guest: it depends. it is often the case that what you often think the case is about when you read the briefs, before you go to the argument, is not what they think. you turn -- you learn more about their thinking. it is one moment -- and one of the justices have said this -- is one moment when all nine are focused on the same case and same issue. it is a chance to see all of their competing ideas against each other. host: what is the temptation to straight to an analysis of body language are what that justice may hint about ruling in a case? guest: you will come out of an argument not understanding everything. you'll not be quite sure what a justice is getting at. the challenges to figure out what are the most important things than to avoid being let

off on a tangent, where it justice threw something at but it was not really reflecting what they are thinking. host: rich on the independent line in massachusetts. caller: someone said that the supreme court should go over the constitution. . constitution because apparently the politicians don't understand that. the constitution. the other thing that gets me activated when they say we are a country of laws but we don't uphold some of the laws like the illegal -- we can't ask them if they are illegal if they go to a hospital but if i go in without hospital but if i go in without my insurance car to have money on me to pay. the supreme court of to strike -- straighten this country out because this country says one thing and does the other thing.

the laws are only abiding to certain people, not the government. they have all these investigations. investigating themselves. host: any thoughts? guest: on the first point, it is certainly true that this is a more -- that we think of the court more in political terms now than people did 50 years ago. and perhaps even 30 years ago or 20 years ago. every nomination, even when it is not going to shift the court, is being looked at very strongly in political terms. that is just part of the age we are in. it is reflected not just in congress's consideration of court nominees but the health- care debate and anything else. host:. , pennsylvania. tom is on the republican line.

caller: the opinion of the people -- i recall the 2000 election where the supreme court installed george bush into office. and i lost faith in the supreme court after that and then when that's -- that lilly lead better case was such an absurdity, you have to ask a question of what planet are these guys on. guest: the case had to do with age discrimination suit, basically equal pay suit. the question was whether they discriminated and number of years ago, beyond the statute of limitations, and it still has a present-day effected -- the woman receives lower pay than are male colleagues because of the discrimination years ago,

whether she can sue and the supreme court said, no, she can't. congress came in and reversed that. that is actually a good example of the system working in a way that it should work. the court interprets a statute, may be right or wrong, but if they get it wrong congress can come in and say this is what we want. what the constitutional ruling to the does not work the case of the terms of bush b-girl -- bush versus gore. host: what were the judicial aftermaths of the 2008 ruling? we know the political aftermath. did that change the relationship between members of the court at all? guest: there were certainly hard feelings in the short-term. they say, justice is uniformly say no, it didn't, it did not change the way i work with colleagues. indeed, they are used to on

really, really import issues, disagreeing with each other strongly and facing very sharp criticism from one another. there is no, on the surface, reason to think they have not moved fast that case. host: you wrote earlier this month about a case, christian both -- christian group rebuffed by a school. guest: it will be heard this term. a christian group at a public law school that has a rule that if voting members of the officers have to abide by its tenants, and tenants include, of course, faith-based and also say that homosexuality is wrong, read the bacon be recognized as a school group -- whether they can be recognized as a school group. they said, no, this like any other student group you have to accept anybody who wants to be a

part of you. one of the interesting things in the case, a lot of people watching did not think the court would take it because the ninth circuit ruled, a short ruling, favoring the law school, judge alan brzezinski, a relatively conservative judge. the court is willing to second- guess a judge who is highly respected in conservative circles, it is certainly striking and perhaps might mean they want to move a lot of little bit. host: othe underlying issue, and the echo of the supreme court voiced doubt decision a dozen years ago in terms of members who are homosexual? guest: of there have been a number of variations of this. you get questions about a group that, you know, once to

associate with people who believe the same things and are involved in some way, either public money or public support, and in that case, the boy scouts 1 and in this case, given the court agreed to pierre the appeal from the christian group one might think they may have a leg up to start with. host: scranton, pennsylvania, kevin on the democrats' line. caller: how are you? did anyone ask you about the corporate finance case? i don't know the name of it. host: corporate finance case? the one -- does that tell me a little bit more. caller: what the corporations can be considered a political -- whether they can donate money. guest: yes, the campaign case. we talked about briefly but have

not gotten into the details. it is a potentially far-reaching case and i think it says a lot about what the roberts court is going to be. it is a case where -- and i think he asked the name of the case, too. citizens united. in narrow issue that they agreed to hear last term, a group called citizens united -- they had a movie they put together called "hillary, the movie" which was highly critical and the question was whether there were restrictions on their ability to air it on pay-per- view channels. the court could have favorite citizens united on narrow grounds, saying this is not a typical corporation, not like general motors trying to spend a bunch of money in advance of an election.

even though citizens united is a corporation, it is an added as a group and it goes to the core of our first amendment rights to be able to air this video. instead the court decided to go much further in what it was considering. here a second round of arguments on whether to basically abolish all restrictions on corporations spending their own money in advance of an election. they would have to potentially overrule a couple of precedence to wipe out the restrictions. they don't need to reach that issue in this case but they re- argued explicitly did to give companies a labor unions freedom to spend money on election issues. host: port richey, florida, steve on the independent line. for greg stohr. guest: it is probably the same

case. i have been waiting for this decision to be made this term, and i haven't heard anything about it. the corporation still have as much of a voice as individual citizens. guest: of this case would ease sensually give them -- this case would be essentially give them the same ability of individual citizens to spend money as long as they are not coordinating this spending. it there still would be restrictions if they were donating to a campaign or coordinating advertisements to a campaign, it would essentially say that like, as with individuals, you can spend what money you want to advocate for or against a candidate. host: a couple of twitter comments. that term is being used by a couple of viewers. is that a legal term?

guest: it is largely excepted across the law that a corporation does have rights just like an individual. it has first amendment rights, in this case, it has other rights. one other note in the case, during the argument, justice sotomayor's first argument, she questioned the notion. maybe we got off on the wrong track many years ago when we in essentially equated corporations to an individual. we are down that track and it is too late to go back. host: springfield, massachusetts. democrat line. caller: i have a question about the constitution. it is not exactly about a pending case but i have a particular case that -- well, i was arrested by the massachusetts state police and i was assaulted in the booking room of the police station. it was because i said something that the officer found insulting.

they don't have to videotape the booking process. there is no chance of legal recourse. i have no evidence because it happened in the station. the fbi refused to investigate. i am wondering how i can take it to federal court and if there have been cases in the past and the courts similar to this? guest: elwell, i don't want to give legal advisor. but certainly based on what the caller said, there would be a federal claim under probably section 1983, that would be the most dreadful word. but it is obviously a factual question. as he says, witnesses would tell a different story. but in terms of it being a claim, if you are be in a police station there certainly is a claim.

