[Scott] Next on "Energy Switch," two former senators give us an inside look at U.S.

energy politics.

- We can admit there is climate change.

We see it in the weather.

But how we address making it better, we can't do it in the United States alone.

And if China proudly said, "We're not going to loan to any country to build coal plants," but they never said, we're not gonna build any.

So we should not be saying if we just clean up everything in America, that's gonna change climate.

It is not.

- I think we've done a very poor job of educating the public on what they've got.

What they won't have if you stop something before something else can replace it.

But, listen, I'm for everything, like Kay, I'm for all the above.

Let's get technologies we know that work and let's basically modify them.

[Scott] Coming up, U.S.

Senators discuss collaboration and stagnation on energy and climate.

[Announcer] Major funding for this program was provided by Arizona State University.

Shaping global leaders, driving innovation, and transforming the future.

Arizona State, The New American University.

[upbeat music] - I'm Scott Tinker, and I'm an energy scientist.

I work in the field, lead research, speak around the world, write articles, and make films about energy.

This show brings together leading experts on vital topics in energy and climate.

They may have different perspectives, but my goal is to learn, and illuminate, and bring diverging views together towards solutions.

Welcome to the "Energy Switch."

Energy and climate are political.

Our guests began their Senate careers several decades ago and have seen these issues become increasingly partisan, often resulting in slow or no progress.

They'll discuss subsidies, climate, and an all of the above energy strategy.

They'll recall a time when senators collaborated more than they conspired, and how they might come together again to help solve today's energy and climate challenges.

With me are Kay Bailey Hutchison.

She served in the U.S.

Senate for 20 years on the Appropriations, Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Veteran Affairs committees.

Joe Manchin served in the U.S.

Senate for 15 years, chairing the Energy Committee and serving on Appropriations and several other committees.

Before that, he was governor of West Virginia.

On this episode of "Energy Switch," U.S.

senators talk energy and climate.

Senators, thank you for agreeing to be here.

So let's just, very high level, what's working in energy policy, do you think, in the country today?

What is working and then maybe what's not?

- Well, for me, what's working, oil and gas done right.

Wind and solar, let's get better batteries so that it can be reliable and affordable.

And the small nuclear reactors, the hydrogen, all of these new opportunities now I think it's working well.

And I think if you overregulate it to death, we'll be in the same position we are right now.

- Right.

So energy policy, how does it really get made?

What happens?

- Well, first of all, you gotta look and see what you're dealing with.

So if you have an administration that doesn't want fossil, but wants all renewable and they're putting the cart before the horse, you can't take off dispatchable, which is what you're depending on 24/7.

I've had a lot of environmentalists come to me and says, "All we want is renewables."

And I said, "Fine.

Tell me what five hours of the day you want it and I'll give it to you."

[Kay] Exactly.

- That's all.

Just tell me what time you want it and then we make it work.

19 hours you go without, five hours, you'll have what you want.

They want to go clear to renewables.

You have to have fossil 'cause we can't run the country, we can't run the heavy equipment, we can't run the airplanes and can't arm our military and defend ourselves.

So I figured, okay, if I'm gonna write a bill, I gotta have a reason for it, everybody's gotta be involved.

This is a country, we said we need it all.

So I said, "I'll tell you what we're gonna do.

You wanna put a wind farm, you wanna put a solar farm on some of this beautiful-- build out in the desert where there's nothing?

Okay, we need that, but you can't do that unless we're extracting mineral underneath of it."

So, and it's still in there today.

That is still the law.

Has not been changed.

Because of that one provision, we start producing what we needed to.

And you saw this revolution go.

If Kay Bailey Hutchinson comes to me, she says, Joe, I've got an idea, my inclination is I wanna help her and say yes.

How do I get to yes?

She comes to me and Kay says, here Joe, here's a piece of legislation.

I says, that's a good, Kay.

I said, but can we do some editing to that amendment?

And she'll say, yeah, give me your input.

