Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's announcement this morning that he will resign from the agency in March has sparked a fresh round of Beltway gossip about who may replace him.

While a White House spokesman this afternoon declined to speculate on who the president might pick -- and when -- many agency observers assume the nominee will hail from the West, where Interior manages the bulk of its lands.

Former Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) has emerged as a leader among several potential candidates, even though her name has also been floated as a potential nominee for U.S. EPA administrator or secretary of the Transportation Department.

Gregoire, who earlier this week wrapped up an eight-year run as governor, is a former state attorney general -- as Salazar was -- and was also the head of Washington's Department of Ecology in a state that is 30 percent owned by the federal government. Her office has worked closely with Interior's National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation, among other agencies.

Some Capitol Hill insiders have said Gregoire favors the Interior position over EPA. A former Gregoire spokeswoman did not reply to an email for comment this afternoon.

There's no shortage of other former elected officials on the list of possible appointees, including Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who retired this month after 36 years in Congress, much of it spent as an appropriator overseeing the Interior budget.

Dicks was an outspoken advocate of the Endangered Species Act, opposed lifting a moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and was a forceful voice for confronting climate change.

As such, a Dicks nomination may face resistance in the hyperpartisan Senate, where past Interior nominees have been blocked for being perceived as too pro-environment.

Former Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) have also been touted as potential nominees. While both may have a clearer road to confirmation, Dorgan, who is known for brokering bipartisan agreements on energy, is seen as a more likely pick to replace Energy Secretary Steven Chu if he decides to retire.

Four other former Democratic governors have also been mentioned as potential candidates: Bill Ritter of Colorado, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming and Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

While all of those candidates hail from states flush with public lands, Freudenthal and Schweitzer in particular would be viewed favorably by the oil and gas and coal industries.

Schweitzer, who some speculate is eying a future run for president or for Sen. Max Baucus' (D-Mont.) seat, supports the Keystone XL pipeline and backed a controversial plan to lease state-owned coal but has also pushed development of his state's massive wind resources.

Some insiders have also speculated the president may seek Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) for the job.

Udall, whose uncle Stewart Udall served as Interior secretary in the 1960s, is an outspoken supporter of wind energy and is chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks.

His selection would put a Democratic seat in play in 2014 and could threaten the party's slim majority in the Senate. Udall spokesman Mike Saccone said the senator has no ambitions to become secretary.

"Sen. Udall is looking forward to continuing to serve the people of the great state of Colorado in the U.S. Senate now and after his successful re-election campaign in 2014," Saccone said.

With this morning's announcement, a coalition of liberal environmental groups renewed their push for the president to nominate Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.

Grijalva, who was in the running for Interior secretary in 2008 but was seen by some in the White House as too critical of offshore oil and gas drilling, has been a firm backer of Salazar's decision to withdraw a million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon from future mining claims and has called for greater use of the Antiquities Act, which many Western Republicans oppose.

"Will the president try to make the Interior Department an agency for all the people, or merely a lobbying stop for select industrial interests like oil and gas?" asked Bill Snape, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which has lobbied for a Grijalva nomination. "That question will be answered by who he picks to lead this department, with jurisdiction over public lands, wildlife, water resources and natural values."

As he did months ago, Grijalva today said he was flattered by the groups' proposal but is happy representing his southern Arizona district.

A Grijalva nomination would be a gift to the president's environmental base but is unlikely to survive a Senate confirmation battle.

While there has been a long tradition of nominating Westerners, it is entirely possible the president will nominate Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes, a native of Rochester, N.Y., who first served in his post during the Clinton administration.

Hayes has led much of the behind-the-scenes work supporting Salazar's policies, including an interagency working group to expedite permitting of energy projects in the Arctic.

One dark-horse candidate is John Berry, a former Interior assistant secretary for policy, management and budget who now serves at the Office of Personnel Management.

If picked, Berry would be the only openly gay member of the president's Cabinet.

Some conservationists said they would support the nomination of Sally Jewell, the CEO of Recreational Equipment Inc. (better known as REI), a pick that would recognize the role of public lands in buttressing the recreation industry.

U.S. EPA has sent a proposed rule aimed at curbing discharges of polluted water from power plants to the White House for review.

