and then we've got the price match guarantee. so why don't you come on in and we'll get you set up with exactly what you need." he was really happy and excited by the time he left the store. i think he's a best buyer for life.

♪ ♪

>> glad you are watching espnews where we are keeping you current with the latest breaking news, scores and highlights. with mark morgan, i am linda cohn. plenty of baseball matinees ahead. exciting finishes. >> but first tennis. >> that's right. we go to wimbledon. american andy roddick twice a runner up at the all england club trying to take the next step facing lleyton hewitt. most people thought this would go five sets and it did. roddick in the 2nd set. i jumped ahead a bit. set point for hewitt in the far court. hewitt can't return the well placed drop shot. this is not a tiebreaker. tied at 9 there. later, hewitt with set point again. roddick ending his 13 straight tiebreaker winning streak. hewitt takes the 2nd set. 3rd set. roddick up 4-1 in the far court. crushing the forehand. roddick takes the tiebreaker

7-1. the 4th set. hewitt with set point. up 5-4 in the far court. hewitt attacking. then roddick misses. hewitt battles back to force a 5th set. in the final set. hewitt serving. no tiebreakers in the final set at wimbledon. they could play all night long. roddick returns. hewitt and then roddick the lob. the official on the line calls roddick's shot out. roddick challenges. take another look. they discuss. >> you called that ball out? >> yes. >> it was like this. >> he called it out. >> do you think i lied to you? >> he did lie to me just now. >> oh my god. >> i heard the call and saw you with the arm out. >> you believe me or you don't. it's your choice. >> roddick with breakpoint in the near court. after the rally, roddick with a forehand winner.

he breaks for 5-4. roddick serving for the match. 15-love. 122 miles per hour. 43 aces for roddick a career high in this match. hard to return when he serves that fast. roddick on match point. hewitt misses long. roddick advances to the semi-finals 6-4 in the 5th. >> a mixture of happiness, relief. in your mind you are kind of trying to stay the course for 4 hours. constantly figuring out what you will do. your mind is racing for 4 hours. then it's relief, happiness and kind of an instant shutdown mode. but i was happy to be through. >> losing to andy, he is one of the best grass court players out there. he's been to a couple of wimbledon finals.

and a few semi-finals here as well. it's not a bad loss. but i would have liked to have snapped through. >> the favorite is andy murray for the locals. facing ferrero. the great backhand return. ferrero serving. no a adult. 2nd serve is wide. a double fault. thative goes murray the-- that gives murray the set. the fans are pumped. 3rd set murray serving up 3-2 and ferrero can barely return it. murray on the base line. the pretty drop shot. too much murray for ferrero. murray wins in straight sets and advances to his first ever wim semi-final taking on andy roddick. >> i understand that i can lose the next match if i don't play my best. that's been one of the things i learned that made a huge difference over the last year or so.

i realize that if i don't bring my best game, then i am going to lose to guys like hewitt or roddick. i feel confident because i have won a lot of matchs on the grass. every day when i get up to play the match, i know that i will have to perform very well and that gets the nerves and the adrenalin going and makes he play better am looking forward to it. obviously you might be able to count the people for me on this hand. but i think it will be something to remember. i think the crowd will be electric. it will be a great atmosphere. one i can appreciate even if it's not for me. i will pretend when they say come on, andy, they mean me. >> [laughing]. >> that's probably a good approach. other men's quarter-final actions. roger federer facing ivo karlovic. important. >> how many would limit federal authority to only lines that

affect renewable electricity is generated, how many of you with limited just to that? >> i would do quite the opposite mr. chairman. i would limit federal authority to the lines it reliability. >> reliability. thank you. mr. joos? >> i would limit federal authority as a backstop provision and rely on local and regional planning as a primary mechanism. >> mr. nipper? >> assuming the backstedt authority, we wouldn't let that. >> mr. english, would you limit? >> again, backstop. >> mr. detchon, would you let to renewables? >> what i would say is if we are going to create special new authorities they ought to be a problem which is renewables. >> mr. welch? >> i would not limit the federal backstop. >> mr. miller? >> i think we support plummeting

