NivenBut you're achieving that by mineralization. What's cool about the reclaimed water technology is we actually won the Carbon Xprize for this technology, which was defined as the world's most scalable CO2 utilization technology.David RobertsInteresting. What happens to the water today? Is it just thrown out or what happens to the reclaimed water?Robert NivenMost of it just gets thrown out today. The traditional way of doing that is it would go into large settling ponds, they would scoop out the settled material, which by the way, is valuable cement and chemistry. That producer paid a lot of money for. And there was a lot of CO2 release to make that that would often just get landfilled and then the water would get sometimes treated for PH and then discharged. So we're able to turn all that process and eliminate it by reusing it in a circular manufacturing type of design.David RobertsInteresting, a question about the strength benefits, are the strength, by which we just mean the cement is a little stronger and so you have to use a little bit less cement in the concrete. So your savings that way, are those savings in terms of strength enough to pay for the thing? Or do you have to value the sequestration on some level to make this pencil out?Robert NivenWe are able to provide the low carbon concrete to the market in combination through our carbon credit sales and through these manufacturing efficiencies of using less cement, we're able to provide that concrete at no price premium by using a blend of both contributions. And that's very important. Like a year ago, if you go onto your podcast catalog, Rebecca Dell was on the show talking about how green premium is really, really important. We need to find ways to eliminate that to unlock adoption in building materials. And green premium is really anything can inhibit mass adoption. That's what's really important is that we don't apply that green premium.So that the market whether that be the government which is the largest buyer and we're seeing a lot of buy clean type legislation or private sector which have a lot of sustainability targets from corporate actors are able then to make these kinds of procurement decisions without compromising on price and certainly not compromising on quality, and working with the same suppliers that they've worked with for years prior.David RobertsMaybe this is a naive question, but if I'm a concrete manufacturer and I can have this done and installed in a day, it's not going to affect my operations. It's going to save me a little money on reducing cement, it's going to make me a little money on selling carbon credits. And otherwise I'm selling a more or less identical product at a more or less identical price. Why wouldn't I do that? What would stop someone from doing this?Robert NivenYeah, I would say just education. But we're already, like I would say I don't know for sure, but probably the fastest growing technology in the concrete sector. Concrete sector is not known to be rapidly adopting new technologies, but I would say we are growing at a very rapid rate. And certainly there are different kinds of concrete producers which normally adopt technology faster than other types of producers profiles. And we're seeing that happen. And the rate of adoption is happening far faster when we see those market signals like the procurement policies or even requiring environmental product declarations in the procurement process.So those kinds of things really accelerate this transition to the market. There's a reason why so much innovation is happening in San Francisco in the concrete sector, is because there's a lot of companies that operate there that are really walking the talk. And the concrete industry is enabled, empowered to bring their best forward. But if concrete producers are in markets where they're never hearing someone talk about decarbonisation, yeah, they have 20 other things that, that they can prioritize, that they need to work on.David RobertsRight? So you need some valuation of the carbon benefits to kind of push this up to the priority list.Robert NivenAnd it doesn't have to be a premium, right. When you say valuation, it just needs to be identified. Like an example would be of Microsoft. When they're building, they're asking all of their suppliers to say, I want to reduce our carbon target by X. And then they go around and they say, what can you do for me? What can you do for me? What can you do for me? When the concrete producer hears that loud and clear, and they may win that bid over a competitor if they have some ideas and they can bring something to the table.David RobertsI want to get a sense of scale before we move on from the process. Sort of if I'm producing concrete and I'm using your process to inject CO2, say I do both of the available options and I get CO2 injected into my wastewater and I get CO2 injected into my mixer, is the end product of that carbon negative or how close is it to carbon negative? Give a sense of scale, like how much of the carbon in the process is being offset by this?Robert NivenYeah, it's one piece of the pie. To get to carbon negative or neutral concrete is we're going to need some substantial changes on the cement side as well. And there are some fellow companies within our investors portfolio. A great example would be like a Brimstone who are working on the cement side. We're working with whatever cement is coming down the line and we're adding if you sort of combine the reclaimed water and ready mix, you're getting another 10% to 15%. But that's 10% to 15% off of a global commodity with a huge volume and we can do it today with very little CapEx and it's permanent.So if you think about a marginal abatement cost curve, it's like this is the furthest left on that curve. This is the thing that is easy to implement at scale. It has a significant percentage reduction, but off of a huge number, the volume of concrete is enormous. There's about 40 billion tons of concrete produced or 4.2 billion tons of cement.David RobertsAnd what's the number? I think it's 8% of global emissions, something like that.Robert NivenWe use the word the number 7% and most of that's cement. And the reason it's so big is because so much concrete is being used, it's second only to drinking water in production. Yeah.David RobertsSo you can take 10% to 15% of the CO2 basically out of the final product, but more than that is going to require deeper changes in the process.Robert NivenAnd that doesn't include our aggregate technology. So that will layer in a lot more. But we need to work together all the way along the value chain. The traditional cement sector are doing things like they're using supplementary cementitious materials instead of cement and that means using things like fly ash and slag. The problem is those materials are declining in availability, they're doing things like fuel switching, so using waste materials, energy efficiency, all those traditional things should be done. But then there's also some real deep tech stuff going on right now about fundamentally changing the cement process or chemistry.But that's going to take a lot of money and we still have a lot of time ahead of us. So we need to get going today on those immediately deployable solutions.David RobertsRight, so you've got a solution here you can just slap on existing concrete, plant boom, you get your ten to 15, maybe a little bit more CO2 out.Robert NivenAnd we've shown that this is not only applicable in the United States, but we're operating in many many emerging markets and really only about 2% of cement is being produced in the US. It's the emerging markets. That's where we really impact climate.David RobertsRight. And that's where it's growing.Robert NivenThat's where people is in concrete they haven't built out. There's a lot of population growth and we're already going into those markets now because we know that it takes a bit of incubation time and in some markets we're seeing that already entering into that scaling phase.David RobertsSo you need CO2 as an input to your process. Is there any supply issue? CO2 easy to get and I'm also curious how much you pay for Heirlooms CO2 versus more traditionally acquired CO2? Is there a big price differential?Robert NivenSo the first part of your question is, is there supply chain issues? Yes. Our industry, the concrete industry has been massively impacted over the last twelve months by cost and supply of cement and in our case cost and supply of CO2. Really? Believe it or not you can't buy CO2 in certain markets.David Robertsa shortage of CO2.Robert NivenAnd the price is skyrocketing because of it.David RobertsNo kidding.Robert NivenIt's a really perverse situation. So we need a lot more air loops and we need them to get them into market faster to start to diversify the supply of CO2 because some of the traditional emitters that you would have been collecting that CO2 are now changing their process so that that CO2 isn't becoming available anymore. Ethanol is the largest supplier of CO2 in the industrial gas market in the United States. So today if the price varies so much it's largely dependent on transportation. Very commonly we're paying well over $500 a ton for CO2. We haven't gotten to that stage with Heirloom where they have the volume, the capacity to have those discussions yet but we really encourage them to move along as fast as they can to get to that billion ton target because that gives us a lot more CO2 that we can work with.So we're exploring all different options for CO2 supply because just from a supply constraint or supply chain disruptions we're very encouraged to solve for that problem now.David RobertsIt's just something that sort of kind of confuses me. And maybe you both can take a swing at this answer, but I'm seeing a process here at your demonstration plant where we're digging a limestone up, doing a bunch of stuff that strips the CO2 out of it, and then injecting the CO2 back into the concrete process, where it then becomes limestone again. Why not just dig up the limestone and put it directly in the concrete? It seems like a lot of physical processes to sort of end up where you started. Maybe just sort of help me understand that kind of how is this not kind of running in place in sort of energetic and CO2 terms?I'm sorry if that was a very vague question.Shashank SamalaWhat we are trying to do is pull CO2 that is already in the air so you need a sponge to pull up that carbon and we find that calcium oxide which is derivative of calcium carbonate is highly alkaline. It's highly thirsty for that CO2 and then that's how you create the limestone and then you're essentially looping the limestone through the cycle.David RobertsThe limestone you're finding that you're mining has already absorbed CO2, right? That's what it's been doing. It's what it's been doing. So in a sense, it's already absorbed it. Why not just put it directly into the concrete, do you know what I mean?Robert NivenYeah, maybe my perspective solves that on that bit better. The way that I think about Heirloom is if you take a sponge and you put it into your kitchen sink and then you pick up collects water and then you squeeze it out, then you put it back in and squeeze it out. So it just happens to be calcium. But for our process, there may be some listeners who are from civil engineering and understand concrete a bit deeper, and they say, well, concrete already carbonates, right? So there is a natural process that's already happening, but that's limited to the exterior skin of concrete and it's not value added, it doesn't provide those performance benefits.So some way of looking at that is like, yeah, if you left concrete exposed to the air for 1000 years, which not too many buildings are around for a thousand years, is you might get that full carbonation extent. But even if you did that, you wouldn't get all the benefits, the performance enhancing benefits that come from carbonating actively in a certain way that create this nanomaterials, which provides the cement savings. And it's also done in a very short time frame within seconds. And so that's a key difference here is the time. And the other thing is, if you let carbonation happen passively, that's called weathering carbonation is it actually has the opposite effects on performance.David RobertsOh, really?Robert NivenYeah, it'll actually cause the PH to drop and then it will make the steel corrode, which makes said structure made with that concrete to have durability issues and may fail. So engineers like myself are trained to limit carbonation because you don't want that carbonation layer to get to the steel, because then that causes that concrete to fail. So you take many, many steps to stop that from happening. The way that we're doing it is different in that we're actually deliberately carbonating to a certain extent. So you get all these performance enhancing benefits and that's a really important nuance.David RobertsOne question is this sort of demonstration project of Heirloom on the one side, CarbonCure on the other side, pulling CO2 out of the air, putting it in concrete. I obviously see the benefits in terms of like educating the public, making carbon capture and sequestration more real and tangible to people, showing investors that things are happening here, all these effects. But looking down the roadways is the sort of direct capture to concrete pipeline. Is that going to be a real business? Is that going to scale up? Or is this mostly just for demonstration purposes?Robert NivenIf they can provide CO2 for less than $500, we've already shown it scalable. Right. So for us, that's the marker. And we're more than happy to work with Shashank and Heirloom because if they can provide us cheaper CO2 on a reliable supply and the market would prefer atmospheric CO2, I'll do that all day, every day. But we're already showing today that using CO2 and concrete is immediately scalable and used in emerging markets, developed economies, what have you.Shashank SamalaYeah, the awesome thing about concrete is it's the most abundant commodity, the industrial commodity that we produce. It's like 12 billion tons of concrete that we make. So that's the awesome thing, right? That's why this demonstration, I think, is so powerful. This is not just a small test, that it is a signal for what's to come. And I tell Rob every time I see him, tell me what is the price where we can put CO2 in every ton of concrete that they're at and plants that they're not yet at? Right. To reduce that cost per ton on the concrete plant side, where it is just economical, no brainer for a concrete plan to add Heirloom CO2 into the CarbonCure process.So, yeah, that's the thing that's exciting.David RobertsHas anyone done the math on the total sequestration potential of concrete globally? I mean, do we have a sense of scale here? The limits?Robert NivenWell, the theoretical limit is half the weight of cement could be carbonated.David RobertsOh, wow.Robert NivenBut I'm not saying you want to do that. I'm saying, theoretically, that Stoichiometry says that if there's 4.2 billion tons of cement, you could conceivably mineralize 2.1 billion tons. And that doesn't include all the aggregate. So you put all the aggregate on on top of that. And aggregate is the vast majority, about 85% 90% of the of the mass of of concrete. So you could really get to certainly hundreds of millions low billion tons of CO2 mineralization in the concrete value chain through carbonating, directly through concrete, like what we're doing, or by using CO2 to make aggregates.There's a few companies that are doing that as well. So it does become sizable. But I really want to emphasize it's, the value added nature and the immediate nature of this, like the time value of carbon is important in climate change discussions.David RobertsYeah.Robert NivenA lot of solutions are targeting to come online and start scaling in 2030-something. This is happening now, right? And we need to do as much that we can, especially if there's very little CapEx requirement and no price premium.David RobertsSo I've kept you long enough, I guess I'd ask the same question to each of you to conclude it's the nature of carbon removal that it's not producing a product that is valuable enough in and of itself to pay for itself. There's going to have to be a market created for removed CO2. We're going to have to sort of generate a market around this if it's going to pay for itself. So I guess I just asked both of you, by way of concluding shashank you first, what sorts of policies can help you or would most directly help you scale up?Shashank SamalaSo two types of policies. One is a compliance market that essentially requires corporations to effectively price carbon as an externality and have a cap for carbon emitted so that carbon that is not abated or reduced needs to be offset and removed. And there's a price for that.David RobertsAnd this is something a few companies are doing kind of voluntarily, right? Like the stripe constellation of companies are basically sort of modeling what that would look like. But that's got to be made law at some point, right? You're not going to get enough voluntary companies to ...Shashank SamalaNo, according to APCC. We need to be removing five to 10 billion tons of carbon from the air by 2050. And if you want to see that type of scale, if you want to see that type of it's a trillion dollar market at $100 a ton. That's a trillion dollars of revenue every year that we need to get to. So it's amazing and we're so fortunate to work with folks like Frontier Stripe, Shopify, Microsoft, who are all early buyers of this technology, but we need thousands more and policy and compliance markets is what gets us there.The second type of policy is what 45Q is doing today. You may have heard of it. It's a tax credit. It's a direct pay for direct recapture that is stored permanently. So, you know, we're fortunate and, and, you know, really we, we appreciate everyone who, who worked on the Inflation Reduction Act, having that passed last year, that is such an important element. It's at $180 per ton subsidy. It's it's stackable on top of what customers pay us that helps us bring down the cost of, of carbon removal so it is affordable to everyone. So, you know, that is something that, you know, not just the US.But, you know, every other count ry, europe and Asia should adopt something similar. So compliance markets and subsidies like 45Q really help us come down the cost curve.David RobertsIs there a country doing more than the US for this or they are their models to look to where they're going more sort of gangbusters on on DAC?Shashank SamalaCanada is actually pretty close. I don't think they've passed this yet, but there's a pretty large CapEx, I think it's called the Production Tax Credit that might be even more compelling than 45Q depending on how that's written. So, yeah, super fortunate that US and Canada, that is the type of competitive battle we want, right? This sort of geopolitical competition to see which country can help us decarbonize the planet. And in the past it was some countries in Europe that were sort of good hearted and have these policies like the subsidy for solar in the early 2000s.But now you're seeing countries compete against each other to bring clean tech and climate tech into their country. So I think it's warring from a good hearted nature to a competition, which is exactly what the planet wants. So that's what we should all be up to, optimistic and excited about.David RobertsAnd how about you, Rob? What's your policy wish list? What's on top?Robert NivenI would echo what Shashank said, certainly. And about we need many more credit buyers of some of the same names, like the Shopifys and Stripes. That really the Microsoft's and Patches that drove the world of demand for these credits. 45Q, for sure. For us, though, the most important policy are these low carbon, concrete, or buy-clean type procurement policies.David RobertsRight.Robert NivenNew Jersey just passed landmark policy just a couple of weeks ago. It was based upon similar work done in New York and Hawaii and California. We saw a lot of it in the Federal Infrastructure Act. That's what really drives us.David RobertsAre there federal procurement buy-clean elements in the Infrastructure Act?Robert NivenYes. If I recall, it's about $4 billion in incremental spend on low carbon material purchases. That is very important for our business, and that's what will drive the storage piece within concrete especially. And then that in turn will drive the DAC side or the carbon capture side. So that was really important. And they're designed in a way that also requires a strong reporting element using LCA documents like environmental product declarations, and you need those to compare the different options in a third party verified way. So that procurement policy is very important based upon the kind of models like we're seeing in New Jersey with its LECCLA Bill.David RobertsInteresting. Well, thank you guys for coming on and walking us through. It's really interesting. I think if nothing else takes a very abstract discussion, what can often be a very abstract discussion about carbon and carbon removal and all this and just makes it very tangible. One of the things I love about this is that on both sides, this is not PhD chemistry or whatever. It's trays of rocks and squirting CO2 into a mixer. I love the there's a ruggedness, I guess, to simple processes that I really like. So it's been really fun to talk through.Robert NivenYou're welcome. Although I will say we have a lot of PhDs working on our team as well, so I don't want to diminish the great work that they're doing to make it look this simple. You need to work extra hard.Shashank SamalaYeah, exactly. There's just a lot of engineering and science that goes into making things simple and scalable. So, yeah, you have lots of PhDs and great engineers on the team.David RobertsAll right, Shashank Samala and Rob Niven, thank you so much for coming on and talking us through. This is super fascinating.Shashank SamalaThank you so much for having us.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and warming could accelerate, as we reduce the aerosol pollution that happens to be acting as a partial shield. In this episode, Kelly Wanser of nonprofit SilverLining makes the pitch for solar radiation management, the practice of adding our own shielding particles to the atmosphere to buy us some time while we step up our greenhouse gas reductions.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsOne of the more uncomfortable truths about climate change is that temperatures are going to rise for the next 30 to 40 years no matter what we do, just based on carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and the reduction of aerosol pollutants that are now shielding us from some of the worst of it. That's going to bring about potentially devastating changes that we do not yet well understand and are not prepared for.How can that short-term risk be mitigated? One proposal is to add particles to the atmosphere that would do on purpose what our aerosol pollution has been doing by accident: shield us from some of the rising heat. No one credible who advocates for solar radiation management (SRM) believes that it is a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, it would be a way to buy a little more time to reach zero carbon.My guest today, Kelly Wanser, is the head of a non-profit organization called SilverLining that advocates for research and policy around near-term climate risks and direct climate interventions like SRM that can address them.I've long been curious about — and wary of — solar radiation management, so I was eager to talk to Wanser about the case for SRM, what we know and don't know about it, and what we need to research.Okay then. Kelly Wanser of SilverLining, welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Kelly WanserThank you very much, David. I am a fan and it's a pleasure to be here.David RobertsAwesome. Well, I have wanted to do a pod on this subject forever. I'm going to try to be focused, but I sort of have questions that are all over the place, so let's just jump right in. The way I'm approaching this is, I think, to average people off the street, and maybe I even include myself in this. The idea of reaching up into the atmosphere and fiddling with it directly, thinking that we can dial in the temperature we want, strikes me as crazy. And I think that's probably a lot of people's intuitive response. Obviously, you have thought your way past that, going so far as to found an organization designed to advocate for this stuff.So maybe just tell us a little, to begin with, your personal background and how you came to advocacy for geoengineering, which is not a super crowded field.Kelly WanserI'll say first that you're actually not in the business of advocacy for geoengineering and it will give you some context for how I came to be doing what I do.David RobertsSure.Kelly WanserReally it was about — I was working in the technology sector in an area called IT infrastructure, and that's the sort of plumbing of data in the Internet and was looking at problems like how you keep networks operating. And I started to read about climate change, and I was very curious about the symptoms that we were starting to see in the climate system and where the risk really was. And I started to get to know various senior climate scientists in the Bay Area and other places, and I asked them the question like you might ask, how would you characterize the risk of runaway climate change in our lifetime? And this is maybe twelve years ago.And they said, "Well, it's in the single digits, but not the low single digits."David RobertsNot super comforting.Kelly WanserYeah, I mean, my original degree was economics, so I thought, well, if you had those odds of winning the lottery, you'd be out buying tickets. If you had those odds of cancer, you'd be getting treatment. So that seemed like a really high risk to be exposed to. And then they told me about another feature of what was happening in that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, keeping things warm. Comes out very slowly. So even if you stop emissions completely and there are other dynamics going on, the system will continue to warm for a while.And so you've got another few decades of warming. So wherever you are and whatever you see, you've got some additional warming that's going to happen, which means that whatever risk point you're at, you reach a higher risk point over that period of time. And so I became very interested in that problem, because there's a mismatch between the increased risk profile of really serious and catastrophic climate events and impacts and the kinds of responses that we had to reduce the risk. So really my organization is focused on what we call "near-term climate risk," which is the 30 to 40 year time horizon where the things we need to do to ultimately fix the problem, all the ways we reduce greenhouse gases in the system, they don't work in that time horizon to meaningfully reduce the risk.And so that's how we find ourselves here. Because getting back to your original comment, in the absence of the kind of risk situation that we're in, these ideas would be really extreme and you wouldn't consider them. So we like to use the sort of metaphor of medicine because it has many similarities to medical treatments. And medical treatments require a lot of research and they're as useful as the context of where your condition is.David RobertsRight. So maybe the way to phrase this is you looked around, you saw climate change, you saw that our ways of mitigating climate change are sort of slow, if you will, slow acting and long term, which leaves this short-term risk gap.Kelly WanserRight.David RobertsSo there's going to be warming over the next 30 to 40 years, regardless almost of what we do. And you're focused on how to mitigate those risks.Kelly WanserYeah. So related to that, and again, you can go to the United Nations Climate Reports, and you can see what they think is happening and going to happen they have these charts that show these curves. And the curves go up all the pathways, all the different scenarios for climate change going up through 2050, some of them bend back down because we've done a good job. But in their reports where they describe that they're projecting what's happening to people and different parts of the world over those 30 years. And right now they've come out and said, well, under their projections, as many as 1 billion people get displaced.And you can go to websites that have simulations of what's going on and you can see places that get overwhelmed by water, that get overwhelmed by heat. And so you've got a lot of suffering, a lot of dramatic impact that's baked in. And so what we are saying is we need to do really rapid research to find out if we can do better than that. Because in the current projections, it's bad for everyone and it's terrible for quite a few people.David RobertsYes, two things spring to mind confronted with that situation. One is a lot of people looking at that would say, "Well, we need to go gangbusters on adaptation." Let's figure out how to make that suffering less by adapting to some of it. And the other thing that jumps to mind is methane, which, as Volts listeners know, is a greenhouse gas, but acts on a much shorter time horizon than CO2. And so I think that the thought in some quarters is if you could rapidly reduce methane, you could have a much more rapid effect on the climate than in reducing CO2.Why not either of those two routes?Kelly WanserSo, also those two routes. I think one of the things that struck me about coming into the climate space was it wasn't very well-equipped to think in terms of portfolios. So if you look at the risk profile, it's sort of like we're having these debates about should it be wind and solar, or nuclear? Should it be emissions reductions or these things? But if you look at the risk and uncertainty involved, there's a lot of uncertainty involved in all the different ways of responding to climate change. And there's a huge amount of risk, potentially existential risk.And so from a portfolio perspective, methane reduction is one of my absolute favorites. And there are some great things happening in that field. Adaptation is a harder problem, and it was made harder because people didn't want it in the portfolio 20 years ago. And they didn't want people to think it was adoptable. So they didn't want people looking at it. Well, it turns out when you look at it, you find out it's not easily adoptable, really. You can see, like, look at Pakistan. These big extreme events happen. They're pretty overwhelming. And even in the US, we're arguably one of the best equipped places in the world to manage these things, and Austin, Texas, had a third of the city with no power.David RobertsYeah, we managed to bungle it regularly, even with all our money.Kelly WanserBut really what it was about is saying, okay, we should have a rich portfolio here. If you thought of this as like, shares, or you thought of this as insurance policies, we'd have a portfolio of things so that when you brought that portfolio together and those things that are different profiles and there are different levels of uncertainty, we have a lot of coverage.David RobertsRight?Kelly WanserAnd the problem is that this part of the portfolio, if you needed to arrest climate change quickly, if you really needed to get in there and say, oh, the ice sheet is about to go. The wet bulb effects in India are happening and we can't take it. And you needed something that operated in a sub-decade time horizon, then that's the key part of the portfolio that's empty. And we don't want to do those things. But from a risk management point of view, in terms of what's at stake, even evaluating whether we have them, that's something on deck that we really should be doing.David RobertsAnd one more thing about the risk question, the short-term risk question, and I feel like maybe more climate types have grown cognizant of this recently, but it's really an under-discussed aspect of all this, is the aerosol effect. So maybe just tell us what it is and why that adds to these worries about short-term risk.Kelly WanserThat is a great question, because as I was digging into this and finding out the things I'm telling you, this came up effectively. There are forces in the atmosphere that trap heat and help keep us in this sort of temperate zone that we're in. And there are forces in the atmosphere that reflect energy away. And so the particles and clouds in the atmosphere, they're reflecting sunlight away from Earth, which is part of what keeps us in this Goldilocks zone. When you look at the Earth from space and you see that shiny blue dot, that's what that is.And these particles that come into the atmosphere, they create clouds, they live in the atmosphere. They're part of that whole system, and they come from nature, but they also live in pollution. And the particulates in pollution that come from coal plants, that come from ships over the ocean, they are mixing with clouds that are living in the atmosphere in ways that make the atmosphere slightly brighter. And it's this effect that scientists have reported is cooling the planet currently by reflecting sunlight back to space. And they don't know exactly by how much, but they think it's between a half a degree Celsius and 1.1 degrees Celsius.David RobertsThat's not small.Kelly WanserNo, it's not small. It could be offsetting half the warming that the gasses would otherwise be making.David RobertsYeah. Just to sum that up. So our particulate pollution to date has had the sort of perverse effect of reflecting away a bunch of solar radiation with the consequent problem that insofar as we clean up our pollution, which we are striving to do, we are going to lose that cooling effect and maybe get another one whole degree of warming which would double...Kelly WanserThat's right.David Roberts...our warming since preindustrial times. So that's a little wild.Kelly WanserI was just going to say it's right there in the climate reports. And it's been there consistently, but not prominently noted, not highlighted in the sort of climate discussion. And so it's surfacing more now recently, that this was there. And we're getting very good at cleaning up pollution. One of the features of this problem is that in climate reports, when they show these effects, they'll have bar charts that show the different effects on the climate system. And they have these lines that show how much uncertainty there is. This is the most uncertain thing about the climate system.And that uncertainty has been unchanged for 20 years. We have not been able to improve our understanding of that. And so when we in SilverLining are talking about our advocacy, we're saying we need to improve our information base, we need to quickly improve our ability to do that problem. That problem happens to be the same or very similar to the problem of what if I want to achieve this effect actively. So we think it's kind of a no brainer for society to say we need to go after that problem really hard, like the human genome, and understand what's going to happen when we take the pollution away.And is there a cleaner, more controlled version of this that might help?David RobertsRight, yeah, I'm going to get some of those questions in a minute. So the aerosol effect is you have these particles up there now which talk about geoengineering. We've been geoengineering the climate ever since industrialization by throwing all these particles up, which are shielding us. So, in effect, as we clean up our particulate pollution, we are pushing the target for climate change farther and farther away. In other words, we're making a longer and longer runway for ourselves. So in addition to advocating for research, which we'll get to in a minute, it looks like your organization has because the term geoengineering, I think, as people think of it now, brings to mind all sorts of various and sundry schemes in the ocean and crumbling rocks and there's all these different notions.But it seems like you all have settled more or less. Your main focus is on solar radiation management, SRM, which is just replacing the particles that we're taking out of the atmosphere with new particles to continue enjoying that cooling effect. Why focus in on that one rather than the others? Is there a reason to think it is the most out of all the geoengineering schemes? Why focus on this one?Kelly WanserWell, we, we don't use the term "geoengineering." We don't use the term "scheme." But I will answer your question.David RobertsI know, I noticed that you carefully say "climate interventions" rather than "geoengineering."Kelly WanserYeah, "climate intervention" was a term the National Academy of Sciences coined in their 2015 report. And it's useful because, like you said, "geoengineering" kind of evokes the most engineering-oriented stuff, engineers in space, and there's really not a lot of engineering involved. There's a lot of science involved, and it's directed at climate. And intervention is a really good term because it's so similar characteristics to a medical type intervention. Engineering has a lot of certainty. Like, if I can do the math, I can engineer a bridge. An intervention has a lot of uncertainty and a lot of trade-offs, depending on where the patient is.So this looks a little more like that. But to your question, we are a science-based, science-driven organization, so we follow what the scientists recommend. And so we didn't arrive at this conclusion ourselves. We took what the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society in the United Kingdom said. They'd done a couple of assessments where they gathered scientific experts together and asked the same question and if you wanted to reduce warming in the climate system quickly, what are the best candidates for research? And so they landed on this because there's a lot of precedent for this effect in the atmosphere.So in addition to what pollution is causing, they've seen this effect when large volcanoes go off and release material into the outer layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere. And they've seen that cool the climate system globally. So when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, they observed about a half a degree Celsius of cooling for about a year and a half. So when people talk about all these things are terrible. Well, most of us who are 25 or older experienced this already when Mount Pinatubo went off and we didn't notice the sky was different. So we've actually lived it a little bit already.David RobertsIn a sense, we know it works, or at least we know the physical effect is somewhat predictable.Kelly WanserAgain, I'm going to go back to the medical analogy because it's so similar. There are differences in efficacy and side effect profiles based on what we know today. And the reason we want to do research is to understand the efficacy and side effects better.David RobertsRight.Kelly WanserAnd so in the outer layer of the atmosphere, they feel like they know a lot more about the efficacy because the stratosphere is very uniform. They've seen it with volcanoes. And so you can get a pretty good grasp, although they're finding just as early research is going on, there are pretty big differences, maybe in how you do it as to what happens. And you certainly don't want to do it like volcanoes do.David RobertsWhy not, just out of curiosity?Kelly WanserLike all at once big bursts. So it turns out that doing it from — most volcanoes are around the equatorial regions, which for some of what they're finding is like the worst place to do it and that you wouldn't do it like in one giant burst all at once. And of course, volcanoes include a lot of stuff that you wouldn't put in there that is...David RobertsRight.Kelly WanserSo what we know, or have some handle on, is that in that kind of a burst where there's material in the stratosphere for a year or two and it gradually falls out. We kind of know a bit about what the side effect profile is of that a bit. And I should say we don't know that much about the chemistry effects and the ozone layer and things like that because our measurements aren't very good. But the thing we really need to think about is, okay, if you needed to do this for a couple of decades of 20, 30, 40 years, and it's got a side effect profile in different parts of the system, maybe it's heating up the stratosphere a little bit.And that gets to a point where you have big changes in circulation or other things. That's what they don't know.David RobertsIt occurs to me that we've gotten this far in without ever actually really saying what we're talking about. So just for listeners who might be confused, the idea here is to deliberately inject a bunch of these particles, sulfur particles, into the atmosphere to basically do on purpose what our pollution is doing by accident reflect light away. And there are a couple of different versions of this, even if you just focus in on this is called solar radiation management. I don't know if that's the term you all use.Kelly WanserYup.David RobertsThere's a couple of different versions even of that. So maybe just discuss like what are we concretely talking about doing? There's different layers of the atmosphere, there's different methods of throwing things up, maybe give us a sense of what it looks like in practice.Kelly WanserSo there's the idea that would sort of be lifting off from what they've seen with volcanoes, which is dispersing particles into the upper atmosphere, this stratosphere probably via aircraft and possibly with selected places that they're releasing the material based on what they're learning and models about what produces the best efficacy with the least side effects. And that this would probably happen in a continuous way with planes flying continuously, releasing stuff. And the net effect that they're trying to produce is about a 1% increase in the amount of sunlight the stratosphere reflects. So it's not something that you see from the ground.It's not something that would be noticeable except for maybe certain changes in light to certain types of plants, things like that. And that would be the idea.David RobertsOne question about that, the stratosphere you said is pretty uniform. Would interventions on that level have a uniform effect around the world or would they be localized?Kelly WanserIt's far more uniform. The particles get entrained in really high winds up there and disperse globally. And so you get a global effect. You might have some differentiation in how that plays out down below in weather patterns and things. And that's what people want to study. And because it's not simple, it's a really complicated system. And one of the concerns scientists have is that like reflecting sunlight up there, you're slightly heating the stratosphere and that can affect its interactions with the atmosphere below it. It can affect the way chemicals play out in the stratosphere in a way that affects the ozone layer.And so all of those things, again, if you're really good to think about medicine, it's like oh, how does it interact with that part of the body? There are medications. So there it's really about trying to project forward, trying to figure out what is the optimized way to do this, where you get the highest efficacy and the best safety.David RobertsAnd isn't there also a whole other genre of this that has to do with clouds putting the particles in lower clouds?Kelly WanserGreat question. Yes, there is. And the particles that they're talking about putting in the clouds are different, too.David RobertsDifferent than the stratospheric particles.Kelly WanserThat's right. So in the stratosphere, their starting point is sulfur dioxide, which is like worse than pollution. And they know the most about that because it's what volcanoes put up there. Aircraft pollution is starting to waft up there too. But they're also looking at other things in the stratosphere, like calcium carbonate, which is chalk, like chalk dust.David RobertsInteresting.Kelly WanserAnd even diamond dust. So those are the kind of the two other methods.David RobertsAnd the idea here is trying to maximize reflectivity while minimizing, presumably other...Kelly WanserThat's right.David RobertsEverything else.Kelly WanserAnd in this case, especially thinking about the ozone layer. And that's important, obviously. And in fact, in the international arena, in the UN, where they've done probably the most scientific evaluation of these things to date is in the part of the UN that looks after the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol. So they're thinking forward about that. And that's the issues in the upper atmosphere, in the low cloud layer. So we have lots of particles going up into clouds all the time, especially over land. The less polluted clouds are over the ocean, although you can see and if anyone listening to the podcast, if you Google Ship track it'll pull up pictures of cloud decks over the ocean and you can see these streaks and the clouds that are made by the emissions of ships.And so that's like the ship particulates from the ship pollution brightening the clouds and you can see it visibly where it's really concentrated, but it's also spreading in ways that you don't see visually. So the idea here is, well, could we use a cleaner material and really optimize the effect? And it turns out one of the very best materials for doing this with is one of the materials that's part of making clouds over the ocean, which is sea salt. Sea salt spray from ocean water. And so what scientists proposed two British scientists back in the 90s was, well, maybe you could make a really optimized mist from sea spray spray it from ships in a continuous way and brighten the kinds of clouds that are really susceptible to this, and do it in more localized areas where you get a big bang for the buck.And so you still offset a couple of degrees of warming, but you're only dispersing over like something equivalent to three to 4% of the ocean surface.David RobertsInteresting. And this would also have a uniform global effect because it seems much tighter area, lower clouds. It just seems intuitively, like that ought to be more of a local effect. Does that also end up spreading?Kelly WanserYour intuition is correct. It is localized. And the side effects that you're most interested in is what does that do? Because you are creating concentrated areas of cooling in the system and these are all the mechanisms by which weather and atmosphere move around. So it's almost certainly likely to affect weather flows and patterns. And the thing you would be trying to learn then is are there ways for that to work in your favor and are there ways for that to be really bad? And so I'll give you two examples. And one of the reasons we're such strong advocates for research is because these kinds of questions really shine a light on where our climate models and our climate observations are weak.So to answer these questions, you've got to really improve doing that uncertainty problem and also getting better at weather circulation. But in the very early models which we helped fund to try to represent these things, one of the possibilities that arose is that when they simulate brightening clouds over the Southern Ocean, which is one of the places that you might do it. You get these cooling currents because it cools the water below in the air in the low layer that flow onto Antarctica. And so you got this improvement in kind of an outsized cooling of Antarctica, which is a useful thing potentially.But on the reverse side, in another targeted area of clouds, when they cooled that region, they affected weather patterns such that you got dryness in the Amazon forest region, which is a very bad thing to have.David RobertsYeah.Kelly WanserSo in the moral to this story is that these are just very early bottle based simulations that tell you you have these kinds of questions and that it's probably given the state of the risk that we have, and given that it's one of the top two candidates, and given that studying it will help us understand what the pollution problem is going to do. Really important to study, but really hard to say for sure whether or how you should use it.David RobertsSo these two versions of SRM, solar radiation management, the injecting particles in the stratosphere and then the cloud brightening, are those the sort of two main, most viable sort of targets for research. Like when people think about SRM, are those the kind of the two things that should come to mind?Kelly WanserThey are from scientific assessments and from senior scientists. There's a third one that's sort of like a tier below because it's even more uncertain than the low cloud brightening, but it is something that is already occurring. And this is in the high cloud layer. So between the stratosphere and the lower atmosphere. So the upper troposphere where you get to when you're cruising altitude on a long flight, 30,000 feet, depending on the circumstances, when you put pollution particles or similar into these high clouds, you can have the effect of either thickening them or thinning them, depending on the conditions.And those clouds are insulating clouds, so they keep heat trapped in. Infrared radiation trapped in. So if you put particles in them in the right circumstances, you could thin them.David RobertsLet more heat out.Kelly WanserLet more heat out. And this phenomenon is happening from air traffic, from airplanes, and we don't know enough about it.David RobertsWell, I have a bunch of questions