Welcome to today's webcast on sustainable energy independence. I'm David Young, the President of the Committee for Economic Development, the public policy center here at the Conference Board. The US is Recent withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement does not mean the end of efforts to achieve sustainability, nor of the essential role of U.S. business in driving it. Even as. Even as the US embarks on a new energy strategy that will rely more heavily on fossil fuels, the country remains a global leader in developing climate technologies that will drive emission reductions. The US business and business community still has an active role to play in leading energy innovation and growing exports, as well as promoting emission reductions at home. We'll consider several issues today, including how the US business community is leading in climate, technology and innovation strategies, the power of markets in driving the the energy transition while promoting economic growth, areas in which the world can learn from the US, and areas in which the world is ahead of the US in driving sustainability. How the US is new energy strategy can reflect sustainability and how regulatory changes could affect the US energy mix. And also how the US and the world can continue progress on sustainability even absent from the Paris agreements through significant emission reduction opportunities. We have a distinguished panel joining us today, all our CED trustees. I'm delighted to say firstly we have Vicki Bailey, the former Assistant Secretary of Domestic Policy and International Affairs at the US Department of Energy, Mike Hopkins, Chief Advisor and Legal Team Lead at Plus Power, and also Jay Warren Klein, the Chairman and the CEOUS Grid Company. Just to let you know, if you do need an attendance certificate for this webcast, please click the icon shown to download your certificate at the end of the webcast. You can use that to claim continuing education credits if you hold a certification. So today, just before we get into the conversation, we've got 5 pretty distinct chapters to get through. Firstly, we'll start by setting the scene. We'll then look at U.S. business leadership. We'll look at the markets. We'll turn our attention then to regulation and deregulation. And then we'll conclude with the international aspect and U.S. policy. So now let's turn to our panelists for their thoughts. So then we'll take some question from the audience if we get some time. So given the significant policy changes in this area in the last few months, I would first like to ask our panelists really to set the scene, set the stage and frame the nature of the issues that we'll be discussing today. So firstly, Vicky, if I may, let's start with you. You served in a senior role at the Energy Department. How significant is it that the department has changed its mission from assisting with climate change goals to now somewhat focusing on what the administration terms energy dominance? Thank you, David. I'm excited to be a part of this discussion today as I am the Executive Chair of the United States Energy Association and I represent a lot of fuel sources and types. So it's a pleasure and honor to be here. From the standpoint of your question the and specifically the Department of Energy, the Energy Department has always had a broader mission than than just climate. It's historically focused on energy security, advancing science, innovation and managing our nuclear responsibilities. We have our national labs that we rely on as well. And what's different now is a sharper focus in my mind is a sharper focus on pragmatic and may possibly results driven policy. The word energy dominance, people have a various reaction to that, but it doesn't mean abandoning clean technologies. It means unlocking all of our domestic resources to ensure reliability, affordability for everyone. We have goals. We have reliability goals, we have resilience goals, we have affordability goals. And the goal from the standpoint United States Energy Association is access to energy for all. So those are my opening comments on. Great. Well, thank you. Vicki, it's interesting where you say kind of energy dominance, I I agree with you and where you say unlocking all of our domestic energy resources. But just on that, on that note, Jay, I want to bring you into the conversation before turning it over to to Mike. The the climate challenge is obviously global. How significant is it that the US has now withdrawn once again from the Paris climate agreement? And any other kind of opening thoughts, comments, reflections as we set the scene for today's conversation? Sure. Well, I think it is significant that we've withdrawn. And I would quote former Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, who basically says that today in the environment that we face, we should be fighting like hell for every 110th of a degree of of warming. And so the thought of the matter is not to give up, but to continue to do the things we have to do. I would say, and I can expand on this later, that one of the critical things that I believe we need to do is to set a price on carbon, which is in our economy to be able to set a price on carbon. And I would do so in the way that the Schultz and Baker and President Reagan's team had proposed, which is you basically set a price on carbon. You start perhaps at $40 a ton, you put that on every product. But at the end of the year, you refund to every American family pro rata the amount that was collected in that price of carbon so that nobody is disadvantaged by that. And yet people become aware of the fact that there is a price on carbon. So that is one kind of area that we might think about and have in fact in the past talked about, which is would that make sense? Because putting a price on carbon at least makes everybody think a little bit about what they can do not to have to incur