the most important thing that happens is what happened to you. you had one in your family. and it has made you more understanding of what transgender is. not that you experienced it yourself, but you know somebody. it is not some abstract thing that some athlete reality show star in hollywood is experiencing. it is something that your family is experiencing. right now, we saw a survey a month or two ago showing that about 20% of americans say that they know a transgender person. that means 80% of people don't either know somebody or they don't know that the know somebody, but what it means is that it is not a real thing for them. so people still have an understandable -- still have understandable, and doubt that my experience is real, that somehow i am trying to make it up or pull some political agenda on somebody.

when you are my family and you know that i have always been in good -- a good and reasonable person and now i am saying this, you can hear it better. and you can be willing to learn. when we heard from the father from pennsylvania, that is not something he was expecting. but now, i bet he doesn't go to work and make fun of transgender people because his son is one. that is the most important thing and the most important thing -- i think the policy work we do at our organization is very important. the most important work that is being done as people every day educating people at work, educating their families and the people they go to a synagogue with and their classmates. so, i think that is how we do it and it is going to take some time. host: your organization is the national center for transgender equality. mara keisling is the executive

director. thank you. guest: thank you so much. host: that is it for "washington journal" today. we will see you tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up in about half an hour, we will take you to a discussion on the epa's proposed powerplant regulations. the event is hosted by the environmental and energy study and to to do. live coverage getting underway at 1030: -- at 10:30 a.m. eastern. and lieutenant general john has

to meant will talk about the air campaign against isis. you can watch that coming up at 11:30 eastern over on c-span2. this month jobless numbers were released this morning. 288,000 jobs added in may though the unemployment rate itself ticked up to 5.5%. some reaction from house speaker john boehner who issued a statement that reads, in part, it is always good news that more americans have found work, but with weak economic growth and too many still looking for betty jobs and better pay, we can do better. that is from the speaker. this sunday on c-span's road to the white house, a conversation with former virginia senator jim webb. he discusses growing up in a military family and his service as a marine in vietnam. american foreign-policy, politics, congress, and why he wants to be president.

jim: this country needs leadership. i think if you ask what people is missing appear at the federal level, it is leadership that they can trust. people that have the experience that they can show they have a record and look across the aisle and get things done. i have had a -- it is sort of a blessing in my professional life and that i have been able to spend about half my time in public service and half my time doing other things, working for myself, and just believe very star great -- very strongly that we need to create a new environment in washington where we have leaders that can talk across the aisle and actually solve our problems. >> jim webb, this sunday at six: 30 5 p.m. eastern -- at 6:35 p.m. eastern. in about 25 minutes, we will take you to that discussion on the epa's proposed powerplant regulation.

until then, part of today's "washington journal." host: joining us now, julian sanchez, a senior fellow and we take a look at privacy issues and technology. guest: good morning. host: what is the lesson learned about data collection by the government, especially after this week and congress action on the nsa? guest: despite the early protestations about the legality of large-scale bulk collection that after two years of fairly thorough investigation by a couple of independent panels there was the conclusion that bulk collection was not necessary to protect america. that traditional target ed collection of particular phone numbers or anything suspicious and you need specific orders to get information out. it is adequate and that the public was overwhelmingly in favor of seeing what they felt was like an out of control agency reined in.

of the more depressing things i one have seen watching the public reaction to the passage of the usa freedom act earlier this week, which is a modest but significant reform, is the number of people i see saying well, does it make a difference? won't they just secretly find a way to do what they have been doing anyway under some other authority? i think it is a troubling thing when you see significant numbers of people and normal people saying congress passed a law but we are not confident that law will be followed. that is a sign of something really unhealthy. host: if that is the case, what is the response you would give to those people who have those kind of sentiments and thoughts? guest: we have a check built into that. the usa freedom act, i think has come in for -- from a strange amount of seats from both sides. it passed with an overwhelming margin this week after a brief time of headline saying the

patriot act expired and was not to come about 2% of the patriot -- was not true about 2% of the , patriot act had lapsed temporarily. this amended set of authorities that have been used to gather data, three types of authorities, really, there was a section 215 which was used for the nsa's infamous bulk program and the other for metadata and national security letters handed out by fbi agents without judicial approval. across the board, it tries to regulate those forbidding bulk election and indiscriminate collections require the government's use to specific terms like a fun number or e-mail address, when it attends -- obtains that data. in addition, it also has a transparency piece. the idea is to present what happens after the passage of the patriot act. the patriot act created these authorities to get information relevant to an investigation.

the authors said, look, we've -- we thought that was a targeted authority. something that is specifically connected to some specific investigation and in secret, they interpreted that to mean intentionally, it the entire database and to be able to search through everyone's phone records. this was something i think was very disturbing to members of congress. they thought they had authorized something limited but found they authorized something more. the law now will require the court -- and secret, they consider applications to use these authorities, to publish declassified information and interpretations of law. including this you requirement that the government used in election terms. the idea there is a begin to ensure that they can't in secret, say, well, now you can use something that is obviously too broad as your election term and sleeping too much -- suite in -- sweep in too much

information. congress gives the public a chance to say, no, that is not what we meant and maybe rain in -- and maybe reign in and the government is not used to getting much push back. host: does the freedom act provide some kind of advocate for americans as far as the information that is taken and what it has been what the? -- what it is done -- what is done with it? guest: this is something that have been proposed for a long time. unlike most courts, it only hears from one side in closed proceedings. it is totally normal for even normal criminal courts. but those courts eventually also hear from other sides like a person who was wiretapped will have a chance to challenge what is done or object. ultimately, it leads to both sides. this is a really unique or that -- unique court that almost never hears from anyone other than the government. the proposal had been floated to

create some kind of advocate someone who would speak for the interest of privacy and civil liberties. this was watered down a little bit. -- that is supposed to argue before the court and prevent alternative perspectives, either drawing on legal expertise and civil liberties, at least in cases involving some significant legal questions. not just your garden-variety application. it is the discretion of the court and they don't have to ever appoint amicus. but they are strongly encouraged to and are supposed to file a finding of why it is not appropriate as they have a case where they do not. how effective will that be ? it is impossible to know. it is not a traditional lawyer who has contact with and representing the interest of a person or people being wiretapped. still, if you look at some of the business release from the -- some of the decisions that

have been released from the court and government, you get a very clear sense that some of the arguments that the court accepts and embraces are not the sort of thing that would be swallowed if you had another perspective. we saw very clearly, i think in the decision of the second circuit court of appeals finding that this bulk telephone database was unlawful under and even the patriot act is -- didn't authorize what they were doing was too far a stretch. it shows you get a very different result when both sides of the argument can infer. host: issues of privacy and security when it comes to government data collection with our guest julian sanchez. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. sean from florida, you are next. caller: yes, my thing is --

people aren't honest. so the thing about laws, and they are all laws, every law that has been passed, they all have a way -- a lot puts you in -- a law puts you in a box. there are certain people, everybody couldn't do it, you have educated lawyers and people that no law -- know law and they can take that box up and move it. when they picked that box up and move it, they are in a place that that law was never meant to be and that is the problem you find with the tax code, the problem you find with this while you are talking about, that is the problem with almost every law that is every made. our society is made -- if i had $1 million, i would not ask somebody who had never had $2000 in their bank account to tell me what to do with my money. that is just stupid. it is, like, in the same sense we are doing the same thing

