You’re out of free articles.
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, 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:
[1:26] Hi, I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News. It is Wednesday, April 1. The electricity system is more important than ever, and the prices we pay for power are starting to reflect that. Last year, the increase in power prices outpaced overall inflation across the economy. The power grid was a huge issue in statewide elections, especially in New Jersey and Georgia. And in some parts of the country, especially the mid-Atlantic’s grid, PJM, we saw data centers begin to drive up overall electricity rates. We know the pressure in the system is building, although I think power prices are unlikely to exceed inflation again this year, thanks to the Iran war. Last year, utilities asked for more than $28 billion in rate hikes, and many of those hikes were approved by state regulators and are now essentially baked into the system and are going to be paid by customers this year or next year. But what’s funny about the power system, at least in the U.S., is that while I can kind of cite that statistic abstractly, it’s very hard to get a real-time look at the prices that people are actually paying for electricity. While we have retrospective studies in some states, it can be hard to know in real time why power costs are rising in some places and not others. Is it more competition for power? Basically, is there an electricity shortage? Is it that infrastructure costs are going up? Is it a big storm with extreme weather?
Robinson Meyer:
[2:42] That’s a problem for policymakers, and it’s provided an opening for Trump officials like Energy Secretary Chris Wright to claim that the simple presence of wind and solar on the grid drives up power rates. So I’m excited to announce in this very podcast that Heatmap has a new solution to this problem. With our partners at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we released today the Electricity Price Hub. It’s a public-facing electricity data platform that provides monthly utility level estimates of residential electricity rates and bills across the United States. So for the first time ever, you can go in there right now. It’s very user friendly. It’s on heatmap.news. And of course, it’s in the show notes, like go do it right now. And you can see how your state, your zip code, or your utility service areas, average power prices and bills have changed over the past six years. And you can see what part of the power system drove those changes? Was it generation? Was it transmission? Was it distribution? I don’t think there’s any other tool like this on the internet right now.
Robinson Meyer:
[3:45] I’m so excited that we were able to publish it at Heatmap. And today on Shift Key, I’m excited to dive into it. So joining us today on this episode of Shift Key are our partners in producing the Electricity Price Hub. I’m joined by Brian Deese. He’s an Institute Innovation Fellow at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at MIT. He’s also, of course, the former director of the White House Economic Council under President Joe Biden.
Robinson Meyer:
[4:06] Also joining me is Lauren Sidner. She’s a senior advisor at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at MIT. She’s also a former senior advisor to U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, also during the Biden administration. It’s all coming up on Shift Key. Brian and Lauren, welcome to Shift Key.
Brian Deese:
Excited to be here.
Lauren Sidner:
[4:29] Really good to be here. Thanks, Rob.
Robinson Meyer:
[4:31] As listeners will have heard, we announced a very exciting new tool on our website
Robinson Meyer:
[4:35] today, the Electricity Price Hub, and we’re going to talk about it in a second. But I want to start by talking about why this tool is important and what the state of the data was before this tool, what the state of our knowledge of the electricity system was before this tool. Because the electricity system, obviously, incredibly important to the U.S. economy, and yet it was something that it was very hard to understand in real time. So like prior to today, Brian, what was the state of our real time knowledge about the electricity grid and electricity prices? And how did that influence our ability to govern it?
Brian Deese:
[5:15] It may come as a surprise to people who have just seen all of the public reporting and news on this topic, that the state of our knowledge was really poor. It was a bit like the basketball player who was short, slow, and couldn’t shoot. So if you wanted to find data on electricity prices, one, almost all the data operated with a delay. You could find data three months, six months, 12 months delay. Two, the data is
Brian Deese:
[5:47] very aggregated at the state level or the national level, didn’t tell you much about what you were experiencing. And three, it was top level, what the electricity rate you’re paying, but it didn’t really tell you what you might actually be paying out of pocket. It didn’t tell you why, and it didn’t tell you what was driving those prices. So if you really wanted to ask the question of like, what am I paying in electricity today based on where I actually am and why am I paying that? It’s really hard to answer any of those things. And that was what motivated us. Was there a way to solve all of those problems together?
Robinson Meyer:
[6:25] And I remember as a reporter having these moments where we could say, okay, electricity inflation, according to CPI or according to PCE is running hot compared to overall economic inflation right now. But like, why was it so hard to get data on these topics? And what kind of delays are we talking about here? Is this like a month or two months? Because there’s already kind of this pass through time in the electricity grid, where like, if fuel costs go up today, it will take a long time for utilities to get those fuel costs approved by regulator and then pass them through to customers. Is that like the kind of delay we’re talking about? Or is this something more fundamental in the data.
Brian Deese:
[7:10] The principal reason why it’s tricky is a reflection of the electricity system we have in the U.S., which is we don’t have one system. We don’t even have a couple of systems. We have dozens and dozens of systems in the U.S. That are producing, transmitting, distributing, and utilizing power. And the structure of when that data is released, in what form it’s released, is a reflection of this patchwork of dozens and dozens and dozens of different jurisdictions around the U.S. And so to your point, there is data at the national level, CPI, CPI is inflation, within inflation data at the national level every month, how much is electricity price inflation going up compared to overall inflation? But that operates at the national level. If it’s disaggregated, you can find data that is operating with roughly a year delay. But even then, you have to be relatively committed to the proposition of going and looking at the data in each of these jurisdictions. And so you can get data for what’s happening in one utility jurisdiction in one state and one utility jurisdiction in another state. But you look and you say, well, but are those comparable? Because they’re presented in different ways. And it really is just a reflection of that patchwork electricity system we have in the United States.
Robinson Meyer:
[8:32] And that also, I would imagine, poses a big problem for policymakers because you can look at national level data, which I think is survey data, basically asking the same set of people who we survey kind of all the inflation data from, how much are you spending on electricity? And they’ll tell you. But then if you want to backtrack that to how much are...
Robinson Meyer:
[8:50] New Jerseyans spending on electricity? Or what do rising electricity costs in this state or this utility mean you should then do as a policy? Or why are they rising? Or what subcomponents are causing electricity prices to go up? Is this a data center thing? Is this a renewables thing? Like all of that, none of that is captured by data that before today was like close at hand or easy to access. Is that right?
Lauren Sidner:
[9:18] Yeah, that’s exactly right. It’s the kind of number of sources that Brian talked about. It’s the difference from one source to the next, just in terms of how the information is presented, whether it’s available in the first place. Oftentimes, you’ll have to pair information from one source with some estimates from federal reporting to be able to even interpret the information you get. The kind of main or kind of best-in-class federal data on this can give you a pretty good sense from one utility to the next, what the average rates look like, but it doesn’t tell you any of the kind of things that go into that rate. And so you can’t start to understand the kind of different drivers behind that. And then to your point earlier about what are New Jerseyans paying, there’s even within a state, there’s a huge range in terms of what’s happening. And so I guess it speaks to the real need for location, time, specific data. And that is just challenging given the number of places we’re talking about.
Robinson Meyer:
[10:14] What is the tool and how is this tool different?
Brian Deese:
[10:17] In basic terms, this tool will provide reliable, comparable data on a monthly basis on both electricity rates, what it costs for electricity and electricity bills, what people are paying at essentially the zip code level in states across the country. So for the first time, like we have with jobs or like we have with other sorts of data, every month, we will release data that is consistent, comparable, and reliable across those metrics. And it allows us to overcome those sort of the three problems of the basketball player, right? Which is, it’ll come out every month. It’ll come out at a level of granularity that allows you to say,
Brian Deese:
[10:59] Boy, I live in southern New Jersey, and it feels like I pay a lot more than my sister that lives in northern New Jersey. Is that the case? It’ll allow you to overcome that. And importantly, it’ll allow you to look into the rate data and say, what are the components of that rate. So if my rate is 100, how much of that is connected to generation? How much of that is transmission, distribution? It will break those things down. So our goal here is to provide that in a way that helps to make clearer what has been really hard to figure out.
Robinson Meyer:
[11:31] To kind of compare it to what used to exist, you would get these studies that would come out on a lag that would be able to disaggregate why rates had gone up in, say, California. And California, because it has the country’s most expensive electricity, or it’s consistently in the top five states, tends to get these very good research on the composition of its electricity rates. And you could look at California and be like, oh, they’re spending more on their distribution system. They’re spending more on this. That’s why rates are going up. I think this is the first time where you don’t have to wait for a study.
Robinson Meyer:
[12:05] You can look at states, you can look at zip codes, you can look at congressional districts, and you can say, oh, well, in the southeast, for instance, when rates are going up, or in even more specifically in this utility in Tampa, when rates have gone up, it’s because the distribution system is getting more expensive because of extreme weather. But when you look at parts of the mid-Atlantic, like central New Jersey or something, It’s because generation is getting more expensive because of data centers. This is like the first time we can actually, in a live way, compare why electricity prices are behaving the way they are across zip codes, utility service areas, states, like various kinds of jurisdictions across the country. It’s really cool.
Brian Deese:
[12:49] And I would say on that, Rob, that importantly, this tool is intended to empower all of the analysis that you just described. It is not actually a prescriptive tool that on its own, as of today, comes to all of those conclusions, but it provides the data in a consistent, repeatable way so that folks can do that type of analysis much more easily and across the country, not just in areas where there’s been enough focus or enough attention that people have really decided to research on its own.
Brian Deese:
[13:20] The other thing I should say about this is our goal is for this to be completely transparent, the methods and data architecture out there for people to explore, and completely open source in the sense that what’s one of the cool things about this partnership with you all and with Heatmap is that the goal is to put this data out into the open in a consistent, repeatable way so that we don’t have to operate with a lag for people to answer the question like that. So you can look and you can say, what are the components of transmission distribution? I want to be very clear. That doesn’t answer the policy question. It doesn’t. It doesn’t. What it does is it enables a more sort of intelligent exploration, research, debate dynamic around the policy question. That’s really the goal.
Robinson Meyer:
[14:01] So interesting, because in the current moment of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, we basically have up to the minute data on gasoline prices because of this company, GasBuddy, and because of AAA that does daily compilations, we know, like...
Robinson Meyer:
[14:17] If gas prices, you know, of course, we know the macro environment is that there’s basically no oil transiting out of the Strait of Hormuz. But even on a subnational level, we can say, okay, well, Michigan is in the middle of a price cycle, which means kind of prices are happened to be going up at the moment. And also it’s experiencing supply constraints this way. We know up to the hour, basically, within states and localities, what people are paying for gasoline. While if you wanted like comparable data for the electricity system was like, you could maybe find out what people were paying in a state or possibly a region of the country three to 24 months ago.
