To help us cut through the noise and get to the policy signals that matter, we’re joined by Andrea Clabough, Associate at Goldwyn Global Strategies and Nonresident Fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. With Andrea’s background advising energy companies on U.S. policy, energy security, and geopolitical risk, she’s the perfect guest to address questions like: What should energy companies really take away from the first 100 days? How will the tug of war between federal and state policy play out in energy governance? And what surprises might still lie ahead in the Trump playbook?
Prefer to Read vs. Listening? Scroll Down to Read Transcript
Want to watch the conversation? Video of Power Perspectives are now being posted to YouTube
Thanks to the sponsor of this episode of the Power Perspectives: West Monroe
Key Links:
Andrea Clabough on Energy Central: https://energycentral.com/member/profile/andrea-clabough
Ask a Question to Our Future Guests: Do you have a burning question for the utility executives and energy industry thought leaders that we feature each week on Power Perspectives? Leave us a message here for your chance to be featured in an upcoming episode: www.speakpipe.com/EnergyCentralPodcast
TRANSCRIPT
Jason Price:
Whenever a new administration takes over in Washington, Industries know there may be some adjustments and some uncertainty, the utilities included. But this year was unique circumstance where it was the return of a previous administration. So a mean for power executives and stakeholders. How will the experience of his first term inform actions and where might we be in unprecedented? Territory as we approach the completion of the 1st 100 days in this term, it’s prime time to study what Trump 2.0 means for the US energy system and to break that down. And we’re fortunate enough to have with us, Andrea Clabo, associate at Goldwyn Global Strategies and a non resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. Andrea advises private sector companies throughout the energy sector on energy security, U.S. policy and geopolitics, making her the perfect person to help us cut through the noise. And get to the real implications for power generation utilities and grid modernization. And a quick reminder for those who would prefer to watch rather than just listen full video versions of power perspectives. Can now be found on our YouTube channel. I’m Jason Price, coming to you from New York City and with me, as always, I’m joined with my co-host Matt Chester, Energy Central producer and Community manager from Orlando, FL. Matt, when we? Talk about the second Trump term and energy policy. What’s the biggest concern you’ve been hearing from the energy Central community?
Matt Chester:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason. There, there’s definitely a lot of intense interest in. And honestly, a little bit of unease in the energy central community when it comes to what Trump 2.0 might mean for energy policy, specifically because of the uncertainty that these first few months have brought, regardless of the administration, the biggest concern we always hear is stability. Knowing what policies will be so utilities can plan their business cases. And during President Trump’s first term. Saw some significant policy swings, swings. And that volatility made long term planning tough for utility executives and energy developers alike. And so now that he’s back and we’ve gotten a preview of some major actions already in these first few months, people are are wondering what the impacts will be from things like dismantling clean energy incentives, doubling down on fossil fuels, how they’re going to tackle things like permitting reform, tariffs on grid equipment. It’s all top of mind. And so overall, the folks on our community pages, they’re hoping that this second term will bring some clearer signals some and and maybe fewer surprises and you know, hopefully today’s conversation with Andrea is well timed to to bring some information there.
Jason Price:
Absolutely. Thanks for that, Matt. We really appreciate that. And of course, before we dive in, we want to thank our sponsor, Wes Monroe for making today’s episode possible. Now let’s pull in today’s guests. We are really excited to have you with us today. Andrea Clabo, welcome to the Energy Central. Power perspectives podcast. Yes.
Andrea Clabough:
Thank you so much for having me. I’m really looking forward to the conversation.
Jason Price:
As are we. So let’s start with the high level. So Trump has been vocal about reshaping US energy policy, favoring fossil fuels and nuclear, while pushing back against some clean energy policies and incentives. But energy markets are shaped by so much more than just federal policy. Given what we’ve seen so far. How much influence will the administration actually have?