backwards. you have all these rich people backwards. you have all these rich people trying to tell poor people what they need to do and they have no idea what they need to do. host: sean from florida, let me add this this morning because it talks about law. tranquility says, what makes you think the nsa will follow the law? does anyone in d.c. follow the law anymore? guest: this are my three of an old story who -- he broke the law and hennessy said, judge the good people do not need and -- need it and the bad people don't follow it, so why bother? there is something to that. i think on the one hand, the secrecy surrounding these proceedings does create a sense and a somewhat justified sense that it is futile because the law is so complicated and there is so much room to navigate that whatever you try to do, they can find some way to continue doing it. that is a somewhat legitimate concern that there are so many

overlapping authorities. that if you prohibit them from doing something domestically they can go overseas and on the global internet, at least, for certain communications. you can pick up the same information outside the u.s. very often without some of those restrictions. that is a legitimate concern. that is why it is important not to stop where we have and also regulate the collection under authorities like section 7.2 -- 702 under the fisa amendments act. international communications camp -- communications. on the other hand, if you look at what happened over the course of the years following 9/11, you do not see them just saying all -- saying well, screw the law.

you see them contorting to try and squeeze things they want to do and were already doing. the program launched called stellar wind right after 9/11 -- it was revealed in part of the wireless tapping story the new york times broke. that consisted of a lot of different components. content, phone calls, and connections and metadata in bulk . when the new york times broke that, they started thinking we have to find ways to do this under more obvious, legal authorities. you did see them farming this out and squeezing it into existing authorities. but you also do see cases were lawyers, internally, say there are no limits. james coney is the head of the f b i -- fbi, one of those who famously spends their time reading about surveillance, he had a showdown with president bush's attorney general.

at the bedside of john ashcroft. it involved one of these collection programs that coney thought was not supported by legal authority. you really had a high level tier of the justice department that was prepared to resign if the president went over the legal advice of the justice department and authorized the collection of bulk internet metadata in a way they had decided was unlawful. what happened was rather cosmetic change that allowed the collection to continue. let's say, they will look for all the wiggle room they can and will stretch the law further than an ordinary person may think possible. but there are limits. they are not willing to openly disregard what the losses. host: ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i wonder what your guest feels

about government data collection on a very micro level. governor mcgrory in north carolina is going to sign an abortion bill, which includes having doctors send information to the state regarding people who have had abortions including ultrasounds. how is that -- that is a privacy concern. what about that privacy versus security and who will have access to these records? guest: i have to call you out on this by saying i don't know the specific legislation. but i would note, this reminds me a little bit of a case from the 1950's called naacp v. alabama about an alabama statute together membership lists. it said that private groups had to turn their membership lists over to the government. the 1950's, being a supporter of

the naacp was something that may be socially dangerous for you. and the court in that case ruled not on fourth amendment grounds, privacy grounds, but on first amendment associational grounds. the idea being that you were chilling people's expressive association by gathering this information. you could make a related argument that this kind of information gathering, in addition to whatever burden it may have on privacy, chills people's exercise of medical or bodily autonomy. i think that is a real concern, though i have not looked at the specific law, so i cannot speak to whether it strikes that balance. host: stephen from oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. i guess you can hear me now. my old phones was one of those -- i was going to say something to

mr. sanchez about that hillary speech at southern university, they were talking about the law was voted on by millions of voters from the great state of texas. now, mr. sanchez, i just can't believe all these phone calls, i hear these people so scared of government collecting all of these phone numbers and whatever. it is mind-boggling how many messages the government had to listen to their all these messages. it is just crazy. that is how i feel. i am more worried about the internal revenue service. and what they get by with, then what i worried about the nsa. they are there to protect us, no matter who is in power. or who the president is. they are there to protect us. all of these people who do not want the patriot act, they could get hit any day. host: thank you.

guest: if you look back at, for example, the kind of abuses intelligence authorities that were revealed in the 1970's by the church committee, which inspired the foreign intelligence surveillance act limiting the use of government intelligence authorities and was -- authorities for the ethics by and it was rolled back significantly by the passage of the patriot act, what you find in those reports is that these are not separate things. the abuse of intelligence authorities by the fbi and cia and nsa to spy on antiwar activist, domestic dissidents, civil rights leaders, was a piece with the use of the internal revenue service to harass and intimidate and chill similar types of groups. so, these are not separate concerns. they tend to go together. i think you'll find that when the irs is being misused for other types of government

authority as well. they make a convenient sort of complement to each other. of course, information gathered under intelligence authorities can be used to prosecute ordinary crimes. hypothetically, if you wanted to harass a politically inconvenient group by using the internal revenue service, one way to do that, in principle would be by taking information gathered through very large-scale collection that may be evidence of some kind of minor tax impropriety. the tax code is so convoluted you can probably find almost anyone guilty of some kind of tax infraction over the course of a decade. we know the government is engaged in -- mostly in drug cases, what is known as parallel construction.

when the intelligence surveillance yields information that is passed to local prosecutors and law enforcement and the origin in intelligence of that information is concealed. they gin up their own story about how their investigation started. often, judges and prosecutors and the defense are not aware of this. you are not aware the investigation started from tips from the intelligence agencies. i am not saying anything like this is being done now. but if you are worried about abuse in the internal revenue service, you should be worried about how that dovetails into their potential abuse of intelligence stories. host: in the new york times, a program that was sanctioned by the administration and nsa that would look at americans ' international internet traffic to look at computer hacking, according to nsa documents. usa today takes a look at the 4 million or so federal employees who may have had their data

compromised. a hack at the office of personnel management. guest: if you pay it reasonable -- you have been paying at least reasonable attention and reading between the lines, slightly, it pay it reasonable attention and read between the lines -- between the lines, slightly, it is reasonably clear that the authority under section 702 of the fisa amendments act says there is the general want to collect came occasions was being used for cyber security purposes. there were enough hints of that in the documents released. it is something of a larger scale. something like terrorism nuclear proliferation, is largely centered overseas with much more targeted intersections. it is relatively rare. there is a limited number of terrorists and nuclear proliferators in the world.

cyberattacks are more common, more likely to get you entangled with civilian networks. for example, if you monitor a cyber attack on a u.s. company or server, it is more likely to involve the exposure of private information about u.s. persons totally unrelated to the crime whether that is that so that information is extrapolated from a u.s. source. seeing how cyber security ends -- and a large intelligence service expands the scope of concern about how this authority involves incidental collection of american data. of course, there is this enormous breach, of course, and because there are less than five bills before congress to facilitate information sharing about cyber security threats from the private sector to the government. the idea that if only we let them share more information with the government, somehow we will

be more able to prevent cyber attacks. we heard about this massive breach at the office of personnel management. we think, if only they share information with the federal government. well, they were the federal government. the government's own track record on securing its networks against malicious hacks like this is pretty abysmal. it is no better than the private sector, if not worse. they are perhaps targeted more often, so we give that much of an excuse. but there is not a ton of reason to think they are better situated to do this then -- t -- the networkshan they are asking to share information. host: adrienne for maryland, up next. caller: i have two concerns. no one is speaking about the patriot act, where they can detain people for -- it is not

