U.S. Energy Secretary Granholm on the Political Durability of Biden’s Energy Transition

The Biden administration made energy and climate a centerpiece of its administration, most notably through the Inflation Reduction Act. At the same time, we’ve seen a boom in US oil and gas production the last four years, alongside the novel use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a price and supply stabilization tool. Meanwhile, investments in batteries and other clean technologies have been framed as crucial from the perspective of strategic and economic competition with China. So what was accomplished? And what will persist after the Trump administration comes into office? On this episode, we speak with US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm about her transformation of the department, and how she thinks about the future of existing energy strategies and policies under Trump. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Key insights from the pod:
On US energy dominance — 4:27
The evolution of the DOE — 5:57
The durability of DOE funding — 9:48
How the Biden administration thinks of energy security — 13:13
The handoff between new administrations — 16:02
Upgrading the grid — 18:17
On the LNG exports impact report — 16:41
The role of hyperscalers in clean energy — 31:38

Joe Weisenthal (00:20):
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I’m Joe Weisenthal.

Tracy Alloway (00:25):
And I’m Tracy Alloway.

Joe (00:26):
Tracy, obviously new administration coming in. One of the stories that we covered a lot with this administration was there has been a lot happening in the energy world.

Tracy (00:36):
Yes. So obviously clean energy was a big part of things like the IRA, but we also had the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs office headed by Jigar Shah, who we’ve had on the podcast a number of times, deploying billions of dollars across new clean energy.

And the question that everyone is asking now is how much of that is durable in the face of a new administration, which has said various, let’s just say unflattering things, maybe about Biden’s clean energy tendencies?

Joe (01:06):
No, there’s so much. We probably, I mean if we went back and looked at all of the episodes we’ve done and categorized them over the last four years — because we’ve done lots of episodes about the specific technologies, we’ve done episodes on nuclear, we’ve done numerous episodes on oil and the USe of the strategic petroleum reserve and we’ve done episodes on geothermal and then the return of load growth in America between data centers and economic growth — etc.

We’ve probably done more energy episodes than any other topic, or at least close, and we’re at a crossroads probably in multiple ways. The change in the administration is the obvious one, but then there are really just big questions about what’s working and what’s the future of natural gas and, you know, oil, there are just so many ongoing energy questions that feel very unresolved to me.

Tracy (01:59):
Yes, and we have another four years to look forward to ask more questions.

Joe (02:04):
And then another four years after that, but I am pleased to say…

Tracy (02:08):
It’s energy questions forever.

Joe (02:10):
You know what…

Tracy (02:11):
I think it is, you know.

Joe (02:12):
This is the human question, right? No, for real. If we could get a little philosophical here, it’s energy questions forever because human progress is the story of getting more energy out of input. I forget the name, do you know that guy? I can’t think of his name. There’s like this energy historian…

Tracy (02:31):
Oh, I thought you were going to say philosopher!

Joe (02:33):
He almost is. I’m blanking on his name. People will remember.

Tracy (02:36):
Emergy historian? It’s not Yergin is it?

Joe (02:38):
No, not Yergin. He goes back deeper and he has these books where he literally calculates the amount of human calories that someone would’ve had to expend 5,000 years ago to grow a plant or hunt an animal, and how many calories are expended in that process versus how many calories you get out of the animal that you hunt or whatever.

And then does the subtraction. And human progress is essentially the history of expanding the gap between how much energy you put in and how much energy you get out. So it really will be energy questions forever.

Tracy (03:12):
Okay. Now that we’ve set the scene, we’ve gone all the way in pre-history to set the scene for a discussion about the next four years and the previous four years, I should say as well.

Joe (03:23):
Well, in the meantime, in a slightly shorter scale, we do have absolutely the perfect guest today. We are going to be speaking with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm about everything that’s happened in the last four years and the political durability questions and what she’s done with the DOE during her tenure. So Secretary Granholm, thank you so much for coming on Odd Lots.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm (03:43):
Yeah, love it. Thanks so much for having me.

