Aired Sep 22, 2026 · 35 min

Listen on: YouTube · Spotify · Apple Podcasts

Heather Reams spent about a decade working to bring more Republicans into the conversation around climate and clean energy policy.

In this episode of Power Perspectives, she shares what she learned from working directly with lawmakers, why clean energy politics often depend on local economics and geography, and how rising electricity costs and demand are changing the conversation.

We also explore where bipartisan agreement exists—and where it breaks down—on issues including permitting reform, grid modernization, nuclear energy, renewables and emerging technologies. Plus, Reams explains why she believes affordability and energy abundance are becoming increasingly important forces in U.S. energy politics.

Matt Chester: What does it actually take to get Republicans to engage seriously on climate and energy policy? Heather Reams spent nearly a decade working on exactly that question, building bipartisan support for clean energy from inside the conservative movement. Now as we're approaching the midterm elections and everything from data centers to affordability has thrust energy back into the political spotlight, she joins us on Power Perspectives to talk about how to truly build that bipartisan coalition for climate and clean energy action among an ever-changing political landscape.

So Heather, talk to us a bit about the work you did at Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions or CRES. You spent this time bringing climate conversations to politicians who maybe weren't inherently engaged in that on their own. What prompted the need for this and what did that work actually look like in practice?

Heather Reams: Climate change and accelerating clean energy is more than a partisan issue. It's a bipartisan issue. It's an American issue. So when one side of the aisle, mainly Democrats, were working on this issue, it seemed like we were just one more meeting the moment. And number two, that Republicans have valuable input into what's going on in terms of clean energy and, of course, the effects of climate change. After all, a lot of the clean energy projects are in red districts. So trying to give them a voice, but even more so an understanding of what's going on in their district.

There were times in like 2016, 2017, when I would meet with a Republican member of Congress who said, I've never had anyone come in and explain to me the type of economic development and the jobs that, that are happening in my district. Now, that's not to cast blame. It's just to show that Republicans were on the sidelines to a lot of these conversations. And we know when members are educated, they can at least be more informed. They may not take the vote that we want them to take like how we solve complex problems in the United States, Republicans, Democrats, Americans coming together and solving them. That wasn't happening. So that was really the genesis of creating. We call it CRES. And I led the organization for 10 years doing this work.

Matt Chester: Great. And we want to definitely dive into more on that. But I know you recently left CRES. I'm curious what prompted that move after nearly a decade. I mean, 10 years is a long time.

Heather Reams: And there's kind of a moment right now. I see that there is a time where I think Republicans are there, right? Not saying they're there and they're voting the way everyone wants to. I know that might make everyone's hair stand on fire. Like, wait a minute. And that's not happening. But Republicans are aware of the economic development that's happening in their district. They're aware of where Democrats stand on the issue. There are more nuanced opinions about clean energy and on climate. Now we're dealing with accelerated demand. How quickly can we meet the demand along with AI, electrification, reshoring, unshoring, manufacturing, and it's becoming more of a bipartisan issue. So we're kind of at an inflection point. And I feel like, you know, job is done in terms of why I was hired and it's always time to move on.

Matt Chester: Fair enough. No. And you're right. The conversation has shifted and the work's not done, but it's interesting to hear that from from the inside. You think a lot of that work was accomplished. And I'm sure backing that is a lot of incredible stories. And I'd love if you could take us inside the office of a lawmaker where you feel you genuinely changed their mind on these clean energy topics. You know, what did they believe when you walked in? What was the evidence that moved them? And what change were they willing to make afterward?

Heather Reams: I can think of two that really stood out to me. One was Senator Thom Tillis, who had served in the North Carolina legislature for a long time. I would say he was a denier. He certainly wasn't a believer. But several years back, there were a number of hurricanes that came through the Gulf and then came up through North Carolina. There was also a direct hit in North Carolina as well. And these were like Category 5, like one after the other. And if you're from a coastal state, you know that Category 5s just don't happen all the time. And I know there's a conflation between weather and climate. But in this case, the senator was like, something's changed. And I'm willing to admit that I was wrong or I need to change my opinion because some things change.

And before an organization like CRES, there was nowhere for these members to go. Like, okay, I believe in this. What am I going to do? Who am I going to go talk to? Before organizations like CRES or ClearPath or the American Conservation Coalition, there weren't a lot of places to go. So this was like, okay, can we come in and give you more information? It's not just weather and it's not just coastal. It's all across the United States. And in fact, it's all across the world. But this is what's going on in North Carolina to help. And then this is where your committees you're on that are germane to what's going on. So that's, I think, a a pretty good example.