-- it doesn't matter the amount of time. they can keep you forever with no trial or jury. they can mark you as a terrorist. you can't fly. and just detain you. and not tell your family where you are. i think we are in a china or north korea concentration camp. and my other thing is, the government is trying to keep all of this information, but with that breach, how does that affect other people when we are breached about our information that the government is taking without our permission? thank you and have a good day. guest: in light of supreme court rulings that have followed the patriot act, it is not clear they can detain you as an american forever. habeas corpus still exists. in the days immediately following 9/11, material witness statutes that allowed people to be detained, not because they are directly accused of a crime, but because they are to have

-- are supposed to have information about it, was stretched broadly to detain large numbers of arabic and muslim men. we should absolutely be concerned about that and on the lookout for any kind of recurrence of that in the wake of any future attack, which sooner or later seems inevitable. in terms of the effect on the data bridges and other people, that is certainly a concern. one of the difficult things about information breaches is in a sense, your privacy is almost never just your own privacy, if that makes sense. in prosaic terms, even if you do not have a facebook account, there may be information about you on facebook indirectly because of information your friends are posting. when someone else's account is

compromised, that may contain information compromising your identity or sensitive information about you. in the case of opm, i do not know if the data of the employees is as likely to have that effect, though certainly, the prime concern they seem to have now is that this could be used for identity theft. they are offering 18 months of credit monitoring for people who may have been exposed. that is certainly something that would have an effect not just on the individual but on entire families. host: from oregon, joey is up next. caller: good morning. can you hear me? guest: good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i have a question of julian. i know the government monitors phone calls and everything, but what about on the internet?

your e-mail address. you know, i know a little about computers where if someone has bluetooth next door or something, they can somehow listen in on your conversations but i want to ask him if the government is even doing any kind of investigation on the e-mails that are sent back and forth and any kind of -- anything like that going on? that is the question and good morning to both of you. thank you. guest: we have focused a lot on phone calls. in our debate about these authorities, when certainly the internet piece is also significant. there was a very thorough report concerning 702 authority of the fisa amendment act, general warrants for the collection of international communications

including u.s. to international and international to u.s. one -- and one thing that is surprising is they did not really talk about the use of this for a separate security purpose, which is, at a time, they were using it for that. as of 2011, there were something like 250 million internet communications being gathered -- we're going to take you live to a discussion of the epa's proposed power plant regulations and how states can comply with the new missions standards. it's being hosted by the environment linn energy study institute, just getting underway live on c-span. >> the administration proposal to reduce greenhouse emissions and the electricity power sector. that has led to many kind of

analyses, to webinars, to briefings across the country and certainly across washington. even this week, i saw many more analyses and white papers that were being released. all of this has been accelerated because it is anticipated that the administration, after having received in excess of 4 million comments, will be issuing a revised, final clean power plan later this summer. either in july or august. i think one of the most important things for us to recognize, and we are going to hear much more about that this morning, is that over the course or so of the last year, year and a half is that there have been three organizations that are national in scope that have been working together, sharing

information, questions concerns and looking for possible options and solutions that make sense for their stage. they have been all about trying to identify ways forward, how does one best address this whole issue of reducing emissions in this obviously critical, critical sector of our economy that powers our economy. they have been joining together in terms of looking at how their various roles and responsibilities at the state and local level can make a difference in terms of their coordination and cooperation their collaboration, their understanding of each other's perspectives. those three organizations -- we are going to hear from their leaders this morning. 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 goals in terms of environment and energy regulatory research, energy assurance, responsibilities at the state and local level. and therefore, the proposed rules represent another 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. 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. we are 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, the executive director of the national association of clean air energies. it is an organization that has a responsibility or, its members have the responsibility of working at the state and local level in terms of implementation of the clean air act and have for years. bill founded this organization since 1980. it's very much the go to person, he has won awards with regards to his work in the public area.

the association of clean air agency is an association of state and local air pollution control agencies and 43 states the district of columbia, 116 metropolitan areas across the country, as well as for territories. four -- territories. they are for of lamenting our countries pollution -- implementing our country's air pollution controls. it's a formidable task. to talk about it in both the whole menu of options that they have put forward and that is one more resource in the toolbox for state and local officials. it's really very important, 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 different response abilities for state and local officials. mr. becker: thank you carol. when ice before a group like this, i can't help but think of my brother. he is a very famous scientists. my brother was asked to speak before a group not unlike this, to talk about climate change. he had given the speech many, many times, and he says to his chauffeur, joe he says joe, you have heard this speech 100 times. why don't you give it, this

group doesn't know what i look like. i will speak -- i will sit in the back of the room and read a newspaper, no one will be wiser. joe says this is great. i brother says, however, under no circumstances should you asked for questions. if you do, they're going to find out you're a fraud. joe was really excited. i brother gave him 10 pages of speech, joe put it aside, he gave a wonderful speech, got a standing ovation. i was feeling so cocky, that he did the unforgivable. he asked for questions. when you know, the first row -- someone in the first or last most consultative question one could imagine. and joe would seem in the eye and said mr., that was a really stupid question. that question was so simpleminded that i'm going to have my chauffeur, who is sitting in the back of the room, answer it. [applause] [laughter]

mr. becker: swift there's anyone here to rest the question that i did help on, i have my team with me. as carol said, we are an association of state and local air pollution control agencies. here is what i will cover today. 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 at state and local agencies and talk about some of the implementation tools that we have published recently and will be publishing soon after the role as promulgated and close with observations after discussing a relationship with the two associations that carol mentioned. we are an association of state and local air pollution control agencies. our offices on the other side of the capital. we have been there since 1980. we have 41 states 116 of 117

local air pollution control agencies, washington, dc, and the territories. two important points about state and local air pollution agencies -- one is on page one of the clean air act. i give state and local air agencies the primary responsibility implementing carnations laws. our mission is to clean up the air and to implement a federal clean air act at the state and local level. the second part of this related , is under epa's clean power plan, which i will get into a little while. we are the ones you will be developing the plans, submitting the plans, and responsible for influencing the plans. the responsibility falls on us, even though we will be working very closely with utility commissioners, energy officials and many other state -- stakeholders.

a couple of general observations , just to move things along. first, 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 communities. there are governors who aren't as enamored with this program is others. there are members of congress who are actively fighting this. 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. our folks are going to be implementing this program as effectively as we can, and as expeditiously as we can unless we are told to stand down. for the time being, almost without exception, we are not being told to stand down.

