if you go down from the top the only difference is that you get the higher pressure. so it is super critical at this point in time and speaking about the upcoming technology there are two in the bottom. you turn it into gas purchase a generator. the first generator before the steam going into the second generator. the last one the bottom is after

you turn coal into gas, it goes through fewer cells before so you get three generations here. that is the promising technology. having in mind this understanding, this is our technology that we are working hard. commercially speaking, the best agency that is achieved today is 43. but the plan is to achieve up to 65% by 2050.

we are working very hard to achieve this by 2050. however, the point is while we are working very hard for technology on the future, the plans are standing up today and that is why we have to talk about using what is available today. so, now moving on to that, they use what is available today. so first of all how does it look this is a picture from the best plant in japan and also in the world. this is another picture from the plant shown in the previous

panel that there isn't a preferred picture. the plant was beautiful in the picture but the difference is you see the residential houses on the bottom. you will see that it's so close to the coal power plants it just means that it's not only beautiful but that it is also draining. not sure how much being beautiful matters here but the picture is not enough. i wrote how efficient the current technology is. the notion of the characterizations are that if we use the critical technologies

for the production of the 1,100,000,000 per year compared to another area that is sub critical technology and how big is even hundred million per year to give you an idea by the way, japan's co2 emission in total not the coal-fired power plants but manufacturing plants, household offices and everything. the total co2 emission is 1,200,000,000 per year. so, by choosing what is critical

is opposed to some control this is like japan totally stopping its co2 emission. this is how efficient the technology is. and in addition to the co2, before it started to be called a pollution, traditionally it is about the plan from the future. if it was invisible compared to

-- i'm comparing this to u.s., canada, uk and all the others so now i'm going from those countries and not the power plants. another means this includes gass but even after including the gas there is this much. >> so, what is happening is that people are not choosing this technology. the iea says they are using sub critical in around one third of china is subcritical and in india almost all of the new plants are using sub control.

there is a reason it's easy. if you look at his table on the bottom, the sub critical is the cheapest. the cheapest is a good thing that the downside is that it's less efficient. how much more fewer compared to blacks so by choosing the cheapest, they are losing money. but you might not care if they lose money. but what is important is they are producing more co2 than is necessary by choosing this. so, that is why we have to help

them make the right decision for the sake of them and us. for this purpose, providing financial assistance can be an option, but from being from nato, i want to talk about something else today that is the study that we are providing to the different countries. so far, there have been 19 projects in the countries analyzing how the new technology would work we are hoping to make the helping them make the right decision in terms of what technology to use. and i think everyone is looking at the triangle in the u.s., but this is the project in california. i talk about this. the other aspect of the cool technology is the maintenance.

after building the new plant you have to use this for 40 years comes keeping up the performance of her time is important. this example there are several power plants laid out. it's too new to do this. the power plant has been operating around 40% originally defined efficiencies over 40 years compared to another plant that has dropped off quickly. and i can't say what country the system. this is the difference imply the maintenance technology is important as well. the us-japan corporation corporation is going on and some examples here the project is

located in california and speaking with disabilities to the project and then because the companies are participating in the construction and then a second one is the discussion that is going on on retrofitting the petition project in the u.s. existing plant for the sake of the reduction. and then also, we are having to reach out into the pictures from the recent tour that we had in the university technology and hopefully there will be more opportunities to cooperate and if you have something else please the venus. with that, i will conclude my presentation. and i'd be happy to take any questions that you might have. thank you very much.

[applause] >> actually come if i may i would like to ask this quick qualifying questions so that is definitely for later. your site on -- slide number 13 i just wanted to make sure that i understood this correctly so that the u.s. canada and uk did you say that is the average from the oil and gas power plants are just some? the average from coal, oil and gas. >> the coal-fired plant is much cleaner. just quickly, this blue line

when you see the certain comparison between the non-japanese. i just wanted to make sure. spinning again, thank you for the introduction and it is a pleasure to be here with everyone. thank you for that presentation. i will try not to duplicate all of the information that you have on the efficiencies of the different technologies and try to lay out a little bit of history as well as where we need to go. if i'm going to say the word power plant sometimes there is

more than one generator or boiler on the site but what we let me use the word plant for the sake of use. so in the united states there were 557: fired power plant site. in china there are 620. there're 2,300 in the world. so, china and the u.s. have 51% of the power plants and i'm not counting units. again, this probably as close. so, u.s. and china have 51% of the coal-fired power plant sites in the world and we know that there are some reports that we've received from the iea ea and others that we currently in

the last couple of years have the data we have about 1.6. i think that this matches your charge pretty well to grow by 2035 and 2042 about 2,600. you have 2,600 so this is current growth. that is a 60% growth between today and what's a 2040. a lot of that growth is going to be in asia and india and other parts of the developing world but there will be some growth as

the heat rate is improved on the plants and some additional technologies are built in. and by global demand is expected to rise just over the next five years from 7.8 billion tons in 201312 over 9 billion tons in 2019. so, there's going to be continued growth in the demand for the fuel as well. you might have heard some of these already today. they are similar to some of them that you've already had. but it shows is the world is making a huge commitment in this fixed infrastructure. we are talking about 42% of the electricity being generated from this type of fuel and i'm not

counting natural gas which is another big chunk. but when you look at these fossil fuels, we are probably in that 50% zone of the electricity being generated from it. for at least another several decades. which is getting us into the middle part of the century where we are supposed to be making some substantial reductions in the greenhouse reduction. but at the same time we are trying to as a worldview may wonder sometimes if there are 1 billion people on earth that don't have electricity so you have to think through that conflict in characteristic we want people to have a better quality of life.

the tent in the woods would be good. they are mutually challenging goals. but at the same time trying to grow the quality of life of all of our citizens on the planet is a very difficult contextual thing. the reality is coming into this may be why you asked me to be here. if the reality is that we are going to have this kind of power generation on earth for quite a while in the century, we need to figure out how we are going to deal with the emissions and emissions and so i often say that it isn't the fuel. it is the emissions that we have

to deal with. and a history piece that i wanted to weigh in here is that in the u.s., this is pulling back into the u.s., and we saw the performance of the aggregate compared to the high-performing plants in japan. we have some of those in the u.s. also. those are averages. we have plants that are getting very low. i want to say very close to zero almost in the sulfur oxide emissions. that is a phenomenal achievement. when i first started in the air pollution control 30 years ago, we have things like 20 or 30 or 40% reduction and i a member having conversations with engineers and they said what's wrong with you. the air is 80% nitrogen. i can't something and have it be exposed to that nitrogen.

