Columbia Energy Exchange

The national conversation around climate change is shifting. There's more focus on energy affordability and demand, as well as on the dual role artificial intelligence plays as both a climate problem and potential tool for lowering emissions. Likewise, there's been a shift in how the media covers these issues.

Research shows that news coverage of climate has declined in recent years — as have the number of local newsrooms. Yet, surveys indicate that news consumers want more coverage of climate change. So do reporters and editors, based on strong interest in the Energy Journalism Fellowship at the Center on Global Energy Policy.

So what's the state of energy and climate journalism? How have shrinking newsrooms, eroding trust in news institutions, and the rise of AI impacted this beat? And what are the most powerful levers energy and climate reporters can use right now to reach wider audiences and cover the energy transition thoroughly and with integrity?

This week, Bill Loveless talks to Amy Harder about the state of energy and climate journalism.

Amy is the national energy correspondent for Axios and has been covering energy and climate for more than 15 years. She was among the first reporters to join Axios after its launch in 2017, but from 2021 until earlier this year she was founding executive editor of Cipher News, backed by Breakthrough Energy, a network of clean energy organizations. She began her career at National Journal, and then worked for The Wall Street Journal.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the United States' energy transmission, pipeline networks, and wholesale rates for electricity. For much of its history, FERC was a little-known federal agency. But that's changing.

Today, topics like energy affordability and the urgent build-out of data centers to support AI are putting FERC in the spotlight. The Trump administration is also exerting pressure on the agency. This fall, Energy Secretary Chris Wright directed the commission to fast-track grid connections for certain large loads, such as data centers. But many communities have pushed back against new energy infrastructure.

So how is this independent agency handling pressures to reform its policies? How might politics play out — or not — in its rulings and in key court decisions that impact the agency? Outside of the agency, what are some solutions to building more energy infrastructure faster?

This week, Jason Bordoff talks to Neil Chatterjee about FERC's role in energy policy.

Neil is a former commissioner of FERC, where he also twice served as chairman. Neil recently joined the Center for Global Energy Policy as a distinguished visiting fellow. He also currently is an advisor and investor in a number of organizations and is the chief government affairs officer at residential clean energy company Palmetto. Early in his career, Neil worked for Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as his energy policy advisor.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Around the globe, and here in the United States, energy markets face huge uncertainties. They include everything from rising geopolitical tensions to a wave of new liquefied natural gas supply, and from concentrated critical mineral supply chains to growing demand for electricity.

These uncertainties are reflected by the International Energy Agency in this year's World Energy Outlook, which explores a range of possible energy futures — particularly around oil and gas demand.

So how have energy policies at the country level, growing economic warfare, and rising prices impacted the IEA's outlook? How should we understand the role of energy security and geopolitical risk? Here in the US, how have energy policy shifts impacted the outlook? And what role do the transition to electric mobility and the pace of energy innovation play?

This week, Jason Bordoff talks to Tim Gould about this year's World Energy Outlook, the IEA's flagship annual report. It projects a world with as much as 3 degrees of warming by 2100, under current policies, or with as little as 1.5 degrees of warming by 2100 if global energy systems quickly decarbonize.

Tim is the International Energy Agency's chief energy economist. As part of this role, he co-leads the World Energy Outlook. Tim joined the IEA in 2008 as a specialist on Russian and Caspian energy. Before joining the agency, Tim worked on European and Eurasian energy issues in Brussels.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Elected officials face huge challenges when it comes to energy policymaking. They have very little time to learn complicated, nuanced issues. They're bombarded by information — some of it from organizations that are tightly aligned with ideological or political movements.

Whether it's from industry or civil society, the information policymakers receive, even if accurate, can often come with an agenda. Plus, translating academic research into policy comes with its own challenges. All of this makes building energy policy based on independent, trusted expertise difficult, especially in a time of deep partisanship.

So how can evidence and analysis best be used to design and build good energy policy? How can philanthropy drive innovative solutions to pressing challenges, like the energy transition? Where are the disconnects between high-quality research and thoughtful policymaking, and how can those efforts be bridged?

This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with John Arnold about the hurdles and opportunities for building energy infrastructure and the power of evidence-based policymaking.

John Arnold is co-founder and co-chair of Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic organization that supports initiatives in a range of sectors. He is also co-founder of Grid United, which develops high-voltage transmission projects. Previously, John was the CEO of Centaurus Energy. He started his career at Enron, where he oversaw the trading of natural gas derivatives. John is also an advisory board member at the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, and serves on the board of other organizations, including Meta.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

The ten years since the Paris Agreement was signed at the UN Climate Change Conference, COP 21, have been the ten hottest years on record. And the outcome that the Paris Agreement sought — limiting global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — is now widely considered unattainable.

There are other hurdles as well. Many nations have not submitted climate action plans, or nationally determined contributions, to the UN. And President Trump says he plans to re-withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Still, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change marches on. Next week, delegates, activists, and journalists will converge in Belém, Brazil, for the 30th Conference of the Parties, or COP30.

So what are some of the possible outcomes of this year's climate summit? Will the absence of the United States even matter? Will the issue of climate equity and financing garner much attention? And what could come from a new forum that Brazil is planning, where governments will discuss how climate policy affects trade?

This week, Bill Loveless speaks with Elliot Diringer about the issues that are likely to dominate the upcoming COP.

