 It's on? Okay, great. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Carol Werner. I'm the executive director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and I want to welcome you to this briefing that is brought to you this afternoon by EESI and our partner, Wires. And Wires is a very, very interesting organization in that it is a national nonprofit organization with members drawn from the investor, cooperative, and publicly owned companies. All who are concerned about the need for additional investment to provide higher quality delivery of transmission services of high voltage transmission services and to encourage and to ensure reliable, more resilient power in this vast grid for our country. And as we have often heard and we've worked with Wires on a number of briefings, which is why this is a 301 seminar, and you will be treated to an expert faculty looking at many of the very complex, difficult issues, but that also provide real opportunities and are very, very important issues that are coming before utilities, before our regulators or regulatory agencies as we look at the need to address resilience, reliability issues with concern about everything from cyber attacks to physical security attacks with regard to the grid. And of course, we've had increased numbers of outages due to extreme weather events. So I'm going to turn the podium over to Jim Hecker, who is counsel to Wires, a former FERC commissioner. So you're getting the best here folks in terms of his years of experience and the group of people that he has brought together to look at all of these aspects of dealing with grid resilience, gas electric coordination, the kinds of new business models that need to be looked at, all of which are fascinating, but really do provide for a lot of, how shall I say, oftentimes consternation concerns and because it means things are really, really changing as we deal with this very, very important sector that runs our economy. Jim? Thank you, Carol. Thank you for coming today. This is great. Good audience. This is transmission 301. It's almost graduate school, but not quite, but we're expecting you all to pass the exam that we'll hand out at the end. The last time we did this, which was back in March, many of you may have been at that briefing. It was transmission 201. We talked about a lot of the basics about how the grid works and how electricity markets are animated by having a strong electricity grid. And there are a few facts that sort of jump out that I want to repeat. One is that certainly the electric transmission, the high voltage grid is one of the foundational aspects of the U.S. economy, something that we are focused on like a laser in the wires organization. It is conceivably, I've heard this before, that's one of the biggest machines ever made by mankind. It's certainly a highly integrated and very powerful network of facilities. It operates regionally. It doesn't. Electricity at the high voltage levels don't necessarily respect state borders or even the service territories of individual utilities. And it's going to be essential in terms of reaching new resources, whether that's natural gas, renewable energy, any of the new forms of electric generation that are coming on need to be brought into the market and transmission is how that happens. So today we're taking that discussion to a new level. And we have three topics we're going to talk about today that are, I think, among the hot topics, the things that people are talking about the most right now in terms of the transition, the electric industry is going through generally. Let me introduce our panel and then we'll dispense with introductions and they will make their presentations in order. Our first presenter is Charles Baradesco, Charlie. He's the Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. And it's an independent, not-for-profit organization that is dedicated preserving the reliability of the electric system. It's a very powerful organization with a big responsibility and his job is to oversee the regulatory and legal aspects of NERC's work. He's a George Washington University Law School graduate. Harry Vitus is from ICF International. He's Vice President in that organization in the Energy and Advisory Solutions section. He's an authority on gas, oil and other energy supply issues currently working with something called the Eastern Interconnection State Planning Council. Icepick for short and a bunch of state regulators are getting together to try and figure out what the grid of the future ought to look like in the Eastern Interconnection, which is the eastern half of the country. And Harry has degrees from Johns Hopkins and Dartmouth, and I think you'll really enjoy what he has to say. And George is Vice President of External Affairs and Corporate Communications for ISO New England. That is the independent system operator that runs the bulk power markets in New England. A very important job and comes to us as a former commissioner of the Connecticut Public Utility Control Authority. She was active in NERUK and the Electricity Committee, graduate of the University of Maryland and Georgetown University Law School. So she's kind of local. Steve Birch is Senior Vice President of Business Development for AltaLink. AltaLink is the independent transmission owner-operator from Alberta, Canada. He has experienced unregulated markets. He's got incredible resume, business experience, not only in Canada and the U.S., but Australia, Brazil, China, India, and Russia. And he doesn't stay home much, obviously. So he's a busy guy. Finally, Kerry Kotler is General Council of Clean Line Energy in Houston, which is an independent merchant developer of mostly, but not entirely, HVDC high voltage direct current lines. And some very interesting projects I'm sure he'll talk about. He's an experienced transactional lawyer in renewable energy development and has worked on deals involving more than 20 countries. He's a graduate of Rice in the UCLA Law School. So we're going to address three hot topics. They all relate to the future of the grid, the future of the electric industry, but they're very discreet. We could probably do an hour and a half on any one of these. So if you want to do a deep dive, there's lots of stuff to read, and we hope you have some questions for the panel at the end. First of all, Charlie's organization works on industry standards to stem the tide of potential problems for the grid. There are, where's the clicker? Oh, here it is. Here we go. Did I do that right? Yes, I did. You can barely get away from a newspaper headline these days about fires, cyber attacks, extreme weather, coordinated terrorism attacks on substations. I mean, it's pretty scary. There are a lot of centrifugal forces that are threatening the model, a traditional model of the electric utility in this country, not to mention reliability. And Charles's organization, NERC, spends its life working hard to ensure that the lights stay on on a continual basis and that we all have the electricity that we need, which is central to the American standard of living. If you want to read more about this stuff, a grid resilience, I would recommend the White House's report from last August on the economic benefits of increasing grid resilience or the Senate testimony of the acting chairman of FERC that she delivered in April on this very issue, good encapsulation of that subject, or the threats that FERC and NERC are trying to address. The next issue is going to be the all this natural gas we've got suddenly and everybody's saying, well, we're no energy independent and we can rest on our laurels. Well, natural gas, shale gas does change the complexion of the U.S. energy policy and geopolitics as a whole, but the low cost of natural gas means that we're going to be using it increasingly for electric generation. It has some great benefits in terms of cost, but also in terms of lower carbon emissions. So today we're going to highlight how differently the natural gas delivery system, the pipeline grid, and the electric transmission system in the electric industry as a whole, how different they are, how they operate differently, and how we get these two important energy resources to work together and Harry, Vitas, and Anne George are going to talk about that. And I think that they have probably some of the most powerful insights I've heard. And last, we need to appreciate where the investment in the transmission system is coming from. We need more high voltage electric transmission and incumbent load serving utilities aren't going to do this alone. Independent transmission developers, owners, operators, like Clean Line and like Alton Link are going to be playing an increasing role and are going to be competing to serve new transmission services markets. They're going to talk about new business models and new competitive processes for selecting transmission providers. So I think you're in for some really good information and I will now turn it over to Charles. There aren't over here. Look at that. I've got the clicker to work. Can you all hear me? Thank you. So I always have to start these talks. I feel like somebody really important by saying about what I'm about to say today, I do not represent necessarily the views of the North American Reliability Corporation or the Board of Trustees. Hopefully in some sense it reflects my views but you'll decide at some point. This is some of the areas I'd like to cover today. The materials are a little more detailed than that. And certainly if you have any questions you can come to me at the end. I do need to, before I start, note that Jim actually missed a major point in my background and that while I am a GW law graduate I am the proud undergraduate of Duke University and I would feel very, very ashamed if I didn't mention that fact in the room. So NERC. NERC is, I was saying earlier to some people, it's a sort of a sui generous organization. When you explain what we do, people sort of scratch their head and go really, really we're set up this way. But in essence NERC dates back to the 1960s when the industry identified grid reliability as an issue that they wanted to focus on as an industry. So NERC then called the North American Electric Reliability Council was set up by the industry to basically do best practices, studies, et cetera. Fast forward to August 2003. August 2003 is the way I understand it. A tree touches a line in some place in Ohio and all of a sudden we have a blackout that cascades from Ohio into Canada down to New York City and we have one of the largest blackouts in American history. That leads Congress, working with the industry in 2005 as part of the Energy Policy Act, Section 215, an act that is now near and dear to my heart, to create the concept of what is known as Electric Reliability Organization. An industry organization that is designated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to carry out the development and enforcement of standards relating to grid reliability and to also do assessments of grid reliability and I'll touch on each of those in a moment. Most importantly, because I don't want to get any phone calls from you at the middle of the night when your pepco power goes out, we do not oversee the reliability of what we call the distribution system. So the line that's coming to your house or to your neighborhood is not subject to our jurisdiction. What I like to describe it as is if you're driving up 95 and you see those big high tension wires, that's the kind of thing we focus on and we focus on the people that interconnect into that system, but we do not deal with the reliability of the local distribution system. That's the province of the DC Public Service Commission in Maryland and Virginia, and so please call them when your power goes out. The other thing that I'd like to sort of focus on in terms of our organization, I guess I should click this, is that we're an international organization. The grid, and let me just go here for a moment, that's hard to see, but what I'd like you to focus on is the yellow, the green, and the brown. The grid is not, as Jim said, does not respect state boundaries, and in fact it doesn't respect international boundaries. So the grid is interconnected both in the west, the midwest, and the east. And so NERC is intentionally the North American Electric Reliability Corporation because we do standards and compliance not only in the United States, but in Canada. I'll touch on that in a minute because as you can imagine, our Canadian brethren are a little sensitive to our doing enforcement inside of Canada, something about a national sovereignty thing. We are a stakeholder organization, so while we are designated by FERC, and we must meet certain qualifications that are set forth by FERC in their regulations, our board is an independent board that's elected by industry stakeholders. They are 10 of our 11 board members are independent, one is the CEO. All of the officers and senior employees of the company must be independent, so while I have a power industry background, I have no existing or current relationship with any company in the industry. And we exist, I think, in a sense, some of you may remember an old commercial, Ford commercial that was called Equality as Job 1. That's not when Ford really had good quality, but that was their slogan. I like to think of that reliability as Job 1. We, in the power industry, keeping the lights on is probably the highest expectation our customers have of us. Price comes important, other