well, today we have the selective catalytic reduction. we developed a catalyst. we have perfected the way to deal with this and change it into a different kind of gas and a different kind of project. so, we have made some fantastic reductions in pollution from the coal-fired power plants. and this is the thing that i always liked looking at. the current average in the united states is ten and a half cents. in 1985 the average cost was 6.5%. in today's dollars, that would be 14 cents. the 6.5 would be 14 cents today. the average is ten and a half cents. so, we could say that we are starting our infrastructure here by not charging the same amount of money on the buying power that we did in 1985 but what we

have done over the past 20 years is invested in the pollution control that has had a fantastic reduction in pollution and amazing impact on public health. and so when i talked to my colleagues on the industry in the power industry and even in the mining industry this is an innovative achievement that we have had over the last 30 years. what makes you think that we can't do that with carbon dioxide over the next 30 years. and of course what we were just seeing is some of the emerging challenges that are out there to make the plants more efficient to begin with which it is who is opposed to that and second, you know, trying to capture it. and so when you look at what we've been able to do and i'm just using the example in the case and how it's affected the actual consumers of commercial and residential and industrial we've been able to hold the cost

pecans and when compared to inflation. the anomaly is reaching the differences and it's higher in new england and alabama, but the average, i'm looking at the average. so, how do we take the next step and what are these emerging technologies? i'm not going to go through them in detail as evil to be done a good job waiting them out but let's talk about what is actually happening on the ground. we now have in north america a carbon capture and storage plant operating at the boundary on the location. it is coupled up with the enhanced oil recovery. and one will say some of my colleagues on the environmental side will say we don't want to have this enhanced recovery. you are taking and pushing more hydrocarbon out of the ground and pushing it with cars or trucks or airplanes. and so, yes indeed there is a penalty there in terms of

hydrocarbon but the benefit of doing it the key is what was said and i want to reiterate the don't have an economic model right now to help us finance the carbon capture and storage. the economic transition model is being paid for this carbon to do the enhanced oil recovery is a very good transition concept because what it will do do if that will is it will enable us to build more carbon capture storage plans. and the more that we build, the cheaper it will become and that is what has happened in the air pollution that i just mentioned. we went from the big white scrubbers down to injection. so we have reduced the cost and so i am going to quote from the power ceo couple of weeks ago

who said we fully expect to build another unit at the same location. but we expect it to be 20 or 30% cheaper to build. because what they were just building the first one. and so, i think that this is a pretty important component, finding the bridge. oh and how we do it. and i would agree with what was said in terms of the use of the potential economic model in the near term. and of course nobody economic model is in the long-term. there has to be a price on carbon so that you get paid for sticking it in the ground. you have to do it in the places that are not -- dot at the camera but on that wall you have to do it in the places that were right on the camera but don't have that map that could have enhanced oil recovery opportunities opportunities otherwise we will be building pipelines over the place.

the other good thing we have one under construction in mississippi and i think actually the map shows some of the pipelines and opportunities in mississippi and into the u.s. by the southern power company and is not operational yet but it's under construction. and in china, while there are 12 commercial scale projects being discussed, none of them are under construction, but the first project is an agreement between winning and peabody and it would it will be a while maybe towards the end of the decade before that is actually running. but that is also going to be between winning and the summit power who are actually part of a dialogue that i've been involved in called the national enhanced oil recovery initiative where we are having these

multi-stakeholder conversations in the u.s. about using the enhanced oil recovery and not only do improve the efficacy of the oil wells not producing any more but also to build more carbon capture and storage technology to learn how to do a better job of it. and so, this is in terms of sharing the data as we are trying to do so we can share it. i've told you how many power plants we are going to have in the world that are based on coal and then how many we are going to have in the world that are based on natural gas. at the end of the century, all of them will have to be at an 80% reduction in the century or sooner in the greenhouse gas emissions. we are going to have to be doing something back in the carbon whether it is to capture and sequestration order capturing and using it in some kind of other economic activity. we are going to need to do that.

i'm going to stop in that kind of high-level discussion. but you see the challenge in the amount of investment in the power and the balancing goals improving the quality of life and at the same time trying to deal with the greenhouse gases and the fact that we had success in the past reducing the unit cost of the substantial treatment on the power plants and we are at the beginning of the process now i see somebody hopefully put a map up there. you can see mississippi over there.

>> let me start by apologizing to you because a number of my slides i noticed when i was sitting here earlier today i used the font that was so small that it's going to be difficult for you to see cut that i want you to take heart because i have about 50 slides. i'm going to move through them so quickly he won't be able to read the slide anyway. now, in truth, this guide will be available between if we don't see some things they will be available. thank you for having me here. i appreciate that and the discussion. i want you to know that because i am a big coal guy, on the technology side we are absolutely parallel and i thank you for that.

and you have a long reputation of being fair and realistic and it is a pleasure for me to be here with you. let me also say that the executive director of the coal utilization counselor as we like to call it and i will actually be making some reference to some of our studies and conclusions and whatnot. that is an antitrust statement i think that i want you to know that. let me start by making two points. first of all, as i think both of my fellow panelists pointed out, co2 cannot be effectively addressed without carbon capture sequestration.

the second point i want to talk about is the country needs energy options. that is one of the slides i was talking about but if you can't see it in 2019 in china and india, the coal plants are under construction and would emit annually as much or more then the entire u.s. coal fleet currently in its annually. it is to be built in those two countries over the next half a dozen years and that is the point of panelists have already made. they are also expecting africa

to increase the coal use by 50 to 70% between now and about 2040 at the african summit that was held in washington, d.c. several months ago. i thought the african leaders made it abundantly clear that they would use coal for the 600 million people on the continent that had little or no electricity. india at the climate conference in new york city several in late summer made similar points. ..

i'm not going to spend any time on this. all of you, i am certain, have gone through this litany of the benefits and costs of all of these energy options that exist. what i want to emphasize is each one has their benefits and drawbacks. the japanese know all too well the price being paid for great reliance on one fuel source. this next slide is simply to depict that and the degree

of reliance that exists both in japan and the consequences of fukushima and also what has happened in germany with respect to renewables. we did not talk very much about that day, and i do not intend to use it as a whipping board, but in 2013 the capacity of wind and solar in germany nearly equal to the installed capacity of fossil fuels. that is good, but wind and solar energy producers got a guaranteed price, usually well above market price, and this electricity is dispatched to the grid before other conventional resources. as a result, and generate electricity prices have more than doubled and are $0.40 per kilowatt hour compared to the us average of about

