ry with top professors delving into america's past, and our new series, real america, including educational films through the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> on friday senior energy, environmental and utility officials discussed options available to states to comply with the epa's plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. the event was hosted by the environmental and energy study institute. this is abouten hour and a half. about an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to this morning's briefing the environmental and energy study institute is very

proud to be bringing this briefing to you this morning on the topic of how can states comply with the clean power plant. state officials working together to identify options. over the course of the last year there has been much discussion with regard to the administration's proposed clean power plan administration proposal to reduce greenhouse emissions in the electricity power sector. and that has led to many, many white papers, to all kinds of analyses, to webinars, to briefings across the country and, certainly across washington. and even this week i saw many, many more analyses and white papers that were being released. and all of this, i think, has been accelerated because it is anticipated that the administration -- after having received in excess of four

million comments -- will be issuing a revised final clean power plan later this summer either in july of august. i think one of the most important things for us to recognize, and we're going to hear much more about that this morning, is that over the course also of the last year, year and a half is that there have been three organizations that have -- are national in scope that have been working together sharing information, questions concerns and looking for possible options/solutions that make sense for their states. and they have been all about trying to identify ways forward, how does one best address whole issue -- this whole issue of reducing emissions in this,

obviously, critical, critical sector of our economy that powers our economy. and that they have been joining together in terms of looking at how their various roles and responsibilities at state and local level can make a difference in terms of their coordination their cooperation, their collaboration, their understanding of each other's perspectives. those three organizations -- and we're going to hear from their leaders this morning -- are the national association of clean air agencies the national association of state energy officials and the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. they each have very very important roles in terms of environment and energy regulatory research, energy assurance responsibilities at the state and local level.

and, therefore the proposed rule reps another very -- represents another very, very interesting challenge for these very important officials upon whom we rely with regard to looking at so much implementation of federal state and local legislation and rules. and the proposed epa clean power plan is particularly unique in that this is the first time that there has been a proposed rule that is so reliant upon looking at flexibility looking at ways that states can put together plans that look at a whole variety of options technologies resources in which to do that. so we're going to hear much more about that, the perspective that comes from these different areas of responsibility by state and local officials. so to kick off our discussion

this morning is bill becker who is the executive director of the national association of clean air agencies. nacaa is an organization that has the responsibility for -- i should say its members have the responsibility working at the state and local level in terms of implementation of the clean air act and have for years. bill is, he founded this organization. he's been with nacaa since 1980. he's very much the go-to person, has won awards with regard to his work in this whole area. and the association of clean air agencies is an association of state and local air pollution control agencies in 43 states, the district of district of columbia 116 metropolitan areas across the country as well as four territoryings. and as i said nacaa's members

have the primary responsibility under the clean air act for implementing our country's air pollution control problem. and so you can see that this is a rather formidable task, and to talk about it and this whole -- both the menu of options that nacaa has put forward and that is one more resource in the tool box for state and local officials. it's really a very, very important driver behind all of this is again, the shared perspective and really looking at how these policies and potential options really affect a need to draw from the expertise and the shared and differing responsibilities of state and local officials. bill? >> good morning. so thank you carol for that nice introduction and this very

kind invitation to be here today. when i speak before a group like this, i can't help but think about my brother. my brother is a very famous scientist. in fact, he is so famous, he has a chauffeur who takes him to all of his speaking engagements. and my brother was asked to speak before a group not unlike this to talk about climate change. and he had given this speech many many times and he says to his chauffeur joe he says, joe, you've heard this speech a hundred times. why don't you give it? this group doesn't know what it look like. i'll sit in the back of the room and read a newspaper, and no one will be wiser. and joe said, this is great. my brother said, joe however under no circumstances should you ask for questions because if you do, they're going find out you're a fraud. and joe was really excited about this. my brother gave him the ten pages of speech. joe put it aside.

he gave a wonderful speech, got a standing ovation and was feeling so cocky that he did the unforgivable, he asked for questions. well, wouldn't you know, someone in the first row asked the most complicated question one could imagine, and joe looked him in the eye and he said, mister, that was really a stupid question. that question was so simple minded that i'm going to have my chauffeur, who's sitting in the back of the room answer it. [laughter] so if there's anyone here, including in the front row that asks questions i have my team with me. [laughter] okay. so as carol said, we are an association of state and local air pollution control agencies. here's what i will cover today. here's what i've been asked to cover. i will make a few general observations give you some context about president obama's

clean power plan, talk to you about some of the implementation issues that state and local agencies are experiencing, and then talk about some of the implementation tools that we have published recently and will be publishing soon after the rule is promulgated and then close with some observations after discussing our relationship with the two associations that carol mentioned. so we are an association of state and local air pollution control agencies. our office is on the other side of the capitol. we've been there since 1980. we have 41 states. we have 116 of 117 local air pollution control agencies, washington, d.c. and the territories. two important points about state and local air pollution control agencies one is on page 1 of the clean air act it gives state and local air agencies the quote, primary responsibility of implementing our nation's laws.

so our mission is to clean up the air and to implement the federal clean air act at the state and local level. and the second part of this, related, is under epa's clean power plan, which i will get into in a little while, we are the ones that will be developing the plans submitting the plans and responsible for implementing the plannings. so responsibility falls on us each though we'll be working very -- each though we'll be working very closely with utility commissioners energy officials and and many, many other stakeholders. so a occupy couple of general -- so a couple general observations just to move things along. first, you know, i represent almost every state and local air pollution control agency in the country. i'm not stupid. we understand the politics that is going on in the states and in communities, and there are,

there are governors who aren't as enamored with this program as others. there are members of congress who are actively fighting this. but perhaps one of the most important things i want you to understand from our perspective is until or unless this program is curtailed in any manner, this is the law. and our folks are going to be implementing this program as effectively as we can and as expeditiously as we can unless we're told to stand down. and for the time being, almost without exception, we're not being told to stand down. a few other things, with regard to some of the rhetoric and with regard to some of the threats of litigation, this is a proposal. this is not a final rule. and while much of the criticism against this program is focused on some very legitimate issues, it's a proposal, and we expect that some of those concerns will

be ameliorated when the rule is finalized. second, i will predict with certainty that there will be some hiccups there will be some bumps at the outset of implementation of this program. this is not new. no one should be worried about this. this is something that goes along with the territory especially in implementing the clean air act. we've seen this with vehicle emission testing programs with reformulated gasoline and many other programs, and we'll expect it here. i know we're not going to panic and stakeholders shouldn't as well. we'll work together and work through these issues. and finally with the last observation, many of you are from congressional offices and you can help immensely in making this program work should your bosses want it to work. and there are authorizing provisions in the clean air action under section 105 that provides funding grants to state and local agencies to implement clean air programs. this is a very important one.