that price. And if all business in America thought that way, we might achieve some very major goals. Great. Thank you. Jay, can I just get your thoughts also on this on the on the term energy dominance quickly because I think Vicky's, Vicky's comments were were quite interesting. Is would you agree with that in terms of kind of unlocking all of our domestic energy resources or do you have a different way of interpreting what the administration means by energy dominance? Well, I, I don't want to put myself in the minds of the administration and what they thought they meant by that. But I would say that one of the things that we know is that we are expecting massive increases in the demand for energy and the usage of energy over the next years and everybody recognizes that. And So what we have to do, for example, these chief executives on March 25th of each of the independent system operations in the United States representing let's say New York, California, the Pacific, the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, the Southern states, etcetera. All of them got together and they basically indicated that over the next years they're expecting because of the need for data centers and the need for other energy initiatives that we need in this country. We will have the case of, let's call it Texas, a 25% increase in the need in the demand for power and the supply of power over the next seven years. In the case of California, it is a increase of 33% over the next years. We're talking about in the ordinary course meeting our needs for data center and and also our needs generally for fueling the economy. We're going to have a significant increase in demand. And So what we need to do is to recognize that there are ways in which we can deal with that, including the notion of putting a price on carbon, which would be my my favorite next step. Great. Thank you, Jay. Mike, let's let's turn to you for your your opening thoughts, reflections, maybe your reaction also to this term of the new administration with regards to energy dominance. But also be curious to get your thoughts in terms of how are businesses in the clean tech industries reacting to these changes and how are deregulation and other changes impacting clean energy businesses? Well, Mike, you may be on on mute, mute buttons at the top. Let me just see if we can pull you in. OK, Let me move on and Mike will come back to you. I think you just may have to refresh your your page. Let's just turn to the second chapter that we've got here, which is focused on U.S. business leadership. And Vicky, I want to come back to you. The administration is clearly seeking to expand fossil fuel production, but the US is also the world leader in climate technologies and innovation strategies. What should US businesses do in this new environment to retain that leadership? OK. Thank you, David. From my point of view, there's absolutely room for, for both leadership in fossil fuels and in clean energy technology. I believe at the beginning of your introduction, you said we remain a global leader in developing climate technologies, technologies that actually do Dr. emissions reductions and businesses, corporations have a key role to play. It's it's my belief that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. From the standpoint of our goals, what we will need, we will need every molecule, every electron in collaboration to meet, as, as was said early, to meet today's and future energy demand. So I believe from the standpoint of technology, you know, the US is already the world's largest producer of oil and gas. We lead, we also lead on, on carbon capture, CCUS, hydrogen, advanced nuclear, and I think we will continue to do so. But we're doing our best from the standpoint of innovation. US businesses are moving faster than regulations can keep up up with them. And the key that we're trying to do, I think we need to do is reduce some of that prescriptive, shall we say, sometimes burdensome. I'm not as a former regulator, not against, I'm not for no regulation, but from the standpoint that there's redundancy and we want to move quickly and these these projects are capital intensive. So if we want these kind of investments and infrastructure to get built in the competitiveness of America, I think we have to make it a make it a pathway for businesses to do that so. Vicky, can I just ask you a question given you your point that you mentioned just being a former regulator on this balance between the need of regulation, but also the the the worry that regulation may may slow down kind of implementation and execution of projects. How do you balance the two there? How do? I balance it in my mind, regulation, regulation is there to, to protect, to protect citizens from, from harm in, in several areas, not just energy, but, but in several areas, OK. But what we don't want it to do is to, to, I believe in markets. And I think, you know, from the standpoint of efficiency, I believe markets are much more efficient regulator than government. I've said this many times in, in my, my conversations and since I've been a, a regulator, I started in Indiana as a commissioner at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. So there's certain foundations and tenants that, that I have now that that's me. Now, please don't say this is what USDA or administration or anything like that. I'm, I'm really giving you my authentic perception. So I, I, I just think it's not governments place to pick winners and losers, but we kind of want to be referees. We want to call to be call the balls and strikes in my mind so that there are no barriers to entry. But there there are some guardrails there. Great if need, but that's totally awesome. I appreciate it, Mike. Let's let's come back to you. Let's see if we can get you involved in the conversation and if the technology is working, can we? Have I got audio? You're back, you're