 How close do you have in the room? We've got three numbers of the public. Sounds good. From NYCB, we have myself, Jacob, and we also have two of the other subcommittee members, Billy Costa and Stephanie Moore-Pressin as well. So with that, it was up. I just said Stephanie Smith. I'm sure you got a lot of names. Got a lot of names to keep track of, but I just want a further record. Discuss and approve last. I think I'm good as well. Thank you. OK. So with that, it's only to motion to approve. Second. I'll second. OK. All in favor of approving. September 27th meeting minutes. Say hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Meeting minutes are approved. And we actually just see something real quick. It doesn't look like Megan. It's actually on the line. So hopefully someone's taking meeting minutes. But yeah. If you guys enjoy, Jacob, I'll work with Kelly and I will work together to use the recording and then we can go back. We can figure it out. OK. That'd be great. I don't want to slow it down. OK. So yeah, so for today's meeting, I wanted us to kind of review potentially food or roof. Some of the things that we talked about in previous meetings in regards to energy and waste. So with that, I kind of sent over the energy recommendations. So I took what PSD had submitted as recommendations and kind of proved us right in our things that we didn't necessarily have any concerns or issues or discussion too much about or ask any questions. So I thought we could kind of go through that and see if any issues arise. Or if we feel comfortable. I guess like formally kind of considering these are recommendations as well. I've had to pace and summarize as best as possible the language from what the PSD had submitted. So adopt the commercial building energy standards. They have it broken down into indoor needs is and then the efficiency requirement. I guess the big thing to point out here is that they have orders that are not gross specific to be these. How's the buy? Perfect. So they're moving on to the kind of greenhouse energy standards. So for this one, they have recommended a U-factor of 0.7 barriers. Since that's an encouragement, we needed to discuss that green houses that would be exempt from these requirements at 40kW connection. Perfection under what instances should or whatever. You know what I was talking about earlier is like if we get consensus here, we'll do kind of out of their standards and then also have the text language. So I kind of combined it. Yeah, so all of them are used in the condition a hair shall meet the energy efficiency described in the CV. So I'm imagining what they're referencing there is for non-cultivation, because this is right here like the fans and motors that are non-equipment specific. And serving cultivation shall be exempt from the CV's requirements for economizers as well as heat recovery. And I know from an indoor cultivation perspective, economizers are kind of frowned upon because it introduces outside air, which can potentially have contaminants. And then the heat recovery, I think, was I guess they also greenhouses specifically shall. Yeah, there's a should in the next sense. All spaces within the facility should be, which I guess is already a part of the CV's. And then that might just be what the CV says. Yeah. Which is fine. They may be administering this. So these shoulds and shells, they know what they're doing. Yeah, thanks, Stephanie. And that's something that in the process of our actual rulemaking, we'll make sure we're locked up with what PSD is trying to explain and their recommendations. So yes, Stephanie, I guess really with, get your opinion again on this low lighting. You don't have a size requirement attached to that. So it would be any size greenhouse that just has 40 KW in regards to lighting greenhouse. I would imagine because you can use up to 35, 36,000 watt lights. But wanted to just get your, I mean, on this one, I felt pretty comfortable with it. There's the other one that had, so yeah, so the next part is they have language for applying these regulations and pretty much just goes through for controlled environment, water-cultural spaces, the indoor cultivation, the greenhouse, the occupancy. I guess strife, the growing, it's a felt like cultivation was a better term to be using this in terms of your guess. It seemed like cultivation would be better. It's consistent with, is it not consistent? Yeah, I'm fine with that. I just see there's growing, there's a reference to growing below that. And I don't know if that's a different context, but um. Oh yeah, I just brought up the first one just to remind me to bring that up. OK, gotcha, gotcha. Yeah, I agree. Keeping the language consistent with the act is probably the best course of action. OK, so then benchmarking requirements. So I kind of split this out between kind of some of the recommendations. But in general, this is the language that they use. I just took out kind of the PSD recommends, the CCB, but that they, to include specific requirements around benchmarking performance of cannabis facilities. And then kind of goes into a little bit more specifics, but have cultivation facilities provide annual data