 602 and we have a quorum. So we'll start the meeting and the first item is changes to the agenda and we do have a change tonight because the public hearing was warned for six o'clock. So we're going to move that item up before Velco. So it'll be the new number five. So, um, any other changes to the agenda, and we'll move on to public comment period. This is for the members of the public, if any are with us to comment on anything not on tonight's agenda. And Charlie, I'll leave it to you if there's anyone from the public to There are a couple folks I'm not fully Mark and Lou. Are you here for Velco or for something else? Yeah, we're both with Velco. Okay. All right, then we'll move on to consent agenda. And there was a consent. Oops. I move we approve the consent agenda. Second. Okay, all those in favor of the motion please say aye. Anyone opposed. Anyone wish to abstain. Okay. Mr. Chair, I just want everybody to know that I'm representing both the town outside the village in the village. Okay. Was that Jim and Andy. Yes. Yes. Okay. Minutes of April 21st, 2021 meeting. Looking for a motion and a second. Move approval. Move approval with Catherine's adjustment. I'll second. Okay. Thank you. Any edits, comments, corrections. I like line 35 page three. I have. I'm not sure what it feels like there's something missing. Because it says Dave explained hiring electrician to install the level two option at home would cost between $300 and $500, comma, and DC fast charging stations. I'm missing there. And I looked at my notes to see if I had written anything and I, I just had, you know, a thing about level one and level two charging, which was the paragraph before. So I don't know what to say, but it just feels like there's something you're dropping the end of the sentence. We have the presentation so we can look back on that and make the update. Okay. Because otherwise you just, you know, just put a period sort of a comma and then life moves on too. Any other changes? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion with that change. Say hi or raise your hand. Hi. Anyone oppose. Anyone wish to abstain. Okay. Then we're going to move now to the FY 22 UPWP and budget public hearing. I'm looking for a motion to open the public hearing to move. Oh, Jim. Yep. Okay, all in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Or raise your hand. Anyone opposed. Anyone abstain. Okay, public hearing is open. Do we have any members of the public out there? So Charlie is someone. Go ahead. We keep the public hearing open until we get to the WPWP action item. Okay. So we'll keep the, the public hearing open and move now to item. Previous item seven now, I guess it's our five be now six. The Velco long range transmission plan presentation. And is it hot? Did I pronounce that right? Yes. I'll just give a little intro, Mike. Okay. So we had invited Shayna and Hans here and Mark and Lou. Thanks for coming as well to give you a presentation on the draft long range transmission plan. So apologies that you didn't have a memo just sort of introducing this in the packet, but essentially these folks manage the statewide electric transmission system. And every three years they do a sort of projection out 20 years looking into the future and do a plan about any challenges that they see with that and any solutions to those challenges. We thought it would make sense for them to come and talk to our board because there are some interactions with our energy plan. So just wanted to give you guys this background information. Don't need any action or anything from the board, but we will be incorporating some of this into our next energy plan update, which unfortunately is right around the corner. So with that, I will turn it over to Shayna first. Does that make sense or Hans? Thank you, Regina. Good evening everyone and thank you for the invitation to come here and speak with your board about the long range plan. We wanted to come in and share the findings of this 2021 public review draft. This has been that 18 months to 24 month collaboration of working with many entities across the state and the region to be able to develop appropriate forecasts to build the plan off of. And really what we're looking at is a 20 year projection of any deficiencies that Velco as the transmission operator needs to be aware of for our planning purposes and for reliability purposes. Ultimately we want to keep the lights on and we don't want anything interrupting our bulk transmission system. Since the public review draft was published in early April, we've been facilitating lots of conversations with various stakeholders like yourselves and collecting public input from public members, from stakeholder groups, ranging anywhere from regional planning commissions to renewable energy developers, to regulators, really wanting to get any feedback out of this plan that we should be considering before we finalize it at the end of June. And we are required by Vermont state law to publish a final version and submit it to the Vermont public utility commission by July 1. So this is our public comment period. So any questions or input that you might have tonight is greatly appreciated. And any questions afterwards, we're always willing to talk further about this. Oh, and I probably should introduce myself. My name is Shayna Lois-El. I work for Velco in the communications department. But I also facilitate the Vermont system planning committee, which is a statewide stakeholder group that really focuses on those grid reliability issues. And Hans and his planning team also joined me on that Vermont system planning committee. And they're here as well tonight. So I'm going to go ahead and do their intro. And Hans, before you dig into the presentation, I'd love to just show this group a two minute video that basically summarizes what you're about to hear from Hans. I think it's just a, it's an effective way to kind of grab those main points. And then let's dig into the details. So Hans and team, please go ahead. Thank you, Shayna. I'm a manager of system planning at Velco. I've been doing interconnection studies, long-term planning studies, all sorts of analysis to look at our ability to connect loads, customer demand, as well as generation and state. And my group performs the analysis for a 20 year language plan. Shayna noted we do this every three years. This is, I think the sixth time we updated the plan. So glad to be here to discuss this with you. I'm Lucisserie, a transition planning engineer at Velco, working for Hans. Been there for about six years now, working on things like the long range plan, other types of analysis, as well as some sustainability efforts. My name is Mark. I've been with Velco just already my one year anniversary this week. And, um, yeah, did this more long range transmission plan and, and enjoyed my involvement there. Thank you all. And I know we also have a distribution, distribution utility member here as well, a Graham Turk. So thank you for being here. If there are any questions specific to green mountain powers, distribution utility system, it will be wonderful to have a representative to speak to that system. So without further ado, I am going to share my screen and share with you all a quick two minute video. Can you see my screen? Yes. Velco manages the statewide electric transmission system. Infrastructure critical to Vermont grid reliability as our state imports 100% of its power virtually every hour of every day. Ensuring transmission reliability demands constant attention, careful analysis and long range planning. Every three years, Velco produces a 20 year projection. The Vermont long range transmission plan that inventories future transmission reliability concerns and proposes solutions to address them. Its core goal is to identify opportunities to use nonwire fixes to emerging transmission grid problems. The 2021 plan reveals Vermont's future transmission system reliability depends on continued energy imports. Reliability will not be compromised. Even then, however, Vermont's in-state transmission and distribution grid must evolve to be able to fulfill Vermont's climate and clean energy driven requirements. Electricity use is growing to power transportation and heating. This will significantly increase electric demands on Vermont's grid. More solar panels and more storage batteries are being installed. This is great progress yet we can't be sure when and by how much it will increase. But they will all need to be connected and coordinated. The plan concludes building new transmission is avoidable if projected increases in energy use for vehicles, homes and businesses are effectively managed. That means implementing strategies to better collaboratively synchronize energy demands with supply. These include thoughtful generation siting, storage, flexible load management programs, grid automation and grid reinforcements, all with controls that enable collaborative orchestration. This