things become important, but people want to know when they walk into their house and they flip a switch, the lights will turn on in a sense that's why we exist. And in fact, today, FERC is holding a technical conference, all-day technical conference on reliability. And a number of my colleagues from NERC are actually over at FERC providing testimony. The other thing that's sort of important to understand about the grid is, while it is international in scope, it is also very regional in its operations. And so we have regions. And sometimes, and so all of you work with your local congressman and others, you're going to hear probably when you talk about people in the industry, they don't talk about as NERC as so much, they talk about a regional entity. So Texas has a regional entity, the West has the Western Electric Coordinating Council. These are regional entities, separate organizations that we have delegated power to. And so they take on a number of the actions for NERC subject to our oversight, mostly in the area of compliance, auditing, and in connection with enforcement. So these are the things that are laid out in the statute and regulations that we do. And I'll touch on a couple of these as I go through my talk. I consider the most important things we do, because I focus on them the most in my time at NERC, as the development of reliability standards, what we do into compliance and enforcement and what we do with respect to assessments. This is a slide that I've developed that is taken from our strategic plan. NERC does a rolling strategic plan that identifies how we see the key risks evolving to the bulk power system. And so I've sort of put these into this context because it's the way I sort of think of them. Some of them are slightly different in our strategic plan, which is on our website if you want to look at it. First, in my mind, is the changing resource mix. And you're going to hear more about that today, but we have a very significant change going on in this country on how we generate electricity. We are moving from a largely baseload coal and nuclear fleets that, when I started in this business, were somewhere around 70% of the power was generated from those kinds of entities to a much different mix that includes a more substantial alliance, a natural gas, and you'll hear more about that today. We have renewables, which are called sometimes intermittent resources. So how do you integrate these resources that don't run all the time into a system that's, I like to cause a huge physics experiment and you must maintain its voltage for it to continue to run. And then you have distributed generation. I don't know how many of you have solar panels on the top of your house or no businesses that have solar panels. Well, those are people who are now off the grid to some extent. And what does that do to the system in terms of the funds necessary to maintain the system, for example? So these, the changing way we generate electricity and consume electricity in the United States has significant effects on how we think about reliability. Secondly, extreme physical events. Geomagnetic disturbances and storms. One only has to know. I mean, when I was at, I was the general council of Constellation Energy, which owns Baltimore Gas and Electric before this job. And the president of the utility told me that he was, he believed that we were moving into a cycle, said he was actually agnostic about climate change. He said, I just think we're moving into one of these cycles of heightened storms. So the effect of storms on the reliability of the grid. Third, cold weather, sort of a flip or related to the storms. But we've seen, particularly in the south and the southwest, colder weather than we've had in the past. Plants that were built in those part of the countries were not winterized the same way as plants that were built in New England. What does that mean in terms of being prepared for this, what happens when you have cold weather snaps? And finally, an area that I should have put it first probably, but you know, that everybody is talking about is cyber and physical security. You know, we have clearly a, a large impact on the system or potential impact on the system from cyber, cyber threats. And certainly physical security has always been a concern for the industry. One only has to drive around this country to realize how much of our system is sitting out in the open. It wasn't built behind 12 foot walls. It wasn't built behind Kevlar. It was built out in the open because that's the way the system was developed. Well, what should we be doing to make sure that key parts of the system are resilient to attack? And then in related to that is the whole question of nation-state threats. You know, cyber security is not one that is respective of boundaries either. And the players in this are not necessarily just hackers. We have the Chinese government or military, government and military launching attacks against key sectors in the United States. Well, is that the electric industry's responsibility to defend against that? Or is that the national government's responsibility to defend that against that when a nation-state is acting against a private party? An example I use is when Pearl Harbor was attacked, no one sat there and said, well, General Motors should figure out how to respond to the Pearl Harbor attack. Is the attack, a cyber security attack launched by the Chinese government any different question? And what should be the role of federal government as we do that? So I want to briefly touch on how we develop standards. Let's think of standards as regulations. It's really no different. Our standards are developed because of the nature of this industry and its highly technical aspects of it. Our standards are actually developed in an industry process. Industry volunteers actually inform standards drafting teams, working with NERC personnel and the participation of FERC, and they develop these technical standards. These standards are then approved by our independent board and then forwarded on to FERC for approval. So at that point, they actually go through a notice and comment process, not dissimilar to most of what goes on in the regulatory space in this country. This is some more detailed information that you can look at later in terms of how we actually manage that process. But the point here is that we believe very strongly, and it's one of the reasons I joined NERC, because I believe it from a philosophical perspective, that this is the kind of industry that needs the technical expertise of the industry to develop truly effective standards. And one of the things I like to say about our standards process is that NERC standards have been effective since 2007. Not one of them has been litigated, not one. And I would say to my other friends in the federal government, wish you had that same track record. So it's a, we believe it is a process that leads to a much higher quality from a technical perspective set of standards. Here I just want to touch on a couple of new standards that you may have heard about. Physical security. Some of you, Jim talked about the Metcalfe incident. Obviously, a lot of focus on physical security in the public policy arena. FERC asked us to develop a standard in 90 days, which we did. In fact, we filed it about five days early. That standard requires industry to go through a process of assessing its key areas of potential threat and to develop plans to meet those threats. So we're very pleased the industry pulled together on this in a remarkably fast fashion. SIP, critical infrastructure protections, that's our nomenclature for cybersecurity. We are on our version five of our cybersecurity standards, I hope our final version. I want to emphasize that power industry is the only industry in the United States that has enforceable cybersecurity standards. Companies get fined today for failing to meet our standards. I don't think any other industry in the United States can make that statement. The SIP version five standards have been developed under the guidance from FERC. They are, we are working with industry to transition to those standards, which will become effective in about a year. We're very pleased with the effort so far in that area. I want to say that with respect to cybersecurity in particular, there's sort of a sense of, well, that doesn't deal with the emergent problem. What happens? The reality is, those of you who work, you know, understand the regulatory process, regulatory processes rarely can deal with emergent threats, something that's immediate. What we do at NERC is take a multi-pronged approach. We have a situational awareness group that actually monitors the grid, works with the government, works with private industry to identify threats. We operate on behalf, as designated by the Department of Energy, we operate something called the information sharing and analysis center. There are a number of them in key infrastructures, parts of the industry, different industries. And through that, we actually identify key threats, develop suggestions and transmits those suggestions directly to the utilities. To the extent that we think is something is important enough, we can actually direct utilities to take action. We can certainly, and we have told them they must report back to us how they've dealt with that problem. So we have a structure that allows us to both, through standards, have companies that are operating or owning the bulk electric system, the national grid, to have a framework for addressing cybersecurity. And we also have the ability to identify key threats, get information out quickly to industry to help them address what we call emergent threats, so threats that are actually real-time. Real quickly to go over, I mentioned we also do enforcement. We call it our compliance monitoring enforcement program. Again, this is the electric industry, sorry, acronym, CMAP. But in essence, we spend obviously a lot of time enforcing our standards. When NERC was developed, similar to a lot of regulatory approaches, the approach taken was, in a sense, a zero-tolerance approach. Every violation will be run to ground and dealt with with the same level of rigor as whether it was a small issue that had already been mitigated or a large issue that was continuing problem. That's not a sustainable approach to enforcement. And if you deal with enforcement areas, and so we have been working on something called the reliability assurance initiative, acronym, RAI, to take a slightly different approach to where we are identifying key areas of focus, focusing on enforcement in those areas and simply assuring ourselves that registered entities are addressing the low-risk issues that are already mitigated in a way that shows they have effective controls around their systems. And again, these materials, you can read them later. They have some background on how we're doing that. And that you really don't care about. This lays out a little bit of what we do in terms of cybersecurity, the kinds of things we focus on. Again, you see up there the work we do at the ISAC and our outreach. We actually run two major conferences. We run a grid security conference. We also run an actual grid exercise where we stress the grid and tabletop exercises with CEOs of major utilities to see how the grid would actually respond in severe threat situations. And that's gotten a lot of press and it's been very successful. The other area I'd like to focus on is the assessments area. Part of our statutory function is to assess the reliability of the grid on a qualitative matter. We do that through two different mechanisms. One is a regular long-term assessment and then winter and summer assessments. These are relied on a great deal by policymakers, by FERC, in terms of the information, the data flow we get from the various regional entities on how we view both the immediate term reliability of the grid and the longer term reliability of the grid. We also do special reliability assessments. So we'll focus on, for example, you see the last one there, natural gas and electric power dependencies, a topic you will hear about in a moment. So we looked at how are these industries interconnected? What are the key risk factors and created materials that allow policymakers to evaluate whether or not there needs to be policies developed to help to strengthen the system in terms of this interdependence? Most importantly, NERC, we do not dictate resource mix. We do not dictate, go build a plant here, go buy natural gas there. That's not our job. Our job is to set standards, don't have companies who own and operate the bulk electric system, to have processes and procedures in place to ensure that reliability, to assess it, but ultimately it's the policymakers who have to decide what type of generation do you want to incent? What type of price mechanisms do you want to have to reward people for taking certain actions? And again, you're going to hear more about that in a moment. Lastly, I just want to talk about Canada. Again, if you could take a couple points away from this talk, NERC is an international organization. Reliability is an international issue. Canada is a significant part of what we do. We have a fairly complex set of arrangements with Canada, because Canada does not have a single national energy authority. So we have relationships with each of the provinces that are interconnected with the North American Electric Grid, where we do compliance, where we audit companies and participants, and where