Critical Capital: Senator Tillis' case for "all-of-the-above" energy

This week, we’re presenting an episode of Critical Capital, a new podcast from Crux and Latitude Studios. Energy policy has become increasingly polarized just as the U. S. faces record electricity demand, a rapidly expanding AI economy, and growing competition from China. In this episode, Alfred Johnson speaks with North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis about why the country's biggest energy challenge is the inability to build durable, bipartisan policy that survives changes in political leadership. Drawing on more than a decade in the Senate, Tillis argues for an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that embraces renewables, natural gas, nuclear, and other generation sources rather than treating them as competing ideologies. He discusses the economic consequences of abruptly cancelling energy projects, the need for stable investment signals, and why rising electricity demand requires policymakers to focus on practical solutions instead of partisan rhetoric. Tillis also discusses domestic manufacturing, critical minerals, AI governance, and the importance of strengthening America's energy supply chains while remaining globally competitive. Subscribe to Critical Capital on Apple, Spotify, or any podcast platform.

• 0:02Speaker 00

  Latitude Media, covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.

• 0:08Speaker 01

  Hey, it's Stephen Lacy, the co-founder and executive editor of Latitude Media. I am here to throw something new into your listening rotation. It's a podcast called Critical Capital. This show is a collaboration between Latitude Studios and the team at Crux, and each episode explores how the clean economy is shaped by a complex web of policies, market dynamics, and capital flows. It's kind of the yin to catalyst yang, if you will. We don't cover politics here on Catalyst, and only occasionally, policy. It's largely tech-centric, and Critical Capital looks at how to scale those technologies across many different domains. Now, the episode you're about to hear is a policy conversation. It's a candid one with North Carolina Senator Tom Tillis, and it's especially timely.

• 0:50Speaker 01

  Months away from the end of his term, Tillis doesn't mince words. The biggest obstacle to scaling US energy is partisan whiplash. And at a moment when energy is becoming a political weapon, is there any hope in changing it? The show is hosted by Crux CEO Alfred Johnson. He has started multiple companies. He served in the Treasury Department and the White House, and has advised capital planning for public and private institutions. He acts as a translator across capital markets, policy, and infrastructure. And if you like it, you'll find a link to subscribe to Critical Capital in the show notes. And now, on to the episode with Alfred Johnson and Senator Tom Tillis.

• 1:29Speaker 02

  This crap of drill, baby drill, or if it ain't from the sun, it ain't cool. You know, that's just gotta go. That is, to me, foundational. Then that creates the basis to say, okay, now that we've got that over, none of this stuff is evil, all of it is necessary.

• 1:44Speaker 03

  Energy has become one of the defining political battlegrounds of our time. Meeting surging electricity demand, strengthening domestic manufacturing, and modernizing the grid all require practical, multi-technology solutions. But they often get swept up in ideological fights. Every election brings a new vision for America's energy future. One administration accelerates investments, and the next reverses course. Billion-dollar projects are approved, then abandoned. The reality is that meeting this moment requires long-term thinking in a political system increasingly focused on the next election instead of the next decade.

• 2:22Speaker 02

  What we need is a way to mobilize the middle, not on ideological grounds, but on behavioral grounds. Just go there and get shit done.

• 2:32Speaker 03

  This is Critical Capital.

• 2:44Speaker 03

  I'm Alfred Johnson, the CEO of Crux, the capital platform for the clean economy. My guest is Senator Tom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who regularly bucks the party line in favor of pragmatism, and who puts solutions ahead of politics. During more than a decade in the United States Senate, he's helped shape policy on everything from renewable energy and domestic manufacturing to AI, critical minerals, and the future of the grid. Senator Tillis argues that America's greatest obstacle isn't a lack of technology or capital, but our inability to build durable policy for the long term. And the urgency is only growing. Electricity demand is rising at the fastest pace in decades.