the president recommended a significant increase in grants, and congress will be marking up the epa budget bill next week and we hope that you take a close look at that. okay. so epa's clean power plan is being derifed from -- derived from the existing clean air act. i think it's safe to say that if proponents of reducing greenhouse gases had their way, they would prefer federal legislation. i think even the regulating community would prefer federal legislation. but we are not going to see federal legislation in this congress and i don't know about the next congress. and this is exactly why epa has decided to use existing authority under the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases. and there are two provisions that are really important for you to understand. there's a provision under section 111b that requires epa

to regulate few and modified and reconstruction power plans, and rules have been proposed. and there's the provision under section 111d that addresses the regulation of existing power plants and that's the section we're talking about today. but importantly unless epa is successful in issuing rules for section 111b, 111d can't move forward. so these things are intertwined and one depends upon other -- upon the other. epa's power plan requires from the power sector very significant reductions, a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. and so you look at that and you think, that's 15 years or so for utilities to comply. it's a pretty significant lead time to comply. but another part of this is that

epa has set an interim goal that requires a chunk, a large chunk of these emissions reductions to take place not in 2030 but ten years earlier in 2020. and so this has been referred to as the cliff because many are concerned that utilities and states will have a difficult time meeting this interim deadline of 2020 ten years before the final deadline. and this has been really the core of a lot of the criticism of this proposal. and that's why i said at the outset that we shouldn't panic over a proposal, we should be thoughtful about what happens after finalization. and i am pretty sure that this clip this interim deadline, will be changed when epa finalizes its rule. another very important part of this is that each state gets an

emissions target goal under the clean power plan. so every state's goal is going to be different and it's going to be a rate-based goal which can be translated into a mass-based equation. when epa developed the goal for each state, it looked at four relatively general building blocks. and they refer to them as building block one, two, three and four. and i've listed them. and the first one is what can be done within the facility to improve efficiencies. the second one is how can we shift to cleaner general rating sources. the third is how can we build low-emitting energy sources. and finally, how can we pursue demand-side energy efficiency. you know there's a common denominator of this, and it's doing things better and more efficiently. one of most important things i will leave you with today is notwithstanding how epa has set

states' targets the states are fully flexible and able to decide on their own which strategy -- whether it's in the any of the four building blocks or not -- it can include in its plan. so the states are not bound by picking strategies just within these four building blocks. they can pick anything they think is appropriate so long as it passes muster with epa. and that's a very important point. here are timelines for submitting plans. this rule will be finalized probably in august. states will have a little over a year to develop their plan that they have to submit to epa and that epa has to review it and either approve it or reject it or negotiate. if a state is having trouble -- and many will find this challenging -- states will be given an additional year to submit their plan. and if a state decides -- and a lot of states are thinking of this -- to engage with other

states in more of a multistate program, the state will have an additional year. so the submittal of plans by state and local regulatory agencies will take from one to three years beginning from this august. now, i'd love to tell you that states are, you know almost there in developing a plan, but that's a bit ludicrous because we haven't even seen the final rule. but i will tell you it's been almost an unprecedented effort in terms of level of effort and the energy expended in the year and a half preceding this rule where our members have been meeting with almost every possible constituency this their states -- in their states and with their state utility counterpart and their state energy counterpart in trying to understand the consequences and the impacts of this rule. and that's really important because this is unlike any rule we've ever implemented.

this is not your typical epa rule that state and local agencies adopt. we are looking at activities and processes and stakeholders that have never really been affected or engaged much in implementation under the clean air act. there are two basic questions that states are going to be asking and addressing. and this gets to the meat of the presentation. one is what strategies not only included in the four building blocks but beyond the building blocks should states consider in meeting their target, in meeting their compliance plan obligations? and i'll be talking in a second about the menu of options that identifies anything we could possibly think of. the second, equally important strategy, is once you've identified a strategy, an option a technology, that strategy has to be incorporated

into a plan, it has to address enforceability, it has to address verification it has to insure that we're going to achieve the emissions reductions, it has to meet each of the 11 criteria that epa has set out in its rule to let states know what is acceptable to the agency. if we don't demonstrate to epa's satisfaction that our plan passes muster, they will reject it, and then there are consequences to it. so the first question, what's involved, is our menu of options. we published this two weeks ago. i think we had handouts for the table of contents outside. and what it does is it identifies, it has 25 chapters it's 465 pages and it identifies literally everything we and our contractor could think of that could possibly go into a state plan whether it's part of building blocks or not. and for each strategy, we have

described it, we have identified the potential greenhouse gas reductions, we've identified the cost, the cost effectiveness where that strategy has been employed. and equally important, we identified not just the greenhouse gas reductions, but we tried to identify the collateral nongreenhouse gas air quality benefits that could accrue. you know, if your congressman or governor or senator or stakeholder does not agree that this program is going to reduce greenhouse gases the way you want there's still a reason to consider this program seriously because you will get huge reductions in smoke-forming emissions and fine particulates which are killing people and other air pollutants which are causing a lot of significant health problems throughout the country. so there's a lot more than just greenhouse gases that could come from this program.

this is what it looks like. and as i mentioned, we are looking at options. i won't get into them too much now. we can wait for the q&a period. but we have chapters that address not only those strategies within the building blocks but also chapters that we have included strategies that are outside of the building blocks. so things that epa has not really focused on in their building blocks but we have are for example, improving the quality of the fuel you're using, of the coal you're using. a lot of the coal is high sulfur fuel and has a lot of ash and it's not as efficient as other fuels. we could be switching fuels at existing sites, and there's a lot of electricity lost and greenhouse gas reductions lost in transmission lines in going from the power plant to the

actual residential community. the second question that we addressed, i'm shifting from the menu now to something else that's really important, is a model that we are coming out with about 30 days after the rule is finalized. and this model it's kind of a misnomer. it's actually a menu of models. it's a series of regulatory pathways so that once a state has adopted a strategy, we then have to take that strategy and put it into our plan. and we will be taking for each major strategy and for each potential scenario that a state chooses, that strategy adopting regulatory language for it having preamble language that describes it, and we will be providing this for literally every state and local agency in the country and stakeholders so that states won't have to start from scratch in developing regulatory language that appeases the epa.

rather they'll have it at their disposal. and this is not really a one-size-fits-all model because we know in the states there are as administrator mccarthy likes to say, there are 50 different state plans that will come in all requiring something different. but we are trying to identify the types of strategies that we think states will adopt and then provide them within a month after this rule is promulgated enough specificity that they can really implement this quickly. because we want to meet the deadlines. and our goal is to do this quickly enough that we've also taken advantage of the changes that epa has made from poem to final rule so -- from people to final rule so that it's a beneficial product. so let me wind down and conclude with one other very important point. i'm proud to be up here with chuck and david because these

are organizations that we work very closely with. we hadn't worked years ago together but it's only been recent years and recent activities under the clean air act that has necessitated our groups coming together. and we have worked, you know, really well on trying to figure out collectively -- it's part of good government, i think -- to understand the needs of these groups. one will tell you they're interested in reliability and we get it. and david will tell you representing the state energy officials, that their concerns is providing opportunities for energy efficiency and we think that is a very important strategy to consider, and we are all over that issue because we think it's smart public policy. so let me conclude with a few

observations. i don't want to leave the impression that implementation of the clean power plan is a slam dunk can. it's not. it's going to be challenging. we understand this. but we are going to be working very very hard at the state and local level the try to make it work, and we think the two documents, the two tools i described will help accelerate effective implementation of that. we've already been working really hard laying the groundwork for compliance. we've been meeting, our members have been meeting with stakeholders. they've been meeting with intrastate all the governmental entities so they can understand fully what's expected. and those discussions have been very very worthwhile even within states who are suing epa over this rule. there have been very good discussions. i should say a word about epa's involvement. they've been really, really great listeners.

they've met with the states almost anywhere anytime. they've sought our input and we are hopeful that they're going to carry out that leadership and incorporate many of the concerns and the legitimate issues that states around the country have been offering. and we're confident that they will. and then finally, i need to say a word about an effort that has been being promoted not just by the senate majority leader, but by others for states to stand down. there's been this effort to try to persuade states to stand down and to ignore the implementation of this program. and while, you know, i said earlier not every state likes this program, if the law's not changed, this is the law. and the consequence of standing down and not implementing this program is severe. a federal plan will be imposed,

and by definition it will be less flexible and more costly for stakeholders. secondly, it will lead to, it will just show a total disregard for the tens of thousands of hours that state governmental officials have been used to meeting with stakeholders and others in trying to make this work. and it just sends the wrong signal in light of the fact that we think greenhouse gases and climate change are real problems and must be addressed. so with that, i thank you for this invitation, and i thank you for your attention. [applause] >> thanks very, very much, bill. and now we will turn to another of these important energy-based organizations, to david terry who is executive director for the national association of

state energy officials. david brings over 27 years of experience working on energy for a variety of entities, everything from being a researcher for "the washington post" to being an analyst with the national academy of sciences working with the governor's wind energy coalition. but he worked for naseo from 1996 through 2004 and then became naseo's executive director in 2008. what is important, i think, to particularly understand about the national association of state energy officials is that this embraces 56 state and territory energy offices naseo communicates state policy views on virtually all national energy issues which cover everything from natural gas and electricity to buildings energy efficiency,

renewable energy, industrial energy efficiency energy emergency response and assurance reliability as well as energy technology innovation is and, of course, all of this is it's almost always tied to also being very concerned about how this affects states' economic development. david? >> thank you carol. i appreciate the introduction and i have to thank eesi, carol's organization, for hosting today's briefing and always for their excellent work. i am somewhat biased as a board member of eesi, but i think you all know their excellent work well so thank you very much. ..