Brian Deese:
[15:00] Gas prices are the most transparent price in our entire economy. Almost everybody lives within earshot of that price being literally displayed, where they drive, where they walk. It is the most transparent price. Electricity prices are among the least transparent because they’re so hard to find for all the reasons we just described. And even if you find them, most people, their lived experience is not what is the electricity price that I’m paying? It’s what’s my bill. Which is another part of this tool that I think is important, which is we are doing consistent data both on the rate and also the average bill paid. The bill is obviously a function of the rate and then how much energy you are consuming. And that’s important too, I think, to start to get closer to being more transparent is that for people and what they experience, the experience of what’s driving both the rate and the bills. They both matter.
Robinson Meyer:
[15:57] So let’s talk about how it came together. Like maybe Lauren, can you describe for us like how was data collected for this? If we’ve never had a resource like this before, where did the data come from and how is it compiled to form the numbers that we’re reporting in the database today?
Lauren Sidner:
[16:14] Yeah. So for our own unique new data collection, we sourced information on utility rates from two key sources, both official reporting. The first category was data reported by state regulators or other state agencies on a regular basis. So we have a set of states where we collect rate data directly from those entities for all of the utilities that they regulate. For the remainder of states, we, for those kind of larger utilities in each state, we collect the rate data directly from utility rate books. And what we collect is any rates associated with standard residential rate plan, along with any other charges that apply to the typical residential customer. We then take that and pair it with information primarily from the EIA on the average usage by residential customers in a specific place in a specific month to calculate a single average rate and then a single average bill for each month. And obviously, as rates go up, bills go up, but that relationship isn’t always exactly what you would expect. We just out of curiosity and for a fun exercise mapped every utility in our data set onto a set of quadrants that it was sort of the national average rate, the national average bill. And there are a surprising number of utilities that fall above the national average rate and below the national average bill or below the national average rate and above the national average bill. So those things don’t always line up because a lot of what ends up influencing bill is not just the number you start with, but also, you know, typical household size, climate conditions, the kind of basic efficiency of the typical household in a place. So a lot goes into that number. And so that’s why we thought it was important to keep both numbers in mind in the dataset and to get a more complete picture.
Robinson Meyer:
[17:58] That’s so cool. You know, when we are able to say, okay, well, generation is X% of the bill or X number of dollars in the bill and transmission is X number of dollars in the bill or distribution. Is that coming out of the Public Utility Commission data and the state level data? Is that coming from what the utilities describe in their rate books? How are we able to get that level of granularity about the data?
Lauren Sidner:
[18:22] Yeah. So like I mentioned, we collect the rates for any charge that would apply to the typical customer. We then go through each of those charges and identify any kind of function-specific charges. And we base that on the kind of definitional language included in the utility tariff document. Oftentimes those documents will include a formula that explains how a charge is computed. And so use that language to understand how best to classify a given charge. And so we categorize those that can kind of neatly be sorted into one of our categories. It’s not always the case. There are going to be charges that cover multiple of the categories or straddle multiple of the category. So then for those, we go into the actual regulatory filings. The most frequent example of this is base rate charges. And there we pull the relevant utility regulatory filings that describe the kind of total revenue requirement, what they need to earn to cover all of their costs and the return on capital, and specifically look at what has been allocated to the residential customers and how those costs have been functionalized in those filings, the functional breakdown of the total amount in their filings.
Robinson Meyer:
[19:30] I’ve been a climate reporter for a long time, but kind of I had an interregnum during COVID where I helped run and put together and report on a volunteer project to collect COVID data from states. What I learned from that project is that every number in a database took incredible amounts of work to get, and actually a lot of discussions about where you should categorize something and where the cutoff is and what’s on the cusp. Like every number in a database has a.
Robinson Meyer:
[20:04] Often put together by human hands, not in a synthetic way, but there are so many decisions that go into making something that you can then cite as data that people don’t even realize when they think about it. Let me ask one more question, and then I want to get into the kind of what the stories here are. Sometimes we’re talking about electricity prices, and we’re talking about electricity bills. And I think what people will see when they play with a tool online is that there are some states that have very expensive electricity prices and then actually moderately sized bills. And there’s some states that have pretty good electricity prices, but then very expensive bills. And we can get into that story more and I want to, but if you were to take a look at your power bill, there’s a lot of charges on there that are not called your electricity rates, but nonetheless, are part of the price you pay for electricity. And I think you guys have dealt with this in a really interesting way. So can you just describe like, when you report an electricity price, is that just the electricity residential rate that’s been described by the utility? Or basically, what else goes into the number you describe as an electricity price?
Lauren Sidner:
[21:17] In every case, we are trying to capture the entirety of the typical residential customer’s bill. And so we capture what you just described as sort of the standard residential rate charges. And we add to that all the additional riders and adjustments that the average customer would also see. We don’t include any kind of voluntary charges or opt-in type of charges, but we do capture the kind of full extent of what would show up on a bill. And it’s worth noting too, that there’s a ton of variation in how that information is presented in the bill to the customer, how user-friendly that information presentation is in the end, and how readily customers are able to kind of understand the different pieces of the bill based on that.
Robinson Meyer:
[23:25] Let’s get into stories. One of the key distinctions that people will see the second they open the tool is that we distinguish between rates and bills. Why is it important to think about the rates and bills story separately? And what did you learn from looking at electricity rates and looking at electricity bills?
Brian Deese:
[23:46] The single most important thing is understanding when you have an issue where people are paying a lot for electricity, understanding what component of that is rate, what component of that is bill. In some ways it’s like the first question in answering the why, the like what’s going on, right? There’s an interesting story going on in Alabama, where if you look at Alabama and you look at rates are not particularly high and rates are not rising particularly fast. But Alabama, the typical residential customer in Alabama, uses a lot of electricity.
Brian Deese:
[24:24] Principally because you have to do a lot of cooling and because you’ve got less efficient buildings, houses in the state. And so as a result, the typical household in Alabama is paying in bill a lot compared to other parts of the country. And what’s interesting about that is in 2026 in Alabama, for the first time in at least a decade, if not more, there are now competitive Public Utility Commission elections going on. And in the context of that competitive election, there is now an active political debate around should Alabama Power in particular be required to change the way that it does its regulatory and rate setting?
Brian Deese:
[25:08] Fundamentally, that story is a story about the bills that people pay, right? And you could slow the growth in the electricity rate in Alabama and not actually get at the core thing that’s bugging people or that is an economic drag on people, which is that they’re paying high electricity bills just because of that. And the inverse of that is also true. There are parts of the country where the rates are increasing very quickly, but people’s bills are actually lower than others because they live in places where either you’re spending less on heating and cooling and/or where they live in more efficient homes or they work in more efficient buildings. So you really need to, I think, as we get going from the data to the why and what’s going on in any given place, understanding the rate and bill distinction is like, I think it’s like the first step. It’s the first step in most of these places is you want to ask what component of this is being driven by rates, what components are being driven by bills, and then you go to the next step of what’s behind either or both of those.
Robinson Meyer:
[26:09] In some ways, bill is what matters the most in terms of how people actually think through their electricity system. What’s an example of a place where rates might be increasing really quickly, but bills aren’t surging in the same way?
Lauren Sidner:
[26:23] Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona all have rates that are above the national average, but bills that are below the national average.
Robinson Meyer:
[26:31] Huh. This stuck out to me looking at New York State too, honestly, is that if you look at Con Ed, which is the main utility for Manhattan and parts of Queens and parts of Brooklyn, you say, oh, the rates are really bad. But if you look at the bills, it’s like, oh, well, people have tiny apartments. They’re just not buying that much electricity every month.
Brian Deese:
[26:48] Bills matter in an absolute sense, but rates do matter in a relative sense, because people’s lived experience is also not just about it’s why inflation has the unsettling economic effect that it has, which is that as prices go up, even if they’re off a lower base — your point about Manhattan is a good one, which is it’s a good example of sort of high rates, low bills. But if the rate of increase of the bill is going up, then it also means that people are going to feel this more.
Robinson Meyer:
[27:17] And it’s complicated because from a utility revenue perspective, the bill is also what matters. And if you think about from a systems perspective, and the utility is trying to recoup the costs of running its system and then make a profit, the volumetric rate is a technical mechanism it uses to like allot the costs of running its system. But actually, the size of the revenue that it receives from each household matters far more in terms of its ability to turn a profit, to cover its cost, to invest further in the system. Like that is the number that matters in terms of actual upkeep for the system. Although I still find it requires a bit of a brain reformatting to remember that’s actually how the entire power grid works.
Brian Deese:
[27:57] It’s why it has been so difficult for us to figure out how to credit efficiency within our system. Because in an overly crude way, if the bill matters, then the utility actually wants to avoid incremental efficiency, which is not true in practice, but the mechanism to actually credit efficiency, whether that efficiency is actually at the household level or is efficiency of the system, efficiency of the grid, capacity and storage. All of those things run into this basic challenge, which is if you make the system more efficient, the utility often doesn’t get paid for it.
Robinson Meyer:
[28:36] This is one of the classic problems that I think we’re now struggling with in terms of governing utilities. I mean, when you looked at individual states or individual political jurisdictions, were there any that stood out where you were like, man, you can really see in this state the difficulty of utility governance or the difficulty of incentivizing utilities or customers to be more efficient in their energy use?
Lauren Sidner:
[28:59] A good number of states have adopted mechanisms that try to do away with the sort of internal disincentive to support efficiency. So very frequently, you’ll see charges that allow utilities to recover the costs of efficiency programs. But you will also, in maybe a more limited number of examples, see charges that allow utilities to recover the revenue that they lose because of those programs or because of distributed energy or other policy-related aims that may be in place. I believe Arizona has that kind of recovery mechanism, but it’s not uncommon. And then occasionally in states like California, you’ll see charges that will give a benefit to a customer for using less power. So it’ll be a tiered charge where if the customer kind of stays within the lower tier, they can actually get sort of a bill credit or something along those lines. So they sometimes even build it into the rate design in addition to just making sure the utility is made whole for supporting that kind of investment.
Robinson Meyer:
[29:58] You both now have come kind of up to the coalface of electricity pricing mechanics and seen at the data level, you know, how the generation system, the distribution system, the transmission system come together to form an electricity price, which then is assessed through bills. What did collecting this data, interacting with this data, change your mind about?
Brian Deese:
[30:23] For me, it increased the urgency around actually challenging and reforming these incentive models to try to get to the most efficient and best outcome for the rate payer. And in fact, the underlying complexity through rates and bills and the components thereof reinforces the challenge that oftentimes in this process, the end ratepayer, the end consumer, and their end experience gets kind of lost in that complicated process. And so for me, it reinforced that we’re not going to shift from a local and utility jurisdiction to a state to a regional to a federal, we’re not going to shift in, it’s neither feasible or advisable to have a single national electricity system, I don’t believe. But yet we need to be more aggressive and more creative about testing, challenging, and then scaling reforms to these systems to actually get to that outcome. I think that was the thing for me that was the most. And it goes back to when I was in government and we were thinking about the scope of national authority, which typically runs through FERC. FERC is the federal regulator charged with oversight. That there has been a real dispositional reticence to having FERC play a more assertive role because of this idea that states and individual utility jurisdictions are really where the action is at. This process challenged that thinking from my perspective. And I think that to really challenge and get that kind of constructive reform, you need to have a more full-throated national role, not to take over at a national level, but to exert that national authority, not just as a nudge, but as a hard nudge in the direction of a sort of more pro-consumer outcome to the grid.