Andrea Clabough:
Yeah, absolutely. And this is really a fantastic question. And for me, when I think about the, the broader, you know, scheme of everything happening here, it’s really striking to me how different the environment we’re seeing right now is from Trump 1.0. And I think it’s interesting that so many of us who want to look back on the first administration. As sort of our guidepost, if you will, for what we might be going now, but what we have seen over the last several weeks is a really strong emphasis on this point UN quote, shock and awe campaign coming from the White House. And that has been particularly impactful with respect to energy. We have seen, as you briefly alluded to, we’ve seen a slew of these executive orders, everything from artificial intelligence to review possibly rescinding many of the Biden era energy and climate regulations, efforts to change how the bedrock environmental laws which govern areas like regulation and permitting. In the US are implemented by the federal government. Even more recently, we have seen a targeting of state level energy and climate. Policies and last week we had a very interesting set of executive orders coming out supporting the A potential resurgence of coal, not just in terms of power generation in the US, but potentially as next poor commodity as well. So this is a lot. It’s a lot of noise. It’s a lot of complexity. So for me, the question then is how durable is any of this? I actually started my career really in the energy space right around the fall of 2016 when I came into my current position of course, fall 2016, nothing much was happening back then as as we all know, but many of us will remember. That the first Trump administration, when they came into office in the fateful late late winter of 2017, spent a great deal of time undoing and attempting to undermine many of the Obama era. Climate and energy achievements, and then Fast forward to the late winter of 2021. And the buying administration basically does the exact same thing with the prior Trump agenda and now Fast forward again. Here we are. It feels like history just continues to repeat itself in some aspects. So the question then for me is, are we just going to keep doing this every four years? And I would imagine if you’re someone. In the utility space. Considering millions, potentially billions of dollars of investments in the long term energy infrastructure, that’s a very significant issue because you’re talking about potentially decades worth. Of infrastructure that’s on the line with what’s going on here. So if I were in that position, I would ask myself 2 questions. Number one, to what extent are the new actions impacting the economy? Of certain fuels over others in the US energy system. So I mentioned coal very briefly in terms of the executive orders we’ve seen so far. A big question is if the federal government can change the economic calculus, which has made natural gas and also to some extent renewable energy more. Economical then continuing with coal-fired power in the US, I think that to some extent that is a bit of an open question right now. The second question that I think is really important to keep an eye on here is to what extent can the administration impact what state and local governments do or don’t do with respect to? The way that our federal system is set up, the federal government really has fairly limited authorities with respect to energy governance in the United States. Overwhelmingly, the energy mixes fuel mixes for power generation, types of infrastructure that are built, infrastructure built. Within state lines in particular, like pipelines that almost always goes down to state and local governance and regulation. So there’s a question, and the Trump administration seems primed to try this. But it’s very interesting to think about how much of an impact they can really have on state and local policies, particularly in light of some recent Supreme Court decisions. But I’m sure we’ll talk a bit more about that down the line.
Jason Price:
Yeah, very true, as even a recent announcement this morning, I believe and make the state of Michigan refuses to spin up or reinvest in the coal generation side of the business. So they’re staying for, you know, continue forward with. Their own plan? I. Think a lot of states will continue, you know, going in the direction that they want. Regardless of the direction or guidance that comes out of. Washington, but I really appreciate that. That’s good. So in the mindset of a utility leader to the actions of what’s going on in government at the at the, at the federal level, so every administration comes in every new administration that comes in, they roll, roll out, new executive orders and we all have to adjust and pivot on that. And looking at, you know, Trump’s first one. Days he’s made some announcements and actions as as you as you declared and covered getting to the minds of a utility leader. How do you navigate through that? What should they be paying attention to? What might be more symbolic versus substantive?
Jason Price:
How do you sort of, you know, distill out of that? What what’s meaningful for them to continue following or listening to?