$.10 per kilowatt hour. what does that really means fact that means, we that means, we have a competitive advantage because of the price of electricity. frankly, the price of the existing fleet that delivers that electricity. an important metric or want to.out with respect to the cost of electricity to the american consumer, at least some economists say that a 10 percent increase in electricity costs please do a 1 percent decrease in gross mastic product and the loss of as many as 1.5 million jobs. that that is central to the debate taking place even right now as we look at the proposed epa regulations 111b and 111d. so options matter. ccs is critical global co2

emissions. emissions. my.here with this chart from the department of energy is, do we have a demand pull that we will allow this country to be a leader in both the development and then the use of co2 in newly constructed units, and for that matter the same question applies to the existing system and the existing fleet. how are you going to address new project to demand? all of us in the previous panel come to the same conclusion. it is not hard. it is really more rock science. we are going to primarily use natural gas. eia in its ae zero 2014 early release report

projected that in order to use all that natural gas, which is that orange line, i don't no what it looks like a p or call that if if you look at the monitors over here you can better see it. the orange #'s are natural gas. you do not you do not see any call up their between now and 2040, but to use that natural gas it we will be about 130 gigawatts of new natural gas combined cycle. it will be about 84 84 gigawatts of combustion turbines gas-fired, and that equates to about 2.1 tcf of incremental natural gas used for electricity. let me just say that a primary reason again as other speakers have said, the increased gas capacity is both price and availability. you just can't avoid that. it is worth keeping in mind that in

2,004 natural gas used for power production nearly doubled in price in two years to reach 550. a doubled again until 2,008 if you we will recall to reach $12.41. and then in 2012 it it dropped from $2.81. right now it is around five or six now it is around five or $6. i think the.is pretty obvious. well, adding to the fact that we don't have any new projected demand for coal what we're trying to show here is the existing fleet is getting old. the average time of the existing fleet we will be about 42 years old. it is important to understand that this existing fleet according to the eia is still expected to provide about 38 percent of all of the electricity requirements through 2040 in the us.

here here is my., i guess. we have an existing fleet that provides low-cost electricity, and after full implementation generally i would say this fleet we will be compliant with most of our existing environmental requirements for criteria pollutants, co2, but the.here as it is a clean fleet. it is going to be a clean fleet. those who have performed economic impacts with higher electricity prices particularly with the requirements projected both as a consequence, between 50 and 60 gigawatts. after one scenario

promulgated as proposed, proposed, the might be as much as 49 additional gigawatts hundred to 100 gigawatts of capacity in the us after 310 gigawatts fleet currently. i think the importance here again getting back to the issue of the existing units, in 2040, and 2040 that fleet , we won't build any new ones. it will be 62 years old. so i want to come back to the importance of the existing fleet and talk about this really in the context of how complicated offices. i really do think that bob did an excellent job of indicating that it is complex and that we need to find some kind of symbiotic

relationship between these seemingly divergent requirements in our society for more and more abundant and lower-cost electricity but also with attention with the need to environmental stewardship. we don't need to talk about these, but i want to remind you about some of the exigencies that have happened over the last 12 months that remind us not just about the value of the existing fleet, but frankly the need to keep in mind that as we retire elements of that fleet and others have talked, i think my lot about the potential reliability of the grid as we continue to retire much of this fleet, we talked a bit about particularly in germany about renewable energy.

i guess i would have to call the market to file find the distortions into a consequence of too much in my mind subsidy, limiting options is just a matter of what it is whether it is nuclear or natural gas price volatility. as i said earlier, it is our duty that we be good environmental stewards, and i personally personally consider co2 a major challenge, but generally if you look at the american consumer, the only thing he or she expects his power when they put something in to the ubiquitous outlet, and i think that is one of the challenges that we have as we think about the complexity of the system we're trying to deal with than the regulatory regime that we are trying to create what i now want to talk

about is what i think is a timely a timely issue. it is time. it has been time for a long time to really focus upon technology or as the iea executive director said, radically accelerate deployment of technology. let me say again at the outset you have seen some of the estimates about the cost and cost comparison and this is where i will wander back into the kirk and my roland kirk the simple conclusion, current status of carbon capture technology it costs too much.

we at least would argue we have not integrated all of this. we have not integrated all of this technology. technology. we know about it but we have not integrated into functioning commercial size power systems. we will get get there, but we're not their yet. the market driver is not their with low-cost very abundant very affordable natural gas and is not their because our economy is not bubbling and 90 percent. the drivers for technology development don't exist for a variety of reasons particularly with respect to something that at least the users of the technology in this country view it as

pretty risky stuff, and i will not try to go into the cost and values. echoing what bob said before we have been very successful in using technology as the fulcrum to ensure that we have a moral environmentally pure world these are epa charts. the metrics of the same it takes a a picture of 1990 as so to concentrations. the white vein, that one slide is because their were no monitoring stations there a picture in 1990 and and in 2,009, and i don't think i need say anymore than technology in part was responsible for that reductions i mentioned

before that i am involved in the co- utilization research council and the electric power research institute. for more than a decade been developing and updating a cold technology roadmap. the last iteration was in august of 2012. we are updating it again. the context of efficiency gains. as they have intimated or actually said if you get greater efficiency you're going to lower the amount of

co2 emissions, maybe 1% efficiency gain, efficiency gain, two to two naprosyn reductions in co2 emissions. the left-hand side says you can move from about the best that we no how to do, 40, 41 percent efficiency to 48 percent or more. could result in the prevention or control to five conventional emissions. even greater levels than we have today. those bars represent even greater emissions decreases as a consequence of more technology development.

we are all very supportive, very hopeful that every one of those projects will be developed and finally built. we all we all focus on boundary dam and kemper and the pattern of a project , a little bit on the archer daniels midland project, but their are several other projects of there where at least in my judgment it is a challenge, mostly a financial challenge, not necessarily a technology challenge. those projects are living in a world where the market does not yet exist. those exist. those projects are living in a world where there is lot of cheap natural gas and no driver for the technology to

be able to survive. we survive. we talked a lot about the importance of, i think, political and government support. let me let me underscore this by saying that without very significant support were not going to get their. i'm talking about the support that exists or does not exist within the current administration. i i do not talk about the really superb efforts that are being done at the department of energy, in particular in an effort to sustain a program the program and develop a program around advanced coal -based technologies. let me walk you through this for a second. the president's request in fy 2015 last year congress

provided $392 million. if you draw straight line down to the blueline you can see what the administration requests. in terms of trying to increase, augment the amount of funding for technology research and development, not talking about demonstrations, research and development, it has been the congress. i am not saying the administration has not been helpful, but the congress that has moved the money up to a level where at least kirk believes we need to be in order to achieve the kind of goals that we had in that frame. for those of you that follow this earlier this week you probably know that house and the senate agreed upon the crop of this bill after some

amount of acrimony. the agreement in the congress with respect to the president's requests is around $400 million. let me conclude by saying that as an organization we have tried to look at what is required in the technology development world , specifically focused on call in order to ensure that call has a place in the future as part of one of our important energy options. what we have looked at is what is to be done with the existing fleet from an r&d or research development technology perspective and simply stated, that is we have got to improve the efficiency of those units. this will require technology we have to improve the flexibility of those units,