we get information to ensure ourselves that Canada is taking the approach around compliance and enforcement that we want to see. But we do not have the ability, obviously they are a national sovereign, there's national sovereignty issues, we do not do enforcement inside of Canada as NERC, but we work with our Canadian brethren to assure ourselves that in fact there is active compliance and enforcement going on in Canada, given the interconnected nature of our electric grid. With that I believe I have gone on enough, and so I will turn it over to the next speaker. Thank you. My topic is gas electric coordination, and I'm going to try to cover the following four topics. Number one is what is the difference between natural gas and other fuels that are used to generate electricity? Number two is why are people so interested in this issue of gas electric integration? Why has it become such an important topic? And then the third question I'm trying to answer is well what actually are the analytic and policy issues that are involved here? And then finally I want to answer the question, well how does one find these answers and what's going on to try to do that? The first thing I want to do is just introduce everybody who may not be familiar with it, just the organization of the gas industry. As you know, gas is produced from both oil wells and gas wells. There are about 450,000 of these wells around the United States, so there's about 900,000 wells in total. The gas from those wells then goes into gas processing plants where the non-hydrocarbon gases are removed and heavier hydrocarbons like propane and butane are removed as well. That then goes into a pipeline system which then takes it to a distribution system and then the local distribution company like here, Washington Gas Light, then takes it to your home. In terms of the numbers of entities that are involved there are about 35,000 companies in the U.S. that produce natural gas, ranging from very large companies like Exxon and Shell and so on, down to people who only own one well. In terms of the pipeline system there are about 20 major interstate pipeline companies in the U.S., maybe in total about 60 pipeline companies. And in terms of distribution companies there are about 600 in total, most of them are small municipalities and maybe 200 large investor-owned utilities. Power generators get their natural gas either directly from the pipeline or they get it from a distribution company. So the issues that I'm talking about today essentially is what are the connections between the well head to the power generators and how do those connections get built and what issues are they related to reliability of that system. In terms of what's different between natural gas and other fuels the most important difference is unlike other fossil fuels like coal and oil which can be stored on site at the power generator, natural gas has to be delivered just as it's being used. So there's that just-in-time issue with natural gas. Number two is that the industries really aren't in sync in terms of how they coordinate supplies. Natural gas is mostly determined on a daily basis with what's called four nomination cycles during the day in terms of being able to schedule when gas is delivered whereas electricity generally operates on an hourly schedule or a 15-minute intervals. So there's so much different schedules out of sync. The other point to make is that natural gas is used in a lot of parts of the US economy not just power generation. So in many cases the power generators need to compete with the other sectors for their gas supply. And the final point I would make is that natural gas is at least in terms of the pipeline system heavily regulated. So there are certain limitations on how what can be done in order of procuring gas and pipeline capacity. Why has it become such a big issue now? And basically there are four reasons that I'm going to explain to you. Number one is gas has grown quite a bit in terms of the portion of the gas industry that's made up a power generation. And that's the purpose of the chart you see on the screen here. It's showing you that for every month in the year natural gas demand has been growing over the last several years and it's mostly due to the power generating sector. Number two is that people expect natural gas to become even a bigger portion of power generating needs. And there are two reasons for this. One is there's a natural growth in power generation over time and natural gas right now tends to be one of the lowest cost options. So a large portion of the incremental demand for electricity is going to be supplied by natural gas. Number two is as we're going to talk about more later on existing power plants are retiring nuclear coal and so on and people expect natural gas to fill some of that gap. The other reason it's become very important is because natural gas is seen as the firming fuel for renewables or intermittent fuel. In other words photovoltaics and wind energy and so on don't necessarily operate continuously. So what people look at is natural gas is able to fill those voids as the supply of those fuels goes up and down throughout the day. And then the final point I would make is that people are have seen news stories about natural gas particularly this last winter which I'll talk about more. But there's been several episodes throughout the last few years where natural gas hasn't been available for electricity generation and people read those articles and say G something is going on. With regard to the point I was making earlier that natural gas is going to be relied upon more and more for power generation. Here's a an outlook for the natural gas market in the U.S. as prepared by ICF and what it shows for natural gas is going to grow very substantially. In the portion of it that's made up of power generation demand is the yellow part. And you can see that the yellow demand which is the power generating demand is the fastest growing area of demand. And we think about 60 percent of the growth in the gas market. So the gas industry is looking toward power as being one of its major growth markets. But the other point to be made by this chart is it's not just the power sector that's growing its demand for natural gas. The industrial sector also looks at the low natural gas prices and says we can use more gas to run our factories. And the other aspect of this chart is the orange at the top which is the new demand sector called LNG exports. The U.S. has become so has had so much natural gas now we're thinking about export and as you know there are many projects one under construction several on the drawing boards to do that. The other point to make about this is the supply side and this is showing you the different sources of natural gas in the U.S. And the main takeaway from this chart is the large orange area at the top which is gas shales. Essentially what we and other people are looking at for the future is a very large portion of the incremental natural gas that will be produced in the U.S. will be these gas shales which are being produced as you, as I'm sure you know, using horizontal wells which are what are called multi-stage fracked wells where you're essentially putting high pressure water underground along with sand to crack the rock and open up the fractures for the gas production. So a large reason why people are saying natural gas is the future for nuclear metal power generation and other sources is because of this technology revolution on the supply side. The one manifestation of this abundant supply has been the moderation of gas prices. That's the chart on the left hand side here which is showing you that starting around 19 2008 and 9 we've had a substantial drop in gas prices and they've remained fairly moderately priced. The right hand side of this chart shows you what's called a resource assessment where people are looking out into the future and saying how much natural gas do we have left. The left hand part bar is an assessment that I was involved with back in 2001 by the National Petroleum Council where we were looking at all the different available sources of natural gas versus our current assessment which is on the right hand side and you can see the outlook for future discoveries now is much brighter and the main reason for that is because of this new technology with regard to natural gas shales and other tight gases. Well that's the good news. The bad news is on this chart which is showing new prices for natural gas at different locations around the country although it's kind of hard to see the line at the bottom is the gas price at Henry Hub which I'm sure many of you know is a location in South Louisiana where natural gas is priced and what you can see over the this last winter is that Henry Hub price had some fluctuations but mostly was relatively flat throughout that period of time but you see the other price points which are in the northeast United States showed wide fluctuations including some very high prices in selected days and what this indicates is that there were bottlenecks in different parts of the country where you couldn't get gas from one location to the other location so the price behind the bottleneck was very very high because that was the price that was needed to clear the market and the two things that people conclude from these these kind of charts which concerns them number one is this indicates that it's there's bottlenecks of getting gas supply to customers which people are worried about particularly with regard to power generation and the reliability of power and number two is that when you have these situations occurring where the gas is bottlenecked the price spikes is the consumers on the other side of that bottleneck are now paying very high prices for natural gas and for power generation which is the marginal fuel for which natural gas very often is the is the marginal fuel this is a chart showing you heating degree days in the U.S. heating degree days is a measure of how cold it is and this is a sequential data for the last 20 or so years the left-hand side is the oldest date and then the right-hand side is the most recent date and then that red bar at the very end is the average so if you look at the blue bar on the right-hand side next to the to the red bar that was this last winter and what you can see is that it was about 11 percent more colder than normal so part of the reason why we did have these extreme events in terms of availability of natural gas is very high prices was because we had an usually cold winter but the other point to take away from this chart is that we do get cold winters every so often so that although it's an extraordinary event it's not it's a periodic event so that when you when you're looking at a system and the ability to supply natural gas both for home heating and other uses as well as power generation we have to take into account the fact that there is going to be variability in the weather part of the repercussions of this last winter were that several of the the RTO ISO systems did experience outages during due to the cold weather some of these outages were things like coal pile freezes or equipment not operating or for various different reasons but also part of the reason was is that they weren't some of the natural gas fired power plants weren't able to get natural gas so this becomes an outage and the capacity is not available to meet natural to be to meet electricity demand so one of the things that people are concerned about is this last winter shows the degree to which a large portion of the power generating fleet could be stranded if there's not that natural gas the main point I want to make about the infrastructures on this page here it has to do with pipeline capacity although I'll be talking about pipelines gas storage and peak shaving plants and fuel switching the key concern people have is pipeline capacity and in particular the economic incentive to build the capacity and I'm not going to go through every point here but the main point I want to make is that in parts of the US where you have competitive electricity markets where you have ISOs or RTOs clearing the price for electricity on a day ahead in a real-time market you tend to have a situation where the incentives to the generators are such that it's not economic for them to sign up for long-term pipeline capacity so what we have then is we have the generators relying on what's called interruptible pipeline capacity which is to say whenever there's gas available capacity is available they'll use it when it's not available it won't use it and that clashes with the reliability standards the industry electric industry has so the main policy issue people are faced with then is how does one take these competitive electricity markets where there isn't an incentive to invest in pipeline capacity and try to reorganize them some way or modify them through some other kind of intervention to make it possible to build this pipeline capacity and I would say this is kind of the central issue that people are trying to grapple with on this reliability issue the other point to make about the coordination is this issue we call reliable operational issues and I touched on them very briefly and this is just simply the day-to-day operation of the market and the difference between the electric system and the gas system and the fact that they have different what we call day definitions of what the day is and I'm going to let Ann talk more about that when she gets up here but