Joe (03:46):
Absolutely. You know what? I want to start with sort of a big picture question. Maybe something that’s been on my mind for a while actually. We saw an incredible boom under this administration in domestic oil production, also domestic gas production, and I don’t think it got a ton of attention for various reasons, but also one of the reasons was it didn’t seem like it was something that at least on the trail, that the administration bragged about during the election season. Is this something when you look back on the last four years and we’ll get into some of the new energy investments in the long term, is this something that you are proud of or that democratic administration should be proud of? The success of our domestic hydrocarbons?

Sec. Granholm (04:27):
Well, we certainly have achieved energy dominance that is for sure under this administration. And much of that was due to the fact of course, that there was the invasion of Ukraine and it pulled a lot of Russian oil off the global market. And so that really compelled us to step up and part of that stepping up was releasing from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve enough to stabilize markets.

And so as a result of that and the price signal that was set, the demand signal that was set, I think we were able to do that. And that’s why gasoline today is hovering just a little above $3 a gallon, is because there is supply on the market. But all of that is true at the same time as we were expanding the energy pie significantly and saw obviously a huge investment in both the manufacturing of products to bring us clean energy as well as the deployment and the generation of that energy.

Tracy (05:25):
Well, let’s talk about that clean energy expansion then. And I realize a lot of things have happened over the past four years. US oil production has boomed as Joe just pointed out, but the Department of Energy, the DOE itself, has changed in terms of its role in not just energy security but also in the broader US economy. When you look at the DOE now at the tail end of 2024 versus the DOE that you took over, what are the key differences? How has it evolved?

Sec. Granholm (05:57):
It is such a great story because the DOE historically has been a research and development agency with also a large focus on national security through our nuclear deterrent. And so we have 17 national labs and we were focused on early stage research, maybe some small scale demonstration, but really focused on the earlier side of these technologies in addition to our nuclear weapons responsibilities.

So when we came in, we said ‘Look, there is a huge role here and important role for deployment and for focusing on the building out and the reshoring of manufacturing of the products that would get us to that deployment.’ So we reorganized the entire department. We added a whole new vertical that was focused on deployment. It was called, it is called the Undersecretary for Infrastructure, Clean Energy infrastructure, recruited from the private sector, David Crane, to come in and head that up.

And he brought in a number of other people from both the finance industry as well as the clean energy industry so that we could match both our great research portfolio with marketing, making sure that these products would be successful in the marketplace when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed and the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Department of Energy got 60 new programs that we were to execute on over a hundred billion dollars.

That reorganization of the department has enabled us to get that funding out the door. I’m proud to say that as we’re speaking right now, 99% of the programs that we were given have issued at least one round of funding. And the reason why not all rounds of funding have been issued is because they’re multi-year commitments, multi-year funding opportunity announcements. So we’ve really reorganized and the result and the proof is not just inside of DOE but really across the country. And I hope we get a chance to talk about that incredible manufacturing boom that’s happened as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act in energy.

Joe (08:05):
We definitely want to talk about that. By the time this episode comes out, this question may not even be germane anymore, but we are recording this on December 20th and last night the House failed to pass a bill that would’ve kept the government open. Just from your perspective right now, if the government shuts down, what does that mean for various things where the money has not been sent out the door? What happens to those plans?

Sec. Granholm (08:30):
Yeah, I mean some of that depends on how long the shutdown is for, and we are able to manage our loan program office and our deployment arm through a shutdown through some bits of a shutdown. We are proceeding ahead and our teams are proceeding ahead. We’re preparing for a lapse, but we think we have the ability to get the rest of the loan portfolio commitments that are teed up out the door.

Tracy (08:58):
Maybe we can talk about the durability of the loans more broadly because regardless of what happens with the shutdown, there is the new administration coming in. Both Joe and I were at the Deploy 2024 event in DC recently, and you gave a great speech there, but I got to say it felt a little bit like a therapy session for people that were there.

The message was very much ‘Don’t panic, keep calm and carry on.’ I think you even flashed that old wartime poster up. And there is a sense of unease or uncertainty about how much of all of this is going to continue into the new administration. Give us a sense of your gut feeling about it at the moment and what you’re doing to ensure that some of this work will continue?

