 Okay. Now recording. Okay. Hello, we have no attendees. So I will skip the usual introduction, except this is the meeting of the energy and climate action committee. And we have an agenda, which I guess we'll get right into. So. First thing on the agenda is who's going to be the note taker day. That was the next one after. According to last meeting's minutes. Stella. Stella looks like she's on the move. Um, I had to sacrifice my computer to be here. To video time. So unfortunately I can't take notes. Who's there for Stella. I think it's you. I can go because I also feel like I'm sometimes not at my desk. So I should take advantage of being at my desk and. Take notes today. So Laura will be our note taker. And the first thing on the menu is to look at the. Minutes from the last. Meeting. I can put them up on the screen if anybody wants to see them. You know, go ahead and do that. Make this a little bigger. You. How's that? Can people see that? Yes. Yep. So I hope everybody's looked at them, but if not, I'll leave them up here for a moment. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Laura, I just need to see people for their vote. Right. So let me stop sharing. Okay. And then no particular order. Goldner. Yes. So I would move to accept them as they are. I didn't find anything. To change. I would move to. Except the minutes. I will second that. Okay. Okay. I just need to see people for their vote. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Public comment. We have no attendees. So I guess we don't have to worry about public comment till the end. However, it would be nice to maybe start thinking about ways to bring the public back in. If there is another. Yes. Roof. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Rigger. Yes. D. Stain. Selman. Yes. Okay. And the minutes are approved. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll put that back in if there is another. Seminar or workshop or two that would be of interest to folks. So maybe we should start thinking about that. Later today. Meanwhile, let's go to updates then. Stella. So Stella, you missed the, you missed last time. And we had a guest last time. Trace C. Yeah. And she was here. What did she, let's see. This was about writing letter of support for the completion of the plan, which I think we have a. Yeah. The draft memo I sent. Did you all get a chance to look at that last meeting or would that be something for this meeting? It's in the packet for this meeting. Yes. I think we put it off to this meeting since you weren't there. And yeah. So let me find that. I can share that. There it is. Okay. Share. All right. There it is. Can everyone see that or do I need to make it bigger? You can see it. Oh yeah. Yeah. So I'd be interested in any edits. People have formatting copy anything. I've never written a memo to town council before. So I already got some edits from tax. Okay. And they're already incorporated here. Yeah, they're incorporated in the latest draft. I sent you and Stephanie, which looks like it's this one. Oh no, this is actually not the, the latest one. Whoops. Do you have the latest one? Do you want to share it? I do, but it's on my computer and my daughter is using my computer. Stephanie, do you have the latest one? Yeah, give me a second. And I'll get it. Hang on. I thought I, I'm sorry. Apologize Stella. I thought I got the latest. Hold on. Oh, that's okay. It was like, it's relatively minor, but it's still probably worth having. Yeah, I might as well take a look at it. It's short enough that we can read it and approve it. You know, as. If that's what we want to do right, right here and now, which would be nice. Yeah. I'll Stephanie's bringing it up. I would. Suggest that we do. Approve it. It's a. To the point. And it's important. Depp. And it's, I think a lot of the work's already been done. So it's just pushing it over the hill. So I think it's, it's great. Thank you, Stella, for. Taking the lead on that. What is the main hold up. I understand that the hold up is funding to hire somebody to finish the map. There's not, it sounds like there's not in-house expertise or perhaps time on tax. But I could be wrong about that. I wonder if that's something a student could do as a project, or is it too big? It sounds like a relatively small thing to do. Yeah, I had the same question to me. It doesn't sound huge or complicated, but. Yeah. Yeah, that's the, that's the most up to date version. Yeah. Do you want to scroll down a bit so we can see the whole thing? There you go. And all the links. The only thing I would check is that all the links work. Complete one final map. There's the. There's the answer to my question right there. I don't know how I didn't notice that. Yeah, I would love to know more about what's involved in completing that one final map. I mean, is it just a matter of somebody drawing something or is there still debate and discussion about what that map should be? Yeah, it's too bad Tracy that Afian isn't here because that's a question for them. Yeah. My sense is it's literally just like putting this information that's already in the plan in like GIS. But I could be wrong about that. I want to learn to do stuff like that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. My lack of spare time that keeps me from doing it. All right. So I'm fine. Sorry. Did I make a comment? Yes, please. Thanks. This looks great. Definitely think it's something we should. We should submit. Two. I guess one thought would be. About the transportation situation in front of the new school. Yeah. And I'm just wondering if. This. Plan incorporates that whether we should try to combine these two into something that's like. This is a read, like. Do you know. I don't know if we need to add that in or not, but it feels like maybe a missed opportunity to combine those two things because. They're related, right? That there's an urgency for this, especially in light of a new school going in and the chance to change the traffic flow a little bit and the. Style of traffic a little bit. Yeah, that's my, that's my thought. But I don't want to like. I guess on the one hand, if it's just completing this one final map, let's do that. On the other hand, if that means that we have a plan that doesn't incorporate the new school building and the need to assess. That. Then I think we would need to add that in anyway. So maybe we can just add a sentence at the, at the end here. Or we need to maybe should add a sentence that this should also include considerations for. The new school building. I don't know to what extent. That's already in there. And I. It's not. As far as I remember from reading it. I do agree completely on the other hand. Like. My sense from Kathy is, is incorporating the new school into it would mean like. Many, many, many, many hours. Yeah. So why don't we ask them just to adopt it with the idea that then. Yeah. Changes, but at least we'll have something in place. I wonder if we could add language and support of that that doesn't. Because it would be a shame. If it's like. If it's like. My concern is if we, if we. Overstated that then. Like. Like it would be like a five year project. Do you know what I mean? As opposed to something that could be done in like six months with a map. And still have a lot that's like necessary, you know. They should complete this plan. And they should. Maybe we could say so that they have like the time and energy to turn their resources towards like. Figuring out the new school situation. Not in those words. But something that like makes it clear that we also think that's a priority. Without. Sending them back to the drawing board on this plan. Yeah. How about this? I think without. Asking them. To go back and change things because the new school is there. We could say something like in the second paragraph where it says unfortunately the plan has yet to be fully completed or adopted blah, blah, blah. We could say something like, especially in light of a new school building, it is unfortunate that the plan has not yet been fully completed or adopted by the time just letting them know that. The new school building is. On our radar too, and as a chance to change the traffic patterns and the traffic behavior significantly. Does that make sense? Just to stick it in there so that it's on their radar, but we're not asking them to change anything. Just instead of unfortunately, we say in special, especially in light of the new school. Building. It is unfortunate that. The plan has yet to be fully completed. They're adopted by the town in the same manner as the car. Yeah. I mean, because there's not like nothing. Like there is some stuff in there that would. Help the new school situation. As I remember, it's just not like addressing that explicitly. Like those like two intersections. Yeah. Well, there's a lot of students who come from down Pelham road or route nine. Right. And that's exactly what we're talking about improving. Right. That's a big part of the improvements. Yeah. What if it was as simple as additionally, we'd like to call to your attention, the strategic opportunity. Of the new school project. And hope. And that this plan could. Integrate into other opportunities as they present themselves. Yeah, that would work too. I think that'd be fine. We're a little more straightforward. I don't know. If I love those sort of like, just sort of like, I'd mention it in there. Yeah. Okay. We'd like to, we want you to be aware. We simply want you to be aware of this. We know it doesn't, we don't want it to stop. Say exactly what we're saying. We don't want you to not do the plan. We want you to be aware of this other strategic. Opportunity. Should we put it after the last paragraph as a sort of standalone sentence? Yeah. Yeah. That would work too. I think that'd be fine. Okay. After the last paragraph as a sort of standalone sentence. I think that sounds good. Yeah. I think that sounds great. Can you edit that? Stephanie, just type it right in. See if we can wordsmith it a little bit and then be the, so that we can vote on it. I'll get close enough so we can vote on it. Sorry, I'm just starting to unmute myself. Okay. You want me to type it in now? Yeah, go ahead. And I need your language again. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's shaking his head. Additionally, we would like to call to your attention. The strategic opportunity. Slow down. Say that again. Start again. Slower. I don't type fast. Yeah. I don't think fast. Additionally. We would like to call to your attention. The strategic opportunity. Improvements. Completed in concert with. The new school. Project or in. Something, something, something. New school building. I'll fix it in a second. Be completed in. Right. To your attention, the strategic opportunity for improvements. For further improvements. Or for improvements. Yeah, just improvements. Further improvements are for. No, not further. Just the improvements. We don't want to make them go back and redo things for improvements to be completed. As a. As a way to, I would even say as a way to facilitate traffic concerns. Does that make sense? Traffic concerns. As a way to. No, I was thinking, I don't like the in concert with, I don't like the idea of strategic opportunity for improvements to be completed. As a way to alleviate. Traffic concerns in regards to the new school building. Traffic concerns and, and, and, and promote. Alternative. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the new school building. Yeah. And I think. Oops. Traffic concerns and professional. Hold on. I'll add it in a second. Yep. Completed as a way and then take all that stuff out. Completed. That's it. That out. As a way to alleviate traffic concerns and promote bicycle and pedestrian access to the new school building. Yes, I like that. What do you think? I would say, I would say. I wouldn't say bike and pedestrian because that like, excuse like wheelchair users. So I would say either alternative transit or just. Whatever the phrases are, you know, like it's like, I think it's like walk bike role, but whatever the more formal version of walk bike role is. Which is not like coming to me right now. So I would say. Alternative. Alternative transfer. Oops. I don't know about that too. No, I want to make it some. I mean, pedestrian walk bike role makes it clear that it's cleaner. Not motorized. Like e-bikes. Yeah. Yeah. It was wheelchillers. Yeah. Alternatives to fossil fuel. Or, or, or clean transfer, clean. Yeah. Pedestrian and clean, clean transfers and pedestrian. Yeah. Yeah. Pedestrian and clean transportation sounds good. They're just clean transportation and pedestrian access. Yeah, that's fine. Before anybody makes a motion, I have another. Go for it. I just politics, politics, politics wise, I guess. Um, two things. One, I think it would be helpful to end, end the letter here. Please. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Just a sentence that says that ecac. Um, is, is available to provide any further assistance. And ecac would. Is prepared to provide any further assistance, something along those lines and, and, and help, help in this process. Um, and then also I was the first paragraph. Is a pretty much. Downer on Massachusetts, but I, I think. Um, it may be better to call some attention that Amherst is not. Um, it has done. You know, some we've, uh, and I'm thinking particularly of the. Valley bike. Program, um, that has been. Um, it has really supported bicycling in the, in the town, in the region. Um, obviously that's a bit on a hiatus. Uh, but, um, I think maybe. Um, you know, just so the town council is aware that. Um, we're aware of these things and that, you know, we're not quite at zero. Uh, as we've been ranked as a state. Uh, just some, uh, call out to, uh, that Amherst is serious about. Or has shown some seriousness about. Um, bicycle promotion, uh, as indicated as. Exemplified by the Valley bike program. I think that's the name of it. Um, uh, and, uh, um, And that it's important to continue this, this work. It's a good thought. How do we do that? In a simple way. I think maybe just at the end of that 1st paragraph. Is, um, we recognize the efforts mess. The town Amherst is made. Um, notably in the. Valley bike program. To support alternative transportation. And enter encourage the town council to continue. These efforts or this momentum. I'm sorry. Continue that. Um, and, and encourage and. Um, encourage the town to continue. This. Um, progress. By completing the. What is it called the, uh. Um, Amherst bicycle and industry and network plan. It's a sentence. Uh, what is it? Where is it? Um, And then we can take out the luckily in the next paragraph. And I think it all works. Right. I just, um, um, Three lines up that notable should be notably. Yeah. Oh yeah. And there's a little bit of repetition in the 1st sentence there, but I think that's fine because now we're going to talk about. This plan and where it came from and why it's important. And then the next paragraph. Um, I think it all comes together as a request to complete it. So one thing I, it always comes up. That the. Carp is a binding document. And I just remember when. I was trying to get it before. The council and was going back and forth with. The clerk to the council about the language for the motion. I can't remember if they actually adopted it or accepted it because those are two different things. And it, and I know that it, I mean, I'm not saying it means that it's not an important document, but I do think the language is important to be consistent. So I just want to find that. I've got to look like that too, Stephanie. There was, I think a motion to either adopt or endorse it. That did not pass. Um, partly because it came in late and it was a little bit not complete, but so I think they. Did a lesser thing like accept it. Without. Well, no, but they don't. It's a consistent thing that a lot of plans are not accepted. Like when the solid waste plan came before. For, I, and I don't remember the exact reason why. But very rarely are things actually. And even accepted. Like, so I need to find the language for the motion. And what is the difference between that? I mean, even. Yeah. I mean, I think we don't, I don't think it would dilute. This letter. Just leave out in the same way. Like, I think, for example, in the top paragraph, we could say the climate action, because what we're asking them to do is complete the plan. Right. So like we could say the climate. The carp completed by the town. So we could change adopted to completed there. I'm sorry. Where are you, Laura? Is that the very top, the first line? Oh, yeah. Just leave out adopted by the town and we can just. If we leave out that and we leave out a similar thing at the bottom. Yeah, made clear the cart made clear that blah. And then at the bottom. In the same way in the third paragraph, fourth line end of the line, if you take out the phrase in the same way as the car. We're done. We're asking them to adopt the tack. Plan the, the, the, the transportation plan. Period. Regardless of the stone with carp. Right. And then I think it works. We don't have to worry about it, but it would be nice to know maybe next time Stephanie, if you could look it up and let us know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just going to, and also, I mean, but it is here in the second paragraph to this. Yeah. Plan is yet to be fully completed or adopted in the same manner. Maybe you just get rid of that. Yeah. Yeah. Unnecessary anyway. Adopt this one. Yeah, it stands on its own merit. Right. Okay. I can I, I'd make a motion to. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go back to the town council. Is there a second? I second that. Okay. All right. I'm going to stop sharing. Okay. And in no particular order. Goldner. Yes. Roof. Yes. Breger. Yes. Selman. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm just going to pass it. And who is going to send the letter. I can, since I can sign it and send it if you want as chair. Yeah, I think you should. Yeah. Okay. Well, maybe you and Stella. That'd be fine. Yep. You should as chair, but it would be great to have Stella. Cause she's sponsored this. If you send me a PDF, I can. Or send me a word, word document and I'll put a signature. Line in and for both of us. And then I'll sign it, send it to you. Yep. You sign it. Send it to the council. Yeah. Can you do a signature? Yeah, that's no problem. Okay. Good. So I'll send you a, I'll put the signature lines in and send you a PDF. I'm not. I'm just saving this. I don't want to lose it. Put. In a signature. I'll send you the draft. Both. Thank you. So if you'll send it to me, I'll send it to Stella. And Stella, go ahead and I guess send it to you, Stephanie, or send it directly to. You can send it directly. Just copy me. Okay. All right. Where are we? Okay. Any dons not here today, right? So I only had one. There's, there's still no word on the RFP. I presume. I only had one update. I wanted to, it's more of an update than our report. The. The heat pump or electrification coaching. Workshop that I've been working on. It's just about done. I have one more. Unit to take. And I have to say it's pretty good. They have a bunch of materials to work through and questions to answer. And a lot of resources are provided. And I think I'd feel pretty good about. You know, offering advice. After taking this thing. So. I can recommend it. And so far it's free. I don't know if they're going to do it again or just put the materials out there. I don't know how to do it. What other groups are doing. This is through rewiring America, but Mike Simons is basically running it and he's a bowed. So he's their main instructor. There are a bunch of other people, but he's the one that he's their main instructor. So. I just wanted to mention that I am really looking forward to. Seeing more. Seeing the RFP. Go out. Is there any more word on that at all, Stephanie? Or is it still just. No, I mean, at this point, it's just a matter of, um, it's. You know, my next, my next agenda thing. I'm. Several other things are kind of finally moving along. So it's. It'll be the next focus. Good thing. So. All right. The next thing is also me and Laura and Laura. I have to apologize. I had meant to draft a note and then send it to you and have a conversation with you about, um, the climate bank, what we're going to tell the town council. And I have not had a chance to even do that. So I'd like to put this one off till next week. And we'll just have a in two weeks. We'll hopefully have a little memo to send to the town council about the climate bank. Um, I just, it's just been a busy couple of weeks. Um, Will you be here in two weeks, Laura? Yes, I will. Unless you have something else you want to add. No, that, that sounds fine to me. All right. Um, okay. Next is Steve on this mass Audubon report that we all got links to. Okay. I'm curious, um, how many people have had a chance to. Look at, look at the. Mass Audubon. Report. Unfortunately have not. Okay. Not major. Ah, okay. Um, I gave a brief overview last time. And maybe I guess it's some of you weren't there. Um, So maybe I'll do that. And then see if people have had a chance to look at the mass Audubon. Report. Unfortunately have not. Okay. Not major. I'll do that. And then see if people have questions that I can answer. And then we decide what to do with it. Uh, it came out just a couple of weeks ago. Um, Harvard forest and mass Audubon. And it got fair bit of press coverage. Um, they. Have they, they acknowledge it in their opening sentence of the main report that transitioning to clean electric power. Um, In less than three decades as an absolute imperative for decarbonizing, decarbonizing our economy and a massive challenge. So they recognized the need to decarbonize. Um, and then basically their hypothesis that they present is that our hypothesis is that there is ample space in Massachusetts to build economically viable solar on already developed lands, or that drives loss of forests, a terrestrial carbon biodiversity and so on there. So the analysis that they present that, um, goes on to try to argue that there is sufficient or ample. Um, space other than forests on which to develop solar to meet. 2050 plan, which I'm sure you all remember is between 27 and 35 gigawatts of solar capacity. Their methods are not always well-described or documented, and so there's some sort of, you can't always figure out exactly how they got their results. They go on in their methods to create three scenarios for, particularly for ground-mount solar. They present and accept some estimates for rooftop solar using some estimates from NREL that came out a couple of years ago, and I believe that's on the order of estimate of about 20 gigawatts for rooftop solar across the state, and then they also have a parking lot estimate which they put out at about 10 gigawatts. And they do not provide any sources on that parking lot estimate. I wrote to them, got a response, they said, ah, we're using a database from somebody at UMass, but we can't share it publicly. So I was a little disappointed that one of their key values, there's just no public evidence or documentation of that particular one. Not all of the parking lot or the rooftop is considered economically viable. In fact, the parking lot is, they consider, not economically viable. So they create a couple different scenarios. A current siting scenario for ground-mount, that's as we have it now and would build out over the next 25 years or so. And then there's a protecting nature mid-impact scenario and a protecting nature low-impact scenario. Those two are restrict solar on farmland forests, progressively more to the point where I think they're protecting nature low-impact scenario identifies only 38,000 acres across the state in that scenario. Their mid-impact shows, comes up with about 94,000 acres of technical potential for ground-mount. And if you remember, the decarbonization reports that came out, the estimate was in the range of around six, sort of the median, the best estimate was about 60,000 to 70,000 acres needed for ground-mount, assuming rooftop and parking lot canopies were fully developed. So their mid-scenario is somewhat consistent with what I've seen in the decarbonization plan. They do some economic analyses that I didn't fully understand. Apparently they use some of the same software and consultants that were involved with the Massachusetts decarbonization plan. And these are things that I guess are looking at future demand and growth in the state. And then they come up with several key findings. I think one of the things they find out is that no, there is not ample space within the state to meet the goals in an economical viable way. It's really weird. Some of the headlines that are in big print in the report say one thing, but when you look at the text and the figures, they show something different. And that's kind of one of my complaints. It looks like there were writers and authors, but then maybe some editors went in and highlighted stuff that wasn't fully true. So, yeah, the results do not show that the greenhouse gas reduction goals can be met with either actually any of their scenarios, unless the incentive structures for rooftop and canopies change. And so that kind of becomes their main, I think, thesis of this report is that those incentive structures need to change across the state. So rather than the current systems incentivizing ground-mount solar, there are going to those incentive systems should be changed to incentivize rooftop and parking lot canopies. They don't go into a lot more detail than that. So I think that's kind of the take-home message is that they are pushing for changes in the incentive to encourage more solar on rooftop and parking lot canopies. That's what I got from it. But, you know, personally, I think that's fine. Great. Let's see how we can reach our goals with using as little sort of natural working lands as possible. And if we need to change the incentive structures, sure, let's do that. So it's fine. I think that's good. I sort of, as I mentioned last time, was a little bit bothered by a couple of things. One is that according to this report and a previous report, the losing ground report that they put out, I think in 2020, solar development on forest is less than 25% of forest lost across the state. 75%, 80% of forest conversion is due to development, housing development, roads, that sort of thing. They don't even mention that here. They actually call solar development a leading cause of forest conversion. And personally, I don't think 25% or less is a leading cause. And then nowhere do they address this issue of housing road development, that sort of thing. So I think it's a little odd that they are so kind of obsessed with slowing solar development on ground, on forests and ground, and not addressing the major factor there. And I have to wonder, I mean, we need housing and we need these other things, maybe there's maybe a slight change in the way that housing is regulated might have a much bigger impact on protecting forests, than trying to slow down solar development. The other thing that kind of really pissed me off is here, and this was included in the headlines that went out to different news agencies. Let's see if I'm going to read it here. They, they, they, here it is. From 2010 to 2020, nearly half of ground mounted solar arrays were sited in forested areas. This resulted in a loss of over 500,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 110,000 passenger cars. So class can anybody tell me what they might be leaving out of that, out of that statement? Jesse, unmute yourself and speak. Is it the avoided carbon from the grid? Exactly. Yeah. So they barely mentioned that solar is a way of reducing carbon emissions by avoided emissions by displacing fossil fuels. So that particular statement, that got picked up by WBUR and other press releases. So they're saying, you know, this gives the impression that building solar on forested land actually results in a net increase of CO2. Just not true. Yeah, there's there's a at least a three, maybe a five or seven to one advantage of solar over forest in terms of net CO2. Well, there's a there's a time lag, right? But this is, but yes. Yeah, that's right. It depends on the time. And you're in the first few years, yes, there would be a net net gain of solar if you tear down the forest, but then over time, that gives gain back. So I, you know, that kind of bothered me a lot is that they were putting out these half truths, kind of half truth that best, try to sway their argument. So it kind of left me while I'm okay with their overall conclusion to let's try to minimize what we put on natural working lands, agricultural lands and forests. I was a little bit put off by their approach of both those kinds of