Elliot is a global fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy directing its International Dialogue on Climate and Trade. He brings decades of experience in climate diplomacy as a negotiator, journalist, and policy strategist. He first engaged with the topic as a reporter covering the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and later served in senior roles in the Clinton administration, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and more recently as a senior policy advisor to Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry during the Biden administration.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Last week, President Trump announced that he was imposing significant new sanctions on Russia. It's an effort to cut off revenue Russia needs for its war in Ukraine. This comes at a time when Russia's oil industry is also under pressure from intensifying Ukrainian attacks on refineries, crude pipelines, and export terminals.

It's also happening as producers have been ramping up output amid signs of cooling demand growth. Yet the sanctions could still bite. Especially given that the Treasury sanctions announcement came with the explicit warning that secondary sanctions—targeting buyers of Russian crude oil from these companies—could be coming next.

So why did Trump take this step now? Will these sanctions be strongly enforced? What's the point of these sanctions? And what do they mean for global energy flows, energy markets and geopolitics?

This week, we are sharing a recording of a Rapid Response webinar from Monday, October 27, in which Jason Bordoff spoke with three experts from the Center on Global Energy Policy — Richard Nephew, Tatiana Mitrova, and Daniel Sternoff — about these new Russian oil sanctions.

Richard Nephew is senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy and a former U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Iran. Tatiana Mitrova is a global fellow at the Center and has deep expertise in Russian and global energy markets. Daniel Sternoff is a senior fellow at the Center. He also leads Energy Aspects' executive briefing service.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Energy has long been used as a weapon. The United Kingdom blocked oil exports to Germany during World War I. Hitler's fall was due in part to losing access to oilfields in the Caucasus. And the most recent example: the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which shocked the global economy.

During the following fifty years, the energy weapon largely receded from the geopolitical stage, and in many countries energy security started to feel like a given. But developments including Russia's weaponization of natural gas against Europe, China's restrictions on critical minerals, and growing trade tensions around the world have brought energy back to the center of great-power competition.

So is this a new age of energy weaponization? What would that mean for global energy security? What new vulnerabilities are emerging as the clean energy transition accelerates and electricity demand surges? And how can countries protect themselves in this new age of fragmentation and rivalry?

This week, Bill Loveless speaks with Jason Bordoff and Meghan O'Sullivan about "The Return of the Energy Weapon," a Foreign Affairs essay published today, in which they explore how, after a fifty-year period of relative stability, the use of energy as a coercive tool of statecraft is making a comeback.

Jason is the founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, where he is a professor of professional practice. He is also on the faculty of the Columbia Climate School, where he is cofounding dean emeritus. He previously served as special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for energy and climate change on the staff of the National Security Council.

Meghan is the Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, director of the Geopolitics of Energy Projects, and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School. She has served in multiple senior policymaking roles and has advised national security officials in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Trade tensions between the US and China have hit a new high mark. Last week, after China announced plans to ratchet up its export controls of some rare-earths and magnets with strategic uses, President Trump threatened to retaliate with 100% tariffs, which would go into effect on November 1 or sooner. But the competition between these two world powers goes far beyond trade disputes and tariffs. It's a contest between fundamentally different approaches to governance, technology, and economic development.

China, of course, dominates critical supply chains for clean energy technologies. But many of the innovations that spawned those technologies were born here in the US. China builds, and governs through strong state control. The US innovates, but struggles to build.

How did these two nations develop such different capabilities? What does China's dominance in manufacturing mean for American competitiveness and national security? And can the United States learn from China's approach to building at scale without sacrificing democratic values and individual rights?

This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with Dan Wang about his recent book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. They discuss the book's framing — that China is an engineering state and America as a lawyerly society — and how those orientations undergird what, and how, these world powers produce.

Dan is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab and studies China's technological capabilities. He was previously a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Industrial policy, supply chain security, and economic competitiveness are central to how we think about clean energy deployment. As the Trump administration pulls back federal support for the clean energy transition, there are more and more calls for pragmatism and realism.

The shifting conversation around clean energy is visible in other ways, too. During last month's Climate Week in New York, there was more focus on a broader set of energy policy goals that included not only decarbonization but also energy security, energy affordability, and energy for economic development.

So what does effective energy policy look like in this new era and under new pressures? How should we balance climate ambitions with energy security and economic competitiveness? And what does all of this mean for domestic leadership and investments in things like manufacturing and modernizing the electricity grid?

This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with Sarah Ladislaw about the risks and opportunities they both see in this evolution towards building a better energy system.

Sarah is managing director of the US Program at Rocky Mountain Institute, where she leads work on federal, state, and local energy policy, and runs the New Energy Industrial Strategy Center. Previously, she worked in the Biden White House, leading climate and energy efforts within the National Security Council. Before that, she was senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.

Last year, an energy permitting reform bill sponsored by Senators Joe Manchin and John Barrasso passed out of committee but failed to gain full support in the US Senate. Since then, rising energy costs and infrastructure backlogs have only heightened pressure on Congress to take another run at reforming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As a result, momentum behind permitting reform is building again. Several legislative efforts are underway, most notably the bipartisan SPEED Act, which would change NEPA requirements in order to streamline the permitting process. It would also set limits on judicial review.

So how likely is meaningful permitting reform, this time around? How would it enable timely development of energy infrastructure without jeopardizing environmental concerns? And what might make it feasible to supporters of fossil and renewable energy alike?

This week, Bill Loveless speaks to Jim Connaughton about shifting motivations for permitting reform in DC, and whether policymakers can find enough common ground to push reforms forward.

Jim is the CEO of JLC Strategies and the former chairman and CEO of Nautilus Data Technologies. During the George W. Bush administration, he served as chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and directed the White House Office of Environmental Policy.

Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.