Robinson Meyer:
[32:12] Lauren, what did just coming up against this data change your mind about?
Lauren Sidner:
[32:16] Yeah, going in, I kind of recognized the patchwork fragmented nature that Brian described earlier. But it was just really stark to me that there’s huge, huge variability in the kind of information environment from one state to the next, how easy it is to find kind of critical bits of information, how kind of user friendly regulatory filing systems are, how easy it is for people to understand just the basic makeup of their bills. I mean, there’s just a really wide, wide range across different states. And even in the absolute kind of best case of that, the utility still has this huge information advantage. And there’s a giant gap between that sort of best case and a lot of states. And so when you try and think about kind of identifying the right solutions that are specific to a given player or tailored to the challenges that exist in a given place, I think starting from fixing utility incentives to operate in a way that, like Brian said, is more consumer friendly is going to be really critical.
Robinson Meyer:
[33:14] What states stuck out to you as being the smartest or the most pro-consumer in how they represented and shared this information?
Lauren Sidner:
[33:20] I’m not sure I can name a single state. There were good practices that stood out from one state to the next. Finding basic information in regulatory filings was really surprisingly quite easy in South Carolina. So the South Carolina Commission provided helpful kind of summaries of the outcomes of different regulatory proceedings and what it would mean for consumers’ bills, for example. There were states that stood out because of the way they present the information in a bill. There were states that stood out because they compile and report in a standard way all of the kind of rates and bills for the utilities that they regulate. So I think there was no one best practice, but there were examples of things that were quite helpful from one state to the next.
Robinson Meyer:
[34:03] Looking at the results, what has been striking to me is, I mean, first of all, you look at the price data and you go, wow. Looking at the Continental 48, right? California sticks out. And I think the Northeast sticks out when you look at prices. And I think that’s a story that has become better understood over the past six or eight months. I would say that if you’re looking at inflation and electricity rates, where the price levels are the worst is New England, which has kind of its own islanded energy issues and has, as we’ve talked about in previous episodes, challenges with winter peaks and fuel availability, and California, which is kind of famously its own, has its own regulatory apparatus. But when you look at bills, the story becomes really different. And suddenly the Southeast and parts of the interior, which seem to have quite cheap power on a kilowatt hour basis, look like they’re really failing. And Tennessee, for instance, Alabama, that these places actually charge a lot of money on a monthly basis for power because of maybe an old building stock, because people have to buy a lot of power because of their cooling needs, because of maybe bills there are increasingly volatile. And like what stuck out to me is the success stories here. I have no other information to back up, but just like doing a facile reading of the data is like, it’s the Southwest.
Robinson Meyer:
[35:25] It’s Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico that both have pretty cheap power rates and also pretty cheap electricity bills, despite extremely high cooling needs. At this point, I’m not surprised by a lot with ERCOT, but I think the Southwest was really impressive in that regard.
Brian Deese:
[35:43] So, Rob, I was going to say, I think that this, for me, reinforced that we just have a lot to learn from Texas. And that’s not in any way a sort of whole scale or simplistic endorsement of ERCOT, right, with all its complexity. But you are getting lower prices, lower bills, and more cheaper and efficient sources of generation and distribution onto that grid. And those things are related. I guess on reflection with the data, it is not a total surprise that the system that enables the quickest and most efficient deployment of cheap and efficient power onto the grid is also the place that can navigate that dynamic of relatively lower prices and relatively lower bills. Nothing in this space is simple. So that doesn’t mean that we can just take that Texas model and stamp it out in every jurisdiction. But I also think it means we —
Robinson Meyer:
[36:35] For one thing, the Permian only exists in a couple of states, which really helps as does the huge wind alleys and solar alleys. But there’s so much more that we could be —
Brian Deese:
[36:45] Geography matters, temperature matters, density matters. But I think it causes me to say we need to challenge … There are so many settled, accepted views in this space that need to be challenged. The idea that we couldn’t do any of those things in PJM or in the Northeast because of those fundamental differences, I think needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged more aggressively at the federal level, and needs to be challenged more aggressively at the state level. And I think we’re starting to see that happen.
Robinson Meyer:
[37:17] Let’s talk about PJM for a second and the Mid-Atlantic, because I think that has really dominated the electricity discourse recently. It does seem to be the part of the country where you can point most directly and say, power is getting more expensive in PJM. And that is at least in large part because of data centers. When you were able to look under the hood in PJM, what did you see? Like, what nuance are we missing by telling this data center PJM story? And are there some places in PJM that are maybe handling new demand or new capacity better than other places and able to keep bills from going up as much as maybe some large swaths of the grid are?
Brian Deese:
[37:57] Well, let me jump in first and then, Lauren, you should jump in on PJM too, because I think it is such an interesting story. For me, the PJM learning was the value of actually going under the hood and being able to solve the second problem of the, I guess, the basketball player who was slow, of actually being able to go down at the intra-regional level, right? Because PJM as a jurisdiction, you’re seeing exactly the price dynamics that you described. Within that, if you look at individual utilities, you see the largest skew, the largest distribution of outcomes, right? So you see the skew from literally a 30% increase in rates to a 5% decrease in rates. And then you look at how much of that is generation related, right? Charges associated with generation, and you see as high as a 40% increase and a 10% decrease, right? And so within those jurisdictions, within PJM as a whole, there is a lot to learn, again, about what’s going on in those particularly spiky jurisdictions and those that are managing that.
Robinson Meyer:
[39:03] Let’s get specific. So which jurisdictions are maybe handling this better?
Lauren Sidner:
[39:07] There are a variety of factors at play in the kind of range that Brian just described. And so it’s less that there’s specific parts of the region that are handling it better than others, because I think types of things that come into play are, there are some of the utilities that don’t participate in the capacity auction. And so they haven’t been as affected as others by the kind of very recent trends. There are some that own their own generation capacity and own their own generation assets, so maybe sort of buffered from some of those impacts. But then there are also kind of pockets or regions within the broader region that have very particular capacity constraints because there isn’t a lot of generation capacity with, you know, local generation capacity. Or there are kind of grid bottlenecks that are keeping cheaper sources of energy from flowing into those particular places. So it’s a kind of aggregation of all those things that are adding to this patchwork. And so we kind of have this settled wisdom of interconnection bottlenecks or slow interconnection timelines and grid constraints are driving this sort of region-wide trend. But in reality, the picture looks pretty different from one part of the region to another.
Robinson Meyer:
[40:16] Another story we’ve been telling about the power grid is that extreme weather is starting to make prices worse and starting to make bills go up. And that’s absolutely famously the story in California where the huge amount of adaptation to wildfires they’ve had to do, the huge amount of rebuilding after wildfires that they’ve had to do of the distribution grid and the transmission grid as well has really driven up rates, of course, as has the insurance costs. Is that just a California story or are there other places around the country where you look and say, wow, extreme weather, whether or not it represents climate change or not, is helping to drive up power prices in this maybe surprising place that people haven’t thought about yet?
Lauren Sidner:
[40:58] I think you’re right to point out California. It is definitely an extreme example here. We’ve seen the distribution part of the bill for parts of the state as much as or more than double in five years. And that’s in large part driven by the different types of costs that are coming because of wildfires, whether it’s repairs or preparing for wildfires or whether it’s liability resulting from those disasters. But it’s really not just California. And I think we’re going to, it’s that this trend is just going to continue. One of the biggest transmission and distribution utilities in Texas is just concluding a rate case. And by their own kind of description, they requested an increase in annual revenue of something like over $800 million. And they, by their own description, say that the largest kind of portion of that increase is attributable to storm damage over the last three years. And then across the country, but particularly in places like the Southeast and Florida, we’re seeing utilities have these additional charges that show up on people’s bills. And those charges have just kind of shot up over time. So Tampa Electric, for example, it has storm protection charge. It added a temporary storm-related surcharge to deal with some of the costs that have added up over the past few years. And the trend in those over the last five years has been really stark. It’s more than doubled over that period. And that is not unique to Tampa Electric either. And so I think throughout the country, this is going to be adding to distribution and other grid costs going forward.
Robinson Meyer:
[42:20] What other states linger in your thinking or other zip codes or utilities where you’re like, wow, you just encountered it and it really revealed something to you about the power grid?
Lauren Sidner:
[42:31] Maybe I’d point to Virginia, where we collected data on the two largest investor-owned utilities in the state. And a big part of the story there to me is that more and more of the bill is flowing through these other charges. And there’s just an enormous number of charges that go into residential customer bills in Virginia, which speaks to this question of utility incentives that we’ve touched on a couple times. But, you know, if utilities are able to just immediately pass costs through to customers, regardless of how they kind of line up with or relate to kind of projected or budgeted costs, there’s not a whole lot of built-in incentive for the utility to manage that. So that stood out, not just because it took forever to collect the data there, but …
Brian Deese:
[43:15] Another place that stood out to me was New Jersey, where obviously the politics of electricity prices have been front and center, including because of the gubernatorial election last year. And what’s interesting about New Jersey is not only a rising rate environment, but pockets of extraordinary volatility. So if you look at Atlantic City or Rockland Electric in that part of New Jersey, you see 200% plus swings in electricity prices intra-year, within the year, right? And that’s increasing significantly. This is just speculative, but I think that volatility, and this is for study, for other people to study based on the data, but I think that volatility is in part connected to the more extreme weather patterns that you’re seeing in this space. And I also think it connects to the lived experience in the politics of this issue, that it’s both about prices, but also volatility that leave people with the sense that something is different about the way that they are having to pay for the electricity that they tend to rely on than has been in the past.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:22] In some ways, the worst case scenario here is that electricity, which I think is already. Depending on where you live, the biggest or the second largest energy expense for most American households, becomes more like gasoline, but with even less price transparency than gasoline. Like gas can get really expensive. It has enormous volatility, but people tend to know what it costs. That’s one reason it’s so politically salient. If electricity becomes just as volatile and people fear the experience of opening their bills and not being able to predict their monthly expenses around electricity in the same way that they might struggle to predict it with gasoline or they might have to change other spending habits to accommodate higher gas prices, then that is bad for the economy. It’s bad for electrification. It’s really bad for decarbonization because if our whole goal here is to get people to shift from liquid fuels and oil and gas to heat pumps and especially electric vehicles. If they have the sense that electricity prices are as volatile as gas prices, that is really, really bad for the whole project.
