two more members but I'll just ask you guys before we get started you know what the process you went through in the Senate committee was that you kind of present as you did yesterday yeah so we had you know less time today than we did yesterday so we gave them a a pared down presentation but they didn't have slides for a screen so we printed the slides out and we're happy to spend our time with you all however you would like me this to say you've received the initial presentation so we don't want to do that again we could go through the report sort of section by section to give you an orientation to this behemoth if you would like or we could simply just continue the dialogue answering your questions yeah that's actually not a bad idea just warm up exercise for us and I don't want to take a lot of time doing it but see we have an hour with you if I actually that would be helpful I did not make it through the entire report last night about two hours I'm impressed that you don't do at all that actually would be helpful I think if you know in the first 10 minutes of your presentation just kind of touched on each section of the report and I got through the big 60 but that would be helpful if you just quickly touch on each section I was kind of personally I was ready questions of going along Kevin margin and so I've got a few questions I'm sure others do as well so then why don't we take why don't we take 10 or 15 minutes for you guys to do that you know get using your report and outline and then let's use you know our last kind of 45-50 minutes just for questions around the table and it'll be somewhat conversational before we start I'll just let you know and this is typically how most hearings I'll just call on people as they have questions and then what we've asked you to do is to our our hearings are recorded so if you can identify yourself for the record just so the record of your voice and we are and then we'll go from there should we start there yeah let's go ahead all right I'm more capsaid I'm a fellow at resources future and I'm the director of our carbon pricing initiative and my name is Wesley look I am senior research associate that resources for the future and work as colleague on this project pleasure to be here with you all today thank you so yeah we'll literally just walk this through step-by-step so it starts with these key findings on page one these really are just our sort of most digested we think most policy relevant takeaways for them for we talked about a lot of this stuff yesterday the upshots in general right are that Vermont's emissions have been increasing since 2011 Vermont is unlikely to meet its emissions targets with carbon pricing alone it's well first of all unlikely to meet its emissions targets without some kind of new policy carbon pricing alone is not likely to achieve the emissions targets combining moderate carbon pricing and non-pricing policies could achieve some of the state's targets and then we talk about a number of economic outcomes of current pricing the revenue recycling matters a lot in terms of distributional equity how low it can households are impacted etc so there's key findings that we do an executive summary and you know this rises the report it's about 10 pages I'm going to sort of skip over these two first pieces because we will be talking about each of what they are discussing as we go through the section so then on page 12 you just have the introduction this essentially sets the stage for this study which as you all know was requested by the legislature last year we responded to an RFP from the JFO and we're selected to do the analysis though that the study itself came from recommendations from the Vermont Climate Action Commission the governor's Climate Action Commission 17 we one of our sort of high-level messages that we want to convey to you all is that in this report we're not trying to provide recommendations we said this yesterday we just want to kind of underscore that we are just trying to provide you all with the best information that we can to inform your decision-making process your civic deliberation process your engagement with your constituents etc but we're not sort of saying this is what you should do so that's part of what's in the introduction section 2 which starts on page 13 is entitled the Vermont context and in this section we talk about we start by talking about general economic and environmental trends you can see that the state's economy has been growing but along with state emissions on page 14 you see the graph that we showed yesterday which is this increasing trajectory so this is page 14 of emissions and that trajectory is heading north when emissions reductions are the emissions targets in the state need emissions to be headed south we then talk about as we discussed yesterday the share of Vermont emissions by sector I'll just say long story short the alliance share of the emissions are in the transportation sector and in residential and commercial home heating and fuel use of the home and business we just as very quick question can you tell me the difference between industrial fuel use and industrial processes yes so industrial fuel use is literally the consumption of fossil fuels primarily in this model so you know diesel gasoline any fossil fuel kerosene you know in some cases bunker fuel or hog fuel but primarily diesel and gasoline and in other parts of the US economy coal would be in that category and then process emissions are sort of non-energy related or emissions not related to consumption of energy so a good example of a process emission would be in the process of producing cement just the chemical process clinker exactly the details but in the creation of clinker which is an ingredient in cement co2 emissions are released there's nothing to do with energy consumption it's an independent chemical process that is required to make cement that produces greenhouse gas emissions process emissions sometimes although technically this would be referred to as fugitive emissions but can be associated with energy and that's like leaking methane through leaky pipes and whatnot so the methane is actually in the fossil fuel industry so zero percent but the fossil fuel industry number here is actually methane emissions associated with transfer transmission and distribution of natural gas and the other thing that in the industrial processes emissions here is greenhouse gas emissions associated with superconducting manufacturing superconducting manufacturing plastics computer parts and what I'm asking is plastics would plastics be another example of industrial processes