►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
We've
called
the
meeting
to
order
and
now
I
we
asked
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll.
Please
Senator.
A
B
Representative
Flannery
representative
Fugate,
here
representative
Johnson,
here,
representative
Kirk,
McCormick
representative
marzian
representative
miles
representative
Gibbons,
prunty
representative
Scott,
representative
Stevenson,
representative
Wesley,
representative
white,
here
co-chair
Smith
and
co-chair
Gooch.
Here
this
is
Smith
here.
Oh.
A
C
A
Have
a
motion
a
second
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
all
opposed
I
like
sand
I've
created
the
meetings.
Have
the
minutes
have
been
approved?
Representative
Smith,
my
co-chair
looks
like
you,
have
a
very
special
guest.
A
Thank
you
today
we're
going
to
have
a
discussion
on
a
topic
that
I
think
is
very
important
to
Kentucky.
It's
a
discussion
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
West
Virginia
versus
the
EPA,
and
so
we
have
a
clay.
Larkin
he's
a
partner
with
Denton's
Bingham
and
Greenbaum
law
firm
and,
if
you'd
like
to
come
to
the
table,
the
floor
is
yours.
E
Yes,
okay,
sorry
about
that.
It's
okay!
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
the
committee
today
on
what
is
an
important
decision
from
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
in
West
Virginia
versus
EPA,
and
this
case
relates
to
U.S
epa's
authority
to
impose
regulation
on
fossil
fuel,
fired
power
plants
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
E
If
you
kind
of
want
the
main
takeaway
from
this
case
in
one
sentence
there
it
is.
The
case
was
decided
in
June
of
this
year
and
in
a
six
to
three
opinion.
The
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States,
held
that
epa's
clean
power
plan
was
in
excess
of
the
agency's
Authority
Under,
the
Clean
Air
Act,
specifically
that
the
EPA
couldn't
Force
states
to
shift
their
electricity
generation
from
fossil
fuels
to
other
sources.
E
The
clean
power
plan,
which
I
know
a
lot
of
you,
have
been
tracking
since
its
Inception
was
aimed
at
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
EPA
relied
on
section
111-d
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
order
to
impose
the
clean
power
plan
under
Section
111d,
what
EPA
is
authorized
to
do
is
adopt
standards
of
performance
and
those
standards
of
performance
must
represent
the
best
system
of
emission
reduction.
That's
been
adequately
demonstrated
in
an
industry
in
the
clean
power
plan.
E
The
first
was
to
improve
the
heat
rate
of
the
coal-fired
power
plants,
but
EPA
said
that
would
never
be
enough
to
achieve
the
greenhouse
gas
reductions
they
wanted.
So
they
really.
The
meat
of
the
plan
was
two
additional
building
blocks.
The
first
was
generation
shifting
from
coal-fired
net
plants
to
Natural
gas-fired
power
plants,
and
the
third
was
generation
shifting
further
away
from
all
fossil
fuels
to
zero
emissions
sources.
In
this
case
primarily
wind
and
solar.
E
The
clean
power
plan,
as
proposed
by
the
EPA,
never
went
into
effect.
It
was
challenged
by
27
States.
It
was
challenged
by
a
variety
of
Industry
groups
and
in
a
very
rare
step,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
issued
a
stay
pending
appeal
which
kept
the
rule
from
ever
taking
effect
in
2016..
Then
the
Trump
Administration
proposed
to
and
actually
did
repeal
the
rule
and
imposed
a
replacement,
the
affordable,
clean
energy
rule,
but
that
action
was
struck
down
by
the
DC
circuit.
E
No,
no,
it
cannot
what
the
opinion
relied
upon
as
the
Supreme
Court
is
increasingly
doing
is
something
called
the
major
question
Doctrine
and
the
major
question
Doctrine
is
that
when
an
agency
comes
out
with
a
rule,
remember
agencies
only
have
the
power
that
legislatures
give
them.
When
an
agency
comes
out
with
a
rule
on
a
major
question,
a
vast
economic
or
political
significance,
it
must
point
to
a
clear
statement
from
Congress
showing
that
it
has
the
power
to
do
so.
E
E
There
was
no
statutory
Authority
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
for
EPA
to
substantially
restructure
the
American
Energy
Market,
and
it
was
important
to
note
that,
prior
to
the
clean
power
plan,
EPA
had
always
assumed
that
the
best
system
of
emission
reduction
meant
technology
that
you
could
apply
at
a
particular
source
of
air
emissions.
Epa
had
never
claimed
authority
to
require
sources
to
completely
shut
down
or
convert
themselves
into
some
different
type
of
source.
E
As
many
of
you
may
remember
that,
prior
to
2015,
for
several
years,
the
U.S
Congress
had
had
bills
introduced
that
would
have
imposed
a
cap
and
trade
system
on
greenhouse
gases
and
would
have
had
the
effect
of
what
the
clean
power
plan
wanted
to
do
and
Congress
had
consistently
refused
to
pass
such
legislation.
If
any
of
you
remember
the
statement
about
from
President
Obama
that
well
I
don't
have
Congress,
but
I
have
a
pen
and
a
phone.
This
is
one
of
the
things
he
was
talking
about
now.
What
is
the
impact
of
the
decision?
E
That's
that's
kind
of
what
happened
so
where
are
we
now
well,
this
decision,
West
Virginia
versus
EPA,
really
doesn't
resolve
policy
issues
around
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
be
able
to
rely
on
fossil
fuels
in
those
States
like
Kentucky,
where
they
provide
affordable
and
reliable
electricity.
What
it
does
do
is
it
eliminates
one
possible
option
for
EPA
to
force
this
generation.
E
Shifting
right
EPA
can't
rely
on
Clean
Air
Act,
section
111,
probably
can't
rely
on
much
of
anything
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
force
sources
to
shift
from
one
type
of
electricity
generation
to
another.
That
being
said,
EPA
clearly
is
undeterred.
We
do
know
that
they
are
meeting
with
certain
groups
and
asking
for
outside
help
on
how
to
craft
a
more
legally
defensible
greenhouse
gas
regulation
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
But
we
don't
know
exactly
what
they
propose
to
do
at
this
time.
E
I
think,
rather
than
just
focusing
on
what
EPA
is
doing
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
CO2
regulation
or
greenhouse
gas
regulation
directly,
it's
important
to
also
recognize
what
they're
doing
under
other
statutory
Authority.
You
may
have
heard
some
about
this,
but
currently
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
risks
to
the
fossil
fuel
based
power
units
in
this
state
is
what's
known
as
The
Good
Neighbor
Federal
implementation
plan.
E
Clean
Air
Act
basically
has
a
provision
that
says
emissions
from
one
set
of
state
or
set
of
States
upwind
can't
impact
downwind
states
and
EPA
in
this
proposed
Federal
emission
Federal
implementation
plan
would
impose
limits
on
nitrous
oxide
or
nox
emissions
in
States,
like
Kentucky,
in
order
to
reduce
the
amount
of
knocks
in
the
ambient
air
in
northeastern
states.
The
epa's
decision
that
Kentucky
is
contributing
to
problems
in
the
Northeast
is
essentially
based
on
two
air
monitors
that
sit
right
next
next
to
an
interstate
highway
in
Connecticut.
E
Suffice
it
to
say
we
think
there
are
technical
flaws
with
that
kind
of
Science
and
I.
Think
the
energy
and
environment
cabinet
agrees
with
us,
but
what
that
good,
neighbor
phipp
would
do
is
have
the
same
net
effect
as
a
clean
power
plan
and
force
generation
shifting,
because
there
would
be
no
way
Kentucky
could
comply
otherwise
and
according
to
the
utility
information
exchange
of
Kentucky,
this
good
neighbor
FIP
could
result
in
an
electricity
shortfall
of
2
600
megawatts
here
in
Kentucky
as
early
as
2026..
That's
pretty
soon.
E
So
that's
an
issue
that
we
really
need
to
keep
an
eye
on.
I.
Think
the
legislature
does
I
think
the
Attorney
General's
office
and
those
of
us
that
represent
Industries
are
all
watching
to
see
what
happens
next
there.
Another
area
of
concern
is
driving
change
more
so
than
any
legal
issue
is
continued,
ESG
pressure
from
financing
institutions
and
others
Kentucky
our
legislature.
