we need to start thinking about having an industrial and energy policy that is more systemic. where policy makers are willing to take car looks at the overall system and say, these are some problems that we want solved. >> i really hear you talking about our decision making apparatus in government is rapid enough to indicate to the skill and speed with which change has to occur. you are hinting at, you talked about the south koreans and other governments. many people are looking at the way our democracy from its pre- 1800 model competes against other types of more modern democracies were other types of

nation states that have the ability to make decisions in different ways. . . a different focus on environmental outcomes and so

forth, so there is some chance once we are all gone, things will be five. -- fine. the only hope, the secretary of energy and the president bring you out from california where you were one of the leaders of the lawrence berkeley national laboratory to run this new advance research project agency, at the end of the day, is it all about what brains we have and what we can do? >> yes, but more. so yeah. myes, i was at lawrence and u.c. berkeley as a professor, but i started my professional career at a.c. as a 26-year-old young assistant professor, so thank you. and it's been -- i still have a lot of friends out there. let me just make a few point. i'm going to make five points and quickly. number one, i believe we are

living in a moment in history which i believe is a sputnik-like moment. there are three issues --nd it's a wakeup call. there are three issues, one is energy security, the second is environment, and you could, you know, split environment in many different ways, whether it's green house gases or just pollution. it is just environment. and the third is technological lead and if you look around the world, there are tom tectonic shift going on. india and china, per capita use will increase and their population is also increasing, and so they have really a double whammy and we are seeing the tectonic shifts of shifting towards the clean energy, that will motivate it to do that. i believe that's the business opportunity and for us to change our carbon profile, or how we use our energy, getting more

efficient, etc., is also a business opportunity. so that's the reality today. if up ask that question, if you are to capitalize on these tectonic both hopefully and in hour nation and the other nations around the world, it's a global issue, the pace and scale of innovation that we need is something that we need to understand that. the way i like to put it is that if you look at the last 100 years of innovation, whether it's going from artificial fertilizers to airplanes to nuclear energy, all the way down to internet, all of those innovations, imagine that happening in the next 20 years. that's the scale and pace that we need. because if you -- the next 20 years, really has to be the most inventive time of our history. if you have are to take the technological lead and really capitalize and be part of the tectonic shift that's going on.

so what we -- what are the strengths we have? in the united states? we still have the best r&d infrastructure in the world, whether it's universities, whether it is, you know, national labs, small industry, large industrial labs, this is the best in the world. no matter what people say. people are going short in the united states. this is the higher education system is the best in the world. that's the way -- that's the way i came in. so that's our strength. the innovation ecosystem or business and entrepreneurship is really the best in the world. we are the envy of the world. people are trying to emulate it. it's still can't quite get it right, because there are many factors which build the ecosystem and the third one i believe is the idea that as was pointed out, the kids in our colleges are knocking on our door, breaking down our door, saying we want to work in energy and it is a different generation, and know, tell us what to do, where to go, and you know, how to do it.

and they're going to figure out how to do that, and so our goal, is to be the catalyst, is to unleash the technological in slowization in the united states -- innovation in the united states, is to harness these strengths an unleash that and we try to do that and our goal is to look for destructive technologies. it's not the business as usual incremental, because i think we are in this mode of history that i think we need to look in part but we also need to look ahead. just to give you an example, we invented lithium ion batteries, we have 1% of the manufacture of lithium ion batteries in the world. 1%. so if we keep working with lithium ion batteries, we are feeding someone else. we need to look ahead and say how can we make that lithium ion battery obsolete and create the manufacturing for that as well and that's the kind of thing that we will be looking for an one of the things, we need to

recruit the best people, partner with industry, etc. finally, i want to say, we need a policy environment that can pull these technologies into the market at cost. to look at cost as a very important factor. and performance, and pull this and stable highsize it -- stabilize and that policy environment is very, very critical, because i think from my vantage point, the ideas i'm seeing coming out, industry, small business, large business, amazing ideas, but where will they go? the reason people are going to china is because there's an infrastructure being created, there's a demand, and how do we create that kind of a demand and pull those technologies that will leap frog over today, so i'll stop here, but i think this is -- this is a huge opportunity for us. >> what i hear you talking about, what i wrote down is high-speed innovation ecosystem. and so something perhaps we can talk a little bit about later. there's some that say, well, you