back. Welcome, welcome. But now, now I've only got about half a dozen questions for you, but let me just refresh, refresh the conversation. Just this kind of bouncing back to kind of setting the scene, getting your your overall kind of opinion and reflections on on the the situation at the moment. Any comments you may have around energy dominance or at least the the term that the administration is using, but then also how are businesses in the clean tech industries reacting to these changes and how are how is deregulation and other changes impacting the clean energy business? Sure. Thanks, David. It's it's good to be back and have audio. I'll declare my bias. I'm, I'm in the clean tech industry and have been for quite some time, although I began in the fossil fuel industry to deal first with your questions about energy dominance, energy independence, certainly speaking for myself. But I think for the clean tech industry broadly, like in principle, those are by definition good things that energy independence and dominance as is, I'd say the, the notion of an all of the above approach when it comes to energy. To me, all of those are both good and fully compatible and consistent with the cleantech industry and the goals of sustainability. I guess to be more specific though, to how is cleantech reacting to the change? Because there has been a big change when it comes to policy support to public investment. I'd say frankly, cleantech went through years, call it four years of literally unprecedented tailwinds where we had investment tax credit for standard energy storage, we have production tax credit for hydrogen, We had massive grants going to the hydrogen industry, all of which created these significant tailwinds to whatever anybody wanted to do. And what I observed is it drew in again, I'd say unprecedented private investments into the whole clean pet fuel. Now I'd say most of us are feeling like whiplash where we went from all looked extremely encouraging and positive to kind of uncertainty across the board with all the things that I just mentioned that grants are now being reviewed, the hydrogen grants, the hydrogen hubs, the ITC for storage is up in the air, uncertain production tax credit for hydrogen, unclear how that will work out. Now that's the reality and uncertainty is everybody knows whatever industry you're in, that's bad for investment. So notwithstanding that, I would characterize our industry as very resilient. I think that's proven that we're very innovative. That's what we're all about. The reality is we're operating in a very high level of uncertainty. That's the nature of the market right now. And for that reason, I'd say that reality is the vast majority of companies in my industry are, I'd say, pulling back their plans and refocusing with a narrower focus on what can still be achieved in this more challenging environment, which by the way, that's not all bad that that's what's happening. Thank you, Mike. Jay, let's, let's get you involved here on the, on the same topic, same, same question, just the shift in emphasis away from a focus on climate change and net 0 affect businesses and how should businesses act on the on the issue. And just to, to Mike's point that he brought up there, you know, looking at some of these businesses and, and the clean energy industry, you know, pulling back and, and refocusing and, and rethinking. One thing that I I have felt is critical is that for people who are in the generation business, for example, or in the power supply business or the energy supply business generally, there are technology advancements that are being made in our major universities that are extraordinarily important and interesting ways in which we can create an economically efficient way. We can in fact adapt. The creation of fossil fuels. The creation of power that is in fact generally powered by fossil fuels, with additions that in fact moderate the amount of fossil fuel emissions. So that we have universities and you name your favorite major university doing massively important work to show how we can in fact apply different technologies while we're using fossil fuels to to dampen and reduce the amount of carbon emissions. That to me is very promising. And, and I think over a period of time we will see some of the very major developments that come out of these universities and that gives me great hope. And I I myself being in the business of buying natural gas fired power plants and transition them towards 0 carbon have been very impressed with some of these developments and seek to apply them. So I would say let's not give up on the ingenuity of our academic technology universities to be able to provide some ability of to significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions coming out of the the the dominant energy notion at the same time. Jake, can I just pick up on one thing you said just, you know, just the impact and, and influence and need of, of universities and, and that sense of innovation. Should there be more collaboration from your perspective between kind of the the thinking and innovation within universities and the energy industry overall? I, I believe that there is actually significant amount of collaboration going on, significant amount of discussion where universities will say to people like myself, we're in the business of, of producing energy and trying to reduce carbon emissions that they will work with us. And if we will pay them a certain modest amount as a fee for their cost etcetera involved, they'll work with us, show us their technologies and help us adapt those those technologies. So I do feel that the significant technology universities in this country are focused on the issue and that we can take advantage of that work, wonderful work that's going on. Great. Thank you. Mike, just rounding out this, this topic of kind of U.S. Business leadership and ingenuity, where, where are you