for energy consumption by fuel. I added energy source to make it a little bit more sensor, is more comprehensible to actual cultivators on a monthly basis, as well as including consumption. So KWH and on-site energy generation water consumption cannabis yield by way of essentially a standard benchmarking I think will be important for the CCB to have that information as well as cultivators to be able to start on their kind of sustainability energy reduction journey. To provide that information, that that information is actually some way, shape, or form just the provision of the information for the purposes of providing it. Oh yeah, so we want this information because we are going to use this for this purpose. And whether or not that needs to be incorporated in here or whether it is, I mean I went through this quickly so I may have missed it. But I just want to be sure that we're not collecting information to say we collected it, but we're collecting this information because we're going to do something. So would you be in favor of recommendation that this information be used for something? Yeah, like yeah, we're going to collect it. I think there needs to be some clarity about how it's going to be used by the CCB. And it could be used in five years from now when we're going to, and I don't know, Kyle, I actually haven't looked to you. Like what do you envision the CCB using this information for if we're going to require that people keep it? Yeah, it's a good question that I'm not going to present to or have an answer for at this point, but point well taken. I don't want to collect data and make requirements for stuff that the CCB won't end up using, whether it's lifetime on the board or thereafter. Or who has the expertise to use it? Are we going to, is the CCB going to engage somebody who has the expertise to do an analysis of this? Or can the PSD have the expertise? Do they have the expertise to do the analysis on this? I was going to mention that. And maybe if this is something that you arrive at a consensus on, any ideas that the three of you might have on how we can use this data to better bring along the health of our entire program and continuing to hit climate change goals, energy reduction goals, so on and so forth. So I think. Go ahead. Yeah, I've got a lot of ideas on this. I mean, what I think efficiency Vermont would be really useful. And I think as establishing a Vermont specific industry standard practice to help facilitate incentives and essentially work with Vermont like PUC, Public Utility Commission, to better fine tune incentives. I think the more information they have on, can we change this later? This HVAC equipment as opposed to this, these are the actual cost savings will help fine tune. The rebates and incentive programs that are out there. I think it'll help guide PSD and what building codes are actually useful. Vermont is quite a CCD. You can set the basis for either future application requirements or some kind of incentiveized program or an offsetting or whatnot. This will actually, you'll have the information reach for what their greenhouse gas emissions are, et cetera. So I think there's. Yeah, that was going to be my observation is that I think if we're starting from the beginning, starting from a place where this information is cataloged, it's going to be much easier for folks and having to start tracking in the future. So I think there's a value just to that extent. And then I would imagine this is stuff the board can report on and then hopefully use in the ways that Jacob had articulated. So I think unless there is like real pushback from licensees on doing this cataloging, it seems like a prudent first step that can always be revisited in the future. Yeah, no, I agree with, I would agree with everything Jacob and Billy said in my mind immediately went to incentives, grant programs, so on and so forth. I mean, Stephanie, just maybe in a couple of years could be part of the working lands program and might help from that perspective if it ever goes federal, it could help for federal grant applications, you know, so on and so forth. I think the board is, has heard from other regulators in other states. It's very, it's vital to the long-term success of a program to keep, get as much data on day one, quote unquote day one, as possible. So at the beginning of the program to help decision-making as the program kind of moves along in its maturity. I just wanted to be cognizant, I understand that people try to build it later. Well, no, I appreciate your thought and sentiment that, you know, I don't wanna, I don't wanna ask for anything that we're not gonna do with anything with, right? I totally, I don't wanna put any more burdens on any size cultivator indoor or outdoor here, but I think there's some things that we just don't necessarily know yet as a board, but this data will help inform a lot of what we hope to do in partnerships that we have with Efficiency Vermont, help them zone in a little bit more on how they can best help the industry as well. I think that it's just kind of an open answer that it's important more so than those specific instances where we've game planned how to specifically