include the reliability of the units will we are asking them not to cycle with respect to using the revenue that can be generated from selling co2, anthropogenic co2 to enhanced oil recovery ,, and it is significantly important because it is a revenue stream in the context of technologies that cannot make it without additional revenues or sources of revenues because the financial models don't work. thirdly we are supportive of technology r&d programs that

look not just at trying to improve existing technology for low-cost electricity coming from that. transit to cut new ways to use coal cleanly and cost-effectively. a part of our discussion is that technology not only addresses future environmental concerns just as it has successfully done for decades in the past, but also, more importantly, technology in our view is a means for low-cost electricity, improving people's lives and making possible modernization through electro technologies. technologies. that is the 1.3 billion people in the world who have inadequate supplies of electricity or no electricity and is the promise that as a modern society we have to make available to everyone, at least to the extent that we

can. let me finally say that with respect to this, if we can call it a three-part technology program, sen. heidi high camp, democrats democrats from north dakota in march of this year introduced legislation with the number of our colleagues that include that three-part program and other elements of coal and technology that has been, but with respect to her own analysis, and, and i believe her intention is to introduce that legislation again in the new congress. i thank you for your attention. i apologize for the small fonts. >> thank you so much.

>> a lot of information, data, and ideas that we can discuss. while you think about coming up with great questions to pose to the panel i do have at least one or two questions that i would like to start with. the ccs is not just for coal. it could be used for natural gas as well. are there sort of between some of the public and private sector part stakeholders sort of a common understanding at least there is a concerted

effort to support whether it is an increased budget for r&d, between coal folks cratered distribution. they are distributed more widespread, but i think the general feeling is later in the century they are going to have to capture some of that carbon as well and use it as a product, more localized injection, but there is also a sense that if you can solve the problem for the high volume and some of the impurities that you have in the coal gases cold

gases that you are trying to extract the carbon out of that whatever approach is taken will be adaptable to a natural a natural gas situation, but their will be a distribution set of issues later in the century in terms of how to deal with the carbon once you capture it, but the technology advancements that are happening and will continue to happen should be adaptable. also other industrial processes are not power generators. i think you had some ethanol plan data up there as well. >> i i underscore that by saying, and bob made the.exactly that the sources of co2, it is not just coal and not just natural gas, gas, steel plants, ethanol

plants, cement plants. >> the other question i have, at least one of several is that, you know, earlier earlier today, i mean, i guess we did spend quite a bit of time on countries that do have economic profiles and also probably natural resource endowment profiles where the ccs with the eor is not really an option, and this is the panel that we will look at and talk about the economic competitiveness aspect, but i sort of want to get your sort of, you know, thoughts on what are some of the lessons that our experiences. how do we make our experience and experiments going forward relevant to

some of these countries that do not have eu back by building more wickets are driving down the cost this commercially viable industry or sector per se. what are some of the ways that you think that we should be thinking about? those in our organization who are emphasized that storing co2 can be done. we know how to do it. let's start there. the real issue is solving in some states, the liability issues surrounding large, large volumes of compressed

co2. who is responsible for that and how do you work through those kinds of really, really important issues. we have an issue with respect to at least some of the eor community certainly no expert in that. i am mimicking what i hear, but that that seems to be a difficulty as well. the important thing is on the one hand from the technology perspective we can inject co2, we have great confidence we can keep it there. other areas have to be dealt with early on, particularly

not just in the us but in other places in the world where we are trying to do this involving a very good example of assuming that it we will be okay to inject co2. >> we talked about the cost reduction through the path of coming from the higher volume of experience, doing more to lower the cost. this is one way to go down. there is another, not only accumulating experience, but to be successful with the technology, lower the cost, but this will take time. we are also working on new technologies that we will

make it possible. the cost we will be talk about .the initial investment but about the running cost basis, the running cost basis,, the reason that the ccs is so costly is because the -- you need energy. so we are trying to come up with ways to realize carbon capture using significantly less amounts of energy which we will make it more viable for other countries. >> so just to help folks who are not aficionados of the underground injection and control program that been

mentioned, class ii and class vi. enhanced oil recovery that has a number of requirements for monitoring the process. obviously process. obviously you are sticking the carbon into an existing reservoir of hydrocarbons. class six was created in the last five years as a a class of underground injection and control to protect groundwater for purely carbon capture and storage. the two provisions in their that cause people the most positive is the monitoring and reporting requirements, is it really down their. the second is financial insurance component which is undefined and subjected to permitting nuances for arbitrary winking or

whatever you want to call it until we understand better about what all of the broader liabilities are. it was not resolved in this rulemaking. open-ended questions. questions. what is the financial insurance i need to provide. i think the epa knows that it has to be fixed, fixed, and there is a whole group of people that have been working on it and hopefully we we will continue to have a dialogue. the last thing that i will mention, eeo, eor is a good transition, and it is geographically limited, but there has to either be your both a price on carbon, as they say, so that you can actually make money by putting it into the ground and sequestering it or ultimately we learn how to use that carbon for other kinds of industrial processes that then does not allow it to get back up into the atmosphere and gets put

into something we make and permanently sequestered that way. i think all of those things are going to happen, but they are not their right now >> quickly sort of building up on the last comment that it does take energy. i just -- i find it fascinating how i guess the full co2 capture ccs actually does reduce efficiency and requires more coal burning. i mean, that is something. going through. going through one of the iea reports and just thought it was fascinating. and so i think they are relative. these things tend to be relative, but relative advantages and disadvantages to different types of clean coal technologies depending upon time horizon you are looking at, depending upon the market investment frameworks and structures.

anyway, let me open up the floor for discussions. sorry, if you could please identify who you are and then asked the question in the form of the question that would be great. >> thank you. the excellent presentation. well, clean coal technology. i think two different pieces of questions, although the beauty of higher, more efficient combustor technologies including esc and the retail ccs. well, i think we should be more careful about. [inaudible] i mean,, achieving the

objectives and growth of the global economy. i think that the best way to do it, higher efficient combustion technologies, essentially regardless of the commercialization state of -- we can each see people [inaudible] see them before reaching out [inaudible] we should hurry up more

efficient combustion. this is the question, whether we should have ccs, exports of more efficient higher technologies are not. the command form. thank you. >> i agree with the idea. it would be different depending on whether we -- what time frame we are talking about or what portion we are talking about. look, when the solution takes time sometimes it is from duration, the technologies sometimes not completely or almost

complete or not complete at all. we can do it today. while they are working on technologies for, you know, the next decade,, india, china, they are all standing up new plants today and tomorrow. we can't do anything on those plans that were built yesterday, but their are a lot of things we can do for the plans that we will be built tomorrow. that was one of the points, supercritical power plant,