Andrea Clabough:
Absolutely. And it’s hard to do because as I’m sure you all know, it feels like every time you look at your phone, you have a brand new news notification telling you some new thing that you weren’t thinking about 5 minutes ago. So it it is difficult, I would say in terms of separating signal from noise. There are really three areas where I would I would recommend the energy sector. Stakeholders really pay attention to in terms of potential impacts for their businesses that have the potential to be more durable that would last beyond, you know, a simple executive order. The first area is regulation. This is very significant. Because the the new Trump administration, Trump 2.0 they have made it very clear that they are on a quite ambitious pathway to attempt to undo or amend or adjust to environmental regulation. Is implemented across the United States that is primarily at the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, but it also filters into other important agencies for energy development, such as the Department of the Interior. For example, in one particular area that they have really focused on is something called the endangerment. Binding just to briefly summarize what this means for anyone who might be unfamiliar, the endangerment finding came out of the first Obama term, and it was basically the result of a court ruling which enabled the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct an. Which then found that carbon dioxide is indeed a health hazard and therefore it is within the remit of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide accordingly as part of its authorities, its statutory authorizations. So that has undergirded all of the different power plant regulations. We have seen coming out one after the other over the last decade, starting with the Obama era Clean Power Plan, which was ultimately mixed, so to speak, with a the West Virginia versus EPA court ruling a couple of years ago. Then we saw the affordable Clean energy rule under Trump, which also ran into legal problems. And now we have the Biden era version of a power plan regulation that came out last year in its final form. And is, you guessed it, now facing legal challenges. What the Trump administration seems to want to do here is to effectively undo the endangerment finding, and it’s unclear exactly how they might go about that. But they seem to. Think that if they can maybe soften or maybe rewrite the analysis under that, then they maybe don’t have to issue a new power plant regulation. Or they could issue one that is substantially different from what we saw issued under the Biden administration and obviously. On the regulation side, that has significant impacts as well for permitting and siding requirements for new infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines, especially those that cross Interstate boundaries. The key with a regulatory agenda, however, is if you can defend it. Because regulation takes a long time to write, you then have. To go through. Drafts, comment periods, and then get to final form, and then most likely you’re going to have to defend it in in some kind of a court somewhere along the line. So regulation can be quite impactful if it becomes the law of the land, but getting there. Is a bit of a challenge. I would add two more buckets in terms of thinking about what could be quite impactful here. The big one that’s friend of mine for many of us at the moment is the the trade tensions that we are seeing really throughout the world and that became quite quite intensified in the first week of April. Things seem to have calmed down, maybe a little bit, but it’s not totally clear where we’re going right now. There’s pauses, there’s new tariffs added, tariffs are pulled back. And in the future is quite murky from where we’re sitting right now. I would say for energy companies, there is a growing reputational risk for the US as an energy supplier that I think is significant. It’s something that merits attention. But on the import side as well. And I think this is quite important for the power sector. Is, frankly the ability to secure affordable and reliable access to key components. Power Transformers, I think are a good example here. I believe that those are about 80% imported right now into. This is also a massive risk for the renewable energy sector, which again is very heavily reliant on imported parts and components and across the board. All of this is going to be impacted by stubborn inflationary pressure if we do see that through the remainder of the year and wider macroeconomic. Weaknesses as well. The last thing I would mention here in this category of what to watch is how the administration is going to come down on the fights in Congress and the big one here is the budget reconciliation proposals. So for anyone who’s unfamiliar, the budget reconciliation plans in Congress are basically. The now Republican majorities in both Chambers attempting to put their mark on on how federal spending is going to look for, presumably for the next decade, the big fight here is going to be over the inflation reduce. An act the IRA, as it’s known and its incentives for clean and 0 carbon energy and technologies the administration could have, and I imagine does have a strong view on to what extent those incentives should be retained and which technologies and which fuel types they should be retained. 4 so depending on the breadth and the depth of the changes that we see. There, especially for emerging technologies like hydrogen for example, and for new projects that have not really broken ground yet that are still going to be a few years into the future, those economics could look quite different depending on what we see ultimately come. Out of that.
Jason Price:
Yeah, yeah, for sure. So all right, you, you if you wanted. To, you know, read the tea leaves. It would be probably, you know, look at not what the Trump administration is doing because it’s a bit knee jerk or it’s really sudden. But what the legislation. Is doing because that’s really where the long term you know. Changes happen and it and it’s and it gives you more of a pulse of, you know, across the country what what the where our Congress is thinking. Can you cover that to some degree so you know it’s I guess this is a civics question, if you will. But you know, what are you seeing from legislation? How is that going to influence Trump’s energy agenda? Any thoughts around that?
