Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 13th annual Congressional Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Expo and Forum. We're very glad to see you all in here this morning, and I also encourage you that as you look at the exhibits in the Canon Caucus Room, please don't forget to go in the small anti-room. There are about half a dozen exhibitors in there, really, really good exhibitors and wonderful people. So make sure that you pop in and look at what they've got and talk to them. So we're delighted that you're here this morning. We have a wonderful array of speakers talking about different technologies and initiatives going on, and that will happen this morning, and then there will be, as you know, congressional speakers and few administration speakers at 11 o'clock in the Caucus Room, and then we'll be back here this afternoon for four wonderful panels this afternoon talking about green technologies, jobs, et cetera. So this morning, and let me introduce myself too. I'm Carol Warner. I'm the executive director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and along with Scott Sklar, we're on the steering committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition, which is sponsored with the caucuses of the Expo and Forum, and Scott and I were founders and on the steering committee for the coalition. So our first speaker this morning, and everyone is on a very tight schedule. Our first speaker is Scott Sklar, who is the president and founder of the Stuller Group. Thank you, Carol, and thank you all for coming. My presentation is not to promote my company. My company blends energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies for the commercial, industrial sector, and the mixed use development and government sector. I blend 118 different technologies from probably close to 400 companies. So my presentation really is to give you a big picture. There have been 32 studies over the last 32 months that have from very prestigious organizations, and their peer-reviewed studies are really to show what I call the blend of energy efficiency and renewable energy can do for our world and our country. I am not going over all 32 studies, thank God, because she would be bored to death, but I do want to highlight three of them. Greenpeace got DLR, and DLR is the Analogical Group for Germany's NASA. And their study in 2008, released in 2009, was could the world be fossil free with technology we have in the marketplace today? And their study concluded that by 2090, we could be fossil free, and therefore meet the UN panel on climate change goals, by blending renewable energy and efficiency, and their 210 page study is on the Greenpeace website, and I have not heard anybody able to rebut that study from DLR. At the exact same time, the American Solar Energy Society, which is the technical organization, enlisted the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, the federal lab, who, with a team of other federal laboratories from around the country, did a study just on the United States, and their study was really focused on could efficiency and renewable energy technologies reduce carbon by 80% by 2060? And they said yes, and the blend would be 57% efficiency, 43% renewables. My printed handouts on my presentation have not come in yet, but they will be on my table that is outside the front door of the caucus room, I'm sure within the hour. But the chart, if you can squint, is that, and somebody actually took my chart, so they hope they pass it around to you, but as you can see the top wedge is energy efficiency, of course you can do that faster and cheaper, and then their blend is clearly wind, biofuels, biomass, PV, concentrated solar and geothermal. And this has also been peer reviewed study, and I've heard no one able to rebut. Last year Google Org did their own study, and they were saying could we have a vision where all electricity by the year 2030 would not be generated from coal, oil, or natural gas, and cut demand by 33%, and they, with existing technology, these are all based on existing commercial technology, and they concluded yes, you could do that, it would cost us 4.4 trillion dollars to do that as a country, which by the way is almost exactly the amount that both the Afghan and Iraq wars have cost us, and we would recoup 5.4 trillion in savings. So those are sort of to me the hallmark of the 32, the three core studies. And what I did though is I take four grad student interns per semester, so 12 a year, and over the last two years I had them read through these studies, take the most conservative estimates of these 32 studies, and this is the pie chart on what would it take for the United States to frankly be totally free of fossil fuels, actually there's no nuclear in this either, and I will sort of read the pie chart, 20% biomass power, 12% building renewable energy and efficiency, 10% geothermal, 15% concentrated solar, 15% distributed technology, which includes PV, solar thermal, small wind, all that kind of stuff. Waste heat, Oak Ridge National Labs has done a wonderful study that we can get a minimum of 8% of our total electricity needs and probably about a third of our heat needs with thermal and 20% wind energy. So I'm just here to end, before I get pulled off the podium, that we are in an evolutionary stage where these technologies are real scaling up $168 billion invested in these industries globally by the private sector worldwide and another $140 billion by governments. So we're not as teeny as one would think. I brought the new nanotechnology-footable tanks that I use to charge my laptop that comes out of inkjet printers, nanotechnology light-sensitive dye, of course my iPhone charger that's solar too. We're starting to see it permeate through our society and I hope as you both look through what you can do, both from policy-wise, you start looking at it personally as well. Thank you very much. So the moral is there are so many wonderful applications and don't believe the people who say we can't do it. We think we can. Our next speaker is Todd Pooley, who is with the American Council on Renewable Energy and Todd has a long history of working on renewables. Thank you, Cal. I may just speak from here. Is that okay? That's fine. Okay. Great to be here. Always tough to follow, Scott, but always good to see you. Anyway, great to be here on behalf of ACOR, especially in here in the halls of the Congress, to discuss the important role of policy in our energy and renewable energy markets. If you're not familiar with ACOR, ACOR is an organization dedicated to the mainstreaming of renewable energy. We have about 750 members from across the entire renewables community, all dedicated towards mainstreaming renewable energy. In 2009, it was quite a story, really. Despite a global recession and a financial meltdown, we saw impressive growth in the renewables markets. And it was largely because of the impact of policy in the form of the Recovery Act. In 2009, we saw the wind market in the U.S. grow about 39 percent. The solar market grew about 37 percent. We saw good progress in geothermal and biomass and them poised to contribute as we go forward. And that's quite interesting, of course, in the context of the global financial situation. And the key point is that the ITC cash grant, the manufacturing tax credit, and the other provisions within Recovery Act filled in for the problem we saw in the private capital markets. The private capital markets largely seized up and the Recovery Act helped fill that void and drive significant growth in a very difficult global environment. The real question now is how we maintain this momentum going forward. The private capital markets are still tight, the tax equity market is shrinking, and the Recovery Act is actually scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. So that we do face a potential cliff and a potential loss of the market momentum and the jobs that we've created. And what we're concerned about, really, is this period between the sunset of the Recovery Act and the time when the, you know, climate energy legislation and carbon pricing regimes would kick in. Of course, that's assuming Congress passes this legislation. But those things aren't really set to take effect until the 2013-2014 timeframe. So we have this very important kind of interim period to continue the market momentum. So I think, you know, when we think about what kind of policy makes most sense, of course, we need to think about the long term and the energy and climate legislation can really play a huge role in helping diversify our energy portfolio, push renewables. But in the near term, we