but this will intimate some amount of co2, but compared to another ocean which is subclinical or even lower efficiency technology, making sure that they choose the best efficiency is something that we can do today. thank you. >> i agree with you. i liken this to the brawl walk run approach. we need to do some crawling before we decide that we can get into the box and do the hundred yard --. in the way that i think about that is, we have already seen that a lot of the world is still constructing subcritical plants. why are they doing that? it does not cost us much. that is one metric that we have to keep in mind. it does not mean that the

world is not going to stop using coal. we know how to to build supercritical units dependent upon how you want to the fine and ultra supercritical unit. unit. we can do that, but that is a walking stage. while it does not require technology to certainly agree with that point, it does on the ultra supercritical because the high temperature materials. it does seem to me that that is the stage that probably the rest of the world needs to take before we decide we are going to run with all of this. now, one could argue -- i would not be one of them -- this is we don't need to do that. my view is, let's build the efficient systems, space out the inefficient, less efficient systems that we have even in the us and have chosen to have the policy debate in another arena. but then we need the long-term transition to the

clean coal, the highly efficient, the carbon capture enabled systems, and at least it is my view. we don't have that yet, and what we really need is, frankly, a commitment from a lot of people including our government, and we need a lot of resources. and when i talk about resources, i talk about capital, we will come and i talk about huge amounts of money. that is not going to come in my view from the private sector. >> the obvious answer is, we need to do both. it is easier to be efficient than it is to build technology that is still evolving, but i would just add to what then said, the efficiency of the system is more than just a plan but how we use electricity. so there is

very low costs technologies that can be used around the world in terms of increasing people's quality of life by using electricity more efficiently than we thought about using it 40 years ago. and so whether it is labels or air conditioners or anything, they, they are much more efficient today than they were even 20 years ago. we should, as a world and certainly as a country try to demonstrate to the world that you can do this and make everything as efficient as possible under all circumstances. but it is all challenging. challenging. we have -- you have the best eight data over there. some of those plans are even older than me. and but they have all been upgraded. they they are not the original boiler probably, and the boiling chambers have been refitted to be more efficient.

just to give an example on the boiler side because nuclear power plants and coal power plants, once you get past the fuel they have similar attributes. there is a boiler boiling water. you have to deal with the heat of vaporization. push this team and turn and turn a turbine. so cold -- nuclear power plants, 19, 20 percent of the electricity in the united states for the last 20 years. the amount of electricity rehab keeps going up. how do they keep staying at 20 percent? there is about 100 nuclear power plants in the united states and everyone is producing more electricity than it did when we were built because they have upgraded them. they have improved the thermodynamics inside the boiler systems, the heat transfers. they heat transfers. they are not having more uranium. they are just making them

much more efficient from a thermodynamic perspective. there is a lot to be done across the board. one of the things is happening with the automobiles now. when i was a kid the four-cylinder engine, four-cylinder engine, you cannot have air-conditioning and power steering. there was not enough power. now air-conditioning power windows, power brakes, and things that require mechanical energy from the engine, the radio, i guess, is pretty much the same, but the key is that we are getting more power and the same displacement of the piston. at the auto show last year i saw one leader, those those of you who are gearheads in the room, 1 liter engine producing 100-horsepower. it is just like -- it boggles my mind. so we can do the same thing with power generation getting back to the basics of what was actually happening, the boiling of war, creation of pressure, pressure, turning of the wheel, efficient transfer of heat.

>> it was excellent. a useful analogy. analogy. we might have time left for one question. yes. >> judy blanchard. i was hearing about these facilities that have the ccs -- hearing about the facilities that have ccs now, sometimes they are characterized as demonstration projects which implies that they are not really ready for prime time and they, you know, the technology needs more work and that these are facilities. other times when you hear these facilities being talked about, they are commercially viable" and that they can be duplicated and that the expectation is that this can be done many other places. and so it is

interesting to here how these facilities are being characterized, and i was wondering, what are the issues behind this? i i mean, is it view that the demonstration facilities , maybe the technology needs to be developed further, but maybe from the doe perspective we are their already and can do it at large-scale. i was wondering if you could put some texture around the differences and how the facilities are characterized >> there is a difference between having the ability to build a carbon capture and storage system, and there is nothing that needs to be invented to do it. what needs to be done is figure out how to do it more efficiently, find different ways. the first ways. the first couple to get built at a commercial scale, verify that -- i will differentiate in a minute, built with a lot of conservative assumptions because you wanted to work.

and when i mentioned the things they can build: the next unit, for 20 to 30% cheaper because they are learning from what they did with the first one. there is no new thing that we don't no how to do this. how do we do this the most efficient way. since thomas edison started making electricity, although he took direct current and westinghouse one with the alternating current told that he was boiling water to create electricity. we have known how to do it for a long time. we are just getting a hell of a lot better at it. i think that is what is going to happen with that. commercial scale is like one that is running on a full power plan, commercially viable means that there is an economic model associated with the fact that we can do it. that commercial scale is what people are now doing, the other ones that are up on the chart. but chart. but commercially viable is

still not their because there is not enough revenue. i will stop their. >> i will i will just say i agree with the differentiation. the acronyms, if you will, that we use here are not descriptive of what we're trying to accomplish. the idea of commercial scale technology development, technology demonstration versus commercially viable. these systems are not yet commercially viable. we don't have a template here that would allow us to competently say that we can build the next one, and it is going to be totally commercially viable. it might work. it will work. that is the.that i made earlier but it may not be

commercially viable. we will need to do the math at some. i suspect it is not commercially viable. it may be true of other projects that are being demonstrated at the commercial level. that does not mean we can't and should not continue to do it and that we should not be investing frankly heavily and better technology that is skip jump over what we no how to do today. we need to do all of that, and there is an urgency to do all of that. >> all of your comments are extremely thoughtful as well as informative, and i very much appreciate you sharing your insights and also the knowledge where the technology is an may be headed and some of the ways

that we can try to get there. [applauding] >> tonight a look at the death penalty and the american criminal justice system with public interest lawyer brian stevenson, author of the knew book just mercy the story of justice and redemption, joined by fellow author sister helen prejean. tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern. and here book tv. factory man. the destruction of the dollar threatens the global economy and what we can do about it. finally, michael lewis on his book/boys. 8:00 o'clock eastern on t1.

>> on the next washington journal the ethics and public policy center discusses a recent poll on whether americans feel 2015 will be a better year than 2014. after that author shane harris looks at his book at war, the rise of the military internet complex exploring the use of cyberspace to wage war. phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal tweets. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. here's a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day. festivities start at ten am eastern with the leading of the national christmas tree followed by the white house christmas decorations. the lighting of the christmas tree. celebrity activists talk about their causes. then causes. then at 8:00 o'clock supreme court justice samuel alito on the bill of rights and

the founding fathers. venture to the art of good writing and at 1230 the feminine side of the superhero. the secret history of wonder woman. woman. their reading habits and on american history tv at 8:00 a.m. the fall of the berlin wall with speeches from presidents john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon fashion experts on first ladies fashion choices and how they represented the styles of the times in which they lived and that you may clock former nbc news anchor on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. for a complete schedule go to c-span.org.