Andrea Clabough:
Absolutely. And I appreciate one area with the the budget reconciliation and and to be candid, I would imagine that that fight is going to take up probably the remainder of this year to be honest with you. That said, I think that there are two more areas that could be quite interesting to watch here. The first big one is permitting reform, which I think you all hinted at a bit earlier. We’ve seen a number of efforts at the executive level to quote UN quote fix permitting challenges in the United States through various kinds of peace. Measures I believe I just saw this morning. They issued that the White House issued a brand new executive order on better integrating technology into environment. Views. The problem though, is that the bedrock environmental laws, like the national Environmental Policy Act like the Clean Air Act. Those were written by Congress. So really it’s in the remit of Congress to amend those, adjust them, add clarifying text, add requirements, which really gets at the heart of many of the permitting. Challenges that we’ve been that we have seen playing out over the last several years. So really, it’s on Congress to deliver that and there is a pretty solid bipartisan consensus that this needs to get done because this impacts every type of energy. This isn’t simply an oil or a natural gas pipeline issue. This is an issue for every form of energy throughout this country. So there is an energy. Reform energy permitting reform. Plan on. Table I believe it was introduced by Senators Manchin and Veloso around last summer, but the key is getting a critical mass of support for a piece of legislation like that. Because, and, and variably, the devils in the details, right. And one of those detail areas where there has been friction in the past is around transmission. And great modernization issue. Namely, issues like who pays for it? Because as we all know, transmission is not free and the issue of to what extent does the federal government have the authority to mandate transmission build out, especially in places in areas where the local stakeholders might not want that? Those are difficult. She used to parse out and then you have this whole other category of issues over which fuels are perceived as a benefit. Thing production types upstream, those kinds of areas that they’re benefiting more than other types. And of course as we know, there are people in Congress who are very pro conventional fuels and very pro renewable and emerging technologies. So getting, you know, bipartisan consensus. Enough votes to pass that kind of a measure that’s very difficult, and it’s not clear if they’ll do it in this Congress, even though there is agreement that something needs to change. The other area that I think is quite interesting that could potentially fit into a budget reconciliation bill is that of a carbon border adjustment. So just a a brief summary here, a carbon border adjustment is effectively a levy that would be added to a product coming across the border into the US that was produced in a country that doesn’t have equivalent environmental regulations as the US does. So say for example, if a ton of steel was imported into the US from South or Southeast Asia, for example, there would be an assumption that the A comparable US amount of that steel US produced amount would be subject to more stringent regulations. So therefore the idea is you. Add a levy to the imported product to make up for that. So this has been a very interesting idea, particularly among those who are climate policy advocates, have been thinking about this. The European Union is actively implementing such a policy right now, and this is definitionally a revenue raiser we in Washington love to talk about, you know, revenue opportunities. So that makes it quite interesting to think about is something like this, which kind of originally started. As a climate minded policy could work with the wider goals and the agenda of this administration, which is to support US manufacturing. Longer term, if you were to see something like a board or adjustment approved, you could see more significant and deeper analysis of U.S. economy wide emissions, particularly in areas like industry.
Jason Price:
Said another way, this is a. Carbon tax, if you will.
Andrea Clabough:
It depends on who you ask, but effectively this would be a price on imported products that were not. Subject to the same regulations and the same oversight as a US products. So you could think of it as the way that it’s been laid out by some of its proponents in Congress. I believe the Republican version is called a foreign pollution fee. It’s that was recently reintroduced by Senator Cassidy. Louisiana. So they really see this as a fairness measure, effectively rewarding US industrial producers and their products for having higher efficiency and lower emissions intensity. And there are many versions of this idea that have been floated over the years. Obviously right now a Republican design version probably has a better chance of passage in this environment.
