something that is actually much more technological agnostic and end goal based. such that you don't have this kind of continual repeating of individual technologies like saying we need support and to weaken stand on our own two feet and asking for congress to enact that or not. is there something you can put into place for the long term that says we're going to put a guiding principle for all of these technologies, whether it is emission based principal or something along those lines that everybody can see the road map ahead and basically base their planning and essentially their financing of of. ..

>> one persons their treatment of some is another subsidy. i do see diverse views on. my own principle is not choosing winners and losers from capitol hill, but allowing markets and technology, not creating barriers for technology that make evolve and be a winner. that would be the principle that i do think it's a far more complex issue, because of the definition of taxes, penalties and related issues. >> yeah, i think using the term subsidy by its nature, it makes people nervous. subsidy seems have sort of a connotation use in recent years of something untoward. i guess the way i would look at

it, i hear your question as a bit of a philosophical question, and less of a nuts and bolts question. i think philosophically, there is fairly broad agreement that you subsidize things that have a social benefit. that they have a benefit that goes beyond the individual and it's not decision reflected in the marketplace. and so i think that you have to look at it that way, if something is not being valued that would make, you know, society better, then you have to come up with some way of evaluating it. whether tax is one way of doing that. i think as far as a market mechanism, it is the way we have tended to look at subsidy as sort of the lubricant to allow these new technologies to find their footing in the

marketplace. they do, without a doubt. we have our technology curve and i can show you the map of all of our technology curves across the board. and they come down over time, and what that's composed of is iteration of the technology, as you go from the early stage, to jen one to june 22 gen three. and each of those, when their first produced, low volumes with sort of in the lab, they have a high cost. it's like think about it. you're basically putting those first versions of a new technology together by hand. that costs a lot. but when you get to the larger manufacturing, then when you achieve those economies of scale, then they are strictly price competitive in the marketplace. if you can allow, ma continue to march down that technology pathway, then we think that eventually you can see a scenario where you don't need

them. we hope. you know, and i think we have seen that in our technologies. each of our technology pathways have an endpoint that is below the current prices of the income the technology they are competing with. i think you'd see sort of a natural exit point right there. >> thanks. i will take one last question. >> thanks. thanks very much for the conference. i have a question for kevin. unless i missed it, one of the priorities you did not mention was a clean energy standard, and that was a priority of previous committee chairman, and wondered why that wasn't one of the priorities of senator wyden. and if the answer is, it is no chance of passing the house, or it has no chance of passing the house -- i would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that and your thoughts on why energy

standard is not a viable strategy no. >> sure. i think actually you took my list of priorities to literally, because as i kind of lumped the thinking about climate and moving to a low carbon economy into kind of a two different track, both of which need to be moving in parallel. so i would do, all talk about energy efficiency and clean energy finance and things like that, the things we're working on. the same time you have to have this continuing conversation to develop something along the lines of a clean energy standard as one possible tool to get the power sector a very transparent set of rules that would reduce emissions over time. that's one viable pathway. there may be others. and so what chairman wyden said he was step is listen, the value without along with any other creative solutions you come up with, and tried to see if you can find bipartisan support. just the fact i didn't list that

doesn't mean it's off the table. it's one of a number of different options we've come up with and i think that continues to be a very important policy void that we need to move into. >> i want to thank the panel for joining us today and hopefully you can be around a few more minutes, people have questions on the site. thank you all. [applause] >> and it looks like lunch is in the back of the room. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we will have more live coverage on c-span2 when they return. just an update on our program schedule. every night this week while the u.s. senate is on presidents' day break, we are featuring booktv in prime time. tonight, the financial industry of what led to the crisis.

>> all of that live tonight on c-span. >> from the very start we told the board that the approach we're going to take, which was pretty straightforward, and remember, we were sent there to sort of fix gm. that was the nation, is go make this thing a viable company again. so we were all focused. i brought the message we were going to design, build and sell the world's best vehicles. we're going to move quickly. we need your support, and we need your input. and so we changed a few things about the board meeting. we shortened them considerably. we stayed away from the details

or didn't get in the weeds on how you build a car, but the bigger question of financing, morale, positioning marketing, that sort of thing. the board was very supportive of that. and we kept them informed and you know, we just took off. >> leading general motors through bankruptcy and a government bailout, former chairman and ceo ed whitacre on "american turnaround," sunday night at nine on afterwards, portable tv this weekend on c-span2. look for more booktv online, like us on facebook. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays fishing live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights watch key public policy events. every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules out our website. you can join in on the conversation on social media sites.

>> georgetown university law center is hosting a conference on energy, carbon emissions and climate change today here in washington. with the daylong event features discussions on electric vehicles, the agenda in washington and prospects for international agreements on reducing emissions. we will be back within the hour here on c-span2. events sponsors that are bringing together government officials and energy sector representatives to explore how state and federal government can work together. abo >> also an ev charging station e installation.ing this has been driven both by advances in vehicle technology and charging technology come but also by paul c. incentives that have been put in place at the federal level, state and localbe novel. policies that are already underway as well as some of the efforts that that they think are still needed to help further deploy more trick vehicles -- electric vehicles across the country. i won't give full bios, but they are available in the packets of registration, so please do take a look and see the wonderful

work these folks have all done. we're going to start off with anthony eggert who's to my far left, executive director of the university of california davis policy institute for energy, environment and the economy. and he'll be talking about the zev, ha's zero-emission vehicle, program in california and why the state decided to go down this road. next, eric heineman is the governor's sustainability director for the office of governor pat quinn in illinois. he'll talk about the whole variety of policies that illinois has in place to support electric vehicles including -- [inaudible] programs that the state has in place. christine kirby is director of the division of air and climate program at the massachusetts department of environmental protection. she's one of the three state co-chairs for the clean vehicles and fuels work group of the transportation and climate initiative, an effort that we at georgetown climate center are proud to facilitate. it's an effort of the 11 states and d.c. in the northeast and mid atlantic. you'll hear a lot more about that.

christine, as one of the co-chairs will be talking about tci's ev work most of which was made possible by the support of a u.s. department of energy planning grant, so we'd like to thank linda bluestein here. moving back to the west coast for another regional effort, tonya buhl is from washington state's department of transportation. she'll share with us some of washington's experience as part of that experience. british columbia is involved. and their collaboration on evs. last but not least and as a person whose name starts with z, i never think the last person on the list is least, mike robson will talk to us about the vehicle manufacturer's point of view about efforts to roll out more electric vehicles and the roles that they see policies playing in that effort. so i'll first turn things over to anthony.

>> all right. thank you, kate. good morning, everyone. it's a great pleasure to be here, and while they're loading up the slides, i just want to say it's a great honor to be here at the georgetown climate center. i've watched with great interest and admiration to see this center grow over the last four years. i was involved just a little bit at the very front end of that when i used to work for the resources board in california and was very support i of this initiative taking shape, and it's really wonderful to see how it's grown and really had a great impact due significantly to vicki's leadership. it's also a great pleasure to be here speaking on this topic as somebody who has had a past working as an automotive engineer, as a state regulator and as, now, a university researcher. i would say that there's been a history there that has not always been collaborative, sometimes contentious and even

he litigious at times. but really we're sort of at a period where there's an incredible amount of collaboration among all of those parties to really try to figure out how we can make this market work, what are the strategies and what are the things we need to overcome in order to get this thing to take shape and take off and contribute to our societal goals. so as kate mentioned, i'm with the uc davis policy institute. we're a new initiative on the campus designed to leverage university expertise to inform better energy and environmental policy, and i'm going to try in a very short amount of time to try to give you sort of a fairly high-level perspective of california's zero emission activities, the strategies being pursued. to provide some sort of context which i do think is important to put this in the perspective of california's overall economy, we expend about $120 billion

annually on all forms of energy including petroleum. nationally, that number's a little over a trillion. and i put these numbers up there because i think they tell a couple of stories. one is just the magnitude of this sector, the transportation energy sector is quite substantial. and that means if we're going to have an impact on this sector, we have to think in these terms. you know, these are multi-billion dollar expenditures on an annual basis. and the other story that this tells is that this is a significant fraction of our economy. so the changes in commodity prices, particularly petroleum, can have significant and often deleterious effects on our state and local economy, especially when we're singularly dependent upon that one source of transportation energy. so the opportunity to diversify and reduce that dependency to create a more resilient system is clearly a motivation. we in california have a program

to reduce our contribution to the global climate change problem, a law that was passed in 2006 sets a very specific target of returning to 1990-level emissions by 2020, but this is really only a steppingstone towards the ultimate goal for the state to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, and that's our contribution to a stabilized climate. somewhat different from the rest of the country, california's primary contribution to our carbon footprint does come from the transportation sector. that's a combination both of having a relatively clean electricity grid, but we are somewhat of a car culture. so approximately 40% if you include upstream refinery of the emissions associated with our energy system come from transportation. but it's not just about the environment. california because of our sort of entrepreneurial and innovative culture attracts a significant amount, actually over half of the clean tech venture capital comes to california, over 80% of the

venture capital this' associated with plug-in -- that's associated with plug-in electric vehicles comes to california of the national total, and we're number one in patents for both plug-in electric and fuel cell technologies. so the state sees this as a opportunity for industrial development and economic growth, and we're really seeing some great promise with companies that are setting up shop in california to develop both the supply chain and the end products to serve this market. this is an academic institution, so i felt safe using one equation. [laughter] and i promise this is the only equation that i'll use in this presentation. this is a modified version of what's called the kai identity named after a japanese economist. basically, the product of this is the annual generation of greenhouse gas emissions over any given year in the transportation sector. so it's a product of the carbon intensity of the primary energy

supply multiplied by the efficiency with which you convert that into a useful service or product -- in this case, the fuel economy of a vehicle -- and then the total consumption of that service or product, and in the case of the transportation sector, that's the number of miles driven on an annual basis. and when california set out to develop policies to address this sector, they really did focus on each of the three legs of that stool. um, the research -- so sort of a early research finding when we've looked at sort of what are the strategies that we might pursue and what are the options, the technology options that are available to us to achieve these very aggressive goals, this is a finding, a very robust finding across a wide number of studies done by the national academies, the international energy agency, consulting firms and university of california that it is going to take a portfolio of solutions. there's not a silver bullet. and particularly plug-in electric, hydrogen fuel cell and advanced biofuels, nonfood that

doesn't compete for crop land, are going to be part of that solution. and provide the greatest potential for meeting our goals. the nice thing about zero emission vehicle is the they do simultaneously address the first two terms in that equation. they have the benefit of being able to readily access low carbon intensity primary energy supplies uncolluding renewables -- including renewables, but even using natural gas for both electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared to cop vexal vehicles -- conventional vehicles because of the advanced competency of the power train. so that's been a particular focus of the state in achieving climate goals. we have got a very, very long history that would take way too long to cover in a short talk with zevs. i do want to focus on a fairly recent action taken by our governor brown last year to release an executive order that sort of calls upon the state

agencies to work with people to really accelerate this market. and this executive order sets out some, i would say, reasonably ambitious goals and milestones including that by 2015 that all of the major metro poll tan areas would be zev-ready, that means having in place the codes, standards, programs and practices that would be necessary to accommodate the growth of the market, that by 2020 that we would have sufficient infrastructure for a million zero-emission vehicles and that the costs would be coming in parity with conventional vehicles, and then by 2025 a target of having about a million and a half zevs on california roadways. california has about 26 million vehicle offense the road today -- vehicles on the road today, so with those numbers we're a little bit over 5% of the on-road vehicle fleet if these targets are met. those, that executive order sort of launched a series of activities and meetings that

ultimately resulted in an action plan, um x we had -- um, and we had at uc davis a significant amount of interaction with the agencies, convened research meetings to proprovide input into that plan. i do want to recognize wade youfoot who's the deputy director of the governor's office of planning and research who was really one of the key architects and conveners, um, getting, you know, the agencies together to put together what i think is a remarkable product. for those of you who have worked in state government, you notice that there's often silos that are difficult to break down, and the level of detail and cross-agency coordination that this plan represents is really something quite impressive. it covers sort of four different areas including infrastructure, development and planning, expanding consumer awareness -- which will hopefully result in increasing demand -- transforming fleets both public and private and growing jobs and

investment. the research that sort of contributed to this covers all of those areas. just for one example in the infrastructure space, um, we've got a significant number of models and assessments that combine engineering and consumer travel behavior to look at different things like an infrastructure strategy that would allow you to support a growing population of vehicles for both fuel cell and plug-in electrics. and what this allows you to do is to really figure out ways in which to coordinate the infrastructure deployment with the growth of the market. and if you do that well, you can substantially reduce the overall cost and provide increased consumer value for the users of those vehicles. how are we doing so far? i would say some cautious optimism. we're still very early in this market. california does get about 40% of the plug-in electric vehicle

market in the state, and i would say that's a combination of both the policies and market characteristics of california consumers. and currently the majority of is plug-in, hybrid electric vehicles, but we are starting to see a growth in the full batteries as well as we see more product offerings coming onto the market. we also conduct quite a few she fair owe studies -- scenario studies and this is, again, illustrative. this is done by one of our researchers to show that two things really. one is that there is plausible scenarios which show that we can reach these very deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if we use a combination in our portfolio different vehicle technologies. but the other thing is this is a multidecadal effort, that that is not something that is going to happen overnight, so we shouldn't be too quick to judge the evolution and development of this market on sort of a monthly or even potentially yearly

basis. so in conclusion, i won't go through each of these. i just want to focus on maybe the very last one. again, our research and even my experience working with the industry suggests that eventually this market is going to, has the potential to take off and be self-sufficient. but for any of you who are chemistry majors out there or chemical engineers, there's a certain amount of activation energy that needs to be overcome to get this market to be self-sustaining, and that's going to require coordination both from the public and the private sector. and, you know, i think a lot of the work that georgetown is doing is illustrative of that type of coordination and may help to overcome some of those early barriers so that this market can be successful, and we can meet some of our challenging societal goals. thank you very much. [applause] >> actually, we'll take questions at the end, but we'll go through all the presentations

first. [inaudible conversations] >> thanks for having me. and thank you, california, for buying most of the electric vehicles in the country. we really appreciate that. [laughter] i work in governor quinn's office, and i'm a big electric vehicle fan and advocate. and part of that is because the midwest has the biggest carbon footprint. we have most of the manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and some of the biggest impact with climate change and, therefore, i think we have one of the greater responsibilities to prepare for climate change. and so electric vehicles are one of the ways that we're preparing for a warmer environment and giving alternatives to fossil fuel transportation. so today i'm going to give an overview of our electric vehicles policies, program, incentives and some of the work we're doing with our state fleet.

governor quinn is very supportive of electric vehicles because he recognizes that electric vehicles give the united states oil independence and energy stability. and he often talks about oilgarchs. so with that, this is the governor's mansion. we have an ev charging station that was donated to us. we were one of the first governor's mansions to put an ev charging station in. this was a few years ago. that's an ev charging. we have in illinois an ev advisory council. that was something that started the summer of 2011, and they were tasked to research, make recommendations to the governor in a report. so we have that report online, and i'll give you that link in a few slides. in addition, we have the icc, um, rulemaking trying to figure out, well, how do you certify installers of ev charging stations. and we have some great rebate programs, excuse me, through department of economic

opportunity. iepa, secretary of state ev discount. we're working on idot charging station signage, and we have some great infrastructure projects happening throughout our state. so some of the results of this evac council that continues to meet, that meets monthly, is that we created this report with a series of recommendations in how to prepare for more electric vehicles on road. on the road. and some of those relations from the report -- recommendations were to encourage and facilitate ev charging installations. we know people want to go farther. range awareness, i think, is the new term -- [laughter] so that you know where the charging stations are and how far you can go is what we try and tell our state employees, prepare. one of the recommendations was encourage ev purchases and infrastructure development through incentives. so we're going to talk a lot about incentives today, i'm sure, with a couple different

panel members. promote efficient and renewable electricity use by evs. we're working on solar canopy projects with some of our car sharing, and i believe in the next few months we're going to do ribbon cuttings on three of those in the chicago-land area. educate the public on evs, their use and benefits. support the ev industry and associated job creation in illinois. so this is a sign that idot created that we hope to use that we've put up in some places, approved by the u.s. dot. this is a quick charger at our oasis, so we started the infrastructure process back in 2009, and, um, in twiewn -- 2009 we wanted to put the most amount of quick chargers and that was our bragging right. so now we have the densest amount of quick chargers in the country. [laughter] and that's one of them at an

oasis. some of the infrastructure projects we teamed up with our car-sharing partners in illinois, zip car is the for-profit one, and you may have heard about the bloomington normal ev mitsubishi program which calls for a thousand evs in bloomington normal. they have some great ads, um, some older women driving these cars that, you know, they're filmed saying they love driving these cars. and route 66, we're working on electrifying route 66. and finally, launch inside the summer to put more charging stations in. so this is just like a good slide of sort of where the stations are currently. this was part of that infrastructure, um, network. so in 2009 we awarded a network of charging stations to put in 73 dc fast chargers and 26 quick chargers so far and 1040 level ii. and then in decision this is

just -- in addition this is just this one network. there's other folks putting them in, so the number's more like maybe 300. this was a project with the city of chicago and the state of illinois both giving funding from u.s. department of energy and state of illinois capital funds. so in 2009 the governor before anyone was really talking about electric vehicles, he put aside money for ev infrastructure in the capital bill. and some of that money was used for this project. so where the stations are, um, some are with the car-sharing partners, igo, zip car at their locations. usually if there's a car-sharing car, there's a spot open to the public too. they're at oasises, they're at airports, walgreens, whole foods, jewel, they're at the mall. we have a variety of different charging stations. so part of the incentives that i mentioned, right now we have a

program through dco, department of commerce and economic opportunity, that offers 50 percent of the charging station and 50 percent of the installation and that's for public stations, residential stations, profit, nonprofit, and we launched this last summer, and we're seeing an intake in those applications. then we also have a program where if you're interested in coming to illinois and manufacturing ev components, um, we have a grant program of up to a million dollars. so if you're a company, if you're thinking about coming to illinois, we've got some money for you so, please, talk to me after the break. then in addition, illinois environmental protection agency has had a rebate program for a while that covered conversions, folks that want to convert their car to an electric car or just a normal commercial ev like this lease pictured. and the rebate is basically 10% of the msr sticker price. so that's been going on for a

while, and we're seeing a lot of usage of that rebate program in addition to the tax credit, the federal tax credit. then if you have an electric vehicle, you will also, um, instead of paying a vehicle registration fee every year, you can pay every two years. so that's kind of a nice incentive. on the education side, we've been putting together electric vehicle forums all over the state where we usually have state agencies represented, um, and various folks talking about the industry. we've done them sort of all over the state already, and we usually get pretty good attendance. so as i mentioned before, so what we're doing at the state level with our agencies is so far we've purchased 15 mitsubishi -- [inaudible] we went out for bid a few times, and the mitsubishi continued to be the cheapest electric vehicle that responded to the bid. so we bought 15 of those. they're at various agencies. so far we've never had a vehicle run out of juice. no one's been stranded.

