The Moment for Moving Forward, with Tisha Schuller

Notable quotes

• The myth of an easy and inevitable transition to clean energy: “Decarbonization is hard. The technologies aren’t necessarily there, the solution set isn’t pure, and every kind of energy has trade-offs.” (4:03)
• Carbon capture and sequestration may result in the competing outcomes of both promoting the longevity of fossil fuels and making progress toward net-zero emissions: “I think understanding the importance of having a villain is going to be really key to moving beyond limiting our solutions based on who we think the villains are.” (11:54)
• Building incentives for beneficial outcomes is possible: “Those organizations that have been willing to engage have really helped shape marketplaces that reward good players, and make it harder to be bad actors.” (24:18)

Top of the Stack

• “The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape” by Tisha Schuller
• Energy for Growth Hub
• “Environmental Law After Environmentalism” by Ted Nordhaus

The Full Transcript

Daniel Raimi: Hello, and welcome to Resources Radio, a weekly podcast from Resources for the Future (RFF). I’m your host, Daniel Raimi. Today, I talk with Tisha Schuller—founder and CEO at Adamantine Energy, and the author of a new book, The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape.

In the new book, Tisha makes a nuanced argument about where the world is in terms of energy and climate. Although she says that we need to move past the myth of a quick and easy energy transition, oil and gas companies need to stay committed to reducing emissions, while also ensuring reliable and affordable energy. I’ll ask Tisha to expand on those ideas, and I’ll challenge a few of them, as we talk about the future of the oil and gas industry, and the future of the energy industry at large. Stay with us.

Tisha Schuller from Adamantine Energy, welcome back to Resources Radio.

Tisha Schuller: Daniel, it’s so great to be with you again.

Daniel Raimi: It’s really fun to talk to you, Tisha, whenever we get the chance to get together. I’m really excited to talk about your new book, which is called The Myth and The Moment; we’re going to dig into that in just a second. But, before we do, I thought it’d be helpful if you could just give folks a little bit of background about the company that you lead, Adamantine Energy.

Tisha Schuller: Yes. I can’t believe it, but this year marked 10 years that Adamantine has been in business. We work on the future of energy, largely advising oil and gas companies about what’s coming next. But, interestingly, the challenges faced by the oil and gas industry are similar to those [faced by] others. Now, we have clients in utilities, in tech, and in waste all thinking about things like political strategy. What should they be doing now that will be durable in 10 years? What is a tech and innovation strategy that will position their company responsibly for what comes next?

Then, we help companies with particular projects. How do you build a coalition for authentic support to help get energy infrastructure built? We do all of these kinds of things around the future of energy. It’s a really dynamic, interesting place to work. But, also, this is about the most exciting time for energy in my lifetime. So, it’s also really nice to be a part of thinking about, How can we do this well (well with our communities, and well with our environmental responsibilities)? That’s what my company gets to do every day.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, that’s awesome. I have a guess as to what you’re thinking when you say this is one of the most exciting times for energy in your lifetime (or maybe the most exciting time), but I’m curious, What are you thinking about there?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah, there’s two things. One we’ll talk about today, which is this moment we’re having where we can have pragmatic conversations about the energy future, and where we can all be challenged to be less polarized. I think that’s very exciting for those of us who want to create a better future.

But, the other thing is, there’s just this huge demand for new energy infrastructure, and that means that we will have the financial resources to build it well—to build it better. And, if we do this right, we can use all this data center interest and demand to build that next generation energy system. It’s not inevitable that that’s what will happen, but it’s exciting that that’s what could happen. That’s why I love working in the space right now.

Daniel Raimi: That is super interesting. Okay, we’re going to put the AI and data center conversation to the side, but maybe something to come back to in the future. Let’s talk about The Myth and The Moment. People might have guesses as to what those terms mean based on what they know of you, but let’s just start off with a really simple question: In this book, what is the myth?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. The myth is the belief that the energy transition would be easy, that it was inevitable, and that—if we only had the political will—we would have the innovation, the technology, and the cost structure to have a new energy system almost overnight.

But, it turns out—and those of us who work in this space have known this for a while, but it’s really only seeping into a general consciousness—that decarbonization is hard. The technologies aren’t necessarily there, the solution set isn’t pure, and every kind of energy has trade-offs. Even in places like California, where there was a real political will to make the energy transition happen, forces conspired to prove that it’s a lot harder than we thought—that there is more energy demand, and that technology is expensive and not all ready for prime time.