Sec. Granholm (09:48):
As I mentioned, we’re really focused on getting the remaining funds out the door that we can in this year and up to January 20th. So that’s one way. Once you have those commitments and obligations and contracts are signed, it’s much more difficult to undo.

But also as I mentioned at Deploy 24 really perhaps, I don’t think I’m being irrationally exuberant, but I do think that the Inflation Reduction Act and the fact that there are, for example, 18 House Republicans who sent a letter saying ‘Please don’t touch the Inflation Reduction Act’ because it’s benefiting their districts and their states. The fact that 85% of the funding is going to red states and red districts gives me some hope that those members of congresses are not going to want to undo the opportunities now that their citizens have to build these products of the future and future facing jobs.

I mean, it is astonishing that five over now, $500 million, half a trillion dollars has been invested in this clean energy economy in the United States since the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law. That and the Inflation Reduction Act, that is astonishing. And for every $1 of public money, there are $6 of private money. So the private sector is going to have something to say about this as well. And they don’t want to obviously see this undone, we’ve made — and honestly, just from a, if you step back from a policy point of view, Democrats and Republicans agree that we should be reshoring these manufacturing jobs that were lost because of poor trade deals or trade deals that were unenforced we should be getting those back. Why would we be ceding the territory to China or any other country? And so the fact that that’s happening, the fact that over 900, almost 950 factories have been announced across this country is astonishing.

And they’re happening in all these communities that have been often left behind in the past. And so I think it would be political malpractice to undo that. So I have optimism that it will continue. Plus the margins in the house are so narrow that 18 Republicans, and again that was a couple that was a month or more ago, signed a letter saying ‘Don’t undo this,’ I think it’s very unlikely to be undone.

Now, will there be components of things that folks have been talking about? Will they try to block additional funding for EV chargers for example? Perhaps some of that around the edges, but I don’t think the manufacturing side and the supply chains and the critical minerals that are being incentivized to be produced inside the United States, I don’t think that’s going to go away.

Joe (12:32):
Just to push back on this a second, thinking of trade deals in the past that have hollowed out certain manufacturing capacity in the US, which many people might agree with. On the other hand, if others would say ‘Well, if the actual imperative for a lot of this stuff is climate specifically, why not import more from the lowest-cost largest-scale producer of climate tech, cheap solar cheap batteries?’ We’ve put up pretty big tariffs on EV tech in the US. We want to bring solar back from a jobs standpoint. I get it, but reconcile that with the sort of urgency that the administration has talked about with climate?

Sec. Granholm (13:13):
Well, I think we can achieve that urgency and we can build at home, but let’s just say this, it would be really foolish to trade our reliance upon oil from OPEC for reliance upon technology from China.

If we want to be energy secure, if we want to be strong as a nation, a nation that doesn’t manufacture the means for its own energy, security is a weak nation and we are not going to be a weak nation. This is why we, other countries, have engaged in industrial strategy, industrial policy and we have not, and our failure to do so had left us without a manufacturing sector, and part of that is for our national defense as well. And so just letting it go overseas is a terrible strategy for national security and for energy security.

And so I think that I totally understand we want these products to be cheap. We want them to be less expensive, affordable for our people, and we continue to drive down that cost. It’s the United States and our technology, our research and development that has brought down the price of batteries by 80%, 85% now. And same with solar technologies. And it’s true that China came in and had a strategy to bigfoot us and to take that technology and to develop that technology and deploy it in China. And we’re saying ‘No more. We’re not going to sit by and watch that happen. We are going to get in the game where we’re going to fight.’

And so I’m excited that that’s actually happening. As the former Governor of Michigan who was Governor during the time of the auto bankruptcies and before and who saw so many factories leaving our state and the devastation that’s left behind from communities that saw those factories leave, I’m telling you this is a whole new ball game. It’s like we are repairing the mistakes of the past. We are bringing it back home, providing opportunity for folks here as well as creating the products that we can stamp ‘Made in America’ and export around the world.

