You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:

This transcript has been automatically generated.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Robinson Meyer:
Hello, it’s Wednesday, September 9, in the unofficial first week of fall here in the United States. I was out on vacation last week at a great time. And so this week, we’re going to bring you a classic episode of Shift Key. It’s actually one of my favorites that we’ve ever done on the show. I still think back to it all the time. It began our Shift Key Summer School series in 2025. In less than an hour, my old co-host Jesse Jenkins and I are going to try to walk through some of the biggest concepts in energy and electricity and the power grid and explain what gives rise to them and how they work. So this episode is like a one-hour tutorial on how to think about energy, power, watts, horsepower, volts, amps, and what uses approximately one watt-hour, one kilowatt-hour, one megawatt-hour, and one gigawatt-hour. These are terms we use all the time, but don’t always necessarily explain or, fully decode. And so if you care about climate and energy, but have never listened to this show or need a refresh, I encourage you to stick around. We’ll be back next week with a new episode of Shift Key. In fact, more than one new episode, I think. Until then, I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News, and you are listening to Shift Key.
Jesse, let’s start.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, let’s start at the big question. I mean, energy is a weird thing, right? Because it comes in so many different forms that it takes on all kinds of different units, as we’ll talk about here later. And it can kind of be dizzying as we convert back and forth between different forms. And also, we only really experience it like in a physical sense in a couple of its forms, unless you’re shocking yourself. You’re not really feeling electricity on a regular basis, right? And so I like to think of energy to start with in kind of its basic, define its basic terms, right? It’s supposed to be basic scientific information units, SI terms, and then to get a physical intuition for those units. So let’s start with the Joule, all right? The Joule is the SI unit for both work and energy. And the basic definition of energy is the ability to do work, not work in a job, but like work in the physics sense, meaning we are moving or displacing an object around. So a joule is defined as one Newton meter, among other things. It has an electrical equivalent to a Newton is unit of force. And so force is accelerating a mass, right, from basic physics over some distance in this case. So one meter of distance. So we can break that down further, right? And we can describe the Newton as one kilogram accelerated at one meter per second squared. And then the work part is over a distance of one meter.
Jesse Jenkins:
So that kind of gives us a sense, something you feel like a kilogram, right? That’s 2.2 pounds. I don’t know. I’m trying to think of something in my life that weighs a kilogram. I don’t know, a couple pounds of food, I guess. A liter of water weighs a kilogram by definition as well. So if you’ve got like a liter bottle of soda, there’s your kilogram. And then I want to move it over a meter. So I have a distance, I’m displacing it. And then the question is, how fast do I want to do that? How quickly do I want to accelerate that movement? And that’s the acceleration part. And so from there, you kind of get a physical sense of this. Something requires more energy if I’m moving more mass around, or if I’m moving that mass over a longer distance, right? One meter versus a hundred meters versus a kilometer, right? Or if I want to accelerate that mass faster over that distance, right? So zero to 60 in three seconds versus zero to 60 in 10 seconds in your car. That’s going to take more energy to accelerate that that rapidly.
Robinson Meyer:
I’m looking up, What weighs? Oh, here we go. A Mac, a 13-inch MacBook Air weighs about a little more than a kilogram.
Jesse Jenkins:
So, so your laptop. Yeah. If you want to throw your laptop over a meter, accelerating at a pace of one meter per second squared. That’s about a joule. That’s, that’s about a joule.
Robinson Meyer:
It’s not a ton.
Jesse Jenkins:
It’s not a huge unit of energy. We obviously like you’re moving your body around, right? It weighs a bit more than a kilogram, at least mine does. And you’re moving around, accelerating all over the place, walking around like that is using up energy on a regular basis. So joules are pretty small. And that’s important because a joule, a watt, which is actually a unit of power, not a unit of energy, is described as a joule per second. So if energy is a quantity, it’s something that we’re consuming or producing or transporting or converting, then power is the rate at which we’re doing that. So if I’m consuming a joule of energy in a second, that rate of consumption is one watt. One analogy for that is like a bathtub, right? Like the amount of water in the tub, the volume of water, that’s the energy. And the size of the faucet or the rate at which the faucet is adding water to your tub, that’s power.
Robinson Meyer:
I’m raising my hand.
Jesse Jenkins:
Does that make any sense? Yeah, okay. Robinson has a question. Yes, Robinson.
Robinson Meyer:
Okay, so I have a few questions. The first is I just want to, I think it is kind of important to establish like energy here, the joule, what that changes about a substance. And I realize this is like high school physics, physics 101, is the acceleration, not the velocity. Like we sometimes think of energy as a property of velocity, but it’s actually the ability to change velocity. That is what energy does.
Jesse Jenkins:
Right. Yeah, that’s right. I think about the kind of basic Newtonian mechanics. Right. If you’re if you’re in a, you have an object in a vacuum with no friction, right, or no forces working against it, it will continue at the same velocity and the same trajectory forever. Right. And so the what it requires energy is to change that direction or velocity, which requires acceleration or the application of force to some mass.
Robinson Meyer:
You just kind of said this, but like, what is the difference between energy and power?
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah. So energy is the actual thing that it’s the quantity of the thing that’s doing work, right? So it’s the amount of fuel we burned or the number of calories we had to eat to run our bodies over the course of a day or the amount of electricity we had to generate to run our lights or our computer. Power is the rate at which that energy is consumed or supplied or transported or transformed. And so it is not itself a unit of quantity. You don’t use power. You use energy. Power is the rate at which you’re using energy. So again, it’s how quickly the bathtub is filling up or draining, not the quantity of water in the bathtub. So a watt is the basic unit for the SI unit for power, which is going to be equal to energy divided by time, energy over some period of time. So power, energy, and time are fundamentally related in that way. Energy is equal to power times time. So when we talk about electricity units of energy, we usually use the term watt-hours instead of joules. That’s a watt of power sustained over an hour. That’s the quantity of energy that would be delivered over an hour if we were sustaining it at a rate of one watt. So energy equals power times time, power equals energy divided by time. And then I guess time is energy divided by power, if you want to think about it that way.
Robinson Meyer:
So a watt is not specific to electricity. A watt we could actually talk about for any kind of energy. It’s just the fact that we could even describe your car motor.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah. And in fact, in Europe, they do that. They don’t use horsepower. That’s another unit of power. It’s kind of a weird one when you think about it, right? Like, what is a horsepower? Or in the U.S. and in the UK,
Robinson Meyer:
It’s one horse’s power. So yeah, exactly.
Jesse Jenkins:
There’s no confusion about this to me. How big a horse? I have questions about this horse. And in Europe, you’ll often actually see the motors, the engine power rated in kilowatts, which is your maximum power output from that motor. Obviously, when we switch to electric motors, that makes a lot more sense too, because now we’re even talking about electrical power. And when we talk about power plants having a number of watts or kilowatts or megawatts or gigawatts, that’s usually the maximum power output that plant can deliver, right? So it’s a rated power or maximum power. And it doesn’t necessarily produce at that maximum power all the time, right? Think about a wind farm that’s varying in its output with the wind or solar, the sun, or even a nuclear plant that has to shut down for maintenance. And so if you want to understand how much energy a power plant produces, you have to know the power at which it’s producing integrated over time, or what we call the capacity factor, which is the average power of that plant over a given amount of time.
Robinson Meyer:
I want to go there in a second. But first, I want to make sure I understand something correctly, which is as an energy reporter, or as a person who reads energy documents and reads energy stories, reads heat map, there’s a discussion been both of kilowatts, but really of kilowatt-hours. And am I right to understand that one watt, if one watt times one second equals one joule, right? That’s correct, right? Yes, that’s correct. A kilowatt-hour is a, even though it sounds like a chunky unit, and sometimes I feel like it’s a bit of a weird unit to throw around, it is the same, it’s measuring the same kind of thing that joules are measuring. In other words, when I throw my laptop one meter, and from that distance at one meter for a second, right? Right. That’s actually, the thing we’re measuring by saying that I’ve just expended one joule of energy is the same ultimate substance that we’re measuring when we say a solar farm put out 60 kilowatt-hour.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, that’s right. And that’s worth pausing on because, again, this is why energy is so slippery a concept, because it can come in so many different forms. And we often use different units when we’re talking about a different form. So when it’s electricity, we often, we talk about kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours. We should pause and say a kilowatt is a thousand watts, right? So a kilowatt-hour is a thousand watt-hours.
Jesse Jenkins:
So we got all these prefixes too. But, you know, you could, so we’ve talked about defining energy in physical terms, right? Displacing a kilowatt over a meter at some, at a meter per second squared of acceleration. But you can also think about it in heat terms. So, you know, heating up a body of water or heating up a room, right? That’s going to require energy to do that, right? Energy coming out of your furnace or your fireplace or whatever else. And we often have different units for that too. So calories are the standard unit in SI terms. Whereas we also often talk about British thermal units or BTUs in energy world. This is an imperial unit that we rarely use outside of the U.S.. Those units are defined in terms of the amount of heat required to usually to heat up some unit of water. So, for example, a calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a liter of water by one degree Celsius. And that’s the kilocalorie. That’s the big calorie. The small calories or gram calories is one millimeter of water raised by one centimeter. So that’s the other way we can think about it as like a heat flux, right? That’s what a lot of our energy goes to combustion, right? To generate heat and then do something with that heat.
Jesse Jenkins:
So that’s another way to get a physical intuition for energy. But then often we use different terms. Energy, of course, can also be contained in the chemical bonds of certain things. That’s what we’re combusting. We’re breaking up the chemical bonds of wood or coal or natural gas. And so then we also talk about the heat content of or energy content of those fuels. And you can use joules for that. You can use BTUs. You can use calories. You could use megawatt-hours or kilowatt-hours. Or in many cases, they use physical units to describe different types of fuels as well. So you might hear things like barrels of oil or millions of tons of coal. Those all have to be standardized units of energy as well which just adds to the confusion
Robinson Meyer:
So one calorie one kilocalorie i believe is 4 186 joules.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah of course you can do that mental math in your head right
Robinson Meyer:
I do it all the time so i think what’s interesting here is that you know the hue if you think about a standard this isn’t quite standard anymore but if you think about of people eating 2,000 calories a day, that means the human body’s expending like 8.3 million joules a day.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, 8.3 megajoules.
Robinson Meyer:
I think, yeah, exactly. That’s 2.3 kilowatt-hours. So does that mean actually people use more? How many, what’s a household use of kilowatt-hour? Like one point something?
Jesse Jenkins:
No. So a typical household in the U.S., and this would be less if you’re in Europe or somewhere else, consumes a little bit over a kilowatt of average power. So that’s the average rate at which they’re consuming electricity. Now, of course, it goes up and down as you turn off on and off devices, right?
Robinson Meyer:
That’s about 24 kilowatt-hours a day.