we always are concerned of economic development impacts so that's a helpful part of our organization and i think a good way of understanding where we come from. with regard to the clean power plan, few things i think about our approach that differ from the other organizations nacaa and neighbor consumers. naseo does not have a position on 111 b. there's a great diversity of views amongst state, governors as you all know and as bill pointed out but we do want to ensure that states have options

flexibility in the plan should move forward. we want to make sure reliability, affordability him sustained the protected as a part of that plan. i think we all share those goals. the other piece of this that's as important you'll see a theme my comments going forward, we see efficiency certainly as a great compliance option so transmission and distribution system, efficiency as well as in use efficiency. would also quickly think of energy efficiency in investor-owned programs, huge important part of the compliance solution set that we see. but the other part or all the non-repair programs. you think about the amount of money spent on energy efficiency in the united states it's the own order of $50 billion which includes private sector investment consumers, utility investors, whole range of things. the bulk of that investment is

happening outside those programs. we want to make sure states of the opportunity to capture those benefits, take credit for them and also that we get the most cost-effective option moving forward. a few examples of those i'll go into in a moment but certainly energy savings building energy code commercial pace daschle inefficiency and a range of other activities. of some of the key takeaways that i would keep in mind as you consider the clean power plan and how it moves forward electricity system as many of you know was already undergoing dramatic change. certainly shift to natural gas generation was under way. we have dramatic improvements in energy efficiency in many sectors, ranging from those kinds of things we all know about, leds and so forth for lighting but also emerging building technologies. which is a congressional briefing yesterday on zero

energy net using. a school just down the road in arlington, virginia, just opened a does a better the first reality schools in the country building kentucky several years ago do that. there are those issues. the integration of unit agriculture and how we use energy and electric system is also come to there. you chose a great deal to do with and the commission of the state energy office is in how they work with him and get it the same time i think we all expect reliable, affordable, environmentally, sensible power to be delivered. it's quite a challenge everything that's important thing to keep in mind and how complex it is to deal with all of these issues. the other takeaways, and i mentioned a moment ago but it's thinking about true least cost approach. but i don't mean anything inflammatory but rather just a reminder that we have a wide range of options. i think that's really embodied

in nacaa's menu approach which is a great document comes from looking at it is that naseo has a number of encourage you to take a look at that and consider it as you look at the clean power plan and what the states are doing. also ensuring that evaluation measurement and verification drug efficiency programs are streamlined. it's a balancing act. we have probably a habit in the energy community of measuring to a great degree of accuracy. while that's important this history's business, keeping air quality, meeting the requirements this series business but we don't want to make us a difficult it is virtually impossible for states to move forward. find that balance is a very tricky detail and the focus of a lot of our work and a number of other organizations at least in this particular space. existing state with ongoing number greater programs and activities and to spend time on that in a moment and continuing the dialogue we've had not only among the so-called groups

naseo, nacaa and our members on the ground a healthy and positive thing going on. not only industry but other areas of energy regulation, environmental regulation. a few things about our ongoing activities. as bill mentioned we've been involved with working with both their organizations for some time. we've got a number of meetings that are noted here, some agreement on principles. in 2014 we submitted to epa that i would encourage you to take a look at that place is what found common agreement around energy sufficiency as a compliance measure. shortly about reliability and a number of other issues. i think those are worth noting. we've also been working on at naseo on compliance case studies. we get energy efficiency varies typically beyond the efficiency program for working with the energy services, johnson controls, and the state energy office is about how to implement

energy efficiency in public buildings. so by way of comparison there's about a $7 billion a year market in investment energy efficiency in public buildings, almost all privately financed. it's an amazing opportunity. there's additional funds going in at the federal level in many other examples. certainly planning sessions with coming up at her meetings. we are working closely with the energy office is on no progress -- no regret options. broadly to meet state energy and their goals. i think one in particular worth noting we have a multistate tracking project going on in a public building investment area trying to see where we can streamline activities in that space both in terms of measuring the nation's that associate with projects the amount of investment return, amount of benefit to the taxpayer energy savings and so forth. we have a similar project with the state of texas and a number of other organizations looking at building energy code

compliance, so existing code that are on the books, what kind of energy savings are they producing and what kind of emissions reductions come from the. these are capturing existing programs that are cost-effective in many cases on their own merit and we are not capturing the nation's benefit and we can and we want to make sure we do that. indian daschle space there are great opportunities. largely private-sector voluntary activities in this space. we see that over and over again for a number of state energy offices that offer assistance for large and small industrial partners and stakeholders on the ground. the amount of savings it can be generated is enormous. it is generally come in less it's inside of you to the program is generally not captured at the state level. another opportunity. i think you kind of get the flavor here. just a little chart to give you a sense of the level of private investment just in the public

building sector of the state and local level. so right now we are at about $6 billion a year estimate to be no $20 billion a few years down the road. again these are largely private sector investments, savings pay for the project over time. the emissions associated with it are well document. generally verified by contract. it's an extraordinary process, a great example in what areas we we focused in particular at naseo. a number of ongoing activities in addition to our coordination with naruc and trannineteen we are working on compliance studies and about seven or eight areas. do not call list did but they include use of combined heat and power by the private sector whether that's at a hospital or university or international plant estimates were efficient way to provide power in some cases. again capturing the emissions so we're developing case studies for states to consider about how that works at the state level

and how they could capture those savings, how they might draft plan language. that maybe something a stay against consider pledging stay against consider pledging to the point and we are coordinating closely with the bills group on that. we are trying to provide as much as we can package options states can and should the plan before. we're doing that in other areas. i mentioned building energy codes but also requisite of residential properties come existing federal programs. there's a well-known program in the residential sector, energy star new homes. those savings are very well documented and put out by epa. they are generally not captured at the state level for compliance purposes under environmental rules, and so we think there's an option to. good epa dissatisfied with the program in the way they operate. stateside and advantage of program as well as to the private sector builders. all of these activities are related up to that initial take

away that i mentioned, which are totruly capture the least cost approaches. if i were in an energy office trying to advise my governor, what with my partner agencies at the state level, we want to find a way to get to the least cost approach to complaints. picking up on private investment bollinger programs come existing state policies on kind of logical place to begin. the trick is how to quantify that doing it in an economic and recently simple format. and also making sure we do have verifiable safety and meeting compliance requires that as it should. just next steps on where we are headed. we will complete efficiency pathways or case studies that i mentioned over the course of the next couple of months. we will be submitted those to the epa after are states that opportunity to comment on the. we've been working closely with them. those will be submitted as options for epa to consider, and shared with all of our state

members, with nacaa and naru. we also are working with other important areas that has a bit of a potential clean powerplant complies but as a benefit that is brought in the area of energy and air coordination, that's a national energy efficiency registry. one of the challenges as many of these private sector and bollinger programs are implemented on energy efficiency is always efficiency critical who owns the associated emissions reduction? is a verifiable, transparent? so registry gives the opportunity for companies, for states, local governments get into those projects meet certain criteria and have a means of verifying that. so may promote the ability for states to get with it getting toward a particular energy goal certainly clean power plan. there's a linkage there but you and i think it's helpful with state activities. that's an important one to watch i think it's a valuable

