tv Energy Secretary Rick Perry Others Discuss U.S. Electric Grid CSPAN March 30, 2019 2:51am-4:34am EDT
ok, we will kick things off. left, congressman larry mershon, it represents indiana's eighth congressional district, is aongressman bush on former cardiothoracic surgeon and a member of the federal reserve. he came to congress in 2011 and serves on the house committee of energy and commerce. at the end, we have governor bevin's, we are not related, our names are spelled differently though they are pronounced the same. he is the 62nd of of kentucky, former businessman and kept in serving in the u.s. army. gentlemen, thank you all for being here and we appreciate you taking the time. i would like to start the onversation with a baseline the grid itself. in 2017, the american society of
civil engineers gave the entire u.s. energy infrastructure a d+, a barely passing grade. bad, and howthat would you grade our current situation with the grade and the u.s. energy infrastructure. >> as an engineer, i would have to give it a d+. [laughter] i would agree with that. it is something that is manageable. i think what we can do is we have to understand how we got here. how do we get to this point? is it all about cheap gas that us in jeopardy? how do we get to this point? i think it is a lot of cheap gas and also overregulation from the government. their overreach. aboutd like to talk more the gas component of it, let
simply, if we would focus more on the regulation part of it in congress and what we can do to capture that co2, because that is what it is all about. that is what the environmentalists are crazy about. why don't we figure it out? it has been an elusive. if we could do that, i believe in my heart that we would be coal andaintain our maybe increase that. but what we need to understand carbon.the effect is of one of the things you have been talking about here, we have a pretty short time period on this, is to look at what is going on around the world. decarbonizeally and make the environment half the, but he will understand on the street that unless china and india do their part and the rest of the world, miami will still be underwater at the end of the
century, philadelphia and boston will be in trouble. find a way to engage the rest of the world in this debate so we can back off some of this pressure, because if we decarbonize, what will be the effect on the american economy, it will be devastating. innovation. for that is what i want to do. that is what we are focusing on, energyrgy committee, the subcommittee, and of the environmental subcommittee, finding ways that we can attack this issue, because if it is all about capturing carbon, let us put the money into it so that we can capture it, because once we do that, we remove the impediment. that. do we have all the capabilities of doing that ourselves. >> i will focus on the physical part of our infrastructure. theave a energy mix debate,
source where the energy is coming from. that is one part of the debate david touched on. but we also have physical issues with our infrastructure, i think that is what you were alluding to. we have transmission lines across the country that need improved. we have five lane and deficits that need to be improved, and then, not only the physical part, but then, you have the cyber park of our national energy grid. .he vulnerabilities there from a federal perspective, i see that as a national security issue. cybere both physical and challenges in our energy grid that need to be improved. then, think the energy mix debate is another part of the debate, but as far as the physical infrastructure, we do have some challenges. at the federal level it is our role to help assist the states
and the rest of the country, not just the area we represent, in how we meet those challenges. >> governor? >> i would say not only would i agree with that assessment, that i am more concerned about what the next grade is going to be. , i willave gotten a d+ not disagree with that, but i don't think -- i think they are at best copying other people's notes. they are not necessarily good notes. and i think our next grade is likely to be significantly worse. the great it sells, think about, it is not just a simple function of a class we are taking, it is a function of one or these lights that we are staring into, that we want our bedrooms, whether they come on or not. think about what is really at stake. it is caused. cyber security -- it is cost. cyber security is incredibly
important. people have no idea how vulnerable our grid truly is. but that aside, the vulnerability of it is little whole purpose we are having this conversation. we run a tremendous risk in america of not having the ability to provide the energy that we as a society are demanding. we have seen elements of this. if you remember in 2003, when we had this rolling blackouts,/brownouts, rolling across america from the west to the east coast, starting from the cleveland market and moving across, that was possible. we had a remedy for that. ts of coal power that could have served then that is
the longer there. so it is reliability more than anything else. i think we are oblivious to the us.ntial document facing in 2050, where in the world, to your point, you look at what the rest of the world is doing -- where in the world are they doing new fossil fuels, specifically coal-fired power plants? where? in the greenest, most innovative, most forward thinking continent on earth, europe. why are they building 18 coal-fired power plants in europe? half of them in germany? because in 2015 when they had rolling brownouts because they winter, andly cold since 70% of them are dependent om, which is from russia, which is why they thaned ukraine and crimea,
joseph about that, but now as a backstop, to make sure the lights stay at the end of the day, we want the light and the heat to come on and we need to be more thoughtful about what the future looks like. and i want to springboard off of what the governor said about the energy source debate and i think the europeans did get ahead of themselves on renewable and realize the reliability of their power sources were not reliable. that's why i introduced a tax credit to assist with existing power plants, help them use money to getting compliance with so they wouldn't shut down. that is the concern. he lose more of your coal-fired power plants across the country and you will have significant problems. that and in this
congress just to level the playing field with everyone. during the most recent polar vortex, what is the evidence we need to be concerned about this. some northern states including michigan and others were told to turn their thermostats down 65 degrees -- 63. even worse than i thought, governor. but why is that? they needed to avoid brown outs. we had had so many of our baseload energy power plants taken off-line. >> when working on that. the polar vortex -- when most of us were young, they called that a cold snap. this area which included michigan is now in an area mid-continent independent operators, a
collection of 15 states and these are utilities. these were put in place after 2003 when this thing i alluded to had occurred. to haveade as a way these independent operators that would prevent a rolling collapse of the grid. what is interesting is during this polar vortex's -- vortex, the three days it happened this year, when you look at what cole ontributes nationally average to our electrical grid .n america, it is 27.4% that is what contributes on average. other renewables, new true -- nuclear, hydro, wind, contribute the other two thirds of it here is what is interesting. when there is no wind and when there is no solar, which often happens when it is particularly cold in the latter case, those in the mico region were not only
asking people to turn thermostats down, they were idling major production plants for periods of time because they didn't want to consume all the power. here is what crazy. during that time, you see a peak in other sources of energy. what is the only source you can go to on-demand? because it is the only one that can be stored on-site or anywhere, for that matter. until we get to better energy storage, you cannot go and turn up the sun. you cannot turn up the wind. the only source you can go to for more on demand happens to be coal. whether people like it or not is relevant -- is irrelevant if you want electricity. al -- it went from 27.1% to 61% in that region.
heaven help us had that been 13 days or 30 days instead of three. again, there are 23,000 megawatts you are now than there were 15 years ago. you have a polar vortex that lasts more than three days and you have no more ability to go to something you can store we are screwed. and we will see something that makes 2003 look like child's play by comparison. he underscores the problem because we are seeing more and more coal-fired power plants, the video is at 40% we have lost since 2010. wall street doesn't want to fund another coal-fired power plant. the aging fleet we have, we have got to find a way to keep our fleet existing, extend it or add to it. otherwise when we have another polar vortex, doe came out with
said if we england don't start building more reliable coal-fired power plants we are going to have more brown outs across this country and this last one we had was relatively short. thate were put on notice maybe we will be ok, but what about the one in 2014? they have already notified us and we had a briefing in the energy committee that during the 2014 polar vortex, we came within five minutes of a major brown out on the east coast. the only thing that separated us was 500 megawatts from a power plant. is a relatively small plant. that was in 2014. those 500 megawatt plants are gone now. when we have a major polar
vortex again hit for more than three days, a week to two weeks, we will be in jeopardy. that's why i go back to my fundamental, how are we going to save our power plant? how are we going to get wall street to back off so they will fund new plans? where are we going to find the new to be able to create coal-fired power plants? thatre we going to sell technology overseas because as long as we can continue to fight in the united states, but india and china are going to continue theyrn the coal the way have. i have been to the power plants in both those countries. to see how cavalier they are putting it out, we will be in jeopardy. -- we will have cleaner air initially, but the rest of the world is going to continue to contaminate and we will have the flooding and the droughts and all the other problems
associated. we've got to find a way to get our coal power plants back. we do that through innovation. we did it last year, but with 45 q. we got it so we can do the carbon capture and sequestration process. we need 48. -- 48a. we need a net power process. thated research into because we know we have got problems with that in the generation of oxygen and the absorption of co2. i could go on. i love talking power plants but we've got to find the right formats of where we are going to get it to keep coal in the mix because the others because our right. of nationaler security and we have to make sure we address it in that fashion and not allow the environmentalists and government regulation to continue to shut down and put pressure on our
coal-fired power plants. we've got to get wall street to fund our pr plants again -- power plants again. theou are a member on subcommittee on energy in-house. you are responsible for setting federal energy policy. you mentioned cyber. mix,ere talking about the which as governor bevin mentioned, solar is 30, nuclear is 20, renewable is 17 and rising. what is our federal energy policy? what do you expect the mix to be like going forward? the don't think we have had federally coordinator policy. personally think the marketplace ultimately, if allowed to do so, in different regions and all our regions are different brian from and where the government from is completely different than
coastal regions. if you allow the market to work and allow the states to do -- address the situation in the region, that is the direction i think we should go. at the national level, we do have a role, particularly in the grade stabilization as it relates to the cyber issue because we have more work -- resources to address that across the world and what our national security standpoint is, but i the extent that we can allow the market to work and have appropriate and fair regulatory climate here in washington, d.c. is the best approach. that thes up here know source of energy is transitioning toward renewables and slightly away from some of our fossil fuels, but the reality is if we force that by
make usings that don't have a level playing field, you will get something that you don't want, which is what the europeans did. they got ahead of themselves. a right -- think like touch at the federal level is the way to go. >>, should the federal government be doing and how much should the states be doing? scissors cutting through red tape goes well at any government level. too much regulation on any level hampers the market's ability to do what is best. there is a role and a purpose for regulation, not the least of which is in this area because there is output affecting air and water quality and things of this sort that we have got to be very good stewards of. but whenon about that,
we suffocate an industry due to an overabundance of regulations that don't have any scientific justification or any proof of concept whatsoever, it puts a shocking to the people in wall street and others who would invest because they are not sure if they are going to be suffocated, what kind of her turn are they going to get on their investment? money goes where money is welcome, capital goes where it is welcome and where there is certainty. there is a cost to all this when you suffocate with regulation. i want to touch on something you mentioned. you mentioned the transition toward renewables. he said 17% and rising. is the market driving that or are you subsidizing? being subsidized. it is not doing it on itself. , this doesn'tand have anything to do with whether you like solar more than coal or
coal more than wind or wind more than nuclear. it is irrelevant what we think would be ideal for the source of in fact, what we think is ideal does not have the capacity to do what we want, which is turn the lights on, turn the air on, power the production of making goods in america. at the end of the day, reliability, reliability. secretary challenge rick perry on this later today. he and i talked about this at length. we need an energy plan for america, a forward thinking energy plan because to your point, we don't really have a comprehensive one. we have never really thought about this and the final thing i'll say on this is again, this polar vortex, things like cold are not a good option with the
abundance of gas we have as long as gas remains at three dollars or less. it isdollars or less and the cheapest alternative, but two things about it. it has to be transported which means it can be disrupted and whether it is done by piracy or by terrorism or done by accident, disruption can happen. you can store it. you have to pipe it. the worst you can do is blow it up and you end up with piles of smaller pieces. you can't ignite it until you want to. it can be stored. gas during the polar vortex went from less than three dollars to over $4.50. in 2018, there was a slight disruption and gas went up to seven dollars. trust me, if you don't have the coal-fired power plants to run to, you won't have an alternative but to be paying
$4.50, seven dollars, whatever the market will bear and you still want have enough of it. about all ofalk the above, all of the above truly needs to be all of the above so we can have reliability more than anything else. >> we are coming to the end of our time here and i guess this will be a final question, which two,rticularly for you energy has become a partisan issue and we just saw the green new deal, all the rage in congress. didn't get votes in the senate, but is there enough common for somethingress practical to be done, whether that is infrastructure, investment in modernizing the grid, or something else? what would it look like? is there enough common ground to
get something done and what would that be? >> yes, there is common ground. we will be able to do that. i've been working for some time -- in a bipartisan fashion. is a rating to see how you are doing in a bipartisan fashion and i am rated the 11th most bipartisan member of congress. over my nine years, i have worked across the aisle to develop those and we are in the process of -- part of it will be the policy. what should america's policy be? moree trying to craft research and animation because america deserves and should have that leadership globally when it comes to energy. we have done it in space, health care. why don't we recapture the mantle of leadership in energy? i think we will focus on innovation because if we can do it as successful and innovation
policy that creates a pathway to be able to capture carbon and use coal, i think we will be about the stabilize the grid because that is where we are all going. we can continue this threat by eliminating it, but what of the research? keep in mind, we are running on $740 million on fossil fuels research and metal. under the bush and ministration, it was over $900 million. there has been a pullback on research and fossil fuels. we need to restore that focus again and be leaders, not followers. we are going to be focused on that a lot in a bipartisan fashion. anding money into research what cycles we can use to create electricity using fossil fuels. >> i'll be brief but i think there is opportunity to work in a bipartisan way. you do have some people who are
going to be against fossil fuels . the green new deal people, i'll -- i agreest people with david, most want to look at it holistic and want to try to make sure we continue to use our natural resources and that is where innovation and technology comes into play. the other area, on the cyber safety of our national grade -- grid, there is room to make that work. i would say as someone who does not work in this town regularly, i am a bit skeptical. i also want to believe you are right about this bipartisan potential. on the green new deal, it is ironic that not only do we need -- the whole thing is preposterous. those kind of ideas should be
disregarded. at the end of the day, this is what we need to think about, regardless of what we think about energy sources and what we would like it to be. we are all going to pay for it and if the federal government makes policies that subsidizes things that don't have the people to ability -- have the ability to cash flow themselves. and demand is too great, they will not hold up and the theory will go out the window along with your ability to turn the lights on and then there will be outrage, but there won't be anything that can be done about it. so before that happens -- and again, we've come within minutes of that happening in recent years and we are exacerbating the problem. until we come up with a great reliability, security, that allows us to have certainty, we are going to be in trouble and at the end of the day, everyone watching and everyone in america will pay more. look at the energy rates in other industrialized places around the world. they are significantly higher. there is a reason if you travel
to europe, why none of the buildings are air-conditioned in the summertime, which i'm sure you've noticed. we have the ability to have an alternative to that, we just need to be smart. we need to get in front of it. namelow from kentucky, his was abraham lincoln, he said good things may come to those who wait, but only the things left behind by those who hustle. it relates to energy research and other things, we need to hustle and get out in front of this problem before it catches up to us. >> gentlemen, thank you again for your time this morning. we appreciate your insight. let's have a round of applause. [applause] host: we are going to take a one-minute break wildly get our next panel ready to go. -- while we get our next panel ready to go.
>> i like to invite my panel up to the stage. theo my direct left, executive director of the carbon management and energy sustainability group at the university of houston. to his left, the senior economist at the department of energy's national energy laboratory, and to the far left, the principal at coal energy ventures. thank you for joining today. we appreciate it. we will chart -- start with you, chuck. these give us your take on grid access, affordability, and diversity and where we are and where we can go from here? >> the question.
let me take it in pieces. i served in the obama administration. ran on a strategy of all of the above. i think we all remember that carried the all of the above energy strategy. i don't know that that continued in the second term, i wasn't start of the second term. the eye on the ball in terms of what was important shifted. + ratingd about the d the great just received. a lot of that is largely the result of that. at the end of the day, one thing is clear. the marketplace globally is weaking loudly, and that is, want to have a lower carbon footprint. we want lower carbon in our
future. at the same time, we also recognize that we are going to be growing demands for energy. you have this diversion occurring between meeting the needs of increased energy and the requirements of that, and the fact that people want a lower carbon future. i've said this several times and it is not a new quote from me. we need to keep our eye on the ball. it is not a race that we are in right now to deploy renewables. it is a race to have a lower carbon future. those are two different things. ways at two different looking at the world. the conversation that preceded us here about the evolution of technology and the impact to coal and coal-fired power plants and any fossil fueled power
plants is essential to the conversation. we will need fossil fueled power. we will need it, we will demand it, and it is a global issue, but it is not a race to eliminate those facilities. to transform to be able to lower those omissions. peter, what are the big issues top of mind to you right now? peter: the laboratory at which i work does engage in the kinds of research that the congressman and the governor and mr. mcconnell had discussed about a low carbon future, but in the is concerneddoe mightily about the reliability and resilience of the system. of the grid, we are really talking about electricity system, not just the cost of ellen the city from any
specific and kind of generation. case in point, the gentleman discussing the polar vortex or any such weather event in northeast and northern part of the country. the national gas system was built to fuel the space heating demand of the residential, commercial, industrial sectors. only recently in the last decade increase ine natural gas generation also called upon that system. in the winter, there is a huge surge in space heating demand from homes and businesses. 50 acan range from 20 to day. gas is no of natural longer available to the power generation fleet in those kinds of events. that is why gas prices can escalate and if you are
constrained in your pipeline distribution, if you have no access to additional gas storage, then prices will go up in the bomb cycle of last winter -- not this, but the winter before. new england was within a couple of days of running a full backup. coalm, 30 gigawatts of were brought in to make up for risen,t that gas had which indicates the inability to deliver the gas. it wasn't available and they had to run coal plants. in about two months ago, the governor talked about mico. neighbor each have a lot of wind and natural gas.
wind produced 47% at peak. two days later, it was 11%. mico, produced 17% on january 18 from wind. when it waser, -20, it had 3% from wind. between the two organizations, that is 22 gigawatts of wind that disappeared from the system. which means you have to have an equivalent amount of backup generation. in this case, it was coal and natural gas. coal was at the high rate of utilization and gas ramped up. batteriest to have back that up, fueled only by renewable energy, then you need to multiply the amount of duration of the storage. storage only lasts for hours,
you need six times the gigawatts to back up that generation. two --ours, 12 hours eight hours, 3, 12 hours to. is not builtcture for the system as it is evolving and it is shared so these events only happen once in a while. who wants to pay for that? host: i want to give you a chance to respond to both of their statements but i want you about theesponse state level and what you are seeing, what you think are good examples. >> thank you very much. i would like to discuss a little the coal plant retirement occurring and why it is occurring. so people get a better understanding as to why that has occurred. there are about five different regions -- reasons they intersect along the way. the five reasons people should keep in mind, over the last
decade, we basically had flat electricity demand. prior to that period and when i started my career decades ago, we used to forecast electricity growth demand on gmt. it has been flat for a variety of reasons. one is loss of some activity and efficiency issues -- efficiency improvements. which weissue discussed earlier was the fact that there have been so many inulations, particularly the past administration on coal-fired power plants that were challenging. the taxissue relates to production tax credits are only earned when power generates. where itny situations
is entered into the grid at zero or negative pricing and coal-fired power plants must operate at a minimum load so if you are competing with negative prices are being set by negative pricing, you incur significant losses, which is affecting the economic aspects of coal-fired power plant. prices --tion tax credits reduce the pricing. for gas, one of the issues related to gases there is no question growth in jail has outpaced the increased demand for natural gas. that is a timing issue, but in the meantime, because there are no storage options for natural gas and as we wait for the market to develop additional pipeline to mexico and additional activities, gas producers have to discount the price of gas to displace coal in dispatch.
there was a debate how much that will continue once the call option is no longer available and therefore the gas price can no longer be set to displace the coal generation. some may beissue familiar with and that is utility earnings. what happens is utility's earn -- generate earnings through investment in capital through dollars in the ground. without the electricity demand growth, what utilities are facing are declining earnings. analyses isd in our a large motivation to prematurely retire coal plants is basically to allow utilities to replace their investments in inl with new investments renewables as a vehicle for maintaining the earnings growth. model was part of the regulatory compact.
be question is, should we moving forward and we are hearing about this in a number of jurisdictions. the concern about the utility motivation is you have a coal fleet that has not fully depreciated and once you're a place that generation with renewable generation, the utilities will not only be earning money on their old coal fleet, but on new. retail rates -- even industrial rates to be heldng jurisdictions should be. host: welcome back to the state question later. chuck: i wanted to reflect on the situation, that winter two years ago in massachusetts and how the whole situation is rectified and part of that rectification occurred because we were able to luckily receive
three major loads of lng from our favorite country, russia. it really saved the northeast during the period of time. that story isn't wildly not -- widely known or talked about in the northeast but it is remarkable to me as we talk about energy, security, things like that. so essentiale that to the saving of the situation. host: can you tell us a little about, the new technology at the center of what we are thinking about for the future? tell us about houston and what that means for where we are? chuck: carbon management often as anooked at environmental challenge we are all facing and it is, but it is a marketplace dynamic. it is occurring around the world, global companies are seeing this and responding to it. center,anagement at our the philosophy we are working
with is if you are going to manage carbon, it has to be accretive to the firms doing the carbon managing. how do you do that? it is more than just the table stakes or the future you want to create. where you areace able to create competitive advantage through carbon management. you can actually competitively differentiate yourself. a great example. in houston, not far from where our university is, the university of houston is the parish plant, the nry. -- nrg. they are producing 200 megawatts 4-7.arbon free power 20 that is an interesting concept because most carbon free power is in 20 47 so now, you've got a isduct that in a way
competitively differentiated and advantaged over a non-reliable source such as a renewable source, so the concepts we are working with our to create carbon management opportunities through carbon capturing utilization and storage. the congressman mention 45 q, some of the advancements in that area. in a similar way of advancing efficiency, productivity, in a manner which not only will it affect our country and the way the abilityrk, but to take that technology overseas to create jobs, to continue to have a pipeline of technology around the world that the united states can benefit from. an unusual concept at all. it is what we have been founded on. we are a technology leader around the world. i think that is what the rest of the world is looking for from
us. that technology leadership. for us to look at it parochial isis short -- parochially shortsighted. our management center looks at it in the same way, developing technologies useful here at home and if you have your interests in solving the climate story , it has to be one that looks to china and india and indonesia and all the places around the world where coal will continue to be robust. it is undeniable it is occurring. everyone has seen the statistics. there is no reason to shed light where there is no darkness. it, andvious, we know that's the reason we need to continue to invest in the. that is what we are doing. host: each of you brought up the global opportunity in the discussions. do you want to weigh in on that piece and peter, you, as well? ther: it is the case that
growth in coal generation is primarily in asia and in southeast asia. also in asia is the growth in lng, natural gas generation fueled by lng. we have an interest in making sure that the abundant hydrocarbon posture of the united states has come to pass with the advent of shale drilling. it is spread out to our allies and friends across the world. that takes the form of lng exports and coal exports. should lng exports rise to an appreciable level in conjunction naturalnding -- sending gas from south texas to mexico, we will be exporting quite a bit of natural gas will the world. you will find that the prices can go up in the united states and internationally will converge. perspective, he used to be a rule of thumb that
you could provide the price of oil by the price of natural gas in cubic feet, you would have a ratio of 6-1 on an energy basis and 8-1 on an energy as delivered basis. right now, it is something like 20/1. be $24.d only it is $60, so there is a lot of room for gas to displace oil. coal ist means for sooner or later, the natural gas price will rise to a level that is called for by its energy usage and utilize asian -- utilization. the way we are retiring coal plants is faster than the ability to build the infrastructure necessary to serve the natural gas plant.
emily mentioned the negative pricing on the system by wind recoup your you investment through the energy price. the energy prices are at or near zero for an extended amount of time and you won't do that. in texas where it doesn't get that cold, but very hot, we have a situation in which you have a lot of wind built up at the cost of many of billions of dollars or transmission to go with it. you'll have negative prices. coal plants are retired, natural gas plants are having difficulty and you have a situation where you have a rivers -- reserve margin well below the planning level for stability. the coal plants that are subject to the coal combustion residual coming out from the epa come you don't have the reserve margin at all.
the problem is not just in the winter. it is a shared infrastructure problem that affects just about everywhere in the united states. chuck: and i can tell you, we received communications in the mail this summer from our energy providers encouraging us to turn the air conditioner off. allow the temperature to get higher, not to worry, however we would like you to consider doing this. i'll tell you, it brought the conversation up to a different level among people, neighbors and the community, etc. about what is going on. it is not a crisis until it is a crisis. itthe point peter just made, has been slowly eroding over the last 10 years, especially in the last five years and again, as it gets closer and closer, industry is always guilty of being accused of being chicken little.
the sky is falling. a lot of the population generally doesn't understand that. that is what is so critical about even the film we watched to start today about the education necessary in general communities, the general population, the support behind that education in getting that message out in a factual manner. not in a politically charged circumstance, but to bring those facts to bear, show people how their lives will be impacted. it is not just about the reliability but also about cost, and hidden costs. costs that many people don't understand they are paying but they are. at the same time, our natural low,prices have gone so we should be enjoying remarkable energy savings but because of all the other investments you just mentioned about bringing transmission from west texas through wind and etc., we are
not really receiving those kinds of economic benefits. that is also part of the message. it is also part of the fact. getting that truth to the marketplace is really critical. sec. perry: in terms of the hidden cost -- emily: in terms of the hidden the fact that any power plant being built to the gas actually has very expensive costs and that becomes part of the fisk's -- fixed costs. it is a hidden discussion to get that. respect to the global issue, the believe ifat people you shut down every coal-fired power plant in the united
states, we will have solved our carbon problem to the extent it exists. it is a global issue. not important is carbon is like sulfur and a oxide or other pollutants. locally produced, etc. it is a global issue to the extent the concern is to get carbon emissions lower. it is a marathon, not a sprint. there is no particularly advantage immediately shutting down coal-fired power plants. the goal would be to figure out a long-term solution that reduces carbon, hopefully to carbon capture but by whatever means to address the issue. it is a marathon. it is not a sprint. chuck: i'd like to suggest, it is carbon capture utilization and storage. the utilization is so critical. enhanced oil recovery is a major portion of that equation. it is ccus. the u is so critical because it
provides the economic incentive to produce that next barrel of oil without having to drill the next well for creating an additional footprint somewhere or importing a barrel from somewhere else in the world, god knows what they are doing their, right? we have a chance in this country for not only the energy produced electrically, but the energy we can get from the production of the next barrel of oil, utilizing co2 that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere, it is utilized for oil recovery, we get more out of the discovery of work we are paying for and doing, we safely and permanently store that co2, and you could make an argument from a lifecycle standpoint that you are really actually reducing the carbon that the oil might be producing out of the tailpipe of a car, as an example.
that is where the conversation around value creation from carbon management really hits home. that is when you can begin to see it not just as a fire -- environmental solution, but really a accretive to investors and people looking to it around the world. they're looking at building coal-fired power plants in the middle east right now, where there is an abundance of gas -- gas. they see it as a means of enhancing their oil production and using their natural gas for chemicals, etc. there is a real business analysis behind this. it is not just a climate conversation. host: what would a feasibility study show us? what do you think that would do? feasibility with respect to modern coal plants or --anced carbon technologies
separation technology would be the ability to vary the energy consumption of the plant in order to provide good services. ahuck mentioned the petronov complex in texas. it has an auxiliary combustion turbine that powers capture on. because of the technical nature of this configuration, it produces more power than the plant needs, which means it can provide spinning reserve to the and given the growing amount of wind in texas, providing reserves and services to the electric system will become more and more important. right now, energy cost are the bulk of your bill. you have generation and transmission. as the intermittent resources come onto the grid more fully, the things that used to be
provided by: and nuclear plants -- by coal and nuclear plants for free will have more value. the plants of the future, be they fossil or nuclear, they will have to take advantage of that through revenue streams to see if that is available -- feasible. the other thing about feasibility, we have focused too much on the cost of electricity or levelized cost from a generation source and not look at the cost of the system, adding that generation source will incur. in the case of co2, people say storage is expensive. it is expensive because you've have to out co2, which is a much larger fraction of the coal content than sulfur or nitrogen or anything else. that is a big load. what are you going to do with it? enhanced oil recovery,
which depends on the price of oil. you have a system of co2 transport but it can happen if the price of oil is at a relatively stable level, and with this credit that the congress putting -- put in, that of co2 fromupply captured sources and makes it more economic. whether that is enough, that is what we are looking at. chuck: it is undeniable that the iea published and reported extensively several years ago that a world with two scenarios, and ad with no ccus world with ccus. costsrld with ccus, it 137% less to change the world and achieve carbon emissions and climate targets by utilizing
ccus than to simply try to do it all through renewables storage. it is an economic analysis as much as anything else. that's the other part of this conversation that people really need to embrace. what is expensive? carbon capture utilization and storage is expensive in the areas where you are looking a greenfield opportunities, etc., but part of the whole innovation through research, etc. is to drive the cost lower and lower by broad deployment. if it is done sensibly across the country and i know the department of energy continues to work on that and will work on that because it is so important to do that. it is not either or. it is a system approach that i need to integrate all of what i have available to me. if i do that sensibly, that is what i am actually -- when i am optimizing the system. not fighting about which is
right or wrong. host: when we talk about the future and making investments in policies for now, can you speak to what it could be? obviously, we are in a period of great change and uncertainty in terms of future technology, capability, which could have a radical impact on what utilities of the future look like. i think there is generally in terms of focusing in on trying some companiesk, are basically adopting the philosophy that we should not make a decision today that can't be reversed -- irreversible decisions today until we know more. that is important in terms of some of the regulations that are in flux today, as well as technology changes coming up in the future. that is one issue. a second issue going forward is
and parallel is not to necessarily commit to a technology, perhaps gas technology going forward as in a new plant because of the concern about reducing carbon emissions when you're not looking at the entire carbon emissions board associated with a brand-new plant because not only do you have upstream emissions, but the new plant will be around for decades. to more you commit certain cost investments, the less willing you are to be able to take advantage of future changes going forward. peter: that's a very important point. say we loweredto natural gas therefore we lowered our carbon footprint. he mentioned natural gas because it is cheap and provides the lower cost electricity of any given new plant.
that is a function of the fuel price and fuel prices go in cycles and sometimes gas goes up and coal will be cheap. from the point of view of carbon management, if you replace all your call plants with natural gas plants, like in some places, and you want to go to this the zedbon iced -- decarboni future, you will have to spend on gas plants. people have no idea how expensive. is exceedingly expensive from a system point of view, even if it is free electricity. follow-up on something chuck said, you shouldn't think of ccus is just something for the coal industry. it is across the fossil fuel energy sector, which is most of the energy sector. any percent of our energy which is not just electricity, but fuels, from fossil fuels. you can capture co2 in refineries or at fuel plants, you can make coal and gas and
have a stream of co2 and use that. there are other utilization options such as concrete, cement. with theombine the co2 natural gas liquids that come out of the ground in pennsylvania or in texas and make polymers with that. those are research questions we are trying to look at. it is important to know that in theadrillion united states. said that muchu tanke work comes from states. what does that mean any domain example? chuck: one of the things i like to remind people is we've got 50 states and every state has its
own desires and drives and needs. there really look at it, are a very small amount of overs that provide well 80% of the energy for the rest of the country. i call those states the makers. i happen to be from a maker state. it is not just electricity, but fuels, plastics, everything that the rest of the country consumes. those are the takers. i am not here to point any fingers at state, but to raise everyone's consciousness that it is not just about those that take and what they think about what the makers are doing and how they should do it better. that is a big conversation that goes along with the consumption, people's demands and what they believe, etc.
i don't know that he will change that. i think people are people and they will always have their own self-interest that heart. that is why i believe leading companies, the industries that are embracing this attitude out there, this need out there for a lower carbon future -- carbon management isn't about keeping it in the ground. carbon management is about managing emissions and utilizing it for best economic value. only then can the makers continue to make, provide the products that all the takers continued to use and use more of everyday and to have that balance occur. that is not unique to the united states. that is around the world. there are makers and takers all over the world and the makers will bear the burden, but the makers also have to have enough sense and foresight to be able
to put carbon management into that equation and make it accretive. not have it be a cost or burden, but in fact a competitive differentiation. erin: anyone have anything to say? one last question for each of you, then we will make room for the secretary. help spur innovation in the future? quick answer, each of you. they: obviously, some of taxes or cost incentives have not made the place a level. part of the issue is, if you had a level playing field where we are now forced to deal with production tax credit, which really distorts the economics of coal, then we would be in a better situation where the coal plants aren't fighting for their survival on a daily basis.
we could spend the day thinking about the future, such as ccus. i think leveling the playing field is a big problem. peter: from a d.o.e. perspective, i would say we have an interest in better facilitating the transfer of technology from our national lab system to industry. more. is focusing more and on having a more effective private-public ownership with is labs and what that means we have research projects that we wish to bring in industry and jointly develop the technology because the mission in d.o.e. is to bring up technologies in the carbon space and work with industry to get those into the market. chuck: energy industry bears an incredible burden of public trust. especiallyill,
electricity industry. it is for the public good. when you put in innovation, you are expecting it to work, be safe, be reliable, everything. so this tension between, is it commercially ready or are we demonstrating something new and transformational? that is something policy has to support and be able to introduce effectively because in this industry, you don't get kickbacks. if you screw up, you pay for it forever. in this situation, that gets in the way of innovation. i'll also add to what emily said. i think it is important to understand market structure. we have this myth around the country that we have deregulated markets. trust me, they are not deregulated. there is a lot of new portfolio standards on the advantageous
situations, one supply versus another. thewhole idea of levelizing conversation, looking at in missions and being able to have apples and apples comparisons, that is how you create a market structure that will promote innovation. not favoring one versus another. sec. perry: thank you all -- erin: thank you all. such a pleasure. . [applause] sec. perry: i would like -- erin: i would like to invite our executive editor to the stage. >> tony busby. i thought i'd lost you. hello, everyone.
>> somebody wanted to talk about texas back there. texas jack. i'm carl cannon, for those who don't know me. i am the executive editor. most of us know we are nonpartisan, bipartisan, whichever you prefer. nonpartisan is what we are. note, my guest is probably you are here. rick perry is a rancher, the of texas.erner i met him when he ran for president and today, he is secretary of energy. secretary perry: it is my honor to be here. it is a pleasure this, it's a pleasure for me to get to come and hang out and talk about something i'm very passionate about.
carl: a week ago -- i think a week ago, today you visited the vogel electric generating plant in georgia, you reiterated federal loan guarantees for that -- for the two nuclear reactors being built there. i think they are the only two reactors being built in this country. perry: that's correct. carl: you said -- and you said when you came out of there, i love this, you're going to make nuclear cool again. can you really do that? sec. perry: i've said that a number of times. the coolest job i ever had in my life is the current one -- no, the best job i ever had, that was being the governor of texas. it's fascinating what's going on in the energy realm right now, but notwithstanding what's happening in the natural gas side of the world and the innovation and the technology, which interestingly, the department of energy's national labs had a pivotal role to play in that back through the years,
and i would suggest to you has a pivotal role to play as we build a foundation. i think it's really important if there's one thing you remember i say while you're here today that you take away is that we have a foundation. it's kind of like building a house, when you think about you've got to have a good foundation, it is almost biblical somewhere, i'm sure, that you have to have a good foundation. if you have a good foundation , then what you build on top of that, nuclear and coal are both those foundational energy sources in this country. hydro, which interestingly -- carl: i am going to get to hydro. let's stick with nuclear for a minute. sec. perry: all right. so the nuclear side of things is -- i think you have to have this uninterruptible supply so that you have a resiliency and a
reliability in your ability to deliver energy. if you don't, then all those other sources are uninterruptible in some form or fashion. we will get to that about wind, will get to it about solar, and we will get to it about solar, and we will get to it about natural gas, which i am a huge supporter and proponent of natural gas. but i'm a big believer that you don't put all your eggs in one basket. as a matter of fact, you try to have an all of the above energy strategy, which is what president trump is interested in. he wants to see that type of diversity of both fuels, supplies, and routes, and that's a message to the europeans as well. i know we jumped around and talked about a lot of different things. carl: let's stay with
energy. since it doesn't leave -- it doesn't contribute to global warming or leave a carbon footprint, why isn't it more popular with progressives, why isn't it more popular in the marketplace? why did nuclear power fall out of favor? sec. perry: back when nuclear power was coming on board, the environmental community was for it. if you go back and study history, you will find that the sierra club, i think, voted eight to one on their board when the diablo plant was built in california. they were for it. i will let you go read all the interesting stories about why they made the shift, but it's pretty hard to argue if you care about the climate that we have, you care about the environment that this globe has around it , that you're against nuclear power, zero emissions. that just doesn't jive for me. so i want to go back to driving through rural georgia this last week, going to that vogel plant. driving in, and interestingly on the right, right before you turn in, is a massive solar field of solar panels, so they have -- they have that zero-emission facility right there.
solar grew by 90% in the last two years. so we're seeing this really great growth in these renewables, which i'm quite supportive of. when i was the governor of texas, we put more wind energy in than any other state in the nation. just as a little add for texas here. they became -- they produce more percentagewise of their energy of renewables than europe does. 15% of the energy in texas is now renewables. so the point here is there's this great diversity, and all of these are creating jobs, in the solar energy side, in the wind energy side. we passed the parking lot going into this vogel plant, i thought i was going to a university of georgia football game. i mean, there's cars and pickup trucks as far as you can see out there. carl: the workers building the plant. sec. perry: 7500, thereabouts, jobs and the average salary $148,000.
i mean, $148,000, you can do ok in washington, d.c. in georgia, you're living good. now, i'm telling you -- and in most of the places outside of washington, d.c. i would suggest to you $148,000 a year -- and that is an amazingly good salary. that is one of the benefits of what we are talking about here with nuclear energy. zero emissions, job creation, diversity of -- i mean, what's wrong with that? carl: you were also in the news this week, the department of energy is facilitating some licensing agreements that may lead to nuclear power plants being constructed in saudi arabia. the concern there is a national security concern that this technology will fall into the wrong hands or lead to an arms race in the middle east. how do you respond to that?
sec. perry: it is the same with any country, is what i tell people. we follow the law, there's two numbers -- sometimes people get confused, even members of congress from time to time get confused about the difference between a section 810 exemption and a 123 agreement. 123 agreement is basically what you would be required to agree to additional protocols and what have you and say you can do this, you can do this, you can do this. from the standpoint of nonproliferation, the 123 agreement is incredibly important. we are not going to go into a civil nuclear program with
someone that doesn't sign a 123 agreement. we did one with the uae, we have done it with a substantial number of countries. saudi arabia and the united states are in discussions about that 123 at this particular point in time. the section 810 is a different concept -- not a different concept, it's just a different part of the law, and it basically says that before u.s. technology can go into any of these countries, whether it's south korea or whether it's the uae or whether it's saudi arabia or vietnam, wherever, that you must have the department of energy sign an 810 before that technology can go in there. if it is technology that could be used for the processing, you notify congress, obviously those are not what these 810's are -- i think we signed -- and the reason these are not public in the sense of, you know, here, we will just put them into the federal register, is because the
proprietary information of these companies don't want their information out. it would be like any business, they want to protect their proprietary information, and we want that for them as well. we want them to be able to trust the united states government that we are not going to give your business plan or your business proprietary information to the public. so i think there's a little bit of education that needs to go on here. the department of energy is following the law. you betcha, do i want the countries around the world that are going to build a civil nuclear program to be using american companies? absolutely. for two reasons, number one, westinghouse makes the best reactors in the world.
they just do. that's a fact. and i want whoever it is, whether it's jordan, whether it's saudi arabia, use those american companies because we need it for our -- we need it for our future buildout. when we go into advanced reactors, when we go into small monitor reactors, we are going to need that supply chain, and we are going to need that intellectual capital that comes with keeping a strong civil nuclear program into place. so, you know, it's the same with our carbon capture utilization technologies. i mean, almost three quarters of the -- of the energy that's produced by 2040 is going to be fossil fuels. that is a fact. you may not like it or you may not want it to be that way, but that is the fact. so america's role in that is making sure that our technology is what is being used out there
as much as we can, which captures that c02 and those emissions and sequesters it or utilizes it for tertiary recovery of oil somewhere, it's what we did outside of houston. i know we're jumping around a lot here. there's a lot to cover. carl: let me ask you one more national security question, and we will go into carbon and renewables. we heard the panel before this and we did real clear politics did two or three events last year about cybersecurity and it , and it keeps coming up, everybody talks about it, says the electrical grid, if that is attacked, we have a problem. what are you doing at the department of energy to protect the electric grid from cyber attacks? sec. perry: we live in a very dangerous world. we live in a world where the electrons are now being used -- well, historically, but in new ways electrons are being used as weapons. so cyber attacks and the use of cyber to -- whether it's penetrate into scata systems,
whether it is to otherwise affect the ability for our electrical grid to operate reliably. we stood up a new office of cybersecurity and emergency response at the department. there is an individual, incredibly bright lady, who is the head of that department, if you will, in our agency today. their job is to work with the intel side, with our national labs. we have -- we have three one national labs that are dedicated to this challenge. we actually have a test grid at the idaho national lab whose job solely is to go out and to break the grid, if you will, to see what you can do to it, to put
viruses on it, to really test what we see are the vulnerabilities in our -- in our grid out there. here is my concern, if i can take just a second, the scenario that bothers me -- there is not a lot that keeps me up at night, but this scenario is one that causes me some consternation. we have had a couple of major weather events, the polar vortex i think in 2014, we had another -- fortunately it only lasted a few days in the midwest this last winter, but what i worry about is one of those really bad weather events, particularly a polar vortex, that comes in and settles in over the northeastern part of this country for a week plus, and an adversary of the
united states has placed a virus upon some control systems and electrical generation in the northeast, and there is a physical attack on a gas pipeline, all coordinated with the exception of the weather obviously, but waiting for that weather event to occur. at that particular point in time, if you lose electricity, if you lose power to the northeastern part of the united states for multiple days, the chaos that would occur in new york city with our air traffic control system, that i worry about. so all of this fits together. a diversity of fuels, a diversity of routes, a diversity of supplies, all of that makes a lot of sense to me for us to be thinking about that, and i think the role of a leader is to look at all of those, you know, way
out in left field things that could happen and be prepared for that. so that is the -- that is the key from my perspective. one of the reasons it was important for us to continue to have a civil nuclear program, one of the reasons for us to have those other foundational fuels -- coal, hydro -- they are uninterruptible, and i think to have that uninterruptible fuel supply as your foundation is very prudent for this country. carl: mr. secretary, your mantra in this job has been to ensure, quote, "reliable energy, affordable, sustainable prices," something few people would -- reasonable people would disagree with, but your critics have said -- some of them are outside today -- that this is sort of language -- barack obama used
this kind of language, but then in your case in the current administration's case, it's kind of a cover for reemphasizing coal and fracking and technologies that they think are yesterday's technologies and not paying enough -- not putting the emphasis on what you yourself has said is the future. who you do you respond to that? sec. perry: well, all of the above i think is a good strategy. putting all your eggs in one basket -- this administration got criticized for leaving the paris accord. i am going to tell you an interesting story. one of my first outings as the secretary was in april of 2017 , and i went to a g7 meeting in rome, and so there were the u.s. and the six other big -- the other g's of that group were together, and they kind of
lectured us, "you can't get out of the paris accord." and then in the bilats, when we went into some rooms and closed the doors, and it was just me talking with the french, me talking with the germans, they were like, "how do we buy your liquefied natural gas?" and that's a good thing. when you think about what's going on in germany today, germ any stood up and said, "we are going to be carbon-free by this date, we're getting rid of internal combustion engines." guess whose emissions are going up today, folks. nobody is leading like america is leading on reducing emissions. from 2005 to 2017, this country has reduced emissions by 14%. america is leading because of the innovation. the reason that liquefied natural gas is desired in europe is not only because it will help
lower the emissions, but it will also free them from the dependence upon russian gas. and i will suggest to you that the europeans are pretty wise about having alternative sources of energy rather than the russians. i would simply say if you do not believe that, go ask the ukrainians. we have got a great story to tell. when you see a state like texas that has a reputation of being, you know, a fossil fuel giant, which we are, and quite proud of that, frankly, but 15% of that state's power is generated by renewables. that is a great story, and it is a story we ought to be standing up and hopefully the folks that are outside here that may not agree with everything that this administration does, would respect what america is doing from the standpoint of lowering emissions.
there is one country that is leading the charge. one country that is making a real difference when it comes to the climate, and that is a member of. america. i am proud of that. i am proud to be a part of t both at the d.o.e. level, who help develop some of the technologies that make hydraulic fracturing a reality today, and american lng is now being sold in 34 different countries on five continents. we are making a difference. if more lng, and to come from qatar, australia, but if more l
lng gets in the marketplace and we remove old inefficient type power generation, this world will have a cleaner environment. if you want to protest somebody's energy strategy, i will suggest you might do it in china, and you might do it in india. but i would be real careful about going out and protesting over there. carl: [laughs] let's talk about renewables. so this energy mix, texas is almost a microcosm of the country. so right now nuclear -- and i'm talking about not gas and cars, but the grid -- nuclear is about 20%, coal and natural gas around 30%, natural gas is a little higher, coal a little lower. sec. perry: renewable is about 10%. carl: 17% now. [indistinct conversations] 17%? carl: -- sec. perry: 17%? carl: 17%. been going up since
you've been there. i have got wind, solar, hydro about 17%. sec. perry: oh, ok. carl: i added hydro. sec. perry: hydro. carl: i don't want to get into -- hydro is a form of renewable energy, i just -- sometimes i get concerned about, you know, it would be very, very rare for it to be interruptible. and it's not going to grow much. sec. perry: right. carl: so let's talk about -- sec. perry: good point. carl: let's talk about solar. renewables has grown according to the department of energy, it has doubled in the last 10 years. sec. perry: grew 90% in the last two years, solar. carl: do you see it doubling in the next 10 years? sec. perry: i think it can. i went out to -- and i'm for that. i mean, i was in arizona 30 days ago at a dell web facility with
rooftop solar on it and battery storage. the department of energy is very, very involved, very interested investing substantial dollars in battery storage technologies. we happen to think that battery storage is kind of the holy grail. we figure that one out, then we really change the whole future of energy use in the world. i hope no one gets confused that this administration is not for all of those forms of energy. we are. we are going to need it all. when you think about the potential growth in africa, when you look at india and china, the demand for energy is literally through the roof. we want it to be american innovation, we want it to be clean energy, and we can do that, but we can't throttle this country, because we truly are leading the world, and it is our innovation, and in a lot of cases, it's our fuel supply that will help lead that -- lead that economic improvement in a lot of places around the world. carl: let's talk about coal for a minute. on the previous panel, governor bevin made a persuasive case why
coal is an essential part of the mix, and you have said similar things. i remember in 2016, president -- then-candidate donald trump said something i had never heard before, "big, beautiful coal." we know the big, beautiful wall, but big, beautiful coal. i thought joe manchin wouldn't even say that, but ok. sec. perry: yeah, he would. [laughter] carl: yeah, he would. ok. sec. perry: you better believe it. carl: when we talk about coal, there's a couple issues, one we hear phrases like emissions reductions and clean capture, but what's going on technologically that will make coal more palatable in the future, or is it just a bridge technology that will gradually be phased out? sec. perry: i will be real
honest with you, looking 10 years into the future and saying here is what it's going to look like. it is a fool's errand. many of you will remember back in about 2005 that there was a couple of folks traveling around making a pretty good living giving a speech called peak oil, do you remember, we had found it all, and if you find any new sources, it's going to be exorbitantly expensive to produce. i mean, how wrong was that? so the idea that says coal is done, you just -- you know, it's done, i will make two arguments here. one is that is someone who doesn't believe in american innovation and american -- the genius of america. carbon capture utilization, those technologies, the highly efficient low-emission plants that pulverize coal basically and are -- i mean, i walked through one in morgan town, west virginia, and you could literally wipe your hand on the floor and probably cleaner than my condo.
[laughter] sec. perry: and the emissions side of it. so we are seeing and the industry is working on technologies that will allow for the use of that fossil fuel to be used and substantially reduce , and in some cases petro nova is a plant just outside houston. one of the first things i did as the secretary was to go over there and help open that plant, and i think 95% of the carbon is taken out of those emissions, put into a pipe, sent over to a pipe -- or through a pipeline to an oil field, where it is used in secondary recovery of crude. there are places around the world that that technology will work, and, you know, it's obviously reliant upon the price of a barrel of oil, but i think
that is probably going to stay at a level that makes it economically feasible. so there's -- and there may be technologies out there that they are working on that no one -- no one even knows about yet from the standpoint of -- don't throttle america's ingenuity. don't tell americans that you can't do this or -- i'm a big believer that if we will have faith in american scientists, if we will have, you know, put kids into s.t.e.m. programs and excite them about science and technology and in th engineering and math, that our future is still incredibly bright. sources of energies that we may -- we may not even recognize today, 15, 20 years down the
road, are going to be -- give you a great example. fusion. there is a couple companies out on the west coast that are working on fusion energy today, tae and general atom mix. -- atomics. iter is a project that the international community is working on in the southern part of france with the big tocomac reactor there. i am very bullish on the energy industry in a lot of different ways, and i think we owe it to future generations, both from an economic standpoint, from a global environment standpoint, from a humanitarian standpoint to continue to have this all of the above strategy for energy.
i had the opportunity to go to africa, and there are literally hundreds of millions of people that don't have access to a single light bulb. and american technology, american humanitarianism is needed. carl: well, i think -- i was going to ask you that other question, but that's a good place to end, sir. thank you. in closing, let me just say that i moved here when you were an aggie, when i was in high school, from california -- you like to bring that point up. he is a lot younger than i am. but it's true. it has the added benefit of being true. carl: it was the 1970's, and being from california was cool, and i joined the environmental action club in my high school.
we went on a march. sec. perry: it's a good -- this i think. carl: we marched to block the construction of i-66 that tom bevin, he and i drove on it last night. i use it every day now. when i first met you you were running for president, the department of energy was one of the federal agencies you thought was maybe extraneous. sec. perry: is that the one i forgot? carl: it is, sir. sec. perry: ok. carl: see, theres some karma see, theres some karma there if you think about it, and the reason i forgot it was probably -- anyway -- [laughter] carl: look, i don't bring this up -- [laughter] sec. perry: yeah, you did. you totally brought it up, dude. carl: to say that our youthful indiscretion, you were a young
governor, young-looking governor anyway. sec. perry: that's hilarious. carl: i still believe -- i still believe in environmentalism. we have to coexist on the planet with 7 billion people. sec. perry: well said. carl: public policy solutions involve negotiations and political compromise as well as technological advancement and innovative thinking. so thank you for coming here to share -- sec. perry: and i think one of the keys is talk to each other. you know, if there's one piece of advice i would try to -- is to talk to each other, hopefully in a civil way, and -- or that's, i think, the preferable way. if i get silent it's not because i quit, it's just because i'm probably not going to argue with someone who doesn't want to understand what i'm trying to say. carl: anyway, i hope you will
>> c-span's washington journal live every day with news on policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, education week, allison klein discusses the trump administration's budget cuts for 2020 and overall education policies. efforts toenkins on the equal rights amendment and what implications it might have. and reason.com editor talks about americans trust in government, watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. lawmaker former texas beto o'rourke kicks off his presidential bid live at 12:30 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app.
this weekend -- >> this weekend, the navajo code talkers and the three mile island power accident. today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories, the first of six interviews with 4 -- former world war ii navajo code talkers who served in the marines and use their native language to secretly communicate operational plans. , the navajo code talkers, compelled to use their they schemed in rolea way that it played a , a unique role, of confusing the enemy. eastern ona: 30 american history tv and c-span washington journal, the 40's anniversary of the three-mile island nuclear power plant
accident near harrisburg, pennsylvania, consider the most serious nuclear power accident in the history of the united states. joining us is samuel walker and acting director of the nuclear safety project for the union of concerned scientists. the:00 p.m. on railamerica, 1979 cbs report fallout from three mile island. please day indoors with your windows closed. month almost a week last the people of middletown, pennsylvania lived in fear of an enemy they could not see, here, or feel. >> watch american history tv this weekend on c-span three. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. what your country can do for you, ask what you can
do for your country. >> the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon. [applause] newest book the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives and provides insights of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind, published by public affairs, the book will be on shelves april 23 but you can preorder your copy of the hardcover or e-book today at c-span.org/the presidents, or wherever books are sold. , a discussion with tucker carlson on populism and the future of the republican party