.jpg)
THE FRONTIER LINE
Hosts Wayne Aston and David Murray explore the critical global pillars of infrastructure development and energy production, from traditional methods to future-forward advancements. The Frontier Line covers the latest industry news, energy innovations, and sustainability trends that are shaping the future. Through expert interviews with industry leaders in renewable energy, utility-scale battery storage, and waste-to-energy technologies, the podcast provides insights into the evolving landscape of energy efficiency and sustainable infrastructure. By focusing on the intersection of innovation and the politics of energy, The Frontier Line highlights transformative ideas and technologies poised to deliver cost-efficient, resilient, and sustainable solutions for global industries.
THE FRONTIER LINE
Politics & Policies Impacting Energy & Infrastructure
Unlock the secrets behind the intricate dance of energy politics and policy with us as we navigate this often contentious landscape. Discover how global energy demands intertwine with political intentions, and what that means for our future. We'll explore the fine line between skepticism and recognition of energy companies' roles in historical progress, as well as the profound challenges involved in transitioning to cleaner alternatives.
Explore the transformative impact of government initiatives, with a focus on the Biden-Harris administration's policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. We'll dissect how financial incentives are shaping industries like electric vehicles and energy, using California's ambitious approach as a case study. Our conversation sheds light on the concept of "grid equity" and underscores the disparities faced by underprivileged communities, highlighting the financial and decision-making repercussions felt by individuals across the spectrum.
Finally, join us as we unravel the complexities of lobbying and energy policy in Washington. From the challenges of representing critical infrastructure to the nuanced balance between renewable and fossil fuel energies, we'll provide a clear-eyed look at the political forces at play. Hear firsthand how bipartisanship and evolving policies like production and investment tax credits are crucial to advancing renewable energy and strengthening national energy independence, all while inviting you to adopt a more informed and balanced perspective on the energy policies shaping our world.
Welcome back. Hopefully, you had a chance to sit through all of our last episode. It was very heartfelt, a very great deep dive into who we are, what we are, our why, why we do what we do, why we're sitting here, why we're talking about this, why we're wanting to engage everybody, and so thank you for that. That was quite the episode.
Speaker 2:It was awesome.
Speaker 1:Today we're going to pivot to something less controversial energy.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:Energy's not controversial at all, is it?
Speaker 2:Not at all right. No, Energy and politics no.
Speaker 1:No one has an opinion on gas prices and what we should be doing and renewables and electric, what we should be doing, and renewables and electric, and yeah. So here we go. We're going to wade into the political swamp that is energy, but it's important to talk about this, it's important to bring it up, it's important to share with you kind of what we're learning, what we know, what we see. To start this conversation, because it is absolutely, whether you think it now, it's going to become almost more critical in the coming years. Why? Because the demands for energy in mass are growing at a pace that infrastructure, generally speaking, can't keep up, which we've talked about. And we've talked about our grid, for example, and how brittle our grid is in certain places, and how we see an evolution into decentralized power solutions and all kinds of things, and kind of how we're doing what we're doing.
Speaker 2:So, Wayne welcome that sounds fun, this sounds fun, thank you.
Speaker 1:So when you hear about when you here, I'll ask you when you see somebody talk about energy policy, call it a political pundit, call it whatever. Do you have a visceral reaction to it? Or'll ask you when you see somebody talk about energy policy, call it a political pun, call it whatever. Do you have a visceral reaction to it? Or do you go OK, I'm going to take this and what do you? How do you? How do you react to most energy news? Like, how do you take it in? That's a great question.
Speaker 2:I, generally speaking, am very circumspect when it comes to politics. You know it drives me nuts to hear folks get so riled up about this administration did this or did not do that and, like you know, this blame and complain game. I've always believed that. You know our president has very limited powers to do anything. He's a cog in the machine. The United States is somewhat of an independent nation, but we've always known that we're dependent on Saudi oil, as one example. There are global implications around policy. We talked about mandates recently in building efficiency and some of those standards, and I have a feeling we're going to be getting into more of that conversation of mandates as we're defining it as political policy. As political policy, what are policymakers attempting to mandate or legislate to drive this whole energy production, transmission, infrastructure, expansion, modernization conversation? So politics does play a key role on a global theater, all very, very intertwined globally. But I am very circumspect about how policy is made, about how policy is made and I think I suppose I question the intentions almost always. That's my short answer.
