Statement. First, for carl to respond. So you have noted that natural gas and leads to the displacement of coal in the power sector has what assumptions have you made about natural gas Going Forward the next 15 years, and what are the implications of that assumption for sailing up renewables and methane . We dont assume changes from those trajectories. Clearly, the four Building Blocks between the power plant will cause a mixture of both increases in natural gas use along with renewables in Energy Efficiency. Most of our projections assume that the state consistent with epas projections that the states will take advantage of all four Building Blocks. So we dont have we dont have explicit renewable additions beyond that in our coram business pathway. Rather the Clean Power Plant projections show significant increase in renewables and no disruptions or price pressure on the natural gas sector. Could i add something on this point, with respect to natural gas . I think one of the stories about natural gas that its sometimes cast towards natural gas versus renewables. The interesting story is the impact of natural gas in distributed you sht going to put a coal plant next to your house or office building, but can you put a combined heating power unit or a fuel cell and one of the challenges one of the things that weve done for Public Health reasons is to move big coal plants away from and other power plants away from population centers, but we lose a tremendous amount of the energy content in the form of heat because of the chimney but well, will new york state have to use more coal because of the fracking position . Will that have any impact . We dont have much coal as it is, and no were not going to have to use more coal. So the point that i want to make is using natural gas for distributed solutions, you use more of the energy content of the natural gas, but in terms of the solution it ties into other solutions of Energy Efficiency at the building level and also again, puts more pressure for policy changes that are going to enable other distributive resources like batteries or solar to build this integrated grid. Its a positive for reduction and emissions. Thank you. Im from the d. C. Peoples council. I have two questions. One is pretty generic or general in nature. It goes directly to stimulation of the economy. You know, we hear from the industry particularly the fossil industry, about the potential for lost jobs, and i want to know, you know, what are we doing in terms of stimulating, fostering, and promoting dream jobs and making certain that those jobs are available to consumers, to you know, to our residents and that in a way offsets, you know, one of the questions that was raised in terms of the increase in prices. Do have you that question directed towards anyone in particular . Maybe to maybe rick. And the second question would go to whats going on in new york . Can we ill cut you off, and thats a great question. Maybe we could start with rick, he would have some thoughts. Its an important topic. I think just to set the broad context as weave seen a 20time increase in solar and huge increase in wind during the course of this administration. To do the combined heat and Power Installations and to do whats required in order to cut energy waist throughout the economy. Mark can probably speak to that in some depth, and you might want to give him a moment as well. We see extraordinary opportunities for rapid ongoing job growth in the renewable sector, the Energy Efficiency sector and throughout the low Carbon Solution set as states move to implement the Clean Power Plant. I just want to note as a follow on to the prior question and an ebbing quo of what record said that a key part of the Clean Power Plan is that each state gets to decide how they want to implement the Clean Power Plan and many states will want to focus intensively on renewables. Others will want to focus on a combination of renewables and nuclear and other technologies, and so well see lots of jobs come with that transformation in each state, and ongoing job creation through the suite of policy that is are already in place consistent. Bit off topic but what recourse is it against those states, the number of states that have said that they will not implement. Theyve received email yonz of comments and are in the process now of working through those comments, taking on that input, and were confident that theyll be finalizing a strong robust rule that is appealing for states to adopt and, again every state will have latitude to design the program that fits their conditions and their priorities and to deliver the standards that are set for their state by the epa. Were confident that once the rule is finalized this summer that there will be a strong interest across states and getting moving on accelerating the momentum thats already out there in the power sector. Some have already noted. And theyll have lots of latitude in the way that works for their circumstances. Thank you. Mark, did you want to oh. I think the jobdz question is a very important one and its notably that epas Regulatory Impact analysis of the Clean Power Plan projects net job gains in the tens of thousands through implementation of the Clean Power Plant for just the reasons that rick outlined. When we deploy Energy Efficiency projects out there maybe on the commercial basis, its not just, you know, some installation folks that are there. You have project engineers designing the projects. It may be a large plan that were doing for a large facility, university, military base. Youve got those installers in there, and a lot of well go in and employ a lot of local subcontractors subcontractors. These are jobs that are out there, and the jobs with the buildings, i always like to say where our projects are. Lets also not forget about the manufacturing side of the