 So, for the record, my name is Clay Purvis, I'm the Director for Telecommunications and Connectivity with the Department of Public Service. I think it's important to put in perspective what the pole attachment rules do, what they're intended to do, and how wireless technology fits into that. So pole attachment rules govern the relationship between pole owning utilities such as GMP, Consolidate, other telephone companies who actually own the poles, and other entities that want to be on those poles. So the problem that all over the country we're faced with is access to poles. How can someone like EC5 or Comcast, who doesn't own the pole infrastructure, be allowed onto that pole? And right now Vermont has rules that govern pole attachments, the PUC has 3.7, has rules, and we see entities using those rules today to attach to our poles. And we have, if you look anywhere in Montpelier, I drive home to Northfield and there's 4 attaching entities in the telecom space. And so the rules say, okay, how do you assess the cost of being on the pole? What are the timelines? What are the rights of the pole owning utilities as far as making sure the engineers are satisfied that the poles are structurally sound and that, you know, who needs to move up and down and how that works? And the petition that we filed with the Public Utility Commission updates that. And one of the ideas of that petition is one touch make ready. And it's the idea that, okay, when we're going out and we're moving telecom attachments up and down to put more on, we should just have one entity do that. So right now each entity comes out and move, because the complaint we're getting is it can take a year to get your permit to put your wire on the pole and time is money. Correct. So in that, but part of that is because each and one of those individual entities has to come out and move their stuff up so that the new guy can go on. Correct. Fourth or third. Fourth or third. Fourth or third. But what pole attachment rules are not are the relationship between the government and the entities that want to be on that pole. So there's no, it's not a permitting process like, say, 248A which governs the placement of wireless telecommunications equipment in the state or Act 250 which also governs that. And so these rules are simply about making sure that the owners of the poles are treating fairly the entities that want to be on those poles. And right now the problems that we're seeing are with cable and fiber providers that want to be on those poles. Real concrete issues like if there needs to be a new pole set, as in a pole needs to be replaced with a better pole, are they going to do that on time? And those are the problems that we're trying to solve. Where the problem is on the pole is not where 5G antennas want to be. We're talking, you know, the middle of the pole, that's where the cables are, 5G wants to be on the top of the pole. And that is in the electric space. And so if 5G were to advance at some point it would have to go through a process such as the 248A process. Yes, if 248A is triggered and certainly modifications could be made to that if there were concerns about this issue. But you know, if the pole rules are working the way they should be, then we don't get involved, right? Because everyone's following the rules and the electric companies and the pole owning telephone companies are treating fairly the attaching entities. We don't want to take a year that we start getting involved in. Exactly. Today wireless companies, you know, can use the pole attachment rules to be on it. I think the one issue with 5G, or one question about it, is it really coming to Vermont? And is it going to come here in a meaningful way? So that's certainly a good question tangential to the reality. Could you just say if someone wanted to attach a 5G cell or a 4G cell that could be created, do they have to go through 248A or 8A? That depends on certain factors. So that's where the rub is going to be. 248A was created in the time when we were going to macro facilities, large 120 foot towers. Small cells may or may not, it depends. I believe Act 250 is triggered at 50 feet, so if the cell is under 50 feet, you don't have to go through Act 250. 248A is right now optional. I do know there's language in the house that would make 248A just apply to all telecom infrastructure regardless of whether Act 250 is triggered. And that's certainly an easy solution, but it would depend on I guess the facts of the situation. The telecom space, which is where we're seeing a lot of the issues, the pole replacement issue is not really of concern to the wireless carrier. They want to be at the top of the pole. They'd like to have a riser or something that even brings them above the pole. VTEL has some facilities out right now that are already on poles. So you know, it's no, they did not. So I believe those are under 50 feet. Many I would say though that many companies, AT&T and Verizon are getting 248A permits. I'm sorry. So many companies AT&T and Verizon I'm aware of do file 248A petitions for their facilities. Yes. Yes they do or no they don't? No they don't. What we want to do, I'm hesitant to get into 248 and Act 250 because I remember that with a really difficult kind of process to go through and we were then looking at cell towers and trying to find a balance between kind of local control and also the need of the state to have cell services and we