Another one always supports my friend John Curtis, who started out as a congressman and now as a senator from Utah. I was speaking at a conference and talking about this very point. Like Republicans want to say like the climate's changing and I want to do something about it. Or even if I'm a member of Congress and I want to do something positive for Republicans, climate and I do something, it's crickets. No one's really saying good job to me. There's not really an apparatus and organizations that are set up to say thank you because some of the ecosystem has become so partisan and leaning left that there really wasn't a place for Republicans to go. So I was speaking at this conference with a couple of my colleagues, and I see this member button kind of walking towards me, and I didn't expect any members to be in the audience. And it was Congressman John Curtis, and he said, I believe almost everything you just said, I totally agree with. Can you come and talk to me and my staff about what CRES is, what you're doing, what your goals are.

And then from there, I worked with him to create the Conservative Climate Caucus that joined the ranks of over 80 members. Many of the ranking members in that caucus continues today, even though he's in the Senate. Having a place for members to go has been incredibly important. I think now they know that there's a place to go. And that's been important. Of course, that work never ends with new members coming into Congress after every election. But those are just two examples of had these organizations like CRES not existed, where would members go? And if they do have, whether it's an aha moment or I've thought this, but I kind of quietly thought this, who can I talk to? They now have a place to go, which is pretty exciting. That didn't exist 10 years ago.

Matt Chester: That definitely seems incredibly valuable, kind of, you know, not to use this phrase, but creating a safe space for those conversations. And I'm curious, but is there the opposite side where, you know, any offices you went into, you thought you had the great conversation and you persuaded them only to realize that you hadn't or the message didn't really come through fully the way you intended?

Heather Reams: A lot of members thinking about complex bills like the reconciliation bill last summer, it isn't that members don't agree or don't see the value. Sometimes they're competing with a number of priorities that are in some of these very complex bills, right? Renewing tax credits or border control or SNAP benefits or whatever these are. They tend to be It's unusual, as you know, to have a bill, a single standalone bill. It's usually a rider onto something or it's a complex bill. And that's where it's hard to really discern where while we may have had a great conversation and there is agreement, but they're not taking the vote because the other things in their district were just much more powerful. It would be nice to be able to see single bills. Yeah. So I think we get a much better read on where members are.

But I've never been in an office where it's like, look, I disagree with you, like leave. There's always been a respectful dialogue about where things are. And I think sometimes you see either staff or members not necessarily on the same page as their boss. As you know, Hill staff tend to be younger. And usually they are like lots of head nodding where the member may not be there. But I've also been in members offices where they're like, I was talking to my kids or my grandkids and I need to explore this more. So the influencer was right there in their own family unit. And so being there and being able to help the member go, well, let me tell you what's going on in your state. And maybe this can put some more meat on the bones for you to make a better informed decision.

Matt Chester: Yeah, that's fascinating that the influence can come from really anywhere and you're just kind of, you know, almost honing it in for them.

Heather Reams: I always say meet members where they are. Right. So and it isn't going and saying you have to believe that climate change is real for you to vote on this bill. That's not where this is. In fact, you know, if they even don't believe that the climate is changing, well, but they're going to take the vote right now. I take the vote. Right. Yeah. At the end of the day.

So it is, you don't go in with laminated talking points and say, this is what you have to believe. And this is how you do it. Particularly in the house, you've got a lot of districts and they're unique and you've got to tie what's going on in that district to the member, the businesses that are there or what's happening or the challenges that or extreme heat, whatever that is, and just say, this is why something needs to happen. And usually there's a light bulb. Ah, I didn't really think about it this way.

Matt Chester: I heard you mention almost two different angles of this. One is the climate side of the heat and the flooding and all of that, and wanting to take action because of that. And then the other is, well, these clean energy technologies, they can be an economic boom and look at these jobs created. And obviously those can go hand in hand, but I'm imagining for... For some representatives, it's one or the other. But from the technology side, I'm curious, are there any specific technologies that you've seen developed kind of the most lasting support from the Republican side? And as opposed to maybe some that are being more tolerated because of just some jobs landed or, you know, more token support?