>> the cato institute recently held an all-day conference on surveillance issues including national security, law enforcement, and civil liberties focusing on the usa freedom act and current court challenges making their way through the federal court. this is a little more than an hour. >> this really is our 18 panel. especially the revelations. a long time the effort by a wide array of stakeholders to limit surveillance, the courts limited by statute and technologically as involved an array of sometimes complementary, sometimes partially conflicting efforts on a range of different fronts. we assembled a a mix of

expertise is, cryptographer, academic and advocate, compliance, a compliance officer from a technology company, someone who sues alec. >> what a terrific day you put together. i want to graduate you for this. i feel like i should be getting college credit. limiting surveillance. a variety of public and private actors have tried to push back against surveillance and promote

privacy. we have heard eric schmidt earlier today talk a little bit about how google moved to encrypt data between data centers, stories about apple and google moving to default encryption on devices. the effort by congress to pass usa freedoms and ball collection of data. there their have been moves by advocates to challenge the constitutionality of. these are but a few of the ways in which we have seen response to concerns raised in particular after the disclosures by edward snowden beginning last year

about mass collection of data and some of the exceptional capabilities we have seen in breaking into what were thought to be secure means of communication. so jillian mentions the array of expertise that we have. we will briefly introduce everyone, and then we would like to launch and our discussion with the aim of keeping it as free-flowing as possible. the panelists are encouraged to jump in and respond to one of his points. and then we we will leave some time for questions and answers. without further ado we have lara flint thought the far end, the senate

judiciary committee chief counsel for national security to talk to us about efforts on the hill to limit surveillance. a public advocate and legal expert with the brennan center for justice and trying to promote reforms in statute and in court. richard's elgato is google director for law enforcement and national security matters, and we look forward to hearing from him about what google has done to promote privacy. deputy general counsel of the electronic volunteer foundation, which is challenged the constitutionality of several surveillance programs and is trying to build grass roots awareness about privacy issues. matthew green is a cryptographer who teaches and conducts research and privacy enhancing techniques at johns hopkins university. richard, richard, why don't you want by briefly telling us about efforts to promote privacy, limit surveillance. eric mentioned the encryption effort on the data center. i am curious, you do that in response to mac.

>> encrypting data that goes from one center to the other some of you may recall stories about the collection of data from between those data centers. as eric mentioned, during a presentation it was a pretty shocking moment when we learned that that was happening. >> what was your personal reaction to mac. >> well, my personal reaction was that it was pretty shocking to see that this was happening. i happening. i guess my personal reaction was, we have a front door for the government to ask us for our data. data. i know what it is. i manage. and it would have been nice if they needed data if they had used the legal mechanisms available.

so my reaction was, you know, what is this about? somewhat confusing. i know in the company was just flat out outraged. i think one of the things that -- google started a year a year before encrypting the data between the data centers and the particular kind of collection going on because it was the right thing to do. you look at your network. network. trying to secure data. the vulnerability points. his -- a potential vulnerability point. no reason to think it is being exported, but let's clean it up and get it encrypted. about a year before the first batch of snowden revelations came out or the story in particular, we had already started encrypting the data between staff centers. what happened after this came out, it became not

just this academic theoretical vulnerability but it looks like it is happening. we set up the effort to encrypt that so that it is no longer a.of collection data. .. how can we be open with leaders about things that we have been told by the government that we are not allowed to talk about.

that gets back to the classification subject anything. we were big on trying to get the right transparency and ended up in court in the fisa court with the justice department trying to get the right to be transparent. kind of like where we are with their grandma request and some of you are probably familiar with the transparency reports we have had. we have many years beforehand published facts on the criminal side. we wanted to expand that to the national security so that was a big effort in trying to be transparent. there is all the other stuff we are doing that i think some folks are more familiar with. trying to improve the authorities and their civil rights under the statutes when it comes to surveillance. my knowledge of how the hill work starts and ends with schoolhouse rock but other

people here can probably tell you about the ins and outs of that and then there is just, guess i would say day-to-day but the more almost written nice to practice within google of looking at the legal process, looking at the request of that are coming in making sure they are valid, that they are scoped correctly, and if there are problems with it and we are starting to see things that see things better and questionable under the laws necessary getting to the core so all of these things, technological legislative and the courts are part of our responsible handling of these reports. >> so and another thing of course you have done is to default encryption on your android operating system moves that privacy and also says it doesn't go far enough. you could be doing so much more to secure communications. for instance why not do

encryption on video boys? >> yeah i do think you see a trend towards encryption. certainly when you get onto gmail ssl is far more common now and ellen as they mentioned the funds or the new android operating system where you used a pin code or swiped code it will be default encrypted so if you turned off and you lose it or get stolen whoever has it is going to have a heck of a time trying to figure out what data is on there because it's going to be encrypted. that is a good security measure for all of us. i think it's probably common experience when you go through that moment of panic of where's your phone and he do a self pat-down trying to find it and that is to help reduce the act and you aren't looking realize you have it on you your data is going to be safer if you have lost the device. companies like google are always looking at their products and

how to make them more secure. is this a product that makes sense for encryption and will it defeat some feature if you do it or is there some other technological problem with it? there is definitely a trend and you have heard about it from the government towards more encrypted secure communications. >> absent action by congress right now we are still dependent upon companies to protect the privacy of the users through moves such as encryption and yet what if things change? what if as the impact of the disclosure by snowden and the outrage fades with every new video of a hostage being showing up on youtube and if the government to appeal to your sense of patriotism offers to pay you for your assistance what guarantees do customers have that google will continue to

move in the area of privacy and not be retrenching on that? >> you know i think it's a good question and i think it's right for people to be concerned about happens to their data when they use third-party providers. and google is very much reliant on users trusting we are going to do the right things with the user's data. it fits with certainly the culture of the company and how the products are offered. i think one thing that does help folks have some sense of trust in a provider is that the provider is telling them about what their experiences with government. there's a bit of transparency so if you care about it you can be watching what the company is doing and if there is a change you can take that into account and maybe someone external will notice it and reported. company that isn't telling you

what it is they do come and doesn't a transparency report, isn't giving that information available to you it's a company is going to have an easier time shifting for model that you might be uncomfortable with. so i think some of this is making it hard for you to move in a way that's undesirable without being noticed. >> can i expand on that point? it's great to see the market responding and adding protections that the customers are demanding. my concern is folks at cato know very well the markets will only work when the consumers have the information they need to make their own choices. until snowden consumers had no information about what sorts of programs companies could be pulled into and frankly companies weren't allowed to expose that anyway. it's because of snowden of the market is working the way markets are supposed to. in the future when there are new authorities and interpretations of authorities and new programs