that's another issue that's this operational issue and then the final issues we called reliability assessments as Chuck was explaining NERC has a very elaborate process that's done throughout the country to look at how reliable electrical systems are and they have very specific mathematical equations and methodologies that they used to look at what the probabilities are of having outages and one of the questions then becomes well if I have a system that I'm building up on the expectation of power plants having a certain forced outage rate in other words they break down every so often how do I take into account the fact that I have to get fuel to that power generating system to that power plant and that fuel may not be available and how do we how do we take that into account in terms of doing those reliability assessments which is another one of the issues being faced by the industry in terms of the kind of questions people are asking in different analyses that are being done around the country one is is there going to be enough natural gas to supply power plants in the future where's it going to come from how's it going to be connected to the to the grid is there physical delivery capacity to deliver it as we look out into the future and power plants are being retired coal power plants nuclear power plants are being retired there's natural growth electricity demand and the expectation is that gas is going to serve a large portion of that load will there be the infrastructure to supply it number three is how will the the gas services be contracted by the power generators will they have legal access to the to that access to that transmission system or to a gas storage or to peak shaving when they need it and other set of issues relate to the pain payment of these for this infrastructure and who pays and it under what kind of system the other kind of questions people are asking about is this this breakages and reliability if we do build a system not in the future that relies more more natural gas and we build whatever is needed in terms of power of pipelines and storage and so on how does that overall systems reliability work and how do we measure it and how do we how are you assured we have enough capacity to meet demand and then the other sort of issues relate to what are the alternatives to natural gas particular with regard to alternative fuels that can be burned during peak periods skip over some of these charts and go to this one here which is this question of infrastructure a lot of the work that that I do is related to assessing the need for infrastructure for people who are developing it or people who are financing it and one of the things that we're doing with ice pick that was introduced earlier is trying to look out into the future and anticipate what infrastructure will be needed and the point I want to make with this chart is that when one looks at supplying fuel for power plants there are different options with regard to power plants that are primarily looking at natural gas you can build additional pipeline capacity to meet their needs you also can build underground storage underground storage is usually an old oil and gas field or what's called an aquifer it's been converted to use to store natural gas so during the off peak period you take gas off the pipeline put underground and then during the peak period you withdraw it again and that can also often be a very cost effective way of meeting peak demand you can also build a high deliverability storage which is primarily salt dome or salt beds you also can build a peak shaving plant which is usually liquefying natural gas into a liquid form but then re-gasifying it during the peak day you can also build compressed gas storage and you can also use fuel switching which is to say you can build a power plant primarily to burn natural gas but you can also have next to it a tank of this little oil or propane and then during the peak days when the gas is not available you can then use the alternative fuel and the point I'm making with this chart here is that for any particular location of the country or any particular type of power plant there's going to be or a group of power plants there's going to be an economic optimal way of trying to do this and part of the analysis that we do and other people are trying to do is to try to figure out what that mixture should be to be able to supply fuel to the power plants in the most economic way possible this is a chart I want to mention which has to do with what is becoming and will certainly be in the future the most contentious part of this issue and that is well once you decide what needs to be built how do you pay for it how do you modify the gas part of the electric markets in a way to provide incentives to the participants to either pay for somehow make happen something that builds the gas infrastructure and then how does that and then how does that those costs and get transferred to the ultimate customer and the point I'm trying to make with some of these points is there are some both theoretical and policy issues the one has to think about in particular the general notion that you should try to allocate costs to the people who are creating the demand for those services so that's one principle that one might want to consider and number two is you don't want to distort markets by creating incentives to do things that are going to then create other disincentives for other people number three is you do want to try to enhance market liquidity market liquidity being the number of people who are buying and selling either a service or a commodity a particular location and you want to try to expand price transparency the other point is that although we often talk about reliability is being very important there are some limitations for people's willingness to pay so there may be at certain points the decision has to be made that you know the extra investment needed for that last incremental reliability may be so expensive that it really isn't worth it and maybe we can just go out go without power for a certain period of time rather than pay a very high price for that reliability and somebody has to think about that and make that decision and then finally you have to make sure that the customer is okay with all this and that's why the final principle is you want to support a system where the everything where transparency is is is there's a transparent logic and data there's a simple and reasonable and consistency across the cost allocation and rates and that the rate payers themselves feel like they're getting a good deal so my concluding slide is this one here number one gas electric integration issues have received the intention of many industry participants stakeholders and regulators the focus of this attention is both operational issues related to the day-to-day management of the system and the markets as well as the longer term issues of long term resource adequacy another point I wanted to make which I didn't go into great detail was there are a lot of people doing analyses around the country looking at regional markets and what's needs to be built and in terms of what to expect for the near term I would give you the following items number one is I do think we are going to see from FERC and NASB some resolution of this coordination day-to-day coordination issues in terms of the gas days and electric days number two you are going to see from all the different regional studies that are being done the conclusion that I gave you which is we're going to be anticipating more and more gas being burned in power generators and this is going to require additional gas infrastructure and that in areas where you don't have integrated utilities buying that capacity where instead you have competitive markets that may not be able to afford or pay for this capacity it's going to become an issue and because of number two you're going to have number three which is going to be more scrutiny of and more thinking about reforming the electric markets to essentially create a more economic incentive for long-term reliability and the other point I want to make is that the pipelines isn't themselves will become the be more of an economic reason to supply more flexibility to pipeline contractors in terms of the hourly load for electric for natural gas and ability to vary or hourly loads this is because of the increased need to use natural gas to even out the swings of solar and wind and then the final point is I think once the near-term issues of day-to-day operation are settled over the next several months I think people will turn their attention more to what I call the mid-term coordination issues related to maintenance schedules and how does the industries themselves operate in terms of when they schedule certain kind of maintenance events and are they going to coordinate between the two industries so that's my general introduction to the gas electric integration and I'm going to turn it over to Anne George who's going to talk about the New England experience. How many people here work for a member from New England or from a New England state? Okay, you want to pay special attention to this. So good afternoon everyone and thank you to Harry for laying the groundwork for explaining what's happening in New England and the New England experience with electric and gas coordination. We I think are the first region, we're the first region to really see some of the issues crop up but as Harry mentioned this past winter revealed some challenges in other regions so it's not just a New England issue anymore which is somewhat nice for us to not be alone in talking about this but we don't particularly like to see this problem spreading throughout the country. So let's get to so for those of you who don't know what ISO New England is and or what an ISO is, it's the independent system operator that manages the bulk power system for the region and so it's the big wires that Charlie mentioned that he's concerned about as well and our role is to operate those the power system on a minute-to-minute basis and ensure that their the system is reliable. We also look out over the future and look at the future needs of the system to determine if any additional transmission needs to be built to serve those needs and then finally we oversee the competitive wholesale electricity markets. As New England has started to see these issues and we've been talking about them within New England and outside of New England a lot of people have said well ISO New England this is such a problem why don't you direct a gas and some new gas pipelines to be built in New England and so we always point back to our role and we don't have any authority to direct new pipelines to be built in the same way that we have authority in looking at additional transmission lines. So it is a challenge in these organized these areas of organized markets how to get these large infrastructure pieces built. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the transition in New England move into what some of those challenges are and then kind of what we can do from an ISO New England standpoint but then also some of the other things that are being discussed in the region. So the transition has happened over the last decade or so and you can see here this is the capacity that exists in our region and the blue bar represents what was around in 2000 and the orange bars what we had in the 2013 time frame and as you can see there's been a significant shift in the capacity that we have the steel in the ground the actual plants that we have in our region but also we've had a shift in the production of electricity. So even though we have still 22% oil fire generation and 7% coal fire generation we really aren't seeing the energy the electricity production out of those plants to make up much more than 7% of our electricity production in the region. Gas is nearing is about 50% of our electricity production. So it is a very natural gas dependent system and if you look at what's coming in to to ISO New England's process as as potential projects to be developed we look at that and we see a lot more natural gas a decent amount of wind and a little bit of other stuff like biomass maybe some large-scale solar but but it really is still predominantly natural gas with some wind. And you know as we look at that and we say okay well we're already challenged with the the system we have now what is it going to mean in the future if this is actually if these proposals actually get get developed and built. So I show this picture to show what New England's natural gas transmission system looks like and if you looked at other regions of the country you'd see pipelines criss- crossing a lot more robust than the New England system. We have five natural gas pipelines that serve the region. We have two liquefied natural gas storage facilities. We don't have the capability to store underground as Harry mentioned and as they do in some other parts of the of the country and if you if you look at this you can see the green line hopefully you can see it's hard to see. The green line I'm sorry the blue line is the Tennessee pipeline and the Algonquin is the orange pipeline coming from the southwest into New England. Those are primarily the lines that would bring in the Marcellus shale gas from Pennsylvania into New England. So we started seeing some constraints building on the pipelines a few years back and we've only seen those constraints fill up on all of the other pipelines into the region. So