The really important thing to know about the myth, though, is I’m not thumbing my nose at those who believe that the energy transition would be easy. I have deep respect for the power of that myth. Many, many, many of us believed that for a long time, and myths are powerful; they’re fundamental to our identity. If you care about climate—and you did think that the energy transition was inevitable and easy—you woke up, and you started looking around and wondering, “What now?” I think the myth gives us a framing to think, “I care about climate. This is hard. What comes next?” And that’s why I think about this in terms of a myth.

Daniel Raimi: Really interesting. You also talk in the book about the emotional attachment that evolves when this becomes such a core part of a lot of people’s identity. Can you say more about that?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. I really think this is key. It’s something that those of us who are geeks around climate underestimate at our peril, because I think for many “good Democrats” or “good liberals,” there’s an understanding that climate’s just something we care about. If you’re a good person, you care about climate—and that comes with this whole suite of, what I’ll just call, “orthodoxies” that are actually getting in the way of us making progress on climate. So, if we don’t understand the power of the myth—that there are good guys, there’s bad guys, there’s good energy, there’s bad energy, and that this was supposed to be simple and easy— [then], if it isn’t [easy], we’re going to just blame the bad guys.

If we don’t understand the power of that, then many of our more nuanced solutions … Just take nuclear, for example. For those of us who work in the space, nuclear is an obvious solution that we should all be working on together. But, if you come out of a framing around the myth of an easy energy transition, you’re not looking for a tech solution that is pragmatic. You’re looking for “down with the bad guys, up with the good guys.” We really do need to understand the emotional power of the myth, and the emotional power of these political identities, so that we can create new conversations and framings that allow us to have pragmatic, depolarized conversations about solutions.

Daniel Raimi: That totally makes sense. How widespread do you think this concept of the myth is? I think, presumably, it’s primarily on the left side of the political spectrum. But, as you said earlier, when you talk to energy wonks and climate policy nerds—they might not have been very willing to say this out loud in public settings—there’s been a really good understanding, for a long time, that there’s enormous technical challenges, economic challenges, and social challenges with an energy transition. So, I’m curious how widespread you think the myth is among different populations.

Tisha Schuller: I actually think it’s overwhelming among anyone with a politically liberal identity—even more so outside of us climate and energy geeks—because we all have opinions that come from our political identity, we hold those opinions relatively lightly, and we don’t have the depth of knowledge. But, in terms of being a “good Democrat” or “good liberal” in America (or even in most of North America and parts of Europe), it’s core to your liberal identity and, in many cases, the generational identity that climate is central—that we could, we should, and we must address climate quickly. In that framing, there are good guys, and there are bad guys. I think it’s really important for even those of us who know better. Like you said, we know this is going to be hard, we know the solutions are going to be nuanced, and we know that everything has trade-offs.

But, the power of having a villain … I was just listening to a podcast, it was probably like the New York Times or something in the last week or so, where they just talk about the “fossil industry.” And there is no fossil industry. What’s the fossil industry? It’s interesting, and I thought, “Oh, there it is. There’s that powerful bad guy that’s preventing action on climate.” I think it’s important for us to understand that; I think it’s very pervasive.

Even if you got 90 people to say, “Whoa, the energy transition is harder than we thought,” at this moment, I think they would blame political headwinds—not say, “Wow, we’re going to need to talk about complex solutions with lots of trade-offs: hydrogen, CCS [carbon capture and sequestration], and direct air capture.” It’s easier to just have a good guy–bad guy framing, and I think we really have to understand that and its emotional power in order to move on to the next, more nuanced conversation.

Daniel Raimi: It’s interesting, the point about the sort of political dynamics being at the center of it. If you look back a year ago, or two years ago, under the Biden administration, I think there really was quite a bit of appetite for things like carbon capture, hydrogen, nuclear, and a lot of the technologies that (at least among some climate advocates) are not particularly welcome. So, I’m just going to push back a little bit on that idea that these solutions were not part of the climate policy mix in the United States, as of a year or two ago.

Tisha Schuller: Yeah, I think you’re right. So, I characterize the climate left as this spectrum of people. And, very quickly, I’ll just give you a quick tour. So, there’s 5 percent that are just climate warriors—“Keep it in the ground. This is the only thing we should care about, and should be at the top of everyone’s agenda.” Then, there’s maybe 10 percent that I would characterize as the geeky climate hawks. You’re in that category, and I’m in that category.