E
You
all
took
an
important
step
last
year
with
the
enactment
of
Senate
Bill
205,
addressing
how
the
state's
going
to
do
business
with
banks
that
impose
ideological
changes
to
our
electricity
grid
litigation
over
that
is
likely,
and
it's
important
that
we
Gear
Up
additional
environmental
regulatory
pressure
is
likely
to
continue.
I.
E
I
I
would
end
on
something
of
a
positive
note.
I
think
one
thing
that
the
clean
power
plan
case
the
West
Virginia
versus
EPA
case
has
demonstrated
to
the
U.S
EPA
and
others
that
want
to
force
States
in
a
particular
Direction
with
respect
to
electricity
generation
is
that
it
may
be
easier
to
use
a
carrot
rather
than
a
stick
right.
E
I
think
for
the
general
assembly
going
forward
on
these
issues
is
how
do
you
take
advantage
of
those
opportunities
where
it's
appropriate
without
putting
rate
payers
or
citizens
in
a
difficult
position?
I've
listed
two
examples
there,
where
I
think
these
Federal
federal
funds
could
be
helpful
to
Kentucky
without
doing
anything
to
shift
the
way
we
generate
electricity.
You
know
we're
poised
to
produce
uranium
for
the
rest
of
the
country
to
provide
fuel
to
base
load
power
plants,
because
we've
got
a
source
of
that
here
in
Paducah
and
there's
Federal
funding
and
there's
a
company.
E
That's
interested
in
doing
that
right
now,
that's
a
good
example.
We
know
that
renewable
energy,
wherever
it's
deployed,
is
going
to
require
Rare,
Earth
minerals,
and
we
think
we
can
produce
those
here
based
upon
our
history
of
coal
mining.
So
there
are
going
to
be
opportunities,
but
we've
got
to
be
poised
to
fight
back
against
overreach
by
the
federal
government
and
I.
Think
this
case
from
the
U.S
Supreme,
Court
and
West
Virginia
EPA
demonstrates
that
when
we
do
that
effectively,
the
Supreme
Court
will
rein
in
overzealous
Federal
rulemaking.
E
So
that's
that's
the
end
of
my
prepared
remarks
today.
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
Anyone
might
have.
A
Let
me,
with
my
Layman's
knowledge
of
the
the
situation
I
think
you
know
when
you
go
back
to
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act,
which
really
was
an
attempt
to
use
existing
technology
that
did
exist
to
reduce
pollutants
and
and
it
did
a
very
good
job
of
reducing
socks
and
knocks
particular
matters
set
things
like
that,
and
you
know,
we've
had
great
success
in
probably
as
much
as
89
or
90
reduction
in
in
those
things,
then
we
had
a
situation
where
the
EPA
decided
they
were
going
to
regulate
carbon
dioxide
as
a
pollutant
under
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act,
and
there
was
a
Supreme
Court
decision.
A
That
said
that
if
EPA
was
in
dangerment
finding
it
said
if
EPA
did
find
that
carbon
carbon
dioxide
was
a
threat
to
human
health
that
they
could
regulate.
It
did
this
in
any
way.
Of
course,
the
the
fallacy
of
that
particular
decision
was
that
EPA
was
always
going
to
do
that.
I
mean
you
just
gave
them
an
example
to
do
exactly
what
they
wanted
to
do,
and
and
so
that's
really,
what
happened?
Did
this
rule
in
any
way
affect
that
portion
of
that
endangerment?
Finding
that
was
a
Supreme
Court
ruling
several
years
ago.
E
No,
not
really
so
the
court
sort
of
took
for
granted
that
EPA
that
CO2
was
a
pollutant
within
the
meaning
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
it
was
they
did
not
revisit
Massachusetts
versus
EPA,
for
example.
The
decision
on
that
on
that
issue.
What
they
said
was
even
if
basically
all
of
that
is
true,
it
still
does
not
authorize
EPA
to
go
out
and
say
you
can't
use
coal.
You
can't
use
natural
gas.
You
need
to
switch
your
fuel
sources.
E
What
what
the
Court's
really
telling
EPA
is,
if
you're
going
to
try
to
control
pollution
to
go
back
to
your
good
example
about
you
know,
basically
installing
scrubbers
to
to
reduce
SO2
you
that's
what
the
Clean
Air
Act
authorizes
you
to
do
is
to
use
technology.
That's
at
a
source,
not
tell
a
source
that
it
should
cease
to
exist.
A
Okay
and
and
that
that
brings
me
to
you,
know
another
portion
of
where
you
know
when,
when
you
had
the
clean
power
plan
that
President
Obama
tried
to
enact,
you
know
we
went
beyond
you
know,
actually
regulating
pollution
at
the
source,
which
is
what
some
people
refer
to
as
inside
the
fence
and
then
actually
tried
to
have
some
scenarios
and
regulations
outside
the
fence
and
but
it
I
think
what
we're
you're
seeing
to
be
saying
is
that
if
we,
if
we
are
had
allowed
some
outside
defense
regulations,
which
I
really
was
had
problems
with,
but
then
you
allow
even
stricter
inside
defense
regulations
and
and
and
the
thing
about
the
clean
power
plan
was
that
the
technology
wasn't
available
at
the
time.
A
But
they
tried
to
you
know
list
say
that
it
was.
You
know
you
could.
You
can
probably
do
as
much
damage
to
the
state's
ability
to
use
the
sources
of
fuel
that
that
we
want
to
use
and
and
and
I
think,
that's
what
we're
seeing
now
with
the
cross,
the
Good
Neighbor
rule.
You
know
where
you're
trying
to
regulate
whether
one
state
can
mitt
downwind
pollutants
that
that
affect
another
State's
air
quality.
A
E
That
I
totally
agree
with
that
in
dedicating
the
resources
to
that
fight,
I
mean
that's
a
significant
undertaking,
but
I
think
it's
important
I
mean
the
case
was
West
Virginia
versus
EPA,
when
sovereign
states
assert
their
Authority.
That's
what
this
case
really
comes
down
to
is
that
the
how
we
produce
electricity
is
up
to
the
people
in
this
room
and
not
up
to
people
in
other
offices
in
in
the
nation's
capital,
and
it's
up
to
states
to
have
the
resources
available
when
that
litigation
comes
up
to
fight
back
effectively.
A
Well,
I
think
I.
Think
Kentucky
has
seen
that
when
you
try
to
have
a
national
one-size-fits-all
legislation,
regulations
or
whatever
they're
not
going
to
be
good
for
Kentucky,
and
so
we've
seen
that
already
Senator
Webb
has
a
question
on
it.
Mostly.
F
A
F
Mr,
chairman
I
love
this
decision
on
many
levels,
I
practice
some
in
federal
agency
law
and
believe
me
all
of
everybody-
was
watching
this
decision
and
I.
Think
I
like
the
major
rural
Doctrine
but
I
think
it's
a
minor
rural
Doctrine
too
I
think
any
time
that
the
an
agency
they
need
some
kind
of
Express
or
statutory
Authority,
but
Congress.
So
I,
like
the
major
question
rule
but
I
think
a
minor
question
rule
also
comes
into
play
on,
especially
these
issues
and
I
agree
with
the
chairman.
F
You
know
my
notes,
I
wrote
on
my
notes
here,
as
you
were
doing
your
presentation,
which
was
a
very
good
one
by
the
way,
was
that
at
the
source
you
know
that
that
was
the
intent
of
the
law,
and
there
is
technology,
like
the
chairman,
alluded
to
and
more
that
could
have
been
applied
to
comply
with
the
Congressional
intent
and
it
was
blatantly
ignored
and,
and
that
definition
was
just
disregarded,
so
I
love
this
decision
on
many
levels,
but
I
also
think
and
agree
that
whoever's
in
the
Attorney
General's
office
they're
just
going
to
find
another
way
to
to
try
to
do
the
same
thing.
F
Apart
from
a
policy
standpoint
and
any
other
agency
that
wants
to
to
do
what
they
want
to
do,
but
that
and
that
funding
you
know
as
a
general
assembly,
we
need
to
Appropriations
and
revenue
needs
to
hear
some
of
this
sometimes
about
the
president,
because
this
is
a
major
question
and
it
does
affect
our
economy
and
and
to
me,
National
Defense.