Brian Deese:
[45:35] Yeah, like one of my goals and hopes in this whole project is that we can make electricity prices just more transparent and understandable. And it is complicated, but just because it is complicated doesn’t mean it has to be non-transparent. And so one of my hopes in this course here is to say, we’re now going to produce this data and make it more publicly available and try to bring a clearer sense that even if the underlying drivers as to why we are getting to the prices or the bills that people are paying are not straightforward, the prices and the bills that people should be paying should be, and they should be transparent. And there’s no reason why states, jurisdictions, utilities can’t get better at doing the things that would make it easier for us to hopefully, you know, ultimately, we can put the energy price hub out of business by just making all this data really freely available, I think, for some period of time until the system adapts to that. But look, that’s one of the goals is let’s just make this transparent. That alone is not going to bring electricity prices down, but it’s a step in the process.
Robinson Meyer:
[46:35] One of the things I’m most excited about is being able to continue to follow this data on a monthly basis and see emerging trends in the system and have you back on Shift Key to talk about them and to analyze them. And until then, we’ll have to leave it there. But thank you so much for joining us, Brian and Lauren. And people should check out. We’ll put it all over the show notes. It will be impossible to miss if you follow any heat map or shift key distribution channel. But the Electricity Price Hub, you should go check it out. You should go play around with it. Type in your zip code, type in your congressional district, type in your enemy’s zip code and congressional district, click around. There’s so much there to learn and see and explore. And I think we’re only just getting started in understanding all the data that you’ve made available through this tool.
Brian Deese:
[47:18] And give us feedback too, because this tool will get better the more that we publish it and the more that we have feedback as well. So thank you, Rob.
Robinson Meyer:
[47:24] Well, hey, thank you for joining us today on Shift Key. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Lauren.
Lauren Sidner:
[47:27] Thanks, Rob.
Robinson Meyer:
[47:33] That will do it for today’s episode of Shift Key. I implore you, though, go play around with the Electricity Price Hub. You can find it on heatmap.news. You can find it in the show notes. I am sure the most interesting things to learn from this tool have not yet been learned. We haven’t found them yet at Heatmap or at MIT. So go look at your state. Go look at your zip code. Go look at the utility that you hate the most. Go look at the utility that you work for. Like, this is your moment. Go play around because it is such a rich data set and there’s so much information in it. I am just sure that one of our readers is going to find something so interesting that’s going to help all of us understand the electricity system better and better formulate policy. If you do find something let us know we’re at shiftkey@heatmap.news or editors@heatmap.news you can also find me of course on Twitter, BlueSky, or LinkedIn. Always feel free to reach out. Until next time, Shift Key is a production of Heatmap News. Our editors are Jillian Goodman and Nico Lauricella. Multimedia editing and audio engineering is by Jacob Lambert and Nick Woodbury. Our music is by Adam Kromelow. Thanks so much for listening. See you next week.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
With markets surging and the crucial waterway still closed, Rob seeks clarity from the founding director of Columbia’s Center for Global Energy Policy, Jason Bordoff.
The Strait of Hormuz has been closed for months. Yet oil is trading — at least as of late Tuesday — at under $110 a barrel. Why haven’t the markets responded more to the biggest supply disruption of all time? Is it a credit to President Trump, and does it give us any clues to how future presidents should handle other energy crises?
On the latest episode of Shift Key, Rob talks with Jason Bordoff, the founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He’s also a co-founding dean of the Columbia Climate School. He was previously a special assistant to President Obama and the senior director for energy and climate change at the White House National Security Council. Rob and Jason discuss whether this crisis will permanently alter the global energy system, what a new climate and energy consensus might look like, and whether Democrats should talk about climate politics.
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, 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’s the risk that you’re most worried about in the current crisis that you feel like maybe isn’t getting enough play? In some ways, the lack of any progress since the ceasefire was put into place has meant that we kind of have talked about everything. But I don’t know, is there something that in your mind, whenever you encounter it, you’re like, Oh, that’s a big deal, and people don’t realize how big a deal that is?
Jason Bordoff: I mean, whether it’s tariffs, or Greenland, or Venezuela, or this — and I could list other examples, too — I think global cooperation and America’s role as a trusted partner for countries around the world is a very important one. And that’s true for energy security, too. If you’re really worried about 80%, 90% of lots of the parts of particularly clean energy supply chains, say, being dominated by China or critical mineral supplies, the only way to change that reality is to work in partnership with more countries: Europe and Latin America and Africa. And I’m worried that China has a strong desire to position itself as a reliable commercial partner in the world, contrary to the U.S. And I worry that conflicts like this one don’t help us counter that argument. So that’s a broader point.
When it comes to energy, I wrote a piece with my friend and frequent collaborator Meghan O’Sullivan at Harvard in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs where we talked about that thing I said a moment ago: If you’re more worried about energy security, and particularly you’re an oil- and gas-import dependent economy, say in Europe, a response to this could be, energy security comes from isolating yourself, becoming self-sufficient. And it certainly makes sense to produce more energy at home where you can.
But we talked about the 1970s a moment ago — and one of the responses to that crisis, from my standpoint, is a sense that energy security was strengthened by more cooperation and more integration into a global market, an oil market that was interconnected. So if there’s a hurricane somewhere, or a tsunami somewhere, or a civil war somewhere, supplies could shift around in response to higher prices, to be sure. All of that helped increase security. And it was like a collective insurance policy. I think today, countries, increasingly in the world of geopolitical fragmentation and our collapsing world order, look around and feel like interconnection is a risk, not a source of security. And the more countries try to disconnect and kind of take a go it alone approach, I think that actually is more expensive. It’s cost-inflationary. It weakens economic growth. And frankly, it makes it harder to have a clean energy transition.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
The Iran Shock — And the Dangerous Allure of Energy Autarky, by Jason Bordoff and Meghan O’Sullivan
Jason’s initial response to the Iran War: How the Iran War Could Consolidate China’s Energy Dominance
From Heatmap: The Future of Climate Tech Can Be Found in China’s Five-Year Plan
Jason’s argument that energy independence may be making the U.S. more aggressive
Matthew Huber’s New York Times op-ed: Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
This transcript has been automatically generated.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, 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:
[0:47] Hello, it’s Wednesday, May 13, and the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. But oil is only trading at $107 a barrel, at least in the global Brent crude benchmark. So what is happening? This has been the question lately. We’ve lost more than 10 million barrels a day of a 100 million barrel a day market. That’s 10% of supply. And while prices are higher than they were in February when the Iran war started, they’re lower than they were after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and there was no supply disruption.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:20] So what’s happening? Why has oil not yet responded to the extreme deficit that we see in the physical market? This is the question I asked John Arnold on a recent episode of Shift Key. It’s frankly the question I find myself getting asked more and more. And this is the question I’m going to pose today to someone who has been one of the most recognizable and important voices on energy, environment, and national security policy for a long time. Why isn’t oil higher? I was excited to sit down a few days ago with Jason Bordoff. He’s the founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He’s also a co-founding dean of the Columbia Climate School. He previously served as special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for energy and climate change on the staff of the White House National Security Council. And before that, he was in senior policy roles on the White House’s National Economic Council and Council on Environmental Quality. We talk about oil today. Of course, we talk about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. We talk about what we’ve learned from this crisis, what could still happen. But we wound up having a broader conversation about the future of climate and energy policy in the United States, what we each learned from the Biden era, and whether there’s a new consensus emerging around energy affordability and national security. It’s a great discussion. I found it so interesting. I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News, and it’s all coming up on this episode of Shift Key.
Robinson Meyer:
[2:43] Jason Bordoff, welcome to Shift Key.
Jason Bordoff:
[2:46] So great to be on for the first time. And congrats on all the success with Heatmap. It’s been a really valuable resource and great.
Robinson Meyer:
[2:53] Well, thank you. Thank you so much. So I wanted to begin with like my sense of bafflement or befuddlement, which surrounds the entire mess around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran at this point. So we are recording this. I’m kind of now duty bound to say because the erratic nature of events on the afternoon of Monday, May 11. We’ll release this in the next few days. The Strait of Hormuz, at the time we’re talking, remains closed. The Iranian government seems, if not completely intact, then as strong as ever. The path to some kind of resolution, actually, as John Arnold suggested on our recent show, seems like it runs through some kind of diplomatic deal. And yet, you know, if the S&P 500 isn’t at an all-time high as we’re talking. It has touched one in the past week. It seems like it plausible could touch one in the next few days. The market is acting like this is over. And yet the current physical situation is completely unworkable. And so I just wonder to start off almost, how are you thinking about this now? And how are you playing out various scenarios in your head for where this could go?
Jason Bordoff:
[4:02] Yeah, it’s a great question. I’m sure people will study the question you’re asking long after this conflict comes to some resolution. The question of whether it really ends or is in a perpetual state of insecurity and tense status quo ceasefire is to be determined.
Jason Bordoff:
[4:20] You know, when I served in government on the staff of the National Security Council, like lots of other people, there were many efforts at scenario planning where you tried to think through what worst-case scenarios might come about from an energy security standpoint. And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was the mother of all nightmare scenarios that would send oil prices hurtling toward $200 a barrel. And I’ve been saying since this started, there is no policy tool in the toolkit large enough to cope with the loss of something like 15 million barrels a day of global supply. You can do a little strategic petroleum reserve release and you have some floating inventories and the rest. But in the end, the physical reality of a supply shock that large has to catch up with the market eventually. And I’m going to stand by that statement. I will admit it is taking longer to catch up with the reality than one might have thought. There are a number of reasons potentially for that. We were in an oversupplied market situation before this all started. Estimates range from two to four million barrels a day for how much supply was going to exceed demand this year. Inventories were at a...
Jason Bordoff:
[5:28] Relatively healthy level. We did have a lot of oil on water, so-called floating storage, including from Russia and Iran. And then they got sanctions waivers to sell that oil into the market. We got maybe two or three million barrels a day of strategic stocks. So there were kind of workarounds that one could do. But still, we did see oil prices, we should say, go from $70 to $120 a barrel. They’ve eased off since then, although they’re still above $100.
Jason Bordoff:
[5:55] In Europe and Asia, you saw the physical — the price for a physical barrel of oil tomorrow shoot up way above the sort of so-called traded paper price that people look at on our trading screen, which is what we tend to think of as the oil price. And so the physical shortages were really starting to manifest themselves. And of course we saw that more distinctly in parts of the world that were more vulnerable in Southeast Asia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Sri Lanka.
Jason Bordoff:
[6:23] You saw people limiting cooling, shortening work weeks, banning travel. In Pakistan, the cricket teams were reportedly playing to empty stadiums because they told people to stay at home. Airlines are canceling flights. So that physical shortage is there. And eventually it starts to make its way. In oil crisis now, because of changes in the market, including the shale revolution, I think we are seeing starts east of the Suez, to use colonial language, and gradually works its way west. And so that means that the United States didn’t face that same differential between physical and paper barrels. We had relatively healthy supplies here. But that sort of gave us, I would say, like a head start. We had a maybe two or three month runway before we felt pain as acutely as the rest of the world. But we are now seeing tankers load up and make their way to the Gulf Coast and U.S. exports are rising. The other dimension to this, I’ll just say, is that the data that’s available and it’s uncertain does show Chinese oil imports falling quite a bit, presumably because they’re using their very healthy, more than a billion barrels of commercial and government inventories. And so that also freed up some supply for the world. Yeah. The point you make is still correct, which is it is surprising. It’s taken this long to see a real price shock, but it is going to get much worse if the strait remains closed.