host: former enron skilling had a case, honest services fraud. what was the case about and what were they supposed to rule on? guest: there is jeffrey skilling, conrad black', a formr media executive, and a public official in alaska. basically there is a law that says you cannot -- it is against federal law to deprive someone honest services. the law fits -- it makes the most sense applied to the public context. if a public official is supposed to being doing some difficult public and instead doing something else, that person can be prosecuted. in the case of skilling and conrad black, the court was considering how about all it applies in the corporate context. in a private context. of those men were convicted of other things as well.

they were convicted of either taking money either from their corporation or in the case of conrad black, getting -- i am sorry, i misspoke and jeffrey skilling. but basically accused of profiting basically, they are trying to figure out how broadly that law applies. it is unconstitutional. host: there is some in decision? . guest: there was a lot of skepticism about whether the ball was clear enough that it could be constitutionally applied. the skepticism can across the board. host: this is our republican

line. caller: good morning. my question is regarding the old way that people used to go to court. i mean like 200 years ago when they first invented a court for all people. the first thing would be that someone would have a claim against the. you would go and get to me to a -- need your accuser. it to be very gentleman like. there is the whole attitude of that. like when i got a ticket and when i get tickets for driving, it seems like it still has that structure, yet it seems to have a barter system against that sort of old structure that it had were you barter because the cost of having this whole court where you get to meet your

accuser and the cost of it is to guard against it. what i'm wondering is, if right now, if these terrorists, the threat of this and the trial -- i mean, the structure is still there. with these terrorists, the threat of this and the trial, i mean, the structure is still there but we are sort of swaying against it. are we looking at totally destroying that, the old structure of meeting your accusers, and with terrorism, are we looking at a completely new structure of how the courts are organized or structured the about the united states in both criminal, local, federal? are we looking at a new kind of course structure? host: thank you, alan. guest: first of all, we are a

much bigger country. things are done from more of a distance in all aspects. the litigation system is much more paper driven than it used to be. the whole process, the whole discovery process in the federal system is that you spend a lot of time in pulmonary work before you get into trial. -- preliminary work before you get into trout. in some respects more complicated. host cut 10 more minutes with greg stohr from bloomberg news, he covers the supreme court. we will bring it interviews with the supreme court justices, starting tonight with the chief justice john roberts and also john paul stevens. we spoke earlier about his possible retirement. are there already interest groups working on the side, bubbling up names of possible replacements for justice

stevens? guest: that has been a permanent campaign in the last few years. barack obama and -- and his advisers started coming of names not only before the vacancy but before he took office. he interviewed, i believe four candidates. certainly people will look at other candidates. among them are at the solicitor general, certainly somebody who would be at the top of the list. and certainly the opposition is doing roadwork, too, already building of a case for opposing her or whoever the nominee will be. host: louisville, next. bill from kentucky on the democrats' line. caller: the first time i have never picked the phone up and called in. listen, i got one question. just have a question regarding what happened in afghanistan,

hamid karzai, and the whole situation that occurred in their election system. it seems a bit hypocritical with us in this country -- what is the difference between what happened there and how that unfolded in regards to the election process and what happened year with a burst -- bush versus gore in the 2000 election and why was that considered in afghanistan considered corruption and what we did hear considered, i don't know what that would be considered if not corruption, considering we had an election process that ended up, someone appointed a president. host: any parallels? guest: fascinated so many are interested in birds -- bush versus gore, a case that stuck with people. the fundamental difference would be that in afghanistan that

allegation is fraud and in the u.s. the issue was a very, very close election and a disagreement over how you count those votes to figure out who actually got the most. host: "the new york times" has a story about a recession. they write -- the u.s. supreme court, are there is -- are they seeing cases related to the economy and recession? guest: usually cases take longer to get there. as far as the economic collapse of a last year so, no. certainly there are issues out there that people are talking about. the constitutionality of, say, the tarp money and how that was used.

constitutionality of the health care over -- overhaul. one case that does fit in and little bit, there was a board set up to oversee the accounting industry in the wake of the enron and worldcom collapses, they're looking at the constitutionality of that board. it is a fascinating question. the big get -- basic issue is whether the board is so on it tumbled to the president that it operates as an on constitutional independent branch. host: on health care, there were points against the bill in the closing days of the debate on constitutionality. looking ahead, if it passes, the conference passes and the president signs the bill, will there be constitutional challenges and how quickly can something like that make its way to the federal courts to the supreme court? guest: there will certainly be constitutional challenges. no question. whether they succeed is a matter

of debate. typically those things will take several years. in some cases, the court can get involved more quickly if there is an urgency to it. in this case, at least not on the service, not that kind of urgency to get involved more quickly so we may be looking at three, four, five years before the supreme court actually hears the case. host: albuquerque, steve on the republican line. caller: i would like a question -- to ask a question about eminent domain get you are using words like constitutionality. how did that take precedence over individual rights? i will listen to your comments, thank you. by. guest: that gets into the question of property rights. the constitution does protect property rights. the case that perhaps the caller is thinking about the data lot of attention was a few years

ago where the supreme court said it is constitutional -- not saying necessarily a good idea -- but constitutional for a government agency to take by the eminent domain some private property and transfer it to another private entity for economic development as long as it is part of a comprehensive plan, not just a shift from a person a two-person beach. it was 5-4 and a big out why and what happened in response was a number of states tightened their roles to restrict the ability of government agencies to take property for that reason. host: as congress may legislative action on that front? guest: it is going on more at the state level. certainly there has been attention at congress but the supreme court clearly left it open for states and four local agencies and the elected officials to listen to people who say we don't want this kind

of taking and that is where the action has been taken. host: dayton, ohio. alonso. caller: i'm calling about a case out of cincinnati, ohio. i am not sure if it came across the supreme court agenda or not. however, in 1984 -- i think in the 1980's, all the way up into the 1990's, really a black mark on the women's movement. there was a case concerning tier 3 rape statutes. the woman out of cincinnati in 1984 that was raped supposedly. at that time during the berlin 1980's, they were sending a lot of women -- a lot of men to

jail, understand, on the charge of rape when really, you know, like, nursery school teachers, so on. and they did a lot of time in prison. now they started a thing in ohio that says that if you can't prove that you are not a tier 3 rapist -- this man was convicted in cincinnati, ohio. host: alonso, i will get follow- up from you. the have any thoughts? guest: i am not familiar with that law -- if not a whole lot i can say. obviously the issue of sexual predators has been a big one. there is a supreme court case in this term that goes to whether sex offenders [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> tomorrow, a foreign-policy magazine joins us to talk about people who have influence global events in 2009. after that, an update on politics in news with carl cannon and robert schlesinger. later, at the "washington impose" on climate change legislation in the new year. now the president ncsc -- c l of the chik-fil-a chain it talks about the business and we will hear from his father. they spoke at the national press club and last month. here is part of that event feta . >>.