approach. we are working with seven states on the compliance, excuse me, under governance rules around that. private sector organization, the climate which is which on some of the substance and would operate such a registry. lastly and certainly most importantly working drug was not only our energy offices but with the epa regional offices and presumably the department of energy as we move forward if the plan goes forward. started in september we have meetings plan with the regional epa offices and our members and service support in state work across our three organizations representative members. there's some context that naseo for take what they're doing to reiterate what bill said that i think the cooperation among our members but particularly bill and chuck has been exceptional. not only of this area but over the years as we try to act in

the best interest of the states and find least cost approaches to meet really what our interlinked goals and challenges. thank you. [applause] >> thank you david. and now we will turn to the third leg of this stool. charles gray who is the executive director of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners, or as we all say naruc. and chuck has has been come welcome his name is executive director in 1999. he has been involved with naruc since 1979 serving in various capacities. one of the things i think is also important with regard to looking at the key role of the state commissions across the country are the wide variety of issues that they must deal with on a regulatory basis that

ranges from yes, energy, it's electricity, as also in terms of many states in terms of water, telecommunications and transportation. so it varies across the country but covers a number of sectors. so this again obviously requires a lot of skill a lot of knowledge, a lot of wisdom in terms of being able to work across all of these sectors. and across all of these states. with different concerns, priorities resources in each of these states. and so we are very glad to welcome chuck gray. >> i have one slight and that's it. so hopefully this will go quickly. thanks, carol, for the very slide -- very kind introduction.

to follow up on these very glib speaker should. so this will be a little disappointing, but i start with the standard disclaimer that the remarks your bounty on my words only and should not be attributed to any naruc members especially since were on c-span. are probably watching. i need to get to the. i also have a second disclaimer which is similar to what david said, considering the merits of epa proposal under 111(d), which make the naruc has taken a position for or against whether the epa should be moving forward with this. however, we have members commissions are very strongly opposing the proposal as well as very strongly supporting the. and i think you'll see that as we get near the final rule. thanks for describing naruc. naruc is a national organization. i will just repeat, 50 state commissions plus the district of columbia to always make sure

that we acknowledge that the district of columbia is not a state and as public service commission. and importantly our members regulate retail electric utility services, which is at the heart of this discussion, including generation services provided to retail customers it is a focus of the clean power plan. they also regulate natural gas distribution and purchases by retail customers as well which are clearly implicated by the clean power plan as it now stands in the epa proposal. what that means really is many of the options that bill has described better in the menu fall squarely within the right authority jurisdiction of one of our state commissions. and in other cases into jurisdiction of a federal energy regulatory commission, in the areas of transmission and wholesale market compliance options. just as an example and i think

it's chapter three, of bill's menu there's a section on combined heat and power, and combined heat and power is a long-standing issue before the state public utility commissions dating back actually before starting work at naruc in 1970 when congress passed cogeneration or not it is called compound heat and power but that empowers the public utility commissions essentially a big issue. interconnection of the plant. two, the grid and then buyback prices that the utility would pay to the owner of the chp facility. those things will have those decisions at the compliance options will have to be vetted by the state utility commission as it's added to the state plan. another example is on retiring aging power plants. those power plants have been

certificate upon public utility commissions if they are in retail rates. they are if they are closed before their useful life is over there may be stranded cost recovery issues but the state commission to address that the plant has been fully depreciated. also just a decision to shut down the plant may be required to be approved by the public service commission to i guess my point is while the need for three incarnation in washington has been important and i think very necessary, close coronation between the commissions, the irregulars and energy offices out in the states is crucial and it's indispensable really. there needs to be this dialogue going forward. just talking about the relationship, the coordination between the three associations has been continuous and beneficial over the last three or so years and i think from sticking from naruc's

perspective, that's been a very rewarding relationship throughout. as david mentioned most of our work in the last year and it has been on energy efficiency both utilities and third party energy efficiency programs i think now with the final rule it onto omb and it's going to be coming out so that i think will have to broaden our relationship now and look at other issues as well as the energy efficiency questions that we have worked on before. i know from naruc's perspective we will be eager to bridges but in a broad and discussion with the three n is as we go forward. when the rule is about what role will naruc website to develop state complex plans? i think david mentioned it quite accurately. the watchword governments we focus on two issues reliability and affordability because economic regulators of electric services, the state commissions and the federal energy

regulatory commission are responsible for ensuring wholesale and retail services needed these two goals affordability and reliability. our members have been working closely with ferc, liability issues over the last few months resulting in the letter that ferc sent to epa on may 15 suggesting that epa consider adopting reliability safety valve. we are not taken a position as an organization on the proposal, but their strong support among our members that ferc suggestion to epa be excepted and that there be some kind of a contingency in case the compliance plans to raise reliability issues. in addition to the work that tonight is doing on the compliance plan, this is where my slide comes in from naruc has been developing white papers or

reports in response to what appears to be a growing interest in assessing what our regional compliance plan looks like or a multistate compliance plan would look like. as reported in actually just this week in inside climate news, 41 states are now in regional groups exploring a multistate option, including states that strongly oppose the cpp. i think bills the suggestion even if you don't like it you should do it rather than have the feds do it is really working in a lot of states that are not wild about the proposal. for our part we released a report last month on behalf of the eastern interconnection state planning council, some of you may know what that is. we call it i stick. the report was issued about a process for how you would get states together to think about putting together a regional plan. the white paper that the link is

right there was funded the department of energy through some of our grant assistance and it's really based on two premises. first, that except for texas the grid is interested, the markets are interested, the compliance plans under section 9/11 at least on its face are state specific so there needs to be a connection there. i think the second premise that drive this discussion is that multistate congressman a lot of studies recently a multistate compliance plans reduce compliance costs improve operational efficiency and strengthen reliability i think there's a lot of great interest in trying to see how far this goes. i think one of the questions is will the states have enough time to put something together that requires a lot of work. the white paper that we issued divide steps in the process for states to get together to initiate a multistate approach.

it contains a sample m.o.u. that states can look at and if they want to agree to as they came together, the m.o.u. is there for their benefit. while our paper focuses mostly on process issues, there are some proposals many proposals out on what a compliance plan like this might look like. probably the best known regional compliance plan is rggi the regional greenhouse gas initiative, which operates primary in new england and mid-atlantic states. there was a story today that now pennsylvania and virginia are thinking about joining rggi as well but i think we are likely to see that as a least a model, as a cap-and-trade base system which may be, states may seek to join existing rggi or set up a similar kind of project in other states.

our friends at regional transmission organization, they are tos around the grid and organized power markets have also proposed some regional compliance plan that they would help implement through their control over the wholesale power market. not quite clear to me how it exactly this would work but they're working on. and then just recently the georgetown climate center released a paper outlining a system of single state compliance approaches with interstate elements, sort of a hybrid between a single state plan and the regional plan. that's going forward as well. meaning of the interstate elements are likely to do the compliance options that menu recommends. while naruc believes it is not our role to tell the states that they should do a regional plan exclude an option if chosen require those close coronation the irregulars energy office and to the commissions like we haven't seen before.

not only as we look at multiple jurisdictional authority. i will stop there. thank you for your attention and the fortitude questions. [applause] >> thank you very much, chuck. i might mention we hope in the fall in september or hopefully to once again work with our colleagues here to put together another forum that really looks at the next steps forward and looking at model plans and what this might represent once the epa rule for the clean power plan is finally released. so let's open it up for your questions. and i would just ask you to go to the microphone here in the aisle, and was attended by yourself with your questions. do we have any?