seeing US innovation in, in climate technology and other companies getting the access that they need to to kind of push and advance innovation. Well, I certainly agree with Jay that the energy industry generally, I'd say cleantech in particular are innovative at their core. I think cleantech has benefited not just from call it the last four years. I was referencing a very large public investment in the industry generally and specifically dry innovation as well as all the private money that that true in. But it's benefited from the new generation of folks coming into the coming into our industry or in academia that are frankly not so swayed by changes in politics and have a genuine deep belt doesn't change every four years. Desire to see sustainable technologies, desire things, see things that are better for the planet. I think that's actually a cross industry. It's not just limited to energy, but in clean tech the direct benefit is being despite the headwinds I was referring to, we have tremendous, I'd say like unprecedented interest in people coming into the markets. These are the companies people want to work in. They're smart, they're passionate. I think that we have that is a strength of the United States is that we are innovative as as a people, as a culture, we're entrepreneurial. These are all things that help even in difficult environments. We're not unique though when it comes to like being innovative and driving fundamental change. Probably the biggest real change in our industry that has leveled the playing field when it comes to new generation as being baddies versus natural gas power plants where batteries, the cost of them has actually dropped 50% in the last two years, coincidentally actually offsetting the the tariffs on China. That innovation partly came out of the United States, but more so actually came out of China. But I'm a I'm a believer that innovation overcomes all obstacles in an industry like ours. Great, Thank you. So we've kind of set the scene here. We've talked about U.S. business leadership. I want to kind of dovetail the conversation now into to markets. And Vicki back to you here and you've kind of alluded to to parts of this question and your previous answers. But I think we would all agree that one of the USS strengths is its reliance on the workings of markets to drive innovation. And, and Mike has touched a little bit on, on the the, the impact and importance of of innovation. But how can from from your perspective and your experience, how can the new administration promote that best, that being kind of the sense of innovation for all types of energy? I think because I know you want to go quickly, one of the one of the back to the issue of demand is just slightly there because it hasn't been mentioned yet from the standpoint of the future resilience, reliability. And I and I kind of harping on those because we have additional issues as it relates to wildfire and extreme weather. And for me, I just want to get that into the, I mean, we're going to need all sources of, of energy that, that we've all talked about right here. So I think that is, that is key. And I and I believe that will be it. Every administration seems to want to put their, their, their imprint on, on energy and energy issues. But the, the, those are the reality of issues that we're facing now when it comes to the market. One of the the major issues that you will hear I think most of us talk about in across clean technologies and all that because you got to get it from here to over there is the issue of permitting reform. And that is one of the greatest constraints on large scale energy deployment across generation stories, transmission critical minerals. It it it is kind of top of mind for for many, many industries. So despite historic investments in energy infrastructure projects are being delayed or abandoned due to multi year reviews, duplicate processes and litigation risks. So these are some of the things that that where the rubber meets the road on the things that we want to do. How do we get there and how do we get there? And I will say quickly from the standpoint of abandoning all the things that we need to consider, but we need to get there a little quicker than, you know, 5 or 10 years. The only things that we're talking about, if we, if we want to do them, we really want to do them and do them right. We've got to figure out how to to make it happen a little quicker. How do we figure that out? What what are some of the factors that come into play when we look at speed and getting there a little bit faster? That's a, oh, that's a, a collaboration or shall we say a dance between policymakers, regulatory developers. There, there are all kinds of voices in the, in that, in that mix and, and I'm not necessarily in that mix anymore. So, but they're, they're all voices. And I'm sure the others, Mike and Jacob have thoughts as well on this important issue from standpoint of timeliness, just timeliness these as I said before, capital projects, Long live projects, but you've got to make those investment decisions early. And then you others have talked about certainty, uncertainty is not, is not helpful and not a good thing when you're talking about investments and incentives for, for, for oil companies to, to, you know, to, to natural gas, to the clean techs. It's it's important to to have some, some idea of when you know, pencils are down, shall we say. Yeah, Jay, Mike, any, any just quick reflections on what Vicky's mentioned here with regards to, you know, the importance of timeliness, speed of delivery and and uncertainty. Jay, did you want to take that? I'll start with that. We at the Committee for Economic Development have thought about ways in which we can in fact, put time limits on the need for state responses to proposals, for example, to add a transmission line to take power that is clean energy and bring it into a major city, etcetera. And