use that data right now. Okay. So on that, on this topic, because I'm gonna scroll down to the bottom of page two, item two further in further discussion item two. So I pulled out from their recommendations because they had within their facility should be required to use either cannabis power score or energy start portfolio manager to provide this data. And I wanted to get your guys's opinion on do we want to require specific reporting type or encourage derivative to require one or two to what Massachusetts does, but no other state and not many states are actually requiring a manager, but kind of go to your point Stephanie, I'm making sure this information is used, but wanted to see kind of where your guys perspective on is in requiring specific platform, a bit as encouraging specific times and specific types for allowing cultivators or manufacturers to, you know, or the CCB to create their own. You know, my recollection of the conversation with the public service department was they didn't recommend the powers for, was that an act, is that accurate? This was in the recommendations they provided. He did. Okay. I thought they had, yeah. No, that's fine. I know I don't have an recommendation could be this or some other format or you know, open ended. But yeah, I don't have an opinion as to being descriptive. Yeah, I think this goes a little to your question of study what's this going to be used for, right? I know that across the state of Vermont enterprise we do state energy implementation plans that's directed by statute to help the state kind of reduce its energy consumption over time and BGS is really pushing people to use the Energy Star portfolio manager to collect that data. We don't have to. You can provide data in other forms but that's kind of the platform that they're using across, I think the BGS enterprise. So there may be some value in using one thing just if there's a goal of kind of compiling, analyzing and reporting data than having it come from different sources. But again, like that just begs the question like how are you going to use it? So I don't have a strong opinion on where the other I think flexibility is generally good but if the board intends to kind of use this to data in an explicit way and do some management of it they may want to have it come in through a uniform platform. That's I think that would be the consideration. So some of my thoughts on this is I want to see some parallels to the conversation about seed to sale tracking that the advisory committee had yesterday if it's an open API that allows any girl to use any system they want how time intensive labor intensive is it going to be on our end to make sure things are operating smoothly? You know that being said, I would imagine unless we pull in some more energy specific folks in-house we will be partnering with PSD to kind of understand and digest a lot of the information and data that we would get back and if this is what they're comfortable suggesting I would imagine they've got some experience with both platforms and maybe that means that they don't anticipate as much logistical hurdles as might first be present, I don't know just for what it's worth. Yes, it seems like consensus is kind of we'll leave it up to the regulatory agency who wants to pick one that we're not really strong either way on requiring one or providing recommendations. Yes, so moving along, they had recommended the adoption of the greenhouse definition that was contained in the international kind of building codes, which is a structure or a thermally isolated building or sorry area of a building that maintains a specialized sun-lit environment exclusively used for and essentially to the cultivation, protection or maintenance of plants. Greenhouses are those that are erected for a period of 180 days or more. How do people feel about this? I guess specifically Stephanie, since you've got the high expertise. Yeah, I was actually concerned that that definition of greenhouse would make it apply broader and maybe not, maybe this isn't true or interpreted to apply more broadly beyond just cannabis cultivation because greenhouses are used in other cultivation. And this greenhouse standard will only apply to cannabis greenhouses. So I was wondering whether or not we should be more specific and say cannabis instead of plants. And then the other thing I had was whether or not to say used for 180 days rather than erected for 180 days and then is it in the calendar year or not? I'm sure maybe it doesn't say that. Suggestion, but actually being used for that time period. Yeah, I mean, I pulled it from. So for this specific, I could see adding cannabis plants. Seems like I would imagine because building codes, that's why they chose the term erected. Because this is what like, I think would fall under use necessarily. Have something already correct. Yeah, then they might, you know, depending on the nature of like a hoop house or whatever right now, they might then have to physically take it down and put it up each growing season, right? Yeah, I'm thinking like, we see a lot of people, a lot of farmers are using like, you know, low tech greenhouses for like proper addition, you