Tracy (15:22):
I have a sort of DC process question. You’re sort of pointing out that there might be some areas of overlap in terms of interests of the outgoing and the incoming administrations. For instance, Trump seems to like nuclear energy and Chris Wright certainly seems to like geothermal. When this transition is actually happening, during this time period, how much dialogue is there between you and your incoming successor and how do you sort of hash out the new priorities or is there a handoff note that you leave for your successor? How does it all work? What’s the comms actually like?

Sec. Granholm (16:02):
Well, so actually he and I have been trading phone calls and I fully expect I’ll be sitting down with him. Of course it’s going to be a new administration and they’re going to have different priorities, but they also have a landing team, transition leaders, who are going to be advising the incoming secretary who hasn’t had the experience at DOE, but his landing team all have been part of DOE in various ways in the past.

So there’s a great familiarity there. So those conversations are happening even as we speak right now. Their landing team is interviewing our various offices around the department to see what has changed, what they want to keep, etc.

To your point though, I just think it is critical that people understand the bipartisan support for so many of these technologies. You mentioned geothermal, you mentioned nuclear. We’ve been hugely bullish on both of those, but there’s also the support for critical minerals and critical materials that build the batteries that’s happening through our manufacturing and energy supply chains office.

There’s bipartisan support for hydroelectric power, for water power. There’s bipartisan support for hydrogen, and we’re working on all of those. And truly, so many of the Republicans have said that they support an ‘all of the above’ strategy. If it’s all of the above and we build out this clean energy, this energy pie, you can’t ignore the clean side. And many of those in Congress who have been all of the above, understand that fully.

Joe (17:38):
When you think about the scale of the energy challenge or planning, and, you know, these are multi-year, multi-decade ideas and nothing, you know, these dials shift very slowly. I’m curious when you think about the US political system and the fact that who has power can change certainly every four years and actually every two years in many cases. Does this impair us? You know, when you look at, you talked about industrial strategy around the world and obviously China comes to mind. I’m curious about how you sort of reconcile what I see as a time duration mismatch between the scale of these challenges versus the reality of the political clock.

Sec. Granholm (18:17):
Well, there’s no doubt that the climate imperative is upon us. I mean, we see every year all of these records being broken. So we have a sense of, we should all have a sense of urgency about that. Some don’t see that as big of a challenge, but they do see the global competition as a huge challenge to be surmounted. And they don’t want to miss out on the $23 trillion global market that these clean energy products represent. If we’re not building them, someone else is going to be building them and why would we cede the territory? So one way or the other, there’s a sense of urgency. The urgency bumps up against is old process and old mindsets in some areas.

I mean, one example I think of if we had had the opportunity to have another term, I would definitely have been pushing further on supporting the grid and upgrading the grid. The grid is, 70% of the grid is over 25 years old. A lot of it built on wooden poles. We’ve got all these extreme weather events. We need a resilient grid and we don’t have enough funding and we don’t even think about it honestly in the way that we should. We don’t think about a national grid because it’s been pocketed in these silos all across the country and there’s so much state by state impact on that.

But we should be thinking about it like we do our national highway system, honestly, we’ve got a highway trust fund, you’ve got state and federal participation. That’s how we should be looking at our energy grid if we were to move this forward. And then the other thing I would really focus on is the fact that there’s so much queued up in the interconnection queues. We’ve got 3.7 terawatts of power queued up, of clean power, queued up. We need to overbuild. And that blockage is a huge problem that I hope the next administration addresses as well.

Tracy (20:09):
Wait, say more about the grid because I wanted to ask you about this. To some extent, it doesn’t matter how much clean energy we generate if we don’t have the grid that’s actually able to handle that in an efficient way. What would you do if you were going to mount some sort of project, would you try to be as ambitious as a national grid of some sort? Or would you have to kind of be more realistic and kind of tinker at the edges.

Sec. Granholm (20:36):
Yeah, I think have to have both national as well as local components like you do your federal highway system. And we have been in the process over the past four years of planning out what are those interest electric corridors and where can we better make sure that the grid, there’s a handshake between one region and another.

So for example, if you’ve got lots and lots of wind being generated in low population centers of the country, but you don’t have a grid to be able to connect that to where population centers are, you’re missing the boat. And of course you want to make sure that those communities are compensated for giving that power over.