F
As
far
as
domestic
energy
production
are
resources
that
we
have,
and
especially
Earth
element,
Mining
and
and
those
kinds
of
issues
that
you
raised
at
the
end,
so
I
think
this
is
an
issue
not
just
for
natural
resources,
but
for
all
of
us
who
are
appropriators
of
Revenue
from
that
policy
standpoint.
So
we
appreciate
the
work
that
you
all
do.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you
just
a
couple
quick
questions.
First
of
all
clay,
it's
good
to
have
a
fellow
elizabethtonian
in
town
I'm,
a
little
concerned
about
the
Good
Neighbor
policy.
G
You
know,
Senator
Webb
just
mentioned
that
they're
they're
going
to
be
looking
for
other
ways
to
shut
us
down.
It
seems
like
to
me
this.
Is
that
way:
that's
how
they
could
shut
us
down.
G
It
doesn't
take
an
engineer
to
figure
out
that
using
a
site
in
Connecticut
to
monitor,
Kentucky
doesn't
make
sense,
and
so
one
we
haven't
heard
this
first
I've
heard
of
that.
Why
have
we
not
heard
about
this
sooner?
Why
are
we
needing
to
fight
that
now?
Do
we
need
a
Kentucky
verse?
E
Yeah
to
address
that
part
first
I
think
that's
a
important
question
to
go
straight
to
the
end.
Yes,
we've
got
to
be
prepared
to
push
back.
I
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
talk
about
it
in
great
detail,
but
it
affects
potentially
more
than
just
electric
generating
units.
I
mean
we're
talking
it's
emission
sources
generally,
so
it
is
not
industry
specific.
It
could
place
other
Industries
in
this
state
at
risk.
G
E
Totally
agree,
and-
and
to
your
point
about
why
have
we
not
heard
about
it?
Luckily,
it
is
still
a
proposal.
It
does
take
an
engineer
to
understand.
Epa's
justification
and
it's
been
Engineers
have
explained
to
me
that
it's
technically
flawed,
it's
you
know
800
900
pages
long
and
so
folks.
You
know
it's
a
difficult
issue
to
even
explain
and
that
I
think
sometimes
is
relied
upon
by
agencies
that
are
trying
to
push
a
particular
agenda,
but
I
think
I.
E
Think
the
the
energy
and
environment
cabinet
is
following
the
issue
and
is
aware
of
those
impacts.
I
know
that
they
understand
it
better
than
I
do
and
hopefully
are
prepared
to
push
back.
I
know
our
utilities
and
other
sources
in
this
state
are
aware
of
it
and
pushing
back,
but
we
could
use
all
the
help
we
could
get.
G
Mr
chairman,
just
one
one,
quick
with
with
West
Virginia's
victory,
have
we
seen
the
impact
on
the
closures
or
the
schedule,
closures
of
coal-based
powered
plants.
E
I'm
trying
to
think
of
a
unit
I'm,
not
sure,
there's
a
specific
unit
in
this
state
that
has
made
a
particular
decision
in
response
to
that
opinion.
One
of
the
nice
things
was,
however,
remember
that
rule
never
took
effect,
because
the
Supreme
Court
issued
that
state-
and
that
goes
back
to
the
importance
of
pushing
back
in
a
well-organized,
well-funded
manner,
was
the
the
piece
of
work
that
West
Virginia
was
able
to
put
in
front
of
the
U.S
Supreme
Court
to
get
the
stay
something
the
Supreme
Court
had
almost
never
done
up
until
that
time.
E
It
was
because
of
some
really
good
work.
On
their
part.
There
have
been
a
lot
of
units
announced
closures,
I
mentioned
over
other
EPA
rules
that
have
gotten
further
down
the
track
too.
In
recent
years
you
know,
we've
had
some
units
here
regionally
at
least
make
decisions
over
the
epa's
effluent
limitation
guidelines.
For
example,
you
know
it
just
became.
A
Thank
you.
Let
me
say
that
Senator,
Smith
and
I
are
members
of
the
Southern
States
energy
board
and
we
just
came
back
up
from
meeting
in
the
Charleston
South
Carolina
about
three
weeks
ago
and
we
did
pass
a
resolution
unanimous
among
the
17
States
I
think
it
is
that
to
push
back
against
and
and
state
our
opposition
to
the
Good
Neighbor
rule.
So,
yes,
representative,
Smith.
D
That
may
not
be
a
mix
of
your
District,
but
for
many
of
us
we
will
see
the
the
EPA
take
on
a
position
that
is
not
based
upon
any
law
given
to
them
by
the
state
or
by
the
federal
government,
to
the
point
that
it's
it's
it's
just
silly
to
look
at,
but
nonetheless,
a
business
in
your
community
will
have
to
lawyer
up
and
begin
to
fight
them
and
it
can
hold
up
their
permitting
process
and
the
whole
process
comes
to
a
halt,
and
men
and
women
lose
their
job
at
Christmas
for
silly
stuff.
D
That
happens
that
there's
no
legal
standing
for
and
then
as
it
finally
Works
its
way
down
after
thousands
and
literally
millions
of
dollars
have
been
spent.
They
just
dropped
the
case
altogether
and
it
goes
in
and
even
those
victories
are
Hollow
because
you've
already
spent
or
shut
down
your
coal
lost.
A
lot
of
the
market
lost
a
lot
of
your
good
employees.
So
it
is
a
game
that
has
been
played
constantly
back
and
forth.
D
With
these
agencies,
if
you're
a
newer
member
in
here
I
will
promise
if
you're
here
long
enough,
you're
going
to
have
this
happen
in
your
district
and
you'll
feel
helpless
in
it.
Because
there's
nothing
you
can
do
you
have
a
company
that
is
being
penalized
by
law
that
doesn't
exist
before
a
position
that
the
epa's
decided
that
that's
what
they're
going
to
stake
their
claim
on
I
think
there
should
be
some
penalty
in
effect
that
when
they
do
this,
that
they
should
have
to
go
back
and
and
reimburse
this
company.
D
The
loss
of
the
market
share
that
they
had
the
employees
that
they
lost,
because
if
there's
no
punishment
for
them
they're
going
to
do
what
they've
done
for
the
last
decade
and
they're
going
to
continue
to
drive
out
any
industry.
They
have
a
distaste
for
it
and
I
think
that
this
country
is
better
than
that.
D
A
Thank
you
Smith
representing
miles
and
then
Senator
Webb.
B
I
know
that
each
state
has
so
many
in
certain
areas
and
things
like
that
I
one
specific
area
that
comes
to
mind
Hancock
County,
has
a
lot
of
industrial
in
that
area
in
it,
and
is
there
an
accurate
up-to-date,
you
know
any
information
out
there
on
the
air
quality
as
far
as
the
actual
credits,
because
they'll
have
so
many
credits
for
a
certain
area,
and
then
you
know
you
may
have
a
plant
that
will
shut
down
in
that
area,
but
those
credits
are
never
restored
for
them
to
be
able
to
put
another
plan
in
that
place
or
something
like
that.
E
Yeah,
there's
certainly
a
lag
there
right
that
probably
needs
to
be
better
addressed
by
the
agencies,
and
it's
pollutant,
specific,
so
I
would
probably
need
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
the
particular
issue,
but
I
think
working
with
the
energy
environment
cabinet,
their
division
for
air
quality
will
will
know
the
answer
to
that
question
for
a
particular
County,
a
particular
situation,
and
maybe
if
we
could
follow
up
on
what
the
specific
one
is
in
your
District,
we
could
probably
answer
that,
for
you.
B
County
specific,
it
was
just
kind
of
an
in
general
question
as
far
as
the
air
quality
credits
I
know.
As
far
as
whenever
we
talk
about
Good
Neighbor,
the
error
that
would
go
from
one
way
to
another,
because
I
think
that's
probably
one
of
the
biggest
debates
we
have
as
far
as
if
another
country's
building
coal-fired
plants
and
our
government
shutting
hours
down,
then
have
we
accomplished
anything
as
far
as
globally.
As
far
as
that
goes
so,
I
guess
my
it's
more
along
the
lines
of
within
our
Rim.
B
If
we're
doing
our
air
quality
credits
in
our
area,
making
sure
that
that's
the
most
feasible,
so
it
wasn't
as
specific.
It
was
just
kind
of
an
in
General
on
how
we
how
we
prevent
or
discourage
that
lag.
