 Okay, we are now recording and we have a quorum. Okay, great. So we'll wait to do the minutes I think for five since some Steve. And Darcy may be joining then correct. So. Let's maybe just start Andre with the report. Hang on a sec. Do you want me to share it? Yeah, could you. Yeah, let me see if I can. I've got a second monitor now, which makes my life a bit easier. Oh, that's good. Yeah, I do too. That's why I'm sometimes looking away in a strange angle. I'm not quite set up. Set up my monitors quite right yet. I'm not staring out into space. Yeah, I have the same thing. I'm not staring out into space. I'm not staring out into space. They buy it. Everyone all of a sudden. Looking off to the side. So are you seeing the annual report? Yes. Yeah. Great. So I. I took the version. That Stephanie had edited. That Lara then sent out after the meeting. And I think it's. That. I think Laura, you put in during last meeting while we were discussing it. And. Made the changes that. I hope address those. Those issues. Big one was a reorganization of the. Recommendations in quotes and to make them less. Recommending and more. Ideas since we don't really know what we're going to be. Recommending it. And so that part. Number. Four, I think. Do you want me to just scroll down to four? Yeah. Yeah. To make sure people agree with the way I. Reorganized it. So. The language at the beginning. May have moved, but it was in there before. And then I give a couple of things about the context for funding. Starting with. Ashwin's. Paragraphs about equity. And then. Can you go down. Stephanie. Then I. I guess. This was. Somewhere, but I think I pulled. Pieces from different places. And called it partnerships. Other ways to. Use the funding, the costs on the town. So, and then. The, the general idea of. Spreading out the responsibilities among all the staff. And so. There was a lot of redundancy about this throughout the document. I at least reduced that. So, but this is, you know, that's, that's where the. The climate lens. Part is, is where. Is there anything about how to. Reorganize the departments or, you know, Put it into job descriptions. And then what was under capital budget request. Just came down to. One thing about the. Resident capital request. I did add. since we've made some progress on the BRIC grant, that grant may partially subsidize this, not very controversial. And then the operating budget request probably changed the most. So reiterate, it's gonna take staff time. But I wanted to make sure that the request for an intern got out there really clearly. Like, that's something that we really would like to have in the next year's budget. That's something Stephanie made clear that I could be really helpful. Extremely. Yeah. And then the rest is anticipates the need for. So that's like toning down the recommends all of these things. But I included all the things that were listed there before. And then I offered one that go up a little bit, Stephanie. Laura captured, I think Steve's comments in the notes in the last version that we don't know what our specific recommendations are for projects and, you know, actions. So I couched it in terms of here's why we'll need staff time. And I chose, I didn't include them all because I think that's what people were saying. So I just selected the ones that I thought provided a variety of examples. So if anyone feels strongly about one that I didn't choose wants to put it back in. Look through those, let me know. And then I added the zoning changes. Oh, wait, can you go up again? Yep. It's at the very top. Oh, right here. Oh, that's interesting. I moved it to the second one in my last, last version. It doesn't matter that much. I'll look and make sure that there's nothing else that I made in that last, last version. Change. Do you want me to keep going? It's up to people. Are you reading it? I can't see everybody. So I'll scroll slowly. Yeah. Just stay there. Well, I guess everyone's read the first one. Yeah. Gotta turn the light on. So, does it look okay? Yeah, this looks good to me. And I don't think community engagement changed at all. There might have been some worries. I believe Ghazi Hai is the last one. That's wrong. Yeah. Good eye, Sarah. So the only other thing did add, and I mentioned in the email was a mention of the youth advocates who came to our last meeting. And that is up in the introduction, I think. Do you want me to go back home to those hop? Yeah. Okay. So it would be at the end of the introduction. Let's see. Can I get my people out here? Yeah. Okay, here it is. Right here. Yeah. One of the most innovative aspects of our committee's work has been our approach to community engagement. So it goes through, for example, things that we heard from community members. So the last sentence is what I added. Can I make a wording suggestion there just to replace public safety with policing because public safety is really broad and includes the good stuff? Yeah. What we were hearing was really about policing. That's right. Thank you so much, Andrea. This is... Yeah, I had one minor wording change as well. Okay, let's do it. But also thank you, Andron, everybody else. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Putting this in really good shape. So if you can go, I think, to the top of page five. Just tell me what it is, what section it is. What's the, I just had it marked on my copy. It's under partnerships. Yeah, okay. I was just suggesting a partnership with local colleges and university. That's number two. Well, yeah. Oh, and... Roman numeral, double I in number two. Yeah, partnership with local colleges and university or institutions of higher education or something like that. Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm gonna say institutions of higher education. All right, that's better. I would keep the local in there. Yeah. All right. Sarah, did you see anything else? No, this is incredible, Andrea. It's a lot of work. Thank you. So part of the idea when Laura and I, Laura got me to take the lead on this was that some pieces of this would end up being a part of the carp as our introduction or perhaps are, you know, part of our summary of the carp that it'll serve another purpose as well. Yeah, definitely. Okay, are we good? Do you want me to stop sharing? Good, thank you. Great. So I think the next steps would just be to submit it and Andra, I'm happy to have you submit it to Lynn and Paul on behalf of VCAC. I'm assuming, I think that's who we would send it to, correct? Yes, well, we, so it just gets submitted to the town council's packets, right? That's, so we submit it to Paul on behalf of the committee. I would just forward it onto them and it would get into the next town council packet. Yeah. So when you have the, you know, cause I know you said this may not be the, the final, final version. Yeah, I got it just to check. Yeah, take a look and once you know, just forward that on to me. Yeah. Yeah, but maybe we also want to just send it by email to the town council directly as well. That's, yeah, no, we, no, we send it to the, we send it to the Lynn. It gets included in their packet. We don't send it directly. So, and then what they do is usually pretty pro forma. They accept the reports from the committee's into the record or something, you know, it's like, I don't think that there's actually usually even discussion unless councilor chooses to bring it up for discussion. Yeah, there isn't. I mean, that