so I think that there are ways for us to be thinking about ways in which we might preempt in one way or another. And perhaps it occurs to me that perhaps even the Trump administration would like to work with us to preempt, preempt certain state actions that in fact delay the ability to put into place important power additions or supply additions. So it's a thought that I have, but the notion is that we need to have government officials recognize that the delay in enabling the addition of critical power and energy addition supply is really very counterproductive. And the thinking that I have is that perhaps an organization like the Committee for Economic Development could in fact continue our good work, and perhaps in an even more public way. To say this makes no sense from a national point of view, from a state point of view or otherwise. And you're blocking the ability to create this structure, the infrastructure needed for us to build a growing and strong economy. So why don't you work with us and let's make something good happen and we can become part of their partners, the partnership that might be a way for us to proceed. Yeah. Thank you, Jay. Jay, just want to continue while I've got you on the line. Somewhat different question, but how? How do carbon market encourage real emissions reductions? And what are some of the basic principles here of an ideal carbon market structure for the US? Well, I, I would love to, to focus on that with you. The issue with my mind is if we put a price on carbon #1 we will. And if we were to adopt for example, the Reagan Schultz Baker approach that I mentioned before, which is put a price on carbon, let's say we started out as they proposed at $40 a ton and we increase it gradually year by year. But all those revenues are refunded back per cap per capita to those who pay those those those fees. What we would do is we would put an incentive on the part of business to figure out ways to reduce the carbon in the production while at the same time making people indifferent to the fact that there's a price on the carbon because they're getting it back effectively. So my thought is that that is not a bad way for us to proceed with the notion that we need to have a price on carbon, but the price of carbon has to be very productive with respect to the notion that it will result in the money going back to the pockets of people who paid for it. And #2 could provide for regulatory simplification. If you're opposed to the very, very specific and very detailed engagement by government in business on a day-to-day basis. This is not a bad way to say we can avoid, we can simplify regulation a bit. We can avoid some regulatory effects that people find to be very burdensome. We can avoid it because we can accomplish it through the goodwill of people in actually and of businesses in reducing carbon. Great. Thank you. Dividend plan. Mike, how do you think, how, how are you thinking about the power of markets and innovation in the businesses in which you're involved in, in clean tech? How essential is it to preserve the tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act for clean technologies, and how can this money be used well? Well, let me jump on the tax credits because I think that's critically important. From my perspective, I'd say fossil fuels have had their turn when it comes to both federal and state subsidies, tax incentives, tax breaks, which has benefited that industry tremendously pretty much since its inception. And that certainly has benefited the whole country in our prosperity, solar, wind. They also had their their time, their tax credits, which again benefited them tremendously, turned them into the lowest cost source of generation that there is today. I'd say the tax credits really are for storage. It's their turn and hydrogen with the production tax credit, it's their turn to have actual significant government support. They'll both have success to some degree if those get watered down or go away. It really has to do with scale, and I think scale is critical to every energy source that we have that we actually need. In the case of batteries, I'd say batteries are essential to the future of the grid. They're essential to the future of renewables. Renewables are to a degree like tapping out at being useful because of the lack of energy storage. If you don't have that, you can't get full value out of the renewables. So it's the limiting factor. We need it and we need a scale to achieve goals that I think most people have for transition to renewable energy. Similarly, not the same, but similarly, I'd say the production tax credits for hydrogen are critically important to hydrogen adoption. I'm not a proponent of because hydrogen do everything. We should do everything. This is where I'm a proponent of if we are going to decarbonize the largest polluters, heavy industry, fertilizer, heavy transportation, it's simply not going to happen with solar, wind and batteries. It it doesn't actually work that way technically, it will only happen through hydrogen. And I think to incentivize or make affordable decarbonization by those industries, we're going to have to have production tax credits like we currently have for hydrogen. Momentarily, I'm going to move on to the next chapter, which is regulation and and deregulation. But I just wanted to open it up to, to Jay and, and Vicki, if you had question, if you had reflections on just tax credits in general related to the Inflation Reduction Act? And Jay, just wondering if you have thoughts we may have lost Vicky here on the on the line, but just any, any thoughts in terms of the the importance of this act for clean technologies moving forward? It it seems to me that the the provision of incentives to be providing increasingly effective technologies is extraordinarily important and and helpful. And many of the companies that are players in this can in fact take