still haven't gotten cell services of any kind. There are large portions of it and we're still trying to get it out there. So I'm hesitant to miss it. I also would be concerned that somebody could go up and put 4G that can be converted or 5G on a pole without there being any, you know, if there's a loophole in this. So I think what I'd like is to see if we can find a way that says look we're doing broadband, we're going to do the pole attack, we're going to do something with pole attachments. I don't know what yet. But you can't put up any 5G stuff until the legislature is active or before next July when we have a chance to act. The question is, is the state precluded from doing anything regarding 5G and particularly 5G for a health or potential health issue because of federal law? Does federal law preempt us from doing any of this? Thank you for that question because that was going to be the next thing I mentioned. So federal law is clear on this issue. Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act has several preemption clauses in it. One is that the state may not prohibit the entrance of market actors into our state. So we can't. And Verizon can't come. Right. And whether that applies to specific technology, Verizon, you can't bring your 5G if nobody can bring 5G. The other is the prohibition on states regulating wireless facilities based on the environmental or the perceived environmental impacts of the technology, i.e. health effects. The FCC regulates EMF radiation at a particular level. If the companies meet that level, then it's legal the states can't make a threshold that's lower than what the federal standard is. So the FCC says 5G to come. Correct. We essentially can't. In addition to that, the FCC issued an order last fall called the Small Cell Deployment Order. Well, actually it's a very small order compared to other FCC orders. I think it's only 100 pages. And this order provides states and municipalities with guidelines about what kind of small cell permitting process they can enact. Some of the factors, I don't have them all memorized, but it has to be objective. It has to be written down ahead of an application being processed. It has to be reasonable. I think the devil's in the details there. But they've given us factors that we can do. Many states now have small cell permit procedures. Okay, so we could, but for today, could we amend the bill and say that no small cell over 2G, because I know we've got some 2Gs. We'd like town to have some side service. Or no cell over 3G. There is. Okay. No cell over 3G can go up until the, or four, perhaps. Until the state has developed a permit process. Is that within our view? Senator Brock, it's, yeah. I would hesitate to say yes to that. I think that it could be an invitation for a challenge. With that said, there's no, I don't think there's anything stopping the state from coming back and doing a permit process that, as long as it's not preempted by federal government. Can't put something up until we have a permit in place? The FCC order that came out, I believe, put a timeline on states complying with that particular order, which is 180 days from when it was published in the federal registry. Isn't it true we have broad authority to regulate our poles and towers? You have citing authority over, so things like aesthetics you can regulate. So we could say here that any tower, any pole installation other than wires would be subject to a coordinated process, for instance, without triggering the federal and the fair? I don't believe that would trigger the preemption language in the telecom act. I do want to caution this is getting kind of in the weeds of a legal analysis. I'm just asking, where do you feel there's some legal analysis at war? I do believe there's a, there's already language in the house that has something to that effect that might be a good starting point. Can we just follow up? Sure. Are you on 5G? Yeah, I am. Well, I'm just trying to understand what is the problem that we're trying to solve here right now. We're trying to do broadband. No, I understand. But with the 5G, are we trying to send a message? We're trying to pacify the public who seems to think that we are participating in some kind of a conspiracy to spread 5G towers through Vermont that will be bombing the immigration ways. And we haven't. I don't think that's what we're doing. What would be possible, Madam Chair? I'm just wondering, could we even put intent language in there? If that's what, again, if that's what the community is with, it is not the intention or? I think we could put it in with intent. But if there's some way we could give them a little more surety that these cell towers are, you know, that these antennas or whatever they are are not getting affixed to the polls without some opportunity. It sounds like we don't have the opportunity to assess the health risks. Or that we can't ban it. It reminded me of the kind of Vermont Yankee situation where I'm so sorry. But someone stands up and says, this is stuff that's dangerous to our health. And then someone else stands up and says, you can't talk about that. We have a lot of trouble. So Senator Cammie's question from my point of view, people feel like Section 19 has to do with 5G. And folks in the government tell us no, it says nothing to do with 5G. So if there's an opportunity to make that clear and help people, that would be the goal for me. If it were a