now this we're looking at this past winter every pipeline coming into the region was pretty much maxed out. We also back in 2012 hired Harry's company ICF to look at the region's infrastructure natural gas infrastructure to say okay is there sufficient infrastructure to meet both the demands of the the local gas companies needs and they're the ones that actually take the investment in the the long-term investment into the pipeline capacity and is there enough to satisfy those needs as well as the electric generation needs and we found that it was not going to be sufficient over the next decade or so and after this past winter we said to ICF can you please update that because we think it's gotten even worse and sure enough they came back and said it is more severe in New England in terms of serving both the the home heating needs and and commercial needs as well as the electric generation needs. So it's getting to a point it's already gotten to a point where with New England where we're in a pretty precarious situation in terms of being able to serve the natural gas power generation needs and this just shows some of the issues we saw this past winter that's when the infrastructure the inadequate infrastructure really reveals itself primarily in the winter months and in the particularly cold days the the gas fired capacity we had on the system this winter the 11,000 megawatts we really only saw about 3,000 megawatts of gas actually running on some of these cold days so that's a combination of both the price because gas prices really did spike and I'll show you a slide in a second but also the ability for these gas generators to access gas during those cold days and so the prices this these are the gas prices in New England and you can see that in a year they've doubled and this is the average price for natural gas this winter in New England at $19 and that's coming off of a winter of 2012-13 where we saw higher natural gas prices so they they are getting the attention of policy makers throughout New England and I think that this slide in particular explains why some of the governors and other policymakers in New England are very concerned about this if you look at the price of natural gas in New England compared to other regions you see this wide disparity there was a short period of time where New York this winter had higher prices than New England and that's the the real spiked point there but on on average New England has the highest natural gas prices in the country we actually had the distinction this past winter of having the highest natural gas prices in the world for a brief period of time which was a little frightening to us and as I think Harry mentioned that the natural gas price really drives the wholesale electricity price and so as natural price goes natural gas prices go the wholesale electricity prices go and so we went from the all-time low in 2012 when it was a relatively warm year with some still space on our on our gas pipelines that was the low point to are the high point this past winter and to put this in context the whole year of 2012 the wholesale electricity markets was approximately five point two billion around there and for December and this past December in January it was a approximately five point one billion so in two months it made up the total cost for 2012 and we as we are facing these challenges with natural gas we have our non-gas units retiring we have the older oil and coal units which are usually priced out of the market on most days and so economics are really driving those those resources to retire we've also had one of our nuclear power stations announced their retirement they'll be closing down this year for my Yankee and so that's the resource that we turn to those are the resources we turn to when we are having challenges with the gas system and so Harry mentioned some of the issues with coordinating gas and electric and this graphic really is aimed at illustrating some of the difficulties if you look at the electric day which runs 12 a.m. or 1 a.m. to 12 the 12 to 12 and the gas day starts at 10 a.m. and so as we are going into our morning ramp which means as people are waking up turning on their lights and the demand for electricity starts to rise pretty quickly that's at the almost the worst time for the gas day because it's the end of the gas day and the gas generators have a real hard time getting gas if they haven't already secured it and and are needed for that morning ramp so it's one of the challenges with coordinating these two industries and there are some national and regional efforts underway to try and address these. Naysby which is the North American Electric Standards Board energy board I can't ever get these acronyms right that organization is is FERC directed them to take a look at the gas day and the electric day and see if there could be some consensus on where how to align those and so that process is still underway and eventually it should work its way back to FERC and FERC will hopefully make some determinations on that. We also at ISO England as in our role is designing markets and and overseeing markets we have tried to make the wholesale electricity markets a little more flexible for generators so that they can change their offers and during the day to address some of the difficulties of securing gas or to reflect gas prices as they change throughout the day. We also are addressing some of the incentive issues that folks have raised. The electricity markets the current electricity markets were lacking in really tying the performance of the unit during critical times with their some of the payments that they get through the markets and so we really tried to make that clear that you have to perform during critical time periods and so some of our changes in our capacity market which is another one of our wholesale markets really are aimed at getting the generation resources to make arrangements so that they can get gas when they need it or have dual fuel capability so that they can switch to oil if they need to but really aimed at getting the generators to perform. We're not trying to dictate what they do but have the markets provide the incentives and then they determine the resources determine what is most cost-effective to do. So finally as I mentioned you know the both the reliability issues and the pricing issues have really caught the attention of the sixth new England governors and they have launched an initiative to really look at both transmission infrastructure that will bring some of the clean energy resources that they're seeking both wind and hydro from Canada. Those are the two main resources that they're taking a look at but also additional pipeline capacity to bring additional capacity natural gas capacity into the region. They've sought our assistance in helping them think through how to do this so there are some creative novel ideas that are floating around right now but it is pretty historic to see the six new England governors working together on infrastructure to move energy around and really build the backbone to move the desired energy around the region and so I'll stop there and be happy to answer any questions later on. Thank you. Anyone need a stretch? Watching all those happy faces out there. Okay I'm going to talk to you about the transmission part of this. Now let's see if we can get there. Competitive development and new business models in transmission. This will be electric transmission as we discussed the big wires. The company I work for is called Altilink. We own what have built own and operate the high voltage transmission grid that supports about four-fifths of the population of the province of Alberta in Canada. If you don't know where that is that's north of Montana and just a little east of British Columbia and that's our thing. We are a dedicated transmission company we're investor owned and what we like to do is build own and operate high voltage transmission big wires from big towers and related things. So as we do that we're currently undergoing a large build in Alberta. We're spending about a billion and a half dollars a year for the last couple years and for the next couple years to expand our portion of the Alberta grid in part to support heavy oil development in northern Alberta and in part to support growth of the major the two large metros Calgary and Edmonton. But what happens beyond that is a matter of great interest to us because we're going to look for ways to continue to invest. So that provides opportunities for us to look at other jurisdictions and try to figure out what's going on in other places. So competitive transmission procurement. So what does that mean? That's really referring to the ways in which jurisdictions obtain their high voltage electric transmission. How do they procure that transmission from the marketplace? Somebody's got to build own operate and maintain it so how do different jurisdictions go about getting it? The classic model in the U.S. Canada, kind of like coca classic, maybe a little more energetic than that, is one that we refer to as direct assignment of projects. So incumbent utilities with service territories would be directly assigned projects by system operators or utility commissions. They would then be allowed to recover their costs through a cost-of-service mechanism where they could get back their operating and financial costs and earn a fair return on their investment. That's sort of the is that sound familiar to everybody? That's kind of the classic flavor. That's that's vanilla or co-classic. But I think you'll see that in different parts of the world, as Jim has mentioned, transmission is becoming a little more interesting game. It's changing up. So the model that we've been used to in our little corner of the world in Alberta is that. It's a plain old garden variety transmission 101. But it's changing there and other places. The second model there you'll hear more about, but it's more of a merchant approach where some folks with a good idea decide they'll take it on themselves and build it and they'll find ways to get paid for it that can be outside of the traditional cost-of-service mechanism and they'll take it on themselves and try to do it the old-fashioned way. When we're going to talk about us down there on the bottom, competitive processes. And I think what you'll find is interesting to me, it's kind of coming into its own in the U.S. and Canada. I would say we're still probably at the maybe the top of the second inning here, bottom of the first inning in terms of what this looks like in these two countries, but in other parts of the world it's very well established. Competition is the order of the day and the old variety, the old model is yesterday's news. It's now in black-and-white movies and people don't watch it too often. Let's see what goes here. So number one is Brazil. Anybody here from Brazil? Ties to Brazil? We good. Okay. Well in my opinion Brazil is probably a world leader in this domain. I'm not sure if it would be the world leader but it's certainly at the head of the pack. In Brazil they've been developing competitive transmission now for a long time since the late 90s, so by my count that's probably 15 or more years. Largely in response to some national energy crises when there was some shortages of power in the major metros and southeast industrial heartland of Brazil, which required more creative solution to how the country procured and built transmission. They implemented a competitive process which has now been running for quite a long time and some of the facts are actually pretty astounding. If you look under experience, they've had over 29 auctions that have awarded over 190 projects, totaling over 25 billion dollars, US dollars, of transmission investment. Does this make a big number to anybody? It's to me. That's a lot of transmission assigned through a commercial, through competitive procurement and then fixed price long term contracts no longer cost of service type recovery. A bit of fixed price contract and live with that contract with some adjusters, some escalators but you know get ready to play with the big kids. So that's an issue model and I think you'll find that's one that in certain places is starting to you know become a little more, a little more common. If you look to the next one, which you can't because I didn't flip it yet, Chile. Also a pretty successful model. Hasn't been running quite as long as Brazil. The motivation I think is different. I think as Chile has aspired to move into more of a first world economic status, they've seen competition in their power sector as a way to do that. Open the economy up. The largest economy or sort of the largest transmission company in Chile today is actually a foreign-owned company. It's from Canada, strangely enough. It's not ours either. So they've been doing this for a while and are getting pretty good at different reasons. Smaller numbers because the economy is a lot smaller but the mechanism is quite similar. Long-term fixed price contracts, folks bidding on it and for both countries a pretty clean process. The home team doesn't always win. It's not always Brazilian companies that win. Spanish companies, Chinese companies, Italian companies, lots of different folks have played and won in those countries. So then we switch to maybe a little more familiar, maybe. Maybe, maybe not. The UK and the offshore procurement of transmission for offshore wind projects around the coastal parts of the UK. A process that started up a few years