and also respecting the circuit opinion we were involved in. >> thank you. deduce support federal back up signing for any reason other than reliability? >> i would not >> could you talk a little bit more about that first map, which mr. miller put up, that showed very rich wind resources along the east coast of the united states with the exception of some portions of the great flics and out on the west coast, it looks like its it has the greatest potential for renewable electricity generation in the country. >> you're absolutely right and as i may have mentioned we are pursuing a 150-megawatt form and as you mentioned we can do that 20 miles out and still be in 140 feet of water. that's not to underestimate the challenges of construction and

operations and maintenance cost but we expect to bear the cost of the short-haul transmission and would be opposed to having a nationwide support for the long-haul transmission and the disadvantaged. >> what could happen if we take mr. miller's charts? august they are not mr. miller's, they are atp's maps that have been put together; is that right? >> the transition map is aep, we put it on wind maps. >> if that transmission plan was implemented, it would bring that transmission line in from the midwest close to the east coast. what impact might that have on your planning for renewable electricity off the coast line or other parts of new jersey? >> we would stop planning for that. >> why would you stop? >> we wouldn't be able to be competitive with the cost of the

wind if it's not burdened by the cost of transmission so the wind from the midwest if it does not face the transmission charge would be cheaper in that case. >> you are in the great lakes, mr. joos. can you talk about that in terms of the renewables coming in off the great lakes and what impact that could have for michigan and what could happen if instead power is wheeled in from other parts of the country to the federal preemption, federal eminem domain takings? >> it's a bit similar but maybe two aspects to what mr. izzo said. first of all it is clear it is when you're in the dakotas than in michigan. michigan has wind resource even on land. but it's not as wendi and the dakotas, so instead of 42% roughly capacity factors, you might see in the range of 30% capacity factor. however once the cost of transmission to get the power from the dakotas to michigan is

taken into account it is cheaper to develop it in michigan. you mentioned offshore. michigan dustin very strong offshore wind resource. unfortunately offshore is still as twice as expensive and so when that calculus is taken into account we think it makes more sense to develop the resources in michigan first. >> now you heard of your earlier testimony about the problem getting renewable energy resources from the dakotas to the minnesota and the blame be laid at the feet of the government. in that region do you believe that is one of the main problems that otherwise the regions have been able to harmonize their electricity transmission policies and in a way that is viewed as fair to all states? >> i am not familiar with specific federal government problems that may have come up in minnesota. my observation is the regional planning process has been

effective and is a good solution to the problem. i think as many of us are pointing out, you worked the economics when you start putting effectively free transmission or poster stamp transmission abroad the regions and then change the economics dramatically rather than having them compete on a stand-alone basis. >> now, for the audience when we say post extent what are you referring to? why is the phrase postage stamp used? >> effectively with a postage stamp is referred to the postal system we put a stamp on the letter and send it anywhere for the same price. >> from the dakotas to new jersey for the same price. >> the reality of course is the costs are not the same and we look at the cost for transmission to move power from west to east there's a significant cost involved. however, if that cost is ignored and everybody pays the same price regardless how far it

moves it changes the economics and yes, the dakota wind would then be more economic on that basis once the cost of transmission is ignored michigan or the east coast. we don't think that's the right way to look at it. >> one of the things we are trying to accomplish obviously in the waxman markey bill is to generate renewable electricity and renewable energy jobs generally in all 50 states. so mr. izzo has a plan along with many other people in new jersey to generate new renewable energy jobs that help with the employment in his company but in the state of new jersey as well. and we don't want to invoke the law to undermine consequences and have a great standard imposed upon new jersey and then not have the jobs created in new jersey especially if they have

the richest renewable energy resource write off their shores. mr. english? >> mr. chairman, negative to make a good point, but i also suggest one other thing that it might make more sense in light of the objective of legislation and in light of the fact we are entering into a little different world than we have in the past that really what we are trying to do is maximize the amount of renewable energy that we get reduced all over the country. now the fact of whether it is produced in one state versus another state as long as it's the most cost-effective way which we can reduce it and we can in fact make use of it all across the nation on would think would be the ultimate objective. and i can understand why some folks may want to look at this localized and maybe a very provoke you laughing but this is a national piece of legislation and we are trying to achieve national objectives and the thing that's limiting us to be