statements, and then not also not always well documenting the methods that they use. So it gave me the sense that this is all sort of a pointed argument, even though it's supposed to be an objective analysis, it looks like it's skewed to reach the conclusion that they wanted to to reach. Yeah, and their key finding, as you were talking, I was also paging through their key findings, which are skewed in the same way as the rest of the report, it seems like they go right to it that, you know, first key finding is that ground mounted solar systems have caused significant losses to forest carbon, biodiversity and productive farmland. And it violates state goals for this, you know, resilience, that all these state goals for carbon removal, biodiversity and climate resilience will be at high risk, unless the sighting of ground mounted solar changes and quickly, which seems like hyperbole. Yes. Yeah, Laura, did you want to Yeah, thank you, Steve. That was a really helpful overview. And my one suggestion would be that you write that up and put it as an op ed in the paper. It doesn't have to be Keck, it could just be you. But you've already done the work. So finish the 10% and get it out there. I reviewed it a few weeks ago and agree with your takeaways. And so I don't need to repeat those. What I don't remember from my review, and maybe you know this offhand is do they give policy suggestions on how we improve the incentive structures? And like, is there in anything that we can do as ecac locally? Or does it need to be state level advocacy on roof and parking lot? Because and I ask that because I find this entire like us versus them thing to be so frustrating when what we all want is more solar on roof and parking lots like is what we all want. So that's why I feel you know if there's incentive if there's things we could do to push the town council on this like maybe that's something that's a path forward. I also think again I you know I had that idea, which I'm still a fan of I just would need someone to help me do it. That we host a learning session for folks that are now eligible for these direct payments out of the IRA that weren't eligible. And I was kind of hoping some of the smart solar groups would help me with that but I haven't gotten any response. So because that's a way we could potentially work together to get more solar, which is the goal of all of ours, right? So anyway, sorry, I got off a tangent. But like anyway, is there any like step four that we could take locally on some of us? They do the end they have quite a few suggestions. I have notes here three categories sort of changing up the smart program, eliminating incentives that support large ground mounted solar project on natural and working lands, increased smart incentives for canopy rooftop and ground mount systems cited on already developed or low impact lands require solar on new buildings and new parking lots and commercial buildings that receive state funding. So they have some specific suggestions there. There's another category of recommendations and planning and community outreach. And that has to do in part with updating model zoning laws for solar that align with state goals. And streamlining streamlining permitting for solar projects within developed lands. And then finally, the third area was nature and carbon removal policies. It was as we advocate for an integrated policy approach that begins to internalize the non market values of benefits provided by natural and working lands carbon removal, biodiversity, flood protection, climate resilience, clean drinking water, and so on. So provide sort of put some value on those and somehow recognize those values in dollar terms, presumably to balance against the the value of solar. I'm required development developers to pay fees for losses of forest carbon biodiversity and other ecosystem services. When I read this is like, okay, sure, but let's require developers of housing to do that. And developers of roof mounted solar. I mean, this is becoming one of my pet peeves. We've talked about this before. But I wonder how much loss right now, we've had half a dozen houses in my neighborhood, but in solar in recent in the last year or so, and there are an awful lot of trees coming down. Yeah. So how I mean, one house just took out about 30 trees, I'm a gas, I didn't believe they would allow that in Echo Hill, but they did. And I mean, big trees, you know, really a lot of littler ones, but but a good a good dozen really big trees just came down. And it really makes me wonder how big an impact is that having. And you know, why are these, it sounds to me like the least we should do is some sort of a workshop. People are confused about rooftop solar anyway. People want it, they don't know whether they should rent it or have the company, you know, have some company put it on their roof and get a little bit of a discount or whether they should buy it or and the prices, even with the big rebates are through the ceiling. I mean, they're crazy high right now. It might be worth our while to have a series of workshops on, you know, how you can participate in solar and how you can do it without, you know, making things worse by taking out putting solar on a house that probably shouldn't have solar on it because there are better things you could be doing than taking out trees. You could buy an electric car instead. You could, you know, do something else. Seems to me like we ought to think about having a workshop on that couple, maybe a few workshops on that. Go ahead. I think I saw Stella. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I just, I don't, I don't know. Like it is, we've talked about this before, and I've talked about this before. And it's it is like such a huge thing. And it seems like to me totally unquantified, like your removal for residential solar. And I just want to like put in a plug for those of you who are professors. To me, it seems like somebody should hire a PhD student to like look at this, you know, like, somebody should be like, I really haven't seen any research, like academic research into that. Yeah, good idea. Yeah, even even the studies that look at rooftop potential, there's the NREL or National Renewable Energy Lab, and they did a pretty thorough study. They use LiDAR, they ground truth in several different cities across the US. They compared their LiDAR, which is very accurate elevation measurements and detection of roof surfaces. They I think they also took into account slope and aspect. So that was a pretty good study. The recent DOER technical study of solar did not, they just used a pre existing data set of buildings that was mass GIS had previously created. And they just count the total square footage of buildings. And they apply a loading factor on it, but it's still a very high loading factor. They don't consider they state in that technical report, they state that, like only half of residential buildings in less than a quarter of multifamily buildings have roofs that are suitable for solar. And yet they go on to consider every square foot of every rooftop suitable for solar, despite the acknowledging those limitations. And I discovered that in that database of buildings, a bunch of greenhouses, all of the greenhouses in Amherst are mapped as buildings. And thus that report would have solar put on them. The greenhouses over at Brookfield Farm, the big greenhouses in the various farms around Amherst. Yeah, those were all mapped as buildings that they were not supposed to be, but they were Is that an hour study that was just completed? Or is that was in the the DOER Synapse study, the potential study that came out in July? Hopefully our local study fixed that. Oh, our local study. Our local study, I'm not sure. I don't remember, but I would say that they weren't they're not apples to apples, ours is a little bit different. We looked at things differently. So you can't say ours fixed it. It's building to building, it just went right. The local study was the GZA study is more difficult to use. They did not distinguish between large solar and small solar. They did not. And it's in it's on a 30 foot grid pattern, which doesn't correspond to parcels. And most of the regulations around solar development are parcel based. Yeah, I think this is I mean, and so this is where community solar and I mean, there's all these tradeoffs, right? Like is doing community solar on maybe an agricultural field that's not high quality? Would that be better than having 30 homes in Eco Hill put up their own panels and cut down? Pen trees each, right? Like there's stuff that we can't always figure out, but we need to be open to these discussions that not all not all on land solar is bad and not all rooftop solar is is good. But solar in general is all good because we're, you know, the whole point of we're not just putting solar in for the hell of it, right? Like there's a reason why we're putting solar in. And so we have to keep that reason in mind when we're all of these decisions. So I mean, every time I drive by that stupid place in Hadley with that stupid storage facility, I just get so angry because that would have been a much better use of land for solar. Yeah. The story was I have thought about this and I was I have something of a proposal to float with you guys. I was inspired by the Mass Audubon report when they talked about, you know, incentivizing solar development on the those lands that are sort of most suited for solar, meaning they have the lower carbon potential, the lower biodiversity and such. And also, they're mentioning of streamlining regulations. And I've been paying quite a