Heather Reams: That's a good question. I find clean energy, particularly energy in general to be very geographically focused. I like to point to Iowa. Iowa is a massive wind-producing state. People in Iowa generally like wind. You know, even if the Republicans are critical or the White House has been critical of wind, not so in Iowa, not so with the governor, not so with most of the elected officials who are Republican or Democrat in Iowa. And it makes them an exporter of energy in their area. It's very geographically focused, but you know, also I'm not going to really sell solar in the Pacific Northwest. Not a lot of sunshine, right? But they have a hydropower and they have nuclear. And they also are rich, flush with minerals. And so they have a role, energy transition and modernization. And so you have to meet them where they are. But when you're talking about the Southeast and sunshine, boy, oh boy, do they want to talk about solar? You don't see monolithic, you know, Republicans monolithically thinking about one thing.

But what's been challenging, I think, under the Trump administration is that President Trump has been harder on renewable energy this round than he does in his first term. And one that I think caught a lot of us flat-footed. We didn't expect to see that. And two, it's made it hard for Republicans who have started championing clean energy like solar, wind, renewables to really speak up because who really wants to get, you know, whacked by the president and deal with a, you know, bullseye, so to speak, that really their offices can't really withstand that pressure. And they have so many other things they need to do on behalf of their constituents than get sideways with the president. So there's a lot of dynamics that are happening right now. And it's made it more complex for advocates like me to go in and talk to members and get them to actually take action. So there's a lot of talk of, well, maybe after the midterms, things look different, or maybe after 2028, things look different. So we're always planning for what's next in the political changes so that clean energy can really have a fair shake.

I'd say on the other hand, though, I think nuclear energy is having a renaissance, both Republicans and Democrats. I think it's also just because it's clean, it's firm, power always on 24-7. We're seeing three nuclear energy facilities that had retired come back online, which is pretty exciting. There's a new one being built by GE Vernova in Ontario, the most recent one in North America, so I think there's a lot of synergy around nuclear energy. I think geothermal is also having a moment. You know, it's in the center of the earth. And last I checked, we're all like on the crust and it's the same distance no matter where we go. And there's a lot of interest, not just in the US, but around the world. And there's been some countries that have some experience with this, like volcanic countries like Iceland, where we can learn something from. So I think there's a lot of excitement.

And then of course, on the horizon, where there's fusion, battery storage has got a renaissance going on. It's not just for storage, but long duration the always on with plus renewables or plus whatever energy source you have. So, wow, there is a lot going on in energy. And I think the message prevalent in Washington right now is, you know, we need every electron, but boy, innovators are really trying to meet the moment. There's an opportunity here to solve big problems that also, it's a capitalistic society, make money as well. So that's pretty exciting. It's an exciting time in energy.

Matt Chester: You hit the nail on the head. It's a really exciting time to be in energy. I imagine that extends to being in the advocacy and in the policy side of it as well. And something that jumps out to me that you said is meeting people where you are. And that's not just geographically, but I'd language. You know, when you do research for on this topic, I was talking to our producer in preparation for this episode. She kind of said, you know, people online, when when you see clean energy, it's almost like people are averse to saying that it's a it's a dirty word or it means nothing or it's politically loaded. It's greenwashing lots of different just kind of feelings negatively about it, where maybe they weren't there 10 years ago. And I'm just wondering, you know, with so much tension around, you know, basic language like that, how do you get folks in politics to even begin listening, regardless of, you know, Democrat or Republican, if they have a knee jerk reaction to some of the language that is just naturally being used to describe the energy?

Heather Reams: It's ironic to say that clean energy is a dirty word, but I get it. But I get it, right? Going back geographically, we have to think about energy resources as a quilt. It's a patchwork. And certain areas are going to have, you know, blessed with certain kind of resources, right? When you look at a state like Texas that is producing oil, natural gas, but is a powerhouse when it comes to wind and solar energy battery storage and AI facilities, data centers are flocking there because of the energy that's available. Or you think about the nuclear facility in Georgia now producing tons of energy. Guess what? Businesses flock there. So there is this cause and effect with energy.

I live in Northern Virginia, so in this area, it is considered data center alley here. But because of the infrastructure that was built here, data centers came here. And guess what? Virginia is trying to increase its energy, building wind off the coast, building nuclear pipelines from West Virginia. And any other way they can get it, they're looking to do so because what matters is producing the energy energy. And it's becoming an energy affordability, I think, has changed the politics here. A concern about data centers, of course, water, noise, all the other issues. But at the end, what makes us a modern society is the lights always come on. And I don't think most people only thought about how the lights come on. It just comes on. And when the power goes out, boy, oh, boy, my kids go nuts because there's no Internet. But this means a lot. This has massive ramifications.

