 So we are now recording. Thank you so much, Paul and Marlena for joining us today. I'm really excited to be getting to this point and going over this information. And Carolyn, thank you so much for joining us. And we should probably start the meeting. I know most people know, but I don't know that Sam does. So. Chris, I'm sorry. I know you've talked about this already, but do you want to make one final main big announcement? I'm, I'm, I'm, I have taken a position with the state department of green community or division of green communities. It'll be the Western mass regional green communities coordinator. So it's with mixed emotions that I'm leaving the city. I'm very wedded to all the stuff that people are doing that this group is doing and others. So I'll give me a call if anybody needs assistance, you know, even after the job conflict of interest, I'll have to deal with it, but I don't think this would ever be a conflict of interest. Yep. There you go. So Chris, when, when is your last meeting with us or when, when does that new position start? Or when are you at least leaving this position? I guess. The plan is for me to leave this position on December 16th. It will be the last day, but I'll be using up some personal time. So I probably won't be working that day. So it might be earlier that week, but that might still, I'm not sure, you know, that might still flex a bit. The official start date with the state will be January 3rd. Okay. So you're starting January 3rd there. Okay. Okay. Okay. This phone number is Tom joining us. So Tom. Just to spare Chris saying it for like the fifth time. Unless he wants to tell you, do you already know about Chris? Chris's big news. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay, good. I just gathered that congrats, Chris. Thank you, Tom. Okay. Great. So I think, I think we have everybody here who's going to be here today. So I don't have minutes because I'm working with a high school student who's learning how to take minutes through an advanced or learning project that she's doing. So I'm being, giving her some, you know, some leeway with that. So doesn't mean that Darcy, we don't want you to take minutes today if you can, but she's, she's working on one of the sets where you were absent, I think at the last meeting. So she's working on that set. And then there was a set back in September that she's pretty much nearly done with, but I just want to go over them with her. So. And I don't, I only get her, you know, she's only here like for an hour. Once or twice a week. And she's only been here for a few times so far. So we'll review the minutes at another time. So that's just one agenda item. And then, sorry. I guess Chris gave us a big update. So I think we can. I don't think I have any other updates unless Chris, do you have any updates from the town counselor, the legal counsel for both Amherst and North Hampton? All I can say is I, I keep reaching out to Alan and Alan keeps reaching out to Rick. And I don't want to put the blame on Rick because, you know, it's, it's kind of intermittent. It takes a while. I've reached out a couple of times and he reaches out and they haven't, as far as I know, they haven't connected yet. Last time I reached out, I did copy people on the last one saying, you know, maybe what we want to do instead is the entire group get together and go through the JPA. Together. And that might be the best at this point. Instead of having the, the lawyers come to agreement first. So I think we can just, just everybody just go through it. But that, when I suggested that Alan instead reached out to Rick, so he's kind of implied you'd rather work with the attorneys together first. Okay. Right. So, so this is pretty much the same pattern and holding pattern that we've been in since April. Because what you're doing is exactly what I was doing. And I don't know how to move them along any faster at this point. So. I think I might, I might reach out to Rick directly myself too. And if not, I think I might ask Paul at this point, because of where we are with moving the aggregation along. And the need to get this in place before that happens. I feel like, you know, it's kind of a critical point here. So, and I'm also concerned and Paul and Marlene, I'm glad you're both with us today. I think that's a good point. I think that in terms of once that, and because you have more experience with aggregations, and I know most communities kind of work independently. On their aggregations, but. Because we're a group. And we need administration. To sort of launch the JPE. Like, how does that. How will that work if we put forth the. The JPE. But you would said it would be best if the JPE was in existence, but in terms of administratively, like, are there things that have to be done at that point that we need. You know, we need the, the JPE to be functioning, to be convened and functioning at that point. So that's a really interesting question. So. I really, I'm just thinking off the top of my head at this stage. Not really the key thing is, I mean, just the key reason to have the JPE in place by the time of the filing with the department of public utilities is. What will matter a lot to the department of public utilities is, what's the entity that's submitting this plan. Is it the JPE that submitting the plan, or is it the three communities operating under a memorandum of understanding? And that's an issue that matters to them. So if we can, it would be good to have the JPE in place by then. It's not the end of the world. If we don't, we could file under the MOU and then revise later. And that's been, been done with no fuss. But if we had it in place ahead of time, that's better. In terms of administrative action, really the only things, the things that have to happen from here, I think can be done all done without a JPE that has any administrative capabilities yet. And the reasons are from where we are today. The next big step is a public hearing and putting the plan out for comment in each of the communities and having a public hearing in each community. That has to be done in each community anyway. So you don't really need the JPE for that each, you know, each community could, could, would be the driver there. And then in terms of filing the, the final documents with the department of public utilities, when they're ready, all we need there is just. The whoever entity is filing them has to decide to do it has to tell us we as an entity have decided we want you to file this plan. And it's up to you what process that involves. Usually it's just someone speaking for the town tells us, yes, we've decided please file the plan. So you could do that as the three communities, but I think the JPE, even if it's in place, but doesn't have administrative capabilities, that's just its governing board, which I imagine as you guys just deciding and giving us a direction. So that's a long way around to saying, I don't think the absence of administrative capability on the part of the JPE is a problem at, is a problem at this stage. So with that, it doesn't require, would it require signatures from the three communities on behalf, like so the JPE essentially is the executives of each community, just at least administratively at that point. Yes, or well, or however the JPE is structured. So the JPE probably says, right, we have a governing board or governing board is just a way, right? It's probably the chief executives of the three communities or however you do it. Those entities would just have to agree together that the JPE wants this plan filed. So they don't file, they don't sign the plan documents or anything. They just need a way to make a decision. And so give us a direction so they could do that. You know, in a meeting, they could probably even do it. I don't know the JPE rules, but they could maybe even do it less formally than that. Okay. So I put together, started putting together a list of what the JPE has to do. Once it's, once it, once the agreement is signed, you know, what are the immediate tasks? I don't remember if I've sent that out to people. But I agree. I mean, it fits right with Paul saying, you know, what the first things to do is to form the board. And once you form the board, then you have a decision making. And it makes sense that that should go pretty quick and clean. That shouldn't be hard. Yeah, I just, so it's just a matter of timing is all I'm concerned about because I don't know when they're, when Rick and Alan are going to get this together enough to, for us to then get signatures. And if Paul is wanting to move forward on our behalf mid December, I'm just concerned about timing because I don't know when that board is going to be able to convene, right? Cause even if we become a JPE, the executives still have to identify who are going to be the, on the board of directors. And ostensibly it, I would think it would be us at least for now. So, okay. So does anyone else have any questions around that JPE? I just, Paul, I'm sorry to sort of thrust you into that conversation, but having your expertise is helpful. And I can just make an addition with regard to the timing. So before the DPU filing, you need to do these public hearings and the public comment periods in the communities. So that's 30 days from when that starts. So that means it wouldn't really be the, the DPU filing is probably in January would be the earliest you could, you could do it given that requirement to have public, public comment opportunity. Okay. And when you say public hearing, do you mean just a sort of a public meeting or is it something that the council has to preside over? I'm sorry. Yes. Just a public meeting. So it's not, it's, it's