is the opportunity before us. Great. Thank you. Stop my hair. Again, so that's just a kind of a quick highlight of what Hans is about to dig into. And if you'd like, I'll I'll pull up the presentation on my computer and I can drive for you. Thank you. We can go to slide three. We've covered this slide. Okay. So. Plan starts with a load forecast. See on the screen is our forecast for next 20 years. We. We are, we designed the system to be able to serve the maximum electric demand. And it's the demand that you see in the hot day or break cold winter. It's the maximum level at any hour in a year. And the load that we serve is net of solar PV. It includes the effects of energy efficiency, demand response, electric vehicle loads, heat pump loads. And because electric vehicle loads and heat pump loads are uncertain, we develop three different forecast, low, medium, high. And what you see on the screen is a comparison between our medium and high forecast summer and winter. In forecast or in dotted lines, red for summer and blue for winter. And high forecast and the solid, solid lines. As you look at the, it's the first five years of the forecast, there's really not much difference between the medium and high, but as you go further in the future, these curbs, you know, they start to diverge into difference in 2030 and difference is much, much wider in 2040. And the reason for that is, is our, is the projections for future heat pump loads and electric vehicle loads. And just looking at 2040 figures, heat pump load for the summer is really about cooling. That's only a 43 megawatts at the peak hour. Whereas in the winter in 2040, it's 292 megawatts. It makes a huge difference between summer and winter, particularly at the peak hour. Our projections show that the summer high loads can be about 1400 megawatts. Whereas in the winter, it can be as high as 1800 megawatts to put them into context. Today, our summer peak, our winter peaks are about 1000 megawatts, so we're projecting 80% growth in the next 20 years, mostly because of the vehicle loads, which is quite high during the winter and heat pump loads. Here, next slide, Shayna. We also forecast solar PV. And again, here, there's several scenarios that we developed. One is the economic forecast. It is called an economic forecast because it's based on a payback model that our consultant EITRON utilized. It assumes that the amount of investments in solar PV depends on the cost of solar PV systems and incentives, investment tax credits, et cetera. So the orange line is what that represents. We were predicting that it would flatten out in the next five years and remain at about 600 megawatts or so. But what's really important in Vermont is that we have in our gas that requires in-state scale with no energy, about 10% of energy sales. And that's presented in the blue curve. And this is predicted to grow from 300 megawatts to about 680 megawatts in 132. And we've also talked about possibility of doubling that in Vermont. And that's represented in the gray curve. As we doubled the tier two requirements of 20%, we can reach about 1200 megawatts in 132. That's a very high amount of generation in a system that is built to serve about a thousand megawatt of load. And so we had to test this amount to see whether the system can accommodate such a large amount of solar PV on the system. Right, so here's the next slide, Shayna. So the results, we're going to the results now. We divided the results into two parts. One is our ability to serve peak demand. And the other side talks about our ability to host or accommodate a large amount of solar PV. So this slide is showing our results for some peak and winter peak. And it's essentially saying that we have sufficient capacity to serve peak demand in the next 10 years. There are a few locations where there could be concerns. We address them either by adjusting tidalac or operated actions. In some cases, some loads needed to be disconnected. That is considered acceptable based on standard reliability standards. But we have to look at the risk of losing this amount of load that could be from 5 to 150 megawatts and decide whether it makes sense to resolve these issues in Vermont. And as we look at the high load scenario, again, if you look at the loads in 10 years, it is higher than today. I guess quite a bit higher, it could be 1,300 megawatts. But we find that we can serve that, particularly if the utilities continue to manage their peak loads and they're doing an excellent job at managing peak loads through storage or other means. After 10 years, even with what we're doing today, we predict that transmission upgrades will be required. So we are recommending that the utilities ramp up their load control, load management, energy efficiency, which can even install feature generation to be able to serve the load and avoid major transmission upgrades in Vermont. Now I'll go into the generation section of our analysis. So we tested very large amounts of solar PV. And the way we did that is we looked at what's been installed in the last few years. So as of 2020, I think we had about 400 megawatts of solar PV in the system. And we took this geographical distribution of solar PV and we increased the amount going forward using the same distribution. And it is without worrying about avoiding transmission concerns. And when we did that, several of our transmission facilities exceeded their capacity and they're illustrating this map as the orange lines starting from Canadian border in the northwest corner of the state down to the Rutland area and some dotted lines from Rutland to Cavendish or Ludlow. And this is to indicate their additional facilities that would exceed their capability if we import from New York, which is what we do. We have a tide to Platsburg, New York, to St. Barbara, Milton. And we import 100 megawatts and then we do that. We overload or exceed the capacity of our transmission system. And there's several substations also where transformers are overloaded. And you also see in this map, there's a vertical line in New Hampshire. It's called New Hampshire Impact. And it is to indicate that as we increase solar PV in the state, a certain time of the year, particularly in the spring where we exceed the amount that we can accommodate or absorb in Vermont, some of that energy will flow to our neighbors. And when that happens, the lines, the transmission lines in New Hampshire will be negatively affected. That's because we're interconnected. And what happens if Vermont affects our neighbors. The other analysis that we did is we tried to distribute solar PV in a way that avoids major transmission upgrades. And we call that an optimized distribution of solar PV or distributed generation. And we'll show you this map on the next slide. And so the transmission, the map is in the middle. We divided this up into 16 different zones for planning purposes. And this map is showing that we have more capacity, transmission capacity in the southern portion of the state. And that allows us to accommodate more generation in these areas. So the subarea, you can install anywhere from 200 to 300 megawatts of generation. And as you move north, it's less and less that it can be installed or accommodate in the system. So Rutland, you can install between 150 to 200 megawatts. And close to the Canadian border, you can only accommodate about zero to 25 megawatts. And that's where there's an area we call Sheffield 8 export. You may have heard of where generation today, wind plants or hydro plants are being curtailed because there's not enough transmission capacity to allow all these generations to run all the time in certain conditions that can be curtailed. And also added on this slide, distribution maps that Billington Electric and JNP have on their website. And this is something that we do this plan with our public. What's been asked is for us to overlay distribution related issues with transmission. It is for developers to look at the map and determine where it's best to connect for example, Zalbert could look at the Middlebury zone and see that we can install between 25 and 50 megawatts. But if you'll get the JNP map around Middlebury, there are certain lines that are green, which means that there's a capacity for additional generation. And if you see, you know, yellow or orange feeders, distribution feeders, it means there's less capacity to connect. And the red feeders is absolutely no capacity for a future generation. And so a developer that looks at the distribution maps and the transmission map can decide where exactly the project will be connected. Next slide please, Shayna. And this table shows the same information that you saw in the map. It's the optimized distribution by regional planning commission and we compare that with the various targets. We looked up the various plans that are out there in southern 25, 35, and 50. We compared these numbers to the optimized distribution, which is the third