so we're excited about that. we usually do some training with them before they go out on the road. i try and show them how to use a quick charger. it's a little bit complicated. and what we're finding is the fuel savings is one of the big things. so we're averaging about four cents per mile with an electric vehicle versus eight cents per mile if we had a hybrid versus 1-16 cents on just a normal gas car that gets 30 miles per gallon. so that's just fuel savings alone. and we're planning on buying more electric vehicles. so some things about this is that one of my points was in one agency women were sole drivers which pretty much tells me that thai more adventurous and tech-savvy. [laughter] so we're excited for that. i think that was dco. very little maintenance costs, so that's another benefit for our agencies, right? you know, pretty much all you

have to do is put air in the tires and windshield fluid, so there's not a whole lot you have to do. then we also bought charging stations. and this was all from funds that we got from the federal government. then also something innovative is, um, i believe we're the only ones doing this because zip car is in chicago right now with the only electric vehicle car-sharing partnership with the state government. they're using electric vehicles, they're using volts. and i think that's a really good way for state agencies and new staff to try out this technology, um, without necessarily buying the car. and we know that's also really the cheapest way to go, right? car sharing. if you can do car sharing with electric vehicles, you're saving a lot of money. this is a slide on the bloomington normal pilot that i mentioned. and finally, i just wanted to leave you guys with last week

was the auto show in chicago, and there was someone organizing a race as a recreation of the first automobile race in 1895. and the first race was in chicago, it was 50 miles long, and it was to demonstrate that cars are a viable alternative to horses. and that they're a new technology and that, you know, that was where the future was going. and two cars made it, um, i think there was maybe 15 in the beginning. it took, like, eight hours to do 50 miles. [laughter] and so last week we recreated this race in chicago, and we recreated the route which was 50 miles, and we had about 11 different electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids. you see the front is a purely he electric truck made in chicago. and the idea was this technology is here now, it is a viable alternative, you know, it's better for the planet, and, um, you know, we don't really need gas cars anymore.

so i'm -- was excited to be in that race, and i ended up a little bit lost and got the, i think, second to last. [laughter] so -- but, you know, it's a beginning, right? so thanks so so much. [applause] >> thanks. >> good morning. >> morning. >> i'm very happy to be here to talk about the reck trick, work of the -- electric work of the transportation climate initiative. my name is christine kirby, i'm director at the massachusetts department of environmental protection, that's my day job. i also work quite a bit with tci, i'm one of the co-chairs of the work group. i want to recognize the two other chairs. one is adam rooter and the

second is liz entwistle with the maryland department of environment. and i also want to recognize the great support we've gotten from georgetown climate center; cassie powers, kate zyla, they've done a great job for us on the education and outreach part of it. my presentation today is on, again, the great ev work that we've done with tci, and it's called the northeast electric vehicle network, and we've done some exciting work over the year, and that's what i'm going to be talking about. before i get to that, um, i wanted to mention that i visited a car dealership over the weekend because i'm starting to think about buying a new car. and i was very excited to see hybrids, pure battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and i took the time to ask the salesman about whether or not people were buying these cars. and he gave me a bunch of excuses, you know, you need to -- people aren't buying them because they these to upgrade their electrical services, they're worried about what i now

know is range awareness, they don't understand the -- [inaudible] and they aren't aware of what the incentives are. and at that time i looked over at my husband, and he looked back at me, and my husband gave me this look like this guy has no idea what he's in for. [laughter] i spent some time educating him on the evs, and i wished i had my tci materials. i think he wanted to get me out of the dealership, and that was the first time that had ever happened to me. [laughter] jenna:. >> from earlier today the george town university law center. we'll take you back live. they're hosting a conference on energy, carbon emissions climate change. the day-long event features discussions on electric vehicles, the climate agenda in washington. next up a discussion on the prospects. roll for international prospects in climate change. getting started live again here on c-span2. >> on the topic of energy or climate, to find folks in the crowd or speakers who

have not worked for eileen at some point either at epa or the state department. not to say she looks -- >> she is old. >> i know you all know her but i'm going to say this for the broader viewing audience. before the pew center she served assistant secretary of state of for oceans and international and scientific affairs and special assistant to the president and senior director for global environmental affairs at the national security council. and as chairing of the u.n. montreal protocol fund. and precisely because you've been at this a long time, eileen, and you had this perspective working with companies that really helped launch it 15 years ago, hard to believe when we were there, in 1998. not only working with progressive companies but working on the international front as a negotiator yourself i really wanted to get your insights and share your insights on those fronts with a lot of our audience who tend to be more

state and local folks who might know what is happening in their world. before we do that i like to transition a bit from the last panel which of course was so good on domestic policy. specifically the fact that president obama is putting climate change back on the agenda for washington policymakers urging action in both the inaugural address and the state of the union and saying if congress does not meet to act the targets set forth in cope pen hague again, he will. we listened to some of the conversation between senior hill staff and administration and folks from dough and i like to know what the real significant, and how significant is it that president obama is engaging at this level. >> first of all it is great to see you and great to see everybody here. now, you asked me this question. and actually i think it is really significant that he mentioned climate in both of those occasions because if you, if you think about

washington for the last few years, after the attempt to pass broad, comprehensive climate legislation in 2010 there was just no talk about climate. i mean people talked about clean energy and people talked about green jobs and people talked everything else but climate. and i think that was really a mistake. it is sort of, it understates the urgency of what we're really trying to deal with here on climate change. it undervalues the opportunities on the clean energy transition. and so while no one was talking about climate, all these things were happening, right? we had record heat. we had drought. we had floods. we had hurricane sandy and really if you want to deal

with a problem, you actually have it talk about it. so i think it was really important that he raise it. of course the proof of the pudding will be in what he does over the next few years but, just getting it on the agenda and talking about it i think was a big step in the right direction. >> great. and do you want to entertain the other question about the most realistic scenario for policy action? i know you did remark when you came in even though we're getting a bit of a late start on the last panel because some folks are running to appointments, but you said that the panel would be brief because it was focused on action in congress. i think that probably says what you think about it. tell us what you think is going to happen? >> what do i think? i think, kevin, i think you're terrific but i think the reality is the odds of something happening in the congress that is significant, of very, very small. i know kevin did a great job

of describing the clean energy standard as still being relevant but you know it's may not be off the table but it's not really on the table either. there's a lot of talk about a carbon tax. but there are two problems with that. carbon, tax. so i think the odds of something happening legislatively is significant. doesn't mean there not might not be little things but significant or very small. that leaves it up to the executive branch. actually there's a lot the executive branch can do. let's sort of talk about what some of these things are. the epa has to go final on rules for new power plants. i think the epa is likely to propose sometime over the next four years, and probably go final with rules on existing power plants of the those are a big deal.

there is heavy duty trucks. that's a big deal. there are efficiency standards at doe. that is not insignificant. you can deal with methane and black carbon and hfcs. that makes a lot of difference in the short term. you could do that. the federal government has some buildings it is hard to count them. think what they could do with all the federal buildings, with the federal fleets. look at what they do with their purchasing. if they actually got really serious about making sure they only bought things that are good for the climate or that, where the value chain is good for the climate. we are going to have to spend a lot of time on resill, which i think the last year has taught everybody. the federal government can do a lot to help businesses and states and communities deal with resilience. so i would hope that we could have a pretty

aggressive program at the national level spurred on by the federal government. even in the absence of anything happening in the congress. >> well, that's great and actually -- >> can we just get it done? >> i think we have some of the right people to have those conversations. because as you know we have assistant administrator of the epa june mccarthy to speak about the clean air standards. we have john powers, a environmental executive and talk about greening the government and buildings that you mentioned and energy use and tomorrow is whole day focused on implementation. we're on the early warning 9 street tracker with the agenda. to mention the role of businesses i'm remembering i think our first report, all those years ago was one on credit for early action and now it is 15 years later and to some extent people are still talking about getting credit for what they have already done because there is really no regime that guaranties them what the scope of the program will be. for years companies there at

pew and otherwise have been arguing part of the reason to do this not because the climate is changing and we need to deal with it and this could be good for their bottom line if it is done smartly, intelligently, but also because they want regulatory certainty if they make the investments. what is driving them at this point given we've lost some time? >> well i think the way i look at it there are sort of three things that are driving them. one is one that you just mentioned is certainty. if you're making large investments in big capital projects it would be nice to have some idea what is coming down the road. the other thing you also sort of alluded to this is a seat at the table. if things are really going to happen, if they view themselves as good guys doing some of the right stuff, they might be more influential in the final outcome. but i actually think there's another thing that's starting to be a real driver for business and that is, resilience. i mean companies are really starting to feel the effects

of all the things that we are starting to experience. so, you've got flooding. i mean i think there was a an example when there were floods in thailand, intel lost about a billion dollars because they couldn't move their hard drives, because of the floods. i mean companies are really starting to feel what it would be like to live in a world where there are a lot of changes in weather, unpredictable things. i guess there's a term we started to use, that is the instability ingredient. in the world that we are so, how do you actually plan for this? what kinds of things can you do? oh, my god, we've got to do all those things and they're very costly? well, maybe we should also work on the other side to try to do something so we don't have this problem in the future the i think that is starting to be a real driver for interest in this topic. >> that's good to hear.

that is our experience dealing with the state and local governments and as wells they're looking for changes an insights about changes. >> they may not call it climate although i wish they would. really that is what they're upagainst. >> sometime in my home state, louisiana, they don't necessarily talk about where it is coming from but the coastal restoration reports are every aring to sea level rise and dealing with it accordingly. i want to shift gears to the international arena. you've been at the state department and we've seen a recent change in the leadership with senator john kerry becoming the new secretary of state. do you think that suggests there will be in i differences at the state department in u.s. policy or is this pretty much governed by the white house? >> yes. >> yes to both? >> i mean, i think senator kerry really knows this issue. he has known this issue for, really some, long before rio. that is before 1992. that is sort of unique in a secretary of state to know

it, in that depth. but that said, what is it that the state department can do? the state department negotiates treaties. you can't really negotiate a treaty unless you're prepared to do what the treaty would require at home. so it cops down to what you can do domestically or nationally. so, yes, he is going to bring a lot of enthusiasm to this. although i think hillary was pretty good also. but i mean he can do that. it is not clear how he will organize the state department and that can make some difference in sort of how you deal with it. i suggested sometime ago the most important thing was to deal with china, which you could do separate from negotiations and separate root from all the processes because really that's, china is just a huge emitter. and, you can't deal with the problem without them. i mean you can't deal without us either but you

can't deal without them. he might make that a focus. that might improve things. but really, maybe some difference. i wouldn't say a lot. >> and from your time back in the state department in the clinton years you were involved in some early efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. i don't know if you have any perspective on less sorns learned -- lessons learned in the approach tried then. >> i think we made a number of mistakes. it was me at least in part. what did we really learn? i think the most important lesson from kyoto is you can not negotiate a treaty unless you're prepared to do stuff at home to meet the requirements. and i think, it wasn't enough thinking that went into what it is that the u.s. was prepared to do domestically before kyoto was negotiated. and then of course we had other reasons it was never submitted to the senate and

so on and so on. i think, we were great at the negotiation but it really didn't mean anything because we didn't have a program here to actually get it implemented. the other, the other lesson, and, again, i'm partly the problem here. is that, we had just sort of come off the montreal protocol which i think was a very successful international agreement. and we thought we should model a climate change agreement on that, do it in the same way, have it be top down, set some targets and then implement it but from montreal we actually had authority at epa to implement which we didn't have in climate. but we sort of followed the same model because it looked like it was going to work and it really hasn't. >> so at the top-down kind of kyoto cap approach didn't work, as we saw in copenhagen there is more

bottom up pledge and review approach? >> which isn't working either. >> that was my next question. >> sorry. >> what's your view on the status and the progress? are there any bright spots, let's put it that way? >> well, let's see, i mean, i think kyoto didn't work because some of the big players were not a part of it, which isn't to say it didn't have some successes, i think it did in europe. you have to look at this in total. the bottom up, i mean, the targets are not that ambitious. they're voluntary. and a lot of people aren't going to meet them, including possibly us. possibly because we could but it is not clear to me that there is a path and that we will. so, if you just look at the international negotiations, you got to find something else, something that moves people nationally so that they can actually get a framework in place that does it. so i think you have to look at where the big emitters

are. you know, i guess 70% of all the greenhouse gas emissions globally come from, come from, i think ten countries. so that's really where you have to focus. you have to keep in mind that global energy demand is probably going to increase like 50% in the next 20 years or so. so there's going to be a huge burst of need for electricity, transportation, everything else. this has all sorts of dreadful uplycations for the climate if you do it the way we, the way we did it and the way we have always done it. you know, then you can sort of say, well, how about the last few years? what has been happening there? well u.s. emissions are actually down, i think it is 8%. eu emissions are down like 9%. but chinese emissions are up 30%. look at, look at where the

coal is being burned. i think in five years india is supposed to become the second largest burner of coal right behind china. so the global picture on emissions is, if the national one wasn't enough to make you cry, i mean, just sort of think globally as sort of where we're going, you know? so, that's the crying part. and you asked me bright spots so. i mean there actually are, there actually are some, relax, i mean, the news, car standards that were just promulgated will double fuel economy by 2020 five. california is moving ahead and i think is a real bright spot. rggi is strengthening their targets. that's a bright spot. the cap-and-trade in australia looks like, i mean, who knows, another government might fall over their program here but it's a bright spot.

they have got a plan. they have got a program. south korea is thinking about instituting emissions trading. china has seven sort of experiments around the country looking at emissions trading. so you actually see some signs. then you have these big looming clouds and we have to find a way to sort of, you know, get through this, and god, i hope you weren't looking to me for all the answers. but i mean, it isn't all bleak but people really had better get on to it and they had better get on to it really fast. otherwise it will get carried away. then it will be really hard to reverse it. all the power plants being built, i mean, maybe not that many coal ones here. we're exporting coal. so, globally this is not great. i mean, it is good if we don't burn it here, but if we burn it somewhere else, what have you actually done? i'm sorry, i'm getting depressing again. >> i know.

i didn't mean this to be this way. we could have had a discussion later in the day and had a drink after. >> we can still go after. [laughter] >> but you keep mentioning china. and actually i'm reminded we had joanna lewis, used to be at the pew center, at georgetown on the main campus come speak to my class. she is more upbeat about china and talking about their ambitious energy intensity targets, about the pilot cap-and-trade are all doing their own thing to see what work best. it is an interesting bottom up approach and they put climate change in their five-year plan and energy reductions. >> and they're the biggest manufacturer of photovoltaics in the world but only .2% of their energy comes from photovoltaics. sorry. >> she was optimistic about the solar market. changing from china, ten

major emitters you talked about, do you see a path, might not be traditional u.n. negotiation with all the parties where everybody has to hold hands and jump at the same time. do you see a path where you take the major emitters? bush tried, i think those major emitter discussions are still going on. >> they are. >> are they bearing any fruit? >> no. i mean, i think some of the, i think the conversations have gotten better over the years here. i think there is a real exchange of views on technologies. many so things that are actually working. that is very positive. is it the way to lead to, sort of a, you know a real resolution? i don't think so. because i don't think it was ever structured that way. i mean it was structured as a way to sort of talk and get to, i mean, get to know somebody. this is important because you actually need to understand the national picture and what is possible and what is not. you know, and you can do that and in that kind of a

forum and so i think there is a value to them. but i'm not sure i would say that they have made a huge dent. i think we have to focus on, you know, these countries and what they're doing nationally. and that means efforts at the national level in a number of different places, because you can't negotiate something until you're sure you can do it. >> well of course though president obama himself along with other leaders from around the world went to copenhagen and actually did just that, right? they came up with this copenhagen accord and -- >> otherwise it would have been total -- >> they pushed the professional negotiators aside and got a deal in prints pill on paper. >> which is better than know deal. >> now he says we'll be able to meet the targets which are of course based on the legislation at the time that american aces, the waxman-markey bill. but, what is your prognosis as to whether or not we can meet those kind of targets

without congressional action? >> i mean i think it is possible but it would require doing everything and doing it in the most ambitious way we can imagine it. in other words, yes, we would have to do rules for existing power plants but we would also have to do them in a very ambitious way. not just sort of do them. otherwise you don't get to the 17%. so, it would require a real effort. i think that there would be congressional pushback on a lot of these things. i mean the congressional review, i mean you have all of these possible ways to prevent certain things from happening if they become too ambitious. i think it will be tough. i don't think it is impossible. i think people have sort of charted out a way to show it is possible but it is very ambitious in the absence of something, you know, congressionally, which, you're not going to have. certainly aren't going to have in time. >> give a lot of thought to what other agencies can do? we talked a lot about the

clean air act standards because we know epa is really on the hook legally to move forward with the new and existing stationary sources, not just power plants but refineries and other large emitters. you mentioned the high global warming pollution gases. >> right. right. i mean that is something that can be done. we could, we can use, i mean, there's an issue what you do on federal land. you can do a lot of renewables on federal land. we're already doing some renewables on federal lands. you can probably do more than that i certainly hope all the rpss that you guys put in place today stay in place despite effort to try to pull those back. it would be nice to get them even a little more ambitious. . .

you have to not only make progress and everything but you have to support the status and activity as part of how you are going to reach that goal. if you have ideas about the federal government whether the administration or the health can support the efforts, because as you said, the california emissions standards first were adopted by the other 177 under a different provision that says the states can choose the clean standard or the generic standard and eventually this now becomes all of the land.

so using that kind of model are there other areas where the federal government can partner with the state's better or support them? >> in terms of how you look at existing power plants, a big question is how do you deal with state programs? how do you incorporate them? what's the flexibility and i think that's important to make sure that existing state programs are future state programs you could see more of those are sort of a part of the whole, and i think there are ways to do this. it's going to require a lot of dialogue between the epa and the states to carry out the best way to do that. but why wouldn't the california program be something that could qualify? maybe some of the rps could be. how do you build with other states, seeing that it would be their program, rather than something imposed from the fed.

we want to move in that direction as well. i think that's very possible. so how you design the program to deal with existing power plants to have a big role in deciding how best to do that. i hope you all are sort of gearing have to do that and i hope the epa is also. >> i'm going to open the floor for questions and a few minutes, but i wonder what you think the role of the businesses you work with in that equation of art. how are they, sometimes they talk about the work in a really negative we but it's pretty clear they come from the state level to begin with. even the federal success is built on that, you see them appreciating that more? >> a little bit. we are actually going to start a more concrete dialogue with them about how to do this in the best possible way, how to get them interested in doing it. i mean it is a patchwork, but all we are really doing here is stitching together all these things because we are going to see something coming from the

top down and that is true internationally and nationally as well. so you better get out your quilting a comment because that is what the next few years is going to be about. >> if anybody from the audience wants to join the conversation. >> the national association of korean air agency. thanks for your thoughts on section 111 bea. my question has to do more with a of coal and the environmental group's strategy is to stop all coal plants from being built in the u.s. and whether that is a viable strategy, given that coal is so popular in india wouldn't it make more sense to focus on ccs as a strategies that can be applied worldwide?

