David Turk on Clean Energy in America and Around the World
As the world races to meet the standards imposed in the Paris Agreement—and as U.S. climate leadership has swung dramatically from Biden-era clean energy expansion to Trump-era withdrawals—the stakes of the global energy transition have never been higher. With rising temperatures and more frequent natural disasters, progress demands real action. In this interview, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk speaks on his time leading the energy transition globally, along with his work done at the United States Department Of Energy (DOE) during the Biden Administration. At the DOE, he was essential in advising the implementation of historic clean energy legislation, as well as establishing innovative programs like Energy Earthshots, bold targets put forward by the DOE to enable the energy transition. Prior to his time at the DOE, Turk was the Deputy Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, leading the energy transition globally. Currently, David Turk is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Columbia SIPA’s Center for Global Energy Policy.
Parini Rao (PR): You've had an incredibly wide ranging career from the Senate to the National Security Council, the State Department, and the International Energy Agency. What originally drew you to energy and climate work, and how have those different roles shaped your approach to clean energy today?
David Turk (DT): I feel incredibly fortunate. I've had some really, just terrific career experiences and, some of it, kind of being in the right place at the right time. Hopefully some of it is showing myself to be a team player and someone who's really mission oriented and just having some really good opportunities. So I started my career working a little bit more on national security issues, but really found myself drawn again and again, to climate change and to environmental sustainability in particular. It just was something that really, was a core passion of mine has been a core passion of mine, for many, many years and decades. And I also really enjoy working on the international side as well. So many of my experiences have been helping countries, not only here in the US, but around the world, to help accelerate their own clean energy transitions. So through a series of different jobs and opportunities, I've sort of found what I've really wanted to do and really feel lucky to be able to do it.
PR: Continuing on with how you talked about the global perspective that you've developed over the years, having served at the International Energy Agency and now leading U.S. clean energy efforts, how do you see the global coordination effort evolving? Do you think the international community is moving fast enough together for this energy transition?
DT: So the short answer is, no. No one's doing enough, right? Math is pretty unforgivable in terms of what's required of countries and everyone around the world, in order to, reduce the consequences of climate change and try to mitigate as much as we can. Some countries are making some significant progress, which is great. We see a lot more solar energy being used these days. Certainly, other kinds of renewable storage. But we've still got a long way to go and it's not just electricity, of course, we need to decarbonize. It's transportation, which is the largest source of our emissions here in the US. It's buildings, it's industry all across the board. So a lot more work needs to happen. I kind of view the global challenge very pragmatically. What are the full ranges of incentives? Some could be moral incentives. Some could be financial incentives. What are the range of incentives for making sure everybody's doing their part? Businesses are doing their part. Investors are doing their part. Policymakers are doing their part. We've got some pieces of that architecture in place and some parts of it are working. But, a lot needs to be worked on still because we've got a lot more work to do.
PR: Going off of that global stage we are talking about, when it comes to leadership on that global stage, are there any particular countries or partnerships that you think are leading the way in innovating in especially compelling ways?
DT: Well, I think the thing, for humanity, speaking more broadly, to get our act together on something like climate change, global climate change, it's going to require a lot of different people from a lot of different perspectives and perches. You know, with the recent passing of the most recent pope, who was very focused on climate change—he really tried again and again, throughout his tenure. It's the world's most vulnerable people who get impacted by climate change or any other, any other challenge that's shared by humanity. So you can look at everyone from a pope to an entrepreneur who's trying to develop a new fusion company or an enhanced geothermal company or a new type of battery storage. You need policymakers. There's been such an inspirational group of folks, politicians in the US and other countries, really making climate change a real priority. Governor Inslee, former Governor from Washington state is a good example. But there's any number of examples, including some folks I've had a chance to work with, like Secretary Granholm and President Biden and a number of folks in the previous administration, going forward. There's a lot of roles for advocates as well, and people who are going to really hold everyone accountable. I think one of the big reasons we made so much progress over the last decade, 15 years, was a lot of young people stepping up, making climate change a priority. Whether it's Greta Thunberg or any number of other folks who, you know, were trying to call out what's happening and what's not happening. And so everybody has a role to play.