column. It says optimized solar PV distribution. And it's pretty clear that the optimized numbers are in most cases less than the targets for each region. There's a couple of areas like Wyndham County, I think it's in northeastern where the optimized is higher. So there are areas of concern here, which means that we need to find ways to meet these targets. This table doesn't say you can't achieve these targets. What it means is you have to do other things like install storage, for instance, to consume, to absorb the access generation in these areas, or perhaps add load, you can do load management, or load flexibility to move loads around, or perhaps to kill generation at certain times of the day, or certain seasons, for instance, these are potential things you can do. And so I also have the next slide where you can estimate how much storage or load management you would need by area. And this table, this analysis is fairly simple. As we said, we divided the state into 16 different zones. And what we're comparing here is a non-optimized distribution of solar PV, which is the same as today, which doesn't worry about constraints on the system, and compare the optimized distribution with the voice meter transmission upgrades. And the difference is what we call an access generation. So in St. John'sburg, for instance, there's 5.6 megawatt of access generation. And if you do that, all the zones where you have excessive generation, and add all these numbers up, you get for state by 346.8 megawatts of access generation in the state. If you want to do that, then you'd have to install storage, or curtail this generation, or add this amount of load statewide. If you do it by storage, this, in fact, would be the capacity that you need in terms of megawatt or kilowatt. But what's important is how long you need that capacity for. If you need it for four hours, then the amount of energy that's required is in the order of 1,400 megawatt hours. So in designing a solution, not only concerned about the capacity that you need, but also the duration for that solution. Good to the next slide, Shayna. So our recommendations are that we need to, in terms of accommodating future generation, or renewable energy targets, we need to pay more attention to location. If we install a generation where there is capacity, then we should send a better chance of avoiding major transmission upgrades. And what you can also do is to use flexible loads or load management. You can, for instance, allow inverters, low PV inverters or storage inverters to provide great support, which is the functionality that they do have. They just need to enable that, allow it to provide support, and that actually allows us to add even more generation in the state. And what you can also do is control generation. But to do all of that, whether it's storage or managed loads or generation, you need communication, you need to connect fiber or microwave or whatever it means possible to connect the resource to the control center so that you could determine what's happening there. You can disconnect the resource, you can cause it to ramp up or ramp down. That's these are the things that you can do to manage the issues that we're seeing on the system. And of course, even with these measures or mitigating measures, there is areas of the state where we need to reinforce the grid. That could be on the transmission level or the submission level or distribution investments. These investments can be cost effective in many cases. And that happens. These are the kinds of projects that we will recommend to be implemented. I think this is the last slide and I don't know if there's any questions. We'll continue to do our outreach. And as Shayna noted earlier, if any questions come up after this presentation, you can reach out to us through email or by phone and we'll reach out to these questions. I'll hand it back over to Charlie or Regina. Happy to take any questions on this call or later. Looks like we have a handout. This presentation is relatively short. We thought what we did is we included a few slides as appendices. You can look up these slides for additional information about storage and loads, load forecast. We wanted to allow time for discussions and questions. Mike, I don't have anything else to add. If you just want to go through folks who have questions. And I can't see raised hands. So if you or Charlie or someone can recognize them, that'd be great. Sure. So so far, I see just so you know, Garrett Jeff Bard. All right. Why don't we start with Garrett since that's the first name you threw out there. It's certainly not alphabetical. I was just wondering if you could speak very briefly to what the different storage options are. I mean, I'm thinking capacitors probably won't cover for four hours, but I don't know. I'm not familiar with, you know, large storage. So what are the options that you have? Right. So there are various, various technologies available. These days, what we see. Mostly battery storage. We've seen my on. But there are other other storage you can do. This pop hydro, which may or may not be possible in Vermont. They're here. If you have elevation, you could, you could use hydro, top hydro to store a lot of energy. Typically we talk about long, long range or long term manage storage. Hydro is one of the higher men. There's several of those resources in New England. There's also other technologies. There's flow batteries for, for long term storage. Also seeing recently, it's not necessarily a new technology, but it's, it's, it's exciting way to use all technology. It's, it's compressed air. The air is compressed enough to store the energy. And then when you need to deliver it to the system, you heat up the air and that turns urban to provide, you know, the energy back to the system. And there's a lot of different, different ways of kinetic energy you can use. But today it's mostly batteries. You can also definitely do that with batteries. And for eight hours, but there's, there are other technologies out there to do the same thing. Thank you. Okay. I see Bard has his hand up. Hey, thanks. Yeah, this is really interesting. I have sort of two questions. The first one is, and I'll phrase them both. The first one is when we say attention to siting, I don't know if this is more a question for commission staff or for you to operationally define or explain what attention to siting would mean in terms of a review of a proposed project, what that might look like for a planning commission. And the second part is any comments you have about the emerging fairly ambitious targets for transition to electric vehicles. And it strikes me that what you've described here seems somewhat daunting in terms of transmission distribution. If we picture a significant percentage of the state's vehicles moving from gasoline. Distribution to electric distribution to partner. Yeah, thank you. Right. So in terms of setting. What we've seen in our analysis, there are certain parts of the system where there's already constraints where generation is being curtailed, right? And some of the PUC is paying attention to that. They're aware of these areas and large projects. And I mean, you know, a 500 make a kilowatt project or project would receive enough intention that would have to demonstrate that doesn't affect the system negatively. Are there areas of Vermont where there's a lot of activity as Addison County where we're starting to see at the distribution where it is where you see the red, red areas here in the JNP system. These are areas there's so much generation that these feeders are at capacity. We cannot add any additional. So, you know, things could be okay at the distribution. But in aggregate. Generation that can cause problems on the transmission system. So we're saying is when a significant amount of generation is connected to distribution, we need to perform analysis that also use the capacity of transmission and determine whether there are any issues to be addressed there. Currently, that is not being done. And in terms of so the reliability, the regional planning regions. You see that a large plant or a large number of plants are connecting to certain area and you know that say your targets are are much higher than optimized solution. You may think of friends as a potential mitigating measure to encourage developers to also look at co located storage as part of their project. Or to be able to run and not affect the system. It's a possibility. I think that's that was the first question and the second question about the sort of electric vehicles, other technologies that are being adopted. And this would be a much, much more in the future. That is what we want in Vermont to electrify transportation and heating. Our forecast is predicting very large amount of loads. And we know that the system is not designed to serve such a high load. And there again, we're saying it does not mean that we can't do this or we should not have