really just a form. It's a, it's a public presentation of the plan. It gets noticed like a public meeting, maybe like one of your meetings, but it's not, it's not a meeting of the governing board. Okay. Okay. Hey, this is Tom. I'm feeling like, I mean, just to be provocative. I don't know what's going on with Northampton. Are they part of this or not? You know, it's, it seems like it's, you know, we're coming up with all these ways to work around the lack of response that's been now what half a year. So I do feel like we need to escalate this a little bit. So, and I just want to, you know, on behalf of Northampton, because I don't feel like it's been them. I think our respective legal consoles, including Rick, at various times have been somewhat not responsive. You know, Alan did have surgery. So we're going to give him some slack around as the fact that he had knee surgery. So I think, you know, it's been, it's sometimes it's been Rick and sometimes it's been Alan. So at this point right now, I think it's Alan has reached out to Rick and Rick didn't respond, but I know that Rick tried to reach out to Alan like two months ago. So I think I'm just going to maybe try to reach out to Rick myself to see if I can prompt him along so that we can move this forward. I don't think at this point, it's, you know, time for the executives to say this is top priority. We know we've asked you to do other things. Now's the time for this. Yep. So, so towards that, Andrew, I'll be meeting on Monday with my, you know, the director of central services and the mayor is asked to be part of that meeting because it's kind of how do I hand off all my stuff and I will bring it up at that meeting. So the mayor will know that this group needs to have action from the lawyers. That'll be an opportune time to bring it up. And I think Stephanie, you said you might go to Paul. Yeah, I can go to Paul. That's not a problem. He'll, he, you know, he's, he's pretty good about, about that. So I'm going to ask him and tell him sort of where we are and that it's a critical juncture and we really need Rick to respond. So we're all on the same page. Yep. I am going to give Rick a call though first. I'm in. I'm going to do both. If I don't hear from him, I'll ask Paul. So, okay. I'd like to move us along then. So moving to the, our discussion and our next steps, I guess we're going to start with the outreach and education plan. Yeah. Yeah. And Marlene, I don't know if you have a. An updated version to share or. If you've just incorporated the last comments we had. Yeah, I think the, I think you have the most recent version. I don't think there's any. Did you send. I guess I thought I had sent back. I think I did. Let me see if I've got that. Maybe did I, did you send something after I sent the last version to you? I can't remember. Hold on. Just opening what I sent everybody. So I've been, I was out of the office all day yesterday. And so I feel like I'm a little behind the eight ball here. So the, yeah, I think at the version I, I sent everybody was the version that you. Responded to us to our latest comments. So. It's dated 11, 322 with my initials after it. That's the one that you sent out. Let's see. Yes. Okay. Yep. That's the latest one I have too. Okay. Great. So I just want to make sure that everybody is okay with that. Then there's there any. Anything anyone. Wanted to comment on or add or before we finalize this. I'm good with it. I'm good with it. Chris. Oh, you're muted, Chris. Yeah, I'm fine with it. Okay. And everyone else. Okay. I can't see others. So I'm just going to assume that we're good. I think we finally have our. Completed outreach and education plan. So great progress. Congratulations. Thank you, Marlena. Excellent. That piece is done. Yeah. All right. Then to move on to the draft aggregation plan. Can I just ask a question about the, the draft. I saw a lot of. Additional red text that was crossed out and that confused me. No, who put in the red text and who crossed it out. I think Mars Darcy's referring to the CCA and I believe Paul. Do you want me to share on my screen? Yes, that would be great. And, and I think at a, at a high level Darcy, exactly what happened is. I sent a draft. You folks added some text to the draft, which appeared as red. I reviewed your additions and made some. Proposed edits on the addition. So that would, in some cases, would show red. I think would, well, actually how it appears as the colors is always mysterious, but. Some things that were added then being. My recommendation would not add them. So they would show as crossed out, I think. Okay. So do we want to just go through, let's start. So Paul, you're okay with this phrase. You think we might get some pushback, but. We might, but I think if we do, it won't be a big problem. They'll just did. We just say take it out. But I, I don't think they will. I think they'll leave it in, but I, and I don't think there's any harm to, to try. Okay. And then you just added this additional. So what's in red here is just. What we had suggested and you included. I just want to be clear as well. This red, this summer for support for me now, Scott, raise now. Yeah. So. Yes, I think that's, that's fine. I think that's fine there. That's fine. All right. Great. And so the fact that the, the options that we listed were not. Included is still, we were still assuming that they're. You know, potentially doable. We just are not specifying them. Is that correct? Well, a little bit. I think, and then I think the, like the main ones, if maybe if we could scroll down a little bit, we could look at these specifically. So I think we're all good up until. Here or. Is what I took out just not appearing here at all. Yeah. Yeah. Let's just scroll down more. So you guys had a whole list of things. So. Three, three items. Let's see. I see. So I, I think. Right. So that I think the way to see them, I believe you are proposed additions. We're in a comment. And which is a great way to do it. And I think if you scroll back up a little bit, you'll see the comments. Is that the, I think the one up here. Yes. And if you hit the down arrow in the comments, there we go. Then we'll see, or maybe it's the comment. Above maybe. Sorry. Keep. I'm sorry. Keep going up. Yeah, I think that's this one here. So there's a little down arrow there right next to JPE at the bottom. Yep. JPE at the bottom. Right above my name and the line above my name. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. All the way to the right. Oh yeah. I see it. It's just hard. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Perfect. So that's, these are the items, right? So. You would suggest putting these in the plan as specific greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. I've suggested not putting those in the plan because I think they would create a lot of consternation at the department of public utilities. So I guess in terms of weather. So I guess mostly we just being the silent on these proposed additions and then try to evolve the program in this direction. Trying to think of how, how best to raise this topic or why some of these things would. Create consternation with the department of public utilities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a really good example. So see on the right there says. Just kind of provide general support. For development of new greenhouse gas reduction, new projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So from the DPUs perspective, I mean, what that sounds like a lot is the, the. The program would collect money and then the program would use a lot of money and then the program would be able to support projects. But without necessarily a direct tie between those projects and the customers who are participating in the program. And that's a tough line with the DPU because. They view these programs as their, you know, their kind of electricity supply programs. And this is the same thing with the DPU. In, of new greenhouse projects. By, in one's very specific way, which is. You offer a product through the program. Customers purchase that product. It goes to the, it goes to the generator. So. And the customer gets the output of that generator. So there's a direct line between the customers payment. The project you're trying to incentivize. That's the way these programs can for sure operate. What they can't do is just at the other extreme collect a bunch of money and then just give that money to a renewable energy developer because we all support additional renewable energy. The DP would say that's not tied closely enough to the benefits received by the program participants so you can't use the money in that way. It's got to be more specifically tied to this this program and benefits recipients. So these might be programs that we could put under the JPE. Instead of the CCA. Exactly correct that's that's a extremely important point there which is doesn't mean none of this has anything to do with what the JPE can do the JPE can do all sorts of stuff. But for the for the CCA you're limited to what the DPU will allow and that's going to really limit you to things that are very closely tied to benefits received by program participants. I just want to say that I think the biggest use that we can get from the CCA for these general greenhouse gas emission pieces is if it can at some point help fund or partially fund a staff person whose aim would be outward focus and it would run the CCA. It would help kind of come up with how do we use money, you know how do we use things that DPU are okay with through the CCA. And at the same time that person that also has got some responsibility to just running more