Speaker 1:I think that's healthy to question the intentions. I will tell you that I think my stance over probably the last 20 years, has evolved from one where I probably bought into Big Will's bad guy went oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Coming out of the time of Exxon Valdez and seeing some of these atrocities, I would say probably some of the angst was absolutely well-deserved. I think they were hubris and we don't care. There was absolutely well-deserved, I think. You know they were the hubris and like we don't care, and I mean there's probably a lot of that.
Speaker 1:However, over the last 20 years again, I've evolved and I've come to a point to where I'm like, okay, these, it's a far different stance. I'm, I'm, I'm squarely independent in in terms of how I I see these, these issues, especially with, with energy, and it's given me it's been a nice place to be in a way, because then I don't believe anybody. I mean I have my own wants and I personally and I think this is not a secret to kind of where we are. I mean we would like, I think, generally speaking, to see a cleaner future and to do things smarter and to make stand-up businesses that are not polluting the environment. I think all of us. I would like to think all of us can buy into saying, yeah, I want a clean place to live. This is not a crazy ask, balancing that with going okay, it's nice to have that. How do we get there and how do we transition?
Speaker 1:And then how do we deal with the reality of like these are giant industries that just don't change on a dime and we can't say, hey, america's built this amazing infrastructure. Over the last, say, 50 years, we've led the world at various times all kinds of things the industrial revolution and everything that came of it. Well, there were energy companies behind that win, and you can't have one without the other, and so that's where I'm. So anytime I hear conversations about whatever, I'm always okay. What are the politics at play? What's you know, what's one group trying to do? And that's where I become. I guess I'm getting older and getting that grumpy old man thing going on. I'm like I don't believe any of you assholes. I want to, but you've ruined it for me, so I've tried.
Speaker 2:I've tried I me so. I've tried.
Speaker 1:I've tried, I really have, I've tried, I've tried to you know, and, and so now it's okay, what's what's you know, what's the reality, what's you know? And that's where I've gone and I've gravitated towards what I, you know, who I think are industry experts, not the politicians, even maybe our agencies so much because they have they all have their own intention, their own intentionality. I'm looking at people who are living and steeped in this industry and saying this is what's really going on at ground level. You and I have gotten to talk to some of those people already because of what we're trying to solve, and it's like it's refreshing to go. Oh, okay, really, no kidding.
Speaker 1:And I think one of the things well, I'll bring this up politics-wise the grid, what we see in the grid right now, there are some significant politics at play. Right now You've got the Biden administration, who had issued some guidelines on installing more grid infrastructure, in a very interesting way of basically saying, okay, if you're a developer, come to us first, don't go to your states. Well, that I don't think is gonna set well with anybody in the West, maybe except for California, and that creates its own barrier. It's like, okay, you're trying to solve a problem, but you've created another one in the process. You're not obviously working with the states on these levels. You're basically saying, okay, states, you're so messed up that that's at least that's my impression that we're going to basically take over this, because this is a federal thing. We're running lines and there might be some argument for that. I mean, I think we see it even in the state of Utah, where you might have communities or counties who can't afford to solve the big problems and they need the state to come in and help them.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think in Utah we're solving it better. It seems like we're doing a better job. There seems to be more communication, but nonetheless, you talk to the people who are in the know. They're like yeah, I've been trying to do this for 20 years. Yeah, we've been trying to get lines run and do this and fix our infrastructure, and so, even on a local level, it's not an easy lift. Like anything, anything doing, it's not an easy lift. Do you think? I'll ask Allison, so do you think right now, because of all the conversation going on around the presidential race and what's being said, does it make it really hard to have a reasonable, logical conversation around policy and like moving society forward, because we're you know everybody's caught up in, into you know the memes and this and that and everything else that's happening, happening on a daily basis and we can't seriously talk about how to actually solve these issues.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's absolutely the truth. I think number one the media, because the media is not interested in facts or truth. You can't trust anything that's being said.
Speaker 1:We should probably talk about media. I'm going to let you answer. No, go ahead and answer. This is a good opportunity for me to get some things off my chest, because I have experience in the media and I have strong opinions. And I don't know everybody. I know I've shared with them, but I haven't ever been able to share it more in a public forum. So, yeah, we'll do that at some point, maybe today, maybe not. Yeah absolutely, so please go. Sorry to interrupt media.
Speaker 2:Because we can't depend on media to provide facts around this administration or that administration. Despite my deep antithesis for any political figures like this current administration I think is an embarrassment. But I'm looking at these two individuals, biden and Harris. I have very little respect for them as people and Harris, I have very little respect for them as people. But it depends on what headlines you really want to believe as to how do we measure success or what's not successful.