conspiracy, I would say I'm an unwitting pawn. I doubt it. What brought us to our poll attachment petition was these discrete issues that were brought to our attention by poll attaching entities. EC Fiber doesn't have a single wireless antenna. I would doubt that they would provide their wired network to a wireless competitor. That doesn't seem like good business sense to me. But these issues that we're experiencing are taking place in places like Chelsea, Vermont, where they doesn't have 2G yet. Even when I was looking at coverage go boxes, I still think so. It's been suggested that we include penalty if there's foot dragging. So as we're trying to speed up installation, do you have thoughts on that? I do. I hesitate to encourage a penalty. We didn't petition for a penalty when we amended or petitioned the PUC. Instead, we went in the direction of a self-help remedy. So if the companies aren't complying, you can hire a contractor at their expense and get the work done. That was not fully vetted in our petition, but I would like to see even poll replacements. Maine has a self-help option and it works well from what I hear. Doing the one touch, our petition did not separate simple from complex make ready. So if there is a poll replacement under our petition, the attaching entity could replace the poll using the make ready. I believe the language is written provides that the utility commission will implement one touch make ready policies. They did not specify that she would be able to speak to that. But you know, penalties, you're assessing it on the power company and then the PUC has to figure out, okay, is this going to impact rate payers, kind of speaking out of turn, not my specialty. When you get a request and it needs a new poll, is there any consideration done for the fact that it's January of February and the ground is frozen? The culture of weather plays into make ready and kind of the culture of the way the staff at these various companies work. They like to resolve these issues on their own and the PUC has seen very little in the way of complaints brought to them officially about poll attachments and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the people in each of these companies are working together every day. They don't want to ruin those relationships and certainly just because a company is violating a law, they have a good reason that they can't get out and do that work. I've seen, you know, both GMP and EC-Fiber for instance have worked together I think very well having weekly conference calls to settle poll make ready disputes or issues and certainly would like to see that kind of thing continue. But, you know, when you get down into that kind of level it's something that really I think the PUC needs to work through. Hearing from all of the parties and the workshop setting gets pretty cumbersome. Can you stick around? Sure. I'm going to let Representative Kermit talk about it. I haven't heard anything about it. I don't know if it's about people that need to leave in 10 minutes. Okay, but so I still don't feel like we have any clarity about what it is that we are able to do in terms of... Well I've asked Maria to research that and I'll have her wonder. She's our legal counsel. I don't want to make any decisions until we feel it's as clear as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Claire. Representative Kermit, welcome to Senate Finance but we have to get that guest. You had all day to do and we've got an hour. Help us catch up. I can talk fast. You thought process why you did some of the things you did with pole attachments. Why you didn't just do the FCC rules. Okay. Help us understand what... Do you want the big picture on the bill or do you just want pole attachments? I think we mostly want section 19. But there are other things that you might help us if you can't do the 5G issue. Did they miss you and just catch us? I think the concerns around 5G did miss our committee. As you've heard, we can't regulate based on health concerns with regard to that. So I think we would not have probably taken any action on this. This is also the one touch make ready that we put in. Really the most compelling bit of testimony that we had with regard to this was similar policy enacted in Maine. And once enacted in Maine, really no problems in terms of delays. This was put in in order to resolve the delay issue. So it's pretty simple. We did not go with the FCC. We did not consider the FCC policy in talking. I don't think it ever was something that came to our attention or that we were asked to consider. One of the biggest hindrances we have here with regard to or have had here with regard to broadband build out is really a federal preemption. As most of you know, there's very little that we can do with regard to internet. There are two areas that we are not federally preempted. Clay may say there's additional one. I don't know if he's still in the room, but the CPGs and the pole attachments. We are not federally preempted. And I certainly would not recommend that we let go of that little tiny bit that we have. There's nothing that prevents us or prevents the PUC from looking at the federal rules and incorporating all of the pieces that make sense in that. This I think allows us keeping the rules that we've put in here allows us maximum flexibility really in terms of being able to change what's not working or what is, you know, make improvements. So