JPE programs, larger programs so that that's, so I would ask Paul, that's kind of like the highest priority that I could think of here as the programs are going to develop. It's really hard to say how the programs themselves are going to develop. But to have someone who could be spending some time towards that and have the DPU DPU okay with that. I think you've said in the past that that would be appropriate. Correct. So it's, it's definitely, and we get to that late that specific thing comes up later on in the plan is not in this part here. Not say we shouldn't talk about it but just in case people are wondering why aren't we seeing that on the page. That's on the page it's later down to answer your question, Chris, the DPU has many times approved the use of funds collected through a CCA program to fund some portion of the cost of a staff person. That staff person has to work on the program and to a certain extent, the, the amount that the program dollars contribute to the staff person's salary, etc, needs to bear some rosem relationship to the percentage of the person's time that is spent on the program. But for this purpose, you can think of the program in an expansive way, you can certainly cover general administrative time that's related to the program so you can, you can cover a whole bunch of a, of a person's salary, and many communities do covers, you know, a good chunk of the salary of a person who has responsibility for the CCA but also other responsibilities. Okay, I know we've talked about this many times. I feel pretty clear about how we can use it for that piece. I think it was more just the general to my note here, I think, and to maybe Darcy's point is just like, is there a way to, without getting specific to say that we want greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be the driver. I think that's, I think that was kind of the essence of what, and Darcy correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was kind of the essence of what you really wanted to make sure it was clear in moving this forward. Right. Yeah, well it looks like we're replacing a lot of language with emissions reduction as the driver anyway, right. But no, I'm okay as long as this is, you know, can be part of the JPE. Okay. I mean, and I think we knew that I thought that was kind of the point of the JPE was to be able to do all this. I have a question about the benefits to participants. For example, if we decided to do something for low income people specifically the burden on their electricity bills, is would that be okay with DPU or does does anything that the CCA does have to benefit all participants equally. That's a really good question. I would say, and the answer might vary a little bit from case to case but I would think that support for low income folks is an area where you can push the envelope a little bit. You know, no one, no one is going to fuss and there's a great. There are two themes in in Massachusetts electricity regulation and the CCAs fall under that one theme is everyone gets an opportunity to participate in benefits equally, you know, to the extent that they contribute they have an opportunity to benefit. And though it's okay to carve out extra money for people with particular needs. So, both of those somewhat contradictory principles are principles that underlie utility regulation in general and CCA is part of that overall scheme. So, as an example, if you wanted to use CCA funds. I think there are a bunch of ways you could use it to help low income folks all without getting into a bunch of examples I think there are a bunch of ways you could. One question I have that might be related. When we were talking about our four choices. And we were having this discussion about what to call it and we were at one point came up with, you know, brown, you know, brown option or whatever and, and there was some concern that because people who are really economically constrained are going to be probably having to use this option. My question is, well, then how is that. How is this then an equitable approach if people who are economically strapped are forced basically to have to go to the budget option. They can afford other options or greener options. So that's my question. And is there something that we can do through programming. I mean, in some ways I almost wonder, do we, like, do we have to have a budget option, like, could we have a budget option that's more like, I don't know, could, I don't know, can 100% green be actually available to everybody. And not, you know, at a, I guess I'm trying to figure out a way like how do we how do we do this so that it's equitable to people who want to be able to have greener energy and can't afford it. So this is, this is this is interesting. I think there I think there may be some possibilities here. So the, just to think out loud for a second so the budget option will be the lowest cost option. You'll have some people who choose that because they're, you know, financial resources are limited and some people who pick that just because they want to, their financial resources are not limited but they don't want to pay extra money for renewables so love those two categories of folks in the budget option. It might be possible and would be kind of like one possible creative thing you could do would be to say for people in the budget option, but who are on the utilities low income rate so we know they've qualified as a low income customer. So if you find a way such that additional wrecks would get attributed to those folks or I'd have to think through the mechanics but conceptually what would happen is that everybody else. If you wanted the people on the low income rate to get the extra rex say the 100% product but without paying any any paying the full price of that product instead of paying the budget price. What you would have to have is have everybody else would have to buy a little bit extra wrecks, and then those extras would get allocated to the low income folks. I think for this purpose. Don't need to work it all the way through and wouldn't want to go into that level of detail on the plan I think what we'd want to do is I'd find a place to put in some language that would authorize you to do that if you were to decide to do it later. So, I can, I can figure out a place to put that in 100% renewable would actually be 103% renewable. Exactly right exactly right, which is conceptually it's with Rex but that's just the way the low income financial discount works but with dollars. And if the house pays a little bit more than they would have otherwise that creates a pool and that pool is used to buy down the cost for certain people who qualify for that assistance. Chris. So, I actually don't, I'm puzzled all of a sudden there are two of me, and one of them has a hand raised. Is one of them Tom maybe. Yeah, I raised my hand. But it's Chris Mason that's interesting. Oh, because you sent him the link. Great. Oh, okay. You're pushing my elbow up in the air right now. Do you have something to do you. I know you've raised your hand but do you have something. No. I just want it. I'm totally. I love the fact that we're focused on this thanks Adele and we've all brought it up. I, I, on top of everything you've shared Paul which is definitely the right way to approach this. I think if we were to get a person on board. I think there's grant money out there that we can go pursue. If we had somebody to spend time to do it, you know this whole ESG movement, we got big Wall Street companies that are looking to help this kind of efforts. So I would take some snooping but I think there might be something out there for that and then the other thing Paul I'm wondering, you know with the new inflation reduction act there are serious incentives. There's an adjustment tax credit for renewables that are located in low and moderate income communities, for example, so I'm also hopeful that there will be more fiscal opportunities to to make this kind of thing happen. Based on our demographics here in the valley. That's it. Chris, you can put your hand down now. I think you have to town. Does anyone else have a question because I do but I want to recognize other people if they have questions first. Okay. At the risk of upsetting the apple cart I just want to sort of throw out because I was at the MMA conference fall conference yesterday at UMass, and I was sitting next to, I think. I don't know if it was the town manager of Lexington, perhaps, but they were talking about how they have only 100% green energy option. That's it. I just wondered why what and from the group to why we were leaning towards all of these options versus just coming up with 100% green option that then can be available to other folks, you know, to low income folks like if we're doing what Paul just said, couldn't we sort of create programs that sort of have more equity. Like why, why would it be necessary to still have the standard green as well. And the local because couldn't our 100% green include local. Like, I guess that's what I'm trying to think like does it have to be separate categories. And Paul, maybe you can answer that. Yes, so the, that's a good question. So the reason they would be separate categories is that that they would have separate prices so as an example, like your 100% green product if you're assuming that's a 100% class one wreck product, that's going to be expensive. It's going to cost more than utility basic service it's going to cost more than competitive mark prices, you know options in the marketplace. And so, some people will want that but others folks would say well that's too expensive we don't, we don't want that product so the