Speaker 2:I do value a more pragmatic approach at looking at policy, like you alluded to, rather than politics, rather than party lines, and I always look at issues first. That's how I vote, by the way, is based on issues, not on party lines, and you know there are a few things that seem like have had well-intentioned policy from this current administration. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 seems to have good intentions. I can see actual results, with Tesla being one of the biggest benefactors of that Incentives for evs and battery manufacturing. Well, because of that act under this administration, tesla's been able to really expand its operations. Um, we talked about mandating electric vehicles. I don't think that's. I don't think that's a wise policy california attempting to try to to veer into those weeds, but to have government policy that creates an incentive for a manufacturer like Musk to take advantage of. That seems like a very appropriate approach in many ways to incentivize private sector investment, to incentivize private sector expansion or delivering better solutions. So that's my nutshell response to it's a good one.
Speaker 1:I was having this conversation with my brother last night because he and his wife bought an electric bike and his friends took advantage bike and his friends took advantage. I guess there's a bit of a discount, like a $1,300 or $1,000 thing, where it'll help you go towards these things. And I had asked him. I'm like, hey, have you checked it out? He's like no, I haven't checked it out yet, but his friend was incentivized. He's like, oh, I'm going to go get this thing because it's going to cost a lot less and I'm going to get a little help. That's where you get interesting financial incentives. We've seen it in the water space. Right, we're going to go buy a toilet that might use less water and still flushes the same, or a water heater or a fridge, and we're going to incentivize. And so, for a manufacturer like a GE or anybody else they're like, for a manufacturer like a G or a anybody else, they're like this is great, because now, now we can uh, you know, we, we're going to probably sell more of our things because people are going to be incentivized to spend a little bit of money, because they're getting some help.
Speaker 1:And what are the politicians? What do we get overarching. Well, we get some perhaps reduction in water usage or less water usage or less demand on electricity, or, in the case of the electric bikes, what I hear a lot and I don't know if it's everybody's experience, but definitely along the Wasatch Frontier and especially in summer is there are a lot of people who are not driving their cars and they're saying I'm going to go hop on my bike because it's a lot of fun, sure, and so it's incentivizing perhaps better activities. Do I think it gets heavy handed? Oh, so much to where I mean I think again, california is a great example of that. I was like, okay, here's this good thing that I think this industry is naturally happening with some pushing. And then they just went way over, like, okay, we're going to make this, we're going gonna mandate this, and I'm like, you know, I don't think it was for all kinds reason that anything was time, and I think it's gonna blow up in their face. I think it's gonna. It's it's creating unreasonable expectations and all kinds of things and it's not dealing with reality.
Speaker 1:So, so I think there are those cases where we, as individuals, we go, and if we have a standard combustion car, we go and we fill up gas, so we're paying power wherever we're seeing power rates creep up. We're seeing here in Utah and this is not unique to Utah the utilities coming in and asking for big rate increases. We're seeing gas fluctuate or a lot more. That's where everybody feels it, they feel it in their pocketbook, and so that's how decisions sometimes get made or seen. It's like well, I'm spending more. What do you think we? I mean if we could share something about what we've learned so far, about how to maybe see this differently, like to maybe look at it like yes, those are real issues. Those are the things that hit us in the pocketbook every time we go to do these things. However, there are these other things to take into consideration that might be impacting that, do you?
Speaker 2:impacting. That do you do? Well, you know an interesting term that's coming to mind as you, as you bring that up is is cut. It's a new term for me, it's grid equity. I had not heard that until recently. But grid equity is is this inference that certain parts of our grid nationally don't provide an equal level of service to underprivileged communities, for example? Talking about a power grid, I can only imagine that maybe this concept also could apply to some of these spicier conversations around pipeline expansion and Native American lands conversations around pipeline expansion and Native American lands and is it equitable for those folks to be allowing some of this development to go through their land if they don't get a benefit from it, for example, I think when policies are trying to mandate something on a large scale to the detriment of certain other communities, that's obviously a major negative. We're dealing with some communities right here in Utah where, if you look at the map, it feels like the power grid went right around the city.
Speaker 2:Yeah, a whole region, a whole region around a city yeah, a whole region like just a whole region just went where. If, if we were giant, don't know, if, if we were engineering a grid, the most cost-effective way would go right through the community, right, and and in this case, like right along i-15 in this case I know what we're talking about, or at least like right there, and that's not what.