about governance and moral hazard and all this, but first let's just briefly touch on the main subject of your latest report, which is just research, advocating for research. I come into this sort of like leery about doing things like this that we know so little about. But when I got into sort of reading about the kind of research we need, what's sort of remarkable is probably like two thirds of the research you're advocating is not even directly on doing these things. It's just understanding what's in the atmosphere right now, like what are the risks of short term rapid changes now?Just very basic climate science stuff that you would think we would already be researching. I think even sort of the most committed opponent of these schemes would agree that it's crazy how little we know about this whole area of study. So maybe just like talk about what when you advocate for research, just talk about sort of the basics of what you're advocating for here. I mean, I think people will be a little bit shocked that some of this stuff doesn't already exist.Kelly WanserWell, thank you for that. You're exactly right because I think we were shocked not coming from this field and just kind of looking at it as an information problem. And the problem you want to do is you want to be able to project and evaluate the risk of what the climate system is going to do. So I'd really like to know, be able to project with some confidence how the Earth system is going to respond to this warming over the next 30 years and then what it would look like if you change the things that are influencing it, either in the warming direction, the greenhouse gases, or in the cooling direction, what scientists call aerosols.These particles. So we're coming at it saying, "Okay, we just want to help set us up to do that problem and evaluate what it looks like if you are introducing aerosols in different ways and how does that improve or not, like the risk profile of what's happening." And so then we bump into these gaps and what the problems that we can't do in the models and a lot of them center right in the atmosphere, that the models don't represent all the phenomenon that are happening in the atmosphere very well and that we don't have the observations that we need to improve them.David RobertsIt's like insane. It's like five, six decades now. Of talk about climate change and talk about all this, but we still on some very basic levels are just not watching what's happening in the atmosphere.Kelly WanserI think people assume that it's like, hey, we've got this, right? And you hear there are these satellites and you hear the scientific studies coming out that are projecting what climate is going to do. We have satellites looking at everything. And then you sort of dig under the hood and that's where solar radiation management just has an analysis problem. Because what some of the scientists in our circles have said is people want a higher standard of evidence for this. So they're saying, well, you need to be able to tell us what will happen and what the impacts will be.And we shouldn't be having that standard of evidence for what greenhouse gas is doing and what these other aerosols are doing, but we haven't. And so we get in there and say, okay, if you really want to do this problem, here's what you need. So to give you example for the very top candidate for this is putting particles in the stratosphere. And so if you want to project what will happen, you first need a baseline of what's in the stratosphere. And it turns out we don't have that. We can't characterize what's in the stratosphere currently. So then it's very hard to do that problem.And so the first thing that we did when we started talking to members of congress and working with NOAA is just to say we have this problem of having a baseline of what's there, which is a really important problem to solve. If you want to know if somebody else is adding material to the stratosphere, if you want to know what it will do, and so that was our starting point. And it's similar kinds of things now, where even in the low cogler, we're working on a program to put instruments on ships like the current ships that travel, that would just be taking atmospheric readings of that low atmosphere so that you would have a baseline and you'd be able to help the models and even the satellites interpret what's going on.David RobertsRight. So just gathering more data about what's actually in the atmosphere. So we have a baseline, because one thing the report emphasizes over and over again is that it doesn't really make sense to talk about the risk of doing these things in isolation. It's always, what is the risk of this intervention versus the risk of not doing this intervention? What are the risks we're facing as a baseline against which we are measuring the risks of this intervention? And we just don't know. That's what's wild to me. We just don't know what the current risks are. So there's no way to make an informed risk judgment because you don't know the differential.Kelly WanserThat's right. And we haven't really invested in it, which is another quite eye-popping reality.David RobertsIt's wild.Kelly WanserLike, globally and in the United States, climate research investments have been relatively flat for decades.David RobertsThat is wild to me. I know. Every time I read that, I read that statistic periodically, and every time I run across it, I'm shocked all over again. Like, all this talk, all this international action, all this agita and angst, and we're not spending any more on climate research than we were two decades ago.Kelly WanserThis really baffled me. Coming into this, I didn't understand it, and I sort of learned there was quite a long period of time where there was an orientation that I'm kind of sympathetic to, which was, we know what we need to know. We need to reduce emissions. And so if you think about it as like two sides of an equation, and you look at the reduced emissions side of that equation, and you just focus everything on that, and you say, don't spend your energy on figuring out what's going to happen if it gets warmer, because we're not going to let it get warmer.And really, that combined with a lot of other pressures on climate science, climate science has been in lockdown mode. I can still remember, like ten or twelve years ago. It's brutal.David RobertsUnder siege, yes.Kelly WanserTerrifying. But now we're seeing these extremes, and we've had a flat level of investment. And inside that flat level of investment in climate research, in the part that looks directly at the atmospheric observation of atmospheric basic science has actually declined in real terms.David RobertsOh, my God, that is mind-boggling.Kelly WanserIt's heartbreaking. And that's the fulcrum for everything we need to know about what's happening and how we evaluate what we're going to do. So the good thing is it represents an opportunity if we can improve it. And I'll just finish by saying climate research investments in the United States are about three and a half billion a year, and that's everything on that side of the equation. And if you compare that to the 55 billion we spent on the three most recent storms.David RobertsYes.Kelly WanserAnd even the big money that's gone into these other programs, what we're saying is, hey, to invest an additional 60 or 70% in that bring it up to 5 and a half, 6 billion a year, that seems reasonable.David RobertsI really encourage listeners to go look at the report because the details of what kinds of research are needed are, like, I keep saying, sort of eye-popping because over and over again you're going to read something and be like, wait, we're not doing that already. We're not looking at that already. We're not measuring that already. That's not included in the models already. A lot of the research recommendations are just like stuff we should obviously be doing. Regardless of what you think about these direct interventions, only when we have a better understanding of these short-term climate effects can we even coherently compare what would happen if we did these interventions right.We have a baseline against which to compare, and the details of some of that research are really interesting. But just sort of to wrap up the research part, let's just talk about that price tag so we can get a sense of the of the scale. You want to double from 3.3 billion to 6.3 or something like that, but just, you know, like I hate to be a cliche, but like, compare this to how much we spend on defense research or like pharmaceutical research or like dog food research. It's it's, you know, concretely, what price tag are you asking for?And sort of like, where basically would that money go?Kelly WanserWell, so concretely, we're asking for an additional 2.6 billion a year on top of approximately 3.5 billion. So it's less than double. And it spread across kind of the modeling and analysis of scientific workforce side of it, across observational platforms, which are the most expensive piece. So you need the airplanes that fly through the atmosphere to take readings. You need stuff on the ocean at the surface. And shockingly, the satellites that actually can look at aerosol particles in the atmosphere. They're aging out and there are no plans to replace them. Yeah.David RobertsSo we're going to know less about aerosols.Kelly WanserWe're going to know less soon.David RobertsThat seems like the wrong direction,Kelly WanserSo the investment in those platforms. And here's the other hold your gut thing. The US supplies most of the world's data. So if we don't do it in the US, we can't count on it coming in. There are some European programs, but the US is the biggest provider of this information.David RobertsYikes. It just seems like how is it in the UN, all this sort of like, poorer and more vulnerable countries organize and they want money in the Green Fund and all this. How is it like they are the ones who are most directly at risk in this 30 to 40 year time horizon in some very direct and scary ways. Why aren't they advocating for research? Like, what's going on?Kelly WanserWell, they have a lot of fish to fry, huge amount of sympathy because they're getting pummeled by the impacts and they're not getting the money they were promised to deal with the impacts or the transition. And what's striking is many of them are still ahead of the developed countries in transitioning away from fossil fuels. You take a country like Honduras, they're over accomplishing against their commitment and they're like the second or third most impacted country by climate change. Like half the country is going to disappear in the period I'm talking about. And so a lot of these countries are really impressive in how they're trying to deal with this, but they don't have good visibility of these research problems because they don't have the assets to do this problem at all.David RobertsRight,Kelly WanserAnd so that gets into where you talk about the climate system is so big and so complicated that you need very high tech resources like massive supercomputers satellites, stratospheric capable aircraft that only a handful of countries actually have.David RobertsYeah, I guess one additional note about the research to emphasize is just and you have a whole piece about this in the report. It's just the people from these vulnerable countries who are now more or less locked out of this research by the high sort of capital costs of it need to be brought in, right. This cannot be another sort of white dudes around a conference table undertaking. Their interests are most directly involved and they need to be involved in the research. That's just to put a pin in that.Kelly WanserI'll say one more thing, and I'll give a plug to our partner at Amazon, because we care about that problem a lot and there are ways that technology can help. And so with regard to giving access quickly, getting the climate models and data sets onto the cloud, out of these big supercomputing, one off facilities and onto the cloud where people in different parts of the world can access them, has a huge potential to benefit. Takes a bit of technical work, it takes some money. But then they have supercomputing too. They have climate models, they have the data sets too.And so we're working on this very actively right now. It's like Netflix. It's like how do we bring it to the world? And if you want those people to be able to do these problems of what is climate change going to do in my part of the world? And then what would these interventions do? You need things like that and you need them pretty fast.David RobertsRight. Most research, yeah, you notice of the little there has been, has been focused mostly on developed countries because that's just where the researchers tend to be.Kelly WanserThat's right.David RobertsThere are huge justice implications to both these interventions. And just to emphasize again, to not doing these interventions, to not doing anything, both those have enormous justice implications which need to be centered. So yeah, if I could just sort of summarize the research bit. The part that struck me is just how much of this research seems like it ought to be happening anyway. It is uncontroversial. It's crazy that we're not doing it regardless of whether we decide or want to intervene directly or not. Understanding the short-term dynamics of the climate and the risk of tipping points and the dynamics of aerosols and all these things, we're just woefully underfunded and need more funding. That seems uncontroversial.So I want to get to the problems that everybody when I ask about this online, everybody sort of comes up with the same question, which is just this sort of nest of moral hazard problems. And so just for listeners who aren't familiar with the term, the idea of moral hazard is the worry here. One of the worries here is if this becomes a real possibility, it will serve as an excuse to do less mitigation basically to reduce emissions less. The idea is here we have an escape hatch. Like, I had a guest on talking about modeling a few weeks ago and she was sort of talking about how in climate models we just have CCS plugged in as kind of a carbon capture and Sequestration plugged in as kind of a gap filler because we don't know what else to fill that gap with.But it gives us sort of this false sense of security. Like, oh, we can get to the targets. Even though if you look at the models like, oh, here's a kajillion tons of a technology that does not really exist yet on any commercial scale. So it's giving us a false sense of security. And her worry is that solar radiation management is going to serve a similar role. ie. Kind of an escape hatch that you can just plug into models when you want to get the right output. That's one of the remoral hazard arguments is it'll lull us into a false sense of security and will reduce the urgency of mitigation.I'm sure you've discussed that issue a kajillion times. What's your kind of take on it?Kelly WanserYeah, we might need a whole 'nother podcast, but...David RobertsI know I wish we had more time for this.Kelly WanserI share the worry that it gets plugged in in a similar kind of way. I might differ in what I think that means about research because I've had this moral hazard issue come into our world in saying it's a reason not to do research, because the research itself creates this impression that you're going down this path and it opens up this option and digging into this coming from outside and looking starting to learn from people the history. Because these same arguments were made about adaptation research, and they were made about carbon dioxide removal research, and they were even made about research into reducing methane that it would distract from looking at CO2. And what kind of happens is they say, well, the research creates a moral hazard, so they sort of suppresses research.Adaptation research is a really good example because then you didn't have it. Well, the research might have given you a lot of really interesting information that compelled thinking about emissions reduction because of the kind of adaptation s**t show that...David RobertsI know, the more you know about adaptation, the more — it's not like you're going to be like, "Oh that's easy, that's easy."Kelly WanserLet's just do that on planet Earth would have been to have just tons of adaptation research. That really blew my mind, actually. And so when I think, I guess, or our premise is that information actually helps. And when you dig into these climate interventions, they're not magic. And I sat with conservatives and Republicans in Congress and said to them, look, what the science tells you is the least amount of additional things you put in the atmosphere, the safer it is.David RobertsYeah, which is just completely ...Kelly WanserIt's showing you where the thresholds are, and I can have that conversation. And so we say there's at least we need to look at the evidence that when we start to dig into this, there's also evidence could be highly motivating of pushing on emissions reductions and pushing on the things we can do, that's in addition to all ... the fact that we want to fill gaps and information that will help all these other parts of the climate problem, we're saying that we think society actually with more information, can do a better job and that information itself isn't bad.David RobertsWell, most people would agree with that up to a certain extent, I think, but then gathering information is one thing, but how do you at a certain point when you're talking about doing these things it's so complex, there's no way to predict or model completely in advance what's going to happen. So ultimately you have to do some of this stuff to find out what's going to happen. And I guess a lot of people just wonder sort of like how do you half do this? What does an experiment along these lines even look like? And ultimately, like how much can you learn without doing it on a big broad scale?And then once you've done it on a big broad scale it's sort of like the Pandora's box is open. It's one thing to understand the climate better, but how do you understand doing these things without doing them?Kelly WanserI think if you think about the steps of what you can learn, in what ways. So the thing that scientists are proposing doing are releases of plumes, like small batches of plumes, like the equivalent of what comes out of the smoke stack of a ship or of an aircraft. And that gives you a lot more information than you have now about how the particles behave when they hit the atmosphere and how they disperse. And that is information that right now, if you want to model this stuff, you're just taking a wild flaming guess, and then everything downstream of that is based on your wild flaming guess.And so if I want to know like what are the exactly right size of particles and those really teeny in earth terms experiments give you that first order information that you can plug into models and then your models of what happens at a bigger scale are a lot smarter. And so that level, like I think scientists have said they've recommended it already in scientific assessments, but people are confused because it's sort of conflated with, "Oh, previous folks in the space have said this is cheap and easy to do and we got a guy out there saying you can throw up balloons." It's like I've dug a tiny hole, but I'm building a skyscraper. What you would need to engineer the climate system is tens of billions of dollars of investment in something that would be able to influence the planet at a really big scale.And so you have this inflection point where there's a bunch of science you need to do to even advise countries or the world as to what would make sense as far as regards investment like that, if anything. So no one is going to be off doing this at the kind of scale that would really have a major impact without a really big investment.David RobertsWell, let's talk about this then, because it is sort of...Kelly WanserI let myself in for that one, didn't I?David RobertsThis kind of conventional wisdom, or at least often repeated in this space, that sulfur particles and squirting them up into the atmosphere is relatively cheap compared to other things such that like a single interested country or even a single interested billionaire could do a big chunk of it themselves. So before we discuss the kind of security and governance implications of that, just is that true?Kelly WanserWell, I think what's happened, as some research has started to happen there's the things that sort of physicists and modelers do with the information that they have and the numbers that they have and aren't taking into account a lot of the complexity, a lot of the uncertainty, or even a lot of the way the world really works. And so then you dig in and you say, oh, no, what it looks like is you need platforms capable of reaching the stratosphere if you're going to work up there. There's only a handful of countries that have that one species programs, and you would need to scale up very substantially, like any sort of capacity for that, which is not within the means of more than a handful of countries and really not in the means of any individual billionaire either. And also, by the way, none of them are stepping in to spend their whole net worth this way either.So I think that was kind of when you do it in the back of the envelope and you know very little, you can sort of be optimistic about that. But when you dig in, the reality is it's probably a subset of the world's developed countries or countries with a lot of assets who would be players in that. Now, in the low cloud layer, it's a little bit different because you've got these cloud seeding efforts that are coming up and springing up to try to address local impacts and there are ways that cloud brightening could be used that people are starting to look at. And so you could get regional things that could affect other people and things like that that are more widely available or potentially used.So these are questions that need to be thought about. And again, science and observation really helps you and it's not a good space to be flying blind in.David RobertsRight.Well, the broader question of governance, I guess, is one thing that really just vexes people about. This vexes me about it, too, which is just like whenever I read or listen to someone like you talk about it, I'm like just like cool heads.Reasonable people taking all the right precautions, building institutional capacity such that scientists are in the driver's seat of this thing and policymakers only doing what scientists sort of advise them. And there's international cooperation and there's knowledge sharing, et cetera, et cetera. It sounds delightful when sensible people discuss it as though sensible people will be in charge of it. But of course, a glance at recent world history reveals that quite frequently sensible people are not in charge. You said that the bar for getting seriously involved in this is higher than maybe people think. But it certainly seems like this is something that people could be doing sort of half ass experiments with in various ways.How do you I guess just what's your confidence that a sensible international knowledge transparent knowledge sharing system is going to be in place to manage doing this research and taking these experiments and trying this versus scientists losing control over it and insane capitalists or rogue nations or whatever taking it and running with it? Is there an answer to that question like what's the best we can do to try to keep this under the control of sensible people?Kelly WanserWell, that's a good question. And I think one of the reasons that SilverLining exists is really that question, which is if you think about the climate conditions getting potentially worse and worse and people being more inclined to take kind of radical actions how do you put yourself in a position to be smart, to be equitable, and to be as safe as you can in that context? So it definitely appears that when you have a sharing of information and you have cooperation around science and information, it calms everybody down. And there's a lot of when we have conversations with policymakers, whether it's in Congress or the UN.And we say, yeah, you know, we're here to talk about science anyd how we step forward on scientific work and cooperation and feel like, great, because we can do that as as policymakers and we can work across the aisle. We can work with people we don't agree with on other things. If we're in the science lane and that's been true in our experience in the US where we've worked across the aisle in Congress and we've gotten Republicans to increase basic climate, basic science budgets in a Republican Congress.David RobertsWell, that's something.Kelly WanserYeah. And so when you're talking about science and you're talking about ways of the technology can improve science and sharing information, same at the UN level. And then as we started to dig into how do different things work in the UN and where do they work well and where don't they work well and why? And we worked with a couple of experts, Dan Bodanski, who wrote the book on international climate law, and Sue Biniaz, who is the current Deputy Climate Advisor for the US to look at that question in the context of this subject and what emerged is like what we are interested in, SilverLining is what is most effective in terms of outcomes?What produces the best outcome in the environment, what produces the best outcome in safety for people? And the absolute best case of that is the Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone layer. And so we really have gone up close and personal to figure out why does that work? And yeah, people say, "Well, it's a narrow problem, but actually it's quite similar to this one. You've got a smaller number of actors, you've got a sort of focus thing they're emitting. You've got all the countries of the world not only agreeing to that, but they've agreed that changes in it, expansions of it, everybody makes their commitments."It's really interesting. And they have this feature that's different from the other UN fora the scientific and technical assessment panels that make the evaluation of what's going on and what needs to be done are fully independent of the nation states. Their reports are written completely independently. And if you look at the IPCC, where the UN does their climate work, they negotiate kind of the top line summary of what those reports say...David RobertsYeah.Kelly Wanser...with the countries. And so, again, we could do a whole podcast on this. But I would say that really looking at the Montreal Protocol, a. because it does apply to this particular thing as it would operate the stratosphere and b. because understanding how that works is really important because all the countries of the world are continuously meeting every year and we went to their meeting.It's calm, people are calm. It's incredible. So figuring that out and how we can translate that onto other things, I think it's a really good idea.David RobertsYeah. If only all international cooperation and agreements could be as calm and sensible as Montreal.Kelly WanserRight.David RobertsThis does seem like an area where really going overboard to keep the science independent seems super important because this is just this whole thicket of issues here is going to implicate countries in a lot of like sort of our interests versus global interests. There's going to be a lot of ulterior motives, I think involved. Everybody's going to be sort of thinking, on the one hand, how can we improve the world and the state of science? On the other hand is like, how can we make out best in a world where people are messing with solar radiation?So it does seem like independent science is more important even than normal.Kelly WanserAnd it's really important to your point from before, that other countries, especially the most impacted to developing countries, have the same level of access to information and can evaluate it for themselves.David RobertsIs there kind of a short-term goal of yours? Like, is there a particular development or institution you'd like to see funded or just like a first step, is there something kind of tangible people can look forward to and advocate for if they want to see more progress on this?Kelly WanserWell, certainly they can support SilverLining. We're like a medical foundation, so we fund research directly so that we can help advance some of the initial critical research, like getting the climate model supporting some of these problems, some of the lab work and things like that. And that feeds into our broader advocacy, which is trying to get the US government to invest in research aggressively. And like you said, some of these assets that we need to understand the atmosphere and climate system for people who are in a position to help influence attention on the fact that we have gaps in our understanding of what influences on the atmosphere due to the climate.And that's not acceptable. And we need to improve on that really fast.David RobertsRight. It's a little wild that we just spent we just passed a bill spending hundreds of billions of dollars on manufacturing and stuff, and literally like a rounding error on any of those sums would have been enough to double our research budget. It's a little wild.Kelly WanserYeah. So anything people can do to kind of be in there for the atmosphere. We're alone on the Hill right now lobbying for increases in budgets for atmospheric observations and research.David RobertsI guess I don't understand. Why are scientists themselves not more self interestedly, advocating for this? Like, why don't you have allies?Kelly WanserVery interesting. I talked to them about because, like, the astrophysics community, the telescope people, man, they get those big telescopes. They're really good at it. But part of it is that climate research is classified and has emerged as a basic science. It's very academic, and it hasn't involved big applied efforts. And technologies have come in relatively recently, so they've been pretty good at getting, like, super computing attached to national labs. But in general, it's very academic. There's been a lot of downward pressure on climate scientists in terms of sticking their necks up. And so it just hasn't had those same drivers, and it doesn't have a commercial community like bioscience or space.There's no money in it for anybody.David RobertsYou got to wonder once we understand these things a lot better and get a lot better at it if there might emerge commercial applications. Can you imagine that?Kelly WanserIt's changing quickly because there are obviously economic interest in being able to make better predictions. And as the climate system gets more volatile and there are more risks, that information becomes more valuable. So the landscape is changing, but that upstream part, which is, do we know what's specifically in the atmosphere? And can we model that from its tiny components down to what it's doing to the climate system? That piece is so basic and so general to everyone that nobody's there.David RobertsInteresting. Well, thank you for coming on and clarifying this. I feel like this is a subject where there's just lots of weird mythologies and hang ups and access to grind floating around and not a lot of sort of basic knowledge of what's actually happening and what needs to happen, so I appreciate your work on this. And thanks for coming on and sharing with us.Kelly WanserWell, I really appreciate your questions and the opportunity to talk about it. Love your show. Thanks for having me.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

In this episode, Brian Deese, outgoing director of the National Economic Council and an influential advisor to President Biden, discusses the opportunities and challenges in Democrats’ new focus on industrial policy.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsBrian Deese has had a remarkable two years. As President Joe Biden’s top economic advisor and director the National Economic Council, he has played a key role in defining and implementing Biden's policy approach. In April of last year, he delivered some “remarks on a modern American industrial strategy” that laid out a vigorous approach to investing in economic sectors deemed important to national and economic security. And by all accounts Deese played a pivotal role in seeing the strategy into law, through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which together amount to the greatest reinvestment in US infrastructure and manufacturing — and, specifically, clean energy industries — in generations. The pivot to unapologetic industrial policy is a big change for Democrats. Deese has moved in those circles for a long time — ten years ago he was a young wunderkind advisor to Obama, making The New Republic’s list of “Washington's most powerful, least famous people” — so as he prepares to depart the administration, I was eager to talk with him about what the shift to industrial policy means, why the US needs to onshore key supply chains, and the work ahead for Democrats in implementing their new laws.All right, then. Brian Deese, welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Brian DeeseOh, I'm really happy to be here.David RobertsI had, I'll say, a little banter, maybe a couple of jokes scheduled here for the front end of the pod. But then I looked at my list of questions for you, and we don't have time for any jokes, Brian. We don't have time for any banter.Brian DeeseVery serious, very quick.David RobertsWe got to get deadly serious right off the bat here. So let's start here in 2012. Ten years ago, you were the deputy director of the NEC under Obama. And in 2022, ten years later, you were the director of the NEC under Biden. And I'm just curious how things have changed, how America's sort of strategic economic outlook has changed in that ten years. And specifically, I'm curious whether the sort of vigorous investment in industrial policy that we're going to talk about here in a little bit, the kind of stuff that has been going on under Biden, whether you were recommending that to Obama at the time, or whether there's something importantly unique about this present moment.Brian DeeseWell, look, I think a lot of the world has changed since that period, both in policy and economic terms. If you think back to 2012, we were both right on the back end of a historic and transformational policy accomplishment in the enactment of the Affordable Care Acts, which changed the fabric of our economic and social safety net in important ways right on the front end of that implementation. And at the same time, in a period of very challenging and slow recovery from the Great Recession that was made worse by a failure of policy, a failure of the ability for Congress to overcome Republican opposition at the time, to invest more, to try to help to drive a stronger recovery. You look over those ten years, we live through a period that a number of people have characterized as secular stagnation where our output was constrained and that had a lot of impacts on quality, on labor markets.And then of course, we lived through this once in a century event of the global pandemic and in many ways historically unprecedented in modern human history. And I think that that helped to bring to the forefront a set of economic challenges that had persisted over that decade and much longer. But we're now really to the floor, particularly the vulnerability of supply chains and the weaknesses in our industrial capacity as a country. And so those things together helped to crystallize the economic strategy that Biden as a candidate put out in 2020 and really have been pursuing, that in some important ways have similarities to things we were promoting at the time.Significant investment in physical infrastructure is something that has been clearly necessary for a long time, but in some ways have important differences. I think we've got a different approach to clean energy and clean energy deployment at scale, which I'm sure we'll get into here, but also the prioritization of key geostrategic priorities like rebuilding semiconductor capacity here in the United States. So I think the landscape looks very different now economically both because of some of these significant economic changes but also policy changes as well.David RobertsWhat you're talking about and sort of what's come to the fore over the last ten years policy wise goes under the umbrella term of industrial policy. There's been a lot of kind of hype and talk lately about kind of the return of industrial policy. But I'm not totally sure that average listeners really have a sense of what that means. So maybe just let's just start by saying what do we mean by having versus not having an industrial policy? And where has industrial policy been for the last like two or three decades versus the last two or three years which has seen a really vertiginous sort of pivot around this subject.So maybe let's just start by defining what we're talking about.Brian DeeseYeah, sure. And look, I use the term industrial strategy, which is obviously very similar to industrial policy, but a bit broader in ways that I'll explain. And I think at its core, the idea behind an industrial strategy is that the private market on its own, private actors operating to maximize their own utility, will end up under investing in areas of the economy that have strategic and economic significance and that by using targeted public investment you can unlock greater economic opportunity and crowd in greater private investment in those areas. And so an example of this is in physical infrastructure that allows you to unlock productive capacity of the economy.And we have a great history of this in the United States, from the interstate highway system to the intercontinental railroad, where public investments in laying the foundation for private capital helped unlock greater productivity, greater innovation across the United States. I think what happened is that in the late 1970s, early 80s, there was a broader philosophical push around what now people talk about as trickle down economics that basically at its core had the view that any government or intervention was by definition going to pervert markets and crowd out private capital. And so the dominant paradigm became one of tax cuts, often skewed toward the highest income folks. Thus, the trickle down but also deregulation getting the government out of the way in all cases. And I think that that philosophy helped to feed a sense that if you were doing industrial policy, it was in fact a dirty word. You were, by definition, perverting a private market or picking winners, the government picking winners versus picking losers. And as a result, a lot of the policy conversations steered away from even mentioning the word. And so I think that obviously that has changed. And it's changed. Things have changed certainly earlier than the last couple of years. But I think in the last couple of years, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, there's been more of a recognition that some of these basic ideas of having active and energetic government investment to help crowd in and build more capacity in strategically important areas is not only not a dirty word, it's absolutely necessary to address the economic and national security priorities we face.David RobertsAnd I think one could fairly argue that there's no such thing as a giant industrialized wealthy democracy that does not have some sort of industrial strategy. It's just whether you're upfront and honest about it right. Or whether it's sort of buried in the tax code and you're sort of quasi-ashamed about it, but you can't, practically speaking, literally just let the market do whatever. It's not practical industrial strategy has always been there.Brian DeeseWell, that's right. And I would say that one of the interesting things about, I think, the evolution and the reinvigoration of this conversation, this public conversation, is that one of the hallmarks of effective industrial strategy is transparency.David RobertsExactly.Brian DeeseAnd so we back our way into potentially really self-defeating the industrial strategy approaches when we, as you say, we end up there. We don't admit it or we don't acknowledge or we don't actually identify what are our policy goals. Transparency is a key element of, I think, doing industrial strategy effectively, both for economic reasons and for political economy as well, so that people can understand why you're doing what you're doing and then can hold you accountable to whether the thing you were trying to get done actually happens.David RobertsRight. And this notion of picking winners, I guess I'm curious sort of how the US. learned to stop worrying and love picking winners. All the traditional sort of objections to this, government doesn't know what's going to be next, government makes bad bets, government distorts things. What do you make of those worries? I mean, are you worried about making some bad bets or getting some things wrong? How do you think about the dangers of picking winners, which are real dangers?Brian DeeseYeah, like any critique, there's a kernel of something really important in that catchphrase of the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. And I think that the caution, the important caution is the closer that the government gets to actually directly picking individual companies or individual counterparties in a way where there is a sort of a high stakes economic interest there. You do need to worry about waste, you need to worry about corruption. And we know that in different countries and different parts of our history, those things certainly are worthy of being paranoid about. But I think the core mistake that people extended from that critique for too long was to say that that was a concern that meant that you shouldn't engage in the enterprise altogether.And one of the things that I believe and I think that we have tried to build into our policy approach is wherever possible, the best way, I believe, to try to drive industrial strategy outcomes is to provide long term and technology neutral incentives to encourage investment where the government is not actually going in and identifying and picking a particular winner. Now, there are some cases where that is necessary. And we could talk about the semiconductor program that we're putting in place where because our capacity has eroded as a country and because of the scale necessary to build semiconductor fabrication capabilities, there are only a small handful of companies around the world who even have that capability. And so in that case, we needed to design a policy that was going to provide grants directly to companies on a competitive basis.But precisely because of that, we are putting an extraordinary amount of thought into the way to run that competitive process in a way that guards against some of the downside risk and captures some of the upside opportunities, but wherever possible. And a lot of what is in the Inflation Reduction Act around clean energy is actually trying to lay that foundation of signaling to private companies and the private market that there will be long term predictable incentives in place. But then not having the government say, we think that this particular technological application is going to be more successful than this.David RobertsRight. More like picking winning areas of investment than picking winning companies, right?Brian DeeseYeah. The way I like to think about this is look, if you want to know our American industrial strategy in a nutshell right now, we have identified three broad areas that we believe will have big returns in terms of productive capacity and our economic and national security. And those are infrastructure innovation with semiconductors at the center of it and clean energy. And so we are picking those. We're picking broadly that those are areas that for geostrategic reasons and for economic reasons and for what we know about, where you can get productivity enhancements in our economy. But then wherever possible within those, we're not trying to say the government is best positioned to figure out whether this particular technology for generating clean hydrogen in this particular application is going to be more effective than this other one.We're trying to say we need more clean energy capacity. Clean energy supply. We need it faster and cheaper than we have gotten it to date. That's an existential project. And if we do it in the United States, we'll build manufacturing industrial capacity here, we'll be able to capture greater export share of a very fast growing global market. And for all those reasons, that's the industrial strategy part of this.David RobertsThat segues nicely to my next question, which is that a big part of the thrust of the big three bills that were passed — the Infrastructure Act, CHIPS, and the Inflation Reduction Act — is onshoring, basically bringing more of the supply chain into the US. So let's just talk about that a little bit. The case for onshoring, if I put my sort of conventional economist hat on, it doesn't fit very well, it's too tight, it constrains blood flow in my brain.Brian DeeseBut I wish we were on video so I could see that hat.David RobertsYeah, you can imagine me grimacing while I'm wearing it. But the traditional economist take is why not just buy whether it's semiconductors or lithium-ion batteries or the materials for lithium ion batteries, why not just buy them wherever in the world they could be made for cheapest? Would it not benefit all global consumers if whoever can make those for the cheapest makes them and sells them to everybody else? This is sort of the basic Econ 101 justification for trade, right? For international trade is specialization. Some people can do things cheaper than others. Why do we need to make these things domestically?What is the threat exactly of international supply chains which are, it should be pointed out, ubiquitous. Like most of the stuff we get and use in the US. We don't make here. We don't dominate the supply chain. So why in these particular areas do we need to bring mining and processing and manufacturing the whole supply chain into the US.Brian DeeseSo I think there's two broad answers to that question. The first is the rise of China in the global economic system. And the second is the embedded risk that we have now seen made explicit around brittle and just in time supply chains. So let me take the two in order. The first is that that kind of stylized. Let's just try to find the lowest cost producer. Again, there is a lot that we shouldn't look through and we should harvest in that basic intuition. But one of the things that it misses is that over the course of the last 20 years, China's rise in the global economy has been achieved through non market economic means in many instances.And so the Chinese economic model, where you either steal or expropriate technology, use significant non-market subsidies and other tools to build capacity to then dominate particular industries, is a constructive challenge to that basic model. And there are some clear national security implications where there are technologies that we believe, for national security reasons, we need to deny in certain instances.David RobertsCan I press on that just a little bit? Because this is I find that a lot of people refer to the danger of China dominating, say, the lithium-ion battery supply chain in those terms, sort of vaguely like it's national security. It's a threat. And I find it all a little hand-wavy. So I just like to hear what concretely do we think China would or could do? Like, China selling us a bunch of stuff? That's a two way relationship. It hurts them also if they cut us off from buying the stuff they're making so tangibly, what do we worry China might do?Brian DeeseRight? So, look, and I think you're right that it's important that we be specific in these contexts and in our policy to avoid broad-brush characterizations. First, there are certain direct military applications for cutting edge technology that we have to be particularly aware of. And without going into the kind of detail that I shouldn't. If you look at, for example, the export control regime that we have put in place for leading-edge semiconductor technology, we are trying to be quite intentional about being specific and tailored and targeted in those purposes, but in controlling some leading-edge, the most sort of advanced chip technology because of its direct use application, in particular military applications.Okay, so that's one category. There's a second category about the fact that if part of the Chinese model is to employ slave labor or to violate basic rights and norms, that you don't want to be reliant on a dominant supplier where the basic technological capacity to produce key inputs is subject to those outcomes. And so the upstream solar supply chain is a good example of this. Right. Where over the course of the last decade plus, because of a variety of different means and tools, China dominates those markets and does so in ways that we can't rely.It creates instability because we can't rely on a producer, where if the production is only done as a function of unacceptable basic human behavior, then the technology and the capacity doesn't exist elsewhere to pivot. And you've created an acute supply chain vulnerability.David RobertsYeah, I guess another way of putting that is if there's only one producer, none of the buyers have any leverage over the producer, basically.Brian DeeseThat's right. And that's why I think that the second