Jesse Jenkins:
Right? Exactly. So that’s a little over 24 kilowatt-hours a day.
Robinson Meyer:
So a family of three.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah. So according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average U.S. household consumes about 10,500 kilowatt-hours of electricity a year. So that’s about 28, 29 kilowatt-hours a day or about 1.2 kilowatts average over the course of the day.
Robinson Meyer:
Well, I’m now just thinking about, you know, the average diet for a person, right? It’s 2,500 kilocalories, which is about 2.5 kilowatt-hours. So what?
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, that’s a good, that’s a good way to think about.
Robinson Meyer:
Your house is using 10 times as much energy as your body is at any, through the day.
Jesse Jenkins:
And that’s just the electricity. Yeah, that’s just the electricity part of the energy too. If you’re driving to work in a car that’s not electric, you’re not, that’s not counted in that energy consumption that you’re in and you’re consuming the energy in your gasoline. If you’re heating your home with natural gas, right, that’s not counted there too. But yeah, to give a sense of scale, I like that. One human is 2.4 kilowatt-hours or something like that. Four kilowatt-hours is the amount of energy you’d need to run a window AC unit of a half a watt, half a kilowatt for eight hours. You want to cool yourself for eight hours a night while you’re sleeping, that is four kilowatt-hours. So usually we’re thinking about most things we’re doing that are like major energy users are in the kilowatt-hour scale.
Robinson Meyer:
I like this because I think, I mean, there’s a certain element to where this is getting a little matrixy, where we talk about humans producing kilowatt-hours of electricity. But no, I like this because it makes sense, right? I have one more question, which is in energy writing and energy reporting, I think there’s often... It’s very common, simply frankly, in writing to avoid echoes, to avoid repetition, to vary referring to energy as power or referring to it as energy. Do you think that’s okay? Do you think that’s forgivable? Or are there moments where we’re writing about power that we should be sure to call it power and moments where we’re writing about energy? Because I think especially writing about the power grid, referring to electricity, energy and power, those things are basically treated as interchangeable, even though from a physics perspective, they aren’t.
Jesse Jenkins:
So as we’ve talked about here, the way we experience the grid is in terms of energy, right? It’s in terms of the amount of energy we’re using to do something useful. So I would recommend generally reporting it in those terms, in energy terms. And that’s just because the rate at which we consume energy or the power varies dramatically, as we were talking about over the course of a day. Do I have my EV charger on or off? Do I have my air conditioner on or off? These cause huge swings in the rate at which we’re actually consuming that energy or the power rate. And that’s also true on the generator side, too. Think about particularly we’re talking about reporting the size of an offshore wind farm or a solar plant. You usually will hear that expressed in terms of its maximum rated power output. It’s a 300 megawatt wind farm, for example. That’s the maximum it can produce or the maximum power rate at which it can produce. But it doesn’t sustain at that rate all the time. And so the average power rate is much lower than that. And that’s where this capacity factor concept comes in, which is basically the average power rate divided by the maximum possible. So if we say a wind farm has a capacity factor of 50%, then that 300 megawatt wind farm, that’s 300 megawatts of maximum power, is varying around between zero and 300. On an average, it’s producing energy at a rate of 150 megawatts.
Jesse Jenkins:
Even a nuclear plant isn’t running constantly. That’s as close as you get to an equivalence between a power rating and an energy output because it runs 90% of the time. But even there, the nuclear plant turns off for 12 weeks every 18 months to refuel. And so it’s not producing all the time either. So I would probably counsel describing things in energy terms for the most part, because that’s what we actually experience as heat or as acceleration of mass or other things that we can feel in our daily lives.
Robinson Meyer:
Let’s talk about scale for a second. So in writing about electricity and in writing about renewables specifically, you encounter these kind of like big units, right? You encounter watts, but you really encounter kilowatts, megawatts, gigawatts, and then at the scale of national systems, terawatts. And for ease of use, these energy units are almost always followed up by, and this is the number of households it powers, right? This is the number of average households it’s going to power. But the thing is, when you start digging under the surface, there’s a huge amount of variance in those household terms. And I think it really obfuscates how people understand the energy system and the power grid. So how much are these units, if we want to switch to a unit first and a watt first way of thinking about renewables and thinking about electricity, How big is a kilowatt? How big is a megawatt? What is the right comparisons to hold in our head for those that don’t require just converting to like, oh, this is 10,000 households and this is a million households?
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah. So again, if you’re thinking in watts, you’re talking about power. And so there, again, it’s like, are you trying to describe an instantaneous power, a maximum power, an average power? Those are all different things. I think the key thing is, if you’re talking about power, you got to start with what am I actually trying to describe? And if I’m not actually trying to describe a unit of power, I’m actually trying to describe a unit of energy, which is like how much energy households use, then we probably shouldn’t be using watts, or we should be using watt-hours or their equivalent. So that’s my first point. So let’s talk about scale.
Robinson Meyer:
Yeah.
Jesse Jenkins:
So to follow my own advice, let’s start with the energy units first, and you’ll get the relationship here between energy and power to some degree in this explanation. So if I’m talking about the amount of energy that a computer, a laptop or a light uses over an hour, for example, that’s the scale of like tens of watt-hours. So a 10 or 15 watt LED bulb, that’s the maximum power it’s consuming when it’s on. So if you have a 10 watt bulb on for an hour, that’s 10 watt-hours. The draw of a typical laptop, if you look on the back, it’s, let me see what mine is.
Jesse Jenkins:
It looks like my laptop is rated at 60, 60-ish watts of power draw. So if it’s on and I’m computing at its maximum power draw for an hour, then I’m using 60 watt-hours. Personal electronics, lights, those are on the scale of watt-hours per hour. You know, so I’m, you know, if I’m using it for days or weeks, then it might grow to a kilowatt-hour. But if I’m thinking about kind of the near term use of a period of hours of a laptop, cell phone, or an LED light, those are in the scale of watt-hours. If we’re talking about other larger consumers of electricity, or again, the scale of annual of daily use of a human, then we’re at the scale of kilowatt-hours or 1000 watt-hours. So like you said, a human uses roughly 2.5 kilowatt-hours of food a day. If you’re running your air conditioning unit over the course of the day, that’s going to be in singles to tens of kilowatt-hours. Your solar panels on your roof are usually on the scale of 5 to 10 kilowatts of maximum capacity. And so they produce 25% on average. Maybe they’re producing four kilowatt-hours per hour on average and seven kilowatt-hours per hour and the sun is up. Something like that and your chargers as well your ev charger is also on the scale of several kilowatts also
Robinson Meyer:
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by RE Plus 26, the largest and most comprehensive clean energy event in North America, bringing together 37,000 clean energy professionals and more than 1,100 exhibitors from November 16th through 19th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Experience a complete agenda spanning solar, storage, microgrids, EVs, grid-edge technologies, and beyond, with tracks built around policy drivers, tech trends, land use, grid integration, finance, and business strategy. At REplus26, you can network with the companies and experts advancing projects, improving supply chains, developing resilient solutions, and more, plus the tools to find them. Whether you’re sourcing new technology scouting your next partner or just trying to keep up with where this industry is moving you’ll find it here all in one place all in one week it’s re plus 26 this is where today’s energy is being built to meet tomorrow’s demand register at replus.com and use code shift key 20 that’s shift key 20 to save 20 off a full conference pass.
Robinson Meyer:
One reason load growth has come back, right, is because through the 20 teens, and at least this is my understanding, you should correct me if this is wrong, but through the 20 teens, we were basically increasing the efficiency of the power grid at the same time that we were adding new demand to the power grid. And we were increasing the efficiency because we were replacing the stock of incandescent light bulbs with LED light bulbs. Basically, like that was the biggest story in electricity demand. And if just to go back to your units, like if you think about how much power an incandescent light bulb draws, it’s like 60 watts. And now, as you were saying, it’s 60 to 100. And now, as you were saying, LED light bulb draws like 10. Like that’s where the demand growth went during the 20 teens. And the fact that we’ve now basically finished converting, you know, most light bulbs in the United States to LEDs and but are still adding new capacity, like no wonder demand growth is back. Anyway, I just wanted to interject that because I was really, I think it’s evocative of how, like, we’re talking about 50 watts per light bulb, which is a lot, but also how these small, relatively small differences in power units add up to, massive utility scale decision making. Anyway, though, as you were saying, EV, it drives a kilowatt.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, EVs are on the scale of kilowatts. Yeah, no, that’s helpful, I think, to remember. And it’s interesting because, of course, electricity was first used for lighting. That was its first application way back when. And now it’s interesting that lighting has become so efficient that it’s such a tiny sliver of the overall electricity usage nationally now. And so many other things, air conditioning and increasingly EVs and heat pumps and data centers and computing and everything else are the big drivers. So, yeah, a couple other things that maybe are to give us, again, on like a household scale that we’re used to interacting with. I mean, one would be a tank of gasoline in your car, right, in your conventional car. So a gallon of gasoline contains about 40 and a half kilowatt-hours, 40.5 kilowatt-hours. So one gallon of gasoline is on that scale of a couple gallons of gasoline, I guess, are on that scale of like average household electricity use over the course of a day. Now, of course, you can’t turn gasoline directly into electricity at a one for one conversion ratio, right? You got to use a diesel generator, which itself is only maybe 30% efficient. So it actually takes a lot more than that. And that’s also partly why electric motors are so much more efficient, right? At taking the energy in your battery and converting them into traction in your cars, because there’s already electricity. You don’t have to combust anything to make heat and then drive motion and then turn that motion into power in your wheels, right?
Robinson Meyer:
There’s a lot less heat loss. Yeah.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah. Tons less. Yeah, exactly. So internal combustion cars, maybe a third as efficient as an electric vehicle. So yeah, tank of gas, 10-gallon tank of gas, 400-ish kilowatt-hours. That’s actually quite a lot. This is why fossil fuels are so amazing. You can fill 10 gallons of gasoline and have an enormous amount of energy from a kind of personal perspective.
Robinson Meyer:
Right. I mean, it is actually like when you fill up your car’s gas tank, let’s say it’s eight to 12 gallons, relatively.
Jesse Jenkins:
It’s a lot. Several hundred kilowatt-hours.
Robinson Meyer:
That’s your weekly or even more than weeks worth of household electricity use.