PR: So beyond the federal level, there's a lot happening in these state and local communities. What role do you see for these state governments, local communities or even the private sector in accelerating the energy transition? And can they make any progress without full federal alignment?
DT: So it's certainly easier in our country to make progress if the federal government is stepping up. Luckily in the Biden administration, we made a lot of progress with a whole bunch of grant programs, loans, but also tax incentives that exist to this day and exist, until they're repealed. I've spent a lot of time on this in recent weeks, with different members in the Senate, in the House and staff. Hopefully Congress will appreciate that not only are these tax incentives useful on climate change, but they're incredibly useful to help people save money, right. If you're going to put solar on your house and you save 30%, which is what happens right now in the tax incentives, that's good for the environment, but it's good to save you money as a consumer so that you're paying less on your electricity bills, month to month. So, there's a really strong case to maintain these tax incentives, even beyond the climate impact that they're having. So hopefully we'll continue to have, in one way or another, some federal government support, even if it's not the robust kind of support that we saw in the previous president, and that we hopefully will see in future presidents. President Trump is not a climate changer. No surprise that priority in terms of what he's doing. But, even with a president who's not as forward leaning as I would certainly like, states, local governments have incredibly important roles to play. I think one part that's maybe underappreciated is as states, local governments or even foreign governments make progress and show that progress is to be had and that you can do the right thing on the climate change front and environmental sustainability, and you can have a robust economy. You can have reduced costs for consumers. You can make sure everybody's benefiting from these technologies. It's a success story. I think the more we have success stories of communities, of states, of other governments making progress, the easier it is for others to then join. Right? You need leaders and followers. So I think we're going to see that, more and more in our own country and in other countries as well. Then, of course, you also need the private sector. You need the private sector leadership.This is where I was talking earlier about incentives. This is where it's so important to have policies like tax incentives, so that you can ensure that the private sector companies are responsible for their shareholders and are responsible to turn a profit. You just need to have a level playing field and internalize those externalities, internalize those costs that don’t just get naturally taken care of. That’s why you need strong policies so that the private sector can be unleashed, incented to do what they need to do, to do this at scale. And we’ve got some of those pieces of architecture like the tax incentives, but certainly not nearly as much as we need to.
PR: At the DOE, you focused a lot on early stage innovation, particularly with the launch of Energy Earthshots, which are bold targets put forward by the DOE to enable the energy transition. Could you talk a little bit more about the thinking behind Energy Earthshots, and what are the most exciting developments you're seeing so far? And how do you think the private sector is responding to these Earthshots?
DT: I think the important thing to underscore is you need to focus on a whole range of technologies because we need to decarbonize electricity, and transportation, and all different kinds of industries, and buildings. You need a variety of different technologies at cost competitiveness so that they're utilized widely and we get the impact, the benefits, from those technologies. So we've made some progress in some technology areas. Solar’s a great example where costs have been reduced so much over recent years, and it's now the cheapest form of energy in many, many places around the country. For storage, battery storage, but other different storage options, the costs have been reduced and now that technology is being utilized, at scale. What we need to do is focus on the deployment of those technologies that are cost competitive and do it at scale and as quickly as possible. But at the same time, we need to focus on innovation so we have the full range of technology solutions at the price levels that we need to have them. So what are the transportation solutions? How do we deal with making steel in a less carbon intensive way? Or aluminum or cement or any number of other industrial processes. So the Earthshots were really about focusing, in a few key areas, that are a significant part of overall global emissions ambitions in the US, and put some really smart people with some resources behind it. So the Earthshots was a sort of call to arms for all of our national laboratories, for universities, for smart people, for entrepreneurs to say, let's try to reduce the cost of producing hydrogen from the sun or from renewables, to a price point where it is competitive in a lot of different applications. Let's try to have enhanced geothermal that's drilling deeper than traditional geothermal—and you can produce 24 over seven clean power if you're able to do that. The technology's there, we just need to reduce those costs and keep reducing those costs, and that's what the earth shots were really about. Trying to do that in a concentrated, very focused way so it doesn't take 50 years to develop the technology we need. It takes five years, ten years, or as quick as we possibly can.
