tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 6, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
back there. >> thank you. the nuclear deal with iran has focused on iran harnessing nuclear power. it has been treated as a issue exclusive from the missile capability, which is essentially a witness test for nuclear ambition. why has the u.s. not addressed deliver your's -- delivery systems for nuclear power? senator cotton: bad policy decisions by the president to rip this is something excluded, partially because he is so determined to get a deal of any kind with iran. we largely excluded any negotiations about listing missiles. they have missiles that can hit any adversary. the only reason they need a ballistic missile with intercontinental range is to hit
the u.s. or at least our allies in europe. or threaten us and deter us. it is of a piece with the four american hostages they are holding right now. it should not have been a part of the negotiation, a prerequisite for the negotiations. >> is there any reason the senate is not addressing this themselves? independent of the executive? doesn't this kind of look like we have our detailed by -- our tail between our legs? it makes us look like we have a lower hand. senator cotton: i believe the senate should insist we not just put the program on the table.
but these are largely in the president's hand. there will be a time for an agreement when there is -- a debate when there is a agreement reached. one reason americans object to ayatollahs having nuclear weapons is because they are not a normal country. normal countries do not take hostages. like iran, has done. they do not threaten the elimination of israel. they do not undermine every adversary they have in the region. they do not sponsor terrorism. japan and germany are nuclear threshold states but nobody loses sleep about that. if and when there is a final agreement, we will have to determine not just the nature of it but the nature of the regime.
i strongly suspect the agreement will not be. >> senator paul -- what you think of his view on the patriot act? senator cotton: i oppose the so-called freedom act that passed. as a member of the intelligence committee, i have oversight. i have visited with the men and women who run the program. there is not a single incident of verified abuse. many of you have value cards from a local pharmacy. your privacy is more admit -- at
risk from that. it is more at risk from the financial data collected. it was however eight article tool in the counterterrorism toolbox. we have deprived agencies of it for no good reason. we have a six month transition. i'm not confident the nsa will create equivalent capability in that time. we will see. when you are dealing with a critical counterterrorist tool to stop another mass casualty attack, idol think we should go on hope or hypothetical. we should have waited until there was a demonstrated capability before we were placed -- replace the telephone program. they were expiring anyway. he simply prolongs the debate.
now they have been dry -- revised. it eliminated a critical counterterrorist capability. to the extent americans believe it did was a result of miss information or misrepresentation. a recent cnn poll showed many americans wanted it we authorized. certainly not the content or personally identifiable information. it assembled the dots which could be connected. connecting them. >> can you speak to the application of an iran deal on the world oil market? with their be a new flood of oil
into the world market, and under ideal market conditions, would lower the price of oil? without be an american interest? -- would that be an american interest? senator cotton: we want to reduce -- it will lead to more oil exports from iran, which would lead to lower oil prices. prices are better for the american consumer, but not at the risk of giving iran hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. i strongly disagree with what the secretary of treasury said a couple weeks ago is that iran will use that money to buy hospitals or schools were roads. they have been able to do that for the past decades. they will count -- they will fund covert arisen -- they will fund terrorism groups like hezbollah. they will resupply the huthis. they will try to kill americans or jews around the world as they have been trying to do for 35
years. >> you had mentioned estonia and latvia and the possibility of a hybrid war there. under the current administration, do you think that would happen under nato agreements, for would be administration back from that? -- administration pull back from that? senator cotton: in estonia and latvia, it would not look like what we war gamed. it would not be 100 tanks rolling across the plains. it would be a combination of cyber warfare and a special forces not wearing russian uniforms, working with russian language allies in estonia and latvia who view it in their economic or personal interests to create the same kind of ongoing conflict in those areas.