That means she wants to get a bill done.

If Kay would say, no, I can't really change anything in the bill, Joe, I just want you to sign on, that means she has to make a political statement.

I understand that.

And I say, Kay, fine.

If you ever wanted to change, let me know.

And you get that dialect, you know, you can read each other.

You wanna get it done.

And then you start developing what her purpose is and how I can make it better.

But today, they weaponized politics to, what tribe are you in, what side are you on.

- Yeah.

- Well, I'm not on any side.

I wanna help my friend Kay Bailey Hutchinson so I'm gonna do whatever I can to help her, to make it better.

And we're losing that.

- Tell us how, when you're making policy in energy, especially, staffers, subject matter, experts, lobbyists, how important are all those different groups?

- They're really, really important because a senator has to know about every area.

Energy, justice, regulation, healthcare.

A senator has to preside over all of that.

- Tech, agriculture.

- So what we have, agriculture.

- Yeah.

- What we have is a great staff that really knows each different subject.

So you go to them for the intricate facts or knowing how it's going to affect other things and work with that.

And lobbyists are a good source of, also, information.

Your job is to hear the lobbyists from both sides, or to hear from a lobbyist and then talk to your staff also about how this is going to impact something else.

Like people who don't have a lobbyist.

And that's such an important part of our whole system.

We need those strong staffers.

We need strong lobbyists, hopefully on both sides of an issue.

But that's how you get to the right point.

- What is special interest money?

Tell us what that means to you.

And then is it, should we get it, is it a good thing in politics?

Should we get outta politics?

What does that mean?

- Well, special interest money just means the people who have an interest in the laws, in governance, in regulatory environment are contributing to the campaigns.

That's what special interest money is.

But special interest could be the individuals that are also contributing.

So I think you have to have the freedom to have contributions as long as it's transparent.

- Well, the biggest mistake that I believe happened, and I've watched this because West Virginia, we were organized union state, okay?

And unions all had PACs.

The businesses and the chambers of commerce thought they couldn't compete.

Somebody should have got both sides sitting down and saying, okay, I'll tell you what guys, these are the limits.

Companies can have a PAC the same as unions can have a PAC.

But we're gonna put limits on how much you can put into that PAC and how much that PAC can contribute to a candidate.

- So you think we need to limit; you're okay with it as long as it's transparent.

And you both think we need term limits.

That would be helpful.

- Term limits is needed.

And, you know, when I, I don't mind.

I mean, here the rule is any wealthy individual can spend all they want on themselves.

- Yeah.

- Okay?

- Yeah.

- You can't stop that.

But on the other hand, if I can give you a hundred thousand dollars for your campaign, Kay can only give you $2,000, who do you think phone call you're gonna return more?

[Scott laughing] It's pretty simple.

- There are limits.

- But the 501 c4, Kay, you and I both know that's dark money.

I can put a 501 c4 and I just can't, I'm supporting you and you know I'm supporting you, but we can't have any contact except a wink and a nod every now and then.

So I'm raising $10 million over here in this PAC to support Kay Bailey Hutchinson, okay?

Now, she don't know what I'm doing supposedly, any way, shape or form, but she's gotta see 10 million come in that direction to help her defend herself.

And, you know, so I'm just saying that's out there.

- But it's out there-- - It happens.

- But that's not transparent.

Those organizations don't have to give who their contributors are.

- Not at all.

Is dark money.

- So that is not transparent.

- So you're not for that, the 501 c4s, that's where all the money's coming.

- I'm not-- - That's where the big givers are putting money in those 501 c4s and you can't trace 'em.

You can spend all the money you want against me as long as I know who it is 'cause I pretty much figure out why you're doing it if I know who it is.

- Right.

For a while, the earmarking process kind of went away and then it's back.

What do you think, is it good to have that kind of earmark power?

Or should we eliminate those things?

What are your thoughts on that?

- You know, I do think that it's important that you have the capability to do earmarks.

It has to go through the whole process.