Jason Price:
Alright, so I’d like you to. Do a little bit of a comparing and contrasting of the. Two administrations, let’s put it this way. The the issues. Are the same, right? There’s grid strain, there’s. AI and data center growth there’s aging infrastructure, there’s weatherization impacts, there’s intermittent renewables. You know, just the, the, the, the grid is being transformed. Help help us understand. You know your observations, where you are and you know where you sit in terms of. What are some similarities or differences that the two administration how the two administrations approach this?
Andrea Clabough:
Absolutely. And and you identified just now a number of the challenges that we’re facing that are quite stubborn. Some of those are very long standing. Nobody is unaware of the fact that we need massive infrastructure investment in this country, is especially in the power sector and some of the things you mentioned. We’re developing quite quickly. I’m currently here in Beautiful Falls Church, VA, Northern Virginia is now being colloquially referred to as data Center Alley. Because potentially we’re talking dozens of new gigawatts of power demand in our area alone, impacting the outlook for our grid in this region, that is incredibly significant and it’s really breaking a pattern of what we had seen in the US power system where demand had been relatively. Table we’re now we’re looking at the potential where we could have a rapid jump not just because of AI, but because of other other potential demand draws as well. And as you indicated, I think it really does their emphasis here that the Trump administration and the bike administrations were aware that these are very major tasks. Had to modernize the US power grid to be fit for purpose in the 21st century. So I would say that in terms of the areas of of agreement, yes, both certainly seem to agree. We need more power and more fuels, more diverse and reliable forms of. Fuels, but the key disagreement is over which fuels should we be emphasizing in which merit the most direct government support, and there also seemed to be agreement. Again, we saw this with the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure investment and JOBS Act that were vitalized manufacturing base is critical to supporting. Us energy and energy infrastructure, again, that divide goes back to which kind of energy are you most interested in supporting? But I would say even more broadly than that, the idea that we need an updated and modern infrastructure permitting system, particularly one that prepares us for the AI future. And I think that that latter point is quite interesting because one of the very last actions the by administration, took before it left office was the issuance of an executive order. Supporting the leasing of federal lands for data centers as well as the energy to potentially feed them and as far as I know, Trump did not ever rescind that executive order and they the administration has indicated that they are very focused on this issue, making sure that the United States. Wins the race for artificial intelligence dominance, a race which as we know, is very much up for debate at the moment. So the Trump administration seems to think that that they can focus on conventional and base load energy types. The one they’ve really highlighted lately. Is coal and that will really power the AI revolution. And then in doing so they can maybe deemphasize those intermittent and unconventional energy sources. Playing much more of a supporting role going forward. So I would say that both administrations love the language of all of the above. We’ve heard that a lot over the last eight years, but there does seem to be a first among equals depending on which administration it is and who you’re asking, so will the Trump administration’s approach work? Particularly when we think about things like a resurgence of coal to support AI, I think that there are some significant questions there and it probably remains to be.
Jason Price:
All right, Andrea, I want to go back to something you said earlier on the show and that is we’re talking about the relationship or the differences of what goes on in the federal level versus the state level when it comes to energy policy. But we have a, you know, Trump 2.0 is demonstrated overreach, overstepping, expanding the family, that the where the line is. Run in terms of what the federal government can do or or need to follow versus. It’s a rule of law and what the law says, so I’d like you to, you know, if if President Trump were listening in today and looking for new ideas, what are some of those controls that President Trump could do that could influence state level policy around energy?