was my understanding cause I talked to Paul about it a little bit and he just basically, and I talked to Athena as well. And she said, you know, it is just basically they vote to accept the report. Yeah, if I remember correctly, from our conversation last time, Darcy mentioned that, I mean, there's a slight possibility that someone could ask a question about it. So maybe once we know when we're on the agenda, some of us or all of us can try to attend. But I believe that's all we need to do. Okay, and I really regret that I didn't make enough time to do it on time, but I did attend the meeting on the fourth that, well, the first of the three meetings that was supposed to be 15 minutes long about the zoning and it went for two hours. So they had a very long night. I don't think any of them were thinking very much about any committee reports. So it might be to our benefit that they would have a little brain space to actually read it before the next meeting. Yeah, agreed. It might have been a strategic move by accident. That was a pretty wild meeting. Yeah, they're waiting, right? Or they're having more discussion? No, they went ahead with exactly what they had proposed. Oh, okay. CRC proposed. And there was an alternative proposal brought forward by Kathy Shane that had, she was the only one who mentioned climate in the whole two hours. She had added some other general categories of things to have looked at that weren't in the pretty narrow list ideas that CRC came up with. So, but that was voted down. Well, we will have an opportunity to review the CRC stuff. I just got an email with it from Mandy Jo so we'll put that in the packet for next. Yeah, that's good. But it's CPC, not the CRC. I'm sure we can insert a conversation into the process a couple of places. It just shows that the mindset hasn't shifted. Yeah. All right, so let's give, I think out of fairness, we should wait until five to start discussions. Anyone looking at the news? Trying not to get caught up in it. So, Andrea, what's the like the sense about the baker signing the climate bill? It's, people are feeling pretty confident that he makes no sense for him to veto given his belief and actions so far about climate. So it doesn't agree with everything in his plans but people think he will. But we really want to make sure he does because this is the biggest legislative changes since we got the Global Warming Solutions Act, right? What are people at CERES thinking? Yeah, just a lot of, they've send out calls to our BISET network which is like our network of corporations that engage on policy to like ask them the same that to email the governor and ensure it gets signed. I've asked my colleague that leads our mass stuff to send me any good roundups that he comes up with. Look good, yeah. Because I think once it's signed, we should probably look through it and figure out what in our plan maybe seems to be happening on the state level versus what we need to make sure we're pushing or what additional resources are gonna be available because of the state level plan. Yeah, I was really excited to see the net zero stretch code in there. That was our Joe Cumberford. Nice. Because of us, because of Amherst's zero energy bylaw that's got her educated, got it. That's awesome. Laura, do you want me to post the agenda here? I'm sure that'd be great. Five o'clock, where are they? Yeah, not here yet. Okay, so are you seeing the agenda? I can't ever tell. Not yet. No, we're just seeing your files. How about now? Yes. Okay, so we can go through the minutes first. Sorry, I'm just gonna text asking how to pick up a kid. Go through the minutes. I think in public comment, of course, if anyone's here, I think we'll skip staff updates and ECAC member updates to start just because I wanna make sure we have plenty of time to do this discussion of our work we need to do for the action plan. And we're having a meeting next week that'll be more traditional in the sense. So let's go first to the minutes. Do you want me to post those? Yeah, if you wanna bring them up, that's great. All right, just bear with me. They're long, so I don't know if you all have your own copy to read or you're actually reading this. It might be easier to just read them on your own if you can. Yeah, I'm just pulling mine up now. We were all there, right? Yes. Okay, because I'm realizing that if one of us is gonna abstain, then it won't pass, right? Yeah, I just realized, and it just typo. Can I ask a question? I believe that Birdie named himself in the meeting, but I just wanna make sure that we aren't, that we're all set with protocols about putting the names of minors into these documents. It was a public session. Birdie did name themselves in the meeting. I don't know that there's anything, I've never, that's never really come up before. So I can, I could just say a high school student and take Birdie's name out. I really don't know, I was just wondering because it seems like I might, I could imagine it being an issue, I don't know. I don't, you know, like I say, it's a public session. It's a public meeting and they did, it was recorded and they identified themselves. Okay, that sounds fine, I was just- I'll leave it in and if I can always just ask somebody. I don't know that we have any strict protocol for minors if they're attending meetings. There's noting that Gazikaya's name is misspelled again. Where? The very top of the last page. Of the very last page. Yeah, just the second line. Right, it doesn't have the Y on it. Thank you. Anything else? Just yell out and I'll correct it. Is the discussion about the CRC referring to the housing plan meant to the zoning plan? Or was there also something about housing? I can't remember. So I'm honestly a little mixed up about it all myself but I attended a meeting, I was asked to attend a meeting of the CRC. Hold on, let me just make sure these acronyms. Okay. I was at us to attend a meeting of the CRC about comments on their comprehensive housing plan. Okay. So I think that's a level down from the zoning discussion, correct? Or different. Yeah, it's different. Different, yeah. Yeah. So that's what we have on the agenda next time. I still haven't done that memo about pace. Have I? I mean, did you? But I do think that the two conversations got mixed together because then Darcy, the letter that we sent was about the zoning, yeah. And Darcy maybe did say this but she probably meant the zoning plan since that would, that's what did come up on that Monday. Where is that? Hi Darcy. Hi. It is in the number four PCAC member updates. So first, Laura updated us about the invitation to attend the CRC on the comprehensive housing policy. And then it morphed into your update about the zoning plan. Right. It's here, it says the housing plan under yours. Well, it says, it was interesting that the CRC asked for input on the housing plan. That was me saying, they should both. Okay. They could also ask for input on the zoning plan because that's a sector that we're looking at. Okay. Then I just didn't read carefully enough. Yeah, no, that was that had a little, little sarcastic twist to it. Oh, I just realized we need someone to take the minutes for this meeting. Oh yeah. Well, you haven't gotten very far. What do we just do? Well, the beginning is easy-ish. So I can always edit that part, but if someone could, Sarah took them last time, so. I still have a wrist injury. I'm very sorry. And I'm still trying to minimize typing and my voice to text feature, I think is a little too awkward to use in meetings. I'm not sure about it. I assure you it's not for lack of like wanting to. Who did these minutes? Sarah. So I was just saying Sarah did the last set, so. D'Arcy did the ones before that. I guess I'll do it. Oh, somebody has a hand raised. Or no, sorry. Oh, Steve does. Steve, do you wanna, Steve here? Is he trying to get in? Oh, he's trying to get in. Sorry. Sorry, Steve, I didn't see you in there. Thank you. You're welcome. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can't find the, I couldn't find the invite. So I used the public link. Well, we're just going through the minutes right now. Okay. Yeah. Andrew, on the minutes, make sure you note that this is a historic day in American history. For too many reasons. It's just me, or do we always have something while going on when we meet? Always, right? I like the background noise there. Yeah, case in point, right? And the chaos in my house. Okay, kid. It is quite amazing. So I move to accept the minutes. I second. As amended. I second. Hold on. I'm just taking notes here. Okay. I'm going to do a roll call. I'm just going to go and order as I see you all on my screen. So Rose. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Dumont. Yes. Der. Yes. Roof. I'm going to abstain because I haven't had a chance to look at them. Rev Kumar. Yes. Brugger. Yes. The minutes are approved. Okay, great. So we're going to move straight into kind of our discussion about what our role as ECAC needs to be and can be as we move into this phase of online drafting the action plan. As of right now, at the next meeting, we'll go through a more detailed timeline. But I'm Stephen asked just for clarification on the timeline in advance of this meeting, so to let folks know the current plan that is that Linnea is going to send us a draft of the action plan on the 19th of February. We are, we have scheduled with them that they're going to give us an update on their progress, how they're doing, and any potential changes to that timeline on the meeting on the 27th. So not our meeting next week, but the following one. We have built in about a month or not a month, three weeks for ourselves to review that document. So one thing I'll talk to Stephanie about and we can talk about more next week is maybe scheduling a retreat at some point to review that together and a little bit more details focus a little more time on that. And then the week of the, the third or fourth week of basically right after we get the report of February so interrupt Laura. Did you ask for a public comment. Yeah, we have Andrew Glace here and he's got his hand raised. Oh okay. Launch into the timeline sorry. Yeah, sure. Let's have Andrew. Andrew hold on one moment and I'll. Andrew, I think you need to unmute yourself. So Andrew we can't hear you. I have unmuted you so I don't know if you've. Yeah I don't know why I've unmuted you so you should be able. I don't know why we're not hearing you. Right well we'll tell you what I'm going to, I'm just going to move in Andrew into the room, if that's okay. See if that helps. I know Andrew so I'm not Andrew how about now. Yeah, if Andrew if you can figure it out on your end. Feel free to raise your hand again and, and you can jump jump in. You can also send me a text message if you want or I mean, an email message and I will check my email and read your comments if you want. That would work too. Oh, there he is. We can see you but we still can't hear you. I'm not sure if you can hear us. How's that. Here we go now we can hear you. Okay, press the microphone button what do you know. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. All right, I'm on. Thanks for bringing me in. Sure. I have no comments I just wanted to get in. Just want to play at the party. Okay, well, thanks for joining us. Okay, I'm going to, I'm going to mute you just during the meeting, Andrew. Okay. And if you, if you have any comments, just raise your hand. Okay, thank you. Yep. So. All to say is that. We do have a plan for receiving. The draft report in February. And we have instructed Linnean to come to us. On the 27th to give us an update. And let us know if there's any, if they assume any changes to that plan. And in the coming meetings that we have, we'll have to think through our review process. And particularly around how we want to. Get community input with that community input would look like. So looking forward to discussing that a bit more as we get a bit closer to that. But for today, the reason why we're having this meeting is. Because there was definitely some interest among the committee to. Clearly understand what role we can be playing in these next few weeks and months as the carp is being developed. And I think that's really important. And I think that's really important. And I think that's really important. What would be most beneficial to the consultants. What's not sort of repeating the work that they're doing, but what's also setting EECAC up to. Have feel. Ownership and. You know, strongly about the carp and be able to. Talk about that and. Communicate that with our community. So. I took that feedback back to Linnea and Stephanie and I met with them before. The holidays. And they came back with something that we had actually talked about and did a little bit of before. Which was. Helping them really prioritize. Our actions and evaluate them based on the criteria that we've done. And then we also talked about the questions. Equity. Impacts. How costly, how it's going to impact resiliency. How, how we will do this work, who we all have to partner with. This is something that we started doing a few months ago, but we didn't really have quite. We didn't have really have a process to do it. So Lauren worked over break to develop this really. Impressive. Spreadsheet for us. I don't want to show it because. I don't think it'll show up on the screen very well. Does everybody have it open on their own computers? Great. So the first tab. I want to draw your attention to is. The EECAC info tab. So this. This tab lays out. Sort of how this worksheet. Works and what we're, what we're doing. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to talk through this worksheet. And I'm going to talk through an example that I've done. And then. Let's just, I want to discuss with you. I have one question for you actually about how we want to think about greenhouse gas emissions. And then I want to discuss sort of the timeline for how we actually do this work. So if you look to the EECAC info tab. I tried to sort of outline what the purpose of this activity is. You know, we, we know we have some, we have some sectors. We have some strategies within those sectors. We have actions. We have details about what those actions mean. Lawrence. We've taken our feedback and tried to make those more action oriented, but I actually found that going through this process really helped to identify what specific actions we need to add to those descriptions. So I think this will be really helpful to do that even more. So what we're really trying to do is a gut check that the actions we've identified line up with the goals of our, of our plan. If they don't, then we either need to edit them or we need to remove them. And like I said, this is an option opportunity for us. That word's misspelled to make actions more concise and actionable. So we're going to do that. And then