• 3:26Speaker 03

  Utilities are struggling to add generation and transmission fast enough to keep up. And global supply disruptions have heightened the national security imperative. I talked to Senator Tillis about how he brings his blunt and pragmatic approach to energy. Senator Tillis, it is a unique pleasure to have you on Critical Capital. I really appreciate you taking the time.

• 3:46Speaker 02

  My pleasure.

• 3:47Speaker 03

  I wanted to jump into the unique position that you sit in today. You joined the Senate 11 years ago. How have you seen the body change over the decade-plus that you've been in the seat?

• 3:59Speaker 02

  I think we've seen populism come into government likely to be here to stay. The populist eras of this country in the past were all really defined by a personality, and they lasted about as long as maybe one or two administrations. But here, I think what we've seen with Obama, kind of really creating modern-day populism at the same time that social media was coming about, the way we get our news, podcasts, all that stuff. I believe that we have entered a permanent populist stage in this country. And I think that social media is the amplifier and the sustainer. That is the biggest difference, even back when I was in the legislature for eight years. Vastly different. The social media and pundits and talking heads can get inside decision cycles

• 4:45Speaker 02

  and really create a lot of friction to decision-making. And a lot of people just jumping into the safe spot of going in their partisan corners. And so it has changed measurably, I think, in the last 11 years.

• 4:58Speaker 03

  How does it feel in the room, right? Like, if that is the backdrop, how is the dynamic with your colleagues different?

• 5:05Speaker 02

  It's different in that it's very difficult to create sustaining coalitions. Now, everything's transactional. You know, you don't have this general group of people. You know that ideologically, you have some alignment with, you want to get things done. I think that bench differs now. Everything's become highly transactional, and you have to do the work to figure out, you know, how do you get to the person's conscience, or get to their constituents, and get them to part with their conference, quite honestly? The three Cs I call of a vote decision-making.

• 5:37Speaker 03

  Senator, you use this word conscience, which is also, I think, the word that you used when you put out the notification that you wouldn't be running again around the time of the tax legislation last year. What has it felt like to be in this stage after announcing that you're not going to seek reelection? How do you relate to the position differently than you did before?

• 5:58Speaker 02

  I think it's all incrementally different. What really annoys me from time to time are lazy journalists. But if people look at me and think that somehow I became outspoken and free June 29th of last year, where the hell were you when I challenged the two-term Republican incumbent, the fair-haired child of the state legislature, to take my first legislative seat? I was a leper among Republicans for challenging this wonderful guy. So I entered politics, bucking my party and expecting more out of it. And then, and Trump won. I had a lot of differences with his words. I supported most of his policies, and we had a couple of dust-ups.

• 6:39Speaker 02

  I think if people are fair in their assessment, I have been generally independent. But I don't pick a fight just for a fight's sake. And I support the vast majority of the what. It's the how and the who that I usually have a problem with this administration. I have become unfiltered, as of July 29th last year, for a simple reason. People go, well, you're speaking more freely. I said, because I don't have to go through the cost-benefit. I no longer have to think about, well, I have to choose my words carefully because this could come up in a debate, or they could run an ad against me. I don't have to deal with that. So I get to use the language I like to use at the time that I want to use it, and I try to still show people respect. I'm unabashedly a conservative.

• 7:23Speaker 02

  I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm a Republican anymore, based on this less-than-lousy fair attitude we have to markets. But I can just speak freely. And if people don't like it, don't listen.

• 7:32Speaker 03

  I love it. So one particular analogy that you used earlier was people being in their corners. I was watching your questioning of AG Blanch recently, and you talked about how people are wearing their jerseys. The Democrats view things in their blue jersey, and the Republicans in their red jersey. And energy is a really interesting space, right? Because we need it in order to survive, and the landscape around it is only getting more complicated. And yet, people are still in their jerseys. How do you see the energy complex today as a legislator? And what do we need to do from a policy perspective to have smart energy policy?

