Is 'Gold Standard’ for Energy Data in Trouble?

Everyone from energy executives to traders on Wall Street to policymakers across the US depend on accurate, timely information about energy production, consumption, and trends. At the heart of this critical infrastructure sits the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of S&P Global, has called EIA’s data the “gold standard.” But while the amount and complexity of energy data is growing, federal support for ensuring robust energy data collection is waning. The agency underwent substantial staffing cuts this spring — part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s reductions. After the EIA’s most recent Annual Energy Outlook forecast the growth of renewables, the Department of Energy criticized the findings.  So how vulnerable is the agency to losing more support from the administration? What’s at stake if EIA cannot retain or recruit people with expertise in not only traditional energy but emerging fields, like critical minerals? And who else stands to lose if the agency that provides national energy data collection and objective analysis falters?  This week, Bill Loveless speaks to former EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski about the state of play at the EIA and what is at risk if support for the agency continues to erode.  Adam is a senior advisor to the board at KAPSARC, a non-profit energy, economics, and sustainability think tank in Saudi Arabia, where he earlier served as president. He was the administrator of the EIA from 2012 to 2017. Prior to joining the government, Adam spent years as Deutsche Bank's chief energy economist and integrated oil company analyst.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Before it invaded Ukraine, Russia was Europe's single largest supplier of imported natural gas. But now that the European Union is considering an outright ban on all Russian gas by the end of 2027, Russia is pivoting to Asia, courting China as both a crucial new market for its gas and an important geostrategic ally. When Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to China at the end of August, the visit produced a series of cooperation agreements. Among them: a deal between Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation to advance the long-discussed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, a massive project that, if completed, could send 50 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas to China each year. But the announcement is short on many details, including pricing, financing, and a timeline. So what — beyond symbolism — does this deal actually deliver for both Russia and China in the short term? What prompted China to sign the agreement after years of delays? And what does it tell us about China's efforts to diversify its energy imports?  This week, Jason speaks with three scholars from the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Anne-Sophie Corbeau, Tatiana Mitrova, and Erica Downs, about the possible impacts of the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline agreement. The trio also recently co-authored a post about the PoS2 news on the CGEP website.   Anne-Sophie is a global research scholar at CGEP, where she focuses on hydrogen and natural gas. She previously worked as a senior analyst at BP and the International Energy Agency. Tatiana is a CGEP research fellow with twenty five years of experience dealing with Russian and global energy markets. Erica is a senior research scholar at CGEP, where she focuses on Chinese energy markets and geopolitics. Earlier in her career she held senior roles in the China Studies program of the CNA Corporation and at Eurasia Group. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

The rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has reshaped America's climate and energy landscape by cutting tax incentives for wind and solar power and electric vehicles while maintaining some federal support for sources like nuclear reactors and geothermal plants.  While there is some uncertainty about how those policy changes will play out, there are even broader questions about what this all means for the Republican Party’s energy policy agenda and approach to climate change.  So where is the party headed and what could bipartisan cooperation on energy policy look like in today's Washington? Can Republicans and Democrats still find common ground on issues like climate adaptation, energy security, and permitting reform? And what is shaping the Republican Party’s approach to energy policy?  This week, Jason talks to Carlos Curbelo about the current state of Republican thinking on energy and climate policy. Carlos is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He served Florida's 26th congressional district from 2015 to 2019. During his time in Congress, Carlos was a leading Republican voice on climate policy, co-founding and co-chairing the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. After leaving Congress, Carlos served as a distinguished visiting fellow at the Center for Global Energy Policy. He also co-founded Vocero, a communications and strategic consulting firm based in South Florida. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Jensen Huang, who founded NVIDIA in the early 1990s and built it into one of the most valuable companies in the world today, has thought a lot about AI's impact on global energy and climate systems.  Jensen has much to say about AI's potential benefits for energy innovation, power demand for AI, and a range of related topics, as David Sandalow — the inaugural fellow here at the Center on Global Energy Policy — learned when interviewing him. Today, we’re bringing you their conversation in full from the AI Energy and Climate podcast which originally aired in April of this year.  Jensen and David explore why AI requires so much energy, but also how the technology can actually reduce energy consumption in applications from weather forecasting to manufacturing. Jensen describes innovations like silicon photonics that could save megawatts of power in data centers, and he shares a few ideas for using AI to improve efficiency in the industrial and power sectors. Moreover, he explains his vision for what he calls “AI factories” — and how they could be powered in ways that can reduce strain on the grid. Jensen Huang is the president of NVIDIA, which he founded in 1993 to advance accelerated computing. In 1999, NVIDIA released the GeForce 256 which it called “the world’s first GPU”. It became a key enabler of PC gaming and computer graphics, and ignited the era of modern AI.  