that's what I have to say about pole attachments. Madam Chair, I'm looking. I have listened to some of your testimony. This is about our third or fourth day. And so if I might, just if you are you interested in a few I've heard a few questions come up from testimony that I could. Okay. So, I mean, we really see this as a rural electrification type bill without the massive amounts of federal dollars. Rural electrification was accomplished with the creation of electric co-ops and massive federal funds. In Vermont we have these communication union districts and we think this is really how we'll end up solving this problem. A couple of items that I have heard a couple, some consternation on with regard to the study on the electric utilities. We worked with, oh, God, help me now. They're gone. What is the transmission utility? Thank you. Velco prior to the session during the session in terms of what are the opportunities here to just think about this. Talked with the distribution utilities. In terms of using the Velco broadband lines. It's a question of having the DPS conduct a study about the feasibility of using the electric utilities infrastructure to build out fiber. And by infrastructure, we meant not necessarily just the electric space, which I believe from Clay has been used. Though I think Leslie Nolte questioned that. The infrastructure that the utilities have that could be very, you know, they have the poles. They've got trucks. They have technical knowledge. They have billing infrastructure. So that is another system like our telecommunication system that is transitioning. And there may be some synergies there. So that's why we included that language. And we know that some of the smaller utilities in particular are interested in maybe doing a pilot project around that. I've had, I've heard a number of questions around speed. I imagine you all are having a pretty healthy conversation around that. We picked 25-3 because it's the federal definition. We were not willing to encourage municipalities to invest in agent copper networks. Not at all. Because, you know, we're imagining that municipalities are going to be bonded potentially or borrowing significant sums. 25-3 seem to be the least, the least that we were willing to encourage municipalities. And that is cable. There are potentially some 25-3 technologies on wireless. We know that every solution will, we don't, we don't think. I shouldn't say we know. We do not think that every solution will be the same throughout the state. There may be varied solutions, varied partners that come together to do this. So 25-3 does provide some flexibility. So I think the dollars, the public dollars that we have in here, there's around a million dollars in grants, planning grants, which we think will be providing all of us some pretty critical information going forward. There are, we hope that you'll include, as we did, the Vermont University Service Fund increase. That will raise, you know, 1.2 million, maybe 1.3 million for the connectivity initiative on an annual basis. If we just rely on that public investment, that's, you know, that's decades before we can actually cover. So we're encouraging municipalities to put it to pay off of their grand list. So, yes, that's a long way around. Would we use a monitor's dollars to subsidize 25-3? Right now, that's what the bill says, yes. It would allow for, it would. These are the bills that we're talking about. Loans, even some sections in here talk about 10-1, 4-1. Minimums. Are we? 25-3. Is that what I see? I also see low numbers. Sure, by at least an interest in the potential customers. We'll have to get to page 19, Senator. We have testimony that we're trying to do some numbers, but sometimes lock sharing is given as an example of not being able to fit in because they didn't have the right units. Some numbers didn't. This is the Vita. This is the long thing, yes. Page 19. You're sure a limited funding bill will support the highest quality broadband authority to solve the department. It basically feels like, to me, we're letting people out the hook and say, alright, 10-1, 4-1. But she is with Senator Donald Trump. I don't understand. Why would we permit public investment? Nothing of the wrong. Yeah, I'm not looking at that. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So with regard to the Vita loans, I believe that these speeds were intended. This is such a valuable, and I know you've heard testimony that this Vita aspect is an incredibly valuable, yes. I think we want to make sure that these funds go to the worst areas. So the areas that have the least amount of coverage, excuse me. So that they are not, you know, used in places that may be able to find alternatives to cover. So to provide a quick answer, it seems like we're saying we'll handle 24-3, but if there has to be some 10-1 or some 4-1, we can support that, too. So this is a qualifier, I believe, for the loans. We're not saying that you can provide those speeds. I believe it's in order to qualify for these programs. We're saying that if 30 of your houses have 10-1, then... No. It's saying if you want to qualify for these loans, that in your area, you know, part of the area that you're applying for has to have this kind of speeds or less already. Yes. Already. That's what I mean. So... It's not to invest in 10-1. Right. It's saying that this... It may be less than 10-1. Next to nothing. Right. But I don't feel