that is a new challenge that the u.s. and nato faces. we need to stop it from happening in the first vice. you conduct -- happening in the first place. you conduct naval activities in the baltic sea and the north sea and make it clear to vladimir putin that we will not accept the presence of little green men in a nato ally. >> it is perfectly clear that we don't have a strategy in syria. with that in mind, as a policy maker, have you heard anyone in government seem to have a copy has a strategy? -- have a comprehensive strategy? any thoughts on what we should do? senator cotton: the best thing would be a time machine and go back to 2011 encounter assad's regime. it is a critical source of iranian power in the world. there were not a large number of
jihadist groups operating in 2011. it was a genuine uprising of the syrian people who had been oppressed for decades against an oppressive regime. today, the situation is much worse because of the islamic state in charge of syria as well as al qaeda linked groups. there are still plenty of local syrian who are not extremist who do not to see one of tyrannical regime replaced with a second one. but they are oftentimes under resourced and have taken great casualties. at a minimum, we should be taking the fight to basis -- to isis in iraq and syria. at a minimum, we shouldn't be letting the islamic state control large swaths of syrian
territory, because that base of operations prevents us from effectively prosecuting them in iraq. >> would you support having some kind of safe zone, say on the turkish border? senator cotton: i have supported a no-fly zone in syria. that does not mean necessarily american aircraft in the skies as it did throughout the 1990's with the iraqi no-fly zone. but it does mean stabilizing syrian airfields and destroying their helicopters. that is the one key advantage that the syrian regime still has over its own population. i do think we have to establish some kind of air control in the country, that again, we should have done a long time ago. and i as many others have called for a long time ago. >> a coming and compelling -- a
compelling narrative with that, china outmaneuvered of the nations in order to join this bank. president obama says foreign policy is more nuanced than this. what is your opinion on the aaib in general? senator cotton: china wanted to create a infrastructure bank -- if china wanted to create an interceptor bank in terms of -- infrastructure bank in order to develop asian countries-- many of them are our allies and big trade partners. it would have been america's long-term interest to work with china to shape the rules of that institution, as we have shaped the roles of so many international institutions. are european allies are beginning to do so. i think there is still an opportunity to do so. >> i have a question about the chinese hacking.
north korea hacked a movie studio,-- would you advocate sentence against chinese hacking? it seems to be a repeating action but no punitive action seems to be taken. senator cotton: first we need to be getting all the facts. sometimes cyberattacks are masked and difficult. we have time to assist. we need a mindset shift about cyberattacks that i think we have not yet fully. we have to recognize them as real attacks on the u.s. and our interest. not just when i have into a federal agency, but when they happen to federal citizens -- regular citizens or a company like sony.
whether they are attacking a federal agency or a private institution, it is our job to protect them. just like we don't expect thanks to find -- we don't expect banks to find the criminals that w. these attacks will not be tolerated. >> in iraq, specifically [indiscernible] senator cotton: we shouldn't be collaborating with iranian backed shiite militias.
we learned after the battle of tikrit that we were not doing so. we shouldn't do so, one because it will only become more widespread in iraq, especially if those militias move into an bar. but two, they are ineffective as well. these militias have proven to be a paper tiger. just like iran, they could not defeat saddam hussein where we defeated him in a mere three weeks. these malicious show them -- these militias show them to be paper tigers. we don't need an arbitrary cap on the number of troops. we need to provide more specialized skill sets to the iraqi military. some of those will be near the front lines, like forward air controllers, some of those are highly specified intelligence
advisers or logistics experts. we can work with -- iraqi governments in the region need to be fighting the islamic state, not relying on toothless militias. >> that body has dispatched these malicious to retake the city -- these militias order to retake the city fled invite of is -- in spite of isis fighters. senator cotton: they have repeatedly shown themselves not to be up to the fight against islamic state. >> i am an air force veteran. i want to shift geography a bit. what foreign policy challenges the sea in latin america and africa and what strategies
would you recommend in venezuela, honduras, mexico, and nigeria? there are great problems there. senator cotton: i will start with africa because, since it is closer to eurasia and the hose of islamic terrorism. we face challenges with boko har am. that have been attacks in the past week in response to his promises. we need to work with allied governments like nigeria, or in north america to continue to provide them the support they need to fight our common islamic terrorist enemies. will be -- it may be outright military support, intelligence support, but we cannot fight the islamic state or extremism everywhere directly with americans, we have to work with local americans -- local governments.