we're going to do that. Also a gut check that our goals are lining up with our priorities. Both of EECAC and the town and the MVP process. So there may be things in here that as an EECAC, you know, it's more resiliency focused and maybe not something that we would have. Put on the top of our list, but it's important because this is, this is not only supporting EECAC. It's also supporting the town and the MVP process. We need to do a gut check that our priority actions are meeting most of the goals that we want them to meet. And if they aren't. Refine them. Or maybe this. And this. This process of doing this evaluation is going to help us. Discuss and debate those priorities. And then begin to identify how we're going to implement them. Who needs to be at the table? Who needs to have ownership? What policy? What policy? So that's what I see. And it's really important for EECAC to do this because we're the ones that are best suited to do, to do this analysis. Based on our experience working on the committee. Based our experience in town. So the rest of this worksheet just sort of lays out these next two lines. The worksheet. Sheet map and the filling in the worksheet. Are just instructions. For you to look back to when you actually do it. I'm going to talk through them as I go. And then we'll come back to the worksheet timeline after I go through. What we're trying to do here. Does that make sense? Okay. So if we go to the. Oh yeah. Well. I just don't know if. Are. The 10 D Andrew has access to this. And I, I, it doesn't. Might not show up well, but at least. You'd be able to see it. I just, I just sent it to Amanda. I sent him the whole packet. So Andrew, it's in check your email. Okay. Great. So there are. Four other tabs down here, the evaluation itself. Action details, key terms and other comments. So if you go to the evaluation tab. This is the full worksheet. And if you look to the left-hand side here. Columns A through F. This is where Lauren has laid out. An evaluation framework. And she's identified. Four. Topic areas. So implementation resiliency. Emissions and equity. And then. For each of those. Some different. Sort of evaluation metrics. And she's spelled out. Here, you know, What a plus a zero or a minus would mean for each of these. Evaluation metrics. So it takes a little time to read through and, and get a sense of, I mean, I think that. For equity, you know, does. I mean, you guys can all read through these. Yourselves. But the idea is, is that for each of the. Sectors. So if you go now to columns G and beyond. You'll see that they have listed here, each of our sectors. Each of our strategies and then each of the actions below them. The ones that are highlighted are the actions that we've highlighted. Sort of his key actions. For 2025. At this point that could change, but that's what we have so far. Does anybody else having trouble scrolling over past column F. Yeah. So I did. Oh, now I see it. So. You can unfreeze. I froze it so I could, when I was doing it, trying to do it myself, I could actually read the. Evaluation frameworks at the same time. Yeah. Okay. I mean the top at the bottom when I just scrolled, it was fine. Yeah. And these all line up with that document that we've been looking at. That is included in the packet with some track changes based on our conversation. And also all copied into. The tab action details. So if you go to the action details tab. You'll see all of those actions listed out. And then all of the details explaining what. They are. So what I did in advance of this meeting is I went to. I went to the action details tab. And then I went to the action details tab. Which are the two, which are the first columns in pink. Associated with transportation. And I started going through them. And trying to do the framework. So it took me a while. But I did find it to be extremely valuable. And I think once I. Got into the process. I think it's a good idea to try it out and see how it works. It is a bit overwhelming, but it, it, it did help me really get some clarity around some of the things that I think we've been talking about more abstractly. So what I want to do right now is just walk you through this example that I did, which is. Column BP safety and connectivity in South Amherst. This is. Corresponding to. Column C. Row 63. And the details that were currently listed is that. Safety and connectivity in South Amherst, the details are that it would improve safety and connectivity from South Amherst. To regional commercial and employment hubs and essential services. So on the evaluation tab, I went through and I tried to rank. Or not rank, but I guess rank. This action against these criteria. Does the strategy enhance economic and educational opportunities for specific populations? Does it. Enhance or not enhance. Or does it reduce? And so I saw it as a plus that it, that if implemented, it will enhance economic and educational opportunities. I saw. It does seek to, if I understand the definition of South Amherst, then it does seek to prioritize specific communities. And so I think that this did make me realize that we need to define what we mean by South Amherst in the report. And so if you go back to the action details tab, you'll see in the note next to row 63, I wrote, you know, need to define South Amherst in the report. This, the section on procedural, procedural equality. I found I couldn't rank those. I think the reason I didn't rank those is because they seem to be more tied to how we're actually going to implement the action than the action itself. And so I made a note actually in the other columns tab. That it was hard to evaluate this. And so maybe. It's not this procedural equality is not necessarily about specific actions themselves, but a section that we need in the report, like how are all of our actions going to be done in a way. But I also noted that maybe we shouldn't, we shouldn't rush to conclusions because this is only one action and of all the actions, maybe this, this does work for those other actions. So I noted that as well. So when you're doing this, if you have a question about something that you're not sure where to put it, add it to this other comments tab so that we can go through it, through it together. Okay. Yeah. Question. The safety and activity in South Amherst. What do we read? To learn about that in order to be able to evaluate it. Yep. So the details. On that are under the action details tab. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that says kind of the same. I don't like these. Yeah, it's not too clear. And call them D. I see. That. That illuminate that a little bit. I frankly don't remember that as an element that hit. We've discussed previously. Inclusion in the car. Yeah. So this certainly came up a lot in our transportation. Task group. Okay. And yeah, this is exactly my point, Steve. I think that we've talked to, we've talked about the, the fact that this description is not. Descriptive enough. And I found that once I started going through this evaluation, I was able, and those are the notes I have. I have in column E here. I have in column B. I'm able to, to like pick out specific things. Like if these are our evaluation criteria, if these are our goals, then we need to state space. Say specifically how these actions are going to. Implement them. So. Like if you can see. Add in wording that clarifies this action will be implemented or of the evaluation criteria structural equality 3a. This strategy encourages diverse leadership of the project policy or program that is representative of the population served. I think we would all agree that we shouldn't invest in improving connectivity for South Amherst without having that be led by the community members in South Amherst that actually would need to use whatever solutions we're come up with, but that's not clear in our action. So I gave it a plus with a note because that I said I included in the note like the only way that this would actually be a plus is if we included that language in the action. Yeah, Ashwin. So yeah, that's helpful because my first thought when I looked at this is, well, the answer is it totally depends on how it's implemented for basically all of these, you know, and so that kind of leads me. So I'm happy to go through especially the ones that I know the most about and like do this exercise and treat it primarily as a qualitative exercise and see more than the plus the zero or the minus that germane outcome is being or the germane output is being like a description of what would need to happen to ensure that this action succeeds on this axis, right? And I think that could be useful. But I guess maybe maybe I missed this, but how will this scorecard be used because, you know, like if there's a bunch of us give pluses to an action, will that somehow like elevate it or is this more of a qualitative tool for Linnae and to use as they put meat on the bones of this document? Yeah, that's a great question. And I think what we first need to do is go through it and do it as my sense is that it's going to be, we're using this for ourselves first and foremost to make sure that all of these actions that we've been talking about do meet our goals. And if they don't meet our goals, they're edited so that they do meet our goals, like in this example, or we may find that there's some actions on this list that maybe the carp is not the best place for them, or they should be said somewhere else, or, you know, whatever. So I think that first and foremost, let's use this as an opportunity to make sure that the actions we have listed are the actions that are going to support our goals. If I don't see, so like in the concord plan, for example, each of the actions that did make it to their final plan, it showed how they ranked in all of these areas. Is it addressing emissions check? Is it addressing a quality check? You know, so we may decide that that's something we want to include in our final report as well. I think as a first pass though, each task group should go through their sector. And then at our next meeting, we kind of all need to look at everybody's and make sure that, you know, anyone in a task group that raises a question, like, I'm not sure how to rank this, like we can talk about it together. I think we need to do some work as ECAC to get this to a place where we feel like we have some agreement on how things are, are scored, particularly the ones that we think are our priorities for 2025, because that's going to be where I think we're going to be focusing most of our communication effort and outreach for, for the, you know, next year and so, right? Thanks. So one thing I noticed when I started looking at the inventory of emissions for this, for this action is that it actually this action on its own is not really impacting emissions. And so you'll see here on the evaluations tab, line 11, this strategy significantly reduces what would be expected without intervention from transportation emissions. I put a zero that it had little or no beneficial effect with a note. And the note I added was that this is intended to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles, but on its own that's not going to reduce emissions. Like this, this on its own is not going to reduce emissions. It has to be done in collaboration with some of the other highlighted transportation things like PVTA improvements, EV charging infrastructure, EV access. So that doesn't mean that we shouldn't include this as an important action. And we're not ready to make that decision yet. We're still in the, in this first phase of evaluation, but I just wanted to flag that here. And I imagine there'll be other actions for which a similar outcome occurs. Laura, I just wanted to jump in too and say that, you know, you all will go through this process. There are things that certainly came out of the task group process that weren't specifically actionable items that will have any significant impact on reductions, but were important to the community. And I think those are the, you know, as you go through your process, Linnean is going to certainly highlight that, you know, those which you all identify, but there is going to be a place for them to include language and reference to those other things that came out of the task group process. So even if you don't necessarily prioritize them, there's going to be room for them in the document because that's important to this process as well in terms of the resiliency piece. Yeah, Zoane. Yeah, just also sorry if I missed it, but just related to that. So as we go through this, and I definitely appreciate Linnean and Lauren, Stephanie, putting this together and the process that helps us go through this. I guess my main question or my question at this point is you mentioned sort of to potentially prioritize the shorter term actions, you know, the 2025 actions that we might highlight in the plan as being short term actions. Is there some guidance here in terms of this list of, I guess what show up is action in the action details or across the columns in the evaluation of which ones we or Linnean have sort of suggested are earlier actions, or is that part of our evaluation is maybe to make some comments in terms of is that something that can be done by 2025 or is it a longer term? Yeah, that's a good question. So they have marked the ones. So if you look here, the sector, the transportation sector is in deep pink. And then the strategies are in a lighter pink. So the strategy here is improved infrastructure for walking and cycling. And the safety and connectivity in South Amherst is the highlighted one. My understanding is that that is the one, it's the same color pink as the strategy. That is the one that someone, us together with Linnean at some point has marked as an important one. I don't know if that's the way it will end up. But that's your starting point, right? So those ones that are highlighted the same color as the strategies are the ones that have been identified at some point as being the 2025 ones, but we need to go through and say, so like I might say now after going through this exercise, this is an important thing. I don't think it's something that ECAC is going to focus on based on the fact that it doesn't really directly impact emissions. But maybe it's something important that we need to tell the town that the town should be doing or you know, and under spitballing, we need to all discuss these things. But like that would be one potential outcome of me doing this analysis for that particular action. Just a reminder that a lot of these came from those final sessions with the task group when you were all listed your priorities. And these came, those that are highlighted are the ones that came from that final analysis with the group. So that's why some of them may not seem like you would have identified them as a 2025 strategy, but they