• 8:12Speaker 02

  I'm so glad you brought that up. I wasn't 90 or 120 days into my tenure as a freshman in the perpetual minority when I approached the Democrats and said, you're about to make a massive mistake with a renewable portfolio standard modeled after California. You're going to be the first in the South. I had worked with investor-owned utilities as a partner of Pricewaterhouse. I said, this won't work. I said, would you be willing to get in a room, negotiate? And I'll see if I can go back and convince some of these people. Almost all of them, with the exception of maybe seven, had been there before me, convinced some of the Republicans to vote for it. They did, and we got a very successful RPS. I was trying to do what we need to do now.

• 8:57Speaker 02

  You need to recognize that we are in a transition. And this bullshit of, it's gotta be green, and drill, baby, drill, is the problem. Both have a place. And what was interesting, when we negotiated that renewable portfolio standard in the first legislature that I sat in, at that time, I remember the environmentalists loving natural gas. Okay, well, we're doing all the renewable energy credits and getting the RPS right. And they love natural gas, until they found out we had a shit-ton of it. And then they didn't want it anymore. Instead of recognizing it's a fraction of the carbon footprint of other hydrocarbons, and it should be a part of the transition that ultimately gets us to a fully renewable portfolio?

• 9:41Speaker 02

  Then they just start, oh, fracking, that's crazy stuff. So the point is, we've got to start all of the above, and we've got to understand the devastating economic consequences of this administration and their attack on wind and solar in particular. I was already at a place where you could convince me to ramp down solar tax credit. Back when I was negotiating the RPS and doing work back in, gosh, 2007? People were saying, well, we just need it until the mid-teens, or then 10 years. Well, we just need it till 2021. It's time for solar subsidies to find a sunset. The problem is, they did it too soon, and they did it in a precipitous manner. There are a lot of collateral damages as a result.

• 10:21Speaker 02

  Just like some of these wind projects that they've canceled that are 70%, 80%, 90% complete, it's sending a horrible signal, it's sending stranded costs. But let's keep in mind, when everybody goes, yeah, rock on, Tom, you're right, that Oersted project, shame on them for canceling. I mean, where were you when Biden absolutely destroyed XL Pipeline, and $2 billion of capital came out of the ground as a result of that? Both parties are responsible for where we are. And we are out of our minds if we want to lose the strategic advantage of getting this right as the most powerful and most successful economy on the face of the planet.

• 10:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, and it exists within this broader construct where energy demand is rising for the first time in a long time, and we just need shitloads more power.

• 11:07Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 11:07Speaker 03

  And so in that dynamic, how can we take away support for the energy complex?

• 11:12Speaker 02

  We can get our geek on here for a little bit, okay? Now let's go back and take a look at all these cancellations over the last year and the first year of the administration when they started hitting all these policies. These people, there are a lot of people here who apparently they've never been in business and so they don't necessarily understand the second, third order impacts. Okay, so I doubt seriously that anybody before they canceled or have attempted to cancel several projects, they say, let's find out more about the power purchase agreements that are actually forward agreements that expect these electrons to come to them. And how many of those power purchase agreements have been now that those electrons aren't coming, that's a part of aggregate demand that has to be satisfied while we're now

• 11:57Speaker 02

  getting all of this other demand that can't possibly be serviced just by traditional generation methods. How are we going to do that? Just asking basic questions like that, guys. I mean, if you're taking a definitive stand on power policy and you don't understand something as basic as a power purchase agreements that drive it, then you're not qualified to have that discussion respectfully.

• 12:18Speaker 03

  And again, it's playing through into the way that consumers and businesses pay for their energy. One of the things you warned when you came out to advocate for a longer wind down period on wind and solar was that it would play out in utility prices. We're seeing some of that.

• 12:34Speaker 02

  And now that the demand's going up, if we can't get these projects back online, I do want people to understand why some of these rates have spiked and they will have spiked because this administration decided to take those generation assets offline.