piece of where I think conceptually why we should care is this notion of supply chain resilience. And one of the things that we did when we first came into office, the first month it was February of 2021 was the president issues an executive order to identify the key supply chains and do a full forensic analysis of where the vulnerabilities and the chokes points were, where you had the dynamic you just described of one dominant technological owner or one dominant supplier, where you might create those types of vulnerabilities.Right? And the answer to those questions is not and should not always be that you just need to bring every one of those supply chains to the United States and have the production happening here.David RobertsI assuming you even could do that.Brian DeeseBecause it's neither feasible nor advisable to try to have all of it in the United States. But at the same time, there's clear lessons and clear outcomes where having homegrown industrial capacity and the technological and the innovation benefits that come from that is an absolute necessity. So there are areas like leading-edge semiconductor production where we in the United States do need to have that homegrown capacity to produce and the technological spillovers that come from that. That does not mean that the goal is that the United States is going to produce all or even most of the leading-edge semiconductors that are produced in the United States.But once you have that capacity and you have more diversification of players who are capable of doing it, you're reducing your vulnerability. And that's true of the upstream battery supply chain, of the solar supply chain as well.David RobertsSo it's mainly about resilience and national security.Brian DeeseYeah. And I think you are right, and it is right to push policymakers to be specific rather than vague about the applications in those contexts because there is a risk, as you say, of just sort of justifying any particular market intervention on those terms. But I think that because of the work in the analysis that we've done, at least in the areas where we have taken seriously and put into place industrial strategy policies, I think that we can demonstrate what does resilience mean? Right? What does it mean? What is the goal in terms of trying to get leading-edge semiconductor production here into the United States?And certainly as we go and we implement and execute, we should be held to account, to actually identifying those goals and then seeing if we are meeting them.David RobertsWhat about those cases? And it does seem like there could be cases where industrial strategy is in some tension with climate strategy. And so, as an example, let's take these EV credits in the IRA. They are the new version. The new generation of EV credits are tied to some pretty strict domestic content requirements and domestic manufacturing requirements, arguably so strict that no one meets them yet. So it seems like, intuitively, I can see how that's good for industrial strategy, maybe even good for the US economy and good for resilience to manufacture and do more of that stuff onshore.But it also seems like, intuitively, that's going to slow down the spread of EVs in the US. If we are putting a speed bump, basically between us and us adoption of EVs from a climate perspective, you just want to lower emissions as fast as possible, as much as possible, the cheapest, fastest way you can. And this is not the cheapest, fastest way. Right? Deliberately it's not. It's got an eye to resilience and redundancy. So how do you think through that tension?Brian DeeseI actually think that to have a durable, effective climate strategy that also operates with the urgency that the issue deserves, you have to factor in this concept of resilience or you're not going to succeed across longer periods of time. And I think the upstream solar supply chain example that we were just discussing illustrates that. If the idea into the current global market with the reality of how China and other actors operate, is that a narrow, fastest, cheapest without any factoring in anything else mentality results in China dominating key input components. To the degree that there is no other producer, then it's not a durable strategy to reduce emissions over the time period that we need to do this.Because even as we act with urgency, this is a project that is going to operate across the next two decades and longer. And so I think that you need to have strategies that are focused on driving down those costs as quickly as feasible, but factoring in that cost reductions into brittle and unreliable supply chains are not actually going to deliver those cost reductions in a reliable way over longer time frames. So the electric vehicle credit example that you raised, again, the legislative process is imperfect, and there's lots of ways in which the bills are imperfect.David RobertsThat's the kindest way I've ever heard it described.Brian DeeseWell, I had a but there, which is the status quo prior to the enactment of this law, was that the credits had a very different structure whereby many of the leading electric vehicle producers had grown themselves out of getting any credit.David RobertsYeah.Brian DeeseAnd so the status quo ante was not unmitigated credits everywhere. This approach sets a different bar. Not once you sell 200,000 vehicles, you no longer get a credit. And instead it sets the bar of saying, can you move more quickly to try to get to more resilient supply chains? And while I recognize that that does have some of the impacts that you're describing, I will also say, having talked to a number of the companies that operate in this space, a number have said to me, look, I'll be honest. When this bill was in its final drafting stages, we were incredibly concerned about all of this.And in the weeks and months afterward, it has totally changed our behavior. We are reorienting. We are investing in particular ways. Interesting things that we thought were hard or impossible may still be hard, but we're now making them possible. And so, look, we'll have to see. And as I said, I wouldn't claim that we've got that element or some other elements perfect, but it's a high bar to drive toward a different goal.David RobertsLooking back on this in ten years, say, do you think our move to onshore some of the supply chain will look faster and easier than we anticipated in advance?Brian DeeseLook, I think any strategy to address the climate crisis today needs to do at least two things. One, is have a credible way to massively drive down the cost curves of deployable technologies to decarbonize the power sector, the transportation sector, the built environment, et cetera. And two, to do so in a way that creates resilient supply chains for the input components for all of that building that we're going to need. And that the strategy that will succeed in really driving the mission direction we need. We'll have to have both of those components. And so I am hopeful that because of the action that we have taken over the last two years, we've given the United States now a historic set of tools to achieve both of those outcomes and to achieve both those outcomes at a scale and a speed that many would have thought was not possible even a couple of years ago.That doesn't guarantee success in the outcome, but it certainly puts us in a very different position than we were a couple of years ago.David RobertsLet's turn a bit and talk about one of our favorite subjects here on Volts, namely administrative capacity. I would say that serious industrial strategy needs administrative capacity, right? It's almost axiomatic. And so Rob Meyer had a piece in the New York Times recently, sort of making the case that the recent US ambitions, as expressed by these three bills, especially IRA, are somewhat exceeding our administrative capacity. In Germany, for instance, you have government departments that work very closely with certain industrial sectors, sort of hand in glove to do some planning and to adapt along the way to see what those sectors need.We don't really have that. And tax credits are kind of a blunt instrument, a blunt force tool, I guess. We have the Loan Programs Office in DOE, which is doing amazing things under Jigar. But our administrative capacity in the federal government in the US seems to have withered a little bit over the last several decades of this kind of neoliberal period we've been going through. Do you think we have the administrative capacity necessary to do something of this scale and speed?Brian DeeseWell, look, I appreciate the challenge, and Rob and I went back and forth on, I think what his thoughtful New York Times speaks to this effect. I think the answer is that we need to build that administrative capacity. But the one thing that we can't do is we can't wait for the chicken to produce the egg at the stylized utopia where the United States builds all the administrative capacity necessary for this kind of big national project and then and only then gets to passing the legislation is not only not how our political system works, but the intensity of the need for speed on clean energy and climate change doesn't really give us the luxury of doing that. But I would say do we need to build more administrative capacity across the board?Yes. Are we making big strides and innovating in new ways? Yes. You mentioned LPO and the work that Secretary Granholm and Jigar are doing. There are other great examples of that. We've stood up a joint program office between the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy to do electric vehicle charging implementation across the country and showing how do you actually build the administrative capacity to get two different agencies to work together with 50 states to coordinate to actually do that. So yes, we are building that car while we charge it or whatever the right analogy is.But we're showing good results. A lot of people said you're never going to get all 50 states to even apply for this because some don't even have the capacity to do so. But through an iterative process of building capacity at the federal level, building capacity at the state level, we just yesterday, we're recording this on the 16th, yesterday released the Electric Vehicle guidance for how we're going to get interoperability standards. We worked with key companies, including Tesla around them, announcing for the first time to open up parts of their network. These things need to work together.But I think the right answer to that constructive challenge is how do we build this at the same speed and urgency that we need to address the issue. Last point, I'll say you made the point about tax credits. Tax credits are blunt, but they can be enormously effective in the American system. Right. We're going to do this in the American system in a way that is different than some of the European models and otherwise. And having long term technology neutral tax incentives is among the most powerful and efficient ways to give private capital providers the incentive to pull forward investment.And we know that that investment is among the most powerful ways to drive cost curves down and it also requires less administrative capacity to your point. So, I wouldn't discount that, even as I agree that there are a number of places where we need to build up that capability and we need to do it quickly.David RobertsYeah, but by no means do I want to bad mouth tax credits — they made the point many times. They are the quiet workhorses of the progress made thus far. They don't get as much attention and argument and sort of team sports as you get around other policies, but they've been in the background for decades now, just chugging away with demonstrable results. So, administrative capacity is one aspect of implementation, but implementation of course, is a broader subject, a big thorny subject. There's a common critique of sort of people on the left that they fight and fight and get a bill passed and then they go home and watch Netflix.And of course with something big like this, three big bills like this, all the devil is in the details in the implementation. So I'm sort of curious how you think about trying to avoid what Leah Stokes calls in her great book "The Fog of Implementation". Sort of just curious what are your worries implementation-wise? What are you worried could go wrong and how are you thinking about just following up and making sure this is done well?Brian DeeseYeah, well, I think one of the key elements is to maintain consistent leadership and urgency from the president, from the White House, from the key leaders across federal agencies, and to make sure that there is a consistent effort to try to connect the technical and the programmatic implementation with concrete outcomes that people can see in their lives and in their communities.And obviously that's important from a political perspective, but I actually think it's quite important in maintaining the kind of culture and dynamic to avoid that fog of implementation that there needs to be a kind of urgency to being able to say if we are undertaking a national project to eliminate lead pipes in 10 million homes and 400,000 schools, that everyone involved in that process, from the EPA administrator down to the regional EPA offices down to the state grantees and onward understand that there are targets and metrics and milestones and you want to go into communities and you want to be able to show and demonstrate when that is happening because that's going to keep people forward, leaning forward rather than leaning back. Other big things that will keep me up at night issues is we do need to reform and change the way that we do permitting.That's not just an issue of federal permitting, it's state and local. And the other thing is, I do think that there's a need to, at the grassroots and the community level, help connect and unlock the enthusiasm and the openness to recognize that a particular investment, again, be it in a wind farm or a small scale nuclear facility or in a rail corridor, is actually connected to this larger project. And there's not only an openness and acceptance, but an enthusiasm around trying to move more quickly rather than putting up roadblocks.David RobertsWhat about workforce? I hear from all over these days like, we don't have enough electricians, we don't have enough plumbers, we don't have enough sort of trade. We're moving into this period where there's going to be a frenzy of building and construction work and just the need for trade labor and we seem short on it. How much do you worry about that and what sort of things are the Feds doing to kind of help with that?Brian DeeseIt's an enormous priority. And for this year 2023 and next year 2024, connecting more people with these new job and career opportunities has got to be a top priority of implementation, I would say. While I recognize and I hear often the concern, I also think a lot of people are missing how much opportunity there is there because for the first time, and this is to go back to our very early conversation about sort of secular stagnation dynamics of having output below potential, we have a dynamic now where incentives are really aligned. Private companies are prepared to invest in job training and invest in paying workers and showing them that there are career paths and opportunities.And so a lot of the opportunity is making sure that we are connecting those employers with the training providers that we know work effectively and efficiently, community colleges, union registered apprenticeship programs, et cetera, and then going and being proactive about reaching out to workers and communities that may have been overlooked. Right. So we are looking to try to get a million more women working in the trades and in construction than we've had in this country. And there's extraordinary job opportunities, extraordinary career opportunities. And I think one of the reasons why you see such a gender split is that employers and trainers in that space have either explicitly or implicitly built these things in ways that they haven't reached out to those communities.And so we're going to have to be creative about doing things like that. But I think this also creates a lot of opportunity to bring more people into these trades and to do so in a way where you're giving them more upward mobility as well.David RobertsAnother big subject that I know you probably had to address a bunch, but I would like to just grapple with a little bit are the sort of foreign policy / trade implications of all this. It looks to me like these three bills represent a pretty explicit pivot away from the sort of free trade consensus that has reigned in US politics in both parties really for decades now. And you see sort of trade partners in South Korea and Europe kind of freaking out about this a little bit. They're calling the stuff in the IRA "protectionism". They're sort of threatening protectionist policies of their own.Are you worried that this sort of dramatic disruption of the free trade status quo is going to run afoul of some longtime trade relationships? Do you worry about this sort of global trade regime holding together amidst this?Brian DeeseI don't. And here's why: The first is that the Inflation Reduction Act itself is going to be enormously beneficial to our trading partners and allies. And I think that we are making real progress with our European partners and others in helping them see and understand that that's the case. And that's because at core, the Inflation Reduction Act reflects two things. One, the United States meeting and stepping up to its obligation to actually meet its clean energy and climate commitments in a credible way, which is a priority that many of our allies, including our European partners but also others, have been urging the United States to do for years.And also a commitment to use US taxpayer dollars to dramatically accelerate cost reductions in key next generation clean energy technologies that the world needs in these countries need as well. Now, we also all share the need to have more secure and resilient supply chains to the conversation we're having earlier. And the other, I think key and important part is that we are operating into a sector, we're talking about clean energy in this context where the world is way short supply. So we need dramatically more deployed clean energy technologies and capabilities in the United States. We need that in Europe, we need that in Canada, we need that in Australia, we need that across Asia, we need that everywhere.So the United States stepping up and showing a viable scalable model to do so, in a way that will help drive down global costs, and in a way that puts the United States in a credible position to meet our commitments actually creates much more opportunity than constraint. And what it requires is harmonization and effective economic diplomacy and making sure that there is transparency and making sure that we are not doing things that would create unproductive or inefficient subsidy races. But at the core, the United States stepping up and investing in our own industrial capacity in these spaces is first and foremost the right thing to do for our country, the right thing to do for our workers and communities. But it also will have these global benefits as well. And I think that we will, over the course of this year, have a lot of opportunity to actually build partnerships against this.David RobertsSo you're not worried about sort of like if we put domestic requirements and we put, say, a border adjustment or something like that, and then another nation will do it, and then we'll ramp ours up and they'll ramp theirs up and you will end up in trade wars. That will slow the sort of act as a slowing force on the spread of these technologies. You just don't think that's going to manifest?Brian DeeseLook, I think you're identifying a risk. But I would say from where I sit, both on the substance and the economic diplomacy of this, there is more opportunity than risk in that area. So it's always a risk. It's always a risk that you should take seriously. But if we were having this conversation several years ago, the dominant conversation would be whether, how and in what context could you ever envision building a durable political coalition in the United States to pass any meaningful legislation that would increase clean energy and energy security and do so in a way that would put the United States in a position where it could actually sit at a table with the Europeans and talk credibly about them how to increase global ambition. And that would be the conversation, right? We are in a different conversation that certainly it has risks, but it's a higher class conversation if the goal is how to deploy clean energy globally at scale.David RobertsGood problems to have. Another sort of aspect of that similar family of worries is that if the US follows China's lead and starts sort of lavishly subsidizing its own industry and the EU follows, the US. Starts lavishly subsidizing its own industries, these developed nations sort of look inward. There's a worry sort of floating around that developing nations will end up sort of getting screwed, not getting the investment they need. So how do you sort of balance the need, which you've laid out here, for the US. To invest in itself, for a bunch of reasons, with the parallel need for developed nations to invest in helping developing nations build capacity themselves and lower their own emissions?Do you think those are in tension at all?Brian DeeseI don't think they need to be, and in fact, I think that they can operate together. But you're right to absolutely raise the issue. Look, I think it is incredibly important for the credibility of global climate progress for the United States to be able to credibly meet its own commitments. And that's important for developing as well as developed countries, number one. Number two, the United States being a place where we are investing taxpayer money to drive down technologies that will be particularly important in deployed applications in developing economies means that developing economies can also benefit from driving down those cost curves as well.But I think it also goes to the need for the United States and other countries together to continue to increase our game in building partnerships with key developing countries to demonstrate that we can together bring climate finance at very significant scale into their economies to help drive this transition.David RobertsBecause that has not been happening, right?Brian DeeseWell, look, I would say there is a model that we need to build on the JETP initiative that we have launched, which stands for Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa and Indonesia, the partnership we launched with Egypt at the COP this year. These are models to demonstrate the potential of US investment, lower cost clean energy technologies, policy reforms to create more stable investment environments in these countries, and then the ability to actually bring private capital at scale into big, important projects. That's what it's going to take, but we're going to have to do that at a scale that we have not done yet. But I think the action that we're taking in the United States creates significantly more opportunity for that than constraint.Again, it's sort of a similar, I guess I would say a similar story. Much work yet to be done, but we're definitely better positioned having taken the action that we have in the United States than if we hadn't.David RobertsRight. Let's talk then about the US being slow. This has been an increasing subject of conversation in liberal circles recently. I'm sure you've heard and seen this idea that US is entering this period where we badly need to rebuild ourselves, our industries, our infrastructure, not just because of climate, just because a lot of it is falling apart. We just have been under investing for a long time. But when we do invest, it's very slow and this manifests in a bunch of different areas. But I'm just curious how you untangle all those factors that are going into making the US building in the US slow and expensive.How do you increase the pace without running roughshod over vulnerable communities? The fight over permitting reform did not auger well for this debate. It did not seem to suggest that it was going to be easy to resolve this debate. So just on the big picture level, how do you think about the US. Being slow and expensive and what can the federal level, what can you do to shake that loose?Brian DeeseYeah, I think it may be the biggest and most significant challenge that we face. And to go to your question about what we at the federal level we can do, we can commit to and then execute on doing business differently. Right. So we need to have the kind of accountability and transparency around project timelines that we have not always had in the past. We need to deploy efficiencies and creativity and innovation that we know is out there, but deploy it at a much broader scale. Some things that sound very simple, like we have a program called Dig Once, right, where we are coordinating between road projects and broadband projects and transmission projects.So that if we're going to have a right of way, we should be trying to operate all of the digging projects that we're going to do as much as we possibly can in the same right of way at the same time. Now that sounds simple, but actually it's an innovation that if deployed, can have a geometric impact on speed. But then there's also more sophisticated design, technological approaches that we can use and we can borrow from other countries and we can do things like you had mentioned, labor. One of the things on these big complicated projects that project sponsors are finding is having a project labor agreement working up front to actually demonstrate how you're going to make sure that you've got the right people on the right time to do the work that is needed in a quality way.Helps to reduce bottlenecks, helps to reduce cost overruns and time overruns. And so those are all things that we at the federal government can do, we've got to do in a more systematic way and at scale. Having legislation that would give some key reforms to the permitting process would help on that score. But there is also a lot that we can keep doing and working. And you made a really important point. We have to demonstrate that we can do all of this in a way that also builds more fairly than we have in the past. And so there's nothing simple about that project.But we do have I often hear these conversations about permitting that move immediately to a certain sense of defeatism. Well, the United States just moves slowly and things cost a lot and therefore this is all going to go sideways. And I think we can point to practical examples of success and then we need to build on those.David RobertsOne of the big bottlenecks in terms of building, in terms of things going slowly is transmission and energy, long distance transmission famously holding back the rest of the clean energy economy and it's just very difficult to build. There's landowner NIMBYs, there's state NIMBYs county NIMBYs, there's baroque bureaucracy on and on. There was some stuff in the Infrastructure Act, I believe, that did some good on transmission, a little bit in IRA. The permitting reform didn't end up going through. So that was the biggest thing. So I'm curious now that sort of the period of legislating is probably over what tools are left in the Biden administration's toolbox that can shake loose transmission and get that moving.Do you guys have ideas on that score?Brian DeeseWe do. It's a great question. It's a super important policy. We've been working hard at this. I don't want to get too far ahead of where we will be,and our agencies will be shortly. But I think I could say that I think you'll see from us shortly that there are tools within our existing authority, under existing statutes that will allow us to very significantly prioritize and streamline the process at the federal level in terms of agency approvals and also use our federal authorities in ways that create stronger and more significant incentives for not only project sponsors, but also states and localities, municipalities to operate in line as well.And one of the things that to go back to the culture point that I was making earlier, one of the things that we have now, ever since the infrastructure bill passed, is Secretary Granholm. She's got it, she's trying to make it famous, this map where she's got the transmission lines that need to get built right and they need to get built and they need to get built at scale. And to the point about success, we can already identify that there are a handful on that map that have moved from yellow to green and are moving forward in a way that was not true a year ago or even six months ago. But these additional authorities, I think you'll see us moving out on in the course of the next couple of months will give us more to work with and I think make 2023 a year where we can really accelerate on that front.David RobertsSweet. One other follow up on the slowness question another big area of congestion is housing. This is also a hot topic lately. I think it feels like it's become more and more clear to more and more people that constraints on housing in high economic opportunity areas is not just a local issue. It is in the aggregate having serious macroeconomic effects on the US. It is a serious in other words, it is a serious nationwide problem, not just sort of quirk of coastal states. What, if anything, can the feds do? Because so much of that is local or state.Are there levers available at the federal level that can shake that mess loose a little bit?Brian DeeseI'm so glad you raised this question. It's a hugely important issue and we have a housing supply crisis in the United States, which is a crisis that has developed over the course of years, basically going back to the Great Financial Crisis. And if we don't build more supply of affordable and dense housing, then we get exactly the dynamics that you just described and it's harder for people to move to opportunity and find affordable places to live.We have been dogged on this issue and there's a couple of things that we can do. The first is that we can build into some of our existing federal grant programs and new federal grant programs in the investments in infrastructure and otherwise incentives that says that if localities actually have more coherent land use and zoning policies that encourage this type of building, then that's going to be a plus up for them in receiving federal grants for something like, for example, public transportation, which makes a lot of sense if you think about it, which is we shouldn't be spending federal dollars on public transportation into an environment where they're not going to build coherent housing.Secretary Buttigieg has done this in a couple of ways, but we've never done before and we're now franchising that to other grant programs. The second is we could pass legislation. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit and something called the Neighborhood Homes Tax Credit. Bipartisan support for these pieces of legislation that provide incentives for people to build dense rental, multifamily and single family housing, again in areas where they have local land use policies that encourage this type of building. And there's bipartisan support for that type of legislation. I know that there have been conversations across time of trying to advance this.Both of those steps are things that we could do. You are right that the decisions operate in many cases at the state or the local level, but we can provide a powerful incentive to encourage and invest in those communities that are doing the right thing.David RobertsCould have done a whole pod on politics but I mostly left that out. But I'm just curious. Looking back now, it seems striking that Democrats went into this latest session heads full of extremely ambitious dreams. The original Build Back Better Bill was robust. Let's say it had a little bit of everything in it over time. We just saw that get stripped down and stripped down and stripped down but somehow the climate piece, the clean energy piece, survived more or less intact through that entire sausage making process. What are we to make of that? Does it all just come down to sort of like whether Joe Manchin woke up on the right side of the bed or are there larger political lessons to be learned from the sort of resilience of this one piece of the Democratic agenda?Brian DeeseOne of the takeaways that I have is that it has been important for us to change the policy and the political approaches to trying to radically and dramatically build clean energy capacity in the United States. And that one of the important parts of how President Biden has approached this. And frankly, Democrats in Congress — and a lot of Republicans too — is to focus on this as about building our capacity, our manufacturing capacity and our energy security by dint of having more homegrown, affordable, reliable energy and to do that and to build a strategy that can achieve very significant climate ambition. But it is based fundamentally on that investment opportunity.And that has, I hope and expect, will be an important takeaway over the last couple of years is that even as this process has been challenging and winding across time, if you look across the infrastructure bill as well as the CHIPS bill, but also, obviously, the Inflation Reduction Act. What you see is that these types of investment approaches have a lot of salience. And they have a lot of salience because they're focused on places and people and giving people economic opportunity and helping to drive significant emissions reductions across the country. But based on that core opportunity, I think that is very different from the political conversation that we had in 2009 and 2010 on this issue.It's different than the conversations we've even had over the course of the decade since and I'm hopeful that it will lead to a more durable political environment for us to drive forward these policy pieces that are going to be hugely important for our economy and our country and our planet in the future.David RobertsYou are credited alongside Chuck Schumer with bringing Manchin around. I don't suppose you want to give us any secret insight on what was the magic key, the magic phrase, what sort of sorcery achieved that?Brian DeeseNo. Look, Joe Manchin is an independent thinker, independent minded guy. And he has spent an enormous amount of time thinking about these issues. And he has always, throughout this process, prioritized the importance of energy security and moving on the climate goals and the climate priorities that we needed to move with a focus on American capacity and energy security. And I think that he always brought a ton of insight into what was necessary. And a lot of this was about listening and understanding and understanding places where we had principal disagreements, but at the end of the day, trying to get at those core issues where the policies themselves were less at odds.And so Senator Manchin always has and always will operate independently based on his own principles. But I was fortunate enough to be part of this process, part of a team to ultimately get us to the finish line. It was a long process, that's for sure, but better for the country that we're on the other side of it.David RobertsJust in terms of being placed kind of at the center of history and seeing things unfold. It's been quite a two years you've lived through there at the center of everything, so I hope you're able to catch up on some sleep.Brian DeeseWell, thank you for that. And I hope that we can continue to have these conversations about what I think are a set of incredibly important climate and clean energy challenges, but also a really high class set of challenges compared to where we were a couple of years ago. And so that's what leaves me pretty fundamentally optimistic about all this.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please. Consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

The lowly circuit breaker was first patented by Thomas Edison and hasn’t been updated much since — until Atom Power CEO Ryan Kennedy came along and made a digital version. In this episode, he describes the basics of the digital circuit breaker, the ways it’s making a difference in the EV charging market, and its gamechanging potential. (PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsThere is perhaps no building block of the electricity grid more fundamental, ubiquitous, and overlooked than the humble circuit breaker. Every electronic device that is attached to the grid runs through a circuit breaker, a device that automatically shuts off current in the case of a fault or surge.Currently, though they have become extremely reliable, circuit breakers still rely on technology that was patented by Thomas Edison. They operate purely through electromechanical forces, with no digital control.My guest today, Ryan Kennedy, is the first person to develop, patent, pass UL testing with, and commercialize a digital circuit breaker. It is solid state — that is, it has no moving parts — and current is controlled entirely through semiconductors.In addition to being faster and safer than electromechanical equivalents, each digital circuit breaker contains within it its own firmware and software, which can be programmed to emulate, and thereby replace, any number of other software-driven devices like demand management systems, load controllers, meters, and surge protectors.Kennedy's company, Atom Power, is currently focused on the electric-vehicle charging market, offering smart load balancing and management from a centralized circuit board, replacing the need for complicated hardware and software in the EV chargers themselves.But the ultimate applications for a digital circuit breaker are endless. Everywhere they are attached, a grid becomes a smart grid and appliances become smart appliances. If even a substantial fraction of today's circuit breakers could be replaced with digital equivalents, it would bring unprecedented visibility and control to millions of distributed energy devices, enabling all sorts of sophisticated demand management.I was extremely geeked to talk to Kennedy about the basics of circuit breakers, their application to EV charging, and the many possibilities that lie beyond.Alright, then. Ryan Kennedy, welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Ryan KennedyDavid, thank you for having me.David RobertsThis is awesome. I'm so interested in this widget and its possibilities, but I think to help people get their heads around it. Before we get too deep into anything, let's just start at the most basic level. For those of us who were humanities majors and never took any electrical engineering or anything, let's just talk about what is a circuit breaker. I know people are very vaguely aware of circuit breakers. They are in a circuit box in your garage. Occasionally, your power goes out, and you wander out to your garage and flip switches around and try to see what works.But, I think that's probably the extent of most people's knowledge. So let's just start there.Ryan KennedyCircuit breakers, electrically speaking, are one of the oldest products on the market. They first were invented, at least patented by Thomas Edison to show you how far back they go. But, they're effectively a method of interrupting the flow of electricity when things go wrong. Too much current, short circuits, things like that. The purpose of the circuit breaker is to simply open the circuit when those things happen and protect from fire, primarily.David RobertsAnd, presumably, protecting the appliances and the things on the other end of the wire, too right.Ryan KennedyGenerally, that's the assumption, though I don't know that it's necessarily the explicit purpose. I think the more explicit purpose is to prevent fire. That could mean your equipment may go bad, in the process, but generally speaking, to prevent fire and hazardous conditions from electricity.David RobertsAnd so, every appliance, or device, or anything that uses electricity from the grid is connected to the grid through a circuit breaker. Is that true? Is that a universal rule?Ryan KennedyThat's right. Actually, the easiest way to visualize that is to think about the home or apartment, where you have a panel with breakers in it that typically open the front door and you can see breakers in there, and you flip switches and things go wrong. So basically, you have a big power feed from the utility that comes into that home to that panel, and then out of that panel, power gets distributed through each one of those little circuit breakers out to individual loads in your home, such as hot water, HVAC, lights, receptacles. That scales out. Commercial buildings and industrial buildings and data centers are the exact same thing.I mean, there's more breakers, and they often get bigger, but it's the exact same architecture across the entire planet. Or the circuit breaker always is the thing that sits in front of the thing that consumes energy.David RobertsRight. And so, the purpose of these things is to basically shut off current if something goes wrong. How do they do that currently?Ryan KennedyThere's a couple of different ways, but the most predominant way is it gets into a little bit of engineering speak. So I'll try not to dive too deep, but basically, it's through thermals and magnetics. So, there's kind of two situations you would have. Let's just pick on the home a little bit because the same problems scale upward to commercial, industrial buildings. When you say, plug in way too many things into the outlet, the breaker will trip. And that's tripped through thermals, means that too much current is flowing, things get hot, and some expansion happens inside of the circuit breaker. And, mechanically speaking, it flips a spring, and causes the breaker to open.David RobertsSo it's not a heat sensor. It's literally the heat expands something physical, and the physical change trips something.Ryan KennedyIt literally expands the metal inside of the breaker to open it up. That's what happens. The second, there's two methods—that was thermal—the second is called magnetic. That mechanism, it operates physically the same way. The actual springs and levers inside of the breaker open up the same way. But what causes it is different. So, magnetic happens when you have, say, a short circuit. Don't do this at home, but if you took one of your wires from your home and just put it into a pool. Lots of current flow all of a sudden, really really fast. That's called a short circuit.And you don't want to wait for things to heat up because that's when really bad things happen. So what happens is an enormous amount of current starts flowing through that circuit breaker, creates a pretty quick magnetic field that basically pushes the metals apart inside of the breaker to open it up, as well. So it's very much a passive device in the sense that there's nothing in them that say, oh, that's that, or this is that, so, therefore, I need to do this. It's a reaction of the metals inside of the product itself. It's quite an old technology, actually.If you open up the circuit breaker, it looks like a mousetrap condensed.David RobertsYeah, tiny little mousetrap that's basically set off by heat or a magnetic field. You think about electricity these days. You think about all our sort of digital devices and digital controls. And it's a little bit wild that on every single line going to every single device, there's this mousetrap, just so old fashioned. That always struck me. It's so weirdly old fashioned. A little piece of metal with, like, springs on it that springs shut to cut off your electricity. So it's very mechanical. Let's say electromechanical, as you say.Ryan KennedyYes, very established technology that is, in today's world, relatively ancient from a technological standpoint. But, to achieve those basic results of circuit protection, they work. The basic results of circuit protection.David RobertsRight. And it's passive, as we say, just responds to perturbations, and, I guess you would say, dumb, in that, it doesn't know there's no awareness of what's happening or why it's happening. It's just metal expands, it flips, it cuts off.Ryan KennedyThat's correct.David RobertsSo there must be millions and millions and millions of these things. I mean, if there's one of these things between every electrical load and the grid, there must be billions out there in the world.Ryan KennedyLikely, yes. I think your first number was correct. Millions and millions and millions.David RobertsSo what you've done is make a digital circuit breaker, which works differently than the electromechanical. So why don't we just start with if it's not a physical reaction, if it's not a physical thing happening inside this digital circuit breaker, what is happening? How does it work?Ryan KennedyWe can dive into the technical and how it works, and then it'd be good to talk about kind of why we're doing that. So first, the technical. And the reason I say that is because, well, breakers work. Why do anything to them? Right? But technically speaking, what we've done is we've created a digital circuit breaker. More specifically, we call that a solid state circuit breaker. What that is is saying, hey, instead of using mechanics or mechanical devices, meaning like metal on metal, the things we just talked about to conduct electricity through a breaker, let us use semiconductors instead.So semiconductors are a broad ranging topic, but basically means that you can control current with a small digital input much like you can on your phone or computer, et cetera. But scale that up to power and say well, let's make a circuit breaker with semiconductors so that you can now interrupt, in the case of protection, the circuits when bad things happen with semiconductors instead of mechanics. With that, we overlay. So, what happens when you go to a semiconductor approach? It is very much an analog, as if you said what's the difference in a rotary phone versus a smartphone?It's making that leap all at once. Because now with digital control being semiconductor control at the breaker, it means that you can now put smart things inside of the breaker and make it do things and add value that it typically didn't have. That's what we're doing.David RobertsI just want to stress on the core function of shutting off current in danger. Even on that core function, it's faster. It's better and faster than a mechanical device. Is that right?Ryan KennedyThat's correct. By multiple orders of magnitude. So to give you an idea, we are, roughly speaking, about 3,000 times faster than most mechanical breakers in the market. That equates to two things. One is safety. There's some old footage of us, that we don't do so much anymore, of slapping hot wires together to kind of show that safety function. Don't try that at home either. So that's one thing which is actually quite important when you scale into larger buildings because there's more energy and more utility and short circuits can be explosive events. So it definitely helps in that regard.David RobertsAnd you say conventional circuit breakers work, but we should note that there are faults, there are fires, there are arc—what do they call them? Arc.Ryan KennedyArc flash.David RobertsWhatever—yeah. They're not 100%.Ryan KennedyThat's right. What's interesting about—not so much in residential although this can't happen in residential—but when you scale up to, like, the larger buildings, commercially in the industrial space and especially in data centers where the utility services are very large, you can have catastrophic events from short circuits that are balls of fire. Now, the breakers will open, but that doesn't mean a ball of fire didn't happen in the process. Right. So that does happen. I mean, in the worst case in my in my past life, I used to design buildings and also worked for, you know, a contracting firm.So I've seen, particularly in one instance in a high rise building where there was a short circuit in the electrical room on, like, the 19th or 20th floor, and it blew the doors off of the electrical room. And these are like commercial grade steel doors that got blown off the electrical room. So it's an amazing force that can be had when you get into the bigger buildings. But, I digress a little bit. It certainly eliminates that problem. Let's put it that way. Go into a semiconductor just purely based on speed.David RobertsAnd that's just because a digital signal travels at the speed of light. Right. And it's just faster than any mechanical reaction.Ryan KennedyYeah, inherently a semiconductor is going to be, like I said, including propagation delays and things like that within the compute and sensing, we're around 3000 times. And to give you an idea, that's in the microsecond range as opposed to millisecond range or millisecond spurl in the case of mechanical circuit breakers. Now, okay, micro milli. But electricity does move virtually at the speed of light. So arc flash propagates not quite that quick but pretty quick. Whereas that time really really matters. So yeah, the impact to the safety is effectively arc flash just doesn't happen on the output of our product, even in the largest utility services.David RobertsSo you get the basic function of the circuit breaker is faster and better. But then, as you say, you have this device that has semiconductors in it and you can put other stuff in there too. So maybe just describe like, I know what a circuit breaker looks like. It sort of fits in the slot in my circuit box, so I have the vague idea kind of what it looks like. What does your thing look like? Is it the same size? Does it, what is it composed of? What does it look like?Ryan KennedyToday, what we have on the market doesn't look so much like what you would see in your home. It looks more the size of a commercial grade circuit breaker. So can't fit in the residential panel yet, with a strong emphasis on yet, but we do have a similar form factor of commercial grade circuit breakers.David RobertsAnd is that just the difficulty of shrinking down little computers and stuff? I mean, is it that simple?Ryan KennedyNot quite the compute, it's more the power semiconductors that actually do the switching. So we're on this incredible curve that probably could take up a large portion of this conversation but also simplify it to basically mean that the world of power semiconductors is advancing quite under the hood actually of everything else that's happening. Power semiconductors are what enable electric vehicles to be as efficient and as effective as they are. Power conversion and solar—UPS has lots of things power conversion related. They are advancing at a pretty rapid rate from a power density standpoint. Power density meaning like how much power you can actually pack into that power semiconductor.So power density is going up, size is getting smaller. That plays into our own internal strategy as a company to optimize the form factor in the coming couple of years to where it becomes much more of a universal product that can fit into existing panel boards. But today, we have—it looks like a small box that fits into our—we manufacture panel boards as well, so you don't have to figure that out, but we figured all that out for you. Make panel boards, circuit breakers, everything as a whole system.I always say that there's two major components to a solid state breaker. There's a brain and a heart. The brain is the control system, the stuff that software defined, that makes the thing work, provides cybersecurity, things like this. And then there's the heart, which is the power semiconductor that the control system attaches to. Yeah, very much like a phone, in a way, in the sense you have a brain, you have a heart and a phone as well. And that combination creates a pretty powerful component. And electrically speaking, that's what we're doing in this space is really enabling far more than we used to.David RobertsRight. So maybe one way to think about it is that electromechanical, old school circuit breakers, only had hearts. And now you've added a brain to the equation.Ryan KennedyYou could see it that way. Yeah, absolutely.David RobertsAnd so if all these things are digital and if everyone has a little computer in it, basically, if we could think of these as tiny, tiny, tiny little smartphones, I know one thing that comes to people's mind whenever I discuss digitizing anything is security, cybersecurity. So if your power in your home or your commercial building or whatever, if every bit of it is running through a tiny little computer, people, I think, naturally wonder, like, what happens if they get hacked or someone takes over, can control the power flow through my entire building, et cetera, et cetera. So how do you deal with security?Ryan KennedyUltimately, circuit breakers are life safety devices. That's the core function. That's the phone call and the phone right? It has to make the phone call.