efficient is this transmission system. >> absolutely and by the way we couldn't agree more on this. >> so if you're looking at this map and the fact we are talking about all along the coast and they may have more when and, then obviously we ought to be looking, that's where we ought to produce it and we should use that most cost effectively and that is what we should be the driver of where we go. if we can't do that and we have to do it in the dakotas, then fine. dewey and the dakotas but it shouldn't whether it's off the coast in massachusetts or in the dakotas as long as we are meeting the nation's needs and we need a huge amount of power that is when to be necessary to come from renewable energy if we are going to meet these objectives as outlined and one quick point i know i have a home down in south carolina. it's up on a mountaintop. we have a huge amount of wind but i can assure you if you try to build a wind generator on that mountain your claim to have

a lot of people that are going to be objecting to it on like when you will find in the dakotas. >> absolutely. i think the point mr. izzo is making and mr. joos as well is using this poster stand analogy it doesn't cost 47 cents to really move a letter from new jersey to new york city. it probably cost less than the average is 47 cents so someone from south dakota can mail a letter into new york city and that we have this communication across the whole country and that's great. we accept that. it's the way it should be. what mr. izzo as saying if you do the same for electricity and you make it the same price to transmit electricity from the middle of america to new jersey as a would-be to bring it off the coast line of new jersey

then that is going to undermine the economics of all the projects along the east coast because it hasn't factor in how much it would cost to transmit electricity 1500 miles all the way into the east coast market and so the question becomes how many new jobs would be created along the east coast of the united states if there ase no incentive any longer. for mr. izzo because he is almost bound by his obligation to its shareholders to take all of this inexpensive but subsidized electricity coming from the midwest so how do we square this circle so that mr. izzo and joos and others on the disincentive biased to produce renewable electricity within their own areas? >> broad based fair rates. the people that are receiving the power that are using the

power or paying the cost. that's what it comes down to. if you're not talking about mailing that letter from the dakotas to some other region of the country and you're talking about in stead when it costs to actually meal that letter to that location that's the issue that you're coming down to. >> mr. izzo, what would you respond to that? >> i would say if i looked at just this last year alone the price difference associated with transmitting power from the plains states to new jersey depending upon how busy the transmission wires were range from $20 to $80 per kilowatt hour. typically it was 30 to $40. that means it would be cheaper for a customer in new jersey to use a wind farm operating 25% of the time the and to use a wind farm operating in the plane's 40% of the time. because it's the total cost that

matters. if you eat eliminate transmission then suddenly the 40% time of the dakota farm looks cheaper but you put a burden on the american tax payer and ended our economic development in that region. >> well, we want to be fair, that's the goal of the bill. we want to incentivize renewable -- greenup energy revolution should be everywhere, not just in certain parts of the energy so we need to find a way to make sure that we don't invoke this kind of consequence that undermines economic development in states that have incredible resources indigenous to them. and that's a real difficult problem here and something that we have to work through. i apologize to everyone. i could spend the whole afternoon with you and next week i might spend an afternoon with each one of you in working out this issue because we have to be

fair. we have to be fair. we have a big fish in but every state can actually play a role here. there is a role for everyone and we have to make sure that we render to the east coast things that are theirs and things to the south that are theirs and midwest that are theirs. the prairie, the desert, and even as you were saying you represent 75% of the land mass of the united states. there is an ocean mass, too, that's also out there and we have to -- excuse me? >> [inaudible] >> no, that's what i am saying to you so i want to make sure the coastal co-ops are able to go into the ocean and have the incentive. >> we have to work out a fair formula so i thank each of you and we have to stick together the next couple of weeks so we can have the conversation and reflect what our national goals are with each stage, each region

and the history of each state and region. states the start or even states, they are commonwealth's whether it be virginia or massachusetts have their own traditions in terms of what plans are sacred and might not follow the traditional federal land act but have the same impact packed in terms of the relationship with the history of the states. i thank a each of you and i'm going to turn over the remainder to congresswoman bald went who will bring it to a conclusion. thank you so much. >> i don't get to sit in this chair very often but i won't make to stay long just because i am enjoying it. [laughter] first click comment and i am not -- and turpitude work on starting from mr. welch's test monitors frustration with some of the planning that is occurring at the state level

