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:
Ten years ago, if you were a hotshot senior advisor in the Obama administration, odds are good you exited the revolving door of the White House straight into a job in Big Tech. But there’s a new career trajectory that’s looking pretty good these days: federal government to climate tech. Since the latter Obama years and increasingly with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act two years ago, former government employees are popping up at some of the most important companies and venture capital firms in the climate ecosystem.
That’s a testament to how far we’ve come since clean tech 1.0 in the 2010s, when Solyndra’s bankruptcy was blowing up headlines and the shale revolution was starting to derail renewable energy investment. As a more durable market started to rise from the ashes, a growing number of industry experts jumped into government to help fuel the revival — and then often back into industry to take advantage of a more favorable policy environment and an increased focus on corporate sustainability.
Alfred Johnson, co-founder and CEO of the tax credit marketplace Crux, told me that after growing up in D.C. but moving to Stanford for college, he was surprised to hear folks in Silicon Valley talking about government and private industry as if they had completely “mismatched objectives.” Prior to starting Crux, Johnson served as deputy chief of staff at the Department of the Treasury, his second stint at the agency during a career that’s taken him from campaigning for Obama to Blackrock, to founding his first startup, Mobilize, a platform that used to recruit volunteers for Democratic Party campaign events and progressive causes.
“The perspective that I’ve always had is that government and the private sector are fundamentally intertwined, and always have been,” Johnson told me. Crux itself demonstrates this public-private synergy: Not only did the IRA unleash an abundance of clean energy tax credits, it also made them much easier to trade — transactions Crux facilitates.
“If our goal is to mobilize trillions of dollars of investment into the clean energy transition,” Varun Sivaram, a senior fellow for energy and climate at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me, “the people holding the reins of power should absolutely not be the people who have never been in an investment committee room making a financial decision on a project.” Prior to his latest gig, Sivaram worked as an executive at Orsted, which he joined after a stint in the White House as the managing director for clean energy and innovation and a senior advisor to John Kerry, the administration’s climate envoy.
“After the IRA, I said, look, we’ve passed this extraordinary legislation. I would now love to help be at a company that can use this amazing public policy and build clean energy as fast as possible,” he told me. At Orsted he helped lead the internal R&D and artificial intelligence teams and founded Orsted Ventures, which has invested in Crux. Sivaram was also on the committee that decided to pull out of two offshore wind projects in New Jersey, resulting in a $4 billion impairment for the company. “I sometimes feel like Forrest Gump. I have had this front row seat to a lot of very important things,” Sivaram told me.
A lot of the recent revolving door activity can also be traced to the renewed vigor of the once-nearly-dormant Loan Programs Office, part of the Department of Energy, which the IRA imbued with $400 billion to guarantee loans to emerging energy technologies. LPO became a political football thanks to Solyndra, which received a loan guarantee from the office of more than $500 million. After Jigar Shah took the helm in 2021, he tripled the agency’s staff, bringing with him a cohort of private industry experts and advisors, many of whom held contract positions for about a year or two before moving back into industry to pursue other ventures in the climate tech and energy world.
Climate tech investment firms have also become a popular landing spot for former government talent. David Danielson, now a managing director at Breakthrough Energy Ventures, co-founded ARPA-E and worked in the Department of Energy in the second Obama administration. Jenny Gao, a vice president at Energy Impact Partners, went there fresh off a position in the DOE’s Office of Technology Transitions. And Clay Dumas, a partner at Lowercarbon Capital, worked in the Obama White House as the chief of staff and a senior advisor for the White House Office of Digital Strategy.
And then there’s Overture, a climate tech VC founded by former Obama staffers, which aims to help climate tech founders take advantage of government programs and navigate regulatory complexity. “In some ways, campaigns are startups — you start small with a big idea,” Michael O’Neil, one of Overture’s co-founders and partners, told me. “We used to say in the White House, How do you make the room bigger? How do you get more minds and more talent involved to make better decisions?” Now they ask the same questions to help founders build out their technologies. Overture announced the close of its first $60 million fund earlier this year.
It’s not just climate-specific companies and investors who are benefiting — big tech companies still attract plenty of former government employees, although the locus of that energy is now concentrated on corporate sustainability and decarbonization efforts. Lisa Jackson, VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives at Apple, served as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama. Melanie Nakagawa, the chief sustainability officer at Microsoft, previously worked as a climate advisor to Biden’s National Security Council, while Google’s director of climate and energy research, Ali Douraghy, came straight from the DOE.
Tech industry efforts to run operations with clean energy and back emerging climate solutions have also had an undeniably positive impact — most notably Frontier’s commitment to purchasing over $1 billion of carbon removal credits has catalyzed demand in the nascent industry. This initiative, led by the payments platform Stripe and co-founded by Alphabet, Meta, Shopify, and McKinsey, is also powered by a former government employee, Jane Flegal, who worked in the Biden White House as the senior director for industrial emissions.
While it’s true that the traditional off ramps for former government employees remain — the financial sector also still looms large, Sivaram told me — what’s new is that “there’s now actual money in starting your own company, in working at a venture fund,” he said And this, he believes, is how it should be.
“You want people who understand the nuances of the federal government and the IRA in order to effectively run companies that take advantage of the IRA. It is no secret that the government wanted companies to basically take this money. So many of us made this move.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of this week’s top renewable energy fights across the country.