>> it's my view of the moment that the reason we are not building the plants here is because of the price of natural gas. i mean, i am not saying let's make sure we don't build more power plants it's not of value in this equation, but the real issue is the price of natural gas and natural gas stays low - key will be hard-pressed to see it being built here. with that said, even forget china and india for a moment. obviously it is going to need ccs. you are going to need it for gasps. if we moved largely gas and renewables in one scenario for the future, we are going to find all of the emissions are coming from natural gas, which is a fossil fuel as well and you are going to have to do ccs for natural gas. so if i were going to think of a single thing the was really important here globally as well as nationally, it is to move the

ccs issue, which i find hard to find out how you can do that without kind of policies. judy is working hard on enhanced oil recovery as a way to get to ccs, but we have to figure out a way to do it because even if we never build another plant here we have to do it, we have to do it for global reasons and natural gas reasons. >> it's hard to do without a price signal or a rule. thank you for this dialogue and your optimism and realism. i have a question on the transportation sector i don't know we talked about the zero emission vehicles and the robert kennedy to address the fuels and vehicle efficiency but the first leg of that is the use part of the equation which is the amount of the travel people have on the

miles they drive. california one of its programs has seen interesting results coming out of the regions just as a quick example, the los angeles region which has been known for its auto centers in the just released the transportation plan that shows and eight to nine to 10 percent reduction per capita and greenhouse gas just from the better land use planning that brings different types of house and java services. >> that's great can you figure out how to get everyone else to do this? >> is this a question for me? >> this does eventually come to a question, which is that the mpo including southern california and other places around the country are demonstrating leadership in this space, and i guess the question is what can the federal government to do to help them? we have a reauthorization of the bill coming out. >> i'm not the expert. where is nick?

i will try to chaired the board on the topic of how to best reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the transportation sector nationally the looked at all options including price signals and fuel changes and to sort of put you on the spot he also was ahead of the connecticut d.o.t. so while he's thinking about whether or not he wants to come up here, i would say to shamelessly plug our work with the jurisdictions talk about earlier. in the electric vehicles we are looking at the equation and the person sitting next to you has worked with the gene herbert and her team to look at performance metrics that really captured this part of the equation. because as you well know, it's harder to really guesstimate what those changes might engender in the mission, it is good to have real world examples coming out. frankly, arlington virginia, where i live, has been able to keep emissions low even the economy has boomed because this

margaret and it's just been booming and people living along the quarter so i think we have to do a better job of capturing the benefit. so my answer to the question is the federal government for the transportation debate where the stakes are held accountable for the match rex and the money flows accordingly this should be part of the equation, and i can tell you in this region and the states are working hard to figure out how to do that together. the california mpo have had lots of conversations and of the extraordinary achievements and at least the promise of extraordinary achievements when meeting those requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in metropolitan regions. unfortunately, and there may be some other mpo represented here, that is not the national pattern and i think looking there are

other examples to be sure but looking to the transportation planning process alone, state and local planning as something that is going to have short-term impact and short-term and medium-term talking over 15, 20 years it seems to me something that we should shoot for what really unlikely to occur. as a matter of fact as vicki nellis, trb research board had another special committee operating at about the same time we were that looked specifically at the land use planning and i'm sure you're familiar with the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions chaired by tony as the transportation economist at the kennedy school, and i think the results of that were it should be done but you talk about rollover into the deals and trucks how about rollover of the residential facilities that the

payoffs are so long term and marginal in the period when we are with all of those results that we talked about now. it just is not very promising. it should be something that we consider. but we've really in the transportation sector have to deal with i think the regulatory -- as has been discussed here -- the pattern and its promising in the short run the commanding control regulation on the cafe standards. i think what promises to be achieved is certainly the most important thing we are doing if we could move to a tax regime to reinforce that and of course the marketplace will take care of this. market prices are going up with gasoline and ups and downs of the trend pattern and we reinforced the regulatory environment and i think that's an important element of this. >> our demographics, too though?

because they don't drive as much, they are communicating and other ways, taking transit, and the older generation as downsizing of it. >> i think the people who disagree in terms of what's going on among the young people, i mean, there are some indications that there are some countervailing indications as well. i think certainly the broad demographic pattern of the aging population is probably an element with the bad economy of what is a reality and that is a per capita basis, george -- the emt has been flat in 2005 on a per capita basis. so i think some of that is the aging population. so that's happening with young people there is a trend there. it's really interesting that we have some d.o.t. in the ruined the state and federal level.

some of the initiatives are really not engaged which is the fault of the governors they do not still think these issues. >> other questions, come on up. i'm with the aerospace industry trade association thank you vicky and everybody for such a great conference. i've heard a lot of interesting work that is going on and is funded by the government this morning in the realm of your predictions and larger atmosphere because as you maybe aware ideal a lot with the sequestration budget cuts and that's my world right now if you could make predictions as far as what you see what to put a

damper on all of this great news. [laughter] >> with a sort of fiscal issues are going to be with us for a long time and they are going to be the dominant item in our politics for a long time and that is actually one of them at the national level they are so small because i think we are going to be focused on whether it is one year budget for the next year's budget or tax reform all the stuff that's really what i think is and the occupied and many people for a long time we

can't see the pictures might in almost any way because the price everybody will pay. i don't care where you end up on the political spectrum this is going to be a reality and will all filter down. i don't think there is any way to avoid that so that's one reason why it's too bad things like the carbon tax it's not being taken seriously it provides the right incentives for an issue like this and it's not that there aren't a lot of people who don't think it's worth talking about politically but it's going to be very difficult. now maybe, you know, it sort of floats along and at some point it takes off and that provides a little bit of relief to try to

not be totally blacked. >> it's interesting how many different corners are talking about carbon tax now and it's not that people on the hill yet to get we are told that they are often in meetings where they start the meetings by saying i'm not in this meeting. and then receive -- >> talk about it, to talk about it and i do think it could be strange bits together because they are not in the fiscal crisis there in the climate crisis and it can meet a lot of different needs and we just visited with folks at the brookings and heard about the event that has been talking about it on the proposals on board. >> can you tell us about them? >> note. >> i am not in this room. >> maybe that is a good point schoenbohm.

it's always fun to have heidi. [applause] alaska the next panel to come on up and get started at 1:30. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> this is the georgetown university law center climate change conference on climate change and carbon emissions. they are taking a ten minute break and we will be back with live coverage once they resume. in the meantime we will show a portion of a rally that happened over the weekend in washington addressing climate change. organizers called on president obama to develop a comprehensive energy plan, policies that include limiting carbon emissions, utilizing the renewable resources and rejecting the proposed keystone

xl pipeline. we will show as much as we can until the georgetown event resumes. ♪ ♪ >> if you didn't warmup in that moment, that's your opportunity. so here we go. coming up now, a multi tiered approach inside and outside in this week's and in the streets. so coming up now, fighting as hard as we are and through the

inside, give it up, senator from rhode island. give it up for senator sheldon whitehouse! make some noise! ♪ >> thank you. and welcome to the nation's capital. welcome to our people. there is a lot of history here, and americans coming to this place to make their voices heard. so thank you for coming and joining that history of american voices. your voice his can make a

difference in your voice is needed to make a difference. because congress is sleepwalking through the crisis and it is time to wake. [applause] held a week -- help to wake us up, as a member of the climate change task force with me and the congressman west of california. [cheering] lineup at wakeuptheclimatechange.com and make your voice heard. you know, the polluters don't want you here. they do not want to hear today don't want your voice is heard. they got the lobbyists, they got a super of pacs.

they've made the campaign contributions. they got this town in their pockets. they've got the situation under control and then you show up and then we show up and we change the game. and you brought your voices. are we going to be heard? if so, we need to hear you. are you going to be heard? [cheering] they say that climate change is a hoax. are you going to be heard about that? they say the science isn't clear and we should wait some more. are you going to be heard about?

we are going to be heard and we are going to make this right. and it's not just us. there is a man over there in the white house. he has found his voice on climate change. he has said to fail to act is to portray the future generations if we are going to portray future generations we are going to help barack obama fight this and make this right. because it's not just for us they are watching this is our

time they know this is our moment and we are made for this moment. for their children and to their children are we going to say we failed you mean. no chance we are going to have the president's back and he's going to have our back we are going to look down to those children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and we are going to say to them yes, we did [cheering] we are going to say to them this was our time and these were our voices and this was our choice, and by god, yes we did.

[cheering] ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, it has been said one ought not to be offset unless one of to be and then one ought to be unshakable. [cheering] make some noise. [cheering]

i just want to take this five seconds to say the reality of the movement is this. if we fail, the consequences are dire. i'm from louisiana, and my family and friends went through katrina, and those who also went through sandy commesso for this ten seconds, and in a moment a quick silence, put your fist to the air. i heard there's 40,000 of you now. put your fist in the air for those babies in the south bronx, put your fist in the air for your grandma and oakland, put your fist in the air for all of those that are dealing with

cancer or bad water or bad air put your fist in the air for humanity and let them know that we say can't stop, can it stop. [chanting "can't stop won't stop"] the senior adviser to 2008 hillary clinton campaign. give it up for maria. ♪ >> gracias.

i'm so happy to be here with all of you at this historic event. this is the way to stand up for climate change. [cheering] thank you 2350, the sierra club, and to all of you that are making this powerful rally possible. for our children and our future. we must do more for climate change. interestingly enough, just a few short years ago, environmental issues didn't really register with latinos as a top concern to our families. but that has changed. that has changed sadly because we have seen the detrimental effect of toxins in our a year and water and what that does to our families and our children. unfortunately, latino

communities, latino families, and all of the communities in this country are suffering from this. latinos disproportionately live in communities that have been poisoned. their water has been poisoned. there air has been poisoned. our children have asthma. we live, breathe, we play in these places that have been poisoned by these toxins. as of the president's statement, we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. really hits home for latinos and for all of us. so, from the carbon pollution come from the nation's dirty power plant saying no and protecting the keystone pipeline [cheering] president obama's legacy kendal the rest on his response, results and leadership in solving what could lie -- climate crisis.

the industry claims that the pipeline is for our energy security. we know this pipeline gives the industry new access to foreign markets and the ability to sell tarsands for more money. it's a win for them but what about us? what about ensuring that we have what we need to make sure that our children's have good economic security and health security. it is a loss for all of us when it comes to clean air and clean water in our climate. we also keep hearing about these jobs killing regulations. but for millions americans and especially minority and low-income communities, clean air protections are lifesaving regulations. [applause] this is another big reason why the environmental issues are registering on the minds of so many latino families today.

we unequivocal support the limits on carbon pollution from the power plants. yes pivoted getting the standards for new and existing power plants will mean an improvement for the health of the family and children. now and into the future and the president's plan to create more clean energy jobs and more responsible energy development is literally just what the doctor ordered for all of us. let's make sure we hope this president follow his commitment and his plan if we marched to the white house today and on climate change i have no doubt that with your of commitment, your energy come in your heart and soul. thank you. [cheering]

[chanting] >> so one more time, i need your help. for those on the speaker's stand, you have to say get up. go to the speaker's stand please, please. nice rally. so right now we are going to have our celebrities in the media and also those on the streets to have a great platform. so this shows we will have feel little bit of fun right now. give it up from the modern family.

give it up from lost. ♪ dividend for hilton kelly. >> keep pushing for change. >> let's go, let's go, let's go. come on. >> we cover this event over the weekend. all of it is available in our video library, c-span.org.

we will take you back live now to the georgetown university center. an all-day discussion on climate change on federal energy policies. they are battling back and read the next panel looking at multistate efforts to reduce emissions and energy use just getting underway. >> all right, everybody. welcome back. now we are going to shift gears from discussing what's happening in business and the international level and also the federal level with eileen claussen at the state and regional level how to support and defend and bolster its and how to build it into the new federal regulatory program. we have another terrific panel. absolutely terrific panel. i'm so excited the secretary of delaware natural resources and environmental control will be speaking about the regional gas initiative that you heard so much about today already have the transportation and climate.

vicki of the entire middle defense fund will talk about state renewable energy programs. judy greenwald, vice president for technology and innovation will talk about the use of benchmarking across the states to promote reductions and important sectors. wade fer the governor of california will talk not only out california efforts as we've heard a lot about today, but also about the other states in that region and the late great david of the natural defense counsel who will share the proposal on some of the programs discussed in a clean iraq triggered a brief remark under section 111 d to remove to do it to reduce the emissions as we discussed earlier. something that here in the front and i know many of you in the audience have been working on as well. so the order that we will speak is the order we are sitting and so i'm going to welcome colon.

[applause] >> thank you. it's great to be here today. i was actually an apprehensive when i got the invitation from vicki. i grew up in syracuse, this isn't a place people like to tread. to add insult to injury. [laughter] so, not thrilled about that entire experience. we are looking forward to moving to the green pastures. i also want to apologize for those watching on tv i have a little spit-up on my shoulder i have a one-year-old daughter, i was all good to go and she left a little trace behind, so if you see that in advance. i'd also like to recognize three from delaware that i can see, to make sure i get everyone. lummis neil inouye in addition to the department of natural resources on the climate program.

gene mccarthy, let's not let her give a hard time about that later today when she gets here. i also want to thank valerie who did an incredible job writing the rules and borat works for the department of transportation even though he thinks like the environmental agency too. he's been the state lead on a dusty 11 initiative from the beginning. i have to initiatives i want to talk about and i will go through them very quickly not because i taught at this speed but also i want to leave them for the discussion. but there is an incredible amount of energy going on among the east coast states right now. i think we realized we don't have the massive population of a state like california where you can run the market programs and the one state boundaries. so the initiatives i want to talk about today to give a quick update on the initiatives of rggi and i would be remiss to not recognize one of the reasons why we are in the position to make the changes that we did because of the leadership and chairmanship before and also the climate initiative which is a growing partnership with the

georgetown climate center across 11 states and the district to kind of have this march policies are not transportation as a part of the mix to reduce the emissions in the state. so quick on rggi at this point we're at nine states, the cap-and-trade program to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions through the market place mechanisms. to focus on just the power generating factor it isn't sector wide, but we do require all plans for 25 megawatts acquire obama enzus torian option for each ton of co2 that the myths of the cleaner that emissions of your allowance is the need to acquire and they have to acquire them over a three-year compliance period and we made a week to that which i will mention a minute. we have options when they are when the cap is very large and there isn't a lot of demand we ended with a reservation price when the cat is a little tighter obviously the price goes up a bit and then the most important thing is the wave and we've

invested the allowances. other than putting it towards the general fund of the treasury like you've seen in the european countries or some of the state's, some of the other states doing similar types of efforts almost every dollar that's been generated by the program has been invested in energy efficiency, the clean energy and adaptation products. i will go into the economics in just a second, but that small change coming into the importance of that really makes the economics of the entire program work. as i mentioned before it isn't an efficient market based system. we have the entities and the affiliate's but 94% of the allowances and the third party entering into the marketplace there's been no anticompetitive conduct or practices or treating things like that we have to do monitor and redundancy to make sure that it is a program of a lot of integrity. we've had 18 quarterly options so far since 2008 and we've sold 400 million allowances and the control period from 2009 to

2011, 100 malignant khator period in 2012 but will continue the next two years. $1.1 billion until the proceeds are directly invested into the communities for efficiency and clean energy and other things i mentioned. so the price ranges from $3.51 to one of the early options. when folks are trying to figure out of the program was going to look like to be more the reservation price which is a little under $2. it's been like that the last six options. three sets of benefits because the way we structure the program is to reducing the carbon dioxide emissions is a top priority. other criteria of pollutants that come along, it is a multi pollutant focus. at the same time these are the states in the ozone transport region, some of the innovative clean air act applications in the entire country looking at the regulations and it rolls around mercury and other criteria pollutants. the folks like lisa jackson commission in new jersey when this started and in connecticut and others and so a real strong group of environmental regulators using the advantage of this program rggi to the

regulatory programs. huge benefits to consumers to reduce energy bills and i will get into some work that sue has done in a second and the economic benefits, the energy jobs. unemployment in the states and the region are lower across-the-board are lower than the national average and one of the reasons rggi is in areas like the cui energy deployment as well as the manufacturing it's been one of the reasons we've had a little bit more resiliency in the downturn because we are slightly more diversified and its increasing our competitiveness we can say with certainty that our mission approach to reducing emissions is not going to lead to a significant regulation and the short term and the state's racing more towards federal regimes because of some of the changes that we are making so we will come back to that in a second when david gets here to of the 1.1 billion over 600 million has been invested today and the other programs that are moving money as 66%

efficiency, this graph just kind of shows the biggest inefficiency of smaller chunks of the renewable and others. the goal is twofold. on the efficiency site to help the individual program participants which is fantastic because you have a big cost savings for those in the program but it's across the entire market. reducing the overall demand and the number of the peak. the downward price pressure by kind of moving out or down the cost curve towards the cheap energy because you are needing a little bit less of it and so it is a way to actually stabilize the overall prices and we talk a lot about the impact actually being down and almost every single one of the states because of this effect so there are great deal of that i can provide in a lot more details of the folks are interested in it but there's a kind of secondary benefit that's good for everybody not just those that participate in the program cannot directly participate, and in great numbers to put together by the group, the analysis group. $1.6 billion in the net economic

benefit to the region, 1.3 billion in energy savings across the region and 16,000 jobs created in the first three years in the program to a lot of these are short-term jobs or jobs to move and the retrofit product or the like but 16,000 jobs over three years of five or 6,000 additional jobs are ones that can quantify. we don't have the spillover and multiplier effect and we want to be very conservative in these estimates to make sure they are completely credible. and so the graph that everyone wants to be able to show. as gdp the line is going devotee missions are dropping precipitously and there's reasons some of our economics but a lot has to do with fuel, moving to cheaper and cleaner natural gas and a lot of removable and efficiency work, but it's a pretty dramatic contrast and really trying to show there's a decoupling of fact we don't have to have a high emission economy and we know that in this room that we need the data sets like this to actually prove the case. the gdp has gone up more than the national average the last few years at the same time the

emissions are down and so there is a good data set that is really able to rebut a lot of the theoretical arguments made by the opponents of some of these types of approaches. really quickly on the model on the program review. so hopefully many of you have reheard about a week ago we are changing and reducing the cap for the rggi region by 45% from 165 million tons of 91 million tons that's a more accurate reflection of for we are today but the way we got there is an almost excruciating process of going through a significant model and looking at the entire electricity sector coming emissions, the macroeconomic benefits, the billing impact, overall wholesale prices and resale prices and we look at different scenarios. is the research in nuclear plant going or is it going to shut down. how much gas is going to come down and what are the various units, how much renewable projects are going to come on line, what about efficiency projects and what are the

savings. as we analyze a bunch of different systems and we are completely transparent about the modeling that we share with stakeholders and numerous meetings with folks from all different sectors from the generators for the local governments and others interested in learning about it and convening these meetings to make sure that folks have a very clear idea to make recommendations from. we released or updated role model that had a big hand in writing. it's going through the process in the individual states. in some cases its regulatory and in the seven to nine states it is a regulatory process and in the other states it is a legislative process and maine and new hampshire. each state seeks to complete the changes by june reversed of next year. i mentioned the changes dropping down from 65 down to

91 million tons and then also the additional reduction of 2.5 in the years after that. rggi came up with a mechanism to trade the allowances people already thought that haven't used yet, the objection downward accordingly to make sure there is no market distortion and we have a cost containment research with a certain number we have some more into the marketing and they are not being used leader and the price moving effect and we've also updated our protocols in line with the california program to make sure that linkage as we are trying to develop the models for some of these things so we were close to the team to do that. the changes as we mentioned on a 45% reduction approximately 80 or 90 million tons of additional reductions above and beyond where we were under the current program which is facing a significant amount from $8.2 billion impacting gross domestic product and 24,000 job years because of those investments to read and minimal

impact on a less than 1% in my state of delaware sycophant for less than that. as a very good economics because the track record this is how the american world will function. the other half to highlight today it's an exciting initiative and the district as i mentioned the transportation climate initiatives this wouldn't have been if it were not for the leadership here as well as i will march route, the head of the division that early funding and at the doe and many other conditions. to really try to pull together for the first time and energy, environmental and transportation commissions in the room. that picture of their looks much younger than it. >> you still look yondah.