[applause] thank you. this is a treat to be here with the. to be quite honest, it is a treat to be here with my death. it is not often we are able to travel together. i send out a tweet that there will be to bottom of the men selling to get the national press club conference -- two baldheaded men is selling chicken at the national press club conference. [laughter]

it really does get down to people. we think what it said the service. they say a handshake and the hose is affected by the handshake of the hose. we are reminded of that. are of british descent in incredible job of making our server is remarkable. i thought what i would do. is the fees some highlights for this year, some exciting things that we have not made public. we are making announcements of what is taking place with their business and some of our plans for next year. we will also be sharing thoughts about families and business. then we will have some wonderful times of questions and answers.

this is going to be one of the greatest years, even though the economy we are in today is within weeks of reaching $3 billion in sales for the year. this will represent about a 9% increase in sales this year. it represents a 4% sales stores -- store sales. it to be flat to maybe a - 1% for shopping mall locations where very pleased with those figures. it has been a good years for us. it has been a record-breaking year for us as well. another highlight this share is that we will be opening of 69 new freestanding restaurants this year. we had two of them in colorado

that opened up yesterday. we have reports in fort collins colorado where they had a freak ice and snow storm. i think that the network news. there was well over 100 people in the parking lot vying for an opportunity to get to play free for a year. we are continuing that the bill december 9, come join me in a camp of the we have going on. one is opening in fort lauderdale florida. for me, it to be my 100 campout. it helps to stay in touch with the customers 20 spend the night with them in a parking lot. i have learned to carry my own sitting back with me. when you are lying on 8 inches of concrete, you need a little

one and look in flexible pad. that one into will do it but it makes it more comfortable. we have completed the initial role of of a brand new service recipe at to play -- at chik- fil-a we think that we can offer service. we call it second mile service. it is based on the passage of scripture. good the second mile. we put that under a microscope we have tremendous opportunities to treat our customers with honor, dignity, and respect. we barred a.q. from some of the rest does the customer three times the amount. we do we borrowed from some of the restaurants that charged three times the amount.

we offered fresh ground pepper. they love the service. taught these a barbaric teenagers had to pull out a chair for a lady and had to say "my pleasure." we are doing a service to bring back stability. they are marvelous. as one of the largest audiences. i want to talk about next year. dad, when you come up here and joining me. -- why do not you come appear and join me?

he always put a coca-cola bottle whenever he spoke. i have adopted the practice. i have a cow here. these cows are literacy deprived. i was in orlando. i was walking in 11 of our great big house. al is walking in this facility. the asaph file is here for the adult literacy program. there several programs gone gone at the same time. i said, i'm not here for that, but this guy is. i pointed to the cow. the greatest tribute i can give to my dad is here is a gentle man that started flipping hamburgers in scrambling eggs at the age of 25. he sold but one car that he and his brother had been ordered to have enough cash. he is now confidently engaged as a leader of our business.

i think part of what kept us help the pretty healthy is the new things better going on. if you want to join with me in charitable comment. i want to talk about 2010 for the he is 80 years old. [applause] he likes to say that his goals to lead to 100, because statistics are in your favor. there are very few people that die after wonder. -- after 100. >> thank you. he has been right by my set ever since i was a kid. i think this is the key to a successful business. i was in a deep depression.

it was in the '20s. i was born in 1921. i do not know why my family chose to have children in 21. my father was in the real-estate business. you cannot even sell land. we moved to atlanta. i was brought up in a boarding house where i learned to shell peas and wash dishes. people were so poor back them. i cannot remember having anything to play with but a loose tooth. that lose to the was the mind. it was my brothers. -- loose ooth was not mine. it was my brother's. [laughter] begun by coke's six for a quarter.

-- you could by coca-cola's six for a quarter. [unintelligible] any lawyers broader calculation is? you can put 80 cents. to me, that was big business. i have been brought up in poverty. i had the joy of having plenty [unintelligible] there is less to be learned when you are brought up in poverty. how much time you going to give me? i am 88 years old. i have a lot of experience than most people do not have. >> talk about being debt free.

in today's economy, this is an unusual thing that we are on the eve of being a completely debt- free company. what does that mean to you personally? >> that is what i have been preaching for years. i always that you did not buy anything until you paid for what you owed. we have seen so many businesses getting excited about the business and they grow it from loans from the bank. i started off in business -- my brother and i had $4,000 that we saved. we got a loan for 600. we started off in a business where we went. it does $10,600.

i was single at the time. i got a room next door to the restaurant. i made myself available. any time they needed me, they did not on the window. -- they could tap on the window. businesses in number one problem, debt. debt is one of the biggest problem. i can handle every problem except for debt. i did not want debt. i am [unintelligible] wealth -- is it worth it? there is a question about debt. i have preached that we should get out of debt. we have been able to do that. pierce of a private company.

they tell me that we could possibly be out of debt completely in three years. it gives me the joy and i am able to sleep at night. five years later, i started the second restaurant. after having to restaurants, i realized i had one too many. what of them burned to the ground. i thought then those lead to have this one rest from. from that in the birthplace of chick-fil-a. [unintelligible] we developed cooking where we have been brought up in a boarding house where my mama always used to kick to get in a

skillet with a lid on it. the breast the need to cook as long as the other parts of the chicken. we have set a world record to serve chick-fil-a in four minutes' time. it gives you a good product at all times, even as the order comes them. it has been very good. my friend asked me, there is a thing so great about taking the bone out of a breast and poking it between bridge the do i said -- [unintelligible] it is a simple idea. that is the reason i was able to do it. it has been good for us. we are working ourselves out of debt. i am one who believes that serving the customers is very important.

we do not find courtesy very often in our fast-food market. courtesy is very cheap. it pays great dividends. for that reason, we are able to compete with their highest competitor. not only with the quality of our food, but the kindness of our people. we are very selective with our people. you have a good experience wreckdining in a restaurant. you could 25 times and it is appointed one timeget disappoint might be the last. we treat appeal with the golden rule. treat others like you like to be treated. if you like to be greedy was smiling faces, demonstrate a serving spirit.

we are taught to say "my pleasure, " it distinguished us. we only have a turnover rate of 3%. 6 and the people on our staff and 1500 units. -- 600 people on our staff and 1500 units. operators grew up in two. i am yun debated -- i am motivated with what i see in young people. is it time to have questions and answers? >> not yet. >> what we would like to talk about is that i've been in the restaurant business because i had a calling. we have the privilege of

serving food for life. nevada people eat out and they are not hungry. -- a lot of people eat out and they are not hungry. we look to find people with character. i feel if you cannot take care of your personal life, how can you take care of your business? for that reason, if we hear about a business failing or is succeeding -- but a businesses that fail nor does it sexy. it is the people that -- nor does it succeed. it is the people that cause that to happen. people do make a difference. it makes my job easier. and do not have to work so very hard.