Speaker 1:What happened?
Speaker 2:yeah. So how does that even happen? How? Who? Who was the? I'm not going to put a negative word on it because I don't have enough perspective on how that even happened but who was responsible for engineering and designing and then permitting to me what seems like a huge failure in that section of the grid? Who's responsible for that? Policymakers? Who were the policymakers who was in charge of? You know? Who signed off on that is a big question. I think that's probably a state level question. The locals probably had nothing to do with that, I'm sure you know. So those types of circumstances underscore why I feel decentralization of power production is so valuable.
Speaker 1:What do you think the politics of that will be ultimately?
Speaker 2:Well, it has to do with grid equity. Okay, it has to do with providing a solution that is equitable at the community level. Okay, we're going to permit you to put a power plant in this community with certain commitments that it's equitable from a pricing perspective for that community. What kind of benefit, what kind of incentive? Like, it doesn't make any sense to have a coal-fired plant sending 1.8 gigawatts to california and we get all the cleanup. That that's not equitable, no, not okay. So that's a huge political failure. That's a political failure of utah legislators from way back when selling us out to to those folks in another state as an example do you?
Speaker 1:well, okay, so kind of the hotbed issue that tends to come up, I mean and we're seeing this a little bit and where I think I don't think in these terms, but I know it comes back to this base thing of like there is a. There is still a good divide out there. I believe there are those people who think renewable is just crazy, like, oh, this is just, it's hurting us, it's doing all these things, there are all these effects, and then we're running away from fossil fuels when that's the last thing we should be doing. I think the answer is nuanced, very nuanced, and it's got a little bit of both. How do you? I mean, do you see the same kind of divide, like, like we run into, we kind of run into people where it's it's black and white, there's zero one, it's like it's either it's either renewables or fossil fuels.
Speaker 1:And there's nothing about like, well, what if? What if we have both? And what if? You know we transition from one, or maybe there there's an equilibrium that gets reached for a period of time because you know. Whatever, what do you mean? How do you look at that now politically? How do you come at this, knowing what you know now?
Speaker 2:that's awesome. That's an awesome question that we're going to be talking about for many, many, years to come.
Speaker 2:And you're right, it is not black and white, it is not all or nothing, it's an and-and proposition and I'm very much about understanding the facts. As population expands and we continue to have population growth, that means housing and commercial needs grow, so energy demand grows. Why are we so focused on a transition? Why are we so focused on? Why are some of these myopic legislators so determined to cut their nose off, to spite their face, to be clean, renewable, when the wise approach would be okay?
Speaker 2:We've established a trillion-dollar baseline of energy production. Let's work on cleaning that up with clean coal technologies, for example, moving from coal to natural gas. Those are baby steps, but using the same fossil fuels. But we're not talking about abandoning those things in an attempt to try and replace it with renewables. I think that the more pragmatic approach is to say we're going to maintain this baseline of fossil fuel production and as the demands expand, new production will be more focused in renewable. We'll develop more renewable at a faster pace than we will develop some of the more traditional means. But abandoning the traditional means to try and, do you know, pull a California maneuver doesn't seem wise to me and I think it's short-sighted.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean, this all comes back to, and this is where it gets tied in globally. It's short-sighted.
Speaker 2:Well.
Speaker 1:I mean this all comes back to and this is where it gets tied in globally is that at the root of all this is saying, okay, you know, energy depending upon who you're asking is tied to our situation as a planet, and so where we're tied across the globe, you know, some would say that what we're doing in energy, if we're and this is both burning fossil fuels, it could be methane production, it could be all those things those are contributing to a problem that's going to be incredibly costly. That would be this all gets tied into that whole. This is where energy then lands. Is that we're talking about energy like okay, and then we're saying, well, how is it tied to this thing, and should we move in this direction in order to mitigate this big thing that a lot of people would say is coming? And if we can mitigate that, then that's going to make sure that's going to make it better for all of us, but it's going to take a collective effort in order to do that. That's where we get into these whole conversations about carbon credits and this, and that I mean it becomes. It becomes. It goes from like a micro conversation to a macro conversation really quick, yeah, I mean, and I've seen and you have to, we've seen the scope of that, where it's okay, I don't you know the people who are like no, global warming is not. You know, it's natural, it's. It's not this it's. And then we have, and then on the other side you have scientists, and at the heart of all those conversations is, I think at least it seems like an argument about energy. I come back and I'm looking at this going okay, this is kind of where I I'm, I'm seeing all this. It's like, okay, well, there there is a, there is a a super sized demand for certain things that I think sometimes we don't recognize. I think people don't recognize. For example, if I go do a Google search or if I go use a chat GPT, there's power that needs to be put into that and it might not be insignificant. And if we want these things, we have to solve how we power these things. And you can say, well, I want it all green. Well, that doesn't happen overnight. That's what we've learned and that's just one of the issues. The other issue is this whole grid problem, as we talked about, I don't know a few episodes ago. There's a little bit over two petawatts of energy, 90% of it from renewable sources that is sitting out there right now unconnected. It's not connected, so it's really let's. I'm going to take the one side. It's good to want it. Well, how do you solve that other part? So this is where this gets really complicated really fast of like, I want these things, I don't want her to plan it, but the these things, I don't want her to plan it. But okay, well, how do we get there? And how do we get there collectively? And that's where this, that's where this is just. It's a.
