 So, we're going to return to, there are, just on that, air traffic control, so there have been proposals from a consortium to sort of proposal from Remount and Holler, from a lot like a co-op, and efficiency from our office, and I asked Luke to draft it, but before we go on with that, I thought it would be helpful for us to kind of offer me sort of without, taking recommendation just so that we can have it drafted and then we have formal correct language to look at. But we had that decision point document that we were going through last week and we stopped. I thought it would be helpful to pick up where we left off before we start looking at even more of it. So, I don't know, everyone has this document. Who is this? Is he the senior president? I'm sorry, I apologize, I didn't get that out because I wanted to truly run out of time. Otherwise, how do you think it's going to be? I think it's going to be easier for you to just basically run out of time. No, I think he, I know he had it last. Is this one with that caption or is that? Sometimes it is. Yeah, okay. He's actually right here, so he's all set, can't see. There's this caption on it. No, it's the one that has the detail, it's going to need to block attacks. Oh, great. I usually take these things home and work on them. I think that's what happened because it's not in your folder. Yeah. Then I leave one at the house. Yeah, I would just love a new copy. Thank you, thanks. That's correct, yep, I think that's what he was looking for. Excuse me, I... Do you want to, can you get it off? Do you need to make other notes on it? He doesn't have any, he just... That's fine. Thank you very much. Can you get by, okay? Excuse me. So I think we had finished page one, we wanted to page two and then... If I may, Mr. Chair? Yes, please. I think there's new language from some of the stakeholders that... Can we open page one? I don't know how you want to deal with that or go back, keep blazing forward or... One file on and then... Okay. So my file could work through the layers. All right. I think we're going to have to excuse the relation line, $48. Thank you. Elaine Robert. The line that is, it's probably over there. And where are we at, please? I think, well, just, let's start at the top of page two. Do you want to refresh everyone's recollection? Well I thought we were maybe as far as starting to look at the list of factors. Could you refresh my recollection, then? I think the first one was, you know, does the committee want the PUC to open or continue a proceeding concerning creation of all fuels? Was there a question? Was there an answer as to that? Starting point question or was it just discussion? Well, so everyone's right through the... Thank you very much. You're welcome. So let's just jump down to the questions. What do you do for... Okay, so I do know now where I have mine. I'm at page two. Yes? Yes, this is where we're exactly where we left up. Question one. Yes. Thank you. So... We worked well last week. Yeah. But I have a dialogue. Sure. We'll go through the questions, then we'll... Sure. So the first question was, and if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, can I just briefly go through all four, because some of them relate, but then we can go back to one. Sure. So does the committee want the PUC to open this proceeding to consider the potential creation of all fuels efficiency utility? If no, you're done. If yes, should it be one? More than one? Should it be a new entity or existing entity? And there was testimony from some stakeholders that they would prefer it to be phrased in terms of the existing efficiency utilities. What are the factors to consider? We listed ABCDE here, based on the sponsor of this proposed language, but do you want to change those? And then there were suggestions about, do you incorporate tier three under the RES requirements? And the final vote point was just from a submission from Burlington Electric. I don't know if it's still relevant or not. I think that's a very good question, though, because my view is they would have to come back with direct... If they propose that all fuels efficiency utility be established, or the jurisdiction of current ones be expanded to include all fuels, I think they would have to come back to the legislature and ask for enabling legislation to achieve that. I don't think they could just do it on their own. Maybe other parties disagree with that, but that's my interpretation. I don't think they could establish on all fuels efficiency utility on their own. So, sure. Maybe we would ask them to come back on the 15th next year on what they should have in such a document for us to tell them to go ahead and do it. Okay. Well, we have them coming back to provide an update and preliminary findings and recommendations. So I'll share your... So they haven't had a contract to do that? Or should they just... Well, so we're calling it a procedure. A little less formal. Getting pulled over to get it docked or speeding tickets. Okay. So, but I think the main point, other than having the label applied to whatever kind of procedure it is, correct? So we... Well, I'm satisfied with the work. Right. We'll come to the right conclusion on that. No one goes ahead to do anything without coming back with a rather critical thing to point out. Design it and implement it. Just think about how you do it and come back to your conclusion. All right. So it's our... My understanding is the committee is, yes, on... Opening. Opening or expanding what an existing proceeding is designed to address. Julie took yours to make... There it is. She took yours to make copies. Well, does it or are we... You want to say whether or not we're opening one... So this was the main legal question to you. You'd like to see the... I just... I have this one. The label here that has to spray the label, I mean, something like creation of an all-fuel efficiency or utility or utilities. We went to the publishing of the outset. They seemed like it to do it. I think testimony ordered last week suggested to me that there are many different parties including the distribution utilities that also have full influence in the series. And that if we're looking at not utilizing what an energy efficiency utility can do, they might want to be open to what a distribution utility can do as well so that the evolution of both parties really is open so that we... One one's forward and the other one's sort of they're locked into their composition not able to make that complementary adjustment. Okay. The other thing I heard was that the notion of all-fuel energy efficiency utility, it was a phrase of concern to people. So for the time being, I think what we're really talking about is a program that allows everyone to do more. Whether we label someone... I mean, removing the label of being the all-fuel energy efficiency utility where we need somebody to guide it. We need somebody and we're not inviting someone else to do their own. So if we went to