know, start their seeds or for their clones, you know, prior to transplanting to the grounds, really small or short timeframe. And I don't know, so many of those need to comply with these stringent kind of energy requirements if it's used for, you know, a month or so or two. Yeah, I mean, that's kind of what I was thinking. Like you, it might stay up, but you might not be asking for it to be built to a standard. But in the structure that needs a code, regardless of how often you use it, you may scale up to use it more frequently. And then you're stuck in a place where you're not compliant. So I, you know, like, are you both sad? Greenhouses are previously constructed or may use greenhouses, then that would get changed to being used for 180 days. Your hand was if you used that greenhouse, not just for cannabis, but use it for other... I think, well, I think if we change that word plants to even high THC cannabis production or something like that, because you're gonna get a lot of questions about how this relates to hemp, then Stephanie, and I mean, the agency's gonna answer a lot of questions. Because I've been on the receiving end of them. Oh, and then when these kind of things happen, just because people are gonna be reading it and wondering how it applies to other stuff that they may be doing on farm. So I think my position as a board member would be supportive of changing that plant to cannabis, even refining it more so than that. And I think this word erected could be taken a bunch of different ways and interpreted a bunch of different ways by the folks on here in the room, but also anybody looking at this as a license holder that would be looking to set up this model of an outdoor cultivation operation. So, but understand we can go a bunch of different ways. I'm not tied to any specific one. I think just whatever gets the most, will want flexibility to small cultivators, but also the most, I don't want the definition to become so overly, complicated that it's gonna invite more questions than it's intended to. Yeah, so I'll move this to needing a little bit more discussion and we pick it up in a kind of future because the other thing I'm thinking about also is like solid foundation is a lot of the time to how we would classify roadhouses, like permanent structures as opposed to, and I feel like for erected, like if you're erecting a greenhouse for the gris and really how solid is that greenhouse gonna be enough to be even recept in a lot of this. So I think just getting some more information about that and talking to growers who are currently cultivating might be good to get their opinion on this. So this is in the greenhouse section. I shall be exempt from the building thermal and bill of provisions, which is the U factor of 0.7. So I crossed out the first one, which is the peak design rate. My understanding, I'm still getting some more information on it is like 3.4 BTUs, like one watt per square foot for space conditioning. It's just not enough to actually be useful. Like no one will fall on that extension, even if you had, you know, season extending food passes and you needed to use, you know, low tech kind of propane heaters, you're most likely potentially going to go over that threshold. I just got last night some of the meeting notes for California Regs, because they discussed this as well. And I'm just going to go through those, but I know they were settling more on 10 BTUs an hour per square foot and then five in some instances. So I wanted to get some more information. That's why that one's crossed out. And then the other two requirements are those that are not conditioning space. And then does it have an average U factor of less than 0.7, which I guess is supposed to be in there, but kind of if the exemptions did not have to have 0.7 U factor. What extent will people build to meet the exemption? So, right. And I sometimes people just build to not have to comply with some of the regulations. Yeah, I mean, so I guess my question is, is how this is written? So this is like for the exemption of having to comply with the building thermal envelope provision, which is having a U factor of 0.7. So first one is they don't have any conditioned space. So that's fine. That's like a very passively cooled greenhouse. And then the other one is saying, assemblies and greenhouses that have an average U factor less than or equal to 0.7, that's already in compliance with what they're. So it just seems like the biggest one was, okay, so I have down in like the more information part. I guess reasoning behind this is that the greenhouses exempt from building envelope requirements. This would be allowed for seasonal growing with some heat used to extend the growing period into the shoulder months. So that's kind of the intention for allowing these exemptions. So they don't want permanent greenhouse structures or full season greenhouses to not, to have to be energy efficient. And then if you're just using it to extend the season you should be exempt. And so that's why I wanted to put 3.4 BTUs on pause because I don't think if you're going to be extending the season that's enough to actually be applicable. So like the limit to be somewhere