Daniel Raimi: What did you just call me, Tisha? Oh my gosh.

Tisha Schuller: It’s a compliment, coming from me! We care more about solutions than we care about the fights, or the political ramifications of this or that choice. We’re interested in progress. Then, that leaves 85 percent of politically-oriented people who I call “the climate curious,” and they just follow whatever the political zeitgeist is around climate at the moment. So, I do think the climate hawks made amazing progress getting direct air capture, hydrogen hubs, and CCS into this pragmatic short-term agenda. But, you would still hear, in conversations among well-meaning climate hawk advocates, that oil and gas has no business at this table. They are the original purveyors of the problem. I’ve been told that it’s like letting your domestic abuser come back into the home if you let oil and gas have a seat at the table. So, that was one thing.

The other was this sort of idea, just as a second example, that carbon capture sequestration—particularly as put forward as an oil and gas business and which you saw lots of companies pursuing under IRA [Inflation Reduction Act]—was just going to enable the longevity of fossil fuels, which is true and it’s interesting. It assumes that fossil fuels, or oil and gas, are this inherently bad thing. If you could do them at net zero or net negative emissions, What do we care if we’re still using them? There’s this understanding that these companies and energy choices are just simply bad. And it’s actually really hard to have a coherent conversation about them being neutral—either the companies or the fuel sources—and I think that’s all part of the myth. In fact, I think understanding the importance of having a villain is going to be really key to moving beyond limiting our solutions based on who we think the villains are.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, super interesting. One quick thought before we go on to the moment, which is when you talked about the fossil industry. I hear that all the time too, and it also drives me crazy. I always want to ask people if they’re talking about dinosaur fossils and the companies that are outside of Dinosaur National Park in Utah. Something like that.

Tisha Schuller: I know! Someone should just call themselves “Fossil Industry.”

Daniel Raimi: Yeah, “Fossil Industry, Inc.”

So, let’s talk now about this concept, again, that you call “the moment” in the book. We can see pretty clearly around us, here in the United States, and around the world, that the energy transition is certainly not happening quickly in the United States. At a global level, arguably, it’s not happening at all, because we’re still using more of pretty much every source of energy that there is.

But, you argue that oil and gas industry leaders should take this moment and, actually, continue focusing on climate-aligned investments; one of the main reasons for that is politics. I’m curious if you could read us an excerpt that I thought was really great on page 35 of your book. The first two paragraphs there—can you read that for us? Then, tell us a little more about how you think oil and gas companies, in particular, should be positioning themselves in this moment?

Tisha Schuller: Sure. I’ve never been asked to read my book before, so thank you. It’s really fun.

Daniel Raimi: Yes, cool.

Tisha Schuller: That’s really fun. So, the title of this section is called “Choose Your Own Adventure: You Determine the Future.”

“Not everyone will embrace the opportunity. Some companies will ride the fuel of the past train, as if it were the only one that mattered. And, for a while, it might look as if they are winning. But here’s the thing about political wins: They always shift—maybe in two years, maybe in a decade. But eventually, climate concerns will once again take center stage, shaping capital markets, regulatory landscapes, and public sentiment in ways that will matter to your bottom line.”

Daniel Raimi: Great. Can you expand on that a little bit?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. I think that companies need to be thinking about a world where politics will inevitably shift, just like they have in the last 10 years—where we went from a Trump administration to a Biden administration to a Trump administration. Just imagine the next 10 years; I think there are three things that will matter in that time frame, no matter who is in power.

I think having your projects built in communities that support the endeavor (this important work is formerly known as environmental justice, and someday will be known as something new)will still be relevant—community engagement and community agency in co-creating the projects in their community.

The second, I think, is environmental footprint writ large. One of the upsides of the de-emphasis of climate is that all these other really important environmental issues that I spent most of my career doing before the last 10 years—water, wildlife, connectivity, and habitat—are always going to matter on energy projects.

Then, the third thing is carbon intensity. We’re going to continue the trajectory of wanting ever lower carbon intensity in our energy projects, so smart companies have to continue to invest. These are millions to billions of dollars of investing in the systems that make sure you’re producing energy that is minimizing trade-offs relevant to community interest, and ultimately ever decarbonizing. So, you have to do that over decades. You have to have a durable continuity, and you have to be able to tell the story of what you’re doing.

