A conversation and then towards the end of the hour we will open it up for questions and answers from the audience, so chairman eu grew up and kentucky, you served as a key adviser to senator mitch mcconnell, gave us a sense of how that background informs or doesnt inform you or approach more generally. Thank you for having me and the opportunity, its a pleasure to be here today, yes i did spend a good chunk of my youth and kentucky and also the opportunity to serve the Senior Center and party leader from kentuckian in the United States senate and sent mcconnell in terms of how that and firms my work at the commission, i cant quantify how much i learned from senator mcconnell just about in his work ethic and his discipline and his leadership style, his approach to governance, his approach to bipartisanship. And my working for him, most of the if not all of the legislative initiatives that i worked on, they didnt pass the senate with 16 post, they passed with 85 plus votes, oftentimes and, we are talking substantial legislation on the energy front, on the infrastructure side, multiple pharma bills and highway bills, these are consequential pieces of legislation and i saw how senator mcconnell worked to bridge the interests of kentuckians with a diverse array of folks in his own conference in the senate as well as across the senate. Ultimately, a number of these deals were cut while president obama was in the white house so we had to ensure legislation could clear both chambers and be signed by the president , i think that experience prepared me well for a keen understanding and my role at the commission and i have a keen understanding that im in a different jobs today, serving independent regulatory agency, where its incumbent that we review issues and a non partisan, neutral, technical way fuel neutral way. I think that is important and that is a distinction and i will be the first to admit as with any transition to a job. It took me awhile to make that transition from partisan legislative aid to independent regulator, i think the clearest example of that, i spent nearly a decade with senator mcconnell advocating for the interest of kentuckians, in kentucky obviously cool fire generation is central to kentuckys economy, to its culture, so when i first came to the commission, one of my issue said we were confronted with, was the proposal from the department of energy and compensate cool and Nuclear Plants for having the attribute of onsite fuel, when i say transitions are difficult here, i am a kentuckian who worked on policy issues for senator mcconnell initially, instinctively once Natural Inclination is i want to do something to have the people that i care about but in making the transition to independent regular i take very seriously that, in this new role we have to abide by the record, as difficult as it was for me to swallow personally i could not do something to help the communities that i care about at the end of the day, the record that is before us and proceeding did not justify the action that they were asking us to take, we made the decision unanimously to set aside and open a new one, i think that experience law and thrust into that into the commission was also a good one for throwing me in the deep then, i had to end quick faction make that transition. So the same time that the commission changed the proposal you opened up a docket, can you give us a sense of where that stands, for that conversation stands, there are legitimate issues about grid resilience, maybe give us a sense of some of the greatest risk that the face and how to ameliorate those risks. An excellent question, i think that the questions that were posed, in our view the record did not support the action that was taken, the question of great resilience and what are the attributes of a resilient grid, what do we need to focus on and value, what if any potential threats to resilience are there, these are real questions and what we have been carefully doing, my colleagues and i, the staff at the commission is pouring through the record which we had today, far more robust than we had in the fall of 2017 when the d. O. E. Was proposed and what we need to first to you and it seems simplistic on its face, we need to define what weve you resilience to be and it is a question we specifically asked and opening the new proceeding and we have received numerous comments on it, i think that is the first determination that needs to be made, what constitutes great resilience, this isnt something i think will be polarizing or partisan or not fuel neutral but i think also there is merit to find what great resilience is, once we make that determination on what constitutes great resilience we then have to evaluate, is there in fact any sort of short term long term resilience to the grid and if we determine that there is or isnt i know it is taken a long time, i hope that we will be able to proceed with the docket soon and in short order, i think we will do it and a thoughtful, deliberative evidence based way and i have complete confidence in my colleagues that we will be able to handle this complex subject. Any advance on what youre seeing in terms of comments or other factors, what did the biggest risk seem to be . So some of the challenges that we are seeing throughout this proceeding and others, the energy that we are seeing and this country has been a remarkable technical problem is the increased interdependence of gas in the power sector, its one of that we need to be cognizant of i think, 20 years ago if gas pipeline was interrupted, the generator inside of even fledged, today you might have eight or nine generators and an outage could have significant consequences in so understanding these kinds of potential dynamics and how they impact the reliability and security of the great is important i think it is a worthwhile question to look at, ive been pleased to see the action that has been taken by some of the i chose and ideas to do indepth and fuel security analysis, this isnt something that is political or based on, putting thumb on the scale for one fuel source over the other, i think this is very technical, sable minded into looks and i think it is a valuable exercise. Does cybersecurity turn to this. So cybersecurity i think is unfortunate we all have to contend with now on a much more serious level, i mentioned the tremendous benefits of the Energy Transition and of technological innovation but that innovation comes with a downside risks, that is we are increasingly vulnerable to cyber end physical attacks and that is something we take very seriously, in the past couple of years we have taken significant steps to address this, looking ad supply chain risks, looking at reported aunties and making sure that attempted and churches are reported to the appropriate bodies, but we can always do more and we have to remain vigilant, we had an office of Energy Infrastructure security that goes beyond some of the standards that we have in place working with our partners, i think standards are very much the floor not the ceiling of where we need to go to stay ahead of our adversaries and i think our offices work with our state and federal partners and the regulating community to stay ahead of these evolving threats, there are some other areas that i have highlighted, for instance we at the commission have the responsibility to certificate Natural Gas Pipelines but we dont have on the authority on that security, that falls to Homeland Security and we have engaged in a pretty aggressive dialog with tsa, ive had direct conversations with the administrator, to ensure that they are taking the appropriate steps and putting the appropriate focus and seriousness and the threat of a physical or cyberattack. One of the key roles that as a federal agency involved in interstate Energy Commerce is working with states and that at times can be, can lead to challenges, in particularly many states have Different Energy and Environmental Policies which then when they are the pilots to the prior sector intersect with other markets, so capacity market is one thing we could have a bit of a conversation, so particularly and in new york iso, there have been conversations and deliberations about capacity markets, how different Electricity Power sources compete in those capacity markets, just last week there was a letter that you received from antenna Democratic Senators expressing concerns about folks that were all and potentially not allowing, rules about how certain clean energy supported sources participate in those markets, they estimated, or theres been a citing estimates that this could cause consumers several billion here, so i know im going back and forth, but give us a sense of folks role in ensuring the integrity of markets but at the same time accommodating state level desires. That is a very important and significant question and i have to be very careful and how i answer it because it is a pending contesting matter and although there is some speculation about what the ultimate older may look like because of our stringent rules, all of that is speculative, that said without getting into the specifics of the matter is before us, the question of this and functioning market, it is a challenging one, i believe fundamentally and state rights, state and local governments to make decisions about their own Energy Futures but i also really want these markets to succeed because they believe that we are seeing benefits, economically to sick consumers but also to the environment from these markets, we want them to function and when states make Public Policy decisions regarding their own, implications in other states that may not share those policy goals it creates challenges within our markets, but these are not insurmountable challenges, i just want to side a couple of examples that go out say the contesting matter before us, in new england in 2018 the Commission Approved in order, and a case where the states came to gather, both independently and collectively to try and see how their myriad state policies could be supported but also not disrupt the benefits that we were seeing in the regional market, ultimately with some conditions they were able to accept the commission from new england and i think that was an example where i really want to applaud the states with the way they engaged with stakeholders and each other and found a way to try and find that delicate benefit in that market, similarly you look at the Energy Imbalance market out west, where the core idea of a high and forming it was if you had a greater pool of supply to address demand, ultimately consumers would see the benefit, we are talking about a right away of steaks with totally diverse resource portfolios ranging from high amount of wind and solar to hydro, to cool, and again in the states demonstrated leadership Work Together to, what we are seeing, now i think ive seen some estimates that the savings to consumers have been upwards of millions of dollars and also towards goals and decarbonizing, we have seen a reduction and Carbon Emissions in the west as a result of the collaboration that is been taking place, so thats my land way of saying these are complex challenges when youre dealing with diverse states with diverse resources and different government dynamics within them and i think its important that these markets function and we try what we can to adapt state policies but we have to ensure the market is functioning. One option is now they are starting conversations and deliberations particularly this example in your, concern states are areas that have capacity markets may in fact remove that capacity market, do away with the capacity market and then takeover that function of resource back at the state level with the public utility commission, so its basically taking the conflict there and then opting out, to have any thoughts or anxiety, is a guess thats one way to ameliorate the interstate challenge, but. I dont get too far ahead of myself and then see what may come before us, i will note at least one of my colleagues, i will say to him, he has been out there questioning, questioning the utility of markets and im paraphrasing, i dont know his exact statements but he has kind of raise this question, i think it is a question that is taking place in some circles to weather capacity markets or delivering what was envisioned and intended, i will come back again to my belief in markets and how i want these markets to succeed, but we are clearly coming to a point where, difference states are taking actions for Different Reasons and those are having an impact on the markets. Related issue that is occurring in new york state with the independent system operator there, is the notion of the carbon head or, the idea that you can incorporate into the wholesale market itself something that reflects the extra Nazis Associated with Carbon Dioxide emissions and therefore reconcile the desire for Clean Energy Sources which is currently down through things like renewable portfolio standards or emission credit to a more comprehensive carbon editor, to ameliorate some of the challenges that is affecting the market, so do you have a view of new york or other states to reconcile this desire for clean Power Sources and at the same time doing it a way that works in the marketplace, if you have views on that . Again i dont want to speculate on something that could come before the commission, i dont want to prejudged that something was done before the commission, so i cant speak to that. So related to this, talk little bit about Climate Change, so you are on the record of expressing serious concern about Climate Change, give us a sense of how you view ferc role and the challenge comparison to other institutions . I think right now we are not an environmental regulator, we are market regulator, in my view i think as somebody who is concerned about climate technical problem federal carbon tax was never passed through congress, the Clean Power Plan was stained by the courts and the administration pulled the u. S. Out of the paris climate accords and yet we see the power sector Carbon Emissions are on the decline and i think that is the result not of Government Policies but of Market Forces of consumer demands and market efficiencies and i think i have been out there saying that there is a real Business Case to be made for Renewable Energy and i think that, Renewable Energy as advocates have long touted is at a point now where it is competitive on its own, renewables are competitive on their own without the necessary backing of government subsidies or policies and i think when you look at markets over the course of time and you have one source of generation that has no fuel cost, that is going to win out over the course of time forces an alternative that has a fuel cost. So i think to answer your question, the role that ferc can play is creating a regulatory ecosystem that enables these technologies to flourish, by breaking down barriers for entry to those technologies, one of the measures that we moved through the commission canada im very proud of is our removing barriers to entry in competition so that they can get compensated for all of the attributes that they provide to the system, i think we may look back five years from now, ten years from now, that might be a seminal moment in our courses to mitigate Carbon Emissions, i think battery stores, technology generally has the capacity to alter our landscape and can answer the key reliability question surrounding the intermittency of renewables and i think that order, enabling storage resources to compete was the perfect example of how a market regulator can play a significant role in mitigating rulemaking that will look at aggregated sources and removing obstacles to ensure that aggregated two years can be compensated for their attribute. Types of market based approaches to allowing technologies to thrive or in my view we can play a significant role in the meeting current emissions, the other piece to this which we cannot disregard, we have seen firsthand in the u. S. Power gas and renewables has replaced other carbon intense sources and fuel that has led to a reduction in the u. S. Power sector, we look to china, we look to india and their longterm planning as of today it is still dependent on carbon intense fuels and i think when it comes to u. S. Production if you look at the way that our environmental and Energy Regulatory landscape, we do it cleaner and better than anyone in the world and the commission plays a role in approving Energy Export facilities, they truly believe that the you us being in this arena, a net Energy Export are and the first time that has not have positive economic benefits for the u. S. , not just positive geopolitical implications but has a positive environmental benefit as, well if u. S. Lng can displace other permanent hands fuels another effects on the world it will have an effect on a global Carbon Emissions. I think i am proud of the rule this commission can play in those areas to combat Climate Change. So follow up a bit on natural gas, particularly the natural gas pipeline, you are saying timeline for delivering pipelines is taking too long, in 2017 they denounced the reviews on natural gas and pipelines certification, can you update on the status of that . He convinced a review on the policy statement and the way we go about evaluating hours to forget applications before the commission, i for one zeroed in on some of the concerns expressed by landowners, i was very sympathetic to the plight of land owners and met with various stakeholders about some of the challenges they see within our process and i am hopeful that in undergoing this review, we can take some significant steps to alleviate the concerns, specifically expressed by landowners, i think it is and comment upon the commission as well as project sponsors to ensure Greater Transparency and communication with landowners so they know what their rights and abilities are, and you know what is going on, it is not a land owners obligation or responsibility to be tracking for dockets and i think the commission needs to do a better job of communicating with parties as to the status and timeline of these proceedings, i think there are steps we can take logistically and internally but also within our processes that can help land owners and also there are also elements of our process that we needed to take a look at, there was a recent case in the circuit and which a project was upheld but one of the judges made a point about how our process can sometimes to do constraints in the natural gas fact put landowners and regulatory purgatory that is something im sensitive to you and i hope will be able to work with my colleagues and stuff to see if there are ways that we can address some of those considerations. Either on natural gas or more broadly do you see a role for congress, there are things that Congress Needs to act on that something that i really have been vocal about and i struggle, with i have spent the bulk of my career in the legislative branch prior to coming to this agency, im a big believer in the legislative branch and Congress Role in setting the direction for policy, i worked on the Energy Policy act and because in five, its really the last significant piece of federal Energy Legislation that was passed and signed into the law, since then almost every Energy Policy legislative action has come in the form of it red or to appropriation bill or in the tax cut, the result of that is suddenly about our Energy Future are falling to agencies where we are constrained by the statues that govern us, we dont have the tools i may be the temporary beneficiary because im sitting in one of those seats, i dont think that is good for the country and i would very much like to see Congress Take a leadership role and some of these areas because congress has the tools to effectuate the necessary direction that the country should go and then, law but we may not be setting a national Energy Policy in the independent regulatory agency. Connecting a couple of issues that have come, off the role of state policy in affecting power markets and infrastructure and to what extent you see state policies related to Climate Change or policy should factor into considerations specifically into Natural Gas Pipelines . Again i mentioned earlier that i believe in a state rates but i want the markets to function to the extent that certain states are taking actions, regarding climate policy, whether it be for a nuclear regeneration or renewable portfolio targets and alike, to the extent that it is having implications in the market that is a challenging issue for the commission. When it comes to the approval of Natural Gas Pipelines, again to me we are having some disagreements at the commission about the level of analysis that the commission needs to do, but the considerations that we take into effect reviewing a project application are based on the natural gas act of the law, really the disagreements that we are having arent over Environmental Issues or Climate Change, their over questions of Administrative Law and what is appropriate within the Commission Jurisdiction under Section Three and six or seven of the natural gas act and how it is applied. So i think to answer your question, again for someone who believes in Climate Change that doesnt factor into my evaluation of the pipeline certificate application, im basing that on what is in the natural gas act. Again to your earlier question if the commissioner were to take a different direction and how we evaluate the climate impacts that we evaluate that directive will need to come from congress, i dont believe it is within our statutory preview to take that expansive you ourselves. Turning a little bit about the organization, so finished her appointment at the end of august and there has been speculation about how this might affect Decision Making a ferc, there is now a majority of two Republican People appointed, and when democrats, while there is a clear majority and the ability to take action, maybe more quickly but there is a question about what the intentions good for ferc, so do you have views on how this might impact ferc . Should ferc feel constrained, because its important for Big Decisions through a five appointees, how do you think about that in how should we think about the future might look like . Obviously we need a minimum of three members to constitute we drop down to one member in the summer of 2017 and actually lost a period for seven months but we cannot function with three, i like the commissioner on the floor cringe at the notion and she has said this and numerous interviews that when she first came to the commission nobody talked about democratic commissioner partnered with republican commissioner, ex, they were just commissioners, and its unfortunate that there is this sense of political ways asian at the agency, i point to the fact that unfortunately when in the late chairman mcintyre became too ill to continue his chair in october of 2018 i took over the commission and he unfortunately because he wasnt well enough had to stop voting at bedtime so literally for the past 11 months every single order that the commission has, ordered every single one by its very nature has been bipartisan because it is been a two two for the last year, so really push back on the idea that the commissions work has been political when every single thing we have done required in some bipartisan cooperation, in some instances we had different coalitions, commissioner on the floor in many instances partnered with me on some project issues and i mentioned on a Battery Storage and ive talked about that with other commissioners, i am confident that we can continue to do our work and i dont think folks should lean into too much, some sort of politicization of the agency and i do think as you can see from the separate statements that have been issued by my colleagues, there are some real differences in interpretation of the law amongst my colleagues and i do expect some of those differences to play out, one of the things that i dont about losing commissioner cheryl lafleur, she was someone who was willing to negotiate and compromise and work deals with us and my fear is that, without her there if we fall on two one it divides the simple narrative will be, there is ferc being political again, i think for the regulatory community, stakeholders, consumers, the ultimate arbiter of our work will be the course and whether our orders are legally durable or not. That is my focus, it is on securing votes on orders that can be passed by the commission that will withstand legal scrutiny and if there is an order that goes out on a two one bases, i have said before and also to get, with the commissioner in my view makes a review stronger because we have to anticipate the pattern of the arguments made in that dissenting opinion and the underlying order and i think in my view, i hope that gives greater strength to the order that the commission puts out and so that is how i will measure the success or failure of the commission, are we producing legally durable orders that withstand usual scrutiny. Look having spent nearly a decade in the senate, having gone to the confirmation process myself, you know i understand it takes a long time, we have so much important work before us that of course we welcome a speedy nomination in the confirmation process but i think we have so much on our plate that we have three members who are capable of voting and are going to tackle these issues, we still have an Incredible Team at the commission that provides substantive counsel, legal counsel, historical precedents and i am confident that we can address these challenging questions that weve had with the constitution of commissioners that weve had right now. So folks are pretty technical, they deal with 90 issues, so how do you understand the broader public and what ferc, and does it matter . I think its important, i myself even in first coming to washington and working on energy and electricity policy probably didnt appreciate the significance of electricity at large, even though its something we are so blessed in this country, we take it for granted, we take electrical liability for granted so i think ferc has always been a significant agency but it was kind of, flew under the radar and wasnt as much in the public eye, i think over the last decade or so, various factors, the profile has been enhanced and i think there is a lot of intention and scrutiny paid to the work that the commission does, i dont know that the work we do today is any more consequential than it was a decade ago, but there is a lot more attention paid to it. Some of it comes from the fact that as we spoke earlier, in the absence of major federal gestation, key decisions are being made at the commission and that in and of itself brings attention, but i also think Energy Issues writ large, are far more on the focus of the public. When i first came to washington, i dont think this is a negative comment, Energy Policy was boring, you didnt read about Energy Policy and major publications, if you werent on the senator energy or energy and commerce committee, you didnt often go to the house or senate floor to make speeches about nuanced technical engineering points regarding Energy Policy, i think as issues around climate and carbon mitigation and the Energy Transition have risen in the publics profile, that in turn has raised the visibility of the commission, but thats why i think its so important to have forums like this, because fork is highly technical, because it is very important and we have stringent rules that limit our ability to communicate with stakeholders in our processes, i think when there are opportunities for members of the commission and staff to kind of communicate with the public about the key matters before us, i think thats a benefit to everyone. Its something that i have tried to do and i know my colleagues have as well, because i think it is important we have the most transparency in the public and the important decision we have to make. Earlier you touched on enabling new technologies to succeed by breaking down barriers, i think its a language that you used, are there other ways that new Technological Innovations interact with ferc work, is another type of analysis and deliberations that you need to, do for example, low costs, as you put it zero fuel Power Sources that have close to zero marginal costs production, that challenges the historical way in which markets have operated which has been set on the margin largely by fuel cost, so accommodating that in helping markets to adjust to that technology, its beyond preventing barriers, theres other challenges, how does that enter into ferc and is there a role for them to be attended to those innovation, and another response that you brought up enabled Data Information technology and other mechanisms now make the ability to accommodate man response into the marketplace more readily. I think there is no doubt in addition to breaking down barriers to access for a new technologies, there are markets are constantly adapting and making interim changes. We have for two decades now and i expect that to continue because as the innovation continues address changes in the marketplace, its incumbent upon the market regulator to stay on those changes and i think we do a pretty good job at the commission of not just react to market changes but also looking forward, we have an Office Energy policy that looks down at the horizon, i think they give a lot of credit to former chairman bay and to the office, the opp office for initiating what the storage rulemaking and i think we will see where we proceed on aggregated distributed Energy Resources and other necessary proceedings as what i expect to be continue innovation. Thats another thing is why im such a big believer in these markets and want these markets to succeed, i think some of the innovation that we have seen when it comes to transmission and new services of power store, competition drives innovation, it drives cost, so i think successive markets will continue to drive innovation that will yield benefits to consumers, the economy and the environment and i think it will help us with their goals of emitting carbon. One final question, when we look back of the role of commissioner, how to describe success . I think if you look back and say under my leadership we have regulatory rid it is enabling new technologies to flourish, that we are participation in our markets, maintaining this and reducing Carbon Emissions and be proud of my tenure. All right questions, we have some microphones here, we have some appear, gentleman in the red sure, please say your name and affiliation. My name is Alan Weinstein im an neurologist with no other job right now so i dont work technical problem i dont know the limits of your authority, if for example you decided that a new technology was ripe enough to replace natural gas and our Energy Provision resources, can you actually make that happen, and can you require that plans convert to a Renewable Energy source and if so what authority do the plans have to comply with your order . So thats a great question, we were created in 1978 and government by a pair of statutes, the natural gas act and the paris act, we are, i believe our foremost responsibility is to ensure the reliability of the electorate, so that when you hit the light switch the light comes on not favor one fuel source or another but to address your hypothetical, the role that we would play if there was a technology that could replace natural gas as you state, our role would be to ensure one that, borg instructors allow that technology to compete and compensated, that artificial barriers preclude that technology from being compensated, by the most important thing we would need to do is ensure that the liability of the grid wasnt impacted by that new technology. One followup question, if a natural Energy Source desires to ignore youre decisions and continue to use their own, what and 30 do you have to enforce it . To be totally clear we dont have any authority to make determinations about what fuel source generator can or cannot use we just have to ensure that the reliability of secret is maintained. Question over here. Hello im with utility death just a quick question what role do you view to be put by reform when you mention that renewables half a Business Case of the, round without government subsidies or Government Policies. That is a great question, a law that was passed in the late 1970s, the original idea behind this about constraints on our natural gas supply and a desire to push for innovation and access to honorable sources of energy, the Energy Markets and the energy world today is totally different, it has changed exponentially sensitive in the 1970s and i think it is time to modernize and bring it to the 21st century, i think major changes to it need to come from congress but there are things that we can do within our regulations to improve it to it to better align our with the realities of todays market and a stand by what i said earlier, i think there is a real Business Case to be made for renewables, that is not something that im speaking analysis and are very forward leaning on a future prospects for renewables, i know ive spoken to myriad folks who believe that there is a strong future for renewables and i think renewables are at a place where they can stand on their own and compete without government subsidies and policies and i think that is an exciting thing for markets and for innovation and so anti reforms that we make to modernize papa, should in my view would not have a detrimental effect on renewables because i think renewables can compete on their own. Right, there you go. Hi im sean and i am a graduate student my question is, how folks started thinking about the integration in terms of trying to reduce barriers for these to be integrated or even pricing, or doesnt come under the same regulation of Battery Storage and is it different . Thank you for the question its a little bit outside of our purview but i will say that the idea of increased electrification of vehicles another plane the grid we would have to look at it through a demand say through liability side but there are other interesting questions that quite frankly a lot of us had previously given consideration to that are coming up that i think are fascinating in this space, one example is i met with a group of retailers, Petroleum Retailers who consumers were demanding that they include vehicle charging stations at their facilities and so they were and currently cost of not only retrofitting their facilities to include the charging stations but theyre also absorbing the power cost when consumers came in and played in their vehicles, one of the things that at the state level and some of the federal level will want to look into is could they charge consumers for plugging in their vehicle, right now in the current paradigm someone comes and they played in their electric vehicle they go in the store and buy a bag of chips and come out and unplug and charged and there off, that retailer doesnt feel like its a fair target if youre filling up youre gasping and know exactly what youre paying for a gallon of gas and youre not incurring cause for charging your vehicle, so it seems like an innocuous an easy Problem Solved but it turns out if in fact that retailer was engaged in the resale of the sale of electricity that is something that could trigger jurisdiction, and, i say that as an example of everything weve been talking about here, the Energy Transition is offering so much exciting potential but there is one in the middle youre. Things richard and thanks mister chairman, i want to know if you can talk about the recent few for pipeline and the state trying to block that approval and water approval issues, the decision was unanimous, i think it was informed by a court order but i would love to hear your thoughts on that and what it means for the future of constitution or whether its president ial to other states. I know i will say that in arriving at the unanimous decision we did we based it on in the holding a hoop a volley and im reluctant to speak beyond that because of the implications for that in other matters. Question here in the front. High with steel and mining, e i have a hard ball for the chairman, the demand for a long, time not a hardball, you serve in the commission in a polarizing moment in history and you mentioned climate is one of the biggest issues that were motivating, can you speak particularly for people younger than me about the value of Public Service and your work in congress and now with the commission, is it worth it . A i think Public Service is so important and i commend everyone, yourself from our prior days working together in the senate to those who work across the government on the state level and federal level but also the stakeholders, you know who advocate for positions whether promoting different kinds of technologies, advocating for consumers, advocating for Energy Efficiency, i think it is all part of the dialog and what makes our democracy function i can say for the staff, for the rules that i have served with on a commission, both past and present, they are all in genuine Public Servants, i dont think folks come in with an agenda, they may come in with a world view, philosophical, legal or otherwise, but i dont think they come in with an agenda and i think they genuinely how to do good and they know for me i think what i am motivated by, i am currently serving as chairman of the commission not by choice but by circumstance, my predecessor, my dear friend and mentor, in the late chairman Kevin Mcintyre passed away but he was really a role model and an example to me of what a Public Servant should be. He truly cared about the Public Interest and every day woke up wanting to do what was right by the Public Interest and i think many of the ideas that were currently addressing at the commissioner things that he put into motion and i think if we can execute on the vision that he laid out that will not just secure his legacy, i think it will be to all of our benefits because i think he truly exemplifies and personifies what it means to be a Public Servant and just had ideas that he thought were right to pursue and so when i look to someone like the late chairman i cant help but think, he was 57 years old, a partner in a law firm for two decades, he didnt need to do the job, he chose to step forward and doing and he wanted to do good, he wanted to do right by his country and i think he was a patriot. I just hope that i can follow in his footsteps and others, i will say to my time in congress as well, there was a period of time that we worked on the same side yet we came together on numerous instances during our joint tenure in the senate because i think you advising youre principle and i advising my own were trying to do what was right for the country and the constituencies representative and thank you for a year prior Public Service and i think somebody with three young kids today i hope that my service inspires them to similarly serve their country in some form. We can hand the microphone right here, to this gentleman. , my name is terre hill, and with the institute. Theres a lot of houses out there, what role can we see for building . Particularly, you mentioned the word aggregation. What about aggravation . That is outside of my purview and expertise so i am reluctant to comment, other than to say, you know, Energy Efficiency and the like in new construction will have a positive impact, but i cannot speak to that level of specificity. Its outside of my expertise. We have time for one last question and, its going to go right up front. Sorry to others. Thank you, richard, and thank you for your interview. If you are making suggestions to congress as to areas that might either enhance your jurisdiction, especially in the state conflicts or unclear issues, what would you be suggesting . I have i simple suggestion, and im not saying this to be funny, i promise. My suggestion is to make Energy Policy born again. When it is boring and you leave it to the engineers and lawyers, we can get positive things done for the grid and for the country. It wasnt so long ago that Energy Policy was boring, when i first came to congress, the Senate Energy resource committee, both from new mexico, they would and the gavel back and forth so the committee continue to function and deposit of things, we got the Energy Policy act of 2005 because it was so boring. If we can get back to that, i think we can get some positive things for the country. We are reaching 1 00, so at this point i really want to thank you all for participating in this, thank you for joining us on your thoughtful questions this, is exactly the kind of conversation we like to have added resources for the future, hopefully leading us to more positive and a healthier environment, and a thriving economy at the same time. Thank you to you all following us online, you can view this afterward as well online. You can also go to our website and sign up, support our continent. Finally, i want to thank you chairman chatterjee for your service and this conversation. Acting director of national intelligence, testifies thursdays before the House Select Committee on the process and handling of the whistleblower complaint, involving president trump. Representatives from google, facebook, twitter and the Anti Defamation League testify at this summit