ago. Interesting sort of process because it kind of was a one time shot, the first phase of it ran. Obtained a number of different companies. You can see there about 13 projects. And then it kind of went into hiatus as those projects were built out and it looks like it's going to be a second shot at that in the UK offshore probably coming up very, very shortly. But not sort of a routine process. Not like in Brazil or Chile where these things certainly in Brazil where they're rolling out three times a year with major auctions and just getting the stuff done using lots of folks money which is interesting. So now we'll come a little closer to home. And the US, any of you here from Texas? Oh, okay. Oh, one. Okay, good. Two. Okay. Oh, yeah, you don't count. Speakers don't count. So Texas ran the Cres process for renewables a few years ago. When you hear people talk, it doesn't really feel like it was a competitive procurement process. It was more of a competitive assignment process. It feels like if folks showed up and you could prove that you could operate transmission then you might get a slice of the action in Texas. And so a lot of folks got a piece of that and we're starting to build out opportunities there. But a different mechanism. Still the old mechanism for cost recovery and it's more of a traditional economic model, but a different kind of procurement model. More recently with four quarter one thousand and the various RTO is looking at competitive processes. I think last year you saw a few folks the Cal ISO in California. You heard about the system operators America's divided into about what, six of them? Five or six? Plus or minus? The California system operator last year ran a couple of projects. I think the home team won in both cases. Southern or San Diego and I believe Pacific gas electric. I'm sure it was all good. And then PGM ran two projects as well. The Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland interconnection up in the Mid Atlantic ran two projects. One for a very specific project in artificial island and another one more broad in scope. So you can see the RTOs in the U.S. now kind of getting their feet wet kind of dipping them into this model. This year the MISO, the Midwest or the Midcontinent system operator which is sort of I guess Minnesota now down I guess Arkansas and South right with entry joining is going to run a process apparently in the first quarter of next year. So the MISO is getting geared up to try this and the SPP the Southwest power pool is also looking to get geared up to take a shot of this. So gradually it seems like in the U.S. this competitive procurement model people going to test it out and see what happens. So then we can go to the place where I work, which is strange and unusual place. A couple places of taking a shot at nobody here from Ontario I'm sure. There's a province in the middle of Canada called Ontario and it took a shot at this last well a couple of years ago with a project known as the East West Tie. It was about a 300 mile long project around the very top of Lake Superior from over to places north of Duluth, Minnesota and it was done on unusual model was a pure competitive procurement. You had to file proposals. Lots of folks showed up. Lots of Canadian companies, lots of U.S. companies and some folks from other parts of the world as well showed up to have a piece of the action in Ontario. There was one winner. We bit on that. It wasn't us. So oh well. Better luck next time. But the mechanism once you if you won that then you would become a regulated enterprise in Ontario like everybody else who would be cost to service are different right they switch up. It's not done all the same way. And now last but not least in the province that I work in Alberta. There's a shot right now going on to build a large facility that's going to go up to northern Alberta to the oil sand area around Fort McMurray. There's a lot of economic activity right now in northern Alberta developing heavy oil resources. And we won't talk with Keystone pipe on the right probably inappropriate. Yeah, sounds like it. But there's a power line to go up to Fort Mac to build two power lines. The first one will go up and it's currently undergoing a competitive bid. The Alberta system operator asked for competitive proposals or actually qualification documents last fall. We don't know how many people showed up, but at least 10 did by our count maybe more. Five were selected to put in proposals and it's sort of a who's who of a Canadian US and foreign transmission interests. And they're all busy working hard on that. We're one of them. We have a partner from the US American Electric Power from Ohio. And that was interesting because the process will result in a 35 year fixed price contract. And all the upfront work to build transmission. All the upfront siting and the route selection and the regulatory approvals are all for the nickel of the developer. And then you get to bid a fixed price contract for the whole thing. So it's going to be an interesting thing to see how many folks go through the end and whether it all makes sense and how much money it attracts and that sort of thing. Then there will be a second one in Alberta known as Fort Mac East, which will do the same sort of thing to reinforce that part of the world. So conclusions competition is coming to transmission in various parts of the world for different reasons. Some of them the old fashioned ones like in Brazil just a need for more investment, need for more dollars and perhaps concern of whether the incumbent can do it or not, does the incumbent have enough resources to undergo a major build? In other places like I think in Chile looking for competition believing that perhaps competition will give more innovation or test the home team. In Ontario part of the deal there was there's a company that's well established the old Ontario Hydro and now Hydro One. The sense with the Ontario government just wanted to try something different on and see whether Hydro One was given the best deal or whether somebody else would give them a better deal. Hydro One plays third, so I guess I guess they answered their question, huh? Yeah, we play second, so yay, yay good for us. That plus a t-shirt or a cup of coffee. So the approach in the US and can is much more fragmented. In Brazil and Latin America this especially in Brazil it's become a very clean, very quick, very perfunctory process. It just runs like a Swiss watch and deals are assigned. If the offer from the Brazilian regulator is not a good offer, no one bids, then they go back and think about it again. So it's become a very economic, very commercial in that sense. For the US and Canada I think folks are kind of getting their feet wet. It's sort of Baskin Robbins, 52 flavors of how folks are approaching it different ways in different places in Ontario. You have to bid but then you become a standard regulated utility. You know Birdie you've got to bid but then you become a 35 year contract and in the mice ordering it this way and over here we're doing it that way. So I think much more tentative sort of early days here to see how it's going to shake out and what will be effective or what won't be but that's that. And then rolling out much more across the country. And you'll see in other places India is going through the same kind of process right now. The sense of the new government in India this may even kick up faster. So that's it for me. Who's next? Hi everyone. I'll try to finish things up and tie everything together a bit. I'm Kerry Kotler from Clean Line Energy. And our transmission grids in the midst of this transformation. And so I'll talk a little more specifically about how that's going to happen what kind of business models may carry that out that are new that haven't really been seen in this country before and talk a little bit specifically about what we're doing at Clean Line Energy to get renewables to market. So the grid in our country this interconnected grid really wasn't designed with in mind all of what we're trying to do today. We've heard today from other panelists about all of the ways that the energy mix is changing. There's new reliability standards that we have in mind. We have to keep the lights on. There's a shill gas revolution that's creating larger demand for natural gas and more natural gas fired generation. There's more renewables that were trying to get online. There's a growing demand for renewables in the country. And the grid historically was built with incumbent utilities that served a certain area. They'd build a coal plant and build a transmission line to connect that fossil fuel plant a few miles to a town nearby then maybe to another plant in another town. We're now asking the grid to do a whole lot more. We're asking it to serve different regions to connect different regions for economic benefit reasons to bring down power prices to achieve our environmental goals. And so in order to do that we're going to have to make drastic changes to our grid. Harry's firm estimates that we'll spend a couple hundred billion dollars over the next decade or two on the transmission grid in the United States. So let's think a little more about how we're going to do that. But first how I hope we don't do that. Make sure everyone's still awake here at the end. So hopefully this isn't what our grid will look like. That's actually in Kathmandu. And I love the country of Nepal and the people there but I hope our grid does not end up like there's certainly frequent blackouts there. And that would certainly violate several of the standards that Charlie was talking about earlier that NERC sponsors if those were transmission lines. But let's move on to what we are going to do and what we are going to see. We're still going to see lots of incumbent utilities upgrading old transmission lines and building new projects. But there's also going to be several new models as well. We're going to see transcos or transmission subsidiaries where incumbent utilities place their transmission assets or their transmission business into new companies that seek to develop part of that couple hundred billion dollars of new transmission projects that I mentioned. We'll see more joint ventures. A couple of those have already been mentioned today but different incumbent utilities or new transmission companies will form joint ventures together like Steve talked about out in California. PG&E won a project recently but that was through a joint venture with Mid-American as well. We'll see public-private partnerships. This would be similar to the Path 15 project that was built out in California where a subsidiary of the Department of Energy partnered with private developers to build a much needed transmission upgrade out there. New independent transmission companies like ITC or like CleanLine. Merchant transmission. So that's more of a shipper pays model which is widely seen in the gas pipeline world but where the specific users of a transmission line pay for the cost to build the line. And we're also seeing new passive or financial investment in transmission. That means you'll see a lot broader interest in the capital that's needed for transmission from private equity funds, infrastructure funds, pension funds. There's a lot of capital out there that wants to invest in infrastructure and that's going to help to meet this demand for more transmission. So we'll take what we're doing at CleanLine Energy as an example because it fits a number of these boxes that we're talking about here. As a backdrop, what you see here is a map of the wind resource in the United States and the color purple is the very best wind resource. So that's where you can produce electricity from the wind for a very low cost, a cost that's competitive with any other form of generation. So we're talking two and a half cents per kilowatt hour in the middle of the country where you see that color purple. What you see overlaid on that map, those dark lines is the transmission grid, the high power transmission lines that are capable of moving around a lot of power. And where the transmission grid is is where that color purple is not. So those best wind resources that are most economical are far away from where the load centers are. And our five projects didn't make the overlay here, but basically all of our lines start in the middle of the country where you see that color purple. That's where wind developers want to build more wind farms but they can't because there's a lack of available transmission infrastructure. And then our projects will go several hundred miles to tap into those dark lines that you see or those load centers there to allow more renewable energy to get to market that can't get there today and to do it in the most cost-effective way possible. How we fit into this, we're an independent transmission company, that's all we do. We are formed solely to get these renewables to market by building overhead transmission lines. We're merchant. So we're not seeking cost allocation by placing our costs into rates. We expect that the wind developers or the off-takers, the low-serving entities, will enter into contracts and will use those revenues to pay for the transmission lines. National grid is one of our investors. So they're a big incumbent utility that serves load in the New England area and they've made an investment of us. And we're also private equity backed. So many of these different sources of capital that we're going to see injecting themselves into this transmission industry