bit of attention to the town's solar bylaw working group, creating regulations. And so I've come up with this idea and see if I can explain it concisely. To basically within town for that this might might could become part of the solar bylaw that the town would adopt would be to encourage responsible ground out solar development on those lands that receive the higher suitability scores from the DOER Synapse Technical Study. In that study, they assign scores A, B, C in six different categories. Those categories are things like what are they there? Where's my grid here? Biodiversity, agriculture, ecosystem services, embedded CO2, slope and aspect, and then grid infrastructure distance to the grid. And they give every parcel get scores, almost every parcel get scores in those grades. So I was thinking for parcels that up to say five acres that get straight A's across all six categories, the town could allow those developments as of right with site plan review. So that's a little easier route for putting solar up. That means that it would be allowed that the town could help shape the project, but they couldn't deny it. So that would be a way to encourage solar development on those lands that are most suitable for solar development. And then as I look through the solar bylaw at the draft of it, there's some other restrictions in there that I thought, OK, maybe on the more suitable lands for solar, some of these restrictions could be reduced. So for example, perhaps on parcels with ground out suitability scores of A's or B's in all six categories, you could reduce the set back requirement from 100 feet to 50 feet. And that would have the effect of sort of larger, more efficient solar fields on those lands that, again, are the most suitable for solar, meaning that they have the lowest potential for biodiversity and ecosystem services and such. And then there's even some other things in there. The solar bylaw draft as it exists has a requirement for the applicants would create a mitigation plan for impact on farmland or agricultural soils. And I thought, OK, well, what about those parcels that get high suitability scores in the agriculture category, which means they don't have a lot of agricultural soil or prime soils or and or they're not designated as agricultural lands. Maybe that requirement could be waived on those part of on those parcels that get those high scores. And likewise, there's another section of the solar bylaw. There's a requirement for mitigation plan for impact on carbon sequestration. Maybe that could be waived for development on those lands and get the high scores for the embedded CO2, meaning there's not a lot of carbon sequestration potential. So this would take some work. And I'm also fully aware that I think the solar bylaw working group is trying to wrap up in the next one meeting, perhaps. So it probably not practical to try to develop and present this to them. But I'm wondering if it could be possible that once the solar bylaw working group is done and presents a draft, it's going to go to the town council and to various bodies for review. ECAC has a chance to provide comment on it. And one thing we could consider would be to develop this kind of a suggestion as an amendment or as a change to the draft solar bylaw for town council to consider. I think that's a great idea. And I'm not sure where I mean, we are still drafting, Steven, you submitted some comments if I recall correctly. And so those are under consideration. I don't recall and I haven't looked at it in detail to know how detailed those were that you submitted. But if it's what you just mentioned, then we will consider that in our long, hopefully final meeting. I did submit some comments more of it. Mostly had to do more with the beginning part of the draft solar bylaw. Some comments on the the nexus statements. Comments on a few of some of the background that's in the beginning sections. I did kind of present this idea in very general terms in that set of comments. So they could come up. But I think they're probably not well enough explained, at least in those written comments that I provided. Go ahead, Laura. I think this is a great idea. And, you know, also aware that the bylaw working group is finishing up. And some of these discussions may be. I'm wondering if there's a way to like write in the bylaw that. I guess I'm just wondering, does it need to be in the bylaw or can the bylaw say something like we're open to incentivizing on. Land and then we we can use that as a way to do it separately. You know what I mean? I mean, this what the solar bylaw working group is is drafting is a draft and a recommendation. It's not it's not the ultimate bylaw. And there will be additional opportunities in a review by various different committees or departments within the town and then the town council, ultimately. So there'll be other opportunities for to suggest amendments and so forth. But also I'm going to say that in the bylaw itself while we're trying to, you know, provide a document that is most helpful to the town council that is being as complete as possible, there is opportunity to add. Marginal comments, if you will, that suggest areas that might need additional thought and work and some alternatives that that could be considered by the council that may not be in our final draft of the of the bylaw itself. So I think can I can I just let me just thank Steve for that. For that review of the Mass Audubon study. It's been all my mind to dig into it. And and that is really helpful summary. The thing that's been bothering me, I guess, and it's kind of pertinent pertinent to the Mass Audubon study, but also the deal. We are a technical potential study that I think we we mentioned is is sort of putting into context and some truth telling, quite frankly, in my mind by the state with regard to where is our where what the solar market looks like today and how have we accomplished the solar and greenhouse gas emission reductions through solar to date. And as we sort of project or develop a policy of what we how we want to build out solar it behooves us to look at how the market's operating now and to what extent is what we're putting forward as policy desires or preferences. How much is that aligned with how the market's working now and how much of that is is really. Substantial changes to the way in which the market is operating, keeping in mind that it's solar developers that actually build projects and finance projects. And you know, if the incentives change, they'll change. But to the extent that that there needs to be a substantial shift of how the solar market is operating now, we need to have some truth telling about that. And I that sort of motivated me to look at the smart program. I had done this analysis for the SREC program and the SREC to program, but not for the smart program, which is where really what the market is now to look at. So I did dive into the database that we are has on the fifty five thousand. Fifty five thousand five hundred and twenty one solar projects that have been qualified under the smart program over the last what is it like five years or so. And as I did before, if you order those, sort that database from smallest project to largest project and then look at where is our green, where is our capacity coming from? Ninety seven percent of the if you rank smallest to largest, the first ninety seven percent of the projects, which are the smaller ones. Ninety seven percent of them account for twenty percent of our installed capacity, which is a proxy for greenhouse gas emission reductions and and fifty percent of our capacity is coming from less than half a percentage less than one less than half of one percent of the of the number of projects. And so that's to me is a clear indication that the large scale solar projects are doing the heavy lifting by far with regard to our greenhouse gas emission reductions. That is why we're doing solar and this energy transition. And so what that means to me is that that's neither good nor bad nor bad necessarily, but that if the state's serious about shifting to the built environment, we we need a dramatic shift in the solar market that we have in Massachusetts in terms of what the developers are developing. And it and it. And in my mind, it sort of raises some credibility about the real credibility of shifting the market so much towards the built environments, residential projects and what Mass Audubon is really promoting from what I understand, but I haven't really read of sort of like 100 kilowatt scale projects scattered around in people's yards and so forth and other places, which are great. But is it really we need instead of fifty five thousand of these things, we probably need about five hundred thousand of these things to to produce the capacity we need. And that starts becoming aesthetically problematic as well, not to mention some equity issues as well in terms of filling up everybody's sites with with with solar. So that was some, you know, some of the stuff that I was sort of looked at and sort of is some of my frustration with regard to I don't feel like the state and Mass Audubon for that matter is really informing the the the the constituents about where we're where the solar market really is. That being said, we're all in favor of the built and of promoting the built environment and I'm 100 percent behind that. I just don't think it's and we can minimum we can reduce the the ground mounted solar we need. But it's not going to it's not going to get us there unless there's like some tremendous shift in the market that's promoted by policy, which in my means in my