Speaker 1:The more I dig into energy, the more I think it it's just, it's. It's layers and layers and layers and layers and layers of complication and and it gets distilled oftentimes back to the media into these very, very simplistic kinds of things like gas prices. Gas prices, sorry guys gas prices are one little teeny sliver factor of a whole larger issue. And I'm not saying it's not important, because if you're going to the pump and you're having to pay it and you're budgeting, I absolutely respect that. You are going to feel that absolutely. I absolutely respect that. You are going to feel that Absolutely.
Speaker 1:However, the energy policies and the energy profiles and some of these bigger issues are way beyond that. So I think, because it's a complicated issue, it gets distilled down into these very, very simple kinds of things, and I'm I'll pick on both sides. It gets distilled down into we're going to become, we're going to go, we're going to mandate electric cars, okay, well, is that really the best policy? No, it's. It's really not, and it's and and and. If he was being honest with, if gavin was being honest with himself, he'd realize it's not the best policy. Does it make for great TV?
Speaker 2:Does it make for headlines?
Speaker 1:Yes, Is it easy to say, oh my gosh, gas prices are dead Again. Similarly, but does it get to the real problem, the root of the problem? And that's where I, you know politics is and how we see the world. And I think there are two kind of parts. There are two groups of people in the world right now, the people who, well, there's probably three. There's the people who say, okay, not, you know, the planet's not being affected by our activity and therefore we should just continue doing what we're doing. There are those on the other side saying we're absolutely affecting the activity. And then there's a whole group in the middle saying I can see parts of both, yet we need to get from maybe one side to the other or we need to move forward. So how do we do that? And then there's the politicians all sped around, and then I would suggest and this is where maybe the energy policy, this whole energy lobbyists, yeah, I mean this is going to get into politics. Politics, yeah, I don't care what issue it is. So, uh, yeah, in the world right now, in, in, in washington, it does not matter to me, it does not matter if it's a left or right or centrist, I don't care lobbyists drive the conversation and lobbyists typically are paid for by big either you know, and I'm both sides either big companies or the groups you know say, an environmental group who wants a certain thing similarly, and they're the ones that steer the conversation. And pretty much every one of them, every lobbyist out there, is looking for their own self-interest the self-interest of either their organization or the company. Some, some organizations, are more like. This is forever, but they're there very narrowly focused, and it keeps the conversation in Washington on maybe not the bigger issues.
Speaker 1:Who's lobbying on behalf of the grid? What representation does the grid have? Right now? The grid doesn't have representation. You know what? We need more substations. We need states and things. States and municipalities are saying we need these things, but even they are concerned. Are they going and lobbying Washington saying we need to fix the grid? That's where I think some of these problems are getting lost. We're getting lost. The real problems are getting obscured by the things we love to argue about. They keep us all busy arguing about stuff as opposed to realizing, maybe, some of the fundamental, serious issues underlying our entire energy infrastructure. Agreed, that was a lot.
Speaker 2:No, look, when you have these election cycles, these election year cycles, then people start peddling this narrative that their research would indicate would help give votes, and whether that's rooted in fact or not, or whether they actually will do something or not, it's irrelevant. Like you say, it's shocking to me how people will say they'll just say anything to get that vote, or to to pass a bill, or to to advance an initiative and that, and then maybe, maybe we were not even clear about what the intent of that is. But I think you have you're on to a really great point. Lobbyists who are paid millions and millions of dollars to advance initiatives ought to be subject to scrutiny over intention. I mean, what are we going to do about it? We're not going to do anything about it. All we can do, I'll speak for myself. All I can do is look at existing policy and say, okay, how can I work within that? What can we do that? What can we do? Okay, I, I don't have any ambition to go and try and influence new policy per se.