-- young. [laughter] >> everyone is so busy and there are so many different projects coming on to another project that needs to get them or another polis your budget issue everyone convened in delaware for two days, and we talked through a lot of these issues and identified opportunity to reduce the russians and the transportation sector we try to focus on the areas of the fuel, vehicles to share across the region to get at these things that don't have easy regulatory because of the federal preemption restrictions. we have more than 35 agency heads across the region including the decision making more than 90 staff members from across the states involved in various teams working on different slices of this and then the georgetown center has been kind of a catalyst and the glue to hold this all together so there are four major areas we've been focused on in this

initiative. i typed this on the train so i apologize the first is looking at queen vehicles and fuels, the bread and butter. you already have the panel today that how we build this northeast electric network. how we look at other alternative fuel vehicles and get rid of the issue is whether it is cn she were looking at electric or other types of alternative fuel? they are investing heavily working with all the other states to make sure there is consistency on the policies and practices as we try to build the interconnected network of charging infrastructure across all of our states. how we fund infrastructure? is a conversation earlier today about the challenges, the traditional transportation funding sources of the cars are in the economy standards as well as moving to alternative fuel vehicles that it's the way we fund a lot of things held we make up for things and provide the creative funding for some of these things. moving to the northeast, the sustainable community initiative we are looking at land use so

how do we have conversations about the land use and insure we have good performance metrics? incentives in the state tried to jive good decision making a local level and so it's a great conversation trying to see what we can share from each other and then working in the queen city question as a mechanism to implement the challenge. a lot of the programs recently in the information and communication technology. looking at how we get more access to data so folks to make it easier to make the public transit choice or the trees is an alternative fuel vehicles were the like. how we use technology and talking about the timing of life and idling and trying to make sure we are using the information to the best of our ability to reduce emissions and also looking at the patent controls, folks that have patents some of these companies that are prohibiting certain types are making it difficult for certain types of creative activities in the u.s. because they have a blanket patent and this is a complicated issue we

can talk about the folks have questions about. in the final area, $2 trillion worth of goods and services across the corridor every year, $2 trillion. so, looking at and kind of characterizing the emissions from those goods, trying to figure out how to bottleneck it's different types of mechanisms but looking at opportunities to the sheer volume of the mission coming in the same time trying to figure out more efficient ways this is becoming increasingly important as we are seeing more and the region and in my state of delaware right now it's a significant loss to to get in touch of the lower-priced crude coming all of these reserves as well as some of the canadian fields and although we have concerns about the emissions from those they do create some logistical challenges so lots of good things going on. you have republican democrats, republican governors and

democratic governors working together on these issues and hopefully then finally i like people ending with a smile. [laughter] one last note it's easy to jump into the technical elements of what is the cost containment reserve, what do you do if the cat that's a technical policy issue? we are seeing the model predicted now but this is the world they are printed 11 and so the work that we are doing is critical so she's my constant reminder why we do what we do and i'm thankful for everyone coming to this campus. [laughter] to spend a couple days working on the issue. thank you very much. [applause]

estimate its impressive when you have a cabinet level official coming up with great graphics. you did a great job and i want to give a shout out to ellen who isn't only georgetown alum but is helping with the issue which is very much appreciated at the federal dot and has been a terrific partner on this endeavor so thank you. now we are going to hear from vicki patton. >> the great work is happening across the eastern united states. there are red states and blue states and purple states that are doing all sorts of terrific work to lead the way for forging innovative solutions and the climate and energy. 2012 was a historic year in advancing renewables in the country. there are now 29 states that have renewable portfolio

standards, a variety of performance levels, but the winds of change are blowing because in 2012 our country put in place 60 gigawatts of capacity that's 20% of the global wind capacity worldwide for the first time in the nation it led a new electricity generation deployment in 2012 responsible for about 20% of new electricity generation over the past five years is about 35% from second only to natural gas. where is this being deployed crux it's being deployed in a number of places we are all familiar with and it is also being deployed in the heartland of the country in places like texas and iowa and illinois and minnesota and oklahoma and kansas and colorado all of those are in the top ten wind states for generations in the country.

you talk about energy efficiency and the work that the group has done to really document the profound benefits of energy efficiency for consumers for the economy there are 20 states that have energy efficiency resource standards and the span from florida to washington and we know they have energy sufficiency as benefits and some of them you talk about but there are more. energy efficiency secures the multi pollutant benefits some modeling of the northeastern states pioneered all sorts of great ways to show that it can reduce carbon pollution, but they have pioneered innovative solutions to show that you can make energy efficiency part of your compliance strategy for restoring the particular to base standards so connecticut came up

with an innovative program for they've been to the capacity markets, energy efficiency and then they took credit for it in the clean air act based state implementation plan and this is a tremendous model showing the multi pollutant benefit that can be realized for energy efficiency. we did a terrific report talking about the benefits of the energy efficiency helping to manage fiscal risks for investor-owned utilities and the world where investments and central power can create lots of atomic risk related to the fuel price volatility. it's long been a sort of understood that energy efficiency has tremendous sort of benefits and potential in the more industrialized parts of our country. one of the interesting stories in the past few years is

efficiency in place like the desert southwest. and so, right now some of the top tier utilities leading the way in the energy savings are utilities and arizona. arizona public service on the electric power, the salt water project now achieving energy savings in a variety of state and utility based energy efficiency programs that are on very best in the nation. the estimate that it saves for the $70 million for its investors and its customers through the programs over the last few years. the energy and colorado saved over $600 million through its dsm programs in colorado. a group that has been working hand-in-hand with those power companies to pioneer these kind of world class energy efficiency programs just conducted an analysis showing that if you just sort of scale the best management processes across the six states in the desert

southwest and places like utah and nevada, new mexico and wyoming, that region of the country would save $20 billion in the net benefits and energy efficiency. it would reduce the carbon dioxide emissions by 15% by 2020 in addition to the reductions and other harmful contaminants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen and a place where it is a land of little rain and would save vast quantities of water. energy efficiency is rooted in these important shared societal values, stewardship conservation. it's not surprising that one of the lonely pieces of the federal energy legislation that did anything anywhere in the 112 conagra's was shaheen portman that passed with overwhelming support of the house of representatives in unanimous consent in the united states senate. there is a lot of attention in engender in march when the environmental protection agency

announced historic long overdue greenhouse gas performance standards for the fossil fuel fired power plants but what wasn't part of the story is the states had long been at that and there were a number of states that long adopted of the carbon pollution standards and that includes the states like washington that was adopted and signed into law by the government which put in place one of the first greenhouse gas emissions in the country, states like new mexico which have lots of tax benefits to say we want you to achieve comparable greenhouse gas emissions performance standards. montana, california, minnesota, the generation act which has long had a greenhouse gas emissions standards in place for the new power generation. as we all work to encourage the epa to carry out its responsibilities into the law to put in place carbon pushing standards for existing power plants and we are working closely with nrdc and a number of other colleagues to try to ensure that happens, it is

turned out and the societal protections are put into place. there's a lot of attention given to the work the rggi states have done. the pioneering work of the global solutions act of california. but there are also other examples outside of that. in the heartland of our country. in my own home state of colorado, a piece of legislation passed with bipartisan support for the colorado general assembly twice. ..

>> the states are also leading the way in urgent our nation to finally deal with the challenges and the costs, heavy, heavy costs of a changing climate. we saw the work that governor cuomo and crook governor christie did in the aftermath of the tragic hurricanes in the come and a partnership in pushing for federal aid and federal support. and their partnership in rebuilding i anymore resilient, smarter, thoughtful way. and the work of the number of municipalities have done already to prepare for a changing climate. in chicago, l. bunch of -- extensive work with water utilities to show western water utilities like denver water are beginning to incorporate changing climate into the work that they do to prepare or protect their customers from climate change. and just recently in utah, a

state legislator introduced legislation, hb 77, that said we'd come in utah, are tired of the wildfires that have ravaged our communities, and we want to do our part to prepare for changing climate. this legislator was republican. they were 1400 wildfires in utah last year, exacting millions of dollars of damage is creating all of serious air quality problems, and this recent piece of legislation demonstrates that red states and blue states alike will begin working together to prepare for the threat of a changing climate. there is a series of litigation that is pending to challenge and overturn some of these really innovative state programs, both climate energy programs. there's litigation pending in the midwest. there's litigation pending in in

the mountain west, and in california. and all of this litigation is being brought by interest outside of those states. all of this litigation is claiming not only that the innovative state climate clean energy laws are unlawful, but that they are unconstitutional. this litigation needs to be turned back. imagine a world where, in the rise of kind of textualism in the supreme court, how paradoxical, indeed how tragic it would be if and agonistic document that know what appears on the face of the constitution became the basis for overturning state innovation and addressing one of the most pressing crises, state sovereign interest. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. that was terrific. and so now i will try to --

[inaudible] powerpoint. vice president of innovation at, i want to say -- from the beginning. >> great, thanks. can everybody hear me? i'm going to talk about an initiative that we are called north america 2050, and particularly focusing on our work on industrial benchmarking come using that to drive better performing on intellectual efficiency and greenhouse gases. and i'm kind of hoping i don't have to use this slightly more but not everybody knows who we are yet, so i have to remind everyone, or at least some of you, that we are now the center for climate and energy solutions an independent nonprofit and nonpartisan. we are working to advance policy and actions to address the challenges of energy and climate change were found in 1990. many of the nose from the

incarnation. we became c2es in 2011 which was over a little year old, and since every panel has mentioned nick, i should mention that he works at c2es. [laughter] >> one of the things that we do is we work with our business environmental benefit council, who are committed to being constructive and proactive on climate and clean energy both in her own businesses and also in the policy arena. at all levels. some going to talk first about what north america 2050 is a noble but about what benchmarking is, and then what our particular group, the industry working group within to drive better performance in industry efficiency and emissions. so it is a group of your states and provinces committed to policy and boost their

jurisdiction for the low carbon economy while creating jobs, enhancing energy independence institute, protecting public health and if i become and demonstrating climate leadership. and i'm being careful to quote from the because this is part of their mission statement. that are over 20 jurisdictions, motivated by friday of factors. we have six active working groups, through 2012 and in the process of -- seeing what our priorities are going to be going forward. and i think industry group is a really quaint example of how they come at this from different perspective but can come together around doing something like driving better and to show performance. from her pride of perspectives. so what is benchmarking? it's comparing a performance indicator with a reference level of best practice any. or. and benchmark is referenced levels would have an indicator that would be some important factor divided by some unit that is under consideration. so it might be accidents were

employees, and our world it's generally about energy used for production or some kind of metric where you were actually looking at emissions or efficiency. efficiency. and it's and intensity metrics is independent of production so it doesn't either drive or decrease production. it's independent of that. some people like it for that reason. so what you do when you set a benchmark is yet to first figure out which of metric is. in this particular graph, per ton of the unit of the product or output. and if you look at the red line, that's the average emissions intensity of a bunch of facilities. and what you do is you take the facilities that are encrypted you think is the right group and you waiting and you look at how they pan out, and she might look at the best 10%, you might look at the best 90%. you might look at the averaged annual purpose you have for developing the benchmark. so this benchmark itself is -- you can use it for a variety of

purposes. and as i mentioned it's either what we've been doing is output of energy or consumption. a lot of companies use it just for internal development of improvement. they benchmark against their peers and try to identify and opportunity about where they can do better. a business activity benchmark. then there's also a lot of policies and programs that use benchmarks are voluntary recognition of some sort. where the epa energy star for industry, a lot of states have these kind of programs. and, of course, there. and, of course, they're using regulation to essentially a standard is a benchmark, and its use for enforcement purposes for regulatory purpose to drive better performs. and also benchmarking is used in a few instances, and puzzling over time, determine what the allowance allocation should be

under cap-and-trade program, both european union system and california are using that approach. it can be pretty simple. i know it's hard to see that you have sort of a class of the that brings in energy, they produce some kind of product, and they produce emissions but in that case it's such a benchmark fairly easily for that particular product. but it can be less simply because you can wind up where you have a situation where the facility, knowing produces a product that they also have other enemy outputs and have exports that are input to other processes. you have to figure you have to figure how to do, for example, it combined heat and power or you might have one side that using electricity that they get from a grid and another that is producing on site. how do you compare that? so we can get more and more constituted. you can have additional products. then they can get really complicated where you can have lots of different input, lots of different output, and figuring

out what is a fair comparison, what is a technically achievable comparison that you can look at the right information and make it comparable that you the right class of facilities. so they can get increasingly complex. so getting the principles right in terms of what's an appropriate benchmark is really important. some of the issues to consider and this is what we have been looking at, what do you measure and what is the product. isn't about you, is a complexi complexity? they focus a lot on different products, take more energy to produce than others. it's not fair to just take a ton of product or a certain amount of a product without taking into account how hard that product was to make. so this kind of things comes up in the refining interest, but also as well. how wide and it is a? what is in industry? do you love different kind of industries together or different kinds of chemical plants, or you do if you divide them up?

how do you do with inputs? how do you define the facility? how do you balance getting an objective of a strict standard with also trying to bring all performance up to the same level? you have a range of folks who might be trying to increase their performance and have to think about what you are trying to achieve and what kind of incentive you create. and protecting proprietary information can be very important, particularly to industry, and you want the cooperation because that's how you learn what you're doing, make sure you're driving the performance but you also want to make sure that people's proprietary information is protected, and also that you will both learn. so that na2050 where exports on these issues to look at these decisions were made in different programs that have these experiences might inform future programs. some the things we look at i think i mentioned, epa energy star policy, and we look at principal funding from existing literature. such as a benchmark should be applicable to a very wide range

of facilities in order to increase the analysis but their other evil might have a principle that you might want to narrow class because that could make a fair comparison. also it seems a lot of folks are saying that you want a physical measure of output. that doesn't change if you have a monetary measure of output, it can change. and that's a potential issue. and so we're looking at those principles and how you can embody them in a fair and effective program. and we also think that's important that you collect information on all of the energy input and so that you're thinking about the combined power, that example of mentioned earlier. and would have our principles you. that's what we're working on right now but we will probably have some kind of product in the next month or so. i will just go to the back, and what we are up to. so we've been gathering data on existing peshmerga policies and compiling list of programs

options. and that we are working on this, which will have the recommended principles for the whole group of jurisdiction. then we are also potentially exploring potential epa action and state responses under section 111. then we are also think about potentially developing a model benchmarking program for adoption by multiple states. that would have advantages for the states and provinces involved and it also has a lot of advantages for industry. if the different jurisdictions could have a common platform for how they do their benchmarking recognition program, that could really help industry both in terms of common reporting and common set of goals. and this gets back to this common objective that all of the folks we are working with have come even though they might have different views about regulation, cap-and-trade, voluntary programs or just voluntary business activity is that they all want to improve the best performance everything the best performance should be rewarded. so making sure that we have a

metric that works and a way of developing metrics that works across jurisdictions and for multiple purposes is our objective. and i'm happy to answer questions about this, and i think that's all for today. >> thank you so much, judi. [applause] >> next up we have wade crowfoot from the office of governor jerry brown in california. welcome. >> it's a pleasure to be here and actually pretty humbling to be in front of sony people have worked on this issue for so long. particularly nick nitro. i've never met the guy but i figured i would continue the theme. [laughter] but in all seriousness, it is great to be here, particularly with colleagues from, nic, we're just going to continue on. hopefully david will give you a shout out as well. indeed. i'll take the free drink later. [laughter] but it's great to be here, particularly with colleagues

from other states. a metaphor around quilt making come with a lack of meaning -- manyfold federal action on climate change, in the states would really do feel like we are making a quilt and we're working to do our peace, and how our peace links to other pieces is critical. and to really abuse the metaphor, you know, do we construct her own sewing machine, or do we borrow from the technology and the structure and process of other states? so i took notes in the morning session. i was physically taking notes as christine was explaining the east coast experience and eric in illinois will be surprised if you're some of those ideas being repeated in california. i'm excited to talk about the current and future collaboration on the west coast with our sister state on climate change, but i want to give a snapshot of where we are at in california on climate action and those who

choose -- a few questions fully audited at some of you may be able to help us answer over the next few years, and then i will going to talk about the interstate collaboration. so we are really proud of what california's been able to do on climate action. it certainly didn't begin with governor jerry brown. there are leaders in california, many of you know mary nicholl, who have been doing this work for decades. we are really standing on their shoulders. also governor schwarzenegger deserves a great amount of credit for putting in place some of the other landmark programs that we are now continue to execute on. but i will say that jerry brown is a passionate leader on climate change. it's humorous. we receive e-mails or phone calls from scientific researchers over the past couple of years who have been contacted by jerry brown directly. usually on the weekend, early in the morning. [laughter]

and jerry brown wants to talk about climate science with them. and once we assure them that they were actually talking to jerry brown -- [laughter] usually just as follow-up with my staff, and he spent a lot of time trying to figure out to get the support for the site is who are really on the front line of climate change and actually spent a good to have hours of his time quietly in the back of the room at a scientific symposium on science -- climate change in sever cisco a couple months ago. so personal leadership does matter. he's given us a whole ton of political space to continue to move ambitiously on this path. so we'll are we on the path? a.d. 30 to which most of you know is achieving greenhouse gas reduction three years in a row of reduce carbon pollution. no doubt in part because of the recession but we believe in part because programs have taken form in california. our cap-and-trade program this week had a second auction on wednesday. by the end of the conference tomorrow afternoon will no what

is cleared and the second auction. we are excited about that. we anticipate that our cap-and-trade program, which is i the only accounts for 20% of the ghc reductions. a lot of people think 8032 and cap-and-trade are synonymous. it is one of only 70 measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within a california a the 32 river. but nontheless, our cap-and-trade program we think will turn about $600 million to the state budget issue. so we are having a challenging but a productive conversation about how to spend those revenues to much of the revenue is being returned to ratepayers in the term of the climate dividend, but then, of course, the conversation continued about how to spend the rest. our 33% renewable portfolio standard as well on its way to being met. our investor owned utility of achieved over 20% of their energy generation from renewable resources government and they will achieve 33% by 2020.

we are on track, the shift continues to move through choppy waters, but we continue to be committed to that. anthony mention our zero emission vehicle action plan this morning, and, of course, you may have heard about the governors personal political investment in getting high-speed rail built in california. we think that's a critical nexus to our transportation solution from north to south. increasingly as we execute on these programs that began in the last decade can we were focused on the long game. the 2050 goes 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emission. ultimately, as anthony put, that's her contribution to planetary climate balance. as ambitious as the current programs are, we need to step up our game. the governors office we have sort of a one sentence into a mission statement on energy and environment, and that is we need to transition our energy system to a highly efficient, renewable

state system and electrified transportation. anything less, it won't meet our 2050 go. that's one of the reasons why we continue to push on energy efficiency, demand response, but also why we are investing so much in zero emission vehicles. while there are low carbon fuels that are a bridge, ultimate 2050 we think that the vast and jury of transportation needs to be electrified if we're going to meet those goals. so that raises some questions and this is where you come in, or at least i put these questions to you because we're asking them ourselves. one is really what's next after av32. it sets a 2020 goal and we can ourselves on the back if we need that but that is merely a step on the journey to 80% reduction. the california air resources board is undertaking a statutorily obligated second scoping plan this year. and there's a question about whether they'll have an intern

goal on path to 2050, osha the governors office said at the carbon reduction goal for 2035 or 2030? so how do we keep this progress moving? second, we are at 33, moving towards 33% renewable generation in california, and we need to get up to renewable date energy system but we are contending with their brittle 1950s era energy grid. so how do we emerge policy and technology to actually create the energy grid that can integrate much greater portion of renewable, many renewables of which are internet and and also integrate that 1.50 million emission electric vehicles that we need to by 2025. and then third and related, one of the new policy drivers? is the rpf ultimately, should it be increased to 40%? should've been new procurement for renewable policy?