Andrea Clabough:
So again, this is a very tricky question. One of the things that I often tell people. Is the United States is not one government, it is 51 governments and arguably many, many more besides those 51. This is why infrastructure permitting is so difficult to do, because anytime a pipeline or a long distance or a high voltage power line is crossing a state border or frankly. In a county or a city border, you have a whole new level of approval and a whole new group of people who may or may not like what you’re doing, and that can make things very, very complicated. And that again, that can cut both ways depending on, you know, which side of the of the challenge you’re on. The federal system was in some ways designed. To be like this, it allocates really significant powers to the individual States and localities to set their own energy policies, govern their fuel mixes, for example, things like renewable portfolio standards, and to assert their own requirements and standards, and even work together with each other in regional programs like the regional. Greenhouse gas initiative here in the Mid-Atlantic and the New England region. So the Trump administration isn’t necessarily opposed to that, but what they are opposed to is the the the idea that they believe that some state policies are intended to specifically target or undermine fossil fuels. So, for example, they’ve talked about targeting state policies which are anti coal. Which are making it harder for coal production to happen for coal to be used in power generation, for example, those portfolio standards or clean energy standards that I mentioned. They’ve also specifically said that they’re going after the the new Super Fund laws that were just passed in Vermont and New York, and they’re also targeting California’s EPA issued waiver that just came out under the last five and term to issue stronger vehicle emission regulations. Above those of the national EPA. What’s interesting here, though, is that under Biden, the Republican state attorneys generals worked very hard. You know, again, because they were thinking about this growth of clean energy policy and the implications of that under the Biden administration to really limit the ability of the federal government to force systemic changes. And to force new fuels and new technologies onto the states. So a couple of those key Supreme Court decisions are the. The Loper V bride versus Raimondo, which effectively announced the end of the so-called Chevron Doctrine. That effectively means that federal agencies have to be very careful that they adhere to strict interpretations of their statutory authorizations in terms of how they regulate and how they issue any kind of new policy that applies to all of the. Another example of a a limitation on federal authority here is the so-called major questions doctrine that became very significant in the West Virginia versus EPA. Case we saw RedState attorneys general be very effective at pushing back on the Biden administration when they saw attempts to overstep the boundaries to overreach into their ability to govern energy within their state lines. So you could see that go the other way. The sword always cuts both ways, so it’s very easy to imagine that blue state attorneys general. Defending, for example, a state Superfund law might say that this is federal government overreach and these recent decisions confirm that it is outside of the remit of the federal government or a given agency to be able to do this. So at the end of the day, it’s very hard for the federal government to force. A new a new energy system or new types of policies onto states that don’t. Them and, you know, making trying to make that change happen through legal means, suing a state, for example, or some kind of an approach where they would challenge a specific state law. It would be very legally fraught and it would probably take some years to be fully decided. And the Supreme Court. Can’t take up every single case, they only take up really a handful of cases every year to decide. So if you are someone in the energy sector of space and you’re thinking about investment decisions. Or is this states, you know, renewable portfolio standard going to disappear, you know in a couple of years if this decision comes down, you have to be very careful about that because these things do tend to be sticky and figuring out the legal semantics of everything can take a great deal of time.
Jason Price:
Sure. OK. So on that note, what is coming down the pipe? What should utilities and energy companies keep an eye on what are? Some of these. Policy moves you’re hearing about any kind of big trade decisions that are going on or any kind of geopolitical shifts that we should keep an eye. Out for what? What? Just. What? What are you hearing or what are you seeing?
Andrea Clabough:
That we should be mindful of definitely. So there’s potentially 100 ways that we could we could answer that question I would. Point out two major things to to continue keeping an eye on. 1st, I think most important at the moment over the near term is where we’re going with trade and tariffs. I mentioned earlier that this is very important from an import perspective, but it’s also important in terms of a. Epic potential conflagration that is coming down the line and that is the United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement review which is scheduled to happen next year, but the groundwork for that discussion is happening right now. So as I’m sure many people listening to this are already aware, there is a massive amount of energy. Natural gas, crude oil, electricity. All kinds of minerals that are traded across these borders and that are worth billions upon billions of dollars of trade every year at the moment, as we have seen, there is considerable anger and mistrust on all sides of that trilateral relationship. And again, there could be significant. Economic impacts from. Wherever we end up heading in terms of if there is more tension in that relationship. Or if we reduce tension and come to some type of agreement, and then ultimately if the US MCA does get renewed for another six years, that could be very impactful for areas such as the price of oil and natural gas, for example. So the usmca process is something that I would definitely keep an eye on on the on the foreign policy side, I would also keep an eye on the wider foreign policy goals of the administration, namely areas like the Russia Ukraine war pressuring Iran over its nuclear program. And also pressuring China to adjust some of its policies, which have been very irritating to the administration. The reason that. This matters for a utility company, for example, is because this really dictates the future of both tariffs as well as sanctions, which impacts macroeconomic growth and the trade of all sorts of fuels throughout the world. So, for example, if we have Chinese tariffs on US LNG, which we have right now. And we also then see a resumption of Russian piped gas imports into the. You. Well, the EU has been taking an enormous amount of US natural gas via exports. So if the demand for US exported LNG starts to decline because of various pressures all coming at the same time and the domestic price of natural gas here in the US for domestic consumers. Will likewise start to go down because the supply pole is not what it once was, and again, thinking back to coal. The reason that coal-fired generation has been struggling in recent years is largely because of the natural gas boom in the United States. So if natural gas is becoming cheaper here in the US for domestic consumers, one would have to imagine that that is also not very helpful for the economics of coal. Over the long term, so again, if you’re thinking about where do you invest your money, those are, you know, very complicated countervailing things that you have to potentially think about.