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedySo we're life safety devices. So when you shift from purely hardware to software defined hardware, in any industry, the right approach is that cybersecurity is the number one priority in software. That's been our approach the whole time. Now, there's a couple of ways to dice that. One is to say, the way we describe it is, there's Stuxnet and then there's hackers. And so we want to guard against both, and we call it Stuxnet as in, if you know what that is, that was the uranium enrichment thing that read all about that some other time. But the point is, in that case, the biggest threat is to make a critical device be something that it's not supposed to be or do something that it's not supposed to do.So that is priority one to say, okay, above all things, the breaker can't be made to be something that is fundamentally not and create an unsafe condition. So how we're attacking that is really good. I'll just tell you that, There's some secret sauce there that effectively amount to there's built in safeties that are still digital, but you basically can't get into under any circumstance. So that's priority one. And then the next priority says, okay, well, if we solve that, which we have, then the next one is to say, well, how do we keep folks from coming in and just say, shutting power off or doing funny things.Shutting power off is probably the number one funny thing there. But how do we prevent that? So, I'd like to say that in the world of software, there's this standard out there, and you follow that standard and you're good. That is not the case with cybersecurity for anybody. It's always evolving, and you're always trying to tackle it and address issues as we go along. But the core things that we do is end encryption on both software and hardware, which means that we have encryption elements physically on the breaker, encryption elements physically on our onsite management tools and cloud software.So that's actually quite critical, is to have the physical encryption as well as the software based encryption. There's many ways you could go about cybersecurity in the sense of many different entities have cybersecurity standards, but the one that we're headed towards now is called FedRAMP. That's really the direction we're headed from a standard standpoint. That's to do work for the federal government. Things like this, you have to be FedRAMP compliant or certified. So that's the direction we're headed. We're not certified, yet. We anticipate later this year we will be. But nonetheless, that's kind of how we've addressed it. That is one of those areas that I wish there were this, like, gold star. You got that. So everyone's good.David RobertsRight. Because there is a gold star in the circuit breaker safety. The heart part, the UL standard is pretty well...Ryan KennedyYeah, UL is kind of our FDA equivalent in the world of circuit breakers. Yes.David RobertsRight. And you guys have passed those tests?Ryan KennedyWe have. We're the first and only company in the world who have ever done that, for a solid state digital circuit breaker.David RobertsYeah. And one thing, I don't know if we mentioned this, but this made an impression on me when I first learned about it, so I just want to throw it out there. I think when people think of networked devices, they think it won't work without the network. So it's just worth sort of emphasizing, here, that every one of these circuit breakers has the firmware and the software and the operating system inside it. So it is, in some sense, a self contained little machine like, it does its thing, even absent networking.Ryan KennedyYes. We just call that fully autonomous. So, yes, they're fully autonomous devices.David RobertsRight. And one more thing I wanted to mention about the move from conventional to digital and circuit breakers is that this eliminates a lot of equipment that traditionally goes around circuit breakers in sort of commercial and high value areas. Sort of safety equipment that kind of gets larded around circuit breakers. So maybe just talk a little bit about that, sort of like the kinds of things that you've consolidated into one device here.Ryan KennedyYeah, absolutely. So it's worth stating that the easy part of the power distribution world or electricity is that, as we said, there's a circuit breaker that sits ahead of everything that consumes energy. The hard part comes in where if you look at, well, what do we actually do with electricity? All electrical things require really three things. So any application of electricity requires protection, visibility, and control. This is related to HVAC, certainly related to EV charging. In the case of HVAC, you have protection in the sense of a circuit breaker that feeds the HVAC system. Inside the HVAC system, you have a control mechanism that actually controls the flow of energy in its own little way. And then you have visibility either through software or through the thermostat. You could say the same thing for basically everything, electrically speaking. EV chargers, certainly same thing. Every EV charger that's been built out there, with the exception of Atom Power, is fed from a breaker, always, inside the EV charger, whether it's a pedestal or wallbox, there's visibility and control. And you could say the same about elevators and many, many other things that we use electricity for.So basically the way we look at it is what do we do with electricity? Well, we want to protect it, but we also want visibility and control. So what we've done is basically to say, okay, well, let's offer superior circuit protection, but let's also have the ability to have visibility and control because, well, that's what we do with electricity. All within the circuit breaker. And so I think you asked a sort of broader question like what are we doing that's kind of adding some of those things in. Inherently being a semiconductor device, it's easy to control the flow of energy. As simple as that sounds, that's monumental because it is extraordinarily difficult to make a circuit breaker that can universally control energy. Meaning, universally, as in the home or in the data center, or in a commercial building or industrial building with the same device.David RobertsYeah, we should pause here, just to add, because I don't know that we ever actually mentioned it, but physical circuit breakers, old school circuit breakers are also designed for a specific voltage, right? They're sort of locked into a specific voltage. Whereas if you're doing it with computing power, you can adjust to different voltages with the same circuit breaker. Is that right?Ryan KennedySo, think of it more as different amperages.David RobertsAmperages. Sorry, I get those confused.Yeah, it's okay. So if you go to, name your hardware store. If you go there and you go say, "I want to buy breaker." The questions are going—your menu, I should say, is going to be, well, do you want a 15 amp, a 20 amp, a 25, a 30, a 40, 50, 60, etc. And then, you know, you, you buy that product for what it is, say, call it a 30 amp breaker to feed my, I don't know, hot water heater. That's going to be fairly typical. It's always going to be a 30 amp breaker forever and ever and ever. Which means from a UL standpoint and a safety standpoint, you can only put that on 30 amp circuits.Right?Ryan KennedyI will say, yeah, that is an interesting benefit that I think evolved along Atom Power's way, which says, well, now that you become a digital circuit breaker, you can effectively be a lot of circuit breakers in one, which is what we do. And you can program our circuit breakers from 15 amp all the way up to 100 amp. And it's you all listed for each increment in between. So that's pretty powerful when you consider, roughly speaking, it depends on your metric. About 90% of the breakers on the planet are 100 amp and less. So we're hitting a huge market with one single product.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedySo that's certainly one thing from a protection standpoint, and thank you for reminding me, on that. That is a feature I often gloss ever, and it is unique for what we're doing. But the visibility, obviously, through the software we have and the ability to see the breaker and control the breaker is the other thing. And to be able to tell the breaker what it is. And I think that's the key thesis within Atom Power, which is to say, well, let's not just create a digital breaker, but let's create it in a way to where you can tell the breaker what it is instead of buying a breaker.Well, because you have to for protection and then having to buy a specific built appliance for the application that you need to perform, like EV chargers are a strong symptom of that.David RobertsThis is a perfect segue here because the first time we talked years ago, I think you were sort of messing around with big commercial facilities and industrial buildings and kind of a little bit all over the place, but you just got $100 million investment to do, specifically EV charging applications. So tell us why all these things we're hearing about digital circuit breakers, why they're specifically well suited to EV charging.Ryan KennedySo you're right about the earlier engagements we had, with great customers, were in the industrial space, primarily. Certainly prior to the investment, we saw a need, a major pain point, when it came to electric vehicle charging at scale. So charging vehicles has been around quite some time. For the longest time, it's been relegated to if it's outside of the home, to be candid, often optics put a couple here, a couple there just to have them. Right. But as we've progressed, particularly in the 2020s, here we are seeing, and we saw this is why we're in this space is we saw this, that there were some major, major problems with charging at scale.Meaning like, instead of a few chargers put in hundreds into a single facility or complex, heck, even tens, but certainly in the hundreds, things become really problematic really fast.David RobertsAnd that's fleets. We're talking about basically fleets.Ryan KennedyFleet, multifamily, and hospitality.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyYeah, anywhere where you're going to have lots of chargers. But yeah, particularly fleets, always need lots of chargers. Multifamily, as well. So the problems start becoming quite extreme in those cases. To give you an example of what I mean by this, we, we have a project up in Queens that is roughly now it's, you know, close to 700 charging stations that's going into generally the same location that is on the same, you know, substation grid, network, etc. If you do the math on that, you're basically connecting up to between six and 7 megawatts of potential load onto that grid, just in that.So appliances don't solve that very well, which is more or less what level two chargers are today. There are appliances that sit in front of the car and you plug it in. When you start talking about that scale, it's really critical that your infrastructure is the smart thing that can actually solve pain points such as, hey, how do we not do that?David RobertsHow do we not have a bunch of cars charging at once and overload basically the substation, because you could fry a substation if everybody like if you had 700 chargers going all at once.Ryan KennedyAbsolutely. Things like that. Things like me as a customer, how do I not spend the amount of money that you would otherwise spend on the infrastructure alone to make that happen? Meaning transformers, wires, switch gear, things like that. And then, with that much energy, how do you not just say, don't overload the grid, but how do you actually, effectively, energy, manage in real time against things like peak loads, or peak demand, or time of use and keep energy cost as low as you can and charge during the right times of the day and when there's a grid event and things like this.All that requires real time infrastructure intelligence.David RobertsRight. So the EV charge has to be networked with one another. They have to be communicating with one another, basically. Is that not something they can do now? If I'm looking at a fleet with a bunch of chargers today, are the EV chargers just freestanding, isolated, or did they talk to one another now in other ways?Ryan KennedyYeah, oftentimes they are. But there's where the problems really started was in the fleet, because that started becoming apparent, right, the more that they were putting in. To answer your question, can EV chargers today, outside of Atom Power, talk to one another and do some level of energy management? The answer is certainly, yes. That's the start of the conversation though, the devil in the detail says, okay, put that in and make it code compliant with our national electrical code and get the inspector to sign off on it and guarantee the billing owner that that's going to operate always, no matter what, safely. There's where things get problematic.So, if you are the life safety device and you're already connected and you got to buy a breaker anyway, for each EV charger, things become so easy to do. Now it's built into our panels breakers. It means the National Electrical Code to the t. Inspectors have no problem with it. And there's a lot of things that become super easy all of a sudden. So without going into a ton of complexity, being the infrastructure, being the breaker, being the panel board where the breakers sit, makes it super easy to solve those major pain points with very little effort from the customers' standpoint.David RobertsRight. And I think the way to think about this, and kind of what turned the light bulb on for me, is if your intelligence, your software, your coordination, et cetera, is in the circuit breakers that are in the circuit board, that means the EV chargers themselves can be dumb. So that like the things that are out there in the parking lot can just be dumb conduits. Right. Because the control is elsewhere. And this is something that's always struck me about the EV charging space. It's just like you have these, today, you have these like really incredibly complex high power computers sitting out in parking lots. Which always kind of struck me as a little bit insane, that normal customers are interacting so directly with something so expensive and kind of complicated.Ryan KennedyWell, you're hitting on the next pain point, which is, again, at scale that becomes very problematic that your most expensive asset in that ecosystem now sits in front of the vehicle, typically outside.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedySo the second question outside of the infrastructure cost is how do we not do that? Can the pedestal or wall box be—wallbox not the brand, but box...electrical—can that thing be very low cost, low maintenance, zero maintenance, preferably? Whereas if it did get damaged, really nothing happens, other than I can easily replace it. And the answer is yes, because... Yeah, you're right. And once you become intelligent infrastructure and you sit safely back in the electrical room, the pedestals that have the cord sets on them become very dumb in air quotes. But the system is really smart.David RobertsRight. I'm curious what sorts of things having this kind of central intelligence, controlling multiple EV chargers can do. We mentioned it's going to prevent, whatever, 700 cars from charging at once. That's the kind of baseline it's going to prevent so much power from running through the system that it fries the grid it's on. But what else can you do with that sort of central computer control?Ryan KennedyYeah, so I would say there's a ton, but the highest value ones are going to be certainly in energy management that we've been talking about here that relates more to than just to saying, hey, prevent 700 cars from charging at the same time. It says, hey, you know what, let 700 cars actually charge at the same time, but let's intelligently distribute so that they can all get a charge and not cause major problems and major electrical bills. So that's one, I mean, I would say the other one is it is extremely easy to create a campus environment as well with the system. It kind of relates to what we spoke of earlier. Like the network connectivity is completely different from any other system, as in like it's really easy to do. So it's very easy from a campus wide perspective to say, hey, how do I connect this campus of chargers to a single system, single pane of glass that also does energy management, that also saves on electric bills, things like that. So things become very easy through that network piece.There is another element to it that says, well, kind of goes off. The programmable breaker to some degree is when you buy an EV charger today. This is another pain point. Again, at scale, it can sometimes also be a pain point, not at scale, but when you buy one today, it's fixed. In other words, level two charging, which is most of the charging, goes all the way up to 80 amps. All right, so just take that as a number. Well, if you buy a charger, it's going to come in several different flavors. You can get a 24 amp charger, you can get a 32 amp charger, a 40 amp, a 48 amp, and then on rare occasion an 80 amp because 80 amps kind of hard to do for various reasons. There's just less of those.But nonetheless, what you buy is what you buy and you're stuck with that. So if you buy a 32 amp charger, which is most of them on the market, that's it. You're not going to get 48 amp, you know, that a Tesla needs. You're not going to get 80 amp. That a Ford f 150 needs. You got 32. So you're probably picking up this a little bit, that with a programmable breaker now, on the other hand, what I can do is we can just simply go the full range of charging through the same product.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyYou're buying a full level two now, regardless. You just tell it what it, again, tell it what it is. And that can happen real time. You know, I could start off as 48 amp charger and then move up to an 80 amp charger, you know, a couple of years from now as more demand picks up for adm charging with the same infrastructure with no stranded assets. And that's absolutely critical. So let's say that's another one.David RobertsSo I got the intelligence is in the circuit board and they've got these sort of dumb chargers out in the parking lot. So like a bolt could pull up and charge at that charger and the circuit board knows the right amperage level. And then an F-150 could pull up to the same charger and get more charge because the circuit breaker knows.Ryan KennedyCorrect. But it's not enough to say, because you were mentioning network a minute ago. It's not enough to say, well, a programmable breaker alone solves that. It solves a major chunk of it, which says, well, I can now program my system to be 80 amp, not 48, yes. But there's another element to it which says, well, to do that, then again, think of that example of 700 chargers. Now, if I, if I boost, say, these chargers over here to 80 amp, say, call it 50 of them, right?David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyNow, the entire system has to communicate amongst itself because, well, they sit on the same utility to say, well, oh, those have 80 amp now. So we need to see how we can spread the rest of them intelligently, so these other folks get a charge while these get an 80 amp charge. So it's still a system level network event. Right. And we make that easy and out of the box effectively. Whereas it becomes extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, the way things have been done today.David RobertsRight. Because I guess if you're buying multiple ones today, you're just sort of bricolaging them together piece by piece.Ryan KennedyCorrect.David RobertsSeems a lot more like people are being asked to kind of wing it a little bit. And as I'm sure you know, as having interacted with customers, if I'm just like an owner of a hotel or whatever, I don't want to know, you know what I mean? I don't want to have to think about this much. I just want to plug something in and have it work. There's not going to be a lot of electrical systems management from these customers.Ryan KennedyYou are absolutely right. And that brings us to probably, I would say, the core of how we're personally selling, but also what we're seeing the market in this space look for, which is EV charging is one of those unique animals you mentioned, hospitality, where it's unique in the sense that if you offer it and it doesn't work, the perception of your facility becomes different.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyIf the lights out or the TV doesn't work in the hotel room or something, it causes nowhere near the impact that your EV charger not working does. There's various reasons we think that is. But anyway, so what's happening is and you're right, those hotels, especially hotels, don't want to think about this stuff. So being able to package it up in a way that is highly effective out of the box and by the way, extraordinarily reliable. Because we're a breaker now, we're falling to a completely different standard. That becomes absolutely critical that you have a super reliable, super easy...I don't have to think about energy. I don't have to think about demand. I don't have to think about this stuff, from a hospitality, or multifamily, or fleet perspective...that becomes a very powerful thing. But it's a culmination of kind of all the is stacked on top of one another. Smart breaker panel connected, dumb pedestal system level approach.David RobertsRight. And this is like if I'm the hotel owner, do I just plug and play and this thing runs itself forever...or is Atom involved, somehow, in monitoring and running? Are you involved in operations at all? Once you install these things, who takes over operations?Ryan KennedyI'd like to say we have a singular way of selling, but it's such an early market still that we don't. We sell all the way down to just hardware. All the way up to full managed services. So we have a 24/7 network operation center within our facility that we monitor key customer assets that we have service agreements with, particularly in hotels. That's one of those sectors that ask for that frequently because the hotels don't...they want to equate EV charging rightfully so to WiFi. You don't think about the router. Yyou don't think about gigabit or whatever that is. It needs to just work. I can connect to it, and it works. That's it. That's all I care about, rightfully so.David RobertsAnd one other question about these EV control systems. Obviously, the first thing on everybody's mind is the sort of EV facing part of it, managing which vehicles are charging and how much at what time. But of course, if you have this intelligence and software you also could think about communicating with the grid. And so, I wonder how much, because once you are getting up to 700 whatever. I don't know why we picked that number out. 700?Ryan KennedyIt's actually a project we have up in New York.David RobertsOh yeah. Well, you've got 700 vehicle charging stations and 700 vehicles charging, potentially. You've also got a fairly large dispatchable, at least somewhat controllable load, which seems to me could be quite helpful on some congested grids. So how big of a piece is the grid facing intelligence in these things? And I guess some of that depends on utilities and whether they're ready to do this kind of thing but I just wonder are you sniffing around in that space?Ryan KennedyI would say the way we're approaching it is, to answer your question, your hunch is dead on. That is a major utility concern at scale is to be able to have some level of at least visibility if not some level of demand responsibility in those events. We're not starting there, really. We're starting to satisfy what customers need right now, like, what are the most important things for them in the sectors we're in. So we see that as an evolution and it is happening. We are engaged in multiple utilities, just to put that out there. But today it's not so easy to say okay, well let's control that.What first needs to happen is customers need to start utilizing. The utilization picks up, that utilization picks up more. Then those discussions, the real, like, "what do we do about it" discussions will start happening with utilities we predict.David RobertsIt's going to force the question. If you've got 700 vehicle loads coming on and off your grid I mean, you kind of really can't just ignore that.Ryan KennedyThat's true. But with the evolution of electric vehicles and the adoption rate, all 700 aren't going to be on today. I think that's the point is, like, as more and more vehicles come onto that system—in relatively short order the next couple of years—then things become more apparent. Right. Then things become more potentially problematic for the utility. And we do expect that there's an engagement with the utilities, at various levels, for some sort of a demand response tie in. We certainly see that, but we're not day one pitching that as part of—the product is capable, absolutely capable—it's just the connection rate from the vehicles to the chargers has to pick up more and more and more and then eventually that will begin discussions once it becomes problematic for the utility, but not before it becomes problematic, typically.David RobertsYes, that sounds right. So you're out there now selling these systems, these EV charging systems to fleets and campuses. I'm sort of curious, who are the customers so far? What sectors were most eager for something like this to exist?Ryan KennedyWell, they initially fleet, so think parcel pickup delivery fleet. That's where we kind of started off our sales, was there. Multifamily is a close second at this point because they have the same pain points. They both need to have lots of chargers and they both have pain points associated with, well, effectively becoming a gas station. Trying to minimize costs associated with that.David RobertsRight. Yeah. There's one other thing I forgot to mention when we were talking about this earlier, that since you mentioned multifamily, I'll just throw it in here. Another sort of interesting application of this is if you own condos or apartment buildings or something, you might want to have certain chargers dedicated to certain people. Or you might want to have certain chargers that are available only in certain times of day. Or you might want to have one charger that's shared between two people who live in your apartment building. And all of that is of course, you can do, if you have this central control system, you can do a lot of micro fiddling with the individual spaces.Ryan KennedyYes, already built in, super easy to do.David RobertsAnd so the EV charging space is a very obvious application of this. A place where some central control of multiple devices is most obviously needed, and the demand is rising very quickly and that whole industry or set of industries is in really kind of like it's a crazy time of ferment in and around that stuff... But as we emphasized early on, as I emphasized when I wrote about this back in 2019, really there's no end to the possibilities here because the way I think about it is every single device on the grid is connected through a circuit breaker. And so if circuit breakers can become smart computing devices, then basically every device connected to the grid becomes smart or at least somewhat smart, without having to put all that programming and smarts and computing power into the appliance itself. You're putting the intelligence in the connection to the grid. I don't know, the more I think about this, the more it kind of blows my mind. That what you could do, eventually, if some substantial portion of the millions and millions and millions of circuit breakers in the country become smart. I don't know, it just seems to open up like the sky is the limit kind of thing. So I'm just curious, like, you're moving into the EV space for obvious reasons. It's hopping. There's a serious demand for precisely this sort of thing. But do you have plans?Like what's next after that? Because I could just think of a million different...Ryan KennedyWe do, as I think, hopefully, the listeners have picked up and I think through our conversation here, it's probably become apparent that EV charging for us is viewed as an application of the breaker, but not as the thing.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyMuch like many other things are. That will be scaling in the near future, in a way that is unique, in a way that is very easy and primarily of which becomes truly universal. So we are, you know, evolving product into a form factor that, you know, like we're universal today from a product standpoint. In other words, you can put us in any building, anywhere, it doesn't matter, same product, and we're capturing 90% of the breaker market doing that. But we're in our own panel. As we evolve, that will shift into a form factor that fits into most panels, at least in the US. And can be adapted for the European markets and add further ability into the product to effectively be able to tell it what it is.So we see a future. That the breaker that you have to buy anyway, instead of going and buying a meter or a control device or EV charger or industrial control, whatever it is, you just tell the breaker you're that thing, and it does it. That's the world we see. Now at scale, at extreme scale, I always like to think in kind of polar extremes, extreme scale of that, because consumption defines the grid, not the other way around, is you effectively could have control of the entire grid.David RobertsYes.Ryan KennedyAlso obsolete about 80% of the electrical products on the market at extreme scale.David RobertsThat's the other thing I was thinking about is like all those things you're talking about building into the circuit breaker. Those are entire freestanding industries, like long standing industries. This is a huge amount of stuff, consolidation here, if nothing else.Ryan KennedyCorrect. I think what we're trying to do is—I hate to use the phone analogy, but it's very similar, but in a little different way—is that we are looking to electrically speaking, unify the applications and unify the customers into one platform. I mean, many other industries have done that most visibly, the phone. The applications and the phones get used by everyone. And we want the same to happen in the electrical space. That there's this massive gap...that there are more electrical products on the market than probably any other industry because just over time, as the industry has evolved, we've just made specific things for specific applications for specific customers.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyThat's what EV chargers are. They don't have to be that way, right? The breakers have always been there, but it's not thought about much. So let's make that thing that actually does it since, well, it's part of the electrical system, right? You have to buy it anyway. It needs to be there. So let's make that the universal thing. And I think that's where you mentioned the investment. I think that's probably where Atom Power differentiated. Because if you were going to go make that kind of investment, the 100 million into, say, an EV charging company, the problem is it may not be a problem, but I mean, the way we look at it is, well, that's all that they do.The product charges a car, you can't use it for this, you can't use it for that. That is it. That is what it's going to do. Whereas Atom Power, it's like it being an application of a universal device, means that, well, as we see this market over here take off, we apply to that market and we see this market over here, but we apply to that market. Why? Because all of them require breakers.David RobertsRight? So, like a facility with a central circuit board controlling multiple EV chargers, there's no reason that it couldn't plug other types of ICEs into that same circuit board, and it could coordinate all of them alongside the EV chargers, with the EV Chargers. There's nothing EV specific about it.Ryan KennedyExactly.David RobertsI'm thinking about scale here. One of the things I think people are starting to become familiar with are sort of smart panels at home...like this company, SPAN, has the smart panel...which is sort of doing in the home what you're talking about doing with EV chargers at big facilities, which is just controlling loads and balancing loads and timing things and all this kind of thing. So in a sense, a smart panel like this, in the home, would kind of make the home into its own little micro grid, right? This own little independently managed micro grid.And I'm curious about scale. What does it look like as you scale bigger and bigger? Is it just stacking these little circuit breakers on top of one another to eternity?Ryan KennedyThat's actually a really good fundamental question, is that breakers cover a large swath of land when it comes to electrical space, right? They go all the way from, you know, technically ten amps in the US. All the way up to 5,000 amps.David RobertsWhat does a 5,000 amp circuit breaker look like? Is it..Ryan KennedyA refrigerator, basically.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyBut, but the point is, is like, you know, when you get into big distribution systems, you start off with a goliath utility and you finally work your way down to the small, what's called Brandt circuit breaker. That basically means last breaker in the system. That's where we play, is in that Brandt circuit breaker, meaning the last breaker in the system. And like I said, 90% of those are 100 amp and less. And so you capture that market, you effectively capture most of the grid, you know, at scale. So in other words, it's like saying 100 amp and less, 90% of your loads are on that, you know, and that's what we focus.David RobertsI mean, if you let your mind drift in sort of futuristic utopian direction because I think about this stuff a lot. It's like what sorts of things do you think could be unlocked? What sorts of things do you think could become possible? When it's not just, you have this occasional smart load here and smart load there, but suddenly the bulk, the majority of the loads on a grid are smart controllable. I'm just curious what you think sort of like the emergent big picture effects of that will be like what will intelligence do for the grid on kind of the macro scale?Ryan KennedyI think as you scale out, especially at the extreme end, you can do some pretty granular things, like, neighborhoods, electrically, are talking to one another, and that becomes apparent where you can shed load without interrupting someone's life and save a substation or save another generator from having to come online. It kind of speaks to demand response, but in a different way that says it's not brute force, shut things off. Instead, let's all talk to one another and know that, hey, the conditions look like this. This home is unoccupied, likely because the electricity consumption is so low.The imagination, there's no limit. This is the thing, again, because the consumption of electricity is what defines everything else...is once that becomes a unified platform and understandable ecosystem made of billions of devices, that becomes very powerful in ways that I don't think we've even thought about yet. But at a high level it means that now, electrically, you can speak to one another, and it's not like by home. It's not like my home is pulling 20 kilowatts, your home is pulling 15. That doesn't tell you anything. What does tell you things is the patterns of usage, of EV charging, of HVAC, of hot water, of lights.There's a lot there that, at scale, gives you a ton of intelligence that you can do a ton of things with, that I think the sky is the limit.David RobertsYeah. At the base level, you are ensuring that every bit of electricity that's generated is used efficiently.Ryan KennedyCorrect.David RobertsAnd that alone is going to just take a huge whack off. I feel like the demand for new power plants and new capacity, you're going to be able to avoid a ton of new generators and new, maybe even new high voltage lines just by using the electricity you've got.Ryan KennedyYeah. You just hit the core of the company, our company's thesis. This is actually what we were founded on...which was in the future, and we started in 2014, there was going to be this probably once-in-a-century event of transferring a lot of energy—think of that, not electrically, just pure energy onto the grid.David RobertsYeah.Ryan KennedySo that's happened. It's certainly happening now. I think we call that the energy transition now...But we had this thesis in 2014 where we said, well, you basically have like three options there, because the grid can't sustain that level of what we were predicting what's going to be transferred on the grid, primarily by vehicles. You have kind of three options. You either create more generation, somehow, even though we're reducing generation through baseload like coal and natural gas, rightfully so. You either do that, which is going to be really hard to do, or you have large scale energy storage combined with solar, which we have one of those, not both, solar, not so much energy storage, or you have large scale demand response. But the way to do that is through a universal method, not, not a disaggregated, like, you know, thermostat adjustment or smart EV charger here, but not there thing. It has to happen at a macro level scale, at the infrastructure level. So this is fundamentally why we actually started down this path, is sort of seeing that need in the market in the future. And this was 2014.David RobertsThis comes up over and over again. You talk about transferring the heating load in the frigid Northeastern part of the country to electricity. That's A) a huge load, and B) the timing of that load is very different than the timing of the load it's adding onto. And that's just, you either meet that with brute force by building a shitload of new generators and power lines and everything else, or you just got to get much much much smarter about how you use the power you've got.Ryan KennedyYeah. And the low hanging fruit, at least conceptually, is that you can be a lot smarter. But it's hard to actually execute on that without a universal platform that fits all industries—which at the end of the day, because again, everything's fed from a circuit breaker—that needs to be the thing that is innovated on, not a new appliance. But it's really hard to do that, super hard to do. I could go into why breakers are hard to actually innovate on, but nonetheless, it is the hardest path to pick.David RobertsBut you're there for a big chunk of applications and can see, at least in the future, a form factor small enough to go into residential boxes. Right.Ryan KennedyYes.David RobertsAnd once it's in the box, it's programmable, which means it's not the same thing. It can be, like you keep saying, it can be a bunch of different—once it's in the box—it could be whatever we need it to be as needs evolve. This makes such sense to me. Like I remember when I first encountered it back in 2019, I was like, yeah. If you have one kind of device that is required for every single electric load, then why not make that the device that's smart, instead of creating new smart devices for every different kind of load. Why not just make the one lego building block, that's the whole grid, make that smart and then you've got all your smart devices in one? Seemed sort of like a smack your head obvious kind of thing to me. So why are you still the only one with a certified digital circuit breaker? Like I would think other people would be moving in this direction sooner or later.Ryan KennedyYou know what's interesting is that, I will tell you this, we were not the first ones to come up with the idea of a salt tape breaker. The idea of that actually is quite old. Traced this back to the mid-80s, of a semiconductor based circuit breaker by some large companies. So two things. One, is, I think, the natural question after that would be well, like okay, well, "why didn't anybody do it?" So, I think, there was probably—let's start there. There's probably a couple of things. One, is that the circuit breaker space is an interesting one. It really is. And the reason is because it is a super old industry. That's basically dominated by four companies, across most of the planet, who have all been building breakers for over a century each. That's just kind of the nature of this industry. So by the way, worst pitch ever. Hey, we're going to build a new breaker, where four companies dominate the planet, and it's all hardware and life safety, side note. But anyway, the point is it's a unique industry in that sense. So I think probably there were some "The Innovator's Dilemma" there a little bit because once you establish a means and methods and that's how things are done, it's really hard as a large company to move away from that and disrupt your own business.David RobertsYeah. And it seems like building tiny computers is very different than building tiny electromechanical devices.Ryan KennedyYeah.David RobertsI don't really know very well, but it doesn't seem like a lot of transferable knowledge.Ryan KennedyIt's definitely a different field. Right? I mean, once you say hey, let's build a solid state breaker, you now get into the realm of power semiconductors and physics that don't haven't historically applied in traditional circuit breakers. So, there's a few things. I think one is there were some enabling technologies that evolved since the 80s like computing, especially, in sensing and speed and power semiconductors, certainly. But I think the other piece of that is a bit of "The Innovator's Dilemma" that says, well, if I'm a company who's making breakers, but I'm also a company who's making industrial controls, and I'm also a company who's now making EV chargers.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedyIt's so difficult, so difficult to say, well, why don't we just make that one device.David RobertsAnd cannibalize all our other product lines.Ryan KennedyYeah, look, rightfully so it's difficult. Because if you've been set up that way and your company evolved that way, I mean, they're full of smart people... It's a structural challenge, right, to go do that. So I think Atom Power came out would work in a way, and that we're all from the industry. Me, specifically, I was an electrician, so I kind of used to design buildings. So I would like to say I think Atom Power had a view of the world that was much more simple and holistic, that says, well, "why should products be defined by the application? Why can't the product define the application?" Which seemed just a natural question. But then we started from there. I think that there are since Atom Power, there are emerging, I would say, technologies within established companies, as well as some startups who are trying to do effectively what we're doing. My view on this, is we welcome it because, coming from the industry, we believe what we're doing is the right thing to do. We also know we can't service every single customer base on the planet.David RobertsIt's millions and millions, as previously discussed. Well, I'm curious, if somebody, if another company makes a digital circuit breaker, do we know already that it will communicate with yours? Or does that remain to be hashed out? Like, is there a standards are there standards issues here?Ryan KennedyWell, it depends what you mean. I mean, there's a UL standard now that basically Atom Power defined the path for and establish with UL.David RobertsBut I meant more of the software kind of intercompatibility. I don't know anything about software, so I don't even know what the question is. But insofar as this is meant to be a universal system, is it going to all be operating on the same sort of software protocols?Ryan KennedyYeah. Yes and no. So we do see a world where from an application standpoint, in other words, if you're say a facility manager and you have one pane of glass you're looking at for software, interoperability between devices is going to be necessary.David RobertsRight.Ryan KennedySo the way we structured our product is that the sort of core firmware and stuff is proprietary because, well, it's hard to open source that, because it's life safety, it's UL. It's like there's a lot of whizbang stuff that happens in the breaker to make it do what it does, but then the layer on top of that which says, well, okay, well, let's set this up as an EV charger, that layer of software, we're open protocol and API based, as well. So you could tie even today, you can tie an existing building management system into our software, for example, the way it should be for other manufacturers if they come to the market. We haven't seen you actually come to the market, yet, because, like I said, it's super hard to do this, and I think it takes so much time and energy. Atom Power is dedicated years to this, at this point. It's a hard thing to do.David RobertsWas there any sort of public policy assistance or is this all private investment, and are you making money now? I'm curious because a lot of industries, when you're going up against a super giant incumbent industry, you need help to cross those first few humps. Has this all been private money so far?Ryan KennedyIt has, yes.David RobertsAnd you're out selling things for profit now. You don't feel like you need any help.Ryan KennedyWell, I mean.David RobertsNot like you're going to turn down help if...Ryan KennedyWe always welcome help, but in the form of investment, we're capitalized for quite some time at this point, and our goal is to not ever need to raise funds again. That's kind of... So we need to be... We are post revenue, not pre-revenue, but as a company, we have to get to a sustainable level of profitability, right? Because from an investor, in a markets perspective, the markets are very harsh right now on companies in the new energy space. There's many publicly traded companies, especially the ones that went this backroute, you can see this on right now, which is kind of a Goldilocks scenario because it's a high growth market, yet if you're not profitable, investors are punishing you on valuation, specifically. So we need to become a very profitable company in this space, but to sustain ourselves and to continue to grow products, organically, right, and not continue to raise money. That's what we're headed towards.So my point is, it's really hard to make money in the energy space, as the markets have shown. So the best companies are going to be the ones who have a sustainable technology, but also a sustainable business model to where they can take the profits and continue innovating, to further advance and create solutions to the major pain points that are out there. I mean, this is our thesis. Like, we have to become a profitable company.David RobertsThis is really fascinating to think about the sort of these lego blocks that are really kind of composing the entire grid—thinking about all of them getting smart is really just, for a sort of grid geek—really lets your mind spin off and all sorts of interesting directions. So, thanks, for taking the time and explaining this all to us, and good luck in your next steps.Ryan KennedyDavid, thank you. I really appreciate the conversation today.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversation like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at Volts.wtf. Yes, that's Volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

