 Welcome to Burlington Board of Electric Commissioners monthly regular meeting. This is Wednesday, October 13th, 2021. It is 5.32 p.m. And first up on the agenda is the agenda itself. There is a change from the agenda that was posted via public notice. Agenda item number four, KPMG audit presentation. This will have to be shifted. We are working on an updated date, but essentially more time is needed to complete the audit process. So we will skip over that particular item, but to my understanding, nothing else is changing on the agenda. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, great, thank you. So moving forward, I'm assuming everyone's fine with the agenda. So next up is the approval for the minutes of the September 8th, 2021 meeting. And if there were any observations of edits needed regarding substantive content, this is a great time to raise it if there are any sort of spelling edits or whatnot, best to handle that via email. Any items noted that need to be addressed? Move to accept as presented. Second. You're on mute. Second. Thank you, Bob. Commissioner Herndy. Hi. Commissioner Moody. Hi. Commissioner Stevens. Hi. Thank you. Next is the public forum. I'll ask Paul who's in the room at Pine Street and I'll ask Lori if we have any members of the public. There's no one here, Chair Stevens. It does not appear that there is anyone from the public that's on. Okay. Well, for anyone viewing this in the future, you are, as always, welcome to attend us, either attend our meetings either virtually or in person. And of course, we do have a full customer service support team that is interested and willing to help you or answer your questions. So please don't hesitate to reach out. Next up, we have the commissioner's corner. This is an opportunity for commissioners to raise any comments or observations that have occurred over the last month. And wondering if anyone has anything that they'd like to say. For me. I do have a couple of questions, as usual. This is a question from a customer who lives along the Winooski and is not electrified but wants to be. And she has talked to her electrician and the electrician says that BED will make a plan and charge $200 for plan design, for an engineering plan design. So my question basically is about the procedure that in general applies here. If you want to be electrified, you need an electrician for sure, but what services does BED supply free and what does it charge for? And is that a valid description of what's going on in this case? Commissioner Herendine, I don't know if NIR is on and may be able to speak to that potentially. Yeah, really, specifically which customer where that customer is located, what the circumstances are. I can tell you that, but maybe you don't want to do it at this meeting. Maybe we should talk to you. Yes. Okay. All right, I'll be in touch with you. Moving on to you. Can I just offer a quick comment on that too, which is that electrification is actually an eligible tier three measure potentially as a custom measure? Yeah. I didn't think we had any options for that, but it's of note. Okay, I'll talk to him in here. Second question, you mentioned a federal activity which might be possibly declaring biomass non-renewable at the same time that nuclear was being pushed. I wonder how dangerous or concerning that is to us. And also, is it sort of a shootout between the nuclear guys and the biomass guys? Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. This was from the GM update on the federal Build Back Better Reconciliation Bill, which is under consideration. And my understanding from our congressional delegation is the details of that are changing, subject to change essentially at any point based on conversations related to that proposal more broadly and what amount of funding is gonna be in it and which pieces of it are prioritized. The version that moved forward in house, energy and commerce was the version that had something called the Clean Electricity Payment Program in it. And what that program did was offer utilities that exceeded a certain amount of additional generation each year above their baseline that was quote unquote clean. They would get a payment, a subsidy of $150 per megawatt hour for a certain portion of that additional generation. And by the same token, if utilities failed to meet some type of a baseline goal in a given year, they would be penalized $40 per megawatt hour. That proposal lists no specific types of generation. It simply has a carbon metric and it's not clear whether that metric is a life cycle metric. In which case, I think biomass would have a very good argument for being included, particularly a plant like McNeil that sourcing sustainably or if it's only at the plant, in which case a technology like nuclear would count but something like biomass might not. We've raised this issue with the delegation. Their understanding of the current proposal is the Department of Energy would end up making most of the rules around this, which is not typical for how federal legislation is crafted and it's being written in this way in part because it is part of a reconciliation bill where policy language is not typically permitted and only fiscal language is typically permitted is my understanding. And therefore they're not able to be as specific as you would typically see in a federal energy or climate bill. So the truth of it is I'm not clear that anyone knows whether this current language would be seen as including biomass or not. Either way, biomass currently counts under Vermont's renewable energy standard and is currently eligible in Connecticut as well. If this federal law was to pass, my concern would be that it certainly could impact on market opportunities in Connecticut, which may be impacted by other things anyhow. And I wouldn't speculate that it necessarily would impact in Vermont, but it would create a situation for BED that might be fiscal unfavorable compared to our current situation. Mute. Mr. Harrington, you're on mute. And any of this CO2 stuff, who is worrying about indirect CO2, like all the CO2 to make solar panels, et cetera? I'm not saying we should be, but I'm just wondering to what extent you hear about it. Yeah, that wouldn't be a part of this program directly. I do think there are some pieces around methane from natural gas that are included in the federal legislation around a payment relative to methane that would escape in a leaky pipe, for example. So there may be some indirect emissions, concerns around methane that are incorporated into this bill, but there's not anything else that I'm aware of at the federal level that's looking at the lifecycle emissions accounting that you're suggesting the way that, would really create an apples to apples comparison for different generation resources. Yeah, I was asking more generally about us and Vermont and so on. And I think I know the answer, but I'm getting more and more bombarded with this question. And of course, the faster we move, the more it's an issue over the short term. Well, I do believe the climate council is looking at that. Okay, Mr. Harrington, I'd be happy to share with you a report that was written that looked at various approaches to accounting for greenhouse gases and what the methodological choices are and why you might choose over one over another and how Oregon does it compared to New York, compared to Massachusetts. It is on the Vermont Climate Council website, but I'd be happy to forward that to you as well. And you can see what the recommendation has been thus far to the Vermont Climate Council. Thank you. I'm sort of late and getting connected to the council. My fault, so that'll help. Thank you. Yeah, and in full disclosure, my day job is with Energy Futures Group and a couple of the folks that I work with were the primary drafters of that report. So I'll be happy to share that with you. Okay, a quick last question, a recurring question. There's more discussion in here about further negotiations with Cameron Rise, about the new section called Aurora and what kind of energy is gonna be used. Again, is there any part of that that involves a switch from gas to electric? I'm just looking at who all we have on the call. Chris Burns would be best situated to answer. And I don't think he's on. I don't know if Mike Canerick or James or anyone else has more direct information on that conversation. I haven't been a part of that direct conversation with Cameron Rise. All right, I'll check with Chris, thanks. That's it. This is Mike. I am not aware, but Commissioner Herndine can help connect you with Chris to learn more about Cameron Rise. Okay, thanks, Mike. And I might actually ask on the one hand where we have city ordinances and efforts to acquire that we're looking at all the ways of heating the sides, fossil fuels. So perhaps with that update, we could leave the rest of the commission in just so we're all aware of how that's proceeding with Cameron Rise or rather Aurora. We'll do. Thank you, Mike. Yeah, I picked up on it because specifically in our notes here, I think on page 12 of highlights, it mentioned the city's legislation, right? Scott, did you have any comments or Commissioner Herndine, any other further comments? Nope, no, sir. Nope. I just wanted to note that for... I mean, since the entire time I've been on the commission, we have been talking about the potential for a rate case. And there was one member of the public that attended the Public Utility Commission public hearing. And it was not a BED customer. And, you know, we did have some larger commercial, industrial individuals representing organizations and businesses here in Burlington show up when we first announced this. And to me, when I read that update, it looks like good news to me in that perhaps