business. Its not just the installation. We make the air conditioners and chiller heres in the United States. Theyre replacing the older more outdated inefficient ones. We make the batteries here in the United States. The advanced batteries in toledo, ohio, holland, michigan st. Louis. All those all of the local manufacturing swrobz and the other facilities that are making Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy privates out there here in the those are jobs that are going to also be created as well. Hi. My name is james. Im with the Green Climate fund in korea. I have two questions very quickly. One is to carl. I know this study is already done on the policy actions. I would like to ask you whats the Price Sensitivity of these if we saw a decline to a longterm energy price for fossil fuels with that. Would that change the outcomes . The second is more interesting. Its based on what richard said. Richard is absolutely right about the potential for smart grids in terms of changing the configuration of energy generation, consumption. Absolutely right. Actually, the thing is that the u. S. Is quite your question, please . The u. S. Is behind on smart grids in terms of its deployment. It sounds like. Mark. It was beyond the scope of the study to run different price trajectories on natural gas and prices coal prices, but i think it would depend on what your scenario was. If Natural Gas Prices remain low or are lower some parts of the plan would become easier if prices go up and then obviously some of the further backing off of coal and natural gas would become more expensive. I dont think the results are highly sensitive to some movement in Natural Gas Prices. Other studies especially if we look at the eia analysis, the lean power plan that just came out last week explores some sensitivity on energy prices, and thats worth looking at. And if we could get to if you want to pick up on the smart group question. What can be done to get the u. S. To catch up with europe and other countries on the smart grid . So the grid is a shared responsibility between state and federal authorities. Much of the part of the grid, however that it relates to around buildings and customers is really at the state level. So thats up to each state. What we are doing is profoundly changing the regulatory incentives for the utilities. Weve told the utilities that her job in delivering electricity is to do a few things. They are now to become more capital efficient in how right now they only get utilities only get paid for profit based upon the juan item of capital that they invest. They get they dont get paid based upon the amount of electricity people consume, but they get no compensation for any hidden capital. Its just physical capital. If we want to know why it is that were not employing the best technology, its because given a chase for example, between a poll that lasts 40 years and a piece of software that may not even be able to be capitalized, always pick the pole because they get no profit on things that are not capital. They need to be more capital efficient. They need to integrate distributed resources where its going to make sense for the grid. And we also want utilities to make investments in a in the network thats going to enable robust third party competitors to offer services to customers. When you have all those things together, it will lead to greater investments in this kind of Network Infrastructure that were trying to describe, which, again, looks a lot more like the i. T. System than the current grid that we have today. The thing thats on the demand side much the grid if you will so two points. A lot of what were seeing we talked about it. A lot of our customers are really looking at and were already starting to install folks are looking at it for other efficiency measures but gas fired gogen plants are becoming much more of an interest to our customers. The other side lets say the building side of things. Always like to say a smart grid needs Smart Buildings at the end of the line if you will. Can you as a Large Customer of a large institution. To what extent can you do that . Without very impact to mission at all. Dim your lights to 20 . To know when the price signals are come and to know when the rates are going to come, to know when the utility says i need you to shed some load right now, so i dont have to turb on that extra generator out there because were starting to peak out. Those are the type of things that youll be able to have when you have Smart Buildings and people distribute a generation out there in there to truly, i think, make the smart grid complete. Yes. I want to make it leer that the problem here is not the technology. The technology is here today. The problem is the regulatory structure which inhibits its adoption. Right now as an example, demand responds is a xlibs matter. Maybe it could help bring this in. Sure. Ill just say that this is an area where the dynamism is clear, and my money is on the private sector for solution that is will make this an important part of how we deliver low cost, low carbon instra structure Going Forward. Richard is right. Theres an important policy interface there as well. The president has been focused on this within a wide range of solutions that we need for the longterm transformation of low carbon new york. Weve its key enabling technology. Also, things like cinco phaser and a whole range of Cutting Edge Technology that is will help us to deliver the kinds of ciaing that we are talking about here while continuing to budget for innovation in the space through the department of energies. Also the electricity. Then there are important policy interfaces beyond that. Ferq has given sustained attention and how to have the right sort of markets developed and were broadly supporting with that work. Then under the Clean Power Plan we