where, if you are just extending the season you'll be able to get the exemption. I think that makes sense, but you might want to pair it with some sort of temporal constraint also. So like for no more than however many months or days so that it truly is for extending at those edges and not intended to push through for the whole winter. That makes sense. Yeah, we can potentially have a number of harvests with most kind of climate control greenhouses you're looking at four, six, eight give or take. But when you're season extending you're gonna have your full season and then maybe one at the beginning and one at the end. So you'd be like three harvests. All right, sounds good. And then so then they have for other kind of equipment efficiencies which are kind of buried in the recommendations or kind of one liners. So they have recommended that the CCB include requirements or up to the requirements for fans according to the 2021 high ECC. And as well as adopt requirements with clean water pumps, which is in the federal code. I think that just got acted as well. I don't really have too much knowledge about it. I mean, I looked at what it required it was super technical. So I would defer to PSD on what the requirements are but I wanted to get your opinion on that. Yeah, I would rely on their expertise here as well. Yeah, so further discussion. So I did wanna bring up high efficiency lights which is going to require growers to install more expensive lights. The double-ended hyper sodiums, the ceramic metal halides and the LEDs. From a cultivation, cultivator perspective, I wanted to kind of just bring up that industry standard a lot of times for prop agations when you have clones that the lighting load is much lower than what you would need for the vegetative or flowering stage. And most people are using kind of T5 fluorescence which are much more economically reasonable. This would be preventing that. So I wanted to see if there was interest or you just bring up that should we allow for kind of standard practice on this part of cultivation which is really a small footprint or not necessarily worry about it. I know I brought it up with Jill and she was saying that they should have incentives to be able to help offset the cost to the cultivators. It just seemed that I'm not sure having LED lights during- All use in indoor cultivation, including the propagation phase seems to wear a footage limit on that where propagation rooms are. Space not to exceed like how long did they run it for. Well, the thing that is like if it's an indoor cultivator harvest or they're pulling down rooms every week or every month they're gonna be running actually these lights year round. So then it would kind of make sense. Okay. Are there gonna be, yeah. Is there a space in this framework for people who are just gonna be producing clones like as their sole product and this is all they're gonna be doing is propagated? Yeah, that's the question. Do you mean in your free license? Yeah, we're looking at that. I mean, it's definitely on the market structure committee. You can say that years happening. I don't, I think that's the direction that subcommittee is going in where there would be a nursery or a seed starter specific license type that you could also, yeah, go ahead. My recommendation would be to keep a high standard broadly and then if you wanna kind of create a specific carve out for really small scale propagators who are, you know, have one light that they're running, you know, not much a year to prop or you know, a small propagation stuff then that sounds reasonable but that probably just the baseline should be a high standard and then kind of create a carve out for something smaller from there if that seems necessary. Three is very type number two and this was just, so they had recommended in part of the application process so applying for the license that they alert licensees submit written operating procedures over the following like how they will ensure that equipment is essentially facilities maintenance plans which I think is important for efficient operation of cultivations and manufacturers and then that they regularly assess their opportunities to produce energy and water usage, et cetera to be, you know, I think kind of going to what you were talking about, Stephanie is like making sure the grocers are using the information that the state disease is requiring. My question on this is they have it for every 40 or sorry, every five years that seemed like a long time to me especially with everything, you know technology continually changing in the cannabis industry and also just I don't think that's going to encourage cultivators to use the data that's being collected or submitted. So I wanted to engage your guess's perspective opinions on like changing that limit to two or three years in five years. So that seems, the five year timeframe seems some of the equipment that they're going to have a public comment you know, obviously this would be rolling it's not a take action or maybe it is, it's just getting rid of it. I was thinking, you know because they do have strategies in here which is like lighting schedules, active load management, you