And that’s what’s happening in many places, but we need more of it. We have a dearth of connection between regions and that needs to be invested in. And I will say one of the great things about working with our labs is that they are always coming up with innovative solutions for how to get around, for example, NIMBY problems of transmission, not in my backyard problems.

And so a lot of technology now that’s available to reconductor existing lines, so you can put twice the power on existing transmission lines, so you don’t have to get permitted, etc. There’s new technologies about moving power grid-enhancing technologies, dynamic line rating that can move power much more efficiently. Those technologies can also really add a lot of generation capacity to the grid, like about a hundred gigawatts of that, just by enhancing technologies on the existing grid.

Joe (22:13):
You know, you said something earlier in the conversation that stuck with me and I wanted to go back to it before I forget. You said it doesn’t make sense for the US to trade dependence on energy from OPEC for technology from China, which intuitively makes sense to me.

On the other hand, the US is not really so OPEC-dependent anymore, and as we talked about in the beginning, the US [has] just [an] extraordinary amount of carbon resources here in the US both between oil and gas and there’s more and more of it being produced all the time. Is there a sense from a sort of macro standpoint in the US, that the transition from carbons to more electrified renewables, etc., are we playing to our strengths here or are we leaning against some of our natural endowments that we have in the US?

Sec. Granholm (23:03):
Well, I think we’ve got endowments on both the molecule side as well as the electron side. And we’ve got, for example, these hydrogen hubs that we have announced. One in the Gulf Coast, a lot of the oil and gas majors are very interested in clean hydrogen. They would derive it from natural gas, it would be called blue hydrogen, but they would agree to sequester the CO2 and make sure there’s no methane leaks along the way.

So when I say ‘trading OPEC,’ what I really mean is that we don’t want to rely on anyone else for our own energy, whether it is from molecules or from electrons, and we want to be able to supply cleaner fuels, whether it is fossil fuels or electricity to the world, we want us to be able to export. And in order to do that, we have got to build up our capacity.

I will say this though, the Department of Energy does not regulate how much the oil and gas companies drill. That’s not in our purview. And because there has been such an increase, there was such an increase in drilling and improved techniques to be able to drill both oil and gas. We saw this great increase in production and export, but we also know that at some point, a number of international entities and modelers are saying that we’re going to reach peak oil, peak gas. So we have to really…

Joe (24:32):
When you say that, do you mean demand or supply?

Sec. Granholm (24:35):
Yeah, well, I mean demand and therefore supply will follow, right? So I think it’s really important to have a long view. Of course, our goal is to get to net zero by 2050, but it is net zero that suggests that there will be some fossil fuels, but there will be also technologies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, which is one of the reasons why the Department of Energy and our labs, we’ve been focused on what are those carbon management strategies that will enable us to get to net zero.

We have this other big hairy audacious goal, which is to have a 100% clean electric grid by 2035, and we’re on track to get, they’ll be 80% clean at least per the modelers by 2030, and on our way to that last 20%, which is the hard to decarbonize portions. But nonetheless, we feel that you have to do both. You’ve got to make sure the world is supplied, make sure prices don’t go up on the fossil side while we use technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we use technologies that generate clean.

Tracy (25:58):
So on the topic of America being hashtag blessed when it comes to hydrocarbons, I mean one of the things that did happen this year is President Biden stopped licensing new LNG export terminals. And I haven’t been following that decision all that closely, but I think at a minimum you could say that it became a pretty big political controversy and one that is still kind of being hashed out. So you guys just released a report looking at the impact of LNG exports from the US. I guess my question is, looking back, is there anything that you would’ve done differently? Or looking back at the sort of cost-benefit analysis of making that a whole big thing, was it worth it?

Sec. Granholm (26:41):
Well, let me just say, first of all, yes, it was, because we needed to do this study because we do authorize new LNG terminals. But this study was a pause on new terminals and we have already authorized so much export of LNG. We’ve authorized 48 billion cubic feet per day of LNG. We’re only exporting, as the largest exporter in the world, about 13 billion cubic feet per day.