if you other things -- with regards to some of the rhetoric and regards 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 expected some of those concerns will be ameliorated when the rules finalized. second, i will predict with certainty that there will be some pickups. there will be some bumps at the outset of limitation of this program. it's not new. no one should be worried about this. it is something that goes along with the territory, especially in implement in the clean air act. we see this with reformulated gasoline and many other programs. we are not going to panic and stakeholders shouldn't as well. we will work through these issues. the last observation -- many of

you are from congressional offices and you can help immensely in making this program work, should your bosses wanted to work. there are authorizing provisions of the clean air act under section 105 that provides funding, grants to state and local agencies that implements 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. we hope you take a close look at that. epa's clean power plan is been derived from the existing clean air act. i think it is safe to say that if proponents of reducing greenhouse gases had their way they would prefer federal legislation. i think even a 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. this is exactly why epa has decided to use existing authority under the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases. there are two provisions that are really important for you to understand. there is a provision under section 111 be that requires the epa to regulate new and modified and reconstruction power plants, and rules have been proposed. there is a provision under section 111 d that addresses the regulation of existing power plants. it's that section we're talking about today. importantly, unless the epa's successful in issuing rules for section 111 b 111d cannot move forward.

the clean power plan requires from electric generating units significant reductions. a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to 2005 levels by 2030. you look at that in think that is 15 years or so for utilities to comply. it's a pretty significant lead time to comply. but another part of this is that the epa has said -- set an interim goal that requires a large chunk of these emissions reductions to take place not in 2030, but 10 years earlier in 2020. 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, 10 years before the final deadline. this has been a 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 proposal. we should be thoughtful about what happens after finalization. i am pretty sure that this cliff, this interim deadline will be changed when epa finalizes its rules. another very important part of this is that each state gets an emissions target goal under the clean power plan. every state's goal is going to be different, it's going to be a rate a school which can be translated into an equation. when epa developed these goals for each state, and looked at fou relatively general building blocks. rthey refer to them as a building block 1, 2, 3, 4. the first one is what can be done within the facility to improve efficiency? the second is how can we shift to cleaner generating sources?

the third is how can we build low emitting energy sources? and finally, how can we pursue demand-side energy efficiency? the common denominator is doing things better and more efficiently. one of the most important things i will leave you with today is notwithstanding how epa has set the states targets, the states are fully flexible and able to decide on their own which strategy -- whether it's in any of the four building blocks are not, you can include in its plan. 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 the epa. that's a very important point. here are the timelines for cemented plans. this rule be finalized probably

in august. states will have a little over a year to develop their plan. epa has to review it and either approve it or reject it or negotiate. if the state is having trouble and many will find this challenging, states will begin an additional year to some of their plans. if the state decides -- and a lot of states are thinking of this, to engage with other states in more multistate program, the state will have an additional year. the submittal of plans by late in local revelatory agencies will take from one year to three years, beginning from this august. i would love to tell you that states are 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 that it has been almost an unprecedented effort in terms of the level of effort and the energy expended in the year and a half preceding

this role, where our members have been meeting with almost every possible constituency in their state and with their state utility counterpart in their state energy counterpart in trying to understand the consequences and impacts of this rule. that's really important, because this is unlike any rule we have ever implement it. it's not your typical rule that state and local agencies adopt. we're looking at activities and processes and stakeholders that are never been affected are engaged much in implementation under the clean air act. there to basic questions, -- there are two basic questions. what strategies are included and beyond the four building blocks

should states consider in meeting their targets and compliance plan obligations. i will be talking about the menu of options that identifies anything we can possibly think of. the second equally important strategy is what you have identified a technology, that strategy has to be incorporated into a plan enforceability and verification, the only one who will achieve emissions reductions. it has he -- it has to meet each of the 11 criteria that epa has set out to let states no what is acceptable to the agency. if the plan does not pass muster, they will reject it. and there are consequences.

we publish this two weeks ago, we had handouts and it identifies 25 chapters, 465 pages. it identifies literally everything we and our contractor could think of that could possibly go into a state plan, whether it's part of the building blocks are not. for each strategy, we have described it, identified a potential greenhouse gas reductions, we've identified the cost, the cost-effectiveness where that strategy has been employed. and equally important, we identified not only greenhouse gas reductions, but we identified the collateral non-greenhouse gas air-quality benefit that could accrue. 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 are

still reason to consider this program seriously. you will get huge reductions in the smog 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. 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. we have chapters that address that only the strategies within the building blocks, but also chapters that we have included strategies that are outside of the building blocks. 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 are using with a cold you are using.

a lot of the coal is high sulfur fuel and has a lot of ash. 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 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. it's a model we are out with about 30 days after the rule is finalized. this model is kind of a misnomer. it's actually a menu of models. it is a series of regulatory pathways so that once the state has adopted a strategy, we got to take that strategy and put it into the plan and we will be taking, for each major strategy and for each potential scenario the state chooses -- that

strategy, adopting regularly 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 the stakeholders so that states won't have to start from scratch in developing regulatory language. rather, they will have it at their disposal. this is not really a one-size-fits-all model. because we know in the states there are 50 different state plans that will come in, all requiring something different. 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 specificities of they can implement this quickly. we want to meet the deadlines. our goal is to do this quickly

enough that we've also taken advantage of the changes that epa has made from proposal to final rule so it's a timely and beneficial product. let me wind down and conclude with one other very important point. i am proud to be appear with chuck and david because these are organizations that we work very closely with. we hadn't worked years ago together come up and it's only been in recent years and recent activities into the clean air act that have necessitated us coming together. we have worked really well when trying to figure out collectively, it's part of good government i think to understand the needs of these groups. they will tell you they are interested in the liability, and we get it. there will be nothing in our plans that will oversleep --

adversely affect the liability. david will tell you that their concerns are providing opportunities for energy efficiency, and we think that is a very important strategy to consider. we are all over that issue. we think it's more public policy. let me conclude with a few observations. i don't want to leave the impression that implementation of the clean power plan is a slamdunk. it is not. it's going to be challenging. we understand this. we are going to be working very hard at the state and local level to try and make it work. we think the two documents the two tools are described will help accelerate effective implementation of that. we have already been working really hard laying the groundwork for clients. we have been meeting with stakeholders, they have been meeting with intrastate

governmental entities so they can understand fully what is expected. those discussions have been very worthwhile, even within states who are suing epa, they are having very good discussions. i should say word about epa's involvement. they have been really, really great listeners. they have met with the states almost anywhere, anytime. they have sought our input. we are hopeful they're going to carry out that leadership and incorporate many of the concerns and the legitimate issues of states around the country have been offering. we are confident that they will. 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 has been this effort to try to persuade states to stand

down and to ignore the implementation of this program. and while i said earlier, not every state likes this program if the law has not changed, this is the law. and the consequence of standing down and not implement in this program is severe. the 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 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. it sends the wrong signal, in light of the fact that we think greenhouse gases and climate change are real problems and must be addressed. with that, i thank you for this invitation and i thank you for

your attention. [applause] ms. werner: thanks, bill. now, we turn to another of these important energy-based organizations to david terry, executive director for the national association of state energy officials. david brings 27 years of experience working on energy for a variety of entities, everything from being a researcher to be "washington post," working with the governor's wind energy coalitions. but he worked for them beginning clear back in 2004, from 1996 through 2004. he became 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. they communicate state policy views on nearly 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 and reliability, as well as energy technology innovation and of course, all of this is almost always tied to also being very concerned about how this affects states economic elements. david? mr. terry: david: thank you carol and i have to thank carol's organization for hosting our