But I think I know more what Texas needs are than someone in a big federal agency in Washington DC.

And so I do believe that you should be able to go through the system.

It would be totally open what was being funded.

And when there is a pork barrel, like the Road to Nowhere, you pay a political price for that.

Rightly so.

- Yeah.

- If it's pork barrel and you're playing games for votes, you'll pay the price.

- You've said earlier, Senator, you have to know about so many things.

You know, and so you depend on people.

On the energy and the environment, how much do people really know, Senators really know about the intricacies of, and the complexities of energy?

It's a complicated topic.

- I think this is where the committees come in, because you become much more of an expert when you're in a committee and you hear all of the testimony, you hear the, you hear from the people in the business, in the industry, from the working people, that affect that particular area.

I will tell you that many people I know believe that China is ahead of us on AI.

Now, if we don't have a supply of energy that can fuel the growth in AI, we're gonna be behind.

So I think in energy, we now have so many opportunities with the new sources.

And I think batteries that make wind and solar more reliable are gonna be key.

And nobody is really out there talking about how can we get more batteries?

Well, we gotta get more.

And the rare earth minerals, we're now talking about trying to fund the places in America that we have not mined because of regulatory overreach.

We haven't been able to mine for new rare earth minerals that might replace lithium.

Or we might go more into lithium.

We don't really know.

We don't think we have very much here.

But, you know, now they're drilling in Oklahoma, maybe out of-- - Oilfield brine.

- West Virginia.

Yeah.

- Yeah.

- I think we've done a very poor job of educating the public on what they've got.

What they won't have if you stop something before something else can replace it.

And I start looking at what we have and the mix we have, and the mix is changing all the time.

The mix is changing not because of technology or the desire or the need.

It's changing because of basically the ideology of what type of a climate, what happens and what changes what, what's more important.

So anything I've ever told anybody ever came to my office, especially when I was chairman, I said, "Listen, I'm for everything."

Like, Kay, I'm for all the above.

If it's proven technology, then you have something that we can work with.

So let's get technologies we know that work and let's basically modify them."

Perfect example is hydrogen.

Hydrogen's been around forever.

Hydrogen has the horsepower to run trains and planes, automobiles and everything in between.

But it can never compete with fossil 'cause fossil does the same thing with so much less price, okay?

Now, if it's all about the climate and the emissions, that's the one you have to go to.

So let's start maturing that.

Getting better electrolyzers to break down to get cheaper energy.

We haven't done that.

We talk but we don't do it.

And then we talk about, well, we just wanna get rid of coal.

But we know the carbon capture and you use basically scrubbers, low-NOx boilers, bag houses for mercury.

And then you capture it, and we take Clearstream carbon off.

We liquefy and pressurize it.

We can do all that.

Guess what?

They talk it but they don't wanna do it 'cause they don't wanna use coal no more.

- Yeah.

- Okay?

We run into all those, but we have nothing to replace it.

Small modular reactors.

Nuclear is going to be, I think what takes us to the future.

- You just described a nice mix of things with an understanding coming from an energy state.

You also mentioned though some of the idealism that comes in and perturbs that.

It has, has climate become so dominant in our thinking that we've lost the-- - The climate, we're responsible as human beings.

I'd say this, you know, you tell me that eight billion people haven't made a dent in the climate in this beautiful world of ours.

No one responsible or reasonable is gonna say no.

We have.

So if we have, we have the responsibility to use it and use this climate and make sure that our climate's the best it possibly can be.

And I've always said technology.

We're able, you know, you cannot eliminate your way to a clean environment.

You can innovate it through technology.

You can't just say, I don't want that no more.

Scott, I'm not gonna use what you got.

I need what you got.

I don't wanna use it no more.

But I can innovate through technology and use what you have in a cleaner fashion.

- Yeah.

- But what you said in the very beginning is, we have more people on this planet, therefore there is climate change.

Yes, we can admit there is climate change.