have this immediate challenge of how we bridge from now to the time that legislation takes effect. And I think that's something we all need to think about. The last point I really wanted to talk about is foreign competition. The U.S. maintains a very slim lead in overall renewables installed. We have about 54.5 gigawatts installed here in the United States. Now, China is right behind now at 52.5 gigawatts. So the, but China is surging and will likely see China claim the global leadership role before too long. In 2009, in the United States, we saw about $18.5 billion of clean energy investment. In China in 2009, it was nearly double, about $34.5 billion invested in clean energy. So we have some fundamental decisions to make in this country about the role of renewables going forward, and of course, policy plays a critical role. So on that challenging note, we look forward to a great day and a good day for renewables here in Congress. Thanks, Carol. Thanks a lot, Todd. And we will now turn to Jackie Roberts with the Environmental Defense Fund. Let me stand up being the shortest one here. So I think we two are very focused on what are the policy solutions that are going to really get all of these great options. As you heard from Scott, this is really an all of the above that we need to do. We need to do the efficiency first. We need to do renewables so that we can be getting off of fossil fuels. But we've got to get this to scale. And one of the things that's, you know, certainly in the short term, a huge benefit of getting to scale is of course the job creation potential. And I think there's been a lot of discussion about how many jobs and what else. But I think the most important point for jobs is that it's up to us. I mean, jobs really depends on how much market share we get in these new markets and how much investment is put into these new areas, whether it's renewables or energy efficiency or the industrial sector. And we've done, at our table, we have actually mapped a lot of the companies that are poised to benefit from these investments so that people can get a sense of where these firms are. We survey them every six months. They actually, even in this difficult economic times, are doing quite well. This is a real growth sector. 52 percent of them have had sales increasing in the last two years, and that's getting sales are growing not just by five or 10 percent, but by 25 percent or 50 percent. Half of them are thinking of hiring people. They've already hired folks. So there's a lot of great data out there. But the question is, how do we keep up this momentum? How do we make sure we derive the investment to the sector that really needs to happen? And our view in looking at all the different policy options is that the most important thing we could do is put a cap on carbon, put a price on carbon. It doesn't mean we're not going to do complementary policies like a renewable portfolio standard or other things, but it is clear from the data that it takes a cap with these complementary policies to really drive investment to the scale that we need to do it. We have a great example in California where they actually have done this. They passed a pretty aggressive renewable portfolio standard. They saw investments in the clean energy sector increased by a compound annual growth rate of 20 percent, which is very good. However, just when they introduced AB 32 and then followed up fairly quickly with passing that legislation, which gave investors a clear long-term signal, put a price on carbon, that investment jumped to 98 percent compound the annual growth rate. So if I can leave you with one thought, we cannot do this at a 20 percent annual growth rate. We need 98 percent if we're really going to not only solve this problem, get off of foreign sources, deal with national security, but also compete globally. So, you know, it is just critical that we think of a big policy solution here. We don't focus on another energy-only bill, and we really come at this with a major tool that is going to send the right signal to investors and what investors want to see, where they're, you know, here on the hill saying, we need a cap, we need that price on carbon to really get that money off the sidelines and into the sector. Thank you. And I would really call your attention to Jackie's work in terms of looking at all the supply chain information. It's fascinating, and there are so many tentacles everywhere, so you'll never think about a renewables company or an efficiency company in ever quite the same way again. We're now going to hear from Bill Shank, the founder and his VP of sales for energy transitions. Thank you, Carol. As she mentioned, I'm the founder and VP of sales for a little company called Energy Transitions. It's a sales and consulting company for alternative energy and renewable energy products. We're based in North Carolina. And what I want to talk today about is hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen vehicles, but before we do that, let's take a look at just how we use energy, especially here in the United States, out of all the energy that we use, 33% is used for transportation. Of that 33%, 96% of the energy comes from petroleum, and we import 63% of our oil. Now, one of the focus of today's conference is on jobs. If we're importing 63% of our oil, something's just not right there. There are many jobs that we could foster here in the States. If that were different, if we had an alternative, there's related security issues, economic issues, you can connect those dots. So what would some of those alternatives be? Well, another sector of our energy consumption in the United States is electric energy. 41% of the energy that we consume is electric energy, and that comes from a variety of sources, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, a few percentage points from renewables, which is growing thankfully, and only 1.2% from petroleum. So what would be one of those alternatives? Well, if we take a look today, we generate 20.5% of our electricity from natural gas, and studies have revealed that in the United States alone, we have resources, natural gas resources, that could last us well over 100 years. So perhaps we've heard the words bridge, transition. Perhaps we can use that natural gas for a while instead of some of those petroleum products. And the other aspect which leads us to hydrogen is the fact that from natural gas, you can reform natural gas, you can reform propane from the natural gas refining process, you get methanol, you can reform that. You can generate hydrogen on site for what? For a fuel cell, and we can use those fuel cells in electric vehicles, okay? The fuel cell creates electricity, drives the electric motor in the car. Some of you may say, oh, but wait a minute, why don't we use batteries? Well, batteries are a near-term technology. Batteries have a lot of weight. Matter of fact, if I had this filled full of hydrogen and I opened the cap and released it, the hydrogen being the lightest element known to man, it would just escape into the atmosphere looking for a cute little oxygen molecule to marry and form water vapor, okay? However, this being a battery, if I release it, it doesn't float, okay? So picture the car that you like to drive. It has a particular range that you like to get out of it. You're going to need a lot of batteries to get the same range out of that electric vehicle. So I'm an advocate for using hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles, in electric vehicles. Oh, by the way, I'm happy to announce that by the year 2020, in just 10 short years, there will be 600,000 electric vehicles powered by hydrogen on the highways. There will be 1,000 refueling stations for those vehicles on those highways. And one other point, those highways are called autobahns. So hats off to our friends in Germany, but they could be called interstates. If we have the technology, we can do it here at home. I'd like to close with a little statement from a past president. Let's not be a slave to petroleum fuels and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln who once said about another form of slavery, the dogmas of our energy past are inadequate for the stormy present and the future. As our circumstances are anew, we must think anew and act anew. With your help, we can think anew and act anew on the energy issues that are before us today. So thank you for your attention. It's Maria. Oh, okay. Didn't see you there in the back. We will now hear from Maria Vargas who is at US EPA with the Energy Star program and has been doing that for many, many years. Yes, don't date me. Hi, my name is Maria Vargas. I'm