Same way they have in the past decade. And will talk more about why this is. Make sure we discuss what our response is going to be to this evolving problem. Weekrchers just last published a major scientific report. The report made it clear if we are ever going to get ahead of the problem the Forest Service needs to respond to wildfires in a fundamentally different way. A self reinforcing cycle of counter effective actions. The same keep using tired approaches we have for the last 100 years. We need to make sure we are focused on getting different results. Common sense tells us our response these to be modified now that the problem is different. The Service Report does a great job tell great job summing up what the report needs to do. Altering the current trajectory will require a total system transformation. States thebluntly status quo increases losses we suffer from wildfires and significantly affects the ability to meet the core mission. We need new solutions. My chairg to work with
America. And there are still barriers like in my state tragically and it gets back to the earlier question cynthia, about jobs. In new york state, we have the same shale gas resource that they do in pennsylvania. In pennsylvania, they have 60 to 80,000 jobs good paying jobs developing that domestic source of clean gas. In new york state, we have a moratorium we have nothing. And we need to develop resources like that. The second thing i do on energy is create an integrated north american concept of energy independence. Canada developed massive resources. That was why the Keystone Pipeline was going to bring canadian oil to our gulf coast refineries, replacing oil from venezuela. I think that would have been a very good thing. Mexico is just changed its rules so they can bring in American Investment and technology to develop their oil and gas resources. So we can create a north American Energy powerhouse that makes us not reliant at all on the middle east or unstable overseas sources of
Misleading by omission. I point the court to page 295 of that decision where it said cloak of office phrase is not inherently novel or objectional way of describing the action. In this setting to consider criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith
Criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith instruction which wrapped it up, in good faith no criminal intent and no crime. If he does it in good faith theres no crime. And if good faith is what saves him. And you called all the character witnesses
Statement. First, for carl to respond. So you have noted that natural gas and leads to the displacement of coal in the power sector has what assumptions have you made about natural gas Going Forward the next 15 years, and what are the implications of that assumption for sailing up renewables and methane . We dont assume changes from those trajectories. Clearly, the four Building Blocks between the power plant will cause a mixture of both increases in natural gas use along with renewables in Energy Efficiency. Most of our projections assume that the state consistent with epas projections that the states will take advantage of all four Building Blocks. So we dont have we dont have explicit renewable additions beyond that in our coram business pathway. Rather the Clean Power Plant projections show significant increase in renewables and no disruptions or price pressure on the natural gas sector. Could i add something on this point, with respect to natural gas . I think one of the stories a