• 12:48Speaker 03

  And, okay, let's talk about China. So the other big clear threat that we have, energy prices are going up, we're in a different dynamic geopolitically and globally than we'd been in before. And there's increasingly competition that's coming from China on all aspects of the energy supply chain, including manufacturing where North Carolina has been a real leader. How do you see the imperative that we have today to make sure that domestic manufacturing for components, minerals, rare earths, all these things is sustainable and strong here in the United States?

• 13:22Speaker 02

  You know, I think it's one area where I'll give, I'm not here just to bash the current administration. I'm a Republican, I voted for the president. Like I said, I support the majority of the policies they're doing. It's the methodology and their priorities that I have a problem with. If we're going to deal with China and we're going to deal with onshoring manufacturing in the US, I think we're making a mistake by saying the way we counter China is to manufacture all of it here. I don't think that that's sustainable over time, not with the highly developed economy that we have. I think that we have to build a universe of supply chain links that are near shore or closer to our shores that we can build relationships with that benefit the neighborhood

• 14:07Speaker 02

  back here, maybe back in this hemisphere. I think if we spend a lot of time just by sheer brute force of getting industries back here, then we're going to lose them over time because you'd have to have the same administration to maintain the same priorities over time. A Democrat administration is probably going to take it a little bit differently. Now, one thing I will tell you is we should press our foot on the accelerator around any sort of minerals, rare earth, any kind of mineable inputs. I think we've got to get serious about it here in the US. We, I've been worked hard for years to get a permit for one of the largest deposits of lithium sponge mine in North America, which is only about 45 minutes outside of Charlotte. We got permits there. What we don't have are prices that make sense to go ahead and drive the project now. And but even when we do, we've got to deal with the not in my backyard people.

• 14:52Speaker 02

  Ironically here, these are all a bunch of China hatin' conservatives that for some reason don't like the idea of lithium being mined in spite of the fact it would be one of the most sophisticated electric driven mining operations that ever existed. So we got to overcome that stuff and make sure that we have our minerals extraction strategy in a good place, environmentally sustainable, but indigenous. That is critically important. That is a part of the supply chain we need here. Now, do we have to send it out to, in the case of this lithium mine, we won't. We'll have onsite processing, but we'll have to deal with processing and other things that may allow us create economic relationships with other players. I just think Fortress America and Bring It All Back Home is unsustainable.

• 15:35Speaker 02

  It's also not strategic with respect to geopolitical considerations, but we're going to have to have an administration that gets it. This administration won't budge on that.

• 15:44Speaker 03

  Yeah, the question is really what things, right? Like what things do we need to have here? What things can we afford to be in a nearshore ally? And I think lithium is a really interesting case because we saw the 45ex tax credit go into place on lithium, but then in that same period, China tanked the market on lithium prices, which made a bunch of the emerging projects less economic.

• 16:06Speaker 02

  That's exactly the posture we're in now with a, with the project in North Carolina.

• 16:11Speaker 03

  And so we're in this place where Democrats look at that and they say, we need lithium for batteries and the secure, clean supply chain. Republicans look at that and say, we need it for domestic security and energy security and all these things. Is that a place where you could see some more productive policy?

• 16:29Speaker 02

  Yeah, I do, but that's a longer term play. I mean, look, this Congress, we got 172 days left. Of those 172 days, we have fewer than 55 scheduled legislative days. So that's something we should be talking about, talking about now and doing something about in the next Congress. I just don't see it as a realistic, it's just a function of the capacity of the Congress in this Congress and the fact that it's an election year. So I just think if I were advising a client on it other than doing the missionary work and getting people bought into it, I just don't see it as being an outcome in this Congress.

• 17:01Speaker 03

  Yep, I agree with that. So talking about AI for a second, you use the example of colleagues and policymakers not knowing what a PPA is and then having a strong view on, on energy policy.

• 17:13Speaker 02

  And most members don't know how to spell AI.

• 17:16Speaker 03

  It is hard. And so we've got this incredibly complex, important new development in technology. What do you think smart policy around AI canon should look like?