the brand manager for the Energy Star program at EPA. I've been with the program pretty much since it started, which was 1992. And I just wanted to remind folks why the program started and I want to talk a little bit about what we've accomplished over the past year and probably most importantly for people in the room and what we are looking to do in the future. So just a reminder, EPA started Energy Star in 1992 as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through effective, cost-effective use of energy-efficient technology and practices. Today, well, let me give you some stats from last year alone. Last year alone, Americans with the help of Energy Star saved $19 billion on their energy bills and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to that of 30 million vehicles. We're also thrilled to report that today there are over 1 million new homes in the country that have earned the Energy Star label. Over 10,000 commercial buildings and a commercial building is anything that's not a home. School District, City County Building, Hospital, Grocery Store, all of those are commercial buildings that we work with to make more energy efficient. And over 3 billion Energy Star-qualified products have been sold to date. So we're quite thrilled about those results and savings for taxpayers. But I'm here today to talk to you about how excited we are for the future. I don't know how many folks in the room are familiar with the work that EPA has been doing with DOE to sort of realign the agency's roles. The agency's been working together since 1996 on Energy Star. We came together in the fall and have had plans underway and we're accelerating those plans to not only make sure that Americans continue to trust Energy Star, we think of it very seriously as a trust mark for American consumers and businesses in the marketplace, and a number of activities underway to make sure that Energy Star not only remains a trust mark, but is increasingly used as a way to identify and help people and companies pursue energy efficiency. So just a couple of things to watch for from Energy Star over the next couple of years. We are committed to adding more products to the Energy Star suite. There are over 60 different products today that can earn the government's Energy Star label. We are committed to revising the specifications. This is what we call sort of the bar where we set the Energy Star level. We're committed to revising those specifications more quickly, making sure we're keeping up with the marketplace, and really an exciting area for us is expanding our testing verification efforts. As of today, Energy Star requires lab reports for any product that is seeking to earn the Energy Star and a manufacturer cannot use that. Energy Star label on their product until EPA has approved those products are meeting the government's Energy Star label. So we are thrilled about where we're going. We are looking to work with more and more sectors of the economy as we use Energy Star as a very easy market-driven platform to pursue and really to make energy efficiency a very easy decision, not only for American consumers, but American businesses. And all the meantime, because I work at EPA, the goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And that's really what drives our focus on this program and seeking to capture all the energy savings we can in the country. Thank you very much. And again, I think one of the important things is that we're achieving multiple benefits through all of these different kinds of programs and technologies. We're now going to hear from Dan Deluri, who is going to speak on behalf of the Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition. Okay, thanks. Given that we don't have a lot of time today, I'd like to use my time to tell you that I spent my winter vacation. But first, let me tell you who DRSG is Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition. We are the trade association for companies that deliver smart grid and DR products and technologies and services. We've got a booth in the next room, and we've got a list of members they range from folks like Whirlpool and GE and Honeywell to a lot of startups and venture-back companies that you've probably never heard of. I don't have a lot of time to talk about what demand response and smart grid are. I would ask you to think about demand response as a new dynamic type of energy efficiency that's based on new information and price signals and automated technologies that allow a new type of energy efficiency to be achieved that couldn't be achieved under traditional energy efficiency. In terms of smart grid, I'd ask you to think about an electricity factory that has had no new technology of any kind installed in it for decades in a factory or a business that doesn't have the information that it needs to be able to run that business and produce its product most efficiently and it simply can't optimize that business. I'm happy to take questions or I'm happy if you drop by the booth afterwards to talk more about demand response and smart grid. But back to my winter vacation, I went to Copenhagen and I and some DRSG members became the first UN-approved smart grid delegation to participate in a smart, excuse me, to participate in one of the climate meetings. So the question is why did we go to Copenhagen? We didn't go to try and impact the climate agreement trying to be reached between all the nations there. We basically went to Copenhagen to try and get the climate community to understand that nobody's climate goals can be achieved without smart grid. So why is that? If you look at the two cornerstones of trying to achieve climate goals, at least in my mind being renewable energy and energy efficiency, look at wind. 80% of the wind resource in the U.S. blows at night. Wind, I love wind. The wind guys are some of my best friends, but they need smart grid. Wind and solar are intermittent and variable resources. A solar electric resource can change in 30 seconds. In the state of Texas a few years ago, where they already depend a lot on demand response and interruptable technologies and customers and so on, one day the wind didn't blow and there would have been a major blackout in Texas if they didn't have customers enrolled and engaged in demand response projects. The second reason is the information effect. Countless pilots and studies and research have shown that if you provide customers with better information about their electricity bill, they will become more energy efficient overall to the tune of 5% to 15% or possibly more when you include some automated technologies. So what you're looking at, we used to call this the Prius effect, but we decided to change to the information effect so it didn't morph into the Toyota effect anyway. So the information effect, I would argue, and the smart grid technologies really offer something that I think a lot of us in this room have been on a quest for for a long time and that is a way to make energy efficiency finally sustainable and institutionalized in our society and our economy. And by doing that we'll get additional energy efficiency that again will make the climate goals achievable. And with that, if there's time for questions or otherwise I'd love to talk to you back at the booth. Okay, thanks. And I think one of the exciting things again is how so many of our sustainable clean energy technologies in terms of efficiency and renewable technologies can work together, can be blended, and to help us achieve all of these goals in terms of improved energy security, energy reliability, reduced air pollution, reduced water pollution, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Is Don Moore here? Oh, there you are. Okay, sorry. And now we're going to hear from Don Moore, who is the CEO of Harmonics Limited. Thank you, Carol, for that very nice introduction. I am always happy to be on the podium with someone from our folks at the Energy Star because our technology is one of the few in the marketplace doing what we do that has an Energy Star rating, so I'm pleased to be there. And I'm also pleased to be here to talk about things of the nature of energy efficiency. But I want to change the debate a little bit. I'm really here to talk about a truly neglected aspect of the national health care debate. And we all didn't end up in the same conference this morning. The disease that I'm talking about is a disease of energy inefficiency from which so many federal government buildings suffer. Most of us, all of us are here today, in fact, because we recognize that energy waste in federal buildings is of epidemic proportions. It's a huge problem. We