Jesse Jenkins:
Right. And also I should think about it’s about a week’s worth of commuting, too. Right. You don’t use up your full gas tank in a day, usually, unless you’re an Uber driver, perhaps. Yeah. So then anyway, so now we’re, yeah, we’re in like weekly scale consumption. Now we’re talking about megawatt-hours, whether that’s your commute energy usage or your household energy electricity usage. Then when we talk about gigawatt-hours, now we’re starting to talk about power plant scale, right? Or data center scale or industrial facility scale. A large nuclear reactor is typically on the scale of about a gigawatt or a billion watts. It’s a million kilowatt-hours or kilowatts. So a gigawatt scale power plant, again, producing for an hour would produce one gigawatt-hour of electricity. So when we’re in that scale of gigawatt-hours, we’re talking about the output, sort of the hour by hour output of a large power plant, or a large data center or something of that scale. Those are going to be in your gigawatt-hour terms. And then you indicated earlier terawatts, that’s the next scale up, 3,000 gigawatt-hours is a terawatt-hour. Now we’re talking about the scale of annual production for a power plant or annual consumption for a state or a data center or something like that. Those are going to be in the scale of hundreds of terawatt-hours. And nationally, we consume about 4,200 terawatt-hours of electricity annually in the U.S. today. So there’s now we’re in the 1000 terawatt-hour scale. Now we’re talking about national annual electricity usage.
Robinson Meyer:
I think you skipped directly from megawatts to from kilowatts to megawatts. But can you briefly talk about megawatts?
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, megawatt is 1000 kilowatts. So a megawatt-hour is 1000 kilowatt-hours as well. And then that’s, again, the scale of your weekly electricity consumption in your home or your weekly consumption of gasoline for your commute, or maybe several weeks.
Robinson Meyer:
Renewables. I mean, I feel like when we talk about solar farms, we’re usually talking about in the world of megawatts.
Jesse Jenkins:
So that’s true. Most power plants are smaller than a gigawatt. A nuclear plant is big. Most power plants are several tens to hundreds of megawatts scale production. So if they’re producing for an hour, then you’re in the tens to hundreds of megawatt-hours range. But if they’re producing for a year, you’re more like terawatt-hours.
Robinson Meyer:
I just want to stick in megawatts for a second, because it’s actually when we talk about renewables and when we talk about renewable sized additions to the power grid, we tend to be in megawatts. Only when you talk about these giant generating sites, like Vogel units three and four are each, I believe, more than a gigawatt. They’re like 1.2 gigawatts or something. You talk about these massive, massive new nuclear power plants, then we’re talking about gigawatts. But mostly in the world of when we talk about adding new power demand, especially from renewables, it tends to be in megawatt-hour world. Just for instance, A technology that we don’t hear very much about anymore, concentrated solar thermal, but that if you’ve ever flown across the country, I’m just thinking about this because I think it’s evocative. When you fly across the country, there are two big concentrated solar plants. These are the mirrors that point at the single tower and then boil things. And when birds fly across, they instantly get incinerated. but anyway um uh, evampa this famous concentrated solar thermal plant that went up early in the obama administration and is going to close actually next year that is 392 megawatts.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah you would see this out your window if you’re flying from
Robinson Meyer:
Exactly that’s why los.
Jesse Jenkins:
Angeles over towards las vegas
Robinson Meyer:
And exactly we’ve had folks from Fervo Energty, the advanced geothermal company on this podcast. They’re working on applying, as we’ve discussed then, Fervo is the company, one of the several companies that’s working on applying fracking techniques to generating clean electricity through drilling new geothermal wells. Cape Station in Beaver County, Utah, their big demonstration project, that’s 400 megawatts.
Jesse Jenkins:
When it’s fully built out.
Robinson Meyer:
That’s going to be 400 megawatts when it’s fully built out. Empire Wind, which is the big Equinor offshore wind project in New York State, is 810 megawatts. And so just to give you a sense, what is the average combined cycle gas?
Jesse Jenkins:
A couple hundred megawatts.
Robinson Meyer:
A couple hundred megawatts. So just to be clear, when we talk about power plants, normally we’re in this world of talking about megawatts. anyway though.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, or hundreds of megawatts.
Robinson Meyer:
Or hundreds of megawatts.
Jesse Jenkins:
Or another perspective is Princeton University has a gas turbine here that we use to generate some electricity as well as use the waste heat for heating and cooling of the campus. We’re going to shut that down soon and replace it with our ground source geothermal project. But that’s a 15 megawatt turbine. So for the scale of a single campus, you might have a tens of megawatt scale facility. The data centers, like the big exascale data centers we’re talking about, like giant ones, Those are usually in the hundreds of megawatts to even gigawatt scale facilities now that we’re talking about some building out three, four or five gigawatt scale campuses for data centers. So that’s pretty wild. The other way to think about a gigawatt, I usually think of it in terms of if, again, if it’s a gigawatt of average consumption, that’s like 800,000 homes. So if you assume two people per home on average, that’s like a city of one and a half million people scale. So a gigawatt is a city scale of consumption or production on average, which starts to give you the sale of these data centers, right? If it’s a gigawatt scale data center, we’re talking about like plopping down another one and a half million people’s worth of electricity use with one of those facilities. That’s big.
Robinson Meyer:
How do you convert? You just kind of did it off the cuff. But often when you see these megawatt, gigawatt numbers, they’re immediately followed by a conversion to homes.
Robinson Meyer:
And I think when you’ve been paying any attention to this, you realize that these conversions could be like, are especially in PR documents are like so off the cuff. They’re like not comparable at all. What do you think is the best?
Jesse Jenkins:
There’s some embedded assumptions in there.
Robinson Meyer:
Yes, exactly. And they also vary a lot by region, where like Texas homes use a lot more electricity than homes in the Northeast.
Jesse Jenkins:
Yeah, so there’s a couple of kind of embedded assumptions there. The most important of which is the average power output of the facility versus its maximum. And then what you assume for how much electricity a household uses. So let’s take the Empire Wind Project. You said it was 810 megawatts. That’s its maximum capacity.
Jesse Jenkins:
Let’s assume it’s about a 50% capacity factor. That’s a good average power output ratio for a wind farm. So, you know, wind farms in the Great Plains states on shore, they might be approaching 50% capacity factor. Offshore wind, maybe they’re in that range, 40 to 50%. So let’s say 50% round turn round numbers. That means it’s generating 405 megawatts of power on average. That’s pretty big. That’s a couple of combined cycle power plants worth all the time cranking out power 24-7. So that’s a fairly big amount of energy from that wind farm. But then we have to assume that the average consumption of a household, which according to EIA nationally is about 1.2 kilowatts. So I take that 405 megawatts, that’s 405,000 kilowatts of average power output. If I assume the average home uses 1.2 kilowatts per hour, then that’s about 337,000 homes, Call it 340,000 in round numbers or 330,000. That’s the kind of conversion that’s being done behind the scenes when someone is reporting the number of households.
Jesse Jenkins:
And of course, it depends. If I change that capacity factor to 40%, I get more like 270,000 households, not 340. If I take maybe a more New York specific household electricity consumption rate, which might be different from the national average, I’m going to get a totally different number too. So that’s where it gets a little tricky is what are you embedding in there? And I think the best thing to do is just get a feel for the round numbers here, right? We’re talking about Empire Wind is several hundred thousand homes. That’s the scale at which it produces. And that’s probably as accurate as we can get in these kinds of conversions.
Robinson Meyer:
Can I ask one more question, which is, are homes even the right way to think about this? We always convert to homes, but like, People don’t only use electricity at homes. Businesses use electricity. Industrial facilities use electricity. So what’s the breakdown of where U.S. Power demand goes to homes versus businesses versus, let’s say, industrial uses?
Jesse Jenkins:
So it looks like just a bit over a third of U.S. electricity production goes to residential usage. As of 2022, it was 38.4% of U.S. electricity sales were to households, residential consumption. That’s about equal in size. About 35% went to commercial buildings, offices, and other commercial spaces. And about 26% went to industry. So think of it as like a quarter going to industry. If we all switch to EVs, maybe that’s not true. I was going to say, I think maybe the share of consumption from industry and commercial properties is going to go up over time more rapidly than households because of the efficiency gains. But maybe that’s not true anymore. We’ve tapped out the lighting efficiency improvements, like you said. And if we all convert to electric heating and EVs, then actually residential consumption could grow quite significantly. So I guess if you’re thinking about what’s the largest user today, it is the largest sector is residential consumption. So maybe households are the right number to think of. I’m not sure what else. We could use EVs. That would be the other. As more and more people start to switch to EVs, maybe we’ll start to say this will power however many million EVs for a week or commutes for a week or something like that. That could be the next intuitive thing that we might switch to.
Robinson Meyer:
One more question, which is that people, what this all means, and I just want to make sure, is that when you’re looking at, say, what energy use is for a geographic area or for a system, you have to be careful, between maximum use, average use. You said this at the beginning, but I want to draw it out. Between maximum use, average use, and annual use, because all of those, if I’m understanding correctly, will be in watt-hour, whether it’s megawatt or gigawatt. And you just have to be careful that you don’t elide them. I was looking up because I was curious. The New York City subway system uses 3,500 megawatt-hours annually. So what is that? 3.5 gigawatts?
Jesse Jenkins:
3.5 gigawatt-hours, yeah. 3.5
Robinson Meyer:
Gigawatt-hours annually.
Jesse Jenkins:
So that would be like three and a half nuclear reactors producing continuously. Or seven natural gas power plants or seven to ten natural gas power plants producing continuously. That’s a lot of electricity.
Robinson Meyer:
That’s a lot of electricity.
Jesse Jenkins:
If you think in the household, too, it’s interesting to break down. The biggest users, and I think you guys did a good job in your decarbonize your life guide that everybody should check out at Heatmap, pointing out that there are just a few really large consumers of electricity in a typical home. That is space heating and cooling. That’s the biggest one by far. Coming in at about a quarter that size or maybe a third is water heating, if you have an electric water heater. And then even smaller than that is refrigerators. Beyond that, everything else is very small, unless you have an EV, which would be on the scale of your heating and cooling too. Lighting used to be part of that equation, but it’s not anymore, as we’ve talked about, because of the growth of LEDs.
Robinson Meyer:
I learned a lot from this.
Jesse Jenkins:
It’s interesting to do this without my lecture slides with a microphone instead. Hopefully that was somewhat helpful.
Robinson Meyer:
And that will do it for us this week. But stick around after the show. We have an exclusive interview between Heatmap Labs and Seyed Madaeni, the CEO and co-founder of Verse. And thank you to Verse for sponsoring this episode and recent episodes of Shift Key. I have to say, it’s going to be such a busy fall here at Shift Key. And we’re going to kick it off next week with an all-new episode. So listen in then. Until then, Shift Key is a production of Heatmap News. Our editors are Jillian Goodman and Nika Lauricella. Multimedia editing and audio engineering is by Jacob Lambert and by Nick Woodbury. Our music is by Adam Kromelow. Thanks so much for listening. We’ll see you next week.
Mike Munsell:
My name is Mike Munsell, and I’m the Vice President of Partnerships with Heatmap News. Over the last two conversations with Seyed Madaeni, we talked about what Verse is doing now to help data centers connect to power more quickly. In today’s conversation, we take a longer view, and we discuss Verse’s plans over the next five years and beyond. What are the biggest opportunities for Verse over the next five years? Are you looking to expand into new market segments or even new geographies?
