This will be portrayed in the media as a "flip-flop," or as some sort of inherent contradiction. How can a man lead a department he once advocated eliminating entirely? But there's no contradiction at all. If you believe the federal government doesn't need to be dictating energy policy to the rest of the nation, but the Energy Department is still going to exist, why not have someone in charge of it who believes in the inherent limits of its usefulness, and runs it accordingly?