>> we are going to help out the washington, d.c. economy in february. we will bring our whole to reduce our whole chick-fil-a restaurant operatives -- we will bring all of our chick-fil-a restaurant offered jitters and their staff to the property in february. there'll be 4000 folks. we will continue to offer a second mile service while we are here. we are excited about that coming up here. we will be introducing this spicy chicken sandwich. it to be premiered on our menu in june of next year. one thing we learned about the restaurant business is you have to continually evolve the business and product offerings. we will be opening up to restaurants for the first time in chicago all of next year. if you want to have a cheap

date, code to youtube and put in chick-fil-a. there are over 89 invidious, some of which customers who had a campaign to encourage as to come to chicago. i think we are going to talk about the ku and day. >> let me but in. -- butt in. i was told the had to sell the books. now they are free. it is much easier to get rid of them free. [laughter] help yourself.

[unintelligible] i realize the importance starting early in raising children. go back. >> that is it. we will use that as a set way. we will continue to be closed on sunday. we will continue to the private business. my brother and sister signed a covenant of agreement awarthat e are committed to our business. we are very committed to the bodies in the principles that have been the mainstay for this business for 63 years the. it will be my challenge to make sure that we do not mess up what he got started. why do not we do some questions here. >> what is the most challenging thing about starting this type of business? >> you started it.

>> that is right. >> most of the time when you get started, you continue with a lot of problems. in other dreams have been discarded because of the fact that it is never the right time. you have to venture out. emphasis on borrowed money is high. a lot of people had the desire to start the business but to not have the get to start. i was ignorant enough. i thought i could get $4,000. it is how a person deals with confidence that makes the difference. most of them feel good when things are going well. i feel like we are growing in

our society today, because a lot of people are suffering. in 1982, we moved to corporate headquarters. we put it finance to the tune of $200 million. unemployment was higher then than it is today. i was quite concerned. i called a meeting of the executive committees to ank our sell some important questions. why are we here? where we live? while we in business? we came away that this may be chick-fil-a's for purpose. we might glorify god, the faithful still worteward, and mt have a positive influence of all the people we come in contact with. the key that can share that with

the staff. this has been very fruitful for us. we had a record increase in sales, 36% chain wide. we of them prosperous since then. we feel that god created all of us do have some purpose. god has blessed us. we are still enjoying our business. why would i want to retire from something that i enjoy doing? i do enjoy it. we will is that people that work hard and have fun doing it. ok? that is is it better to -- that is just a thought or two. >> have to come up with the name chick-fil-a?

>> that is a tricky word. a lot of people colic chick-fe el-chevrolet -- [laughter] 1 registered a name, they still cannot get a patent on it. we need to distinguish your name by turning it upside down or misspelling it. coming home, chick-fil-a must be some indication. must be some kind of boneless chicken. it has been tricky. it has been good. once you get it, it stays with the. the people know what a hamburger and a hot dog is. chick-fil-a --what is that? we've had to pass out samples. we first went to the shopping malls and pastel samples.

-- and passed out samples. the lead time people came right on them. that name has been good for us. the cal has been very faithful to us. we are urging people to eat more chicken. >> it is short-term. what of the financial downside to being closed on sunday and how do you manage to stay competitive without being open on sundays? >> in terms of financial downside, dead says that it is the most important business decision he ever made. we are close on sunday. it was a rigid as he was so exhausted. we find today that it is an anomaly, certainly in today's

economy. and is not a hardship. it is a tremendous business decision. it is a sales generator. the reason i say that is that we know that our service delivery and the speed of our drive through and restaurants and our food is better on monday because we are closed on sunday. it makes that much incremental difference. on monday, a little bit better on tuesday, a little better on wednesday, thursday, friday. . says the -- it offsets that your clothes on monday. our competition really appreciate the fact aware closed on sunday. >> we encourage you. we will let you eat somewhere else on sunday. >> fast food has come under fire in recent years as many consumers pay more attention to

how they eat. how has two changed with the demand? but that is a great question. and never shopping mall location, it was a female shopper centric experience. we have no idea with chicken that it would have the nutritional health overtones that is appreciative for today. chick-fil-a is good 100% in peanut oil. we continue to evolve and had the nutrition aura about our brand. customers really by taste. they may say health and nutritional, but they by taste. we sail a lot of hands fun chick-fil-a milk shakes. -- we sell a lot of handspun chick-fil-a milkshakes. we want to encourage people to eat responsibly. when you are having a milkshake, we hope you a drink responsibly as well.

>> some restaurants are working to score food locally. wal-mart is even doing so. what about to collect -- what about chick-fil-a? >> the volume of produce as much more feasible for us to not buy it at local produce stands. we act to use a distribution center. a week ago, i was with walmart, talking to them about their distribution. the new ceo is from our home town. it is lessening to see all the different forms of distribution. it during a sale, manufacturers know about it. [unintelligible] in america, we enjoyed when the bill with it -- lowest cost of living in the world'.

>> in washington, and is often said it easier to be a cia agent then a chick-fil-a franchisee. is it true that 20,000 people applied for less than 100 franchises? wire uses selective? how you get picked? >> my observation is that [unintelligible] many people are connected with the coveted has money. [unintelligible] we are looking for a person, a character rather than money. we let a person come aboard with

us with only $5,000. anybody can get $5,000. we say that we are not in the business -- we are in the business with the. the more money we can tell them to make, the more they can make more profit. a person's talent is very important. it is important that we do that. >> i mentioned to danielle that her father is an operator. we have many of our operators today who are second generation. many have sons or daughters that are grown up in the business. multiple sons and daughters.

that helps us keep that a great talent that we are talking about. >> right. oftentimes, a developer will have a person with $40,000 a year to operate a business. our operators, most average about $150,000 a year. some of the might be applying for a chick-fil-a unit. a hunter $60,000. -- $160,000. a kiss and make the style of living. -- it gives them a style of living. we try to pay more. we have been a bit. all of our young people that work for us for two years, even part-time, gets a $2,000 scholarship to the school of their choice. we award it won a 20,000

scholarships. and did 120,000 scholarships. there is another scholarship program. and they go on a $32,000 scholarship. it is very important to us. -- to have good relationships with our young people. [unintelligible] the developers were not one to talk to you about food. they said we do not want the fumes and smoke and paper. we encourage them to lock their doors and the b-1 have to worry about cleaning it up. now, we have proven that they need is for fast food in shopping malls.

we are paying 10 times our basement. -- base rent. now they build shopping malls around food. we have opened the gates there to expand. we think we pioneered this approach. >> speaking of having sons and daughters in the business, chick-fil-a is a private company. how do you feel about the estate tax? >> i do not like it myself. we realize that it is important that when businesses can transition from one generation to the next command economy wins. it is tragic only 36% of family owned businesses are able to

succeed into the next generation. i think it is tragic economically. there is a lot of faults in knowledge that just vanishes when businesses are not able to succeed themselves. i'm so thankful that i have been tutored in the philosophies and values and principles that my dad has lived out.