Jason Price:
That’s that’s very helpful. Alright, so. Uncertainty. Unconventional. Unorthodox. These kind of all sort of illustrate what’s been going on these past two months since January 20th, when when you took over knowing that we’ve got utility leaders listening in, you know. Do you feel? Do you, do you? Do they feel confident that much of this is behind them and you know there’s a certain predictability to go forward? Or just should they be anticipating more pivots and curveballs, or just what would you say to a room full of utility executives listening in today?
Andrea Clabough:
Sure. I I think that there is this impulse to want to always hope that the worst is behind us, right? But at the end of the day, and I and I hesitate to be the bearer of bad news here, regardless of what’s happening with the White House itself, volatility has been the name of the game over the last few years. Coming out of COVID seeing all kinds of energy price spikes as a result of the Ukraine War in 2022. And you never know what is going to be the new thing, the new pressure or the new crisis that’s going to come down the pipeline. So on top of just, you know, the general volatility issue which we see come and go in cycles all the time, there is the fact that President Trump is likely not going to be able to run again. And his administration is thinking about cementing the legacy. I think this is part of why you’ve seen the shock and awe approach in energy, but also in trade in other areas because they are wanting to get things done and they they’re very ambitious. And they’re wanting to leave a mark, leave the United States more aligned with the vision that they want to go in. Because I think because of that, you have to assume that there is a pretty high likelihood here that they’re going to be more willing to push against convention, more willing to potentially push the envelope in ways. We might not be expecting. And as a result, I would argue that volatility is going to remain the name of the game for the foreseeable future.
Jason Price:
Alright, fantastic. Well, Andrea, you’ve been fantastic in sharing your insight here and we are now going to pivot to what we call the Lightning round, which gives us an opportunity to learn a little bit more about you, the person rather than you the professional. So I’m not throw a set of questions at you. I ask and keep your response to you know, short answer one word or phrase. So what’s your favorite type of media? To unwind when you want to get. Away from all the news.
Andrea Clabough:
History Podcast I’m a huge history buff.
Jason Price:
What’s a hobby you wish you had? More time for.
Andrea Clabough:
I’d go with gardening on that one.
Jason Price:
Who are your role models?
Andrea Clabough:
This one is a bit a bit personal. I would say my late grandmother, my Nana Bobby Research. She was a cocktail waitress here in Washington for many, many years, but had a deep love of politics and many stories. She’s a big part of why I’m in DC now.
Jason Price:
All right, we’re we collect lightning round questions from past podcast guests. We have one here from SP’s Mike Goggin. Who challenged the future? Yes, with the following question, what one decision did you make that changed the direction? Of your career.
Andrea Clabough:
For me, the big one was taking the leap, moving from Nashville, where I did my undergraduate degree and coming up here to Washington with no idea what I was going to do. But I knew I. Wanted to be and that was good enough.
Jason Price:
Now it’s your turn. What lightning round question do you want to challenge a future guest? And of course this can be. A topical 1 related to energy. Or can be an off the wall question your.
Andrea Clabough:
Call. I would say for that I would ask what is going to be the hot topic of discussion this time next year. So April 2026, what are we all going to be talking about?
Jason Price:
And lastly, what are you most motivated by?