know, energy storage, potentially renewable energy. I wasn't necessarily thinking about, you know an assessment of the cultivation when it comes to I think more of the operation of the equipment they have and ways to improve it. So a lot of times, you know what we see is either implementing or upgrading client control like controllers looking at the set points they're using in regards to like temperature how essentially their like irrigation schedule is, you know, affecting Well with that information if you're just dialing in your system then expecting two to three years it's probably more appropriate than five. Perspective. I totally hear what you're both saying and tender agree with you. The way this is currently written it doesn't seem to kind of compel licensees to do anything other than to kind of maintain a plan. So updating the plan doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna kind of make these changes necessarily. You know, they might have to assess opportunities but it doesn't mean they have to kind of pursue any of them. So I wonder what the value of this is but I think it makes sense to have it on a shorter duration if you all do. This may be something where you just want to be careful in the rulemaking. You don't like set a period that can only be revised through additional rulemaking that you give the board the discretion to kind of adjust the dependency of this requirement, you know, over time. So, you know, start with something shorter and then they realize they don't really need once the industry gets more settled they don't need this as frequently they can put the data out further. That would be my suggestion. Kyle, I have a question for you. Is this a CCB from us looking for specific language on this or recommendations? Like, would A, we recommend a shorter timeframe than the PSN report, we think, you know, three years or something like that or do you want us to kind of give you, you know, sample regulation language that you think you can have? I would say, at least as it relates to certain parts of what we've got to write from an energy and environmental perspective, you know, our general counsel and executive directors certainly don't come from that world and I know that our general counsel would certainly be very appreciative of any draft regulatory language you might be able to help provide you with. Okay. Especially when it relates to this very technical energy language that's a language in and of itself. Jackson, okay. I'm interpreting that as you would prefer that but if we don't necessarily settle on justification would be useful as well. Yeah, no, or at least, you know, open having conversations to help us help ensure that we're reflecting the spirit of the recommendations and our role-making. Yeah. Or the language can be like an initial plan, you know, updated, you know, every two or three years, whatever you settle on, you know, kind of the occurrence of which can be adjusted in the future by the board or something like that. I'm confident David could give us that flexibility in a role-making, you know, in draft role-making but just making sure we have the technical aspect of what we're intending to do with you, Jacob, that's where you can be very helpful. And Billy, that's that. That's right. And also having here kind of also that we recommend the CBC create like technical guidance on compliance with these regulations because this does seem, you know, I think from an average grower entering the industry or coming from the legacy market into the legal market, this would not make sense. That's cool. And so just ensuring compliance. I think there's a lot of leeway and potentially cracking this to say that, you know, this, but that, you know, there is one applying for licenses, they have written operation procedures or whatever, and then leaving the guidance as a separate thing. That says like this should be maintained every two to three years, but gives you the flexibility would have happened to go back to change any regulations. Are we presuming that the people who are gonna take licenses understand any of this and do they have the expertise to do it? So whether or not the state needs to provide technical assistance or engage with somebody that can provide this, or maybe it's efficiency Vermont, I'm sure to be told, but. I was gonna say, I would imagine we would give guidance on how to interpret this. We've gotta make sure we don't cross the line into giving business or technical advice, you know what I mean? I'm sure we will have, we'll put out guidance, but also make sure we're in touch with efficiency Vermont and other folks in this space to make sure they understand the regulations and can help, you know, spread out that message accordingly. Really, since we're running out of time, the last one I wanted to bring up, so you didn't talk too much about, I know, Billy, in the meeting minutes you had recommended, this is for the onset renewable energy that you were opposed to requiring patients and would prefer to encourage, so I just wanted to bring that back up. My only point was that requiring these enterprises to net meter just may not be feasible economically or kind of