ññññññññññññññññ@

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> i would ask you to do this while maintaining the importance of the market solutions. under the leadership, the competitive market is critical. not violating this is very important. one way to do this, one example i can give you is that massachusetts enacted legislation for a long-term, delivered-price power source, so that the utilities themselves

would have solicitation and reflect below-cost option for meeting that goal with the state legislature. you should consider something along the same lines, to a valuate whether or not the country is meeting these requirements and then you should step in for the planning mode to require that these regions and utilities and the transmission owners issue for the long-term contracts for the read nobles. >> if you finish -- i want to make certain that i can get to the witnesses. >> i am optimistic that if congress sets the process and has a strong authority, we will be able to get this finished. if this is not finished, that is

when they step in. if they came up with a specific plan, and this did not meet the objectives of congress, there will need to be -- an overseer, and i will be happy if this is the federal government. the plan has to be designed by the states. >> thank you. just to respond, i want to make it clear that they are very committed to the competitive market solutions. we would not choose to do anything that was contrary to that. there are some non-market barriers, including allocation of cost. i think it is necessary to allow the states to move forward, to

see if we can do some planning, and they are moving forward to do that in the east and west. and from that, the cost allocation can be agreed upon. you have to have the federal pressure to inform the process to make certain that we reach our goals. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from wisconsin. >> when i hear the discussions about the generation to transmission -- and the los centers on the east coast, i feel that wisconsin could become the state's that has an extension cord running through it. maybe i should use the swimming pool analogy. but that is the image that this

conjures up for may. i am worried that if this makes an incentive for distributed generation, and as i was wondering in my early it -- in the early statement, how will we pay for the transmission upgrades -- this is a critical question. will the people who do not receive the benefits of this transition have to pay for the cost of these lines across the country? the people i represent have supported their share of $2 billion of new investments in the wisconsin transmission system. clearly, there are transmission technology decisions that will need to be made. i would ask the whole panel, and anyone who wants to comment, how we protect these people and the

people who will not be receiving the huge benefits -- and the transmission buildup? >> if i may jump in. i think that the model i have been discussing this morning, of requiring the cost of transmission, of the generation source to the market should be included for the consumers who are purchasing the. this is the first line of defense. it the transmission was put into new england, the price of that would not just be the cost of developing degeneration, but the cost of the transmission. we would compare this to what was renewable in the new england market. with the more traditional

generation, and ultimately, the project that goes for will be benefiting the rate-payers. >> as far as the allocation of costs, we cannot speak about the best allocation at this time. this should be tailored-made for the grid that has been planned. if you choose a specific allocation right now, it is likely to steer the plan in a specific direction. i would rather have the physics of the economic stride and then we can figure out how to play for this -- pay for this. that is my recommendation. >> as a commissioner from vermont, i would concur with her. we are looking to take a position for each case as this comes forward.

and again, i would agree with the commissioner. we should not dictate a particular method. also, i think the states should try to work this out, ultimately. and those involved in the line, this was going across the state. if there was no benefit, hopefully something could be worked out and openly resolved. the decision had to be made, and this could be made by the states and the region, collectively. it would be important to determine the allocation, and the allocation may decide that a particular state like wisconsin -- depending on the definition and the benefit, to have a particular line. and this man not allocate the

costs. you have to provide the flexibility for that kind of decision to be made. you cannot restrict or dictate in a role how that will have to be done. this has to be done in a way that allows them to meet the mandates to make certain that the rates are reasonable. >> let me turn and recognize the gentleman from california. we will have another round of questions. >> hali have a question for the commissioner. they were going to have transmission projects. the believe that this is shared across the country by the commissioners? >> i have not been able to give this to my colleagues. i cannot speak to that.

>> that is my only question. i will yield back. >> thank you. we will pursue a few questions here. he has said if there were 3000, 5,000 megawatts of wind power that were brought in from new england, there could be reliability problems in florida. but the other side may be true, that hopefully the southern co. is doing this in florida to create electricity. there could be reliability problems in new england. how do we resolve this issue? >> this issue is really about

the size of the transmission. if, as the commissioner was referring to, you have all line that is dumping -- >> can you imagine the audience right now? what is that? what is that? >> if the line is high-voltage -- >> what does this mean? >> think of it this way. when the transmission line is hooking up with the transmission system, this looks like a generating facility. when people are on the highway and they look up and they see something -- >> explained this in those terms so they know why the sensibilities of people may be affected.

765 hults does not mean anything to people. >> what they would see is a major tower. but with how this is affecting the grit, this is putting a lot of electricity on this in a single location. if this goes away, there would be problems they could not withstand. this may create the outage said he was referring to. the wind technology will completely overcome this problem because this can be built up with the individual lines, going into the centers across the east coast, so that we can build this without having to increase the potential liability risk on the underlying transmission system. if we were going to take the path of interconnecting these megawatts, that would be the problem that he is referring to.

but this has to be disbursed on the widespread geographic base that would enhance the reliability. >> would this be solving your problem? >> i am not certain that this would solve it. i am not certain. you may spread this out over many locations but the issue will be the effect of the variability and the reliability across the frequency. i have actually directed a reliability division to look at this issue and show how the incursions' can affect reliability across the east and the west. >> what are you going to say to them when they raise this issue? >> i will commend the chair for

looking into this. >> that is good. >> and i would encourage him to continue a study on the variability of the megalops being connected in the facility and the impact of this being spread across a wide geographic region. >> do you agree that there may be a distinction that is made between a concentration renewable source, and something spread over hundreds of thousands of miles? >> i would agree that there is a possible difference. >> with these issues include it -- take place in a western state, that would want 10,000 megawatts of renewable power in their state, wanting to move

this into the metropolitan area? this is create the same issue? >> this may be applicable in either place. >> this is an issue that we will have to resolve. going back to this issue is an important thing to understand. in my experience, at least on this committee, there are corporate entities that really think big. the bigger the facility, the better that this is. others think that they can change the way that they generate electricity. maybe they can do this in a way -- it will be increasingly important to generate solar power and other renewable. that is where this comes in. that is how we are doing this.