If
there
are
credits
for
a
certain
amount
that
can
be
for
the
error
in
that
area,
then
how
do
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that's
expedited
to
right.
E
And
it's
the
best
quality
in
our
area
and
it
probably
comes
down
simply
to
advocating,
with
the
agency
and
I
think
Senator
Smith
hit
on
it.
It's
sometimes
that's
a
very,
very
difficult
task.
When
you
know
the
agency
can
move
pretty
quickly
in
advancing
its
agenda,
sometimes
and
then
sometimes
doing
the
more
run-of-the-mill
statutorily
authorized
or
required
activities
can
be
a
little
slower
and
it
just
requires
constant
diligence
and
advocacy
at
the
end
of
the
day
to
make
sure
they
do
what
they're
supposed
to
do.
F
Just
to
go
back
to
a
question
that
was
raised
earlier
when
it
comes
to
impact.
You
know
it's
too
late
for
a
lot
of
our
generators,
because
they're
gone,
shut
them
down,
packed
them
up,
but
I
think
what
impact
you'll
see
with
with
decisions
such
as
this
is
is
maybe
a
delay
in
the
phase
out
for
those
existing
plants
that
will
provide
some
hope
for
additional
coal
production
and
the
need
for
additional
coal
production
and-
and
that's
because
it's
too
late
for
many
but
for
those
plants
that
are
still
in
existence.
E
I
think
that's
a
really
good
comment
when
you
I
think
you
said
internationally
there
at
the
end,
you
know
at
some
point:
the
lights
have
to
stay
on
as
you
shift
to
other
sources
and
the
base
load
power
that
we
have
here
ensures
reliability
and
resiliency
and
at
some
point
Point
we've
had
enough
shutdowns
at
the
units
we
have,
we
really
can't
lose.
I
mean
we're
already
looking
at
a
potential
shortfall
which
I
never
thought
I
would
say
in
this
state.
But
that's
that's
where
we
are
so
thank
you
for
that.
H
The
what's
the
industry's
long-range
plan
to
phase
out
fossil
fuels-
I
can
remember,
I
I
have
never
in
my
lifetime,
which
has
been
a
long
one
ever
been
able
not
to
turn
the
light
switch
on
it
comes
on.
But
when
I
went
to
visit
my
relatives,
who
lived
in
the
what
we
call
the
country
they
still
had,
the
kerosene
lamb
see
how
store
privys
and
all
this
kind
of
stuff
and
they
existed
in
in
Louisville.
H
While
we
were
burning
coal
and
wood
and
stuff
like
that
in
the
winter
time,
you
could
even
see
three
feet
in
front
of
you,
so
these
agencies
came
along
and
made
them
clean
it
up
now.
What
is
the
industry
doing?
I
know
some
Industries
are
are
gradually
switching
that
you
use
using
the
the
air
and
different
things
in
order
to
create
electricity.
H
E
Well,
I'm,
first
of
all,
when
you
say
industry,
you
know
that's
there's
there
are
a
number
of
industries
that
are
involved
in
the
sort
of
the
chain
of
creating
power.
The
utility
industry
is
always
going
to
continue
to
produce
electricity.
I
assume
other
industries
that
support
the
utility
industry,
be
that
the
coal
mining
industry,
the
oil
and
gas
industry
I
think
their
long-term
plan
is
to
continue
to
provide
the
fuel
sources
for
the
electric
generating
industry.
E
H
But
you
know
there
there's
one
thing:
it's
a
state
like
California,
didn't
push
through
to
get
rid
of
automobiles
that
use
the
internal
combustion
engine
and
switch
to
electric
cars.
Do
you
think
the
industry
would
be
moving
as
fast
as
it
is
right
now,
unless
they
were
forced
to
do
it
and
I
were
I
work
for
a
business?
A
big
is
one
of
the
biggest
corporations
in
the
world
for
39
years.
Unless
we
were
mandated
to
do
something,
we
didn't
do
it.
I
H
Creating
better
power
sources
that
don't
plea,
pollute
this
Earth,
because
we
all
breathe
the
same
air
and
we're
seeing
the
consequences
of
our
bed
practices.
That's
happening
all
across
the
world
right
now,
with
these
floods
and
hurricanes
and
different
things,
this
happens
it
just
yourself
that
I've
gone
I've
gone
through
both
sides
by
the
coral
lamps
were
still
used
until
electricity
took
over
and
so
forth,
but
that's
the
next
step.
Something
else
will
take
part,
maybe
Atomic
power.
H
If
people
get
get
over
being
afraid
of
the
consequences
of
of
what
could
happen,
maybe
the
atomic
energy
is
the
the
best
way
to
move
in
a
next
Direction
I'm.
C
H
I
I
For
you
know,
call
I
come
from
a
co-producing
region
and-
and
you
know
it's
it's
very
important
to
our
to
our
regional
economy
and
our
way
of
life-
and
you
know
I,
guess
what
I
I
see
a
lot
out
of
these.
These
administrative
agencies,
which
you
know
to
me
that
that
the
administrative
agencies
is
truly
their
deep
state,
they're
doing
things
really
on
their
own
agenda
without
any
type
of
accommodation
or
recognition
of
what
is
the
will
of
the
voters
or
the
people
that
actually
give
them
the
authority.
I
But
they're
moving
us
in
a
direction
to
where
we
cannot
support
what
has
been
an
economy
that
has
been
the
Envy
of
the
world,
one
that
has
produced
you
know
a
better
quality
of
life
for
its
citizens,
that
in
many
ways
we
have
seen
I
guess
reduced
over
the
last
few
years,
as
we
have
rushed
into
a
feel-good
era
rather
than
a
rational
era
and
I
think
what
is
often
ignored
by
these
agencies,
to
get
back
to
my
point
is
that
they
think
the
only
way
to
get
to
a
Greener,
cleaner
future
is
by
totally
discarding
what
has
worked
in
the
past
when,
at
the
same
time,
technology
is
proceeding
forward.
I
That
will
allow
us
to
use
these
natural
resources
that
we
have
that
are
already
there
in
a
cleaner,
Greener
way
that
causes
less
disruption
to
our
country
economically,
but
even
socially
to
a
degree.
I
mean
I've
seen
my
region
of
the
state
devastated
by
drugs,
which,
in
my
mind,
is
to
a
large
extent
due
to
the
downturn
of
the
economy,
the
lack
of
jobs,
the
despair
that
comes
with
that,
so
the
people
who
are
worried
that
you
know
a
few
senders
May
blow
up
to
Connecticut
can
feel
better
about
themselves.
I
I
We
here
in
this
state
and
the
Congress
in
Washington
are
the
ones
dead
that
have
been
delegated
The
Authority
by
the
American
people
to
make
these
types
of
decisions,
and
when
agencies
overstep
their
bounds,
they
they
need
to
be
reined
in
and
I'm
glad
that
our
United
States
Supreme
Court
recognized
that
fact
it
just
needs
to
be
taken
a
little
bit
further
and
I
hope
that
they
do.
A
Thank
you,
representative,
Kurt
McCormick
and
then
the
final
question
from
Senator
Turner.
B
B
You
know
if
we
all
know
that
without
the
coal
or
gas
they
have
to
have
something
to
back
up
these
grids.
So
what
is
the
proposal?
How
are
they,
how
are
we
going
to
keep
the
lights
on?
How
are
we
going
to
keep
our
people
warm
and
cool
Etc.
E
And
I
think
the
short,
simple
answer
to
your
question
is:
nobody
knows
how
and
that's
why
we
don't
need
to
be
forcing
those
sources
Off
the
Grid
any
faster
than
they're
going,
because
I
think
what
we're
seeing
is.
If
we
do
it
too
quick,
there
won't
be
enough
energy
and
we,
you
know,
there's
going
to
come
a
time
when
finite
resources
are
no
longer
with
us,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
time
is
within
our
lifetimes
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
something
that
we
want
to
accelerate
toward.
E
We
want
to
continue
to
have
the
quality
of
life
that
we
have
had
here
in
this
country.
Now.
That
being
said,
you
know
as
opportunities
present
themselves
for
other
emission
sources.
I
think,
like
Senator
wheeler,
said
no
one's
against
that.
