Chu likely on the way out as Energy secretary

posted at 1:51 pm on December 19, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

President Obama is going to have some serious decisions to make on energy policy in his second go-around, especially in terms of the degree to which Americans will be permitted to take advantage of our abundant natural resources and the pending energy boom. I don’t think anybody is holding their breath that the Obama administration will finally phase out government, i.e. taxpayer, “investments” in green energy ventures, but there are still a lot of uncertainties surrounding offshore and terrestrial permitting, natural gas exports, environmental regulations, efficiency standards, all sorts of subsidies, and etcetera.

Secretary Steven Chu has had a pretty rocky tenure as head of Obama’s Department of Energy; the many ailing and failing stimulus recipients the DOE backed as part of their green energy loan guarantee program brought a lot of scrutiny on the Obama administration’s obviously political calculus in frittering away taxpayer dollars. He may be a Nobel-prize winning scientist, but his prowess as a cabinet-level manager has been roundly criticized, and it doesn’t look like he’s going to re-up:

Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter is on the short list of candidates to become the next secretary of energy, according to media reports.

Ritter is director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University. He also is a member of the board of directors of the Energy Foundation and is a senior fellow and board member of the Advanced Energy Economy Institute. …

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu may be leaving the post during the next term of the Obama administration. Among those on the list to replace Chu are Ritter; Tom Steyer, a Democrat from California; former North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan; Susan Tierney, a former assistant energy secretary; and Steve Westley, a California businessman, according to The Washington Post.

Much of the drilling-related minutiae and land-use policies come out of the Department of Interior, however, and apparently the president is fine with where Salazar has taken the department, as he seems to have the go-ahead to stay on if he so desires:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he’s still mulling whether to serve another term atop the department.

“We are thinking hard about it,” Salazar said in the Capitol Tuesday evening.

“My family and I are having lots of great conversations,” he said when asked whether he planned to stick around.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (who’s being investigated for her sketchy use of an alias e-mail account for official EPA business, hem hem), has been every bit the zealous, regulation-loving environmentalist advocate, but her future still seems to be up in the air:

In a call with reporters, Jackson skirted questions about whether she might leave the administration. Earlier in the day, she e-mailed EPA staff to congratulate them for the last four years of work and cited “historic and important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” …

Other sources close to Jackson say her decision to leave right now would make sense given that she would leave on a positive note completing the tougher soot standards, an accomplishment she wanted to complete as administrator.

From a White House strategic perspective, a departure by Jackson would spur worries about the prospect of a tough fight to confirm her replacement. EPA policies under Obama have spurred criticism among Republicans, and that could make for contentious hearings on a confirmation. A likely successor to Jackson is Bob Perciasepe, Jackson’s deputy. Both environmentalists and people in the energy industry have told National Journal that they would be comfortable with Perciasepe as the choice. He might be easier to confirm than some other candidates.

At the end of the day, of course, all of the administration’s major policy impetuses are a product of President Obama’s delegation — and man, does he ever know how to pick ‘em.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2