really, what are the new innovations to help us reduce carbon. so, intergovernmental collaboration on the west coast, as we struggle with these issues within california we are glad to have partners in oregon and washington and d.c. the pacific coast collaborative that was funded by rockefeller brothers and energy foundation, bolla foundation started in 2007. governor schwarzenegger, others, came together and said look, we share same politics are similar politics. we share same goes. what can we do as the region? and five years on, six years on, we are actually moving forward with the collaborative, recognizing that actually each of the governors and the premier have moved on. we have a new set of leaders. and thanks to ongoing funding we are actually focused in a few different areas but i'll just say, you know, our commonality

is not only political in terms of having strong public support for this but we, of course, suffer from the same impact of climate change. much like her sister states on the east coast, we continue to experience similar impacts from climate change can increase wildfires, less snowpack, drought, flood. says we address the collective challenges, what can we do together. so we've identified really three pacific areas. first being resilience and adaptation. and to give you an example of our collaboration in each of these areas, on this one idea that we have we think is good is to push the federal agencies together, to convey what we feel like we need as states to be able to take action to make our state mor a more resilient. rather than having silent conversations with federal agencies, we are exploring the possibly of approaching them together and explain what we need in the region. for example, research and data that can depend on the actions that we take. secondary, energy efficiency.

each state is leading in different areas, particularly oregon, on energy efficiency policy. one good example of collaboration is oregon, washington interest in adopting energy efficiency standards for new appliances. so for example, the phone chargers, california energy commission has been a leader in energy efficiency standards. most often on every step of the way being opposed by industry. so we're working actually to align our standards to create a tipping point to ensure that as new technology evolves and comes on board, it is increasingly efficient. third area, clean transportation. you heard about electric vehicle highway. i'm very pleased that oregon continues to go forward with its low carbon fuel standard. i understand governor insley and washington state has made statements of interest in imparting or introducing in

washington state. perfect example of way that consisted to mutation and collaboration among states is really helpful and it's heartening to know that the east coast states are considering it as well. ultimately, in california we would love to have more states like under rggi's leadership. governor brown and our staff continue to think that's one of the key answers your the politics up north are a little different than in california, so oregon and washington have not joined our cap-and-trade program. governor from oregon talks about the need to price carbon at atcc event last october. his staff is trying to navigate the politics of what that means. governor insley just this week introduced a new bill that focus on actually helping needs washington's 2008 carbon reduction target that they instituted. they have yet to adopt sort of equivalent of california's

government. so governor insley actually introduced a bill to do that. and it may be part of the conversation. so i will close by saying commute, as proud of our effort in california, as we are, we are really, we are 1% of ghg in missions in the world. we understand that other states in a lot of these areas are doing things more quickly and better than us. so the more that all of our states can actually spend time together like this, person to person, institution to institution, and share best practices and try to link up, the better we will be. thank you. >> thank you. that was terrific. [applause] >> and i can see first hand, i've also senior governor asks scientists and experts, and actually his counterpart in other states, other governors, when they talk about and all the above energy strategy. he stops and says, and how do you reconcile that with what we need to do on carbon and climate? because science is telling us we

need to tap it somehow. so really appreciate his leadership, and great presentation. so now i'm going to pull up david doniger who's joined us as you see. welcome, david. >> hello. >> i'm going to pull up your slideshow. david daughter, welcome. >> thank you very much. thank you. i'm going to try to speak at nitro speed. i know everyone is going very fast. and what i'd like to tell you about a proposal that we put together. we been shopping around, to address how you would implement power plant standards sufficiently, fairly effectively under the clean air act. under a provision of the clean air act called 11 d., not very well known. not usually much. i call it the 40 year-old virgin. it's an opportunity to tackle carbon emissions from the power

plants in and efficiently. and it's a program, as many of you know, which involves a hybrid, things are used to under the clean air act. there's a federal performance standard called a guideline, and then it would be incumbent on states to adopt amendments to the implementation plans to put this into effect. so what nrdc is trying to do here is craft a way to do that. conventional wisdom being that you either can't do very much under the clean air act itself, curb carbon emissions, or that it would be very expensive to do it. and i think what we can show here is you can do a whole lot at a surprisingly low cost. powerplants are the largest force of carbon emission as you know, 2.2 billion suns in the latest epa emission data reporting each year. that's about double what comes from the motor vehicle and the car sector, and this is a

summary of what i'm going to show you. we can achieve under our proposal by 2020 about a one-fourth reduction in that, 560 million tons of co2 nationwide. there are big co-benefits in software, which i will show you, very large reductions in mortality and illness. the proposal involves a broad array of complaints within the power sector, including mobilizing renewables and energy efficiency. and that triggers a very large increase in job creating energy efficiency and renewables investment. but the net cost overall is very low. in 2020, the net cost of about $4 billion in electricity system costs. very large benefits in public health and climate protection.

25-$60 billion. these figures are also 2020. there's a second step in 2025. the numbers are bigger in both respects, but they are still extremely positive and a cost-benefit ratio. so how do we do this magic? we have the two principals in this proposal. one is to take advantage of the state-by-state nature of the implication, to come up with a differentiated framework that takes into account the fact that states start in different places with respect to their fracking of coal versus gas generation. we picked 2008-10. we used as i will explain the icf, ipm modeling tool to estimate what reduction should get, what it costs and what fuels, consequences, what gets built, what gets retired and sold. by iteration we came up with numbers, 1500 pounds per megawatt hour for coal plants, 1000 for gas plants.

so use those two numbers and the fraction of coal versus gas, come up with a state standard particular to each state. and all coal state it would be 1500 in the year 2020. and all gas state it would be 1000. in oklahoma it would be 1250 because oklahoma happens to be a 50/50 state at that pig. and each of you -- after that. then each of the fossil fuel units in the state would have to meet that standard, not necessarily by itself, but that's what a flexibility in the bottom half of this slide comes in, by reducing emissions themselves, by shifting between coal, from cold towards clear generation such as gas, by taking credit for incremental megawatt hours of renewable generation, and for incremental

megawatt hours of energy efficiency, energy savings. there's 200 points on the slide i want to get across very quickly. we analyze these credit-rating notions on a state-by-state basis, but under our plan any two states are more states could combine and allow the trading or the averaging across their own region. and also for states like california and the rggi states, if you could demonstrate, this would have an alternate approach, cap-and-trade approach for example, that yields for the power sector equal or better emissions reductions than the ones that would come from implementing the federal complex companies have a proof of what they are doing already, or what you beef up in the case of rggi, to qualify as alternative. colorado, for example, if it's particular plan that vicki described would yield equal or better a mission results from the power center.

there's just a major elements of flexibility in the interest of time i'm going to nitro right through this. i don't even know who nitro is. [laughter] here's administration how a state with a 1500-pound standard, powerpoint, coal plant might complete. it actually has a higher commission itself. heat rate improvements might bring it down some distance by itself, but then you would take advantage of credits from these other sources, averaging in with greater dispatch from gas or with greater dispatch from new renewables or additional efficiency. we get -- that's the baseline emissions pathway for the power sector, carbon dioxide, in a situation where you have all those standards on the books are coming, that not carbon

standards like mass and the replacement for the castable, things on cooling towers and coal ash. with our program you get a very large reduction in co2. and this slide it will definitely not go through in detail but this is for the economy as a whole. and what all these lines show is that when you add in the green line, the carbon standards for existing power plants, you are 80% of the way to the president 17% reduction by 2020 goal. and if you add some state action, of the federal action like plugging the leaks in the oil and gas methane pipelines, and for example, second round of heavy-duty vehicle standards, substitution of refrigerants, you can get all the way to the 17% purely by domestic measures, no international offsets, all at

very modest cost. these are the co-benefits, and you probably can't see this deal but 750,000 tons of additional sulfur reduction, and 400,000 of non-reduction. very large benefits. this is the cost-benefit comparison. there's a large increase in investment in energy efficiency in particular, at least in our modeling. about a $22 billion investment for example, in 2020. but that is offset by lower fuel, cause running fewer fossil fuel plants for fewer hours, not build as many plants, not having to retrofit as many plants. and on the right side of the line, the blue are two different estimates, low and high, by epa methods of the dollar value of

the sulfur and health benefits. and the green on the left is the government social carbon, $25 a ton am in 2020, multiplied by 560 million tons, and the larger number is estimating that at a lower discount rate, official government number is 3% discount rate. for the walks in the room, long-term impact, that's probably a discount rate. we recalculated it at 2%, so you end up with a range of benefits of 25-$60 billion offsetting $4 billion from electric system costs. there is a shift in further away from call. this is capacity changes, but because of the energy efficiency emphasis there's very little changed to natural gas. capacity. and the same thing is true in

generation. there is a down shift in coal generation. is basically made up for by inefficiency, and no change essentially in the amount of natural gas generation. one of the results of that, the whole thing is you can i should on average a slight decrease in wholesale electricity prices. i don't want to use up my remaining two minutes of the economics of that but i can explain it. there's essentially no change in natural gas demand, there's no change in natural gas prices. these two things have important impacts for other industries and for homeowners. not talking about a rate kit for electricity. in fact, if homes have been retrofitted in his letter and so on, actually the rates stay about the same but the bills go down because you use less electricity. and same thing is true for industry, in the same thing is true for gas using industry and

home heating with gas. wow, i got through my last slide faster than i expected. i would say that what we tried to do here is flushed out -- fleshing out a fully worked out sort of tight model of how you can use this little use part of the clean air act in a flexible way, to achieve these big benefits at low costs. and we fully expect that epa and industry, department of energy will want to do other modeling to get the assumptions we make to try out different scenarios, try out different numbers within our scenarios. and we are very convinced that yoyou see a lot at a low cost. and we are pressing the administration to move on this matter, the president of course said that he is intent on using

his executive authority and this is not the only, but the number one opportunity. so we hope to look to work closely with state to help them work through, help you work through how you would carry out these measures, partly measures to be undertaken traditionally through the environmental agency, but partly also there's a need for cooperation and joint work with public utility commissions to make this efficiency arrangement work. tremendous opportunity and we would like to work with you all. thank you. [applause] >> thanks, david. so thank you very much, and in a few minutes i will invite questions from the audience. i will take the prerogative of the moderator and ask a couple of the state folks were with us,

collin and waited a couple of question. one is that when i teach or talk about state original activities, the question often comes up, what is behind this? because people realize it's a golden from and there's only so much you can do on your own especially a small state like delaware. california's economy is much bigger. how do you explain that, that leadership really? and then a question to feed off of david's presentation, how are you all think about how your leadership might fit into the federal program? are you worried about the harm depending on how the federal program is setup? t. think there's an opportunity here like david is describing? >> i think a small state like delaware we are small but mighty, we have a disproportionately small kind of contribution but it is reportedly large consequence of inaction to answer for us it's almost a matter of survival. we look at some of the modeling,

as much as 11% of our land mass can exasperate -- evaporate with the next 50 or 75 years, depending on what that hockey stick into looking like. and when you start looking at impacts on both the economic side, on industry that's located close to waterways or our tourism industry are our agriculture industry, the impacts are significant. we feel like it's hard to sit and wait for a national solution or global solution without folks -- doing their part. fortunately we had a great support system with our other states across the northeast having a similar attitude, but this is not to quote the president into the day, this is a situation for we are the ones we've been waiting for. the id we will allow some other, somebody is in another role to take action, it hasn't happened yet. and so i think we would also like to do everything we can at the local level. getting to the second question

to the question on -- this became an interesting topic during the rggi conversation but one of the things we heard from a lot of industry is they didn't want certain. they wanted some confidence that if we did no to a lower a mission number, the '90s, 91 billion-ton, some of the other scenarios we were modeling, somewhere over 100, we were about 15 tons of each other but we ended up finally settling on the lowest part of that range. they wanted some confidence that we thought we could meet the needs of the program. so we worked with some folks at nrdc to look at their model and the changes that were proposing me to task that is in the proposal at nr into this floating around that by the kind of metric, the 2008-2010 range we are in pretty good shape. and so we will work closely to make sure there -- you want states that of an early actors that have taken early leadership to be rewarded for that and

making sure there isn't another layer of regulation on top of it, but we do see that the reduction that we're talking about are real. you start looking at the changes that were made in the energy sector across the northeast, when governor markell do you hear from tomorrow took office, there were 10 coal plants in delaware. at the end of this year there will be one with $360 million controls on it and everything else will either have shifted to gas, been replaced by new generation are was displaced by efficiency work in renewables. that kind of transition, and i can say something similar by other governors, other examples in other parts of the country. those are real action, and some are regulatory, some are incentive based by rggi. is using all the tools we had and they are rotatable because energy prices are going down in our state partially because of price depression reducing overall demand. i think there are models that were. we want to make sure they fit into a federal system as it

emerges. >> wade? >> so to the question of how we been able to move our why we been able to move, obviously popular support for environmental and climate action is high in california but i would argue it's high across the country and even in states where the isn't strong action, you see a plurality is not a majority of voters that want to do that. be organized support of interest is a great infrastructure in california. we have at least three organizations sitting out there who are really critical to the. that matters because status quo business interests that don't want to see some of this progress are certainly organized and well-funded, and so that nine governmental infrastructure has been very helpful. i would also as i mentioned the policy continuity. all of this is added to. if you're a new leader who comes in the office can't achieve progress in one term. so again, a lot of our progress in california is because we have a policy continuity that is capital leaders like mary nichols in her position for so long. i would also say there's a great

need. in california we get credit for being environmentally advanced that we have some of the worst localized air pollution in the country in certain airbase. so we view it as a matter of need. then lastly, i would say from our perspective it's not an issue of when elected leaders, if elected leaders take action, it's a win. if we believe in climate change, we believe it will get worse, action will be taken, when will it be taken. we think we benefit from being an early adopter and sort of we have a first mover advantage. and we experienced a lot of this innovation happening in california and we can't only credit our policy leadership because silicon valley et cetera, but we do credit our policy leadership. perfect example, there's an electric truck maker, and they recently moved the headquarters from mexico to stockton, california. in part because they were making

big bucks and they realize they need to be closer to the market. interestingly, the ceo of the company who is from northern ireland lives in texas and commutes to california. so we like that because rick perry recently visited us and made a big deal trying to steal our company. but point being, we actually think that we benefit economically. lastly, our second question, we've always thought federal leadership is preferable to state by state action and that even as we were developing our climate program. the market-based approach, the bigger the market the better. if it's a predatory approach, more effective at the federal level. but what's so disappointing and frustrating is it's not happening. while the administration, it's a big step to once again under the words climate change in congress, you know, we need action. so for example, that governor is going to china in early april and he insisted that one of his primary areas of focus be climate change. so what are the conversation between the state and a nation

look like on climate reduction? we will find out. but the point is we are not waiting. >> and i guess i would like to ask vicki and judi to talk with some of the efforts of the non-obvious leading states, i'll say, the opportunity states i think stewart calls them. what's driving some of the programs that you talked about, vickie, and judi? what's driving the interest in those states? at how is it politically possible to talk about these issues there and yet it's so difficult in washington? >> broad public support. republican polling firm just conducted a big survey of across the western united states, public opinion strategies, and there is broad overwhelming public support for clean energy across the and about in west. there's broad public support because it's smart public policy.

it creates lots of economic opportunity, economic growth that people can see. they are seeing the engines of growth and job creation. as a result of these clean energy investments, because of the air pollution problems that wade alluded to. there's lots of places where people get into clean energy, has benefits and restoring cleaner, healthier air and they want that for riley and for others. and so, there's just really i think compelling public support economic support, environmental results and people are seeing it. so it's burgeoning. >> judie? >> i think all of the states, states and provinces, sorry, i forgot the province's, i'm really interested in the competitiveness of their industry. and climate change is a really hard problem in a lot of ways. one of the advantages of working on climate change is that when you're working on climate change

you can also work on energy efficiency. we're working on energy efficiency you are making, you're reducing your emissions from a greenhouse gas perspective. there's a pretty long history at the state level and within companies of trying to make themselves more efficient and more competitive. and you can draw on the history and experience to inform public policy. one example that i like to talk about is in the refinery industry for many years, they have been giving their data confidentially to a consulting firm who has gathered the data, and then tells all of the companies how they are doing compared to their competitors. and that information has been really important, for example, in how the european union has set the benchmark that they are using to allocate allowances and so this grew out of the smart industry practice trying to do the best they could come and making sure that comparisons were fair, based on good data,

and actually drove the best performance. and so you actually have a good example of where policymakers can take advantage of that, and also in california in their context. so i think both the state and provincial level interest and industry performance, and also the industry experienced. >> great, thanks. david doniger, for those of us who have been at clean air act, policies and politics for some time now, we know that the debate in this area are often like energy debates, based on regional boundaries as much as they are politics and partisan views. and i'm wondering how you think the coal region and others that are not at the table might respond to your proposal? >> well, we've been getting a very respectful hearing from everybody as we go around, and we talked to a lot of utilities. the feedback from some of the

utilities is gee, there's flexibility, we really like the flexibility and we appreciate the fact that you start with the differentiation of our starting point. and then a couple of people sort of indicated that they would like to forget how to harvest all that without having a challenging in mission standards. i have paraphrased this spiderman model, with great power comes great responsibility. with great flexibility comes a need for great commission reductions. it's not just our desire. it's the way the law is set up because the statute calls for the best in mission reduction, taking into account, cost. so you're trying to do as much as you can within the constraints of cost. if you can drive the cost down, you ought to be able to do more. and that's the basic concept here. i know that there are going to be opponents of this proposal because it's unquestionable that it's not something we are trying to hide. that is, does result in

continuing transition away from coal generation to cleaner forms of generation and towards energy efficiency to reduce the need. we tried to do that in as fair and flexible and gradual way as you can, consistent with confronting climate change crisis. and we will keep working with people to try to do with that. spent i'd like to open the floor for questions from the audience. after ted turns off his phone. i should have said that earlier. nick nitro, any questions? [laughter] well, i have more. so, vickie, you sort of rushed through at the end a statement that was referencing constitutional challenges, and i

know we are at a law school but maybe for the broader audience you might explain some of the dormant commerce clause challenges states are facing. >> so, that are a trio of cases pending right now across the country. one for example, is a constitutional challenge to the minnesota next generation energy act, which really provides innovative greenhouse gas performance to new generation that is consumed, that is utilized, that is sold in the retail market in minnesota. there are a number of out of state interests that are in district court in minnesota. in a case pending before judge nelson, arguing the minnesota law has a number of infirmities come including a claim that it is runs afoul of the dormant comet -- commerce clause. the dormant commerce clause is this very that it's not written and its plain terms into the us constitution, but originates from this arcane caselaw that

the federal government has sort of implicit powers to manage undo burdens on interstate commerce. and so that is the essence of one of the claims being mounted against the minnesota law. there are several similar challenges. one pending against the colorado renewable electricity standard. it's also being brought by out of state interest. it's also being mounted on a dormant commerce clause set of claims. remember that in the state of colorado, renewable energy begin with a historic ballot initiative passed by the citizens of colorado against just a broad opposition, and colorado, because of the success of the program, has doubled increase its our youth from 10% when it passed by the ballot initiative, to 20% to 30% with broad bipartisan support. these are programs that have broad bipartisan support, quintessentially about states sovereign interest, selling

products, electricity, fuels in state markets for state-based consumption that out of state interests are challenging. is an important case pending in the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. it is also a dormant commerce clause challenge to the california low carbon fuels standard. district court judge in california held that it was unconstitutional, environmental defense fund and others disagree respectfully with his analysis and his holding. and succeeded working joined with the state of california to lift the state to impose on the enforcements of the low carbon fuel standard in california. the program is being implemented pending judicial review. it was argued in october and we suspect a decision shortly. one just additional comment about david doniger's observations. the section 111 the program, and it is a program that actually has been administered in a number of instances as to existing sources.