Speaker 2:There are a lot of policy out there that I think have decent intention incentivize, tax you know we've talked about the implementation of decarbonization regulation because we talked about the IPP and Delta, right. We talked about state legislators implementing decarbonization provisions in order for that plant to continue operations. That's reasonable. Those are reasonable measures. Those are weighed on both sides of the equation. Do we shutter the plant or do we let the? Let the plant continue to evolve? Right, that's a great example. We've talked about increased clean energy and infrastructure investments. Yeah, okay, we have seen the Inflation Reduction Act pouring trillions of dollars through the DOE, department of Energy, into solar projects and wind projects and battery projects and R&D and all of these things. So there are a lot of political policies that have been enacted with, I think, decent intentions. And so I'm not again, I'm not like super negative or super positive, either way, I'm kind of neutral, agnostic. I like to focus on the results, you know. So I've been doing the research on okay, how has this particular policy, what specific examples of this particular policy could I look at? That would. That would give me measured results.
Speaker 2:California we like to criticize California. They have pioneered a few things. They have implemented some incentives in unique ways that no one else has done yet. So in many ways, they have pioneered some things. I think some of those intentions are probably good, I don't want to fall prey to villainizing anyone. You know, gavin Newsom or any political pundit or any state or organization. I don't want to blanket villainize anyone. Oh, I did.
Speaker 1:I mean, I don't like Gavin.
Speaker 2:Newsom. For the record, I think he's a failure for governor. But that's when I step back and I look at. Okay, so you might be making some good decisions on some of these energy policies, grid equity or promoting EVs, whatever policies, grid equity or promoting EVs, whatever. Well then we talk about some of these other kind of dissolute decisions around age of consensual sex, being eight years old and some of these policies around trafficking, and it's a total failure. It undermines all of the good that could have been done on energy policy when all the rest of these policies are so, so far off and so morally bankrupt. So, gavin, you know he's a target. He's created a target for himself by making bad policies, by being a bad leader. I just went against what I was saying. I don't want to develop. Yeah, I'm sorry, I mean drag you into that.
Speaker 1:See how I didn't see what I did there.
Speaker 2:I do I didn't want to be alone and I do have strong opinions and I usually probably wouldn't pick.
Speaker 1:I just I think the more and I'm, you know, I'm mine have been more centered around the energy, just because the more I've learned, more I've realized've realized it's like it's just bad. There have been some bad policy decisions, I believe, and there are those who probably disagree with me, but I think that's where I've tried to come and look at this and go you know what why? And then I realized, okay, well, it's just for sure. And then that's my experience with politics in general is I realize that it's a game like anything else, and it's airtime and it's clicks and it's this and it's, you know, and it's exposure and that's part of the game. It's part of the game.
Speaker 1:And but why, where I come, as this isn't a game to me and I don't think it's a game to a lot of people, this is like, this is our livelihood, these are, this is our country, this is our, these are our communities and we have to have, we need really serious people doing seriously and making serious solutions. And I think, I think, you know, speaking of politics, politics, like a lot of things, has been kind of subject to a lot of just you know, it's become a circus. You know I always said you know it's become a circus. You know I always said you know you don't want to see the sausage making in politics.
Speaker 1:And I know and I get that. I would say the same thing in news. If you saw what went into like getting news to air at least not currently. I would say my experience I mean I saw it probably shocked people, not like from a like I can't believe you do that. Or you're coming down just you're amazed it even happens and you realize how politics is. The same way. It's like you know just a lot behind this.
Speaker 1:A lot of this sausage making is just it is, it's messy, it's become more of a circus and that's. I can blame social media and media in general and everything else and just kind of the name of the game of getting attention now, but we really do have some serious issues, which is like, I think, why we're doing what we're doing. We're like, look, we're two people part of a larger organization that are trying to solve some of these things and we're we want to share our experiences so that they're more, hopefully, more grounded, like, look, this is what we're seeing, this is what we're experiencing, and sharing that from the point of like, okay, there's all this. And then here's where the rubber meets the road. Where the rubber meets the road for us on energy policy is that our grid sucks.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:And there's no concerted effort right now to seem to want to solve it.