have a plethora of recent legislation. We have mountains of funding. However, little progress has been made to find a real cure for the energy yields plaguing most of our government facilities. And that's where, hopefully, Harmonics Limited can help. We manufacture a patented technology. It's called a harmonic suppression system. We're an award-winning American company. We're based in Brookfield, Connecticut. We're a member of the Green Building Council. But before I tell you about our solutions, I'd like to tell you about our progress and the successes that we've had in the private sector. For more than 10 years, even though we consider ourselves an emerging technology, we were very broadly deployed in the private sector of the United States. We have built and installed thousands of our harmonic suppression systems for hundreds of private sector companies. Our clients include the country's top universities, such as MIT and Stanford and Yale. They include the biggest tech firms, such as IBM, Pratt & Whitney, and Sun Microsystems. We have a number of major hospitals in the United States. Johns Hopkins, Mass General to name two that have implemented our technology throughout their facilities. Large pharmaceutical companies, such as Bristol Myers, nationally recognized financial institutions, such as Bank of America. And we have most of the major media companies in our client portfolio. We consider ourselves totally apolitical, actually. We span the range of CBS to Fox News, so we think we've got all the bases covered, and we have major installations in many of the entertainment facilities throughout the United States, places like Las Vegas, obviously. Before contacting Harmonix Limited, most of these clients suffered from what I can term the infirmity of energy waste and inefficiencies. Many of them, everyone tries the traditional approaches, and the traditional approaches are certainly worth doing. Everybody insulates windows, everyone switches the fluorescent lightings, everyone's turning down thermostats. All of the traditional approaches to this problem basically treat the symptoms of energy waste, but do nothing to cure the disease of what we call disease of energy efficiency itself. So all term, its sustainable savings continue to remain elusive. Where we come in is that rather than treat the symptoms of energy waste, our patented technology, and we actually have three patents now, we had our third patent about a month ago, our patented technology helps all of these clients achieve significant and sustainable energy savings where it makes the biggest impact. And where it makes the biggest impact is what we consider to be the heart of existing buildings, both federal and private buildings. It's within the power distribution system itself. The power distribution system is basically what delivers power throughout the building. It's the transformers and the switch gears and the wiring and whatever that basically powers all of the high-tech equipment that is in these buildings, including federal buildings. What's the nature of the impact that this technology makes? By retrofitting our suppression technology through existing buildings, our clients typically have reduced their energy costs by up to 10% a year. With these savings, they found that our technology literally pays for itself in approximately one to three years. And those of you who are familiar with the paybacks on various different types of energy efficiency technologies will realize that's a pretty good return on investment. So in short, our harmonic suppression technology gives our clients sustained energy savings, higher efficiency, and increased reliability and safety for the long run. And that's exactly how we feel we can help the federal government. The government has legions of aging facilities. They've got inefficient power distribution systems. Most of these facilities were never built or designed to handle the type of equipment that is in these buildings today. We also believe that we can effectively help the government achieve the sustainability goals that have been set forth in the recent mandates, and I know everybody knows what the mandates are. Specifically, how do we help? As I said before, we solve the problem of inefficiency at its source. So most people don't know this, but it is the high-tech equipment in these buildings that basically are the cause of the problem. They cause the disease that flows through the power distribution system. It's called a third harmonic current. And those currents exist within the building's power distribution system. They basically raise your energy costs and they generate excess heat, and that can be devastating in today's building environment. So it's a particular liability in older buildings like many government facilities. We've got data centers, we've got hospitals, we've got military bases and of course office buildings that were never designed for this. So simply put, our harmonic suppression system prevents all of this high-tech equipment from producing the third harmonic current and by eradicating that current, we make these buildings significantly more energy-efficient. They operate in general at lower operating costs. They generate lower carbon emissions and they operate more efficiently overall. So that free from these damaging harmonic currents, we can retrofit many of the existing buildings and make them significantly more energy-efficient. And best of all, this doesn't take years to do, it doesn't even take months to do. We've demonstrated within our client base in the private sector that fundamentally, we can retrofit these buildings. We do it on a transformer by transformer basis, but it takes about an hour with a licensed electrician. So this is not a long-term, it's not a solution that takes a long time. It's, interestingly enough, it's reasonably simple to do. So without question, the time is right, we think, to make progress on the goal set forth with the recent energy legislation, we think the need is, we know the need is urgent and we believe the funding is there. So let me conclude by saying that if you would like to learn more about our technology, we are in booth B16. Thank you, Carol. Sorry for taking up so much time. So you're learning about all sorts of stuff that you had no idea was using energy and that we can deal with. So we're now going to hear from Barry Carr, who is the East Coast representative with Think North America. Thank you very much. I'll be very brief. I like this. This is a wonderful opportunity and I appreciate all of you taking the time out of this busy, nice, warm day to be here. I am the Eastern Coast representative for Think North America, which is an electric vehicle company that is developing a plant right now in Elkhart, Indiana. I like to think that, no pun intended, that we are very well kept secret because we've been in the electric vehicle business for the last 19 years. We currently build and sell these vehicles in Scandinavia, so they're actually built in Finland. Our home office right now is in Norway, but that's all being transferred to the United States. Currently, we have 500 vehicles that are being produced to U.S. crash spec standards, tested, and they're going to start to arrive here in September of this year. And in the fourth quarter, we will be partnering with a number of fleet customers, hopefully many of them in the Washington, D.C. area, and working with local charger companies and also local electric utilities to demonstrate this technology. We work very closely with the U.S. DOE's Clean Cities Program, which has around 90 coalitions throughout the United States, including one here in Washington, D.C. And when we begin manufacturing in Elkhart in January, we will immediately be producing 400 jobs. And through 2013, which will include an all-new model in 2012, we are creating an additional up to 8,000 jobs, which I think is very important in the automotive sector and in the manufacturing sector. If any of you are interested in driving a vehicle, we happen to have one out front. It's licensed. It goes 70 miles an hour, so please don't drive it at 70 in Washington, D.C. It is legally parked. And stop and see us. We're at a booth in the corner in the room next door. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. And of course, I think everybody in Congress loves to hear about manufacturing plants being set up in the U.S. and jobs being created so that we can begin to rebuild a green manufacturing industry here in the U.S. And now is Bob Rose here? Bob, okay, there you are. Okay, so Bob Rose, who is the head of Breakthrough Technologies Institute, is now going to speak briefly with us. Thanks, Carol. I've been struggling with how to avoid being just another suit. And so I'm going to try something. Ladies, look at me. Now look at your man. Now look back at me. It doesn't work, does it? Okay, well, at least I have your attention, I hope. I'm here to talk about fuel cells. This is energy without combustion. That means there's no burning of fuel. Batteries store energy electrochemically. Fuel cells make energy electrochemically, and that's the fundamental difference. A fuel cell can be refueled in a couple of minutes as opposed to whatever number of hours you want to choose for recharging a battery. They're clean, quiet, efficient. They're a strategic technology. They're finding early markets, and they are part of the nation's energy solution. It's also an exceptional economic opportunity. In fact, one government estimate suggests that fuel cells could create three million jobs over the course of the next 20 or 25 years. Unfortunately, that estimate is the Korean government estimate. The Korean government has established a long-term program to get 600,000 of those jobs in Korea. The Japanese auto industry is working with its government to deploy 2 million fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2025. Korea hopes to put 2 million fuel cells in people's homes by 2030. We risk losing another technology to offshore manufacturers. We're starting to figure out how much it's costing us to buy batteries back, to buy battery capability back. If you look at the wind industry and the solar industry, U.S. has unparalleled technologies, but a lot of the manufacturing and a lot of the manufacturing jobs are offshore now, so we are now establishing divisions of non-U.S. companies to make these technologies. In fuel cells, we still have the lead we can avoid at least some of that, although obviously fuel cells will go where the markets are. And so really what we need in the United States is a commitment that's comparable to what the Koreans are doing. Even the South Africans have a 20-year plan now to grab market share in fuel cells and create jobs in their home country. So that's my... The one thing I want to leave you with is that there's a competition out there where the U.S. wants these jobs. We're going to have to compete. Thank you very much, Carol. I think you're going to hear similar messages as you talk to people in different booths today and in terms of our speakers, that while there are extremely exciting opportunities and wonderful technologies and innovations from a lot of people and entrepreneurs in this country, we are really facing enormous competitive challenges that have not been willing to step up and really make the investments and the sustained policy framework that other countries have seized and therefore we are really, really in danger as you are hearing of losing these enormously exciting opportunities. So we're now going to turn and hear about something else exciting from John Cooper with Skyline Solar. Thank you very much. I wanted to kind of get a feel for the audience who has basic familiarity with the solar industry and solar technologies. Good. Speaking to a solar audience. So I'm with Skyline Solar. We are a Silicon Valley-based company. It was interesting to hear Bob speak about the solar industry and much of it being developed in the technologies and the manufacturing being developed outside the U.S. and this is clearly very much the case. We know that the core of the solar market is in Europe and it's largely due to their government policies and their established speed and tariffs. And then we also see that there's a large contingency coming out of Japan and China due to both Japan's early development in the field and China's very low-cost manufacturing. So one of the things I'll talk about kind of at the tail end of my speech is some of these that we're doing to build jobs in the U.S. As I noted, we are a Silicon Valley-based company. We're funded by NEA, which is one of the largest venture capital companies in the world. They've invested $25 million in our company to go off and develop a next-generation solar-generating system. And so I'll talk a little about that system. It's from the grounds up, both the concentrating and crystalline technology system. In addition to funding from outside venture capital, we've received a $3 million grant through the Department of Energy to commercialize our technology. And under that grant program, we're the only manufacturing and development company to receive a grant in the solar industry. Our first plants are up and running for about the past four months now. We have plants in California, Hawaii, Italy, and soon to be Arizona. The core technology that we're using comes from two related areas of the solar industry. The first is that we have a tracked concentrating technology. We use about 10x concentration that borrows on the long history in solar thermal. And then the second aspect of our system is crystalline PV and draws on the long history of crystalline panels that go back more than 30 years. So we've married these two technologies together to come up with a very efficient system by having concentration on traditional crystalline photovoltaics. You eliminate about 85% of the crystalline materials. And that has a couple of effects. Number one, the crystalline material is the most expensive part of the system, so it radically reduces your costs. And then the second effect is that the crystalline material, the solder, the encapsulate, everything that goes around a traditional crystalline panel is generally difficult to dispose and recycle. And so we've shifted that material over to primarily metal, which is a much easier material to recycle. If you look at the system, we are what's called tracked crystalline or a tracked system. And one of the things that that does is that shifts two things. One being a solar system, it generates its peak power through the middle of the day. And then two being a tracked system, it very much marries that peak production with the window of time you generally noon to six in the afternoon when we have peak demand from our facilities. And so whether you're a military facility, a university, commercial building, the output of our systems highly align with the usage, which both is most cost-effective for the end customer, as well as it reduces the need for future development in transmission and utility infrastructure, which is something that both politically as well and environmentally is being very difficult for the U.S. to do these days. The final thing that I'll say about our system is that because we do a relatively small amount of crystalline silicon in it, and the way that we've designed the system, that we're able to replace these panels in the field. And the key to that is that crystalline technology is evolving quite rapidly. We've seen that the efficiencies and cost structures have come down radically in the past 10 years and we expect this to continue in future years. So people that do developments based on our technology will be able to upgrade those systems down the road, further increasing the return on investment and the benefits. So I wanted to come back to what I talked about earlier and that's job creation in America. So obviously the systems that we're installing are generally going to be U.S.-based, and there's a whole construction element when those systems are placed in the field and the job creation that provides. But the second area that we've really tried to capitalize is that in our manufacturing chain, we have standardized and used the rules and equipment from the automotive industry. We've partnered with Cosme International, which is one of the largest steel-forming and stamping companies for the automotive industry. And so the manufacturing jobs that are going into our technology are all based on U.S. labor, U.S. infrastructure, and an industry that's obviously underutilized at this point in time. The final element of that is that at manufacturing, off of the automotive platform, we have the ability to scale very rapidly as a company.  So that gives us a great ability to expand with the market as it grows. We're located next door in the exhibits in T6, so if you have some interest, please stop by. Thank you very much. Okay, and now we'll hear from... Gia Schneider here. Okay, great. And today, is it Gia or Gia? Gia. Gia Schneider, who is the CEO for Natal Energy? No, Natal. I was afraid I was going to do that wrong. Okay, so it's Gia Schneider, who's the CEO for Natal Energy. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. I am here to talk basically a little bit about what my company does. I run a company called Natal Energy, which is commercializing a new low-head hydropower technology. And when we say low-head hydropower, it kind of helps. I'm not sure if many folks in the room are that familiar with hydropower, so I'll maybe do another survey of hands. Who in the room is familiar with hydropower? Much less low-head. Okay, actually, fair number. More than I would have thought, necessarily. So when we say low-head, we mean heads or drops where you're generating energy from drops in the water between 5 and 20 feet, which conventionally is, or historically, is much lower than what we've actually seen to be able to be developed using conventional technology. We are a technology company focused specifically on the problem of how do we create good technology that is low-cost, that enables bringing this resource that's in the less than 20 feet space online. Why is this something that's of interest? Well, according to the DOE numbers, and these numbers are being updated right now, but the latest DOE numbers that were available, there are about 70 gigawatts of hydropower potential, of low-head hydropower potential that could be developed in the United States. It's a pretty big number. It's also pretty interesting when you think about the fact that this is a renewable resource, which if could be developed is much more reliable and predictable, and this is in no way shape or form meant to be a derogatory statement to solar and wind, but in the context of meeting our clean energy goals and getting to a generation staff that is largely based on renewable energy and emissions free, we're going to need to have a mix of technologies that can meet our overall demand profile. And so while we're a relatively young company, we think we're emblematic, actually, of this renewed interest in hydropower and the role that hydropower can play in meeting those long-term energy goals. We're based in California. We're out of the Bay Area in Alameda. And we've made a number of pretty interesting accomplishments over the last couple years. We actually just completed our first pilot project, a pilot commercial project, an irrigation district down in Arizona. And I'll tell you a little bit more about that project and kind of how that's directed our market focus and kind of where we see ourselves playing a role. But that project was, you know, installed at the end of last year in December and started producing electricity in February of this year. And we're now moving forward and expanding our outreach and discussions with a number of other irrigation districts across the West. And so that leads me to a little bit of where do we see this opportunity? So there's this big number of 70 gigawatts out there, possibly more, again, depending on, you know, DOE numbers come out in terms of the resource assessment. But where we see real opportunity to bring, you know, new renewable energy, new hydropower online to the grid quickly. And, you know, this will continue over the longer term as well. But in the context of actually trying to get some of this energy source onto the grid in the relatively near term, we see a big opportunity in existing infrastructure. So existing infrastructure for us means constructed waterways. This is places like irrigation districts, industrial water flows, municipal water plants, that kind of thing. And also existing dams. So existing structures that are in streams. And to give you a few statistics around that, on the constructed waterway space, there are about 800 irrigation districts, mostly in the Western U.S., that have thousands of miles of existing canals. And those thousands of miles of existing canals have thousands of drop structures, gates, track structures, weirs, et cetera, which don't produce energy today, could be retrofitted to produce new renewable energy. Second, in the existing dam space, there are dams in the United States that are less than 25 feet tall, that don't produce energy. Again, these are structures which could be retrofitted with appropriate technology to produce new energy. One interesting point is that, clearly the environmental issue is something that has to be fundamental to be included in terms of looking at what site should and should not be developed. And one thing that we place a high focus on internally is what we call responsible siding. But one thing that's pretty interesting about looking at existing infrastructure in many cases, not in all, but in many cases, these are resources that can be developed with relatively low incremental environmental impact. And in addition, in many cases, they are actually located fairly close to load. So this means that we can bring these resources online without having to build massive new transmission lines, we don't have to build a lot of transport infrastructure, et cetera. So that's why we see low head and kind of this area that we're focused on is being really, really key for helping to meet what, the National Hydropower Association has said, which is a goal of doubling the installed capacity that comes from hydropower and also meeting what we think is a very achievable target of about 1.4 million new jobs by 2025 coming from hydropower. So we're excited to play our small part. We've created four jobs in this last year, we're going to create another probably four over the course of this year, over the next six months, and then you see that growing rapidly from there. All of our manufacturing is in the U.S. at this point. We supply, actually a lot of our suppliers in the country, most of them are in the Midwest. And so we see this as a way where we can leverage the existing manufacturing capacity that we have in the United States to bring this new resource online. So, and we have a booth next door if you've got any questions, happy to answer them later. Thanks. And see, that's what I think is also so exciting because you've got so much potential in terms of things that are already here that we just have not tapped and that can be brought online in very interesting ways and without having to build a new transmission so that there's such a wonderful combination of things that we can continue to do if we just put our mind to it and have innovative people like Gia starting companies. So now we're going to hear from Sean O'Neill who is the President of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition. This is another fascinating area for renewable technologies. Carol, thank you and thank you for all the great work that EESI does here. I've been in this room many times for EESI presentations on dozens of topics and they do a tremendous job for all of our renewable friends. The Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition is a five-year young trade association. We were started in 2005 with four members and a budget of $5,040. With a little help from our friends we were able to get into EPAC 2005 that year with no political donations that year but just being at the right place at the right time with the right idea. If you look at Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, even Korea, they're about five years ahead of us when it comes to marine and hydrokinetic energy. When I say marine and hydrokinetic energy that is making power from the motion of the ocean, tides, waves, currents, even thermal differentials. People are starting to look at microalgae. NASA just did a study on microalgae and actually growing that in the oceans not on land so that we're not competing with precious land resources. But we're five years behind. Luckily our friends from overseas, from Europe and Scotland and Australia, wherever, they have been, the international cooperation has just been tremendous and they have been sharing information with us. We've actually used their test centers for some of our technologies. It's very heartening to understand that the rest of the world really gets the fact that we need carbon-free energy. Ocean renewable energy in the United States alone, the wave energy potential off our coast is 252 terawatt hours. That is equivalent to about six to seven percent, about as much as conventional hydro. But when I talk about marine and hydrokinetic technologies, I'm talking about free moving water, whether it be salt water or fresh water. No impoundments, dams or barrages. There's no impoundments in the hydro business to deal with. These are, it's a new sector and there are about 100 technologies being looked at worldwide, 40 in the United States. At present, the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition we've grown from that four members in $5,000 budget to about 50 members with some large companies like Lockheed Martin and SAIC, the Central Lincoln