What
I
think
folks
need
to
be
very
careful
about
is
making
sure
that
we
don't
do
that
so
quickly
that
we
end
up
with
problems
of
reliability
and
resiliency
on
our
grid.
A
You
yeah
thank
you.
Finally,
Senator
Turner.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
first
would
like
to
join
with
Central
Carter
impact,
my
on
my
right
and
left
and
what
they
said
and
I
affirmed
what
they
said.
Also
being
a
person
from
the
coal
mine
in
area.
My
Dad
Grandma
had
a
Minds
when
I
was
working
in
when
I
was
five
and
six
years
old
and
go
back
that
far
into
I.
Won't
tell
you
how
long
ago
that
was,
but
I'm
interested
that
China
Germany
and
all
these
people
are
building.
H
Coal
powered
plants
continuously.
Is
there
any
long-term
research,
because
back
20
some
years
ago,
when
I
was
in
the
house,
chairman
Gooch
was
chairman
of
the
committee.
At
that
time
there
was
tired,
washing
and
all
that
stuff
discussed
about
trying
to
get
Clean
Coal
burning
Towers.
Is
there
any
long-term
research
by
these
countries
or
nationally
or
internationally?
H
That's
going
to
try
to
go
back
and
say
we
can
put
tires
up
and
burn
coal
wash
the
towers
or
whatever,
to
cut
down
on
the
pollution,
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
energy
not
only
in
America
but
all
over
the
world,
because
it's
obvious
that
the
China
India,
all
those
places
are
going
to
have
to
have
coal
burning,
tires
to
keep
the
world
going
Germany's
having
to
go
back
to
doing
so.
Is
there
any
research
on.
E
That
no
I
mean
there
certainly
is
and
I
think
the
state
of
Kentucky
is
one
of
the
leaders
on
you
know.
We've
got
UK
Center
for
Applied
Energy
Research
looks
at
issues
like
that
all
the
time,
carbon
capture
and
sequestration,
for
example,
on
coal
and
natural
gas-fired
power
plants
as
something
that
a
lot
of
companies
are
looking
at.
E
That
CO2
has
a
lot
of
valuable
commercial
uses
as
well
in
other
Industries,
to
produce
chemicals,
to
enhance
oil
recovery
so
that
that
sort
of
enter
that
sort
of
research
is
going
on
both
here
in
Kentucky
all
over
the
country
and
I.
Think
within
Industries
there's
a
recognition
that
those
are
promising
Technologies.
They
need
the
funding
and
they
need
to
commercialize
the
results
of
that
research.
A
H
Ahead,
thank
you,
Mr,
and
we
heard
before
about
this
nuclear
plan.
That's
been
talked
about.
Is
there
any
more
discussion
about
that
presently
or
we
need
to
know
hear
anything
about
that.
E
The
issue
that
I
talked
about
would
not
be
creating
a
a
power
plant
here
in
Kentucky,
but
rather
using
the
uranium
that
already
exists
in.
But
yes,
those
discussions
are
very
active
at
the
moment
there
is
a
company
that
has
the
necessary
sort
of
authorizations
to
move
forward
with
that
project
and
is
intending
to
do
so.
A
Chairman,
let
me
follow
up
with
that.
As
I
said,
Senator
Smith
and
I
had
been
at
the
southern
states
energy
board,
and
there
were
a
lot
of
discussion
there
about
nuclear,
but
I
think
that
there
may
be
one
nuclear
plant
under
construction
in
the
United
States.
The
problem
with
those
are
it
is,
you
know
the
console
runs
are
so
great.
The
permitting
process
is
15
years
or
so
just
to
get
one
started.
There
probably
will
not
be
any
large-scale
nuclear
facilities
built
in
this
country.
But
what
does
look
promising?
A
Are
the
small
scale
nuclear
reactors
where
you
can
maybe
even
string
a
couple
of
them
together?
You
know
they're
they're,
not
portable,
but
they're.
Almost
that
way
where
you
can
move
them
into
an
area.
They
don't
take
a
lot
of
surface
area
and
there's
there's
some
real
potential
for
the
small-scale
nuclear
reactors.
There's
probably
more
research
being
done
on.
You
know
the
fuel
rods
in
Europe,
they
reuse
those
they
come
in
and
do
a
lot
of
reconditioning
of
those
and
and
reuse
them.
A
So
so
there
is
a
lot
of
talk
with
that
and
I
think
that
you
know
at
least
that
nuclear
power
is
carbon
free
as
far
as
admissions.
It's
not
pollutant,
free
because
of
the
of
the
life
of
the
fuel
of
the
fuel
cells
or
whatever,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
wind
and
solar
are
not
green
sources
of
energy
either.
So
you
know
when
you
consider
land
mass,
which
I
think
you
have
to
you
know.
A
We've
everything
I've
seen
lately
is
that
even
a
solar
facility
probably
takes
some
five
to
ten
acres
per
megawatt,
and
so,
when
you,
you
know,
consider
the
land
use
and
how
much
land
it
takes
to
have
any
type
of
large
scale,
solar
facilities
that
that
produce
enough
megawatts.
A
You
know
that
land
use
has
to
be
environmental
concerned
as
well
as
it
does
the
you
know,
damage
to
the
to
the
environment.
You
know
Birds
tortoises
or
whatever
and
the
same
thing
with
windmills
as
well,
so
there
really
are
no
truly
clean
green
sources
for
energy
in,
in
my
opinion,
but
I
just
did
want
to
mention
that.
Thank
you
so
much
your
your
presentation
has
been
very
good
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
good
questions
and
I
think
it's
been
a
very
good
discussion.
So
thank.
A
And
finally,
we
want
to
have
some
discussion
on
the
impact
of
the
West
Virginian
Environmental
Protection
Agency
on
the
Office
of
the
Attorney
General,
so
I
think
we
have
a
couple
people
here.
That
would
be
please
identify
yourself
for
the
record
and
appreciate
you
being
here
today
and
the
floor
is
yours.
K
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
my
name
is
Blake
Christopher
I'm,
the
deputy
general
counsel
and
director
of
legal
policy
for
the
Office
of
the
Attorney
General
and
I.
Will
let
these
gentlemen
introduce
themselves
before
I?
Do,
though,
I
do
want
to
note.
There
was
a
lot
of
conversation
about
the
Good
Neighbor
provision
of
the
Clean
Air,
Act
and
I.
K
Do
want
to
note
just
for
the
interests
of
the
body
that
the
Attorney
General's
office,
along
with
13
other
state
AGS,
filed
a
comment
letter
opposing
the
what
we
call
the
transport
Rule,
and
so
what
was
discussed
today
there
were
about.
There
was
14
State
coalition
to
the
EPA,
and
earlier
this
this
year,
where
we
vehemently
opposed
the
effects
of
the
Good
Neighbor
provision
as
it
was
applied
under
the
transport
rule.
So
I
just
want
to
note
that
for
the
body
and
then
I'll,
let
these
gentlemen
introduce
themselves
and
thank
you.
J
Good
afternoon
Mr
chairman
I'm
Victor
Maddox
I'm,
the
deputy
attorney
general
to
to
attorney
general
Cameron
John.
J
Tell
you
what's
going
on
in
that
area,
so
on
the
sort
of
broad
issue
of
in
ESG
issues,
which
is
basically
an
effort
by
major
corporations.
Banks
asset
managers
to
sort
of
push
their
social
activism,
whether
it's
know,
environmental
issues.
Whether
it's
you
know
the
way
corporations
are
governed,
whether
it's
diversity,
whatever
it
might
be
into
the
investment
decisions,
the
banking
decisions
and
the
like.
J
In
May
of
this
year,
our
office
did
a
an
opinion
that
was
requested
by
Treasurer
ball
concerning
the
extent
to
which
environmental,
social
and
government's
investment
practices
are
consistent
with
the
fiduciary
duty
laws
of
Kentucky
in
when
it
involves
the
management
of
the
pension.
Assets
in
Kentucky
and
our
conclusion
basically
was
no.
J
So,
in
our
view
and
I
think
the
view
that
we've
expressed
along
with
others
is
that
acting
with
mixed
motives,
when
you're
managing
assets
and
you're
incorporating
environment
concerns,
whether
it's
for
greenhouse
gases,
whether
it's
for
renewable
energy,
whether
it's
for
getting
to
Net
Zero,
which
is
ultimately
the
goal
of
most
of
these
organizations.
But
that
is
an
irrevutably
inconsistent
with
the
fiduciary
duty.
J
So
we
we've
got
that
opinion
out
there
and
I
think
you
know
it
remains
to
be
seen
exactly
what
the
companies
who
are
managing
Kentucky's
pension
assets
are
doing
in
that
respect.
But
we
have
sent
them.
You
know
questions
and
we'll
be
following
up
with
treasure
Ball's
office
to
see
what
they
have
learned
as
well.
Another
thing
we've
done
recently
is
along
with
15
or
so
other
states.
J
We
we'd
send
a
letter
to
the
chief
executive
of
BlackRock,
Corporation
BlackRock
had
managed
a
billion
and
a
half
of
Kentucky's
pension
assets
and
they're.
Currently,
one
of
the
largest
you
know,
asset
managers
in
the
world
and
we'd
basically
ask
them
to
explain
their
position
with
respect
to
Investments
That.
In
follow
this
ESG
approach,
we
got
a
response
in
August,
we
found
it
completely
unsatisfactory
effectively.
J
You
know
organizations
to
make
ambitious
commitments
and
to
operationalize
those
commitments
with
near-term
action,
and
so
basically
we
we
believe
that
firms
like
BlackRock
are
doing
exactly
what
I
think.
All
of
you
understand
that
they
are
doing,
and
that
is
trying
to
put
the
fossil
fuel
industry
out
of
business
and
to
do
it.
You
know,
if
possible,
by
2030,
that's
their
interim
goal
and
certainly,
if
not
by
then
then
by
2050.
J
and
beyond
that
they
they
seek
to
put
businesses
that
do
business
with
the
fossil
fuel
industry
out
of
business.
So
we
in
the
Attorney
General's
office
are
doing
everything
that
we
can
to
try
to
hold
these
organizations
to
the
letter
of
the
law
to
understand
what
it
is
they're
actually
doing.
J
For
instance,
our
consumer
protection
office
is
examining
the
extent
to
which
there
may
be
antitrust
violations.
All
of
these
groups
are
effectively
in
a
concerted
effort
and,
as
you
all
know,
concerted
action
is
sort
of
fundamentally
inconsistent
with
the
antitrust
laws,
so
we're
looking
into
that,
and
we
think
that
that's
something
that
will
be
a
major
part
of
what
our
office
continues
to
do
for
the
for
the
rest
of
Attorney,
General,
Cameron's
term
and
likely
for
whoever
his
successor
might
be
earlier
in
the
in
the
term.
J
It's
currently
in
the
fifth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
that
lawsuit
challenged
what
the
Biden
Administration
did
on
day,
one
of
his
Administration,
which
was
to
direct
something
called
the
interim
working
group
of
all
of
these
different
agencies
in
the
federal
government
to
create
new
standards
for
greenhouse
gases
and
to
use
those
standards
when
monetizing
the
costs
of
any
sort
of
project,
whether
it's
in
the
power
generation,
whether
it's
in
you
know,
industrial
generation,
whether
it's
in
connection
with
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
So
within
30
days
of
of
the
bite
Administration.
J
That
group
had
issued
interim
guidelines
that
are
now
required
use
required
to
be
used
by
every
federal
government
agency,
including
the
EPA
for
three
gases.
Carbon
monoxide,
the
imputed
cost
of
carbon
monoxide,
was
taken
from
Seven
dollars
under
the
Trump
Administration
to
51
dollars
per
metric
ton
overnight.
J
The
imputed
cost
of
methane
was
taken
from
184
dollars
to
fifteen
hundred
dollars
per
metric
ton
overnight,
and
the
imputed
cost
of
nitrous
oxide
went
from
twenty
eight
hundred
dollars
to
eighteen
thousand
dollars
overnight.
Now
those
costs
are
now
used
in
every
project,
whether
it's
the
Corps
of
Engineers,
whether
it's
you
know
EPA,
you
name
it.
J
Finally,
what
it
did
was
it
required
the
the
analysis
to
consider
the
impact
of
greenhouse
gases
for
the
next
300
years
300
years,
and
it
required
that
to
be
done
on
a
global
basis
rather
than
a
domestic
basis,
which
is
what
the
law
requires.
So
that
is
something
that
we
think
is.
You
know
basically
puts
Kentucky
right
in
the
bullseye
of
the
government's
Green
New
Deal
policy.
We
joined
this
lawsuit.
Unfortunately,
that
lawsuit
was
dismissed
for
lack
of
standing.
J
We
were
told
that
Kentucky
did
not
have
standing
to
to
bring
these
challenges
that
that
case
has
been
fully
briefed.
It
is
awaiting
oral
argument
in
the
fifth
circuit,
I
believe
in
November
of
this
year.
J
Finally,
to
go
back
to
what
Blake
mentioned,
perhaps
one
of
the
most
important
things
we
wrote
a
letter
along
with
the
Coalition
of
other
states,
actually
I.
Think
Blake
was
the
principal
author
I
want
to
give
him
credit
for
that
which
challenged
the
the
proposed
transport
or
Good
Neighbor
rule
that
you
heard
about
earlier
and
that
people
have
been
talking
about
that
rule
changed
effectively.
The
plan
that
Kentucky
had
submitted
in
2019
actually
rejected
that
plan
and
it
changed
the
standards
by
which
that
plan
was
submitted.
J
It
effectively
would
require
15
reductions
in
nitric
oxide
by
2023
that's
next
year,
43
by
2026,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
pretty
dramatic
and
all
of
this
as
clay
Larkin
said
earlier,
is
based
on
the
fact
that
in
Connecticut
there
are
a
couple
of
monitoring
stations
that
the
EPA
believes
demonstrate
that
Kentucky
will
contribute
one
percent
of
Connecticut's
non-attainment
status.
So
that's
a
pretty
dramatic,
you
know
change
the
other
thing
that
that
proposed
rule
does
and
again
it's
a
proposed
rule.
J
J
Their
question
was
raised.
What
are
we
going
to
do
about
that?
Obviously
we're
waiting
for
the
final
rule.
We
expect
that
final
rule
reasonably
soon
and
obviously
we
will
we
will
study
it.
J
J
Finally,
I'll
just
point
out
that
earlier
in
the
year
it
was
last
year,
I
guess
we
we
submitted
a
similar
set
of
comments
concerning
the
national
air
quality
standards.
The
DPA
had
changed
and-
and
that's
a
that
was
another
major
effort
that
our
office
is
undertaking.
J
You
know
I'll
just
leave
you
with
this
going
back
to
the
EPA
versus
West
Virginia
versus
EPA
case
the
day
before
that
decision
came
out,
the
EPA
was
present
at
the
Aspen
Institute
in
Colorado
and
they
said
effectively.
They
didn't
really
care.
What
the
result
in
that
opinion
was
because
the
EPA
has
an
entire
Suite
of
tools
that
they
will
use
to
achieve
their
climate
change,
agenda
and
I.
J
Think
we've
heard
about
some
of
that
today,
we're
trying
in
our
office
to
do
everything
that
we
can
to
stay
abreast
of
those
efforts
to
monitor
them
and,
along
with
our
you
know,
similarly
situated
states
do
everything
we
can
to
push
back
because
ultimately,
I
think.
As
Senator
wheeler
said,
it's
this
body
that
has
Authority
for
making
the
decisions
about
how
Kentucky's
generation
of
electricity
will
go
forward,
what
its
mix
of
electric
vehicles
might
be.
Ultimately,
this
comes
down
to
a
question
of
federalism,
and
you
know
it's.
A
We
do
that
sure
I
think
we're
glad
to
have
representative
nameless
here
today.
Do
you
have
a
question
representative.
J
You
know
I
think
that's
a
good
question
representative
niemus
I
our
opinion
Drew
on
existing
Kentucky
statutory
law
regarding
fiduciary
duties,
I
think
those
laws
were
largely
drafted
without
regard
to
the
whole
concept
of
environment,
social
or
governments.
You
know
thinking
that
whole
concept
really
came
out,
like
I
think
the
early
80s.
Initially
it
was
called
socially
responsible
investing
and
now
it's
been
relabeled
ESG.