In July, the Trump administration released what it calls an AI action plan. In it, along with several executive orders, the White House lays out its vision for building and expanding the country’s AI infrastructure.  Key tenets of that vision include removing regulatory hurdles and accelerating US dominance in the industry. It also has broad energy and security implications. So how could the administration's high-risk, high-reward approach increase US market share in AI? Will it create tensions with major AI companies while potentially democratizing access to AI capabilities? And how does the plan diverge from Biden-era AI support, especially around environmental and energy considerations? To discuss the action plan, we convened some of the leading AI experts at the Center for Global Energy Policy in early August, and this week on Columbia Energy Exchange we are sharing an audio recording of their discussion.  David Sandalow, CGEP’s inaugural fellow and the host of the AI, Energy and Climate podcast, moderated the panel. David also co-directs the Energy and Environment Concentration at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and was the lead author of the “Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap” report for the Innovation for Cool Earth Forum. Aaron Bartnick, Jared Dunnmon, and Ashley Finan joined David on the webinar. Aaron Bartnick is a global fellow at CGEP, where he focuses on technology and economic security. He also serves as chief of staff at the neural engineering company Science Corporation and as a fellow at Carnegie Mellon University’s Critical Technology Initiative. Jared Dunnmon is a non-resident CGEP fellow and the co-founder and chief scientist of a maritime logistics startup. He previously served in the Department of Defense as technical director for artificial intelligence at the Defense Innovation Unit, was vice president of future technologies at battery firm Our Next Energy, and was an early team member at Snorkel AI. Ashley Finan is a CGEP global fellow who previously served in senior leadership roles at Idaho National Laboratory, where she worked on nuclear energy and national security issues.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

After President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Modi met in the White House back in February, US-India relations appeared to be on solid ground. Back then, Trump was still confident he could broker a quick resolution in Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Then, last week, the Trump administration said that if India continues to import Russian oil, the US will double tariffs on Indian goods, starting August 27. This move threatens to undermine relations between the US and India — and it could impact more than India’s energy imports. The dispute is forcing bigger questions about India’s approach to foreign policy and the country’s long-standing policy of strategic autonomy. So will India bow to US pressure and reduce its Russian energy imports? Or will India continue to import a significant amount of oil from Russia? And what does all of this mean for global energy markets  and the use of coercive economic tools like tariffs or sanctions in the years ahead? In this special episode of Columbia Energy Exchange, Jason speaks with Richard Nephew, Tatiana Mitrova, and Shayak Sengupta about this latest development in President Trump’s trade war. Richard Nephew is a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) and former US Deputy Special Envoy for Iran, where he played key roles in economic sanctions policy. Tatiana Mitrova is a global fellow at CGEP and former deputy director general of the National Energy Security Fund in Moscow. She brings deep expertise on Russian energy markets. Shayak Sengupta is a senior research associate at CGEP and leads its India program. He’s an expert in South Asian energy policy and US-India relations. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by James Rowlands.  