is evident in what we're doing at CleanLine. And we're also using or we're seeking to use a public-private partnership on one of our projects, where we're seeking to work with a subsidiary of the Department of Energy to build one of our lines our Plains and Eastern CleanLine from the Oklahoma Panhandle to TVA. The majority of our lines are HVDC transmission lines. So I thought I'd take a minute to talk about that. And we'll start here. HVDC, there's nothing new about it, so there's two types to start with the basic. There's two types of electrical transmission. There's alternating current and direct current. They're both invented at the time of the light bulb. Edison was actually the proponent of direct current. And Tesla and Westinghouse were the proponents of alternating current. Alternating current one the day is that's what made sense at the time when we when we built the grid to transform your voltages up and down. Alternating current makes a lot more sense than direct current. But where direct current makes more sense is it's a much more efficient technology to move a lot of power over a long distance. So what I showed you on that wind map where you have this remote wind resource, this robust wind resource that can produce enough power to power many millions of homes, but it's several hundred miles away from where people want to use it, direct current makes the most sense to move a lot of power over a long distance. There's several DC transmission lines throughout the United States, but it's now that we're thinking about transforming our grid and getting those renewables to market that it may make sense to build more DC direct current transmission lines to get that power to the market. I thought it was illustrative of what's going on in China. There's a couple of dozen HVDC projects going on in China right now where they're in a similar situation to us. They have remote resources in the middle of the country and they have population centers on the east coast and they need to get that power to their robustly growing demand. They also don't have the siting processes that we have here in the United States for very good reason. So in China they're picking out where the routes are going and they're just they're putting up these projects left and right. So they're really leading the charge on that front. There are several key issues or challenges to developing these HVDC transmission lines. They go through several states. One of the reasons that there's a niche here for independent transmission companies to build lines like this is that the incumbent utilities are typically focused on their service territory and they're now starting to branch out into other areas. But when you want to build inter-regional transmission there's going to be different legal requirements in each state and sometimes those requirements aren't going to match up with one another. So the requirements in one state might not be exactly the same as the requirements of another. So we have to make sure that you develop a project that can meet all the different legal requirements or regulatory requirements that are necessary. And building lines that are five, six, seven and a half miles you're obviously going to have environmental permitting that you need to do. One of our projects is going through the NEPA, the National Environmental Protection process right now. And you also need to coordinate a number of different processes. So you have an interconnection process that you need to go through to inject power into the grid. You need to match that up with your state regulatory process with your right of way acquisition. So taking on these these large scale projects, you know, they're really eight to 10 year projects. But there's a number of different players in the industry that are involved in developing these projects now. And so as we transform our grid here in the coming years, I think we'll see more of these projects that come to fruition. And with that, I think we'll take any questions that folks have. Thanks. To violate it, the committee's injunction not to go beyond this retaining wall and mere mortals cannot go there. So well, if you're persuaded of anything at this point, I'm sure it's that this is a very complicated business. And there are a lot of a lot of interesting issues coming in the direction of folks who regulate the electric system, who try to ensure its reliability, who try to develop various aspects of it. And, you know, there you've heard us before about the old challenges that that transmission faces with the bulk power system. How do you cite facilities? Who's going to pay for them? Who's going to plan them? Are the markets going to be organized that is managed by an RTO or or bilateral sort of out there operating utility by utility? The new challenges you've heard about today. Actually, we haven't, we haven't hit the mall, but we've hit some big ones. Intermittent resources, renewable energy. How is that going to work? Can we get those those resources to market? We're the growing dependency on natural gas. How can we be sure that that fuel is going to show up and when it when it's needed and be delivered when it's needed? Physical and cybersecurity, big, big concerns. And a lot of people are spending time not only worrying about it, but like Charlie doing something about it. Who gets to invest and build facilities and replacing the aging facilities in the existing in existing system? You know, should we rely exclusively on incumbent vertically integrated utilities? Or are there other competitors that can innovate and do do do a comparable job? And what will those companies look like? I don't think the transmission is the answer to everything, but I think if you look at efficiency, if you look at reliability, access to new energy supplies and lower emissions in transmission can add a very important dimension to all those all those issues. And I think these folks have done a fabulous job today of explaining it. Now I'm going to turn it over to you. What are your questions? I'm sure you have a bunch. To what degree can some of these gas-fired power plants run off, send gas produced from waste energy technologies like paralysis? And to the extent that these technologies can be available on site? To what degree does that lesson rely on the gas grid because it's produced on site and also the electric grid, gas pipeline and electric grid? It is true that for power plants that are going to mostly use natural gas, it can often be the most economic choice for them to rather than sign up for long-term pipeline contracts for them to have an alternative fuel on site. Traditionally, that's been for the old-fashioned steam units residual fuel oil. And more recently, because now the power plants are either gas turbines or combined cycle units, it's been distillate oil. So if you look around the country and the number of power plants that have been built that have alternative fuel, it's almost always distillate oil. The advantage is distillate oil is very compact. You can store a lot of energy in a fairly small area. And while it's fairly expensive for the oil itself, nowadays it's probably $17 to $20 per month of ETU, it doesn't cost too much to actually store it. You can build a storage facility or something between $10 and $20 a barrel. So anything that's related to synthetic, you know, synthesizing a gas is going to have to compete against that in terms of the economics. So people have talked about liquefying the natural gas. They've talked about propane or butane as opposed to distillate oil. I have not heard anybody talk in terms of gasifying, but that's certainly a possibility. The only thing I would point out is that typically, if you look at the gasification technologies, they're very capital intensive. And where they tend to make the most sense is where you can use them in a base load application. So I would bet that if somebody were going to build a gasifier, particularly for waste and other things, that they would probably build a peaking unit. And it'd be more likely the other way around, I'm sorry, a base load unit. And it would be the other way around, you would actually use the natural gas to supplement the gasified fuel where there's interruptions in the feed stock or the gasifier goes down for maintenance and so on. And we have been working with one company planning to do something along those lines where they would have a gasifier but use natural gas on an intermittent basis. Yes, sir. I have a question. Say that again. National Rural Electric Co-operative Association. Question for Ms. George. In your presentation, you discussed a number of coal, oil and nuclear plants that will be decommissioned. Can you discuss how you plan to replace those lost megawatt hours, number one, and number two, whether the recently announced greenhouse gas rule for existing plants will impact your plans to replace those megawatts. Thank you. Sure. And thanks for the question. In terms of replacing the megawatts that are leaving our market, that's what are hopefully our wholesale electricity markets and in particular the capacity market in providing incentives for new resources to come forward. We've seen some interest in coming forward but it wasn't until the last capacity auction that we ran this past February that New England was short of resources and we saw the prices rise in that market. So I think that the market and the higher prices in the market will drive the incentives for the new resources to replace the exiting resources. But the only thing to note is what's showing an interest in getting developed is natural gas fired or potentially wind, but it's a lot of natural gas fired generation. And so the problem is that you're replacing some of these non-gas resources with more natural gas. And in terms of the greenhouse gases, we're in a region that's had the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, REGGI. And so it's my understanding that REGGI announced pretty quickly that they should have no problem meeting the new standards. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Just for anyone on the panel. Just wait for the wait for the mic, please. Thank you. Yes, this is I'm Marsha Cleveland, and I'm a private attorney working on utility issues. This is for anyone on the panel. I know that Florida Power and Light has at least one facility that combines gas and solar. And do you know whether that is a growing field? Is that potentially an answer to match the intermittency of wind and solar with the growing intermittency of natural gas? Maybe Ann is the best one to answer. Well, I haven't seen any interest in developing something like that in New England. I think Florida may have been better suited for something like that. I also Florida is still their utilities are still vertically integrated. And so I believe that there was a desire from whether it was the state or the vertical or the utility to build that. And so they got a cost of service run through on the cost. But, you know, I have heard of that plant and it is something that's that's interesting. I don't know. I don't know if any others on the panel have any more information about how likely that is to be of, you know, something that gets built in other regions. I'd say we we take a look at those firming type arrangements and they're certainly interesting and could be part of the solution in the future. At this point, we don't really see them as the most economical way. It seems most economical to produce energy through wherever it's most cost effective and then the utilities can be adept at managing those resources as they need them. But it wouldn't surprise me if there continues to be more attention on projects like that. Sure. I'm Bob Hershey. I'm a consultant. Has there been work between the electric utilities and gas utilities in trying to coordinate some of the things you've cited and making arrangements with different schedules or different ways to do things so that they can meet the needs? The answer is yes. There are several different forums. Right now, FERC is proposed a way of trying to coordinate the two industries and there's a process under being done under NAISB where the different stakeholders are trying to come up with a consensus process and that's what I was referring to when I said that I think in the next few months we'll be seeing the fruits of that. Either there will be a consensus in which case FERC will choose to adopt it or FERC will go ahead and come up with its own rules related to several different aspects of it. One is the, you know, what is the gas day defined as and was the day defined as? How often do you have to are you able to re-nominate? There's a whole bunch of rules related to information, information sharing and that sort of thing and I think there definitely is a lot of interest to try to resolve them. From a gas industry's perspective, as I was saying, they're looking to the electric power industry as their growth market. So they want to assure that all these different issues that are standing in the way of people using natural gas are resolved in a way that allows the projects to go forward because they want to be able to sell the gas. So both the producers are interested and the pipelines are interested in trying to resolve them. But I think they also recognize that there's a lot of issues on the gas and the electric side related to the market design and the incentives and I think they're looking for those problems to be resolved through by the electric industry. The only thing I