know, we can create that and we can be wonderfully and powerfully innovative, but because of our government policy making issues, to take advantage of our own innovative capabilities and other places on the planet the way decisions are made might have the opportunity to take greater advantage of the innovation that is we're actually producing, so let's just come back to that when we can. jim, you run one of the country's largest utilities and one of the most innovative producers of -- and distributors of energy. let's hear from you. >> first of all, lisa, my great grandfather lived to be 104. my best years are in front of me. ok? so let's get over this young thing. we're in a unique position -- >> jim rogers. >> yeah, jim rogers, with an old grandfather and i hope i have

his d.n.a. we're in a unique position in the power industry. to deploy the solutions, to raise the capital, not raise the national debt. to do it at scale. and to do it in china town and let me put this in context. go back to 1910, i can barely remember it. but in 1910, we started down the road to provide universal access to electricity in america and we did it. and our price of our electricity has been flat in real terms for 50 years. that scale, particularly in a world where 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity today, and we did it where the prices are lower than other developed countries around the world. and it's allowed huge gains, in

the development of our country. when we started down that road in 1910, we couldn't envision what we would enable, hospital, x-rays, mr i's, laser surgery. just the ability to do things in the medical world. we couldn't envision that as a result of providing electricity to every home and business, it would lead to productivity gains of how we develop steel in this country, with electro technology, which means our steel industry has the lowest carbon footprint of any steel industry in the world. we couldn't envision computers, the internet and all came as a consequence of providing universal access. and we did it with 50 state commissions. and we did it across this country. it transformed our country, an one of the reasons we are where we are today is because we were a high tech business. in 1910.

and we enabled things that no one could envision then. my challenge to you and my challenge as a c.e.o., and this is back solution scaled china, i sat here in the 21st century and said universal access, enabling all of the things that we take for granted today was yesterday, but i believe we can have a twofold mission in the 21st century that will achieve all the things that we're talking about here. and we have the capability to do it. first of all, we can modern highs and decarsonnize our entire fleet by 2050, whether it's carbon legislation or not, we've not to do it and that's why i've been an advocate for carbon regulation, because i want a road map so we can get it done. if we do that, an we have to do it, that's going to stimulate

the economy and create jobs. and it's going to create jobs that will rebuild the middle class. and it's going to be a huge scaling. so modernization, decarbonization mandate by 2050. we will raise the capital. we don't need the government to raise the capital. secondly, with respect it our second mission, i believe we're in a unique position to make the communities that we serve the most energy efficient in the world and do it at scale. as we convert our distribution grid into a two-way communication grid, we then have the kappbility to put the apps on the other side of the meter that will allow people to reduce their energy use and have huge productivity gains and we can do this at scale. in a sense, we are a distributor for all the creative innovations that come from arpe, that come

from silicon valley, because we can deploy it and make it happen. : it has reduced dramatically the carbon footprint. i also know of i am going to enable -- i can envision two things. i can envision the ability to use renewable smits and make tha better contributor, but i know i would enable electric vehicles and plugged in hybrids, and the

transport sector represent 30% of the missions, so if i carry out these two missions, raise the capital,, with the solutions, and i do it --, up with the solutions, the reality is we can reduce our emissions, stimulate our economy, create jobs, and have much cleaner air at the end of the day, so i know what the challenges, and we are in a unique position to go to work. what we need is a policy makers is to develop a road map to get it done. >> in a sense, we have lived in cities and villages for 8000 years, and those are primarily non-electric. the last 100 years, we have built this platform, which is amazingly efficient, but it is not particularly modern in the way you are using it.

it is not sustainable. if they just let the market work, let us move of real time, we could take the same platform to higher levels of broad performance, not only to deliver that universal electric -- access to electricity but ways to deliver a letter more sustainable, for environmental, so it is a maturation process. the other thing we have lost is we have lost track of how long it takes to do things. we have just had electricity for how -- 100 years. why not take into the system we know it can be? >> think about it. in four years, i have to replace every plant. i have to do in 40 years what it would take 100 years to do. the other point from skip is that we have the ability to