work i am somewhat biased but i think you all know their excellent work well. carol covered i think a little bit about the state energy offices. i won't belabor that, but i will point out for those of you not familiar the offices are typically appointed by their governors and focus on policies in regulation and while economic regulation of the electric utilities and policies plus a range of energy issues. we also have a number of private sector affiliates, non-voting members but they provide good input gruden check. we are always interested in -- with regard to the power

planned, a good thing about our approach that i think differs from nacaa and naroop, as bill pointed out, we do want to ensure that states have options and flexibility in the plan. should it move forward we want to make sure reliability and su stainibility is possible. other themes in my comments going forward, we see efficiently certainly as a great compliance option so transition distribution system efficiency as well as in-use efficiency. we frequently think of efficiency in programs typically overseen -- but the

other part are all the non-repair programs. so if you think about the amount of money spent on energy efficiency in the united states that includes private sectors, consumers, utility investors, the bulk is happening outside of those repair programs. we want to make sure states have the option to take benefit from them and get the most cost effect from them moving forward. i will get to those programs but in the public building sector building codes and industrial efficiency -- some of the key take aways i would keep in mind about the plan and how it moves forward, the

system is undergoing dramatic change. certainly a shift in natural gas is for way and -- ranging from led's and so forth for lighting but also emerging building technologies. we did a -- yesterday on -- the number of buildings emerging that are producing as much energy as they use. a school in arlington, virginia just opened that do that. schools in kentucky do that. certainly the sbedepration of the internet and controls of how we use energy and the electric system has come to bear so utilities already have a directly to deal with and state energy offices and how they work with them and yet at the same time i think we all expect reliable, affordable environmentally sensible power to be delivered.

so it was quite a challenge moving forward. the other take away, and i mentioned it a moment ago, but it's thinking about true leased cost approach and i don't mean it to be inflammatory but just a reminder that we have a wide range of options i think is really embodied in nacaa's men knewed approach and certainly includes many ideas naseo has and i encourage you to take a look at that and as you look at the clean power plan and what the states are doing. also ensuring evaluation measurement and verification around efficiency programs are stream lined. we have probably a habit in the energy community of measuring to a great degree of accuracy, and while that's important, this is serious business of keeping air quality and meeting air quality requirements but we also don't want to make it so

difficult that it's impossible for states to move forward. it's the focus of our work and other organizations at least in this particular space. certainly assisting states with ongoing, no regrets activities, and i will spend time on that in a moment in continuing the dialogue not only among the three groups, nacaa and naseo and naroop, but there's that going on in this area and environmental regulation. a few things about our ongoing activities, as bill mentioned, we have been involved in working with their organizations for some time and been at meetings and agreement on principles we submitted to epa that i would encourage you to take a look at but common ground in compliance ads a compliance measure certainly around reliability and a number

of other issues. and i think those are worth noting. we have also been working on at naseo compliance case studies. so typically beyond the rapare program, in the state energy offices about how they implement energy in buildings. so by way of comparison, there's about a $7 billion a year market adjustment in public buildings that's almost all privately financed. so it's an amazing opportunity. and i certainly am planning sessions we have coming up at our meetings. as i mentioned, we're working closely on no-redepret options and broadly to help meet state energy and their goals. i think one in particular worth noting, we have a multistate tracking program going on in the public investment area and

trying to see where we can streamline activities in that -- the amount of investment return and the amount of benefit to the taxpayer and energy savings and so forth. we also have a similar project with the state of texas and other organizations looking at energy building code compliance so existing codes on the books and what kinds of emissions reductions coming from that. so they are capturing existing programs that are cost effective on their own merit and not capturing emissions benefits only this way. so there are great opportunities there. largely private sector voluntary activities in this space. there are a number of state energy offices that offer assistance for their large and small industrial partners and stake holders on the ground,

the amount of savings that can be generate there had is enormous. generally, unless it's inside -- is not captured at the state level. i think you kind of get the flavor here. it's just a little chart that gives you a sense of the level of private investment just in the public building sector at the state and local level. so right now we are at about $6 billion a year estimated other time to be $20 billion a few years danny the road, they are largely private investments and paid for over time and the emissions associated with it are well documented. generally verified by contract. it's a great example of one of the areas in which we focus at naseo. a number of ongoing activities in addition to our coordination with naroop and nacaa we are

in seven or eight areas. they include use of combined heat and power by a private sector whether that's at a hospital or university or industrial plant as a much more efficient way to provide power in some cases and catching emissions from that. we are conducting epetitions about how that works at the state level and how they might get rid of that. and also something a state can consider plugging into their plan. they are the experts on the plan element that we are trying to provide. but we are trying to provide packaged plans to state -- as state options moving forward. residential properties existing federal programs. there's a well-known program in the residential sector, energy star homes, those savings are well documented and put out by epa.

they are generally not captured at the state level for compliance purposes under environmental rules so we think there's an option there. clearly epa is satisfied with that program. -- as do the private sector builders. so all of these activities are really leading up to that initial take away that i mentioned which is to really capture the truest least cost approaches. if i were in an energy office trying to advise my governor, work with my partner agencies at the state level we want to find a way to get to the least cost approach so voluntary programs, existing state policies are kind of logical places to begin. the trick is how we quantify that doing that in an economic and reasonably simple form mat? clearly the meeting compliance requirements that as it should.

we will complete the case studies i mentioned. other the next several months we will be submitting them after our agency has had a chance to comment son them. they will be submitted as options for epa and be submitted with your neighbors at nacaa and we are also working in another important area that has a benefit for compliance and broader in the area of energy and air coordination and that's the national association energy efficiency ratings so the those 'em me meanted is who owns the emissions credit? is it verifyible? is there a register industry?

it gives the option to meet certain criteria and have a means of verifying that. so it may promote the ability of a state to count whether they are getting towards energy goals, certainly towards the clean power plan. there's a link there but generally helpful with state activities. i think it's an important downtown watch and a valuable approach. we are working with about seven states on the compliance and governance rules and the climate register industry is working on some of the substance and would actually operate some of the register industry for this moving forward. lastly and most importantly working with not only our energy offices but with the epa regional offices and presumably the department of energy if we move forward or if our plans move forward but we had meetings planned with -- some

contacts at naseo at the end here for take away, i do want to reiterate what bill said. i think the cooperation among naroop and naseo and bill and chuck has been exceptional not only in this area but over the years as we try to act in the best interest of the states and try to find low cost approaches to interlinked goals and challenges. thank you. [applause] carol: 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 regular tori utility commissioners or as we all say naroop, and chuck while he was named executive director in 1999, he

has been involved with naroop since 1979 serving in several capacities and in looking at the key role of state commission across the country are the wide variety of issues that they must deal with on a regular tori basis that ranges from yes energy, but it's electricity. it's gas 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 then -- and across all of these states. we've different concerns, priorities resources in each

of these states, and so we are very glad to welcome chuck gray. chuck: i have one slide and that's it. so this should go quickly. thank you, carol, for the introduction and inviting me here today to follow up on these glib speakers, so this will be a little bit disappointing so i start with the standard disclaimer that the remarks are my words only and shouldn't be attributed to naruc. i also have a second disclaimer similar to what david said concerning the merits of the epa proposal under 111 dnaruc has taken no position on whether or not the epa should be moving forward on this however we have members strongly opposing the proposal