in latin america, there are many countries on the verge of being -- [indiscernible] we have a strong interest going back to at least 1823 in the munro doctrine to ensure that the western hemisphere has countries aligned with the u.s. and support of the western way of life. unfortunately a lot of countries there do not. we should not support leftist governments. for example, what president obama has done in cuba by upending 50 years of policy. but rather try to work with governments that are open to the u.s. and are willing to support constitutional reform and democratic people's. sometimes that will involve more military or paramilitary support as it has been in columbia over the past 15 years to great success.
it will be a matter of economic and diplomatic cooperation. >> when i try to make sense of this, is that there are areas where the u.s. and congress are so compelled to be much more adamant, much more involved in actually working on the ground, and the other one is taking much more of a diplomatic approach. how does one pick which ones you are actually going to fit in, like in nigeria? senator cotton: we are not in syria, either. >> but more interest in some countries than others to get involved. senator cotton: the middle east process -- the middle east, for instance has been a volatile region for a long time. we have an interest in its ability in that region. -- in stability in it at region. britain has played a global superpower in the 18th and 19th
century. we have always had an interest in having a stable middle east, because it is at the crossroads of community. that does not mean we have -- that we do not have interest in a stable hemisphere as well, but the threat of war is greater in the middle east. right now they are greater in east asia because of a rising and aggressive china than anything you see in latin america generally. we do have governments there that are naturally, but the same time not as hostile as china or russia. -- that are not friendly. >> since we are in the middle of a political season, what will be the main foreign-policy issues in the coming year, and as a republican with 10,000 people joining the race, are there any people you support more than any other? senator cotton: no, i am not endorsing any candidate and don't expect you anytime soon.
i hope to make security -- national security a key issue in the campaign. in terms of press that we face, they are manifold it is hard to reduce to one. the question will be a nuclear deal with iran, because the question -- the president will need to change course. hillary clinton has implied that she would not. i look at the broader strategic challenges. one is the threat of transnational terrorism, the islamic state and al qaeda. two, rogue states like iran and north korea. three, rising nation state powers like china. and four, declining nation state powers like russia. and the republican nominee for
president i hope and expect will have policies that will reverse the president's policies and put us in a stronger position in all four of those challenges that we face. >> i think the senator forces abuse. -- for his views. thanks for coming. [applause] >> next, a discussion on how states can comply with the new efforts by the epa. and then transgender rights. tomorrow, live coverage of the funeral service for beau biden. it will take place at a roman catholic church. president obama will deliver a
eulogy during the mass. >> this sunday, a conversation with former virginia senator and likely candidate jim webb. he discusses growing up in a military family and his service as a marine in vietnam. politics congress, and why he wants to be president. senator webb: people want leadership they can trust. a record. they can work across the aisle and get things done. i have had to, it is sort of a blessing in my professional life. i have been able to spend about half of my time in public service and half of my time doing other things, working for myself as a sole proprietor.
we need to create a new environment in washington where we have a leaders who can talk across the aisle and solve our problems. >> jim webb, on road to the white house. >> next, a look at options for states in implementing the epa plan. the event was hosted by the environment and energy institute. it is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone.
the environmental and energy institute is proud to bring this event to you. state officials working together to identify options. over the course of the last year, there has been much discussion with regard to the clean power plan. the proposal to greenhouse emissions and the electricity power sector. that has led to many kinds 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. summer, either july or august. i think one of the most important things for us to recognize -- and we will hear much more about that this morning -- is that over the course of the last year 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 states. they have been all about trying to identify a way forward how does one best address this will issue of reducing emissions in
this obviously critical sector of our economy and 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, their cooperation their collaboration, their understanding of each other's perspectives. those three organizations and we will hear from their leaders this morning, are the national association of clean air agency the national association of state energy officials and the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. they each have very important roles in terms of environment and energy, regulatory research, energy insurance responsibility at the state and local level.
