sudden there was an explosion of broadband deployment across the country. telephone companies, cable companies and others who had been telling the local pucs, it's not, in fact, cost effective to be deploying fiber optic and broadband technology and we're now in a mad race to do so because there is now a new federal law which is placing a premium upon it and we actually had a dot com bubble because of the vas and very rapid deployment of broadband across our nation. we have created thousands of companies, some of which survive, some of which didn't. is there any reason to believe the legislation that is now drafted won't unleash a similar, and very significant deployment of renewals across the country and kind of pressed regions and individual utilities to resolve their longstanding -- 9 won't

call it opposition, i will call it skepticism. i saw it in the telephone sector and the cable sector, they moved overnight. to changing their perspective. do you think the legislation will do that and this federal role is not going to be as needed with the exception of the federal lands issue? >> there are 29 states that renew their portfolios standards. my state is one of those. it is 20%, by 2015, far ahead of most state standards. those standards have created markets, renewable energy, removed renewable energy into those markets very effectively. that is happening already. on the other hand, i have people coming in to my office who tell me the list is being curtailed because we don't have adequate transmission. that tells me we have a problem. is not simply the markets, it is the need to somehow ensure that

this transmission gets built to make it deliverable. we need to make a deliverable. >> you are saying that the stakes are not cooperating in the midwest, in the transmission? >> i am not saying the states or the federal government, it is a combination of the fact we have certain barriers which include issues of cost allocation, that need to be looked at in ways that we can facilitate more transmission. >> you are saying the federal government needs more authority because states are not doing the job and moving the wind around in the midwest. >> i am saying ultimately what we need to do is ensure that the states understand -- >> i appreciate those priorities but you are saying they will need that, in addition to the new law which will create all of those for utilities to moving to states, you are saying that is not going to be sufficient, that

you believe the states themselves have some built in inertia and some of those utilities do as well. because they don't move, even though we passed this new law or create these bowls that have to be met by national mandate, we will still need the federal government to come in as a club? is that what you are saying? >> i am not blaming the states or saying the federal government is the panacea. [talking over each other] >> i appreciate what you are saying, you are engaging in terminal logical inexactitude which is necessary to maintain good relationships. i appreciate what you are doing. we're going to create a brand new law that is going to affect these states. we need some evidenciary basis for pre-empting the states which is based upon a federal procession of a problem that

exists in these states. we won't use the word blame, we need to find some way in which we can.what it is that is occurring, and we curtail our solution to it. we can't deal with it in broad generalities. we need to have the specifics. even in the report language of the legislation we can ensure we are explaining the problem as it exists in a particular region. we are talking about the midwest and the fact that the wind is not moving around even though it is readily available. pinpointing what that problem is helps us curtail the language to reflect that problem. we can elaborate on that, where the bottlenecks are, what causes it, and then we can cogitate on what might be necessary. >> part of the bottleneck, doesn't have the authority to

allocate across boundaries. we can't allocate costs of transition, and we are not getting the types of transition built. you are going to hear from mr. walsh in the next panel. he has a very interesting transition that i would commend you to explore this further to get large amounts of wind out of the dakotas into chicago. and one of the issues he's talking about is cost allocation across 2 regions. i am suggesting that congress needs to look at an entire structure of planning and cost allocation that is initially deferred to the states and the states should ultimately solve that problem, but if they can't, the pressure should be there to allow the federal government to

step in if necessary. >> thank you. i was the author in 1992 of the wholesale transmission access provisions in the energy policy act that for the first time gave the ferc the ability to open nondiscriminatory access to wholesale transmission lines so there could be more competition in that area. they build upon that new law that i created and issued a generic quarter 888-which is a historic order based on my 1992 law. i am very sensitive to this issue but i don't think we should curtail something that goes beyond what is needed. i say this to you as part of the problem we have in massachusetts and new england as well, it is

not you, it is your predecessor who just left office, pre-empting the state and local governments from setting authority on wholesale lector transmission lines, that issue is eliminated by the fact that it is completely and responsive to local concerns when it comes to be setting of liquefied natural gas facility in massachusetts. i have a facility in my district. mass. working with the federal government has licensed 2 facilities, 10 miles off of the coast line to bring in el n g, into our market and the new england market. 30% of the natural gas we use in new england, we have licensed 2

facilities, but notwithstanding, mass. saying we don't need another one on land, we are doing it offshore and we have license them. up until this time they have been saying you are going to have another one in massachusetts. even that decision itself could affect the amount of renewals that we need. notwithstanding the fact that natural gas maybe half in its use as cold it is not nearly as good as renewable. it is not going to affect the market place. the ferchas been pressing that for 5 years. that calls into question the federal, out 1-size-fits-all process, where even when the state is saying back off, this is what you are going to have 4 new england. how do we reconcile that?