PR: You mentioned some of the barriers that are in the way with a program like Energy Eartshots and just in general, the clean energy transition. With this innovation like Energy Earthshots, do you think there are other things in the way, maybe technological or political, that are holding back these public and private groups?
DT: Certainly. You know, there's certainly political obstacles and political challenges. We talked earlier about President Trump and having a president elected in our country who’s not only not forward leaning in terms of stepping up and doing what's needed to reduce our own emissions and not working with countries around the world to reduce their emissions as well. We have the opposite, in which he’s actually leaning into extending coal—or actually having more power produced by coal—which is the most carbon intensive form of power production there is. So, there are political obstacles. What we need to do there is again, everybody needs to do their part. Young people need to step up. All of us who are a little bit older need to step up and put pressure on each other, cajole each other, convince each other, have honest conversations with each other about what the consequences are and why we need to step up. What’s the impetus for stepping up, and having the kinds of political leadership that we need out there. So there's definitely political obstacles. Another obstacle, I’d say is, inertia more generally. Utilities, businesses, and others are used to doing things in a certain way, and it takes something to get them out of their usual thinking, right? If they've always produced power by coal or by gas, it takes some work to say, “Yeah, there's a smarter way to do it—there's a more environmentally friendly way to do it.” Because costs have been reduced, you can do solar, storage, virtual power plants and enhanced geothermal. So there's a lot of inertia that's been built up in the system for decades and it requires a lot of interventions by a lot of people to come in and shake things up so that we actually get the kind of pace and scale of change we need.
PR: Do you think you can give some examples of the type of intervention or policies that would get these large utilities or other groups to, as you said, to fight against the inertia and become more active in the energy transition.
DT: So a few examples. These are examples that we did in the previous administration, although many of those tools remain in the tool belt and hopefully won't be repealed by Congress. So, think about power generation. Right now you can produce power from coal, from natural gas, from solar or from wind, from hydro, nuclear or a whole range of different technology areas. But the tax incentives put in place by President Biden under the Inflation Reduction Act have a technology neutral, 30% tax credit for using clean energy. Clean energy, defined by that that doesn’t produce carbon dioxide emissions. There are certain rigorous thresholds of what's required for solar or for other nuclear, for other technologies. So that 30% bonus, 30% reduced costs, is a way to get around the inertia. So if a utility is sitting there and they're thinking: oh, do I put more natural gas or coal on the grid, or do I do solar or storage? And they get 30% less for doing the environmentally responsible thing to do. That is a way to push against that inertia and have them do solar at scale or storage at scale or other clean energy technologies at scale. So that's one example.
Second example is, we got a lot of grant money. The last four years, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and then there was another piece of legislation called The Bipartisan Infrastructure Legislation. The Department of Energy was given about $100 billion in grant money. That grant money, again, we put it out competitively for companies to bid for. It usually has a cost share, where the company would put in 50% of the costs for a new clean hydrogen facility or a new storage facility, or a new industrial demo of how to produce clean steel, green steel. Then the government would put in 50%. So again, that's a way to say, “Hey, company, you can make money by doing the right thing because there's the government who's going to put in some money and de-risk that technology and make it more affordable.”
A third example is our loan program. This was a program that provided a loan very early on for Tesla, back when Tesla was up and coming. [Elon] Musk doesn’t like to talk about how he got some help in the early days from the federal government, but that loan program is something we’ve really ramped up. And again, if you can get a cheaper loan from the federal government, that helps you do, again, the right thing from an environmental perspective, but be able to save money and reduce your risks going forward. There’s all sorts of different tools in the tool belt to help get around or help move us beyond that inertia.