• 17:29Speaker 02

  Well, I would, I would give you one example where I was one against 99 in a vote on the Senate floor last year to place a moratorium on state level AI regulations until we figured out a national framework. I thought other people, including the bill sponsor Ted Cruz, was going to vote for it, but apparently he voted against it because I guess the state's right people had convinced him and some of the other members that the founding fathers envisioned AI regulations to be imposed at the state level.

• 17:58Speaker 03

  They had strong views about that, I heard.

• 18:00Speaker 02

  Apparently they did. So I think we have to start by just saying, guys, number one, I've had to spend a lot of time with the, talking with the industry, as late as yesterday, the industry needs to coalesce around a governing framework. Think of a ISO 9000 sort of standards or whatever, but we, they need to coalesce around industry standards and then you're either certified or you're not. That is one way that you can point out the bad actors and the markets are necessarily going to go to a standards based sort of consortium of providers. I believe that that's something that they need to work on. We're on the, the brink of committing the same mistake with AI that we did with data privacy, data breach.

• 18:45Speaker 02

  People are not even talking about GDPR and the European failure of data privacy, data breach. They had to go back and fix it. Now we've got several dozen states that are regulating this. They're going to, they're going to lift up and do the same thing to AI to our detriment and it could create a real pacing threat for us and international competition. So I think it's a matter of getting the industry together and say, you've got ethicals, execution, operation standards you can use. Let's create a standards body and let's certify people around their behaviors so that you've got a seal of approval on the good guys and the upstarts or the unproven's. That's a piece of it. We need to convince Congress that we need a light handed approach, but time is of the

• 19:27Speaker 02

  essence because I'm afraid as quickly as AI is becoming part of all of our, there is not anyone who even thinks this AI stuff is not for them that are not touched by AI every day. We need to figure out before something really bad happens, something sympathetic. I mean, think, you know, something for children or whatever, something that gets us so emotional that we end up passing a Dodd-Frank for AI that we will take years digging ourselves out of and then our international competition gain the advantage on us. We've got to avoid that. The more we learn about AI, the more we can use its application for any of the ill wills of it. And incidentally, I was doing AI R and D in 1986 at Wang Laboratories in Boston.

• 20:10Speaker 02

  So it's not new, but for the languages and the processing capacity, the concept has always been there. At that time, though, it was just pattern recognition and voice to text translation, but that was considered AI. Languages have changed, processors have changed, large language models have been created. It's a different world, but I remember back then, well, my gosh, if you can do optical character recognition, what are all these typists going to be doing? Well, something else.

• 20:37Speaker 03

  Do you have a, a take on that? There's sort of this debate of is AI going to take all the jobs?

• 20:43Speaker 02

  You've got people saying now that, well, AI is going to take all the jobs. Therefore, AI needs to create a fund to pay people who will no longer have a job. That is absurd. Guys, we're going to get through this. It's a massive increment in capability. I was a partner at Price Waterhouse. If those firms have not already moved to AI and eliminated a lot of the brute force analytic, I don't know many of them have, I've seen some of the public report, they'd be out of their minds. Why would you do that? My goodness, I can remember I had projects where I'd have a team of five or 10 people that I would ask to get me something by the end of the day or by the end of the following day that I can get at the end of 30 seconds now, interacting with myself.

• 21:25Speaker 02

  What I think these folks need to do, and this, you know, I'm the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, and I brought this up the other day at one of our subcommittee hearings, I said, I feel like there's going to be an industry of copyrighting questions. Do y'all, do y'all agree with that in AI? They said, absolutely. So these people are being displayed. Let's think about those analysts, those PW analysts who may have lost their jobs or Price Waterhouse Coopers now. I'd be telling them, you already know fundamentally the questions. Now get smart on the questions that you need to ask AI to get the answers. That's your market because you've already got the underlying skill, master your ability to get AI to bend to your will. Come up with some of the most brilliant, complex questions that are almost, they're copyrightable, they're so unique.