advantage of those tax credits. So I think it is a very important element of the program as a whole that you just described. Moving on, regulation deregulation obviously a a big topic with regards to the new administration here. And Jay, while we've got you or we've got you on the line here, let's, let's, let's stay with you. You've, you've spent a very good part of your, your career promoting nuclear energy. What what regulatory changes are necessary so the US can have somewhat of a a nuclear renaissance? It it strikes me that we have in place a an initiative in which we have small scale modular nuclear reactors that have been developed, the most important and prominent of which had been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as being safe with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission For some forms of small modular reactors which come off an assembly line with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Found in the case of one of those technologies explicitly was that if there are vibrations that are excessive or something else happens in the course of operation that is not in fact supposed to be happening, that technology will shut itself down and therefore we will not worry about a nuclear accident. It'll shut itself down promptly. To me that is extraordinarily meaningful. So why have we not seen more small modular reactors adopted? The issue really has been cost. People have been surprised that as they come off the assembly line and they're now being marketed to, let's call it municipal utilities. In the case of some municipal utilities in the Eastern US, etcetera, the costs have gone up very significantly. And my own view is that this technology is extremely beneficial, very safe, will be adopted. We just have to find a way to bring the cost down. And I think the way to bring the cost down is to have a large enough market so that the cost so that the supply and the production is in a large enough scale so the cost can be brought down. I feel optimistic that that will happen particularly because it seems to me that nuclear technology coming off an assembly line proven by the NRC to have been safe. It will in fact play in a very important role in reducing carbon emissions and reducing fossil fuel importation etcetera, and could be very beneficial to us. So I'm hopeful that we will find that with economies of scale that this will come adopted by some major players and therefore we'll see an incentive on the part of other players to to mirror that. Mike, a similar question for you on this front with regards to regulation and deregulation. Will will steps such as permitting reform expand the use of renewables in the energy mix or will it primarily just help fossil fuel producers? And when we look at regulation, can regulation, can it truly be? Technology neutral and how can regulation and deregulation encourage innovation towards new technologies? Well, it's interesting David, because it's a historically permitting his favored fossil fuel more than clean tech. Clean tech as being different, unusual until relatively recently, fossil fuel much better understood and commonly known. That changed calling the last four years, where I'd say there was definite advantage to pursuing a cleantech project or a fossil fuel project. Now it seems to be swinging back. A place where I'd say fossil fuel and cleantech actually have a lot in common is the area of regulation, in particular the impact of local opposition. One thing that I saw was during the same career that there was significant federal and state encouragement of cleantech projects, there was increasing local opposition to cleantech projects, which I characterize as just a generalized opposition to energy projects like in their backyard. And this is where I think this commonality we have is critically important to focus on reform that allows reasonable local input, but not local input that basically shuts down energy projects. If that's happening, whether it's fossil fuel or clean tech projects, it is going to be not possible to be energy dominant and energy independent. If we can't do what we want to do in our own backyard, by definition we become importers of clean tech and importers of fossil fuel, which I see no scenario under which that's in the interest of either the industries or the country. Yeah, interesting. Thank you, Mike. Vicky, we've got, we've got you back. Can you hear us OK? Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah, perfect. So we just want to I want to bring you into the conversation on on regulation and and and deregulation. A question that that really lies at the heart of this webcast is how can EU s s new energy strategy reflects sustainability as well as expanding production and and how will these regulatory changes affects the affect the the US energy mix? And I'm sorry, I didn't get the to hear, but I think, as I said, I think before the, the environment, I mean from the standpoint of market trends, regulatory trends, you know, we have, we have everything from oil and gas, nuclear, geothermal, battery storage. But from the standpoint of what I was hearing the, the last person Mike talking about from the standpoint of, of just timeliness, I think we, when I got cut off, we were talking about permitting. But from the standpoint of, of regulatory certainty, you know, we, we, we've always energy development has always dealt with uncertainty of, of some kind or another and we've always been in transition. So to the extent that we want to, to remain competitiveness, we want to bet on America. From the standpoint of our innovation and technology, we're looking at AI, we're looking at data centers, advanced computing, all of the needs that we see coming. There just has to be, I think a, a better focus on, on how we do that efficiently. How do we get there efficiently and maintain the fact that we're trying to, to have energy