as well as strongly supporting that. and i think you will see that continued as we get near the final rule. thank you for describing naruc. it's a national organization i'll repeat 50-state commissions plus the districts of columbia and they make sure we acknowledge that the district of columbia is not a state and has a public service commission and importantly our members regulate retail services which is at the heart of this discussion including generation services provided to retail commerce and regulate natural gas distribution and purchases by retail customers as well, which are clearly implicated by the clean power plan as it now stands at the epa proposal. what that means really is many of the options that bill has

described that are in the menu fall squarely in the jurisdiction of one or more state commissions and in many other cases in the jurisdiction of the federal energy regular tori commission in the areas of transmission and whole scale compliance options. i think it's in 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 to before i started to work for naruc when congress passed purposea at that time it was called -- now it's called combined heat and power but that is essentially two big issues interconnection of the plant. two, the grid. and then buyback prices that the utility would pay to the

owner of the chp facility. those decisions as a compliance option will have to be vetted by the title utility commission as it's added to the state plan. another example is on retiring aging power plants. they have been certified and earn retail rates. if they are closed before their useful life is over, there may be stranded cost recovery issues that the state will have to address if the plant hasn't been fully depreciated. also shutting down the plant may be required to be approved by the public service commission. i guess my point is because while the need for this has been important and necessary here in washington. close coordination between the

commissions and air regulators and energy offices in the states is crucial and indispenseible really. there needs to be this dialogue going forward. as just talking about the relationship, the coordination between the three associations has been continuous and beneficial over the last three or so years and speaking from naruc's perspective that's been rewarding throughout. as david mentioned most of our work in the last years has been on energy both utilities and third-party energy programs but with the final rule it's gone to o & b and it's coming out soon and we will have to broaden our relationship and go to other issues as the energy efficiency questions that we have worked on before. i know from naruc's perspective, we will be able to participate in a broader discussion with the three m's

as we go forward. what role will naruc play? david mentioned accurately our watch words of our members will be focused on reliability and affordability. as economic regulators of servicers of the regulatory commission are responsible for ensuring those services meet those two goals. members working closely with ferc on reliability issues over the last few months resulting in the letter ferc sent suggesting epa consider adopting a reliable safety val. we have not taken a position as an organization on that proposal but there's strong support aupon our members that ferc's suggestion to the epa be accepted and that there be some

kind of contingency in case reliability issues are raised. naruc has been developing white papers around reports in response to what appears to be a growing interest in assessing what a regional compliance plan looks like or a multistate compliance plan would look like. as reported actually just this week in inside climate news, 41 states are now in regional groups exploring this multistate option including states that strongly oppose the c.p.p. the bills suggesting that even if you don't like it, you should do it rather than have the feds do it is what's 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 program we call it ice pick. it's -- this report was issued about a process for how you would get states together for thinking about putting together a regional plan. the white paper that the link is right there. it was funded by the department of energy through some of our grant assistants, and it's really based on two premises, first, that except for texas the grid is interstate, the markets are interstate and compliance plans under section 11 at least on its face are state-specific so there needs to be a connection there. and i think the second premise that drives this discussion is a multistate -- there's been a lot of reports that multistate compliance plans reduce costs and improv operational efficiency and strengthen

efficiency so there's a lot of growing interest to see how far this goes. one of the questions is whether the states have enough time to put something together that requires a lot of work? the white nape we issued provides steps and process for states to get together to issue a multistate approach. it contains a sample m.o.u. that states can look at and if they want to agree to, as they come together, the m.o.u. is there for their benefit. while our paper focuses mostly on process issues, there are some proposalals many proposals out on what a compliance plan like this might look like. probably the best-known regional compliance plan is reggie. the regional green house gases -- there was story today on e &

e that now pennsylvania and virginia are planning on joining regi as well. so i think we are likely to see that as at least a model as a cap and trade system where states may seek to join the existing regi or set up a similar project in other states. our friends at the regional transmission organization, the r.t.o.'s that run the grids and power markets have also enclosed a regional compliance plan they would hope to implement over the markets. it's not quite clear to me how they are going to work but they are working on it and recently the georgetown climate center released a paper of single-state compliance with elements a hybrid between a single-state and regional plan, and that is going forward as well. many of the interstate elements

are likely to be the compliance options that nacaa recommends. while naruc believes it is not our role to tell the states that they should do ooh regional plan, it's clearly an option chosen and will require close coordination. coordination like we have not seen before, not only as we look at multiple jurisdictional authority. i'll stop there. thank you for your attention, and i look forward to questions. [applause] carol: thank you very much, chuck. and i might mention, too, that we hope in the fall, in september, or hopefully to once again work with our colleagues here to put together another form 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 please identify yourself with your questions. do we have any? ok. back here. would you just please -- >> yes, william, the competitive enterprising student. mr. becker you seem to assert cat gaborikal jurisdiction over the clean power plan for the air quality regulators and seemingly that was conflicted by what mr. depray said and i was just wondering is that a decision for state legislatures or has that already been decided in your mind? >> i think we're saying the same thing but i will let chuck

speak for himself. under the clean air act and section d, state air 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 outline. and it may be that the state love to take actions with the utility and energy officials' concerns in mind for the plan but the ultimate responsibility lies with the state agency and until we're told differently, that's our responsibility. >> yeah. i don't disagree. clearly the law is the law and the states as bill says, air regulators are responsible for dealing with the environmental impacts, but that doesn't --

the thrirmente the states actually approve or states commission approve what they are legally bound to do, but i think there would be constructive dialogue on how that all works because you're not going to have the air -- that the commissions will be constructive and try to give as much flexibility to the plan writers as possible. carol: great. any other questions? >> angela crooks from the department of energy, and i had a question for naseo. just wondered if you're looking at distributed generation as part of the overall energy efficiency strategy? >> yes. renewables certainly as micro grids combined with power. bureau we have been working with a number of states and renewable state associations to

see where that fits in. i think some of the challenges in that area are extremely depending on the state and issues you're in. in the west, a great deal of the resource opportunities sits on federal lands. it's traditionally been difficult to develop on federal lands and there are a number of states that if you look at the number of opportunities, much of it sits on federal land so that's a huge barrier we have to work through as an option. there are more technical barriers in terms of states that produce renewable power but perhaps don't use much of it so the power plan to that in my mind wasn't clear but i think there's a lot to do in that space. >> and i might mention and you

might want to address that there are -- there's a whole chapter in the menu of options if you want to talk about that a little bit. >> we can talk about distributed generation. but -- a couple points. the common denominator is -- there are opportunities that this rule presents. there are certainly cost, and it is clear that some of the opposition is focused on the cost of implementation, but we should not forget for one second that there are opportunities in this role for power facilities, energy companies, other stakeholders to benefit. and i can only tell you this to 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 is not just an adverse impact on economic development in the state. there are efficiencies, other tremendous opportunities that this program -- for the smart folks, for the industries that really care -- can take advantage of. and we have seen that. i think we will see that even more once the final rule is implemented. and then a second quick point i will tell you a little story about something similar to this program.