like that's the... Okay. Okay. We may need... Okay. That's a helpful summary. And it feels like... So in other words, you're saying... Right. If the town has just, it says that 10% of the people can only get 4-1 today, then you'd be eligible for one. That's what I'm trying to use. Mm-hmm. So they have to at least have that. No. No. But we're not saying that's what we're investing in. No. That's the labeling. That's a qualifier. All right. What do you mean by qualifier? The 10-1s, we're going to get it to the most underserved area. Right. Oh, so that's the bare question. Yeah. I mean, if you have 25-3, so if we're going to... Bennington, you're not going to qualify for this loan. Probably. Okay. In the downtown area. Because you probably have more than 10. I suppose if they were in central Vermont. Yeah. So you would take... So they have nothing? Yeah. Right now in Roxbury? So they would probably qualify. All right. But they aren't on themselves going to do this. They're going to be part of central Vermont or EC. I'm not sure who's moving up there. And I guess the question would be, how do you take that one town as a qualifier? Yeah. Because Montpel, you guys have good service. Yeah. And they're also in that district. You're going to need some of the smaller, very underserved areas. Now, probably don't have either the financial or the intellectual expertise to know how to put these things together. Right. And we... I don't know that it's super explicit in the bill, but we definitely would prefer to see CUDs as opposed to single municipalities, particularly in the case of lots of small towns. And so in the case of Roxbury, hopefully they are part of a CUD, right, that is considering. And I think you have taken and heard testimony from some of the startup ISPs that the $2 million cap here with Vita is low. They could certainly use more. We know that there are going to have to be packages, financial packages put together to get this done. And it'll be staged. So, you know, this may be... These dollars might be available in the Roxbury area, but not in the towns that are next to it. You know, you may have to choose some bonding there or what have you. The great part about one of the helpful parts about the bill is the planning funds, which will help us kind of put those packages together so we understand. They really... Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Sarah. And looking to see if there were any other pieces. We would really encourage you to include the human being, the technical assistance that is in this. We know in these small towns, they do not have the capacity to do this. And Carol Monroe, I think, is retiring. And so she's been, you know, the consultant for the state of Vermont, she's been unpaid, I think, volunteer consultant for her. Really? I mean, yeah, folks have... She's been incredibly generous with her time. Jeremy Hansen now, Michael Bernbaum, those folks have been serving unofficially and very generously, but we really need some help for folks, which is not a knock at the department. No, they're... We just need additional... Yeah. We're going to string the wires together, seeing how he's also hiding from the financials together. Exactly. Financials together. Exactly. If we have a failure, that's satisfactory. Yes. And we need to make sure that this is done correctly. Yes. Yes. Okay. Oh, my God. That's... Good? Yeah. Any other questions? Thanks, man. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm going to have a mental work. If you don't mind, I'll start it. You can start? Yeah. Thank you. You just didn't make it on me again. You're welcome. I know. That's all right. Good morning. Yeah. I just thought, since we're talking about kind of things on the utilities, polls, the autumn, we've never had a chance to tell us how to feel about that. Thank you. We appreciate that opportunity. I'm Robert Dostos with Green Mountain Power. So there's a few points that I'll make about the sections of the bill that we've been kind of following and I would say working with a house on. And then when we get to section 19 on the poll attachments, I'll make a couple of comments. And then I have Mike Burke here who is kind of the... Who sleeps with this stuff, thinks about this stuff all the time and really is the expert on the issue. So any questions pertaining to the process for poll attachments, what we do around it, how quickly we respond, what some of the challenges we face are in getting them done in that timeframe, he's the person to be able to respond because he has the field of knowledge of that. So just overall, we did appreciate being part of the discussions in the house and kind of the changes of the bill as it went along. And in the end, we support where it all landed. Section 11, page 13, that one talks about a study. To see what role utilities might play in the distribution, deployment of broadband and telecom services. And it's a good question to ask and I know others have brought that up. Some said there's no role, others say there is a definite role. So I think having that conversation before the PUC is the right thing to do. Let's see if there is a role, what we can do if anything to promote the deployment. And in the bill it says that the utilities will work with the PUC and of course we'll be happy to do that and look forward to what actually in the end unveils. Because as we all know, we're all kind of, this is one of those issues that we're all going in the same direction that we all wanted to happen. And I know we're limited in resources, so how can we work best together and use what resources we do have to achieve that. So we want to be part of the action to help accomplish that goal. There was talk about the FCC rules and an amendment that was offered by Comcast and whether we should just follow that or not. As I think you heard, there is a proceeding at the PUC that's been going on for some time. They are actually looking at that very issue. What do you charge for a one foot versus two foot? Do you have one foot and two foot? Is it just one? Is it one and a half? And how do you do it in such a way that you're ensuring that you're not, that you're doing it fairly and equitably and you're not just having electric rate payers wind up paying for that service? So our recommendation is let the PUC conduct that process and let's see where we land. Again, I think we're all on the same page. We're going to get to the right outcome. That process is an important step in getting to that right outcome. And on section 19 of the poll attachment, there again, whatever we can do to streamline the process we're good with, the language itself we're generally good with. We did offer a suggestion in the House and that was that the entities that want to attach to our poll, if they would give us some heads up, give us some notice about that in advance, that will help us as we plan our own capital work. What often happens is, you know, at a date certain all of a sudden we get this work order for 4,000 polls. And we've gotten that kind of number and then we're putting the position of having to figure out how to get that all deployed in the time frame that we're allowed. So it can be a little challenging. So we did ask those... So this isn't just one poll attachment. This is like 2,000. Yeah, correct. And you would get it in order, like give us an example. So you'd get that from somebody in order to attach or do what exact? To attach their... Their lines. Their lines. From your mountain with a... And a lot of these are, they're on, and Mike will correct me because I'm getting out of my element. But you know, a lot of these work orders are on, they're obviously on existing polls. And areas that already have services, but this just provides customers with yet another option. But those are big orders. And you know, we asked if they could give us kind of more of, you know, give us some time to actually prepare. And the response was that no, they're concerned that by sharing with us too prematurely that information, some of our other, their competitors will... Right. So my hope is that maybe through the PUC process, we'll figure out a path forward to help us again, thinking we're all going in the same direction, let's help one another. Help us, help them. So hopefully, I'm just kind of putting that out there, but hopefully through the process we'll be able to address that. Is the price 500? I'm going to say yes it is. And is the time frame the same? The price proposal, what you pay to access the poll is a tariff and same for everybody. How about the timeline? The timeline meaning? Do you have the same amount of time to do one poll attachment as you did before? Right. Yeah, Mike. Mike Burke. Mike Burke, Mountain Power. He's shaking his head, yes. So there's different timelines based on the amount of polls that you've turned in. And if you go over a certain level in one application, then the timeline extends. But I think it's all the way up to like 300 polls or something like that. I've got the numbers here. But you asked a lot of questions about how many, can I just throw out some numbers real quick? I'm going to pull a chair and come on up. Just pull yours up. If somebody a little goes in there, if he goes in there, whatever works. Sorry. The only thing I will add while he's sitting is that there is language in the Make Ready language in section 19 that does acknowledge that there are extenuating circumstances that could delay our ability to actually get the work done. And there can be an opportunity to kind of forgive that and extend the timeline. That was important to us. And particularly when you're thinking about the challenges now we're facing with climate change, we imagine that those situations will only get worse, not better. And that's based on the amount of polls to your question. So in 2017, we had 293 applications to get on our polls. That took in 8,016 polls. In 2018, we had 268 applications, 9,500 polls. This year, we've already licensed 71 attaches and already given license to 5,510 polls to get on. Currently, we have 85 applications that are still open for a number of polls, 4,196 that we're working through. So these are big numbers. These aren't go to an individual home. And some of the things we take into consideration where we're doing this, we do work really well. We have weekly meetings. And we also do try to let them know if they're trying to get into an area. And we have a reliability rebuild that we're about to do. We'll say, hey, we're about to do this. If you can wait until we finish that, then you can get on. We give automatic licenses, on lines that we've already upgraded. We don't even do surveys. We just let them get on. We're doing things to try to help the broadband companies and the communication companies out there. But we also do have some other... In October of last year, we had, I