Speaker 2:Well, when we're talking about energy, we can't afford to be drawing lines in the sand politically. We've got to be flexible, we've got to be as bipartisan as possible. I think to your point and we would be fools if we sat here and said this administration is a clown show, so we're not going to take advantage of any of these tax incentives that have been created in the last three, four years. That'd be foolish. So we've got to take a unbiased approach and be focused on results. And you say, okay, are there good quality policies that have been enacted? Yes, there are. Are there valuable tax incentives that have been enacted? Yes, there are. Are there valuable tax incentives that have been enacted? Yes, there are.
Speaker 2:Production tax credit, designed initially for wind power production, has been very effective. No-transcript. That tax credit is evolving to be technology agnostic. That's good news. Same with the investment tax credit. Traditionally that was designed to support solar and, specifically speaking, if someone wanted to deploy a solar system on their home or their business, then they could reach out and they'd get this tax credit for about 30% of the cost of a system. That's measurable. There's a measurable result in the proliferation of solar technologies in residential and commercial. So again, good policies, good incentives. The investment tax credit is also being overhauled. I want to say by 2025. It's supposed to be also technology agnostic. So for folks like us who are looking to make a name in the energy space, developing power, expanding transmission, developing transmission, improving the way this is all generally done, decentralizing all of this I think there's a lot of opportunity for us to be able to take advantage of because of these policies, because of these tax credits and incentives.
Speaker 1:Yes, and I agree, and I think I can say, personally, I've taken advantage of some of these credits over the time, you know, because they, it does make sense. It's like, oh yeah, I, if I can, I can do that and that's incentivize my behavior. I've learned something. So you know whether it's been on the water side, whatever, it's like, ah, this is better, this is better. I think you know, I'm going to. I think you know I'm going to. You know, I think, okay, saving this amount of water. What was? You know, what was the savings? Okay, well, now I got to deal with this. You know how it was manufactured and what went into it. They, you know what's its footprint. I mean, there's.
Speaker 1:It's not necessarily a simple solution to these things, but you can see where these policies are working and they are helping establish a, you know, a, a renewable grid, if you will, kind of a renewal, all these renewable sources that are around the country right now. As I said, there's a lot of them and they're not connected, but they're there. And that, ultimately, what does that do for us? I mean coming back and bringing it back to the big macro. It makes us stronger as a country. Why? Because we don't have to be reliant and even though we really aren't as much anymore on the oil that we were, because we're manufacturing, producing a lot of natural gas a ton, we're producing a lot of energy. Despite what I mean, that's the fact. I mean we are producing a lot of energy, but if we now are sitting on natural resources, yet we're not using as many of those natural resources ourselves and we're reliant on a more renewable grid.
Speaker 2:Okay, so now we are probably putting out there.
Speaker 1:It's going to be cleaner, but then it also puts us in a position of power as a country. I mean this becomes that strategic play of we want both. I mean this becomes that strategic play of we want both. And in order to do it, so we want that because it's less stuff we have to use on a regular basis, instead of using a single source like just a gasoline or oil, a single source thing that's going to then go back up and is really inefficient and doesn't replenish well on the earth. And we're going to say solar, we're using these things. That makes a lot of sense and that's going to help us out so that the, the natural gas that we do have and the oil that we do have, we we have more of it, which allows us to stay viable and in control, and in control of our own destiny. And we want that. We want to be in control.
Speaker 1:We don't want to be at the end, because it is a global economy when it comes to energy and so prices we're, we're subject to everything in the world. That's, it's a fact, I mean it. We can say you know there are, there are tweaks that can happen in america. We can, you know the strategic reserves can be released. We can, you know you might have.
Speaker 1:You can do certain things to offset some of this stuff, but you really can't long-term because it is a global economy on gas. And so if we want to be less affected by the global economy on the price swings, if Russia invades Ukraine and disrupts gas production in certain kinds of parts of the world and we've got to supply our allies and blah, blah, blah, well that's going to affect all of us. If we want to be more independent of some of those things, then we have to have more independence, and that's that's where the renewable space for me seems to be a really good. I mean, it's also a good solution in that it's all, it's a good, not always a good for everything, but it's also's also going to help us out from a strength point of view.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, I agree, and I think one of the big takeaways here is that we do need and heavily depend on political policy, governmental policies on local, state and federal levels to support what we're talking about here, and it comes down to a function of national security and and community security when we talk about grids and power and and water and food right. So we do depend heavily on policies and so we hope and pray that our policymakers can, uh can, be more open-minded and more educated in their approach to making some of these policies, so that we don't suffer as a community for poor policymaking.