Robinson Meyer:
[7:40] The number of that price shock, as it were, has slightly moved out in that I think after one month of the strait being closed, there was a sense of, okay, well, we had policies that could get us four weeks and it had to do with placing the waivers on Russian and Iranian sanctions, on depleting existing storage, on the combined release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves around the world. But it seemed like we had hit that moment a month ago. But we continued to sail through April without seeing the kind of price shocks that I think we expected to see. I don’t know if you’ve done the barrel math, and maybe it all makes sense if you do the barrel math. If you had been told that we were going to be, you know, eight weeks into this without seeing the kind of huge run-up, without seeing, say, oil at $150 or oil at $175, would you have been surprised? And does this tell us anything about where prices are going in the near term? Or have we just basically delayed the damage and it’s going to hit very quickly when it does hit?
Jason Bordoff:
[8:42] Yeah, I think there’s two parts answer to your question. One is kind of where I started, which is the physical, the math of the global oil market. And we can count 15 million barrels a day of disruption. We’ve shut in something like 12 million barrels a day of Gulf oil supply. We started with historic high surplus in inventories.
Jason Bordoff:
[9:01] Refinery runs have been cut. We released the SPR. There’s floating oil on water in storage.
Jason Bordoff:
[9:07] China has paused its SPR builds and probably used its inventory. So you kind of do the math and you can make up a lot of that. And still, we’re drawing inventories down and estimates are you maybe have another several weeks to go before global inventories really reach critical levels. And then I do expect oil prices would shoot up in a nonlinear fashion from there. But the other part of this, which affects your stock market comment also, is the uncertainty in the trading community. So you’re part of this oil. There’s a physical price today. And then the question about a futures price one month out or the curve even beyond that comes to what people expect. And it has been clear since this started, including because President Trump said so. You said we thought we had four weeks. He said this will be over in four to six weeks. So from day one, it is a pretty masterful display of verbal intervention in the market where something very bullish happens like all bets are off on a Friday and then right before the markets open on Sunday, there’s some resolution. We’ve been trying to temper how the market reacts to this and I think generally there has been a sense from people in the market, energy and otherwise, that this is going to be over relatively soon.
Jason Bordoff:
[10:16] And, of course, that hasn’t happened yet and indications vary by the day about whether it is going to happen. But remember, we started in a place where the fundamentals of the market were that prices would be soft this year. And so you don’t want to get caught on the wrong side of that trade if suddenly the straight opens up tomorrow and tankers move through in the next two weeks. So I think that’s part of what’s keeping prices in check as well as the sentiment and the uncertainty.
Robinson Meyer:
[10:40] You mentioned that the president has been very skilled at keeping prices down. And I think this is like a huge part of the story is that partially because of what happened around Liberation Day last year, partially because of this taco meme, there’s a reticence to fully invest in a catastrophic scenario among traders. And I think that’s like part of what’s happening. Do you think that the president has developed, though, any tools or I think, as I actually was saying to John Arnold a week or two ago, oil was higher after the Ukraine invasion when there was no supply shock than it is today when there is a manifest supply shock. And there has been one for eight weeks. And some of that does seem like it’s up to the president’s how the president has handled this. Has the president either inadvertently or intentionally developed any tools here that could be used by a future administration to kind of keep these things in check? Or does all of this come down to the unpredictability and to some degree kind of irrationality or unconstrained nature of Donald Trump specifically? And it would be very hard to duplicate without depleting a future president’s credibility.
Jason Bordoff:
[11:52] It’s a good question. I mean, again, there were some fundamental differences between 2022 in the energy crisis and today, a tighter market, and you didn’t have the same cushions that I just talked about. Europe particularly felt pain because of the loss of natural gas supply. And we haven’t seen that same effect today at all, in part because, you know, French nuclear was offline back then, and there was a drought from hydropower, and there’s more solar today. And so there’s a bunch of things that make us in a better position today than back then. Trump is a unique unique figure in a lot of respects, I think it’s fair to say. And one of those is the unpredictability. I mean, I don’t know, go back and read the art of the deal. I’m not an expert on Trump psychology, but it does seem like part of his approach to these things is to be unpredictable.
Jason Bordoff:
[12:35] And that obviously is having the effect we’ve been describing on markets. I do think that whether someone is particularly skilled at it and can do more of that than I know another president, a future president can, you can only do it so many times. And maybe I’ll regret saying this because I probably would have thought we’re past that number of times already. But in the end, there’s a physical reality to how many barrels are available to buy and supply and put in your car or, you know, make sure that if you fly an airplane from JFK to Asia, it can refill and it can get back. There actually needs to be a physical supply of molecules there to do that. And when that fails to show up, prices have to respond. And prices have to rise high enough eventually to destroy 15 million barrels a day of demand or somehow find it through additional strategic stock releases or something else. And so that reality, that’s an inescapable reality in my view, even though it is taking us longer to get there than, frankly, I would have thought.
Robinson Meyer:
[13:34] Staying in the region, the UAE recently announced it was pulling out of OPEC. And I wonder how you interpreted that and then also if you see that as kind of more, Is that something that would have happened no matter what? And it just happened to occur during this energy shock? Or is it related to the diplomatic and military changes that we’ve already seen or kind of series of evolving relationships we’ve seen as a result of the Iran war, where the U.S. has really been called in to defend Dubai from Iranian missiles? And in some ways, kind of the Emirati diplomatic intentions have become revealed as very different from what, say, the Saudis want.
Jason Bordoff:
[14:08] It’s probably some of both. I mean, the UAE has been talking about this for some time. And so while the exact timing may have taken some people by surprise, I think the general idea that the UAE might do this has been well known to people and kind of pay attention to the world of oil markets and oil geopolitics for a while. More than most OPEC countries, the UAE has invested an enormous amount to increase how much oil it can produce. And so a given quota, sort of a restraint on production as part of an OPEC agreement was more painful for the UAE than for some other countries that were struggling to meet their quota level in the first place. And then I do think there is, you know, there’ve been indications among people close to the UAE leadership that they have been displeased with how some of their regional allies in the Gulf have not stood by them in the way that they would have hoped for when they feel like they’ve borne a disproportionate share of the brunt of this conflict in terms of Iranian strikes, drone attacks, and the rest.
Jason Bordoff:
[15:06] So it was probably some combination of politics, geopolitics, and also oil markets. I do think that the UAE is correct when its leadership, its energy minister said, we’re doing this at a time when it has the least damaging impact to the oil market. If the UAE had done this in, say, normal times,
Jason Bordoff:
[15:23] It would have led traders and market watchers to sort of think, well, they’re going to surge production and maybe the Saudis won’t show any discipline and restraint either. And they’ll surge production and prices might have fallen quite sharply. They’re doing it at a time when OPEC countries can’t — they’re being forced to cut production whether they like it or not. They can’t increase production and put more barrels on the market whether they like it or not because the strait is closed. The UAE and Saudi are roughly about half or a little more of their pre-crisis export levels. And once this strait reopens, you’re going to need every barrel of OPEC production you can get for quite a while to rebuild the months of lost supply.
Robinson Meyer:
[16:02] I think there’s a whole school of commentary that is set on describing how unprecedented this oil crisis is, in part because there are alternatives to the oil system that there weren’t, say, even in 2022 or the 1970s or the mid-aughts. Fatih Birol, the head of the IEA, has said the kind of oil industry or the fossil
Robinson Meyer:
[16:22] fuel industry will never be the same. Now, I will note that he tends to say these things to like The Guardian and then to more financial outlets. He says things like Canada really needs to get with it and increase its production. But like, do you believe that, I guess? Do you see this physical crisis driving a deeper demand crisis and driving a kind of change in secular demand for energy? Or is this like, we’re gonna be back to normal the second the strait opens, and maybe there’s more EVs on the road in Vietnam or something. But the overall picture of 100 million barrels a day really hasn’t changed.
Jason Bordoff:
[17:00] Yeah, it’s a great question. And of course, this question is asked often when there were energy crises. And I remember Bernard Looney, then the CEO of BP saying, you know, after COVID, oil demand may have peaked because demand collapsed. And who could ever imagine going back to that level? There was something different about the 1970s energy crises and the sort of collective national trauma that that was for this country, but and some others too. It preoccupied the nation in a way that we haven’t seen since even today. And I think that a shock to the system that large has the ability to catalyze changes in policy far beyond what we saw in 2022 or other energy crises. And for someone who’s been doing this, dating myself 20 or 25 years, this feels like it has the potential. I don’t think we’re there yet, but this has the potential to be the closest to a sort of collective trauma
Jason Bordoff:
[17:54] of that scale and magnitude if this continues. And in the 1970s, you know, we were debating, there were environmental lists and industry fights, as there often are, about whether to build the Trans-Alaska pipeline. You know, this crisis is what pushed those things. So we got to increase domestic production and get that done. We had to reduce demand. And we got 20% of our electricity from oil back then. And we got rid of that. And we pushed renewables. And we pushed nuclear and coal, frankly. Carter, who was a great environmental president, pushed coal. So there were a set of policy measures that got forced because of that shock.
Jason Bordoff:
[18:29] Now, at the same time, we didn’t stop using oil, and the world did not get off of oil. And I think that’s probably true in this case, too. It is definitely the case that you could see countries respond by saying we want to be less exposed to global oil and gas markets that are inevitably vulnerable to geopolitical risk. We want to produce more at home. We want to electrify more, and they get more of that electricity from domestic sources. That’s been China’s strategy, right, for the last 20 years. And it’s in a stronger position than it would otherwise be. So I think you’ll see a lot of that coming out of this. That doesn’t mean the world gets off of oil and we’re kind of at the end of the fossil fuel era.
Robinson Meyer:
[19:08] Do we have the sense that, say, Southeast Asia is already at that point where this is an energy crisis that is affecting people’s decision making and how policymakers approach these questions in a way that, say, 2022 wasn’t?
Jason Bordoff:
[19:22] I think it is. And the question is what people do about that. They’re trying to cope with the immediate crisis. You made a comment in asking your initial question that there are more alternatives today than there were before. And that’s true. But, you know, these are alternatives that don’t always help in the immediate crisis. They help for the next one, like we should increase fuel economy standards, which it’s a mistake this administration has scrapped, or we should deploy more electrification and transport. That doesn’t help today. It helps tomorrow. And then when the immediate crisis passes, people tend to forget about tomorrow. And even if you wanted to stay the course and stay focused on tomorrow, these are capital-intensive investments and we’re at a place where advanced economies, nevertheless emerging markets, are seeing their fiscal budgets strained. High energy prices slow the pace of overall growth in the economy, hurt manufacturing exports in Europe, which is — there have been a lot of talk about whether this could accelerate a transition. They’re trying to ramp up their defense spending, which is straining a lot of government budgets.