reason towns offer a variety of different options with different levels of renewables is to give people a choice because different levels of renewables come up at different costs so it lets people find the, the product that fits their budget and environmental goals. Okay. So I only asked because I just, you know, I, like I said he just brought that up yesterday and I just it made me think about this a little more. Well with Stephanie did you ask him how they deal with low income residents or maybe there aren't any low income residents. Exactly. Yeah, no I didn't, I didn't actually ask him that because he had sort of mentioned I wasn't necessarily the one having the conversation he was just talking and I was listening and that particular moment so I didn't. I didn't get to ask him that question. I mean, I, I can say we work with Lexington to their programs a tiny bit different actually from the way it was expressed so they do have a budget option with no extra renewables in it so they do have that option. They have 100% in their two other options, which is the way they've done it so they have a product that's 100% class one wrecks which is expensive. And then they have their, their equivalent of your standard has some additional class one say 20%, and then they get up to 100 by buying national wind wrecks to make it 100 so that they have to 100% options with different wreck. Wreck contractions and different prices because of that. Okay. Okay, so yeah, I don't need to backtrack us I just really but I just brought up a question for me so I just wanted to put it out there while we have you. So, okay, does anyone else have any other questions. Yeah, I do. I know that the, the new law allows for aggregations to purchase electricity directly from offshore wind companies. And I'm not sure that that's that we're specifying that in our options here. What I don't understand is whether whether the way the law is written, we would be buying wrecks from them, or by actually buying the electricity from the offshore wind companies, in which case, if if the ladder, we might need to modify our language just a little bit to allow for that possibility. I think, I think any of those options with the offshore wind generators would fit within the general approach that you have described here it doesn't speak to it specifically but in all cases you're going to be buying the, you know you would be buying electricity and or wrecks. And you'll get to choose who you buy them from, you'll work through a sort of in partnership with retail supplier but you could say, buy all our electricity from here or buy from these offshore wind projects or whatever you want to direct them to do. And that's all those options that offshore wind thing is new but it's all of a of a type of the way these programs all the programs all work so I, I don't think there's anything about the offshore wind. That's different enough that you would need to say anything different here. Thanks. Well, I've got going back to the having a larger pool, paying for green power for the low income folks. I'm kind of delighted to hear that you could think about where to put that in in here. And I'm also kind of concerned that you have to because we came up with one example. And I'm hoping we don't have to put in language in here that allows that type of thing. All the time we have to think it all right now. So, is it necessary to put something like that in do. I mean, I'm a little dismayed that we have to. So, that's a great point so and and what I was thinking of trying to find is a way you could say you would do it and I'm with you that would cover this specific thing or might cover other related sorts of ideas. The key from the Department of Public Utilities perspective is you need we need to say in here that you would vary. You would vary the you might potentially vary the products and the prices by the customers rate classes. And that's what gives you the opportunity to say something do something a little different for low income folks. And the aggregation plans don't say that that they would vary by rate class, which gives you the opportunity which so there's no opportunity to help out the low income. It's possible I actually even put this that language in here already. I can't remember when I wrote it but I would make sure that that's in there and then that that creates these opportunities to provide it's something different for low income. And as I said aggregations haven't done this before but as long as you can vary in again and like in DP you speak not in your speak but in their world. The key is saying you're going to do something different by rate class, and I'll make as long as that's in there I think you're in you're in good shape for a lot of different things. Okay, that helps a lot. Thanks. Paul. But I have a question on the issue of whether or not we are clear about being able to, you know, purchase electricity directly. I think the definition of our options, the VGE standard green and the VGE 100% green. They both in their definitions seem to limit it to the content being from Rex. So, could we add that in. Could we just say add in. Let me see what I'm talking about here because it says. So that seems to limit them to Rex. And but on the local it says that features electricity and or Rex from generators in or near Alliance member communities so could we just use that language and all of them. There may be a reason not to. There may be a reason not to so. And forgive me for being slow and responding I'm trying to. I'm trying to think it through the reason plan say, as this one does that the additional renewable energy content comes from additional Rex is because under Massachusetts law. You can only claim to have purchased renewable energy, if you have the Rex. So, if, for example, the Lions, you were the, you were to buy kilowatt hours from wind farm, but you weren't buying the associated Rex. And then as far as Massachusetts law is concerned you're not buying renewable energy, which is maybe a long and whole other discussion but that's, that's the, that's the rule so there isn't anything in here that says. So that's that. Overlying things so that's why the specific mention to Rex. And though embedded in all of these options, you're buying electricity from somebody, right, you're always buying electricity, because otherwise you have no electricity product. And you could, you would be free to say we want to buy that electricity from a wind farm or from offshore wind or from, you know, that gas plant across the street you can say whatever you want as you purchase it. You don't need to say it so much here. Thank you Paul. We want to create additionality, you know, if we're going to be doing Rex. That's why we would do class one. We want to create additionality. If we're doing local. So, no, my question is it, I understand that we can't claim. It's renewable unless we buy the rest that is how it's accounted for. Are we, but, but are we contributing to the growth of renewables by saying, you know, we want these. We want this supply, not that supply or is it really all wash in that market. Well, so. I mean, that's a that's a deeper question and I think different people would have give you different answers to that and making their own assessments of renewable energy or and in particular what creates additionality. So, what I can say, so I without answering your question because I do think they're, you know, sort of strong and legitimate positions on both sides of that question. In this plan as it's written you've got complete you've got flexibility to do either of those things you can you can buy if you wanted to. The plan would allow you to buy electricity from a particular generator and the wrecks from that generator or buy electricity from particular generator and not buy the wrecks from that generator, or do it what's the more conventional ways you just buy generic electricity in the market and then you buy racks. But you can do all of those things within this within this language here. And you can do all those things under the VGE local language right. You can. So as what's behind your crest in Chris, well, why don't we put electricity and or wrecks up in the, the options above. No, I like it the way it is. I mean, because in my mind, the only reason we would want to buy specific electricity from a specific person without buying the wrecks would be because would be because that is going to support some project in an own way, that's local. And us buying the group, you know the brown power off of the local renewable energy source and let someone else buy the wrecks. Somehow is a good thing to do. And so that's what we do to the local. But the other ones should stay just wrecks, because that's how we buy renewable energy. That's their that's their goal the local ones got a different goal. Maybe that helps us buy local, or maybe we can't do it that way, but it gives us flexibility. Yes, that that's that's just right that's I agree with that 100% and that is why we phrased it a little bit differently in that local option. For just that reason with the small local projects you could you could imagine. Just buying the electricity not the wrecks because maybe there's a good wreck market for those projects so you don't need they don't need someone to buy their wrecks. But you'd still want to present that as a as a local energy source so right there's there's buying the wrecks the official thing and then there's a practicality of how do you actually flow money to the right place. And Adele's initial question about buying directly from wind farms. Is there anything in here that would prevent us from doing that to four options