those who have come forward with concerns, BED has been able to address those. If you could touch on that a little bit because obviously folks need to be able to pay their bills. I'm glad to. Yeah, the PUC hearing as mentioned in the update, we did not have any members of the public from BED who were BED customers. I do think that as folks are aware, there may be other, you know, cost issues that are rising more to the forefront than our particular rate case. Certainly we've heard about the reappraisal affecting a number of residents. I know there's also been a rate design with the water department that's attracted some attention. So I'm not sure to what extent the fact that those other things are happening at the same time they have limited some of the outreach that we might have otherwise received. At the same time, I think the fact that we have, and this is, you know, mentioned as well, a rearage assistance programs and the temporary energy assistance program. Mike and his team are working in both cases to try to get the word out very proactively to our customers about those efforts also helps to mitigate some of the financial concerns that we might otherwise hear. So certainly we've done the work that we had promised to do in terms of setting up regular conversations with some of those larger customers who had raised concerns. Emily and I have both met with UVM and UVM Medical Center just in the last couple of weeks for the start of what will be essentially, you know, every three or four month meetings with them to discuss our rate and budget trajectory. But other than that and other than our outreach on those programs, we haven't heard a whole lot of specific outreach from customers about the rate case. Okay. My father-in-law used to always say, no news is good news. I mean, anecdotally, I haven't heard a whole lot about the rate piece either but online, you know, some of the chatter online about the bond, you know, what I saw was a lot of confused, certainly misinformation or confusion, you know, the whole of my taxes are going up. No, no, no, my bills didn't end. And so I'm concerned about the explanation of what a revenue bond is to the success of our passing it. Well, and actually that gets to my next question, which rolls nicely into the next agenda item, which is the general manager's update. So, Darren, how would you like to proceed? Would you like to talk about what you've heard back from individuals who've attended some of the NPA meetings you've gone to related to the revenue bond first, since we're sort of in that discussion or would you rather give us an update overall? Oh, certainly we can keep on that thread with the revenue bond. I think Commissioner Moody is exactly right that there is some confusion out there because the city has a $40 million infrastructure bond that's going to be on the ballot. The ballot will be December 7th and that's gonna be ballot item number one, ballot item number two will be our $20 million revenue bond. The city bond, as I understand it, would have some impact on property taxes and the city has outlined what that impact would look like and our revenue bond, as you all are aware, but we need to share with the public does not have a direct impact on anybody's taxes and would actually, in our analysis, help reduce upward pressure on rates over the next several years, even as we make some critical investments in our system for reliability and for net zero. So that we're doing the work of trying to share information about the revenue bond. I've been at the wards for seven NPA and the wards six NPA and we're gonna be this evening after this meeting at the wards one eight NPA tomorrow at wards two three and then the remaining NPA is ward five on the 21st. So far in presenting the slides, which you've seen and which we've presented to the city council previously, I've gotten questions, but they're more general questions about topics that may be on folks minds related to BED, even if they're not specific to the revenue bond, questions around biomass energy, as we talked about, questions about the rate case, at least in one instance and how that's working and what we see for future rate pressure. So some different questions around that. Overall, we've seen generally, I think if I can characterize it fairly, openness and in some cases explicit support at the NPA discussions from commenters and city counselors who have participated. And as mentioned in the report, we've got an article in the Green Energy Times, an article or a commentary in the North Avenue News and in Vermont Digger that have gone out and that additional NPA outreach and we'll be looking for other opportunities as well to share information about the revenue bond. We have that up on our website as well, the commentary. And obviously if commissioners see opportunities where we could do additional outreach or if you need any information as you're sharing information with folks that you speak with, please do keep us in the loop and we're glad to provide more. Thanks, it's all of the language, I mean, revenue, bond, infrastructure. I mean, it is not designed to be friendly for the individual who's just quickly scanning either a two paragraph overview or whatnot. So Commissioner Moody, you bring up an important point that we really do need to be clear that this is not an impact to Burlington ratepayers unless there was a major default which is highly unlikely because with strategic electrification, we see increased sales which then goes into support all of those infrastructure pieces and General Manager Springer, if I got that at all wrong please feel free to course correct. No, and I'm certain I forgot to mention one thing which is going to clear any misconceptions up which is Chair Stebbins is going to be joining us to record a podcast, an SRO NERD podcast that will be launching as part of a new effort to communicate with customers. So through that podcast as well, we'll have another medium to inform folks about the revenue bond. So we're looking forward to recording that in the very near future as well. Indeed, thanks for the invite also. I do want to note that commissioners were. Sorry, someone muted me, sorry, I live in a loud street. Yeah, I was just going to mention the back to your thing but just that on the ballot, it's also written in a lot of legalese which is hard to understand. And I'm just wondering if, I haven't seen anything recently but through Defeat the Peak and whatnot, I would see maybe some Facebook blasts about this perhaps might be a thing. The other thing that just came to my mind was a couple of the last remaining farmers markets but more, I was thinking like a good Facebook blast of what a bond is and revenue and explaining it in less legal terms would might be just a really simple thing to do. I understood and noted and Mike is on as well to capture that suggestion. And obviously we certainly see our role as sharing information and answering questions. And I think in that vein, we can certainly try to describe in less legal language how this works and what it would do for Burlington Electric and our customers. And Commissioner Moody, we will communicate through all available channels including social media. So stay tuned. Thank you. So just a note that October 28th is the employee recognition day and I have meetings all day that day but if I can jump in, I will. But Commissioner Moody or Commissioner Herondine, if we do want to attend, we should reach out to Lori because if too many of us attend, it becomes a requirement to post notification that we're having a meeting, even if we're just eating. But that's how it is. I hope in a cold control room making TV go. I, Mike, since we were just talking about communications, I'm wondering if you could send out a little bit, like I'm sure you'll send it out close to the time but October 21st, the 12th to two, Burlington Electric and Drive Electric, so that folks can test Drive Electric vehicles at Hula where Blodgett used to be and there's a geothermal system. If you can make sure I get that, I will definitely share that out. I think folks would love to try out some electric vehicles and I just got an electric bike and I'm in love and I don't even care about vehicles, so. We'll do and congrats on your electric bike. Mine is at Outdoor Gear Exchange right now, getting a flat tire fixed. That happens. It happens. We did. Incidentally, I've had several people from different walks of my life mentioned that they had seen the video that we made a couple summers ago when I drove an electric vehicle. So that's still getting some mileage out there. So we have sort of rolled into the general manager's update, which is agenda item number six, really five, because we dropped KPMG audit presentation, but general manager Springer, I'll let you carry forth. Okay, well, I think we've covered a number of items, so I'll try to touch on the ones that we haven't yet. A Rearage Assistance, the state programs remain open and we're bringing in significant resources through those programs to support our customers. At the same time, on Monday at the city council meeting on the 18th, it's our expectation that the 1.3 million in a Rearage Assistance and Temporary Energy Assistance Funding that was part of the FY22 budget and part of the effort with ARPA funds in part to support customers. That a memo on that will be moving through the city council process and once approved will enable BED to be able to access that funding for our customers to further support a Rearage Assistance and also the Energy Assistance Program that is running through the course of FY22. Our strategy is certainly to draw down on the state resources first since some of those are time limited and then to use the funds that will be available through