Jason Bordoff:
[20:17] So it is true that I think countries will be eager to do this. And I haven’t been there, but reports are BYD dealerships in places like Manila are overflowing right now. But to stay the course there, it is going to require a good investment climate and depend on the cost of capital and the ability to put a lot of money into this kind of — there’s a security premium to pay for energy security. You want more redundancy. You want more strategic stockpiles. You want to shift to electrification. You want to build redundant infrastructure like the Saudi East-West pipeline. If energy security is more top of mind for people today, governments will be inclined to move in that direction. It’s just a question of once the crisis passes, how much of a security premium society is really willing to pay when fiscal budgets are already feeling some strain.
Robinson Meyer:
[21:01] What’s the risk that you’re most worried about in the current crisis that you feel like maybe isn’t getting enough play? In some ways, the lack of any progress since the ceasefire was put into place has meant that we kind of have talked about everything. But I don’t know. Is there something that in your mind, whenever you encounter it, you’re like, oh, that’s a big deal. And people don’t realize how big a deal that is.
Jason Bordoff:
[21:18] I mean, whether it’s tariffs or Greenland or Venezuela or this, and I could list other examples, too. I think global cooperation and America’s role as a trusted partner for countries around the world is a very important one. And that’s true for energy security, too. If you’re really worried about 80%, 90% of lots of the parts of particularly clean energy supply chain, say, being dominated by China or critical mineral supplies, the only way to change that reality is to work in partnership with more countries, Europe and Latin America and Africa. And I’m worried that China has a strong desire to position itself as a reliable commercial partner in the world, contrary to the U.S. And I worry that conflicts like this one don’t help us counter that argument. So that’s a broader point. When it comes to energy, I wrote a piece with my friend and frequent collaborator Meghan O’Sullivan at Harvard in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs —
Jason Bordoff:
[22:16] Where we talked about that thing I said a moment ago, if you’re more worried about energy security, and particularly you’re in oil and gas import dependent economy, say in Europe, a response to this could be energy security comes from isolating yourself, becoming self-sufficient. And it certainly makes sense to produce more energy at home where you can. But we talked about the 1970s a moment ago. And one of the responses to that crisis from my standpoint is a sense that energy security was strengthened by more cooperation and more integration into a global market, an oil market that was interconnected. So if there’s a hurricane somewhere or a tsunami somewhere or a civil war somewhere, supplies could shift around in response to higher prices, to be sure. All of that helped increase security. And it was like collective insurance policy. I think today, countries increasingly in the world of geopolitical fragmentation and our collapsing world order look around and feel like interconnection is a risk, not a source of security. And the more countries try to disconnect and kind of take a go it alone approach, I think that actually is more expensive. It’s cost inflationary. It weakens economic growth. And frankly, it makes it harder to have a clean energy transition.
Robinson Meyer:
[23:27] I mean, we were just talking about it, but the country that seems to be emerging from this crisis stronger is China. And it has pursued a relatively autarkic energy strategy, which has placed it in a very good position for this crisis. If you approach the past five years of, I don’t know, energy security development and geopolitics by focusing on an extremely, frankly, kind of paranoid energy security strategy, and you built up massive domestic oil reserves and your own world-leading electric vehicle companies and battery companies, and we’re really focused, and coal power production, and we’re really focused on developing your own energy resources, then you look great right now. And I think that’s part of what, I don’t know, both the U.S. system and the whole world to some degree is dealing with is that, China has pursued a set of strategies that weren’t supposed to work or were supposed to be more expensive than the alternatives and finds itself now in a stronger position, seemingly.
Jason Bordoff:
[24:21] Yeah, no, look, it was the first piece I wrote after the attack happened just a few days after that was with my brilliant colleague here at the Energy Center, Erica Downs, who’s a leading China expert. We were talking about exactly what you just said and sort of said there’s a lot of ways in which China could win from this. First, if it does prompt that shift to countries to say we want to electrify more and produce that electricity from domestic sources, that means more — say in Europe, more solar, more EVs, more batteries, more critical minerals and China dominates all of those markets. But it’s also a validation. And we should be clear. China is paying — they’re a big oil and gas importer and they get a lot of that from the Gulf. So they’re paying more for that to be sure. China’s April bill for crude oil imports was 13% higher this year than it was in April of last year. But their strategy to reduce their dependence on oil through electrification, to build up a huge reserve of more than a billion barrels of oil in a stockpile, while the U.S. On both sides of the aisle has been selling off our strategic stockpile because we thought we didn’t need it. Half of new automobiles sold in China are electric. More of its energy system is electrified than most other countries. And it’s been consistent across its five-year plans. Its 15th five-year plan came out just before this war started. And I think you read that five-year plan, and it is very much a stay-the-course kind of approach to what they were doing before.
Robinson Meyer:
[25:43] Do we have a sense of why, or do you have any theories on why their strategy has succeeded? I think along these autarkic or kind of energy security focused dimensions, when it maybe hasn’t succeeded in other countries, and maybe it’s just that they’ve leaned into a set of technologies that both worked particularly well for their, you know, political economy and also were truly at the frontier of what everyone was trying to develop. And it so happened that the U.S. pulled back and Europe maybe didn’t have the culture or approach and China was able to take the lead on, you know, solar and wind and EVs and all that.
Jason Bordoff:
[26:18] That’s a complicated question. And, you know, I had Dan Wang on my podcast recently who talked about the Engineering Society and the Lawyerly Society and the U.S. files lawsuits and makes it hard to build things. And China’s got a bunch of engineers who can build things really fast. And there’s some truth to that. They have stability in policy with five-year plans. When U.S. politicians or even administrations sort of put policy platforms together, you don’t necessarily think those things are going to happen in our system. It’s almost impossible to get anything done through Congress these days. If something’s in a Chinese five-year plan, there’s a pretty good chance it’s going to get implemented. Now, there’s a bunch of downsides to that in an authoritarian regime and lack of engagement and respect for human rights and a host of other things. So like maybe some benefits of top-down planning. I’m not saying that’s the direction we want to go in, but there are — it does make it easier to execute when you have a plan. Yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
[27:11] This crisis is singular in the voluntary nature of this crisis. There was no debate in the United States about bombing Iran. There was no effort to seek an authorization from Congress. There was no sense of why this operation needed to happen now as opposed to in three months or six months or never. It was entirely self. We chose it and the Trump administration chose it. Thinking back over the history of energy policy, like, is there any other moment like this where a country has kind of bumbled or, you know, elected an energy crisis or elected into a series of events that then created an energy crisis where, of such size and scale, but also that was so uniquely voluntary.
Jason Bordoff:
[28:00] Yeah, I’m trying to think about how to answer your question in the phrase uniquely voluntary, obviously the choice to impose an oil embargo or to invade Iraq or to attack Pearl Harbor or there’s a bunch of things, you know, when oil has been critical to the success in World War I and World War II. So I don’t know, I guess those aren’t voluntary because you’re in the middle of war, but many of these crises result from some choice like that to engage, or obviously Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So I don’t know if it’s completely unique, but...
Robinson Meyer:
[28:33] When you start to look at countries that have taken drastic actions that then create energy crises that wind up harming themselves, I think you do want... It’s a relatively short list.
Jason Bordoff:
[28:42] Yeah. Well, and your point about harming...
Robinson Meyer:
[28:44] Imperial Japan might be on it.
Jason Bordoff:
[28:45] Your point about harming yourself is interesting, because I wrote an op-ed in the Financial Times and the motivation for it was just I was sort of struck that reporting in The New York Times about how Prime Minister Netanyahu came to Washington, went into the Situation Room, showed the slides about and tried to persuade the Trump administration to attack. And it sort of — I was reminded of how when I served in the White House in the first Obama term, Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the White House and tried to persuade the Obama administration not to undertake a physical military attack but to get much tougher on Iran and that was financial, oil sanctions. And a big part of the struggle at the time was how do you take two and a half million barrels a day, which was the level of exports at the time of Iranian oil off the market without cratering the U.S. economy in the process. And it is striking that the idea that you could disrupt 15 million barrels a day of supply was not a constraint or seemingly to the same extent this time around. Now, I’m not comparing the two. It’s not that — it’s not like if we were an exporter at the time, Obama would have attacked Iran. For sure, that’s not the case.
Jason Bordoff:
[29:49] It is a global market, and U.S. consumers are feeling pain at the pump. But there is a way in which the shale revolution has put the U.S. In a better position than it had been in before. That $30 or $40 gap between the physical and the paper price I mentioned before, the fact that the macroeconomic impact today is smaller because consumers are spending more, but that money is circulating within the U.S. Economy rather than flowing overseas. Again, we’re not insulated, and we’re seeing the politics of this now as people call for waiving the gasoline tax or something. It’s kind of coming home to roost. But it does seem to me like it gave the U.S. a bit more freedom to undertake risky geopolitical and military actions that had the potential to disrupt markets than would have been the case when we’re importing 60 percent of our oil, you know, 15 years ago.
Robinson Meyer:
[30:33] As you were just saying, you worked on energy policy during the Obama administration. And I think the past few weeks have seen, and honestly, even just the past few days have seen a discussion of kind of democratic energy and climate policy research. And there’s a piece yesterday in The New York Times by Matthew Huber at Syracuse University, basically saying Democrats have stopped talking about climate change in a number of important races and kind of at the national level. And that’s good because it really never mattered to the working class. And they should do climate policy, but they shouldn’t talk about it anymore. I wonder, you could have watched the Biden era after viewing this huge arc of coming out of Paris, this whole second wave of climate policy, and it built during Trump. And then it was part of the story that President Biden told when he was elected. He named it one of the four crises that was facing the country. And then ultimately, it resulted or helped result in the Inflation Reduction Act. What are your reflections on climate policy in the Biden era? Because I think everyone right now is kind of trying to figure out how they think about what just happened and what Trump’s second victory means for it and what they should do going forward. I wonder how you’re approaching this.
Jason Bordoff:
[31:37] I believe two things can both be true. Climate change is an urgent crisis that demands that the world move much faster to reduce emissions and that means using fewer oil, gas and coal resources. And it’s better for the U.S. that we’re a net exporter today rather than a huge net importer. And it’s a good thing, not a bad thing that we’ve had this change in the U.S. energy position. And it frustrates me that it seems oftentimes people on either side of these issues politically or industry and sometimes activists can only sort of acknowledge one of those things and not both at the same time. And maybe whatever people mean by words like realism or pragmatism in this whole discussion, you know, I hope it means we move in a direction where we’re talking about both of those things and doesn’t mean realism and pragmatism. You need energy to be cheap. The world’s still going to use oil and gas for a long time. So don’t worry about that climate thing.