therefore, the proposed rule represents another very interesting challenge for these important officials upon whom we rely with regard to looking at so much invitation of federal, state, and local legislation. . -- the proposed epa clean power plan is unique in that this is the first time there has been a proposed rule that has so reliant on looking at what's ability, looking at -- looking at flexibility, looking at plans that cover a whole variety of resources in which to do that. we will hear much more about that the perspectives that comes from these different areas of responsibility by state and local officials.
to kick off our discussion this morning is the executive director of the national association of clean air agency. naca is an organization whose members have the responsibility working at the state and local level as the implication of the clean air act. bill founded this organization and has been with naca since 1980. it is very much -- he is very much the go to person. he has won awards with his work in this area. the association of clean air agency's is an association of state and local air pollution control agencies in 43 states the district of columbia, 116 metropolitan areas across the country, as well as four territories. naca's members have the primary
responsibility under the clean air act of them plummeting our countries -- of them plummeting our country's air pollution control. this is a rather formidable task. to talk about it and the menu of options that naca has put forward and is one more resource in the toolbox for state and local officials. the important driver behind this is the short perspective and looking at how will these policies -- a shared perspective and looking at how these policies drive the expertise and different responsibilities of state and local officials.
bill: thank you for that kind introduction to be here today. when i speak before a group like this, i can't help but think about my brother. my brother is a very famous scientist. in fact, he is so famous he has a show -- he has a chauffeur that takes into all of his speaking engagements. he went to an audience not unlike this to talk about climate change. he had been this speech many times. he said to his chauffeur, 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 sit back and read a newspaper, and they will not be the wiser. joey said, this is great. my brother said joe, under no circumstances should you ask for questions, because if you do, they will find out you are a fraud. joe was really excited about this. he gave them the 10 pages of
speech. he gave a wonderful speech, got a standing ovation and was feeling so cocky that he did the unforgivable -- he asked for questions. well, wouldn't you know? someone in the first row asked the most public in question one could imagine. -- the most complicated question one could imagine. he said, mister, that was a really stupid question. that question was so civil minded that i will have my chauffeur, who was sitting in the back, answer. [laughter] so if there is anyone here, including in the front row that asks a question, i have my team with me. [laughter] as carol said, we are a association of state and local lucian control agencies. -- pollution control agencies. i will make a few observations, give you context to president
obama's clean power act, talk about implementation issues that state and local agencies are experiencing, and then talk about some of the mentation tools that -- some of the implementation tools that we will be publishing recently and after the rule is promulgated then close with observations after discussing our relationship with the two associations that carol mentioned. we are an association of state and local air pollution control agencies. our office is on the other side of the capital. we have been there since 1980. we have 41 states, hundred 16 of 117 -- 116 of 117 air control agencies. two things about state and local air pollution control agencies. on page one of the clean air act, it gives state and local air agencies the "primary
responsibility of imaging our nations laws." our mission is to clean up the air into increment the federal clean air act -- implement the federal clean air act of the state and local level. epa's clean power plan, we are the ones that will be developing plans, submitting the plans, and responsible for incrementing the plans. the responsibility falls on us, even though we will be working very closely with the utility commissioners, energy officials and many other stakeholders. a couple general observations just to move things along. first, i represent the most state and local air pollution control agency in the country. i am not stupid. we understand the politics that are going on in the states and communities.