access for every community for, for everyone and for every purpose. So that's it's the engine that drives the that drives us so. So the, the final chapter that we're going to get to momentarily is the is the international, international aspect. But before I do just a, a question for for the panel here. As we kind of close out rate this topic of, of regulation and and deregulation. Are there areas in which deregulation is going too far away from legitimate concerns about emissions and the impact of climate change perhaps on methane or promoting coal or or other areas? So just let me open it up to to all three of you, areas that deregulation is going too far away from legitimate concerns about emissions and the impact of climate change. Perhaps I can take a shot at this. I do not feel that we are having deregulation. In fact, we're not arguing for deregulation that in fact reduces environmental regulation or environmental oversight on what a project is in fact doing that is emitting pollutants or or otherwise. So my thinking about that is that I do not think that there is much of A voice from business or otherwise, which is basically saying do not regulate the emissions from a power project because we need to have more of these projects etcetera. I think we're basically in a position where we're saying we recognize that there needs to be emissions regulation and emissions concerns etcetera. What we're trying to do is enable the interconnection of new assets to the grid. We're trying to be able to move things forward recognizing though that none of that takes away from the fact that we are going to be able, we're going to need to control emissions. And so my my view on that is that we should be able to achieve what we need to achieve in terms of jump starting the execution of a wide variety of major new demand filling projects without worrying that we are in fact going to be tolerating more carbon emissions or other things happening that in fact are against the public interest. Mike, Vicki Thoughts Comment. I, I would align myself with, with what he just said. We recognize the need is there for, for clean energy. We all want to breathe clean air. We want our, our children and our grandchildren. We want, we want that for ourselves. And I think internationally from the standpoint, I think about sources such as LNG, which needs natural gas for feedstock and all that. But as we are exporting, you know, those other countries, they want to know that we're exporting clean cleanly, shall we say clean energy as well. It's, it's a requirement. I think in some of the, the European areas, corporations will continue and I and I, and I hesitate to say this, but I mean there are other, we were ahead as it relates to emissions reductions even before we put in some of these other regulations. We, we were marching towards that anyway. And I think corporations will continue that. They're not going to just say, oh, wow, no regulation or, or this regulation has been less. No, it's to their business imperative that they continue in the vein that that we're, we're trying to have clean fuel sources and types and that will continue to give them the right to, to, to do business and exist. OK. I'm going to come back to you momentarily as we get into this the international aspect. I just want to give Mike the opportunity. Mike, any any thoughts, comments, reflections on on is deregulation going too far? No. And I agree with my Co speakers that I don't think emissions are really the issue anymore. If I think about deregulation, regulation, re regulation, I think the biggest issue facing the energy industry right now, and this is where I see commonality between clean tech and fossil fuels, is I think we have an emergency when it comes to the electricity grid. I think we have just the way it's designed, fundamentally inadequate transmission that takes forever to add and puts the whole grid at risk in addition to limiting what we can do in terms of new generation additions. But we also have a problem of the grid was built for something that we don't do so much anymore. The grid was designed as a centralized system with centralized power plants that are all controllable. And now we have a grid that increasingly has all kinds of distributed energy resources, all kinds of renewable resources. And you see all kinds of examples across the country where it doesn't work at times. And to a degree that can be changed locally, that can be changed by resource mix. But I think this is an area where there actually does need to be very significant rethinking of the grid, reinvestment in the grid to a grid that will actually work with the kind of energy resources that we're bringing online. Great. Thank you. Mike. Vicky, I want to come back to you. You've you've kind of you cheated up this next chapter perfectly by mentioning the international aspect. But I'm just curious and you mentioned LNG, but just wondering if you can elaborate a little bit in terms of in what areas can the world learn from from the US in climate and energy policy, but also the flip side of that in, in what areas of the in, in what areas of the world are other countries ahead of the US? Well, that's a big question and I truly don't have all the data. I don't, I don't pretend to be in some of my other Co members on the on the panel here probably are better. But from the standpoint of, of innovation, our private sector, our national labs, our entrepreneurial culture, I think we're, we're second to none in that. But as, as we've mentioned constantly, we're, we fall behind in execution other countries and, and with I mean they're, they're reasons that they do this, but it is a fact. Other countries can build faster, they permit faster. As we talked about, they put infrastructure in the ground with far less friction, and I use that. I know there's sensitivities, but if we want to stay competitive, we have to get out of our own