provide universal access to energy efficiency and productivity gains through the use of electricity. y efficiency and productivity gains in the use of electricity. no one else has the ability to optimize the use within the home, and a home, and a neighborhood, and a residential customer class against industrial, against our grid, our ability to optimize is terrific. and i have a prediction. i know i will be around long enough, but i bet him 10 years that what we think of as energy efficiency today will be very primitive compared to what we will be doing then. if we can get on the road and get the work done. >> so i hear a lot of positive and upbeat thoughts. let's hear a little bit about what it is that holds us back. is it, there's been studies,

every time someone tries to advance new innovations into this massively efficient system, gary, that you described, or jim or skip skip, the system that we have, they just break down. and so sunil, you're investing in companies. you are moving things forward. arun, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars down on the betting table relative to project that you of an vested in the smartest groups around the country. we get all this going. what holds us back? >> the first two observations, and picking up on what jim said, and i think we're pretty much in sync together on this. the first as i commented on previously images of the future. we need better images that we can do, that the technologies, the behavior is available to us. so really helping the u.s., helping the global economy understand the huge opportunities before us, if we make those choices and allow that capital to be deployed.

that's part one. part two, the roadmap. we absolutely do need a roadmap. we need a clear persistent increasing signal of what needs to be done to transform -- >> so the lack of a roadmap holds us back, and roadmap the folks from some of the notion of soviet state central planning. and so how do we get past that? >> if i may, michael. i'd like to pick up on a point lisa made at the beginning, and that is when we talk about we, i think we're so substantially document the united states and not the world. because there are big chunks of the world that get it and are actively on their way. germany has done an enormous amount. the chinese are onto this in a very big way, because they see the economic potential that a number of the panelists have mentioned. britain is into this. south korea as lisa has

mentioned has made it a national imperative to innovate in this area. so substantially, the we in this i think in terms of the big economies are us. the united states. for us, i agree. it is substantially this idea of the roadmap, and i think part of what gets in our way, and is both a great strength and in this case potential weakness, is we have a very deep reliance on market mechanisms. and market mechanisms cannot see the risks that we face, because of the way they are presented to us. and they don't yet see, although they're beginning to, the opportunity where as some of these other economies don't have those same challenges. the chinese in particular do not have that same challenge. they can just go for it. >> let me say, when i say road map, say put a price on emissions, and let companies

find the cheapest way to achieve those objectives going forward. i don't mean an industrial policy where you lay it out. i mean, the russians brood of five year plans don't work too well. we've got to harness the power of the markets that the government has got to pour money into the r&d. we've got to commercialize these things, but it's a partnership between government and the private sector. and i don't -- it's not either or. and i think we need to be sophisticated enough to be able to do that in a way to harness market forces that have clear guidance from the government of where we need to go. we will find a solution in the way. we just need to know directionally what we have to achieve. >> sunil, you're going to jump in? >> the idea that government planning is the way to the future is something i simply

can't abide. i mean, i may venture capitalists, and i absolutely believe in venture. i believe that american innovation can absolutely get us out of this problem of the sort of manifold problems of innovation -- sorry, security, climate and economic developme development. and i absolutely believe that markets can get there. but markets only work when the price is set and reflects what the real scarcity is. right now we have a scarcity of energy security. we have a scarcity of a stable climate. neither of those things are incorporated into the price of energy today. in corporate those prices, and the market will work. it is the best known mechanism we've got for allocating resources. works far better than a chinese system or any other system out there. it's not perfect, but it does work. those $13 trillion that have to be invested worldwide between

now and 2020, the sort of 262 by 2030, the vastly dude of that needs to come from private capital sources. the government cannot, not just here but around the world, cannot -- we cannot look to the government to be the banker for development of the energy infrastructure. we need to look, the government, to be the referee. and the rules are. rule setter for markets, rule setter for infrastructure, and building out that sort of natural monopoly infrastructure that can't be done through competition. and we need government to set the rules for regulation of how profits are made. for example, by james company, and other utilities. things like something called decoupling. so the energy efficiencies incentive rather than simply building more power points. so there's a rule for governed. is a super important role but it needs to be a stable and thoughtful role, and not sort of command-and-control role.