process and one of the things i would point out certainly we heard some testimony in the first panel about theories successful state level planning. but if you look at order 890 in this process its not given the chance to play out. if you look at the area i am most familiar with the first time we ordered 890 process these were approved by ferc and then subject to additional compliance requirements as of may 15th, 2008 and thereafter they had to do a filing in august in 2008 when it was just approved may 20, 20 online so you could make an argument three weeks ago this is getting underway and it's a process that is to be given 12 to 24 months to ocher so it certainly

concerns me to have a characteristic -- characterization of this state and regional planning process has not been broken or not working when really much of the new focus is not to order 890 just under way. i have one question for the panel with regard to -- it goes without saying the construction of a transmission superhighway will be a moneymaker for certain parties involved and we heard the chairman of ferc testify about the economics of transmission siding and construction as well as the guaranteed rate of return and so i guess i would like to ask you all what role if any should these entities with profit interest play in the transmission siding and decision making process? how should we appropriately when it or not the role they play and

why don't we go from left to right this time and start with mr. miller? >> i appreciate that question. that's been of the troubling aspects on the process in the pj m region. pgm is from our perspective a trade association of utilities who are proposing projects and then ratifying the proposals amongst themselves. they do not have until very recently have a process that complies with ferc order 890. they were looking at transmission solutions and not alternatives and they do not do the kind of balancing of impact of the issues of public interest that state utility commissions more clearly have the authority to do. so the current way that we do the regional transmission planning is disturbing. the owners or the transmission lines proposed projects. there's a reactive approval

process and there is no balancing of other considerations even within the alternative energy solutions like energy efficiency to dsm. they are starting to incorporate those things process is very conservative and very oriented towards producing transmissions solutions. >> mr. welch? >> welcome to go to the question of frustration i feel with the planning process is i would agree with you that order 890 went a long way but the one thing we don't have is full participation from all of the affected people and as a result of that when you were trying to do regional planning you are not going to get to the solution set that you need. number one. number two, like when we had problems and 2003 with the largest black out that affected the country we can to the

conclusion that nerc wasn't responsible for setting reliability standards. as a result we changed the way nerc was funded, it reports to ferc funded through an assessment through all of the utilities and rather -- in that assessment s paid to ferc who then pays nerc and we've taken the financial incentives of the market participants out of the hands of the argeo or this case the reliability council so when we talk about independent planning it's not about some kind of closed door deal it is about getting the financial impact of that act of the argeo so they can do the job they are there to do. then when we get to that point, you have the question that says who should participate on the rates of returns these companies should earn. i think the fair thing to say is when you start to build regional projects everyone is affected by the should be participating in financial investors. this shouldn't be just a

one-stop one-person plays the those people should be part of that investment proposition because they are there to make the great work and work in concert way. when you build a regional grid you have to be in a position you can maintain it. no one company could go across thousands of miles and have line cruise, warehouse facilities and everything we need and so it's going to take the participation of all of those people on the route but without everyone being there at the table this gets very tough to do so when you get to that point ferc says it will be reasonable that is what it will be. >> mr. detchon? >> thank you for the question. let me suggest a bit to think about cost allocation and rate of return together. under the current system, private companies enter into agreements to provide transmission and they go wild and raised capital on the markets to do that so as

regulators consider that, they have to provide the cost of that at the high cost of raising the capitol and then rate of return on top of that. if the costs are broadly shared first of all you have a guaranteed revenue flow which will reduce the cost of capital to raise the money in the first place and then there for a reduced rate of return to the companies that would be justified. so there would be two ways by sharing the cost to you would reduce the cost of building of this transmission sharing across the broad range of customers. >> mr. english. >> we have had many complaints about the fact that it's difficult for electric cooperatives to participate both because size and complexity and the type of expertise required to participate independently. but also i think a lot of it does come down to the situation

that the big entities in the region quite frankly are the ones that seem to have the control and influence or feel they should and many of those select basically doesn't have an all inclusive broad participation locally in designing many of the systems that come forward. so, i think there is much work that needs to be done in the improvement and hopefully we will see that in the future but we need a broad based planning system in place. >> mr. picks nipper? >> we agree that they really requires participation by everyone with all the stakeholders. its varied and the views among the region's some a bit better than others but it really is necessary that everyone be at the table and be participating on their input and be accounted. i will say that following the comment