Speaker 1:Do you see? So on that, I mean, what again, do you see, like energy-wise politically, if we had an ask of a politician and we could like sit and say, okay, this is what needs to be done, what would you ask? What would you ask for right now?
Speaker 2:Wow, that's a great question. What would I ask a politician for if I knew they could grant anything that we need right now? I would say that if a politician really understood the needs of power production, clearly understood that then there would be specialized permitting. If someone like us wanted to come and finance and build power plants, then I would, as a politician, I would ask them to remove all the red tape and the stops and permitting it. Maybe you're overriding local communities. Maybe you are paving the way because we understand that would be better for the community, right, even though locals in a community maybe don't see that, the nimbyism of not in my backyard. You know, if I could use political horsepower, it would be streamlining. Streamlining that, streamlining the uh and successful establishment of more power production and that would translate into lower power prices and more uh stability within the communities. Decentralized uh, you know power production in communities. That's a good answer.
Speaker 1:That's a good answer.
Speaker 1:Um, I think, uh, yeah, I yeah it'd be fun to have a magic wand and, um, we'll see what happens in the coming, in the coming months, yeah, and year, with all of that, and and if and if, if they can go there. Well, one last question before I think we're kind of out of time. Yeah, so extreme, it's an extreme measure. We're not, it wouldn't be a war thing, but we've done it.
Speaker 1:Where we've nationalized parts of our economy to solve a problem, um, we did it in COVID, um, and in order to make you know what we needed to make the ventilators, or think, um, or whatever, um, do you think we're at an emergency point, uh, an inflection point, where, you know, federally, it'd say like, look, we need to start making parts and we need lots of parts and we can't be relying on and right now we are reliant on lots of offshore manufactured parts and it's and they're.
Speaker 1:You know, at the end of the day, it's critical. Would you? Where would you if they said, look, we're going to nationalize this part of where. This is an emergency. We have got to solve this, we've got to get this grid in place. The only way we're going to do it, it could be through a combination of incentivizing private, like bringing in private operators saying we need to stand up these things, but we can't wait three, four, five years until you get these things online. We need to go into existing. We need to see the inventories of our existing plants be converted and start manufacturing stuff, sure?
Speaker 2:what do you think? I? I don't think it's a bad idea. I think I think we could agree that population growth is far outstripping, um, our power production and our grid expansion population growth and that demand for energy far outweighs our ability to produce energy and transmit it effectively. Uh, and so, to the extent that we could speed those things up by reducing lead times on critical components for grid expansion, that has to do with permitting also, but, yes, you're right, I mean standing up factories to produce those parts in the US critical and I think it is a good, solid case. I don't think most folks are identifying it or labeling it as a crisis today, oh, but I don't think we're too many years away from that becoming the headlines.
Speaker 1:energy crisis I think we're I mean I, you and I are seeing this going. I think it's. I think we're on the heels of it, I think we're coming into it and it's, it's going to become a thing, thank you. I mean thank you leds and stuff we're not using as much, but we're coming into it and it's going to become a thing. I mean LEDs and stuff we're not using as much, but everything else is. I mean we're powering, we're charging, we're recharging, charging phone. I mean the whole thing. The demand is there, and especially with AI, absolutely. And if we want to continue to be the leaders in AI, we got to be able to power our own operations and we've got to be able to deal with that, that part of the of the demand. And you know, I feel like we are going to be close to and we're going to be, we're coming into a. You know it's got to be a crisis and we typically fix things after they're. They're in crisis.
Speaker 2:Generally speaking, watching the last many, you know, five decades, it's like yeah, we fix it after Seriously extreme legislation drop, when we are all acknowledging that we are in a crisis, right when we're brownout.
Speaker 1:When brownouts become a thing, will become a very common thing in every city in America, and the taxing of the grid is evident. And or the utility companies then get in and say well, yeah, sure, we can 100%, 200% your rates because we got to do this thing. And that's also what forced people into a crisis mode of like. All of a sudden, my power rates have tripled or quadrupled, absolutely so anyway, well, thank you very much. Thanks, wayne.
Speaker 2:Yeah, hopefully you're enjoying this. Hopefully we haven't made any enemies here trying trying to be as objective as we can talking politics. I'm not sure we'll ever get into the taboo conversation of religion, but thank you for joining today.
Speaker 1:Catch you on the next episode. We'll stay out of that one, probably for a while. Probably a good idea for us. Thanks, everyone, thanks.