J
K
A
I
think
so
I
mean
and
I
think
that's
the
type
of
thing
we
have
to
know
when
when
we
know
that
we're
dealing
with
a
totally
Lawless
Administration
in
in
Washington
DC,
you
know
that
that
really
cares
about
their
agenda
before
any
any
law
or
or
or
effects
that
it
has
on
the
citizenry
that
they
supposed
to
represent.
So
thank
you
go
ahead
and
proceed.
Please.
K
I
just
want
to
add
something
real
quick
for
for
Vic
and
John.
We
mentioned
before
that
that
the
EPA
had
said
something
along
the
lines
of
regardless
of
what
happens
in
West
Virginia
V
EPA.
K
They
had
tools
in
the
toolbox
that
were
left
and
one
of
those,
as
we've
seen,
was
through
this
good
neighbor
use
of
the
Good
Neighbor
provision
right
to
to
limit
what
Kentucky
can
do
under
with
its
energy
plan
under
the
auspices
of
Kentucky's,
emissions
are
affecting
what's
happening
in
downwind
States
right
just
to
put
this
into
perspective
from
a
state
sovereignty
question.
K
The
way
this
is
supposed
to
work
is
that
states
are
supposed
to
submit
State
implementation
plans
to
help
them
comply
with
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards,
and
so
states
are
supposed
to
large
part,
govern
this
themselves
right
and
then
they
submit
those
to
the
EPA.
If,
for
some
reason,
they're
non-compliant
supposed
to
work
with
the
EPA
right
to
come
into
compliance.
What
happened
here
is
that
the
eBay
just
summerly
rejected
over
20
plus
States
state
implementation
plans
and
said
here's
a
federal
implementation
plan
we're
going
to
impose
on
you.
K
Instead,
to
my
knowledge
and
Folks
at
the
table
are
welcome
to
correct
me.
If
I'm
mistaken,
there
was
very
little
back
and
forth
with
the
states
to
work
out
an
implementation
plan.
It
was
appropriate
for
the
states
and
a
whole
lot
of
heavy-handedness.
That
says
this
is
the
implementation
that's
going
to
be
given
to
you
a
large
part
of
why
we
challenge
the
Rule
and
why
we
look
forward
to
hopefully
doing
it
in
the
future.
Sorry
John.
C
Mr
chairman,
if
I
could
today
I'd
like
to
bring
home
back
here
to
Kentucky
what
we've
talked
about
here
today
and
what's
happening
here
in
Kentucky,
particularly
with
our
office
and
our
work
before
the
Public
Service
Commission.
As
you're
probably
aware
of
the
office
of
right
intervention,
is
the
arm
of
the
Kentucky
General's
office
that
my
statute
represents
rate
payers
before
the
commission
to
keep
utility
rates
low
and
utility
service
reliable.
Since
General
Cameron
took
office
in
2019,
we
have
intervened
in
all
major
rate
cases
and
generation
planning
cases
involving
Kentucky
Utilities
at
the
commission.
C
We
have
constantly
advocated
that
Kentucky
Utilities
should
fall
on
all
of
the
above
approach
to
energy
generation
and
procurement.
To
recognizes
the
important
role
fossil
fuels
play
in
maintaining
reliable
grid.
Fossil
fuels
should
be
utilized
at
the
fullest
potential
because
they
are
the
backbone
of
reliable
generation,
but
make
no
mistake:
fossil
fuels
are
under
attack,
you've
heard
about
it
today
in
the
Biden
Administration
agenda.
Their
approach
is
multifaceted.
It's
not
just
about
EPA,
which
makes
it
harder
for
coal
and
gas
plants
to
operate.
C
Currently
our
office
and
the
Kentucky
industrial
utility
customers,
a
group
that
represents
large
Industries
here
in
Kentucky
are
the
only
Advocates
before
the
commission
actively
and
consistently
promoting
and
all
of
the
above
approach
to
energy
generation
in
Kentucky.
We
are
not
the
only
voices
to
commission
hears
in
every
major
rate
and
generation
planning
case.
The
commission
takes
testimony
and
hears
arguments
from
a
number
of
Institute
stakeholders.
C
Renewable
and
energy
Advocates
are
well
represented
in
cases
before
the
commission
advocating
for
carbon-free
policies
and
require
the
building
and
expansion
of
renewable
energy
generating
sources.
Corporations
also
intervene
with
some
advocating
for
more
renewable
generation
to
allow
them
to
meet
corporate
renewable
energy
goals
beyond
the
interveners,
many
utilities
themselves
have
their
own
renewable
energy
goals
and
Kentucky's
for-profit
utilities
have
parent
companies
committing
to
their
shareholders
that
they
will
achieve
net
zero
emissions
by
a
certain
date.
C
C
Our
office
has
argued
that
these
corporate
policies
are
at
odds
with
the
statutory
scheme
in
Kentucky,
which
requires
utilities
to
gauge
in
generation
planning
that
results
in
the
least
cost
for
rate
payers
and
is
also
reliable.
The
general
assembly
sets
the
policy
of
the
Commonwealth.
The
PSC
must
make
decisions
consistent
with
that
law.
The
PSC
will
because
of
their
decisions,
affect
greatly
Kentucky's
energy
policy.
We
intend
the
confines
of
the
law
based
on
the
arguments
and
testimony
put
before
it.
C
We
are
concerned
that
this
rush
to
Renewables
through
this
National
policy
that
favors
an
all-out
energy
transition
away
from
fossil
fuels,
will
have
a
major
impact
on
Kentucky
rate
payers,
residential
and
Industry
rate
payers
alike.
A
sound
energy
policy
should
be
based
in
reality
and
all
of
above
approach
that
seeks
to
utilize
the
most
affordable
and
reliable
energy
sources.
C
C
Should
the
general
assembly
decide
to
take
further
steps
that
he's
necessary
to
set
the
policy
for
the
Commonwealth
on
these
important
issues?
Our
office
stands
ready
to
assist
in
any
way.
We
can.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
for
you
today
and
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Members
might
have.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
let
me
let
me
say
that
I
really
appreciate
the
role
of
the
office
of
Attorney
General
in
in
the
rate
intervention
and
but
more
specifically,
understanding
what
the
real
issues
are
and
and
advocating,
not
just
at
that
particular
hearing.
But
even
before
and
I
know
that
I've
said
this
several
times
that
you
know
you
always
have
all
these
groups
out
there
that
want
to
come
in
at
a
rate
hearing
and
claim
to
be
Advocates
of
the
consumer
and
and
quite
frankly,
there
are
frauds
they.
A
They
all
are
frauds
pretty
much
because
they
don't
say
anything
about
the
policies
that
are
implemented
that
are
going
to
cause
the
rates
to
go
up.
But
then
they
want
to
come
into
the
rate
hearing
and
actually
say:
oh
we're
here,
to
try
to
intercede
on
behalf
of
the
consumer
and
and
and
that's
why
I've
called
them
out
several
times
as
being
fraud
frauds
and
we
and
I.
Thank
you
for
what
you're
doing
along
that
line.
So
representative
Blanton.
L
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
quick
question
and
some
comments.
You
mentioned
a
an
investment
firm
being
a
part
of
the
net
zero
group
and
essentially
they're
trying
to
extort
other
investors
and
companies
from
doing
business
with
any
group
or
company
that
has
any
dealings
with
people
within
the
fossil
fuel
industry.
Is
that
accurate.
L
I
think
it's
time
that
the
state
of
Kentucky
stands
up
and
we
start
going
after
these
individuals
and
I
I
say
that,
because
we
can
call
it
strong,
Army
and
extortion
whatever
we
want
to
call
it,
but
you're
trying
to
force
people
away
from
the
industry,
because
people
aren't
voluntarily
going
away,
because
some
people
have
common
sense
right
and
they
have
a
lot
of
money
and
money
yields,
power
and
they're
using
that
power
to
push
their
own
personal
agendas.
L
We
have
states
rights,
we
have
a
right
to
make
our
own
policies
and
our
own
laws
here
in
this
Commonwealth.
We
have
a
right
federalism
has
has
taken
over
in
this
country
and
is
trying
to
tell
us
what
to
do.
I
say
it's
time.
We
start
Prosecuting
these
these
groups,
I
know
we
can't
go
after
a
company,
but
we
can
I'm
sure
go
after
their
CEOs
and
their
leaders
and
prosecute
them
earlier.
L
Instead,
they
put
us
on
government
programs
thinking
that
they
did
as
favors
and
all
they
did
is
caused
harm
to
our
people.