the current program for this idea, is that helpful? I'm comfortable with that. Yeah, me too. So my understanding is yes, you want the PUC to open a proceeding, but you want that proceeding to focus on the existing efficiency utilities and expanding their programs or mandate? I would say for myself that it would limit me just to existing. It may well be that only existing entities end up being part of some program down the road. But I would hate to think that you heard from Ryan Yellen and the department and Mr. Weston from RAP. There are different people emerging who deliver... New businesses are getting started to offer services. So I would hate to think that someone's like, oh well, you can't be considered in the mix that's a bothered mix that you're not the equivalent... You're not one of them wanting to be stapled with and not be finished in proceeding. So personally, I think we'll be open. Some other useful service comes up that the PUC... I don't know who that would be. I don't want to have anyone excluded. The other thing is we were talking about there's a certain happiness to a... well, for those with the most cost-effective solutions sometimes you figure that out by having people make different proposals about how to do different types of work that are accounted for. So... Is there an evenness and openness? Is there a doubt? So I think we want to have them come back to us on how we help one might design the docket to do the things that are listed here. Back to us earlier. So... I'm going to give words to it so it's not again... something about what they're going to recommend to us. And the next thing is between now and four months from now what are we going to direct? To take place. Okay? Well, then we get into the bottom of that first paragraph. So if you want to make sure you shall consider all of the things that are being appropriately weathered around. I'm going to point out that while they're doing that we're going to read away the things going through its procedures. While it's going through its procedures for the long haul we're going to put our toe in the water and start doing something in the next 24 months so when we get back to final recommendations that we already have a work product that is either going down or at least being modified or you can watch. So what we're going to look at I think we're going to be so that I will jump right to the section of the last page and decide what it is we'd like to have happen in the interest that will help us to be able to see establish what the PDC is doing during the next three years in part of the course. So section one in terms of getting started in the next three years section one provides more latitude for efficiency of the month to use curing for the month. So I think it's a number of dollars to do all of the tasks I don't think that's specific to it. So where are set that policy? There are other proposals coming along that list dollar values, stuff like that I think but I'd like to use the answers we developed when we went to pay for on Friday and then keep making our way through this before we start going back into the end of this one when they hadn't finished section two yet this is totally thoughtful but that's what we collect a lot of questions and it can be helpful for us to answer our own questions before and then again I'm not dismissing a question I just want to keep track of all these for instance three on page two said if we're going in and doing the do we know what we're proceeding the factors that PDC should have considered do we amongst those factors should be more explicit about how to do that? I would say yes and just to be clear these references do discuss the goals of the state to reduce greenhouse gas. You can certainly be more explicit about carbon from that point so we do not to let some of these cross references touch on that. So can we say 578 are we not the definition of carbon? So if we solicit I'm feeling like it may not be if some parent is just reading and we didn't know so we're satisfied by referencing what we already have so no additional language just referencing that's fine. So four here three an expanding role of an increasing degree so that's the the USA 8000 five languages and some three in there it's three I'm sorry Mr. Chair where are you now? Age to a number four there's no languages but I think something will make sense to you because that's what I said before some of the PDU says you're not you didn't listen you're not even saying what I would say which is energy efficiency utilities and they have an interaction with people providing services under tier three then might be able to have this tier three exclusively here so if the PUC can say oh we see all these working parts let's make sure all the years take to work together better not just work on the efficiency a lot years and believe the distribution role of all the players is a lot and we've got to figure out how to evolve together so next January they should come back with a recommendation of tier three tick shape and then you can take a look and say yeah it makes sense or it's crazy so I'm marking for the next draft that we won't cross out on the set for the BSA 8000 distribution utilities yeah so those and I think they're only to be used because anyone other than the D only the distribution utilities have an obligation the other thing that came up was exempting the complete amount of gas that are already operating I don't know if that's relevant now that you've made the other changes but I don't know if it needs to be stayed in the statute now they're making the other changes considering the recommendations and the actions they can take place here so then I'm going to and so just to refresh the recollection of the committee one is all fuels two is expanding the concept and definition of efficiency regardless of whether the PUC recommends establishing all fuels utility or not so one and two and for that matter three which is funding are sort of separate things and so this is distinct from what you just talked about so it could be hand in hand with the new all fuels or it could be not and just the existing efficiency utilities and their conception of efficiency services again the language that came over from GMP, VC and they suggested including some of the extended lists appreciating paragraphs some or all of them or some is not at all most but not all of them you're correct so I thought let's go through the list as we have it and see where we are and then we'll get how that language concludes one thing that I have marked for testimony was that sub G flexible load management produced like a peak when Mr. Weston was in he suggested removing PUC because you would want to include load management across the board that makes sense well I think he also was beyond just electricity so it might be just that flexible load management semi-colon thank you yeah how would that work now so it's demand response, flexible load management energy