>> mr. chairman, i am not suggesting a 1-size-fits-all process. i am suggesting that f.e.r.c. has the primary and initial responsibility with access to of permitting, states the given the initial opportunity in this regard, and that opportunity should be given all the tools necessary to succeed. >> are there other members who wish to ask questions of this panel? >> one more big question. i appreciate the chairman asking our witnesses to make this understandable for the viewing audience. we had a discussion recently, follow the electrons. of like to pose a question about following the money. i would like to ask anyone who wants to to give a brief primer on the economics of transmission. is there a guaranteed rate of

return? to the sides, and what is the guaranteed rate of return for transmission? >> i will attempt -- i like to believe in rate base regulation. transmission is not a market item. it is an item that has a limited number of entities that are putting in transmission and it is under a rate based cost service scheme. they authorized return on our investment and an opportunity to earn a return, but to earn their return they have to manage their expenses and operations in an efficient way to ensure that their expenses match with their projections are so that the return comes out to be the level

they hope to achieve. the regulators, whether it be a state regulator or a federal regulator would authorize a level of return on equity that would be authorized. that is only an opportunity to earn that level of return. >> do you have an average of what the rate of return might look like? >> what it might look like? >> what is the average rate of return? >> i don't have an average today for you. >> i thank all of our witnesses, you have been absolutely fantastic, and you, mr. wellinghoff, i want to appreciate how much we appreciate your willingness to take on this job, this is one of the toughest jobs in america, you have an outstanding record. i have had an extensive conversation with you privately and i really am very glad you have this job, i think you are

going to do a tremendous, tremendous service to our country in that position, it is going to require people like you who are willing to spend the time to get this right so we have a long-term solution. as we are going forward especially over the next week or so, we are going to need some specifics to help us to think through this issue in terms of where the problems have been, what has caused the problems and what would be needed in order to correct those problems. we need some examples and some specifics with regard to what has been used as a blocking mechanism to the resolution of these regional issues, because we want to get at that issue, we want to have real competition in the marketplace. for you especially, we hope we can work with you in the next

week. you have an outstanding staff and you are an outstanding individual and we can accomplish that. >> we would be happy to do that and thank you. >> you want us to remember as we consider this issue over the next week, we begin at this end with you, you each get one minute a piece. >> the 2 things we would emphasize are the issue of supersizing which relates to the cost allocation issue that we spoke about. it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to use up whatever good will we have trying to locate a line that is undersize. the second thing is the federal lands issued the, the permitting issue, i elaborated on that, this is a very large impediment.

those would be the 2 things we would like you to bear in mind. >> i would say that from our perspective in the commonwealth, we completely agree with the goals of the legislation, we absolutely have to address the carbon issue and we have to address it now. what i urge you to consider on the standpoint of transmission is to try to retain the competitive market structure that delivers benefits to our rate payers and the designs you implement going forward, the carbon cap that provides value or cost of additional marginal costs associated with allowance purchase, fossil generating resources and the renewable portfolio that provides additional revenues to renewable resources, should provide the financial incentives needed to get the renewals and the associated transmission built, and we want to maintain a distinction between who is

responsible for paying for transmission if it is the generating facility, and who's responsible if it is needed for liability. >> define the goals we need with the transmission grid, define the state led process by which we can meet those goals. one of the primary aspects of that, the decisionmaker needs to be beholden to the public interest. ensure there is federal authorities so that we get our job done. number 4, don't do harm and with regards to that, don't define specific technology or the cost allocation process. >> very briefly, i want to reiterate that the states are here to help. we will like to work closely with your committee in developing transmission planning and federal pre-emption of transmission should only be used

as a last resort. >> i suggest you come away with this, we are not as far apart as we initially seemed to be. we have the same goals, to develop as much renewals as possible to do that. we need to remember that there are non market barriers that we need to look at the get that development done. we need to put a construct together to allow the state to initiate the processes of cost allocation to have the transmission developed, and we have to have that back pressure and the federal government being able to stepped in to make it happen. >> in the spirit of what mr. wellinghoff said, we may not be as far apart as the initial statements indicated. let's work towards that goal.

time is of the essence. so all of these conversations continued outside this hearing room over the next week or so. thanks to the committee, we will ask the next panel to come up to the table. >> coming up on c-span 3, regulating the insurance industry particularly in the financial sector. and efforts to craft regulations in preventing events such as the collapse of insurance company aig. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. now a look at efforts to prevent polio around the world and the lessons that can be applied to developing other vaccines. the who hosts this event, it is

40 minutes. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation and the global health council, you and your company for having made this opportunity available to me. i am especially grateful that you didn't ask me to talk about polio eradication and how we are going to get it finished which is what most people ask me. they ask me to look backwards and the lessons we have learned. i want to tell you what i am not going to talk about over the next few minutes. i am not going to talk about you horizontal, vertical debate about polio eradication, vertical programs in general and i am not going to talk about whether they are good or bad or the politics of polio, i am not going to talk about that.