Seyed Madaeni:
Yeah, so I wouldn’t brag that we’re an AI company. I think all companies are AI companies. If you’re not doing AI, you’re not really a real company. But there is a lot of technology that we’re building. It’s one of those things that AI alone can solve the problem. When it comes to physically controlling large pieces of infrastructure, you really need a talented team and we’re blessed to have those folks in-house so expanding the technology and product which requires human and tokens is definitely on our radar and that’s why we actually went out and raised capital because you know we’re actually putting fuel on the fire and running faster which is the whole concept of venture-backed companies you really need to have an understanding and a pathway that you really want to run faster and you have the backlog and commitment to do so.
Seyed Madaeni:
And then obviously, expanding to new markets is a big priority for us. We do have a presence and footprint in Europe. We’re trying to deepen our bench and strength in European markets. Eventually, we’ll be in APAC as well. But I definitely believe in the walk, jog, run philosophy. There’s so much to do here in Northern America that we haven’t even scratched the surface. So while the opportunities arise everywhere, I think as a founder, as a person who’s been in this field, concentration and focus pays off really well. So we want to do things one step at a time. Do you think load growth will continue at its current pace for the foreseeable future? Yeah. I mean, was it in 2022 or 2023 where we first saw FURC came out with their load growth forecast jumping from 2% to 5%, which is ironic. It was astonishing to see because doubling up your forecast on a year-over-year basis was unprecedented.
Seyed Madaeni:
Now, what drove that load growth? Unfortunately, it wasn’t so much EV adoption. It was the whole rise of AI and data center and CapEx. In our view, load growth absolutely will grow unless we want to give up the AI race. You need to build a certain conservatism in it because I don’t believe the 700 data centers in the queue for accessing power are going to get built. So there’s a lot of duplicates and a lot of kind of anomalies in there. But at the end of the day, it’s a solid amount of capacity that needs to be built. And I think we also need to pair that with environmental constraints. How do these data centers become good grid citizens? Absolutely feasible, absolutely doable. The type of technology that is being paired with these data centers could avoid transmission charges, avoid capacity charges, avoid investments in stranded assets, which was the whole concept of non-wires alternatives, which was well studied 10 or 15 years ago. We just need to create the right incentives and really make sure that the AI race stays here in the U.S., but we do it sustainably. We do it in an environmental friendly way. And we also make sure we protect our rate payers, which is you and I at the end of the day. Appreciate that.
Mike Munsell:
Is there anything about the future of power and AI that you think the market’s getting the most wrong right now?
Seyed Madaeni:
I wouldn’t say there’s a fundamental misconception around load growth, but there might be some bullish numbers out there that, you know, for example, I use the 700 number, that 430 gigawatts of data centers is going to get connected. It won’t. We are doing our best, but we’re not going to have 100% market share. You know there’s pressure on supply chain for physical power generating assets there’s limits there so I think depending on where do you fall on that spectrum your perspective on how bullish is this going to be there’s a spectrum on it and it’s going to change but fundamentally is low growth going to be astonishing yes to what degree that’s where a lot of different perspectives come into play depending on who you ask.
Mike Munsell:
What do you think the U.S. risks losing economically if we can’t bring new power on fast enough?
Seyed Madaeni:
You know, the analogy that I want to use, although I wasn’t born in that era, I mean, we are essentially in a Cold War time. It’s not about going to the moon. It’s not about controlling nuclear bombs. It’s about controlling this technology, which is going to fundamentally change how we work, eat, sleep, and how we breathe oxygen. That is AI. And that’s going to be part of our narrative, let alone getting into robotics. And how’s that going to change everything? So right now, I mean, if I want to be straight, it’s us and China. And who’s going to win this race? It’s going to be dependent on innovation and technology and advanced manufacturing and chips and also the power grid. And I can tell you, we are behind China in the power perspective. I mean, China has the most dominant and aggressive deployments of clean power. I don’t think they did it just because it’s clean. I think they understood it’s flexible and cheap and you don’t need to rely on fossil fuels in the Strait of Hormuz. Versus we are kind of grappling with political issues when it comes to sources of power. Some people call it a green scam, but nowadays CFOs love it. So we are behind from the power perspective. We are ahead, not by much. We are ahead by the basic AI models and the chip design and chip manufacturing. But who’s going to win ultimately needs to cover all aspects. And we are helping. We are contributing as much as we can on the power front.
But it’s not just about verse and what we do. It’s about all the dominoes need to be into place. Well, let’s just talk a little bit about that one domino. Now, if you could sum up this conversation, what Verse means to the grid, what it means to speed to power, what it means to this point in the history of power markets, how would you sum that up for Verse? I would sum that up in… The central power grid is out of capacity we need to take that and decentralize it. And the way to do it is invest in small generators at these local facilities and build the technology on top to orchestrate these power assets that is the model of verse taking a centralized grid and decentralizing it that will solve many problems it will help us with the grid problem it help us with being good grid citizens it helps us powering the ai race and we can do it in a sustainable way we’re just the cog in this big machine you know i just want to give a shout out to my team they’re working day and night solving some of the world’s technologically complicated problems because you know i always say the most non-linear complex system designing created by humankind before the age of computers is the power grid. And we’re hoping to modernize that we’re hoping to decentralize that. And that requires a lot of hard work and long nights. And I’m just proud to meet next to these guys to kind of see it happen.
Mike Munsell:
Is there anything that you wish was happening on the policy front in the U.S. grid?
Seyed Madaeni:
Clarity. Clarity is the number one thing. No decisions are way worse than bad decisions. So if we can centralize what is the right rate structure, what is the right policies, what is the right framework for winning the AI race in a sustainable way, I think everybody is willing to move in that direction. If we don’t have that, then people go in different directions and a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty happens, which we don’t need that right now. We need to minimize uncertainty. We need to all be clear and moving in the right direction. So my folks, friends in the Capitol Hill, lobbyists, utilities, technologists, hyperscalers, we all need to come in the room and make good decisions because whatever we decide now is going to impact the longevity and our future as a nation. So I wish that happened sooner than later.
Mike Munsell:
Awesome. We’ll leave it at that. Thank you so much, Seyed, for joining the podcast.
Seyed Madaeni:
Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Mike Munsell:
That wraps up our conversations with Seyed Madaeni ceo of Verse to learn more about verse visit verse.inc or click the link in the show notes page thanks so much for listening
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
This transcript has been automatically generated.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Robinson Meyer:
Hello, it’s Thursday, November 12, and Congress is still debating the Senate Permitting Bill, officially known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. We’ve been covering the bill here at Heatmap, as you know, and it would do a lot of different things, so many that it’s actually a bit of a struggle to summarize them all in just the introduction to this show. But let’s say briefly, it would initiate a federal buildout of long distance transmission lines, rework some parts of the National Environmental Policy Act, and changed some of how the federal government works with tribes. It would also rewrite parts of the Clean Water Act to generally give states less power and rewrite the Endangered Species Act to generally give states more power.
Robinson Meyer:
As I’m sure you’ve seen, it’s divided the environmental community and the broader set of interest groups that are aligned with the Democratic Party. The Wilderness Society opposes the bill, as does Earth Justice and former Vice President Al Gore. The AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Electrician’s Union, and the National Urban League all support the bill. One of the few environmental groups that has endorsed the bill is Evergreen Action. They were founded by alumni of Jay Inslee’s entirely climate change-focused presidential campaign back in 2020.
Robinson Meyer:
And I would say in the firmament of environmental NGOs, they are a relatively young star. They’re focused entirely, as you’ll hear, on climate change, decarbonization, and clean energy. And that gives them, I think, a unique focus compared to some other environmental groups that have kind of long-term conservation interests or biodiversity concerns and have only recently kind of adjusted for an era of climate politics. Our two guests today are both from Evergreen. Lena Moffitt is the executive director of Evergreen Action. She’s originally from New Mexico and has a long career in climate advocacy. She spent about a decade with the Sierra Club where she worked on campaigns that included the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, the effort to regulate methane emissions. Before that, she was at the National Wildlife Federation and their climate and energy program. And she also worked at the Union of Concerned Scientists to pass the Waxman-Markey climate legislation back at the beginning of the Obama administration. We’re also joined by Pete Wyckoff. You will hear on this show how Pete and I know each other, but he’s currently VP of Policy at Evergreen. Before that, he was Deputy Commissioner of Energy Resources in the state of Minnesota and a Senior Policy Advisor even before that to U.S. Senator Tina Smith. He is an environmental scientist by training.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, Lena, and I talk on this show about why Evergreen is endorsing this bill, why they think Democrats should take what is a relatively painful compromise for many lawmakers, and what keeps them up at night about this bill, even though they are endorsing it. We also have to talk about what would need to happen if this bill does pass for this bill to be as effective as they hope it will be. I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News and all that and more. It’s all coming up on Shift Key. Lena Moffitt and Pete Wyckoff, welcome to Shift Key.
Pete Wyckoff:
Thanks for having us. Thank you so much, Rob.
Robinson Meyer:
So I feel like, Pete, you and I have to just briefly start here, which is that for me, this is the continuation of a long journey that we’ve had together because we watched the, I will always remember this, the night the Inflation Reduction Act passed, it was an overnight voterama, as they always are on reconciliation bills. I went to the Hill. I stayed in the Hill overnight because I was not going to miss this event in the Hill. You worked for Senator Tina Smith at the time. The sun was coming up. I thought, I’m going to go outside and watch the sun come up. And you were there, too, when we watched the sun rise on the Inflation Reduction Act together.
Pete Wyckoff:
I very much remember that. I told Lena that before we got on this podcast. And she said, oh, bring that up. It adds color. So you beat me to it. So, yes, I had a bagel, too, from the bagel shop over by the Heritage Foundation.
Robinson Meyer:
Oh, my gosh.
Pete Wyckoff:
I don’t think I shared my bagel with you.
Robinson Meyer:
You didn’t share your bagel.
Pete Wyckoff:
We did watch the sunrise.
Robinson Meyer:
We did watch the sunrise. What a day that was. And to some degree, it has brought us to this conversation. It has brought us to where we are now. And so one thing that hasn’t maybe been discussed as much, but which is very apparent to those of us who’ve, like, been in the trenches the whole time, is that you don’t get this bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, Baja, Baja, whatever we’re calling it, without the Inflation Reduction Act. And you don’t get Democrats who feel as strongly about it as they do, and as Senator Heinrich does and Senator the White House do, without the IRA experience. And so we’re going to talk about that today. But first, Lena, let’s bring you in. It has been so interesting watching the politics of this bill play out. We’re recording this at the moment where the Senate has already had its procedural votes on the permitting bill. It has yet to do the amendments. It’s yet to do the substantive vote. But there’s been a real divide in the environmental community on this bill. And largely that divide has been some groups opposing and some groups staying silent. But Evergreen chose to speak out and endorse this permitting bill.