If you want your power on all the time and you have to pay a premium, that becomes a Main Street issue. It becomes a Pennsylvania Avenue issue. And it also becomes a Wall Street issue. And I think that's the dynamics that are happening now. Everyone's getting touched by this idea of energy affordability. What's interesting, though, is in some areas of the country where energy is abundant, prices are going down for consumers because of the abundance of energy. I think some of those stories need to be told more because like, look, we're producing everything that we have in our district. We're using the wind, we're using the carbon capture, we're enhanced oil recovery, we're doing it all, and we're doing it as cleanly as possible. And we're committed to that, but yeah, we're producing energy. And I think this is the conversation that's less of a red or blue issue, but more red, white, and blue issue. And it's meeting people where they are in a whole different kinds of ways, but everyone is getting in on this dialogue.

This isn't kind of the policymakers just talking about it. This is if you go on any blog in neighborhoods, data centers, cost of electricity. Did you see your rates went up? I'm paying 50% more. It's in the newspapers and people are concerned about what's going to happen if they can afford to be able to, you know, heat their homes adequately, keep their homes cool, much less do all the other things that we like to have in our homes. So this is changing quite a bit, and I think it changes the dynamics from is clean energy clean or dirty or a loaded word to, well, it's keeping prices affordable. We should really think about that. And that's actually what I'm pushing to.

This is about affordability. It's about keeping energy abundant, but also clean. No one wants pollution and we don't want the health ramifications that other countries have suffered. So we want clean air and clean water too. So yeah, we want our cake and eat it too. There's a way to do that. And it's using all the technologies that we have. And that's that all of the above. It's really important right now as we're trying to meet the moment for energy demand.

Matt Chester: Absolutely. Yeah. You bring up the, you know, the more local neighborhood blogs covering energy affordability and how these topics are a lot more ubiquitous versus, you know, some years ago might have just been, you know, us energy nerds talking about it. And, you know, think about that in the context of, you know, today as we're talking, we're two months out from the midterm elections. It always seems like energy and climate start out early in an election season as, oh, they're important issues. But then by the time we work through the summer into true election season, it kind of falls off as a priority. I'm curious if you see that happening, why it typically happens. And is this moment in 2026 different because of all these affordability issues?

Heather Reams: Well, we saw in 2025 with the kind of the in-between elections there with a lot of the state of Virginia and in New Jersey, data centers starting to take hold a little bit, energy affordability starting to take hold. And it was the people say, oh, this is this is an energy issue. And it was like, I don't know yet. But now that we're sitting here. Almost a year later, I can tell you it's definitely taking hold. We're seeing energy affordability as being a front and center issue. It's not a climate issue, right? This is an energy issue. And I know a lot of climate advocates are frustrated that we're talking about energy and not necessarily talking about climate.

That pendulum swings, my friends, I promise. But getting more people engaged in an energy conversation is good, right? Because people do want clean air and clean water. And a more educated electorate is we're able to actually bring messages to them more easily and connect A, B, and C together, where before it was A and C. There just wasn't a place to bring them all together. We're getting that opportunity with this awareness now that should be able to be leveraged in the years to come, and I mean in the not too distant future years. But I think that now it's an economic slash energy issue, and that's not going to go away.

And we're not, interestingly, we're not necessarily talking about the price of gas, although you go by the corner, you see it's gone up. Mine's definitely hitting around the $5 mark. If you look at the premium, it's getting, it's five and six. So people are seeing higher numbers at the pump. They know that their electric bills are going up, or they think they know their electric bills are going up, or they're looking at their electric bill for the first time. But there's an awareness that's happening. And, you know, do something. And this is do something at the federal level. This is do something at the state level. This is do something at the local level. And people are going to call whoever they can find numbers for. And whether it's a federal issue and they say, yeah, talk to your state person, doesn't matter because all branches, all levels of government actually have some kind of role in keeping prices lower. So I think that, yes, you know, it's an economic issue, but it's economic plus energy that's here.