So that gap in between 13 and 48 is all stuff that’s either being built or hasn’t even begun being built, hasn’t even reached a final investment decision that 48 billion cubic feet per day that’s been authorized is a massive amount. And so this pause to do the study about whether more LNG should be authorized did not impact any of the build-out of existing authorizations, and it didn’t stop any exports from happening. It simply did not touch that at all.

There was fear that it would do that, but it absolutely did not do that. So it is important for us as a nation to determine what’s in the public interest in terms of the export of natural gas that’s required under the Natural Gas Act. So what are the factors that you look at to determine whether it’s in the national interest, the public interest?

And so taking a look at what are the impacts at home, if you’re exporting a lot of your liquified natural gas, that means you’re taking away from the natural gas that’s used at home. 48 billion cubic feet is basically about half of what we produce for all natural gas for use in the United States. So what’s the impact on pricing for folks at home? That’s one of the factors we looked at.

What is the impact on greenhouse gas emissions around the world by exporting that? What is being displaced by that? Those are the things that the study looked at. The study was done by scientists and researchers at our national labs, and it came out, found out that there are impacts, and the question is going forward, how the data from the study will be used by the next administration and beyond.

Joe (28:51):
On that point, obviously gas is a global market and, you know, in the end there are certain things, if there’s demand for it, or, you know, if years down the road there’s demand for it, then that’s probably up to private sector actors to decide whether they want to make the investments in those terminals. And if there’s not demand for it, then there’s not. But when you think about the sort of carbon impacts, the price impacts you laid out in the study, perhaps up to a hundred dollars a year extra for an American family by the year 2050, so somewhat modest.

On the carbon impacts, however, does it change the dial? I mean, when you think about these things, when you think about the fact that there’s a global market, and so if a country is not going to get their gas from the US, they’ll get it elsewhere. And of course, it’s very important that the US was in a position to step up for energy, especially when the war in Ukraine happened. I’m just trying to think about the concern of further expansion of our export capacity if in fact that’s what the world wants for the global market.

Sec. Granholm (29:55):
So first of all, just to underscore that 48 billion cubic feet per day, that is almost meeting what demand is going to be by 2050. It’s just a huge amount of, if it’s all built out now, it may not all be built out.

To your point, the companies themselves have to get a final investment decision. And if the demand is not projected to be, therefore, that maybe that won’t all be built out. But it is true, the US has an advantage in producing clean gas, Qatar is trying to rival us, but we would like to see the furtherance of a whole methane mitigation and monitoring regime that we do with our allies so that we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane emissions from LNG and at the point of combustion, reducing the CO2 emissions as well.

So there’s work to be done on that to create an environment where we are producing the cleanest gas and it’s being used in the cleanest way and the US is going to be in that role. In fact, the oil and gas majors very much want to see us continue to have an effort globally and to be leading an effort to reduce methane emissions globally so that their product is the product of choice.

Tracy (31:14):
So the other thing that’s happened in the past four years is we’ve had the rise of generative AI and booming demand for data centers, which obviously use a lot of energy. How has that impacted your role at the DOE? Is it an opportunity for you to maybe push clean energy a little more if you’re dealing with tech companies that have made clean energy commitments?

Sec. Granholm (31:38):
Yeah, this is such a great question and so important. We recently, today actually, in fact, our Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released a report talking about the increase in demand based upon data centers alone on the grid.

And we are going to have to add lots of gigawatts to be able to meet that. And so the conversations that we’ve been having, and the White House has convened the hyperscalers, is we want the data centers to be built in the United States for national security reasons, particularly AI, the learning model data centers. We want the hyperscalers to bring their own power, meaning that we don’t want the energy suck from these data centers to be socialized across the rate base. Every day citizens shouldn’t have to pay for that, and we want it to be clean.

And they’ve all committed to their shareholders and their strategic plans to use clean power. And so as a result, you’re seeing some very interesting announcements where you’ve got hyperscalers teamed up with, for example, small modular reactor companies or nuclear companies or geothermal companies like Fervo, who I know you talked to at the Deploy 24 conference or companies or hyperscalers that have really wanted to build out solar plus storage adjacent to their sites, or at least do power purchase agreements that allow them to power to purchase clean power for their data center.