mind means a lot more money, rate payer money to pay for that solar, which then raises all sorts of issues as well. And and and whether you know, those those small projects in aggregate take a lot more time and effort to to get to the capacity that we need. So, you know, the idea that we can not only sustain the solar market, but accelerate the solar market in terms of not the number of projects with the capacity installed through these small projects is seems problematic to me or needs to be more carefully considered. Yeah, that's good. Thank you, Dwayne. And that's kind of where I was coming from. It's like, OK, if we in the town of Amherst can spur development on those lands most suitable for large scale solar, I think that would be setting an example for other communities in the state. You know, don't just blindly or broadly restrict solar development. Restrict it where the lands are valuable for ecosystems and encourage it on those lands that are less ecosystem rich. I don't agree of all the aspects of the solar, the technical study, particularly when they translate acreage into solar capacity. I think they're way off, but I think their estimates of, you know, acres of different kinds of lands, you know, the value of it in terms of agriculture or ecosystems or embedded CO2. I think those that rating system is valid. So I'd love to see if we could within Amherst encourage find a way to actually positively encourage those on those most appropriate lands. So I think once there is a draft of the bylaw, once the bylaw working group has done its job with all of your comments, Steve and anyone else who wants to comment. I think we should come back to this discussion again, sort of think through some of this stuff again and how that might be incorporated into the bylaw. I think that's the right path forward here. What do you guys think? I agree. I think once that draft comes out of the solar bylaw working group, we definitely should take a very close look at it on the ECAC and write up our recommendations for changes or endorsing components that are in there, but give a very detailed sort of report with recommendations in it and forward that to town manager and council for consideration. So about when do we think that's going to be? Well, this this Stephanie might have to inform us on the process, but we're hoping to wrap up the working group in November. So it will then go to the town manager, who will basically submit it to the council. And my guess is that it will then probably get referred to the CRC and the planning board. I believe that's the next bodies that will review it. Those are the points at which really at the CRC level is the point at which you all would probably want to submit your comments and recommendations if you have any. Basically, once the town manager gets it, we when the working group is wrapped up, we should probably get a copy. You can have a copy then at that point. And I think that's the time that you all should just look at it. And then whenever that process begins is the time that, you know, when it gets to CRC, but remember that we have an election. Yeah. So it's going to be a while because these committees are going to be reformed. And so it might be, you know, into January, even February early in our comments whenever and then you can do your own thing to whatever draft recommendations you want to make as part of, you know, their process. I think let's aim then for Dwayne, if somebody will alert me when, because I haven't been paying that close attention to the Solar By-law working group, right? So if someone will alert me when that's done, I can, yeah, we'll give you, you know, you'll get a copy. Yeah, you'll get a copy. We'll be we'll be hearing the celebration from across the. Yeah. Encourage people to watch the meeting. When's the next Solar By-law working group? Is it October 30th? No, no, that got changed because they needed more time. So it's now November 9th from noon till three. Yeah, that's the way that's the supposedly the last meeting. I can't do a little bit of stuff like that. These are fun meetings. They're like better than sporting events in terms of their excitement. From my perspective, as an observer, yeah, I'm even like, you know, like in a sporting event, you know, you cheer on your team, you're yelling at the team. You know, the popcorn, right? Yeah, that's what. I'm just trying to get more like baseball or ice hockey. Curling. Curling. Maybe. For boxing, professional wrestling. Professional wrestling. Body slams. It's a lot of drama. Yeah. All right. I was also going to comment. I think definitely a role for EECAC to review and comment on the bylaw. But, you know, keep in mind that this bylaw is more about larger scale solar development. I think to a large extent comments from this group will be important. But, you know, that development is is primarily going to go forward by solar developers and so forth. I think that I as large as brought up in the past a role for EECAC to really think about strategically how we can sort of work on this built environment area, because I think that's that's what needs prompting and promotion at a community level and a group like ours has more impact on that. So in addition to and maybe after the bylaw is settled, or at least we do what we want to do with that, that to, you know, think about solar programming. OK, I think we should probably move on at this point. So let's go on to staff updates. OK, I bring good news. Jesse, do you want to? I think you should really have the glory of this first announcement. The specialized code, Jesse. Of course. Yeah, I think. I would just say the specialized code passed. And as a through the Town Council, and I think this was a. To me, I'm more excited about the way that it passed. Yes. That it then that it did pass in that, you know, Lori started or I think maybe even Vasu started it and then Lori and then I and Stephanie all along and then Anna at the Town Council really did the lion's share of the work and just picked it up. And but also just all of the meetings were really collaborative and it just everyone good questions, good answers. CRC was great. They run a great meeting over there. And I just think it was like a story of a non-contentious, like, well, well done, like the way we should be working together as a town. Jesse, I thought that was nice. It passed as part of a consent agenda. Correct. Yes, I was just going to say that for people that didn't know. So there was no further discussion. I mean, they did have discussion though, and they had a question and answer period. And that went through the CRC. So and even at the council level, at the council meeting, there were some questions for both Anna and myself prior to the vote. But, you know, it was on the consent agenda at the following meeting and there was no further discussion. So it was vetted. I mean, I don't think it wasn't without some back and forth. But I think that's the point is that it was really well vetted. I think it was it was it felt to me like, like the CRC in particular sort of use the ECAC as a resource and the town council sort of like, we need to make a decision to help us make this decision. And this group kind of worked as a resource and a supporting partner, which I just thought was it was it was a pleasurable experience. Yeah. And when you look at what's going on in some other towns where people have objections and say things that are false and the false narrative gets promoted and there have been a few disasters where a specialized code did not get passed because of some just false stupid thing that was circulated and be tamped down. So I'm well, our town and I will say that we also did our due diligence by reaching out to the building commissioner ahead of time and having a conversation and finding out what strategy would work best for their department. So, you know, the timing was really guided by them. So I really feel like that was an important piece because, you know, throwing out this kind of legislation that's going to impact a department without getting them on board is just a really great way to lose. So I think that was an important piece. So Stella. Yeah, I just want to say I think I think this sounds like an op ed Jesse from you. If you can do it in a way which I'm sure you can. I have absolute confidence you can. It's not like passive aggressive towards other processes or other towns. I think just like I think people could use a hopeful story of like governance and community functioning. Yeah. And, you know, I will say that even the stretch code. You could have blown me over with a feather because that was town meeting and it passed unanimously. And I was anticipating all kinds of crazy pushback. And in fact, I was there that night with an additional hosting requirement for the Conservation Commission in terms of when they do mailings and that actually got pushed back and the stretch code passed unanimously and it was completely the opposite of what I anticipated that night. So I mean, I just think because there was also a lot of education around it. We did a real a real effort to make sure we got the Western Regional Coordinator did a thing on Amherst Media so that it was, you know, accessible to the public. People could watch it. We had a couple of public meetings, you know, there was a lot of information that went out ahead of time. And I feel like that was the case here too. So, you know, that outreach was really important. Yeah. And I'll just even say it's even when there were questions that were and challenges and trying to like unpack the issue to understand what the effect would