And I think in the long run, this is really going to benefit how we talk about energy. I think it's a boon for energy clean energy, for more new technologies. I remember years past and thinking about trying to pass authorization and appropriations for new programs at the Department of Energy that sometimes didn't have the support of all the Republicans on a particular committee. Those days are gone. I think that we all know that we need to be funding R&D as much as possible. And the role of government is absolutely there. And very few organizations and members are saying it's not a role of the government. And that's the difference of seven to 10 years and what it can make. And it's not just competing with China. It's just for quality of life that we can have here in the U.S. And that's where it starts. I mean, people are concerned about competing with China. But I think that's maybe more of our energy nerds and policy nerds that get more into that. People are just looking to pay the bills every week.

Matt Chester: Yeah. And you mentioned, you know, eventually we do have to move from elections to actually doing the governing. And that's where the conversation needs to be as well. And I know you've said in the past that we desperately need a bipartisan energy agenda, something everybody can agree on, though. I think today more than ever, it seems like that's incredibly tough, no matter how great it sounds in theory. So what is the biggest friction point or several friction points when it comes to actually making that bipartisan agenda happen for energy?

Heather Reams: Yeah, but the devil tends to be in those details, right? Like, gosh. A case in point of a real challenge. I think everyone knows who probably is listening and others that we need permitting reform. We absolutely need it. I've never seen Washington more united on permitting reform outside of Capitol Hill. I think most every member of Congress talks about the need for it, and yet we still can't get it passed. Even when we agree, we're still disagreeing, which is pretty frustrating when permitting is holding us back from really building the infrastructure that we need. Now, we're getting creative with some of it, but we need to be able to move more quickly and permitting is holding our country back one for quality of life, but also competition around the world and attracting investment here in the U.S. so that we're providing the jobs of the next generation as AI could take some of these other jobs. We should be creating new jobs because of the build. So there's a cycle, I think, that I think both sides of the aisle can recognize that we need to do. So I'll say, yay, permitting on one.

Two, I think, is really some things that we're seeing out of the Department of Energy in terms of like battery storage, minerals, critical minerals and supply chains, shoring them up, building here. You see the U.S. taking a national stake in some of these places that we've never seen before. Because of the risk involved in over-reliance on foreign countries that are traditionally adversarial like China or Russia. Things are changing policy-wise and we're not seeing a lot of, what are you doing? This is wrong. Some things that I think even Republicans would have balked at are really understanding that the role of government here to catch us up is really important. So I'm pleased to see some bipartisanship or don't see the inner fighting like you would expect maybe years ago.

But I think really where transmission and the grid modernization is a place where we kind of agree, but we don't agree. And some of that is because grid modernization is going to bring more renewables online, and there's a lot of pressure coming from certain members of Congress and the White House and what this means. Another area, I think, is on judicial review, which is in permitting reform delay and delay and delay, and how can we keep a more fair system so that those who have standing and have concerns can bring them forward and keep our environment safe or keep our citizens safe, but also move more quickly so that we can build. And so it's not a delay tactic. It's really, truly what it is. So some of these places, like I said, the devil is in the details in some of these pieces, but I think there's also an understanding we need to do more and

I think it's finally an area that is in kind of limbo right now is the automotive industry, electric cars. We saw a lot of incentives for those, but they're going away. They've gone away and people still buying electric cars when electric prices are going up. But also fuel prices are there. So does this make sense for families? I talked to a lot of friends. I'm actually in the market for a car, seriously considering a Tesla. And talking to other people who have hybrid vehicles or have electric vehicles about what they love about it, what they don't love about it. There's a lot of people considering buying a hybrid or an electric vehicle right now just because it makes sense, because it's considered a modern car and because they're cool.

Right. Not because. And oh, yeah, you can do something good about the environment, too. So, you know, people's reasonings for wanting to do things are changing. It's not just because, you know, it's good for the environment or someone told me it was good for the environment because these are high performing cars and they're pretty cool. But they're getting caught up in some of the politics rather than like just the economics and the commercialization of like a cool car. So I think some of that can maybe the politics can subside because consumers are going to vote with what they want at the end of the day. And it's not the government telling them it's because they really want that feature and that really cool car.

Matt Chester: You know, it makes me think, you know, is part of the issue also when we think about energy policy, we focus so much on Washington rather than looking at what the state or the local governments can do. And you bring up, you know, transatlantic electric vehicles and transportation and how much California as state policy has really served to push that forward. Is there more meaningful conversations we should be having at that that smaller level?

