 So I'm Doug Arendt out of the National Renewable Energy Lab and one might ask a question, why are we here? So NREL has been involved in the clean energy space for about 40 years, really focused on inventing technologies and accelerating their use in the markets. We have also been involved in development and clean energy for development for those 40 years. Even myself at the beginning of my career back in the mid-90s at NREL, I was involved in clean energy for development in South Africa, India, Nepal, Philippines, many other places when technology costs actually were much more expensive and the solutions were difficult and we didn't know nearly as much as today. So that's a bit of history of terms of why the partnership with UNU wider and I think that that's important to really understand is that we also are very focused on this interplay between technology policy and the markets themselves. So let me just spend a couple minutes with some comments and then we'll blend in. Let me step back up and kind of provide some context to lead on from where Channing provided some introductory framing for why the book and then where do we need to go. And he mentioned that we're essentially, at least we hypothesized that we're entering a new era. And I think that actually that's actually quite significant is that for the past many decades we have approached climate and development from a top-down perspective, particularly from an international aspect. Technologies have matured over that period of time so that clean energy technologies today actually without subsidies in many parts of the world are the least cost option for providing clean energy today generally. And that's without accounting for public health externalities, climate chain externalities, et cetera. And it includes the grid integration cost of providing electricity. So now you can think of clean electricity and then electrification of end-use services as really a very viable option going forward. Even if you don't solve the subsidy issue and the carbon issue and the public health issue at the front end of it in many, many different locations. So the paradigm has changed considerably. And then we add into it what Channing called the bottoms-up solution, which has come forward from Paris, which is the nationally determined contributions. And this poses both an opportunity and I think a very interesting development complexity that we should think about and have a conversation about, which is that one of the dynamics introduced by the NDCs is that the NDCs reflect local priorities in a global context. So countries were asked to contribute their plans for addressing climate change. But those plans by necessity reflect local priorities of how those countries want to address their energy and related problems. So case in point, China, Southern Africa, even the U.S. China is dealing dramatically with air quality issues. It's also dealing with a very, very complex local political dynamic. And so they want to address air pollution and therefore some political stability issues that go with that. Of course, their health care issues and their production issues, their productivity issues, sorry. They also want to address internally macroeconomic changes in terms of the structure of the economy. And they're seeing clean energy as it's been codified in their NDC as a mechanism to invest in innovation and to address air quality issues. And they contribute that domestically driven set of priorities into the global context. So it's a very, very important piece to understand. So this second phase has four attributes to it that I want to talk about which are very important to think about. One is the realization of the nationally determined contributions. So this is very important. So were they, for example, political aspirations or are they in fact realistic expectations and those to be implemented? I think this is a vexing question that we all need to pay attention to. And on the technical assistance support side is how do we provide the data, the tools, the information, the lessons learned to those countries, to all countries and share those in a very different environment to have actually support those countries realizing their nationally determined contributions. That goes with all the experimentation that Channing talked about before. We're going to see a whole new plethora of policy regulatory experiments coming forward. That's going to need call it some measurement verification from the academic community, some learning, some sharing of practices in the conversations I'm involved with which span from Africa to India to Mexico to South Africa and beyond. There is an intense desire to learn very quickly from other people's experiments, other countries' experiments and figure out how to adapt to those into implementation locally. And I think that's very important. There's a third element which is how do we continue to the conversation around deeper decarbonization. So if you remember the words of Paris, they were a goal of stabilization at 2.5 and an aspiration to achieve 1.5 degrees or more. What that means in the energy world and what that means in greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide, but all greenhouse gases, is essentially moving to a zero carbon system and potentially to a negative emission system, a net negative emissions by mid-century. That is an enormous change in our energy system in 35 years or less than 35 years. What that means is that we all have to run faster, do more. It's speed and scale of change of that energy system. It also means that carbon emissions have to peak relatively quickly. What that means is preferably by 2030 or before because, one, the carbon budget gets saturated, which means you have to go deeper in negative emissions if you continue to go beyond the limits. And then, two, the problem gets even harder going forward. So that's a third element. The fourth is, of course, this innovation cycle. And Sheru talked about that. We can talk more about that as we go forward. There are some attributes, then, that in this second phase, we also have to think about, and I'll just go through these very quickly. One is there is a much deeper awareness of the complexity of trade-offs. And here I'm just going to throw out the buzz nexus, because I wrote about it in the IPCC Assessment Report AR5, but many people are aware of it now. It's really