• 22:11Speaker 02

  Focus on that, folks. The world's not going to end. I think we got a good 10, 15 years before the robots start eating everybody.

• 22:17Speaker 03

  That's a pretty optimistic take. Senator, how do you think you've been on both sides, right? You've been a businessman, you've been a partner at PWC, you've been a US Senator. How do you think the relationship between business and industry and Senate and policymakers needs to improve as we deal with these very large challenges that we collectively face?

• 22:39Speaker 02

  We got to get out of the business of, of business. We're at this place now where we've got equity stocks and 10 or so publicly traded corporations, a golden share that lets us veto board procedures for US Steel. We're micromanaging through tariffs and everything. That's what I don't want to do. We got to get back to the fundamentals of lean government, laissez faire politics, let the markets drive things and government exists to make them fair, period. But now, you know, we've got an administration that's vastly different from the first Trump administration, which was more laissez faire, let's lower taxes, lower regulations, let the, the industries go. And now in a year and a half, we've got equity stakes and billion dollar equity stakes

• 23:24Speaker 02

  and high tech companies. And I think that we're interacting and tinkering at a level that's reminiscent of the Hoover administration.

• 23:32Speaker 03

  So Senator, North Carolina has been such a leading state with respect to renewable energy, battery storage, all these different parts of the power complex. You're also a leading manufacturer of certain parts of the battery supply chain. What do you think that federally we can learn from the success in North Carolina?

• 23:51Speaker 02

  Well, I'm glad you ask because it kind of goes back to that first controversial thing that I did as a Republican to negotiate the renewable portfolio standard. Anybody that says, I, I, I, I did something probably means in Washington, anyway, probably means they didn't have much to do with it. We ended up getting that portfolio standard done and we laid the groundwork for a very successful solar industry and we laid the groundwork for a great track record of low CNI rates, commercial and industrial rates. And that laid the basis for what most people believe between that tax regulatory policy, energy policy. I think that's why North Carolina hit the cover off the ball for 10 years from 2011 to today, so 15 years now.

• 24:36Speaker 02

  So I think it's that sort of, you know, getting that balance right.

• 24:39Speaker 03

  What perspective does it give you on the way that the grid needs to change in the next phase as we deal with all this demand growth and, and the need for all these different kinds of sources?

• 24:49Speaker 02

  I really think that we need to incubate. I mean, there's a lot of smart people. NC State's a good example of a, of a university that focuses on all aspects of energy. So generation, transmission, distribution, efficiency, et cetera. I just think we've got to just keep churning through regulatory policy and business policy that makes people be as creative on the, the transmission component of energy as they are on everything. The, the infrastructure, in my opinion, we keep on trying to incrementally improve the existing infrastructure, right? And there's a lot of promising technology out there.

• 25:29Speaker 02

  How do we create incubators and how do we prioritize next generation wire, if it's wire, or other forms of low resistance media that get more electrons from the generation asset to the user and eliminate loss? Think about efficiency throughout the grid. One of the things I wanted to do in North Carolina, I just didn't have time, I was only Speaker for four years, but I wanted to establish North Carolina as having the most resilient and hardened grid in the United States. Because if you're doing site selection, particularly today, I think even with the data centers and some of these high tech manufacturing facilities, that's a differentiator.

• 26:10Speaker 02

  I've, I've helped with site selection before and I thought building a national reputation, well, you want to make sure when that light switch comes on, the light's going to come on, go to North Carolina was a message I wanted. Now nationally, we should be thinking about that. We have to think about distributed generation, resilient grids, new technologies for efficiency sake, so that some of your generation is just getting all those electrons that were generated, ultimately being used at the end use point. Those are the sorts of things we need to be thinking about.

• 26:39Speaker 03

  Do you think, noting that it's not going to happen in this Senate, do you think that there's policy potential on things like transmission, transformers, wiring, all this stuff that is holding up, building up the grid of the future?