including landfills in 1996, and so we do have some tested basis for understanding how the operates and how that works. it will need and require unprecedented state and federal collaborations. i think it's incumbent on all of us to think about the state and federal partnership in a bold, vibrant, full some way in the context of development of this program. that means the environmental protection agency needs to provide the right framework for innovation, for flexibility, for the good ideas that come out of the states. and it needs to do that in a way that the states have some degree of confidenc confidence that why innovate, when they come up with all of those good ideas, that deliver real meaningful results, that it's going to work. and so, it is really critical that we all do our part in this

conversation, to listen to each other, to communicate effectively, to spur and encourage all of that great state innovation and to ensure that it is a vibrant, full some state-federal partnership in carrying out this program. >> that's well said, because not only are state programs so important in their own right, they are stating the facts and they also play this role with the state of their program as was here today and we look forward to having that conversation with gina mccarthy joins us in a little bit. collin, i want to give the opportunity to expand on what you said about price suppression. there's a price signal and one of, one of the complaints about a cap-and-trade program is that it is basically a tax and it's an economic difficult challenge for companies. and yet you this counterintuitive result. are you ready to explain that? >> economics are interesting because specifically in the way we compare apples to apples and

a lot of business rankings and things like that when it's at every state states it's just a kilowatt hour cost. more accurate -- that they'll cost. so there's this interesting data set, looking at kind of the quantity of electrons consumed by an average business or residential user compared to the pricing of those electrons. what you find is that the overall energy cost, normalizer business cycle, is much lower in the northeast that a lot of states in the south we have cheaper and dirtier legacy. and so the case that we are making is that if you can reduce consumption both on the peak demand side as watches over all consumption, the price depression effect on the kilowatt hour cost because your basic reducing the overall demand at which point the price point that folks are going to be willing to sell into the regional isos are tos does go down kind of in a corresponding level. so you see these pretty genetic in some cases.

i think this gets back to the original question that you're asking about kind of why allah discovers interest. support of it is self-preservation and to make sure states are protected i think as more and more folks understand the economic benefits. the more these theories are tested on the ground with real numbers and their quantified after the fact i folks doing our deep dive into the data, our economies are stronger because of it. our economy is much more diversified than it was before then when we were starting this program. we took some pretty rough hits in the state of delaware. the delaware become is the foresees the code. the financial interest, credit industry, chemical industry with folks like dow and dupont, the car industry, both of which clothes at the beginning in 2008-2000. then the chicken industry. we have the more chickens in our southern county than any other state.

but we needed to diversify the economy. there's all the sectors that got hit heavily. we're seeing all kinds of these -- both investment and setting the markets. but the price is something i think a lot of us had modeled and/or economic class but see it prove out with real data after the fact. hopefully it will make the case these types need to be invested back and efficiency, whether it's a clean energy standard, to make sure we include efficiency are other types of programs and we're creating a feedback loop for any costs are basically tied to make the system more competitive jerk. ....

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

we are back with the conference with assistant administrator from epa scheduled to begin 3:30 eastern. every night this week while the senate is on president's day break we are featuring book tv in prime time.

from the very start we told the board and the approach we were going to take which was pretty straightforward, and remember, we were sent there to sort of fix gm. that was the mission make this a viable company again. so we were all focused and brought the message we are going to design to sell the world's best vehicles, we are going to move quickly, we need your support, and we need your input, so we changed a few things of the board meeting and shorten the them considerably. we stayed away from the details given the weeds on how we build a car with the bigger questions of financing, loral, positioning marketing, that sort of thing.

the board was very supportive of that. and we kept them informed and we just took off for. expect this afternoon from the georgetown university law center on low carbon solutions. and earlier today they talked abut electric vehicles. >> one thing interestingly if you haven't seen it in today's wall street journal, i happened to notice an article by michael dunn, and the headline is electric cars going out of style? not in china. the first line caught my

attention. what are they seeing that the rest of the world is missing? if you start tracking the investment, the chinese in fact are looking at companies like a 123, office -- they're better capitalists than we are at times, and that may be surprising. but if you look at what they do, they aren't in the habit of making bad strategic calls. so i think there's a pretty good datapoint that says there's a future. now the data from my standpoint are encouraging. if you look at the placement of the market place particularly places like california, washington, oregon and some places on the east coast, it tells me that it's going to take time to get to the mass-market kind of levels but the trajectory is very promising and in fact the unfortunate thing

about it as we saw very aggressive forecasts early on that allow me to say it's as successful as it should be war was predicted to be and that's unfortunate because the fact of the matter is they've picked up tremendously and i think people to an earlier point are having fun with these vehicles but the fact is i hate to keep being the shameless for the auto industry they are the highest consumer reports ever reported. the highest ever recorded for the second year in a row by the way so we've gotten past the early adopters and expect to have that kind of euphoric reaction, and we are now into the mainstream america with these vehicles and is still generates the highest customer satisfaction rate as we have not privately capitalized on that

and if we can get in the vehicle to drive a vehicle, we are very successful in converting them to this technology. i will tell you on the new cadillac elr for instance, the off the line performance would rival a maserati or lamborghini. that's how powerful the torque is and it's quiet and it drives like a dream. at the same time, you are running on electricity, so -- >> as we go to more live coverage from georgetown university law center we take a look at u.s.-canada future for energy trade and the environment hello and welcome to washington, the capitol of the most powerful country on the

planet, the capitol of canada's closest neighbor and ally and the capitol of canada's biggest trading partner and the evil in canada u.s. relationship is why we are here. we are live this evening at the newseum, one of washington's most see attractions that displays and explains 500 years of news history along with the latest technology and interactive exhibits. the newseum is located on what is called america's main street, pennsylvania avenue between the white house and the u.s. capitol building. the same stretch of privilege real-estate where you will find the canadian embassy, a testament to the closeness of the relationship between the two countries. welcome to those of you watching us on cpac in canada or c-span here in the united states and welcome to the audience here at the engender theater in washington. i am peter van dusen from cpac, and it's great to have you all with us this evening.

we've come to washington for the second time in many years as we dig a little deeper into the relationship between the united states and canada, and a lot has changed in two years. a lot has changed in two months and maybe even the last two weeks. tonight our topic is this: canada u.s., what is the future for energy, environment and trade? all of them hot-button issues, so i think we can expect a lively conversation this evening. this is the latest in a continuing collaboration between cpac, the public affairs and canada's weekly magazine. with us we brought together guests for canadian and american, all smart people, all people willing to speak their mind and on the issues we are dealing with this evening. let me tell you who they are. danielle droitsch for the natural resources council. she's worked in both canada and the united states for various

environmental organizations including the institute she's a former reporter and a lawyer who switched careers to stand up for environmental protection. gary doer is canada's ambassador to the united states and a premier. he's been recognized by business week magazine as one of the world's top 20 international leaders on climate change his job in washington of course is to represent canada's interest and he has had his plate full. mary space is a senior managing director in the washington office of the law firm and is also the senior adviser to the canadian american business council and served as a u.s. diplomat in the canadian capital during the clinton administration. john manley the council of chief executives. you can't get much more execs than that. he's a deputy prime minister of finance, foreign affairs and trade and industry. he led canada's response for the 9/11 attacks and chaired the

independent task force on the future of north america. and david humphrey is with the national security program at the center for strategic and international studies here in washington. he's a former senior official at the u.s. energy department and was involved in negotiations for the u.s.-canada free trade agreement and the north american free trade agreement. and luiza savages the bureau chief claims and the political editor at mclean. so in a moment on our conversation begins and we will hear from our guests on the stage. we will also hear from our studio audience a little later but first let's take the first five minutes and bring a little context to the conversation. >> on almost every level, the u.s.-canada relationship occasionally buffeted by the oddest form is the envy of the world. integrated industries and economies, the world's largest two-way trade mostly predictable allies and always dependable

friends. but some major changes on the horizon could present new challenges for the relationship. let's begin with energy. right now nearly all of canada's oil and gas exports are to the united states. that represents about 10% of u.s. energy needs. but that's about to change. neutrally technologies have unlocked the supplies of crude oil and natural gas from the previous week and reached reservoir in the u.s.. >> after years of talking about it, we are poised to control our own energy future. some experts predict we will be energy independence by the year 2035. how will that affect canada's 40 billion-dollar oil patch and what will energy independence been for u.s. foreign policy? and what does it mean for pipelines? the canadian government is anxiously awaiting a decision from the white house on the

proposed keystone pipeline would carry the alberta oil sands to the refineries on the u.s. gulf coast. the new secretary of state, john kerry, who has long campaigned and has cut the emissions will ultimately recommended the approval with the rejection of the pipeline to the president. but he isn't tipping his hand about where he stands on a project to deliver more of what opponents call canada's dirty oil to the u.s. refineries. >> we have a legitimate process that is under way, and i intend to honor that. >> and those pipeline opponents just gathered in washington by the thousands telling the president to reject. >> did you let the pipeline goes through is the credibility of the president of the united states of america.

>> his recent comments on climate change said just she's losing enthusiasm for the pipeline project. our >> for the sake of our children and the future, we must do more to combat climate change the u.s. ambassador to canada has applied in the recent comments on the greenhouse gas emissions might soften opposition to the keystone project. the fact is the more that all of us do to strike the right balance between energy and the environment, energy and climate change, the better off we can be. >> we are doing our part, and i think the u.s., my counterparts in the united states are fully aware of not just how committed canada is to playing its part to address climate change. >> is the president looking to the cover to approve the pipeline? canada and the united states of a long history of harmonizing

the environmental policies but will canada follow suit if the president leaves an aggressive campaign against climate change that could hurt the canadian otecty? >> the congress won't act soon t to protect future generations i will. direct i will do -- cabet to wn ta ask my cabinet to come up with actions weke can take now d in the future to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of a climate change and speed the transition to a more sustainable sources of energy. islamic what about trade? >> the president and the prime minister concluded the beyond the border initiative and shared a vision to speed up the trade at the border while enhancing security. but the new vision according to many has been mostly sidelined because the white house has had its sights set on america's budget woes instead. the canadian prime minister last fall lamented the fact that canada is often in the u.s.

blind spot. >> my only complaint about the united states, you know, every canadian will say this that's just the way it is. we always like to have more attention than the united states. we certainly pay a lot of attention to you. you sometimes don't pay enough attention to us. >> canada and the united states shared nearly $20 billion in trade in 2011. the united states is still the largest market for canadian exporters. most experts predict by 2020 the united states will account for two-thirds of canadian exports. down from 85% just a decade ago. the writing on the wall was in big letters. canada's future prosperity will be driven by trade with countries other than the united traes. the u.s. is certainly lookingi' beyond canada. >> i am announcing that we will transatntic on the inansatlantic trade and investmentvest partnership in ts european union because trade that is fair and free across the

atlantic supports millions of good paying american jobs to get a deal fast and hope the u.s. doesn't negotiate a better one. so on energy, on the environment, on trade, are the decades of a mostly harmonious relationship between the u.s. and canada giving way to something closer than rivalry? >> so a number of different questions raised in that piece to get the conversation started. we are going to hear from our guests in just a comment and kick the discussion off with paul. >> u-boats noeth eisel field trips that we make all the way down to washington plan in a long way in advance. the events have conspired.

on the weekend it's against the keystone pipeline on the hill. the morning papers are full of the debate about whether or not the keystone pipeline should go through. but it's coming down to is the president has a decision to make. and our american hosts may not be aware this decision about keystone has transitioned canadian politics over the last year and a half. when mr. obama became the president, not all that long after mr. harper to can the prime minister there was hope on the canadian side there would be a healthy relationship between the two. the politics are not similar but there from the same generation, there was pragmatist's and outsiders who came to reform the capitol. so we thought they would get along fine. unfortunately, over the first two years of the obama presidency it became clear that they do not agree on anything and so there was a problem. and the precipitating event in that relationship was president obama's dissention to delay --

decision to delay the final decision on the keystone pipeline until buddy election. mr. harper kind of forgot about that. within six weeks he implemented a major pettit in the canadian trade policy with states towards china. he essentially dropped keystone as a priority and picked up another pipeline in the gateway that seeks to ship oil to the coast on to china. and there's been a tone to the u.s.-canada relations since then >> our government has moved on. and the paper this morning the decision that the president has to make is tricky does that sound right to you?

>> what about the question on the future of the canada u.s. relations? i see it as two separate claims and they go in opposite directions. the best analogy that i can think of is racy as they are headed towards a sort of open marriage. you have these two partners and they started out with a great big fat wedding, the fda and then the nafta. trade doubles, it's a great honeymoon, everything is great and exciting, now we are at the point people are looking around for sexier partners and they are seeing that a growing middle class of consumers and the huge appetite. they are looking at the rest of asia, they are looking at here at and they are seeing a trust of opportunities out there. but at the same time, there is another piece of the relationship and i would call that security and that is to do with protecting not just the

borders that we talk about a lot but protecting everything from their children from lead in their toys to protecting the quality of their water, the quality of the environment and the air, all of these things matter how far they go to sell oil to china on friday night to still have to come home friday morning and deal with these household issues and the only way to do it is to work ever more closely together because you can't secure your infrastructure, you can't without working together so i see the two different directions and what is happening is as the countries have been working together in the recent years, they keep coming up against the bottomline limits for the country, for example the united states said it to canada for our security we need to go into iraq and canada said no we draw the line there and you cannot persuade us.

the united states says we need the need to impose a passport requirement at the border and canada said pleased that will win trade and tourism this is where we draw the line and the same thing goes for cooperation on border security where canada has issues of privacy protection or constitutional protection and this is where we draw the line so that is where i see the debate as a line drawing exercise for the united states internally they are having a domestic debate about what role it will play in the future and how they are going to balance the tracking and climate change and traditional sources of energy against alternative and that is all being worked out by the society and politics in general and by the president. so i don't see it quite as clearly on the relationship capital does the press minister like the president today but it's in the broad context of looking out what limits we can't

talk each other out of. >> i don't believe in open relationships. [laughter] i want you to know that. so i can't keep up with the recent comments of my colleagues, but i do believe it is like a company in terms of our relationship on trade. you have to take care of your biggest and most important customer first. so you shouldn't just have one customer. you shouldn't just go to a car dealership and try to get a better place. exhibit a the different unilateral decisions in the united states. i would suggest by increasing the trade to asia 20% one year, 20% next year, 20% the year after that, we are stronger as the housing market rises in the

united states we are stronger in terms of negotiation, negotiating with the united states decent trade agreements and we are more diversified in terms of our customers. to me that doesn't mean to say that you foresee your customers. it's in a multi dimensional way and of the largest customer base has the customer would be read in terms of the land we share, we have worked together over the generations on clean air and clean water and the protocol that started in the dead depleting material, copenhagen, both the press minister and the president in december of 2009 signed on to the 17% reduction by over 2005 which i think is a positive development and we worked together on the light vehicle standards. we work together in terms of its

impact. they moved ahead on coal but i suspect listening to the state of the union address and the president is either going to get an agreement on the hill or proceed with executive action which is behind the vehicles that is the matter of greenhouse gases and energy security the president also promised during that election in other speeches he was going to make the united states energy independent from venezuela and the middle east in ten years and he made that promise in 2008. so we see the president being able to achieve both climate change reductions with the programs he's put in place and many similar to canada and he's

able to achieve energy independence and the middle east and venezuela by looking at his neighborhood, mexico and canada which he said the georgetown university and obviously we see keystone as international interest in the united states under the law because it displaces oil from venezuela. >> i appreciate having the opportunity to shut about the relationship with canada and the united states. it's a long relationship room, a sort of marriage at first. there is a conversation with in the united states and i think that we have easily hit on that. we are -- the united states is really focused right now on a conversation on climate. last year 2012 was the highest year on record. we have been facing some extreme

queen mother streams. we have seen 50% of the crops lost. 60%. one of the hurricanes was hurricane sandy which came at the cost of 130 lives and $80 billion that is just some of our extreme weather that we've been looking at and that prompted the president to look more closely. it's comforting climate change and as a result of that that is having the ramifications for what happens in canada. canada and the u.s. are the largest supporter in the world we have over $600 billion worth of trade and tree hundred thousand people crossing the border every day. we are linked, we are connected, we are friends and allies and

neighbors so that isn't going to change. sometimes neighbors and friends need to have conversations and i think that is what is happening right now is the country's four having conversations about the future and some of that is around the keystone pipeline and the development of the oil sands because this pipeline is 800,000 barrels a day that is the equivalent of putting 6 million cars on the road and signals a direction for the united states and i should mention it is an export pipeline so there is a love of concern about whether it supports the u.s. energy security but in general it's a decision before the president right now about where this country is going to head in terms of climate change, and that is a conversation that i hope we will look at -- >> you can see the rest of this

at c-span.org. we are going back to the conference on energy and climate change. two more speakers this afternoon. up next gene mccarthy of the assistant administrator at the epa. this is just getting under way. >> i want to know in advance we are not able to take questions today. but we greatly appreciate the time that you are standing with us. >> she's served as at the - assistant for the last four years where she's been responsible for directing many of the epa actions to address climate change and greenhouse gas solutions and your years must have been ringing because we have been talking about that all day. it is particularly fitting because prior to her work at the epa, she was a leading figure in marking to address climate change at the state level, and she knows firsthand the importance of state and federal cooperation. she was also a leading proponent and creating the center serving as a resource to the state and

we want to thank you for that, too. during her tenure as the assistant administrator, the epa finalized not only the first ever greenhouse gas emissions standard for cars and light, trucks and also a second round requiring an equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. together, these standards are to save approximately 5.8 billion barrels of oil and avoid a 3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions while providing benefits of up to $640 billion. pretty good. very good. epa establishing standards and cooperations in california and other states that we heard from earlier demonstrating how cooperative federalism can create a win-win situations. and sometimes bring a former courtroom adversaries together for a smiling photo op. during the last four years epa introduced the first ever greenhouse gas emissions standard for the medium and

heavy-duty trucks, established standards for very large new stationary sources, introduce mandatory emissions reporting requirements for greenhouse gases and promulgate and important update to the criteria and air pollution emission standards come also very close to my heart, so thank you for that. in some recent analysis have shown these regulatory actions by the epa represent a significant step toward achieving the president's goal for the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions target that he enunciated in copenhagen. the additional hard work, of course, will be necessary. gina knows firsthand the importance of cooperation between states and the federal government because she was a leader in state government before joining epa. she served as commissioner of the connecticut environmental protection from 2004-2008 under the republican governor. during her time leading the department, she worked with other agency heads to the northeast and the mid-atlantic states to launch the regional gas initiative.

before that, gina served as a key environmental policy advisor to governor mitt romney and massachusetts, and she helped lead the groundwork for massachusetts participation in rggi. she's a truly wonderful, dedicated public servant and a friend we so admire. we've heard gina speak about the importance of the states and federal government working together to get a chance the policy and we are eager to hear the decision moving forward for the second term of the obama administration particularly in light of the recent statement at his inaugural address in the state of the union. please join me in welcoming gina mccarthy. [applause] >> how fun is this it's great to be back. there's more suits.