This is how I advise companies to think about this work, and it’s particularly challenging right now, because even doing good things is polarized. Companies have to find a way to narrate this under the public interest right now, which could be international competitiveness or energy dominance. But, you can narrate these really important characteristics of our energy system in ways that can be acceptable politically today, but will ensure that companies are relevant in 5 or 10 years when the political environment has really different expectations of them.

Daniel Raimi: Really interesting. Let me push a little bit from the right, actually, on that. One of the key assumptions that underlines a lot of your arguments is that we will want ever lower carbon intensity energy. I think that’s not a universal view—certainly not a universal view among some political leaders in the United States. What do you say when people push back on that assumption?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. I get pushback on that every single day of my life, so it’s a very relevant and thoughtful question. One does have to project into a future where technology and innovation do make energy better. Ultimately, the question is, Is innovative energy, by definition, going to be less carbon intense?

Well, over time, and over 100 years, that has always been true. I think there is a little bit of a matter of faith to understand that technological innovation and smaller footprints are inevitable. Whether or not you believe climate is relevant to the public, there are a lot of other people who do, so you can think of it as a hurricane off the coast.

This is something that has a risk to your business, and you need to manage that risk; I think carbon intensity falls into that category. Whether you’re thinking about just the innovation landscape, the political landscape, or the physical-risk landscape, all those scenarios, and carbon intensity of fuels, will matter. I think only a very foolish business proposition can not look with real seriousness at a future where the public and consumers expect their energy to have lower carbon intensity. So, that’s how I think about it. It really comes down to a risk-management framework.

Daniel Raimi: That totally makes sense. Let’s put some kind of tangible meat on these bones with this idea of lower-emissions energy projects. You cite a couple of specific types of technologies and projects that you think would be compatible with some of the companies you work with. Can you give us some of those examples?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. I think one thing that we can all imagine, right now, as we hear every day about the likely data center buildout coming … is there’s going to be a whole bunch of data centers built, there will need to be power gen for those, and it’s likely that there will be a lot of natural gas built. What are some lower-intensity carbon and environmental footprint options for natural gas, fire generation, and data centers?

I think there’s a few things you can imagine. One is natural gas that is differentiated as lower carbon intensity. This would be companies that are managing the full value chain of emissions from production through pipelines to ultimate generation. If you’re going to have gas fire generation, How do you have the lowest carbon intensity and lowest emissions? I think that’s going to be an important business line. And that’s like the lowest hanging fruit. In my opinion, that should be the price of entry.

Then, you can go one step further: You’re blending that with hydrogen, and you’re moving toward low and no carbon gases. What are the innovations around fuels that will use more or less the same infrastructure, but will be ever moving toward lower intensity? You could be setting up these systems so that they could be ever improving, lowering their carbon intensity, and you’re moving gases, not just necessarily natural gas.

Ultimately, the third thing you could pair with that would be carbon capture sequestration. So, you have natural gas fire generation, but you’re capturing 90 percent of those emissions, and you have a whole other set of infrastructure around either utilizing or sequestering carbon. These are just very pragmatic, almost mundane solutions, but they’re going to be absolutely central to whether we build out a bunch of unabated generation, or generation that at least has a pathway to zero emissions over some period of time.

I’d like to see all new emissions have some pathway to zero emissions over time. I think that would be a smart way to think about that. You could do the same kind of imagining around the LNG [liquefied natural gas] export market, so it makes a lot of sense for countries around the world who want to import gas to import it from allies and countries that have good environmental regulation and good human rights regulations. There’s a few things to think about with LNG, of course. What are the opportunities to displace coal, or any higher carbon intensity fuels? But, the same things that we can imagine for US domestic production and use of gas, we can imagine for LNG. We want to make sure that that entire value chain is tracking and lowering emissions, so you have the lowest carbon intensity LNG molecules out there. Then, of course, you can be moving toward the same thing: Fuel blending, hydrogen, and ammonia.

Can we set up entire infrastructure chains that are designed, over time, to move toward lower carbon intensity, and then zero carbon intensity—whether because you’re capturing the emissions, or because you’re replacing fuels? I think these are the kinds of pragmatic things that we can think about that are beyond that idea of “electrify everything.” This is a gas system, a pipeline system, and a moving molecule system that can be designed for ever lower emissions—and that gives us an opportunity for innovation, and also to later be committed to our carbon intensity.