and generate 2011, epa -- january 2011 epa proposed regulating states and power facilities and other manufacturing facilities, with respect to greenhouse gases, and the required at the time that all major facilities obtain a permit that would require the installation of best available control technologies. and at the same time, like today, there were a dozen governors who were suing epa. and those governors were suing and they had legitimate concerns about this, just like today's governors do. at this theme -- at the same time, the state was developing the regulatory infrastructure to some -- to comply. they were hearing from their industries that they wouldn't be able to expand, they wouldn't be

able to take advantage of opportunities and economic development if they didn't have the regulatory infrastructure in place to do so. notwithstanding general opposition to the program. i met with smart of them. in the and, every state -- end, every state but one actually adopted the program and went ahead because industry was telling them to. and the last state texas eventually came along. so there are opportunities if you seek them out in this program to take advantage of a lot of things that can be done. carol werner: great. thanks very much, bill. are there any questions -- other questions or comments? one issue that i wanted to just raise from what you were just saying bill, is in terms of looking at the different chapters and i think that there is also one that talks about innovation. and that pursuant to the original enactment of the clean -- the clean air act and the

clean air act amendments, it struck me that one of the things we saw there was there was a lot of innovation, a lot of costs that were much, much lower than people anticipated, that a lot of things were driven toward that were not necessarily anticipated. i was curious whether each of you could comment about that? what your experiences and what you are seeing and if there are any particular states or other industries you think are looking at that? >> happy to comment, carol. i think that is a great question and one -- because most of the energy offices report to their governors, they have a particular focus on development. it is incredibly important and i think we have repeatedly been surprised by the kind of

innovation that takes place. i think back about the kinds of electricity blows that we anticipated 10 years ago that haven't materialized. independent of the financial downturn, low demand is lower in many places because of that. everything from the obvious like led lightbulbs, and also things that only a few of us energy nerds know about. i mentioned some of those things in my remarks. i guess one thing i would add to that, maybe it emphasizes or builds on what bill just said with regards to benefits. 39 of the states have formal energy plans and a policy context. the state energy offices generally lead to those. sometimes it is legislatively mandated. but they look across the entire energy spectrum technologies, companies that are in their states, research capabilities, natural resources, they try to

figure out where they can support particular pathways. part of that process the bill -- bill mentioned really helps to drive innovation and economic development. there is another side to this that is important to look at and i think traditionally, have seen new rules -- whether they are environmental rules or statement lamented legislation -- that really does drive innovation. we need to make sure, though, that the regulatory process or plans allow for the kind of flexibility of private investments needed. >> yeah, just to add a few points. you know, the clean air act probably like other department -- important domestic legislation, is a wonderful case study in development. when a rule is proposed, before it is find the adopted, all interests -- most interest

groups come up with a worst-case scenario, the highest cost, and we could all hear the playbook of the rhetoric that is dispensed once a rule is proposed. and it is almost as if the sky is falling. once the will is finalized, the industry's -- and this is a huge conflict to them -- the industryies have an immense amount of talent -- industries have an immense amount of talent. what do they do? they find innovative ways of addressing these national goals that they hadn't particularly share. i don't want to paint too wide a brush here, but i could. they hadn't shared during the rulemaking process. i will give you a couple examples. during the acid rain debate leading up to the 1990 clean air act, the estimates for allowances to reduce sulfur

dockside were 10 times higher than what the actual allowance sold for after implementation. when reformulating 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 is public information, there was talk of long lines at gas stations. the cost of gasoline would be between $.10 and $.25 higher. and in reality, the cost of reformulating gasoline was a fraction of a penny. again, the oil companies learn how to reduce pollutants in the gasoline when they were required to. so there is a huge opportunity for technical advancement. it may not be sure now, but once the rule is propagated, you can almost guarantee that the impacts and the costs that have

been projected will be reduced. and i mean that as a complement to the industry that has to comply. >> yeah, i would just observe there is a lot of innovation going on right now, which is related to, that in some sense separate from, the clean power plan. i go to many conferences where utility of the future is debated about we are going to distribute it -- distributed model with storage and rooftops oh. -- rooftop solar. i think a lot of the issues are underway, with respect to the new york commission. as they tried to prepare the commissions for a new regulatory model. this is an industry that moves -- that has moved they slowly over time. they make long-term investments for assets and infrastructure that is built to be there for a while. and i think that innovation is

probably not as fast as maybe in a telephone -- as we saw in the telephone side, but clearly, it is underway and i think it will benefit the compliance plan process a great deal. carol werner: a lot of that is going to happen even without -- >> without the clean power plan. carol werner: ok. could you just get in line over there? go ahead. >> another question. angela cooks, department of energy. who is leading the charge right now in terms of starting on the compliance plan? is it the air regulators utilities who want to make sure their interests are protected? who do you see being most actively involved? carol werner: probably you will answer that. >> i think that is a question. i want to just jump out and say the environmental agencies, but i will temper, you know, that

response and say -- we are being they loosed in a good way -- being deluged in a good way with requests for meetings and discussions with all affected stakeholders. 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 is a collaborative effort. in some strategies, this will be a utility only strategy. and the state will have, you know, less responsibility or little responsibility. the smart utilities are going in and making their case. in other strategies, it will be partly state driven and partly

utility driven, or, you know, other common elements. and other stakeholders will be engaged. so i think it is a shared responsibility. >> yeah, again, talking about an roads, we are 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. you also see legislation in some states where the governor is going to have to find -- finally sign off on the plan, which is -- is out there as well as so i think it will very from state to state, but ultimately, i think under the clean air act, it is the air regulators that are legally responsible. >> basically chuck's comment is exactly right. there is a lot of variation from

state to state. certainly, the area agency leadership on the plan -- i think there is. what i would say is surprising is the level of coordination across the three agencies at the state level. and in many states where most of you would probably be surprised that is occurring. i don't -- i think you can point to particular examples where a governor may have charged a particular agency to take the lead, but generally, it is much more collaborative. carol werner: and that is really, really good news. terrific news. go ahead. >> thank you. -- with the natural resources defense council. my question is concerning -- so we have been hearing a lot of messages and we can argue about the reliability of the data or the messages. but we have been hearing a lot of arguments about the threats

to the clean power plan on low income ratepayers, in terms of -- in terms of rising rates. but at the same time, we hear about the compliance options particularly for energy efficiency, there is always an emphasis on the industrial sector. my question for you all, is through the stakeholder process what inputs need to be provided in order to ensure energy efficiency investments actually reach low income consumers so that these threats about rate hikes don't actually pan out? carol werner: i think you all should take a pass at that too. who wants to start? >> i will start. carol werner: ok. >> very good point, and one that i know my members are very sensitive with. i will make two comments. one is, in our report, we don't have a specific chapter on environmental justice issues for