So this new demand, to your point, is going to be built out. It’s probably going to be built out largely with clean energy. And the good news is we can do this, we can do this. I mean, this year alone, we will have added 60 gigawatts, 30 Hoover Dams’ worth of clean power to the US electric grid. And these data centers, if there’s 50 of them, they may, if they’re gigawatt data centers, that may be 50 gigawatts, that’s probably the high mark of what they would be building out in the United States, for sure. That seems ambitious, but if we’re adding 60 gigawatts this year alone without them bringing their own power, they’re just starting to site these facilities. We can do this. And it’s exciting.

Joe (33:53):
I know we just have a minute left, so I’m going to ask you a huge question and you can truncate as much as you want. When you came into the office, the DOE was largely known in large part for a nuclear waste storage, and you’ve talked about the dramatic changes in terms of the mission of deployment and so forth. For someone coming into running a new organization of any sort that has to do some major mission change, what’s been the biggest lesson or surprise to you about what that takes?

Sec. Granholm (34:21):
Well, let me just say, I don’t know if it’s a surprise, I heard before I got here that this was true, but we have the most amazing team of people at the Department of Energy, the folks who have been working here for years, and the new ones that we’ve hired about a thousand new people for this new mission of deployment that we have.

I’m so proud to be leaving to my successor a department that is full of unbelievable smart professionals, 40,000 scientists at our national labs, people who understand both communities as well as technologies, as well as the market. It’s really, it’s an amazing place, the Department of Energy. This has been the best job I have ever had because of the team and the brilliance of the team here. So I feel wistful leaving, but I am proud that we’re leaving such a great legacy.

Joe (35:21):
Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Thank you so much for coming on Odd Lots.

Sec. Granholm (35:25):
You bet. Thanks so much,

Joe (35:39):
Tracy. I thought that was a great conversation. Before we go any further, the energy historian I was talking about in the beginning, that was Vaclav Smil who has a famous book, Energy and Civilization: A History. These are the big questions of the world.

Tracy (35:52):
No, I need to read that. That looks really good.Okay, so a conversation about big questions. I do think, to your point, you asked this question, but it is kind of funny that every four years, the US can completely redefine its major political priorities in this way, and to some extent start from scratch. That said, as the Secretary was pointing out, there are some areas of overlap. So nuclear and geothermal would be some of them. With geothermal, I sometimes wonder how much Republicans like it just because it’s guys with giant drills doing cool stuff.

Joe (36:28):
Well, you know what? I was joking about this with a friend, but the best thing that would happen for the geothermal industry for its durability would be for Democrats to start attacking it and say ‘This is just shale trying to reinvent itself.’ That would be a really good thing if it became really, how do you ensure you get the environmentalists to say ‘Oh, this is just the shale bros trying to reinvent themselves in some new clean way’ ? That would probably ensure a lot of bipartisan support for it.

Tracy (36:58):
Yeah, I think that’s a great strategy. Okay, look, but there’s this tension that the Secretary was getting at, which is this idea that, okay, on the one hand, maybe the incoming administration, they are not the biggest clean energy fans, let’s just put it that way. But on the other hand, they are very keen to boost US domestic manufacturing. They’re very keen to compete against places like China. And if a lot of Chinese manufacturing dominance is coming from things like EVs or solar panels, it seems like it can be an administrative priority.

Joe (37:33):
Your characterization of the new administration, I would say is mostly right. But people forget that Elon is a big solar bro, first of all. He’s an EV magnate.

Tracy (37:42):
Yeah, well, he also got a loan from the Loan Programs Office.

Joe (37:45):
He did that too, but he’s also very bullish [on solar] — he doesn’t actually talk about it very much. And so who knows exactly what that means in terms of how it translates into policy. He’s talked a lot about how bullish [he is] on solar. So I think there’s just a lot of questions.

And then on the sort of more nuts and bolts political durability, setting aside where the Venn Diagram overlaps in terms of priorities, as the Secretary said, there’s just a lot of investments in red districts or red states, and it’ll be a very interesting question to see how much appetite there is for reversing some of these things.

Tracy (38:17):
Yeah, absolutely. Shall we leave it there?

Joe (38:19):
Let’s leave it there.