one, two and three. No, there's nothing that would prevent you from doing it. Nothing in here that would prevent you from doing it. I mean, those options would still have to buy the wrecks to cover the full amounts, whether they buy the wreck from the wind or buy something else. If you're buying just the electricity from the wind plants. It's brown energy. So you have to buy the wreck in order to buy the renewable energy. Just by definition, not in reality. Right. It's just the way the state has done it is that you know every renewable producer has two products. It has electricity, which is as brown as any place else. And it has societal benefit that we call a wreck. And we monetize that. And so if you want to say you're buying renewable, you have to buy the wreck. Otherwise you're just buying the brown. And since the top three. Well, the top two are advertising actually, you know, green power that's what their product is, and they're going to have to include the wrecks. That's a difference between the language of those two options and the budget option. And the local option, which could buy brown, if it's local, because it might support something. Well, yeah, and it says and or. Yeah, exactly. That's that's how I understand it. This is really helpful. Does anyone have additional questions about this piece? Are we good. I'm just glad that we're recording it. Me too. Yes, absolutely. This is definitely one I want to go back and listen to again as well. Okay, any other questions then no. I can't really see everybody so just speak up if you want to say anything. Okay. Other points then or is this, this was kind of the crux of what we were mostly looking, looking at or had the most questions about so. Why does ask a quick question about Cambridge. Am I correct in thinking that Cambridge just decided to issue wrecks all together. And are only buying local projects outright or something along those lines. Yes, so Cambridge is doing as a right has a slightly different strategy they for their standard product, they don't have they're not buying additional wrecks. They do have a 100% green product, which is 100% class one Rex. But for the standard they're not buying Rex what they've done is they have an add or they're collecting money through the aggregation program and then they've used that money to build solar project in the city which provides Rex to the to the aggregation participants so they've, they have collected money and they've used it to build the project. They've got DPU authorization to do that they asked for this, you know, they filed their plan, I don't know, five, six years ago, when the Department of Public Utilities did approve that sort of thing, the Department of Public Utilities isn't approving that anymore so if, if, unfortunately, the specific option that Cambridge is taking advantage of isn't really available for newer aggregations. Now, but two months from now. When we're applying want to be different. In what way. I'm hoping that our new governor will choose a commissioners who will give a directive to the DPU adjudicatory processes to make in-house gases reduction something important and that those decisions will be made based on our clinicals. Right, so that could be. So then what we should do, let's look at the, the, the, the part of the plan that enables Cambridge to do what they're doing is in the language about their operational adder. So let's look together at that language and see if it's broad enough to cover things that a future Department of Public Utilities might approve, even though the current Department of Public Utilities wouldn't approve it. So, where's that language. Right there. So, yes, so it's that paragraph that begins in addition the paragraph right above that blue text in the middle of the screen right here. So that number four there is the language Cambridge has that they're using to justify the project there. The local project building supporting local projects. Right, so I did keep that in the plan. I kept it in the plan knowing that at least the current DPU if it gets before the current DPU is going to tell us to take it out. But I put it in just to the point you are making that maybe we got a better answer if we try so I think we do have it's I know it's these are these are short phrases and they it's hard to get from them, maybe all the we've included in the plan that language it would authorize you guys to do what Cambridge is doing and we can see whether the Department of Public Utilities at the time let's us leave it in or tells us to take it out. You know, a general question about the timing of if there is a change in the DPU with the new administration, what's a likely timeline for things like that to happen roughly. So it's a slow one because for two reasons one Department of Public Utilities serve what in government speak they all are appointed for terms of years, their offices don't run coterminous with the governor so the DPU commissioners that were appointed by Governor Baker will continue into the Healy administration for whatever number of years each of them has left on their term, and then when their term expires, Governor Healy would be able to appoint somebody new. It's also not impossible that some of them would resign as part of the transition, but that also certainly possible that it doesn't so it would unlike other government agencies where, you know, Governor Healy will appoint a new, you know, revenue commissioner she'll point to brand new, you know health and human services secretary a million other things, something like the DPU. She's got to wait until the current commissioners terms expire before she replaces them. And then the other thing is that with aggregation plans and everything the DPU does. They're sort of like a court and they work based on precedent and decisions they've made in the past so that decisions involve evolve over time but it's rare that you get them to say to make sort of dramatic changes in the short time period. So, I would say, you know, they're like the Supreme Court, but of course we know the Supreme Court has recently made very dramatic changes, you know, overturning past precedent but in the same way that that was a remarkable thing for the Supreme Court to do. It would be a somewhat remarkable thing for the DPU to do it's the, the things tend to evolve more than, than, you know, then have dramatic changes one way or the other. And that's kind of a long way of saying. I'm hopeful that new administration will be helpful for a lot of the things that we care about, but it may not be dramatically helpful fast. So, he's going to get to replace two of the commissioners. I don't know how quickly that I know that that's two of the three certainly in her first term. So, I go, but your point that it's in, you know, like a court and precedent matters. That's an opportunity to contribute. I know we want our CCA to start, but we also want the state to move. So, I'm really glad that you have certain language in there that you know they'll take out given their current precedents. And can we add some more? This is our opportunity to push, you know, the whole state forward, possibly. What's the worst that can happen? Will they just outright reject it or would they just, it would just prolong the process? Well, a little bit of both. So, and trying to think of an example. So, I'll just get a minute. I'll give one example. So the city of Worcester in its aggregation plan, they asked for authority to collect an adder and they in there the plan we filed with the DPU said, and we want to use this money to run an energy efficiency program. The DPU said to Worcester, well, wait a minute, we've never proved that for an aggregation plan. If you want to keep that language in there, you've got to tell us in great detail how you're going to spend the money, and then we're going to look hard at that, and that's going to take a long time. And we're going to see how it compares to the utility programs. I'm going to see what the utilities think about it and everything else. And so, what they told Worcester was, you know, we were happy to look at that, but you'd need to, you know, you'd have to expect to wait another few months for, or more to get your plan approved, more than a few months, I think. I think what I've tried to do here is include, make the plan as flexible as possible without, without sort of crossing the line that would create red flags and a bunch of extreme, you know, extreme pushback. I think number, I'm sorry, go ahead. And so, and those definitely to answer your question so that like the way it typically plays out is, we submit a plan. The DPU will say, ask a bunch of questions about it. They don't just say no. So if we put in something that they don't like they are not going to say, no, your plan is rejected. They're going to say, you're going to ask you a bunch of questions are going to say what do you mean by that number for there. Tell us exactly what you plan to do. And if we say, well, we don't know exactly yet, but we wanted flexibility, they'll say, take it out, or we're not going to approve your plan. But they give you the chance to take it out. They don't just say you're rejected and go go back to the end of the line. And so if we said, no, we don't want to take that out, then they'll reject it and we have to go back. Right. So if we have submitted before those commissioners have been replaced by more a healing. So it'll be tricky. It'll just be a timing issue, as far as like knowing which commissioners would be amenable to progressive changes. That's wrong, but isn't there a backlog of aggregations that are waiting to be reviewed or is it just that they've already