okay. thank you. could you just pleased -- >> i'm with the competitive enterprise institute. mr. dotcom you seem to assert categorically jurisdiction over application of the clean power plan for that quality regulators and the seaman that was conflicted by what mr. gray said and osha's wondering is that a decision for state legislators or has it already been decided in your mind? >> so, think we're saying the same thing but i will let chuck speak for himself. under the clean air act and under section 111(d), states and regulators have the legal responsibility of developing a plan and implementing the plan. we, of course will be working with state utility regulators and state energy officials in

pursuing the kinds of programs they both outlined. and it may be that the state will have to take action with utility commissioners concerns that energy officials concerned in mind as part of the plan. but the ultimate responsibility lies with the state environmental agency, and gilbert silva differently that's our responsibility. >> yeah, i don't disagree. clearly, the law is the law in the states and as bill says air regulators are responsible for being with the environmental impacts. to be constructed all about how that all works so you can forward your not going to be a regular on not going to put it on in a plan to denote the commission is going to approve and vice versa, that the states

the commissions will be constructed and try to give as much flexibility to the plan writers as possible. >> great. any other question? >> angela cooks from the department of energy, and i to question for nancy a. just wondered -- naseo but if you're looking at student generation as part of the overall energy efficiency strategy speak with yes. renewables certainly as well as michael graves combined with powerful. we have been working with a number of states and the renewable trade associations to see where that fits in. i think some of the challenges in that area are extremely dependent upon state and a couple of examples about issues went to work through. in the west a great deal of renewable resource opportunities sits on federal lands. it has traditionally been very

difficult to develop renewables on federal lands as an example and there's a number of states that if you look at the calculation of opportunities contained in the clean power plan draft rule, much of it sits on federal land. that's an example of that's each buried as they work through as an option. there's also more technical berries in terms of states to produce renewable power but perhaps don't consume as much by the expert agreed to overcome how does that critical. the draft rule to my mind little bit unclear on that. that. i think there are issues on both sides. the short answer is yes, i think there's a lot to do in that space. >> and i might mention it you might want to address this bill, there's a whole chapter in the menu of options document if you want to talk about that a little bit. >> we can talk about distributed generation but i want to make a broader point if i could come a couple points. the common denominator of of the two points i want to make is

there are opportunities that this role presents. but are certainly cause and it's clear some of the opposition is focused on the cost of implementation, that we should not forget for one second that the opportunities in this role for power facilities, energy companies, other stakeholders to benefit. and i can only tell you this through anecdote, when we were developing our menu, we must have had 30 meetings with regulated industries, including renewable industries who wanted to be part of that menu who wanted to communicate as widely as possible the kinds of things that their products could provide state regulators to be

embodied in a plan. financially and economically they benefit from states pursuing some of these things. so it's not just an adverse impact on economic development in the state. there are efficiencies, other tremendous opportunities that this program, or the smart folks, for the industry's that really care, can take advantage of. and we've seen that. i think we're going to see that even more once the final rule isn't limited. and then a second quick point. i will tell you a little story about something similar to this program. in january 2011 epa proposed regulating states and power facilities and other manufacturing facilities with respect to greenhouse gases, and they required at the time that all major facilities obtaining a

permit that would require the installation of best available control technology. and at the same time, like today, there were a dozen governors who were suing epa. and not just in the fact that those governors were suing, and they have legitimate concerns about it just like today's governors to do. a state at the same time with developing the legislative and regulatory infrastructure to comply. so they were not only playing both sides responsibly, but they were hearing from their industries that they wouldn't be able to expand, they wouldn't be able to take against of opportunities and economic development if they didn't have a regulatory infrastructure in place to do so. notwithstanding general opposition to the program. and in every state but one actually adopted the program and one had because industry was telling them to come and

complied. the last state, texas, eventually came along. so the opportunities they they seek them out in this program to take advantage of a lot of things that can be done. >> great. thanks very much bill. are there other questions or comments? one issue that i wanted to just raise from what you're saying, bill, is in terms of looking at the different chapters and to think that there's also one that talks about innovation. and that pursuant to the original enactment of the clean air act and the clean air act amendments, it struck me that one of the things that we saw there was that there was a lot of innovation, a lot of costs that were much much lower than what people anticipated, that a lot of things were driven forward that were not necessarily anticipated. so i was just curious what each

of you could comment about that, but your experience is and what you're seeing, it is there any particular states are other industries you think you are looking at that. >> have a comment, kill. i think that's a great question and one, because most of the energy offices report to the governors, they have a particular focus on economic development. technology innovation generally and supporting business development is incredibly important. i think we have repeatedly been surprised by the kind of innovation that takes place. i think back about the kinds of electricity loads at least in the space of anticipated 10 years ago that have not materialized independent of the financial downturn we've had loads, low demand is lower in many places because of that. everything from the obvious like led lightbulbs but also things that frankly only a few of us

energy nerds know about, how building systems work together. i mentioned some of those things in my remarks. i guess one thing i would add to that, i think maybe it emphasizes or builds on what bill just said with regard to benefits. 39 other states have formal energy plans that they didn't oppose the context. the state energy energy offices generally lead to those that is being responded to the cover typically when a new government comes in. they look across the entire energy spectrum not just electricity but technology companies that are in their states, research capability in the states, natural resources. they try to figure out where they can support particular pathways. part of the process much like to vegas with framework bill mentioned would have to drive innovation and economic development. so there is another side to this that is important to look at everything tradition as we've seen new rules, whether they are environmental our state government of goals or pass

legislation, that really does drive innovation, drives the cost down. we need to make sure the regulatory process or plans such as the clean power plan allow for the flexibility of private investment that's needed to make that happen because that's where it will come from. >> just to add a few points. for clean air act public other important domestic legislation is a wonderful case study in regulatory development. when a row is proposed, before it is finally adopted, i'll interest, both interest groups come up with a worst-case scenario, the highest cost. and we could all hear right of the people that assistance want to roll is proposed. it's almost as if the sky is falling. once the rule is finalized, the

industry, and this is a huge compliment to them, the industries have an immense amount of talent and they shifted the focus from rhetoric to not have to comply. and what did they do? they find innovative ways of addressing these and national goals that they had not particularly shared. i do want to thank too wide a brush, but i couldn't. they have not shared in the rulemaking process. allocated a couple of examples the during the acid rain debate leading up to the 1990 clean air act, the estimates for allowances to reduce the sulfur oxide were 10 times higher than what the actual allowance was over after implementation. when we formulated gasoline was debated in congress and congress eventually adopted a law and epa eventually adopted regulations

leading up to that, you can look this up, it's public information, there was talk of long lines at gas stations. the cost of gasoline would be between 10 cents and 25 cents higher, and in reality, the cost of we formulated gasoline was a fraction of a penny not even noticeable. again, the oil companies learned how to reduce pollutants in the gasoline when they were required to do. so there is a huge opportunity for technical advancement. theyit may not be shared now but once the rule is promulgated you can almost guarantee that the impacts and the cost that have been projected will be reduced economy that as a compliment to the industry who has to comply. >> i would just observe, there's a lot of innovation going on right now which is related to but in some sense separate from what's going on with the clean power plan. i go to many conferences where

utility of the future is debated about we are going to a distributed model with storage and rooftop solar has become a big issue that i think a lot of innovation is already underway in some respects. was happening for example, with the new york commission up in albany as they try to prepare for the new business model and prepare the commissions for a new regulatory model. this is an industry that has moved very slowly over time. they make long-term investments for assets and infrastructure that's built to be there for a while. and i think that innovation is publicly not as fast as maybe in a telephone, as we saw in the telephone side but clearly it's underway and i think it will benefit the compliance plan process a great deal. >> so a lot of that is going to happen even without --

>> without the clean power plan. >> okay. could you just get in line over the? great. go ahead spent another question angela crookston department of energy. who is leading the charge right now in terms of starting on the compliance plan? visit the air regulators? is a utilities who want to make sure their interests are protected? who do you see being most actively involved at this stage? >> we could probably all answer that spent i think that's an excellent question. and i want to just jump out and save environmental agencies, but i will temper, you know, that respond and say we are being daily comet in a good way -- deluge -- with requests for meetings and discussions with all affected stakeholders.