The agency agreed to tighten rules on power plants' discharges of arsenic, lead, chromium, mercury and other toxins under a consent decree with advocacy groups the Environmental Integrity Project, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club in 2010. The rules have not been updated since 1982.

After several delays, the rules are now scheduled to be issued by April 19 and finalized by May 22, 2014, under an agreement struck last month with the environmental groups (Greenwire, Dec. 12, 2012).

"We're hopeful that we'll see a strong rule because the technology is clearly there to reduce or even eliminate these discharges in some cases," said Jennifer Peterson, an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project.

EPA pointed to coal-combustion wastewater as particularly harmful in a 2009 report on power plants' discharges.

"The total amount of toxic pollutants currently being released in wastewater discharges from coal-fired power plants is estimated to be significant and raises concerns regarding the long-term impacts to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health that are exposed to these pollutants," the agency wrote. "Many of these impacts may not be realized for years due to the persistent and bioaccumulative nature of the pollutants released."

The heightened regulation would likely drive up electricity bills, though, as plants moved to install the necessary pollution controls.

Industry group the Utility Water Act Group, which tried to intervene in the environmental groups' lawsuit, said in a recent court filing that impacts on its members "would be concrete and particularized, immediate, and causally related to this lawsuit."

Wyoming public health advocates today filed a federal lawsuit challenging U.S. EPA's approval of the state's plan to curb air emissions that cause haze, arguing that it is inadequate.

WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit with the 10th U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver that says EPA disregarded its obligations under the Clean Air Act when it approved Wyoming's regional haze plan.

Specifically, the group is challenging how the state's plan sought to address sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from its coal-fired power plants. The advocates contend that instead of cutting SO2 emissions, the plan will allow more emissions.

"Just like sulfur, this plan stinks," Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians said in a statement. "Far from protecting clean air, it actually allows more sulfur dioxide pollution from the state's coal-fired power plants, putting the West's most cherished landscapes and countless communities at risk."

EPA approved Wyoming's regional haze plan on Dec. 12. The advocates contend that by relying on a "milestone," or cap, on SO2 emissions for the state's power plants, the plan assumed that they emit at a rate of 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units of heat input. The advocates argue that Wyoming's 13 coal-fired plants are already consuming coal at that rate, and many of them can achieve lower rates.

"EPA's plan defies reality and defies what is necessary to safeguard our clean air," Nichols said. "This is an opportunity to make significantly more progress in restoring clear skies in the West that EPA squandered."

The regional haze program has been controversial since EPA rededicated its efforts on it in the last couple of years. The program is designed to restore visibility at 156 national parks to natural levels by 2064. It had been near-dormant until President Obama took office but revived largely because of court deadlines that resulted from environmental group lawsuits.

Industry and states have charged that EPA is not being deferential enough, but environmentalists charge that EPA is capitulating to state demands when finalizing the implementation plans. Advocates have also challenged North Dakota and Montana's implementation plans (Greenwire, June 7, 2012).

Click here to read the filing.

A bipartisan House bill reintroduced today would remove hurdles for small hydropower projects.

The "Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013," H.R. 267, would allow hydropower projects under 10 megawatts that use existing canals, pipelines or other conduits to move forward without the usual permitting by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Diana DeGette's (D-Colo.) bill also orders FERC to explore a two-year licensing process for hydropower development at existing nonpowered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects and directs the Energy Department to study pumped storage to support intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

"Today we launch a new path toward smarter, more efficient hydropower project permitting, and it's a victory for us all that we are doing so on a bipartisan basis," DeGette said in a statement. "For a state like Colorado, and indeed the entire nation, this legislation will expand renewable and affordable hydropower -- far and away our nation's largest source of clean energy -- and create good jobs for American families."

The House unanimously approved the bill last summer, and there was bipartisan support for it in the Senate, but the measure didn't come to a vote before the end of the 112th Congress (Greenwire, June 20, 2012).

Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Lee Terry (R-Neb.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) co-sponsored the original bill.

The measure is likely to enjoy support in the Senate, where Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced similar measures last summer.

FERC commissioners have acknowledged that federal laws and the responsibilities of state and federal agencies may need to be reviewed to streamline permitting for hydropower projects (E&E Daily, July 8, 2011).