Heather Reams: Well, I think absolutely. These are happening at the I mean, there's no governor in the country that's like, oh, affordability, electricity, who cares? There's not one that's looking at that. And they're listening to their electorates. And going back to that, you know, politics is local, but the energy generation is there. They're going to protect what they have. I mean, you think about... In West Virginia, they're a coal-producing state, but they're also diversifying. But they produce coal, and they need to protect it. So if they're not going to have those jobs, what jobs are they going to have? And that's what the governor and, quite honestly, both legislatures at the state and federal levels have to grapple with.

Same in Wyoming. If they're not producing coal, then what other minerals can they produce? Not a populous state, but also relies on those royalties. So Alaska, another state that produces, you know, oil. And if you're not producing, you know, oil and timber and natural resources, it runs every facet of the state from, you know, schools to mental health to transportation. And housing, what are these states to do if you pull the rug out from under them? These are slower transitions. And I think it's that they're nuanced. Not everyone is California or New York. States are taking, I think, steps and strides because they have to, because the markets are telling them they need to. But they just can't be done overnight or they can't flip a switch and say, today we're not using natural gas just not going to happen realistically.

And I think, you know, in working with my friends on the left side of the aisle, that's something realistic. We need to be additive right now on the grid instead of taking away. But that doesn't mean that this is forever. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be using technologies to capture carbon or methane or whatever that is to keep these technologies safe for a period of time. Again, you don't have to settle and say this is forever. But at a time of when we need abundance to be able to meet the moment, it's going to be hard to say, take something off the grid or don't use this resource. And I think there's a number of governors and legislatures that are very sensitive to this. And I think that's where you see some, I don't want to say stonewalling, but just where there's a line that it's not going to be crossed at this time. So what I encourage is what is the art of possible? What can we pass right now? What technologies can we be building towards using our appropriations in government and labs? How can we educate the electorate so when there is that moment, we can make those shifts? We're just not there yet, but it doesn't mean we don't stop building towards it.

Matt Chester: Yeah, it's great insight. And as we start to wrap up our conversation, I kind of leave it with our audience taking something practical away. So, you know, for those energy or climate focused voters that are listening in, based on your experience, what can they do to best distinguish between campaigns that are paying lip service to these issues versus those who are actually going to do the hard work to get the legislation passed?

Heather Reams: I think it's worth bringing up to those who are running for office or even that they've been elected is asking them really where they are on the record. Because as I mentioned earlier, a lot of the votes that are taken are in these kind of omnibus type pieces of legislation where you really can't get a sense of where the member stands on particular areas. So really drilling down, and if there was a single vote on this, where would you land? Also, if you're inclined to offer to educate what the economics are and what they mean, there's a lot of business people who listen to this podcast, and, you know, are building incredible businesses because of energy transition and all that's happening in energy modernization. These stories are incredibly powerful. And I think back to the dot-com era, the 90s and early 2000s. We built things and did things that no one thought was possible. And that's happening again. So there's an opportunity to capture the hearts and minds of members that you maybe thought weren't going to be there.

I think on the other side, it's also asking we're compromised. Where are their lines for compromise? And for what period of time? Recognizing that we're in a moment right now, but there is going to be a point in time where we are able to make some pretty big changes and we should do them. I argue that we're not quite there yet but we're working towards them. And those who are putting in capital into markets think is important. And finally, what are these members doing for market stability? Really attracting the investors to come to their states or come to the country because a Congress that is flip-flopping or administration that's going from one to the other is not creating stability. And a lot of members will say, of course we want stability, but what is their plan for? for creating that stability and how will they work across the aisle and within their own caucus to help make that happen.

Instead of getting that like auto-generated letter, you know, a conversation with that member on the campaign trail or a more detailed conversation with a back and forth by email if possible, because it's really important to understand where these members are. And it helps them force them to really get educated on some of these issues. That is the single biggest thing I think people can do, especially when they feel like they're doing a lot at home, whether they're recycling, they're composting, they've got an electric vehicle. You just feel like you can't do enough. And so much is in the power of the policymakers. So it's to hold them accountable and work with organizations that do the same.

Matt Chester: Yeah, that's all great advice. And thank you for sharing that, Heather, and for joining us today for such a timely and important conversation.

Heather Reams: I love being with you. And thank you so much.

Matt Chester: Of course. And thanks as well to our audience for joining us today. We'll catch you here again on the next episode of Power Perspectives.