we are in washington that you get enough of that. i want to focus on the last 15 years as suggested by the title. what have we learned from this global effort that might be applicable. other vaccines, before i get into the lessons, i want to make sure we are not on the same page, why we're trying to eradicate polio and we're doing to put that in context. there are 3 reasons we're doing this, this captures the key one, this is an absolutely devastating disease, the poorest, smart and allies communities in the world. they're being paralyzed by this

disease everyday. the disease was widespread in asia. also in africa. the real hero of polio, the disease has largely been eradicated from the americas. in contrast to hiv and other diseases we have the tools to eliminate forever. the other key reason, or one of the second reason is that eradication is so important, in the words of dr. bill fahey of the cdc, a revocation attacks in equity, provides the ultimate social justice. this is something we will come back to again and again as we talk about the lessons of this program. the most important about

eradication distinguishes it from the other things we do in international health, it requires getting the populations that everyone else mrs.. you have to keep going if you're to eradicate the disease. most things, the millennium development goals, much of what we have done so far, 80%. with 30% of children, not only, my third reason why eradicating polio, not just to get their, put these kids on the map, being to scale with the areas where we

need, interventions -- these are 2 examples of we have been doing while we have been eradicating polio, whether it has been helping to eliminate measles or fighting pandemic flew. the polio eradication initiative, it is a partnership first and foremost on the right hand side, you have the private sector partners who are part -- the left-hand side, the eradication initiative. on the right hand side, the political bodies and others who played a critical and the program and at the center, the ministry of health, over the last 20 years, been responsible for coordinating the implementation of the eradication strategies. these strategies are 4fold, consists of protein immunization on which to conduct a national

immunization days and eventually mop up activities to interrupt the remaining change of foliage transmission. to give you a sense of the scale of the program we are talking about, from which i am going to take some of the lessons. this program has been running for nearly 20 years, 20-1/2 years, it is operated in 200 companies, twenty million people have been involved on the eradication initiative, distributing the vaccine, immunizing children or supporting it in other ways, billion children have been immunized with close to twenty billion doses of vaccine. it is a partnership that continues to grow, change, and adapt to the nature of the disease and the challenges we face. before we go on to some of the lessons, this is what the world

looked like in 1988 when the global initiative to eradicate polio was launched and the commitment was made to get beyond the 80% that had been achieved in immunization coverage. and to reach the final 20% of children, this is where we were. nearly 40 years, 30 years after the vaccine, a polio vaccine had been developed and was widely available in the industrialized world, you can see that children were still being paralyzed in the vast majority of countries, nearly half of the children in europe. as a result of implementation and eradication strategy is, the disease was eliminated from all but 4 countries in the world by 2004. at that point, the world got stuck with 4 parts of 4 of these countries, northern nigeria, northern india and parts of

pakistan and afghanistan and the situation got further complicated when the virus began to spread out of those countries and back into countries that had been polio free. at this point in the program we face 4 major challenges. in afghanistan and pakistan, as you know, active conflicts, a challenge of insufficient political -- in corners of pakistan in particular. in india, a different problem with insufficient vaccine effectiveness which i will come back to as we go through the presentation and in northern nigeria, a combination of problems related to the political leadership that different points in the program and the societies in which the program was operating. the whole thing complicated by areas that have been polio free. in addition to the countries that you see in red, another 15 countries this year alone were

reinvested by these countries. this is where we are, that is what the eradication program is. i would like to look at the lessons we have learned before returning to what we're going to do to try to get the job of eradication finished. as i was putting this talk together i shared it with a few friends and they said you need to talk about partnerships and the power of partnerships and i said i am going to presume partnerships as we look at what we are trying to do, whether it is the partnership that we have reflecting the global health council and others, that is how we are working in the future as we within the un or outside seat to improve the health of populations. i am presuming that we will be working in partnership. the other thing i am presuming

is we will provide opportunities for strengthening health systems. i am not going to talk about that aspect of the program either. i am going to focus on 8 lessons that i have taken from the 15 years in the air medication program as to what we have learned about getting beyond the 70% of children we usually reach and what it takes to get to the end of the road, and reach the children who because of differences of culture, religion, security, geography, are not being reached with the most basic of health services. the first lesson, the most overriding one, is to bring in professional management. i am a doctor. i'm a trained to take blood pressure, i was trained to look at sore backs and things like that. i was not trained in my professional training to run international health programs. the first thing i did in coming to the program was to hire

people who knew how to do this. the first was an m.b.a. the second person was an m.b.a. the third was a communications officer, the fourth person was a lawyer, the first person we got rid of was a lawyer. what we learned very early on was that in managing a program like this, you have got to rely on people with management expertise. these are just a couple shots to get interest in the presentation. as we talk about management, we need to go beyond simply hiring of a people, but also putting in place the management processes that go into running the company and other organizations, we need to bring that to public health as well. what we find so often, people bring in management people, but then not the processes and it is like saying i have a democracy because i have elections but i don't have the checks and

balances. you have to have the whole shebang. the polio problem is one example. we measure everything. this is a legacy of people who went before us, the global program in the americas. we began a process of measuring absolutely everything, to maximize efficiency and also to maximize accountability. there's a terrifying timidity in international public health to hold people accountable and this is something we have got to get over as well. it should have been put in as a specific lesson but if we were to accept the kind of shoddy accountability of public health in the area of mechanics most of our cars would not stop in the morning. we need to hold people accountable to the process indicators, sabol that we put in place. this is an example from pakistan. a year ago or 2 years ago we