Andrea Clabough:
I have a personal policy that I try to learn something new every day because I think if you’re always learning then you’re always growing.
Jason Price:
All right. Well, thanks for humoring us with this lightning round. So we want to give you the final word to the audience. So knowing that we’ve got, you know, utility leaders and energy stakeholders listening in. Let’s make sure that they, you know, leave the call, leave the show feeling optimistic. So putting it back on you. Andrea, any anything you want to share with us, anything that you wanna? Any closing thoughts that you would like to pass on to these professionals?
Andrea Clabough:
Yeah. So in my my career in, in the energy world, so far I’ve always been amazed at how endlessly changing and innovate. Many of the stakeholders and the players in this sector are. There’s a lot of problems. We talked about a lot of them today, but this industry, especially in the US, tends to be very good at finding solutions. So I would say whatever comes down the road, Hope springs eternal.
Jason Price:
OK, I think you hit the mark there. Nice. Well, we. Really appreciate again, your insight is really is really valued and I have. I’m fully confident that the membership at Energy Central. Will we’ll be. Talking quite some time about some of the high points that you covered on the call today. OK. So once again though, I want to thank you for joining the show and thank you. For this episode of the podcast.
Andrea Clabough:
Great. Thank you so much for having me. It’s been a pleasure.
Jason Price:
You can always reach Andrea through the central platform where she welcomes your questions and comments, and we also want to give a shout out of thanks to our our podcast sponsors that made today’s episode possible. Thanks to Wes Monroe, West Monroe is a leading partner for the nations largest electric, gas and water utilities working together to drive grid modernization. Clean energy and workforce transform. Mission Westerose comprehensive services are designed to support utilities in advancing the digital transformation, building resilient operations, securing federal funding and providing regulatory advisory support with a multidisciplinary team of experts. Westboro offers a holistic approach that addresses the challenges of the grid today and provides innovative solutions for a sustainable future. And once again, I’m your host Jason Price plug in and stay fully charged in the discussion by hopping into the community at energycentral.com and we’ll see you next time at the energy central Power Perspectives podcast.
About Energy Central Podcasts
Power Perspectives features conversations with thought leaders in the utility sector. At least twice monthly, we connect with an Energy Central Power Industry Network community member to discuss compelling topics that impact professionals who work in the power industry. Some podcasts may be a continuation of thought-provoking posts or discussions started in the community or with an industry leader that is interested in sharing their expertise and doing a deeper dive into hot topics or issues relevant to the industry.
Power Perspectives is the premiere podcast series from Energy Central, a Power Industry Network of Communities built specifically for professionals in the electric power industry and a place where professionals can share, learn, and connect in a collaborative environment. Supported by leading industry organizations, our mission is to help global power industry professionals work better. Since 1995, we’ve been a trusted news and information source for professionals working in the power industry, and today our managed communities are a place for lively discussions, debates, and analysis to take place. If you’re not yet a member, visit www.EnergyCentral.com to register for free and join over 200,000 of your peers working in the power industry.
Power Perspectives is hosted by Jason Price, Community Ambassador of Energy Central. Jason is a Business Development Executive at West Monroe, working in the East Coast Energy and Utilities Group. Jason is joined in the podcast booth by the producer of the podcast, Matt Chester, who is also the Community Manager of Energy Central and energy analyst/independent consultant in energy policy, markets, and technology.
If you want to be a guest on a future episode of Power Perspectives, let us know! We’ll be pulling guests from our community members who submit engaging content that gets our community talking, and perhaps that next guest will be you! Likewise, if you see an article submitted by a fellow Energy Central community member that you’d like to see broken down in more detail in a conversation, feel free to send us a note to nominate them. For more information, contact us at community@energycentral.com. Podcast interviews are free for Expert Members and professionals who work for a utility. We have package offers available for solution providers and vendors.
Happy listening, and stay tuned for our next episode! Like what you hear, have a suggestion for future episodes, or a question for our guest? Leave a note in the comments below.
All new episodes of the Power Perspectives will be posted to the relevant Energy Central community group, but you can also subscribe to the podcast at all the major podcast outlets, including:
