the market. but for historical reasons, it's restricted to fossil energy. if we could just broaden that out to across the board including renewables, for example, these would provide excellent new vehicles for attracting more private capital into a clean energy future. >> so would you opens getting rid of the tax incentives that exist for renewable energy? >> we clearly support the extension of the current tax credits. we especially support having predictable incentives. as you know, for example, in the -- with winds, with the production tax credit, it's oscillations over time, directly impacts the ability of firms and customers, for that matter, to make investments. so we need -- i do believe we need to extend those renewable tax credits. we need to do it in a way where

there is predictability on all sides. >> you have an energy review coming out in january. i guess it's like the department of defense's review. what have you learned about the nation's energy infrastructure in the course of putting that together? >> perhaps it's worth saying a word about what it is, since it's a little bit of inside baseball. but we -- yes. what we are doing, it's very different in execution i might say, to the defense review in the sense that in energy, it's really a government exercise because the equities in energy are so broadly distributed. so we are working across the administration. that's an important point. secondly the first year's focus is specific, as you said, on energy infrastructure. we have seen enormous challenges to our energy infrastructure over the last years, mainly a set of regional challenges. for example, new england, the

absence of a natural gas infrastructure has led to enormous spikes. we have the issues of the polar vortex and propane in the midwest. we have the issue of oil by rail for lack of infrastructure. so that's what we are looking at. what we are finding is a little bit of a preview -- what we are finding is that the level of investment in the infrastructure we need going forward is not out of line with what is happening already. it's the issue of how do we direct it in a way -- how do we help guide it to a way that supports the kind of clean energy future that we are looking for. how do we introduce the right information technology into the electric grid, for example? those are the kinds of policy recommendations that we'll be coming out with. but in some kens sense, what we are seeing already is it's not an issue of the level of investment, because that has

come up dramatically already in the last years, especially in response to our new energy situation. >> this is the direction? >> yes. it's how are we guided towards having the tractional capacity to support -- transactional capacity to support a clean energy infrastructure? how do with eguide it to be -- we guide it to be resilient against what we expect to be increasing bouts of extreme weather, against cyberattacks, against physical attacks against geomagnetic storms? there's a whole set of risks. so we need to invest in this 21st century infrastructure in a way that both supports clean energy and provides resilience against the broad threat spectrum. >> your aids told me that you're an "all of the above" energy guy. i want to ask about that, because there's, i think a promotion of natural gas, clean coal as you mentioned.

republicans attack democrats and say there's a war on coal. certainly the traditional existing infrastructure. is that true? >> there isn't a war on coal. there is a fundamental commitment on moving to a low carbon future. what we mean by all of the above is within that constraint, we walk the talk. we make major investments in developing the technology and lowering the costs for using all fuels in that low carbon world. so coal, what does that mean for coal? it means we have deployed $6 billion to advance the kinds of integrated coal projects that involve capturing the carbon dioxide, most of them, six of the eight, involve using that carbon dioxide to enhance recovery so it providers you a valuable product that lowers the

cost. we have a solicitation right now for our loan program, $8 billion for supporting fossil fuel technologies, including coal, that reduce emissions. so we are working really hard to get those technologies developed, deployed, demonstrated so that everybody understands what the path forward is for coal in a low-carbon economy. may i just add, one other thing we also, in the carbon context we also have to keep in mind that this requires a global solution. we all know -- we use somewhat shy of a billion tons a year of coal in the united states. the chinese are at or near to four bill tons. indian is building up. so we need to have these technology solutions that are going to be applied globally.

>> a u.s. ban on crude oil exports, where do you stand with regard to that right now? do you think that's something that will be lifted? >> well, there are a number of arguments obviously, as you well know on that. and we have made it very clear that -- within the administration, it involves multiple agencies, again commerce, department of energy et cetera -- that, first of all, there's been no policy change. we do export products, of course oil products, and we are examining the whole issues around the increase in oil production in the united states how the refineries match up, et cetera, which will influence the response on exports. but again, i want to create -- i want to emphasize the context. this discussion generally speaking is happening without the context of "we still import

7.5 million barrels a day of crude oil." we are, on the other hand -- we have become, just in a few years, a substantial exporter of oil products. so we are exporting a lot of product and we are still major importers of crude oil. i think those are very important considerations in addressing the question you raised. those facts also emphasize something else very important. we remain linked to the global oil market and global oil prices, through imports and exports. >> sounds to me, to clarify, sounds to me you're not excited about the idea of lifting that ban. >> let's just say that we are evaluating all of the factors. and i think when -- you know perhaps the arguments are a little bit overventilated at the moment. >> sounds like a keystone answer.

ha! >> you decided to go there. >> you said earlier -- you mentioned the loan guarantee program. i think, if we were writing the book steve clemmons's analogy earlier, the first chapter of the loan guarantee program the word solendra would probably be the first word. bring us up-to-date on that program. >> it has already deployed $30 million roughly speaking, again across the energy spectrum including the next speaker, in terms of nuclear projects for southern company but fossil renewable efficiency. the portfolio has been a major success. let me give you one good example in solar. in 2009, the united states had zero utility-scale voltaic projects. and by the way, in 2009, going back to the financial discussion debt financing was

not exactly easily available. the loan program stepped in and provided that support for five projects. successful. today, there are 17 projects greater than 100 megawatts for the voa takes, completely with private financing. that's the model of what we want to do. get this kickstarted accelerate deployment, then have the private sector take over. now, have there been failures? yes. solsolendra is in default. 2% default rate. i don't know of other investment portfolios that have this kind of success rate. it's very easy to find the one, two, three projects that have defaulted. it's a 2% default rate. we have $40 billion left to go in authorities.

we are planning to, assuming we find and have a great pipeline of interesting projects, we intend to deploy that. >> we have to wrap up in a moment or steve is going to hit a gong backstage. is there anything you can get done, any target of opportunity for you, if you're dealing with the chairman, lisa on the senate energy committee next year as opposed to mary landrieu? >> first of all, when it comes to the climate action plan which is our main guide for what we're doing in the energy space, supplemented by energy security concerns and obviously driving the economy through new manufacturing programs, et cetera, we are exercising all of those programs through existing executive authority. we will continue to do that. >> so you don't want to deal with senator merkowski? >> we have a very good relationship with her, with landrieu. i think it's well-known that we

have worked very well across the aisle and across both chambers. that will continue and we will continue as well to aggressively pursue our programs with our executive authorities. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. pleasure speaking with you. [applause] >> next up, we have thomas fanning, the chairman, president and c.e.o. of southern company. next spring, a new coal-fired power plant is being erected in the pine woods of rural mississippi. tom fanning, the chairman and c.e.o. of southern, has called the money $5.5 billion and counting a bitter pill to swallow. but with these high costs come high returns. most of the plant's carbon dioxide will be cop churd and carried -- captured and carried underground where it won't impact the client -- the climate. tom is here now to talk with the

atlantic steve clemmons about the painful and costly road he has traveled to build the first-ever u.s. power plant designed to include commercial carbon-capture technology. thanks tom, for coming. [applause] >> tom, thanks for joining us today. we don't have a lot of time. we have to get right to work. >> yes sir. >> i guess the big money is ernest moniz is upper hoo. doupper -- is up here. do you like him? >> i think he's fabulous. >> if he wasn't fabulous, would you say that? >> absolutely. no. look, secretary moniz is great. i think he's doing a great job. >> the reason i wanted to interview you here is i heard you give a talk in which you talked about carbon and you talked about ways to constrain carbon and how to deploy that. you've just opened this mississippi plant that margaret just mentioned. but beyond that, you're taking things to china.

>> you bet. >> i'm interested, you're one of the big power guys. and you also deploy your energy to among the lowest socioeconomic constituency in the united states. so folks that don't have a lot of money who have to pay for energy. i'm interested in how you get smart energy choices when the economics aren't necessarily there. >> you hit a lot of issues there. >> we've got seven minutes. so -- >> it is so foundational. the point you make, when i think about it, and i talk about national energy security i work at a business round table. when i think about the challenges in the economy we have right now, 46% of the families we are privileged to serve make less than $40 thousand a year. and their energy budget is relatively inflexible. when you think about all the other challenges we face, our

ability to balance clean safe, reliable, affordable energy for their benefit is enormous. and what we've been able to do, we're the only company -- the strategy for those people typically is coal, because coal is super cheap. >> well, but when you say, what is the strategy? clean, safe, reliable, affordable, we've got to balance those things. as c.e.o. of one of the largest -- we're a little bit smaller but similar in size to the nation of australia. this is a big company. what with ehave to do is -- what we have to do is figure out ways to make all those work. it is not just clean, not just affordable. we've got to put "and" in there. and we've been able to do that. we're the only company in america doing proprietor robust research and development. we developed our own technology to essentially consume low-grade coal with a carbon footprint less than natural gas. and we take the co2 which is not a way stream, in this case we use it to produce more domestic oil.

>> is that what you have -- >> that's what we're working on right now. >> so how do you turn everything into a kuemper project? >> well, you don't. >> and why don't we pay for that, to have china absorb a thousand of those projects. >> in fact what we have to do is build the full portfolio. i got this on youtube if you want to see the whole kind of pitch, but the idea is we need nuclear. 21st century coal where we manage the co2. natural gas renewables, energy efficiency. the technology that we're talking about in mississippi which has had its exams exam challenges, we have signed two agreements in china. it is impractical to believe that the rest of the world will not continue to consume coal. what we've got to do is find ways for those folks to consume it in a responsible way. eastern europe, when you think about a nation like poland, which probably has a vast majority of their energy

produced by low-grade coal, they're at the end -- not only is it high gas prices. here in the united states, we have these sub $4 gas price. china, poland, $15 gas prices. holy smoke. these ideas can make a lot of sense. >> yesterday, boone pickens was here. he used to be seen as the oil guy. now he's the natural gas guy. when i told people i was going to be interviewing you, they said he's the nuclear guy. >> ha ha! >> they look at you as the big nuclear power guy. after fukushima, how do you deal with the public and what are you doing internally after fukushima to sort of deal with this constant concern that nuclear while it may help with carbon in the air and climate nonetheless is creating other spinoffs that just undermine our health, our safety? >> let me say this. let me say this. the nuclear guy. >> yeah. are you the nuclear guy?

>> i'm the full portfolio guy. southern company is the only company in america leading the renaissance in new nuclear building responsible coal. we made a huge shift in natural gas. we're the third largest consumer in the united states of natural gas. one of the largest players in solar in america. qun of the leaders -- one of the leaders in energy efficiency. no other company in america is doing that full portfolio. when people say "all of the above," most of that is rhetoric. with respect to nuclear, it has taken a great deal, shall we say vision and courage, to continue the path of new nuclear in spite of fukushima. one of the things you must know is that the technology we're deploying in georgia is the safest, most reliable nuclear technology on the planet today. further, the circumstances around fukushima -- >> how -- i'm going to interject. how do you know that? >> because the design is completely different. >> how can you tell this is the

safe plant the unsafe plant? >> when you look at what happened in feuk sheem fukushima they had an earthquake. when things got bad is when they had the tsunami that took out all the external power sources, and they couldn't get the water where it needed to be in the time of an emergency. the major design difference -- and that was relatively old technology. the new technology, westinghouse 1000, essentially has the water right above the reactor, and you don't even need an external power source in the time of an emergency.

we covered a lot of terrain in seven minutes. i would like to have a whole other component. dealing with china, we think about climate change, stepping forward to make an impact --

unless you get china and impact -- india in in a big way. in your dealings with china, how does it work? a snapshot -- is there the capacity to absorb a killer app a technology that fundamentally changes their choices in a systemic way? >> this is why i am the portfolio >> they have an enormous issue to deal with. they have growth and they have an environmental issue, if you've ever been to beijing you've seen it. >> i'm usually eating it. >> maybe. >> eating or breathing. >> so the point is, the chinese with all their scale and growth, have to think about ways to balance this clean, safe reliable affordable obligation. and i think there is a very clear place for this kind of technology solution, solutions

not rhetoric, to have a place in the chinese energy future. and i think we can help. >> just to wrap up -- we're pretty much out of time -- you have been someone who is bold out there, saying take away all my goodies and benefits from the government -- you've gotten billions of dollars of taxpayer money. you'd give all that up for a lower tax rate. what do you need to make it work to really invest in r-and-d? you said to president obama take this stuff away? >> here's my point. we don't want tax policy deciding good business practice. clean, safe, reliable, affordable. i think i know how to deploy that. i don't need signals from the i.r.s. on how best to do that. here's what i would propose. get rid of essentially all tax preference items. probably aside from accelerated depreciations, been around for i

think the 80's -- >> short form. >> what it would be is get rid of all that stuff, no investment tax, production tax credit, all the fuels credit, get rid of all that stuff. give me a 25% tax rate, still accelerated appreciation, i'm in. >> there you are. tom fanning, southern company. thank you so much. >> thanks. that was fun. >> next, a capitol hill portrait unveiling ceremony for john cohn cohniers. then some of the entrepreneurs and executives from this year's washington ideas forum including craig venter and incoming smithsonian institution secretary david skorton. here are a few of the comments we've reessential received on the 114th congress. >> the thing that really needs to happen is going back to what the income and majority said, they need to get back to regular order. if they go back and pass the 13 bills that it takes to fund the

government then everybody can see who voted on what, who put what amendment up, and then send it to the president and let him pass it or veto it. >> i hope it's a more mature, responsible congress that we will see emerging in the next two years. i think emblematic of this situation, of an irresponsible congress, we can see that reflected in this john boehner challenge today. it's time for both parties to put aside the bitter partisan battles and get on to the task they're constitutionally required to do, and that is to govern to legislate. i think what the american people said in november of pott both parties, is it's time to see that finally start to happen. >> i think -- i don't know. this 114th congress, what can we

expect of them, you know? citizens united. it's like all the politicians are bought and sold, really. i mean, who are they representing? us or what? the first thing on their agenda is the keystone pipeline. >> frankly, the american people are prepared to get past the polished language, the false promises. we need you to understand, sir that you work for us. we have seen nothing but foreclosures, people in the straight. and frankly, we're tired of the silly games being played. and we don't believe anything we're hearing any longer to include create jobs. that is so overworn out. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@cspan.org. or send us a tweet at #comments.

join the c-span conversation. "like" us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> on tuesday, a portrait unveiling ceremony was held on capitol hill for representative john conyers of michigan. he was elected to the house in 1965, and is currently the longest-serving member of congress. he is ranking member of the house judiciary committee. speakers included vice president joe biden house minority leader nancy pelosi, attorney general eric holder, bob goodlatte, and assistant minority leader james clyburn. this is just under one hour. >> i guess we will go ahead. that's even better. we