been in process and DPU slow and sort of moving them along. I think it's well it's still it's the latter I mean there, there's one a couple of aggregations that have been pending me for the DPU for two years. At a slow place that DPU has looked at them they've asked their questions they've asked for plan amendments that sort of thing so they've been they've been wending their way through the process but there is. At the current at the moment there's a two year plus backlog. So we may I mean by the time we even got to a place where we're being reviewed there might be new commissioners in place. Is that correct. Certainly possible sure. We could potentially leave this in. And I mean, it sounds like they wouldn't. Would they reject the whole plan or they just make us take that out is what it sounds like to take that out right yeah so I mean maybe we would have to take that out and maybe then we go back later. Is it really hard to go back later to add. Because it impossible. You can. You can always amend the plan. The way amended plans are treated they're treated like brand new plans so you get back to the end of the line but there's not as much consequence then because you already have it. An active plan that continues in place until your amendments get approved so you can always amend and if, and if, you know, hopefully, and the under a new administration the process won't take so long. You can always you know if, if the new commissioners adopt some new policy that CCAs can do some things that we didn't ask for here because we didn't think they were possible. You know you can amend your plan then to, to add in those new authorizations. Well, I, you know we've got it in now. So, I guess we just deal with that as it comes. Yes. I mean I don't see what other. I don't think we want to take it out so. I think the discussion is whether or not it would be pushing the envelope too far to put other stuff in. Oh right because Andrew has for more. Right. When do a bunch of small red flags turn into a big giant red flag that the DPU just says whoa, set this one aside for the moment we really need to look at this one. I think Paul's trying to straddle the fence by putting as much impossible without, you know, going over that line where you just DPU looks at this while we have radicals here. Well, number, so for number four already is a bit of a red flag and to me, it gives us, I think, Andrew you were saying add more could we add more it just seems like number four is adding, you know would give us the potential to add more. I mean, isn't it covered in that. In that particular item. Sorry I caught you mid bite. I don't have a sense of how. I don't have an idea what more means. Right because, right, well because you asked if we could add more so it sounds like. I typically have a sense of that and it seems like number four might cover that already. So, I didn't have a specific idea actually. And that was to create a fund, which maybe this is what Cambridge is basically doing. So we can build a capital project fund with an adder. Like if you don't spend it right away. If you build it up that you can actually pay for solar installment in town. That kind of thing that could be allowed under this. Yes I mean that is that is what Cambridge did. They didn't, you know, let it build up, you know, for a decade they collected money over a couple of years and then when they had enough used it to build the solar project so that is what they that is what they did there and the the key to it from the DPU perspective would be and why we have that benefit for program participants in there is they're not just building a program solar project they're tying it back to the program by saying okay the solar project is going to produce wrecks all the wrecks from that project get retired on behalf of the CCA participant so they can bring it back. It's conceptually not so different from the standard approach of just buying wrecks or buying wrecks that go to the benefit of the program participant it's just that instead of buying wrecks from an existing project. They collected a pool of money built a new project and the butter they're still taking those wrecks so that's the that's the tie back to the program and that's why that works. So creating a fund to support renewable projects without a tie back to the program definitely wouldn't work, you know, almost no matter who that DPU commissioners are, you need to have that tie back. So what you just said was they use the funds to build a local project, but then they buy the wrecks from that project. That's what you just said. They get the right they don't they don't they get the wrecks. I'm sorry they get the rest of the projects so right right. They take the wrecks and retire them. Yep. Sorry. I was following you. Go ahead Chris. It strikes me that the difference, the really the only difference between buying local wrecks or one of the big differences between a lot by local wrecks or buying in the open market. And that is the price that you pay. And that's what I'm going to be because if you're, if you say, we need to buy these wrecks locally. You've now got someone who can sell you the wrecks at whatever price they want to. Because you've committed to it. Whereas you've gotten the open market you're trying to get the lowest price and you're trying to time it right and stuff like that. I don't know how I mean how does, how does that work for Cambridge because if they own the system today basically, they basically say yeah we're going to give away the wrecks for free. Correct. They're not right they're not they're not selling the wrecks they're what they're the construct is that the program participants paid to build the project. And so they get the wrecks. Those those program participants get the wrecks back from the project. So basically, they bought the wrecks when they built the project. So the project could not have a funding source from selling wrecks. So it needed a funding source, else wise, and that's that's what they did. So that's exactly right so the project wasn't financed in the typical way which was based on an assumption that we're going to sell these wrecks and we're going to, you know, financing get financing from a bank or investors right they didn't do it that way they, they put money in. In the, in the narrow case it's just sort of like the difference between buying eggs at the supermarket or buying a chicken. Cambridge bought a chicken. That's a great. So why does the DPO not like that. I mean the only reason I could think of is that buying the chicken is more expensive than buying the eggs. It definitely is more expensive. And that's one reason I think the DPU wouldn't like that but if you're buying local green and you're willing to pay for it what what that's the problem. Yeah, so I think from the DPU perspective. I don't mean to have overstated their view with when things like number four there have come up since post Cambridge. They haven't said no they've said well tell us exactly what you're planning to do, because they've said well we're the, we're the regulators here we can't just let you be collecting money willy nilly and go off and make your own decisions about how to spend maybe what you decide to do would be okay and what you decide to do wouldn't be okay so we need you to tell us exactly what it is we're not going to prove this kind of general authorization. And so when post Cambridge aggregation plans have hit that it's always at a stage where their plan is brand new they haven't figured out exactly what they'd like to do they'd like to get the thing approved and then develop some specific but the DPU doesn't give them that option so the, the communities have agreed to take out this general language because they didn't have the specifics. Okay, I could see a fear of, of an aggregate of CCA going out and basically say we'll pay you twice what you normally get paid to build a solar array and there's nothing to stop them from doing that. Right. Yeah, exactly. We're running out of time here and I want to give us time to take a look at the logos to us there but this is really important so I mean if we had to put the logos off. We could I think and we could just get a response to you so is there more conversation we want to have around this draft. Any other questions outstanding for people while we have Paul here, or any questions that you have for us Paul. I'll just make two other quick points not to extend that there are some other red lines or I moved a few things around and just cleaned a few things up a little bit but doesn't the other things are really substantive. And then just conceptually I understand everyone's desire to have like more, more stuff in the plan here, because you have important goals for that project for your, for your program you want to push the envelope. And I'm trying not to be an obstacle to that but rather trying to help us to present it in a way that has the highest likelihood that you'll get the most approved. And I know sometimes that means I'm saying, don't put in this thing that you really want to do. But for what it's worth my motive is to be helpful to those goals not to be an obstacle. That's him for me Stephanie. Okay. Sorry I was just looking through what you had just read lined here. Anybody else or otherwise we can move on. I don't know if we're all just like digesting all this information so I'll say that I believe I read through this. When it first came out maybe maybe maybe not. If it just came out. I just remember kind of agreeing with it so I think I'm fine although I will take time to reread it again. And if I have any further further questions I'll pass them on to everybody. I