and so while the environmental agencies, as i mentioned to the gentleman earlier, have the responsibility, affected stakeholders, both government and industry, are not being shy about seeking out meetings and trying to weigh in. so it's a collaborative effort. in some strategies this would be a utility only strategy. and the state will have, you know, less responsibility for little responsibility to be up to the utilities, to the smarty jones are going into making their case. in other strategies that would be partly state driven and partly utility driven or, you know, other common elements, and other stakeholders will be engaged. so i think it's a shared responsibility. >> again, talking about inroads -- anecdotes come we're getting a lot of anecdotal reports that a lot of states have workshops

that they put together with all the regulatory bodies as well as the stakeholders to try and thread their way through this discussion. your also sing legislation in some states where the government is going after finally sign off on the plan which is out there as well. so i think it's going to vary from state to state but ultimate i think just under the clean air act gives the air regulators that are legally responsible for submitting the plan. >> basically chugs comment is a copyright from an energy office perspective. there's a lot of variation from state to state. certainly the air agency leadership on the plan development and submission. i think there is what i would say to surprise is the level of coronation across the three agencies at the state level. enemy sacrament of you might be surprised but that's a drink i think it's reflective of them being thoughtful and doing the right thing for their constituents and thinking about

the future. i think you can point to particular examples where a company of charge in particular agency to take the lead in some regard but i think gender is much more collaborative. >> and that is actually really really good news, terrific news. go ahead. >> thank you. i am with the natural resources defense council. so my question is concerned, so we've been hearing a lot of messages and we can argue about the reliability of the data or the messages, that's a completely different argument. but we've been hearing a lot of arguments about the threat to the clean power plan on low income ratepayers in terms of in terms of rising rates. but then at the same time what we hear about the compliance options, particularly for energy efficiency, there's always an emphasis on international sector, commercial sector and public buildings. my question for you all is

through the stakeholder process, what inputs need to be provided in order to ensure that energy efficiency investments actually reach low income consumers so that these threats about rate hikes don't actually have? >> i think you all should take a pass at that. who wants to start? >> i will start. so very good point, and one that i know my members by very sensitive with. i will make two comments. one is come in our report we don't have a specific chapter on environmental justice issues or the poor or those adversely affected. but there are examples throughout the chapter whether it's weatherization programs or other types of energy efficiency programs that will help the poor, that will help those that

live in impoverished areas. the second point is we are involved in discussions with epa on assessing environmental justice problems around the country. and we've been working with them. are permitting requirements that affect our business and we are, throughout the country, having to deal with these issues not just in climate strategies but in regular implementation of the clean air act. so we are sensitive to it and we're doing our best to try to address these issues head-on. >> well, low income and banks are a major concern among the state commissions. and clearly the consumer advocate organizations in the states are raising those questions. we have supported for years an

important way to deal with that problem -- [inaudible] >> low-income, right. actually getting back to innovation question some of the disruptive technologies that are now being talked about actually could result in shifting of costs from one custom class to another so that's something that people are looking at to see that doesn't happen. i just would observe they qer that the department of energy issued from one of their proposals has to do with related issue, which is methane emissions. they would actually provide billions of dollars for low income, to reimburse low-income people who have to pay for more expensive pipeline in the ground to keep emissions down. so i think there's a lot of different pieces to this puzzle but it's still out there. >> david? >> terrific question. i'm glad you brought it up. we have several things going on

in this area through naseo. first and foremost we have case studies and compliance plan and language were working on. one of those is in the low income sector for retrofit of low-income homes. the energy offices as a group are always concerned about affordability, certainly for low income households in particular. and 26 of the office around weatherization retrofit programs, most of that is federally supported. part of it is utility supported and also private sector engagement as with the that are hundreds of millions of dollars a year invested in the retrofit sight of that across the country every that many of the energy offices are engaged in. those programs are very well monitored, measured, verified. the public dollars are very, very careful. the benefit of the residents are multiple, certainly comfort health, safety but also because many of their electric bills are supplemented with either federal state or private funds to get

lower those costs are it is a win-win there. so it's another important piece to the. i would also say there is enormous private voluntary efforts that are not being captured. i think of habitat for humanity for example. is in north carolina program with habitat for humanity% over 4000 new efficient homes and they guaranteed energy bills to be $24 or less per month heating and cooling. said efficiency gains that are there should be rolled up and captured. hopefully there's a way to monetize that and benefit that sector as part of this so that they don't feel as much of an impact if rates do increase. >> just one quick follow-up. first, as relates to whether it's other federal state subsidies can we know the subsidies are being reduced. and so when it comes to income weatherization in most cases what is this utility or some other program, those programs

are typical limited to direct, they don't really get into much more deeper retrofit particularly for low income of a family property. so my question is come and into get it gaza back to you on because i don't want to come away with the assumption that enough is being done. and so my question again is how do we ensure that a greater proportion of investment that is, that is generated from that is incentivize from the clean power plan actually reach of these sectors so that the state doesn't in its plan for compliance, it doesn't say we greater energy efficiency target through putting everything in and usher or commercial to donate to address this sector. we want to make sure how can we make sure these communities are actually the table, included in the compliance plan to a rate that is actually fair speak with a slightly different question that i think you are correct. we could make sure they are at

the table. i would say back to your point about they are supervisor program to in the single-family residential area that is so not prepared and multifamily utility programs that may be true. i think that needs to be addressed the within weatherization for typically is a very small town or single family residential it is much more confidence of up to the point that the law allows the the ivory strut cost-effectiveness guidelines but i do think looking again not only environmental justice issues but also the opportunities and will defend our enormous and they think just from a low-hanging fruit if you a perspective even, that's an important one that we been working. i know your organization has as well. we have a group that naseo that is the focus for you have and one we need to tune up and elevate. >> just a quick point. affected constituencies whether they are regulated over low income or others, are invited to

the table, and we have at the state and local level public hearing. they are invited to the table because if you want to weigh in with a state or local official knock on the door or call ahead or send an e-mail and set up a meeting and they take meetings. and secondly these processes when they get more formal and they get to the proposal stage at the state level, as you know the our public hearings and our opportunities to share this information. but your point is well taken and we will continuously try to do better. >> and i must say i think based upon everything that we heard here too, and important thing through number is that most states also have state consumer utility advocates. it is a very, very important i think to make sure that all of these people are truly engaged and understand these are the

important issues that are being raised. because it is a champion for issue. i which is also quickly mention that another approach that is being used by a number of different kinds of utilities including rural co-ops and municipal utilities as well as some investor owned utilities is a full approach for energy efficiency retrofit which is way to provide a much greater expansion potentially than what we are able to achieve these low-income weatherization program. and that can really bring real savings and multiple benefits to residential dwellings across the country. any last questions or comments? okay, two more. >> i know you all focus on state

level issues on what's happening on the hill but i just want to get your perspective on if there are any proposals in the house or the senate that you're looking at that could be complementary to the clean power plan? is an effort to states to opt out a bit of both the house energy and commerce committee and the senate energy and natural resources committee our country put together comprehensive energy bills to try to enact something this congress. are there any part specific proposal you're all looking at whether it's on energy efficiency side or natural gas permitting or purpa or any company could policy that would help to clean powerplant be successful? >> excellent question. go ahead, david. >> we are very engaged on the process going on in congress intent energy perspective among the efficiency those but all the energy bills. i think there's some 70 now underway at least on the senate

side. and above those i think would cover but the clean power plan innocent that they promote efficiency. both of those are bipartisan in nature. there's a safe act and an of of of the does nothing produce efficiency benefits, not intended for compliance with a keen clean power plan but they produced something that. the one thing i would point to that we been very interested in one of the few energy bills in the past that has been signed into law this year and that its tenets are, something that transcended and energy office support, involuntary repetition program. so, for example, if your leasing office space recognition program put forward in part by the commercial real estate industry which i think has great promise again promoting private sector investment. those are the kinds of things that we see among those bills that i think would be helpful also some financing measures that i think are important that contribute to that such as carol suggested. >> i agree with david and i were

