UChicago Institute of Politics (IOP) Director Heidi Heitkamp and former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz debated the viability of U.S. energy policy strategies past, present and future at “A Real Talk on Energy Policy” on November 19. The panelists, hosted by EPIC and IOP, emphasized a pragmatic, global perspective and the importance of compromise. EPIC and Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth Director Michael Greenstone moderated the conversation.
After introducing their backgrounds in energy policy, the panelists shared their thoughts on the future of energy policy during the forthcoming Trump administration.
Heitkamp spoke from her experience serving as a senator from North Dakota during Trump’s first term. “I think that there’s going to be very little climate policy. I think climate policy is going to come out of institutions like this for research, they could come out of private companies who know that just simply looking at a four year gain is not good long-term strategy,” Heitkamp said. “I do think that the Biden administration is being way too optimistic when they say, we put this machine in motion and they can’t stop it,” she added, pointing to Trump’s promise to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act.
Coming from a major oil- and gas-producing state, Heitkamp also addressed Trump’s “Drill, Baby, Drill” strategy. She said that increasing supply to drive down prices would be “counterproductive to actually having energy independence.”
Moniz said that, during Trump’s first term, “frankly, there wasn’t much impact at all” on carbon trajectories, similarly pointing to the private sector. “The private sector, certainly in the energy business, makes big capital commitments with very, very long time horizons, and they know what I said earlier — we are going to a low carbon economy, even if we don’t know the exact pace and scale,” said Moniz. “I don’t have confidence that there will be similarly small impact in the next four years, but that dynamic will be there providing a stabilizing influence.”
The panelists also discussed the importance of political compromise, pointing to the Jones Act, a bill Heitkamp co-sponsored that lifted a ban on exporting crude oil and expanded tax credits for renewables. “To make progress, sometimes, you’ve gotta do a deal,” Moniz said.
They also stressed the importance of balancing emissions reductions with low-income Americans and low-income countries’ need for affordable fuel.
“We can argue intellectually about externalities and whether the current pricing system bakes in the externality of climate, but at the bottom line, that person living on a fixed income who has to pay the bills, or the energy worker who’s making $130,000 working on a rig, and the transition is offering him or her only 50,000,” Heitkamp said. “These are things that will drive policy.”
“We are going to a lower-carbon economy,” Moniz said. “We’ll get there only when we fold into one conversation climate, security, social equity, bankability, global south. Those are one discussion, and until we get sophisticated enough to put them all into our policy discussion, we’re not going to solve any of the problems.”
The speakers shared their ideas of promising fuel sources. Moniz, a physicist, pointed to two potential innovations in clean energy technology: nuclear fusion and geological hydrogen. “They may be nothing, and they may be complete game changers,” Moniz said.
Geological hydrogen refers to naturally-occuring hydrogen, which can be burned without producing CO2. Moniz pointed to the case of Bourakebougou, Mali, where residents have generated electricity from natural hydrogen wells. If scientists discover that geological hydrogen is widely available and can be harnessed on a global scale, it “would be a huge deal because, if it is successful, it’s probably very inexpensive, and suddenly you have, roughly speaking, the new natural gas,” Moniz said. “When you have cost reduction, boy, the policy gets a lot easier.”
Heitkamp described herself as “fuel agnostic,” praising natural gas, back-end carbon capture and increased energy efficiency.
“What everybody’s hoping for is technology development,” Heitkamp said. But for now, she said, “I believe the low hanging fruit is natural gas.”
Later, the panelists answered audience questions. One student asked about the productivity of climate summits, such as the ongoing COP29 summit.
“I don’t think there’s ever a problem with people getting together and talking,” Heitkamp said, but “if you want a global government, that’s not what we’ve got.”
Moniz said that “some” COP summits have been “consequential,” but that they won’t produce formal agreements. He suggested that the most influential meetings would occur outside of summits.
Another student asked about voters’ support for climate policies over time, when the lower monetary costs of fossil fuels are easy to see but negative externalities are less immediately visible.
“We talk about externalities, and that we don’t see these costs. We’re seeing them in cleaning up behind natural disasters. We’re seeing them get insurance bills, people not being able to get insurance,” Heitkamp said. “And I think the more those costs get talked about, the more there’s going to be drive from voters to have this problem fixed.”
Moniz concurred.
“I think this would be the tipping point,” Moniz said of extreme weather. “We do love our children and grandchildren, but we really love ourselves. And the fact that the costs are coming due on this generation, I believe, is what will move us much faster along the resolution pathway.”
Faizan Rashid, a graduate student at the Harris School of Public Policy, said the event helped him realize he wanted to concentrate in energy and climate studies. He appreciated the different perspectives provided by the panelists.
“The goals are pretty much the same, but they’re navigating them in different ways,” Rashid said.
Heidi Heitkamp