we need smart people planning this. we do not want to over-billed at this. we are bringing this on to the consumers. we saw all of this happening in the 1970's. we saw all these nuclear power plants that were guaranteed to be needed. if we did not have 500 new power plants, we would have blackouts all over america. we have to put all of these costs on the shoulders of the ratepayers all across america. in new england, we suffered from the over-enthusiasm of the central planters. we have to be careful that these kinds of planners -- they did not control the process because that is the opposite, that we

hope that we are entering in terms of the development. i can feel the love beads of the large, central planners, moving to the whole concept. after 33 years, i am aware of what can happen. a smart man learns from his own mistakes, and a wise person learns from other people's mistakes. as a congressman, i am expert in both. i do not want to see this happening again. this issue is something that is very important. can you go to this question, and can you explain what this is and why the different results have been, depending on the decision? >> the ultimate -- alternating system is completely interconnected.

when you put the a electron on the grid, this will go to the path of least resistance. with a model you'll be able to predict where this will go, but the electron will go where it wants to go. this is very directed on this line. >> this means a direct current line. >> you have a lot of control over this, and you know that when you drop an electron on one end of the line, you know that this will end up on the other end of the line. if you drop the electron at the same place, you are not certain about the past that this will be taking. you just now that the power is going off at certain locations. there are two different models. >> how does this construct this discussion in terms of what we are looking to achieve?

>> i can give two answers. we have to know the goals from congress, so we will be able to decide which of those, or the combination of both of them, will solve the problems that you will put forth. i can tell you that the washington line, if your problem is to try to get power from a fairly low location, in the dakota out area, and you are trying to get far east, as long as you are over 400 miles long, washington will likely be a very good solution to this problem. >> more or less expensive? >> this is a good question. i would say that these are less expensive, depending on what your building. >> and these decisions should be made by the regions? and this may turn on how much of a burden is placed on the

consumers with the electricity bills every month. if i may, you have heard them talking about what the impact would be of this bill. the signal will be sent, and they will move away from carbon-producing electrical generation. there will be a national electricity standard as a result with 20 states, and he believes that this is going to force the states on a regional basis, because of these goals, to reach accommodation and the federal government will be less necessary in the future. what is your response to this, in terms of -- we are trying to create a market-based scenario.

maybe i can give you an analogy and you can reflect on this. after we passed the act in 1996, all the sudden, there was an explosion of broadband employment across the country. telephone companies and cable companies to have been telling people, it is not cost-effective to have fiber-optic or broadband technology were now doing so because there is a new federal law looking for a premium on this. by the year 2000, there was a bubble in these stocks because of the rapid deployment of broadband across the nation. we created thousands of new companies and some survived and some did not. is there any reason to believe that the legislation, as this is drafted, will not release a similar and very significant deployment of grenoble's across

the country? will this region will this press the regions and the utilities to resolve the skepticism? i had seen this in the telephone sector. they have moved overnight to change their perspective. the federal role will not be as necessary, with the exception of the federal land issue. >> you are aware that there are 29 states with renewable sectors, and my state is one of them. we are far ahead of these standards. we have markets for renewable energy, moving it into these markets very effectively. this is happening already. and i have people who tell me that the wind is being curtailed

in the midwest because we do not have the adequate transportation. we have the need to somehow make certain that the transmission is built so they will be able to deliver this. >> you see that the states are not cooperating in the midwest, in the transmission? >> i am not saying that they with the federal government are not. but we have certain barriers, and these need to be looked at in ways that we can facilitate more transformation. >> you see that the federal government needs more authority because the states are not doing a good job? >> ultimately, we will need to do is make certain that the states understand -- >> i appreciate that. you say that they will leave this, and with the new law that

we are passing, to create all of these incentives, you say that this will not be efficient. you say that the states themselves half an inertia, and some of those facilities do as well. even though we have these goals that will have to be met by the national mandate, people still need the federal government. is this what you are saying? >> i am not blaming the states. i think that -- >> you are engaging in terminal qlogic which is necessary for good relations with the states. at the same time -- we're going to create a brand new law that is here that will affect all of

the states. we have to have some basis for pre-empting these states that is based upon a federal protection of the problems that exist in the states. we will not use the word, blame, though we have to find some way to understand what is occurring. we have to change the solution to this. we cannot deal with this in a broad generalities. we will have to have the specifics. we must be certain that we are exploiting this problem as it exists. we are talking about the midwest and the fact that the wind is not moving around. we will be able to tailor the language to solve these problems. perhaps you'll be able to elaborate and tell us about the bottlenecks and what the cause of this is, and we can

contemplate on what will be necessary. >> part of this is the fact that they really do not have the authority to allocate across boundaries. we do not have the ability to allocate costs of transmission across these boundaries, and we are not really getting the kinds of transmission. you'll hear from the next panel, they have a very interesting transmission project that i will continue to explore with with him. he is trying to get a lot of wind out of north dakota and then to chicago. one of the issues is the cost for the region. what we are suggesting is that congress needs to eliminate the entire structure of planning and

cost allocation. the states can ultimately solve the problem but if they cannot, the pressure should be there to allow the federal government to step in. >> thank you. i was author in 1992 of the wholesale transmission access provision. for the very first time, they have the ability to force the utilities to stop blocking the requests for the non- discriminatory access so that there could be more competition in that area. they built upon the new law that i created, issuing a generic order on transmission access, which is a historic order. and based upon my 1992 law. i am very sensitive to this issue. we should not take this to

something that goes beyond what this needed. part of the problem in massachusetts and new england is that -- this is your predecessors. the one who has just left office. pre-empting the state and local governments from granting the authority on the wholesale electric transmission lines, this issue is eliminated by the fact that this seems to be completely unresponsive to the local concerns when it comes to the liquefied natural gas facility. that is in massachusetts. i have a facility in my district. massachusetts, working with the federal government, as this 10 miles off of the coastline to bring this in, into this market

and the new england market. this is 30% of the natural gas that we use in new england. we support this and we have licensed a couple of facilities. massachusetts says that we do not need this on land, and we are doing this offshore. this is licensed. they have said that you will have another one. this will be in massachusetts. and this may affect the amount of grenoble's that we need. notwithstanding the fact that natural gas may be half of the carbon that they use as coal, this is not as good as the renewals will be. we are having this forced upon us. they have been pressing that for the last four or five years. this is calling into question some of the federal processes,