there are governors who are not as enamored with this program as others. there are numbers of congress who are actively fighting this. perhaps one of the most important things i want you to understand from our perspective -- until or unless this program curtailed in any manner, this is the law. our folks are going to be implementing this program as effectively as we can and does 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. with regard to some of the rhetoric and threats of litigation -- this is a proposal. this is not a final rule. while much of the criticism against this program is focused on some very legitimate issues, it is a proposal, and we expect some of those concerns will be
ameliorated when the rule is finalized. second, i will predict with certainty that there will be some hiccups, some bumps at the outset of imitation. this is not new. no one should be worried about this. this is something that goes along with the territory especially in implement in the clean air act. we saw this with vehicle emissions testing programs gasoline and other programs. we expected here. we will not panic, and stakeholders should enough as well. we will work through these issues. finally, last observation -- many of you are congressional offices and can help immensely in making this program work, should your bosses wanted to work. there are authorizing provisions in the clean air act under section 105 that provides grants to state and local agencies to intimate clean-air programs. -- to implement clean-air
programs. the president recommended a significant increase in grants. congress will be marking up the epa budget neeek. i hope you will take a close look at that. epa's clean power plan is being derived from the existing clean air act. it is safe to say that it opponents of reducing greenhouse gases have their way, they would prefer that are legislation. i think even a regulated community would prefer federal legislation. but we will not see federal legislation in this congress. and i don't know about the next congress. this is exactly why epa has used existing authority under the clean air act. there are two provisions that are important for you to understand. there is a provision under section 111-b that requires epa
to regulate new and modified reconstruction powerplants, and rules have been proposed. there is a provision under 111-d that addresses the regulation of existing power plants. it is that section under 111-b that we are talking about today. but importantly, unless epa is successful in issuing rules for section 111-b 111-d cannot move forward. the things are intertwined and depend on the other. epa's clean power plan-- it includes very significant reductions. you look at that and think, that is 15 years or so for utilities to comply. another part of this is that epa
has 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 in 2020, 10 years before the final deadline. this has been the core of a lot of criticism of this proposal. that is why i said at the outset that we shouldn't panic about a proposal we should be thoughtful about what happened after finalization. i am pretty sure that this cliff, this interim deadline, will be changed when the epa finalizes its role. another very important part of this is that each state gets in
emissions target goal under the clean power plan. every state's goal will be different, and it will be a rate based goal which can be translated into a massive waste equation. -- mass base euqation. -- mass base equation. epa looked at four general building blocks, listed as 1 2 3, and 4. the first is how can we improve efficiencies? the second, how can we move to cleaner generating sources? third,-we build low emitting energy sources? and finally, how can we pursue demand-side energy efficiency? there is a common denominator which is doing things better and more efficiently. one of the most important things i will leave you with today is
understanding how epa has set states target. the states are fully flexible and able to decide on their own which strategy whether it is in any of the four building blocks were not, it can include in its plan. the states are not bound by picking strategies out of these four building blocks, they can pick anything they find it is appropriate so long as it passes muster with epa. here are the timelines for submitting plans. this rule will be finalized likely in august. the state will have little over a year to develop their plan that they must submit to the epa for approval or negotiation. if the state is having trouble and many will find this challenging, states will be given an additional year to submit their plan. if the state decides, in a lot of states are thinking of this,
to engage with other states in more of a multistate program the state will have an additional year. the submittal of plans by state and local regulatory agencies will take from 1-3 years beginning from this august. i would love to tell you that states are the most of their in developing a plan. -- are almost there in developing a plan. but that is ludicrous, because we haven't seen a final rule. but it has been an unprecedented effort in terms of the level expended -- energy expended in the year and a half proceeding this rule, where our members have been meeting with the most every possible constituency in their states. with their state utility nlg -- utility and energy counterpart trying to understand the confidences and impact of this rule. this is unlike any rule we have
ever implemented. this is not your typical epa rule that state and local agencies adopt. we are looking at activities and processes and stakeholders that have never really been effective or engaged much in the implantation under the clean air act. there are two basic questions that states will be asking and addressing. the steps to the meat of the presentation. what strategies not only included in the four building blocks, but beyond, should states consider in meeting their target and compliance plan obligations? i will be talking in a second about the many options identified, anything we could possibly think of. the second, equally important strategy, is once you identify a strategy that strategy has to
be incorporated into a plan, it has to interest for civility verification -- it has to interest enforceability. it has to meet each of the 11 criteria that epa set out in its rule to let states know what is acceptable to the agency. if we do not demonstrate to epa satisfaction that our plan passes musters they will reject that, and there are consequences to that. we published this two weeks ago. 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.