but it is exciting to be here and i am really excited because the conference this time isn't focused on whether we should take action that how best to do that and how we work together and that is a lot different from just a short time ago when i was actually at the state level and we were suing the epa to recognize greenhouse gases as a pollutant that needed to be regulated under the clean air act, so it's been a short time that we have come along way, baby degette instead of lawsuits we are talking about how we weren't together, learn from one another, how we support each other, and we are talking about the actions that we are each taking and how can integrate and complement one another. i have a lot of issues and actions that i want to cover today. and i hope i won't bore you. but there's so much going on that i want to make sure we know what one another is doing so

that in the and we can understand how best we do continue with this collaboration. but i really should at this point stop and recognize vicki and everybody else at georgetown, the climate center for being so successful in keeping the state's moving forward together. i know that the state's have been working on these issues as well as local governments and tribes for a long time coming and will be a lot longer for us to work on these issues together. but i think the more we can collaborate and get together like these few days, the more we can find the cost-effective solutions that are going to continue down this will inevitably be a long road, but a road we have to travel together. but it is exciting because of so much that has been happening at the state and local level that has become more mature than it

was when i was hanging out at the state level. there are more tools in the case study as the model programs that we can continue to push forward to accomplish together, and now it's not if the united states will do something about climate change, but again it's all about how. so we have crossed that hurdle and issuing the endangerment findings for greenhouse gases, the epa has been answering questions as well. it's been taking common sense steps under the clean air act as well as a series of volunteer programs. make no mistake, a regulatory action and voluntary programs all have a place and how we address greenhouse gases. it's very exciting to me to see that some of the programs that the epa are being as successful as they have been working with

the states and incentivizing opportunities and building tools, seeing the states run with those issues, understanding how important climate change is to the mayors across the country it's an exciting time, and one in which i know that we will find to collaborate more and more together. i think one of the best things about coming to this group, knowing that you have already done so much and you are already analyzing those and talking about them, one of the best reasons to come here is because everything you have done is not just good for the planet in terms of its impact on climate but you have that because it's been good for your individual states and it's been good for your individual communities and it's been good for the american families that you are serving. you know that it hasn't hurt the

economy. if you take a look at what is recently happened with the regional greenhouse gas initiative, you will see and read the press release is not from the environmental agencies in those states, but from the governors of those states. if you read what the governor deval patrick said, you will realize that there are tremendous opportunities to address climate change in ways that the bill the economy and grow jobs that you can articulate and make sense, to every individual that works in those communities. and that is what i think is the most exciting about being here with you. because you know it. you have got firsthand knowledge of what is going on in your own communities and why would you are doing is not just right, but it's really good for people. and it's the steps that we need to take working together. the epa working with states and local communities are building or hopefully building on the

progress that you have made so far. and it's not that hard in many ways because reducing the carbon pollution, increasing energy efficiency, strengthening energy security all makes sense. it doesn't matter whether you are an economist, public health that, city planner or the department of defense. this stuff still makes sense. and if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, saving money on the energy bill and going farther on a gallon of gas, that makes a lot of sense, too. anytime that you look to be more efficient, you make yourself stronger. we are insulating families in the economy from fluctuations in energy prices and supplies. so i just want to stop for one moment before i talk about the epa is doing to again take just a minute to congratulate you to

say bravo on the courage that you've shown come on the tenacity and willingness to put resources into these issues. [applause] your leadership that both the state and local level and confronting climate change has helped people to improve their health, the quality-of-life to improve the community and to reduce their energy bills all at the same time. and it's significant when you have paid the pathway that i think the federal government can follow in and support. you have indeed become the laboratories of innovation that we use to tout ourselves to be so that you can show everybody that half for word, and again, bravo. now let's talk about more stuff

to do. i know you've all been hearing about examples of state and regional climate initiatives today. i think i mentioned the regional greenhouse gas initiative. i couldn't be more thrilled that it is alive and well and continuing to evolve. i can congratulate the states that are engaged in that effort. i want to congratulate obviously california. there are so many innovative ways of addressing this issue to take their own path whether they would individually or regionally other states i know are continuing to develop and implement strategic climate plans as well as adaptation plans that will enable them to move forward and to face the future stronger and more resilient. but also i do want to mention the fact that local communities have really also stepped up in a way that is quite startling

frankly because at times when their resources are low, you can see tremendous impact in the local governments over their ability to be able to pay for necessary services, never mind creatively about how to make smart investments that in the long run will pay off. but they have been doing just that. they've been thinking forward leaning about how they address the challenges in their communities. they are on the pilot initiatives that move the cost effective community-based greenhouse gas reduction projects forward and less through the climate showcase community program to read these communities have focused on the climate project that we believe offer opportunities of significant replication across the nation and we are seeing

that happen. the model project and many others like them are just the beginning of what's really possible and the pilots communities have done tremendous work. these projects alone will avoid more than 350,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. that is equivalent to the annual emissions from almost 70,000 passenger vehicles are the energy used by 30,000 homes

on your success and as president obama said, climate change is a priority, and we are going to take action we begin with administrator jackson's findings that was a ground-breaking decision which led us down the path of regulating carbon as a pollutant and it opened up the door to some historic achievements that vicki mentioned but i will continually dwell on. one must dwell on success especially when you have a long road ahead. every milestone should be celebrated. the light and heavy duty greenhouse standards was in fact a remarkable achievement. it's always been a rather contentious process of the work

between the epa to find out how we can align our goals in the economy as well as greenhouse gas production and how we can work together and speak with one voice that we have never done before and how we can not only speak once but a couple of times and how we could do that with thus support and engagement, total engagement of the companies themselves and how we could work hand-in-hand with california and hand-in-hand with the unions that serve as the manufacturing companies and really do something that has never been done before which is in the span between 2012 was to double the fuel economy, and at the same time we did a really cool sticker. has anyone seen the label? [laughter] there was a more contentious process.

well, you know, we didn't just a double the fuel economy standard, but we also save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump. when you look at the life of these vehicles. $1.7 trillion. tell me how that hurts. tell me who is going to stand up and say i don't want more fuel efficient vehicles. thank you very much. and the way in which we designed it allows the consumers to have their choice in the very same kind of vehicles that are available to them today only more. so if you want a heavy-duty vehicle, you need it to perform, you've got it. it's going to be manufactured. you want to go to an electric vehicle and the infrastructure is available to you? you've got it. what our sticker does is tell you what you've got. it allows you to make choices that means something for

individual families. and not only that, it saves significant amount of greenhouse gases and helps consumers save money not just in the long run but in the short run as well. if you work in the public sector and you are buying the vehicle out right, i will question whether or not you are actually working in the public sector. [laughter] i don't know about you, but i never pay cash for a vehicle in my life. i don't expect i ever will. not that they are overpriced. [laughter] i don't mean that in any way, shape or form. but what i do mean is these vehicles came back in a couple of years. not only do you have the and millions of going to the gas station all the time, and forgive me for all of those that supply fuel. i didn't mean to say anything derogatory either. but you not only have that, but you really do save considerable money and if you finance, every

time you don't go to the gas station, you can save a little bit more to put to that monthly payment. it is a significant step forward for everybody in this country whether they are at the high-end of the pay scale or middle class or lower class. we need to keep moving forward and these standards are tremendous. the one thing you didn't quote -- i will skip all of my quote but the heavy duty rule. don't forget all vehicles come in all shapes and sizes and we also learned the lesson that we took advantage of in the light duty the hinkle and we did this and in the heavy-duty vehicle. we have to get together with the industry and talk about opportunities for reductions. we look at the technologies available and we begin to understand how the greenhouse gases are emitted by vehicles.

with the efficiency is, what the opportunities are. and we sat them down in a room as well. maybe not as formal instructor or setting up at a podium at the end, but they worked no less hard so that we could develop a heavy-duty trucks role that would save significant amounts of greenhouse gases as well as a significant amount for the truck owners. and we are looking already had a phase through that program. it's between 2014 and 2018. we are looking beyond out to 2025 as well. if we did it once, we can do it again. now, it's not just about the vehicle. let's talk just a tiny bit about renewable fuel standards because it has to be part of the mix. it is something we are working very hard on. so we are not just looking at

making engines and vehicles, we are looking at the fuel as well. the big news this year, there's lots of big news always but something that never gets any publicity that i want to tell you about is something that i was very excited and and now you are going to see why i'm the biggest launch in the world. what excites me is that we actually issued a grim for cellulosic biofuel. now, that may not excite you. i wish it would. but it really, really was a milestone for me. because i know that one of the biggest wins in the renewable fuel is our ability to produce fuel with cellulosic. for the first time, you can visit a cellulosic refinery, go visit one, please. take pictures. we've been waiting for this to happen, haven't we come to make

that move. we've done it this year. they are being produced. we expect the volume will increase and now we know it's no longer about feasibility and technology development. it's feasible, it developed, it's here. the rest is going to be history. this will happen because it is happening. this year or estimates of the cellulosic biofuel production are actually based on product that's being produced, time lines for constructions, start-ups happening. i know that i may be a bore and a long but it's very exciting to me. so, let's get off the mobile forces and talk about the stationary sources, which are equally exciting. and i talked a little about the fact that the epa is doing this -- there actions in a very step by step common sense approach so that we can meet our clean air

act obligations to address who have been working on these issues that it has been a resource challenge for both epa and the states to find out how to get this done and how to do it well but we did figure out. now i am referring to the permitting challenges. we took a phased approach to permitting and we worked with the state's and i will tell you that we now have a very successful permitting program for the large industrial sources that are producing significant amounts of greenhouse gases. how do i know it's successful? you never read about. it's just not been an issue. we have worked very hard with the states. the states for the most part have taken over the permit programs and this is what you see when you look at the permits.

you are seeing their regulated entities are coming into the permit process. we are not talking about the end of tight controls we are talking about efficiencies. we are getting more and more efficient industries that are getting permitted because they are looking at it as a requirement in the rule i need to try to reduce my greenhouse gases as much as possible but they're looking at the absolute benefit of building manufacturing facilities that are highly efficient. they are doing it and this stuff is working and i am also very excited about that as you can probably tell because if it were not working we would be in difficulty. but it is working. it's working well and it's a collaborative process in which the states have played a great part, and i want to thank them for that. let's talk a little bit at about the carbon pollution standard for the new power plants, which i like to call future power plants so that there is a bit of

a distinction, and really what we are talking about regulating the future power plants, as you know in march of 2012 the epa announced the first ever carbon pollution standard for future fossil fuel firepower plants. ..

and it would ensure that current progress continues to be cleaner, safer and modern power supply system. the agency is currently reading the one or 2 million comments that we received on that proposal. we actually have received over 2 million comments on that proposal. we are giving each of those comments are due considerations that we make sure when we move forward with this world that we get this rule right. and while power plants are the largest source of carbon emissions in the industrial world, it's not the only centers of carbon emission and many other services also need to be part of a carbon solution.

as you well now, renewable energy is a big deal. as part of the answer. combined heat and power energy efficiency technologies. all of these are potential answers that can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and improve the nation's air quality in general. on the case of energy efficiency in particular, it can lower the total compliance costs for complying with deregulation and can lower consumer bills. i want to focus on this a little bit because i know there's been a folksy reagan from state and local areas that work with us in a very focused way to try to address air quality challenges from, traditional air quality challenges. i want to talk about how it epa and states are raking together to identify solutions that not only address air quality challenges like those on,

particular matter, sulfur dioxide, organic compounds and address those in ways that also can reduce greenhouse gases. part of the challenge of climate change is to not look unilaterally have problems or solutions, but look more comprehensively at ways in which we can do more than one thing at one. and that is what we are looking at in our air world because it's challenging to consistently meet our air quality goals. in fact, we are not leading us consistently we need to work together so we keep our eye on all this prices. we need more opportunity to integrate energy efficiency, heat and power into our programs as a complement to traditional air pollution control equipment.

air pollution control equipment is wonderful. i hope it continues to evolve. elope in many opportunities for public health improvement. but there's also an opportunity at the front end to think about how you do your business differently. i used to play different energy to your industries in your state. not the challenge we need to face. we need to build fences that were doing that. rules like the mercury atomic standard comment building and encouragement. we're partnering to bring technical assistance to a regulated communities so were challenging them to look at reducing the mission from the state oilers veteran industries that are highly emitting and highly inefficient instead of putting a piece of control on the town that makes it more

inefficient, let's look at the cost effect of mass of purchasing a new boiler. invest in u.s. manufacturing. make yourself more efficient. look at the overall cost benefits of doing that, not just your company, but the neighbors and people that buy your products invite you service. there are ways in which your partnering with d.o.e. and industry centers to be able to provide tools to help make the smartest racist people are complying with those roles. one girl in particular. that rule i don't know if you all remember that rule, we put it out just not too long ago and it actually looked to regulate toxic emissions from the oil and

gas sector. and in particular, he was looking canine information we had from installations in particular as well as teicher frak and we looked at the emissions from those and relates volatile organic emissions are emanating from those lows and we had an absolute opportunity not just to address an issue that was a significant public health concern. i was a public health concern of his note because toxic pollution causes cancer. but volatile organic compounds also create a precursor to those on. so it is a significant public health issue. when we look at it more comprehensively, we realized there were many developers already capturing the emission. you know what they call that?

product the emissions were with natural gas. so instead of doing what they were doing to gather this product instead of admitting a pollutant they are gathering a product. that is the future of our climate offers is not to think about climate or what matters to all in every aspect of their lives and figure out how you apply that to your individual decisions. when they are implemented they will do this one to 1.7 tons of methane each year which works out to be roughly the equivalent

trivia or city used to 4.9 million homes. every time we do this are getting better. these numbers are going up. these are vague benefits. if we just open our eyes, if we work and look at what the best industries are doing, what the best management practices are, with the real costs are, we can find ways of solving these problems. epa knows, just as you do that there is a significant role for clean energy for states to use as a way to meet their air quality objectives. it epa has not always laid out the most certain path to be able to do that. i probably yelled about that more when i was in connecticut than any human being high before. now i'm hearing myself, which is good.

we are actually doing everything we can to make it easier for states themselves to incorporate energy efficiency and renewable energy in today's statement limitation plan. if you go back in tax year energy world, you know they probably heard me say that more than you hot because we are at every energy conference known to man to talk about these issues and try to bridge the gap between the energy and environmental world so people can have nice electricity to turn on and heat to keep them warm and they can also have clean air to breathe. that is our ultimate lawlessly service human teens in particular aspects of their bodies. what we put out with energy-efficient t. and roadmap. that may not sound like a

glamorous title, but it's music to my ears because what it says is you don't have to take credit for control strategies or for construct team different types of power plants. you can take credit for renewable energy. you can take energy efficiency programs as you look at how to meet that states are under them. idiotically have to make progress on. that is because what we are doing and what we know we have to do is build partnerships with the state. we are building a level of trust to understand they know their business well and if they can tell us that their businesses and use analytical tools that can help guys defend that position when america challenged , we can find the best answers that are tailored to the issues in the localities that are being impacted.

that is so we can find a way instead of having national rules to bring up local or solutions commission for opportunities for states to use all the flexibility, ingenuity and innovation that you have shown can be done and just simply get it done. i want to close at this point in a couple different ways. i mentioned before that information is power. i will tell you a couple more powerful beings at your fingertips. one has to have recently put out the latest round of the greenhouse gas reporting program information. it's not just about the information we gathered from industry sitting on a webpage somewhere. it has been interact with tool.

if you want, you can have your teenagers go on and explain it to you. it's interesting from a thousand facilities. this is the second year, but also a year in which we have data from the oil and gas at her, so check it out. oil and gas is it different this significant second. check it out because it's available to your community representatives. you can get the data and sorted by state, by facility, by its community location, industrial site here, by the type of greenhouse gas emitted. you can find information to help inform yourself and make better decisions. so i encourage you. the second thing i wanted to make sure you knew then this is

our second climate change report. this is the 2012 or poorer. we have recently released this as well. and not only has a sad picture of daffodils decanters no. it actually has 26 indicators. this report is produced by climate scientists at epa, but in collaboration with other scientists across u.s. government. this looks at the 26 indicators of impacts from climate change and causes of climate change and attracts those indicators. i know we all struggle with how to communicate the impact of climate change. we struggle to make it relevant to people because it is such a worldwide issue that in many ways it's difficult for us to communicate. this will help you.

this is very easy language to understand what climate is, to understand what is impacting that and understand why there is concern if we don't move now to address climate change. it was a producer at epa. the third thing -- i'm losing count. we've recently hired a u.s. government light adaptation plan. i want you to check it out and provide us comments. we know that the challenge of adaptation is not one by any individual community or state. that is a challenge that meets all of us to work together in a collaborative way. we've seen that over and over being repeated, for not being

resilient. you will see epa and the work we've done that doesn't just look at how were adapted in the outside world, but how it adapts itself to think about integrating challenge in the work we do. the challenge of clean water and clean air is a challenge that will be unpacked to tremendously by changes in climate. thinking about a passcode to be successful and made it our mission, we would have a serious omission if we didn't factor climate change into all of those decisions in the equation that we look at us in the those decisions. give us some feedback. it's enormously important for us to work on that issue together. i'm looking forward, the

president again has made it very clear. climate change is a priority. we are to future generations to confront it. all of this year note will take more than a village for this nation to successfully address climate change. it will take governments working hand-in-hand at every level, federal state and local with the energy and d.c. has some and innovation we've used in the past to address significant issues that we need to build on the lessons we've learned. some of them you have taught us with your courage and with your investments in research dedication. we need to continue to make progress moving forward. you folks have been in the front lines of climate change. you've seen firsthand the impact that can bring.

your states are noblesville policy, energy efficiency policies have all helped to reduce carbon pollution in your communities and states. with how to transition to a clean energy economy. in every village across the united states, this has worked out well for all of us. but it should be celebrated and hopefully replicate a period over the coming years, epa needs your continued partnership and we fully intend to be a good part or in to do a good partners do. will earn your trust. they're working hard, by listening well, they supported me with the tools you need for the jobs you want to do and will provide you with the national

leadership to help keep your states, your communities and the american families we all search safe, healthy and secure. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] from mark >> we are going to move directly into the next session.

and i welcome jonathan powers from epa to the white house now. we are going to talk about efforts to the federal government. so we are going from the external to the internal peer through so many opportunities as we've heard about earlier today for efficiency in government elting. can you talk about your job and what does it do quite >> thank you for the leadership the sender has been showing and conversations as we as a federal government can work better with state and vice versa and obviously it's a tough act to follow. i think one of -- to explain about the role of federal environmental executive's first and had to explain this about 10 times when i took the job so she could explain it to her book club. the white house has developed a council of environmental quality, the national security council, domestic policy

council. many of the key not broad domestic or international policies, over during the win ptc or addressing climate change. it didn't have one to the funnest jobs in the white house because they dive into what we do in her federal operation in the areas of energy and sustainability. what does that mean? 500,000 building, 600,000 vehicles. billions of dollars in purchasing power and early on in the president's term, he put an executive order out: of federal agencies to lead by example in these areas. we worked closely to help them pursue those goals and hope to share best practices and we'll talk more about the sustainability plans and work through those processes. >> the federal agency released the third round of sustainability plan. can you talk about within them?