think, nine high wind events between October 1st and New Year's Eve. And it was pretty tough to do a lot of work for anything during that time frame. Let's see if your first responsibility is to get the electricity... Keep the lights on. In the summer of last year, we actually shut down a lot of our own internal work to make sure we hit these deadlines. We were pulling crews from all over the state into districts where we had heavy applications, mainly in the central part of the state that Chelsea used to talk about, the Royalton, places like that. And we did manage to just about hit all those goals. Just to give you an idea how GMP is actually performing on this. So the 3.7 rule is 120 to 180 days. We averaged 191 days. When GMP had control of the poll set, we averaged 155 days. So we did hit our goals. When there's a different set company, that average went out to 251 days. But GMP average for every poll we were on was just barely over the criteria. But when we had total control, it was under. That's the better part of the construction. Excuse me? It's the better part of the construction season, right? That many polls. That many days. 190 days. Yeah. What is that? That's a lot of work. The question on, that brings me to, you asked about the seasons. We are doing construction just about a year round now. We have machines that dig through frost. So that doesn't mean that it slows us down. Because obviously, we're not allowed on state highways. If it's snowing, the linemen can't glove 7,200 volts when it's wet out and raining. You haven't gotten too much this spring. We're out there every minute we can to try to not only take care of these things, but also improve service in places that we know have had trouble in these major storms. It's slightly off the topic, but I have to talk to Robert. I'll take complaints about towns who use their E-9 model on a capacity because the electricity goes down and I think cable-based phone service needs electricity and apparently the phone companies only have to report the outage. If it's their equipment that's down and so their shoes buried, as they very often with us, was without service for three days, the electricity doesn't seem to have bothered as much as the inability to have called down. And just wondering right now we don't have a solution, but if you could let the E-911 board, I know I frequently get emails and stuff from you and just put them on your call so they're aware that the area might be having trouble reaching them and just want to let you say that works for you for the record. When we have, and I think legislators know this, when you get an email from me about a storm, it's only the cause, it's really severe and we expect it to last a couple more days and people are going to be without power for some time. When you've gotten that, we've already done a lot of communications already using the media, social media, every which way and we only ramp it up as the outages go longer and longer. So when you do get that email from me and I do with the legislators but I do it to a much broader stakeholder group as well, including businesses and we even now reach out to customers who we have identified on life support. Now they know kind of, and I think many plan for the possibility of outages and they have hopefully a plan for what to do but we're beginning now to put in place a process where we actually call them to let them know if they're in an area that we think outages are going to last longer. So we're all about communicating and then continually improving because I think there's a lot of opportunities to improve our communication and again as things change, as the weather changes, the climate changes, this is only going to become more and more important and I think the more that we have these conversations the better because it is about resiliency planning in the face of kind of a new world so as outages are longer and as people rely on 911 but don't have it because of power out and we have new technologies that don't allow for that we got to figure out other ways in which people in emergency situations can reach out or processes in place where local communities are knowing who or where the problems are and doing whatever they can to help address it. So it's a planning that it's a new level of planning I think that needs to happen a more heightened level of planning needs to happen around this and we'll take whatever suggestions we can in terms of doing our outreach to alert people about the power outages that exist and when we think we'll be able to get power back on which is a whole other issue enough but I won't go into it. I hit on some of the things that we face when we're trying to do this I really wanted to make myself available too just for questions if anyone had any questions on. You know I will say the one touch right now in the bill it says for communications and I do want to just state why it's a little bit different for electric our alignment are actually we have to transfer everyone understands they're holding the 7200 volts in their hand and for us to get proper clearances on the breakers and people have to be rated to be able to do that it's a little bit harder to do that with the electric than it is with the cable so I think that everyone understands that most of them want their people up there playing with their life wires yeah we don't want that we're a little risky okay thank you thank you very much