otherwise. It may run afoul of other kind of energy goals the state has on where to invest in kind of renewable energy generation, so I'm certainly very supportive of, you know, pairing generation with load and, you know, having these sorts of facilities generate their own power, if that makes sense within the kind of context of existing net meter programs. I'm just a little wary of creating any, there's an active debate in the state around whether it's in the state's best interest to have our power come from larger utility developed generators that are distributed around the grid that achieve a certain economy of scale versus incentivizing private individuals to generate their own power at their homes and businesses and there's pros and cons to both but there's a significant cost delta in for each kilowatt of that electricity and I just don't wanna do something that's gonna throw this industry in the middle of that debate by, so that's what I'm frankly cautious about and I'm just trying to read what the recommendation is here. So it's, yeah, essentially it's saying that for new buildings, they would be solar-ready. Yeah, I think that seems fine to me from my perspective. So my other question, Billy, was what is Vermont's stance on other renewables is it seems like they were only targeting solar? I don't know if there's a big question for Vermont for solar but what about wind or micro-hydro or geothermal as being acceptable alternatives? Yeah, there's certainly a significant existing portfolios of both wind and hydro. Most of them are at larger scales. There is some micro-hydro. There are small kind of net meter wind products in operation in Vermont. I think those just typically have more locational constraints than solar does, especially in like a commercial setting. But yeah, I think it's reasonable for people to explore those options as well. I just think this is probably looking in the context of like new commercial buildings in settings where solar is probably the most practicable generation type. You might be able to put up a small wind turbine. You need to be near water to do micro-hydro so that's a much more limiting factor. Yeah, I was just thinking from a, yeah, this certainly is kind of tailored to more, I think like an urban environment of the, with the ruralness of Vermont and, if someone's putting in an indoor cultivation facility or even like a bigger processing facility and more rural environment, then wind might make sense if they have the land and are not in correction on neighbors. Yeah, and you might, you potentially could, I don't know, I think this is something where you, if this was an important consideration, you could build in some discretion that, or another technology has approved by the board or something like that. But I think this is like a proactive. We wanna make sure that new buildings have the potential for solar generation. And you do that when you're kind of constructing and engineering the building to make sure that roof has the right aspect and can carry the loads, et cetera. Typically, you're not thinking about the sighting of wind or hydro when you're constructing a standalone building. Those have their own kind of support structures or engineering that's separate from the building itself. So I think this shouldn't preclude people from exploring that. And if that's what they intend to do at their site, then maybe there's an out that lets them avoid having to build solar-ready structure that they're gonna propose another renewable generation at their site. But this seems like a good baseline expectation. Okay, yeah. And also the exemptions are pretty much, I remember with the conversation about it very as well. We're here towards, if it's not feasible, then they don't have to comply. Okay. Yeah, I think these stands are really just to make sure we're not losing opportunities, right? If someone's gonna invest in a new structure that can serve as a good base for renewable generation through solar, we should make sure that it's built to support that. Since the marginal cost is usually pretty minimal if you're doing from scratch. Any last comments on this? I'll see that. No, I was just taking my head out. I have many useful comments. Yeah, I guess if the board or others in the subcommittee are interested in kind of an exemption for other on-site renewable generation, you could probably build that into the exemptions, but it seems like a different analysis than what's currently happening in this class. Hi, Steve. My name is Matthew. I'm at the other one, so just making sure that, you know, in people just happy to do solar if there were other things they wanted to do, you know, like toge and kind of things like that. And so, yeah, the only thing we didn't really cover except open up to public commenting is really that we have other things on the equipment efficiency requirement, which is... Did you have a public comment? Number five. Billy, we don't, excuse me, Jacob, we don't have any public comments in the room unless anybody's changed their mind, so I think we can go right to the top of the hour. Okay, sounds good. Yeah, so then really the last ones are actually, before we get into this, I think