that unfold to the extent those programs are secret we can't necessarily rely on markets to be the solution. so while i'm thrilled that it's happening this is a public good. privacy is a public good and protecting it will require regulation. >> i do think the secrecy piece to this warps it and i totally agree with that. i think that we were being transparent about the request. we were allowed to be transparent about it very early on. we extended it to national security letters after we got into lengthy negotiations with the department of justice about getting the right to publish those. this was all pre-snowden and one snowden happened frankly it made it easier for us to make an argument to extend it into the national security world and we were able to do so. i think your point, i take your point and agree with it that once you have got a world of secret law where we have real trouble and that's one of the

problems with the fisa court and the idea you can have opinions interpreting laws that are passed by congress that presumably represent you but you don't even know what those interpretations are. they may and probably have deviated substantially from what your elected representatives intended when they originally passed it. so we have got to keep our eye on that. >> and we took a leap to force the transparency for the public to understand what the secret interpretations for and if that's the only way to bring about reforms, then is that good for society? richard spoke about the encryption protocol and the steps companies are taking. what can technologist do to ensure that companies, to help companies moving forward in that area? >> so we have a few different things that are happening right now. there's a lot of technological

development and protocols that has the capability to really make communications and to secure devices in ways we have never been able to do before. you can find a lot of this stuff and you can go out if you're interested in downloading software you can obtain a software paid what's concerning, well at mayfield is open open to the audience. how many of you encrypt your e-mail? that's an amazingly high number. how many of you are allying? [laughter] i didn't count the percentage but let me ask a different question. how many of you use apple imessage to send text to other people? so it's not as higher number. that's really weird. the total is not what i expected. what we have is a problem is we now rely on centralized providers like google and apple to take that technology which outside of this room is fairly poorly made and put it into products that people can use.

if that process doesn't happen or if that process is circumvented which is something we have seen that has also been happening as part of the snowden documents there's really not much we can do about it. so unfortunately we have these great technological solutions for the pipeline to get them into people's hands is very limited. >> do you have any thoughts on that? >> that's absolutely right and i think the security benefits from encryption are just tremendous and we certainly have seen complaints from the law enforcement side of government that holds a particular equity that assorted unique around encryption which is for that particular purpose you may not like encryption because it makes the job harder but boy the benefits you get from having encrypted communications in the security and safety of your data, that are just tremendous. we have other parts of the government encouraging people to use encryption for those very reasons so it's an encouraging thing to see a move towards

encryption. >> let me pick on that last point and it was something that was also discussed on her second panel today on law enforcement and encryption. as you alluded to fbi director comey has basically suggested that while google are aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists with their moves on encryption by default and he urged congress to come up with legislation that would enable law enforcement to obtain access to data when law enforcement has a warrant. do you see any way to accommodate the needs of law enforcement to get that data while at the same time preserving your customers privacy? >> there is a very clear cost to trying to defeat that kind of encryption in order to serve whatever need it is that the director thinks needs to be

served there. you have got these devices that when they are turned off they are encrypted and they are very secure in that way. and you don't have back doors. you don't have ways of getting into that sort of thing and it makes it very clear, very secure just like a lot of other items in your possession, documents that are locked in a safe. you don't expect somebody to have a secret key to be able to get into it to address the equities of some stakeholder out there. i think these kinds of debates i think you have to take a look at what are the costs of doing this and what are you really trying to solve for? what are the cases where this phone is going to be in a locked state where you can't reach the person has the key to unlock it and is it essential for some particular emergency situation? i would love to understand what those use cases really are and where the data is not available

someplace else through robust legal protections to be in place in some framework. and the technical vulnerabilities that are inserted when you require what is essentially a backdoor into these devices. >> do you see any way to accommodate lawn sportsmen's desires or needs their oars are practically impossible? >> nothing is impossible. you can build a backdoor or her front door. >> the data security. >> you can absolutely build backdoors and anything you want. the question is can you build the a security of the original device? obviously apple has a master key or google has a master key and you can assume as long as that key is very well secured, as long as you have some kind of robust monitoring that prevents google employees for misusing those keys and you have all sorts of other legal protections than maybe you can achieve

something that's almost as secure as the original on weekends device. but that's a lot of assumption. what you are taking a something that is designed to be as secure as possible and saying it would be almost as good if we assume xyz and a b c. d. e.. those assumptions are just very hard to believe in if you are building complex systems. >> laura can you think of any way to try to answer jim call me's desires or needs for some way, some legislation that would get them what they want to? they have started to have discussions on the staff level at least at the hill. what can you say about that? >> we haven't seen any concrete proposals from anyone on this issue. it's extraordinarily complex legally technologically so people are starting to look at it and dig into it but there's nothing concrete at this point.

>> it seems to me that this notion that we have to get back to first principles, it isn't just a question of how are we going to get the government they access it needs this information? the government has access to the information and information is encrypted. the question is does the government have a right by the virtue that may have a warrant sunday to get you to maintain your information and particularly in a particular format that makes it easily accessible to the government? that -- the government has never had the right in any context reading never been required to maintain your information in a way that is easier for law enforcement. so why you should have to do that in terms of the communications are the information he processed to your smartphone is a little beyond me. that would be new. it's almost an analogy to to the freedom of information act act. he gets asked the government for the record set house that you don't get to ask the government to create new records or new information for you.

government can get our encrypted records. that's what we have but to require us to maintain our e-mails in a particular way so the government can see it is kind of stepping over a i think unless i'm getting the wrong analogies. >> they are saying the companies that provide the technology are the ones that have to do it. you have the right to use encryption just as long as it's not from a major provider because they will only allow week encryption. >> the rational is being used is there's information and they will take us 20 years to break the encryption them during that time i don't have that luxury. you could use the exact argument for robust security system for your home. the government turns up as a warrant to search her home and maybe our criminal or maybe you're not in you decide you're not going to open your door. you have a robust security system and you have dobermans or whatever you have is going to take the government 20 minutes to get inside your house. you can imagine the doomsday scenario were during that 20

minutes he flustered drugs down the toilet, whatever it is you did your pedophile thing, whatever during this 20 minutes. i'm sorry i'm not trying to be flip about it but because of that we don't require people to make their homes easier to break into by law enforcement and by everyone else. >> there has been a response to that with senator wyden has used legislation in the senate and congressman massie and congressman -- congressman zoe laughman lofgren has introduced legislation that would provide backdoors into devices to enable surveillance. do you think that's a good idea? do you think it stands any chance of passage? anyone want to take a crack at that? >> it's a good idea. i would differ whether would have a better chance of passing.