A newly signed state law sets Minnesota on course to use 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040. In this episode, Minnesota House Majority Leader Jamie Long describes the decisive legislating that took an ambitious climate bill from introduction to the governor’s desk in the space of one month. (PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsBack in 2019, I wrote for Vox that there is one weird trick states can use to ensure good climate and energy policy. That trick is: giving Democrats full control of the government. It has worked in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii — the list goes on.As I covered in a pod a few months ago, the 2022 midterm elections brought Democrats full control — with trifectas of both houses of the legislature and the governor's office — in four new M states: Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota.Does the one weird trick still work? Well, you’ll never guess what happened in Minnesota last week. Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a historic piece of legislation that would set the state on a course to carbon-free electricity: 80 percent by 2030, 90 percent by 2035, and 100 percent by 2040.My guest today is the bill’s primary author and sponsor, Minnesota House Majority Leader Jamie Long. Long, formerly legislative director for then–U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), was elected to the Minnesota legislature in 2018 and became majority leader this year. He worked closely with Senate sponsor Nick Frentz to shepherd the bill quickly through the legislature, with no extended conference committee. It was an adept and decisive bit of legislating — not necessarily the norm for Democrats. I was excited to talk to Long about some of the ins and outs of the bill, the forces that supported and opposed it, and what's next for Minnesota energy policy. All right, then. Representative Jamie Long of Minnesota, welcome to Volts. Thanks so much for coming. And I guess the first thing I should say is congratulations.Jamie LongThank you. It's a big month out here in Minnesota.David RobertsYeah, big news. I want to get into the actual bill and the actual targets and everything, but just let's do a brief bit of history to start with. You arrived in the Minnesota legislature in 2018. I'm curious when this bill was born, basically, how long has this been cooking?Jamie LongSure. Well, this was my top-priority bill from my very first day I ran for office wanting to work on climate change and clean energy, and knew that 100% clean energy was the big bill that I wanted to focus my efforts on. So, we introduced this pretty early in my very first year in office. So actually, when we had the bill signing, I was looking back, and it was about four years to the week from when we had a bill signing that I'd introduced it. So, that was the first time we'd had 100% clean energy proposal in Minnesota, but we certainly had a lot of other renewable energy standards that had been tried and had failed over the years. The last time we'd updated our renewable energy standard was 2007 in the state.David Roberts2007. And that was, I'm guessing, the last time you had Democratic control over both Houses?Jamie LongNo, in fact, it was broadly bipartisan. It was signed by Governor Tim Pawlenty, Republican governor, who later it became a political issue when he ran for President because the Republican primary voters were not that happy that he was a clean energy leader who took climate change seriously. But it got such broad bipartisan support, it was almost unanimous in the House and Senate at the time.David RobertsWild.Jamie LongAnd that was 25% renewable energy standard by 2025 was what was passed at that time. That seemed really ambitious, but we actually met that in 2017, so we met it eight years early.So, at the time it seemed like it was going to be a big deal.David RobertsIf only we would ever learn from experience.Jamie LongI know, right?David RobertsThat's the same story with every single one of these that's ever passed anywhere.Jamie LongThat's right. But we do have only the second trifecta in the last 30 years in the state. We did have one in 2013, 2014. We didn't update the renewable energy standard then, but we did do some other good climate policy. But yes, unfortunately, since 2007, climate and clean energy has taken a turn for partisanship in the state. And so it has taken until we got this trifecta, and we have it barely in the Senate. This will sound familiar to the congressional story, but we have a one vote margin in the Senate, and we have a two vote margin in the House.David RobertsCrazy. And this was pretty rapid and decisive. Like, you guys have not been in office for that for that long.Jamie LongYou got it. Signed within a month.David RobertsThat's unusual to see the Democratic Party acting with such alacrity and clarity of purpose. I don't know what's going on here.Jamie LongWell, we felt like we heard loud and clear from Minnesota voters that this is what they wanted. There was a poll in our local paper right before the election asking voters what were their top issues for deciding on the candidates that they wanted to support. And climate was a top five issue.David RobertsNo kidding.Jamie LongOur governor, Tim Walz, has been a strong supporter of 100% clean energy since day one. He was at our very first press conference with us four years ago, and he ran on this this past election cycle for his re-election, it was in his first ad. He was one of those Democrats back in the Waxman-Markey days who voted for Waxman-Markey and thought it might have cost him his seat, and it didn't. But he's always been very proud of his climate leadership and has been a really strong leader in our state.David RobertsSo, I want to talk about some of the issues of contention, let's say in a minute, but let's just start by talking about what's in the bill. So, there's two targets for the state utilities. There's a renewable energy target and then there's a zero carbon target. So, tell us just briefly, like why are there two and what are they?Jamie LongWell, we wanted to have a renewable energy baseline. That was important for a lot of our partners and constituency groups that we were working with. We do have nuclear energy in the state, there are three nuclear plants, all owned by Xcel Energy. So, this wasn't really relevant for most utilities, but we wanted to have a baseline for renewable energy. So, there's a 55% renewable energy standard by 2035. But the big numbers are the clean energy standards or carbon-free energy standards and those are 80% by 2030, 90% by 2035 and 100% by 2040.David RobertsGot it. So, the renewable energy target is just an extension of the previous law? Yes, it's just sort of an updating of the previous renewable energy law or does it change anything substantially from that law?Jamie LongWell, it updates the previous law. So as I'd mentioned, our current law has 25% by 2025 and everybody's gotten there, so there's no real story there. So we have 55% now by 2035. We did update it some. The renewable energy definition at that time had a couple of things that we tweaked. One was that it constrained hydro to only small hydro. And the thought had been at that time that there was some concern that if we did large hydro we would basically push out all of the wind and solar. We would just go towards large hydro or we have access to Manitoba Hydro here and some other large hydro projects.And so the concern was that you wouldn't get the solar and wind development that we would want. That's less of a concern now. We aren't seeing a lot more large hydro projects being built. And particularly on the timeline that we're talking about, between now and 2035, you're not really going to get a new large dam sided and constructed. So, the question was just really, were we going to let that count for utilities that are already purchasing large hydro? And we thought that would be fair. And then the other discussion was around waste energy. And so we have a facility in my city of Minneapolis that is located next to the neighborhood that has the highest black population in the city, and also happens to have the highest asthma rates in the state, there's a lot of cumulative impacts with different industrial uses in that particular neighborhood. And so we excluded that particular facility from the definition of renewable energy.David RobertsThat's Hennepin?Jamie LongYeah, the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center is what it's known as. So we excluded that as a gesture to the community and to the county that we understand this is a facility that we don't want to see be the long term solution to our waste problems in that particular location.David RobertsI'd like to pick up both of those a little bit. On the hydro, my understanding is that this was a subject of some contention, I mean, one is what if we just get more hydro and don't do any wind or solar, as you say, that's probably not as much of a concern. Now, although, I'm curious, you're accessing this Manitoba Hydro, could you theoretically just buy more of existing Manitoba Hydro? I'm curious, have you topped out how much you can get from there?Jamie LongYeah, it's pretty well topped out. It's all spoken for between Manitoba and Minnesota. So last year there were lower water levels in Manitoba and they wound up being able to ship a little less power to Minnesota because they had to use it all from Manitoba. So both with the existing transmission and the existing need, there's no real extra capacity.David RobertsBringing on any substantial new big hydro from Minnesota would mean building new dams.Jamie LongYeah, and it would take longer than the time allotted.David RobertsI know there are sort of concerns about the pipeline from those Manitoba, the electricity lines from those Manitoba dams down to Minnesota. How did that play out? Because my understanding is that environmental groups, the reason they didn't want big hydro counted is partially because they don't want more of that. How did that sort of controversy play out?Jamie LongYeah, there were some concerns from some indigenous environmental groups around large hydro. And so that was one of the reasons why we made clear it was only existing hydro. So we didn't allow for new hydro to count towards that renewable energy standard, so that we would foreclose the possibility that new construction would be eligible. So in the law, it says only as of the effective date of the act, those facilities would count.David RobertsI see. So even if they did build new dams.Jamie LongIt doesn't count towards renewable energy standard. It would count towards carbon-free because we don't have technology limitations there. It's anything that's carbon-free. But for the renewable energy standard, it wouldn't count.David RobertsGive us a sense of where non hydro renewable energy is in Minnesota. Are the big Minnesota utilities in shouting distance of that 55% target?Jamie LongThey are. So last year in Minnesota, we were at 52% carbon-free for the entirety of Minnesota's power generation. Now 24% of that was nuclear. So about a quarter of our power in the state's nuclear, but 28% was renewable energy. So that's pretty good. And then if you look at it based on, by utility, there is a bit of a differentiation. Minnesota Power, for example, which is the utility that services the northern part of the state, they're pretty unique because they serve some really large customers. Mines, timber. They were at 90% or so coal in the 1990s, and then as of even 2015, we're at about 75% coal. And now they're over 50% renewable.David RobertsOh, wow. So they've been moving pretty quick already.Jamie LongThey've been moving very quick already. And so we've had some good leadership from utilities in the state. Xcel Energy, our largest utility, was the first in the nation to say that they wanted to move towards 100% carbon-free electricity. And then both Minnesota Power and Great River Energy, which is our generation and transmission cooperative for most of our rural electric co-ops in the state, have also committed to carbon-free. Now, all three of those had 2050 as their target dates, so we're pushing them considerably faster than they had wanted to go, but they had set the direction that they were going to move towards carbon-free electricity, and all three of them, in the end, were supportive or neutral on the final bill. So I do give them credit for setting a direction and being willing to come along even as they were being pushed.David RobertsJust to clarify sort of the goals that they had set for themselves, that was all internally driven, that wasn't in response to any sort of mandates or government product.Jamie LongThose were public announcements. And so even before the law had passed, something like 80% of Minnesota customers were already being served by a utility that had themselves, on their own, committed to decarbonizing their electric service.David RobertsSo this is mostly accelerating what your big state utilities are in the midst of doing already.Jamie LongAccelerating and mandating, which is an important distinction. But they had made these targets on their own and they weren't binding. You know, Xcel Energy at different points in time had described it as an ambition or a goal or, you know, there was a lot of flexibility in terms of how they described it and now there is not.David RobertsNow there's locked in. Let's talk a little bit about garbage incineration because this sort of like only comes up in some states and not in others, and I've had questions about it over the years and I've never really bothered to poke around and learn a lot about it. But my understanding is two things: one is that the main reason municipalities are doing this is not for energy. It's that they don't know what else to do with their trash. They don't have anything else to do with their trash. And my understanding is that environmental groups are largely opposed to it and would have preferred to exclude it from the zero carbon energy standard entirely.So tell us a little bit about, just sort of like, what are the dynamics or how did that play out?Jamie LongSo it's this interesting interplay between waste policy and energy policy, right?David RobertsRight.Jamie LongSo I think most folks agree that landfilling isn't a good outcome for our waste management system. And there's disagreement though, on how much we can do in recycling and composting, and other forms of waste diversion. Environmentalists like me tend to think that we can do a lot more than we're doing. Pushing hard at the state level to do more in the recycling and organics management side. But a lot of counties in our state have moved forward with waste burning as what they view as better than landfilling. So not the outcome that they want, but better than landfilling.You still do have to landfill though. You're landfilling all the ash that's coming out, and the ash is toxic, and you're producing localized air pollution when you're burning it. So it's certainly not an environmentally friendly solution, but nor are landfills. And so there aren't easy choices here. But when it comes to the energy space, when we're thinking about moving towards a decarbonized electric sector, when you're burning trash, it produces carbon. So right now the waste energy, at least for our 100% target, doesn't count as a fully decarbonized source. We have a few pathways that counties could pursue which I can get into if you're interested in terms of how they could continue to operate.But they are, under our bill, either going to have to change or pay a little bit more money in a renewable energy credit to be able to continue to operate. And so it will make waste to energy harder, as a long term solution.David RobertsI don't want to get too deep into incineration here, but when you say improvements that they could make, does that mean there are safer and better ways to incinerate trash, or do you mean alternatives?Jamie LongWell, so under the bill, if you are not at 100% carbon-free electricity, one option you have is to purchase renewable energy credits.David RobertsRight.Jamie LongAnd this is a pretty common way to account for that sort of last couple of percent in different standards, and it was also in our previous renewable energy standards that we've had.David RobertsYeah, I want to get into that later.Jamie LongYeah, so that would be one option that they could pursue. They could shut down the facilities, they could not sell the power to a utility. Because we're regulating the sales to utility customers in the bill. So there are a few options, but I do hope that this will prompt some conversation in our counties about how they want to manage waste 16 years from now. I feel like there's a lot of time to figure out better alternatives than burning.David RobertsIt's not super clear to me what the ideal state of the art is here. But yeah, like you say, there's time to figure that out. What about within the bill? Is there anything specifically for distributed solar or distributed energy? That's one of the things I heard back from some sort of state advocates is that the big utilities are fine going renewable, but they're more resistant to losing control over assets and having customer owned assets. So I wonder, is there anything, is that mentioned in the bill at all?Jamie LongNo, we don't have a specific carve out for distributed energy. We wanted to keep our technology neutral approach intact. As you might imagine, there were lots of different requests for specific technologies.David RobertsInteresting.Jamie LongMost of those didn't go in the direction that I would call climate friendly. So we tried to keep the overall integrity of allowing for utilities to have some flexibility in how they are getting to 100% carbon-free in the bill. Now, that said, I do believe that there's going to be an awful lot more distributed energy built because of this bill. The utilities are going to need to find as much solar and wind as they can, and it's not all going to be able to be utility scale.So I think a lot of it will be distribution grid, interconnected. But I think that a lot of that conversation is probably going to take place in other contexts later this session. So we are one month in to our legislative session, and we've been talking for a long time about our community solar program. We have the largest, I guess now second largest New York just passed us, but for a long time we have the largest community solar program in the nation. There's a lot of conversation on what to do in the distributed energy space with interconnection. I think that's going to be a hot topic in session and there's going to be a lot of interest on policy fixes in that space.But for the purposes of the 100% clean energy bill, we felt it was important to keep flexibility for utilities and how to meet their targets.David RobertsInteresting. One other question about sources. I know anytime I mention energy policy on the internet, which is frequently, I get the question, well, what about nuclear? Is it nuclear just better? Why don't we just do nuclear, blah, blah, blah. You knew this was coming. So in Minnesota, you've got three nuclear plants, yes? Who are providing 25% of your power and a good chunk of existing low or no carbon, carbon-free energy. And that counts toward the standard, that energy counts toward the, the carbon-free standard for 2040. But there is also alongside that, a prohibition on new nuclear in Minnesota.And I know there was some argument on some quarters that the prohibition should be lifted, that small modular nukes should be allowed under this technology neutral standard. The bill didn't get into that. What's the status there?Jamie LongYeah, so nuclear politics is obviously complicated, not just in Minnesota. But you're right, we have three nuclear plants in the state and we have a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction.David RobertsAnd that was a bill that was legislative from previous.Jamie LongThe 90s. It dates way back. It's not a recent choice. And the reason is that we have the closest community living near a nuclear plant anywhere in the United States, and that's the Prairie Island Indian Community, which lives like a stone throw from the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant. And so it's in their backyard, right behind their houses. And so the Prairie Indian Community has had long standing concerns about the onsite nuclear waste storage, because we don't have any long term storage solution yet for nuclear waste. And so that waste happens to be stored right on site at the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant.And so when they were seeking permitting to store that waste on site, the compromise that was passed included a moratorium on new nuclear construction. So that's the history. The tribe remains concerned to this day about living that close to a nuclear energy plant in their community. So removing the nuclear moratorium is fraught. And there's also, I didn't have a single large utility come to me and say, "Hey, I'm ready to build a small nuclear modular reactor and I want this repealed so I can get this going".David RobertsYes, this discussion is extremely theoretical at all levels.Jamie LongYeah, exactly. That may be a topic of conversation that comes to the state in the future, but it didn't need to be solved in this bill because there is no real live proposal before us. All three of the nuclear reactors in the state are going through relicensing applications with the NRC. They're all at the end of their licenses or nearing them. And so that's the kind of active conversation.David RobertsYeah, are you talking about several states have taken action recently to extend the life of existing nuclear plants, is that on the table or in the discussion somewhere?Jamie LongNo, we don't really need to subsidize our nuclear plants in the state. They've been operating within competitive rates and we're regulated state, we're not deregulated. I think some of the states that have had to support their nuclear plants because they're deregulated.David RobertsRight.Jamie LongBut I think there is broad support for relicensing for those three facilities. The tribe that I mentioned is in active negotiations with the utility about waste storage next to them in a relicensing application. So there may be discussions there, but I think that there is general support for extending the life of those three plants and nothing more. We really need to do with the legislature on that. But in terms of new small modular nuclear reactors, there's no real active proposals or need to solve those problems this month.David RobertsLet's talk a little bit about utilities and their sort of disposition towards all this. Let's start a little bit, I think with munis and co-ops, municipal and cooperative utilities. I think, probably, most folks listeners live in cities and are served by big utilities and so might not be familiar with what these things are and why they tend to be resistant to the net zero push. This is not just in your state but in many states. So maybe you could just explain sort of like, what are these little utilities and why across the country do they tend to be centers of resistance to the push to clean power?Jamie LongGreat question. So municipal utilities are pretty straightforward. It's a utility that's run by municipality or at the municipal level to supply power. And they tend to be more of a distribution utility. They're often purchasing their power from somebody else.David RobertsThey're just not big enough to own assets on their own.Jamie LongMost of them don't. Yeah, there are a couple of municipal utilities in the state that do own some of their own generation, but most of the time they're purchasing the power that they sell. And then cooperative utilities are managed by local boards that are elected and they tend to be in rural communities. That's the history. It was part of the ability to get electrification to rural America, right? And the big utilities serve the cities and there needed to be a model that helped serve rural communities and so cooperatives was a model that took off. But in Minnesota it's 40% of customers or cooperative utilities or municipal utilities.So it's a big chunk. And if we're only focusing on our three investor owned utilities in the state, we're leaving out a lot of folks who have power delivery. So the cooperative utilities are very diverse in terms of their customer size, their location in the state. So we have some that now, once were rural, but now serve kind of a suburban membership, and then we have some that serve very small rural memberships. A lot of them tend to purchase power from these generation and transmission cooperatives. And so there's a handful of those that make the bulk of the decisions that then trickle down to the co-op.So I mentioned Great River Energy, in our state is the largest, and so it's complex. And in terms of why they resist, well, there's a couple of reasons. One is that they have tended to not have necessarily the same pressures to move as quickly as some of the investor owned, I think Xcel Energy, Minnesota Power, those are publicly traded companies. They've got a lot of folks who are looking at their future and what might be their risks. And for Xcel, I think part of the reason they went first on saying they wanted to be the first utility to get to 100% was to get noticed, right, to make a mark on the national stage that they were a leading utility.The boards of a lot of these local co-ops don't tend to be electricity experts. They're community members, right? They're folks who live in their communities and care about.David RobertsAnd we should say, I'll say it if you won't, rural and therefore likely quite conservative.Jamie LongYes, that's right. And so their understanding of the most up to date energy policy is sometimes a little dated. So I've met often with rural cooperative boards in our state and I even have brought graphs of the cost of solar and wind over time and showed them,"Look, it's cheaper! It's cheaper". And the feedback I'll sometimes get is, "Well, it's not reliable", right? There's always kind of something else. So there has been traditionally a lot of resistance at that level. But I'll give credit to some of the large G&Ts that work with the co-ops. They've understood that moving towards renewable energy is going to save their members money.So Great River Energy had a very large coal plant that it sold, that wasn't located in North Dakota, and it lost $170 million at that coal plant in 2019. They tried to sell that coal plant for a dollar and couldn't find anybody who would take it. So they wound up having to sell it with a very valuable high voltage transmission line, which probably down the road is going to carry mostly wind power from North Dakota to Minnesota. And by selling it, they projected that they would cut rates for their member co-ops by over 10%.David RobertsWow.Jamie LongSo, the economics are really driving a lot of the transition now for some of these rural co-ops, too. But they tend to be resistant to mandates and requirements.David RobertsSo, I was going to ask how you brought them around, but it occurs to me that maybe you just didn't and didn't have to. Did they come around?Jamie LongSo, the municipal utilities did not. They were the last holdouts. Every other utility association or utility in the state wound up being neutral or supportive. But the municipal utilities.Interesting.Were not, and in part they have local politicians who are involved in those discussions, and those tend to be from rural communities, and so you can connect the dots. For the rural cooperatives, to their credit, they came to the table. They have a very diverse membership, as I said, and there were a lot of pressure on that group. But they had one reasonable ask, which was, a lot of our co-ops are starting behind where these large utilities are. They don't have nuclear power, they don't have access necessarily to the same level of hydro as say, Minnesota Power in the north. So, they're behind. And so they asked for a longer on ramp to get to the same place. And so that seemed reasonable to me. So, we have the same standard for them in 2035 and 2040. They've got to get to 90% 2035 and 100% 2040. But for 2030, which, you know, in utility terms is very fast for planning purposes, we said, "Okay, we're going to give you 60% target for cooperative and municipal utilities in 2030". So that they had a little bit more lead time to do planning and to get on board.And that got them to neutral. So that was a big deal that they were willing to make that agreement.David RobertsA couple of other, you know, sort of what are being framed as concessions to utilities because, you know, utilities, of course, if you mandate something, they immediately come back and say, well, you know, they spin this scenario where 2040 is looming, and we don't have enough, and we're spending kajillions of dollars, and we're having blackouts.Jamie LongRight.David RobertsSo you have to formalize some sort of, well, you have in the bill an "off-ramp", quote unquote "off-ramp", which just amounts to, as I understand it, if the dates are approaching and the utility doesn't think they can meet the target without compromising reliability, it can go to the PUC and say, "Hey, we can't do this without compromising reliability". And the PUC will say, "Okay, here's a little extra time". Is that the long and short of it?Jamie LongPretty much, so a little more to it. But this has been in our renewable energy standard laws since the beginning, because there was always sort of a concern that when you got close you might not be able to get to meet it, and then you don't want the lights to go off. Right, is the argument.David RobertsI always just think it's funny, like find me a state, find me a PUC in the country that's going to be like.Jamie LongExactly.David RobertsYou can't meet the target without compromising utility reliability. Sorry, we're locked in by the law, we're all just going to have to have blackouts.Jamie LongYeah, too bad. the Republicans in the legislature called this the "Blackout Bill". And my last name is Long, so they called it the "Long Blackout Bill", which I thought was good. It was like maybe if my last name had been Short, then it wouldn't have been as scary. We can deal with a "Short Blackout", but that was "Long Blackout". So the 2007 standard, 25% by 2025, no one ever used the "off-ramp", right? No one needed to. They met at eight years.David RobertsI don't know of a utility in a state, anywhere in the country that has had to use one of these "off-ramps". Like they always meet the targets. It's always easier than they think. It's like can we learn from but.Jamie LongI think it is important to have this in the bill because I don't want to assume that we're going to come back and change this bill a bunch of times between now and 2040. If passed us any lesson, we haven't done this since 2007, it might be another 20 years until we get back to this. Who knows? And so right now I'm pretty confident that we can get to 100% clean energy by 2040. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we can only get to 98% and then do we really want to force that last 2%? So it does feel like it is worth having that mechanism in here.But what we did do is we made sure that there were real factors that the Public Utilities Commission would have to weigh. So yes, they have to relay weigh reliability and affordability, but they also have to weigh impact on environmental justice communities. They also have to weigh the social cost of carbon. And so what is this going to mean for the overall impact on our society? So you're right. At the end of the day, if it's going to affect reliability, and importantly now the utilities will have to establish that on the record in a public hearing through the Public Utilities Commission.So it's not just the utilities saying, "Hey, sorry, I know I'd said 100% by 2050, but Tesla couldn't do it". No, now they will have to actually put together a record and demonstrate to the Public Utilities Commission, "Hey, here is why I can't do this thing".David RobertsWe tried.Jamie LongYeah, exactly.David RobertsSo it's not an easy thing. It's not something they could just screw around for 20 years and then invoke this.Jamie LongNo, and they have to do it before the public. So does the utility want to go and say, "Hey, I'm going to have to be burning more dirty energy"? I mean, they're not going to want to do that unless they feel like they really have to. So I do think it's important to have that tool in there but, I would not be surprised if it's used very infrequently, if ever.David RobertsYeah. So the "off-ramp" did not bug me at all, but something else that's in there has kind of bugged me, and I read a bunch of articles about this and I just didn't see anybody else pick it out or examine it at all. But it also, in the bill says that utilities can buy RECs for compliance, renewable energy certificates, which basically just means someone else somewhere else generated more renewable energy than they need for their compliance and they're selling the leftovers, and you can buy the leftovers counted towards your total for compliance. To me, that's more of a red flag than the "off-ramp" thing because, as anyone who's been listening to Volts for a long time knows, these RECs are fairly cheap.Like if you just want to buy bulk solar and wind, like wind power from the Midwest RECs, they're pretty cheap. And in many, many cases they're going to be cheaper than actually reforming your own operations or acquiring new assets of your own. So why shouldn't I be worrying about that more? It seems like if there's something I'm going to worry about utilities doing, it's not just putting things off, it's just buying a bunch of cheap RECs to cover their obligations. So how do you think about that?Jamie LongYeah, well so this has been the framework that we've had in state law since the beginning of our renewable energy standard. So it's a tool that's been around and widely accepted. The renewable energy credits vary in cost and it's, you know, hard to know exactly what a 2039 renewable energy credit will cost. But they are real. So, you know, there's sometimes there is a concern around offsets in general, and I think a lot of that is valid, but renewable energy credits are a wind or solar or other renewable energy system where there's retiring their credit for a specific use.So it is additional renewable capacity that is being built on the grid and, at least for Minnesota, for the RECs that have been used to meet some of the earlier renewable energy standards, 60% of those are in Minnesota, and all of them are in the Midwest.David RobertsIs that by requirement or is that.Jamie LongNo, that's not by requirement but that's been the way, the way it's happened and I think the Public Utilities Commission has worked with trying to make the RECs as local as possible. So they so far have been all in the Midwest, and 60% have been in Minnesota. So that is additional renewable energy that's getting built in the state, and those credits can't be retired for anybody else. So if the utilities building their own renewable energy they're going to retire the RECs for themselves. So it is real. In some ways it acts as a carbon tax on the margins.When you're getting towards that last little bit of power that you need to meet your targets, then you're going to have to pay a fee. But we know that renewable energy is cheaper right now than fossil fuels and this is only going to put even more of a finger on the scale towards renewable energy. And if you're an investor owned utility you're going to have to go in front of the Public Utilities Commission and demonstrate why it is cheaper for your ratepayers to have a fossil fuel plant where you're paying RECs on it than wind and solar. And I just don't think that is likely to happen.David RobertsSo you are not worried about RECs forming any substantial chunk of compliance?Jamie LongNo, I'm not. I think that the most likely use for that will be when you have a last one or 2% and you have some sort of, I don't know, hydrogen peaker that uses some hydrogen that made from fossil fuels or something like that, that it'll take over that last couple of percent. Or something like waste energy, that I was describing before, where there's some other public policy good that you're dealing with. We have a big emerald ash borer problem in the state right now, and are cutting down a bunch of our ash trees, and we have a couple of facilities that are burning that and making energy out of it so. That produces carbon and there might be a need to have a REC for something like that.David RobertsAnd I also just sort of idly wonder when we're getting up to 2030, 2035 if compliance won't be, if more and more utilities are under compliance standards whether there are still going to be so many.Jamie LongWell that's right.David RobertsExcess RECs to sell, right? I wonder if that market is going to tighten up.Jamie LongMarket is going to tighten up. I mean these are going to be needed for a lot of different reasons. Corporate purchasers want RECs, utilities want RECs. We're seeing these standards become more common. So, I don't know that we can count on cheap RECs forever. And there does need to be I think some mechanism to account for these hard to deal with marginal sources. And we could say that you can't burn trash and you can't burn wood, but I probably couldn't have passed that bill.David RobertsRight. A couple of things about the bill itself. I'm sure you're aware one of the bigs from ongoing conversations in the clean energy world these days is about permitting and sighting and the difficulty thereof, that being kind of a bottleneck. Sort of like, even if you have willing capital and willing utilities and willing everything else, you have this process of permitting and sighting that is sclerotic and slowing things down. Did you take that on at all in the bill?Jamie LongWe did, yeah. We know that transmission is going to be a big challenge. It's a big challenge right now. We have a very constrained grid in Minnesota and a lot of renewable energy projects aren't getting built that otherwise could because the transmission costs are too high. And our regional ISO, the Midcontinent ISO in Minnesota, has announced recently a $10 billion new transmission investment in Minnesota and the region, that's the largest in US History.David RobertsOh yes, we did a pod on that last year.Jamie LongYeah, I listened to it. It was great. So frankly, myself and the former Republican Energy Committee chair and the Senate pushed really hard on MISO to move as quickly as they could on this because there were so many constraints. So we've been working at that level, but we also are trying to help at the state level. And we have several provisions in the bill that are designed to help with siting. One would remove a specific certificate that independent power purchasers are currently required to do, that was designed for utilities with ratepayer customers, and so it wasn't really the right fit.Another would, for very short tie lines for solar projects, that right now have to get county approval, would move that to the Public Utilities Commission. A lot of the counties don't want to deal with that anyway. So we were trying to do some of these easy streamlining things and they all wound up being really non controversial. But to help just make it a little easier to get some of this renewable energy deployed.David RobertsAnd do you feel like there's more to do there? Like, is that something that's going to come up again in the legislative session, do you think?Jamie LongWell, there may be. We had four specific fixes in the bill, and these had been around for a few years, we've been working on them for a while. There may be other changes that are needed to help out. The big thing we need to do is just figure out how we can get some of these projects built in our state that MISO has approved and we need to keep those on track. Minnesota Power has proposed a really innovative transmission line in northern Minnesota that's going to connect to some new wind power in North Dakota. And so that will be an important project too.I think they're getting some federal support for that transmission line, it was recently announced. So we have to build some of these projects out and I think there's going to be some state support to do that. For example, we're going to try to pass a pretty hefty package of state matching dollars to help out with the Federal Inflation Reduction Act, available money for transmission, and we're hoping that that will help deploy some of these projects.David RobertsI'm curious both about the prevailing wage provisions, and sort of beyond that, the general disposition of labor toward all this, like the role they played in all this.Jamie LongI think that was one of the best parts of the coalition work we did was having the broad support of our building trades and labor partners. It's not always been an easy conversation with building trades and clean energy transition, but I think seeing where the economics have pushed some of the coal plants in our state, and also recognizing that we have really good opportunities to build clean energy. A lot of the building trades in Minnesota have been really good partners in trying to help make sure that we are moving towards clean energy and that we are doing so with good union jobs. So because Minnesota was kind of an early mover in clean energy, even though we haven't been that active in recent years, we did get an early mover advantage in our, kind of the 90s into the 2000's, and we have two of the largest wind and solar installers in the country, based in Minnesota. And combined, they tell me that they've installed over 50% of all wind turbines in the US In the last decade. So we have a lot of opportunity that Minnesota workers have seen over the years to build renewable energy projects.David RobertsAnd an existing workforce that's presumably helping you, lobbying with you for all this.Jamie LongThat's right, that knows that these are good jobs. So we put a prevailing wage requirement for all new large energy projects in the bill, which is a big deal. And then we also included local worker considerations for the Public Utilities Commission, so that they could weigh when they were approving projects if they were in fact helping employ local workers. We also put in there preference for projects that are going to be in energy transition communities where coal plants, for example, will be retiring. So that we're trying to help backfill some of the tax base in those particular communities.So we worked hard with our labor partners and I don't know if there have been other states where the entire building trades, the statewide coalition supported 100% clean energy standard, but in Minnesota they did. And we had the bill signing at the Labor Center in St. Paul to mark what a strong partnership this was.David RobertsWell, it seems to me like nothing but a good thing that this element of the legislation, the sort of prevailing wages, local workers, all this kind of stuff seems to be a standard part of these state bills now. Washington, my home state of Washington, did some great stuff on this, but it seems like now it's just sort of like a standard piece of the puzzle, which strikes me as all to the good.Jamie LongI think that's right. And I think President Biden deserves a lot of credit on that too, to having made this labor climate partnership a real cornerstone of his clean energy agenda.David RobertsSo, before we wrap up with just a couple of political questions. You've said a couple of times that Minnesota is the purplest, let's say, state to pass one of these things.Jamie LongYes.David RobertsWhich is true, but, you squint close up, and it's party line vote in both chambers. So, I mean, this almost feels silly to ask, but was there anything helpful or supportive from anyone on the Republican side throughout this process or did you just come into this thinking, "We're Democrats, we got to figure it out among ourselves, there's no hope"? Was that as predictable as I would have expected?Jamie LongWell, unfortunately it was. It was fully party line in both the House and Senate. We have had some bipartisan clean energy wins in recent years. We were one of the only split legislators in the country in the last four years, and when I chaired the Energy Committee, we had some good wins on energy efficiency and solar deployment. But for the big changes that we really need, we really weren't able to find the partnership that we wanted across the aisle. I don't think that that's true with Minnesota public, though. When you look at the public polling, and we have some public polling on our bill, it's broadly supported by the Minnesota public.There are partisan differences, though, even in the polling. So it does show that unfortunately, we are at a place where climate clean energy policy is more polarized than I think is healthy. But I think that the good news is, we have broad buy-in now from our utilities, from our labor partners. And I think if we look back on this in ten years, you'll find that the public is going to be very supportive and the politics on this will change. I think that when the public sees the benefits that this will have for job creation, for overall cost of utility bills, and of course, for climate public health, I think that support will grow.But I don't want to undersell what we accomplished either, which is that with a one vote margin in the Senate.David RobertsYeah, I mean, let me just ask about that directly, because the Inflation Reduction Act was a friggin miracle.Jamie LongRight.David RobertsBecause it all came down to the whims of one vain, relatively illinformed person and just sort of woke up on the right side of the bed. We sort of touched on some of the elements of this story, like, you brought the utilities around, at least to be neutral, not against it. Labor was for it. I mean, there weren't a lot of big organized commercial interests, seems like, against it. It's just Republicans against it. So how did you manage to keep every single senator on line?Is there some magic dust?Jamie LongSo Senator Frentz, who was a lead author in the Senate, and I worked really closely together throughout the entire process. And he's a rural moderate Democrat, I'm an urban progressive Democrat. So we were a good partnership. But when the Senate flipped to Democratic control, I was taking a look at some of the new members and hoping that we would be able to pass a bill as strong as the one we passed. And there was a member who won, who was the majority maker, who won in the Trump district, bright red district in the far northwest part of the state, around Morehead.And then I started reading up on his background and turns out he's a meteorologist who has been talking about climate change on the air for 20 years in his community, and the impact that this has on agriculture. He spoke on the floor on the Senate talking about how if we don't act now, the agricultural impact in our state is going to be enormous.David RobertsIt's kind of a lucky stroke.Jamie LongThat was a pretty good draw. We had a member who was in a challenging part of the state in the Iron Range, as we call it, in northeastern Minnesota, but we had all of his utilities that were neutral or supportive and we had the strong support of labor. And so for him, I think it was a vote that he could take and take with confidence. So, you know, the coalition that we built really helped. But we, we didn't we didn't take this to conference committee. We, Senator Frentz and I negotiated together and got to a place where we had a bill that could pass and get the support of folks in Trump districts in greater Minnesota and Minneapolis, districts in the Metro, with one bill with no amendments through the House and Senate into the governor's desk.So that took some work, but I'm really proud that we were able to get it done.David RobertsThe ability to hash this out such that it didn't need to go through a long dragged out conference committee process is really a notable level of party discipline and purpose, which we don't always associate with the Democratic Party. So it's really great to see when it comes up, like, you guys did not faff about you just went straight at this thing and passed it.Jamie LongThat's right. We knew what we wanted to do and, yeah, we got it done in a month. So it was an intense month, but I think we knew our purpose and we were aligned in our goals. And I wasn't two months ago sure that we would be able to get a bill as strong as the one we got through done. But I think Senator Frentz deserves a lot of credit for the work he did with the senators. And frankly, our partners, the utilities, deserve credit for being willing to come along, right? They understood that this is the direction we're headed.They knew this bill was going to pass. And so the asks that they made were pretty reasonable on the scale of things. And now I think we have one of the five strongest clean energy standards in the country.David RobertsTwo very brief questions to wrap up. One is North Dakota says they're going to sue Minnesota over the idea being that, you not buying their dirty power is a matter of interstate commerce. And thus your bill, something, something, dormant commerce clause. The illegal analysis I've read indicates that this suit has no merit. There was a suit back in 2007 that the Republicans won, but apparently it was on different grounds, the law was very different, it's a whole different thing now. I don't know if there's anything to say about this other than, it's likely to fail, but do you have any additional thoughts on it?Jamie LongWell, it says a lot about energy politics in the state of North Dakota. I think it says more about that than our legal chances. But we're North Dakota's biggest customer for their biggest industry. So energy is a lot of what North Dakota does and, to date, they have tended to focus on fossil fuels. Now they are moving, there is a lot of wind energy development happening in the state and to Governor Burgum's credit, he has said that he wants to move to a carbon neutral economy by 2030, or carbon neutral energy system.David RobertsYeah, they got a bunch of CCS and hydrogen fantasies to work out.Jamie LongThat's right. Yeah. So that's where most of his hopes are pinned on. But in terms of the legal challenge, no, there's nothing really there. I mean, the overall framework which is that we are regulating what Minnesota utilities sell to Minnesota customers, has been in law for all of our renewable energy standards since the inception, and North Dakota has never challenged those. So they did win a lawsuit against us after the 2007 energy bill and that was around a restriction that we had on imports of out of state coal. So that is a harder one to hold up in court and it was struck down.But in terms of this particular provision, it's not the same. And, as I mentioned, it was in law then and they didn't sue it against it because they knew that they weren't going to be able to win. So it is unfortunate. We'll probably have to go to court with our neighbors, and that's not never fun, but we're going to win this one and the law will go into effect, and hopefully North Dakota can sell us a lot of wind power.David RobertsI really wonder what North Dakota thinks it is communicating to the rest of the nation with this behavior. Like, how do they think this looks? I know they're all conservative and so they're all in the bubble, they're all watching Fox, so maybe they don't know how this looks to the rest of the country, but like good grief, suing to stop the future. Anyway, so final question this is electricity. Done and done. Check, check. What about transportation? And what about heat? What about natural gas heat? Those are the two big prizes after electricity. Are you cooking up plans to go after one or both of those?Jamie LongYes, we are. So on transportation, Governor Walz has been a real leader on vehicle electrification. He was the first state in the Midwest to sign on to the clean car standards out of California that are permitted for other states to sign on under The Clean Air Act and took a lot of flak for that, but stood up to the naysayers. And that's been a good commitment from him. But now we have the opportunity to do good work at the legislature, too, on electric vehicles. So I suspect there's going to be a really big package there and a very big package on transit, which I know has been something that we have wanted to fund at a substantial level for many years and haven't had the political support to do that.David RobertsYeah, you have some really, sort of, in those terms, kind of progressive cities in Minnesota that could use some help, I think, becoming more walkable and transit oriented.Jamie LongWe sure do. And they very much want it, and haven't had the support to get there. So we got another light rail line we're building out right now, we want to build a fourth. We have a lot of bus rapid transit that's being built in the region that we want to help support, as well as new bike-ped infrastructure. My city of Minneapolis tends to rank in the top five cities in the country for bike infrastructure, but that doesn't come for free, and they want more. So we need more. So that's going to be a big area.And then in terms of buildings, absolutely. The governor has a proposal to move our new commercial construction to net zero by 2036, for our codes, which I think would be exciting. And so that would be updating our codes every three years to get to that point. So I'm hoping that we can pass that this year. And certainly that's just the first step, we do need to make sure we're looking at existing buildings, I had a building benchmark bill last year that we are hoping can move this year, too. So there's more to be done. And luckily we have a lot of session left since we were able to get this done in month one.David RobertsRight. How novel, just to get something done quickly, and then I imagine even elements of the public who are against it, just like, everyone prefers for this just to be done, right? Nobody enjoys these full year long dragged out, miserable. No one wants that again.Jamie LongNo, yeah, we avoided the Manchin "Will he? Won't he?" for a year.David RobertsOh, thank God.Jamie LongAnd just got her done, so that was, I think, exciting.David RobertsAwesome. Well, congratulations again.Jamie LongThank you.David RobertsRepresentative Jamie Long. Thank you so much for coming, and thanks for all your great work in Minnesota.Jamie LongThanks, David. Appreciate It.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad free powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