as states will look to this as part of their tool kit to deliver reductions in the clean energy that they want. Thank you. My name is dade bookbinder. Very simple question for mr. Duke. Is there a publicly available document that describes how the laundry list of measures in the indc will achieve 26 to 28 emissions reduck that is are promised, and if not, why not . I think well all acknowledge that there are no simple answers in this line of work. When we look at the overall. We they thats thats air critical feature, and we intend to continue to fully comply with what we have negotiated there in terms of transparency and accountability and how were doing on our climate targets. I will point you to in the first instance our biannual report which provides Important Information with respect to our 2020 target and i would invite you to stay tuned as we move forward to put out our second biannual report with every major economy, and i think this report from wri is also consistent with our own internal assessment. Were on track for both our 2020 and 2025 targets. Johns hopkins science masters candidate. This is a question for karl or anyone else whod like to comment. What are your underlying assumptions in your modeling about the deployment the rate of deployment in the extent of use of ccs and also the rate of retirement of Nuclear Plants . I know the aeo presents a variety of pathways that could significantly impact u. S. Carbon emissions. Yes. There again, we assume reference Case Projections from the aeo 2014 on both ccs and nuclear use and retirement. Nasa carter space flight center. Ive got two questions, if i may. One, how do we monitor and verify these Emissions Reductions . And does this action plan encompass alaska and u. S. Territories . The question is for rick. Rick or i was going to actually sort of bring john in and see if he had any ideas for whats needed for monitoring and then can we come back to alaska . I think tracking u. S. Emissions is fairly straightforward. I like to rely on wri to do that. But there are many institutions that track u. S. Emissions and look forward to what the policies are that would drive reductions. I tend to stay away from the eia and others, which tend to not be very good at forecasting whats going to happen. If youre looking for a forecast of renewables, i recommend my former employer, greenpeace. But i think that whether the u. S. Is on track will be well known in the u. S. For quite some time. I dont think theres any shortage of institutions that are going to be willing and able to focus attention on any shortcomings that might or might not exist. Frankly, including my institution, which tracks the coal plant shutdowns very carefully, and we constantly point out to the administration that they rely heavily on incorporating those decisions in their forecasting. I think thats pretty much set. I guess i would leave the second question to others. Big picture though. The monitoring is going to be a really big deal in the climate talks, isnt it . Globally. I think thats true. And i would say that where thats going to be a problem is not in the United States but in other countries. I think theres a number of players, as i said before, that will track u. S. Compliance with its targets, ranging the whole spectrum from me way over on the right to karl way over on the left. But i do think but i think the bigger challenge is the transparency and the accountability of other countries. And thats why the u. S. In the context of the negotiations has been very focused on a clear set of standards that applies to all players so that all countries are putting forward not just what their target is but what theyre doing to accomplish it in the constant of the biannual report. And rick, did you want to weigh in and maybe go on to the alaska question . Sure. So ill just broadly reinforce what john has said. Again, we view transparency and accountability as central to the climate discussions internationally. We pushed very hard to maximize transparency and accountability in the various agreements and will do the same as we come forward to the paris discussions. And so well also fully participate in everything thats agreed to including the biannual reports, including the multilateral assessment process last december in lima i sat in the hot seat and discussed with the entire plenary how were doing against our targets and took questions and every country is now doing that and thats critical to make sure that weve got broad transparency and accountability across all Major Economies in the whole world. So we feel very good about that whole process and the accountability that it brings. I would just note that with respect to our numbers we have lots of systems to track our numbers, as john has indicated, and they come on different time scales and with different scopes. One important data point thats worth noting is that in the last four months the Energy Information administration literally comes out with monthly data on our energy co2 emissions. And in the last four months the first four months of this year weve seen energy co2 emissions down 3 from last year. So we track on monthly scales annual scales, everyone tracks, and theres lots of accountability for the u. S. And we need to make sure thats true on a global scale as well through the climate discussions. With respect to the alaska question im not sure i fully understood the question but we do work to take a nationwide approach to our overall Climate Action plan and to our efforts to drive down emissions. I think karl wants to jump in on alaska. I am 100 sure alaska is in and im fairly sure the territories are in. Im going to ask my other project team members to give me a thumbs up on territories or a thumbs down if im wrong. I see a couple thumbs up. Thank you. All right. I guess we can move on to another question. H