-- or 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 coal 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: thank you, carol. i appreciate the introduction. 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.
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 it is undergoing dramatic change. dramatic improvements in many sect errors. leds and so forth for lighting. but also emerging building technologies. you would be amazed to know 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. 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 -- down 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? -- format. 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. -- on 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 -- who owns the emissions reduction? 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
one to 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 -- regulatory 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
regulatory 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. [laughter] 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 -- 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 -- paper 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. -- 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 i wanted to make a broader point, a couple points. the common denominator of the two points i want to make is there are
opportunities that this for presents -- that this presents. there are certainly costs, 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. 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. -- that was smart of them. in the 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: great. thanks very much, bill. are there 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. -- electricity loads 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 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 h. -- 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. 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 wethat enough is being done. and so my question again is, how do we ensure that a greater proportion of investment that is generation and incentivized coming from the clean power plant will actually reach the sectors. that the state does it in its plan for compliance. that we can reach our energy target and putting everything in industrial or commercial. we want to make sure that these communities are at the table and included in the compliance plan to a rate that is actually fair. >> a slightly different question and i think you are correct, we
have to make sure that they are at the table. bacteria point that there are replacement programs, it is not correct. and multi family programs, it might be true. it certainly needs to be addressed. and weatherization, it is much more comprehensive. there are cost-effectiveness things about it. certainly working not just to environmental justice issues, but i think from a low hanging fruit perspective, that is an important one that we have been working on. i know your organization has as well. i think it is one that we need to tune up and elevate. >> a quick point.
people affected, low income or others, they are invited to the table. if you want to weigh in, set up a meeting. these processes, when they get more formal and get to the proposal stage at the state level, there are public hearings and opportunities to share this information. we will continuously try to do better. >> i must say that based upon every thing we've heard here, an important thing to remember, most states have state consumer utility advocates. it is very important to make sure that all of these people are truly engaged and understand
these really important issues that are being raised. by a number of different kinds of utilities including world collapse and municipal utilities , it is a whole approach financing for energy efficiency retrofit. it is a way to provide a much greater expansion, potentially then what we are able to achieve through the low income weatherization program. and it can bring savings and multiple benefits to residential dwellings across the country. any last questions or comments? two more? >> i know you focus on state issues more than on the hill
here. is there any proposal in the house or the senate that you're looking at that could be complement or he to the power -- complementary to the power plan? the natural resources committee are trying to put together comprehensive energy bills to try to an act something. if it is on the energy efficiency side, and a potentially come to mentor a policies -- complementary policies. >> we are very engaged on the process. all the energy bills i think there are 70 now underway on the senate side.
a number of those promote efficiency. most of those are bipartisan. they are not intended for compliance with the power plan but they certainly produce benefits. one thing we have been very interested in, one of the few energy bills in the past, tenet star. something the energy office supported, a voluntary recognition program. a recognition program that has great promise. these are the kind of things that we see that i think are important.
>> i will repeat what i said earlier that one of the most important legislative actions that can be taken over the next couple of months is to provide funding in the appropriations bill under the epa budget to help states fund the clean power plan. the administration has recommended $25 million for assistance for the clean power plan, a $15 million increase. we make it easier to support. you don't need to care mark $25 million for the clean power plan. but lump the money together and provide it to the states. it make them accountable for how they spend it. and for those that can spend it on climate, let them do so. they have a great use for it.
that would be very important. >> we have been looking at some of the amendment legislation that has been offered in both houses. some of that is consistent with what state commissions are already doing. it is different, talking about different policies that the states are asked to develop or consider. some of those would be beneficial i think to the clean power. >> our question is going back to reliability, affordability sustainability. >> this is were i need my chauffeur.