PUD. We're starting to get utilities involved. Southern Company has just joined. It's a very exciting field and as we have progressed over the last five years we've finally gotten appropriations starting in FY08 with 10 million and that has grown to 50 million over the past few years. Right now in the Senate Energy Bill we have a reauthorization of 250 million. We have an adaptive management program which would fund environmental studies, both pre and post deployment. We also have S922 which is the tax portion of the bill which would give us five-year accelerated depreciation in parity with other renewables except for with the PTC and we hope to get that through the Repair Act that was introduced by Senator Wyden. The Health Science and Technology Committee also was working on a bill right now for reauthorization to try and get us up to 250 million. We've been authorized in E-PAC 2005 up to 50. But we spend a lot of our time on the permitting and regulatory side. It's the biggest hurdle that we have. The Verden Power Project in East River of New York City took five years and five and a half million dollars to get a pilot permit for a six-unit demonstration project. Five years and five and a half million dollars. The President of Verden is known for saying that we are regulating innovation to death in the United States. We need to take proactive steps that account for carbon and other pollutants. We're polluting our oceans not just from the sky but there's a great map of California that shows all the different human uses and I counted the number of sewage outfalls on that one map and it was more than any other human use on the Southern California coast. So we've got to look at upstream impacts. We've got to look at an ecosystem-based management approach and we also have to somehow balance our need for carbon-free non-fossil-based energy with acting responsibly with our environment. Thank you again Carol, thank you very much. Join the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition today if you will. Yes, I'm kind of in the back room to the left. If you look up where all of the this kind of stuff is we're just in the little closet in the back. We're still the new kid on the block. There are about half a dozen booths there so we want to be sure and encourage you as you go through the exhibits to be sure and check out those half a dozen exhibitors there as well. We're now going to hear from Adam Hulsband with the American Biogas Council. Thank you Carol and thank you the Sustainable Energy Coalition for giving us the opportunity to present to you today. As Carol mentioned, my name is Adam Hulsband representing the American Biogas Council. The American Biogas Council is recently incorporated in March of this year represents manufacturers developers and owner operators of anaerobic digestion systems. Formed by its 22 founding members along with close to 500 people representing the broad spectrum of stakeholders. Our mission is to promote the advancement of anaerobic digestion technology in the U.S. We are advocates of using anaerobic digestion technology to help manage organic waste streams and generate renewable energy. Today there are approximately 151 anaerobic digestion systems in the agricultural segment alone. That's compared to an EPA study in 2005 which estimated a potential of 6900 systems that represents over 700 megawatts of renewable energy potential that is not being tapped into. An important note is this number does not include the enormous potential offered by converting our institutional, commercial organics to renewable energy rather than sending them to the landfills. According to a US EPA study, waste organics including food scraps and yard waste makes up over 24% of the municipal solid waste sent to our landfills in 2007. Diversion of these waste organics from landfills would be equivalent to eliminating the emissions from 20% of the coal-fired power plants in the U.S. per year. A huge potential opportunity. The AD story has three major elements. There's the environmental component, the renewable energy component and the job story of course. By incorporating anaerobic digestion technology, we can mitigate potential greenhouse gas harmful greenhouse gas emissions. We can generate renewable energy by the conversion of these organic waste streams and we can generate green-collar jobs throughout the U.S. As I failed to mention earlier our members of the Congress Council represent folks from California to New York, Wisconsin to Texas throughout the U.S. It's both an agricultural story as well as an urban waste story. So it cuts across a broad spectrum of folks. We need Congress's leadership to promote legislation which will reduce the barriers of getting renewable energy to consumers. Additionally, whether through limits of emissions or more aggressive renewable energy requirements we need help to monetize the value of these emissions reductions and the potential of this renewable energy generation. Thank you very much. The key thing is we just have so many different shapes, forms of resources which makes the whole thing very diverse and very, very exciting. We're now going to hear from Melissa Van Ornim the marketing manager with GHD Inc. Hello, thank you so much, Carol. I appreciate the invitation to speak today. Can everyone hear me okay? Thank you. Well, I'm Melissa Van Ornim. I'm the marketing manager for GHD and we build anaerobic digesters and we are very proud to be a member of the American Biogas Council that Adam was just speaking of and we're one of those Wisconsin members. We're based in a little town in Wisconsin and primarily I'm building digesters on farms. Most of our operations are on dairy farms specifically. We are the largest on-farm digester company in the country. We have, I think, at 68 digesters running to date on 50 farms, so some of the large farms might have two digesters on them. And I know a lot of people know about the renewable energy that comes off the digesters which is a wonderful benefit, but I'd also like to take a couple minutes to tell you about some of the other benefits. In addition to the biogas that the digesters generate that we turn into energy, we also have a solid off the system and that solid has proven to be very beneficial to the dairy farmers. They will take that solid and put it back into their barns and use it as bedding for the animals to lie on. So we're, it's a cost savings, essentially, to the farmers so they don't have to buy sawdust or sand or quality bedding. Her health has been just fabulous with it so that is really driving our sales as much as the electricity. And then the liquid off the system is also another benefit. The bacteria do a great job of converting the nutrients from an organic to an inorganic form. So if you think back to your science days and photosynthesis, it is the inorganic nutrients that the plants can utilize to grow. So now this liquid is inorganic in nature and instead of spreading in November and March, they hold their liquid and they spread it now during the growing season right onto corn, right onto alfalfa. It doesn't have the odor that it typically has because we burn the odor in the engines or the boilers when we burn that biogas. So as you can imagine, it greatly helps neighbor relations. And when they spread that liquid right onto growing crops, we're also seeing an increase in crop yield. So that's another benefit. And we would just like to see from our perspective if we could have a national feed and tariff that would, I know we're asking for a lot but that would certainly help things out. For example, we have farmers in the Dakotas that would love to put a digester in but they're getting offered two, two and a half cents a kilowatt. Well, the maintenance on the engine is anywhere from a penny and a half to two cents makes it a little difficult to put the engine in. So that would be very beneficial as well as some kind of standard interconnection agreements or codes. It seems like every time we work with utility we have to reinvent the wheel. So if there could be some standardization in the process that would be very helpful as well. So GHG, I have a booth next door so if you have any questions please feel the stop by and thank you for your time. Just remember nothing is truly a waste. It is a resource that we should be grabbing and using. We're now going to hear from another biomass expert and that's Jack Rogers who is the biofuels marketing manager for the Americas and Jack is with NovaSigns. Well, thank you for the invitation to speak today.  