Daniel Raimi: Super interesting. I’d love to ask you a couple quick—well, I don’t know if it’s possible for these to be quick—but a couple of follow-ups on the LNG piece. I think there are two criticisms that you might hear from climate hawks to that strategy. One, I think, has to do with domestic political dynamics, where there might be some kind of large oil and gas companies that are going to be willing to really invest heavily in reducing their methane emissions and having low intensity liquified natural gas out there on the market, but that’s not representative of the whole industry.

There’s lots of mom and pop operators, smaller companies that are just not as incentivized to reduce their methane emissions. So, I’m curious about that. Then, the other critique that I’m imagining is the “lock-in question.” If we’re building new pipelines, new infrastructure, and new LNG terminals, isn’t that just locking us into a really risky climate future? I know those are both big questions, but I’m curious how you think about them.

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. I think the first one is really important, this idea of good and bad actors, and that can go for any of our conversations around the oil and gas industry. There absolutely has to be a commitment to a floor of regulation—period, full stop. I don’t think you’ll find any serious player in the oil and gas industry generically opposed to that regulation, because at its most Machiavellian. It’s in their enlightened self-interest to keep out bad actors, and to have a competitive advantage because they’re well-regulated. And you saw, up until recently, these really innovative value chains around measuring and reducing emissions along the full value chain in anticipation of selling low carbon intensity gas in Asia and Europe; those are all in the realm of possibility. So, I don’t think we need to be apologetic about wanting the bad actors to go out of business.

We should have systems that discern between good and bad players, and bad players should be run out of business, full stop. It’s, actually, one of the things that can get lost in an anti-oil and gas world. If you’re anti-oil and gas, you don’t get to inform the playground that makes sure that you only have best in-class operations. Whereas those organizations that have been willing to engage have really helped shape marketplaces that reward good players, and make it harder to be bad actors. So, I don’t think we have to be apologetic. Not everyone should be in this business.

Daniel Raimi: Yeah. One of my favorite lines that I come back to time and time again is, if environmental advocates think that they don’t like big oil, they should wait until they meet little oil, because that’s a whole different ballgame.

Tisha Schuller: Yes, exactly. I think that’s right. You want to have an environment where good actors are rewarded, and bad actors are held accountable; I think that’s important. Can you remind me of what you’re—oh, yeah. Lock-in. Fossil fuel lock-in. Okay, so even the question plays into the myth. Are we worried about locking in natural gas, or are we worried about locking in emissions? Because I think that we should be worried about locking in emissions. That’s why setting up these infrastructure chains for increasingly lower carbon is going to be really important.

Now, that means we’re going to have to upgrade our facilities, we’re going to have to build carbon dioxide infrastructure, and we’re going to probably have manufacturing and innovation around fuels that are lower carbon. These are complicated solutions. I think a successful net zero world has an electricity system that’s moving electricity around, but it also has a pipeline system that’s moving molecules around. So, I’m not worried about locking in. Because we have pipelines, we’re locking in emissions. We can commit to an ever decreasing carbon intensity of those molecules and, I think, we do better if we’re working on it together, as opposed to just being anti-molecule infrastructure.

Daniel Raimi: Really interesting. Well, Tisha, I could ask you questions and talk for hours, but I just want to ask you one more substantive question before we close out. Going back to your book, you talk about quiet backroom strategies that you think oil and gas companies can engage in to build credibility with key partners during these years when climate policy is not going to be at the forefront of the federal government’s priority list. Can you tell us a little bit about those strategies, and how they play into the long-term narrative that you’re trying to build here?

Tisha Schuller: Yeah. I’m thinking about this a lot right now, because this is not a question that has been solved. So, I call this group the problem solvers—people largely in democratic jurisdictions who are really squeezed between climate ambitions. Let’s say a legislative agenda has mandated emissions reductions, and then the reality on the ground today is increasing demand for energy, costs that are rising at a rate that’s unacceptable to their constituency, and real risks of brownouts and blackouts. Those folks are squeezed between, essentially, almost immovable objects. What can my clients, oil and gas companies, do to help? The first thing, I think, is to really understand and think about what the world looks like to the problem solvers, and understand actually the importance of a villain. A lot of times, it’s not useful, even for a utility in a state, to come out with a plan, because their role as a villain is just too entrenched.