those were kind of easy. They had a line air filtration for buildings that are drying plant material. I wanted to push that to only do air quality and odor in the future meetings, but initially, it didn't make all that much sense to me that they would limit it wine to drying plant material and not like the flowering stage of cultivation if it was really a concern about noxious odors, but then also that's just a very, I don't know, I think slippery slope, but I didn't want to just throw that on your guys' radar that that'd be something we'll talk to you about in the air quality and odors thing. Yeah, I remember bringing this up to Barry and Barry's like, yeah, you can take that out. I think we should just take that. Last bit is, yeah, just going into their recommendations for equipment efficiency requirement, IECC, and then as well as allowing for these economizer requirement exceptions for installing high efficiency cooling, and then into like standalone humidifications, all that, so that's really technical. Do you guys agree we refer to PSDs? Yeah. Okay, yeah, and I saw last night that these are the same ones that were just adopted by California, so it does seem like there's consensus within the industry or within the regulatory energy agencies that this is, okay, I guess with that, we could probably, yeah, so then with the organic ways, it seemed like the main thing was agreeing on a definition for the organic material from cannabis. So it threw in, we are recommending that we exclude the rendering unusable and unrecognizable thing from the definition. It doesn't seem like that's even part of the conversation, but within the meeting minutes, and it seems like from our last meeting that potentially facing an awful lead in your speciduals, so we're separating compostable and treated vegetative matter, figuring out how I did do some research for other states, and it seems like a lot of them, when it's caused by the commercial, I've just said cannabis waste is commercial organic material. So, I was gonna say, since our conversation, I've gotten some kind of additional input from the solid waste division, and I think they have a kind of a threshold question that is unclear to them, and that's whether cannabis is a regulated material in Vermont, because if so, then that will kind of form solid waste management options, and to kind of inform whether there's rules related to kind of custody and safety dirt disposal that needs to be applied, and that may affect this conversation. So I don't know the answer to that question, but that's kind of late in to me today. And when you say regulated material, you mean something regulated by the, as a product? I believe so. Yes. Yeah. To not be a regulated material, easily go into. My answer for you right now, I know we're at 12.59. Billy, why don't you and I and Jacob, perhaps kind of connect offline? I don't think you're muted. Sorry about that. I know it's one o'clock now, and we're opening up a can of worms in this conversation. Billy, why don't you, Jacob and I, kind of connect offline on this specifically, and we can kind of get to the bottom of it. Stephanie, I know you're not able to join us next Wednesday, but Jacob, maybe, I know we're talking about water next Wednesday, but let's build out some time in the agenda to talk about waste, because I don't care if we'll be here, and I'm sure he's knowledgeable in the waste space, at least on the agriculture side of things as well. But let's try and unpack this, who has jurisdiction type of question, as it relates to this, before next Wednesday, and at least get a sense of where we should go. I'm off, I gotta go to the next meeting. Okay, yeah. I think that sounds reasonable, and if there's any value in, Jacob, if you wanna just talk directly with some of the solid waste folks, I'm happy to make that connection. I'm happy to stay in the middle of it as well, but if there's just kind of some specific details that you feel like a technical conversation with them would help resolve, that's another opportunity. I'm happy to share the document that was circulated with your recommendation with them and get some feedback on it, but I just wanted to put it out there that happy to connect you and with the folks, if necessary, in the program. Billy, if you could share that with me as well, I can make sure I can run it up the flagpole to speak on it and to make sure that we're not doing work that is, somebody's gonna come and tell us that no, you're doing not as intended, you know what I mean, so. Right, yeah, I don't think this is anything we're doing. It's more just to understand kind of what opportunities exist within the solid waste management. Absolutely. Frame, yeah, yeah, so I'll get back to them and indicate that this question is not answered and ask them if they have thoughts or recommendations on that and the kind of document that you circulated with the kind of summary of the waste conversation. Let me clean up that document to pose more questions that they'd be able to answer, yeah, and I'll get that to you by the end of this week. Awesome. All right, thank you guys. Thanks everybody. We'll enter into the meeting and turn that to you.