repeat what i said earlier, that one of the most important legislative actions that could be taken over the next couple of months is to provide funding under come in the appropriations bill under epa's budget to help states fund the clean power plan. and the administration has recommended $25 million for assistance for the clean power plan come and a $15 million increase for other air pollution programs it and what we have said to make it easier to support is you don't need to to hear mark $25 million for the clean power plan but lump the money together provide to the states can make them accountable for how they spend it. and for those who can spend it on climate let them do so. and for others who don't want to come to have a great use for it,

for other clean air programs. it would be very important. >> just very quickly. we've been looking at some of the purpa amendment legislation that's been offered and i think both houses come in some of that is consistent with what state commissions already doing but i'm talking about is this a different 111(d), and purpa talk for different policies the states are asked to develop or consider. some of those would be beneficial i think to the clean power plan. >> great. next question. >> thank you. our question is going back to reliability, affordability sustainability is the cpb going to support micro-grids net zero projects and also said innovative renewable energy strategies? >> go ahead. >> this is were i need my

chauffeur. i have no idea. help me understand your question a little better. >> could you go to the microphone again? >> biomass technology -- sorry. and other cities with ep hasn't regulated the technology it. so we were curious if it's going to allow for the kind of support? >> well, so that's actually a good question, to make a broader point. if any of you and your colleagues constituents the public has any viable compliance option that they think could help a state or local agency, everything is on the table and that was the point i was making earlier, that we are not constrained by how epa sets its targets for each state.

the states press a reset button and they're on their own in coming up with the array of measures that could be included. and if you think yours is a viable one then the responsibility is to talk to the states as best you can share that information and made we can follow-up afterwards and let them decide on their own with your input as to whether or not it makes sense. >> i think that it's really important that not assume that everybody knows about every possible compliance strategy or technology or particular approach that may work. and it strikes me that we are looking at a challenge that it's very different with regard to the proposed regulation, that all of our speakers have talked about in that it really does

provide for much more in the way of options great flexible in terms of how the plans are put together in terms of the array of options that can be assembled across sectors, et cetera come and put together. but it really is incumbent upon i guess everybody to make sure that we have as many options as possible are really brought forward to those who are going to be held responsible from making those final decisions. ..

and i hope that you leave this forum with a better understanding. i actually think this is a very exciting time in that we are seeing a coming together of officials at the state and local level who are working together to understand each others' perspectives responsibilities and how best to solve problems that are going to make sense for their state. so join me in thanking our wonderful panel. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> next come legal experts have the coors in the three remaining cases could have a lasting impact on the country and the u.s. constitution. the center for american progress is hosting this live on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. an good morning. an executive vice president of external affairs here at the center for american progress and it is my pleasure to welcome you to this very important conversation. as americans and as progressives, we are well aware of the central goals the united states supreme court has played in the history and well-being of our country. their charge to provide a level playing field and ensure equal justice under the law has continually broadened our nation's definition of we the people and expanded the circle of opportunity for americans

once excluded and exploited. when the court has met its charge and propels progress in the quality forward our nation has been better for it. loving, griswold and roe, gideon memoranda, the courts have upheld the promise and protections of our country are meant for all, that our constitution is a thriving in living document and that our justice system should be fair. that is why courts matter. just like the broader story of america, the progress is allocated by our courts have not always been consistent or constant. the power to change america for the better also comes with the authority to do the opposite. to restrict access, enable corruptions and deny freedom to americans but behind by other institutions. and that is why courts matter.

because they can tip the scale even further in favor of the powerful and privileged. after 60 years of advances, a majority of the justices on the courts have increasingly and certainly too often reverse the progress of the 20th century. over the last 15 years they have corrected the notion of religious liberty, transforming from a show to protect religious organizations and religious minorities to impose harm on the already marginalized and they have restrict it and diminish the voices and votes of everyday americans in our elections by gutting the voting rights act in deregulating money in politics. the three major cases we are discussing today faced the most conservative court in decades. each of these three major decisions is integral for the functioning and future of our country. a positive decision and anyone

or two of these cases does not diminish and will not diminish or negate the damage of the negative decision in just one. in their hands this month rests the hopes of loving same-sex couples waiting for decades to what down the aisle for the person whom they love. and their hands this month rest the ability of the federal government to effectively combat housing discrimination based on race, color ,-com,-com ma national organization, family status or religion. housing discrimination has remained one of the most persistent and hideous forms of racial disk premonitions and one of the avenues for recourse but disparate impact claims to provide cover to prejudice and

bias. but cap to the american dream out of reach for far too many families. and their hands this june respa stability and future of the american health care system and quite literally the lives of 6 million americans who receive subsidies from the federal exchanges. we are no longer merely talking about the the affordable character the affordable character president obama's health care law. we aren't talking about whether the american health care system will continue to work for all whether one action by the supreme court will send our health care system into chaos with prices skyrocketing and affordable access shut off for millions. the stakes couldn't be higher. millions of lives hang in the balance. the goal processes at the center for american progress. no matter the issue health care immigration, marriage

equality, offshore drilling privacy, ethics committee judiciary will play an increasingly important role in the lives of hard-working americans as well as the success of the progressive legislative agenda appeared through legal analysis, policy analysis, communications and the public education in convenient stakeholders come a little progress is helping to push the american legal system and a more progressive direction and educate the public about the impact of the coors on issues they care about most. each of the decisions will impact the health, well-being and security of millions of americans and to introduce our distinguished panelists. it is my pleasure to introduce the moderator of today's discussion ari melber, chief legal correspondent for nbc and cohost of msnbc's popular

daytime ensemble showcase cycle of the writer of law and politics which covers politics law and constitutional rights on msnbc.com. in addition to his work ari is an attorney and correspondent and his writings have appeared in the atlantic, "politico." he has practiced first amendment law at a major firm in new york city and has worked for the 2004 john kerry presidential campaign as well as legislative aide for maria cantwell. thank you for joining us on the floor is yours. the >> thank you so much. good morning, everyone. excited about our panel that will get under way. you know the tv show i am on his popular because she said so in that is a good rule of thumb. we will keep that in mind and keep telling everyone now. i want to do this very quickly which is call up each of our star panelists one at a time.

not unlike a big popular concert or anyone who's ever been to coachella or lollapalooza. you do the names one at a time. but we don't have to do loud applause. that is up to you guys. let me welcome the shelter wanted to the stage. vice president legal progress. she worked as general counsel to senator kirsten jell-o brand and also served as campaign manager for election protection of people for the american way and many other things. i'll keep this moving. robbie kaplan is a partner at a major firm that many of you have heard of fort edith windsor. welcome her. a senior fellow here also has written extensively and clerked for judge eric clay on the sixth

circuit. lisa rice come on now. executive vice president for the fair housing alliance very much involved in the case we will discuss another civil rights issues. elizabeth taylor come executive director of the national law program. welcome her to peer inside her career both in the court room in the boardroom and also worked at doj. as you imagine i want to spend our time hearing from these folks with a lot more they've done. i will move over here because i don't want to do a big formal thing. how do i sound? are you guys all along? say hello. get the technical stuff out of the way. we want to talk about these three cases as they promised.