the city to help customers. Clear backlogs of a Rearages prior to our reinstating disconnection for non-payment which as a reminder, even though the PUC has dropped its moratorium requirement, we have continued voluntarily the suspension of disconnection for non-payment and plan to continue to do so until we have the opportunity to get all of our customers the Rearage Assistance access. And then my expectation is is that sometime probably either in the spring or perhaps late spring, early summer, we'll be looking at reinstating that policy and getting back to normal course of business there. So we'll report out more after the 18th. Do you require that you get down to zero before you turn it off? No, I don't think we've ever really been at zero. We always have some amount of a Rearage Outstanding but I think we really want an opportunity for customers to have access to the state resources and the city resources which will apply as proactively as we can so that if anyone has been economically impacted by the pandemic and fallen behind on their bills, we do everything we possibly can to get them back to a level where they can start paying again. And we also continue to offer the budget payment plans and we've suspended late fees. All of those things are still in effect but we probably will never be at zero. So I don't think that'll be the metric we'll look to. Moving from that topic, District Energy, we had an update with the Transportation Energy Utilities Committee of the City Council a couple of weeks ago with myself and Michael, Ahern. The activities that we're focused on now are several. One of which is we have a draft term sheet with McNeil joint owners that is pretty close to being completed and will be shared with our partners at Evergreen and VGS for their feedback in the very near future. We're working on a regulatory filing with the PUC that would get a declaratory ruling on how we're characterizing the District Energy tier three value because that value will be important in the joint owners conversation in providing some economic value for the joint owners potentially in moving this project forward. And then we also are having customer conversations again around what the premium commitments might be in order to purchase District Energy credits and how we may finance that the project based on different contributions towards that output. So all of those activities are taking place. I would have said that under ideal circumstances we might have been bringing this phase three to completion sometime in the late fall or early winter. I have to say based on where we are now I would expect that this may be more in line with some type of January resolution which is only a couple months away but I wanted to share that expectation with the commission. The work has been intensive and it continues and we haven't hit any stumbling blocks at this point but we're continuing to work through it and I think we're gonna need a few months until we're ready to present a final phase three outcome and if we are successful we'll be presenting a variety of documents as well that would help advance this to the permitting and construction stage along with partners. I note as well that at the federal level there has not yet been movement on the appropriations legislation that includes the federal directed spending from Senator Leahy. So we'll be tracking that as well and that's obviously a major contingency for the project. In terms of legislation we touched on the- Can I ask them? I know you probably don't wanna answer this in which case you can just say no but what percentage chance would you say moving forward to the permitting stage? I remain optimistic, I do. I think we have taken this further than it's ever gone and I see a clear path forward. All the pieces are there. So I'm not seeing a red flag stumbling block. I think the engineering work that Evergreen has done with the potential customers who would be connecting to the system has been solid and is being further reviewed. In fact with UVM Medical Center we have a third party engineer that's reviewing that work to confirm that all of the assumptions that are in place are accurate. We have a protocol that's been developed for how McNeil would dispatch thermal energy. We've done work on an electric boiler and from a rate design standpoint that would back up the McNeil system and would even be a fallback option in the event that McNeil had to shut down for an extended period of time. We would still have energy output that was renewable flowing through the system and customer interest remains. So I'm cautiously optimistic that we will be able to move this forward but we're not at the finish line yet. And I studiously avoided giving a percentage. But I offered you the out, so understood. Absolutely. Sorry, please carry on. Well, in terms of legislation we touched on the federal bill. I also am interested as the climate council develops its recommendations whether there will be some type of proposal to change the Vermont Renewable Energy Standard and move towards a 100% target instead of the existing 75% target. Obviously, BED is already at and exceeding that level. So our interest in that conversation would be whether we can retain our important exemptions from some of the procurement requirements that are saving our ratepayers and recognizing our early adoption of 100% renewable portfolio. The other piece that I wanna raise is if the revenue bond is successful we would potentially be in a position to talk about raising and increasing our tier three requirement for strategic electrification work because we will be funding that at a pace that significantly exceeds the state compliance level. It's not a requirement that we go in that direction but I think it could be a part of the conversation and if the state is looking for additional emissions reduction policy we may be in position to suggest that. Particularly in lieu of adding generation procurement requirements to BED when we're already satisfying the broader goal of being 100% renewable. So that's something that could come up. It may not come up but I wanted to flag it as something that we are at least keeping an eye on. And I think both of the remaining items have been flagged. I wanna note that we will have catering from BOBS which the commission has been familiar with in the past at our employee appreciation lunch and we're making every effort to have that be a COVID safe event where we will have a hybrid approach with Microsoft Teams option as well as an in-person option with strong ventilation being provided with the garage doors open. So it'll be good spacing, catered event and obviously we'd love to have any commissioners who are interested to join. So please do reach out to Lori and I will pause there. Thank you. Any questions, comments, commissioners? I would have liked to have those. I'm sorry the financials are next and I for some reason it's not on the agenda. So I apologize. That's okay. I think we got that drill but I mean I quit for a minute. That's good. It's hard to forget. The financials are important. So unless there are no other comments you're normally sevens we lock. Thanks for joining us and walking us through the financials and sharing your screen. Thanks. Okay. Good evening everyone. Hopefully you can now see a graph of sales for updated to show August 2021 here in the far right. I just wanted to note on this you'll see overall system loads are only down by 0.4%. Story continues residential higher than baseline, commercial lower than baseline. Although commercial did improve fairly markedly since July and as I noted last time I just want to note this again as we get farther into the pandemic, right? And farther away from February 2020 which was our sort of last normal month in terms of no COVID-19 affecting our loads it becomes more difficult to tribute all of the deviation to the pandemic, right? We think most of this deviation is from the pandemic but if there's any underlying load growth say from heat pump sales or EV charging or any overall load decline from buildings being vacated for example, you really can't see that in here. And so the best way to maybe interpret this chart is not so much COVID impacts but it's the deviation in sales from the pre COVID levels, right? Most of which is probably caused by COVID but not all. So I just wanted to copy out that I think it's still useful information to share but again, there's other things happening with loads, right? That you just, you can't see because it's obscured by the pandemic effects. So I'm gonna flip now to the financials for. I just want to say it's interesting. Well, actually, no, that makes sense that we see commercial gradually coming back. Total sales is gradually coming back and it's better than August 2020 overall. So everything's like squeezing in which is kind of what we want. Right, right. Yeah, it will be interesting to see what September is like with more of the schools open and if that is a big difference to what we're seeing. These impacts are also of course weather affected July was I think on the cooler side or definitely not like a hotter than normal month where June and August were so that I think bumped some residential. It's hard to tell what's going on with the commercial. I think we think anyway that some commercial buildings are being cooled to some degree even if they're not completely occupied and so the deviation from what they would normally be doing isn't necessarily, you know, isn't necessarily that great. So, well, it's interesting. I mean, I remember like all of July just being gray and wondering why we were missing summer. And if you look at it like 7.4% for this July and 15% for last July, like that's a big difference. Right, probably reflecting the fact that, you know children are in camps this summer more than they were in last summer and more people are not working from home this summer compared to last summer. So people probably are less at home overall this summer compared to last summer. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, let me attempt to switch screens and see if this works. Okay, do you now see the financial highlights? Excellent, just get my notes here. So for August, we had a net income of 2.5 million compared to budgeted net income of 2.1 million. So we had a good month, 370,000 better than budget. Drivers here, sales to customers was positive. So again, interesting that if you think about we just saw the system load was down 0.4% overall. It was down compared to what we would normally have predicted it to be given the weather we saw in August but it was still better than budget by 300,000. That makes sense. So that's how you can reconcile those, what might appear to be opposing pieces of data. EU revenues were unfavorable by 50,000. Power supply revenues were favorable. Rack revenues by 105,000. Also, let's see, unfavorable on the expense side. Power supply expenses mostly driven by McNeil which had a higher runtime, 24% versus budget offset by some transmission expenses that were under budget. Operating expense was positive, mostly driven by the timing of outside services spending. And then taxes were also favorable to budget. This is gonna be something we're gonna see every month because of the city's reappraisal. As a result, our payment in lieu of taxes went down. So we will be booking positive variances to budget on the tax line throughout FY22. And then unfavorable variance here and other income, that is mostly related to the timing of customer contributions to capital projects and a reage assistance from the state and city where in the budget we made our best guess of when we received those funds and our best guess was not accurate by 116,000 for August. Overall, for the year to date, we are 411,000 below budget on net income, still with a positive net income to date of 2.1 million. Excuse me, before I scroll down to capital and cash, I just wanted to note in terms of looking ahead for the forecast and heading into the winter months. And James can chime in here if he wishes. We are monitoring both energy and rec markets where there is quite a bit of volatility. Winter energy prices, as some of you may have read in the news, our forecast to be quite high, which depending on how things play with timing and us having McNeil as a resource could be a source of very favorable variance to net income. So we're watching the futures market closely. We are ensuring that we have an abundant wood supply at McNeil going into winter and we are well-positioned there thanks to Betsy and the forestry team. So that's just something to be aware of. And James, I'll certainly invite you to make any further comments on that if you wish. I mean, these are certainly some of the strongest prices going into winter that we've ever seen. And I mean, ever seen. We're looking at average energy prices last time I checked for December to March of 14 cents a kilowatt hour at wholesale. So, but under a normal situation, Burlington runs energy net long in the winter. So that's why in the past, high winter prices have not been problematic for us. So again, we're looking- Can you just say what net long is for anyone who might be watching? My apologies. We have energy in excess of our requirements during the winter months, typically. Which means we're available to sell that energy, that excess energy. And then the question really is what the price we get for that excess energy is relative to what we pay to acquire for it. Right now we're looking at a favorable variance. Again, timing can really mess you up if you're short during the bad week and long during the good weeks and low price weeks. But I'll- You froze. He'll come back. Emily, if you want to continue until he comes back. Of course, yep. Okay, so, oh wait, let me move my other screen. Oh, also for viewers, Emily. So we're at 2.4 with the variance you just showed but we're like that's two months, two, three months into the budget and then just to clarify the full year budget for folks who might be watching. Yeah, full year budget. We had budgeted a $2.6 million net income at this point to date, we are at 2.1. So yeah, a $400,000 negative variance, actual versus budget. Yes. And moving down here to capital. Again, quite early in the fiscal year, obviously, so a lot of this is timing of projects. We're continuing to see longer lead times for supplies and materials, which is affecting the ability of the scheduling of projects and the timing of projects. So you can see here the variance of budget about just under a million through August and we've actually spent just under half a million. And then there's the details here in terms of the timing of the projects affected. And then moving down to cash, we were at $7.7 million as of August 31st, that is quite a bit below budget. That is due to the timing of the annual geo bond, now bond anticipation note. The city did refinance last year's bond anticipation note a couple of weeks ago and we understand they will be issuing a new bond anticipation note on our behalf in November, I believe. So the timing of that $3 million will be delayed by a few months versus budget. And the debt service and adjusted debt service coverage ratio, as you can see here, we're at 1.01 adjusted debt service coverage ratio with 125 days cash on hand as of August 31st. I apologize for the interruption. Apparently my computer does not give me a warning when it's at very low battery power and my charging cord was not adequately seated in the port, so I apologize. That's fun, thank you. Now you muted yourself, but... I'm hoping you've got most of what I said right before I got cut off. If there were any questions on the markets, just let me know. I just wanted to give viewers one more perspective. So if we're seeing right now, understanding that everything can change, it's 14 cents kilowatt hour. What have we been seeing over the last few years? Can you just give viewers a sense? Six. For a winter, for a winter. And that even did not happen in the worst of the COVID. In the winter of 2020 to 2021, it was an abysmal winter in terms of prices. And so now you're selling your net length at a loss. So again, I could say that was a bad timing for us. This one is set to be the other way. We typically maintain some extra resources because of the possibility of our intermittent resources not performing terribly well. And we certainly do not wanna fall below the 100% renewability test at any point in time. And James, is it your perspective regionally? Is it because of the Northeastern States policies shifting towards requirements for greater clean energy? Or is it concerns in terms of global market prices for oil? Or is it watching gas, piped gas prices? So I had a really interesting presentation on from a market entity on what they feel is going on. They have a fairly large research team. I would say it's competition for LNG being delivered to other countries rather than injected into New England through the Everett LNG hub is one thing. But another very interesting effect is that the coal plants are in the process of shutting down. And historically the coal plants have been available to act as a cap on natural gas prices with the coal plants becoming economical at some point and limiting the upward pressure that natural gas can exert on energy prices. The coal plants are not proving able to get fuel commitments at this point. You've got rail cars being repurposed. You've got coal plants that are not willing to sign multi-year contracts for fuel supply. And so ability to get coal just for one winter does not appear to be a really viable option. So we may also have lost that upside protection that coal provided to PICE. Yeah, I've been reading about what's going on with Putin and LNG prices to Europe. And is there much connection between that side of the Atlantic and our side? I am not a natural gas expert. I'm gonna start by saying that really clearly. But my understanding is that normally we do take some deliveries of LNG to the Everett port in Boston. And it's just as easy to send those deliveries overseas right now. They're already on a tanker, an LNG tanker, send them over to where the prices are higher right now. So you're starting to see effects of foreign LNG prices hitting the New England market. And the ability of the non-LNG gas to get up here is constrained by the pipelines. So if you're looking at a cold winter that natural gas has first call on that natural gas goes to heating. Not surprisingly, it does not go to generation. So there is certainly that concern too about fuel security in New England. We've relied very, very, very heavily on natural gas to our generation because it's been historically much easier to permit at the cost of fuel diversity in New England. So you just said, Burlington Electric, make sure that we never wanna drop below our 100% renewability. So what this says is folks should definitely get a heat pump to make sure that if gas prices increase they can use their electricity. Interesting, I won't say it's impossible. I mean, it's a wobbly there. Yeah, I mean, well, the thing is we are tied to the New England grid still at the end of the day. So if there is a problem with fuel supply that is New England wide, we will not be completely and utterly insulated from it. No, we will not, we will not. Thank you. That's super interesting. I want some other good reasons to get a heat pump, but I don't know if I would push that one. I know, I was simplifying too much. Thanks, all the more reason why this is clear as mud