>> actually, secretary slush insured, the first secretary of d.o.e. had a wonderful insight in terms of the roadmap our government has set forth. that was way back in the '70s. >> no, but many years later he looked back and said our energy policy in this country swains between complacency and panic. it's never been consistent. and we've never looked at energy environmental policy as inextricably linked. we've actually and the house and the senate it's worked in different committees. it needs to come together and we need a comprehensive energy and environmental roadmap, or rules, or however you want to describe it. because we're going to continue to do this with the price of oil is 140, we'll do one thing, when the price of oil we will swing back to complacency.

>> as an economist i would be remiss if i didn't admit that prices do matter, yes, but they are not at all a matter. we do need a persistent signal. and has to grow steadily over time. and what we do what the price to help provide that signal and motivate in the direction we're discussing, we can naval the economy to respond and enable the markets to respond if we also invest in education and our laboratories and technologies and the invention, that process, what have you, to bring that about. if we don't whatever the price may be, we may not be able to respond as quickly as we might otherwise. we have to have both, that road that i agree with some sort of price that is clear, consistent, steady. but it has to be matched by investment in our human resources to make that response is effective and possible. >> lisa, why is this so hard? >> i think a couple of things. one is that in addition to needing a long-term roadmap, we

needed to be bipartisan. this needs to be something that everyone actually agrees on. and it can't be just one party, and it can't be that one party is a my way or the highway, that sort of thing. it actually has to be a joint decision. i don't have to get behind it. i think the other thing is we have to recognize that this is going to cost us some money, and we need to recognize that it is worth it. our petroleum infrastructure was basically built like my great grandparents, some of them could we. they came over here from starving villages and your. those people had the generosity to pay out of their paychecks and out of their lives to build a this giant petroleum and electricity delivery infrastructure is extremely moving, and the fact that we are not interested in investing in that to that similar degree is really kind of depressing. so we need to start, you know, policymakers need to start talking about the vision thing. and we need to see this as sort

of a responsibility as something that we can leave to our great grandkids. i think another thing that we haven't talked about here, we've talked a lot about technological innovation. we also are going to need innovations in finance and and business models. and one of the issues, we have this enormous opportunity in people's homes to reduce the amount of electricity that we use, even to generate electricity and throw it back on the grid. and once we start using plug-in hybrid cars will be in a whole other world in this sort of come in these terms. but what right now it's very easy to finance a new powerpoint and it's rather difficult if you don't have a pretty healthy income to start weatherizing your home. you're either, you need to get in on a government program which means you're in the lowest 20% of income for your kind in the upper part where you can throw some solar panels on the road and get a tax break. but we actually need to make it easy for everybody, and we need

to start as a society, investing in private homes because they're using a lot of the power. and we also need to be investing in individuals cars or individuals commute often. maybe not car specifically but we need to start investing in that. because right now we have is a private credit system for individuals and we have a big sort of bond-based system for financing power plants and other big initiatives. >> let me just add a point to deal with this roadmap think so, there some scholars better out there that said what we've lacked is the ability to get bipartisan consensus because we have avoided those things were actually can't agree. and there are places we can agree that there are outcomes. there are views of what america can be that people can agree to. and one of those would be, for instance, a capitalism driven high speed innovation ecosystem that produces universal access to clean and efficient energy. i would guess you can get people around that sort of outcome

oriented view. and this notion that of a roadmap, it's the outcome. once you driven by that outcome thing start to fall in place. so one of the things as a policy process i think has avoided is this coming together and agreeing on outcomes to sort of gotten that to some. jim, you're going to add something. >> every major piece of environment legislation has been passed by congress has been overwhelming in a bipartisan way. it is also true with respect to energy legislation in this country. so we have to find a way, we have to be more centrist in our approach. because that's some real progress is made any democracy. there's many great books and the greatest leaders in our country have been centrist who found the weight in the center to make progress. by want to can't comment on one thing that lisa said. and this gets to the scaling idea we did a project in north carolina when we asked permission to put solar on the rooftop. we went out and we invested

$50 million put solar on the rooftop. and at the end of the day, we were able to do it cheaper because our costs to capital was much lower that our customers. and during the middle of the worst capital meltdown in the history, the depression, we raised over $7 billion in about we did not force families to make of the choice. we have either $20,000 to send your kids to college or do you do solar on the rooftop? we paid them. we install it. we operate it. we dispatch it. as a consequence, we have the equivalent of 1300 home powered by solar. this is an example, and i can give you examples of the energy efficiency side, where we become a distributor of these