My name is Jack Rogers. I'm with NovaSigns and we make enzymes. And some of you may at least at some point in your life have seen the Pac-Man diagram of an enzyme chomping things. It's actually not exactly like that. Enzymes aren't alive. They're proteins. You have them. Every living organism has them in their stomachs and they facilitate all types of other processes. For people they do an important thing. They digest your food and create sugars that allow your body to fuel its processes. We make enzymes that do the same thing except we may digest different types of starches, different types of cellulose or fats or a variety of materials. And by doing so we can turn this on these renewable resources you could say into a variety of other products like other renewable chemicals or a number of other processes. NovaSigns is a $1.6 billion global leader in industrial biotechnology. So we've been doing this for quite some time. We have over 5,000 employees that are dedicated to advancing sustainable solutions for a host of industrial applications. 5,000. That's a lot of green jobs and we are creating more. We currently market over 700 products in over 140 countries. We routinely invest over 14% of our sales back into R&D. So we now have over 6,000 patents in growing. And we constantly looking for new business opportunities and new business areas to open up with our technologies. One of those areas that we are investing significantly in is biofuels. The significant positive impact that the biofuels industry has on our country is undeniable. Biofuels added over $53 billion to the US GDP in 2009 alone. The production of biofuels, predominantly ethanol is also keeping about half a million people employed. And that's pretty good in an economic climate that is challenging to say the least. Domestic biofuel production also allows us to achieve significant reductions in the use of imported oil. According to figures from the Department of Energy on a gasoline equivalent basis, ethanol production surpassed the total volume of transportation fuels imported from Saudi Arabia in 2009. In fact, if the current US ethanol industry were a foreign oil producer, only Canada would supply the US with more oil. Along with these economic and energy security benefits, ethanol also provides environmental benefits. Corn-based ethanol provides up to a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol holds the promise of reducing CO2 emissions by up to 90%. Innovations within the liquid transportation fuel sector are critical if America is to achieve its dual goals of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and our overall carbon emissions. While other emerging technologies hold promise such as electric powered vehicles and hydrogen and they will become a larger part of our transportation mix in decades to come, biofuels are available today. And we don't trade one carbon intensive energy source, gasoline for another such as coal-fired electrical generation. We've placed an unprecedented amount of resources towards biofuels development. We have over 150 scientists dedicated to work in this area. As a consequence of that, in February of this year, we were able to make an announcement in our cellulosic work. We announced the launch of a new enzyme, cellate C-Tech 2 which has dramatically reduced the cost of converting cellulos into ethanol. In fact, from two years ago where the enzyme costs were nearly $4.75 a gallon, we've reduced that to 50 cents or less. And that's progress in two years. So it's been amazing and actually at that level, it now brings cellulosic ethanol to a commercially viable stage for the leading manufacturers. So our work in this area continues and we expect to advance this technology further. But moving from commercially viable to commercially deployable is going to require a lot more than these technological investments and developmental milestones. The industry needs strong, consistent leadership in Washington to ensure that the renewable fuel sector continues to grow. To ensure that this is accomplished, the Congress and the administration need to do two things. First, we have to allow the ethanol market to grow without arbitrary limits. There's currently an E10 formulation cap that creates a situation where the volumes of fuel mandated in the RFS-2 simply cannot be absorbed into the market. The math doesn't work. In order to keep a robust biofuels market in growth mode, the EPA needs to grant the pending E15 waiver request to allow for this additional demand to develop. Additionally, Congress needs to consider incentives targeted towards getting more complex fuel vehicles on the roads. Second, we need to maintain support for the existing biofuels industry and developing cellulosic-based applications. There are several bills in the House and Senate now being considered. House Bill HR 4940 and Senate Bill S3231. These bills extend through 2015 the income and excise tax credits for alcohol used as fuel. The basic biofuel producer tax credits and the reduced credit for ethanol blenders it's critical that these revisions be made in order to provide market certainty that will allow the additional investments from companies like ours to be made in the biofuels industry so we can grow as predicated in the RFS-2. In summary, we at Nova Zimes see biofuels as a critical component of our liquid transport fuel mix. Biofuels provide significant benefits to countries that adopt their use. Growth in this sector will provide our country with increased energy security, significant economic developments, and a more secure, cleaner and safer future for the next generation. Thank you. And now we will turn to Allison Hogue who is the program manager for the XSTAR program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you. I'd like to start with a question.  How they're able to leave the environment better than when they started? How they could produce renewable energy and at the same time create more jobs? You've heard a little bit about it already but they can do this by making intervic digestion an integral part of their manure management system. The EPA XSTAR program promotes the use of this technology at livestock operations across the country. It's a joint program with the Department of Agriculture who recently renewed their commitment. Over the next five years the two agencies are going to use up to $3.9 million to continue promoting this program. This collaboration will allow us to expand our technical assistance, improve the technical standards and guidance for these systems, intensify our outreach to producers with the word that intervic digestion is the win for everyone by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing renewable energy and making a profit for farmers. We also hope to exponentially increase the number of systems beyond the currently 10 to 20 systems per year that are put in. As you heard Adam mention there are 151 systems in operation across the United States right now and last year they produced about 374,000 megawatt hours but we recently redid our study that he mentioned the 2005 version and now we estimate that 8,000 more farms across the U.S. could benefit from this technology which would result in 13 million megawatt hours of electricity generated per year and 2 million tons of methane reduced every year. Currently we're only hitting 2% of that potential. So a quick recap of the reasons that we should advance around intervic digestion our two diversify revenue producers, reduce air water and land resource concerns expand opportunities for rural economic development increase farm based renewable energy meet the demand for green energy and products that's sweeping the nation reduce the U.S. agricultural carbon footprint and above all increase the number of green jobs especially in rural areas. So if you'd like to learn more about this and the opportunities there are please come and stop by our booth it's a wonderful program intervic digestion is actually very very exciting and as you heard it accomplishes so many positive things all together so you'll never think about manure in the same way ever again it's actually really pretty cool when you think about all the wonderful stuff you can really do with it. So at this time this portion of our program is concluded so there will be congressional speakers in the caucus room around the corner and so make sure that you stop by and if you've got any questions talk to our speakers over there and I'm sure if issues came up that you'd like to know more about or that you didn't quite understand or whatever be sure and ask them then and then we will be back here this afternoon beginning at one ten is when our first panel will start this afternoon as we talk more about green jobs and green energy thanks.