PR: We're at a moment where, as you mentioned, the political landscape can drastically shift energy policy. As you mentioned, the Trump administration has prioritized fossil fuel expansion and withdrawn from key climate and energy agreements, arguing that this benefits economic growth. From an energy policy standpoint, what is the best way to make progress on the energy transition, but also continue to meet AI and data center needs in a way that won't hurt us in the long run?
DT: Well… a lot more data centers and AI [centers] are being built. One of our national labs, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in California, did an estimate recently of how much power these AI data centers are going to be using in the US. Right now, about 4.0-4.4% of our electricity generated in our country goes to data centers, a portion of which is, say, AI, but a growing portion. Their estimate is by 2028, it could be as high as 6.7% or even 12% of overall electricity is going to AI data centers. So that's a big increase. The opportunity is why don't we work with those big hyperscalers, think Google, think Meta, think Microsoft, including these companies that have really ambitious clean energy targets. Let’s help de-risk, enhance geothermal. Let's help de-risk some of these technologies that aren’t as cost competitive now, but could be, especially with the financial backing of some of these big hyperscaling companies. So they can be forces for good for accelerating not only clean energy used for their own AI data centers, but to reduce the cost that then could be used for other sources of electricity demand in our country and countries around the world. So that’s a really exciting opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons as they say.
PR: Given all of the complexity and urgency of the energy transition, what gives you the most optimism right now for the future of clean energy, whether it's growing technology, public support, anything?
DT: Well, I have to say, it's really the people. Like I was inspired by the people I worked with, and the US Department of Energy over the last four years. Unfortunately, many of those people are being forced, one way or another, from their government jobs, people who devote themselves to public service, being forced to leave or, you know, the morale being so low that they feel like they have to leave. But, it's the caliber of those kinds of people. It's been great being part of the Columbia University environment and getting to talk to so many people who are making careers or thinking about making their careers in clean energy and climate. You know what I told different folks when I met with them? The only way we succeed in something as challenging and global as climate change, is if you get a lot of people in a lot of different places making a career out of it and bringing their passion to it. And so that's what gives me hope. There are challenges right now, including in the federal government, but the caliber and the numbers of people getting involved and making careers in this space is really inspiring. So that's what gives me hope fundamentally.
PR: Is there anything else that you'd like to talk about, that I didn't touch on today? As you mentioned, the Columbia community. Is there anything that would be helpful that you want to tell Columbia students or anybody listening to this today?
DT: One last thought is, there are so many different careers that people can pursue if they want to focus on climate change or clean energy. It doesn't just have to be as a scientist or as an engineer. We need people who are business majors, who want to be entrepreneurs and set up companies and run companies and push against the inertia that we talked about earlier. We need lawyers, smart lawyers who are going to be dedicated to making sure the laws are written and structured in a way. We need people who are going to run for public office. We need people who are project managers who just make sure that the trains run on time. And so your projects can be as cheap as they possibly can. So I can't think of a major that someone might be interested in that couldn't have either directly, indirectly, 100%, or at least some portion of their professional career focused on climate change. And so we need that interdisciplinary nature, and we need a lot of people. We need scientists talking to engineers, talking to politicians, talking to business folks. That's why it's so exciting to be in a place like Columbia, where you have smart people and all of those schools and disciplines, hopefully connecting dots.
The current state of the world’s climate is defined by unprecedented natural disasters, rising temperatures, and damages that can no longer be ignored. At a moment when U.S. clean energy efforts remain deeply tied to politics, David Turk reminds us of the many ways progress is still possible. No matter the major or discipline, students today will help shape the future of the global energy transition. As the world moves forward, we will see how the next decade determines the pace and direction of clean energy in the United States.
In the end, Mr. Turk leaves us with a simple challenge: stay informed and engaged. Recognize that the transition won’t happen without people willing to push it forward. The choices we make now will determine the future we live in.
Parini Rao (BC ’28) is a Content Editor at the Columbia Political Review, studying Political Science and Statistics.