came from that group process where the group itself, the task group identified them as a priority. Good, thank you. So I think that this feels a little daunting and I felt a bit daunting when I started doing this process. But I do think that this is getting to where we want to be, which is how do we make sure the actions we have listed are actionable. So as I went through this process, I was like, oh, this could address that, but it has to say this, it has to also do this piece. Or it actually doesn't directly impact transportation emissions. And we need to be clear about that. As well as helping us do this, it's the first step in helping us be able to have a sort of more quantitative, a more thoughtful, qualitative discussion on actions that may or may not rise to the top of the list versus actions that may need to be put on someone else's plate or may need to be removed from this, the specific actions of the car, who knows what the end game will be. So that is, so I did find this process to be extremely helpful. And I think that it will require us to sit down and go through them. But I think it's something that we've been wanting to do. And I think that this is giving us the framework to actually do that. Do you have any trouble taking notes on this? I think that the note should just be we discuss this framework. I don't think we need to go into those minutes. Yeah. But let's see. Are we all here? No, we're missing. Jesse's not here. Jesse has a concussion. And depending how bad the concussion is, he will not be able to do this analysis. So we'll figure out how to, I'll figure out, or Sarah can work with him as a co-lead to figure out how to do that. What happened, Laura? I don't know. I don't know if anyone else said he couldn't attend because of a concussion. Oh, dear. What's the timeline for this again? Yeah. So that's the next thing to discuss. Before I go there, I do want to have one technical discussion with you all about the emissions inventory piece. So I've split this up to be aligned with what is in the greenhouse gas inventory that we've produced as a town and what's required for us to produce as part of the Green Communities Act, correct, Stephanie? Yeah. So they break up our emissions into these four general categories, stationary, transportation, agriculture, and waste. So stationary in this sense includes natural gas use and other fuel use in our buildings as well as electricity. I was wondering if folks felt like it would be beneficial to separate those two things out here, separate electricity out from other sources of energy or to keep it simple. Let's just lump them all together if it reduces energy use in a building. It gets a check. At some point, we're going to have to separate those in order to determine how progress for greenhouse gas emissions, because the gas and electricity have different carbon intensities. And also, for example, for evaluating the impact of the CCA, that's all electric. So that's going to span a couple of different categories, buildings, transportation, stationary. We need to break them out if we're going to, we will eventually and probably sooner is better than later. I would concur with that. And for additional reasons, stationary is a big part of our emissions. And by this definition, it covers both oil and gas that we use in our buildings to heat and electricity that we use to do light ourselves. But with electrification, that could become, it becomes a little bit merged together. So I think it is important actually to separate them so we can keep our eye on tracking these things and understanding ourselves in terms of what actions are really addressing stationary emissions that are for heating, primarily heating buildings and what are, that we have, there's certain technical options to deal with those, reducing those emissions. And then that from electricity, which sort of is important because that feeds into the CCA, particularly the CCA action item. And it's also, it's normally, it's also kind of breaks it down like scope one and scope two emissions, which is often the way you see it as well. I don't see where that is stationary, the types of emissions. I have, I see, you know, under the evaluation tab. It's row 10, 11. Yeah, there's inventory emissions. So that's. Yeah, but it's in column C then. Right. Okay. Under inventory, the first, it's highlighted yellow and the evaluation tab. Yeah, yeah. Good. I also think it would be helpful to tease them out. We just need to be careful in that case that we don't accidentally make, you know, because if you're, if we're planning to electrify things, then that would in the short term, turn potentially drive up emissions from electricity, but we save by reducing emissions from oil and gas for heating, right? So we just want to make sure that we represent that completely. Okay. I think that I'm hearing mostly agreement, or it seems every agreement from everybody in no disagreement here. So what if we have other criteria we want to have? So I think in the interest of, of getting started on this, what I've, what I've suggested is what I am suggesting is that if you have a comment either about a criteria specifically like I did. So I had a comment about the procedure procedural equality criteria. I added it to this other comments tab. I think we should all add our comments there. So if you have another criteria that you think we should add or you, you don't think this criteria is the right or this, this evaluation is, the goal is the right goal. Let's add those there. And I think we can talk about them altogether next week. And if we all agree, yeah, we should add that in, then let's add it in. But I would suggest we try to go through the process first before we change what we have right now. And the same with any missing actions? Yeah. So I've added here, either put them in the other comments, or if you go to the action details tab, all the way at the bottom, I've added a space where we can add more actions. I don't want people to add it. I'm trying to make sure we're not editing directly this evaluation worksheet, because then when we try to, so it's like you added in another column and I added another column and then we tried to merge them, it would get messy. So let's try to keep those comments separate from this, just for the first round or so. Okay, so I will split up stationary energy sources for the time being, I'm just going to split them up into electricity, electricity, scope two basically electricity based emissions and then other heating emissions. I know we could split them up more than that, but I think for the time being just those two buckets, right? So combustion, direct combustion of fuels and then electricity. One stationary emissions. Okay. So if you go back to the ECAC info worksheet, under worksheet map and filling in the worksheet, I've kind of, I've tried to basically spell out what I've just talked about, including where to put comments or where to put additional actions. I want to talk to you all about the process moving forward and what the timeline should be. So I've thrown out three options. Option one is the quickest turnaround, but I honestly don't think it's possible, given the amount of time it took me to do the evaluation. I don't think it's likely that we could all get this done by Monday. So I've got two other options. One is if we want to, if one task group or one person wants to volunteer to go through this for a couple more