i have no idea. let me understand your question a little better. >> sorry. other cities where the epa has not regulated the technology yet , we were curious if it's going to allow for that kind of support. >> that is actually a good question, to make a broader point. if any of you have any viable compliance option that they think could help the state or local agency, everything is on the table. that is the point i was making earlier. we are not constrained by how the epa sets the targets for each state.
the state's pressing the reset button and they are on their own and coming up with the array of measures that could be included. if you think yours is a viable one, then 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. >> people know about every possible compliance strategy. the approach that may work, it strikes me with regard to the proposed regulation that all of the speakers have talked about
it. it provides more with flexibility and how the plans are put together in terms of the array of options. it can be assembled and put together. it really is incumbent on everybody to make sure that we have as many options as possible brought forward making the final decisions. and we don't know what those possible ideas might be. on that note, i want to thank all of our speakers. i hope this was helpful. please be sure to look at that manual of options. at least at the summary that was outside.
over 400 pages, they can feel really good that their work is being taken seriously. a better understanding of why i think this is a very exciting time. it is central in how best to solve problems that are really going to make sense for their state. join me in thanking our wonderful panel. [applause] >> the c-span cities tour is
learning about the history and literarily life of lincoln nebraska. >> he was given almost every literary award possible before she died except for the nobel prize. she was known for some of her masterpieces like the professor's house, the lost lady and other others. in 1943, she made it will with restrictions which one of which she didn't want her letters to be published or quoted. she left behind 3000 letters that we know about now. the biggest collections are in nebraska. she said she left it to the uncontrolled discretion of her executors and trustee to decide whether or not to enforce that. they believe as educational organizations along to our
shared heritage and we should know more about her. >> an important historical figure in nebraska was solomon butcher. >> he was a photographer in western nebraska. he took photos from about 1887 until the early 1890's of homesteaders and was able to tell the story of the development in american history. i'm going to show you one of my favorite images of the collection. it is a photograph of the sisters. ist is four sisters who took the homestead claim. it was the first time that women could own land on their own.
you do not belong to their husbands. it did not belong to their fathers. single women could own their own land. that was a really big deal with the homestead act. each sister, each of the sisters took a homestead near their father's land. they each built a small house on the homestead which is part of the homestead act. and, they would take turns staying at each other's house and working on their farm. the sisters really pulled together and made it in nebraska. >> watch ofall the events on book tv and on american history tv on c-span3. >> a discussion about the efforts of the transgender community to push for equal
rights and legal protections. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is mara keisling . good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you very much. we have heard a lot about the term transgender this week. what is technically a transgender person? guest: a transgender person is somebody whose identity, how they express the internal senses , is different than what you would expect from somebody based on what the doctor said when he slept them on the behind when their firstborn. host: how many are in the united dates? guest: we don't know for sure, we think about one million. host: one of the aspects of your organization is dealing with the quality issues. when it comes to a list of issues of equality for
transgender people, what are they? guest: discrimination, violence. we have about a transgender person per month murdered in the united states just for being transgendered. job discrimination, access to health care, access to id documents that shows we really are so that you don't get hassled or hurt when you have to produce id. host: so talk a little bit about more about that. what do you mean about that? guest: well, most people take their drivers license for granted. the gender marker fits who they appear to be. for trans people, it has been harder to get id who matches who they are. since 9/11, it is so much more important to have a good idea in the united states. and consisted from one form of id to another. host: at a goes further than drivers licenses? guest: passports, birth
certificates, government ids military discharge papers, a lot of different ids. thinks it wouldn't think about. medicare cards have a gender marker on them. host: what protection specifically applies to the transgender person? guest: more and more, we are getting -- we are hearing courts interpret sex discrimination laws to say that if you discriminate against a transgender person, it is because of their sex. you don't think they are the right kind of man or right can of woman. so we believe it is legal to discriminate against trans people. i think we have a little more work legislatively and administratively to do and litigation wise to do before that is actually cemented in your -- in. host: what is happening on the state and local levels tackle -- levels? guest: