Policies that stimulate the economy and share security and protect the nations health. It is already taken steps to limited regulatory obstacles on the energy industry, focus on Domestic Energy production and revive the coal industry. What can we expect from the new administration Going Forward . How will potential changes in Energy Policy and production impact u. S. Foreignpolicy . Where does this leave global experts to discuss all Things Energy please welcome our moderator for this panel jason grumet, the founder president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and his pedals to the stage. Sarah ladislaw, director and senior fellow, energy and National Security program at csis. Katharine macgregor, Deputy Assistant secretary for land and Mineral Management at the department of the interior. And joseph stanko, parker at hunton and williams partner. [applause] good afternoon everyone. Thanks for taking in here with us. Terrible, training, its awful out there. Good to be with you. Im delighted to be here. I will just do what about the Bipartisan Policy Center, the essence of our mission is a constructive collusion ideas. We are not nonpartisan or postpartisan who dont believe in abstract objectivity. We believe in having professional practitioners, republicans and democrats with strong personal spiritual, emotional and economic interest coming together and hash it out. Some with a good set of ideas and have a good fight for the register i feel like im in good company with the panel i will introduce. Immediately to my left, sarah, someone ive known for a long time, is a director at csis, center for strategic and international studies, one of the real anchors here in the washington thinking community. Next to sarah, Kate Macgregor is a recent appointed Deputy Assistant for land and minerals at the department of interior. And theres really no, it else appointed there so sarah can pretty much say everything you want to know about our nations interior. Joe stanko, also a longtime friend, partner at hunton and williams, tremendous expertise in all things regulatory and we will press him a little bit today on the power sector. So i will just set the stage in about 60 seconds which is to Say Something very obvious which is we have an incredible dynamic political and policy moment on Energy Policy. A discussion where having right now is pretty remarkable. We also have an incredibly Dynamic Energy system. For those of you who follow this even a little bit if you remember back a dozen years, the story of American Energy was the story of cold showers and warm beer. It was despair. Natural gas was 1 13 a cubic foot. Manufacturing was fleeing the country. The dependence on foreign and imported products, getting larger of you. Our Climate Emissions could only be imagined to go out. It was a pretty bleak time around 2003, four and five. Congress came together at the urgency in past a pretty good energy legislation. If you fastforward to 2017, the Trump Administration comes in a pretty solid footing. Andy prices have been relatively low and relatively stable the last several years. Tremendous amount of technological breakthrough. Some of it driven by good public policy, as fundamentally reoriented the American Energy posture from one of dependence to one of abundance. We are now the largest producer of hydrocarbons on the floor. We are an Energy Superpower. It is fundamentally restructure our imagination about manufactured, i foreignpolicy footprint. Weve seen incredible breakthroughs in energy efficiency, renewable technologies, the natural gas boom has dramatically shifted the industry both in terms of manufacturing and the power sector. Our gas emissions are going down. Pretty good moment to have a pretty good conversation. I guess i will try to do three things to do a little bit of a big picture, talk a bit about abundance, what can actually the government due to capture, embraces benefit. We will talk like energy and climate change, had we managed to sustain and capture the benefits and strengthen Americas Energy resources while being good stewards of the environment and the climate . Im going to take it off with kate in the hot seat. President has put out some pretty polished executive orders really focus on capturing this Energy Abundance. How do you see the moment . Do you think the way i framed it is reasonably similar to what you are thinking about it . What is the process of your 18 8 hour days as you think about how to make good on the president commitments . I think you are characterizing it perfectly correctly. I think that its an exciting time especially for the department of the interior to play a strong will and what the president would like to achieve. And with you sent Energy Dominance and Energy Strength, i think that derives from energy diversity. And when you look at federal lands which is what the department of the interior has an expertise in, obligation and jurisdiction and, we have a quite diverse array of Energy Wealth that we can bring to the table. It already is a part of our Nations Energy dynamic. I think federal lands right now are accountable for 21, maybe a little more than that, about 21 of our nations Oil Production company and 60 of our nations natural gas. Coal leasing on blm lands alone is 40 of coal produced in the United States. All of this is at the department of the interior when the president questioned as to take a hard look at what we can bring to the table, i think will be ready to answer that call. Just a quick followup. So every agency is supposed to come up with a specific set of measures, recommendations, activities. Can you say a little bit about how that is going . Sure. I mean, right now without giving too much away, because thats why they are all here. However, think we take a look at what doi can do its going to break into several different buckets. We are going to be talking about access to federal lands. We are also talking about regular toy certainty which is a part of that executive order. And on top of that we will also be talking about time frames, which he and i talked about a little bit. As we look at that now, thats how we are organizing some of the directives in the executive order and taking a hard look at some of the regulations from the past administration, what should stay, what should go, whats the smart choice to make sure that we achieve a good balance between providing an accident scene our Energy Abundance without sacrificing i see you put your purple tie on, which i appreciate that. My partisan for you, jason. Before we could keep on Clean Power Plan and other items, where d. C. The moment, speak about the mood. You were with a lot of big energy producers. Is there whiplash between last year this year . How are people taking this opportunity . In the Energy Community theres optimism and we have a pro production, pro infrastructure president , and as you know, the executive branch and the president are found in authority by statute in the criteria that are passed by congress. There are many who think on a number of key programs that the last administration went right up to the edge, made outside of the swim lanes on some of the interpretations that would push certain policies in energy distribution, and i think if you look at whats going to go on, i think the near term is going to be reexamination of some of those prior policies. And probably some proposals to move them back within the zone that arguably Congress Granted the agency to act. That is probably going to take a fair amount of time. And then after that, then youre going to see the administration applying the existing statutes i think in a way that will try and balance a number of issues, but still get the increase production in the infrastructure that has really created a lot of manufacturing an additional activity in the past couple of years. I want to ask you to speak about the process to those here who do not have at initiation procedure act under their pillow like you do. Oftentimes president s come to town and are surprised to realize that there are these rather laborious, deliberate activities that are required before one can change the direction of national policy. Walkthrough, you said it will take some time. What its not flipping the switch. The way that the Administration Procedure act works, which is a procedure for any significant major regulatory action under statute, is the agency has to develop a proposal. They published it for comment. Be open at docket and receive they open at docket and receive tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of comments, many of them putting speedy they are obligated to read . They read, you know, one of the most exciting things in the world of administering law is the response to comment documents. Looks like about eight manhattan yellow pages put together. And then the develop a final rule. And that will can be challenged and litigated through the appellate courts. So a rule of thumb that we use in any significant rulemaking is, its about a year if you do it quickly from proposal to final rule. Sometimes longer if its a tough issue. And the litigation of that rule going through in some instances the d. C. Circuit and the potentially a supreme court, can be two to four year adventure. That industry hasnt issues with certainty, but i think if agencies stay more or less down the middle, they end up with a product that even if it is challenged industry has got a pretty good idea if its not, and the states and stakeholders have a pretty good idea if its not going to swing too far one way or another. Sera come for purposes of this bill your all things international. Csis has a lot of expertise in this regard. How would you situate the moment anin that broader context of the Global Energy . Its interesting. Jason, you characterized it so well as were both in Energy Superpower which weve always been influential and Global Energy markets but we are in different in new ways Going Forward. And i think whats interesting is we are finding that much of the world is in a state transition. The Global Energy will be coming from fundamentally different places than it used to. And if you were to ask the normal person on the street who are the Biggest Oil Producer in the world, they probably would not have the use in the top three but there are three producers in the world that produce over 10 Million Barrels a day and we are one of them. We have a massive refining industry, tons of gas, tons of coal. So we are pretty influential in a lot of Energy Market dynamics right now, and not least of which are leadership on Energy Innovation and Clean Energy Technologies is also pretty profound. We carry a lot of weight in that global arena. A lot of people ask these days if the United States is changing its course on energy, how much is it going to matter to other countries around the world. From a Market Dynamics perspective it always met with the assistant income always matters because we really are the affluent and a lot of energy sectors. That also instead interaction of policy and regulation and the multilateral framework. But i would also say that its also being absorbed by a lot of things that this new administration wants to change that are not necessarily energyrelated, but do changes that geopolitical framework. You just cant say were changing the way that we are dealing with energy to a change a lot of trade and foreign policy, tax policy things that affect energy. So i think a lot of the people that we talked to in the country who talked about the world, energy is one of the things they care about in sort of the new u. S. Persona globally but it is one of many. They are trying to get where it falls into own priority stack, visavis the United States. So that was the beginning of the Opening Night he ran. My hope that isnt going to mix it up a bit, as each other questions, and to crush into an. I want to talk about some of the symbol of the big debate. Look back at the last figures you would say Clean Power Plan and keystone were probably the two issues that became the crucible in which much broader arguments took place. And my own moderated editorial here is neither of them or that big of a deal, rightclick the got a lot of pipelines going back and forth across the u. S. Canadian border. Most of the oil is flowing anyway, that is a biggie for such a project but it was not the central issue of the future american Energy Policy. Personal editorial. You guys can hopefully dispute or engage. The Clean Power Plan, with the last epa mr. Gina macarthur speaks, she says no biggie, its all going to happen anyway. The targets will be met. The natural momentum in the system has essentially, we were riding the wave, and so whether an expresident revokes or not we will get to same place anyway. Reflections on ite items that ad where do you see those issues going . Ill pop in on the Clean Power Plan, and i think no shocker there, one of the things that are think is important to delineate is the difference between changes that are made by market or technology forces, and changes that are attempted to be super accelerated by a program in a way that is not reflective of the natural order of those two. And former administrator of the epa mccarthy is correct in saying when you look across the generation of the United States, it has shifted in a way due to the price and availability of a natural gas that has a lower Carbon Footprint than ten, 15, 20 years ago here the key word there is price and availability of natural gas. Not too long ago we were in a world of eight to 12 natural gas. It was really tough from manufacturers. I know many of you, maybe not all of you, dont know that natural gas is used to produce chemicals and pharmaceuticals, was a big terrifying hit on American Manufacturing because of that. The issue with Clean Power Plan in plain english, fortunately, is it is a mechanism by which epa is supposed to go to an existing facility and to look at the equipment that is there to reduce emissions and make judgments about what to require about existing facilities. The best system of adequately demonstrate. For 30 years this was an adventure in sin engineers add to existing plants looking at things that took air out, seeing if they worked and asking the question, can anybody else in the industry do this . With the Clean Power Plan thaad system of reduction turned into an examination of the entire Electricity Generation and delivery system. And asking not engineers but atomic model to see if the system as a whole with a number of control on it could reduce the Carbon Footprint. I would argue that that certainly is a departure from the past, and not really promoting i think the kind of adequate push of delivery of existing technology that congress intended spirit so that maybe a couple of investors in the realm, and i just want to kind of i think certainly embrace the sense that was an extension of authority that this president has decided not, it was in his interest, thats going to be rolled back or review and hopefully touch on that. But do you believe based on your sense of the availability of natural gas that when the Clean Power Plan is rolled back that is good to have a Significant Impact on the trajectory of emissions question do you think emissions will go up a whole bunch is the president follows through and repeals the i think to some extent the market is moved, and i think the portfolio of a generation and, therefore, existing emissions is really going to reflect the price and operational differences between a coal plant and power plant and some renewables. Renewables are part of a mix. One little bit on that is regardless, and have been subsidized here for quite some time with the goal of trying to deploy technology, but a lot of our states have shifted to not a regulated Utility Industry but a market industry. I think however you feel about renewables like wind power, when they fit into a competitive market at either zero cents per kilowatt hour or negative one, because you can still pay the agreed to take your electricity and make money off of the subsidies and the credits, thats a distortion that has other implications that its very tough to build baseload power in those markets. And so i think across the board renewables are definitely part of the mix. Everybody that i work for in the electric generation has some wing that does renewables. But we are going to have to grapple with some of those in order to have a stable grid and diversity Going Forward. Can i just add to that real quick . I agree and i think one of the things we forget is that so much in electric power sector beyond the Clean Power Plan was changing, that those are the sort of the wins that everybody was thinking would be road, it was underlying. I do think that its likely to continue but also think we better not forget there was an expectation if there is a Different Administration that cpp was in a further process pics of the art of longerterm market signals that utilities and i can think of what to want to do about this . I havent been to a meeting lately where the word pendulum hasnt been brought up and like what to do about the pendulum effect of u. S. Policy in that we keep sort of sweeping back and forth to these edges of the debate where its getting harder and harder for us to do that because we are long Energy Supply so we dont need to build new generations and thats running the Business Model for a lot of utilities and a lot of places. Incremental generation and renewables, grappling with that new reality of not actually needing to a lot of new Electricity Supply is sort of a new problem for us to be grappling with. Remember a week after the election, some republicans, building a lot more of nuclear. Why . I carbon copy to be replacing infrastructure. We are not going to be doing as much Electricity Generation capacity if weve been poorly thought the history of the country. Its kind of a new horizon for us that we sorted need to think about. I know Clean Power Plan is not your exact villain . Regulations are. This comes down to it many ways when companies are making investment decisions, a lot of the Regulatory Environment from washington has affected pricing. When it comes down to it, if a company is looking to make an investment, whether its in a new coal plant which we havent seen recently, new nuclear which also havent seen recently, or natural gas, depending on the region, they are going to be pricing out the different aspects of that project and scrubbers and other aspects of capture technologies come into play. And as you create different regulations that change that game and impact that pricing, it has a very real impact nationwide. So thats something that we looking at, and i think part of what interior is doing in response to the executive order is to make more of our, of course, varied resources available, but the market will end up determining what is the best path forward. Installation with what the american, American Families and businesses are willing to pay for electricity prices. One more Clean Power Plan, ii cant let you off the hook. Sarah talked about the pendulum. Everyone wants certainty, good certainly. Nobody likes bats or depict certainly unto itself is a good thing i think sometimes gets exaggerated. But you made the point, joe, i think you could pull this back to the lane. This idea that had eva gone forward and just basically regulate the facility based on what you could do to the smokestacks, that wouldve been more consistent with the past. You represent a lot of power sector clients. Is there a preference right now as to whether this should be repealed or repeal and replace . The one thing i certainly heard, some concern that, maybe not perfect but there is a lame. You occupy the space was something that is predictable, and thats preferable than just taking the rules away and waiting for the next president to do something different, which seems like thats kind of the signal weve been getting. I went on behalf of your clients what you think is a better outcome . Well, i never get out in front of my clients, but what i will say is, i think thats a discussion. I sat through eight hours of arguments the d. C. Circuit on the Clean Power Plan. That will never that i will never get back. Some of them were that there was legal justification for a no outcome, whether it was another part of the act planted this. And so i think Going Forward the current epa administrator scott pruitt, i think he is a real log ip hes a former attorney general. I think it would go through the options. Certainly the path that i described is one that the agency has taken before and is consistent with past actions, if you go out and point to something that somebody is using economically and functionally and so were situated people can use it. Theres also a part of this that got missed in the old version were epa set in admission guidelines and the states were amount of room on flexibility by congress are enumerated criteria to move the needle i will get up. So we may see that. They may look at some of the arguments for a no outcome. I think it will look at it, look at the litigation risk and the policy. As i said before, i think it came up a number of times in hs confirmation hearings, pruitt is a rule of law guy and think is going to make a decision based on the legal criteria. So having, pick the fights about Clean Power Plan and keystone to keep everybodys blood flowing, one of the happy words is infrastructure. Critical to the energy sector, i akimbo editorialized that i was kind of disturbed in the past year a lot of people that the best way to accelerate the featureless screwup the present, like block a lot of research projects, make the Current Energy system expensive or cumbersome or prevent access to markets and that will spirit you forward more quickly. I think this president does not abide that idea of the notion you accelerate the future by having a strong market. So a couple things to talk about. One with you, kate, is permitting infrastructure is tough. A lot of Energy Infrastructure is long and skinny. Power lines and pipelines. The worst possible challenge when it comes to permitting something. A lot of those are federal departments, and renewables as well. How are you going after that . This is not a new challenge but do you feel like this be a priority to try to streamline that permitting process . This will be a priority and begin event to go there, it all comes down to lengthening the permitting process only increases the cost of the project. Its not going to just be through the department of interior. I think well all have two come together, a lot of in agency work to get that across the finish line. We wont be the first people who have ever attempted to streamline, special things like need the mac and other issues paper we do have a lot in our field house which a lot on federal lands, for instance, if you need a rightofway which keystone does go across part of federal land. We are assessing our current backlogs in several different field offices in the last alaska and elsewhere to transmit energy. I think its something we realize we need to take on how we do that is still being formulated. But with some pretty good ideas. One of the ironies is that there is often not a huge desire Republican Administration to hire lots of government officials, but many would argue someone of backlogs are are driven by the fact that a lot of Energy Activity and not enough people. Do you think interior will be open, or whether the capacity to provide the Human Capital necessary to move those processes for . We are in that mode. Totally unfair. Three weeks. For her to be here at all sh shs upon by everyone. Joe, asked about the Research Issue in the international context. So keystone a lot of attention to the fact that were connected to other nations when it comes to energy, and that has been important aspect of our resilience. We export tremendous amount of energy to mexico. Theres both a desire to have kind of a strong north American Continent but also the president basically threatened to rip up nafta which i taken seriously and not literally on that point. How do you think about the Energy Integration issues as a related infrastructure, and other opportunities, risks . Tons of opportunity in north america. Its deeply ironic to think that the u. S. Has been after Energy Independence for 40 years, and here we are spitting difference away from north American Energy independence, whatever that means, right . But at least starting to question its value, visavis our neighbors. I think part of that is because preiser low editing part of it is also because typically, people dont understand that abundance doesnt equal security. If you have it in the ground, congratulations. If you cant get it to where its needed, well, then you are not very secure. So i think that we need to think about the future of the continent and the costbenefit analysis of having an optimize marketer i think with our neighbors, canada and mexico, it means looking at the transitions aand concerns about the have. Having to north American Energy issue for 12 years now, im always amazed at how mexico and canada are always looking at us and saying what does the u. S. Want now . What does u. S. Want now . Wiki changing answer on them. I think we wouldve a much job for ourselves and then if we kept that as a relatively consistent, i think and use of the watauga force is at his infrastructure issues are really difficult. Keystone was a bit of an outlier. Its a symbolic issue for systemic problem, which is that we dont have a rational path forward on deal with climate change. Which is going to keep having those problems and less we try and figure out a way to square that circle. But we had a big issue that this administration will need to deal with if they are serious about not only Economic Growth for social and economic mobility as a relates to energy, which is regional Energy Infrastructure projects have real big problems. We are not doing a very good job of thinking about how to build out Energy Infrastructure, in particular regions of the country given the fact that they are changing so dramatically both in terms of what the produce of what the export and what the import. Its a huge amount of change for short short period of time. I do think we need to think about regional icing Energy Strategy within the u. S. But thinking about our north american neighbors in that context and also not forgetting how many states within the United States has deep and Robust Energy ties with other countries around the world. I think the administration has a lot of salvos that they use to talk to other countries, but once they hear from states and circuit into the numbers about what the Energy Relationships are in various states around the country, they will realize that theres a lot of really important and mutually beneficial ties to be cultivated there. Global technology leaders, theres capacity for yall to ask questions via the app. I find shocking but it is working. I was going to encourage you to do that and pick one of them up this is about the credit subsidies. Joe, you mentioned it been a very strong effort over the last decade or so to push subsidies towards these kind of multirenewable but evolving technologies under the person to have overcome a market berry, get a foothold. Wind is a very successful commercial tech lg. Its not an garage is in silicon valley. Its purchasing gig watts of energy. The question is about is the time to reallocate or reimagine that subsidy policy either toward clean coal or rather the neighboring base of renewables, based on performance metric like carbon or other pollutants, what is your sense and is a possibility there . Traditionally, i think congress has always approached these as one offs. You have the wind subsidy, solar subsidy, you do have inevitable policy dilemma of it is used to kickstart or have training wheels on a concept educate proof of concept and it becomes marketable. The costs come down and so when is it the right time to take a subsidy off . Theres a very vigorous conversation right now up on the hill more or less about whether to extend the wind subsidy or whether to use the existing sort of spend down. Theres also folks who would like to move away from subsidies and push it into r d. That some of them may be a more pure approach, work on the technology and then have it go from that. There are folks are talking about a reallocation of subsidies. I think one of the conversations thats going on is clean coal technology. I think theres a recognition when you move out to a global approach, that fossil fuels have been around for a while, tickle in developing countries, and if you can drive the cost of cc u. S. Are other technologies down, you would have a deployment and perhaps have a larger impact on global emissions than some of the other policy mechanisms that are around. Carbon capture the traditional washington mistake of going theres a quarter jar back there. Kate, i know its unfair to say, whats the precision of policy on this issue, but from a philosophical standpoint you think this something the administration left to tackle . I will not answer for the initiation but i will answer as a former hill staffer. Every subsidy, capacity has seven offset. This will ultimately be a a decision as to whether the congress would like to make extensions of existing subsidies but, of course, it always comes down to the balancing act of how do you score that ended that theyre both the house and the senate. A couple more conversations you had to guess make sure that we dont end the discussion with a race in the topic thats been very much in the news lately, which is of the u. S. Continued present in the National Climate conversation as i think again described by the participation of the paris agreement, thats one among a number of different avenues in this discussion. I said you were the global now on the panel so i will pitch to you first. Whats your view about the importance of that agreement, and to you or csis have an opinion . Yes, since i says does take position on anything. So anything i say is my opinion. Should we stay involved, sure. Do i think the administration is going to stay involved . I ask or think its a live discussion but its not like its usually prioritized one. I feel like if youre thinking about the value of a lot of Different International conversations, i think the Administration May be more focused on the things that its doing at home right now and secondarily considering sort of how that translates into all these different agreements. So if theres a way of having a seat at the table and maintaining a role within the Global Climate change framework, then i think theres not a lot of downside. If you participate in the Paris Climate Accord and you dont meet your targets, theres not a lot of punishment to that. Theres a lot of conversations that you cant and should be part of. I think a lot of allies of the United States would like to see them continue to participate in the conversation. So theres not a huge amount of downside unless you think theres domestic, political blowback from participating, which im not sure that would actually be so terrible as long as youre making the kinds of reform that you think are beneficial to the u. S. Knowing this is actively debated by the cabinet, i will talk would ask you to venture in administration opinion but joe, unfairly, making you the voice s for all of american industry, i know that exxon mobil came out and said that they thought the u. S. Should stay part of the accord. How do you hear this discussion happening in the halls of i think to build on what sarah said, is the most important nearterm thing is i think folks are looking at the administration as we examine some of the policies and regulations that arguably outside of the swim lane in a way that caused either carbon reduction actions that were not part of the original intent of that program, and that we sort of get back to the application of statutes that were put together by congress balancing lots of different worthy and competing goals. Thats the important nearterm goal. The agreement, as far as i know, is not enforceable, and so the u. S. Is going to moderate its participation level. I think thats the nearterm question, and it will be for the administration to decide whether they want to pull out our weather they want to sit back, but clearly show where they are going to be on domestic programs. My last question is kind of an optimism lightning rather Energy Policy has always been a place where we got strong bipartisan agreement. Its often been driven by interest much more the national interest. Look at the 2005 and 2007 energy bill. I think innocent and 75 and 86 votes. And so looking for engines of collaboration in a polarized congress, i wonder if each of you that offer a thought about an issue that you like to see Congress Take up that has the capacity to start to rebuild a more constructive dialogue and maybe sarah, start with you. I think probably i do think infrastructure has been talked a lot about today. I think its such a pressing need for the country to have better infrastructure and Energy Infrastructure in particular. If you can find a way to utilize combinations of gas and Renewable Resources and find and after to this equation but nuclear. Its important, there are a lot of things change in the electric power sector in the u. S. That are going to come to a head with a without climate policy. And i think that Congress Needs of a role in vatican editing the white house is going to have a role in that. I guess just to use washington clinch a comma we are not and on the above they show it comes to Energy Resources and there is a vision of the future that can optimize our production and use of all of those things. If we take you sort of an all fossil fuels or an all renewables without a plan for infrastructure post were going to lose in every single one of those. This is not a decade ago. The worlds economy is not growing gangbusters. Weve got to create the publishers with Energy Resources that we have. We are not typically very good at that but we really should do it. Its an awesome opportunity telto your form institution whao do. I went to say congress will always do, represent the different varying aspects of our country where Energy Strength is. So i think this is a very unique opportunity to Work Together with our partners to look at various ways too, we are going to need their help, bottom line, when it comes to streamline and look at the statutes. We have a lot of power as it is but they can help us achieve some deficiencies i believe in the processes. Especially that you refer to, permitting. Joe, wish list, buddy, what you want . Im going to hop on the infrastructure bandwagon. I will make three points consistent with maybe slightly separate from sarah. What is as you pointed out we want, we have an aging infrastructure that was built in a world where we were not having the level of production and a geographic location of production. And it just does not match up. And i think we will have to cure that and the sooner we can get out ahead of that, the sooner that he think we will be able to stabilize and enjoy the benefits that we have gone with appropriate environmental and economic protections. Number two, because of the wind to situations that invention and some other things, while generation i think i take your point well, were going to see older plants exit the system. Not entirely convinced that its set up now for them to be replaced by baseload, so you can have generation capacity but you do need a certain amount of baseload. I think thats a problem we are going to have to solve potentially through infrastructure. And then finally building on energy diversity, we have a system thats building out now on sustained threedollar natural gas. Anybody will tell you that the price of natural gas has fluctuated. I know the 30 models are pretty consistent and i hope for the sake of my children they are accurate. But if they are not we have to have an energy and all of the above, appropriate all of the above to be able to do with a world where we spike up in natural gas and other things, a better price point not have a shock on the economy. Excellent wrap up. What you think all of you for your attention. Our panelists, your awesome pick kevin, i think we are wrapped. Appreciate it thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] so our next panel will explore the changing regulatory and legislates gate in washington and beyond banking and insurance. And the possibilities for Financial Sector reform from the