think that if, you know, if we, as a general principle it would be good to, like, if there's any forward thinking pieces that we are trying to decide about. In general, just put them in, because we don't know the timing of when this commission is going to be progressive. And if we are forced to take them out later then, then maybe we'll do that. So, towards that Dorothy, and also I'll mention this make sure it's in there I'm pretty sure this is fine. I see one of the ways that is going to be the easiest and probably most acceptable for the GPU for us to support something local are going to be the wrecks that don't have to do with renewable energy. Whether it's demand response, or the alternative energy credits which is basically renewable thermal. Those type of things. There's smaller projects. They could be very helpful for our community to, you know, to put those kind of things in. I think that's going to be simply, you know, maybe buying someone's alternative energy credits from solar rate equals on their house. And we get to sell, you know, put that back in as part of it so Paul just make sure that that's, that means there's a whole slew of them out there. They've been adding more and more of them, these alternative credits and I think that's a place we can play where we can really support a lot of local stuff. Yes, that's a great suggestion Chris out and and I'll look at, I'll look through the plan and make sure we've got the ability to be buying those and new kinds of new kinds of Rex and not just the ones we're thinking about now. Okay. Hey, anybody else. I keep asking. I just want to make sure we're really going to. Okay, so I guess Paul will you just give us a, you know, go over this one more time I guess and I don't know if there are any additional changes from today but we can get a sudden, you know, a sort of clean vinyl draft I guess. Yes, I will, I will do that I will go through we raised a couple of things today one is the low income program making sure we've got maximum flexibility there. The next was in the different kinds of Rex I'll make sure you have some maximum flexibility there, and I will. I'll get a new draft back to you. Okay, great. So I'm going to stop sharing my screen, at least momentarily. Okay, so I know we have very little time. I guess I'd ask if this is going to go a little bit over, can folks stay like another 15 minutes, just to look at the logos. So I'll just, I'll just have to excuse myself if they do show up. Okay, right. All right, then I will, oops, what is happening here. My computer freaks out a little bit when they do updates. Okay, logos. All right, I will once again share my screen and I'm just going to sort of, I had asked people to come up with their top two and I don't know if people actually did so. So why don't I just go through and we'll sort of first kind of look at all of them, and then I'll just go back and sort of see, you know, we'll just have conversation about where what people feel about each of these that have been provided to us. So I'm going to share my screen again, give me a moment. Okay, so I guess I'll ask like if people have either of these as one of their top two, if not, I will scroll down. Well, I'll scroll down first and then I'll go back. So just think about what your, your top two maybe. Could I just ask, is this, this is the logo that would go on the website. This is for the aggregation. Yes, yes. How will it work with the, with the joint powers entity. What we talked about last time was that we would sort of build that off of this because this has to go first. I mean, this is going to be launched soon and I know we're going to launch the Alliance as well but because this is something that the last power choice is directly working on it didn't really make sense for them to design a Valley Green Alliance logo, because they're working on the aggregation with us so we can just build off this, but we have to do it. That's what we discussed last time. So will we do different websites, or how will that work. I don't think we talked about the two. I think, well, there's going to be, we're going to have to have two different websites because the joint powers entity is going to have its own. And then the aggregation is going to have its own as well. So they will be two. So can, can we just at least focus just on this logo. You scroll up again slowly back to the pages. Yep. So I was going to just start from the top again, or do you want me to just work backwards I guess. That's my favorite. Which one this one. With this one. The top one. And, and, but I would move the V and valley so that it's centered over the G, because at the moment there's no reason for it to be indented. In any case, that's my favorite. So that's on page four. I can say my, my favorite is anytime. Let's go through. Okay, does anyone I'm going to just start this way. Does anyone like either one of these is their top two. Yeah, I like you like these. Okay. Is there one more so than the other and it's just the font really. Can't say a big difference. It's got with the designers choices. These two. Okay, so, and those two are your top two, you'd like either one of these two. No, one of them is one of my top two. Okay, but you don't. Okay. Okay, so either of those. All right. I'm just making notes of what people are kind of voting on. Okay. Any of these three. That anyone has a preference. Okay. This one. Well, as I said, the top one is my favorite. I made a note. Either of these. Yeah, the top one is my favorite. Of this one. Okay. So page five. I think we're all going to have different favorites. Sounds like it. That's okay. I actually like these two the best. I like that. I like the river and them. It's the prettiest one. I like it. My other. Yeah, I think. I think I'm leaning towards this top one. Myself. I like this font. I would go with that as my second choice. So page six. Hold on. I'm just trying to make a. I'd love to hear people's reasons for their top ones. Okay. So, all right. So Darcy, your, your, your preference for these. Either one is fine. Your reason is because. I like the river and it feels a little less corporate. Than the others. But yeah, that's just me. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's the same for me. I like the less. Animated look. I don't know what how to. Characterize it. But the reflection of. Water. Yeah. And for me, I like this top one in particular. I do prefer this font. But I also like the image because I do feel like it sort of captures the elements of, or the essence of the valley. It feels more like the valley to me, whereas the V. Like the other one up here. Feels a little more corporatey and. I don't know. It doesn't feel as accessible to me. Okay. The reason I didn't like the one with the house. Is because it looks really familiar to me. I feel like we see a lot of logos. With a house like that, you know, for energy efficiency and. Companies and stuff. So since we're talking about the house one, which is my favorite. Okay, I'll move up. To me, the house is cozy. I mean, this is, this is, this is only, this is probably something only a geek would. Energy geek will say, but it doesn't have wind in it. There is no wind in the valley. Immediately as. Get them out of there. I wonder about just taking the wind mill out of whatever one we. Choose because we are not going to be. We're not going to be able to. Put wind on our hills. Aren't we able to buy wrecks and wind power? Yeah, we'll be. That's what I was thinking. Yeah, I mean, you could, there's arguments to put wind in there somehow. Why electricity from wind farms. Right. Yeah. Exactly. I agree. I don't, I mean, I. You know, I could be argued. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how I ran for that very reason, right? But I. I like the cozy concept. Chris. I think that the house though. Makes it appear that we're targeting residential. Energy only. And so that's why I am other. I like the logo except that I feel like it might. You know, it's like, you know, I don't know. I don't know. Good point. That's, I agree, Carol. And I had the same feeling about it, feeling very residential. Focused. Like all I kept thinking was mass save. Like, you know, coming and doing an energy audit. And which is to Andrew's point. Yeah. That it's, you know, it, we've seen it before. But I do, I appreciate Chris. You're, you're feeling about the coziness of it. I just feel like. I don't know that it captures sort of. So. I'm my primary point overarching point is. What. The logo needs to attract people. And not just. The people who want the greenest, you know, it needs to be something that attracts everybody. As best as possible. So. I would just say that. Okay. Besides Chris, are there any other folks that have a preference for the, either of these two? Okay. So. I'm moving back up here. I guess I would say this is probably my second choice. I like this one for the similar comments that were made for the. One, I guess on page. Six. That it sort of represents the valley with water. Farm fields. That are a little bit hilly also. So represent more hills as well. But I prefer the top one. I feel like the wind turbine on the lower one just. Sticks out too much. Yeah, I agree. I agree with that also. Yep. That would be my second choice. Yeah, I think mine too. So this one. Is a second choice. Okay. I think I'll pull myself out there as a second choice as well. Okay. All right. Okay. And we're skipping no one on this one. Anybody on these. Did we lose to him? Yeah, every once in a while he disappears. Yeah, he's gone again. He's gone. I didn't initially landed on this one, but I listening to folks comments about it being more corporate and not as. And the valley, the V not representative. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the soft representation of the mountains. I could totally see that. So I'm not. I wouldn't be hanging my. Dying on my sword for this. Okay. It was just sort of my initial reaction. Okay. And was anyone else. Attracted to any of these. I don't think there were, there were other comments about these. Okay. And then these two. Just need to step away. I've got somebody walking up to my front door. Just a moment. I think we're getting there. So. Maybe when you come back. So, Andrea, I think these were your. Your two. Do you still strongly about these two? Is your first choice? No. They are equal with the, the last one, which is. My other choice. Okay. Anybody agricultural. Reference. Anybody else on these. Okay. So it sounds like. At least for a second choice. We were looking at this one. For most people, right? Yeah, that one has like the agriculture in the hills. I do like the idea that. Yeah, I do too. I think like the more we talk about it. I'm seeing, I'm seeing that more. I'm going to go down to the one that we talked about earlier. It does, but I don't see the agriculture here. Yeah. That's lacking. So for that reason, personally, I would go back to this one. Yeah, this one. But, but the hills in the other one. Look like the valley. They do, but there's no agriculture. This look like our hills, you know, but it has, but they're sort of representative. And then it's got an agricultural component to it. So it captures that as well. Not as pretty. I don't like the water being represented as a. You know, like children's drawing. We can ask for a blending, right? We don't just have to pick these. So maybe we could say the water. The water from this one. I'm just trying to see how that look, you know, could look. I think that would be a lot of very similar looking lines. If we try to combine. Just my two cents from a design perspective. I think you're going to have a lot of the water is not going to look very distinct. I guess is the point it's going to blend in because the lines are going to be so similar. Maybe you guys want that, but that's probably what would happen visually. Sorry that I'm. So this, yeah, this water would blend in too much, you think. I think it just, it will, it will not look so distinct. So on the one with the wavy lines, the water is, is visible to the eye because it is, has a different quality than the. More triangular slanted lines used for the valley. But if we use triangular slanted lines also for the water, it's just going to blend in a little more. So it's not going to be quite as obvious that it's water, even though it's blue. It just won't look as distinct. It'll all look a little more, I think blended together. Because that's what you want. But that would be my suspicion is what it's going to look like. Something to consider. We can certainly ask her to do it. Yeah, I was just going to say, could we, if we could ask her, if we could sort of point out that these two. Are the two that we're most drawn to, did we, did we say this one or this one? I know I preferred this one, but. So maybe, so these two are our top two, but we're wondering if. There's a way to tweak it a little more. I guess, but so what we're asking for what we like in this one. Are the way the. The hills look more like our valley. And we like this water as well. It's missing agriculture, but it's missing agriculture. So. If there's a way to somehow get agriculture in this one somehow. Or to find a way to blend. This one with. This page for. Top one. And so you say that you're seeing the agriculture here because the triangular lines used for the hillsides look like fields, like cultivated fields. Yes. Yes. Yes. I think we all see that. And I think we see that because agriculture is a strong component of the valley. So. If the designer didn't really mean that to necessarily be agriculture, that's how we're seeing it because that's representative of where we are. So that's why we would like it featured somehow. Okay. Yep. That's great feedback. Yeah. And I don't think it has to be the water has to be the same as in the bottom one. But what I'm hearing from Andrea is just. It. Looks to. I'm not sure what the word is. It's, um, you said childish. I don't know. Yeah. So maybe there's just another way of representing the water. Although I'm happy with it the way it is myself, but that's the feedback from others. And of these prefer the top one, um, with the turbine on the hill. Yes, we don't like this turbine off in the middle of nowhere. And these two, um, they both are signed. I think it's right. Right. Um, and the other one is kind of either one or the other. Um, so what do people think? Do you want to serif fault or not? That's what I see. That's what people seem to be picking before. They seem to be gravitating towards the syrups fonts. Which is. I think, I think the, the, um, The funds that's there now matches the style of the design. the style of the design. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Yeah. So there's, there's a comparison between the two. Yeah. Yeah. So on this one, Stephanie, you liked the serif font. I did. I did. But thinking about, I'm looking, I'm going to scroll up again. Sorry, I'm going up and down here. But I mean, could we see it with both fonts? So I guess to design and then show it with both fonts. Yeah, that's what I was leaning toward as well. So you're looking for one new concept to fonts. Yes, exactly. And perhaps moving the V so that it's centered over the G. This doesn't seem to be a reason for it to be indented. I think, yeah, that's likely her designer's eye and how to, how to balance like the space after between the Y and the E to how to center it above the word green. But I can mention that the offset is distracting you visually. Yeah, I think it might, if you move it over to the left, it might be too close to the turbine. Yeah. I would agree. I'm not having the same visual responses. Adele is to that. I sort of see the rationale behind it. It makes sense to me to have it space the way it is. Yeah, I think it would, for me, I agree with Carolyn, I think for me it would feel offset and there'd be too wide a gap between the Y and the E that white space. Yeah, I think the, I mean, she can just stretch the font. Can we see the bottom one, how the words are. I think it's really, I think it's worth it just mentioning it to her because he's a graphic artist they can do magic. I think I really like the font in the top one. This one. It just, it's, and it's still, it's still, I mean, the word valley is centered the same on all of them. It's kind of moved to be kind of in the middle of green. Yeah. My guess is I didn't ask her about it but just knowing how she works she likely tried it left aligned and it just didn't look balanced visually. So she probably centered it to create more visual balance. Okay, so if you could, I need to wrap up myself because I've got another meeting coming up but so if we could just get those templates. That would be great Marlena and then we can take a look and I think we can. I don't think we need to convene another meeting we'll just sort of, I think people can just kind of vote on them and get choices back to me and I can let everybody or I could do a doodle poll or something with them. Figure it out, but we can get back to you. Do you have a timeline on when you absolutely need this back by Um, so well it sounds like I need to get back the next step is for me to get back to you with with revised logos, right. And then, I mean, ideally I think it would be good to have this on the materials that are presented to the public. Just so that you're establishing the branding from the beginning. However, I have to check with my designer on her on her schedule right now I don't I don't know where she is, especially with Thanksgiving coming up. And when we're targeting the public presentation of the plan if we have a couple weeks then you know, we should be able to get through the holiday and get something to you. I just, I don't think I could promise to have a revision to you by Thanksgiving, I don't know, maybe, but I just can't promise without talking to her. But after that I think this quickly as you could turn it around would be ideal. Okay. Yeah, I think we'd want to turn it around quickly so yeah so just when you get it to us will all get it out to everyone as soon as I receive it and will work on turning it around within a you know we should I would think we can turn it around within a day or Okay, people really just take a look and get back. I mean, I'm encouraged that you saw some that you liked in general. That's a good thing. So, I think we're not too far. Yeah, good. Okay. Great. Well thank you so much. Marlena Paul for your time I'm going to stop sharing so we can all appropriately say goodbye. I really appreciate your time as always. So helpful. And I think we're probably all going to be I know I'm going to be going back to this recording. Again, so there was a lot of information there today so thank you so much. Does anybody have any final thoughts before we go. Sorry. Do we know when we're meeting next. I would say probably. We could meet December 2 would be two weeks. Yeah, two weeks would be December 2. So after Thanksgiving, is that good for folks at nine. Yep, that works for me does that work for others. Okay. So right December 2 at nine. So happy Thanksgiving everyone have a wonderful, safe holiday. And I'll look forward to getting the designs and get them out to everybody and appreciate all your work on that. Great. Great. Thanks all. Thanks everyone. Good to see you. Bye.