In this episode, utility watchdog David Pomerantz discusses all the ways that utilities use ratepayer money to lobby against the clean-energy transition — and what regulators and policy makers can do to stop it.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsThere are many features of US public life that I believe, perhaps naively, would be the subject of a great deal more anger were they better understood. One of those is the role utilities play in climate policy.A rapid transition to a low-carbon energy system is necessary to avoid the worst of climate change. Happily, that transition is going to be an enormous net benefit to US public health and the US economy. It's good for quality of life, economic growth, international competitiveness, national security, and the long-term inhabitability of the planet.But it’s not necessarily good for the companies that actually sell energy to customers — power and gas utilities. In fact, utilities are using every tool at their disposal to slow the energy transition, from lobbying to PR campaigns to donations to, as the last few years have demonstrated, outright bribery.And here's the even more galling bit: they are fighting against the clean-energy transition using your money. They use ratepayer money — from captive customers over whom they are granted a monopoly — to fund their lobbying. They have effectively conscripted their customers, who have no choice where to get their power and gas, into an involuntary small-donor army working against the public interest.It’s outrageous. In a new report called “Getting Politics Out of Utility Bills,” the Energy and Policy Institute — one of the best utility watchdogs out there — details some of this utility corruption and offers recommendations for how to prevent it. These are not futile recommendations to Congress, but actions that fall within the current powers of state regulators and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.I have been ranting about utilities for years, and one of my most reliable sources on the subject has always been the report’s author, Energy and Policy Institute Executive Director David Pomerantz, so I was eager to talk to him to air some shared grievances, hear some enraging tales of utility shenanigans, and discuss what can be done to rein them in. All righty, then. David Pomeranz. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.David PomeranzThank you so much for having me.David RobertsI was thinking of you just earlier today as I saw a new story in the Washington Post about how the gas industry is under fire and it is now hiring Democratic politicians to shill for it. And I thought: "Golly, isn't that thematically on point?". So it seems like a perfect time to be covering this report. Before we get into specifics of who's done what and how to stop them from doing it, let's just start with power utilities are out there getting involved in politics. And let's just sort of discuss what is their net effect on politics. Like, what are they pushing for and against out there in the states and at the federal level?David PomeranzThat is a great question, and I think it will be important in context for your listeners who I am count myself as a loyal one, and I know many are thinking about climate change, and energy policy, and decarbonization, and the energy transition. And if they are concerned about those things then they should be concerned about utilities, political power and their political machines. So let's talk about what their political agenda is. And we're talking about both electric and gas utilities. Oftentimes the same companies, but sometimes, you know, there are utilities that sell gas only and electricity only. And they're all relevant to this conversation.So, since you mentioned, gas utilities pushing back against building electrification, and that has certainly been in the news quite a lot this month, so we can start there, because that's really simple. The gas utilities sector is, with almost no exceptions, united in its aggressive political effort to stave off building electrification. They basically see that as an existential threat to their existence. They have for some time.David RobertsAnd it is.David PomeranzYeah, we can be honest about that, I think.David RobertsYeah.David PomeranzWe'll talk about electric utilities, of course. You know, electric utilities have not only a role to play in decarbonized world and a transition from fossil fuels, but really like the very central role to play in it. And I wish they would, more of them would get religion on that. But gas utilities don't really. Their role is, they make money from putting methane gas in pipes and sending it to buildings and factories.David RobertsThese companies that are both, you can sort of see a root out of this for them. But an exclusively gas utility really is, you know, destined for the trash bin of history, and knows it and is fighting it tooth and nail. But some of the stuff electric utilities are fighting, I don't think is as straightforward or obvious. Why they seem hostile to both distributed renewables, sort of consumer side stuff, and hostile to interregional transmission of the big power. So they seem hostile on sort of both ends of that. Why are they out doing that and how significant is their opposition to this stuff in the grand scheme of things?David PomeranzYeah, it's significant. It depends a bit on the issue. So maybe let's start on one end of the spectrum, with the things that they are most opposed to with the lease nuance.David RobertsRight.David PomeranzAnd I would say that that is distributed resources, customer owned resources, like rooftop solar, and energy efficiency, which we maybe don't talk about as much as we should. But, for decades now, electric utilities have opposed those because it presents a threat to their business model, right? As you have kind of, like, in the high priest of helping people to understand this, electric utilities in our current model make money when they build stuff. If people are putting solar panels on their roof, or adopting technologies to use less electricity, either one of those kind of has the same effect on the electric utility. It means they don't have to build as much stuff. And so they make less money.David RobertsYes, you're using less utility power.David PomeranzRight. So they are opposed to that. And we'll talk about some of the most scandalous things that utilities, electric utilities, have used their political machines to do in the last few years, but a lot of it roots from this almost paranoid obsession with stopping the growth of rooftop solar in some places. So that's that. On the other end of the system in terms of, like, the bulk power system, it's a little bit less monolithic and a little bit more of a spectrum within the industry. So there are absolutely electric utilities who have figured out that they can make money by retiring coal plants and gas plants, and instead building wind farms and utility scale solar farms. So Xcel Energy kind of coined the term "steel for fuel" to represent that change. And it makes sense. Now, they're all kind of in a different place on that. Some have really embraced that transition. Some of the dinosaurs in the industry, like Southern Company, or Duke Energy, or Entergy, they're not there yet for a bunch of reasons that I think are largely cultural, frankly. They just have a lot of groupthink in their leadership and their C-suites, and they haven't figured out yet that that solution sort of helps their profits and also helps customers. It's really good for everyone. And so on that, there's some heterogeneity in the whole sector.But there are companies who, utility companies, who absolutely, in the very recent past, have used their political power to slow down that transition too. So probably the canon example of that, and I think we should talk more about this because it's really such an important case study, is FirstEnergy in Ohio.David RobertsYeah, we'll definitely get into that.David PomeranzSure.David RobertsAnd the transmission thing too. I think is maybe not intuitive for people just to understand that sort of, if your power generation and transmission is confined to your utility area, you're sort of stuck with the resources you have within that area. And insofar as you connect to other areas, and potentially get cheaper power, right? You lower the price of power generally. And utilities, especially the owners of those plants that are getting those sky high prices, don't want that either.David PomeranzYeah, this is really counterintuitive for people. And I think, unfortunately, this narrative has kind of taken over that the main obstacle to building the high voltage regional transmission lines that we desperately need to transition from fossil fuels to renewables, is like some farmers and ranchers and NIMBY, "not in my backyard" protesters.David RobertsYes. Or environmentalists wielding environmental review, et cetera, and protecting salamanders.David PomeranzRight. And I'm not dismissing those things as real. There are people, you know, there is a history of landowners not wanting transmission lines going on or near their property. But in my opinion, far less of a barrier and gets much more attention than it should compared to this really big structural barrier, which is these multibillion dollar companies that don't want to see transmission built, regional transmission. And that regional part is kind of the key when it comes to utilities. So, utilities are very happy to build local transmission. In fact, they're probably gold plating their local transmission assets because they can get it approved very quickly.David RobertsYeah, super easy to get it greenlit.David PomeranzSuper easy. And it's a money making machine for them. The regional transmission assets, first of all, as with anything, they'll fight the opportunity for anybody to own those assets but them. So they will fight against any kind of merchant development of transmission, which takes a big piece of the market out that could make things cheaper for everybody. And, yeah, they'll fight against transmission lines that weaken their assets. So a good example of how this stuff all interacts is, there was a proposed transmission line to bring clean hydropower from Quebec into New England, and it was fought by local activists.But also NextEra Energy paid $20 million to bankroll, very quietly, some of those protests, and to campaign against the transmission line because they own gas plants and a nuclear plant in the region, and so that imported hydro would have undercut the profitability of those assets. There's another case, that we documented on our website, about how Entergy, utility company that operates in Louisiana and in the south, they actually hired sort of an undercover operative, like a consultant that didn't disclose they were working for Entergy, to go to some of the meetings of MISO, the Mid Continent Independent System Operator, and basically kind of try to gunk up the works, and slow down development of transmission lines that would bring lower cost wind energy into Entergy's service territory. So they fight that too. They fight distributed resources, they fight competitive regional transmission.David RobertsAnd they fight the creation of new competitive electricity markets too.David PomeranzYes, for sure. So, we have competitive wholesale electricity markets in many parts of the country. The ones we have could use some reforms to make them work better for customers. Utilities certainly will fight those. But there are also places where we don't have any, and the biggest one is the southeast. And the utilities there, companies like Duke Energy, Dominion Energy, Southern Company, they are very aggressively using their political power, including paying groups with names like Power for Tomorrow, that pay former regulators to do some of this stuff, to argue against bringing an RTO to the southeast, which many legislators in some of those states have expressed an interest in, for both parties because they want to see cheaper electricity.Large customers want to see it, because many of them want to have better access to clean energy, and a regional transmission operator would help with that. And the utilities are fighting that too. So it's really kind of up and down the system. A lot of solutions to decarbonization. Building electrification when it comes to gas utilities, certainly rooftop solar and energy efficiency, and in some cases shuttering fossil fuel assets, regional transmission... All of those are things we need, and all of those are things that in various parts of the country, one of the biggest reasons we're not getting those things fast enough, is because utilities are blocking them.David RobertsThis is one of this genre of podcast I think of as the "you should be madder pod", and people really should be madder about this. So it's kind of wild. So, anything that sort of like, brings cheaper power, and decarbonization, and customer empowerment, like all these things that are good socially, and environmentally, and economically, and politically, name it. Everybody wants all these things, except for the companies that control electricity which are out fighting them, which is just really wild. You know, like any widget maker is gonna go politically lobby against a ban on widgets, you know what I mean?Companies have, in our collective wisdom, we have decided that corporations are people, and have the right of free speech, and have the right to defend their interests, and whatever the propriety of that, it's a real thing. But, cannot make the point enough that utilities are not just another company, they're not just another private enterprise. So, give us that context too as well. Why? It's like, it's bad enough that the companies that control electricity are out comprehensively opposing better, cleaner, cheaper electricity. But these are not just normal companies, like, these are monopolies.David PomeranzYeah, they're basically state granted monopolies and that is a really important distinction. That's kind of everything. So, if you don't like the political position of some company that you buy some consumer product from, if you don't like the political position of a fast food company, you can buy your hamburgers from some other fast food company.David RobertsSo you don't like the behavior of a certain Tesla executive.David PomeranzPrecisely. You can buy an EV from some other car company. It's getting easier than ever. But if you don't like the political positions of your utility, first of all, you have no recourse. You have to buy electricity. In some cases you have to buy gas, for the time being at least. First of all, it's interesting you mentioned how in our collective wisdom, or at least the collective wisdom of the Supreme Court, we've basically created kind of, like, an anything goes campaign finance environment. And that's meant to, if you believe it, if you give credence to the logic behind those court decisions, like Citizens United, it's meant to protect the free speech rights of corporations. I disagree entirely with the construct, but that's the construct.What about the free speech rights of utility customers? Right? Like, if my utility is taking my money and spending it to sue the EPA, so that they can poison my air and water with impunity, that's political speech, you know? And I'm basically being conscripted unwillingly into an army of small dollar donors by my utility to fund that political speech. So there's case law about this. I'm not an attorney, but my First Amendment rights are being violated basically by compelling my speech. So that's one whole set of problems.David RobertsLet's just emphasize this real quick, because I don't know that we ever stated it clearly. But it is important for people to know that it'snnot just that your utility is out lobbying against your interests. And it's not just that you are a captive customer of that company and cannot get away from it, even if you disagree with its positions. It is also the case that the money you are being forced to give the company is being used for that lobbying. So you're not just an irritated bystander, you're literally paying for the companies to do this through bills that you have no choice but to pay. Which just seems like as straightforwardly.I mean, it's a little wild to me that there hasn't been lawsuits about this. It's a little crazy that we allow utilities to do this in the first place. I don't know what the positive argument is for allowing utilities to conscript their customers into being dirty energy lobbyists. Are there not lawsuits?David PomeranzThere have been some challenges and we're starting to see more of them. I think, like a lot of issues, this one kind of only rears its head and becomes salient when a lot of people start to talk about it. Utility political influence and regulatory capture kind of thrives in the shadows, and that's sort of the default resting state almost, like, if people don't talk about it, it just kind of grows and grows like fungus in the dark.David RobertsWell, it's kind of true of electricity generally, it's true of your utilities generally. You don't have to pay attention to that stuff.David PomeranzInterestingly, and this is a parallel to something you just talked about with Sage Welch on your show about gas stoves, there was more attention to some of these issues, like in the early 80s when there was a lot of skepticism and sort of public outrage about utilities for a lot of reasons. Electricity was expensive, it's coming off the back of Three Mile Island, and for a brief period, electric utilities were sort of treated more skeptically in terms of their political operations. And so, that's happened at other times in our history too, actually right after the stock market crash and the great depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s, which utilities had a big role in.There, at that time, was a massive degree of concern about the political power of investor owned utilities. A lot of that manifested at the time in this very big struggle between a much larger question of how we would serve electricity in the country, would it be investor owned utilities or public power, which you had FDR sort of pushing for public power, so they're... Detour. But a long way of saying, there have been periods in our history where people do pay attention to utilities political power, and there is a lot of outrage over it, and there tends to be legal action and legislation proposed and sometimes passed and regulation. But outside of those moments, it all kind of thrives in a lack of attention.My hope is that we are entering one of those cycles now, for a bunch of reasons.David RobertsYou would think, right? Because decarbon it is, like, existential threat, blah, blah, blah. Decarbon by 2050, blah, blah, blah. Like, this is here now. And imperative.David PomeranzYeah, now is the time for it. And one other thing I would just say quickly about that is, even if your utility is doing some good things, even if your electric utility has gotten the memo that it needs to decarbonize, maybe it's still fighting rooftop solar on the side, but at least it's switching from, you know, it's retiring its coal plants rapidly and switching to renewables, which some are. This corruption and political spending that they do, particularly what they're doing with ratepayer money, and what they're doing, that often breaks the law, that's really bad when it happens by the sort of, quote unquote, "better utilities" also, right? Because you have a bunch of opponents that clean energy transition, like fossil fuel companies and hardcore conservatives, who don't believe in climate change, et cetera, say they don't, they are all looking for a reason, in very bad faith, to criticize the whole thing. So if you have a utility who is investing in a lot of wind, but they're doing it via political corruption, that also presents a huge backlash risk. So it's kind of bad in all its forms and, as you said, the worst part is that we're being made to fund it.David RobertsYeah, I know. I think you could just say, and I think maybe you'd probably agree with this, it's just, it's ludicrous on its face, that publicly granted monopolies, who are providing an essential service that people cannot go without, are allowed to politically lobby at all. It's so familiar. I think we don't think about it, but it's just ludicrous that it's allowed at all. It ought to just be unthinkable. These should be technocratic nerds who follow instructions.David PomeranzJust as one small example of this, to put a fine point on it, you have all these, like, sports stadiums and concert venues around the country that are named like FirstEnergy Stadium or the Dominion Performing Arts Center. And once you see this stuff, I mean, once you sort of see the elements of the utilities political machine, once you know to look for it, you see it everywhere. It's like they're sponsoring every nonprofit, they're naming every venue after themselves. And part of what I think is so funny about that is like, why does a monopoly actually need to advertise?David RobertsExactly.David PomeranzThey're not competing for sales.David RobertsExactly. They are not going to lose costumers, by definition.David PomeranzRight. What does name recognition do for them? You can't leave them.David RobertsExactly. Why do they need to have PR departments at all? Customer service departments, yes. PR? Why, it is crazy.David PomeranzIt absolutely is. And that's a great juxtaposition because most of them have pretty poor customer service and massive PR departments. And that's where it can be hard to quantify and measure the full breadth of their political machine, but that is something we try to do at the Energy and Policy Institute. And when you look at it, they are among the biggest spenders in their states on everything, right? They're always among the top campaign contributors. They're among the top lobbying spenders. Their trade associations are among the best funded and wealthiest in Washington, DC where they do all their lobbying.And it comes back to that ratepayer question, right? In a perfect world, I think everyone would agree intuitively with what you just said, David. Like, why should they be allowed to practice almost any kind of politics at all, right? They're given this incredible privilege of getting a guaranteed profit margin and a monopoly. They should be essentially beholden to the will of our democratically elected officials. Not trying to shape it. But at a minimum, at a bare minimum, what we should do is make sure we get into some controls, to make sure that they're not allowed to supercharge and turbocharge that political machine using their customers money, right?That they're not allowed to hack off a few dollars out of your monthly bill every month and use it to pay for their public relations consultants, et cetera. And that is a relatively simple problem to solve with reforms. So that's what we're trying to lay out, how that can be done, in this new report that we wrote.David RobertsBefore we get to those specific reforms, and kind of the specific channels of utility influence, and how they might or might not be blocked with reforms, let's just take a brief detour for some storytelling. Because I think when people hear the lobbying is technically legal, as absurd as it is for it to be legal, but people should not take from that the impression that utilities are lobbying within legal bounds here. The fact that they are allowed to do this, allowed to use customer money to do it, is practically an open invitation to corruption and how they have answered the invitation.So let's talk about a few of the kind of higher profile examples that have come up in recent years. Because I think people, again, unless you really hear it put out plainly, it really boggles the mind, it beggars the imagination. Like, what they're doing is worse than anyone thinks. So, let's start with Ohio. I wrote a whole long thing about this and it was, what a rabbit hole! Like, every twist and turn you go, it's just nastier and nastier. But tell us what went down in Ohio.David PomeranzFor sure. This is a great time to talk about it. So, last week a criminal trial started for the former speaker of the House of Ohio, guy named Larry Householder. He is being charged with accepting bribes and being part of a racketeering scheme. Here's what happened. So, there's a large electric utility company based in Ohio called FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy for years had been trying to collect bailouts for some nuclear plants, and also for some of its coal plants that were struggling to make any money. They had tried with the Trump administration, they had tried with previous Ohio state governments, but they kept coming up empty and they found their guy in Larry Householder.So, what Larry Householder is accused of, and what I should note, this is very important since they're technically allegations for Householder until he's proven guilty, if he is. But for FirstEnergy, that's not the case. They admitted to everything I'm about to say in what's called a deferred prosecution agreement with the federal government, to avoid going on trial. So they paid $230 million and admitted guilt to all the following. They routed $60 million through different dark money organizations. So technically, these are 501c4 nonprofit groups, that do not have to disclose their donors, and FirstEnergy did not have to disclose giving them money.So it's kind of untraceable money that was then passed to Larry Householder. He used some of that just for his own personal use, which is what is at the center of some of the bribery charges. So, he like, used it to pay down a home of his, and he used it to pay for his defense in a lawsuit. But most of the money went to his political machine. So in 2018, most of that money went to elect a slate of republicans in Republican primaries that year in Ohio, that had sort of pledged their loyalty to Householder. They were actually in all these text messages that have come out through the legal process.They're referred to as the "team Householder" candidates. And through the political power that Householder gained through the election of a lot of those folks, he was able to win kind of an internal Republican struggle to become the speaker of the House. And in exchange, his payback to FirstEnergy was to pass a law called House Bill 6, which passed, it was signed by Ohio governor Mike DeWine. It offered over a billion dollars in subsidies to FirstEnergy's coal plants and nuclear plants. Did some other things that don't get as much attention, but are pretty important. Kind of did this fake decoupling scheme where, some of your listeners probably know, but decoupling is a policy where if a utility adopts energy efficiency measures, so its customers use electricity, they can be made whole from that. This was like one reporter in Ohio, Kathiann Kowalski, described it as a spoonful of sugar without the medicine. So basically it was like, if Ohioans use electricity, absent the energy efficiency investments, FirstEnergy would still get all that money back. And that's ended up being what happened through the COVID pandemic.So it was billions of dollars in handouts and bailouts to FirstEnergy. That's not even all of it. They also have, and FirstEnergy has admitted to this, they also paid over the last ten years, over $20 million to a guy named Sam Randazzo. $4 million of that came a couple of years ago, just before he was appointed as FirstEnergy's top regulator on the Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. And they have basically conceded, FirstEnergy has conceded that that last $4 million payment at least, was to influence his behavior as their regulator. And he was a big driving force behind passing HB 6.David RobertsThat's not a small amount of money for a dude, for an individual dude. These are not small bribes.David PomeranzNo, they're lots of money. And in this case, we don't always know, as this money sort of works its way through the utility accounting machine, like, where it originally came from. In this case, we know, thanks to some audits and some good investigative reporting by folks in various states and some people on my team, that this was ratepayer money, at least some of it was, went into this bribery scheme. And amazingly, not even just from Ohio ratepayers. So, at this point, it seems certain that FirstEnergy also took money from ratepayers of its subsidiaries in Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and West Virginia, and Maryland. And all of that money kind of got hoovered into this machine and ultimately came out the other side, went to these politicians in exchange for these laws.David RobertsAmazing. If there's one thing that could be more irritating than your ratepayer money being forced to lobby your state politicians, its having your ratepayer money be used..David PomeranzSome other state politician.David RobertsFor corruption in some other state. You don't even get the benefits of the corruption. I think a lot of listeners probably were aware of this, or followed this, or read my piece about it a few years ago, or a million other pieces. It was really just to sort of put a pin in it. This is not one of these things where lines were pushed or like, it's impropriety. This is very straightforward bribery and corruption. It's almost like charmingly old school in a way like this. Like, checks being handed over.David PomeranzSometimes there are gray areas and blurry lines, but not on this one. And another day that, David Anderson is one of my colleagues who's kind of led our investigative work on FirstEnergy. He said something the other day that it's wrong for utilities to spend their ratepayer money on lobbying and politics. They're not supposed to do that. They're supposed to spend shareholder money on that, which we can talk more about, but they're not supposed to spend anyone's money on bribes. Like, that's just straight up illegal. And that's what happened with FirstEnergy in Ohio.David RobertsYeah, there are a bunch of examples in your report, and we could go through this all day, but I don't want to waste too much time. But just one other one, which I thought was also telling, is in Florida, which also involved a lot of very sort of straightforward interventions in the political system to get friendly Republicans elected.David PomeranzSo in Florida case, we're talking about a utility called Florida Power and Light. Also in the news lately because their CEO is a guy named Eric Silagy, who just unexpectedly announced his early retirement.David RobertsIt's probably fine. Probably nothing going on there.David PomeranzYeah, nothing to do with anything I'm about to say. So, unlike FirstEnergy, Florida Power & Light disputes a lot of this. But it's been reported out, and it's pretty airtight, and they've kind of been dishonest throughout the process, so I take pretty much anything they say with it the biggest grain of salt you can find. What FPL is accused of having done is, they were paying some, again, their political consultants, and these consultants then routed money. Again, you see a common theme here to these dark money 501c4 groups that they basically created for these purposes.And then, what those groups did was bankroll unaffiliated independent candidates for state legislative elections, who were designed to siphon votes away from candidates disfavored by the utility. In every case happen to be Democrats, not surprisingly.David RobertsSpoiler candidates.David PomeranzSpoiler candidates. And in Florida, this has been referred to as the "ghost candidate" scandal because these people, it's not like, oh, we're going to fund a green party candidate because we think that'll take votes away from a Democrat. But it's like, a real person who really wants to hold the office and for better or worse, is running. These are people who didn't do any kind of campaigning.They were candidates only on paper. In at least one case, the main attribute of the candidate was that they had the same last name as the democrat, which is useful if you're trying to knife and go to them. And it's pretty clear why they were doing this. That CEO who's resigning that I just mentioned, Eric Silagi, he said in an email to two other FPL executives, writing about one of the targets of this "ghost candidate scandal", a guy named Jose Javier Rodriguez, a democratic senator in Florida. He said, "I want you to make his life a living hell" to two other FPL executives. And it worked. That senator went on to lose reelection by 34 votes. So, in these state races that can have really close margins, this utility money has an effect, and that's just kind of the tip of the iceberg. FPL also, the same network of consultants and dark money groups and shady characters, they paid to have private investigators follow a newspaper columnist that had been critical of the utility. They paid for a network of these kind of fake news sites designed to spread utility propaganda.David RobertsMy goodness.David PomeranzThey were trying to buy out a municipal utility in Jacksonville. And allegedly, these consultants paid by FBL created a nonprofit to advocate for marijuana legalization, and then offered one of the city councilors who was most opposed to this FPL buyout, they offered him, like, a very high paid job with the fake nonprofit they just created. So it's really like a whole massive political machine.David RobertsPretty f*****g devious though.David PomeranzIt's diabolical, man.David RobertsI guess if you're just getting millions of dollars to sit around in a room and think of fuckery.David PomeranzAnd that's literally what they do. I mean, in that sense, like other companies, this gets back to the monopoly business model issue. Like, other companies, their incentives as a business are to like, keep costs low, make better stuff, keep customers happy, grow revenues, whatever. All of the utilities profit is determined by the regulatory system, like by their public utility commissions, or appointed by governors and nominated by legislators, et cetera. So, their biggest incentive is to game all that. So that becomes the focus of the company. I mean, anything they can do. And, I think some leaders of some of these companies have maybe better ethical systems than others.But the incentive structure is for them to do anything possible, short of getting caught by law enforcement officials, to game the system in their favor. And so, we don't need to go through all the examples, it could be hours. But it's not just red states. It's not just Florida and Ohio. ComEd in Illinois, they got busted by the department of justice and paid a 200 million dollar fine for a patronage scheme with the speaker of that House. This has happened really all over the country, and I think people hear the first energy story in Ohio and think, "oh my God. Well that's got to be the bad apple". And I'm not sure that's true. I think they're the ones who were the most egregious and got caught the worst, but if it's a difference, it's maybe a difference of degree, but not of type. Most utilities are engaged in some version of this behavior.David RobertsJust to reiterate again, this behavior is not just lobbying. There's weird trade groups, there's dark money groups, there's weird public relations campaigns that are not traceable back to the utilities, there's advertising. It's really a full spectrum of fuckery going on. All of which seem sort of inevitable, based on the structural incentives. I'm sure these are a lot of scummy people involved, but if you set things up this way and make it legal for them to do this, of course they're going to do this. So one other question before we get to solutions is just insofar as these things get caught, are the punishments or the threat of punishment enough to deter future examples of this?Does anyone get strung up as an example or how far behind are lawmakers on this?David PomeranzVery far behind. Unfortunately. This is actually one of the main solution sets, is around deterrence and enforcement. But that's really a missing piece of the puzzle. And I'll give you an example of how broken this is in Ohio. Let's look at what's happened to FirstEnergy. Now, the biggest penalty they've probably actually had to pay is with investor sentiment, right? Like shareholders in the company are a little bit skittish and certainly their stock dropped after the scandal, after this CEO of Florida Power and Light just announced his unexpected retirement. Next area of the parent company, their stock dropped by about 8% that day.They may recover some of that or all of it, but they do have some price to pay on Wall Street because investors I think the sort of unspoken secret among utility investors is they see regulatory capture and utility political power as a good thing right up until the point they get caught. For them, it's like, yeah, of course we want you to control the political environment. We want you to have the Euphemism is like, good relationships with your regulators. But they don't I think they kind of are happy to hear encino evil in terms of how that happens, but they certainly don't like when it leads to, like, FBI raids and Department of justice investigations.So there is a price they have to pay there, but the bigger price ought to come from the political system, and that has not happened. So just taking a look at FirstEnergy a rational response to what they did in Ohio, which was essentially a full scale takeover, a full scale purchase, essentially, of the legislature that's supposed to be democratically elected. I think a rational proportional response to that would have been at least exploring the idea that First Energy should should lose its charter to operate, like should lose its monopoly, find another utility that can provide those services to Ohioans. Because I would argue First Energy has lost the right to be considered for that.That would, to me be a rational response.David RobertsIt's hard to think of what would justify that if not this.David PomeranzI agree.David RobertsWhat would be worse? I mean, totally.David PomeranzAnd no one with power has proposed that. I mean, people like me talk about it all the time, but no one in power to do it in Ohio has proposed that. Instead, what we've seen is really a complete abdication. First of all, they haven't even fully addressed the law that was passed via these corrupt means. So the nuclear subsidies were rolled back from HP 6, but not the coal subsidies. Those are still rolling. That law I didn't even mention it before, but that law also stripped the very meager sort of renewable incentives or renewable performance standards in Ohio.David RobertsI remember.That hasn't been returned. So they didn't even address kind of the law that was bought with it. But in terms of consequences, there's been almost nothing. The Public Utility Commission of Ohio, they say that they have some ongoing audits and investigations of FirstEnergy, those are on hold until the criminal investigations are over. We'll see what comes of that, if anything. Interestingly, they did have to pay this $230 million payment to the Department of Justice to avoid prosecution. But we should just put that in perspective. The company made $11 billion in revenue in 2021. $230 million is significant, but it's less than the ill gotten gains they got from HP 6. I mean, that was billions in subsidies.Way less.David PomeranzJust as one indicator of how broken our enforcement machine is on this stuff. Interestingly, before the HP 6 news exploded, like, before there were indictments and criminal charges, FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, they had just started an audit of FirstEnergy's Accounting practices. And not surprisingly, in that audit, FirstEnergy did not disclose to FERC the portions of the Excel spreadsheet that showed the bribe payments. They sort of left that out. So just a few weeks ago, actually, FERC announced that it was finding FirstEnergy for violating its duty of candor obligation with the commission, because when you're audited, you're supposed to provide all those documents.They didn't tell auditors about $90 million in lobbying expenses, 70 million of which were dark money payments involved in that bribery scheme. For that violation, they fined FirstEnergy $3.9 million.David RobertsOh my God.David PomeranzAnd they said, well, this is kind of a fair and equitable fine based on our practices, but that's $4 million.David RobertsHouseholder got more than that. Personally, bribes, never mind the rest of it.David PomeranzIt's a $4 million penalty for lying, about $90 million, much of it spent on a corruption scheme that netted billions for the company. So to call it a slap on the wrist is kind of an insult to slap on the wrist. And the way regulators treat this right now, it's interesting. Public Utility Commissions and FERC actually have a lot of statutory power to fine utilities. That is like a key component of what it means to be a utility regulator is that, if you want to, you can penalize them. FERC has authority to find violations that utilities commit in its jurisdiction up to a million dollars a day for every day that they're in violation.But they almost never use this authority. I mean, occasionally FERC will use it in cases of really, really egregious market manipulation. But on this stuff, I'm like lying or sort of quote unquote, "mistakenly charging customers for political expenses", that's almost never fined very, very rare cases, and the fines are very small. And when they do catch it, what they say is like, okay, well, you got to refund the money to Raypayers. But that's sort of like telling somebody who robbed a bank if a cop caught a bank robber mid act and said, "Oh, you know what? Just put the money back in the vault and we'll call it a day". That's basically the way regulators treat this kind of misbehavior. So there's almost no deterrent.David RobertsWhich is to say, even from the perspective of today, what FirstEnergy did was perfectly rational and business positive. And if I were a FirstEnergy investor, I'd be like, "Nice work, do it again". There's no reason not to do it again. They get so much more out of this than anyone penalizes them for, even if they are caught. So in terms of maximizing shareholder returns, it just seems like perfectly rational behavior on their part.David PomeranzAnd they're the ones who got caught, which is the minority, I think. Obviously, we don't know what we don't know.David RobertsRight.David PomeranzBut FirstEnergy, at least had to suffer some consequences. Like they've gone through two CEO, they fired the CEO who was responsible for much of this, and the next CEO didn't hold his job terribly long, they've had some board turnover.David RobertsI'm sure those guys are suffering, David. I'm sure they're on the soup line now, regretting their choices.David PomeranzThat's a great point. But to the extent they've had any consequences at all, it's only because they got caught and other utilities are not, or they're caught doing things that are deemed to be just on the right side of