be. I thought it was just and even disagreement. I think it was just all handled in a very, very respectful way. Because it's not it's a complicated issue and it's not a it's not a slam dunk per se. I mean, it has it's pros and cons. And I think it I think it was just all done very respectfully and I am proud of our town. All right. This is great. Thank you, everybody who made this happen and who helped and Jesse especially. So I have more. Sorry, that was I was going to say. Yes, so more good news. So on Friday, the 13th, we submitted the community choice aggregation application got submitted to the Department of Public Utilities. So that application has now moved forward. So who knows how long that process will take. But that was really an exciting step. So really happy to have that have gone forward. I just had a phone call today about the grant that we received from Mass Evip to install a DC fast charge station in town. DPU. This was all fairly new is now. Requiring ever source to somehow deduct the funding that communities get for the stations from their incentive, which doesn't make any sense. Because when we installed our our seven dual head stations in town, we used Mass Evip funding for the cost of the station themselves and then we got ever source funding to assist with the installation of the utility infrastructure work and in the install. And basically that was ended up being, you know, free to communities that are in environmental justice communities, which we are. So. I guess there was some change that DPU required that they would have to deduct incentives from the mass from the other programs, which means that if we if we go forward with just the one station and we're deducting that from the incentive from ever source, that means we'd end up having to basically pay for the cost of our station because it would be around $40,000 ish. So we basically have to pay for the station, which doesn't make any sense at all. So they were they've been the folks from ever source have sort of been creatively working with the company that we're working with. And so what they said is you're better off getting two stations and then you'll have to pay a little something, but it won't be much because it'll offset the deduction from, you know, because you're just deducting the one grant for the one station. So essentially we'll have some funding, but we'll have like double the cost of the incentive from ever source. So somehow it it works out that we just would pay less. So it's oddly we may end up with two stations. I mean, this is still sort of being worked out. So now we might end up with two stations, but it's really screwy and it's really messed things up with some other communities because part of the problem is that we got this funding back in 21, I think. Yeah, we got the funding back in 21. And so we, along with other communities have basically been waiting for the DPU to make their decisions around the ever source incentives and how that was going to work, the utility incentives and funding. And so that finally just happened, I think just this past. I don't know. I want to say it was like the spring. It wasn't so long ago. It was fairly recently. They revised our, you know, our timelines for installing our stations. But now we're facing this challenge with from the DPU that's all brand new. Like I literally just found out about it today. I think in the end, luckily, we have folks that are being creative and it's going to work in our favor. And we might end up with two stations, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. It's kind of, but it's kind of, it's just crazy. So anyway, I just wanted you to know, like when people get frustrated, that things take too long. This is why. And don't blame me because it's so frustrating. I mean, I just feel like why can't anything be straightforward? Yeah, I don't pretend to understand what you're dealing with. But but I'm sorry. And I hope it. I don't know, I mean, in the end, I think it's in our favor, actually. I mean, in the end, if we end up with two fast charge stations, that's great. And I will say that there's more I am a brand new EV owner. And I will say that I'm noticing, yes, I'm very excited. I am noticing that there are there's like increasingly a few more vehicles that I see, like they're the same kind of, you know, the same folks are charging in the mornings and I see us moving around our different, you know, different stations. But but I do think there's an increase in EV purchasing. So and I think we're only going to see more. So getting to DC fast charge stations would be really great, actually. So anyway, that's in the works. They're supposed to be installed by January of twenty four, but I'm somewhat doubtful. So that's I mean, there's other things, but I don't want to take more time. So that's those are the big things right now. All right. So you can't update. Anyone. I just had a question of the fast charging stations. Which is if the town gets any say in their layout, or if we can be like proactive, if that's the place we can be proactive about situating them so that like light duty commercial vehicles or even heavy duty commercial vehicles could access them down the line. The proposed location for these and I don't, you know, part of it is, you know, they that utility has to do a feasibility analysis. Whether the location is even going to be suitable. So right now it's proposed for the North Pleasant Street lot, which is also known as the CVS lot. So the one behind the public lot that's behind. They have to be publicly accessible. They can't be on private land. They have to be in an EJ neighborhood. You know, so, you know, there's some limitations as to where we can cite them. But, you know, they they have they're supposed to have accessibility dimensions, you know, so there's plenty of with for, you know, for larger vehicles really, I think. I also noticed just as an aside that that the gas station that is closest to 91 on route nine has a whole row. They were all unused last time I was in there. Huge. Those are the Tesla. Those are Tesla. I think they're just Tesla. Yeah. But the stop and shop has some fast chargers now. Yeah, nice. But the stop and shop isn't accessible if you have a longer vehicle. Like, yeah, I was thinking that for longer vehicles, if they weren't Tesla charging stations that that thing right near the highway would be the obvious place to put them, right? So. Well, we're going to I think there's. You know, a lot of funding streams that are. Presenting themselves for installation of, you know, expanding the charging network. So I think we're going to start seeing more and more. All right. Any more questions for Stephanie before we go to EECAC updates or should we go to EECAC updates? Sorry about the dog barking. I don't know if you can hear that or not, but. He wants to play. Any other updates? I saw Steve riding his bike. I was nice. He didn't see me, but it was kind of like I was going to say Steve really walks the walk, but he actually he rolls the roll. He rolls the roll. Was that when I rode by your house? Yeah, it was a yesterday. You wrote I was taking a walk. Oh, OK, asked me and I was like, wow, people ride bikes. Cool. Is that plant still out in front of your house? Even old people, yeah. I don't know if you I think it's still there. I'll swing by my way home. There's some beautiful rides at the end of the day, the last couple of days. This past two weeks, it's just been beautiful weather riding and beautiful sunsets between five and six p.m. And the most beautiful place I'll just put this the new not quite yet finished part of the bike trail that goes from Station Road and South Amherst over to Belcher town. Oh, nice. You kind of have to crawl around the fence because they like try to block it off. But the path is better than any road in town. It's a beautiful. Oh, there was a rumor that that wasn't going to reopen. Well, you can get around the fence. Don't don't say any. Tell anybody from Station Road to Warren Rite Road. That's right. Yeah, I use that part of it, but not since it's been blocked off. But yeah, you know, they it's been blocked off for over a year now. And you know, they work on it like two or three days a month. They were working on it yesterday. I go there after after work hours. So I'm not like worried about getting run over and there's a few people walking their dogs and riding their bikes. It's beautiful. They still have to put the top coat of pavement on the last asphalt. Hopefully they'll do that. Weird. Like I say, there was a rumor in the biking community that that is not going to ever open. So I was surprised. I have no idea where it came from. But it certainly seems that way. Seems that way. Maybe it's just. Yeah, you are trails off Station Road that you can kind of go around and hop over to the to the bike path. And it's just beautiful. Right. All right, I remember that. But don't don't tell anybody that I said so. So OK, any other updates? Yeah, I just have a few maybe public service announcements. One is I plus one Stella's suggestion that Jesse writes something about the stretch code specialized code thing. I think it's really needed and would be would be really powerful. So try to find some time to do that if you can in your in your not busy schedule. I I following up from last meeting, I sent Stephanie for this meeting the application for the network geothermal thing. So I'll let Stephanie review that and see if we have the bandwidth to apply. The public service announcements are, of course, that we have a local election coming up before next meeting, so encouraging everybody