Robinson Meyer:
Why did Evergreen choose to endorse this bill?
Lena Moffitt:
I’ve so enjoyed your coverage of this, and it has been really intense to watch and intense to be in the middle of it in the past few days. So hopefully your listeners are familiar with Evergreen, but just in case they’re not, we are a small climate advocacy organization that was founded about five years ago by staff of then-Governor Jay Inslee, when he was running for president, and we are committed to carrying forward Jay Inslee’s vision on climate, which is essentially that you can tackle climate change and, build an inclusive, thriving, clean energy economy at the same time. And we all know that to do that, that means moving away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. And to power our economy with clean energy means a couple of things. Building a whole lot of clean energy fast and building a lot of transmission to carry that clean energy from where it’s generated to where people live, as you and your interviewees have talked about quite a bit. But unfortunately, that is not happening in our country right now. And to solve the climate crisis, we need that clean energy and that transmission. And this bill would open the floodgates for speedy construction of the interregional transmission that we just have not been building.
Lena Moffitt:
And even though this is very much a compromise bill, it has a lot of really hard tradeoffs in it that have, genuinely kept me up in the middle of the night for months on end now. We believe that this bill would take us one step closer to tackling the climate crisis, and therefore it is worth it because we’re not going to be able to make that transition, simply put, without this transmission. And if we don’t, the climate crisis will just get worse and worse and more people will die. And so we decided to support it mostly because of that.
Robinson Meyer:
I feel like I’ve said this a few times about this bill, but it’s always the case that where there’s conflict generates the most journalistic coverage. Because if there’s conflict, that means people disagree. And that means we I think this is more than just an if it bleeds, it leads thing. I think like as journalists, we want to feel useful. And if there’s conflict, that means we can go do fact finding. We can go referee discussions and debates, and then we can maybe come up with an answer. The transmission section maybe has not generated as much coverage because everyone has sort of gotten religion on this section. But this has all meant that we haven’t talked as much about what the transmission section would do. So can you just briefly explain how the transmission section works and why it’s so good that you’re able to overcome these other points that may be more troubling?
Lena Moffitt:
Definitely want Pete to talk about this one because he’s got a front row seat to experiencing what the lack of transmission has meant for our inability to transition over the past few years, especially since the Inflation Reduction Act. But I would say as a movement strategist at the highest level, I’ve been lucky enough to be in the environmental space my entire career, spent most of it fighting pipelines. I spent most of it fighting fossil fuel infrastructure projects. And I don’t want to throw any shade on my colleagues in the environmental movement, but I do think that we need to be focusing on removing barriers.
Lena Moffitt:
Uncorking the floodgate of clean energy that we know is needed, and take what we can get right in front of us. Like I do think that we need to get more comfortable with compromise, frankly, and more comfortable with like, let’s take this and build on it. And we are very much willing to do that because we are so focused on the climate crisis. We have that singular area of attention and transmission is it is a structural necessity. Like we can build a lot of clean energy in regions like we’ve seen Texas and the ERCOT region do, gangbusters. But we are not doing it at scale in our country in a way that the speed and the calamity of the crisis, and also not to mention affordability, necessitate because we haven’t been able to build that transmission. And this bill essentially removes those roadblocks and takes a bunch of other good steps, too, which you have been covering and I appreciate. But that is a structural step that we have to take. And without that step, like, I don’t see how we get out of this mess of the climate crisis. Like, there is no path to addressing this crisis without the clean energy transition, and transmission is essential to that. So it gives us that chance, that fighting chance to keep addressing climate change that we were built to do, and that’s why we support it.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, what stands out to you as maybe the most important transmission provision in the bill?
Pete Wyckoff:
So can I back up for a second and say, why do we need transmission?
Robinson Meyer:
Yeah, please.
Pete Wyckoff:
So my experience is this. I was an academic for a long time. I started a second career when I went out and started working for Al Franken over a decade ago. So I worked on the federal side. And as you mentioned, then I worked for Senator Tina Smith. That’s where I got to know you. We worked on clean energy policy and were very deep into the IRA. After the IRA passed, I went back to Minnesota to work for Governor Tim Walls. I ran his energy division in the Minnesota Department of Commerce. And we did both usual state energy office stuff. We were doing IRA implementation, but we also had a regulatory function. We were essentially the governor’s rep, state’s attorney at the Minnesota PUC, but also at RTOs. So we worked in both MISO and SPP. So I came to see sort of firsthand that limitations on, transmission were holding us back not just holding us back on moving to clean while I was there as I got there we passed a state level 100 clean energy standard but, it’s not just about clean it’s about affordability right now in the dakotas and minnesota which crosses the miso spp seam I don’t know how technical you want me to be these are the.
Robinson Meyer:
Basically the two different electricity markets I mean as we’re literally talking about that straddle the middle of the country. So they have various names. It’s called the Southwest Power Pool or SPP, even though it’s largely not in the Southwest. Yep.
Pete Wyckoff:
Including Western Minnesota. A sliver of Western Minnesota.
Robinson Meyer:
Exactly. Famously Minnesota, a Southwestern state. But these are the two electricity markets in the middle of the country.
Pete Wyckoff:
So one of the things you can look at all the time is on one side of Minnesota, end of the Dakotas, power is one price. On the other side, its power is a different price and if we could just move through transmission power across that seam presumably, One could take advantage of lower cost electricity, no matter which side of that seam you were on. And in fact, under the Biden administration, when I was at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, we got a giant grant from the bipartisan infrastructure law, along with six other red states, to build some seam lines across MISO-SPP. We took a long time for us to talk the Trump folks into not canceling that grant, but they didn’t cancel that grant. And we’re moving ahead on that work. But the fact that is like earth shattering and new.
Pete Wyckoff:
Just kind of illustrates we have a long ways to go and it’s not just about getting clean it’s about getting affordability and reliability up to snuff what, this bill recognizes is that the really hard thing to do is move energy from market to market from state to state across utility lines so that’s where a federal intervention starts to make some sense. One of the big things for transmission this bill does is it gives federal backstop sighting some teeth so that if you’re trying to build across states moving from one region to another, that becomes an interstate commerce sort of thing that you would think there would be a federal intervention, but the feds and FERC have been really reluctant, not sure if they fully had the power to intervene and help build those transmission lines. This gives them that power. This also mandates regional and interregional planning. Like you’re not going to build, well, this is a coherent way, the ideal system. And you would think there was more planning than there is in the world. And this will beef that up. And that is an important first step. I’ll say someone who worked in MISO North, which is the sort of Midwestern Northern states, We kind of led the country in terms of regional transmission planning, and yet we still had a long ways to go, and I think this bill helps out MISO North. So if MISO North was the poster child for doing it as best as anybody’s doing it.
Pete Wyckoff:
Think of what other places need in terms of planning. We also have to have the same data available everywhere, and people have to have access to that data. There’s just a lot of these logistical hurdles to not only building transmission, but moving electricity across the transmission that’s built. And we can get into why do we need more transmission rather than let’s just build local generation. But what I’ll point out is the local generation you usually build quickly is gas. Who benefits from transmission. It is the kind of energy that needs to travel far. And wind and solar, you want to bring from where the sun shines well and where the wind blows well. And it might not be your local area. And there might not be the space for it in your local area. So transmission becomes key.
Robinson Meyer:
If I can ventriloquize my former podcast co-host Jesse, who, Jesse, if you’re listening to this, we really do need to do an episode. We’re just both very busy. He would say at this point that the difference between the worst solar resource and the best solar resource is a 2x difference. But the difference between the worst wind resource and the best solar wind resource is like a 10x difference. And so transmission helps for solar. It definitely helps for solar. Your economics can get two times better. But transmission is transformative for wind transmission is like the thing that makes large-scale wind projects either make sense or not make sense
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, I mean, can I be a physics nerd for a second. What I would like to point out to people about wind is that it scales to a power of three or four, depending on how you’re looking at it. Ao a solar array that’s twice as big is twice as good, but a wind array that has twice the wind resource or twice the size of the wind tower is multiples better. So it doesn’t scale the same way. It’s not how people think about it.
Robinson Meyer:
Do you think of the transmission provisions in this bill as good for the climate on their own sake? Or do you see them as a down payment? Because more transmission is better. You have more transmission, more electrons moving around. That means there’s more arbitrage opportunities than when solar wind. Or do you see it as almost a down payment for a future policy that is more deliberate about where transmission might go and who might benefit from it?
Pete Wyckoff:
I think it’s both. In Minnesota, we are a state that gets a large fraction of its energy from wind, but we’re already transmission limited. We’re already getting curtailment. And this will unleash already built clean. But it also, like I said, if we’re already curtailing and we need to build out a lot more, we’re going to need a lot more transmission. So this becomes important. I think one of the things to keep in mind is people hear like, oh my gosh, there’s these new large loads coming on and they’re like taking, jet engines out of scrapyards and they’re hooking them up and calling them gas plants. I mean, that’s a little like cyberpunk and sci-fi, but I think mostly they’re doing it because they have no other choice. That is a really expensive way to procure electricity. Nobody really wants to do that. The reason you would do that is you can’t get, hooked to the grid. And the reason you can’t get hooked to the grid is the grid is not adequate. So by building out the grid, we will disincentivize folks from doing that sort of crazy stuff. And we will be hooking into a system that we know how to make clean and is getting clean. And in a fair world where there aren’t fingers on the scale, wind and solar is what you’re going to build and then you’re going to move it.
Robinson Meyer:
Lena, how do you, there has been an idea, some folks have argued about the bill or a claim some folks have made that, well, look, right now, Republicans control the Senate and the House. But on Jan. 1, Democrats will have a big majority in the Senate. Democrats will have a big majority in the House. Why are you endorsing this particular bill now?
Lena Moffitt:
It’s a really fair question and it’s the second question that we’re getting in all of the the interest in this including from many of our friends and there are a bunch of reasons, and I take my closest advice from pete who was in the senate for seven years and has a pretty good understanding of how things work up there, and you know I’ve been working as an advocate on Capitol Hill for a long time but there are, very expert opinions on both sides of this one and our belief is that this was a very carefully negotiated compromise that strikes a really delicate balance between all of the parties, that inevitably will have to come to the table to get this across the finish line, including utilities, Republicans, and Democrats, and then Trump. And considering all of the other additional stakeholders here, we don’t see a better deal coming around the corner. Democrats will be in charge, and we are so excited. Hopefully, this bill will pass and we will be able to build on it. But this is a really contentious issue that requires tough compromises, even like from within the Democratic Party. We saw on the cloture vote that it directly split the current Democrats. The reality is some of the reforms to NEPA, some of the reforms to National Historic Preservation Act that the tribes are really interested in, some of those reforms are really tough but also are good for clean energy and good for transmission.