We see it in the weather.

But how we address making it better, we can't do it in the United States alone.

And if China proudly said, "We're not going to loan to any country to build coal plants."

But they never said, we're not gonna build any.

And India, as you were saying-- - They don't want anybody competing with 'em.

[laughs] - Right.

And so India is building coal plants.

So we should not be saying, if we just clean up everything in America, that's gonna change climate.

It is not.

- Oh, 90% is gonna come from one continent, Asia.

- What are your thoughts on subsidies for energy?

- Well, I'm not against subsidies, but I am against picking winners and losers.

And I don't think that it is in the taxpayer's interest or our economic interest to subsidize against competition.

- Hmm.

- My thing on the whole thing, if you've got new technology that you've proven it is the technology that will work, then the government should be your partner.

And by your partner means we're gonna get that to a matured state.

And the matured state means that might be five years from now, but no longer, two years from now but no longer.

Depends on-- - Market competitive.

- That's exactly.

So now we're talking wind and solar's been 10, 15, 20 years.

And they brought that price from there to way below what fossil is.

- Yeah.

- Okay?

And artificially keeping it there because the ideology was, we want renewables.

We don't want emissions from fossil.

So they basically price coal out of the market.

[Scott] Right.

Right.

- We can't compete.

Nukes can't compete.

Let's sit down as an energy policy in this country and says is what we're gonna do.

We're all gonna be treated the same.

Doesn't work.

- What we're doing here at the University of Texas is with these small nuclear reactors, the energy department is helping a consortium of four universities, and they're building a model of a small nuclear reactor.

And the computational computer here at the University of Texas is doing a virtual twin at the same time that it's being built.

It is taking some government subsidy to have, as you said, that nugget to start.

But once we have that plan and it's perfected and it's shown to be efficient, then it could be used anywhere in America.

It can be rebuilt.

You've got the plan already there with the virtual twin.

- And we've gotta get our heads together and get one that works.

One design.

'Cause we have molten salt now, we have all different types of, you know, you got-- - Yeah, it's a tough-- - Different companies making different types of projects.

- China leads nuclear today.

And there's a reason.

They just, "Here's what we're gonna do."

- We're gonna do one.

And they just keep going over and over.

- If you had one priority, even if it's just one word for energy policy, I mean, what's the most important priority for energy policy in the U.S.?

- Permitting.

[Scott] Permitting.

- It has to be permitting.

[Scott] Okay.

Permitting.

- We have all the ideas, we've got everything moving in the right direction, but if Kay wanted to build a line, the pipeline from Dallas to Brownsville, it'd be seven, eight, 10 years.

- Why is that so hard?

- It's just horrible-- - What holds that up?

- The way things have been designed is designed almost impossible for us to meet any time requirements.

I keep thinking about-- - Why?

We have two million miles of pipeline in this country.

[Joe] Yeah.

- What really actually happens?

[Joe] Well, everyone has-- court access.

- Okay, so it's in the courts.

- Court access.

- Okay.

What would be a top priority from your perspective, Kay?

- To embrace all of the above and put the priorities where it can increase capacity and lower costs and be reliable.

[Scott] So reliable, affordable with a, a robust portfolio.

- Mm-hm.

- Do you think tech coming into the scene and finally kind of opening it up and saying, we need dedicated, reliable, affordable electricity for these things, has that changed the dialogue at all in the policy world?

Are are they now saying, okay, we can see nuclear and natural gas, we can see the need for some of these?

Is that helping bring us together at all?

- Gas is the transition.

That's the transition fuel.

Gas it's cheap, it's plentiful.

We know that's gonna be changing.

The technology will change.

And eventually, it will come into the fusion.

It'll come into the nukes.

I think is where it's gonna go.

- But you don't think that's helping with at least the dialogue between reasonable political parties around more diverse portfolio-- - In Washington today, they're understanding that we cannot meet the demand, the demands there, okay?

We cannot energize the demand that's needed.

- Yes.