>> first of all the sustainability plans for turbine at the executive order in one of the things important to not his early on with each agency shall have a designated senior sustainability officer. bureaucratically because these are senior people at their reach to see who's now responsible for sustainability. these reports are just coming from an office. deep in the pentagon or department of homeland security. these are deputy secretaries or assistant secretary at minimum level. as a result you get senior interested in these. the interesting day is the first set of these is a lot of exploring a better understanding of challenges within the big enterprise we have an beginning to put together strategies in the path we are headed. we are beginning to make great

progress towards these goals. we're implementing strategy and dining areas that need to be addressed. the sustainability plans today look a little bit different than three years ago. if you're interested in finding them, there are performance stack of available for the public. >> is what way do they look different? >> they now are -- were not implementing strategies. if you look back, and they may have been trying things early on and now you're finding what works were also fighting we can take the strategies themselves and look at the department of transportation is doing really well in greenhouse gases were department of commerce implemented a smart federal sleep. they got rid of their older vehicles, but new energy-efficient vehicles and limited the amount of vehicles they had.

how do you learn from this policies and better homeland security who has basic ethic athlete and bring that education? a lot of that is shared across the board. you're getting into things like the pressure fitting within our buildings. we're looking at underwater management, increasing renewable energy persis is sort of across the federal spectrum. so as we've begun to not just be signed where we are as some of the first plants to come over making progress for finding where we need to address gaps and also areas we've made really important and incredible stride for. >> an earlier panel you mentioned federal lands. can you talk about that. >> absolutely. before i took this job i was a special adviser on energy, some of my experience comes from not area. the defense department recently,

not the state of union, but the navy set up at to one gigawatt poll on renewable energy and the rest of the services are striving to achieve one gigawatt each of renewable energy by 2025 on their lands, using very much third-party financing. so that they are doing in partnership with the department of interior who owns a lot of the land to military bases are on, they are permitting facilities, putting solar rays on. instead of owning and operating, we are connecting them into it and putting purchase agreements in place so that developers can come in and take advantage of the land and demand and get us the power we need. from a defense department perspective it is secure because it's often on our facilities.

>> can you say more to the folks here at the via the internet in who we deal with about some of the lessons you can maybe help them apply for their federal experience and whether or not they are opportunities to collaborate and use the collective purchasing power of the government as a whole state and federal? >> that's an important challenge. we are three years and looking at the executive order to see where we made strides. we are on track to get her reduction of 20% by 2020 which is significant. were doing well in renewable energy and water management. so what we found is a lot of agencies sort of ties into this. agencies have been looking at it from the stovepipe perspective. beat in washington is run by federal government -- >> that's a shocking conclusion. >> if you get out to denver,

colorado, there's one facility that has 23 federal agencies on it and they all report through different channels, but they're all in one place. or think about san antonio is one of the largest federal footprints outside of washington is that the corps of engineers, dhs facilities in va facilities and often folks reporting stovepipes that haven't been reaching to other folks to find ways to address these energy and sustainability challenges we have. so what we have done now is recently launched a spotlight initiative where we are looking to find areas working well together to address these problems. some examples. in california today, they are working on a joint interagency solar procurement. instead of one facility trying to buy solar power, they have multiple facilities going in so

we can significantly aggregate purchasing in that area and a half rooftops, perking arrays in committing the power purchase agreement really on to that so it also can be financed from third parties. with that is a great novelty tie in local and state folks in the area. another role, one of the spotlight since the peace corps. the peace corps does a lot of their work recruiting. they paid employees, not folks going into the third world and doing the work they are doing a recruiting for peace corps members. so they are looking how they can eliminate their fleet were significantly reduce their fleet. if they go out one day a week, why do they need a vehicle that will sit down for four days? can they borrow in epa vehicle?

said that comes the strange budgeting challenges, which bureaucratically found it annoying, but it's important to figure out how to solve problems. over the course of the next year, we get biweekly at dates, finding where we could land them be helpful to address challenges. and so, there's six spotlights the focus on everything from solar procurements to cars, two we've got one on federal were challenges, trying to get more folks biking to work. we've got one in d.c. looking at climate adaptation, utilizing the tools to help the irs because one of the buildings here was flooded a couple years ago that trying to figure out how to incorporate training into the future construction. a lot of folks watching here today wouldn't mind if the irs got flooded out, but it's important for operations that they're not.

that's an important way to take advantage of the expertise of other parts of the federal agency. we have to take more with climate adaptation plans we've done this year and there's a significant amount of expertise across the federal government to help the states and regions are doing and also as gina pointed out that this state and city level that we need to learn from and find ways we can incorporate that into operation and missions. >> we work on that here, so i'm happy to hear that. you mentioned part of the sustainability plan. this is the first years have been. can you say more about why that is what we can expect in terms of the future? will that continue to be the case click >> yeah, the president talked in the state of the union about climate change, buddy was reiterating the it's been going

on. this is in the first time out of the box. there's been a tremendous amount of work done by the climate task force and others to do hallmark that will lead to the path we're on. so the sustainability plans were set at three years ago. this year we had a series of workshops before they went public to figure out how we can improve them going forward in this year the climate adaptation planning was a major part of that. the agencies went through the exercise to figure out how to do climate adaptation planning within their own operations and within their mission. why is this so important? because they're not the same people and the folks focusing on dod facilities are figuring out how to manage the defense department and mission and the department of transportation looking at faa facilities aren't the same as trying to figure out where to put our next roads and railroads and other issues.

sickening those folks in the room together to think through the climate adaptation piece has been very interesting. the standby now public. they went public earlier this month we've asked for public comment for the next 60 days so folks are able to help us learn from what we've done so we can begin to improve these because these will be more repetitive process of gaining, approving, learning, much like the sustainability plan. >> we are delighted to have susan rufo in your office tomorrow at lunch to talk more about the adaptation plans. >> i think was susan will talk about tomorrow, is there is variance in how these plants came out, but there is an incredible excitement to the agencies to be doing them. we talk about what they continue to do them again? it wasn't a question of if. they are ready to move forward.

so i think it's really exciting. >> shifted back to you wrote the sustainability plan in the greenhouse gas footprint and energy-saving, the party completed one term as an administration. do you have some statistics to share? we've heard from illinois governor's office earlier today and they had some interesting lessons from their car sharing program in its investment stimulus dollars. do you see that the federal level as well? to the federal money to invest in federal buildings? >> we just start to see them come online. it's hard to say what bonobo projects and others. for straight to get the data back because of contracts work. i think the interesting fact we've got coming out are big picture. we are on track with their greenhouse gas guide us. we've done incredible work managing our water and everything from areas to ignacio landscaping on facilities in

places like colorado north dakota's really critical and we continue to lead in those areas. one of what i consider fun areas is a dinner energy savings contract. so part of what we do is called the better buildings challenge which president obama said at the launch a year ago in december and it was a partnership between cities, universities, state, 40 different partners find out. ceos to do more in energy efficiency space. and we committed to $2 billion worth of energy savings performance contracts. what is exciting as this agency said it done this before. now just quickly to go back on energy savings contracts are an authorization tool we have to

have the energy efficiency down by it nasco. we are putting capital up front to do the energy efficiency and they are getting paid out the savings. so it is the way in time of fiscal constraints to more the spaces, much like the renewable power purchase agreement tools. instead of a spine solar panels, letting them be owned and operated by people who know how to run them and we pay for the power and the backside of it. so we are in the midst of this $2 billion challenge and what is exciting as for the tip of the iceberg of the potential to do more than facilities, helping to drive energy efficiency and we also learn how to best two things like standardizing contracts say they can get finance cheaper, help move the energy efficiency market broadly. so not to get excited on contracts, but it's important thing for us to learn from and

they think is something hospitals, universities and cities and states can learn from this we do more of this. >> cellulosic wrens and now contracting. exciting discussion here. so what role does your office play once plans are finalized in following up and implementing progress? is there any tea spider roll? >> absolutely. one is the scorecard, which each agency has a public scorecard that goes out every year, where they are measured towards the goals driven. the scorecards are managed by our partners in the office of management and budget, another exciting turn. but the office of management and budget is often a baseball bat to get agencies to pay attention because you're talking about their budget. scorecards are important tools to keep senior leaders aware.

so that comes out every year. some of our biggest strengths are what we can do in collaboration. so we hold a series of conversations both within the government on how we can improve and learn from each other. so we talk about the sustainability plans. these are often conversations, side to side dialogue on policies and insight. but we also host conversations called green does, which this last year we had a large symposium in september. this year we are focused on key dialogs. on tuesday we are having a conversation on demand response and so we are the demand response sector, where private sectors are going. were having gsa comment to talk about what they're doing, but

also bringing agencies that have never done demand response to see if this is a tool they are interested in using. see if conversations on demand response and fleet management for implementing renewable energy projects going forward. >> i was a fabulous event, the greenback of. some people in the audience i recognize from that event. it was really well attended a nevada federal agencies participated, so that was impressive. >> i was impressed by the work of the folks talking about what they're doing because there is folks have mentioned all day, they are often really, really setting the innovation for us to learn from so we can implement a broader national policy. >> they even had educational institutions not just their own footprint, but also how to advocate the next generation of student and all these fields in the sustainability mind. speaking of the future, do you

have any thoughts about the future barriers or challenges will be? you're all going to your second term. i don't know if you developed your own plan for moving forward, the shootout as they have financial challenges. also perhaps limitations on the authority. do you have any thoughts on that? >> before we get to limitations, one of the interesting things that has come out of the first trimester and sustainability is a culture change in having folks of agencies to the folks managing facilities all across the country beginning to understand that these investments are actually economical -- economic investments for them. as a long-term savings for what they are doing. that has been a really important effort to go forward. the challenges of coors with the financial constraints being talked about, and shoring the focus has sustainability, of

climate planning and others who gets the funding it deserves in these agencies. but we've got to take the challenge of what other financing tools can we use that are outside the standard appropriation to get stuff done, which is one thing the performance contract effort is so important doing is that anticipate a foundation for lawyers and contracting officers and other people that can be protons moving through this to be better educated superstar to push more on authorities, they are aware that they exist, how they operate with contracting mechanisms used for you can still get to those schools. >> before he opened the floor to questions. as in the audience had an attaché so excited about gina and he appeared but i will say you can say about your back on, which included military service

and national security perspective and also running for congress. i'm wondering how that background shape your views on the importance of addressing climate change and being able to articulate climate change and also energy a. >> from a policy level, i got into the climate security from, but really got me interested as i grew up the boy scouts was always environmentally friendly, but you never focus on a lot of these issues. i went to be an education major, but i went to iraq as a platoon leader in 2003 in 2004 and every evening -- we lived in the heart of that dad in one of buddha hussein's palaces on the tigris river and as the war progressed we began to get more and more iraqis seeking to work on the facility providing jobs and helping us do a variety of

janitorial things of that nature. but we also know they also carried a significant amount of information out the door with them. what we quickly learned this at 6:00 after they left, we have to move our fuel trucks because that spot would be bordered and every night the spot to be martyred. at 6:30 region into the next spot in the next spot in the next five. i began to understand because if those trucks had been hit, we would've been completely -- first of all quite erratic, but it would've really naturalized the ability to do our jobs. even running generators. so that was a really important thing to understand around energy security. when i ran for congress -- i'm from buffalo, new york. being from buffalo i know mike is here from gm. buffalo growth in steel and

manufacturing and a great naysayer for that type of effort and i campaigned on the effort of turning the rest into the green mile, the opportunity in that space. unfortunately finished my campaign and didn't win, it's pretty fortunate because i love my work. any thoughts that i wanted to continue selling it back and on it. before the administration really focus on the role dod can play. their energy security, but also what role they play. >> relators with renewable fuels. can you say about that. >> not just the three gigawatt renewable goal. the army has a net zero installation goal, which is energy, waste and water for a campus. they are testing five facilities and they've got 17 as part of this program.

they are learning from those programs and this is the goal of 2020. nav is doing incredible work on biofuels. they have launched this last summer they ran an entire fleet on a blend of biofuels. so they've tested a lot of equipment and certified and they can do more and more of this work. the air force is doing great work. up to a couple years ago they had the largest solar array of any facility in the world on one of their bases. the military sees it as an energy security is, but they've also identified climate change is a threat and that was done within the quadrennial defense review as a way to look at challenges we face in this world and climate change the key identify threats and that drives a lot of policy there. >> will have the department of

homeland security here tomorrow to talk about the response at dhs. >> if you get a chance, secretary panetta gave a great speech talking about climate change and its really compelling. >> thanks so much. i will open the floor to questions from our audience. combine up to the night. there is one right here. don't be shy. you can come too. and judging from some notes from our friends on the internet if you can project because they're not always doing the question and maybe we can repeat them back. [inaudible] >> -- but i was also really pleased either use a agencies

are looking at this not just from an operations standpoint or facility standpoint, but their broader mission in policies and strategies. i know that if a challenge to make that happen, especially in the context of the executive order coaches focused on sustainability and facilities and operations. i wanted to hear more about that. which agencies are taking this up to the mission model from what is that leading to for adaptation plans? >> dhs is a great example. they have one of the strongest fans out there. they will incorporate the mission piece into that. you have areas like math, not to follow back to the defense department, but the navy has been a tremendous amount of scientific work on what is happening to our oceans and how that impacts things like navy facilities sit at sea level. how does that affect the run

installation? said the adaptation plans have been a great forcing mechanism to get those folks in the room together. there needs to be more of god and said that the adaptation plans were going to be pushing harder on the next round or ones that didn't have that. one of the reasons we've had these internal workshops is to help provide guidance on a policy level about agencies can make that happen because again, they are not always people familiar with each other in these building, or even the same buildings having to drive this conversation. one of the things who would love to see down the road is also good folks in the state or city level thinking about the adaptation plans are thinking about work they do on clean energy or climate change. and how to reach out to folks from their federal facilities in the spaces. so there's often a va hot but out in the area where there may be a department of homeland security border that is they are

for a military base that has a macro grade going mad? read going in. reaching into those facilities and asking them to be part of your efforts because they often have significant amount of employees they may be driving to work. i go back to denver in the denver center, the greatest campus in the world working with the lakewood community college in the national renewable energy lab in the town of lakewood to figure out things like how to set up matcher of essays. buses that ran from the new metro stop they are so then you can go onto the base and back to the community college. such a think about those folks as partners in the work you are doing because often we will bury ourselves in office is enacted on how this conversations. >> i am brett taylor in the

delaware d.o.t. i have all entre -- also participate in the georgetown center. i found it curious, actually kind of exciting you have decided to use her party providers in terms of developing renewable energy issues. that is something from a procurement standpoint has a lot of advantages. they are able to take -- third-party take the tax benefits associated with the renewable energy installation, whereas government is unable to take that because we don't pay taxes. but it's curious how you made it through the bureaucratic issues and if you can articulate that says states might be able to take advantage. >> all say we are in the midst of working through some of that still today. not all of our projects are

third-party finance, but some of the large-scale answer in that direction. so what they have been doing is exploring ways of mixing the face with purchase agreements. so we have the ability to do things where we can provide government property in return for services. so we provide a land and in turn get back so the folks are paying on the land. so i think you're exactly right. there's great advantages. so they go through and look at authorities we have to do that. the army has something called the initiative task force with exploring. the army eit f..gov or not. the navy has a task force, but we also have the federal energy management program, which is really looking at great educational tools on their

website. they look at things like renewable energy guide for agencies are installation to walk them through how to best deal with sometimes negotiating because often you've got government lawyers with high-powered, sometimes wall street lawyers coming in to get the best deal. how do you make sure the government is getting a good deal as well? it helps provide guidance on that. >> you know, we've got rooftops, parking ramps, landowners with opportunities to leverage our facilities to do more in that phase. one of the exciting things about the executive order is the president is pushing out and the government is responding. the va hospital have put and solar powered parking in one of the big results of that if these older veterans go to the

hospitals to get care and love this place is because like arizona is a parking spot for them. can we have plug-ins five for electric vehicles? said they really think holistically about these challenges. >> any other questions? , not. >> thank you again for this great, great conference today. i did participate the last two years and it's fabulous. i had a question -- they also do consulting at the department of energy and have been working on the plans. i do green i.t. consulting. my question is more about renewable energy in use on local versus federal level.

i think it is on the e. pack 2005 that identified about 2.5% was going to be -- 2.5% of energy would come from renewables. but in a certain year was 5% and 2013 on words is supposed to be 7.5% renewable energy. i know the d.c. government recently passed legislation so that it is 100% renewable energy use by d.c. government. is there any plan to update 2005 so the federal government is also 100% on renewable energy? >> at some point if a congressional decision, but what we can do for the federal agency is looking path we are on to push authorities say have without congressional support.

one example is a go of 252025, which is the largest energy consumer says a pretty significant push. so we are looking at that. we look at the fact we are on path to 57% goal. we also look at things like renewable energy credits and how to best manage that process within our facilities and other policies into bad ways to provide guidance for the different agencies handling them in different ways. what we can do to enhance third-party financing and help educate folks in the tools they are. so yes we are definitely looking at renewable energy. i've been pushing pretty heavily and i think you'll see more of that in your future. >> any final questions? if not, please join me in thanking john for his service

before and now. [applause] i hope you can stay for the last that because it stayed energy analysis tool and i'll ask lorie byrd two, and set up the computer so she can have the tools she needs to show it. thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] >> so we are going to take a few minutes and pull this up and i'm going to introduce lorie byrd to really needs no introduction because you've heard her referred to many times today has an active participant in the regional greenhouse -- and yesterday it at the northeastern state's insurance commissioner

massachusetts dep and championed the integration of energy and environmental programs come efficiency opportunities for market-based policies for new technology jobs in the clean energy. before that, she was a member of the private bar for many years, active in environmental board and she is now an independent consultant, providing strategic and ice in the clean energy climate and environmental base to foundations and more. she's also a trusted advisor and valuable friend to the georgetown climate center and we really appreciate her. so, laurie. >> thank you are a match, key. i also want to thank georgetown climate center. this has just been a marvelous day and seen so many familiar faces and new i've been thinking how much progress had been made in the last four years. so i want to join the chorus

unthinking georgetown and you are what she's done to keep states interested in moving forward in this important area. so i know that the day is very late and i am the speaker who is keeping between neo and a wider variety of averages at the end of the day. so in keeping with our theme of energy efficiency, i know you are low on at night deficiency prior, so i'll see what i can do to keep this more to about 10 minute on this exciting new state energy analysis tool. this is another example of information is power as gina has said to us. i think we are finding more and more as we have it. since they can't experience from the federal government that winning is compiled in an

interactive way and objective way, nonpartisan way and people can access it, it does so much to hope the conversation. it does so much to inspire ideas. if you like analysis groups economics study, which is an independent study, this really tries to build on that of bringing information around different things that states are doing, particularly on how they reinvest it and what are the economic benefits that flow from that? said this was inspired by that particular study and the family signed has advanced -- commissioned an analysis group to develop this particular tool, which is i will say at the end of my report is still finishing development to me hope in a couple weeks will be announced

and where this will be available publicly for anyone who wants to look at it. so on this tool, and joined here by the wonderful co-author, steve carpenter. are you in the room here you? and not beyond of the day here, he'll be in the lobby if you want to ask him to run through a scenario that is dear to your heart. he will show you how the tool works. this tool brings together the most current, most reliable energy data on states for the whole country and that is a very exciting tool that allows you to do an excel-based model. so it allows you to not only look at what abr state by state picture interested in, but you

can compare to any other state in the country and to the states as a whole region. this is quickly a list of the kind of data services to really form the back bone of this energy tool. many are familiar. the conference desired eia, snl, a number that or they are in the tool will be kept updated and refreshed at least two times a year. so this is at least what we are working with. i think as i said in the beginning the first tool is about four different kinds of things in one of the things that allows you to do is scatter plots to identify states. but it allows you to take different