where even when the states are saying to back away, they continue to say that this is what we are going to have four new england. how do we reconcile this? >> i am not suggesting a one- size-fits-all process. they have the primary responsibility for permitting that states will be given the initial opportunity in this regard, and that opportunity should be given with all the tools necessary to succeed. >> let me recognize the gentle lady from wisconsin. >> this is one more question but i appreciate the chairman for making this understandable from the viewing audience. we had a discussion about

falling of electrons. i want to follow the money. anyone can -- who can give me a primer on the economic transmission. what is the rate of return and how this -- how was this determined? what is the rate for transmission? >> i will attempt this. i like to believe in the re- based transmission. transmission is an item that we have a limited number of entities who are putting in transmission with the rate-based cost scheme. they are authorized for a return on their investments, with the opportunity to earn a return. but to earn the return, but will

have to manage their expenses and the operation. they are making certain that the expenses are matching the projections. and this will be the level that they hope to achieve. the regulators, and the state regulators and the federal regulators, would have a return on equity that would be authorized, but this is only the opportunity. >> do you have an average of what this may look like? >> what this may be looking like? >> what is the average rate of return? >> i do not have an average right now. >> i thank the gentle lady. i want to thank all the witnesses. you have been fantastic. and i want to tell you how much we appreciate your willingness to take on this job. this is one of the most

difficult in america. your record is outstanding and i have spoken to the team, privately. i think that you will do a tremendous, tremendous service to the country in that position here this will require people like you who are willing to spend the time to do this right. as we are going forward over the next week, we're going to need some specifics. that will help us get through this transition period we have to realize the cause of the problems, and what would be needed to correct these problems. we need some examples and some specifics with regard to what has been used as a blocking mechanism for the resolution of these issues.

we want to get out there and have real competition at the marketplace. you have an outstanding staff and are an outstanding individual. >> we would be happy to do this, and bank you very much. >> what i will do is i will give each of you one minute to tell us what you want for us to remember as we consider this issue over the next week. we will begin with you. you each have one minute each. >> there are two things that we would emphasize, the issue of super-sizing this relates to the cost allocation that we spoke about. this does not make a lot of sense to use up all the good will that we have, to locate the

line that is undersized. i think the federal land issue, and determining issue, we have elaborated on that. those are the things that we would like for you to keep in mind. >> i would just say that from the perspective in the commonwealth, we agree with the goals of the legislation and we have to address the carbon tissue. we have to address this right now. well i would ask you to consider is, try to maintain the market structure with the benefit to the rate-payers going forward. we have the value and the cost of the additional costs with balance purchases, and a renewable portfolio.

this should provide the financial incentive for the transition bill. and we want to make a distinction between who is responsible to pay for the transmission of the generating facility, and two is responsible when this is needed for reliability. >> please define the goals that we need. i need to know the process for meeting the goals. the decision maker must focus on the public interest. you must make certain that they get the job done. do not do any harm, and do not define a specific technology. did not define the cost allocation process. >> very briefly, i want to say that the states are here to

help. we are working closely to develop the transmission planning. this should only be used as the best resort. >> i would suggest that you come away with this. we may reduce carbon and use as much fuel as possible to do that. there are the non-market barriers to get the development finished. as part of this, we have to put a construct together to allow the states to initiate the process of planning and having cost allocation to have the transmission developed. we also have to have the federal government be able to step in if necessary to make this happen.

>> thank you very much. with what he has said, we may not be as far apart as the initial statements indicated. we need to work to the goal. time is of the essence and all of these conversations continue outside of the hearing room over the next week or so. i want to thank the committee. this panel is dismissed and i will ask the next panel to come up to the table. >> thank you very much. and as someone to distribute these cards with the names of the witnesses to reflect where they will be sitting on the panel, i would appreciate that. they will know where they will set. police said wherever you want to

set, and we will recognize you. this is -- please go wherever you want and i will recognize you in the order that you will be recognized. we have enough chairs for everyone. if you can find an open share, this will be very helpful to us.

we want to thank you all for being here and we apologize for the delay. this is obviously a very important issue. we may be riding the transition rules for the next generation of -- over the next couple of weeks. we're wondering if this will be accomplished. the testimony will be central to accomplishing the goal. we could not do this without your participation. and we apologize for the delay, and the panel being recognized and this being a friday afternoon, getting later as the minute transpires. we will begin with the chief executive officer of the public

service enterprise group, inc.. he is the leader in the public policy area. we want to thank you again. whenever you are ready -- >> thank you for the opportunity. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. we distribute electricity and natural gas to more than 2 million customers in new jersey, owning and operating the capacity in the mid-a atlantic and the state of texas. we have long supported off-shore wind generation and the technology that will make renewable energy more competitive. the question is not if we should promote this, but how we should promote this. how should we use transmission policy to promote this at the

lowest possible cost. this includes the decisions about transmission and the cost allocations that are fundamental to determining how much transmission and where. one view that we have is that the government should establish prices for the cost of greenhouse gases. and market forces should determine which technology in which location is much -- is the most promising to the investors. this is the approach from landmark legislation. this puts carbons in the cap- and-trade program. with these prices, developers can compare the cost of every noble generation in different locations.

the alternative idea is that there should be some transitions that will connect these areas with strong resources, with the area of high electrical demand. this will be paid for by a broad group of taxpayers. the government would essentially choose the winning technologies and the locations to build the transmissions and the facilities. i have several concerns about this. there may be unnecessarily expensive outcome. all business owners know that if there is a factory at a distant location, they will have to weigh this against shipping costs. but if this is socialize, we take the decisions away from the local options which may have a lower cost. that is why the by-partisan coalition has written to

congress, warning that this would affect the efforts to grow renewable industry. and building thousands of miles of transmission line in anticipation of the arrival of the noble generation may lead to an excess of transition capacity. this is a deliberate process that response to the long-term reliability and economic concern. this cannot predict the dynamic markets. as this has been said so many time, there is now much thing as a transmission line that is the color green. these carry a electrons without regard to the carbon footprint. he may have an under-utilization of the transmission line unless this was filled with other forms of generation. this would give the market

advantage to any power plant that was close. third, creating a new plan is unnecessary. we have costs that are effective to the local incentives. the cross regional issues should be expressed, for the regional planning bodies. finally, the existing tools can help them connect to the bread without distorting the location of price signals were burdening the customers with expensive transitions. if the cost of connecting to the bread is too much for one developer, multiple developers may be able to share these projects. where the rate payers will initially bear the costs, and they will be paid back after this becomes operational. i believe that we will meet the long-term goals, but sitting

here with you today, i do not know which renewable technology, in what location, will get us there to serve the customers at the lowest possible cost. that is why i strongly support the policies such as this one, with the carbon pricing. the same pricing is releasing the spirit of the american people. >> the next witness is the senior vice presidents for governmental affairs of the american public policy association, representing 2000 community-owned electric utilities. we want to thank you for being here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. we have 2000 publicly owned buildings and served 45 million

americans. we have a% of the nation's transmission lines, and a great majority is transmission dependent, dependent on the facilities that are owned by others for the retail customers. we report that more transmission is needed in every of the country for renewable energy, to enhance competition. the single most significant impediment for new transmission -- we want congress to support the federal authority that is included here. they said this was a major step forward, but this has fallen into question because of the recent court decision with a court of appeals. we believe that legislation should clarify the intent from