1. Otsego County, Michigan – The Mitten State is proving just how hard it can be to build a solar project in wooded areas. Especially once Fox News gets involved.
2. Atlantic County, New Jersey – Opponents of offshore wind in Atlantic City are trying to undo an ordinance allowing construction of transmission cables that would connect the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project to the grid.
3. Benton County, Washington – Sorry Scout Clean Energy, but the Yakima Nation is coming for Horse Heaven.
Here’s what else we’re watching right now…
In Connecticut, officials have withdrawn from Vineyard Wind 2 — leading to the project being indefinitely shelved.
In Indiana, Invenergy just got a rejection from Marshall County for special use of agricultural lands.
In Kansas, residents in Dickinson County are filing legal action against county commissioners who approved Enel’s Hope Ridge wind project.
In Kentucky, a solar project was actually approved for once – this time for the East Kentucky Power Cooperative.
In North Carolina, Davidson County is getting a solar moratorium.
In Pennsylvania, the town of Unity rejected a solar project. Elsewhere in the state, the developer of the Newton 1 solar project is appealing their denial.
In South Carolina, a state appeals court has upheld the rejection of a 2,300 acre solar project proposed by Coastal Pine Solar.
In Washington State, Yakima County looks like it’ll keep its solar moratorium in place.
And more of this week’s top policy news around renewables.
1. Trump’s Big Promise – Our nation’s incoming president is now saying he’ll ban all wind projects on Day 1, an expansion of his previous promise to stop only offshore wind.
2. The Big Nuclear Lawsuit – Texas and Utah are suing to kill the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to license small modular reactors.
3. Biden’s parting words – The Biden administration has finished its long-awaited guidance for the IRA’s tech-neutral electricity credit (which barely changed) and hydrogen production credit.
A conversation with J. Timmons Roberts, executive director of Brown University’s Climate Social Science Network
This week’s interview is with Brown University professor J. Timmons Roberts. Those of you familiar with the fight over offshore wind may not know Roberts by name, but you’re definitely familiar with his work: He and his students have spearheaded some of the most impactful research conducted on anti-offshore wind opposition networks. This work is a must-read for anyone who wants to best understand how the anti-renewables movement functions and why it may be difficult to stop it from winning out.
So with Trump 2.0 on the verge of banning offshore wind outright, I decided to ask Roberts what he thinks developers should be paying attention to at this moment. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Is the anti-renewables movement a political force the country needs to reckon with?
Absolutely. In my opinion it’s been unfortunate for the environmental groups, the wind development, the government officials, climate scientists – they’ve been unwilling to engage directly with those groups. They want to keep a very positive message talking about the great things that come with wind and solar. And they’ve really left the field open as a result.
I think that as these claims sit there unrefuted and naive people – I don’t mean naive in a negative sense but people who don’t know much about this issue – are only hearing the negative spin about renewables. It’s a big problem.
When you say renewables developers aren’t interacting here – are you telling me the wind industry is just letting these people run roughshod?
I’ve seen no direct refutation in those anti-wind Facebook groups, and there’s very few environmentalists or others. People are quite afraid to go in there.
But even just generally. This vast network you’ve tracked – have you seen a similar kind of counter mobilization on the part of those who want to build these wind farms offshore?
There’s some mobilization. There’s something called the New England for Offshore Wind coalition. There’s some university programs. There’s some other oceanographic groups, things like that.
My observation is that they’re mostly staff organizations and they’re very cautious. They’re trying to work as a coalition. And they’re going as slow as their most cautious member.
As someone who has researched these networks, what are you watching for in the coming year? Under the first year of Trump 2.0?
Yeah I mean, channeling my optimistic and Midwestern dad, my thought is that there may be an overstepping by the Trump administration and by some of these activists. The lack of viable alternative pathways forward and almost anti-climate approaches these groups are now a part of can backfire for them. Folks may say, why would I want to be supportive of your group if you’re basically undermining everything I believe in?
What do you think developers should know about the research you have done into these networks?
I think it's important for deciding bodies and the public, the media and so on, to know who they’re hearing when they hear voices at a public hearing or in a congressional field hearing. Who are the people representing? Whose voice are they advancing?
It’s important for these actors that want to advance action on climate change and renewables to know what strategies and the tactics are being used and also know about the connections.
One of the things you pointed out in your research is that, yes, there are dark money groups involved in this movement and there are outside figures involved, but a lot of this sometimes is just one person posts something to the internet and then another person posts something to the internet.
Does that make things harder when it comes to addressing the anti-renewables movement?
Absolutely. Social media’s really been devastating for developing science and informed, rational public policymaking. It’s so easy to create a conspiracy and false information and very slanted, partial information to shoot holes at something as big as getting us off of fossil fuels.
Our position has developed as we understand that indeed these are not just astro-turf groups created by some far away corporation but there are legitimate concerns – like fishing, where most of it is based on certainty – and then there are these sensationalized claims that drive fears. That fear is real. And it’s unfortunate.
Anything else you’d really like to tell our readers?
I didn’t really choose this topic. I feel like it really got me. It was me and four students sitting in my conference room down the hall and I said, have you heard about this group that just started here in Rhode Island that’s making these claims we should investigate? And students were super excited about it and have really been the leaders.