electric vehicles in Vermont. What it means is we need to think about the way to make that happen. It could be load control. The utilities are doing that already to provide incentives to customers so that they charge at the wrong time. When they come home at six o'clock, they don't charge right away. Maybe start charging at 10 or 11 p.m. And customers give utility control of the chargers that the utility can decide that this is not a good time to charge. And then they disconnect the charger. But then there's a program or control that ensures that the battery is charged before five, six o'clock in the morning. So there's various ways to address these issues. And we're recommending that we always find innovative ways to scale these measures, right? And I know we can, but we need to think about how to plan and implement these measures. So would it be safe to summarize that by saying we need to do some things that we have yet to do? I would do them better. Essentially ramp that up significantly. Because what we're hearing is that the high load forecast is not high enough because we expect much more electric vehicles in Vermont to meet our regional goals. And if that does happen, and the amount of load that we'll see on the system will exceed our capacity to sort of that load. And if there's not enough load control, then we left with our requirement for us to design a system in a, in proposed transmission reinforcements to allow us to sort of that load. It's our charge to do that. Jeff, did you have a question? Yes, I had two actually. I'm going to do my best imitation of our, when we talk about long-term things and I realize you get a lot of questions. I'm just wondering if there are any potential disruptive effects on our transmission system associated with number one, the current PUC docket with global foundry and your relationship that you have with green mountain power and how that's going to sugar off and how that's going to play into your load forecast because we're going to have essentially utility entity being factored into the equation responding to its own demand issues and all those types of things associated with what it does to be remain competitive in the global economy. And then secondly, this commission spent a lot of time looking at transmission proposals to bring stroke of the Penn Canadian hydro to parts and southern New England. And the way we were looking at them, at least in Vermont, I think was that they were going to be a source of funding to help fund some of our transmission upgrades that could be come along with the need to transmit pretty significant amounts of Canadian power to southern New England into their system. I just was wondering, is that all over now? We're not going to be looking at that for the next 20 years because of our regional demographics or is that something that could pop up in six, nine or 12 years from now? You might be talking about that again in your 20-year plan. Sure. Right. I think, I think so the answer to the Canadian import question first, that I think there's still the possibility that projects similar to what's being done elsewhere in Maine and Massachusetts could connect to Vermont. And it could be earlier than the 10, 12 years. I think it's anything's going to happen. It's probably going to happen in the next five, five to 10 years. It's going to be sooner. And by connecting to the southern portion of the state, it avoids significant negative impacts on the system. It's closer to the bulk system or the larger grid. It's like the highway. The New England highway is closer to the New England highway so that we don't need a transmission line, capacity, especially if our studies show that there are issues in Vermont and needs to be addressed where the lines or transformers are affected. And the developer of such a project will be responsible to fund these upgrades. That's how we would resolve that issue. And in terms of the global funders, told the plans there, I think this has to do more with supply generation. And not so much that happens at the plan itself, meaning the both founders would have access to power or that's New York or New England elsewhere. And from the transmission system perspective, there's really no change. As far as I know, global funders is not planning to increase their production where it would increase the amount of megawatts that we serve in the area. There's no change to these transmission lines that connect global funders to the system. So far from our perspective, there's really no change, at least in the near future. We're not aware of anything that would cause us to upgrade our transmission network because the global funders plans. Okay. Anyone else have questions? Looks like Sharon and I just also want to invite Graham from GMP. If you want to chime in at any point, please, please do. And also, Mike, it looks like John Zaconi has his hand raised as well. Okay. Yeah, I see John. Sharon has questions. Yeah, there was no mention of wind. I was wondering if that's off the table for long-term planning or at least the cycle of planning. Could you repeat that please? I think I've heard when is this a timing issue? No mention of wind generation, commercial wind. So I was wondering if that's off the table in terms of long-range planning. No, it's really not off the table. It's that we haven't seen anything that suggests that in Vermont, at least there's any future for wind. There's wind being developed, but it's quite small. It's not connecting to distribution system. It's in the kilowatt size and maybe a megawatt or so. At the scale that would affect the transmission system. We believe that it's going to remain that way. I think there's probably not a lot of appetite in Vermont to to build, you know, the 100 megawatt wind plant in Vermont. John. Yeah, I want to go back to something I think I heard you said, and if I got it wrong, then I apologize. But I think a minute ago you mentioned that the upgrades that would be needed in generation as we move down the line would be funded by the developer who needs it. And if that is in fact the case, that's a system that we had used in this state for a long time with transportation infrastructure. And we are desperately trying to get away from that now because what it does is it curtailes people's willingness to do things because sort of the last in has to pay for the upgrades that should have been paid by everybody all along. And that's sort of how we've come to it with transportation and we're trying to change the system that we had where the last in is not the one who funds everything. And so I took a word of caution to myself when I thought I would say that we're looking at electric transmission as the same doing the same thing, which is we'll use up all the capacity, let people in, it'll cost one price. And once we get to the end up, you're going to have to pay 10, 1200 times more because you have to pay to upgrade the system, which we have found with transportation is exactly the wrong way to do it. So if I got this right in terms of my understanding of what you said, and if I do have it right, could you please address how that is actually a good system? Well, yes, I think I think you understood that correctly. And this is why it's important to fly this, this map, right? And look at the GMP map on the slide. It says there is a red, the red because there's no capacity, right? The capacity is all used up. And the next developer is now faced with a large upgrade. And you're right. When the developer sees our costs associated with an upgrade, well, it goes elsewhere. It goes to where a line is green, where there is capacity. And it's the same thing on the transmission level. A project that causes a system issue, it's not possible to fix that issue. And I guess the logic behind that is the, you know, beneficiary pays. And so the, you know, the, the, I suppose you could argue that if, if, if these costs are socialized, right? Everybody pays, then everybody benefits. But is that, is that really the case? If a developer connects to room on transmission, which is a open to all entities, does it, does it matter if it's the Vermont developer or Canadian developer or Texas developer access, it's an open access system. So it connects to the Vermont system to supply power to Vermont or New Hampshire or Massachusetts. Same place by the same rules, right? If they cause a problem in Vermont, they require it to fix it. Regardless of where they're incorporated, regardless of their buyers are, that is the federal rules that we play by. Just to jump in there, Hans, this is Graham. On the right, there are actually some of those areas you could see there, in addition to the color, there's the sort of highlighted or shadow. Those are parts of the grid where there is, where we recently implemented as a tariff where new solar customers pay a small fee that goes towards upgrading the distribution infrastructure to support more generation. We always want to be supportive of small scale rooftop solar because there's a clear resiliency benefit, especially if paired with storage. I think as Hans mentioned though, the idea is you want to be sending a signal to the larger scale solar development that they should be going in areas that don't have existing lot of generation. Because those are the projects that take up a lot of the remaining capacity for the rest. And we wouldn't want to block out smaller sites that are trying to do rooftop because there's a lot of large projects that while provide the renewable benefit, they don't have the resiliency angle. They're not providing critical backup during storms and outages in a way that rooftop solar or behind the meter solar when paired with battery storage might be able to provide. Great, great. Thanks. Okay, other questions? I don't see any. If I could done, Mr. Chair, just one more question. I read a while ago and the details are a little lost in my head about when we all move to electric cars that our vehicles will become storage for places like green mountain power. Since everybody's now got batteries in their house and in a line in, I mean, our line out rather that that can also become a line in and that we would be collectively used as a storage facility. Is there any real future to that? Or is that something that I just read because it was in someone's brain at one point in time that got a journalist involved. Is that a live thing or is that not? It is. It is. It is a life. What we've seen in Vermont these days is we shot the charger, right, but there's nothing that precludes somebody to sign up as a resource where you could actually drain the battery, support the grid, perhaps under emergency conditions, right? I don't know if there's a rate today that allows bombers to do that, but it's certainly possible. The technology is there. It can be enabled and customers could participate if that were to be the new program, for instance. But it's always about customer choice, right? Perhaps if you're on a weekend, Saturday to Sunday, you could put your car battery out there to be utilized by the utility. But if you have a trip tomorrow, be going to Boston or something like that, maybe not. You won't allow your car to be drained, right? Pretty good at work or to take a trip tomorrow, so. Yeah, I think the other adjective would be voluntary. I have programs and certainly Graham can speak more to that. Yeah, John, if you'd like, we have one of these, they're called Vehicle to Grid or Bidirectional Chargers at our office and are using it with one of our fleet vehicles now as sort of a proof of concept. So it's definitely real. As Shana mentioned, it's something that we would, we've never do without a customer's consent, but often the schedule of driving and when cars are plugged in aligns actually quite nicely with when we would want to be dispatching those systems to reduce our system peaks. Those typically occur in the evening when the cars plugged in at home. And so it's, we're still waiting a little bit on technology to mature. And right now there's not a residential model that allows you to do it, but I expect we'll see one soon. And it is a really exciting merging of electric vehicles with benefits of battery storage plus resilience. You could essentially plug your car into your house and have that be your backup generator during an outage and we're looking at doing that with schools as well for electric buses. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you very much for the presentation. I don't know if there's any last things that you want to leave us with or Regina, if you have anything or Charlie. The only thing that we want to leave you with is if there are any follow up questions or comments that you'd like to talk more about, we're available. And thank you again for giving us the time to come and talk about this, you know, very important topic. And in terms of the plan itself, you gave a presentation. Is the presentation or the plan? Is there a link that you can share with us? Yes, absolutely. I'll send. Well, I already did send Regina the presentation and the public review draft is available on Velco's website. So I will send a link to share. Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you for having us. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And we're back. Okay. So we still have the public hearing open. Charlie, I don't know if is there some kind of presentation that that you or forest or someone wants to. Give us. No, you got the EPWP and budget in your packet. And I think kind of given the length of time that we just spent on Velco, you know, happy to dive in deeper if you'd like to the work program. But at this point, we're not planning to do a presentation. Okay. So, so are there any folks from the public with us that would like to comment? I move we close the public hearing. A second. Okay. So I think if there's no public out there, Charlie. Okay. All in favor of closing public hearing. Raise your hand or say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed. Anyone abstain. Okay. Public hearing is closed. Anyone on the board have any. Questions about the UPWP or the budget. If I could offer. Sorry. Mr. Chair. One edit someone would consider an emotion, which is there's one task that we just heard from V trans that they would like to increase the amount of consultant dollars in. It's a task 7.13 for Vermont culverts or VT culverts. And I think we had $3,000 in the UPWP for consultant dollars. They would like to increase it to $25,000. It has no impact on our budget because it's state's planning dollars and they're matching it with other state dollars. So it has no impact, but just would kind of put that amount in our budget so that we can contract with the consultant in the way that works for us and V trans. So that's that's one little note and. And I'm happy. I mean, I'll say about the work program in front of you and the budget, you'll notice there's still quite a few cells that are highlighted yellow. And there's still things that are not pinned down. Some of them are legislatively driven or, or otherwise, you know, contracts with other agencies. That we're not sure of the exact amounts as a typical thing, or sometimes it's the exact scope. So I just, I just kind of want to note that. And obviously as we get those things pinned down over the coming weeks and months, we'll update those in the mid year adjustment. And so I get those are really the two comments I kind of wanted to offer. And happy to review the budget review the work program if you'd like. So for the purposes of discussion, Mr. Chair, I'd move we approve the UPWP with the amendment and subscribe by Charlie for the work consultant dollars for that particular. Work. You're at seconds. Okay. Any discussion, any comments, questions? I'm seeing or hearing. I'm sorry. Nobody wants me to go line by line through the budget. No, it's seven o'clock. People are right. Okay. So hearing no questions or comments. I would ask all those in favor of the motion. Please say or signify with a raised hand. Aye. Anyone opposed. Anyone wish to abstain. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Next we'll move on to the PSP to equity screen for regionally driven transportation projects. That's a heck of a title. Yes. Hello, everyone. So you do have a memo in your packet describing our first attempt. To actually do an equity screening for our BPSP to regionally driven projects. We actually presented those projects last month to you. We provided, you know, scores that Christine did. And Christine can give us a lot more detail on those scores. If you would like. Using, you know, like a methodology, you know, Christine, you want to talk about the methodology between the, you know, the. The scoring differences between your scores and veteran scores. I'll just tell you to not really look too carefully at the scores. We're really here to talk about the equity. Really just to kind of confuse everybody. There's a qualification sheet and a workbook that are different things. That are similar and yet not the same. So the actual scores we're going to look at next month. And they're similar, but they're not exactly the same. We did a qualification sheet. That was really a screening of our projects, but the actual VPSP do has to be scored with a workbook that was developed by the trance. So. Thank you, Christine. He explained it much better than I could. So, so basically this memo is just information only for you. This is again, the first attempt. And it's a definitely it's a, it's an attempt that is going to be improved. You know, over the next few following months and years. We felt very strongly. So right now the VPSP to process does not have an equity category. Or an equity screening in any way. We felt that the CCRPC very strongly, that we had to apply something. So we started the process. We described the methodology in the memo. I'm very happy to go over the methodology with you. If you would like or answer any questions. We use the methodology that has been used at an MPL in a New Jersey. That we felt we have enough. We felt that we didn't have enough data to do a lot more, you know, quantitative analysis at this point. So we stay higher in a qualitative analysis. But at some point we might want to go down to a quantitative analysis. We also going to be working with the CCRPC. We're going to be working with the CCRPC. We're going to be working with the CCRPC. We're going to be doing a little more. And we're also going to be working with all the CTL analysis, we also going to be working with the trans and the other RPCs. In the next, you know, six to eight months to actually create the methodology and equity screening. That is going to be incorporated into the VPSP to methodology. And I will. What else did we do? Oh, so we we also reached out to. So we reached out to Mark Hughes and also to the Transportation Equity Coalition to help us with this, you know, to deal with, you know, to, you know, review our methodology but also improve our methodology and provide us some questions that we might be missing right now that we want to include it. So we are getting feedback from them by the end of this week. So we're going to be able to actually apply that before we send the packet to the TAC and the executive committee next week. So and then finally it's going to come to you in your June meeting. And at that meeting you're going to have a lot more detail on the veteran scoring, as well as how we're going to apply and how we're going to go from it, you know, a qualitative, you know, like scoring and screening for the equity to more quantitative screening. So you're going to see all that information next month. So I will stop there and ask for any questions. I am sorry if I confused anybody, but happy to clarify if I can. It may be that I should wait on this but I'll ask it and totally understand if you say wait till next month. I noticed looking through the document on the second page of the right below the one with the border about this you have the higher positive ranking medium positive ranking and lower ranking. Yes. And I felt like there could be a disconnect there. Higher positive ranking has addressed safety problems, but lower ranking is repair roadways or bridges. And in light of the crown point bridge of a few years ago or the very recent Memphis bridge across the Mississippi repairs would have prevented the safety problems and resulted in absolutely humongous cost savings. And so I anyway I guess what it boils down to is I felt there was a disconnect between those two. Yeah, and Garrett I'm just going to try to answer it but maybe Christine can answer it better it's like you know safety and maintenance are you know an asset. You know management is included in the VPS P2 methodology safety and asset, you know like management actually they have the highest scores. So we're not ignoring safety we're not ignoring, you know like asset maintenance but I think that this screening is looking at if a project actually provides benefits to an underrepresented population an area. And what are those benefits. Does it does it have impacts and what are those impacts to those underrepresented populations and there is you know like a number of categories that we have under the underrepresented populations. So this screening is going to be on top of every other category that it's in the VPS P2 process so we're not ignoring that but I'm going to stop there Christine do you have anything to add. No I think that's I think you covered it. I saw Jim. I'm sorry Gary you have follow up. Okay, Jim I saw your hand go up and john I see you've got your hand up so we'll go Jim and then john. Okay, basically the exact same area but a different question. The high positive rankings seem to look at addressing safety issues and impacts and various results of the project. So the way I was reading at the medium and the lower actually almost talk about actions of what you're doing, and I didn't see the relationship between how the high and the medium low related to each other because they look like they're measuring different things. So, I'm going to try to address that. It is, again, a qualitative methodology right so there is a lot of judgment in here but when we say address safety problems. It's basically very you know so very specific improvements to let's say high crash locations if that high crash location is in a in an area that there is a population, you know a high percent of population are underserved, then that should get a high score. I, I see what you're saying because of the wording, but we felt like everything has actions in it. When we were looking at our, when we actually assign high medium or low. Is that kind of address your question so so in essence the the high is primarily address safety problems. Period, and then add improved vehicle, etc, and then repair roadway bidges and those are sort of the three main things you're looking at sort of. And after that, the only thing else up in the higher is kind of helping you evaluate but it's not really the issue is it's that seems like that's what you're saying. Well, it is kind of what I'm saying but not quite. Let's not go any further that's fine. Okay, I'm happy to discuss offline and also answer any specific questions on any, any projects that you have but this methodology will probably change. So this is the one that we actually use right now because we didn't have a lot of time. We're like transfer time but also we didn't have, we don't have a lot of data so we need to identify data so we can just that we need to improve this methodology this is the beginning that's what I want you to just, you know, the message you want to take. So, I'm sorry. Yeah, in the same vein here, my concern lies in having the equity piece be its own separate ranking that when you look at a piece of paper like this, the general person would look at it and would weight it equal with the overall score. So what you're doing is by doing that instead of baking it into the overall score by giving it some numerical numerical value of its own that would you know either boost a project up or bring it down a little bit. You're creating an enormous PR problem potentially where, you know, good enterprising journalists like I was at one point in time, are going to scrutinize you on just that ranking, and believe it's equally weighted to the other, and you're going to have huge headlines every time you go and build a project with a low score as opposed to a high score. I think we have to be careful. I'm not in any way knocking, having an equity matrix and looking at that. I'm fine with that. But to present it in a capacity like you're presenting it here. You're setting us up for some really unintended consequences that are nothing but negative into the future. And I think we need to be really, really careful about that. Okay, I think that that's a good comment. I think that at the very end of these discussions we're going to have with veterans and the RPC. We're hopeful that equity will become part of the VPSP to process as a category, like its own categories as so it's inside that 100 points right now, we don't have that. So right now the VPSP doesn't have an equity category. So what we are proposing and it doesn't really matter if we add like points to the high, let's say that we decide collectively to say 20 points to all the high projects or to the projects that they have the high equity screening score. And if it goes above 100, for us, it doesn't matter because the veterans doesn't want, I mean, we're not going to give this scoring to veterans, we're going to give them, you know, like a number of projects in the ranking. So am I not being saying that right Christine so you might want to just correct me here but I think that at this point we are trying to figure out how are we going to apply an equity screening, you know, while there isn't any in this process, and I think it's a little clunky. I understand the conundrum, and I appreciate the conundrum, but I'm just just threw that out on the table as something to keep in mind because we're trying to do a good thing here. We need to have it presented that it's a good thing, not wind up coming back to bite us in the wrong direction that way, because, you know, you use Garrett's example is, you know, you don't want a safety project fighting a project that is lower by depending on how it's viewed in an equity capacity because I'm not going to judge one's more important than another but in nor should we have to. They should all balance and find a way to move and rank our projects and not have one element fight with another and we just need to be careful how it's presented that's all. Good luck with trying to figure that out I don't have any great advice for you other than just what I'm saying is not trying to be critical of what you're doing here, just bringing up what I think is a little bit of a red flag that we need to focus on. Thank you john. Thanks. Let's not tire ourselves up and knots on this. It's a small part of the overall ranking. It's going to have at least two more iterations before we even see it again folks. So, I mean, give the staff the opportunity to work through the glitches and things like that and this isn't. This is what we have the tech for. Okay. So, we do this. I've been around this commission long enough to remember that we do this to ourselves all the time. And it means very little. So, Charlie it looks like you want to add something and Bart has his hand up is eagerly waiting so Charlie. I'm sorry bar. I see you. I just wanted to add a little bit larger, put this in context of the larger conversation going on with the trans and the legislature. I think maybe I mentioned this last month, but in the team, the transportation bill this year, the legislature is asking the trans and the RPCs to come back to them with a report and recommendations about how to address equity. And so what you're seeing is, I don't know, I don't even know if we can. We're just starting to plant the seeds. We haven't figured out, you know, exactly what it will grow into but and john your point is excellent and Jeff yours is also this is not fully baked. We're just starting to put some ingredients together on the table, and you know welcome any input you have into helping shape what it looks like and what recommendations we come up with the trans at the end of the year. So this is just truly the beginning of a conversation about how best to address equity issues in our prioritization system. So sorry, Bart. Go ahead, Bart. Where is I was just going to observe I've seen a similar pattern emerge in parts of state government where people are getting started. And a couple of ways of thinking about that one is sort of a storming phase in the beginning as you're figuring it out and the other I'm remembering a phrase that carpenter sometimes use. And the question is, do you want it done right, or do you want it done right now. And the answer to that question for this is yes. Okay, anyone else have any comments or questions. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Alani and Christine and Charlie. We'll be hearing more of this in the coming weeks. All right, next time the agenda is the executive director report Charlie. Okay. Mike your report was very short this month for the director and Mike could have done this first one, the equity leadership team. We had our second meeting. Like was that this week or last week. I can't remember now. It was the Monday right. Yeah might have been yesterday. It was yesterday. Yes, it was yesterday. It was a long day. But just to let you know, I think out of that conversation came the notion that you will probably will see some information coming from that group as we're working with the consultant. So there are some readings and I think this this week or this meeting we watched to like a maybe a 20 minute Ted talk. So we kind of have a little bit of homework before these equity leadership team meetings. So we'll be sharing that that homework with you, just so you can kind of follow along a little bit with what the equity group is working on. Obviously you won't be part of the conversation all the time. At least you can follow along with the readings and we'll start adding some notes, you know, some minutes or summary. As we do with minutes for other advisory committees will start trying to start adding the equity team minutes to the to your packet so you can follow along with what's happening. And so that's I think that's really the update anything you want to add there Mike. No, but I think, again, it will share those that homework stuff so you can see what's going on and any comments or questions you have. You're more than welcome to ask any time via email or phone call or whatever. Yeah, yeah, and we're really just getting going on this so it's a, it's a product we had the conversation about about. It's a process it's going to take a while it's not going to be done in a week or two it's going to be a lot more than that so and, and I think the other important takeaway I got from last time is, we're not really trying to solve the universal picture. We're trying to make inroads to to get on a path to bring us to a final goal. And so that's why that Charlie said, yeah, and I think, you know, actually our immediate previous conversation, you know, is kind of a little indication, you know, we'll try to work at things that we can work out to make progress on this broader issue. So I think the transportation project investments that, you know, improve equity, you know, is going to be part of it and I think the previous conversation just made me think, well we want to make sure we avoid is something that increases in equity, or does to, you know, a low income or predominantly by pop community. So I think your screening for those things is going to be a little important piece of what we can do to help in this overall picture so One, one more thing just want to remind folks one of the one of the goals we have is coming up with or is coordinating with municipalities and sharing what we what we come up with and trying to coordinate that we're kind of all going on the same path as opposed to, you know, different paths and getting nowhere. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up Mike. Yeah, so as part of the scope RPC staff will have some conversations with each of your towns and we'll try to make sure you're looked into that. And also, just a heads up at some point you're going to probably be asked to provide some feedback either through an interview or maybe participate in a focus group or complete a survey so probably, I think, where we're talking about like the July timeframe, Mike, I think that's right. Yeah, summertime some. Yeah, summertime so just heads up on that 89 update. The advisory project advisory committee met today. Remember the last time we were looking at this and you know we were kind of trying to conclude the interchange conversation. And today we did get recommendation out of the advisory committee for five scenarios or bundles to move forward in the next round of analysis. One's a no build a pure no build. The second bundle is a bundle of TDM investments. You know what could we do to decrease the demand for driving in our region. And it's to be regional not just focus on the 89 quarter. The third bundle is a package of those TDM investments and those TDM investments stay in all the subsequent bundles. So I won't repeat myself every time, but the TDM bundle, plus exit 14 improvement. The fourth bundle is the TDM exit 14 and exit 13 investment and the fifth one TDM exit 14 and 12 be and there's no commitment to any of those, but just that those are the five scenarios or bundles that the advisory committee voted out. I will note that there was unanimous support for the first four of those. And there was the committee was very split it was actually six to five vote about keeping the 12 be option in the analysis so that's just to inform you let you know where that process is. Yeah, I think, and I think we're kind of on the cusp of it will be some interesting work looking at the TDM and policy options. And we're looking at, you know, some new techniques to analyze those kinds of options and see what kind of impacts they could have so. And I think it's, it's all going to be productive not just for this study but I think it's also going to be very informative for the MTP update that will be embarking on next year. You said the focus group voted six five not to go with the exit 12 be scenario. No, no, no, I'm sorry. It was a close vote six to five to keep that in. Okay. Okay, because I was just wondering with what's going on in South Burlington with the city council and I saw an article in the newspaper about, you know, they're going to re voter. What's going on but yeah, how's that all tie in. Or does it directly. And Chris feel free to weigh in, but you know south growing city council voted in a couple of a couple of weeks ago, three to two to support moving ahead with 12 be. Of course the other two wanted to move ahead with 13. We got an answer like that because we were trying to reduce the number of interchanges to evaluate going forward. And there was a pretty significant split in the community and on city council. We've kind of taken some of the anxiety and pressure off of that situation by recommending that we keep both options on the table for this next iteration. And we actually had a joint meeting or participated in a joint meeting of South Burlington city council and South Burlington school district. Last night, the school board, because the school board hasn't engaged too much and you know I think they raised a number of issues, but they want to make sure to get addressed around the possibility of exit 13, which of course is right next to the high school middle school. So anyway, that's a long way of saying, still in process, we're trying to relieve a little bit of that pressure in South in the city of South Burlington, because it was getting contentious and fractious for sure. So, I think, I think we've got a little bit of a path forward now and you know, we'll come back to it over the fall and the winter. Yeah, I can't offer any more clarity. I think you got the latest and greatest by the steering committee between the school board and the city council last night and you saying that the school board was asking questions about what the impacts would be. Okay. Yep. Yeah, thanks Chris. Any other questions on 89. Actually, and I guess in fairness to you because I think you may have heard or read concerns that we're getting from a couple community members about the budget for this. And you'll see in the UPWP significant investment continuing in the next fiscal year. And I can't commit to you that the process and comments that we get, you know, don't require some more analysis to try to think barred, turned it well, do it right or do it right now. We're trying in this case, trying to do it right. And that may take a little bit more effort. So, we'll see how that plays out. And then, quick update the clean water service provider I was hoping the rule would be finalized by now it's not quite done, or published, that should be happening in the next week or two. And similarly, we're supposed to be getting a contract from DC for some startup funding for that work to start beginning in earnest. Again, I think sometime in the next couple weeks. I think that's happening. And then, last but not least, legislative update. I'm not sure where to start this is a tough week to do an update. You certainly with regards to money issues, you know, that's there, they're figuring that out. And the, the federal rules and guidance for how to spend the ARPA money just came out last week. And I think through a little bit of a monkey bridge and some of the ideas, either the administration or the legislature had about how they could spend the money. How they could shift things around and move things that they thought they could do with ARPA into the general fund and maybe some vice versa. So, I won't pretend to give you a real update other than to say the, the sausage is getting mixed up and made. And I'm sounds like they are trying to get done by Friday. I think it's going to be 50, just because that's always fun to talk about is definitely, you know, on the burner for next year, not getting done this year. It does seem like s one oh one which is a housing and bylaw modernization bill is is moving through probably with some money attached to it for for municipalities to be able to access funding either through municipal planning grants or maybe even agencies to assist with bylaw updates. The rental registry bill sounds like there's that's under some debate right now. I think maybe literally right now. So it's not clear to me exactly if and how that's moving forward. And I don't know if there's other things that people are interested in. I think it's a great opportunity to try and Sharon may be following some of this more closely than I am. But Sharon anything else you wanted to add or were you thinking about just the one that we were invested in was the TIF project bill which pretty much got gutted. So that's not going to go anywhere this year. Yeah, I think there may be a little bit of a TIF bill that remains to give a little bit of clarity to the existing TIF municipalities. But but yeah that project based TIF not happening. Any other questions, legislatively, I do think broadly I will say I really felt there's a lot of support in the legislature for the work of RPCs. I think we got brought up in multiple venues. About one assisting municipalities with ARPA funding. And so we're partnering with VLCT on ARPA funding guidance. VLCT just had a webinar. They were the primary host yesterday, which we partnered with them a little bit on. So that's one thing. There also it does look like I think I've mentioned before that each RPC will be getting $75,000 in this budget. And really just as a, it's a one time amount but to recognize that they haven't increased the amount going to RPCs in a long time. And just to recognize that they've also been asking us to do a lot of work. And that I think we'll be able to spend that over one, two or three years. And then we'll talk about some money being added to the budget for Brownfields money, a million dollars statewide. So that might turn into about $100,000 for Brownfields assessment. To Jenny County RPC, which would be welcome because we're just about out of Brownfields money from EPA. Another idea that's come up recently was RPCs helping town energy committees with a regional energy coordinator on staff. So that's getting some discussion. I'm really not sure where that's ending up in the budget. And I think that's pretty much it for things that I'm aware of. Okay. Thanks Charlie. Yeah, thank you. Next, we've got committee liaison activities and reports. There are links in the packet. Does anyone have any questions anyone on those committees want to add anything. Okay, hearing nothing. We'll go to future agenda topics. Just real quick, the second page of the packet or the agenda you'll see, you know, June is our normal annual meeting. So obviously election of officers is what that really means and we normally warn the public hearing for the tip for the July meeting. And we do have an opportunity if you wanted to offer any comments on the Velco plan. I'm going to go back now about should we try to prepare comments on that Velco plan. We thought it was just kind of informational we were not figuring on planning to prepare comments unless you ask us tonight. And then the final topic is the VPSP to transportation project priorities to V trans. Okay, it's open question. Anything that you think we should be thinking about submitting to Velco with regard to what you heard tonight. Yeah, Jim. I'm just, I'm assuming, based on what we heard tonight from staff was that there's no issues on what they are proposing in their plan, as it compares to our energy plan and the Ecos plan, but it'd be good to have that verified. No, that's not true. Okay, then that's something we should know. Yeah. And I think Hans and Regina to I think maybe Taylor's unplugged or Melanie may want to hike up here too but there's definitely an issue in terms of the amount that optimized solar PV solar for our region versus what we were hoping for. I wasn't asking I wasn't asking for that comment now. I was asking that's a future topic. If there's if there's time. Okay. There's an issue Jim, we're not sure that a comment is going to do anything to address it, I guess. Well, at least, at least the staff, I mean, we I'd like to know what those are at some point, they're in the memo or something so that we understand. You know, that was sort of the point of my question if we're supposed to be doing something at the planning commission in terms of reviewing projects that we're not doing and I let it go but I didn't think I got a very thorough answer. I think I got a conceptual answer and I already understood the conceptual answer. That's a very practical boots on the ground answer like what is the regional planning commission have to do differently about citing or site review. And the other comment and make not to channel john but if I remember correctly when we were talking about the electric vehicle plans. John made the observation within the last two months well what about transmission and distribution of electrical power. How's that going to work. I presented with these two plans that do not appear to have been effectively coordinated at this point in time. Like taking points taken. Okay. If you guys want me to chime in, or we can wait until staff comes up with a memo or comments. Yeah, we'll follow up with a memo Melanie. Thank you. Okay. Okay, anything else. All right, then members item other business. One tiny thing. I'm just wondering when terms for the commissioners, when do they end and when did the new ones start do they start at the meeting or during the June meeting or after the June meeting or what. Yeah. So your appointments are for two years. July through June. Okay. Half the towns got a letter from Emma, probably a month or two ago. And it must be the early part of the alphabet which would include a lot. It was just the July June question that was that was it. Yep. Okay. Any other business. I'm relieved to offer a motion to adjourn. Okay. Second. I see him waving his hand over there. Jeff, congratulations again on that ace. I'm going to go up and try to do another one right after I get up to zoom. Okay, well, we'll go quick then. We'll see everyone on June 16th is the next meeting executive meeting on June 2nd. All in favor of the motion to adjourn. I oppose. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Thanks.