actions or for their whole sector between now and our meeting next week, we could use that as another way to just pressure test this method to make sure it is working and that it's doing what it needs to be done, needs to do. We don't have any other questions about it. And then all the task groups would be asked to complete this evaluation by the 20th. I think that task group should figure out, task group co-chairs, excuse me, so just us. I think we should figure out how to do that. Like I think probably the easiest way is to have one task group member take half and the other task group member take half and then maybe you get on the phone and just talk through any ones you have questions about. But you know, I'll leave it up to the task group chairs to decide the best way to split this up depending on your own workload and other things. So if somebody wants to volunteer to, has time between now and next week and wants to try a few of these and bring those back to our meeting next week, that would be great. If no one's willing to do that or maybe we just leave that open as an option. I think the overall timeline is that the task group co-chairs should spend between now and the 20th to do an initial evaluation of all their actions. And then we'll compile all that together and we'll plan on reviewing it at the, all together at the meeting on the 27th. Linnean's planning on attending that meeting just to give us an update so it could be helpful to have them there to talk through it together. And then we'll, we'll figure out what the final version looks like and when to send it sometime after that point. Yeah, Ashwin. So just to make sure that I'm on the same page with others here, I'm looking at like the actions that are highlighted, the ones that we, I guess at some points that are kind of priority for 2025. And like just to me, in the land use task group, I, the logic behind what's highlighted and what's not doesn't obviously pop out to me. Is it okay if I just kind of ignore what's highlighted or just kind of ignore, can we just agree to treat them all equally at this stage and not worry too much about the highlights for now? Again, I just want to identify that those are the ones that came out of the task group process and that the group at the end of that process identified as a priority. So that's why they're highlighted. So you are aware that that's where those came from. Okay, cool. So all did then the other items that are not highlighted did not come out of the group meetings or they came out of the meeting. But remember at the very end, you all were given a list and there was discussion about which ones, which items each task group saw that should rise to that they, that they prioritized. So the community leaders had input as to what they prioritized from the list. So they were all, all those actions were there. They just specified what they chose as a priority and that's why those are highlighted. So all the actions either came from your commute, your task group process, or were things that you all identified previously in the report that you did before, or they came from other plans that you asked Linnean to go to and incorporate things that they thought were measures you would want to include. So all these actions came from somewhere. It's just that those are prioritized from your actual task group sessions. Except that not all of them were prioritized because they weren't all presented in our task groups. I know that some of those were never. So I think to just, there's no, there's, they're highlighted because they were part of the process. That doesn't mean that we have to treat them special in this thing or that they rise to the top of priority in the plan. I just wanted to make that, yeah, sorry. It's just so you all know where those priorities came from, that the community leaders in your task group process at the very end identified those things as their priority. Again, it doesn't necessarily mean it's yours, but you need to understand that the community leaders identified those as priorities. That makes sense. I do recall that discussion. I remember it being a very long conversation with a lot of kind of pauses and breaks, and I'm not sure that the structure of that discussion necessarily lent itself to the most rigorous prioritization process. And I will personally be taking those highlights with a grain of salt to measure it with my assessment of the process. Okay. So we're at a time. What I think we should do is everybody should, so they don't forget everything we just talked about, maybe try to do one or two between now and next week so that we can spend some time on the agenda just making sure everybody gets it. There's no huge red flags. We don't need to change anything really drastic. That's why I went through it and I was able to make sure that there wasn't anything that seemed completely out of place. And so and if that all goes well, we will plan on following this timeline of having every task group co-chair do this work for their task group actions by the 20th. Does that sound fair to everybody? Yeah. Do we assume that the co-chairs cannot do it by next Monday? It took me two hours to do the ones I did. The one, the one. Yeah. So I think we need to give ourselves a little more time to make sure we do it right. We could at least it gets faster. Like I don't think it'll take us two hours for each one. But to read through everything and really think through, it took a while. And also go ahead Darcy. I'm sorry. It might make sense to at least check in with your co-chair so that if each of us is doing one or something by next Monday that we at least aren't duplicating each other's work. Agreed. Yeah. And I also want to remind you that this meeting is being recorded and that if you need to go back, it will be available on YouTube. Just look up ECAC, the meeting date. If you have any trouble, just let me know. But if you need to, you know, reference this, this will, it will also be available for Jesse. He can listen to it. He doesn't obviously need to watch it, but he can listen to it. I don't know if he's good for the concussion ring. Yeah. He probably doesn't need any of this right now. He should have it before the 20th. We want it in the packet. Yeah. The timeline would be that if we give it to, if we get it to Stephanie by the 20th, she will combine and circulate it by the 22nd and our next meeting is the 27th. So we'll have, that'll give us the weekend to look. And, and we're talking about adding language in the comment section of different of our sectors that we were responsible for. Is that correct or not? For the next meeting? No, no. For the 20th. For the 20th, we should, if everybody does their own section, what we'll have on the, after the 20th is a fully completed evaluation framework. So for every action, there's either a plus, a zero, a negative, or a ND. And then any other actions we want to add or any other comments we have would be added to those tabs. So let me just ask, is the, we want to come to, we want to come together with one consensus, aggregated evaluation to share with Linnae and as well as information that might go into the report. But so if, if Andra, for example, and I both do a number of common measures and come up with a bit different evaluations, do we, with the process be to work out an average or a consensus between the two of us to put forward? Yeah, I think the idea would be that the task group co-chairs should agree to the rankings for your task. Okay. So we might do it separately, but then separate, but then apart from the media, these, these joint meetings just have a conversation to come to some agreement of what we want to put forward. Yeah. Okay. And do we want to, do we have some, are we doing it on the, how, where are we doing it? Where, where are we putting our? So right like where I had my information, so the pink column BP safety, so I added it right into that evaluation matrix. But we will have a separate spreadsheet for each task. Everybody should be working on their same spreadsheet. And the task, your task group co-chairs should coordinate. So, so Darcy, you and I may decide that I do the first two, the first couple, and you do the, the other ones. And then we compare and make sure we're all in agreement. And then we, as a, as a task group co-chair group will send Stephanie on the 20th, like here's all of the stuff for the transportation and waste. Yeah. I should be only getting four, basically four spreadsheets to have to compile, not eight. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I, I'm still a little confused as to where I'm putting the rating, because I don't see your, I don't see an actual rating for the, for all the different categories. Am I missing something for the ones that you did, Laura? Yes. So are you on row BP or column BP? I'm sorry. On, in the actions? No. In the evaluations tab. Oh, okay. Maybe that, that's the problem. So, so now I'm where? So if you scroll, you have to scroll over quite a bit, but it's column BP. Oh, okay. That's, that's what the problem has been, I guess. I don't know how to scroll. That's the very problem. Anyway, I, I guess I can figure it out later. I don't have to hold everybody up. I, and you and I can connect if you want to talk through, I mean, we should connect anyway, so we can decide who's going to do what, but I can, um, yeah, I haven't, I have not seen this yet. I have to figure out where it is. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to make that one change to the emissions, and I'm going to send out a new version. So don't add anything yet. I'm going to send out a new version tonight with the disaggregated stationary energy emissions, and then it'll be ready to start adding. So rename it to your own and start, um, work with your task group co-chair to figure out who's going to do what, um, and we'll spend some time next week making sure everybody understands what we're doing, um, and that it's working for you. Does that sound good? Yes. Yes, Steve. Last meeting Linnean provided, uh, top five strategy ideas. The, the CCA was one of those that's, that's on the spreadsheet, but there were a couple of others there that included, um, energy reporting and transparency. Are those included those other, um, top, the top five strategy? Are they included in the spreadsheet? They should be, but I haven't double checked. So I would, we'll do that. Okay. Yeah. My understanding is that they're all in there, but I haven't looked either. But Laura, that's, um, specifically said they were including those. Lauren, Lauren, sorry. Lauren, okay. Yeah, some of those ideas that Jim presented in the top five were not ones that were, I don't think were ones that were highlighted through our, um, task group process. Okay. Well, I'll look back to that list and it may be, I think Jim sent those, I don't know if he used all the same language. So I'll go and try to match those up. Okay. Yeah. I don't think they came from the task group process, Steve. They were just, they were asked to identify five top strategies to get us to the 25% reduction by 2025. So they were, they were all items that were referenced somewhere in your process, not specifically the task group process. But remember that all of this information came from the MVP process before you even convened as a committee. It came from the work that you all did on your own. It came from the task group process. So these strategies don't all come from one place. They come from all of that. So they basically sort of went through all of that information and came up with their top five. Right. That, yeah, that's fine. I realize that I just wanted to make sure that those strategies were in the spreadsheet someplace so that they can be. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they are. I think that, I was just going to say, I think Lauren had said that they were highlighted somehow too. Okay. And do we expect in the climate action plan in the carp when we have it that we will have strategies with greenhouse gas emission reductions that meet the 2025 goals? The 2025 goals, yes. 2050, no. But 2025, yes. Okay. I mean, I would caveat that and saying that I don't think we're going to have a detailed data analysis to say that by doing these 10 things, we're going to reduce 27.5% of our emissions, which is, I think, what Steve, you're kind of what I was leading to yet. How close to that are we going to get? I guess is the question. My guess is they're going to sort of do sort of the estimates. Yeah, okay. So Linnea is going to. Yes, I believe so for the for just for the 2025 strategies. I think that should be a discussion point on the 27 because by that point we will have narrowed down ours a little bit more. And then we can talk about how we're going to actually do that in the report. Yeah, because it depends on what you identify. Yes. Yes, as I was studying the top five Linnea and strategies, it was clear that some of those will have benefits, but they might be three to five plus years out in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. So they're great strategies to develop and now it's time to do them. But in terms of 2025 target goal, we're not going to be that helpful. Well, it's going to be hard because the, you know, one of the biggest sectors that you need to address is the residential sector. And that's going to be hard. You know, that's going to be a hard one, I think. But we set our goals to guide us. Right. Yeah. I just mean in terms of measuring, it's a little harder. It may be harder. Because we the CCA will help us access data, but it won't get us everything. And, you know, I mean, we're going to do the best we can with the information and the data that we have. It's all we can do. All right, guys. Well, we've already done over a lot of time. So I'm going to call it unless Andrew, do you have anything else to add or any other public comment? I just want to thank Andrew for sticking it out if you're still there listening. It's a very deep dive. Our meetings are not all like this. Great. Okay. Well, I will send out the updated version of this spreadsheet in a little bit. But please do let me know if you have any questions. And we'll talk again next week. Oh, I do have one other question included in the packet was a carp strategies one dash four dash 21. Is that something we should be paying attention to at this point? So that is everything that's in that document has been added to the action details tab. So it's all the same. Lauren had had heard from us that we wanted to see track changes. So she included sent that to us because it shows the track changes based on other comments we've submitted. But all of that is in this spreadsheet. So you should only need to look at this spreadsheet. Okay. Yep. Close that. Okay. Thank you, everybody. We'll see you next week. Hey, thanks, everybody. Have a good day. Bye. Thank you.