for an opening, one way to think about the courage of the supreme court and this may run through all three cases. if this not only term were not just nine justices, the sort of a personality you're a friend of yours little nervous about the hypothetical. i think you could argue that they would be a bit like a friend that wants to be considered sort of laid out. you ever have a friend who says i don't care where we go to dinner. it's up to you guys when they pick a restaurant they have strong opinions about where you go to dinner. or i don't care which way we drive. bush is going to the stadium but then they have strong opinions want to get in the car about where to go. what i mean by that is we have a court that talks a lot about

judicial dynamism and a constrained role for unelected judges. it talks a lot of times about deferring to congress or congress' ability to discuss the health care example congress' ability to amend and fixed their role in voting rights. congress can get in and change it. there seems to be a lot of references across these areas by this court. into the idea that you guys figure it out and we know our role and we are easy-going and sushi is fine, p. ¢-cent-sign. you get to the point that there's something the court cares about in that cares about of medicines to reach deeply not only into the life of americans but into the political process and to the extent it has limiting principles if you think again devoted right in the fair housing case many of the

limiting principles seem empty as a practical matter today. we will speak today about whether it's a fair concern or perhaps not and whether the court has every right as statutory problems congress can fix. maybe that is not the point and they have every right to do what they need to do and not as just based on whether congress is. i would like us to think about that and i would like to start with a simple restaurant analogy before we get too deep. i want to turn it to our panel. with soreness but split at these cases. we will do roughly 20 minutes on age being explained to one of our two panelists. and then go out to the audience. and for everyone watching i'm lifestream or c-span, when we do the audience part identify

yourself. we can do a comment or question. we care only about length. if you want to do a comment april 9th we can get a response from it. but that's bad we still want to start with fair housing and start with lisa. tell us in plain english with this case is about and then let chop it up. >> okay, i will try to tell you in plain english because it involves a very technical issue called disparate impact or discriminatory impact. the case was initially brought by the inclusive community project which is a nonprofit fair housing organization based in texas doing work in taxes and the mission of inclusive community projects is to redress or try to undo centuries long systemic residential segregation

both perpetuated by a federal government and also perpetuated by private actors. that is their goal and mission. one of the ways they do that is to help place persons of color in communities where their race does not predominate. and it does so by using some cars taking advantage of a voucher program that is offered under the tax credit, the low income housing tax credit program it to mr. at the federal level by the treasury department, but the treasury department does leave it up to each individual state to come up with its own formula for how the tax credits will be apportioned. the state of texas used a formula for a place in the tax credit housing and the number eight that icp or can a perpetual racial segregation. in fact, they showed evidence that court that 92% of the low

income housing tax credit projects had been placed in predominate communities of color. icp challenge the formulas that it had a disparate impact based on race. the lower court agreed with icp. the appellate court also agreed with icp and the state of texas appealed the case to the supreme court. question before the supreme court is whether or not the whole theory of disparate impact is desirable under the federal act. this case is taking place. it is laid out or unfolded against a very interesting backdrop and that is that 11 appellate court come and we appellate court who has heard the minor has a great disparate impact is cognizable under the

law and you have unanimity under the appellate court on that particular issue before the court. what you don't have unanimity on amongst the appellate court is this test this three-pronged test you have to use to determine whether or not there's a disparate impact for that particular question. >> to find disparate impact. >> the disparate impact is where you have a policy that seems neutral on its face. let me give you an example not related to the case. let me give you one for one of the insurance cases that i've worked on. the insurance company said we will not insure any home that is valued under $65,000. if the market value of your home is $55,000 you cannot get insurance at their company. the policy is mutual on its face. it doesn't seem to have any racial connotations they apply the

policy consistently coming in for an across the board, it has the discriminatory effect of this good in african-american and latino homeowners that sends a very large with market values under $65000. >> before we brought not to the panel comics with how this works and did congress mean to provide this kind of protection even where there isn't explicit evidence of individual racial discrimination and let the court deal with the outcome. >> so that's a great question. it was one raised during the hearing. i think it's very clear that congress did intend for disparate impact to be included when it originally passed the law in 1968 and also when it amended the law and made it 88. in fact there was a

congressional brave written and co-authored empire by senator walter mondale and i broke the original authors and they say in their amicus brief that they actually did intend for it to be included in the original law that was passed april the 11th 1968. actually as the brief points out, there were amendment made at the time that the law was passed in 1968 to infer an intentional standard within the statute that congress reject it that amendment. so not only did the framers are the authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact but when those who were opposing the law meant to infer or conferred the intentional

standard in the statute, it was rejected by the congress. subsequently, and multiple years, senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard aired after the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many, many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard. every single time it was rejected by the court and in 1988 when the law was amended to really expand and broaden coverage to include two protected classes. disability status and the familial status at that time again, this intentional amendment was introduced. it was reject it. for congress to do when it amended was sad there are three instances that we don't want to

apply to disparate impacts. one example is remember familial status is now a protected class. but congress said was this local municipalities has a reasonable occupancy standard, we do not mean for the reasonable occupancy standard to be challenged by the fair housing act under the disparate impact analysis saying the occupancy standard will have children. you can see how that would happen. you have an occupancy standard that says you have to have one person in a bedroom for every square feet. that is going to limit having an opportunity for children. >> panel? >> one thing i find interesting as we consider disparate impact as we think about often

discrimination in this country through the prism of white and black interaction. i think what is so important about this particular standard is how we look at discrimination as we think about familial status. he think about young families. also recently you see how it has this great uptake in claims being brought from disabled residents that we often don't see me over discrimination to read through a plan to disabled citizens, but yet you find difficulty with appropriate housing. to the extent that many of the conversations have only •-center-dot talking about race and not think about other protected classes, my hope here is that the court considers the far-reaching effect that will come into play if you think about striking down.

>> robbie, i wonder who could speak to what the court views as the dilemma here, especially given your time before the court because on one hand many people relate to the concerned that we have a lot of literature racism, will that cause the stomach or structural racism that is unfair and built on a legacy of what was formal racism is no longer explicitly announced and applied in the same way and it way and it is a country one want to combat that. people can relate to that. yet it is not so easy because on the other hand being fair-minded about legal limitations, people say if you are going to use the legal punishment or regulation of saying something is racist, but has agreed to a stigma in the society and people saying we

set up what is a neutral policy based on numbers and how the government will comment and say this is racism. that is unfair to us than we do. how does the court deal with the dilemma? >> i spent countless hours thinking about the different journeys the court has been on comparing algae pt civil rights and more traditional african-american civil rights. what is been handed down and went there two days before, which could not have been more opposite in terms of promoting civil rights. i spent a lot of time thinking about why another one hand is incredible progress in on the other hand we are seeing quite the same thing. in the courts decisions and elsewhere in the country with respect to african-american civil rights. on an issue that is important to

the court and labeling people as ray says or in the context of one's there is some think they are extremely sensitive to. some of the most intense questioning in windsor and so the question i got from the corpus are you saying all the huge number of senators and president clinton are you saying they were homophobes? and yet with that african-american civil rights, or they said i did a great dance. you have to dance a bit because the honest answer is yes they probably were at theime. on the other hand, used the word and say that in that kind of kurds the reaction you don't want a house.

i kind of said no i am not saying it's prejudice. it's based on a misunderstanding which was true. but i think your question arguably has the core of what may be motivating the court that they don't want to label anyone a bad person. >> and i just comment and follow-up some argue that is the beauty actually the disparate impact argument. it precisely says you're not deeply many wonder what he says. you are saying we know that you know you did not intend to discriminate. you are not a racist but you employ this policy that has a discriminatory effect. he didn't mean to do it but you did it so let's change that. some argue that is the beauty of the disparate impact of a discriminatory effect argument.

>> one of the points you made at the outset is just federal law. we are just interpreting what the words say. a lot of the argument was that there are that there are parts of the fair housing act as they adversely affect. so the fha does that make them available. there was a lot of conversation about but there may come available is the same as adversely affect. >> because an unavailable. so the language that says a policy makes housing unavailable does that mean congress intended to look at the impact and matches the intent. the proponents of the disparate impact analysis makes them

available in some statutes there is language that adversely affects them they were okay with using disparate impact analysis just looking at the aesthetics. what is interesting to me as justice breyer in arguments that why should we change a law that analysis is working and has been working for many years to use the disparate impact analysis. he made a similar point in that case several years ago. the family community schools against seattle for justice roberts said the way to end discrimination is to end discrimination. the court struck down voluntary efforts to integrate the school system that was