But I guess what I'm asking is is that recognition now because of tech demand?

Are we starting to get more educated across political lines?

- Well, look at the demand right now.

Have you ever seen in our careers, political careers, we have not seen the growth of energy demand.

If anything, it was like this, it start going this, it was even dipping down.

Now all of a sudden you see this tick there.

- Okay, so what can we do to have that reliability as clean as we can get it, and not sacrifice the vibrance of our economy?

Right now, we are looking at adversaries that have real capabilities.

We haven't had that for a long time either.

But we've now got a menacing Russia and a very clear-eyed patient China.

So we've gotta be clear about what we need to stay ahead.

A strong economy, a strong defense, and having the energy capacity to outlast anybody on earth.

- That's really well said.

And I don't wanna take words from your mouth here, but I think I hear you saying that reasonable politicians in both parties are starting to have those dialogues again, if not publicly as much, but at least hopefully behind closed doors around security.

So, you know-- - It made everybody understand the need of energy, reliable energy, I think.

- Yes.

Reliable energy.

- And you're saying, you're saying now with the demand of this AI race that we have, are people understanding that we have to produce energy.

- Yes.

- And I think maybe, I don't know if we're doing a good enough job.

I mean, you just can't pick one over the other.

But like if Kay and I were still there in the Senate, we'd be saying, listen, we all know we need more energy and we're doing the best that we can.

And if there's something you're asking us to do that's not feasible, then it's not reasonable.

If you're putting benchmarks that technology's not there to make, don't do that because you don't like what we're doing.

Help me use what we've gotta use today better than any place in the world.

And like Kay saying, we're not gonna affect the climate that much, whether you stop me completely, but you'll affect that a hell of a lot more if you can't let me compete.

- Right.

- That's the difference.

- Not if your economy implodes.

- Yeah, that's exactly correct.

- Well, I've loved this dialogue.

You guys have been candid and open and fun.

What would you like our viewers to take away?

- If you look at poverty around the world, any place you have energy, a minimum amount of energy providing for the masses, you'll have poverty.

- Yep.

- And I keep thinking of here's the greatest country that humankind has ever seen, history's ever recorded, the United States of America, and how we've lifted them up, it was because of energy.

Access to affordable, dependable and reliable energy.

That's what it is.

And that's what's gonna carry us further into the 21st century.

- Absolutely.

- Into the 22nd.

- I think we've got to have the technology that produces more in a clean, efficient way that is affordable.

And so I think just educating people.

People understand when they see the facts what our challenges are.

We will not be secure unless we are economically viable.

And that means clean energy from all the sources that we have to rebuild our energy independence.

And that's what we're after.

So, I applaud you for having this great program that is beginning to educate on all the fronts of new energy, old energy, better energy, more reliable, affordable, abundant energy.

- Thank you.

And thank you for being here.

Means a lot.

- Glad be with you always.

And my friend Joe.

[Joe] Yeah.

- Scott Tinker, "Energy Switch."

Kay, it's so good to see you.

Thank you very much.

- Great to be with you.

[Scott] Our senators come from different political parties, but agreed on many things that energy subsidies are valuable for research and to help technologies mature so they can compete in the marketplace, like hydrogen or small modular reactors, but then stopping subsidies from mature technologies like wind and solar so they don't have an unfair economic advantage.

They agreed that senators need expert advice from staffers and lobbyists, ideally from both sides.

And that we should eliminate political funding that's not transparent.

They advocated for an all of the above energy strategy, and for driving today's energy technologies to be cleaner, better and cheaper, such as grid scale batteries.

They agreed that increasing U.S.

electricity demand driven by AI could help senators converge politically on security and affordability.

They'd like to see them work together again to serve Americans rather than partisan goals.

I think most Americans would too.

[upbeat music] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [Narrator] Major funding provided by Arizona State University.

Home to the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory, addressing critical challenges toward a future in which all living things thrive.

Arizona State, The New American University.