legal. So, as an example, Michigan Utilities, not caught in as much attention because there haven't been criminal charges, but they've spent tens of millions of dollars on dark money operations to control the political environment in their state and even in others. I mean, DTE Energy is a Detroit based energy company. They own some biomass plants in California as part of their unregulated part of their company.And they routed money through a dark money group, which ultimately ended at a national laboratory, which put out a report talking about how those biomass plants would be great candidates for carbon capture and sequestration, which is what DTE is trying to do. So none of that has been prosecuted. None of it's been caught. We've tried to expose some of it. Sammy Roth at the L.A. times wrote a great story about that scheme. And and I should say, by the way, just quickly, as an aside, there are reporters around the country who are working tirelessly to expose this kind of corruption.Too many for me to name individually, but they're really doing an incredible service to not just energy customers, but to democratic institutions that these utilities are undermining. But your central premise is, right, just a newspaper article or two. And even when there have been criminal prosecutions, the consequences are too low to deter utilities from doing this. And part of the reason we know that's true is because they keep doing it.David RobertsYeah, proofs in the pudding. So with our time remaining, then having griped about this, which is deeply gratifying to me, as you know, griping about this for many years now, let's talk about what can be done. Obviously, in a sane world, in a country with an operational federal apparatus, which you'd like to see is Congress to act, right? I mean, Congress could just write a law saying utilities can't do this anymore, period, full stop. And that would be nice. As we know, Congress doesn't work, et cetera, et cetera. Half of them are bought by utilities filibuster, on and on, usual.So we're left basically looking to either federal agencies, that Biden can control, or state governments. So what can those entities do that would have some actual bite and then some effect?David PomeranzYeah. A lot, thankfully. So that's what our new report is about. And usually the stuff that we do at EPI is just kind of like, try to expose and document all these problems. But we've been spending so long doing that, and it does seem like people care that we wanted to at least take a stab at saying, here's what we can do about it. And there's basically three things. One is having utility regulators. So this is mostly Public Utility Commissions simply pass rules and clarify the existing rules to close all these loopholes and just make clear that utilities cannot spend their ratepayer money on any kind of political influence activity and then define that activity really clearly.By the way, if you ask utilities right now, they would say, "Well, we don't spend any ratepayer money on politics. We certainly don't spend any ratepayer money on lobbying." But that's just sort of fun with words, like, the way they define lobbying as the narrowest possible definition. And even then they're not actually following those rules, which we can get to how you prevent that problem. But the first thing is to make those rules airtight. So define, Public Utility Commissions can define all of these different kinds of politics lobbying, PR machines, advertising, political advertising, regulatory lobbying, where you're going to regulators and asking for stuff, all of it, and say you cannot use customer money for that.If you want to do it, you can do it out of your own profits.David RobertsTwo things. One is, so any PUC can just do this now. PUC has the regulatory authority to just do this. Now, my only question is how easy is it to distinguish utility ratepayer funds from utility, I don't know, like investor...David PomeranzProfits? Yeah.David RobertsProfits. I'm sure there are all sorts of ways of muddling those.David PomeranzThere are. And that's what happened in the FirstEnergy case. I won't bore you all with it. But the answer, is it's hard to distinguish. And so that's what gets into the second leg of this tool.David RobertsI mean, why not just say don't do it at all with anybody's money?David PomeranzThat would be the perfect world. So that is something that a public utility commission couldn't do by itself, but a state legislature could. And we've seen some efforts at this. I think it's politically a bigger lift, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. There's nothing stopping a state legislature from trying to say "Utilities are different from other kinds of companies, and we think they shouldn't spend any money on politics". And clearly define what that means. Usually in the wake of big scandals, there have been some legislators, state legislators, who have proposed bills like that, like after utilities in South Carolina tried to spend billions of dollars on a nuclear plant and just built the world's most expensive piece of pipe art.There were some legislators who proposed bills like that. I would love to see more of it. I think those kinds of bills will run into challenges in the courts, given our current campaign finance rules, but they're worth trying. And I'm not a constitutional law scholar by any means but there is reason to believe that, I think there is legal justification to treat utilities different than other companies when it comes to campaign finance.David RobertsI mean it's an interesting legal question because utilities sit in this really weird ontological space like they're companies. They're kind of private companies, kind of not, kind of public, kind of not. Has it been hashed through the courts whether they have all the same rights of expression as truly private companies?David PomeranzI don't think it has. I'm going to get out over my skis pretty quickly talking about legal stuff. But one thing I will say, interestingly, just as a note, that maybe will pique folks interests, in the Citizens United case, the liberal justices in their minority opinion argued that the framers did not think corporations should have kind of unfettered speech, and they're different from human beings free speech rights. And of all people, Justice Scalia's rebuttal to that. He actually said well when the framers said that kind of stuff they were talking about state chartered monopoly corporations and that might be true for them, because, at the time, we had, that was common then, corporate structures were very different 300 years ago.So comments like that do sort of open the door of this tantalizing question like, should there be legal efforts to try to treat monopoly utilities as fundamentally different? Like you said they operate in this different space., they're not like other private free market companies. Should they be treated differently from a campaign finance perspective? And I think if there are constitutional lawyers who are listening to Volts I hope they will explore that question because it's ripe for that.David RobertsBut don't you just think like whatever the legal merits, our Supreme Court will end up getting it and doing whatever is corporate friendliest regardless of the legal merits? I mean, law feels so futile these days.David PomeranzYeah, well I'm certainly not optimistic.David RobertsBut PUCs are squarely within their rights to say "Don't use ratepayer money".David PomeranzYes, absolutely. So that's sort of why we start there, it's just because it requires no systemic changes, no constitutional challenges, it's really simple for PUCs to say "No ratepayer money on politics".David RobertsAnd that is because, by law, utilities are supposed to spend money in whatever the most just and reasonable.David PomeranzReasonable. Exactly.David RobertsAnd so this would be under that provision basically saying it is not fair and reasonable to spend money this way.David PomeranzThat's exactly right. And then the challenge becomes, as you said, okay well, we can say that but how can we tell which money is very fungible? How can we tell which pot of money this political activity is being funded by? And so that requires basic transparency and disclosure reforms. So, right now, if you want to know whether a utility spend ratepayer or shareholder money on a given activity, the process basically is to wait for the utility to go in for a rate increase, and then there's a sort of quasi judicial rate case. And if you have money and can hire a lawyer, you can intervene and get status to be an intervener in that rate case, and then you can ask discovery questions with the utility and try to find out how that activity was funded. Now, to be clear, like groups do this. Earthjustice, they do an incredible job of that around the country. Sierra Club does that. Consumer advocates in every state try to do that. They're trying to protect consumers from that, but they're totally outgunned. And some utility companies don't have rate cases for five years or longer. Alabama Power in Alabama, they haven't had a legally contested sort of open rate case with public intervention since 1982. So who knows what they're spending money on.So what we need is basically, the solution to this is having annual line item granular disclosures that utilities are made to file with the PUC in all of these areas. So anything that is vaguely political, or even adjacent to political, PUCs should be requiring them to basically submit a spreadsheet every year that says what they spent, where the money came from. And then you can kind of check. So that the first step is to make sure the rules are strong. The second step is to have these disclosures, so that you can verify that companies are following the rules.And the third step is enforcement. So this is what we talked about before, so I won't dwell on it. But if you make the rules strong, so the utilities know them and they can't say that they screwed up by accident, and then you have the disclosures, so that members of the public or regulators can catch if they screwed up, and they did screw up, or they did break the law and they charged ratepayers for some political activity, then there have to be consequences. Otherwise there's no deterrent. And those consequences should be severe. So we're arguing, like, if a utility takes a million dollars of ratepayer money and spends it on, you know, what political trade association or some kind of politics that they're not supposed to, they should have to return that money, and then be fined, like, at least that million dollars and probably a lot more to make the deterrent adequate. So those are kind of the three steps. We've got better rules, better disclosure, better enforcement.David RobertsRight? And is enforcement, at least what's available today that we know works, is that mostly just financial? Is that mostly just fines? Are there other potential consequences? Because for a company like FirstEnergy that's doing billions of dollars of business and lobbying on behalf of billion dollar nuclear plants, there's just unfathomably large amounts of money being deployed here. And I'm just trying to imagine the size of fine that would compete with those amounts of money for their interest in there. You know what I mean? Can fines even get big enough?David PomeranzIt's a really good point. Well, I think one answer is let's try some really big fines and see how they work.David RobertsLet's give it a world.David PomeranzLet's give it a college try. But I do agree with your premise there that some corruption, some kinds of behavior, are so bad enough that it is hard to imagine a dollar figure that could adequately deter, especially when they're all counting on not getting caught. And so, in that case, I do think this probably would be something that a legislature would need to do and would be difficult for a PUC to do unilaterally. But I do think in cases like FirstEnergy, public officials in Ohio ought to consider whether the company should be allowed to continue to operate in its current form there. So that can all be part of enforcement as well.David RobertsWhat about a legislature saying "This balance of public and private that we tried in investor owned utilities clearly isn't working, so we're just going to make you public, make you into a public utility". Has anyone tossed that out there? Is that even on the table?David PomeranzI think so. People are talking about that. I mean, there are movements of people where I live, for instance, in California, who's basically suggested it's a little bit different than these political issues, but they've basically said that PG&E's criminality with regard to starting these devastating fires has been so bad that the only solution really is to have them be converted into a public power entity. There have been similar efforts like that in different pockets of the country. There's one ongoing right now in Maine, and a lot of that I think is inspired by this problem. If you talk to advocates of public power, they will say that we just can't trust these investor owned utilities to not run these political machines that threaten the integrity of our state government. And I'm very sympathetic to those views. I'm not sure if that solution will work at scale everywhere. And it's also worth noting, like public power entities aren't perfect, they also require good governance and good accountability. All you have to do is look at TVA.David RobertsI was going to say, and they don't necessarily perform better. I always sort of caution people about that. Like, the issues that dictate good or bad performance don't necessarily line up with public and private. But it does seem like, at the very least, if it was a public utility, it would have less structural incentive to cheat and lie. Do you know what I mean?David PomeranzI think that's true. I agree with that. And so I think that option should be on the table in places where that makes sense. I'm all for people pushing for it. It's a much bigger lift, obviously.David RobertsYes, all of this is pretty tough.David PomeranzIt is. Although, just to back up to some of these changes that would be easier for a single public utility commission to do, or a single state legislature. The kind of stuff that we're outlining in this report, I don't think it would solve every single problem when it comes to utility political machines. But something is better than nothing. The status quo is pretty bad. So let's start trying things. And these are all doable within the current system. Some of them are being explored now. So just as some bright spots, some examples. The New York state legislature recently passed a law that banned utilities from charging ratepayers for any trade associations that lobby.I think that's progress. FERC has an open proceeding. So, inspired by a great legal challenge from the Center for Biological Diversity. So yes, who's doing lawsuits? Who's doing legal challenges on this stuff? Center for Biological Diversity has an energy justice program with great lawyers that are doing some of this. So they petitioned FERC to take a look at some of this, and FERC opened an inquiry, they got lots of comments. Everybody other than the utility said, "Yeah, we need some accounting changes and some new rules and some better transparency to prevent utilities from charging customers for trade associations, for politics, for their politically motivated charitable giving, for all that stuff".Interestingly, even people who I don't agree with about anything agree on this. Like oil companies actually as electricity customers, weighed into the FERC docket and said, we would prefer not to pay for their lobbying. Also that happened, and FERC can act at any time. So you mentioned through federal agencies, FERC is meant to be independent, for commissioners are appointed by the President, but they don't act in his direction. But FERC can do this anytime they want. They've had this notice of inquiry proceeding. It's been responded to by all parties. They could draft a rulemaking that makes it harder for utilities to supercharge your political machine on rates.And there are some individual public utility commissions who have disallowed some things, who have done some aggressive disclosures. So we point out those examples in the report. People should check them out just to show like this is possible. And our hope is that more PUCs and legislators start proposing these things and we'll see what comes of it.David RobertsIf you're just a listener out there and you didn't realize how bad this is and are now mad per the you should be mad or about this episode, they just listen to what can people do? Is there a particular organization that's working on this? Or is it just a matter of contacting your own state's PUC or writing your legislature? Is there a place to sort of centralize this work that people can go just support?David PomeranzGood question. Well, they can learn more about it at our website. So that's energyandpolicy.org. We focus pretty heavily on this stuff. In terms of groups that are taking action, I'd recommend a couple Center for Biological Diversity, as I mentioned, they are doing some great legal work on this. There's a group called Solar United Neighbors who works with rooftop solar advocates and customers, but they have operations in a lot of different states, and they have a national advocacy program, and they are invested in creating some of these kinds of changes. And then if you're not sure, like, those groups have ways in for you where you live.The Sierra Club is involved in Public Utility Commission proceedings in most states, and they're very much invested in attacking utility political power. So that's another organization that folks can check out.David RobertsYeah. And worth saying again, as I've said so many times over the years, PUC meetings are pretty sleepy. You're not going to be standing in a long line to get in one of those. So a little bit of noise goes a long way. Especially relative to a lot of other places you could make noise, like, they don't get a lot of noise there, so they care.David PomeranzI couldn't agree more. These parts of state government that are responsible for regulating utilities, they're not very well known. And for people who want to become active, they can do a lot as a single person. I'll give a shout out to one activist in Arizona, a woman named Stacey Champion, who pretty much working independently, she's a very skilled person, but she didn't have lots of backers or anything really helped to bring Arizona Public Service, a utility that was behaving very badly in that state, to heal over the last years just by getting lots and lots of attention and doing great organizing work and campaigning.So it is a place where people can make a difference and everything's harder alone. So they just kind of need to find some people who are willing to work with them on it.David RobertsAwesome. Okay, well, thank you so much for coming on and walking through this. It's like with so many things like you, listeners, probably vaguely know that it's bad, but it's way worse than they thought. So, David Pomeranz, thank you for coming and sharing this with us.David PomeranzThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Will widespread electrification of the US personal-vehicle sector inevitably be accompanied by a huge rise in environmentally destructive lithium mining? Not necessarily, says a new report. In this episode, lead author Thea Riofrancos discusses options for reducing future lithium demand through density, infrastructure, and smart transportation choices.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsThe transportation sector is the leading carbon emitter in the US economy, and unlike some other sources, it is on the rise. Decarbonizing it is inevitably going to involve wholesale electrification of personal vehicles. We're going to need lots and lots of EVs. That’s going to mean more demand for minerals like lithium, which is mined in environmentally destructive ways and almost everywhere opposed by local and indigenous groups. But lithium can be mined in more or less harmful ways, depending on where and how it’s done and how well it’s governed. And the number of EVs needed in the future — and the consequent demand for lithium — is not fixed. The US transportation sector could decarbonize in more or less car-intensive ways. If US cities densified and built better public transportation and more walking and cycling infrastructure, fewer people would need cars and the cars could get by with smaller batteries. That would mean less demand for lithium, less mining, and less destruction.But how much less? That brings us to a new report: “Achieving Zero Emissions with More Mobility and Less Mining,” from the Climate and Community Project and UC Davis. It models the lithium intensity of several different pathways to decarbonization for the US personal-vehicle market to determine how much lithium demand could be reduced in different zero-carbon scenarios.It’s a novel line of research (hopefully a sign of more to come) and an important step toward deepening and complicating the discussion of US transportation decarbonization. I was thrilled to talk to its lead author, Thea Riofrancos, an Andrew Carnegie Fellow and associate professor of political science at Providence College, about the reality of lithium mining, the coming demand for more lithium, and the ways that demand can be reduced through smart transportation choices.Alright. Thea Riofrancos, welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Thea RiofrancosThanks for inviting me.David RobertsI've been meeting to get you on forever and waiting for the right occasion, and this is just a humdinger of an occasion here, this report. It's right at the nexus of, like, a lot of things I cover a lot, and a lot of things I feel like I should cover more, bringing them together. So before we jump into the details, I just want to take a step back and summarize the report, the framing of the report as I see it, because I've seen and heard some media coverage of the report, and I'm always just a little frustrated by how other journalists cover things.Thea RiofrancosUnderstandably.David RobertsIt's just this weird oblique... they don't take the time to sort of say, "what is the main thing?" Before getting on into weird little side questions. So I'll just say, as I understand it, the premise of the report here is we need to decarbonize transportation, yes. And electrifying vehicles is a huge and unavoidable part of that and extracting a lot of lithium is an unavoidable part of that. However, and here I will quote the report, "The volume of extraction is not a given. Neither is it a given where that extraction takes place, under what circumstances, the degree of the environmental and social impacts, or how mining is governed."So the idea here is: yes, we have to decarbonize, we have to electrify, we have to electrify transportation. We need electric vehicles, but there are better and worse ways of doing that, more and less just ways of doing that, more and less lithium-intensive ways of doing that, and we should do it the best way we can. Is that fair?Thea RiofrancosThat is fair. And you've also quoted one of actually my personal favorite lines of the report, because I agree with you that it really gets at the heart of what our goals are, the kind of questions that we're asking, and also this desire to align goals that might seem in tension with one another, right? Which is rapid decarbonization on the one hand, and on the other hand, protecting biodiversity, Indigenous' rights, respecting other land uses, and those can feel—and to an extent, materially are—in tension with one another in specific instances. But our goal was to say, "Is there a way to have it all from a climate justice perspective?"What's the win win? Or what's the way to get away from at least a sort of zero-sum framing?David RobertsRight. Or just a north star, a way to look, a goal to pursue rather than just sort of this binary notion of we're going to electrify transportation or not. There's just a ton of room within that to do it in different ways. So that's the main thing here. We're thinking about how to decarbonize transportation in the best possible way, where it's both rapid decarbonization and as just as possible and as light on the Earth as possible. So within that, you sort of take as your primary metric: lithium. You compare scenarios based on their lithium intensity. So maybe let's just start there and you can just explain to listeners why choose lithium as your sort of central metric?Thea RiofrancosGreat question. Because one could imagine this report being replicated across a whole host of transition minerals, and I actually hope that it is, right? I do see this as a kind of opening to a research agenda that we hope is malleable in other sectors as well. Why lithium? Maybe let's zoom out a little bit and just say how urgent it is to decarbonize the US Transportation sector, right? And so that's why transportation which we can talk about more later, of course.David RobertsYeah, I think in the latter half we're going to get into transportation and US Transportation all the stuff.Thea RiofrancosIt helps us sort of understand why the battery and the battery helps us understand why lithium. So I'll just treat it in that order briefly, which is transportation sector number one, and main steel sort of rising emissions sector in the US, right. In order to decarbonize that sector, there's lots of forms of transportation. We're focusing on ground transportation here. And the prevailing technology for decarbonizing ground transportation is the lithium ion battery. That may change in the future, and I'm happy to sort of entertain that. We can talk about it if we want. But right now, in terms of commercial viability, scale, and just the actual material production that's going on in the world, it's the lithium ion battery.When we sort of dig into those batteries, and I know you've covered batteries on prior shows, there's a whole set of different minerals and metals used in the cathodes, the anodes, the separators, et cetera. Lithium is central, though. Lithium is the kind of non-substitutable element in that recipe. You can go to different cathode chemistries that do or don't use nickel, that do or don't use cobalt, et cetera, right. The iron phosphate versus the NMC. And those have different benefits or drawbacks in terms of energy density, power density, et cetera. But lithium is in all of them right now.And so lithium felt like a good first cut, a good sort of catch-all. I'll also say that we expect that if we overall focus on reducing the raw material needs of the energy transition, those benefits carry on beyond lithium, right? A lot of our suggestions would also reduce mining of other materials, including those outside of the battery, right. Like copper, if we look at the broader car. So we chose lithium for those reasons. One other thing to sort of note is that lithium has also been a particular target of a range of public policy and corporate strategies over the past couple of years, right.I hate to kind of use imperialist language, but I'll just use it because it's how the media frames it. Right, there's like a scramble for lithium, a rush for lithium, a lithium boom. It's considered essential and strategic by public and private sectors in ways that are also making it sort of a laboratory of new corporate and public policies. And so that's another reason to focus on lithium.David RobertsYeah. Kind of an early indicator of how these institutions will approach decarbonization more broadly or materials more broadly.Thea RiofrancosAbsolutely. And playing into that and also kind of a result of that at the same time is like the crazy price volatility with lithium over the past few years. And maybe volatility is not the best way to put it, because it's been just consistently rising. Over the past decade it's been super volatile, big crashes, big booms, and busts. But in the past few years, we've just seen steady increases, getting to the point of historic highs last year. So lithium is now a huge factor in the price and affordability of batteries, which are in turn, the main and most expensive component of an EV. So from a totally different angle, we care about how much are batteries an EV is going to cost, and why? What is their cost structure? Lithium is like a good place to look as well.David RobertsLet's talk about lithium, then. Let's just start with... because it's funny, prior to EVs, the lithium market was looking from the perspective of what it's going to be in a fully electrified world, pretty sleepy, kind of backwater market. And it's one of many things in the energy transition world that is sort of quite suddenly being expected to 10x itself. So let's just start with the lithium market as it exists now. Where does it come from? You say there are four main countries where lithium is mined. We should say—most listeners probably get this—but we should just say lithium, the raw material is spread pretty evenly all over the world, but it's mined in very specific places.So talk about where those are.Thea RiofrancosYeah, with a lot of extractive industries, but really very much so with lithium, the map of deposits or of underlying existing lithium in the Earth's crusts or oceans is totally distinct from the map of production, right. The map of production is a really small subset, so that's important to keep in mind. But where it's currently mined is Australia, Chile, China and Argentina. Those are the top four. Those have been the top four. They've actually jockeyed and sort of changed positions at different moments over the past few years. But those have been the top four. They are the top four, and they will sort of be the top four for at least the next few years, right. Mines take a long time to build, which we can talk about if we want, so that's not going to instantly change. But I foresee that in the next decade thereabouts, we're going to have some different players on that top, and it'll be more like a top ten list rather than a top four list, right. But that's where it's mined now.And one other interesting thing about lithium—we don't have to get too nerdy about lithium per se—but it's a weird element because it's a very reactive metal. So you don't find it as a metal in nature. You find it in all these heterogenous compounds, right. So there's lithium-bearing clays, there's lithium in geothermal brines, there's lithium and non-geothermal brines, there's lithium in the spagamine, there's lithium and other types of hardrock deposits that haven't actually been mined so much yet, but will be on the horizon. There's really low concentrations of lithium in the ocean. I don't see that as per se the next frontier, but it's there. So there's lithium comes in all forms, really, and each of those has, like, different extractive techniques, different environmental impacts, x, y and z, but it's really variable.David RobertsOne of the things that follows from that, from it being reactive and thus not found in pure form, is that whatever it is you're digging or hauling up, you then have to do a lot of processing to it to get the lithium out, which is tends to be the gross part. So let's get nerdy a little bit. There are two main mining techniques you talk about in the report, hardrock and brine. Let's just briefly go through those. So, like, hardrock is in, as I understand it, Australia. Tell us what hardrock lithium mining looks like. Just like, what's the process?Thea RiofrancosThe nice thing about this form of mining from a listener's perspective is it's much more like every other form of mining that we're familiar with, right? So we're removing large quantities of hard rock. This is in Western Australia. That's where the lithium assets are there. And then there's a basic level of processing that happens in Australia which separates out what is considered waste rock, right, from where the lithium is in higher concentration. And then pretty immediately, the vast majority, like 95% of still relatively unprocessed lithium is then sent over to China for further processing and refining. And then that enters rather directly into, of course, their battery production.David RobertsAnd then there's the brine technique, which is grosser, I think, fair to say. Maybe just briefly describe what it means to have lithium and brine and what it involves getting it out.Thea RiofrancosI had the opportunity to see some of the brine operations in Nevada. I got a very cool mountain view of them when I was actually looking at the Rylight Ridge Project. And that... if you sort of hike around a bit, you can look at the Silver Peak brine production in Nevada, which is the one lithium mine in the US now in production. So we have brine in the US We also have Brine in Chile and Argentina and elsewhere in the world. So, Chile is a place that I've done a lot of research, but the processes are quite similar in Chile and Argentina, and actually also in Nevada.In fact, the way that brine is removed and evaporated—which I'll get into in a moment—in Chile, was first developed in Nevada and kind of exported to Chile. So there's kind of an interesting whole story of, like, US Chile mining relations in both lithium and copper, where there's been a lot of back and forth knowledge and technical expertise and that sort of thing. So, anyway, in Chile, you have the oldest and driest desert on Earth, in a way that driest place on Earth, except for some subregions of Antarctica. So it's extremely dry. But the oldness is important because there's a huge amount of scientific value in the kind of evolutionary processes and the origins of this desert that are worth thinking about while all this mining is happening and sort of destroying some of those landscapes.So, right now, mining for lithium happens in the Atacama Salt Flat, which is in the Atacama Desert. That really old, dry desert I just mentioned. And the salt flat is enormous. I live in Rhode Island, the state of Rhode Island, which is a very small state, but the Atacama Desert is like two-thirds the size of the state of Rhode Island, right? It's very big, and it is like just breathtakingly beautiful and strange and with a very rich, both natural and indigenous history. And so when you're standing on it, you are in this very unusual landscape that's gray and white and those kinds of shades ringed with these towering Andean mountains.So I don't know if you've been had the privilege of going to the Andes, but these huge...very tall mountains, right, very dramatic, some of them are volcanic, right? So that's the kind of landscape the surface is a very crusty kind of surface, but it's not barren. So when you're walking around, especially in, like, ecological preserves and places where there's been good conservation, there are these surface lagoons and there are beautiful flamingo species that are endemic to the region that are just chilling out in the lagoons because they, with their filtered gills, kind of just suck up little species that live in the salty hunter water there. And that's how they survive.And so there's a whole ecosystem that relates to the salt flat, and there's a lot of migratory birds, as well as other animals. Underneath the salt flat at various depths, right, there is subsurface brine deposits. So these are deposits of extremely salty water—much saltier than the oceans—that within them have various kind of valuable minerals suspended. And one of those is lithium. And so the basics of the way this works is that the subsurface brine is pumped to the surface. You can think of like a giant straw or whatever, just kind of any well-pumping system pumped to the surface and then it is arrayed in these enormous evaporation ponds. And it is moved from pond to pond with different chemicals being added, removed such that to reach maximum lithium concentration. But what's most important is actually the work of just solar radiation, because in addition to being the oldest and driest desert on Earth, in general, this desert is considered like a poly-extreme environment. That means it's super dry, but it's also super sunny, and it's super windy, right? It's just like the super high altitude. It's everything. And all of those conditions are very auspicious for the evaporation of brine, right. If you're going to put water out in a desert like that, it's going to be thrown up into the air very quickly.David RobertsIt's funny, I was reading about this and I got to the part where, you know, I knew that the brine was down there with these elements in it, and I was thinking like, "Well, how do they, you know, reduce it down to the elements?" And it's like they throw it in a big pool and let it sit there for a while and come back to it. It's weirdly...low tech, but also weirdly like space inefficient just like big, sprawling, all that fluid sitting out in the sun. You just need giant swaths of land for this.Thea RiofrancosAbsolutely. You need a lot of land. And then there's a question of, well, we're throwing water into the air in one of the driest desert or in the driest desert on Earth. What is the implication of that? Of course, what mining companies will say is, "It's brine, not water." But what scientists that I've spoken to and read have will say is, "Well, the water and the brine are actually connected in ways that we don't even fully understand because there hasn't been quite enough research on it." But the subsurface water system, they are porous boundaries. How porous they are is a subject of scientific debate between underground freshwater, which is absolutely essential to human life, to animal life, to other industries, right. Porous interfaces between that and then the subsurface brine.And so the question is—and this is the real point of scientific debate—is whether pulling out that brine is actually pulling down the freshwater through the forces of gravity and nature of pores, a vacuum and the whole thing. But also because the downward pressure in the nucleus of the salt flat creates a depression, which further pushes down the brine and also potentially further pulls down the water at the edge, the freshwater. So there's a whole complex kind of desert hydrology.David RobertsAnd in terms of environmental impacts, let's just talk about what's nasty about it. I mean, I think people can get sort of a picture when you're digging up big pieces of land, you're using lots of land for these evaporation pools. Presumably, when the water evaporates, it's not just lithium left behind, right? There's all sorts of other stuff. What happens to all that other stuff? What is the sort of environmental risk here?Thea RiofrancosRight, so there is like, piled up waste salts that are left behind. The companies will say those aren't toxic, but physical waste being removed from underground and piled around in a place that nature did not intend it. I think the most important thing, though, is what I was just talking about, which is the watershed, because this watershed is already exhausted. And that's a technical definition, not just me being an environmentalist. Like it's called exhausted by the Chilean water agency. And there are multiple reasons for that. There are multiple compounding factors. I will definitely call out the copper industry as being the worst.The copper industry uses so much fresh water that they've had to switch to desalination plants because there's not enough fresh water. And they have built the largest desalination plant in the world, I'm pretty sure, to serve one enormous copper mine in Chile.David RobertsWild.Thea RiofrancosAnd that desalination plant is on the coast, obviously, the water is desalinated there from the seawater, then—where very energy intensive process—polluting. And then that water is shipped to the highlands where the copper mines are. So that's the number one impact on freshwater is how it's been exhausted, a lot of it because of the copper industry, which is in the same location.David RobertsAnd copper, we should also maybe just say, as a side note, also expected to rise considerably...Thea RiofrancosDramatically.David Roberts...under clean energy.Thea RiofrancosRight. Because of the copper wiring in the cars, the copper wiring and the transmission lines, the charging stations, our whole, "electrify everything" is very copper-dependent under current technologies. So there's that. There's climate change, which is further desert-ifying—I don't even know how to pronounce that—the desert, right? Like it's making it drier. So there's that issue, and then there's agriculture, there's human consumption, and there's lithium, right? So there's a variety of stressors on the same water system, and as a result, it's been called exhausted. And they say that they're not going to give out more freshwater permits x, y, and z, right?So that's just like the context that it's in. And where the debate is with lithium is how much removing vast quantities of brine—we're talking about like thousands of liters a second, I believe, if I don't have that wrong—vast quantities of brine by these two major mining companies, SQM and Albemarle, is further playing into this watershed exhaustion. Another thing that's interesting to note, to go to sort of a totally different type of environmental impact that we humans may not think about very much, which is microorganisms.So what's fascinating about the brine is that it's actually an ecosystem. It's not just dead salt water, whatever that would mean, right? Microorganisms live in the brine, both in the surface salty lagoons, but also in the subsurface brine deposits. There are microorganisms, and those are important for a variety of reasons, but including they hold clues to evolution and the origins of life on Earth because of how old this desert is and also how poly-extreme the environment is, replicates earlier Earth conditions, but also like Mars conditions. So if we want to understand, could there be life on other planets, scientists say we need to understand how these microorganisms can survive.And not only this super extreme in all the ways I listed, but also, like, some of the saltiest environments. And saline is really hard on organisms, right? And so it's amazing that they can survive in this hypersaline context. But we're basically just sucking them out. We're killing...they're not going to survive the process of lithium extraction. And that, again, may not depends on the listener, how much that matters, but there's a lot of science that says these microorganisms are important for a variety of reasons and we should think about conserving them.David RobertsThere's a lot more detail in the report, but let's just consider it settled. Lithium...lithium mining, everywhere that it exists is pretty environmentally nasty. And another thing you point out in your report is that almost everywhere it exists, there is opposition to it, local opposition to it. Indigenous and other groups organizing to protect landscapes, organizing to protest the fact that they're not consulted, they're informed consent was not gained. Sort of all the capitalist evils that spring to mind when people think about mining are on the loose in lithium mining, and it's opposed almost everywhere it is happening.And that is kind of just the important background here for everybody who's thinking about decarbonisation in this way, which is that, like we said, yes, it's going to be better to do this than to continue pulling gazillions of tons of fossil fuels out of the Earth every second of every day. It's going to be better. But every step you take towards more lithium, there are tangible harms being done to vulnerable people. That's something we can't ever forget as we're tossing these things around.Right now, it's relatively small. There's four countries involved. There's a lot of talk about vast expansions coming. There's a supposed supply crunch over the next five to ten years as, like, demand is rising much faster than supply. But there are also, as the report points out, these huge discrepancies in projections, depending on who you believe, how much lithium is going to be needed. So just give a sense, like, how fast and big the lithium mining sector is going to expand. How big is the pressure to expand here? And what do we mean? Are we talking about twice the size, ten times the size?Thea RiofrancosIt depends who you ask, as you already noted, right. And everyone agrees: big increase. But beyond that general consensus, there are differences. And I know you recently had a conversation about modeling, right? And like how much goes into modeling. And I have never been more convinced of this than I am now, both in diving into the existing models and what their assumptions are, but also in seeing some of the contrast with our report, which we'll get into later, and how different the findings can be if you change some of those assumptions or play around with them in some way, right.Models are not, like, written in stone or laws of nature. There are a lot of human decisions made sometimes with political and economic interests at play, right? So everyone agrees big increase, right. As you noted earlier, like, lithium was, and actually could still be considered a rather small market. For a long time, it's mainly been about personal electronics, but also it's used in some construction glass materials as a coolant. It's used in lithium as a psychiatric medication. But it's really like the EV market that has been a game changer, right? And what's been the case for the past couple of years, and will be the case even more so going forward, is that batteries for passenger EVs, specifically, are the number one driver of demand for new lithium, right? So that's also important to sort of keep in mind. They vastly outweigh any other end use in terms of why there's so much talk about lithium demand.So, a couple of ways to cut the cake. And I'm drawing on a mix of our report and other existing forecasters out there. One way to think about it, and this comes from our report, is that if we just look at today's demand for EVs and then project outward to the future, taking into account growth, et cetera, to 2050, the US market alone would need triple the amount of current global production.That's one way, because it's hard to wrap our heads. I mean, there's many ways to say the same thing, right? That's one way to say it, right? The US in 2050 would need three times what the whole world needs now.David RobertsYes.Thea RiofrancosAnd that's, again, not thinking about all the other countries that have their needs, right. So that's one way to think about it. Another that I can find a little more concrete because it talks about individual mines, and here we're drawing on Benchmark—they're a big forecaster, which people have opinions about, right, so I'm not waiting into that. But they are a big forecaster and they influence government a lot, particularly. So Benchmark mineral forecasting says we'd need a 200% increase in the number of lithium mines, the just number of discrete mines by 2035. So a closer time frame to meet expected demand for EVs. That's globally, not US-specific. So we need a lot more lithium mines as discrete entities.David RobertsBut this is what breaks my brain about all this. You say it can take up to 16 years to get a mine going. These are not pop up operations. So 200% more mines in the next twelve years just...Thea RiofrancosIt seems hard to meet that. Now, what will happen, and this we could talk about the implications of this, and there's a lot of debate in the climate, environmental, et cetera, community, but some of those time frames might get shortened because there's a huge pressure in the US, in Europe, and in some other jurisdictions, to fast track mines. Like right now, yes, it takes a decade...We say 16.5 years. It could be shorter, can be a decade in some cases. But we're talking about at least a decade, right, to develop a mine, to go through financing, getting your financial back errors, the permits to get the quote unquote "social license," which is like an industry term for communities, like, giving you bare minimum sort of agreement or something.David RobertsThe thought of all that happening lots, lots faster does not calm my heart.Thea RiofrancosMe neither. And I think there's a whole separate conversation. I know you've dealt with this in other writing and on the show, but like this permitting conversation, I think speed gets equated with outcomes in a wrong way. I mean, saying we're going to do everything faster doesn't actually always make it faster, because what that means is there's various corners being cut, which just turns into lawsuits. So actually making the timeline for NEPA faster in the US case does not actually per se mean we're going to get the lithium faster. So that's a separate conversation, but I just want to throw that in there.Okay, so a lot more lithium. I'll throw out one other statistic because it's the one that alarms me the most when I try to grapple with it. It's the international energy agencies from 2020 or 2021, from a report a couple of years ago where they said compared to a 2020 baseline, we need 42 times as much lithium in 2040. That's like an enormous increase. I think that means 4200%, if I understand math. I don't know. Or 4300 percent. Whatever it is, it's really big. It's a large increase, right. It was larger than any other mineral they tracked.David RobertsYeah. And this is wild. I don't even know that we have to spell it out, but just like, let listeners just imagine what is a global rapid herding toward more mining? How is that going to play out? The idea that it's going to be done more sensitively or with more consultation with