-- or the poor or those adversely affected, but there are examples throughout the chapter, whether it is low -- whether it is weatherization programs or other types of energy efficiency programs that will help the poor, 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 have been working with them. there are 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 act. so, we are sensitive to it and we are doing our best to try to

address these issues head-on. >> well, low income impacts are a major concern of mine -- among the state conditions. clearly, the consumer advocate organizations are raising those questions. it is -- we have supported for years and important way to deal with that problem. carol werner: -- [indiscernible] >> getting back to the innovation question, some of the disruptive technologies that are now being talked about actually could result in shifting of costs from one customer class to another, so that is something that people are looking at to make sure that that doesn't happen. thank you er that the -- the qer that the department of energy -- they would actually provide billions of dollars for low

income -- to reimburse low income people have to pay for more expensive pipeline in the ground to keep emissions down. so i think there are a lot of different pieces to this puzzle, but it is still out there. carol werner: david? david terry: sure. a terrific question. we have several things going on in this area. first and foremost, i mentioned we had case studies we are 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 confirmed -- concerned about affordability. 26 of the offices run weatherization retrofit programs. most of that is federally supported. some of that is utility supported and private sector engagement. hundreds of millions of dollars a year investigated in the retrofit side of that across the country.

those programs are very well monitored, measured, verified and the public dollars are guided very carefully. the benefits to the resident are multiple. certainly, help, comfort safety. but most of their energy bills are supplemented. it lowers those costs. so that is another important piece of that. i would also say there is, you know, anonymous private voluntary efforts that are being captured. i think of habitat for humanity -- they have done over 4000 new efficient homes and guarantees the energy bill to be $24 or less a month for heating and cooling. so those should be rolled up and captured. hopefully there is a way to monetize that and benefit that sector as a part of this so that they don't feel as much of an impact.

>> yeah, just one quick follow-up. as it relates to whether it is -- or other state subsidies, we know those subsidies are being reduced. and when it comes to low income weatherization, and most cases whether it is through the utility or some other program those programs are generally reduced to direct -- so they don't get into retrofits. and, my question is, and again to toss it back to you all because i don't want you to come away with the assumption that enough is being done, so my question again is, how do we ensure that a greater proportion of investment -- that is generated, that is incentivized, actually reaches the sectors so that a state to doesn't -- in its plan for complying -- it

doesn't say, we can reach our energy efficiency target by putting everything in industrial and commercial. so how can we make sure these communities are included in the compliance plan to a rate that is actually fair? >> that is a slightly different question. i think you are correct, we have to make sure there is a table. just back to your point about replacement programs, in the single-family residential area that is not correct. i think that certainly needs to be addressed. with weatherization, we think of it for typically very small multifamily or single residential is very much more comprehensive and there are very strict cost-effective guidelines around it. but i do think certainly looking again, not only to environmental justice issues but the costs, the opportunities and multi-families are enormous. and that is an important enormous -- important one that

we have been looking at. i think it is one we need to tune up and elevate. >> just a quick point. affected constituencies, whether they are regulated or low income or others, are invited to the table. and we have, at the state and local level, public hearings. well, they are invited to the table because if you want to weigh in, knock on the door, call ahead, send in e-mail and set a meeting. they take meetings. and secondly, these processes they get more formal and to the proposal stage at the state level, as you know, there are public hearings in their opportunities to share this information. but your point is well taken and we will continuously try to do better. carol werner: and i must say, i

think based upon everything that we heard here, too that an important thing to remember is that -- that most states also have state consumer utility advocates. it is very, very important to make sure that all of these people are truly engaged in and understand is really important issues that are being raised because it is a terribly important issue. i would just also quickly mention that another approach that is being used by a number of difficult to be two ladies, including rural co-ops and municipal utilities, as well as some investor owned utilities is an approach called -- financing. which is a way to provide a much greater expansion, potentially than what we are able to achieve the the low income weatherization program. and can really bring real savings and multiple benefits to

homes -- to residential dwellings across the country. any last questions or comments? ok. two more? >> hi, matt with the center for climate and security. i know you all focused on state-level issues, but i just want to get your perspective on -- if there are any proposals in the house where the senate that you are looking at that could become elementary to the clean power plan deco obviously, -- plan? both the committees are trying to put together comprehensive energy bills to try and enact something in this congress. is there any specific proposals you are all looking at? whether it is on the energy sufficiency side or any potentially couple entry policies that would help the clean power plan be successful?

carol werner: go ahead, david. david terry: sure. we are very engaged in the process going on in congress in that area from the energy perspective. but all the energy bills, i think there are some 70 now underway at least on the senate side. a number of those i think would complement the clean power plan and the sense that they promote efficiency. most of those are bipartisan in nature. there is the save act any number of other bills that are not intended for compliance with the clean power plan, but they certainly produce some benefits. we have been very interested in -- one of the few energy bills that has been passed this year -- and that is tenant star. a voluntary recognition program for leasehold energy efficiency improvements. if you are holding office space recognition programs put forward

in part by the real estate industry, which i think has great promise. those are the kinds of things we see among those bills that i think would be helpful. there are also some financing measures that i think would be important and contribute to that. >> i agree with david and i will 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 -- in the appropriations bill to help states fund the clean power plan. and the administration has recommended $25 million for assistance for the clean power plan and $15 million in increase for other plants. and what we have said, to make it easier to support is you

don't need to earmark $25 million for the clean power plan, but lump the money together, the $40 million increase, provided to the states, make it -- them accountable for how they spend it, and let them spend it on climate, and for others who don't want to, they have a great use what for other clean air programs. that would be very important. >> we have been looking at some of the amendment legislation that has been offered by, i think, in both houses. and some of that is what they commissions are already doing. it is 111 d, talking about different policies that the states are asked to develop or consider. and some of those would be beneficial to the clean power plan. carol werner: thank you. next question. >> stacy with renewed and sustain consulting.

our question is going back to reliability, affordability sustainability. are they going to support net zero projects and all associated innovative renewable strategies? >> this is where i need my chauffeur. i have no idea. help me understand your question little better. carol werner: could you go to the microphone again? >> -- biomass technology. sorry. and other cities with the epa hasn't regulated the technology yet. so we were curious if it would allow for that kind of support. >> so that is 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 us -- is on the table. we are not constrained by health epa sets the target for each state. the states press a reset button and they are on their own and 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. maybe we can follow-up afterwards and let them decide on their own with your input as to whether or not it makes sense. carol werner: i think it is 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 is very different with regards to the proposed regulation. that all of our speakers have talked about. and that's it really does provide for much more in the way of options, great flexibility in terms of how the plans are put together in terms of the array of options that can be assembled across sectors and put together. but it's really is incumbent upon, i guess, everybody to make sure that as many options as possible are really brought forward to those who are going to be held responsible for making those final decisions. and we should not assume that everybody is going to know what all of those possible ideas might be. and how they could work.

and, so, on that note, i want to thank all of our speakers. i hope that this was helpful to you and please make sure to look at that many of of options and at least that the summary. and please -- at the whole report, because it will make bill feel so much better if you go through that over 400 pages so that they can feel really good that there -- their work is being taken seriously. and i hope that you leave this form with a better understanding . i actually think this is a very exciting time in that we are really seeing kind of the coming together of -- of officials at the state and local level who are really working together to understand each other's perspectives responsibilities, and how best to solve