Jason Bordoff:
[32:38] Second, as someone who’s lived a lot in the national security and geopolitical and foreign policy world, I think there’s a potential for a conversation about energy security and national security to be a powerful motivator of many, not all, but many of the steps that you would want to take to move in a low-carbon direction anyway. And I think that could give more force to some of this agenda because if an item is on the agenda of the national security advisor in the situation room, it frankly probably gets a little more attention than if it’s on the agenda of the climate advisor calling a meeting down the hall in the White House. And so that’s why at the Energy Center, we try to spend as much time at places like the Munich Security Conference or the Aspen Security Forum as we do at UN COP meetings. That’s a really important community to drive a policy agenda forward. And then the third is, in the end, sort of reality catches up to some of the promises that are made to build consensus and a coalition in support of action. I think you talked about the Green New Deal, what led to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration, and there was a broad discussion.
Jason Bordoff:
[33:47] Narrative at the time about how shifting faster to clean energy is a win-win-win. It saves everyone money. It creates jobs. It leads to sustainability and lower emissions. President Biden often said, when I think climate, I think jobs. And the problem is there’s some truth to that, but it’s not entirely true. And there’s a cost. There’s a bigger cost to not doing anything about climate change, which is why you have to do something, but there is a cost to doing something about it too. There’s some negative cost opportunities. Solar is very cheap. I know all of that is true. And so I think sometimes if you overpromise to try to move an agenda forward, if those promises don’t deliver, that sort of catches up with the political conversation eventually.
Robinson Meyer:
[34:26] Do you think the U.S. has a uniquely hard time or an unusually hard time decarbonizing or adopting some kind of climate policy? In part because, you know, you have Europe or say the U.K. I would say Europe is relatively energy poor in terms of fossil fuel resources, especially if you’re looking to burn something that isn’t coal. There’s China, which has a lot of coal and has been burning it, but does not have liquid fuels, doesn’t really have a huge natural gas resource. And so for Europe and China kind of both of which are the two other I would think of kind of two other anchors of the global economy in some ways what you were just saying a lot of the stuff they had to do for decarbonization that was stuff they had to do anyway for energy security and so and in China there were you know hundreds of millions but they.
Jason Bordoff:
[35:12] Do have a carbon tax then they were willing to put climate policy in place because there was an acknowledgement that climate was a problem and sorry not to cut you off in your question no no no I do I do think your point before about this sort of sense and, you know, recent op-ed in the New York Times and stuff like, well, Democrats just shouldn’t talk about it. I understand, although it’s not my expertise sort of polling in politics, why for a midterm or in the near term, maybe you want to talk about affordability or other things. And there are opportunities there. Solar is one of the cheapest forms of electricity. And you have to account for balancing in the grid, not just the marginal cost of solar. I get that. And you can do it quickly when there’s a long backlog for new gas turbines, which is why the fastest growing form of new power generation capacity in the U.S. this year will be solar, even though we’ve lost some of the tax credit support and permitting may be a little harder. So there are opportunities like that. We need to modernize the grid for AI. We need to bring power prices down, and that can help give momentum to, say, solar and wind or nuclear power. But in the long run, we’re not going to solve the problem of climate change if we don’t talk about it. It is a negative externality. There is a cost to society from using oil, gas, and coal, and agricultural emissions and all the rest. Greenhouse gas emissions in the long run are going to cause significant suffering.
Jason Bordoff:
[36:26] And that’s not going to go away only because we can make progress toward it. But you’re not going to solve that problem entirely unless more people acknowledge, recognize that and take it seriously and are willing to do something about it, which is probably going to mean paying some cost for it, even though the willingness to pay a green premium seems to be low right now. And you want to minimize it through efficient policy, by bringing down the cost of new technologies. you want to do all of those things.
Robinson Meyer:
[36:50] I agree, although I do think that there’s a bit of a tension between kind of that we’re not going to solve climate change without talking about it. And I think your second point, which is that there’s a lot that we could do on climate change as a country if we worked in a bipartisan way and kind of thought about national security. And so I think, for instance, there’s a lot the U.S. could be doing. We could have a, you know, something I’ve been talking about recently informally is like we really need a CHIPS Act for battery chemistry, right? And the way you’re going to develop a coalition for a CHIPS Act for battery chemistry or EV production is not by going to Republicans, House Republicans especially, and saying, hey, look, this, we need to do this for climate change. In fact, the way you’re going to do it is by talking about climate change as little as possible.
Jason Bordoff:
[37:31] Yeah, no, I don’t dispute that. I agree with that. I’m sort of trying to just say, I think we need to be working in parallel to help people understand, and Columbia has a whole climate school it has built to try to do this, but to try to help people understand the stakes and why this is a quite serious problem. But that takes time. That’s not sort of the immediate, as you said, the things we can do, whether it’s nuclear power, which this administration is supportive of and actually taking some good steps to try to streamline nuclear permitting or the critical minerals work that it’s done or other things. As you said, we need every form of energy we can get when power prices are going up. I do think this crisis, though, for an agenda that has been about energy dominance, let’s increase oil and gas production, let’s pull back on things like fuel economy standards and support for EVs, the energy and economic security argument that, yes, we might be the largest oil producer in the world, but in a global market, we are still vulnerable when something happens halfway around the world. I hope the takeaway from that would be, while it’s a good thing, not a bad thing, if we’re a big producer rather than a big importer, to really make ourselves resilient, we want to be moving in parallel to reduce how much oil the United States uses in the first place.
Robinson Meyer:
[38:45] I think there’s a lot of criticism now. In fact, I’ve seen it tied to this exact thing, to this exact dynamic that the U.S. is a big producer of oil and gas. We’ve kind of achieved energy independence on paper, quote unquote, which was the long sought goal of so many presidential administrations. But we have not actually achieved energy independence in reality, because of course, as long as you use especially oil, which is a globally traded commodity, you can’t really be independent. And I’ve seen some people go so far as to say that, that, in fact, the Obama deal to extend the solar and wind tax credits in exchange for lifting the crude oil trade embargo was a mistake. And we should have kept oil in the country and maybe, you know, sacrificed a few years of tax credits. But that way there would actually be, you know, it would not have grown the domestic oil and gas industry in the same way. And also we would now have that oil to burn, I suppose, in this energy security moment. Is that off base?
Jason Bordoff:
[39:39] I think so. It kind of comes back to what I said a moment ago, which is energy security comes from being interconnected into a global oil market. So when Hurricane Katrina hits the U.S. Gulf Coast and takes out a bunch of production, we are more secure, not less, because we can access a global market and some supplies that might have gone from, you know, Africa or Latin America to Europe will come to the U.S. instead. I think if you were to try to isolate yourself and cut yourself off, for example, by banning exports, and remember, to even contemplate what you were talking about, you would need to ban oil exports and also refined product exports, gasoline and diesel.
Robinson Meyer:
[40:18] We were exporting refined products the whole time, basically. It was only — Well.
Jason Bordoff:
[40:21] If the price of refined products are set in the global market, oil might be very cheap, but the price at the pump is going to be set by what a refiner could get if they were to export that. If you were to put in place export restrictions, you would force more U.S. crude into a domestic market. You would force a greater discount in the U.S. price of oil, so-called WTI, relative to Brent. Unless you restricted gasoline, you wouldn’t necessarily lower pump prices instead. It would kind of require a lot of capital to remake the domestic refining system because it’s kind of optimized for crude that is not U.S. crude. And then in the end, you know, producers would cut back and domestic refiners would cut back in response to that. I think in the long run that would be harmful and it sends a signal to the rest of the world too that makes them question whether the U.S. Is a reliable supplier. And it’s easy to see sort of tit-for-tat retaliation where some people say, well, if you’re going to take care of yourself, we’re going to take care of ourselves too.
Jason Bordoff:
[41:20] And that might be okay for the time being for the U.S. But we should remember before this crisis started, U.S. oil production was projected to be roughly flat this year. And there is a question because shale is so short cycle about how long the production at this level can be sustained. The idea that 10 or 15 years from now, U.S. production could actually have fallen and demand hasn’t. You kind of want to think in the long term about — we’ve spent decades pushing back on other countries that have tried to take care of themselves, restrict exports, restrict imports, use energy in coercive ways. And I think it’s short-sighted if the U.S. were to try to adopt tools like that as well.
Robinson Meyer:
[41:59] There was one last thing I wanted to ask about. It gets at the same kind of set of questions here, which to be clear, I don’t have a good answer on either. I’m trying to think through all of them, which is that you remarked upon this question, often struggle to see both sides of this climate change is an urgent problem and it’s good that the U.S. is an oil and gas net oil and gas producer this has created many benefits for the american economy and i would add for our European allies in 2022 and more recently it is part of the reason that it’s hard for people to see that I mean it’s kind of like easy for you and I to say these two things because our job is identifying what is true at the moment and I think both things are true. I understand when people bring a more zero-sum approach to these, because frankly, what a lot of the businesses and individuals who got rich off the oil and gas boom then did was turn around and use it to block climate policy. And I think it would be hard for me to say, for instance, that the growth of the U.S. domestic fossil fuel industry hasn’t ultimately been bad for U.S. climate policy on net. Now, I think it’s had many benefits, but I think maybe, you know, domestic American climate policy has been a victim of it. Is there any way out of that trap or are these issues just kind of stuck in politics and we have to make coalitions as we can, but ultimately there is a net push pull on these things at the domestic level?
Jason Bordoff:
[43:26] I think there is good reason to be skeptical about the ability to have those balanced pragmatic arguments because sometimes they are abused or used, as you said, to undermine climate policy. The idea that if one were to support however you want to characterize, keep it in the ground policy, stop production, stop pipelines, and you say, as I have in the past, well, if demand doesn’t go down and you restrict production somewhere in the U.S. Gulf Coast or wherever, one of two things is going to happen. And either prices go through the roof, and I’m not sure we have the political ability to sustain higher prices as the forcing mechanism that forces the economy to decarbonize.
Jason Bordoff:
[44:02] Or some other producer is going to jump in and pick up the slack. There’s no lack of hydrocarbons in the world. And whether it’s Brazil or the OPEC countries in the Gulf or someone else, like they’ll produce instead of us. I think all of that is true. But that means you have to do the other part. It doesn’t mean you don’t address this problem. It means you’ve got to make sure that you’re reducing demand and driving that down through electrification and fuel economy standards and new technologies and R&D and the loan program and the IRA and all the rest. And as you said, the idea that we are energy secure and energy dominant or suddenly a big producer, if we don’t need to worry so much about the urgency, as George W. Bush said in the State of the Union address, was very eloquent about saying why the U.S. needed to reduce oil use. But that was a time when we were a big importer. Again, that’s why I came back to the point about how in this crisis, the idea that even though we are an exporter, a net exporter and a big producer, we’re still vulnerable and it still makes a lot of sense to use less. Somehow you need to sort of find a way to build some common ground around those ideas.