Understanding these political dynamics is really important. I think we have to understand the financial responsibilities of policymakers, how politicized the world is to them, and how their constituencies expect them to act in that world. That’s why you start seeing people talking, right now, about holding electricity rates flat, or things that we know don’t work. But, this is the reality of the political environment which we need to understand. I think the way we navigate it is humbly and subtly in the background, and it comes down to those three areas. The same three areas that companies have to be successful in over 10 years, they actually have to be sensitive to today. What can the local community support? Any infrastructure is going to fail if the community opposes it. So, I think there’s a permanently new paradigm of co-creating energy solutions with those communities. So, that’s one.

The second is environmental footprint matters, and that’s way more than carbon emissions. That’s water, it’s land space, it’s fence line. These are things that matter, and doing them in a way that a community has agency to say, “We’re going to have our footprint over here, and centralized facilities over here, but we’re going to have parks or community college in this other location.” These matter, but they also create a kind of durability for projects and solutions.

Then, as we’ve talked about, I do think carbon intensity matters; it’s down the list today around cost and reliability, but it is going to matter. In my home state of Colorado, we just heard that we’re going to extend the life of coal-fired power plants. Well, if that ends up extending beyond a year, then we will be having conversations about the emissions profile of these resources if they’re going to run another 10 years, and we should. So, I think these are all things that matter, and they’re things that companies can participate in with humility—subtly behind the scenes helping the problem solvers find paths forward.

Daniel Raimi: Super interesting. Well, Tisha, this has been great. Again, I always love talking to you, and appreciate your perspective—you coming on the show, and sharing it with our listeners. I’d love to ask you, now, to share something else that you think is great, and that our listeners might enjoy. Could be a book, a podcast, a movie, or whatever. So, Tisha, what’s at the top of your literal or your metaphorical reading stack?

Tisha Schuller: I love everything put out by the Energy for Growth Hub right now. And, full disclosure, I sit on their board and I’m a nerd for their stuff. But, in these questions that you and I are talking about, the one thing we didn’t talk about is what’s happening around the world, and what happens when seven billion people move to a middle class energy lifestyle. The Energy for Growth Hub is thinking about that in really smart ways. I think we all can (and should) care about that, and it’s also a way to transcend some of the polarization at the moment. So, I love what’s going on there.

Similarly, the Breakthrough Institute is doing some really interesting thinking about what comes after a political obsession with climate that’s still responsive to addressing climate. For example, Ted Nordhaus just put out a piece called “Environmental Law after Environmentalism” that I found very provocative and interesting. And, for all of us who care about climate action, we’re going to have to think differently, so I like filling my reading list with people who are challenging the way I’m thinking about these things.

Daniel Raimi: Totally. And listeners should stay tuned, because we are likely going to have one, or maybe more, guests from Energy for Growth Hub on the show in the next couple weeks; we’re really looking forward to that. Well, Tisha Schuller from Adamantine Energy, one more time, thank you so much for coming on the show and sharing your fascinating work.

Tisha Schuller: Thanks for the work you all do. And thanks for being part of progress and solution, and not part of the polarization. I really value everything you guys do.

Daniel Raimi: Hey, Tisha! I want listeners to be able to check out your podcast and learn more about your work while hearing some of the great conversations you have with experts across the energy sector. Where can they find your podcast?

Tisha Schuller: Thanks, Daniel! My podcast is called Energy Thinks. I have a mix of solo episodes and interviews with leaders in and around the energy industry. You can listen to it on Substack, energythinks.com, or any podcast platform.

I’d also love if your listeners would subscribe to my weekly newsletter, Both of These Things Are True, available on Substack or energythinks.com. And of course, I interviewed you on the Energy Thinks podcast, which was just released last week!

Daniel Raimi: You’ve been listening to Resources Radio, a podcast from Resources for the Future, or RFF. If you have a minute, we’d really appreciate you leaving us a rating or a comment on your podcast platform of choice. Also, feel free to send us your suggestions for future episodes.

This podcast is made possible with the generous financial support of our listeners. You can help us continue producing these kinds of discussions on the topics that you care about by making a donation to Resources for the Future online at rff.org/donate.

RFF is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Our mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. The views expressed on this podcast are solely those of the podcast guests and may differ from those of RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.

Resources Radio is produced by Elizabeth Wason with music by me, Daniel Raimi. Join us next week for another episode.