>> the lofgren lofted pass the house over the summer. then was stripped from the larger bill as it proceeded as we speak. so i think that's instructive and interesting. i think there has been a lot more focus on this issue since then. it's interesting that passed in the house before apple and some of the recent discussions in the think is going to lead to a lot more discussion and how that debate will end it will not predict at this point. >> there's another challenge was saying that people have to provide week encryption and these were the battles we had in the 1990s over whether you could publish strong encryption. the end result of that was the courts realize that code is speech and is protected by the first amendment. if somebody wanted to publish a strong encryption program they could do so and then somebody

could download it and use it. so if you try to set up a system where it is unlawful to have strong encryption without backdoors is going to run up against some serious constitutional problems. >> i want to move on to the surveillance issues but i want to ask math one question about vulnerabilities in software. many technologists have raised concerns that the government by withholding and using software vulnerabilities is making the internet overall less secure. they have announced that they have a new policy on disclosure on these vulnerabilities that they say they favor disclosure. the default is the disclosure and in fact they would hold only a small minority of vulnerabilities and when they see vulnerabilities that are linked to software that is in

wide commercial use the tendency is to want to disclose. and if they would withhold when it's only abuse and a foreign intelligence investigation and that eventually they will disclose. matt what then is the real cost of security and where and how should the line be drawn between protection of national security and data network security? >> the one thing we don't know how to do well this build secure software. we don't how to make software and we have absolutely no idea. it's not that there's a path from here to there that we don't want to spend enough money to get from here to there. it's just that we have no idea software that's not going to be vulnerable. you can maybe reduce vulnerability but that's about it. right now we have this idea that

you can create these vulnerabilities and some of them are called zero days which means they haven't been published yet. we know that the government stockpiles this. they are very useful if you want to get into any system. there are multiple of these vulnerabilities in any system that you guys use. the question is should we prevent the government from using these? we no we are not going to succeed at that. we know there's going to be a certain amount of hacking but the real costs, the thing that worries me the most is that we have now created this economy around finding vulnerabilities in software where it's actually starting to take energy away from the people who are out there trying to build the more secure software. there's a huge market we can get hundreds of thousands of dollars for selling vulnerability to the u.s. government and maybe $10,000 if you are lucky from some manufacturer for fixing it. what concerns me is not that hacking is going on because they know will happen but it's almost becoming the default way of business and i think that while

long-term have very bad effects for all of us and our networks. >> from a public policy perspective do you see any response to that? any steps you can take to try to change that situation? >> it's part of the overall challenge of trying to get public support in an area where there is a lot of technological complexities that are hard for people to understand and hard for me to understand. i don't understand anything you just said. so there you go. that is a huge talent and it's one of the many challenges in terms of engaging the public in some of these fixes. there is a general sense of the nsa is looking at more than what we would like the nsa to look at but there isn't the same understandings of why they are looking at it and what they are

doing with the data. some what some of the arms are so it's a real issue of public education and trying to explain what the public needs to be worried about and why they need to be worried. >> richard i'm curious as the nsa ever come to you and said hey we have found this vulnerability and we would like to make sure you know about it? >> i went to that and this will sound like i'm not answering but i am. we get vulnerability reports and tips all the time and from a lot of different sources and we love it. we have a program that we encourage people. i don't know that we pay enough that it totally disrupts the economy and zero days but we have a responsible bug reporting program so if you discover something you can tell us about it and you can get compensated for it in the product gets better. that's really great program for the ethical tinkerer to try to

find vulnerabilities but yes we do get tips from the government about attacks that we might expect on our network. fullman abilities that might've been discovered and

you have got this information. you are not allowed to tell everybody about it because it's an classified format format and you're supposed to operationalize it. it's another example of how classification can make things difficult for companies and policymakers and others i am sure as well. >> thanks. so laura can return to usa freedom and the efforts to bring about some surveillance reform.

do you want to start by explaining the provisions and what do you see as the path forward with the new congress? and will congress be forced to act? >> absolutely. so you have heard a little bit of the history of how the usa freedom act came about from congressman massie this morning. i was able to do a brief recap on that and try to pick it up where he left off which was where the house passed its bill. last october, 2013 senator leahy and congressman sensenbrenner came together to introduce the usa freedom act of 2013. that bill definitively ended war would have ended the bulk collection of america's records under section 2 and 15 of the u.s. patriot act as well as other authorities. it had a range of other reforms

to various surveillance authorities as well. as congress and ascii -- congressman massie described the bill was taken up by the house. the bill that came out of the house was significantly watered down at the end of the day. many of the reforms were removed but most critically there were concerns raised that this bill has passed although was intended to and collection under section 215 may not have done the job. that caused privacy groups like some of the ones represent him as panel as well as technology companies like google to pull their support from that bill. when it came over to the senate it was the end of me. we took the bill. we looked at it and the goal for senator leahy was to try to bring those stakeholders back to the table but he also recognize that it was critically important to maintain the support of the intelligence community for the legislation that we were going to try to have a real shot at

getting it done. the president had already announced at this point that he supported illegal -- legal collection so we thought this was something we could accomplish. senator leahy and others he was working within the senate embarked on a really fun negotiation over the course of the summer, involved many hours in various rooms with a whole range of stakeholders including a lot of folks from the intelligence community as well as folks represented in this room today, privacy groups, the technology industry and ultimately at the end of july introduced the usa freedom act of 2014 which took the framework and the structure of the house passed bill that improved upon it in various ways. so i will try to give you a brief over you without totally boring everyone on a friday afternoon of what that bill does and then we can talk about paths forward. the first and most important thing is ending the bulk collection of america's records

not only under section 215 which is what the phone records program is based on but also the fisa statute. this is a provision that had previously been used to engage in bulk collection of internet metadata. that program is no longer common but it had been used in the past. also national security letters. this is an authority that permits without judicial approval or review in advance certain types of records to be obtained by the government based on the same relevant standard that section 215 and the authority had in them. we thought it was important to make sure that it was clear that you couldn't use these national security letters r. and s. al's for bulk collection as well. how did we do that? senator leahy's bill said that the government had to base its search on terms that would

narrow, basically narrow the search of the greatest extent practical and then also specifically saying you can't use overbroad terms like a geographic area, city or state or the name of a service provider to do your search or other similarly broad types of terms. so that was the key element. there are number of other provisions in the bill that we think have meaningful, provide meaningful reforms. one of them is to include what was discussed on the last panel, a panel of special advocates to argue for the foreign intelligence surveillance court that would come and there was a provision in the house bill that permitted this but we wanted to make sure that when those advocates came into course they had resources in the information they needed to be effective. we also added a provision that would allow for additional appellate review in the fisa court