indigenous groups, et cetera, et cetera, when everyone is basically panicking and trying to do it as fast as possible, it's just not a great recipe.Thea RiofrancosRight.David RobertsAs the last comment on lithium, let's talk a little bit about the coming supply crunch and where... one of the big things the report talks about is these four countries are the main lithium mining countries now. But obviously with this sort of global stampede on, there's going to be a lot more mines in other countries. So where can we expect mining to branch out? And what is the timeline of that versus the timeline of this crunch?Thea RiofrancosOne thing to note at the top is that there already is a lithium supply crunch, right. We're already in that domain, so to speak. And the way that we know that is that the prices for lithium have been historically high, right? Because supply, demand, price, et cetera, right. Supply is not keeping up with demand. And that is important to our renewable energy kind of wonk and industry folks on the show that are listening to the show, because that, is in turn, changing something about battery pricing for decades and for sure since 2010, which is when Bloomberg started tracking this, but you can go back to earlier data from other sources.For decades, lithium ion batteries have been decreasing in price in a sort of secular trend based on R&D, economies of scale, innovation, manufacturing efficiencies, all the things that make things cheaper under capitalism when that occurs, and that is priced in kilowatt hour. And this sort of, like, the idea was we're going to one day get to $100 per kilowatt hour, and that will get us to price parity without taking into account subsidies with ICE vehicles, right? So that was the sort of golden target. In 2021, they plateaued, they stopped that decrease, and we didn't know what was going to happen in 2022, but now we do.So in 2022, they rose for the first time, and we went from like 130-something, 135, I think, to like 151 per kilowatt hour. I'm not trying to be like a doomsday or I'm not saying they'll increase now from here on out. I don't actually think that. But I do think it's important because the reason battery prices, for the first time since Bloomberg started tracking this, have increased in price is because of raw materials. So, in an interesting way, because we've done all this manufacturing efficiency in R&D, and we really cut costs on all other parts of the process, the raw material components are logically a larger component of the cost structure.At the same time, coincidentally, those raw materials have increased in price in their cost, right. So that is why batteries are now more expensive. I'm sure things will settle in whatever way, especially as we build up a lot more battery-manufacturing capacity around the world, which will depress prices. But it is true that this is starting to call into question, further question the affordability of EVs, because these are the main and most expensive component of an EV.David RobertsRight, which in turn sort of complicates these long term projections of EVs, which in turn complicates the long-term projections of lithium demand. Like the whole...Thea RiofrancosIt's all circularly interrelated. But we can definitely say that there's been a huge rush to mine lithium in the US Which is just another reason for people in the US to think about this. It's not just about stuff that happens far away. This is happening here. We have 50-odd projects with some level of financial backing or permitting in Nevada alone in one state.David RobertsWow.Thea RiofrancosThat's tracked by the Center for Biological Diversity by Patrick Donnelly. Shout out to him because he's been tracking that. It's really hard to compile those statistics. And the US government is throwing money, $700 million at Ioneers mine in Rayte Ridge. That's the Department of Energy just gave them a huge loan.The auto industry is throwing money. GM just gave $650 million in equity stakes to Lithium Americas for their Thacker Pass mine—which is, by the way, in federal court right now, over fast tracking concerns raised by environmentalists, so, the whole thing.David RobertsAll of these are facing opposition. Like, almost everywhere a lithium mine exists, it seems like there's some opposition. It's funny that's one of the things I've been sort of joked about with the Inflation Reduction Act is everyone loves the idea of onshoring the whole supply chain as a slogan. Everybody's super into that. But there are lots of links in the supply chain that are pretty nasty. I'm curious what their political valence will be once people get a little closer look at, like, what mining and processing of lithium really looks like, whether they'll be so excited about onshoring it.In the report mentions in the brine area, there are new techniques of mining lithium from brine that are less impactful than the traditional sort of, "leave it out in an open pit while the sun bakes it" technique. So it's not that lithium mining is a fixed quantity of environmental destruction. There are better and worse ways to do it, could be better or worse, governed, regulated, all these kind of things. But we got to move on to the second half of your report. So the report focuses on, it says, "Okay, we need to electrify, but we'd like to do it in the least lithium-intensive way possible."And so you focus on the US Transportation sector because, as you note, that's a huge, huge driver of lithium demand, and you focus on personal vehicles, which are the bulk of US transportation emissions, and therefore they're going to be the bulk of lithium demand in the future. And so the whole question here is: how could we decarbonize the US personal vehicle sector in the least lithium intensive way, otherwise known as increasing lithium efficiency, "Getting more mobility," I think this is the title of the report. "More mobility out of less lithium" is the idea here.This is, I think, a great part of the report because in some sense, once you see it on paper, it seems obvious, like, yeah, if lithium is bad, we should think about how to use less of it. It just seems sort of obvious, but it is wild how much total auto domination in the US is just taken for granted and invisible in most projections of car demand and for lithium demand, it's just an unspoken assumption that the current pattern of auto insanity in the US is going to continue. So in a sense, it's, I think, a great advance in the state of things just to say, "Maybe we could do it differently." There's other ways, other ways to do it. Yeah, it's not, as you say in that first quote, "It's not a fixed thing."We have choices here. There are different ways things could go. So you lay out four scenarios. The first scenario is just: assume electrification of the existing number of cars on the US and otherwise everything stays the same. The car, the auto intensity, the land use, the amount of car use stays the same, and we just try to electrify all the vehicles. In a sense, I think it's tempting to sort of take that as the default scenario, but one of the points you make in the report, which I think is important, is it's not obvious that that's the easiest way to go.It's not even obvious that that's possible. So let's first just talk about that, because it seems like kind of what we're stumbling toward, which is just take the cars for granted and try to electrify as many of them as possible. So just tell us maybe what's wrong with that, the sort of status quo we're stumbling toward.Thea RiofrancosRight. Well, first of all, it assumes an enormous quantity of EVs are going to be bought by people, which is, in a way, an assumption of all of our scenarios to be fair. All of them involve what we could call the mass deployment of electric vehicles. None of them eliminate electric vehicles entirely. They just change their relative predominance within the transportation mix in various ways, right? But in scenario one, the most need to be purchased, right? And so first and foremost, it's a question of millions of individual consumer decisions going as planned.And it's a question of how much our policy environment and especially financial incentives will need to change pretty rapidly in order to make that a reality. Because I don't know that IRA is going to cut it. Putting aside all the debates over the specific mechanisms IRA uses, it gives rebates, you know, at a below a certain income threshold that can get up to, I think, $7,500, you know, not nothing. And so that's the approach in the IRA, but I already noted and we've talked about how these vehicles might be getting more costly over time. I mean, there's different trends at the same time, on the one hand, the batteries are getting more expensive, which will make the cars more expensive. On the other hand, now, all the car companies are saying we're going to out compete one another on price and we're willing to forsake a little bit of profit. These are uncertainties. I don't know which will, on the balance, which will be the prevailing trend.David RobertsWell, also in the key dynamic you point out in the report, which is if lithium demand is as high as it would be—looking at the US car fleet—that exacerbates the crunch, exacerbates the high price.Thea RiofrancosYes, right.David RobertsSo in a sense, trying to sell more is almost self-limiting.Thea RiofrancosYes, that's an excellent point. And so that is one problem with scenario one. Like will we have to increase subsidy? I'm not anti-subsidy. I'm not like anti-government spending. I'm, like, in favor of government spending. So it's not like I'm trying to do some taxpayer-efficiency thing or like star of the beast thing. It's not about that I mind spending public money. It's like on what, right, because all of this involves public money. Whether it's EV subsidies, whether it's those might be more invisible forms of public spending, but the more visible forms are the transportation authorities and then of course, highways.So all this involves public money, but this one involves trying to use public money to shape individual consumption decisions and that's not the most efficient way, right. And it would be more efficient and we'll go through this with scenarios two, three and four to actually use that to beef up mass transit. So that's one issue with scenario one, or a couple, I guess. Another, though, relies on peer research, not our own research, but other folks that we cite which say that we will get to zero emissions faster if we get people out of cars. And so we don't directly test that because all we're looking at are 2050 scenarios. So we're assuming zero emissions in 2050. And what we're playing with is like, how we're going to get there.But other people that test: will we get to zero emissions? or how fast will we, show...and this stands to reason, right, like the fewer vehicles on the road, the more people are sharing the same vehicles, the easier it is to electrify more quickly, because if you electrify a bus, you deal with many people's transit at once. And also even before you electrify the bus, that's still like a net positive if you're getting people out of an ICE car into a bus, like you've dealt with some carbon emissions before you even make it an e-bus, right? And so there's a lot of...this is what I like to say to the carbon hawks among us, right? To people that really unilaterally focus on...which I, in some ways, count myself among, but I'm less unilateral, like, I'm also thinking about biodiversity and all these other issues, but for people that are like, "All I care about is the emissions trajectory." We will lower emissions faster if we don't do the super car-dependent one-to-one EV to ICE swap, right, or ICE to EV, excuse me.And it's not even one-to-one. It's more we have to produce more EVs over time as the population grows.David RobertsDemand is rising. Yeah. Population is rising. Yeah. I mean, you point out that there's some doubt in a lot of scenarios and modeling whether we can even hit the 1.5, whether we can get on a 1.5 consonant scenario or even a two degrees consonant scenario with this sheer volume of cars that we have to electrify, right? It's an enormous amount and it's rising all the time. So lowering the amount of cars is lowering the target to more achievable levels. So that's important. So I just want to get I think people maybe think that this is kind of the default thing we're heading toward, which is just samesies with all the cars except they're electric now.Whether or not you think that's the best way to go, there's real reason to doubt whether it's possible to do that. Certainly on the time frame we're talking about.Especially as the cars get bigger, right? There's that other research that's not ours. We do a lot on battery size, so we'll talk about that. But there's a separate research academic article that just came out a few months ago showing that the e-Hummer, like when we get really large, like really gargantuan batteries, cancel out their climate benefits, meaning that the carbon-intensity of that supply chain to produce that vehicle adds to emissions rather than decreasing them, right? And so that's when we get at the real extremes of car size. I'm not saying every EV is an e-Hummer. It's just not right.But unfortunately, our trend is trending upward in size. And so we also, back to our earlier analysis of supply chains, have to think about emissions across the supply chain. Right. And when we produce enormous vehicles that then are shipped on container ships like these just enormous production networks. And if those are not fully decarbonized as production networks, then we have to factor that in.Yeah, embedded embodied emissions are huge here. So, you have four scenarios. The first one is just everything stays the same except it becomes electric. And then scenarios two, three, and four are, sort of, I guess, escalating versions of europeanizing American cities. I'll just say upfront, you summarize towards the end here relative to scenario one. With scenario two, you get an 18% reduction in lithium demand. Scenario three, it's 41%. And scenario four is 66% reduction in lithium demand, which is... that's not marginal, right? So these alternate scenarios you're talking about are real substantial reductions in lithium demand.Thea RiofrancosMore than I expected. Like, honestly, as someone who's looked at this for a while but never read a study like this because...not existed. But my assumption was it was going to be a little lower, though still important, still significant, but it was higher. And it gets even higher over time. Like if we go all the way to 2050, we can get a bigger spread, partly because by that point we have more recycling feedstock to work with and other changes that are more cumulative, take place. And so, it gets really dramatic when we look at best and worst case in like the year 2050, for example.David RobertsBut...and this is maybe an area where I need you in specific because I know you always have good things to say about thoughts like the ones I'm having, which are I'm looking at these scenarios. Just scenario two, the first level above one, it says, and I quote, "Levels of car dependence in US cities and suburbs are reduced to the equivalent of comparable EU cities." And to me, just that just getting US cities and suburbs on par with comparable EU cities is alone just mind-boggling in its scope and its political difficulty. And I just look at that and I feel daunted.And I know you're always going on about we need to expand our imaginations, we need to push the window open, and we need to think more about what's possible and not feel locked in. But, in scenario three goes...Thea RiofrancosMuch more ambitious.David Roberts...farther than that. And then scenario four is basically like: every US city becomes Vienna. Every US city becomes not just average EU city, but state of the art, progressive, cutting edge. And I just have a lot of trouble seeing that happening. So how do you think about or do you bother to think about...Thea RiofrancosNo, I do.David Roberts...the political realism of what are very, very substantial reforms in US land use and habits and public spending and on and on.Thea RiofrancosYes. So there's a lot to dig into there because I absolutely do think about it. And I'm a political scientist, for whatever that's worth, and also someone who's done a lot of political organizing, legislative advocacy, et cetera. So as utopian as I can sometimes perhaps sound or feel or whatever, I mean, I have ambitious ideas. I'm a big proponent of the Green New Deal, et cetera. I do think about the brass tacks of moving people on issues and of what regulations or what legislation will be necessary and what's possible at the state or local versus federal level.And I want to talk about all those things. I want to say something first, though, is just like a set piece, which is we've been treating these as like four big different pathways, right? Which they are. But what's important to note is that there are subpathways and subpathways meaning there's actually like dozens of scenarios that we test because there's a lot of on-off switches that can apply to each of these. And one key one is battery size. So let's go back to that scenario one that we've been talking about, which is the status quo but electric, or the status quo plus population and consumption growth, but everything EV, and it turns out it makes an enormous difference if we can just get back to where we were a few years ago with average battery size in the US, or where our peer nations are, or peer affluent nations like in East Asia and Western Europe are with battery size. We're now like double the size of a decade ago. We're double the size of the global average. And what's concerning is that...David RobertsGod, that's so dumb.Thea RiofrancosIt's so dumb. Because there's so many reasons it's dumb. Those cars are unaffordable to most Americans. The larger the battery, the more expensive the car. But it's also just being sold in a sort of luxury framework, right, of these fancy pickup trucks and fancy SUVs that contractors aren't using. I mean, it's just like affluent suburbanites for the most part, and they're using them to go to the grocery store, not to go hiking or to, like, haul stuff.David RobertsI know. And I get that every new consumer product you start on the luxury end, you make it an object of desire, and then you and then you move down. But like, we're like ten years into this s**t, and...Thea RiofrancosIt's getting worse! It's moving into opposite direction.David RobertsI know. They're getting bigger and bigger...Thea RiofrancosLike, now it's like everything is the Ford e-Lightning or whatever.David RobertsI know. Okay, let's get like some freaking hatchbacks now. Like we did it.Thea RiofrancosIs what most working and middle class Americans can afford and drop. And so we're getting really crazy with the average battery sizes double, as I said, the global average double where we were a decade ago. And it's concerning because it's a trajectory. So are we going to be triple that in a few years? Like, where is this ending? But, the good news is, that we can be as car dependent...we can change like, nothing about the political, social, cultural infrastructural status quo. Like, we could stay with our car dependency in all the ways that that's locked in.And we could get really significant decreases in lithium volume, especially as we get closer to the end of our...we get to 2050. So in 2050, just snapshot year, because that's our final year that we model. We could have 42% less lithium in scenario one, the car-dependent scenario, if we have more normative—I don't want to say smaller because it's misrepresents it. It's like more normative sizes.David RobertsNormal-er.Thea RiofrancosNormal-er.David RobertsNormal-er batteries.Thea RiofrancosWhere we were recently, and where most of the world is now.David RobertsLike, when I first read through, I thought that the reduced battery size demand in your scenarios was a causal result of land use changes and walkability....Thea RiofrancosNo, it's a separate parameter.David RobertsSo you're just turning that knob...Thea RiofrancosFor each scenario.David RobertsIndependently.Thea RiofrancosExactly. Which is why—and I'll just say it here because it's my favorite of our findings, because it's the most dramatic—that if we compare scenario one like the car-dependent scenario and with large batteries, ones that are currently larger than average, but is, like the direction we're going. We compare that to scenario four with small batteries, with perfect recycling, with everything, like ideal utopian Vienna, whatever. In 2050, 92% different in lithium volumes, right? So there are radically different futures ahead of us. And it's helpful to look at the extremes, even if our worst case is, like, unlikely on the negative end and our best case is unlikely on the positive end.Let's look at the total spread, because that's the spectrum we're working with. And that's where we can use policy, behavioral change, cultural norms, whatever is available to us as tools to shift people towards the best case scenario.David RobertsYou highlight three specific changes that are the most efficacious kind of levers to pull to reduce lithium demand. There's reducing demand for vehicles overall, densifying urban centers, and then reducing battery size. I get reducing demand for passenger vehicles. You do that with better public transit, better land use. You do that in part through densifying urban centers, increase walking and stuff like that. But it's notable that battery recycling, which people are quite bullish about, doesn't really make much of a dent for quite a few years. So maybe just tell us a little bit about what is the state of recycling, what you expect from it?Thea RiofrancosYeah. So what's interesting about recycling is that you need to have enough feedstock available. Meaning, like, if you're going to use recycled, recovered materials to manufacture batteries instead of new mining, which is the goal, we want to use circular economy kind of approaches so that the end of life batteries and also the manufacturing waste, all the things that are spit out by our system, like reenter the loop. And we close the loop. And so instead of new mining, we're sort of like we're mining batteries, right? Instead of mining the Atacama Desert.David RobertsRight.Thea RiofrancosSo that's great. We're super proponents of it, and there's very optimistic results shown in terms of how we can get close to 100% material recovery. The technology is there. That's what I want to start with.David RobertsMaybe it's too obvious for you to even say, but I'll just put it out there. Signpost is just even best case, recovering 100% of materials. You still have to get enough materials in the loop in the first place.Thea RiofrancosThat's where I'm going. We're several years out from that being significant because we don't have the level of EV penetration yet. And then forget about just the current level of EV penetration. How long do people own their cars? Hopefully, these cars last a minute, right? Like they're durable goods, right? So, yeah, it might be ten years, you know, whatever it is, right. Until we're actually end of life with those batteries. And then it's interesting. I'll just throw this out there because I think it's it's kind of interesting and it helps people understand how materials cycle through systems.So when we get to the end of life of a battery in a car, it no longer gives the power and energy density that a car requires to move quickly and for distance. At that point there are a number of other applications we could use the battery for, and we often go to the grid as the first thing, and that's great. Backup storage or primary storage, even on an energy grid because of variable solar, wind, et cetera. So we can store energy, but also we can even use it for less intense mobility applications, right? So, like, a city bus does not move as quickly, it also gets much more frequent overnight charge. There's a variety of ways in which buses strain their batteries less and can work with a second-life battery. So there's lots of interesting applications. But there's a critical choice there, like, do we put the battery in a second-life application or do we strip it of its materials and use those materials to become feedstock for new...and I'm not trying to make it, like, a zero-sum thing, though I guess at the literal cell level, it is, right, like one or the other is happening.David RobertsDon't you want to do both? I mean, can't you completely exhaust the battery and then get them...Thea RiofrancosIt puts the horizon back, defers the horizon because if we're reusing then and... reduce reuse, recycle, that old environmental thing is actually useful to remember. So we're talking about reducing lithium demand in this report. We're also talking about reusing and recycling at the sort of end of life. Right, but you first reuse, then you recycle, but it just pushes out the time frame for when we'd have enough recycling feedstock to really be replacing significant amounts of new mining.David RobertsRight.Thea RiofrancosAnd one other way I like to, just as a metaphor, think about it is: over the pandemic, we've had lots of debates on different public health tools and one thing that public health experts said about the vaccine is that if we don't reduce the spread in other ways we're asking the vaccine to do too much work.David RobertsRight.Thea RiofrancosIt's not a perfect analogy, but I think that way about recycling. And I think people gravitate to recycling because nothing else has to change and also because it's itself a business opportunity, right? There's a lot of new investment in recycling facilities. So it's sort of like, "Oh, that's the silver bullet. We're going to get recycling to sort of totally replace new mining." Well, maybe in 2050 or 2070 or something that could start to be possible, but not in the near term. And so we need to do other things so that we're not expecting recycling to be the number one demand reducing tool.David RobertsRight, so you're reducing demand for lithium in the first place helps...Thea RiofrancosRecycling play a bigger role.David RobertsRecycling, it helps decarbonization, in addition to helping reduce the need for mining and injustice and all that other stuff, it just makes...the lever you can pull that makes almost everything we want easier to do. So you have these scenarios that basically involve—and this is stuff I know Volts audience knows very well—just your basic densification, helping walkability, bike paths, all that kind of stuff. So, let's just say a bit, because I don't want this to get lost. In addition to all the benefits of reducing lithium demand in terms of our ability to decarbonize on schedule and are just having enough and getting recycling going better, it's also worth noting that all these changes being discussed in the transportation sector have numerous co-benefits and, specifically, are extremely beneficial to the poorest and most vulnerable.This is all completely extrinsic to the greenhouse gas discussion. Just these changes you're talking about making in transportation are good for a bunch of other reasons and so I think...probably we mostly get that. But let's just say a brief word about how transportation in the US is specifically a kind of source of injustice and how these reforms would serve justice.Thea RiofrancosThere's so many things to talk about here that we won't get to them all, because it's such a sort of nexus of where so many injustices inequalities and also inefficient uses of resources kind of intersect. One thing to remember is just how financially burdensome car ownership is for low-income and working class and even middle class people. Buying the car or leasing the car, the auto insurance, the maintenance of the car, and the gasoline—until we electrify, right. Caveat there on gasoline point—but are all very expensive, and they're more expensive the lower income you are, they're like a bigger portion of your overall income, right?And they're also more expensive if you're lower income because you're more likely to have an older car, which requires both more maintenance and more gas per mile. And so we think about car use as a form of freedom in the US. And there's tons of scholarly books written on this and just a million pop culture examples and just the advertising of the auto industry itself. It's thought that carnership is like a key to freedom understood as this sort of spatial mobility. Like, you go wherever you want, right?David RobertsSuper generational, though. Super generational thing. A real generational divide, I feel like.Thea RiofrancosYes, I agree, and I'm hopeful about that. And we should come back to that point because we still haven't really discussed the policy tools and the politics of this in the contemporary moment. But I think of it almost the opposite way, which is, like, total choicelessness, which is unfreedom to me.David RobertsA single choice. I mean, literally the only way to do something.Thea RiofrancosAnd I know that very firsthand, not to make it too personal, but for many years of my adult life and childhood and everything, I didn't use cars very much. I grew up in New York City, right? So I'm weird in US context. So I grew up in New York City. I use public transit. We just use a car if maybe we're going upstate to the Catskills. But, basically, I'm going in public transit, and I'm walking. Then I become 18, moved to other places. I moved to Portland, Oregon. I then live in Philadelphia. I live in some Latin American cities, et cetera.In all of these places, I used a bike. I used mass transit, or I walked. And I did not actually get a driver's license until I moved to Providence, where I currently live. And after the first three months of biking to work, which was really not a great situation, there were no bike paths, like, it was extremely stressful and dangerous. But I did it because I like bike riding. And it was only 20 minutes. It wasn't a big deal. It was just a stressful 20 minutes. Once November came, New England, right? So it got cold. It's like, "Oh, I guess I have to do something else to get to work."I looked into the bus situation. Impossible. Like, an hour bus first is, like 20-minute...because I had to go downtown first, go to the main hub. I mean, the bus is for stigmatized poor people in Rhode Island, basically. I mean, that's how our bus system works. It doesn't have commuting in mind. It doesn't have other types of users in mind, and it's just underfunded and a whole crisis.David RobertsA very familiar story, all Americans, I think, will have some familiarity with.Thea RiofrancosAnd so I got a license. Like, I was forced to get a license, and I started using my partner's car, which I had never driven before, to get to work. And I experienced that as a constraint, like, I have one option.David RobertsAnd more stress, I mean, this science on this is very well-settled. Like, you probably were taking years off your life by switching to a car just from the noise stress.Thea RiofrancosExactly. But so there's lots of benefits of moving us into these other scenarios.David RobertsLet's talk about the policy levers that you're talking about. A lot of these I think, will be familiar to my audience here, just sort of urbanism stuff. But did you have particular...because I know one of the things the report says is that transportation decarbonization policy, insofar as it's popped up in the US, especially at the federal level, is very car-centric. Talk a little bit about better policies.Thea RiofrancosYeah, so I want to circle back to something you said earlier that's on this point about can we imagine the US being like a European city, or not the US, but US. Cities. That seems utopian, as you said. And I understand that. But I want to also just note that things have changed a lot in European cities, recently.David RobertsYeah.Thea RiofrancosAnd you reported on this in Barcelona and maybe elsewhere, right. And so we could go to Barcelona, we could go to Amsterdam, Paris, London. Our global cities in Europe, like the cities that have a lot of stature, those were actually more car heavy a decade ago.Two decades ago. They used policies ranging from the design of streets, right, the super blocks in Barcelona that you discussed to like congestion pricing to increasing mass transit options, to designs, making mass transit free or lower cost, a whole battery of kind of policy tools. And significant, like in Paris, they decrease car use by 30% over 15 years.David RobertsWild, what they're doing so fast.Thea RiofrancosIn London by 40% over the same time period. In Amsterdam—and we think of Amsterdam as like the cycling haven—but that's increased over time. Like they have actually used policies to make it more friendly to cycling. These things that we think of as so, like exotic, like, are actually the outcomes of intentional policy decisions that took those cities off of a track, getting more similar to the US to a track of where they are now. So it's important to not like naturalize, exoticize, essentialize, whatever it is, like, because we could do these things too. And in fact, in cities, you know, cities and other localities and even at the state level, we have a lot more options than at the federal level, so we should look at those urban experiments very closely.You know, it's duh. The GOP controls Congress. Like, I am aware, I read the news, right. So I'm not super enthusiastic or waiting on the edge of my seat for some massive infusion to public transit authorities coming from the federal level. I don't think that's about to happen. Thankfully, we got a little in the bipartisan infrastructure, otherwise things would be even more dire. We didn't get anything in IRA. We didn't even get e-bikes in IRA. I mean, it's nutty, like how car-centric that bill was.David RobertsI don't know if this was inevitable and unavoidable, but it is unfortunate, though, that the whole reactionary, backlash, conservative movement as it exists is now more or less organizing around defending sprawl. I don't know if that was just going to happen at some point regardless, but it's just not good that one of two major parties is foursquare against all the reforms you're talking about.Thea RiofrancosExactly. This has become a culture war point. But those culture wars are a little bit less intense at the state and local level, though unfortunately, they're there too. I'm not, again, Pollyannish, but let me throw out a couple of things. So what I think would be really cool—which we couldn't directly model because of data limitations, but we do discuss—is e-bikes. So we can't yet break down, like what proportion of cyclists are on e-bikes and how much lithium is in the e-bikes, because again, the data constraints. But we know that e-bikes use so much less lithium just on the battery level and the per rider level when we compare it to any of the other e-transportation options, right. They're better than buses, even, in terms of the lithium use per person.And so we have had some cool stuff. So Denver, Colorado did a major ebike subsidy experiment, and it worked. It not just worked in its popularity, but it got people out of cars, specifically. They showed that now in research on the experiment. Hawai'i, I don't know where exactly it is in the legislature, but it's moving along. I think it's been introduced for a state-level big e-bike subsidy program. And there's a bunch of other cities, if we look them up, cities and even states that are looking into subsidizing e-bikes, both for the climate reasons, the affordability reasons, but also specifically to reduce car use. That's like their goal. So they're designed with that goal in mind and they're making sure, like, we're subsidizing e-bikes that could replace cars for grocery store trips or commuting.David RobertsAnd of course, the more of your citizens are on bikes, the more political power.Thea RiofrancosYeah, you build a constituency which you have in places with a lot of cycling, like Portland. Like literally, there's like a bike lobby. I mean that in a positive sense, right? There are people advocating and watching policies. There's a couple of other things that are interesting. I'm going to do one more on e-bikes because this was surprising to me. I just learned it. In 2021, Americans bought nearly twice as many e-bikes as ecars. There was a huge amount of e-bikes being bought, and I think there's like a variety of reasons for that. Some of it was like pandemic people doing this outdoorsy stuff and the e-bikes were coming on market at this.So I think there are some just like circumstantial factors there. But it's interesting. Americans like e-bikes, so we should think about that and think about that as like a climate policy more among climate progressives. Think about how to expand that. There's a few other things. One is bad, but I want to talk about it, which is the so called death spiral for mass transit. So there's been this ongoing thing, but it got much worse during the pandemic where lower ridership, which really dipped, of course, when there were much more limited movement due to COVID concerns. So people stopped taking transit as much, worrying that they'd get COVID if they took transit or they just weren't commuting in the first place.And then that undercut a major source of funding for transit agencies, which is the fare. And so you had this death spiral which then they would do fewer buses or fewer trains or subway cars and then that would further depress ridership because it was less reliable or less frequent. And that's the death spiral. So we're at kind of a critical juncture for transit in this country, and we need to sort of decide, like, especially among climate folks who are at least people thinking about this, do we want to actually include refunding? And actually more secure and sustainable funding models that don't just rely on the fare as much or these like emergency federal or state funding, but just have more secure funding over time, more durable.David RobertsWell, I mean, the juncture we're at is like, are we going to let our lame minimum that we have die completely or are we going to maintain our lame minimum? Effectively, outside of New York City, we don't really have, like, a full-fledged worthy of Europe in hardly any city, much less, like, all these mid-sized cities.Thea RiofrancosAnd they've gotten worse. I mean, some of them used to have better transportation in the past. I mean these streetcars, all this thing was destroyed, partly by auto industry lobbying. This history is very sordid.David RobertsIt would have to be a real huge culture turn.Thea RiofrancosYes, but I want to say it's important to remember that the first culture turn was a big one. Like getting these cities off of what they previously did, which was walking and streetcars and commuter rails and that kind of thing, into the current car dependency. That happened not in our generation but in one more back. So this stuff has not been since like the literal founding of America or whatever that...you know what I mean? Like these are all things that happened over the 20th century and dramatically.And so we have the climate crisis to deal with. We also have a variety of economic crises where we want to think about redeveloping and making cities more flourish. We have a lot of things happening at once and it's one of those other critical moments of: are we going to just let transit die or are we going to embrace it? At the very least, I would love to see progressives that are climate advocates like, fully embrace transit, e-bikes, all of these solutions that are good for a host of reasons that we've discussed and center that.David RobertsOne of the things that sort of raise an eyebrow about this is that the modeling more or less assumes that lithium is going to remain dominant for the foreseeable period of the study. Battery chemistry has lurched around a bit over the last few years, and trends in battery chemistry can change pretty quickly. Like, LFP was dead for a while, and then all of a sudden it's roaring back. I guess I just wonder if you're worried you might be underestimating the possibility of technological improvements. Because I know a. people have their eye on lithium as a bad thing because of the mining and all the rest of it, b. they have their eye on it because the prices are rising and it's threatening the entire edifice of transportation electrification. So I know there's work going on trying to reduce lithium, trying to make batteries without lithium. How confident are you that at least for the next 20 years, lithium is going to stay on top? Did you give a lot of thought to that?Thea RiofrancosI have, partly because anytime I tweet about my research on lithium, someone says to me, "Lithium will be dead tomorrow. Don't. Why are you spending so much time on this?"David RobertsI don't know if I go quite that far.Thea RiofrancosNo. But there's a lot of reply guys on this point, on Twitter especially, which has fortunately helped me, like, has had the positive impact of me thinking about this question more. So I in some ways appreciate the reply guys.David RobertsThank you, reply guys.Thea RiofrancosYeah. So, the 20-year question is an interesting one because that does feel harder for me to answer. I feel pretty confident, a decade out, that lithium ion batteries will be the prevailing technology. That doesn't mean the only one, but that changes will be at the margins and that they will still dominate when we get out to 15-20 years, I still feel like due to some costs, due to the prior investments, due to the fact that there is just like an energy density advantage with lithium over anything else, those are still all true, and those, I think, will still make it the sort of majority technology.But after we get to 15-20 years and beyond that, I think that there could be substitutes. But let me say a couple of things. So people got very excited about the CATL, the major Chinese battery manufacturer, announcing that it was going to really commercialize and at scale, the sodium battery. That announcement was made, I think, a month ago or something like that. When you dig into the details there, they cannot make a whole battery pack for a car with sodium cells. There are still many lithium ion cells, right? Because remember, a pack, the modules, the packs, we get, like, many cells pressed together, so we can't get the energy density a car requires with just sodium cells. We can swap in some of the lithium cells for sodium and maintain decent energy density.So that just goes to show two things at once. One is that substitution is possible. But two is that we're not at a point where we have full substitution and we just get rid of the lithium altogether. So that's one thing to keep in mind. I think there's a bigger—I don't want to say philosophical, it's probably not the right word—but just like a deeper question here, which is I've used the word silver bullet already. I think that regardless of what the raw materials are and their specific impacts, and it might be true that sodium has less impact on lithium, and I'm absolutely willing to agree that there would be a set of materials that, for some reasons, involve less environmental impact when they're mined or they're more efficiently used or something other, right.I'm also a big believer in making the batteries more efficient with the raw materials that they use, right? Getting more out of less, right. So I'm a believer in all of those things. But what I'm not a believer in is this idea that we can just escape the dilemma of resource extraction just by technological innovation. Right, this kind of sci-fi idea...I like the sci-fi that's more realistic, where extraction is there. Like, if we look at "The Expanse," these kinds of shows that show these problems with extraction still exist in the future or in other landscapes, right?I don't like the sci-fi idea that we just escape our earthly impact and presence.David RobertsWell, you build a blue light arc reactor, and it just hums and pumps out energy. Right?Thea RiofrancosAnd, yes, maybe certain things we can be totally synthetic, or we just...I don't know. But even with, like, hydrogen, you just had your newsletter about that. In the way that we are producing all of these climate technologies, there are going to be earthly impacts, there are going to be extractive requirements, and our goal is always to be more resource efficient, regardless of what the substrate of resources is.David RobertsRight. And this is kind of the main point I want to make about this whole report and this whole sort of subject matter, which is: it's not like we should improve material efficiency because it'll reduce our mining impact on the environment, but there are countervailing considerations. There really aren't any countering considerations.Thea RiofrancosIt's all good to do that.David RobertsIt's better for people. It's better for decarbonization, it's better for our physical and mental health. It's better for, literally the financial health of cities. Like you just go down the list. One of the things I think is most exciting about this report is it is an explicit attempt to get climate advocates, global justice advocates, and urbanist, city advocates on the same damn page, pulling in the same direction, working with one another toward the common vision. And I've just thought that that is like, sort of implicit, but it's like, you don't see it translating into efficacious organizing.Like, you don't see those groups really working together as much as you want. So how much of this report was just had that in mind? And is that too utopian? Do you think that's a doable thing to get these interests on each other's team?Thea RiofrancosThere are two motivations of this report in terms of its origin, like, why we decided to do it. One is, back when I was first in Chile researching lithium in early 2019, I learned about the impacts, I learned about the protests, the concerns, et cetera. And I started to think, like, is there a way maybe not to eliminate lithium, but at least to reduce the stress on landscapes and to reduce the volume required? And I was reading these alarming forecasts at that point, and I thought, "Oh, there must be a study that shows that there are more and less lithium intensive ways to decarbonize transportation."Like, I booked that up on Google Scholar and I tried like, 30 different keywords, and there was no such study. And then I asked every expert that I interviewed who was expert on transportation, battery tech, whatever this question, and they said, "Oh, that study doesn't exist. It would be useful, though, just to know."David RobertsIt's kind of telling how utterly hegemonic the kind of car centric view is. It doesn't even occur to people.Thea RiofrancosIt's not an askable question.David RobertsYeah, people don't even ask the question.Thea RiofrancosSo that was one origin point to this. I just wanted this data so that when I presented my work on lithium and the political economy of it, the contention when people ask me, like, is there another way I could say something other than, "well, logically, if we had more mass transit, we'd need less" just if-so facto or whatever. So I could just say something with data. So that's one origin point. But there's another origin point that's equally important, which is I participate as a researcher, as an advocate, as a think tank person, and wearing different hats, like, in a variety of coalitional spaces with some of the people you just mentioned, but not with all of them at once often.So that's important, right? I think that that full spread has not quite happened yet in terms of building coalitions and constituencies that are speaking to one another. But there is some of each in a variety of political spaces. And I find that there are tension points and...this not a novel observation at all, actually. Much ink has been spilled on this. Like, is it totally impossible to decarbonize without harming indigenous rights? These stories have been written. These analyses and thought pieces have been written, but they're not just like, takes. They're also like, real people trying to work through real problems and not always having the data or policy tools that would kind of show a different way forward. And so aligning those, not perfectly, because I do think there's different ideologies, there's different personalities, like, you can't make everyone agree perfectly...but at least showing that these are not as fundamentally at odds as they seem. If we envision a little bit more broadly and creatively like what the energy transition might look like.David RobertsYes, and just do the sort of grown-up thing of explicitly acknowledging that we have multiple goals, some of which are in some tension of each other, and the best we can do is to balance them as best we can and try to pull in a direction that serves all of them at least somewhat, right? Like an adult way of making decisions not characteristic of our society necessarily. Thank you for coming on and talking through this. I mean, there's so much in this report. I feel like any chunk of this report, we could do a whole pot on it. A whole thing on lithium, a whole thing on transportation, a whole thing on justice, and everything else, but I do think it's for just those reasons you said there in your last answer, like, this is much needed and much overdue. So thanks for doing it and thanks for coming on.Thea RiofrancosThanks so much. This was a great conversation.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much and I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe