 Good morning everyone. Welcome to our policy forum this morning, which is part of our annual Congressional Renewable Energy and Technology Expo. We are so glad that you are here with us this morning to kick off this wonderful, wonderful annual event. And we hope you will stay around for a lot of the events and speakers during the day because it's a wonderful opportunity to hear what's going on in the clean energy field, to meet lots of terrific people, and to have a chance to look at a lot of exhibits and meet people that you would not otherwise often have the chance to do. My name is Carol Werner. I'm the Executive Director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. I'm also on the Planning and Steering Committee for the Sustainable Energy Coalition, which has worked with the caucuses to pull together this event this morning. And our first speaker on this panel is a very dear friend and colleague, Scott Sklar, who is also the Chair of our Sustainable Energy Coalition Steering Committee. In addition, he is the President of the Stella Group and an adjunct professor at George Washington University. Scott? Oh, you want us at the table? Well, thank you all, and thank you for coming. I always like to do sort of a broad base of why is this stuff important and why are we here. And I want to remind you all that the extraction, conversion, and use of energy is the single largest cause of our trade debt. It is the single largest cause of air and water pollution. It is obviously the single largest contributor to missions on climate. And we have former CIA Director Jim Woolsey walking around the floor today, and he will tell you it's really one of the most strategic issues regarding our national security. So energy is a very important issue. And so I want to sort of bring you up to date of what's happened over a year since our last expo. First of all, global investment in renewables hit $270 billion, which was a 17% increase globally from 2014. Now, when I started in this field and I worked in the Senate up here in the 70s, it wasn't even $200 million. So to see a $240 billion in one lifetime is astounding. Also, what happened is Germany, the fifth largest economy in the world over the past year, got 50% of its electricity from solar and wind. That's almost unbelievable in terms of a major industrialized nation. And in fact, in one day in May, they got over 70% of their entire electricity for the entire country of Germany from solar and wind. So that is astonishing. And in fact, when I lecture at universities around the country with my colleagues, there's been a lot of discussion and paper saying that could never happen. Ha, ha, it happened. There are tasks and challenges to bring that much solar and wind. You need other baseload. And that's why we cover all the renewable energy technologies. I want to remind you that bio power, marine energy, and free flow hydro, geothermal, even combining power, are baseload power sources that are renewable. And then, of course, you have the more variable ones. What also happened in the last year is that U.S. solar jobs surpassed coal jobs in the United States of America. That's historic. There are 173,000 U.S. solar jobs compared to 89,000 coal jobs. I have never thought that possible in my lifetime. So that's the other issue that you ought to be aware of. I also want to say we have a colleague who works with the Stable Energy Coalition, Ken Besong, who tracks U.S. usage of energy. And in May of this year, he has quoted a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report that says for the month of April 100% of all new electricity that came online in the United States. Now, this is new electricity, was 100% renewable. And the year before, it was 84% renewable of new electricity coming online. So there's a real trend in what's happening in our society on bringing on these technologies. And so, and in fact, in April, the new electric capacity, oh, the new electricity, electric capacity in the first third of 2015, okay, so four months, was 84.1% renewable of which 61% was wind, 19% solar, 2.5% geothermal, and 1% hydro. So it's pretty astounding. I also want to talk to you a little bit, not just on solar jobs, but the entire portfolio of jobs. So I already told you we have 173,807 solar jobs in the United States. We have over 50,500 jobs from wind. We have over 200,000 jobs from hydropower. We have 35,000 jobs from geothermal. We have over 152,000 jobs from biomass. That's electricity and heat. And over 292,000 jobs from fuels, biofuels. Energy efficiency in buildings, 450,000 jobs. Appliance, energy efficient equipment, 340,000 jobs. So I want you to remember that this is the driver of the new economy. Coal jobs are going down. And yes, we are creating some oil jobs from fracking and everything else, but in fact, it's not a main engine driver in terms of employment in the United States of America. Globally, of course it is. So we are seeing a sea change in technology. I think I'd like to end by saying that when I worked up here in the 70s, I got very close to Senator John Glenn from Ohio. And you may remember he was our first astronaut. And I'm doing a bill on the floor. And he voted for this solar bill in the 1970s, which remember solar was a glimmer. And I made some snide comment as a young staffer. I had hair, by the way, on my head back then. I couldn't believe a senator from a coal state voted for a solar bill. And I walk away and he puts his hand on my shoulder and gently turns me around. He says, do you know why I voted for your solar bill? And I go, no, sir. And he said, when I was an astronaut in space, sitting there in an area the size of a big refrigerator, I was staring out in a lot of blackness. And I sort of realized for the first time in my life that, yeah, there's life on other planets, but they don't look anything like us. And then, of course, you look at earth. And he says, I really internalized that this is our nest. This is it. This was the blue green in space. There was no other blue greens. And that when I came back, my whole world changed in terms of what we need to do. And that's why I voted for your little solar bill. So I'm here to actually remind you of that view that this is our little nest. It's not going to be so great living on Mars on the moon. I'm telling you. So what we do in energy has immense impact. And I teach my classes at GW. We use more water for energy than we do to grow our food. So it has impact on land use, water, economics, national security, basically everything you're interested in. Third highest cost of education is energy. Third highest cost of health care is energy. So thank you for coming. I think what you're going to hear all day for those of you that stay are ranges of specialists from the federal agencies and the private sector and nonprofit groups that have different aspects of this. And they're all pretty important. And it is the web because you need energy for everything we do. Thank you. Thanks, Scott. And that's a wonderful segue to our next presenter who is Ray Brady, who is the manager of the National Renewable Energy Coordination Office for BLM, the Bureau of Land Management at the Department of Interior. So there's a chance to hear how they are helping on renewables. Ray? Well, thank you very much, Carol. And Scott, thank you as well. I want to thank the Sustainable Energy Coalition for hosting again this annual forum on renewable energy at Congressional Forum. This is an important issue. And as Scott has indicated, renewable energy, sustainable energy, green energy for the future is important to our energy economy and the energy future of the United States. The Bureau of Land Management manages some 245 million acres of federal land, most of that land in the western United States. The Department of Interior has clearly indicated that renewable energy development is a priority of the Department of Interior, not only for the onshore federal lands that the Bureau of Land Management manages, but also our offshore wind energy resources that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management administers within the Department of Interior as well. Since 2009, the Bureau of Land Management has approved 56 renewable energy projects on our public lands. That includes 33 solar, new solar energy projects on the public lands, 11 wind energy projects, and 12 geothermal energy projects. These approved projects represent a total of over 14,000 megawatts of new electrical generation capacity. Those projects, once developed, would provide power for some 5 million homes in the United States and support also some 24,000 jobs within the renewable energy sector. I think this is in line with what Scott was talking about, the importance to our economy in our sustainable energy, renewable energy future. These projects also bring substantial capital investment expenditures that are important to the economy of the United States. The projects that have already been built on BLM land from those approved projects represent an estimated $8.6 billion of capital investments that have contributed to our economy. The other projects that are under construction at this point in time represent another $32 billion of capital investments. Taken together, both those projects that have already been constructed and the projects that are pending construction represent a total of $40 billion of potential capital investments. That's significantly important to the economy of the United States and especially our western United States where BLM has a significant presence. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set a goal for BLM of 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy projects on the BLM lands by the year 2015. BLM was able to successfully meet that goal by the year 2012. So we exceeded that goal three years ahead of schedule and that was due to the priorities that we placed on on siting and permitting and approving renewable energy projects on our public lands. Our next goal or target is 20,000 megawatts by the year 2020. That's a goal or target that this administration has set under the president's vision as part of the climate action plan. BLM is currently on target to meet that goal. We hope to exceed that goal before the year 2020. So with that, Carol, thank you very much. Great. Thank you very much, Ray. Which is very, very exciting to see that kind of movement and how important it is to make sure that there are renewables on our federal lands that are really coming forward now full force. Our final panelist on this session is Jeff Dade, who is the Assistant Director for Energy Research and Analysis with the Union of Concerned Scientists with UCS. Jeff, welcome. Thank you, Carol. And thank you, everybody, for coming to this expo today. It's exciting to be here. You know, Scott, I think, laid out very nicely where we are today in the U.S. power sector. We are in a time of unprecedented change in transition, which is really exciting from folks like my perspective and Scott, I've been working for UCS for 16 years now. We are seeing changes today that, you know, in the past decade. Nothing closer to this has happened. And as a result, we're making energy choices today that are going to be with us for the next 30 to 40 years and are really going to make or break whether or not we can make a dent in solving the climate crisis. And so what I want to talk a little bit about is some of the policy aspects that we're facing today and where we need to go in the next couple of years. So one of the really exciting things that's happening in just a few short weeks is that the EPA will be finalizing the first ever national limits on power plant carbon emissions. It's known as the Clean Power Plan. I'm sure many of you are familiar with it. As currently proposed, it would curb total U.S. power sector emissions by 30 percent over 2005 levels by the year 2030. And it's, you know, it's a significant step forward in the fight to slow the most dangerous effects of climate change. And depending on how those states choose to comply with this new standard, the Clean Power Plan has the potential to be, and I'll just restate it, has the potential to be the most significant new driver of renewable energy development in, you know, more than a decade or longer. And just to give you some perspective on that, the U.S. Energy Information Administration just recently, just last month, projected in a new analysis that the Clean Power Plan would nearly double non-hydro renewable energy resources over business as usual levels, so compared with, if we didn't have the Clean Power Plan in place, by 2030 to about 19 percent of our total U.S. power supply. And just last week in a joint statement with Brazil, the White House stated that the Clean Power Plan is an integral component to achieving its new commitment to tripling renewable energy deployment over today's levels to about 20 percent by 2030. So we can see the potential of the Clean Power Plan. However, it's important to contrast that with projections that EPA put out last year when it proposed the rule that found that renewable energy will actually play a much more modest role in the compliance plans under the Clean Power Plan, only getting us marginally higher than business as usual levels by 2030. So ultimately, the success of the Clean Power Plan in terms of driving new investments and renewables will largely depend on the states themselves. Because under the proposed rule, states are responsible for developing their compliance strategies, and they have great flexibility, at least in the current proposed rule, in the technologies and resources that they have available to them to achieve those targets. So for example, states could opt to achieve their emission reductions largely by switching from coal to natural gas. And as we know, there's strong evidence out there that suggests that America's current rush to natural gas can lead to an overreliance that poses very complex and serious risks to consumers, to public health, and to the climate in the long term. So to ensure that doesn't happen, I believe that Congress has an opportunity to play a constructive role in helping states prioritize renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies over natural gas as the foundation for reliable and cost-effective state compliance strategies under the Clean Power Plan. And I just want to highlight very quickly five policies that Congress could take up and adopt today to boost renewables as part of the Clean Power Plan strategies, compliance strategies. First and foremost, Congress could put a national price on carbon. Pricing carbon is probably the most simple and effective market-oriented policy tool recommended by many economists and policymakers across the political spectrum to curb carbon emissions and level the playing field for renewable energy against fossil fuels. Number two, Congress could adopt a national renewable electricity standard like 29 states in the District of Columbia I've already done. So Senators Udall and Markey have joined forces with a few others this year in introducing legislation that would establish a national RES that requires our nation's largest power providers to supply at least 30% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. It's a really strong plan that my organization put out an analysis on just back in May that showed would benefit consumers, it would spur the economy and help accelerate the nation's transition to low carbon economy. In fact, what we found is that consumers' electricity and natural gas bills would be about $25 billion less under a national RES over the time horizon over the 15 years from 2015 to 2030 than if we continued on a business as usual pathway. So there's strong economic benefits to doing that along with the jobs and other investment opportunities associated with such a plan. Third, Congress could reinstate the production tax credit for wind and other renewable energy technologies and extend the investment tax credit for solar. I don't think any federal policy has done more to spur the growth of renewable energy technologies than the PTC and ITC have over the last decade. Unfortunately, the PTC expired at the end of 2014 and has not yet been extended. It must be extended as soon as possible for as long as possible to prevent this boom bus cycle that the wind industry has suffered through over the last 15 years when the policy is routinely allowed to lapse. Similarly, the ITC, which is actually in place through the end of next year, should also be extended. A multi-year PTC and ITC extension would provide the renewable energy industry with the policy certainty needed to continue its record growth and really reap all the associated economic and environmental benefits that we've seen that Scott laid out from the industry in recent years. Fourth, Congress should also pass legislation that levels the playing field by allowing renewable energy technologies to be eligible for what's known as, in political speak, as master limited partnerships or MLPs. These are simply tax advantage corporate structures that have been used by the fossil fuel industry for more than three decades, but by allowing renewable energy projects to use MLPs would actually expand the pool of investors and lower project financing costs by an estimated 40% or more. Expanding MLP eligibility is actually a policy that enjoys strong bipartisan supports in both the House and the Senate, which is unique in these times. So just last month, Senator Coons joined with Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas on the House side represented as Ted Poe and Mike Thompson and a host of co-sponsors introduced the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act. That should receive strong consideration. And then finally, Congress can expand funding through the budgeting process for advanced renewable energy technologies, grid modernization, energy storage, transmission, and smart grid technologies. And what we found at UCS in a recent analysis, we have a booth in the other room there. You can take a look at the natural gas gamble. In this analysis what we found was these kinds of complementary policies that I've just spelled out for you that would support renewable energy when combined with a national carbon policy like the Clean Power Plan actually can deliver faster and more cost effective carbon emission reductions while also reducing our risks of over relying on natural gas in the decades to come. So finalizing the Clean Power Plan is a great start that the EPA is putting us on and the White House is putting us on. But with Congress' support we can really truly accelerate the transition to a clean renewable energy economy. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Jeff. Well, and as you can all see, in terms of how all of these areas all complement each other and in terms of looking at the jobs that Scott was talking about, the huge amount of economic investment that is being driven through what's happening on public lands that Ray was talking about. And then in terms of the policy pieces that are so important to that have really moved renewables forward in this country and the potential for what is yet to come if policies are really kept in place and put in place. So we have a couple extra minutes before our next panel if there are any questions. And I also just want to mention you can sit up here behind me on the dais. It's your chance to be the big cheese. So if you want to go ahead and you can sit up here if you're going to be up for the next panel. A question right here, okay? Both release carbon. Why is natural gas given a free ride in that sense? Yeah, that's an excellent question. I wonder that sometimes myself. But from the power, from the smoke stack emissions exclusively looking at that, we know that natural gas emits about half as much as a typical coal plant. So there is some carbon emissions savings to be had from switching from coal to natural gas. When you look at where we need to go in terms of solving the climate crisis, what scientists tell us we need to reduce emissions 80 to 90 percent below 2005 levels by the mid-century. Natural gas is not going to take us there. And that doesn't account for the serious issue of methane leakage in the natural gas industry from production, extraction, and distribution. We know that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is, some 34 times more potent in the short term. And depending on how much methane is leaking, anywhere above 3 to 4 percent of total production, and natural gas is on par or worse than coal. So we need to learn more about how much methane is leaking. We need to tighten that up. White House has instructed the EPA to develop a rule to control for methane emissions. I think that's a good start. They could be doing a lot more there too. But yeah, natural gas is not the solution, the long-term solution to a climate-friendly low-carbon future. And in the meantime, we know it needs to be done better. Okay, really quickly. Okay. I'm Mary Booth. I'm the director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, an organization that primarily works on impacts of biomass energy. And this is a question for Scott or for Jeff. Biomass is also something that emits carbon. In fact, at the stack, emissions of bioenergy plants are more than coal. And as I know you're aware, biomass is treated as if it has zero emissions under the Clean Power Plan, and it has been treated that way in other energy legislation like the Waxman market. And your question? And my question is, do you have any comment on what the impact of not counting these emissions might be on the actual efficacy of these pieces of legislation and renewable energy programs to actually reduce emissions? Okay. Well, first, I do not agree with the data analytically. First of all, the biomass studies that say it's more is using municipal solid waste. And when you take that out, the numbers change altogether. And it doesn't count the growing of biomass, which sequesters carbon. So the issue is biomass, and I do projects with municipal solid waste plants where we're taking the biosolids out and reducing the carbon emissions by 80%. We're using biogas and dairies, which reduce from the manure turning to methane. Again, reduce it by 60%. So I don't believe the data. And I think the data is made done by people who do not understand all the subparts of biomass. It's very suspect. Jeff, did you want to add anything? Well, I think we have to get the science right on biomass. We do know that not all biomass feedstocks are created equal from a carbon standpoint. We do know that whole tree harvesting is not a carbon neutral or carbon friendly technology, but there are other types of biomass feedstocks that can provide carbon emission reductions. And so we need to get the science right first, and then we have to have that inform our policies. As far as the Clean Power Plan, we'll see the EPA is looking into, well, they've received comments on this issue. I expect to see some changes in the final rule compared to the proposed rule. And we know that the EPA is also looking at biomass in a separate ruling, so we'll have to see what they come out on that front. From our analysis, what we've seen is that biomass actually plays a much, much smaller role in the compliance strategies that states will choose when it comes to complying with the Clean Power Plan. Every analysis that I've seen is that wind and solar and energy efficiency from the renewable energy technology side are the ones that are most cost-effective and will be deployed. So not to say that we don't have to figure out the biomass carbon issue. As I said, I think we need to let the science lead on this and then have that inform our policies. Great. Thank you. And with that, I think there's much more in the way of discussion. Happy to talk to you more about that later too. And I want to thank our panelists for getting us really a good start. Thank you all. And of course, everybody has a booth in the expo room, so make sure that you visit everybody and pursue those conversations. Thank you all very, very much for being here and we'll have our next panel come up please.