All
they're
doing
is
cutting
down
on
life
expectancy
of
our
people,
all
the
name
of
protecting
people,
and
it's
time
we
as
a
commonwealth,
stand
up
for
our
people,
that's
what
we're
elected
to
do,
and
that
includes
my
region
of
the
state
and
these
people
from
out
of
Kentucky.
That
wants
to
tell
us
how
to
live
in
Kentucky.
They
need
to
stay
where
they're
at
and
they
come
in,
try
to
strong
arm
us.
L
G
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
from
the
Attorney
General's
office
for
coming
and
giving
this
proposal
I.
I
am
concerned
and
I.
Also
thank
you
for
your
work
on
the
Good
Neighbor
policy
that
you're
fighting
back
on
I,
that
that
is
a
backdoor
policy.
As
we
talked
about
it's
a
way
to
control
our
state
when
they
can't
do
it
with
the
regulations,
they
find
another
way
to
do
it.
They
don't
quit,
but
as
bad
as
the
Good
Neighbor
policy
is
for
me,
ESG
is
is
even
more
scary
and
I
hope.
G
Our
members
understand
how
much
of
a
control
thing
ESG
is
not
only
on
our
state
but
even
on
publicly
and
privately
owned,
or
publicly
traded
businesses.
Probably
own
businesses,
I
work
for
a
publicly
traded
business,
and
we
we
now
must
do
a
certain
amount
of
carbon
neutral,
we're
looking
at
diversity
and
inclusion
training.
If
you
don't
do
all
these
things.
G
If
you
don't
fight
to
get
to
a
certain
grade
level
on
ESG,
then
you
can't
do
business
with
other
companies
that
demand
you
have
that,
and
so
as
a
state
and
here's
my
question
I'm
getting
around.
To
is
how
do
we,
if,
if
our
utility
companies
are
for-profit
and
are
privately
owned
or
publicly
traded-
and
they
are
succumbing
to
this
ESG
because
that's
you
know-
that's
what's
happening
in
the
industry
they're
being
pushed
to
this
ESG?
G
If
you're,
not,
if
you
don't
follow,
SG
ESG
people
won't
buy
from
you,
people
won't
sell
to
you,
people
won't
do,
and
so,
how
do
we
as
a
state
demand
something
of
a
publicly
traded
or
privately
owned
business
such
as
a
for-profit
utility,
to
not
follow
certain
ESG
guidelines?
If
that's
what
you're
suggesting.
J
I
think
that's
a
good
question.
I
think
Senate
Bill
205
that
was
passed
last
year
was
was
a
good
start
on
that
I
mean
as
I
understand
that
that
bill
basically
declares
that
you
know.
Companies
that
engage
in
energy
boycotts,
as
defined
in
the
statute
are
subject
to
in
a
variety
of
penalties
and
can't
do
business
with
the
state
and
the
like.
J
I,
don't
think
that
that
can
be
implemented
just
yet
because
of
the
reporting
period.
Not
that
hasn't
hasn't
come
about
yet,
but
that's
certainly
one
thing
as
far
as
you
know,
other
elements
of
what
we
the
Commonwealth
can
do.
Our
office
is
looking
at
all
of
these
things
and
we
are
trying
to
be,
as
you
know,
I
think
creative
as
we
can.
J
J
We
are,
you
know,
engaged
in
a
variety
of
things
that
I
can't
really
disclose
right
now,
but
I
think
very
soon.
There
will
be.
You
know
more
aspects
of
our
ESG
efforts
that
will
be
public,
and
you
know
it's
it's
an
effort
that
I
think
you
know.
We
certainly
appreciate
the
general
assemblies
support
on
and
it's
one
that
we
think
is.
You
know,
I've
told
our
office
I.
Think
General
Cameron
agrees
that
it's
it's
one
of
the
issues.
J
That's
going
to
be
a
you
know
the
top
of
everyone's
concern
for
the
next
decade,
because
you
know,
as
representative
Bland
said
it's
it's
an
assault
on
you
know
entire
regions
of
the
state
and
and
the
way
of
life
of
you
know
entire
communities.
J
We
have
300
billion
tons
of
coal
that
you
know
provides
cheap
and
reliable
energy
earlier
in
the
day,
I
think
we've
submitted
some
material,
that's
directly
from
the
epa's
website,
maybe
in
your
materials,
and
it
demonstrates
that
from
1970,
when
the
EPA
was
created
until
2017
GDP
in
the
United
States
increased
262
percent
and
the
emissions
of
the
six
sort
of
main
you
know,
pollutants
that
are
measured,
dropped
by
73
percent,
and
that
was
all
done
with
technology.
It
wasn't
done
with
a
transition
from
fossil
fuels.
J
To
you
know
renewable
energy,
because
there
wasn't
any
clean
power
plan,
there
wasn't
any
new
transport
rule.
There
wasn't
any
meaningful
EPA
regulation
of
carbon
dioxide
in
that
40-year
period.
So
you
know
I
think
that
we
continue
to
look
for
ways
to
to
push
back
when
the
federal
government
oversteps
its
bounds,
we're
going
to
do
whatever
thing
that
we
can
to
hold
them
accountable,
and
you
know
as
to
emphasize
what
John
was
suggesting
as
far
as
utilities
go
it's
you
know
it's
the
legislature
that
sets
our
policy
for
how
quickly
we
will
you.
E
J
C
If
we
head
along
go
into
these
Renewables
and
just
demanded
it
happen
without
doing
it
in
a
sensible
way
and
realize
that
there's
a
room
for
Renewables
there's
room
for
fossil
fuels,
there's
room
for
nuclear
all
that
makes
what
for
a
reliable
extra
grid
and
having
that
is
what's
Paramount
to
a
striving
economy.
If
you
don't
have
energy,
if
you
don't
have
reliable
energy,
you
don't
have
a
good
economy
as
like
I
talked
about
before.
H
J
J
J
And
then
there
are
a
variety
of
Allied
organizations
like
the
Net
Zero
asset
managers.
Alliance
all
of
them
are
under
this
Glasco
organization,
but
we
can
follow
up
with
your
office.
I.
H
Appreciate
that
and
the
second
thing
more
of
a
statement
I
was
working
in.
Let
me
neon
and
got
saw
a
lady
that
was
interviewing
the
mayor
and
then
they
called
me
over
there
and
the
question
came
up
about
the
coal
industry
and
trying
to
blame
it.
Basically
on
the
flood
and
I
took
them
back
through
the
history
of
how
Ford,
motor
and
international
and
those
companies
came
in
just
to
Harlan
County
in
the
early
1900s
and
bought
all
the
property
and
I
said
they
owned
the
public.
H
They
had
the
little
stores
that
you
had
to
use
their
money
to
buy.
They
never
did
put
water
lines.
Sewer
lines.
I
said
no
benefit
from
it
all
of
America
World,
War
II.
You
know,
U.S
steel
produced
a
million
tons
of
coal
in
one
24-hour
shift.
World
War
II
benefited
from
the
whole
America.
Did
they
ship
coal
all
over
the
country?
She
had
no
idea
she's
doing
a
program
for
the
U.S
government
asked
me
about
what
I
thought
about.
Will
that
rain
was
caused
by
the
coal
industry?
H
Basically
and
I
said
well,
most
rain
comes
from
God
as
I
understand
the
Bible.
It
doesn't
come
from
the
coal
industry
and
I
said,
but
if
you
drop
to
11
inches
of
water
in
San
Francisco,
where
Nancy
lives
or
where
Joe
Biden
lives
or
in
Lexington
Kentucky,
it's
going
to
get
flooded
just
like
it
did
in
Eastern
Kentucky,
he
can't
stand
it.
So
I
really
want
to
know
who
this
organization
is
so
that
they
get
a
grasp
of
what
the
public
can
come
back
and
say.
H
A
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
gentlemen.
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
today
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
reasons
I
wanted
to
have
this
meeting
is
to
let
the
committee
members
know
about
the
the
recent
Supreme
Court
ruling
and
and
although
that
ruling
was
a
Slimmer
of
Hope,
when
we
do
a
reality
check
as
to
what
we're
really
fighting
against
it's.
It
kind
of
has
mixed
mixed
emotions
for
me,
but
it
does
show
that.