2005 by expressing backstop transmission siding and applications. that happens when the state denies the application. it is important to know that public power companies do not want to diminish the state's authority. the importance of new transmission lines across states cannot be forgotten. and there are some misconceptions about the higher- bolting lines being better. but the lower voltage line, if located strategically, they have the greater ability to enhance the reliability than another line, and this may experience less local resistance and this may cost less. and there are situations where

the high-voltage lines are necessary, but we want to make certain that people know that bigger is not always better. that is one reason that regional planning is so important. the transition network needs to be fully considered it so that the facilities will be determined. the encouraging joint ownership of these facilities with public power utilities in a given region is another way to get more transmissions. if the responsibility is spread more broadly, joining transmission planning may be facilitated simply because there is more support for the project at the planning tables in -- that the playing table. the ownership will be more closely aligned and the transmission owners -- there are

many examples where this is the case. we support the provisions for the committee-version of the security act, because we believe this will bolster rather than simply complicating the existing process under the order that has occurred across the country. this is allocated among the transition owners and the transmission depended facilities. this is one of the most controversial topics that is related to this. we have supported the language that underscores the flexibility in determining the transition for the terminology. we do not always agree with these decisions but we believe that -- we believe that with the appropriate input and due process, that they can determine

this over section 206. the issue of who pays for the transition authorities is very difficult, at some facilities can provide future benefits, that extend well beyond the facilities that have been constructed. we asked for greater guidance on the cost allocations for the board of regional benefits. we do not support the allocation of the sub-regions or the entities that will receive little or no benefit from the facilities. and they will oppose the federal statutory requirements on the connection-wide basis. we have concerns with the allocation of the incentive rate, from 2005, regarding section 219 with the variety of the different transmission

incentives. these entities have been helping themselves to the incentives, and the committee is not adding incentives. we ask for the explanation of the use of the incentives and we look forward to the response and we will work with the chairman of this issue. >> i appreciate the way that you are using the word, and to teach. the next witness is the chief executive officer of the national rural electric cooperative association. more significant lag, he has served in congress for 10 terms as one of the most distinguished members. it is our honor to have you back before the committee. whenever you are ready, please began. >> i am certain that the board

of directors may agree with us morse it -- more significantly. i think the one thing that the board and i can share in common is that we can reserve which of us believe they have a more important job. >> the fact that you are very important to both of us -- >> as the members of the committee no, we are in 47 states across the country. we reserve how 7% of the population, this is three times the land mass of the united states. when we talk about the transmission, and generating the renewable energy, this is going to be done by areas with the cooperatives. we plan to have a big part of

the future as we move forward in that general direction. this is three-quarters of the land mass. this is all owned by the individual consumers. i think all of us can agree that the signing of the american league energy and security act of 2009 will bring about a profound change in the way that energy is generated and how we use energy in this country. this will change our lives. but i hope that we can also recognize that we have to be prepared for that kind of change. the transmission system was certainly not designed for this kind of change. this was not designed for 1992 and the energy act with deregulating on the wholesale level.

what we would suggest is that we'd the sense of urgency. we need transmission as part of the act that will lead to be addressed. as a result, we believe that there is a very basic principle that will need to be incorporated as you move forward with any kind of legislative language that applies to the new transmission system, and the new policy that the country will be falling. as i think the you know, we have the national renewable cooperative, so that each state can dissipate in any read noble project or any part of the three-quarters land mass of the united states. a project in south dakota may be invested on from wisconsin, or they can be from alabama or

georgia. they will be able to own a piece of this. one thing i want to do is generate that through renewable -- we have to look at the most cost-effective way to do this. we know about the corridor that will give us a great reduction of wind -- a great production of wind energy throughout the great plains. not every farm is the same. we also have to make certain that when we locate that kind of generation, we can move the fire out of those regions. we have to be very aware of the fact that -- it has been the experience with the bottom-up planning, this works the best. we need local people putting this plan together to determine the best way to move forward.

that is a principle but we will have to follow. bottom-up for the transition system of the country. i would also suggest that under these conditions, and the fact that we will have to move the transmission system across state lines, and we may run into difficulty. the national best interest is not being served. so, i think that as we are having the local planning, we have to make certain that there is no impediment in the way to prevent local planning from being into mantid. we have to make certain that the policy of moving across state lines is dealt with. we think that there will have to be some authority on the federal level as far as this is concerned.

but they should be focused on certain qualifiers. when i look at this side of the story. first, these facilities should only be identified on regional planes. this should be -- the owners of those facilities should not be eligible for the enhance rates or any other incentives so far with this transmission. and these facilities should be allocated along with the use of these facilities. this should not be limited to one kind of power. this is being made because of the fact that the law of physics does not distinguish between the electrons. they all the same in that transmission system. and we hope that the wall would dictate the direction that we

have, generating these electrons. we have also said that there are crossed allocations, and that those of us who are in electric cooperatives are very sensitive and we would have a few people, and all the costs would be unbearable, so this should be allocated on who will get the benefits? who is receiving the benefit of this energy that is being generated and produced? and also, we would suggest, that we will move forward and recognize the truth that there are more benefits to building the transmission systems across the country than just the movement of that power.

any kind of transition like that would be extremely valuable, and this would not become a new technology right away. you'll be able to loosen the technologies. there are many uses of the grid that could be incorporated into a new transmission system along those lines. the fiber between the tower could be a way to make a good use of the transmission system. i would suggest to you that we need a new transmission system to go along with the legislation that has been proposed. >> thank you very much. the next witness is the executive director of the energy future coalition, a non-profit organization looking to reform the u.s. energy policy. we welcome you, sir. >> thank you for invitingto