would add is, you know, while these two industries had grown up separately, both in the regulatory world, the commercial world and it is very difficult to get them kind of to be more coordinated. So that's difficult in the regulatory world, but just sort of informally there's been a lot more communication between the industries, a lot more education among the electric industry and the gas industry. And so I think over the past several years, just bringing these issues about and having that those lines of communication has helped tremendously. I should add the FERC has spent an enormous amount of time in the last year or two with technical conferences and proceedings trying to mediate, I guess you would say, because since FERC regulates both industries, both delivery systems under statutes that are similar but significantly different in some respects and that provides a very important forum for that. The gas market's work, marvelously, and they have been restructured for a long time. Actually, open access, pipeline open access started in 1985 and you know, one of my law partners who specializes in natural gas transportation says, why don't you electric guys just get your act together? The gas market works. Just fine, just do things the way we do things. So I mean, it's a fascinating discussion. Yes, sir. Bob Querton with ICF. A question I guess for the whole panel and maybe even for the chairman. Much of what we've talked about here has been about markets and economics and technology, but I think there's another underlying issue of how much does it cost and who pays and a lot of I think what has retarded the advance of resiliency has been those questions. Particularly at the point where we're reluctant to authorize significant new investments that reinforce resiliency. And so I guess the question is, what do we need to do as a society to get a greater acceptance that, you know, we all like resiliency. We can't always point to somebody else to pay for it. How do we as a society invest in greater resiliency? Well, Harry, it's one of your colleagues to put you on the list. I'll just say as a former state utility commissioner, it's almost something bad has to happen before you react. And it's a terrible way that we, you know, move in this country. But, you know, it's not until you have a big storm that all of a sudden spending money on the distribution system becomes front and center. It's not until you have some big threat that you get the movement to make those investments. Hopefully, you know, some of the work that NERC is doing, just pushing the standards gets, you know, the kind of the mandatory nature behind it pushes the utility commissions to say okay, we got to do something and to meet those standards. So that is helpful. But beyond that, unfortunately sometimes you need something to at least get people to wake up and see that there is a problem. I mean, I'd say two things. One is, again, our standards are mandatory. And so it's, you know, at some point it becomes hard for a commission to say we're not in a cost reimbursement environment. It's somewhat difficult for them eventually to say, no, we're not going to let you get reimbursed for your costs. That you're being required by law. Because our standards are mandatory. And that is, in some sense, NARUC and the state commissions become very engaged at NERC now because of this, because of course it does flow down to some extent into distribution bills, though I think some of it does get up into the transmission, which is dealt with separately by FERC tariffs and other rates. You know, the other aspect of this that's just, you know, pretty fascinating is we heard today that are, in my old world, we would call merchant entries into the market and, well, they don't get cost recovery often. They're market participants. So if I'm somebody who is building a transmission line or an operating, a generating plant on a merchant basis, and I am told I have to do something to harden, you know, enhance the resiliency, say, of my facility, whatever that facility is, or otherwise me to standard, I don't have anybody to turn to and say automatically, give me more money, because somebody told me to do this, I'm selling a product that is, whose price is set by a market. And so that's, you know, it's why we do get some active participation in what we do, because in fact, what we do for some participants in this marketplace, there isn't an automatic place, even if you have a friendly state to go to and say, give me the money to recover my cost. So it's something that we think about a fair amount at NERC about, you know, how do we do this in a cost effective way that actually really does materially enhance reliability as opposed to there are people who would say, you know, don't gold plate the system, right, because you can't pay for that. Then you have a storm and people want more. You know, I think that's a great question. I mean, who pays for this? I think it's part of always the bottom line in these questions. In 2003, we had 50 million people lose power one afternoon. And everybody anticipated that was going to get everybody on the same page. Well, we weren't on the same page. Six months later, we're right back in our respective corners of the ring. And there is an enormous amount of room for collaboration. And the fact that this is an industry that's regulated at so many different levels by so many different types of agencies is troublesome. One would hope that that as we've done with reliability that with the good offices of people on Capitol Hill that maybe there are some solutions that could flow from legislation. But there's a lot of trial and error going on because I don't think we all have the same vision of where the electricity grid needs to be 10 years, 20 years from now. And that's really the discussion that's happening right now. People are struggling with what is a very, very fundamental re-engineering of this critical system. Yes, ma'am. Dena Stoner, Cooperative Finance Corporation. I have two questions. One, it used to be and maybe still is that transmission was about 7% of the consumer bill. And given, first of all, is that still true and will transmission continue to be in that range as we look forward knowing that the cost of energy and distribution are probably also going to go up? That's first. And second, this is for Stephen and Carrie. It seems like the examples that you're giving were mostly in deregulated markets for merchant, was I right? Do you have any opportunities for merchant transmission building in regulated markets? Well, let's see. My understanding is transmission is still in the neighborhood of 10% of the bill, and I don't see a fundamental change in that in the future. I think there's the opportunity for transmission to serve regulated markets. So, for example, we have projects that will deliver energy into regulated markets, and that's their least cost option to serve their load. They could purchase the energy that's delivered on our line to serve their load. So, in that sense, there's some opportunity, though, not necessarily going to build a traditional project for reliability within their service territory. From our standpoint, we're not looking at that, and I don't know that I see a ton of opportunity there. Steve. Yeah, I was going to say on the first question, in terms of the percentage of cost that is transmission, I think I would say it's probably very much jurisdiction with jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is with perhaps a lower growth rate, or if the economy is perhaps lower and there's not as much transmission build, we probably have a lot of older transmission, so perhaps the percentage of cost there would be lower. In other jurisdictions, like when I live where the economy is growing quite rapidly, there's a lot of new investments, so our percentage is going to tick up in Alberta from what it has been historically, but Alberta is probably not typical of the U.S. Canadian economy. I don't know much about Texas, but I'm guessing the dynamics there might be similar to Alberta with a lot of growth down in Texas. So, I would say that percentage, that sort of rule of thumb is probably very much depends on the jurisdiction and what's going on there in terms of investment and growth and transmission. In terms of these other models applying outside or in regulated markets, the competitive examples that I showed where there's competitive procurement, all those markets are still very heavily regulated. Sorry, in Brazil the dominant regulation comes from the federal government, from Anil, the regulator, but it's still very much regulated. In Ontario, the example I showed of East West High the procurement, the designation of the project was a competitive process, but once the project is built the company that built it will become a utility subject to the entire energy board like anybody else. Whoever wins Fort Mac will become subject to the Alberta Utility Commission and I believe in the U.S. it will be the same kind of thing. Whoever wins these competitive procurements in CalISO or the MISO or as in New England or wherever, they're still going to be subject to state and federal regulations. So, it's really just a process, as Jim mentioned for how do you decide who's going to build on and operate your new transmission. Is it going to be the incumbents that have done it historically or are you going to try to mix it up and see whether other types of companies or other experiences can give you a better answer? Let me add to the first part of his Aunt Steve's answer. The 7% number does vary region to region utility to utility, but there's a big intergenerational equity question here. Most of our transmission grid was built in the 50s and 60s and 70s. Those investments have provided support for our electric system and our use of electricity along after those facilities have been fully depreciated and the cost has really diminished significantly. Unfortunately what happened is that we quit building transmission about 1980 and now we have a lot of aging facilities that need to be replaced or upgraded or digital technology needs to be added to the system and so forth. There is a real cost but this percentage of the total electricity bill question has to be taken in perspective. When you build transmission you are making it possible to access lower cost electricity supplies like the ones that Kerry was talking about earlier or it will advance some clean energy goals and lower emissions better efficiency. It's obviously a project by project question but the investment in transmission is going to increase that percentage of the bill in a lot of cases but the savings are going to come off in other ways and hopefully our investment in transmission is going to look like this instead of like this which is really a bad way to do business and it does hurt rate payers who are on the building end of that curve and benefits those who aren't. I would also argue to get dangerous for the regulatory guidance but I would argue that to the extent that we have policies in this country that incent lower cost generation natural gas may be one of those depending on how we deal with the issues around the gas that's coming online you create headroom in the system to allow for investment in these other issues and I think I would say to policy makers and state commissions as well as federal policy makers that is the longer term vision that I would think that people in the policy arena can start to really articulate and think about is if you want a system that is more resilient whether it's from cyber attack, physical security increasing storms whatever issue you think is or suite of issues you think is facing you policies that fundamentally lower the cost of generation lower the cost of the commodity part of the bill and that's somewhere around you guys know better than me but at some point 80% of the bill is the commodity somewhere around there you're creating dollar for dollar headroom to allow you to invest in systems that will have long-term impact for the reliability of the system and bring the possibility of more capacity that even has a better effect of lowering prices that's the longer range vision I would urge people who should be thinking about these things more than me because that's not what I'm supposed to think about day to day other than when I'm at home thinking about weird things Thanks, that's great Anyone else? Any more questions? Well, let me just thank you all for being here and for sticking with us and join me in thanking this great piano Before everyone leaves first of all I just want to say thank you again to Jim and Wires and I want to remind you that next Wednesday we're taking, it's like a little miniseries and so we are working with the National Electric Manufacturers Association NEMA to bring to you voices talking about some of the technologies that are being provided that can help address some of the questions that you heard about today in terms of improving the efficiency and the resilience of the grid so we wanted to do this as kind of a little miniseries so we hope to see you next Wednesday at 10 a.m. in Senate 428 Russell Building from 10 to 1130 on Wednesday June 18th so thank you again so much for coming and thank you a really really terrific panel really really appreciate it Nice Carol So I was there yesterday and so I thought I would do this for you come back for me I'm going to be a copy for tomorrow and I'm going to fill out the meeting so Good New Orleans I I I I I I I I I I I I I