difficult to introduce it into a policy environment and policy decisions. But it is the nexus of energy, land, food, water, development, land use, and climate change altogether. And it deserves academic rigor and attention. And it also deserves, frankly, the simplistic framing for a policymaker to understand all the pieces on their chessboard. And how do they balance among those to find what I'll define and what we talk about a little bit in the academic community of climate-resilient pathways? So resiliency there means something very different. We can get into that in the Q&A. The geopolitical aspects are also complex between local, regional, and global. That's really important. And then innovation policies are pervasive. And they need to be thought about across develop and developing countries. There is a lot of room for innovation ecosystems, shall I call that, and new solutions in the developing countries. We can talk about some examples where this combination, for example, where Cheryl talked about IT and energy, you know, thinking about cell phone services and thinking about how do you provide payment and insurity services and things like that, even to rural villages that comes through very, very opportunistically as a real solution, particularly on the development side. And that's not just for electricity, but it's for electricity for water pumping and purification, which leads to agriculture, leads to development. And the electricity also goes into healthcare. It goes into education, et cetera, on that whole front. So where does this all lead? Let me just articulate very quickly four areas of continued research. So I'm going to be very kind of focused on the academic side as we lead into a conversation. And they are just very quickly. So clean energy innovation. There was a comparable announcement in Paris by the leaders of 20 countries called Mission Innovation. Not sure if you are aware of that one. That was them committing to doubling their clean energy R&D, and that was clean energy as defined by that country. So Saudi Arabia is probably going to invest pretty considerably in carbon capture and storage. Other countries may consider nuclear clean, and therefore they will invest in that. Others will only do typically what we call the new renewables technologies, which aren't new anymore. That's the wind and solar, et cetera. There's that. There was a comparable, kind of more splashy announcement by a number of billionaires who created what was called the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, multiple billions of dollars of theirs on the table to invest in, again, breakthrough technologies that would be clean and help address climate change going forward. The second piece is really understanding this resiliency pathway on the nexus across energy food, land water, climate change, et cetera. That's really important. And so there has been an argument in the IPCC to actually merge working groups two and three. So one is the science. Two was impacts, and three was mitigation. Impacts is evolving into impacts plus adaptation, and three is mitigation. And there has been an argument. It didn't go forward for the next assessment report, which is how do we think about holistically climate resilient pathways, which include the aggressive mitigation that's required to meet the temperature targets or stabilization targets, clean change targets, and for those appropriate places, how do they do that in an adaptive way that's resilient to, frankly, the embedded change which is already in the system? So I think that's really important. The third area is understanding the complexities from individuals through social networks to institutions to global impacts. And here I'll tell you just a little bit of a couple of research stories if I can take a minute on that, because my team at NREL has actually done some really interesting new research on informing individual consumer choice. And this is individual. It's you going to the grocery store or you buying products online or buying a service online and things like that. And it turns out that if you actually provide people credible objective information at the point of decision making via your cell phone, via an app, via a screen shot coming up on your computer, let's say you're on a purchasing site like Amazon or someplace else. If you actually had that information and you're conscious of it, you would actually, at least our research shows that the majority of people, so more than 50%, would make more environmentally conscious decisions. But the companies don't provide that. So there's some interesting insights in terms of how do you just take advantage of big data, good information, inform individual decisions but use the, I'll call it the business ecosystem to affect change, which just isn't the companies doing their own social responsibility. It's actually interacting with consumers. So that's from individual all the way to global. And the fourth is how to inform decisions better and faster. And here it really comes back into the core research of economics, the core research of decision making models, tools, big data, and providing that ubiquitously across the world at speed and at scale. And this is a really deep need to getting the right tools to the right decision makers in the right fidelity without overwhelming them with a bunch of detail when they don't understand, you know, the technical details underneath it, but synthesizing that into the decision making levels that's there. So that's the pathway forward in terms of research in terms of really opportunities, I think to take this forward. And maybe I'll just transition then into a couple of questions and I'll maybe throw them back to my co-panelists, but also open them all to you. And I've got three, but I'll start with the first one, which is do you see, and do you have ideas about how do we collectively or how should we, maybe more academically, address the complexities which are introduced between local and global. And this can be everything from distributed gen to the bulk system, or it could be between how do I solve problems in Malawi versus Africa and why should Malawi care about a global issue when it's still working about its own development. And that's really open to you all as well to share stories and examples, but maybe I'll turn to you three and you can start a couple of thoughts. Okay.