The hydropower industry is eager for the bill to move through Congress because developers of small projects are currently forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to obtain a FERC permit, said Kurt Johnson, president of the Colorado Small Hydro Association. Those costs can often exceed the cost of the entire project, he added.

"If you're a farmer or rancher permitting a small hydropower system, that's more than you're going to spend for the equipment itself," he said. "That's the genius of the bill."

The top transportation authorizer in the House, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), today announced his picks for subcommittee chairmen, as well as the selection of Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.) as his vice chairman for the 113th Congress.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leadership team for the 113th Congress will be Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) for the Aviation Subcommittee; Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) for the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation panel; Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) for the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management panel; Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) for the Highways and Transit panel; Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) for the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials panel; and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) for the Water Resources and Environment panel.

Duncan and the subcommittee chairmen are expected to be confirmed at an organizational meeting Jan. 23.

"I look forward to working together to promote competitiveness and economic growth, reform programs, and strengthen our nation's infrastructure," Shuster said.

This year, the panel will be tasked with crafting a long-term authorizing transportation measure. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, speaking at the Transportation Research Board conference in Washington, D.C., today, said finding ways to pay for a long-term measure will be the "next big challenge" for lawmakers if they intend to guarantee first-class infrastructure and transportation systems for the country.

"The debate in Washington when it comes to infrastructure is, how do we pay for it? How do we pay for a five- or six-year bill? ... Where do we come up with the resources? That's what the debate will be about," LaHood said.

The choice to keep Gibbs at the water subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over U.S. EPA's water programs and the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program, is sure to rankle green groups.

Gibbs, a second-term congressman and former hog farmer, has been broadly critical of the Obama administration's environmental agenda. He has opposed EPA's efforts to impose tougher water pollution limits on Florida and the Chesapeake Bay, and co-sponsored legislation to block the administration's guidance on what types of wetlands and other water resources are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act -- a major priority for environmental groups.

"EPA just keeps raising the bar, and the home plate just keeps moving," he told E&E Daily shortly after taking his post as subcommittee chairman in 2011 (E&E Daily, May 3, 2011). "It gets to the point where it's just so unattainable that you have to wonder. People get frustrated, and they can't afford it. There has to be -- we have to find a balance."

In the last session, Gibbs also focused his subcommittee's attention on the nation's looming infrastructure crisis, holding hearings on ways to draw private dollars to water and sewer systems, as well as to maintain the country's locks, dams and inland waterways.

In other staff matters, Shuster named Mike Friedberg to lead the staff's work at the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. He previously worked on the House Appropriations panel.

For the Highways and Transit panel, Shuster named Jim Tymon to lead that team. Staying put will be Holly Woodruff Lyons on Aviation matters, while Dan Mathews will continue to tackle Emergency Management panel issues. In November, Shuster named Christopher Bertram to be his chief of staff on the committee.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declined again today to answer questions about whether he'll be back for President Obama's second term.

LaHood has earned a following with his conversational transportation items and gets warm receptions at public events. But the White House is nonetheless expected to announce a successor for the Transportation chief this spring. The Chicago Sun-Times, citing an administration source, reported that his successor might be a woman.

Neither the White House nor LaHood would comment on that article.

"I don't really have anything to report on that. These things have to be, you know, I don't have anything else," LaHood said. "I had a meeting with the president. ... There'll be more to come. We'll let you know."

LaHood addressed the annual Transportation Research Board conference in Washington, D.C. In his 15-minute speech, LaHood focused on his accomplishments in the Transportation post in what sounded like a farewell address. He also called for infrastructure investment.

"You know what's going on in China and Asia and other places in the world. They're out there beating us on infrastructure. ... We need the resources," LaHood said. "I hope you become a part of the debate. With you, America will become No. 1 again. That's where we need to be."

It is common for administrations to bring in new faces during a second term. This morning, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would be stepping down.

People who follow federal transportation politics and policy say Obama might choose Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) to replace LaHood. Women whose names are mentioned for the post include New York City Transportation Department Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, federal Department of Transportation Undersecretary Polly Ellen Trottenberg and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D), although she's also being considered for the Interior and U.S. EPA administrator openings.

LaHood is the only Republican in Obama's Cabinet. He previously represented Illinois in the House and before that was an Illinois state legislator.

The Congressional Research Service plans to update an analysis of legislation addressing the disposal of power plant combustion waste, a Senate Republican aide said today.

At issue is a paper by CRS environmental policy analyst Linda Luther, who wrote last year that pending legislation included "no provisions" compelling states to adopt coal ash programs that comply with minimum federal standards "necessary to protect human health and the environment."

Backers of the measure, including Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), objected to CRS's conclusions. They insist their legislation, expected to be reintroduced in the new Congress, creates new disposal rules while protecting coal ash recycling for things like road construction.

Hoeven spokesman Don Canton said CRS has agreed to "update" its report "based on new information."

Environmental advocates cheered the CRS report, which substantiated many of their concerns (E&E Daily, Dec. 19, 2012). They have said they think it unlikely that researchers will significantly alter conclusions.

A watchdog group urged U.S. EPA today to require hardrock miners to post additional financial assurances in the wake of a new agency report on toxic pollution.

EPA's 2011 Toxics Release Inventory lists metals mining as the industry with the most releases of toxics, discharging 1.9 billion pounds of waste in 2011.

"In this sector, even a small change in the chemical composition of the ore being mined -- which EPA understands is one of the asserted reasons for the increase in total reported releases -- can lead to big changes in the amount of toxic chemicals reported nationally," the agency said in a news release.

Mining companies were largely responsible for the 19 percent increase in land waste released since 2010, EPA said. Surface water discharges declined 3 percent (Greenwire, Jan. 16).

Watchdog group Earthworks said the latest inventory shows a need for new financial assurance requirements for hardrock mines under the Superfund law. The agency is not planning to release a draft rule until next year, the group said.

"If the EPA doesn't act soon to require cleanup bonds, taxpayers could be paying the cleanup bill instead of the polluting mining companies," Earthworks spokesman Alan Septoff said. "Meanwhile, our nation's rivers, streams, air and land remain at risk."

The group's Northwest advocate, Bonnie Gestring, pointed to Hecla Mining Co.'s Lucky Friday silver mine as a prime example of a pollution source. EPA said it released 17 million pounds of waste in 2011.

"Idaho doesn't require a bond for underground mines, so taxpayers could be on the hook for more than $100 million in mine cleanup costs at this mine alone," she said.

Mining allies in Congress have criticized the impending new financial assurance requirements, even trying to insert riders into spending bills to control EPA action.

The lawmakers have pointed to Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service requirements for mines on federal land. The National Mining Association has also touted state laws and modern mining techniques (E&E Daily, March 9, 2011).

NMA has said that almost all substances reported in the toxics inventory occur naturally and that federal and state regulators already oversee disposal. The group has noted that the Toxics Release Inventory is not an evaluation of risk.

"Mining operations continue to represent a minor percentage of the total releases to air and surface waters covered in the TRI reports," NMA said in a statement, in contrast to land release numbers. "This has been a consistent feature of mining's reports over the 14 years mining operations have been included in TRI."

EPA said releases went up despite a fairly stable production output from mines. The National Mining Association, however, said there were increases in gold, copper, iron and molybdenum production. It also cited resumption of mining at a Nevada operation.

NMA and EPA both cited ore body composition and reporting requirements as a reason for the results. EPA said, "Such factors are particularly significant in cases where large quantities that qualify for a concentration-based exemption in one year may become reportable in their entirety the next year due to very small increases in the concentration of a toxic chemical in waste rock."

EPA received information from 87 metals mining facilities, mostly in the West. The agency said six of those had implemented activities to reduce their waste releases. It said companies recycled 49 million pounds and treated almost 13 million pounds of toxic waste.

Electric utilities and chemical companies ranked second and third on EPA's list based on TRI releases. The coal mining industry ranked 14th.

A virulent bat disease has spread to Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, putting its estimated 25,000 of the hibernating mammals in grave danger.

Park officials announced today that a northern long-eared bat living in the park's Long Cave contracted white-nose syndrome.

Named for the fuzzy fungus that grows on bats' ears, nose and mouth, the disease has killed more than 5.5 million bats in the United States and Canada since 2006.

"It grieves me to make this announcement," Superintendent Sarah Craighead said in a statement.

The arrival of white-nose syndrome in Long Cave, the park's largest hibernaculum, could be devastating for the park's nine species of hibernating bats, including endangered Indiana bats and gray bats.

White-nose has been known to wipe out more than 90 percent of cave populations if present for a year or longer, according the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The disease, which is not suspected to affect people, pets or livestock, is transmitted from bat to bat, but fungal spores can also be transported on cavers' clothing or gear.

The fungus has been confirmed in 21 states and four Canadian provinces since it first hit New York (Land Letter, March 1, 2012). This is the ninth national park affected.

Anticipating the potential that white-nose could spread to Mammoth, park officials developed a response plan several years ago, implemented decontamination protocols for cave visitors and began collecting base-line data about the park's bats.

"The data provide important information on which bat species are present and how many, when they give birth, and when they feed," Craighead said. "We now have five years of data collected prior to the arrival of white-nose syndrome, and will continue monitoring through the course of the disease."

There are more than 400 caves in the park. Long Cave has been closed to visitors for more than 80 years. Mammoth Cave, which is 390 miles long, will remain open to visitors.

"About 400,000 people tour Mammoth Cave each year, providing an excellent opportunity for us to educate the public about the importance of bats and the disease," Craighead said. "We screen all visitors before they go on a cave tour, and visitors walk across decontamination mats as they exit their tours."

Will global financial constraints cause businesses to scale back their plans for sustainable investments? During today's OnPoint, Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, discusses the impact of the financial crisis on green investments. He also explains how rising global coal demand will affect emissions reduction goals.

Click here to watch today's OnPoint.

Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Dr. Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute. It's nice to have you back on the show.

Andrew Steer: Thank you very much.

Monica Trauzzi: Andrew, WRI has released its annual stories to watch for 2013, and the big story of 2012, and certainly moving into 2013, is going to continue to be the financial crisis that's plaguing the United States and other countries around the world. It has the potential to have serious implications on investments in sustainability. Many businesses have planned for certain investments, but that might start to change. How do you believe that the financial constraints that are being placed on businesses and investors could impact some of those green investments?

Andrew Steer: Well, there's no question that we now live in an economy in which investors are more risk averse, and lenders and financiers are more risk averse. And on top of that, you've got new regulations: Basel III, for example, that says if you want to make risky investments, then you have to cover those with more reserves. And the problem is, of course, that a lot of green investments, even though they're fantastic rates of return, quite often, they are more risky, risky for several reasons, technological risk, sometimes policy risk. We don't know whether the government policies will stay the same. But also the sort of profile of financing is different. You need more upfront funding, and then less funding. And so risk management is incredibly important. Now, we just got the numbers. Bloomberg New Energy Finance just issued their estimates of 2012, say for renewable energy, about $250 billion, down for the first time in eight years in terms of worldwide investment, still about half in the developing countries, half here. Estimate that they will increase a little bit. So nowhere near enough. And so we really should be looking for is whether or not there are mechanisms to help the private sector de-risk their investments in green infrastructure. Now, some of that can come from innovations in the public sector. For example, the Green Climate Fund will be starting up this year. We should be watching to see whether or not it's going to play a role in de-risking. A number of private companies themselves also are doing innovative things to try and create a longer-term perspective. You know, Paul Polman of Unilever says, "I'm not going to give quarterly financial reports anymore." Why? Because that'll help us get several other sort of very interesting issues. So in our stories to watch, we focus on a number of specific issues in the financial sector that we should be watching to see whether or not this kind of ability to manage risk changes.

Monica Trauzzi: One of the main cases and concerns against acting on climate change are the negative economic impacts that some kind of emissions reduction policy could bring. As an economic development expert, how do you then make the case in this current climate for moving forward with aggressive emissions reduction targets and policies?

Andrew Steer: Mm-hmm. Well, it's certainly easier if you're growing to take bold measures, and that's why China, for example, can keep investing $50 billion a year in renewable energy. That's why it is choosing to put cap-and-trade systems in five of its cities and two of its states this year. It's going to nationwide with cap and trade, 2015. If you are growing, it's easier to say, "Right, we're going to take this seriously." So, too, Africa now is growing more rapidly than we ever did in our Industrial Revolution. So surprisingly, even in Africa you're starting to see some interesting initiatives. And one of the questions for Africa is, will it use its growth to go in the right way or the wrong way? So it's certainly true that with a slower growth, it's going to be more difficult. But I think the economics is pretty convincing, that it doesn't take long before good investments, smart investments in low carbon development, pay for themselves. And many of the investments actually pay for themselves immediately. I mean, energy efficiency still can get us one-third of where we need to get to. That's like a whole bunch of, you know, $100 bills sitting on the sidewalk, and they're still there. No one's picking them up. And what we have to do is try and unlock the barriers that are preventing things which clearly are in everyone's interest, but we're not yet doing them.

Monica Trauzzi: How important do you believe it is to President Obama to have a legacy on climate and emissions reduction, and what are you really looking for? What are those top three things that you're looking for him to do on climate and energy in his second term?

Andrew Steer: Well, I'm sure he does want to have a legacy, because he's said that. He's said that if we ignore climate change, we do so at our peril. And we believe that. Now what does he need to do? Well, he's said already he's going to launch a conversation on climate change. It's a perfect time to do it. Look, the United States' drought at the moment is probably going to cost 1 percent of GDP. It may turn out to be the most costly natural disaster we've ever had in our history, and we all know about Hurricane Sandy. We know that Florida is potentially in significant trouble, and so on. So it's a perfect time to launch a conversation, but obviously, we need to go beyond the conversation. The United States doesn't have yet a really comprehensive climate strategy. Most other countries, significant countries, do. So it would be a great time really to confront that. But we're bringing out a report in a couple of weeks looking at the United States' goal to achieve its 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. It will be possible, I believe, but it will require -- even under existing authority, but it will require some measures where the EPA and other agencies will need to act in a bold way, will need to address the issue of existing power plants, a number of other specific measures, you know, that need to be addressed in the coming year. But beyond that, there needs to be a willingness to think slightly longer term. It's one thing to reach the 17 percent reduction by 2020, but remember, we need to get an 80 percent or 90 percent reduction by 2050, and each year we delay in the bigger structural reforms, they will cost more and more.

Monica Trauzzi: And a lot of the discussion here in the United States is centered around coal, but global demand for coal is surging, and WRI actually found that there are 1,200 proposed coal plants around the world. The U.S. is now exporting record levels of coal. So is there a place for coal in this more sustainably focused world?

Andrew Steer: Well, the U.S. closed down about 50 coal-based power plants over the last year, still has 380-odd. You're right. Seventy-five percent of the newer ones are going to be in India and China. And the United States' exports of coal, of course, have tripled in the last -- in the last eight years. Is there a role for coal? Well, I mean, I don't want to say coal is totally wicked, we should stop it today, at all, but clearly we can't get to where we need to get to if fossil fuels continue to have the role that they have today. I mean, it's just arithmetically not possible. And so what we need to do is work with countries like India and China to think through what would change the incentive structure. And, you know, I think there's quite a lot of evidence that done right, with the right kind of investment in technology and so on, that we will be phasing out the use of coal over time.

Monica Trauzzi: You were at the World Bank before coming to WRI, and one of the things that's controversial there is the discussion on the role that the World Bank should play in coal loans. Now that you've stepped away from that role at the World Bank, what do you think the World Bank should be doing on coal?

Andrew Steer: Well, look, I think it's -- I think it's vital that institutions like the World Bank become perceived and are leaders in financing energy efficiency and renewable energy, and I think there's good -- there's good progress there. There could be more. And so I think that what one really wants to do is to tool up, to become the go-to place for renewable energy, because, you know, if you look at the data now, if you ask experts, so-called experts, is wind energy more expensive than coal, they'll all say, "Yes, yes, it is." In fact, if you do the analysis, it's not. Cost curves are shifting dramatically. And so institutions like the World Resources Institute need to be doing everything we can to demonstrate to everybody where the technology is and where it's going, and the World Bank needs to be in that position, too.

Monica Trauzzi: All right. We will end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show again.

Andrew Steer: Thank you very much, Monica.

Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

[End of Audio]

Click here to watch today's OnPoint.