to get out and vote. And the town manager feedback for the town manager. Evaluation is due on by Friday. I was just actually read I took my 30 minutes that I thought I was supposed to be an e-cac and was started reviewing the self evaluation, and it's just super impressive, all of the climate work that has been done. I don't think the narrative out there reflects the reality of the situation, so I'm still going to provide some critical feedback as well, but I encourage folks that feel so inclined to just provide some. Feedback that, you know, there's been a lot of work going on, even with all the limited staff and everything else. So, and Stephanie, I'm sure you probably wrote all that. So good, good job. And then the last thing I'll say is that I think there has been some things in the paper recently about how different counselors vote on climate things that I don't think are quite accurate. And I don't think it's worth getting into a public debate on it, but I would encourage folks to talk to your friends and neighbors about. Climate stuff in town and, you know, what what we know in terms of what counselors are counselors have come to us and asked us for feedback and helped us get stuff done because I think we know best. So those are my public of service announcements. Thanks, Laura. Anyone else? Go ahead, Steve, Duane. This is not an update, but a apology I did mention to Stephanie. I need to drop off early. I know we go till seven now. I have another or a presentation to make it 645 and to get a little bit prepared for that. So I'm going to have to drop off. Yeah, we're just about done anyway, Duane. So good night. Yeah, OK, bye. Any other updates? If not, Lori, I'm sorry. I have one that I forgot about. Go ahead. But really quickly. So the state has a new community leader program that's being developed. That's it's a step up from green communities. And so I was looking at the criteria. Amherst is I mean, we've we've really actually meet most of the criteria. There's just two that we don't want is a decarbonization specific road map. And the other is. Adopting a zero emissions vehicle first policy. So for vehicle replacements, you start with zero emissions vehicles, EVs. And so I was looking into that. I did submit an expression of interest that we would be interested in becoming a community leader. Community community leader. Community, yes. So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that that's out there. It's you know, I literally just found out about it, I think yesterday or the day before. And I already submitted my expression of interest and told the town manager that I'd be looking into this because we're so I mean, it's just a natural progression for us. Where we we meet all of the criteria, except those two. And one of them was adopting the specialized code, which we've done. So and we're a green community and good standing. So there's other things too. But again, we meet those. So anyway, I'm looking into it. And hopefully that is something that we can move forward. Yeah, the program isn't official quite yet. It's just there like I think they're trying to gauge interest and which communities would be eligible to start moving that forward. Right. OK, anything else, Stephanie? No, that's it. I'm sorry, I just forgot about that. I had one thing that I wanted to mention that I want to bring us back to at some point, which is again, it's one of those things I've been meaning to look into and haven't yet. But there was this new legislation coming up around CCAs that had in it something that would have been very damaging to our CCA, to most CCAs, which was that it was an opt in and not an opt out. And I think someone needs to look into that. It doesn't have to be me, but I'll do it if no one else wants to. Anyone want to look into that and report back next time? Lori, I can easily find that out from our consultant. I mean, they're totally on top of all this. OK, so let me just ask and maybe we can even talk to the consultant next time. The possibility? What specific? I mean, if he's going to come speak to you, what would you like him to present on? I'm particularly interested in this legislation and what's in it and how it would affect the CCA and what we can do to change things if it's as bad as it looked. OK, let me reach out and see if he's available and willing. And I'm assuming you want to try to get this on for the next agenda. That would be great. I think that would not be a bad thing if we can do it. And if he's not available just to get a report from you on it and just stick it on the agenda as something to discuss, if you can find out from him as much as you can and maybe send a link, I mean, I don't even know where to look for this legislation, what the number is on it. Yeah, I have it somewhere and because we've done letters of support for the Valley Green Energy Group has sent letters of support. But through our consultant. So let me and they did. There were a group of consultants that kind of worked together. So representing all of the communities that are that they work with. So it wasn't the individual communities that came up with a response. It was more these consultants sort of put their resources together. And I think they identified some of these things. So if you wanted him to sort of speak to that, maybe. Yeah. Yeah. I think I don't know. What do people think? Does that sound like something that it's worth our time to do? Or the formula is some sort of an e-cac response? Is it if it's useful? Yes. But if it's I would refer to the CCA team, they want us. They're a very competent group. Would it be useful for I don't want to I don't want to take up their time well, so unless they're wanted. I mean, I think so there's this, you know, the group that meets is the advisory group for the for the CCA, I think are the working group. But I think you as sort of representing us, the town, you very specifically represent Amherst. And I think if there were things that you felt like the e-cac as an energy committee could provide, you know, in support of, I could just ask him if he could come speak to that. I'll just ask him if he feels like it would be helpful. How about that? And if he does, then by all means, let's see if he can talk to us or just put it on the agenda so we can talk about it with your input, Stephanie. And if not, we'll just leave it off the agenda. We can figure that out in the next week. OK, I'll yeah, I'll reach out to him tomorrow and see what he thinks. So that's a possible item for the next agenda, which I think is almost the next agenda. Yeah. Is the next thing on the agenda. So we had that. We had if we're lucky, we'll have a solar bylaw draft to discuss. Probably not before the next meeting, because you meet on the eighth and they meet on the ninth. Ninth. OK, it's ninth. That's right. OK, so you won't have it in time. What else is for the next agenda? There's the your you and Laura. Yeah. What was that? The Green Bank, the Climate Bank, Climate Bank, right? We have to formulate a response to the Climate Bank. That should be a minor thing. I don't think that'll take very long. We just have to draft something. How about this idea of workshops on solar, on solar? What you can do and how to do it right? Is it right for that? Are you right for that yet? Or talking about that a little bit more? Or I like timing it with the public comment on the bylaw and doing it as kind of like a panel discussion at have have a group like convene a group that the public can come and and discuss it. Because I think one of the things that I've noticed about the public hearings is they are they're all statement based. You come and you make a statement. They're not dialogue based. So we have the ability to create a more of a dialogue and like a which I think could be a more productive conversation rather than like I have to make a statement and I can't risk losing any points. It's just all sort of outwardly directed. It's not very listening directed. So that would be my suggestion, sort of like I'm with the public process of the whole bylaw and get support for whatever needs support. So that would be a while. That would be a while. So let's let's just keep talking about it then. Maybe maybe just stick it on the agenda is something to keep talking about. I think it's a great idea. Well, I think it will take some effort to develop a good information sort of how to guide residents for putting solar on their rooftops or or small solar on their land. Right. And the bylaw doesn't address that at all. So it's sort of completely separate from the bylaw. Right. Yeah, I think it could be a wider discussion on in a brainstorm on how do we support. Build environment solar. That sounds like a good idea. But yeah, I like that. How do we support? That's that's a great idea. And that gives us a chance to talk about taking out trees to put in. Yeah. And the bylaw yeah, connects to the bylaw. This is yeah, I like that. That's a nice. Organizing. Topic. How to support solar development in the built environment. It's also not very controversial. All right. I don't know that I have anything else other than the usual updates on everything next time. There's a lot going on, but I don't know that I have specific agenda items. Anyone else have anything? Not. And I think we still have no public today. So no public comment. So I think we can adjourn. Is that the next thing on the menu? So unless there's anything else, let's see. Yep. Anyone like to move to adjourn? That's adjourn. I move. Seconded. I don't think we need a vote for that. Second. All right. No one says bye. OK, good night, everyone. Thank you all.