for the average rate payer, but fascinating for those working in it. So I apologize, Emily, are you please? Are you all done? I am done unless there are questions for me, yes. I am not seeing questions or hearing questions. Okay, so next up we have the agenda item number six, pilot project with the neo-thermal contract. This is both a discussion and a vote. This is James covering this. And Laurie, thank you for sending out the language in advance. So either commissioner Heron Dean or commissioner Moody, if one of you could have that available depending on where this discussion goes. So the action is there was a minor miscommunication. The presentation is actually gonna be led by Tom Lyle. Tom is now on screen and Tom has volunteered to take the lead on the neo-thermal project, pilot project if it proceeds. The next agenda item will be not myself, but it'll be Freddie who is the lead on the ARC pilot project. I will be available during both of the presentations if questions come up that I'm needed on, but they're gonna be taking a lead on these presentations. So with that, I would like to turn it over to Tom Lyle and thank you, Tom. Yes, hello everybody. Good evening. Thanks for inviting me. We're all pretty excited about this pilot project. I'm hoping you can see my screen now. I have a quick PowerPoint presentation about four or five slides here. And so, yeah, let me know if you can see it, you should. Okay, great. So, okay, so great. Yeah, I'll just go through here. Feel free to stop me at any time if you have any questions, but just at a very high level. Neo-thermal is a company based in Nova Scotia. It's a startup company. It was one of several winners of the latest round of the Delta Climb event that we've been doing and running for quite some time now. I can't actually remember, it's like at least four or five years. And so we're working for this particular pilot project, if it moves forward, we're working with VGS. And basically what Neo-thermal does is they make the manufacturer and design what's known as an energy thermal storage system. And on the right, you see four modules of the storage system. It's designed for residential supplemental heat only, so residential customers who live in a single family house around 2,000 to 2,500 square feet could basically supplement a fair amount where it yet to be determined by the pilot, but north of 60, 70% of their existing fossil fuels can be supplemented by this device. And as you can see, these are four modules and basically it acts as an oversimplification and it basically acts as a large scale hand warmer. Those hand warmers that you use, when you go skiing, you stick them in and they're like kind of this combination of salt and you crack them open and they release heat over an extended period of time. That is a gross oversimplification, but that's basically it. Of course, inside those modules, you'll see there are lots of controls and monitors and things of that nature. So also, I should note that the company is conducting a similar pilot project in four or five, actually five to seven homes in Nova Scotia. So we're gonna be learning lots from that pilot as well as our own. And like I said, it's basically, it's a kind of this saltwater compound. You heat up the salt with electric resistant element that's inserted inside of those modules. And once the water gets up to 212, it converts from a more of a solid to a liquid, the energy is stored in there and the next day, after about eight hours of charging and the next day when heat is called for in the home, that the device basically starts to recrystallize back into a solid salt format and the heat is released and distributed through the existing either duct ducted system or through a hydronic baseboard, whatever system that's happened to be existing already. Super efficient. Can I ask a question, Tom? Certainly. You mentioned a certain square footage and I'm wondering, is that the optimal square footage or is it scalable one way or another? It is scalable for this pilot approach project. They're looking for what they term as a typical single family home. 2000, anything lower than 2000 square feet that you might not have the space but to put the modules in and you'd have to scale from four modules to three or two even. And so it might, the ratio might not just be right with a smaller scale home, is my understanding. Yeah, that was, just to my question, is that what's the sweep spot and then where does it not make sense on either side of that equation? Yeah, that's according to discussions with the founders of the company. They're thinking 2000 to 3000 square feet is kind of the sweep spot for now. And there's also a price point there as well. I mean, you can add more modules to it to heat a larger scale home, but then you're again, you're kind of running up against the costs, higher costs for that kind of a system. So in terms of the market gap that the company is seeking to close here, this slide kind of gives it kind of a high level summary. And they're looking to provide off peak electricity to heat up the modules. It is integrated in the boiler and or furnace where some of the mini splits and other ductless heat pumps are not at this point, although we're trying in other areas to make that integration happen. Also, it's a longer life time. And yeah, I mean, that's really about it in terms of the market gaps there. And of course, this pilot program is really kind of seeking to develop more information to see whether this product has any, is able to close these types of market gaps. And in terms of the pilot project here, the objectives was really to kind of evaluate more fully the ability of the fuel switch from natural gas in our territory. I should note that the company has also engaged with other utilities in trying to do the same in heating oil and propane territory, but for us, it's mostly about natural gas, of course. And some of the other project objectives is really to kind of see if we can design some sort of time of use into our demand or response element involved with our customers. The idea here would be to heat up the modules at nighttime with an expensive power and release that heat during the day while people are home. And then of course, we'll look into whether, you know, how satisfied the homeowners are who put one of these devices in their home. For Burlington, we're really looking for just one home as a pilot. And based on what we find, you know, what we discover from this pilot project we'll take to the next step to see if neothermals device, the energy storage system can be characterized by the tier three tag and then become a part of the tier three programs. But that's not likely, you know, and this in 2022, but, you know, in the years to come. Tom, I would just end this. It essentially allows us to deepen the fuel switching capability of the cold climate heat pumps by giving us an option that goes further into the heating spectrum. The last slide here is, I'm sorry, last slide here is this is just a snapshot of the proposed budget. And so it's really kind of, it's a two phase budget. The first phase of it is to conduct building energy simulations. We're trying to find, you know, the right home that meets all the different criteria and neothermal will conduct this using their building simulation tools and really kind of dig into the characteristics of the home in terms of square footage, you know, the window, the wall ratios, the amount of air exchanges which gives an indication of the level of weatherization in the home and leakage and things of that nature. And that the output of that report will hopefully, you know, identify, you know, the right home to install one of these modules. Second phase is the actual delivery of the modules and installation. And for both phases, you know, BED is contributing, you know, $5,000 per phase as is from on gas and neothermal is providing the devices and doing the study and things of that nature. And they will contract with local vendors, either VGS or other installers to actually install the modules and wire it up. And that's it. So I just want to follow up and say we're bringing this to you because it is going to be a multi-year contract. I believe it's essentially a two-year contract at this stage and it is acting as a power supply contract in this context. So it is subject to electric commission approval not city council approval. And Tom, did you have the motion that we were proposing added as the last slide? Oh, I'm sorry, I did not include that. We are asking a motion to approve. Substantially approved, essentially to delegate to the general manager the ability to sign this pilot project contract substantially in the form provided to the electric commission in advance of the meeting. Yeah, Lori sent it out via separate email. Mr. Ness, do you have any questions about this? Yeah, I sure do. Does this thing, this device use electric resistance heating? Yes, it does. Okay, and I presume that's because you want a nice high temperature so you can force this thing through its melting point. That's correct. If humongous tanks of water didn't cost any more than this item, could you do the same thing with a heat pump and this humongous tank of water and exploit the efficiency of a heat pump which you can't when you're using an electric resistance source? Well, I think that my thought was that this is available to provide backup heat at times when cold climate heat pumps aren't actually available to provide much heat. So the temperatures minus 10 or minus 20 outside that's why I was referring to it being able to go deeper and offset more fossil fuel by being, you can dispatch the resistance heating even at minus 20 or minus 30. Well, but if you had enough storage, you could store heat some other time. If you had enough storage, but I'm thinking this is gonna be more like a daily cycle storage, Tom, do you agree? Yeah, that's right. And it's more than just the water as well. I mean, it's the salt water mixture. And so it's more efficient and able to store heat for longer periods of time. Well, that depends on how much insulation there is on the device. Not a consequence of what's in it. Well, I mean, again, the purpose of the pilot project is to evaluate its capabilities. And we typically select two pilots out of the cohort that attends Delta Climbermont. And we do it as a BEDY group. And this was one of the two winners. Now, again, I think it has a lot of synergy with cold climate heat pumps, obviously. And that's why I think we were very interested in it. Okay, but what I'm hearing basically is it's the small size of this that is the attractive aspect. Well, the ability to deploy it in a typical residential home basement, for example, I think is very appealing. Okay, you can see I'm having some trouble with it. Number one, anytime you go back to resistance heating, I hear a blast from the past. In addition, it's still trying to fill a little peak demand that might, wouldn't be as necessary as we get more battery insulators. And it seems like it's going to go on obsolete over time. I don't react the same way you do to electric resistance heat. For example, we are considering an electric boiler in the context of this energy. The critical thing is that that load be dispatched. I rang a bell in my head too, by the way. Well, but I'm saying the critical thing is it's dispatchable load at a time where you have excess generation or other reasons to be wanting load. So, again. Okay, of course, we're back to the question of is all electricity renewable energy, quote unquote, not impacting and not really demanding we'd be more efficient. Well, at the time where you're seeing negative prices, you are going to be seeing a heavy injection of renewable resources, which is why the prices have fallen so far. All right, but when we get done, if you're running water for a dam, it'll be the same whether this device is there or not, if you can use baseboard heating anytime. What I'm hearing is there is a desire from Mr. Herondine to have the sites that may ultimately be selected. Have a fair amount of weatherization, air sealing and insulation, so that we're not going back in times with regards to the old school electric resistance heat. Well, I think you're seeing me become a perfectionist going from, which is always dangerous, I understand, I acknowledge, but if you really wanna be truly everything, we probably wanna be as efficient as we can be. But this is a pilot. This is a very small $10,000 pilot project to explore technology that was done in conjunction with Delta Climb, Vermont. I mean, I personally believe it's an appropriate test. And I certainly don't want perfection to be the enemy of good enough. We're gonna be trying to find a location that will accept pilot technology, we'll waive liability. I mean, there's a lot of factors that are gonna go into the selection of the location. I guess I would ask this, suppose the thing is successful, do you see a major deployment of these? That, I think then it becomes much more important to consider the questions you're raising right now. I first wanna make sure it has the capabilities they're describing. I understand that the money is not that great, so we can just say, what the heck? Well, and we made a commitment to select two pilot projects coming out of Delta Climb, so. Well, you didn't make it to me, right? I mean, you do want my opinion, right? That one doesn't accept, we're trying to talk about the issue and not the deal. Is that understand? I tend to think of this as an R&D project as one location. That doesn't mean it should be the leakyest building. And I guess I'm gonna push a little bit more understanding that there are other constraints, space, what is the condition of the basement, building homeowner, that there are other constraints, but. Mr. Herrington raises good questions. If this were to be deemed an effective technology, where does this end up going? And how do we ensure? Because frankly, for like 40 years, we have repeatedly said, oh yes, weatherization is important, but then we barely do it because it costs more than just putting in a heat pump. And I don't mean we as in Burlington Electric, I mean, we bit marge society. I don't know, Commissioner Herrington. I guess I would say, suppose we had good electricity storage, then Trump this, I guess any good storage for Trump this. Well, the argument from the vendor is that this is drastically more effective than traditional, like lithium ion electric storage in a cost effective world. Meaning it is cheaper. Draftically so, allegedly. Well, and actually that's where my questions were going. I saw $5,000 and I mean, in terms of the budget we were just looking at from Emily, I saw $5,000 and I was like, so are you looking at, are you doing, if a typical home performance with Energy Star audit is like 400 bucks, are you guys gonna be looking at like 10 different sites or is this a larger energy simulation that's involved? Just that that's curiosity. Not sure I understand the question. Well, a typical like audit, like a blower door test of a home might be like 400 bucks. So I'm wondering, is that your screening maybe 10 sites to get to the one that you need? Oh, screening 10 sites, I don't actually know right now. Yeah, I can weigh in here. So part of the first phase is to do this kind of building simulation. And I probably didn't should have mentioned that, even going into those homes that we actually do the building simulation will rely on VGS and some of our past data on those homes which have already gone through an audit and have participated in any other kind of weatherization programs in the past. And then we'll do additional simulations. Subject to check, I think it's up to four homes that they're gonna run the building simulation. And that is what they're looking to check is, I believe I mentioned, in terms of of, you know, past gas usage, past electric usage of the home site and, you know, look to see, you know, what kind of weatherization condition or the home is in, as well as the condition of the basement space requirements of the basement and things of that nature and whether or not, you know, is it a dry basement or is it, you know, have a lot of humidity problems down? I might as well come out of the state. Can I vote for this? I seek, Mr. Herondine has a hand raised. That's me. I was just, I was got a couple other different different sort of questions. One that may be helpful to Bob's. I'm just wondering what the scope of this study is. You'd mentioned at the beginning that there was a number that were working with a number of utilities on this and just wondering how many they're working with and is that going to be at the end of the two years, would we get some sort of a report on, you know, maybe with the aggregate of everybody's experience was across the study? Well, yeah, there will be a report out. So for us, we're working with BGS to identify homes. I, you know, we'll have to reach out to either GMP or from an electric co-op if they participate, if they move forward with this, whether or not, you know, what we can learn from them as well. If I could just jump in with maybe some additional context, not specific to this technology, but just the process in terms of how we're bringing this forward, you know, BED has been a host for the Delta Climb Accelerator Program and we're investigating back to its founding. And the idea behind it is we bring these companies that are working on innovative energy projects to Vermont. They meet with all the utilities that are working on these same issues. They go through a curriculum and then we're able to select one or more, in some cases, multiple to develop pilot projects with under the theory that not only can we potentially benefit our customers, but working with these startups, maybe we can even have a bigger impact if they're able to be successful deploying their technology. Packetized Energy locally has been one of the pilot participants in this. We had the EV Match Program, which was successful where we deployed chargers at multifamily locations around the city as another success story. We've had some that haven't worked out. That's kind of the, you know, when you go into this space of working with R&D, working with startup companies, some will not pan out. We have a number of BED staff who serve as faculty, essentially, and mentors during the process. And then we try to bring forward at least a couple of pilots to work on. And this was one of them that we were excited about. The other one you'll hear about in a few moments. So really it's not necessarily a commitment to deploy this technology at wide scale in Burlington yet, although obviously if we're successful and it has merit, we're open to looking at that. But it's really a pilot that benefits us and the participating company in terms of doing some real-world deployment of clean energy technologies and seeing if we can derive some value for our customers and help the company. I think Packetized is a great example how this process has really helped. They've now scaled up based on their initial work with BED and they now are doing work, not only with other utilities in Vermont, but really around the country. So this is kind of a unique element for us. I respect Commissioner Herendine, your concerns that you're raising. I hear you. I certainly think if there are ways that we can work to select a site that would help address your concerns, we'd be more than willing to do so within the feasibility guidelines that we have. But I just wanted to put that context back in front of the commission in terms of why we're doing this and what we're trying to accomplish. And normally we would run these as single-year projects, but these two technologies we're talking about this year did not lend themselves to that. Normally these would be a one-year contract. So Commissioner Moody, I mean, I think we've heard Commissioner Herendine's vote. Commissioner Moody, do you feel comfortable voting at this time? I do. Okay. I mean, really it's about a policy perspective which matters or in terms of what is the highest and best use and how are we using our electricity and in comparison to and aren't like the other side is this is how R&D is how you figure out if something goes wrong and to apply it within a real-world context. Question, if there are normally five commissioners and there are only three commissioners, do we like, what is it? How does it matter that we only have three commissioners? No. Okay. I'm gonna suggest we move forward with a vote because I am noting the time and I don't think we're going to resolve Commissioner Herendine's separate point with the caveat that if this were to be approved to move forward, I think we'd want a lot of feedback in terms of what you're finding and what ultimate site you look at. But I think we need to go forward with a vote. Well, it's, that's at least, sorry, hang on just a second. Sorry, I need to interrupt. Hang on, I'm about to do something. So I make a motion to authorize the general manager trying to enter a contract with Neil Thermal for a wind turbine pilot project substantially in the form provided this evening. No, it's not a wind turbine. No, it's not a wind turbine, Neil Thermal. This is the one, this is the one above. This is motion one, but this isn't a wind turbine. Neil Thermal, this is the Neil Thermal. Yeah, Neil Thermal. I think this might have been written wrong. Could have been. Yeah, I was just reading along here, yeah. My fault, I thought I copied it from James' email. Can you try again, Commissioner Moody? I don't have the actual. The language, no, you didn't copy it. I can share my screen real quick. Scott, I'm ordering dinner. What do you want? So did that work? Can you see my screen now? I can move for myself and screw you. Can you see my screen? I can see your screen. I'm not sure if Commissioner Moody can. Yeah, right there for a wind turbine. Yeah, but ARC is the wind turbine. Oh, I did copy that wrong. The first one's right. The second one is wrong. Yeah, that was my bad. They're in the reverse order. So it would be for a thermal energy storage project. But he said, I can't see your screen is so small on my. Oh, wow. Would you let me to try to read that? Yeah, please. One second to switch to the other email. So the motion would be to authorize the general manager to enter a contract with neothermal or a thermal energy storage project substantially in the form provided to the BEC. So moved. Okay. I'm not sure if I can second it, but I will. I mean, I might have seen you as the chair. So will I. All right. Second. Okay. Commissioner Herrington. No. Commissioner Moody. Mr. Moody. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Okay. That is, that is not to say that I do not agree with you, Commissioner Herrington that we need to keep an eye on this. And, um, you know, I that that's how I view it as an R and D project. But I, I recognize your concerns and, uh, I look forward to updates. Well, it's not a Y and, uh, I'm not angry. I'm, I'm happy to what happened. I should also say that what I always tell my wife is. Experiments are always good. That's what I tell her. And that's kind of our thing anyway. And I think the, um, you know, the, the output of cash is minimal. Yeah. I had my worries. And so I've learned the way I did the way it is passed. Uh, isn't going to cause me any difficulty. It's okay. It's good. But I'm glad you voted according to your conscience. So thank you for that. Thank you for his presentation and. Uh, project with art contract. Correct. The language is correct in the email for that one. Thank you. Welcome, Freddie. Hey, how's it going, everyone? All right. Just let me know if that's sharing. You can only see James. Yes. All right. All right. Well, good evening. Um, I'll be talking about the second pilot project. Um, that we're, we're hoping to get your approval for, uh, with arc industries. And I'll dive right in. So, uh, these are the kind of four. Things I'll be going on. So, uh, I'll dive right in. So, uh, these are the kind of four. Things I'll be going through. Feel free to stop me at any time. To, to walk through, um, any of the questions that you have. So just a little overview about arc industries. Um, we selected them as the kind of winner of one of the two pilot projects. They were a part of the Delta client VTS 2021 cohort, uh, located in bridge water mass arc stands for advanced renewable concept. And they essentially have a mission to, you know, focus a lot on renewables, of course, um, but also focus on kind of consistent reliable power throughout the day. Um, And you'll see to the right, I get into that a little bit. And so their product is vertical access wind turbine called the orb. Uh, it's currently only deployed in a, um, a lab setting. So it's exciting to, you know, have this opportunity to work with them to, uh, And so, um, you know, our focus in, in working and selecting, um, this company, I'm getting a little bit of feedback if someone wouldn't mind meeting, um, the focus on this is to explore alternatives to essentially net metering solar, because this is a modular distributed wind resource. Um, it's a, you know, startup company. So we have the potential to have an impact like Darren mentioned with, um, a company similar to packetized in that, that scale. And then, uh, it also has this really interesting feature of being able to kind of couple with the inverter for a solar panel. So this kind of gets into the graph to the right. Um, basically this is our monthly outlook of BED, wind turbine behind 585 pine street along with the solar at 585 pine. Um, those are the yellows, the solar green is the wind and then blue is just the Burlington sea load. Um, and what we're seeing here is that this is a monthly outlook of, um, the generation over the course of a day. So an average day in each month. Um, so, so just to clarify, uh, the number one in the top left is January. Number two is February. Okay. And so I think the, sorry, go ahead. No, just, just for viewers and the 4, 8, 12, 16, the very bottom, that's 4 a.m. 8 a.m. noon, 4 p.m. Just, um, just cause otherwise people are like, what's one, two, three, four. That's perfect. I look at these things too much. So that helps for sure. Um, and so this has been normalized on a 100% scale or zero 100% scale, uh, based on the output of each one, of course, you know, Burlington's load is a lot higher than, um, these two resources. Uh, and I did that just for comparison purpose, but, um, you know, what we see here is that wind as a resource is advantageous in that it has, um, production during different hours than solar. And it also has the ability to, um, kind of occur at different times, uh, along the season. So as you see kind of going into the winter months, solar's dropping off, but actually wind is beginning to increase. So, um, testing out this resource has, uh, value in that regard seasonally and hourly. So this is the, uh, the orb that, um, we're focusing on deploying, it's, you know, essentially eight feet tall, vertical axis, you know, spins, um, in a circle. And, uh, it seems like it would do really well in Burlington. Um, essentially the maximum capacity is reached at 12 miles per hour. And that's when it begins producing, um, 3kW fully, but at 4 miles per hour, it starts to produce some energy. So, um, the estimated capacity factor on this resource is about, uh, 30%. And so over the course of a year, we're expecting roughly 7 to 8 megawatt hours to be produced. And so in terms of a footprint, it's about four times as dense as solar currently and, uh, expected lifetime of 25 years. So the, um, the focus of this pilot project is to deploy the orb for one year, uh, continue to monitor it during that, that period of time. Um, and so as I mentioned, this would be the first installation in the field and the expectations, I think I already mentioned this. Um, and then at the end of the project, we do have a option, um, if we go forward with this to either extend it or to buy it out fully. Um, but currently it's written as a decommissioning after one year. And this is just a quick outline of the steps after this initial one, which is getting approval, um, for the contract in substantive form. And then we would go right into site planning, preparation, uh, if permitting is required, going down that road, um, and then monitoring for, um, various things such as, uh, migratory birds. Then we'd get into the installation, the ongoing monitoring during the, um, kind of production phase, and then we would dip into the decommissioning after, uh, one full year of operation, and that's where there is an extension or buyout option as well. And with that, if there are any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Pressure? So there's, there's no problem. This is a big cash out of our pocket thing. I didn't see any financial. Yeah. So this would be a $10,000 pilot project. The standard, the standard award we offer under Delta Climb is a $10,000 award. If we find a technology that we think has merit. And will it be similar to the other previous project, um, some, you know, modeling of what, what it looks like it would go on a flat building and, and what, um, what would be the optimal place in town to, to, to place it. Yeah. And not necessarily the optimal. I think we would be looking for typical. Um, ideally I'd like, uh, some place that's either on a BED or city property so that the, the fringe benefits of the energy production flow to all customers, not a single customer. That's the problem with these two technologies that are one location technology pilots. So, you know, we've got to find a location, you know, putting it on the top of the, you know, the McNeil locate station might be an option, but it's nine stories up. And is that typical of where this technology might be deployed in a broader deployment? I don't think so. Um, like I say, ideally some place where there's solar, maybe a share of the inverter to try out, you know, how much clipping you see from, from trying to share the inverter with a solar array. Um, but also to verify, to validate their estimates of a 30% capacity factor in the type of, you know, relatively low roof height regime we're talking two or three stories here. At 33, 30 to 33% capacity factor is a tremendously good capacity factor, but, you know, it's got to be demonstrable at, at, you know, a typical rooftop height, not ideal rooftop locations. Presidential. It's not impossible. Um, I, I don't know about the actual structural mounting. I think their primary, their primary thought is commercial buildings. Um, you know, but I, but I don't know that it would be impossible. It's not a gigantic device at the end of the day. Do we, um, do we know what the cost of this system is? I mean, um, so at pilot scale, it's 25,000. Um, they're hoping to kind of move into the initial phase at 15,000. Um, and then they're kind of target for going to market is 7,500. But currently they're in that 25,000 phase. For, for pilot level construction, essentially one-off constructions of a single device, but the, the at scale price is actually not that bad for three KW of output in 25 years. Yeah. And sorry, I don't really feel like doing the math, um, here on a recording. So if it's 7.8 megawatt hours and then over 20, 25 years and the price of the system, what, what would you call that? You know, if someone were to, yes, that's what I'm looking for. Way to be ready for the, way to be ready for the question, Freddie. There you go. Um, so yeah, this is the very poorly labeled, but, um, you're ready Freddie. So, you know, Yeah. Haven't heard that one before. Sorry. I'm sorry. I really did mean you actually had it available. Freddie. So this, this here, um, I like it. It's good. This is the, uh, essentially the sense per kilowatt hour. Um, so as James mentioned, the, you know, we're seeing 14 cents, which is extremely high. Um, but that's on a wholesale market. You pay, I think net metering currently 15 cents or 16 cents in that range. Um, and so that would be kind of a better comparable for these, these values here. Um, so we're looking at probably at, you know, 10 to 15 year payback. Um, at that price a little bit longer at the pilot scale. And their way of getting to 7500 would just be through economies of scale. And multiple unit production. Yes. And how does this compare to, uh, I mean, it seems much smaller, but how does this compare to, I presume you guys have been able to see the production results from the wind turbine at the spot on Shelburne Road? No. I don't think I've seen that. I haven't. Other questions, comments from commissioners. Uh, yes, sure. Could we look at your first graph? Sure. That's where your set of grass for the seasonal stuff. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing it. So maybe it's chosen for you, commissioner. Well, okay. Can I ask my question anyway? The, uh, line for wind was wind speed. Or wind energy. This is a output. Okay. Because I'm sensitive to this idea that the. The output goes as a cube of the speed. Uh, how fast will these spin? That's a great question. I'm not sure. I can't say I saw that one coming. Okay. Well, I can see not only hitting the birds, but, you know, I'm not here. I'm on their website now. The rated RPM is 160. Well, I'm not sure it will go up to that. That's feed. Okay. That's significant boy. I wonder how fast that is. And this is the thing. I couldn't really get a picture of it. Is it like a two veins intersecting? Um, the only vertical thing I've ever seen previously was so close of Onius Rover, which was. It has. I mean, it has the aspect when looked at horizontally of a solid ball is the way I've seen it. Illustrated. So I mean, again, it's, it's veined inside this veins inside of the former sphere overall. But I don't know how many credit you recall. I don't, maybe three or four, um, just from this picture. I'm changing that. It's tough to see because it's flat. Yeah, there you go. I think it's four veins that, like you say, they, they form a ball, but it's not actually ball shaped. If you looked at the top, it's more cruciform. Okay. Actually, I'm saying I can vote for this because I think it's kind of fun, but I can see some real difficulties naturally. The RPM is one noise. If it's spinning fast. It could be some kind of a visual eyesore if it kind of blinks when the sun is on it for lights. And of course the locations you mentioned, not likely for residences. Also, it's close to the ground and we know that's, we're close to a horizontal surface, which we know that diminishes the wind. So getting that 12 miles per hour. Maybe difficult. But. Hey, all experiments are fun. I certainly was an advocate for their inclusion in the cohort because I'm very much feel the need for some form of diversity of in city general renewable generation. You know, and that we just not keep adding solar without any other alternative. If we can find alternatives that will give us some nighttime production, things like that, I would love to see it. I can also justify it relative to my previous vote because this thing is just using renewable energy in the best way we know for winds. So, okay. There's no analog here of the electric resistance heating. It's a straight shot, so to speak. But anyway, so let me just say yes, I'll vote for it, but watch out for that spinning thing. Well, certainly that is, you know, the concerned about again, like anything else, we're concerned about the noise. We're concerned about the animal impacts. I'm not an expert in this by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know if it's, if there's merit to the fact that it appears solid as opposed to a sweeping blade, you know, from a horizontal viewpoint. I don't know, but it's part of the project. Also, let you, like I mentioned, late reflectivity. Is it going to blind some driver somewhere, you know, this beacon? I will say that as a person who's been up on the roof of the airport parking garage where our solar rays, I would really dearly love to have a line of these things just on the one side of it because it's always windy up there. But that's just a personal comment. And I just have to remind everyone that energy generation, every form of it has an impact. So, you know, there's a visual impact in LA due to smog. And we have animals and everything else struggling because of, you know, climate change resulting from fossil fuels. So I just want to put all the comments that were just made about, you know, something that might be five feet tall. If next to it was, you know, an AC unit on that picture. I just want to put that in context. That unless we're not turning anything on, there's an impact. So, but I recognize that we do need to be respectful of all of that. And that is the permitting process that presumably we would go through. I personally have a hard time with small wind because historically they have not performed well. They've just been way too much money per kilowatt hour generated. But that's the purpose of this R&D, which I just argued for in the previous, in the previous pitch. So being consistent with the role of what this funding is, you know, I think I will vote. And again, I will look forward to seeing the results of this very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Heron Dean. It seems like you're ready to vote. Commissioner moody. Are you ready to vote? I am. Okay. Could someone please make a motion with the. Second. That's a tough part. I put your, the first one, Bob, it's all you. I would get the first one. You didn't. Well, I don't have the text in front of me, but I could say, I'm not sure if you're ready to vote. No. I'm not sure if you're ready to vote. I don't see it. It should be read. So if somebody reading this, or should I take it? Right. If you can't see it, I'll do it. I moved to authorize the general manager to enter a contract with ARC. ARC for a wind turbine project. Pilot project substantially in the form provided to the BEC. Second. Mr. Heron Dean. Hi. Commissioner Stevens. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. And, you know, can you imagine what would happen if you guys did not actually prepare the language for us? This is. The language. Well, wait a minute. We just have to have a part of parliament, parliamentarian who is. Yeah. Lucy. Well, again, I'd like to thank Freddie for his presentation and for being stunningly ready with the per kilowatt hour cost. You know, that way, way to, way to have that one on the hand. And thank you very much. Thanks. And I really did not mean that pun. I apologize. I meant it sincerely. You were prepared. Yes. I guess so. I'm sorry. That wasn't for a negative 10% discount rate wasn't. Nevermind. All right. Good night. Thank you, Freddie. Thank you. Thank you. Last up, we have the commissioners check in. Are there any additional items or are folks ready to adjourn? Ready to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Mr. Herndade. Hi. Commissioner Moody. Hi. Commissioner Stevens. Hi. Thank you. We adjourn at 714. Thanks everybody. Thanks for your.