Lena Moffitt:
And those are hard issues to grapple with. And next year, I am stoked about all of the priorities that the Democrats are going to have, including health care, including the war in Iran, a ton of things that they’re going to have to get done. An issue that is really sticky and kind of unpleasant and splits the caucus is just like not going to be at the top of their priority list. And even if it were, it’s really tough to negotiate a bill. And we know the folks up there like Senator Whitehouse and Senator Heinrich, who I think the climate movement owes a debt of gratitude to for trying to do anything in this horrible landscape, let alone a climate bill. And I think this is a climate bill. I think a national grid absolutely is inherently good for the climate. Like the patchwork of what seven or eight RTOs that we have right now that is both dirty and unreliable to different levels is a huge challenge unto itself. But as we think about what we know we need to do for the climate, which is electrify everything, including our vehicles, including ultimately our industry, of course, our buildings, we need clean electrons and we need cheap electrons flowing everywhere. And we don’t get there in our huge country where the central part of the country is the sunniest and the windiest often –.
Lena Moffitt:
Without transmission. And so that inherently transmission is good for the climate and it will enable the investments and the certainty that more clean necessarily needs to carry it from the middle to the population center. So it’s awesome they negotiated this. And I think if we don’t do this now, we definitely have to wait at least two years because it will take them two years to come back and negotiate it and do all the balancing. And then we’re like maybe we’re five years down the line. And in the meantime, energy gets more expensive and dirty. People get more jet engines in their backyards powering off-grid data centers. And the climate crisis just spirals out of control. So I say, get started now. Trump cannot stop all the paperwork that will be needed to start all these transmission lines. He can’t get in the way of all of it. I just don’t believe even he will be able to do that. And in two years, we’ll have a hopefully a dem trifecta and we build on it a lot. So, yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
One point Senator Heinrich made when I talked to him yesterday that I had also just kind of written a similar piece along these lines. So, of course, I was thrilled to have a senator repeat. Was that if the midterms raised your odds of a Democrat winning the White House in 2029, then suddenly the bill looks a lot better because the person who really benefits from anything disinflationary in this bill is whoever is the next president. And the president who will be able to build, let’s say, projects, whether they be transit lines or bridges or whatever, is the next president. And that’s a gamble for Democrats, but it’s a gamble they might be feeling a lot better about today than they were two weeks ago. And it reminds me a little bit about how Reagan benefited from a lot of the policies that Carter did, that there were a number of changes that were all disinflationary that Carter kind of got through Congress, and it turned out that Reagan benefited from them. But ultimately, they did produce disinflation. It just took several years. And so everyone has to take a flyer on whether they’re going to happen to be in the White House when that happens. But Democrats might feel better about that flyer now than they were previously.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, you got the whole lifespan ban of the IRA. You helped write it in Tina Smith’s office, and then you helped implement it in Governor Walz’s office.
Robinson Meyer:
And I think one thread in the story of this bill has been the degree to which folks in the Biden administration or in that trifecta saw the permitting apparatus up close and changed their minds. Can you talk about what role federal permitting played in the implementation of the IRA as you experienced it and you saw it?
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, just to back up and to reinforce the point Lena made first is... With the IRA and the bipartisan infrastructure law, we passed a lot of climate policy. We passed the stuff that Democrats mostly agreed on, and then we tried to do permitting. I think the order was wrong, but I wouldn’t wish a new trifecta or even a new Congress next year the battle as the first thing out of the gate within the party.
Pete Wyckoff:
Like let’s get this done so then we can do the things that we agree on this is a fundamentally optimistic bill it’s saying when I look to the future I don’t see Trumps all the way down, I don’t see like Trump advanced to whatever I see that we will be able to do good clean energy policy and that this is, this is Obi Wan Kenobi releasing the tractor beam so that the team can just go do good stuff and save the universe but to answer your actual question rob Wow. So I got back to Minnesota. I was supposed to be point on implementing IRA, but also we had an unexpected trifecta, which is what drew me back to Minnesota after the 22 election locally in Minnesota. And we passed a whole bunch of stuff, which I called Minnesota’s mini IRA. And we passed a 100% clean electricity standard by 2040. And then we came to realize even locally that we weren’t going to reach that without passing state level permitting reform. which we came back the next year and did. And that was honestly harder with a trifecta to pass than it was to pass the fun stuff, which is the clean energy encouraging policies. I’ll tell a story that I think is well known. In the last decade, in the teens, MISO North did a whole lot of building out of.
Pete Wyckoff:
Transmission lines in the northern part of the Midwest is still held up as this is the planning process. We all should go through. They built all those lines. Those lines are now full. And now we’re doing new rounds of we need more. We need more. And MISO is doing its best to keep up. There’s a line that was proposed in 2010 that just went online two years ago, that was to take clean electricity from Minnesota and Iowa and get it to Chicago and Milwaukee, where those people live but don’t have any good wind near them. And it got held out for 14 years, basically. I mean, not all of it for this, but with crossing the Mississippi River. And that was a federal permit that it just couldn’t get. And we don’t have that much time to waste. Down where Lena comes from, this amazing new wind farm that’s, I think, close to four gigawatts. Biggest wind farm in the country, the South Lena. It’s being transmitted west of New Mexico, and you can talk more about this, Lena, by a line that is brand new, but is not brand new, and when it was proposed, it was a long time held up by interstate permitting friction. We can’t wait 14, 16, 18 years for these lines to get built.
Robinson Meyer:
If I remember correctly, the power line that was trying to cross the Mississippi was held up specifically by a single district court judge who just kept tossing it back on one NEPA ground after another and managed to extract years of delays from this project. And one of the reforms in this bill is that it removes NEPA entirely actually from the domain of district court judges and says that if you have a NEPA challenge, you have to take it to an appellate court. You have to take it to the circuit and you get a straight shot to the circuit.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, in that answer, you did a very good job of talking about obstacles to transmission. But this bill does make a number of changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. And I think it is actually on NEPA that Biden folks in some ways got radicalized the most Did you happen to see changes or did you happen to see NEPA hold up projects you wanted to do or just impose a speed limit? Or is transmission so important that it’s the transmission changes here that you think of first?
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, so Minnesota, where we build most of our energy infrastructure, is not on federal lands. So this might be a better question for Lena, who has a more southwestern bent. So a lot of our generation projects don’t need federal permits with, let’s give the caveat, Trump is coming up with new ways to pretend that, yes, you do need federal permits and federal approval to move forward with even things that shouldn’t really have a federal nexus, particularly in the wind space.
Lena Moffitt:
Yeah. The Sun Zia line in particular was held up by some challenges brought under NEPA. It was held up by a number of things, including the National Historic Preservation Act as well. But I’m struck by a conversation I had at Climate Week actually with a representative from a transmission developer. And I asked her, like, what’s your top ask? What’s the biggest problem for your trade members who are trying to build transmission? And she said, absolutely NEPA. And like this is a place where I take the developer’s word for it and this bill helps a lot on that front. And those are some of the really challenging changes that are hard to stomach in many ways as an environmentalist and as someone who is really committed to, ensuring that people have access.
Lena Moffitt:
The ability to say something about projects that are impacting them. But also, at the end of the day, Evergreen is a climate organization. I am a climate advocate first and foremost. And the climate crisis is spiraling out of control in a way that is really impacting people. And we know impacting the most vulnerable communities first and worst, but impacting everybody in a way that is truly an emergency. And we have to treat it like an emergency. And that includes being willing to make really hard choices and have hard conversations and lose friendships over in service of solutions that will make a difference. And transmission is one of those.
Robinson Meyer:
It’s a tough bill, and we are going to talk about that. But the strategy has been to create sufficiently plausible lies about the bill that can then go viral enough that it totally poisons the politics here. But I think some supporters of the bill have alleged that the environmental response to the bill, the classic environmental NGOs, oppose the bill because they’re all about anti-growth or they’re all about restricting different forms of development. Do you agree with that diagnosis?
Lena Moffitt:
No, no, not at all. I actually don’t work with any de-growthers in all of the movement and time that I’ve spent with thousands and thousands of people over the two decades of my career. No, like, I don’t believe that for a second. I’m sure there are degrowthers out there. I just haven’t encountered any of them. I think what is true is that. My environmental colleagues are all trying to make the world a better place from their vantage point and from the lived experience that they have and from the expertise that they have. And the movement has gotten really good at slowing things down and saying no to fossil fuel projects. And I helped lead a lot of those strategies for a long time. And there is something innately, emotionally, viscerally galvanizing about fighting a bad project. I get that. And as an organizer, that’s critically important to recognize. And it’s also understandable that people are really pissed off about curtailments of laws that have given impacted communities a voice at the table. And like that is really hard. And I don’t fault any of my friends across the movement for their perspectives on this bill or for their opposition to this bill. I get it. I understand. And I also think that it’s a deal worth taking because of the climate crisis and also affordability. And I want us to, as much as we possibly can, agree to disagree respectfully and then keep on fighting because fighting amongst ourselves is exactly what the opposition wants. And we don’t need to do that. We’re pulling in the same direction. We have different strategies and we’re better off for it. Like we want diverse opinions and diverse strategies because that’s how we win at the end of the day. So that’s what I’m telling my colleagues all over the place. And I’ll keep doing that.
Robinson Meyer:
You both brought up transmission or clean energy in the Southwest. Very well done, you’re both on message, the North American Transit Association endorsed this bill. There’s a reason that the Center for Public Enterprise, which wants to build more public housing and public transit, big public projects, endorsed this bill. And this is where I think the politics of the bill get tricky. Some of the quote-unquote bad things in this bill for environmental groups Such as these procedural hurdles in the National Environmental Policy Act are good things for large scale federal infrastructure projects like transit or like housing or like large scale power projects. I mean, people want to do energy transition on the back of public renewables and more power to them. You can’t do it with our current permitting system. If you want to do that, you need NEPA reform because and you need a reform that’s pretty aggressive because right now the government faces a speed limit for doing any of that stuff.
Lena Moffitt:
This is one of the reasons why we think we should take this compromise now, because these are hard, hard decisions that Democrats are not going to want to take up because there are streamlining components to NEPA that need to happen for transmission, for clean energy, for things like transit and housing that we want Democrats to deliver on. And transit is a really big one that is also very good for the climate. Transportation is the second highest cost for families in America. Also the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s get more transit built and streamlining and lessening the requirements for clean transportation projects to have to go through. Lengthy NEPA reviews is a good thing for the climate.
Robinson Meyer:
What keeps you up at night about the bill?
Lena Moffitt:
That’s a really hard one. I literally have had nightmares about pipelines, gonna be honest. More gas pipelines probably will come in the next couple of years. The Clean Water Act streamlining is extremely painful. That is a straight give to the fossil fuel industry. And it’s a give in response to effective organizing, frankly.