Robinson Meyer:
[45:04] You run the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, and we’ve had a number of CGEP people on. I think we’ve had Jack Andreasen on and Noah Kaufman. If he’s not on, he will be on at some point. This is an organization that I encounter, as I’m sure many shift key listeners encounter kind of through its emissaries. But just like, what is the work of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia? Like, what do you guys do there? And what should we watch out for in the months and years to come?
Jason Bordoff:
[45:31] Yeah, I appreciate the question. So it’s a big energy think tank, for lack of a better term, that sits inside Columbia University. It’s about 100 people, like some of the brilliant scholars you just mentioned, Noah Kaufman and Jack and a bunch of others, working really across the board. I think one of the things that makes it a little bit unique is, first, it’s a collection not only where we work with the faculty at the university, but also these senior research fellows, people like Jack and Noah, who have pursued nontraditional academic paths. They’ve worked in government or in the International Energy Agency or civil society or the private sector and then take their expertise and try to put it to work here, helping to advance policy-relevant research. It is pretty interdisciplinary. We have under one roof people with expertise in renewables and climate policy, nuclear, oil and gas, Russia, China, Iran, sanctions, tariffs. I think that’s kind of made for this moment where everyone realizes you can’t have a faster energy transition or guarantee energy security unless you really understand this complex, fragmenting geopolitical moment that we are in. And the idea for it was one that I had when I worked in the Obama administration.
Jason Bordoff:
[46:38] We were just talking about energy exports a moment ago, just as an example. You were asking about oil exports, but the Obama administration was the first that had to decide, should we allow the export of natural gas? It was a question that would have been unfathomable five or ten years earlier. We were a big importer. How is that even possible? And suddenly the world changes. The shale revolution comes out of nowhere, at least to people in Washington. It seemed to come out of nowhere. And it raised important policy questions like, should we allow exports? And they become a big political fight. Environmentalists might say it’ll destroy the planet and industry says it’ll create a billion jobs and our allies in other parts of the world are saying it’s important for our security. And as a policymaker, what you need is you’re bombarded a lot by advocacy information. What’s really helpful is independent, trusted expertise that doesn’t have an agenda. And the question is where does that come from? That understands all parts of energy, the geopolitical, the economic and the environmental and climate. And there just wasn’t as much of that as there should have been. Universities are pretty extraordinary in their independence, their rigor, their analytic capability. They’re not always good at being useful to the real world in the formats and timeframes that the real world needs. So the idea for the Center on Global Energy Policy was can we sort of try to solve that problem by bringing practitioner scholars together with some of the leading academics in the world on all different types of energy issues.
Robinson Meyer:
[47:57] It’s so funny because it was something that I realized I’m a great consumer of its work. I’m aware of it, of course, as an organization, but I’ve never heard the story
Robinson Meyer:
[48:04] or kind of gotten your synopsis of it. So thank you so much. We’re going to have to leave it there though. Jason Bordoff, thank you so much for joining us on Shift Key.
Jason Bordoff:
[48:11] Thanks for the invitation. It was great to be here.
Robinson Meyer:
[48:18] Thanks so much for listening. That will do it for this episode of Shift Key. You know, some weeks of Shift Key, we just have one episode for you. This week, we have three. We are a news podcast, after all. We will be back one more time this week, I think on Friday, with an episode about the Trump-Xi China Summit with two great guests. Until then, Shift Key is a production of Heatmap News. Our editors are Jillian Goodman and Nico 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, and see you on Friday.
The Democratic Senate candidate from Maine told Heatmap that any ban on construction must be paired with policymaking.
We’re about to find out whether progressive energy populism can flip control of Congress.
Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maine, released an energy plan on Friday calling for a “national electricity rate freeze” to deal with high power prices, which many fear is in no small part from the scramble to build out new generation to meet new demand from data centers. Notably, however, the plan did not address data centers themselves.
In an interview the next day, the candidate revealed more of his views about the controversial technology, and told me his campaign is working on an artificial intelligence and data center-specific policy plan.
“I am extremely worried about, one, just AI as a general concept — the impact it’s going to have on the labor force, its impact on things like mass surveillance and manipulation of people and markets. Those things terrify me,” Platner told me. “We are dealing with a technology and a reality that we have done absolutely no regulatory preparation for, and that is utterly terrifying with something that seems to be as big and expensive and impactful as AI and the infrastructure necessary to power it.”
While he was careful in our conversation not to explicitly back a nationwide data center moratorium, he has previously given the idea his full-throated support. During a March 6 interview with environmental activists considering whether to endorse the candidate, Platner was asked whether he supports a “halt” to the fast-paced buildout of data centers. He was also queried on whether he would cosponsor legislation authored by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that would temporarily ban new data center projects. (The interview occurred before the bill was introduced.)
“Yes and yes. That’s probably the easiest question I’m going to get asked today,” Platner replied, according to a recording of the internal conversation shared with me by Food and Water Action. FWA was one of the four organizations involved in the call, all of which endorsed his campaign Tuesday morning. Platner’s camp declined to comment on the video.
The stakes of Platner’s campaign couldn’t be higher for Democrats. The seat is one of a handful that will determine control of the U.S. Senate. Platner, a 41-year-old oyster farmer and first-time politician, is fighting against 73-year-old five-term incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins. While Maine voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 by about seven points and early polls indicate a competitive race that Platner could win, Collins has lasted this long in office for a reason.
Maine is a frontline battleground for modern energy politics in many ways. The northernmost New England state suffers some of the highest electricity rates in the country. The state has also seen some of the country’s steepest yearly cost increases; bills there have risen at least 8.3% just in the past year, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. And prices are only expected to go higher.
Though the state has seen far less data center development than, say, Virginia or Indiana, the facilities have nevertheless become a hot issue for Mainers. Multiple towns have rejected large AI infrastructure projects over the past year. Earlier this year, the Democratically-controlled state legislature passed a statewide moratorium on new data center development. Governor Janet Mills — who was at the time vying with Platner for the Senate nomination — vetoed the moratorium, arguing for protections so one former mill town could still build a data center. She suspended her campaign soon after, conspicuous timing she blamed on dwindling finances.
“Her veto of the bill that was going to put stringent limits on AI centers was something that bothered a lot of people in the Democratic Party,” Jim Melcher, a political science professor at the University of Maine at Farmington, told me.
Meanwhile, Platner supporters “are the kind of people that are nervous about the effects on the environment from data centers, particularly electricity usage and the water usage,” he said. “It’s something Susan Collins hasn’t made much of.”
In addition to the activist groups, leading climate and labor organizations have also endorsed Platner, including Sierra Club’s Maine chapter and the AFL-CIO. (LCV Action Fund, the campaign finance arm of the League of Conservation Voters, told me it hasn’t formally endorsed Platner but is “working with his campaign” and “excited about the opportunity to elect a clean energy champion in Maine this year.”)
Some of the policies in the energy plan were table-stakes bipartisan stuff, like repealing the gas tax to deal with higher gas prices from the Iran War — something Trump says he wants to do, too. Other ideas were quintessential Maine, like a “strategic marine fuel reserve” to quell price increases during fishing season. Unsurprisingly for a Democrat, Platner supports permitting reform for renewable energy projects including solar and offshore wind.
But one big proposal caught my eye — a so-called “national electricity rate freeze.” According to the plan, a combination of “repurposed” fossil fuel funding and a new oil industry “windfall tax” would fund “low-cost energy infrastructure financing to any state that freezes or lowers electricity rates for four years.”
“Not only would this relieve Americans of the burden of Trump’s war,” the document stated, “but it would also reduce the political impetus on the part of Big Oil to continue to push America into costly Middle East interventions that just so happen to reap them billions in profit.”
Though it did not mention data centers explicitly, the proposal echoed a similar policy from New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, whose campaign pledge last year to freeze electricity rates was a direct response to data center impacts.
A moratorium on data center development would be a step far beyond taking action on electricity prices. When I asked about the Sanders proposal in our interview, Platner told me he supports “anything” that would slow down data center development. But on the general idea of temporarily banning these projects, he clarified, it “can’t be a moratorium for the sake of being a moratorium.”
“If we’re just slowing it down to assuage people’s fears but we’re not also building legislation at the exact same time, that kind of defeats the point,” he said. “What might be — I’m still a little skeptical — but what might be the single most transformational technology around productivity of our time, the idea that’s just going to happen and we don’t have any regulatory structures around it and we’re not even having the time to have the conversation while it gets built and utilized? That’s insane. Except that’s exactly what’s happening right now.”
Platner’s plainclothes populism came through when I asked why he thinks energy prices are going up. On the one hand, he said, “People need more energy and we’re not producing enough of it.” But he added: “It’s that, connected with corporate consolidation and greed. These two things together [are] what’s primarily driving how expensive energy is.”
Collins, meanwhile, has started sketching her own approach to energy in campaign season — promoting domestic natural gas. Speaking at a manufacturing business summit on Friday, Collins countermessaged with support for new pipeline infrastructure to carry gas from Pennsylvania up north to increase supply and hopefully lower prices. “We have the highest dependence in the country on home heating oil for our homes. Natural gas is cleaner, it’s cheaper, and it should be more available in our state,” she told reporters.
Collins has pursued her own reform efforts around AI, including a call to ban AI-generated depictions of candidates in election ads. Mainers haven’t gotten much from Collins about data centers, though. Neither her campaign nor her Senate office responded to requests for comment. “She really hasn't talked much about it,” Melcher said of Collins’ approach to energy and data centers.
Prior to releasing his energy plan, Platner took a Zohran Mamdani-like approach to climate and energy, focusing primarily on cost of living issues.
When he did speak on those subjects, it was with the same unapologetically anti-corporate approach that leads him to say companies like Google and Palantir “shouldn’t exist.” In a clip posted to YouTube in February, Platner outlines his position on fossil fuels, arguing that the federal government must “pull back” on financing for the industry in order to “buy us the future we need to deal with the problems of climate change.” The responsibility for addressing climate change rests not at the feet of individual citizens, he says, but rather with “the structures and the corporations that have made an immense amount of money out of destroying the planet.”
It remains to be seen whether Platner’s populist pugilism will prove successful for Democrats in a crucial race. Collins has a powerful perch atop the Senate Appropriations Committee, which allows her to argue on the trail that she’ll bring Mainers home more bacon.
Both Melcher and Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine, told me they’re confident Platner is relying on the support of voters who want him to support a blanket data center ban. They each told me Collins’ relative silence on this topic is something Platner could use to his advantage, especially as energy prices continue to rise.
“They’ll probably both try to stake out a position that says we're clearly concerned about environmental issues and the cost of electricity,” Brewer said. “I don’t know if it’ll be at the top of the agenda, but at some point in this campaign, we’ll all be talking about AI data centers.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of Food and Water Action.