way. It's basically what I'm saying, especially on transmission, industrial projects, energy export infrastructure, things like that. And it's, I think this issue of AI data centers advancement, it's key. It's key to a lot of things. And the energy industry is key to a lot of things in other other sectors of our economy as well. So that's where I'll start off. Great. Thank you. Vicki, Jay, do you have do you have thoughts on this? I had another pre planned question for you but just thought just given your your experience just. I do have a thought on it, yeah, I do have a thought on it. When I think about the March 25th testimony of the heads of the independent system operators who are governing and and responsible for the power systems, the transmission systems, the supply of power in different areas. And I'm thinking about the each one of them. What they said in common, which was mind boggling was that we have a need for new power capacity of massive magnitude. They are responsible for matching supply and demand in areas like California for the California independent system operator or New York for the New York operator or in the multiple states of across the Western US, the Southern US, etcetera. They're responsible. They are responsible for the integrity and for the deliverability of power to customers. And so when you look at what the head of the New York ISO said, which is the notion that we will need or the California ISO, just take one example, a third more power capacity over the next 10 years, 45% over the next 15 years they believe. And take a look at what PJM, which is the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland area over the next 15 years, 47% projected new capacity. That's mind boggling that in an environment where we are concerned about the issues we're discussing, that the people responsible for delivering, for putting in the auction rules that will match supply and demand in auctions so that we can actually have incentives to build this new capacity. That they're saying we're going to have to put incentives in place to build half of the capacity that currently exists over the next 15 years in this Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland area. That's mind boggling. And so we have to figure out a way to address those issues, which is not to allow ourselves to be nickeled and dimed over whether we can in fact add a line in a certain area to connect two major transmission lines, etcetera. And that we're going to, we're not going to take 5 to 10 years to do that when we're going to be doubling our capacity or increasing it by 47% over the next 15 years. We don't have that luxury. And to me that's the beauty of having this kind of testimony come out in front of Congress on March 25th, which is everybody in this country responsible for the statewide and regional wide supply of power is recognizing. We have a massive need for additional power capacity. Let's figure out how we solve our problems, and that's what we're talking about here today. Mike, any any thoughts on on this topic in terms of looking internationally and what what countries are kind of leading the way? Is there are there things that the US can learn, especially in in your industry of clean tech? Well, yeah, I, I believe that the United States energy industry, clean tech industry have been continue to be leaders of the world. In the case of clean tech, I'd say that's true notwithstanding the fact that China has, China's government has invested heavily and put in place policies that have created their ability to in a lot of ways dominate parts of the clean tech industry. They were able to do that with solar PV. They've been doing it recently with batteries. Notwithstanding that, when it comes to innovation and what's changing and private investment, it's really say overwhelmingly about the United States. And I think that's as a non original American, but an adopted American, I think that's really has to do with the culture of Americans, which is they are, I think as a people, fundamentally more entrepreneurial. It's how the country started willing to take risk, determine like pioneers. And I'd say that's kind of reflected in our energy industry, both fossil and clean tech. Great. Well, well, thank you all. I, I know we're approaching the, the top of the hour, so 2 apologies here. Normally sometimes we, we close with a flash round, we put the panelists on on the edge of their seats, but we'll, we'll skip that today and, and apologies that we haven't got to the audience questions before. I thank the panelists. There are just two reminders for the audience. Firstly, there's on April 24th and 25th in New York and we can just go to next slide there we go 20, So April 24th, 25th in New York City, we've got the corporate responsibility Summit, accelerating impact through people, policies and purpose. So if you are free and available, it is around the corner, but do feel free to register. And the other thing I just want to let you know is next month, May 15th, join what should be a very anticipated conversation on geopolitics, A shifting global landscape, what lies ahead, Joined by Anna Maria de Silva, who is the global Global chairman of the Person Group. So Simon Gass, who is the former chair of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, and also Doctor Nick Redmond, who is the Director of analysis and the editor in chief at the leading geopolitical risk analysis and advisory firm Oxford Analytica. But with that said, Vicky J Mike from all of us at the Committee for Economic Development, thank you for being trustees of CED and thank you for a very insightful conversation on what we all can agree is a very complex yet important conversation. So our deepest thanks for for everything and for those tuning in much appreciated. Keep in touch with CD and we look forward to seeing you all again soon. Thank you all. Thank. Thank you. Thank you.