Lena Moffitt:
But are those bills the tools we need to solve the climate crisis? They’re not. They’re just not. I think we’ve been effective at using them, but the climate crisis is getting worse. And we never set out to go permit by permit forever when I started working on Keystone XL in 2010. We wanted to stop as many horrible projects as we can and stand hand in hand with frontline allies like the First Nations people in Canada and the Appalachian people in, the mountains of North Carolina and build up a movement that was strong enough to elect leaders who would pass comprehensive policy that would more systematically get us off of fossil fuels. At the time, I thought that was maybe going to be cap and trade. I maybe thought that was going to be another carbon tax. And then it became the Inflation Reduction Act. And that is so awesome. And now we have to build from where we’re at and be willing to adjust our strategy and have a broad tent and meet people where they are and deliver on both affordability and cutting pollution. And like that is the strategy of the day. And I want us to prioritize that. And that, I think, is how we get forward progress in this tough moment. But I don’t fault anybody for their perspectives on the bill because it’s truly filled with a lot of challenging things.
Robinson Meyer:
You’ve both framed the bill as optimistic.
Robinson Meyer:
What needs to happen for the bill to be as good as it can be for the climate?
Lena Moffitt:
Pete and I were talking to another former Biden person, actually, about the bill and about what needs to happen going forward. And there is a lot in this bill that hangs on federal regulators. I want to be transparent about that, too. If folks haven’t read the text like we have, like we know FERC is going to play a central role here. And FERC hasn’t always been clean energy or the climate movement’s best friend. But it’s been interesting over the past couple of years to see FERC’s willingness to push a little bit and then also, frankly, under Trump, be way more, I won’t say unleashed yet or aggressive yet, but like that’s the vein we need to continue in. And FERC unleashed, I think, is the phrase that we’re going to want to just keep putting out into the universe so that these regulators can go forth and do their jobs and put out these rulemakings that are going to speed the data center payment plans and the transmission at all. A lot of it hangs on FERC. And so we want a good FERC. That’s going to have to be a top priority. I think reinstating the tax credits is probably the second thing that I would say. Pete, what’s on your wish list?
Pete Wyckoff:
I would start from there. I’ve always argued that if you just level the playing field, clean is going to keep expanding because it is the one that is cheap and getting cheaper. It’s going to be really hard to get cheaper with mining coal and bringing it to a coal plant. I am also the one, someone who would say we should accelerate that transition to a cleaner electric system that will be cheaper to be a part of. So we’re accelerating the time to cheaper electric bills for folks. Through things like reinstating the tax credits. Jesse Jenkins, keep referring to Jesse, he came out with some modeling after the IRA that I think is probably fundamentally true, that if you want to put clean energy on sale, which is what the IRA did through those tax credits mostly, you’ve got to have a way to take advantage of that. Even if wind and solar have gotten cheap, but you can’t get the electricity you would generate from that new cheap generator out, then you haven’t gotten anywhere. I took to heart the real limitations of other things in the real world for reducing the power of tools like the tax credits. So I’m all for reinstating the tax credits, but I want to remove those other barriers to make them to be the most effective thing. And this goes back to the optimistic sort of case. I think I don’t see Trump’s all the way down when I look forward in this country. I see a restoration of the party that I’ve worked for in terms of being able to push through federal bills and get them enacted. And the sort of things we want to do will speed the deployment of clean electricity, but not if you can’t actually move the electrons.
Lena Moffitt:
There are a couple of other barriers that it’s worth calling out that Evergreen and our colleagues across the movement have been working on at the state and local level, too, that are critically important. And one is local siting and permitting. Like, we do have to ensure that the clean actually can get built at scale across the country. And that is a wild patchwork of mostly roadblocks at this point to utility-scale clean getting built. And so that’s a huge priority for us. And then the RTO Governance one is the other one, like, we got to make sure, again, FERC Unleashed, that they actually are leaning in to leveling some of the bureaucratic insanities in places like PJM and making sure they do their jobs. And then utilities writ large, like, I am really excited, especially after talking to my friend Dave Pomerantz about many of the utility components of this bill. The oversight of utilities has been so lax and captured, frankly, that it is unbelievable what they are allowed to do with this bargain that they struck. Yeah, they’re monopolies, but that’s because they’re supposed to deliver cheap, reliable power and they’re doing neither. So this bill, I think, takes steps towards reining them in a bit back to the agreement in the compact of the Federal Power Act, but nowhere near enough. And I think this is like a down payment to more action on that front that we’re going to see from states across the country. Hopefully in January, like we’re working on an ROE reform bill in Pennsylvania and maybe Michigan and all over the place. There is an energy in the air to take the utilities on a bit more on this front, too, at the state level.
Robinson Meyer:
Lena, you mentioned that the key of this bill is going to be FERC unleashed.
Lena Moffitt:
Mm hmm.
Robinson Meyer:
And FERC is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, about to be a big Democratic majority. So that’s a little balanced. But the way it works is that the president’s party has a majority, but the minority party has a say. What sense have we gotten of what the current FERC thinks about the provisions in this bill? And what keeps future FERC from just watering everything down and or what needs to happen to make it so that the bill is implemented essentially as written?
Lena Moffitt:
Yeah, really good question. There are a couple of data points that have given me really surprising optimism about this current FERC. One, the data center rulemaking that they put out that required some interesting components in there was stronger than we thought it would be. And I am not an expert on that rulemaking, but there were components in there that I remember thinking, wow, I actually can’t believe those are in there. That is fascinating. They’ve done, I believe, different rulemakings that included at least assessing things like advanced transmission technology, which was a surprise to see from, majority Republican chair, better than it was a couple of years ago. And then even more directly, the technical conference they just did on PJM governance. Also was an indication to me that they are recognizing the failures of our current system to some extent, at least in PJM, and they want that additional authority, which is fascinating. I think they’re moving more in that direction. And also, frankly, under Trump, where he has horribly just taken a sledgehammer to so many of our federal agencies, has also said, like, that agency isn’t independent. Okay, so interesting. Maybe we take a page out of that and keep going with that. There is something to be said for the environmental community paying more attention when we put our list of priorities into the next hopefully Democratic president after we deliver on affordability over the next couple of years to FERC. They got to make really strong appointments and we got to fight to make sure that the Senate approves them. So prioritization, but nothing’s guaranteed. This bill is very much like a starting gun and then we have a lot of work to do and making sure that we have a strong FERC that is going to live up to the powers that this bill gives it is one of the things that we’ll have to keep doing.
Pete Wyckoff:
So I’ve now worked at the federal level and the state level and in the state level did a lot of RTO work. And it has reinforced several things to me. One, there are powers that should be rendered federally because that’s where the system makes sense. And then you need to make sure that FERC is good. There are powers that should be rendered locally because that’s where it makes sense. And then you need to make sure your PUCs are good. I’m more cynical about PUCs than I was four years ago. And less cynical.
Robinson Meyer:
These are the state-level utility regulations.
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, sorry. And less cynical about FERC to tell the truth. But I also just think it is like, where is the right place to be doing this sort of planning and intervention? Our grid is a national, sorry, ERCOT, national minus Texas, resource that is interconnected. It is all about things that cross state lines. it would really be good if we had a great regional and federal planning infrastructure. And I’ll back up what Lena just said. I liked working in MISO and SPP and looked in horror at PJM when I was in Minnesota. And now I’m working for a national group that focuses on the horror of PJM. And I think there is bipartisan agreement that the horror of PJM must be fixed. And I, in some ways, trust politicians more than that RTO to fix itself, of both parties. I think utility power is actually stronger at the state level. And so one way to overcome it is to work at a higher level.
Robinson Meyer:
I’m sure I have listeners who are like, get it done, pass the thing. But I think that probably listeners are more likely to fall into two buckets. Folks who want the bill to pass, but are uncomfortable about it. It’s a compromise. Compromises mean everyone feels a little skittish.
Robinson Meyer:
And then I think there are folks who are really probably on the fence and don’t know what to think here. Can you make the case? Why is it time to get in line now?
Lena Moffitt:
For your listeners who care first and foremost about either clean energy or the climate, and increasingly they are the same thing, we need to pass this bill now because if we don’t, with this compromise that is before the Senate right now, we’re not going to get it for many years is my strong belief. And if we don’t get started with building transmission at the speed and scale that we need to facilitate a whole lot of clean getting built and plugged into that grid. The possibility of addressing the climate crisis slips further and further away, and more people die, frankly. And we cannot wait. And at the same time, we can do other things to build on it after this bill is passed. And I believe that we will and that our movement will do that to make it even stronger and to ensure that clean wins out. But we can’t afford to wait to put in place just this structural necessity. Not sufficient, but structural necessity of transmission to unleash the clean energy transition we need to address the climate crisis. We can’t afford to wait for five years. We can’t afford to wait for two years. And that’s why we need this bill now. And it is also central to helping the Democrats deliver on their affordability promises. We have been fighting like heck as a movement to convince Democrats over the past two years that clean energy is the way to deliver. Deliver on affordability. Deliver on affordability. And we have to be laser focused on that in the next two years. And this bill also opens the possibility for them to deliver on affordability with clean energy. And without this bill, I don’t think we get there. So it is critical for helping them win as well, in my view.
Pete Wyckoff:
I’ll just say, I agree with everything Lena just said. I will add a few things. One, this is really about affordability. And as someone who advocates very hard for a transition to clean, particularly clean electricity to power our climate progress in so many sectors, we need to do that transition to clean in a way that is also maximizing why clean is affordable. Yeah. I’ve worked with a lot of utilities and their incentive structure, and they are incentivized to, yes, build whatever. I had a first encounter when I entered the Congress with the utility lobbyists that, Pete, you’ve got to remember, we’re not in the business of selling electricity. That’s a loss leader. We’re in the business of building stuff. You want us to build clean? Fine. You want us to build dirty? Fine. We just want to build stuff.
Pete Wyckoff:
But they don’t want to build it in the cheapest way. And I think parts of what we are seizing in a moment right here is where both parties agree, whatever the utilities build, it should be the cost-effective thing. I think the reconductoring requirements and the grid-enhancing technology requirements and the virtual power plant requirements, which aren’t getting a whole lot to play, are really important and show, for the first time, really a bipartisan push to say, whatever we build out, clean or not, and in my case, clean, has to be affordable. And that is going against the way our system is set up in terms of the incentives of the big players. And I think we need to seize that moment. I think the other thing is this bill extracts a huge pound of flesh from the data center industry in a way that’s bipartisan. I don’t want to miss that moment either. I’m not sure we’re going to have bipartisan agreement on we need to rein in some of the utility excesses and we need to extract things from data centers. We didn’t have it six months ago. I don’t know if we’ll have it in six months. So let’s take it now. So I think that’s another argument for why to do this now.