• 26:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, I do, I do. But I also think that there needs to be some stimulative money for next generation thinking. I want to build a, a short-term plan and an intermediate plan based on the technologies that exist today or that you reasonably can expect will be there when you need them, when they come online. But I want to go a lot further than that. I want a Manhattan project, a, a kind of capability that we're not even thinking about. And that, that's what I mean. I, I came from research and development. So I'm saying, how, how do we go out there and get some real brainiacs to think about something that, that maybe we can give in state or federal resources to be deployed so that we're jumping ahead? And there's a lot of opportunity out there, but we need to, all right, well, you don't want to pick winners and losers?

• 27:35Speaker 02

  No, you don't. But you know, I don't mind placing a bet and placing a few hedge bets on what looked like to be the most promising next generation disruptive sort of capabilities as a way to fix it. If we don't, I don't know how you get it all done. Man, you've got so much demand for energy now. We already know we've got a generation deficit. We don't have a grid that could possibly pump it all through. And so we, we've got to do some planning to make sure that we don't have this one collective, uh, you know, a few years from now, when all this stuff starts coming online and the lights start flickering.

• 28:09Speaker 03

  Yeah, so I, I could not agree with you more. And, and then I think about this point that you made of people residing in their partisan corners and one administration does one thing and the next administration doesn't. If you think about how we could actually do something like that, actually do something like the Manhattan Project for energy and grid infrastructure, what do you think that would need to look like in light of today's political reality?

• 28:34Speaker 02

  I don't know. I, I, I think it's one where it's, it's going to be difficult to do until after we get through this crap of drill, baby, drill, or if it ain't from the sun, it ain't cool. So once you get over that irrational, kind of reminds me of that old commercial, you may be too young to remember it, taste great, less filling, beer commercial.

• 28:55Speaker 03

  Of course.

• 28:55Speaker 02

  Irrational argument, you know, it's goofy. Everybody laughed at it for that reason. Well, I, I feel the same way about this irrational argument that these people are having at either end of the spectrum. That is, to me, foundational. And until you can get people to understand how unresponsive that is to the challenge ahead of us and how unprofessional it is from a business standpoint, purely ideological, then that creates the basis to say, okay, now that we've got that over, we're going to allow a modicum and we'll have tiles to tune, but none of this stuff is evil, all of it is necessary. That lays the groundwork for then having the discussion, okay, now that we're a going concern, let's talk about how we can take this public, how we can get the multiple.

• 29:37Speaker 02

  But I think in the project management parlance, that's a finish to start relationship before you can start that other piece we're talking about.

• 29:44Speaker 03

  Yep. So as you think about departing, what advice do you want to impart on your remaining colleagues? And, and how do you think the body can move forward from here?

• 29:54Speaker 02

  My advice to the folks up here, don't let this place trick you into thinking what you do is who you are. Because if you are, you will invariably make decisions that could be only here to preserve your identity because this is who you think you are. And don't forget where you got elected, don't forget what your priorities were, and don't give a shit about threats from anybody because this is just another job. And if you're worth anything, you can find the next one.

• 30:22Speaker 03

  Senator, what a great place to leave it. I think the principal feeling that I have as we end the conversation is a profound sense of loss that you will not be in that chamber anymore, but I'm excited to see whatever it is you do next because I imagine that there's going to be some bullies that are punched in the face and a lot of shit that gets done.

• 30:40Speaker 02

  If I have my way, that's, that's exactly right. I really enjoyed it. Thank you, man.

• 30:45Speaker 03

  Tom Tillis is a United States Senator from North Carolina. Critical Capital is co-produced by Crux and Latitude Media. Our production team includes John Sheehan, Jenna Herzog, Ann Bailey, Stephen Lacy, and Sean Markwank. Matthew Filler mixed the show. Additional production by Emily Hughes and the excellent team at Crux, the capital platform for the clean economy. You can find Critical Capital on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Alfred Johnson. Thanks for listening.