President Trump’s threat to double tariffs on Indian goods, to 50%, as punishment for the country’s continued purchase of Russian oil, puts India in an untenable position. The US is its top export market, but India is deeply reliant on importing energy to support the needs of its 1.4 billion people. As the world's most populous nation and one of its fastest-growing economies, India faces unprecedented energy demands and also pressure to meet that demand with clean energy. Today, around 70 percent of the country’s electricity comes from coal — a major contributor to air pollution in India’s large cities. So how can India meet its fast-growing energy needs while also ensuring energy affordability, equity, and public health? Where is India in making progress toward deploying clean energy? What role might conventional energy continue to play? And how does India’s relationship with China factor into its decarbonization efforts? This week, Jason talks to Sunita Narain about the state of India’s clean energy transition. Sunita is executive director of the Centre for Science and Environment, a research and advocacy center where she has worked since 1982. In 2016, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

The US Environmental Protection Agency plans to rescind the foundation of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.  Eliminating the so-called “endangerment finding” is a key part of President Trump’s efforts to reverse Obama- and Biden-era climate policy. The finding was also targeted in the conservative Project 2025 strategy to reshape the federal government. But the rollback won’t happen without a fight, and the endangerment finding has held up to past legal challenges. Meanwhile, international courts are moving in the opposite direction. The International Court of Justice recently ruled that countries have legal obligations to address climate change and that fossil fuel subsidies could constitute "internationally wrongful acts." So what would overturning the endangerment finding mean for US climate policy? What legal and scientific arguments is the administration using? And how do these conflicting domestic and international trends shape the future of energy and climate policy? This week, Bill speaks to Michael Gerrard about how the EPA is rescinding its own ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Michael is the founder and faculty director of Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Before joining Columbia in 2009, Michael practiced environmental law in New York for three decades. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Six months in, President Trump’s trade war has entered a new phase. Just this weekend, the European Union agreed to a trade deal that includes a promise to buy $750 billion worth of American energy products over the next three years. And this week, with the August 1 tariff deadline looming, the US and China have restarted negotiations. Trump has been using tools of economic warfare since his first term. And the Biden administration embraced policies such as steep tariffs on electric vehicle imports from China, and levying sanctions against Russia aimed at stifling its energy sector.  These economic chokepoints are part of a broader shift of the global economy. Countries are weaponizing economic power through sanctions, tariffs, and export controls — tools that were designed before the complex geopolitical competition we see today.  So how did we get here? What does this new age of economic warfare mean for global stability and the global economy? And how might these tools reshape everything from energy markets to global banking systems in the years ahead? This week, we’re revisiting a conversation Jason Bordoff had with Eddie Fishman about his book "Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare," which came out in February. The book traces the evolution of economic warfare from the “War on Terror” to today's great power competition. Eddie is a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy and an adjunct professor at Columbia University SIPA. He also serves as an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Additional support from Martina Chow and Richard Nephew. This episode was engineered by Sean Marquand and Gregory Vilfranc. Note: This episode is a re-run. It was originally published on February 11, 2025.

Countries around the world, including the US, are rushing to secure critical mineral supply chains. As these essential resources, which are key to building clean energy infrastructure, become a major focus in policy and trade discussions, Latin America sits at the center of the competition. It is home to vast lithium reserves in the Lithium Triangle and it holds nearly 40% of the world's copper deposits.  But recent price volatility and geopolitical concerns have created new challenges. Early this month, President Trump announced a 50% tariff on copper imports, further jolting markets as copper prices jumped over 13% in a single day.  So how are countries in the region navigating these new trade and market realities? Can Latin America build mineral supply chains that are more resilient to geopolitical shocks? And how are these governments responding to the environmental and economic concerns of Indigenous and local communities? This week, Jason speaks with Juan Carlos Jobet, Tom Moerenhout, and Diego Rivera Rivota about Latin America’s critical mineral supply chain. Juan Carlos is the dean of the School of Business and Economics at Adolfo Ibáñez University and Chile's former Minister of Energy and Mining and a former distinguished visiting fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy.  Tom leads the Critical Materials Initiative at the Center on Global Energy Policy and is a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.  Diego is a senior research associate at the Center on Global Energy Policy. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O’Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.