Robinson Meyer:
Lena and Pete, thank you so much for joining us. It’s a pleasure to have you both here on Shift Key.
Lena Moffitt:
Thank you so much for having us.
Pete Wyckoff:
Thank you so much, Rob.
Rob talks with Evergreen Action’s Lena Moffitt and Pete Wyckoff about why they support BAAJA, even in spite of its flaws.
The Senate will likely vote next week on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, a bill to reshape the federal permitting process.
The proposed legislation has divided the environmental community and the set of interest groups often aligned with Democrats. The Wilderness Society and Earthjustice are opposed, and the Sierra Club wants big changes. The AFL-CIO and the National Urban League support the measure.
One of the few environmental nonprofits to affirmatively endorse the bill — and not express concerns or just stay silent — is Evergreen Action, a relatively young think tank and advocacy group that is entirely focused on climate change, clean energy, and decarbonization. “Despite the monumental election, I do not believe that a better deal is around the corner. The time to act is now,” Lena Moffitt, its executive director, said in a statement last week. “We have to start building clean energy at scale.”
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Lena Moffitt, Evergreen’s executive director, and Pete Wyckoff, its vice president of policy. They discuss why Evergreen endorsed the bill, how Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act experience led to this moment, and what still keeps them up at night about the bill. They also chat about how — even if the bill passes — big changes will be needed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: What needs to happen for the bill to be as good as it can be for the climate?
Lena Moffitt: Pete and I were talking to another former Biden person, actually, about the bill and about what needs to happen going forward. And there is a lot in this bill that hangs on federal regulators. I want to be transparent about that, too, if folks haven’t read the text like we have. Like, we know FERC is going to play a central role here. And FERC hasn’t always been clean energy or the climate movement’s best friend.
But it’s been interesting over the past couple of years to see FERC’s willingness to push a little bit. And then also, frankly, under Trump, be way more ... I won’t say unleashed yet or aggressive yet, but like, that’s the vein we need to continue in. And “FERC unleashed,” I think, is the phrase that we’re going to want to just keep putting out into the universe so that these regulators can go forth and do their jobs and put out these rulemakings that are going to speed the data center payment plans and the transmission, et al. A lot of it hangs on FERC. And so we want a good FERC. That’s going to have to be a top priority. I think reinstating the tax credits is probably the second thing that I would say.
Pete, what’s on your wish list?
Pete Wyckoff: I would start from there. I’ve always argued that if you just level the playing field, clean is going to keep expanding because it is the one that is cheap and getting cheaper. It’s going to be really hard to get cheaper with mining coal and bringing it to a coal plant. I am also someone who would say we should accelerate that transition to a cleaner electric system that will be cheaper to be a part of, so we’re accelerating the time to cheaper electric bills for folks through things like reinstating the tax credits.
Jesse Jenkins, he came out with some modeling after the IRA that I think is probably fundamentally true — that if you want to put clean energy on sale, which is what the IRA did through those tax credits, mostly, you’ve got to have a way to take advantage of that. Even if wind and solar have gotten cheap, but you can’t get the electricity you would generate from that new cheap generator out, then you haven’t gotten anywhere.
I took to heart the real limitations of other things in the real world for reducing the power of tools like the tax credits. So I’m all for reinstating the tax credits, but I want to remove those other barriers to make them to be the most effective thing. And this goes back to the optimistic sort of case. I think I don’t see Trumps all the way down when I look forward in this country. I see a restoration of the party that I’ve worked for, in terms of being able to push through federal bills and get them enacted, and the sort of things we want to do will speed the deployment of clean electricity, but not if you can’t actually move the electrons.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
“Why We’re Supporting the Permitting Bill,” by Lena Moffitt
Senate Permitting Deal Wins First Vote
The Last-Minute Changes to the Senate Permitting Deal, Explained
Martin Heinrich on What’s Next for Permitting Reform
Previously on Shift Key: Why Permitting Reform Is a Historic Victory Over Utilities
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Formed through a joint venture between Wärtsilä and RCT Solutions, Valo helps utilities, independent power producers, and developers navigate market and grid complexity without sacrificing system performance. Learn more at valoenergy.com.
Every year Giving Green researches the top climate nonprofits and sends 100% of every dollar donated to its Giving Green Fund straight to them. Make your first gift before the new year, and it will be matched up to $1,000. Go to GivingGreen.earth/Shift.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Smoke from the raging fires in Indonesia may go down as this year’s deadliest climate tragedy.
It’s a morbid game to try to name the worst climate disaster of 2026. In Europe this summer, a series of extreme heat waves killed an estimated 50,000 people. In September, a thawing Himalayan glacier collapsed, sending a wall of water cascading through Tibet and Nepal, killing at least 1,500 people, with nearly 6,000 still missing months later. And this past January, authorities feared hundreds of migrants died while trying to cross the Mediterranean during Cyclone Harry, including 50 in one shipwreck alone.
But the disaster that will result in perhaps the greatest and longest-lasting tragedy is the one unfolding right now in Indonesia.
Wildfires in Sumatra and Kalimantan have burned more than 7 million acres in what is likely a record year for the fire-prone islands. The blazes have destroyed critical wildlife habitats, including rainforests occupied by orangutans, Sunda pangolins, and Javan leopards. But it’s not the direct human deaths from the fires, the habitat loss, or the historic acreage burned — those being the typical headline numbers for gauging how “bad” a given fire or fire season is — that best tell the story of the impacts, in this case.
Rather, it is the toxic smoke blanketing Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Timor-Leste. For months, those emissions have been in every breath taken by the region’s 12.5 million inhabitants, about 4% of the world’s population.
In Indonesia alone, authorities estimate the smoke has caused 400,000 respiratory infections. As of a few weeks ago, more than 75,000 cases had been recorded in children between birth and age 5. “Behind those numbers are worried families, parents keeping watch, and children struggling to breathe,” Herawati Supolo-Sudoyo, a trustee of the Indonesian Open Science Voice Foundation and chair of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences’ Commission on Medical Sciences, said during a recent public health webinar. “Babies certainly cannot say, ‘My chest feels tight.’ They rely on us to protect their breath.” (That’s according to an automated YouTube translation of her remarks.)

Children are especially vulnerable to wildfire smoke because their lungs are not fully developed, and they breathe in more air relative to their body weight than adults. Reports from local hospitals are harrowing. “Yesterday, in the inpatient ward, I saw three toddlers struggling to breathe,” one mother, whose 14-month-old died suddenly after experiencing shortness of breath, told BBC Indonesia (as translated by Mongabay). The Indonesian Philanthropy Association, a nonprofit, has taken to describing the children of Indonesia as the “lost generation” due to the suspected physical and cognitive toll of the relentless smoke exposure. Timor-Leste, which borders Indonesia to the west, has one of Asia’s youngest populations, with about 44% of its inhabitants under 18.
“We must not wait until these children are adults to calculate the losses,” Supolo-Sudoyo said.
There seems little doubt that the smoke is a climate-change-fueled public health crisis. A new study by World Weather Attribution, released Thursday, found that while the super El Niño is the primary cause of the severe reduction in rainfall that helped fuel the fires, Indonesia’s drought was “then exacerbated by record heat throughout the fire season, which was made possible due to human-caused climate change,” Theodore Keeping, a research associate with WWA, said during a press call about the findings. (The study, which uses peer-reviewed methods, has not yet been peer-reviewed itself.)
Indonesia’s fire season was about 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter due to climate change, compared to about a third of a degree Celsius hotter due to the current El Niño, WWA reports. “We also found that this year’s record-breaking heat would have been virtually impossible without climate change, even in a similar El Niño state,” Keeping said.

Smoke is still a relatively new way of quantifying the impact of a wildfire. Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health and creator of the school’s wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool, told me that though researchers have been studying smoke toxicity for years, the bad U.S. fire seasons in 2018 and 2020 helped accelerate interest and urgency. “Really high visibility and growing interest leads to a lot more studies that then enhance our knowledge about the details of this hazard,” he said of the recent spike in smoke-related research.
For example, new research released just last month by researchers at Harvard indicates that wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy is related to higher instances of autism in children. Separately, a study about chronic wildfire smoke exposure linked the pollution to an estimated 24,100 deaths in the lower 48 states every year — more than twice the number killed in drunk-driving accidents. Looking only at Indonesia, researchers linked smoke exposure in the womb during the region’s severe 1997 fire season to poorer health outcomes by age 17.
Still, coverage of wildfires largely focuses on how many people were killed by direct flame impacts, or how many acres or buildings burned. A “megafire,” for example, is a nonscientific term used by the media to describe how large a fire is physically, but not the thousands of miles further its smoke will travel. The National Interagency Coordination Center’s Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report, the end-of-year summary of fire season impacts in the United States, doesn’t even mention smoke exposure. Deadly and destructive fires in Maui and Los Angeles stand out in memory, but the hazardous air quality in the Midwest this season from the Canadian wildfires may turn out to cost as many or more lives. (Smoke toxicity and chronic exposure also complicate the cost-benefit analysis of a favorite tool of progressive fire managers: prescribed burns.)
In fact, research about smoke toxicity and widespread exposure to particulate pollution increasingly suggests that emissions might be the marquee impact of wildfires. While 30 people died directly from the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in L.A., one research paper estimated the loss of life was closer to 440, partially due to the deaths attributable to wildfire smoke in addition to stress, disruptions to the health-care infrastructure, and mental health impacts.

“The difficulty with all of this is that the smoke deaths are difficult to track,” Hayden told me. “They’re not, for instance, showing up on death certificates. While the smoke itself is very visible in the air and leads to nice photos, the impacts are much harder to take photos of.”
That’s certainly the case in Indonesia, where photos show people going about their lives in a cloud of yellow smoke, and in Singapore, where run clubs have moved their workouts into malls to try to avoid the pollution. But while a smoke-exacerbated heart attack isn’t a front-page image, to Hayden’s point, the pictures do reveal something else: just how ill-prepared our infrastructure and public health systems are for dramatic smoke events like these.
What can be done about wildfire smoke? You can invest in a really good air purifier — and use it correctly — which works so long as you can afford it, and if your home isn’t drafty to begin with, and if it isn’t too hot out that you need to open a window to stay cool at the same time. You can wear the right kind of mask, too, but it needs to fit properly and it won’t filter out gases or the smallest toxic particles. And while you can evacuate to protect yourself from an encroaching wildfire, outrunning the smoke might require you to travel hundreds of miles or, as is the case for those in Southeast Asia, literally leave your country.
In that sense, we are thinking about wildfire impacts wrong, too. Fires aren’t a hazard contained neatly within evacuation zones; the “wildland-urban interface” and “wildfire-prone landscape” describe an environment fires may erupt in, but not what they’re contained to. Whether you’re in Los Angeles or New York City, Minneapolis or Madrid, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, the smoke will find you.