storage, reduction okay get rid of all okay that was my understanding of his recommendation okay so and then in terms of the questions you've pulled out different sources the two any changes to factors in addition to what's up there let's go with greed if you wanted I could fit it in but yes to specify renewable or list biomass biodiesel renewable natural gas do you want to work that in in some manner what seems to me to keep it more broad renewable energy right we're looking for greater specificity I was just adding to D as in delta if you do it seems to fit in pretty easily so yeah yeah we're using somebody's right and then in that case I'm missing something page 4 before we move on Mr. Chair do you want to discuss whether two is kept separate from one or they're merged together or do we get the stuff on page 4 there were many comments about but there were suggestions that two and one so they'd be combined so how about if you guys could bring that and then we'll lay out the current graph what do you think about potential I'm not really sure if this may be a suitable home for it or not but one of the ways we brought money from the cable to the renewable energy work was identified by Rex he tried for a while last week about could you is it possible to say there's a thermal equivalent to them and that is in one case you're certifying the energy that was produced renewably on the other hand if you could certify that you weatherize something and demand permanently wouldn't we aren't both those valuable things in terms of leaving our gas goals there is no such thing in Vermont as a thermal wreck in other words since it helped us once to build renewables I thought maybe it might help us again bring money to the energy equation whether there is a worthwhile whether or not we find such a market I don't know under funding I thought it might be useful sounds good to me the previous page where we the expansion of the programs and services of traditional technologies organizational strategies and funding realignments and our list the reason I say this suggests that I think having sent them out to do the long-range stuff we should make a step forward for the temporary funding realignment that's going to take place now what we might end up doing with the lending recommendation of the PUC next year but take a step allocate a certain amount of money and get a redirection while we are seeking the details on how to go farther in that direction and this section 1 at Sunday with the language around that I was going to start to take care this is a difficult thing to do with a group here but we will modify the good work so we get a clean extract from the instrument that's the council that's done to get this and if you could sit down and just show the language you have we could look for the best place to use it once we spell it out thank you so the only other comment I heard there were two comments I had from last week about this but how do you have how does that provide consistent ads with funding Mr. Weston has said it comes in the long run that the process should look at hanging and all approaches to funding because he was it's not quite explicit but he said you don't want the PUC dealing with constraints and thinking that you can only look at unregulated fuels Mr. Favors here the language that we have how does that provide consistent ads with funding would it have to be interpreted as constrain that only look at regulated fuels or not given the authority to change what we deal with it certainly gives the recommendations on how we might make those changes so then we don't need to just bear in sub theme get a workshop what comment I had was what you've seen from Mr. Weston and of course such processes as the PUC seems appropriate I think you thought it was overly restrictive does the language we already have seem in some way overly restrictive I don't think we can work with it but we don't want to be tying your hands I think all we're looking for was to ensure that it was an easy process for stakeholders to include and any and all stakeholders to be welcome in the process then we get to subsea reports we specify an indoor report next January and a final report with recommendations 21 January 21 we had last week that said can you push it along and have a final report in 2020 my thinking on it is when PUC asks for more time in order to be receiving what they feel is the amount of time they need to do a well below the calendar how are we up? doesn't seem like a recipe for success so do it half the time is it the dates that they've agreed to or they believe they can do the work with it yes but we might say do we want to ask for any something as crucial as next January as part of an indoor report that could be helpful to all parties what would you think would be most helpful if we were to receive something early anything? honestly it's such a wide open procedure I don't know if you're going to be in a position to make a much of a way of a recommendation other than I haven't seen an indoor report come out that's one of the problems in my history with the PUC we ask to suggest what we ought to do and they say our job is to suggest what we do and what we do it and then we tell them what to do and they do it and they don't know that so I would encourage them to develop their expertise and creativity and give us something in our team next year if they come in and say we did our best and we're going to have to stumble through on our own or if they come in with something that helps us to clarify and give us the focus that we may have adapted so you want both on January 15th 2020 that's what you're looking for yeah they're their own bosses and they can participate in this and help us do the best job possible and we can send them we can follow their recommendations or some other work and work around they could be busy doing other things and say sorry we couldn't help that's the this it is all right that's a special question we're going to pause we're going to set the clock and then we have to clock this then so I would invite anyone who has further thoughts on whether we're going to ask for how we have to know if we're getting answers 2020 to think about it talk to yourself and I'll be happy to talk to people I'm very reluctant when agencies and departments can't do something about it but they can tell them to do it anyway because from most part I think everyone's busy you couldn't tell me we're not asking them to do anything about it so thank you everybody we will tomorrow go to the language that we have from ENC to EBT at all plus we'll have our own version and we'll start to see how these things are lining up or not lining up you can do incremental edits yes my hope is by Thursday we say okay we got all the language from me then that's when the money needs to start writing checks to be aware because this is all money at the moment we haven't addressed how we're going to pick up the paper so that thank you very much we are adjourned