so I actually don't know the plastic plastics industry a lot of the plastics it uses uses like oil but doesn't actually burn the oil it's a component into the plastic so that's not actually an emission but to the extent that they were burning the oil as well that would be in the industrial fuel use so on page six teams moving along I think what we want to convey here is that the state of Vermont has a number of different emissions reduction targets greenhouse gas emission production targets there are four that we talk about in this report and sort of the emphasis throughout is placed on the first two so those four are the statutory targets the targets that are associated with the US climate alliance which map to the Paris targets that the Obama administration before the nationally determined contribution under the Paris agreement that the Obama administration is basically the US emissions reduction target over Trump administration is pledged to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement so that's why the US climate alliance arose states saying we are still in we're still committed to this global cause of addressing climate change that's that target under two MOU is also part of that response and then the energy ECP target but we focus on the statutory target and the US climate alliance target we normalize so the way targets just to pause for a moment because I recognize that perhaps everyone is familiar with this but stop me if you are the way targets function you have three important numbers one is your base year that you're comparing against so you're comparing against 1990 levels is a common base here 2005 is a common base here so that's what you're comparing against and then is your target reduction so we want to reduce emissions below that base year level so we would say we want to reduce emissions 27 percent below 2005 levels and then your third number is your target year so by year X we want to achieve that emission reduction to sum that up for example the US climate alliance target is by against a 2005 base year we're going to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025 so we've got four targets here we we try to normalize them all to 2005 levels for ease of comparison which is the the fifth column the right in that table you then talk about some existing state actions this is what the state is already doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions I'm not going to go into the details on that and you all are probably more familiar with that list than we are section 3 which begins on page 21 is where we we discuss non-pricing policy options so the non-pricing policy options is a very broad group or category of policies it includes things like EV purchase incentives so similar to what Green Mountain Power has had recently or various electric utilities have in the state for buying down the cost of electric vehicles for consumers if we reduce the notion there is reduce that that sticker price consumers are even more likely to buy that car which is itself one of the most powerful ways to reduce emissions in the state so that's an EV purchase incentive that would require a public expenditure or if it's it could be structured through the utility where ratepayers are subsidizing it there are various ways of doing it but that's one example of a non-pricing policy another example would be public investment in weatherization programs so low-income weatherization understood as a priority in the state so further advancing that work and then sort of incentives to purchase various energy efficient or clean technologies like advanced wood heat or electric heat pumps as heating sources in addition to those kinds of technology focused incentive policies non-pricing policies includes regulatory programs so the primary regulatory program that we look at is increasing the stringency of the state's existing renewable energy standard so for those who aren't familiar the renewable energy standard sets a target currently that by the year 20 30 to 75 percent of Vermont's electricity will come from tier one renewable energy sources and there's three tiers if you don't want to go into the RES right now I assume but we we estimate increasing the stringency to 100 percent by the year 2030 that's an example another example of a non-pricing policy we an important caveat on our work related to non-pricing policies which is articulated in here is that our contract with JFO included nothing non-pricing policies so we do a sort of broad brush treatment of it because we felt as though we heard what we heard directly from elected members we're here in September at the beginning of this project in the public that they that non-pricing policies are an important part of the Vermont picture going forward and so we need to look at it in some way we've relied heavily on the research of others primarily state agencies in Vermont that have done their own independent estimates of the emissions reductions associated with those non-pricing policies we've wrapped that in but it doesn't get incorporated into our model it's sort of the best we can do and in some respects beyond the call of duty but we felt like it's going to give you all the most comprehensive picture of the different levels you have to work with to draw down on emissions okay yeah so let's go on to flag briefly that we also did this kind of side analysis and the non-pricing policies of electric vehicle purchase incentives one of our colleagues at resources for the future is a specialist in this area so he modeled of Vermont EV purchase incentive and we we speak to it very briefly in here but it's something that you're interested in we go into detail on that policy in appendix a we kind of we didn't want to take up too much time in the body of the report that's already very long but we think that there's potentially a significant value out there and further research section for the past to work here which starts on page 29 is where we go into carbon pricing policy options which again is what we were really contracted to study primarily and is what we emphasize in the report that work so section 4 just starts with the theory behind carbon pricing to give just some background on on kind of the economics behind the theory and and the the using the price as an incentive to change behavior when the behavior is associated with a negative externality so so there's a page or two of discussing that next we go through kind of the key dimensions of a carbon pricing policy design we went through this a little bit yesterday but kind of the when you're setting a carbon pricing policy design you have to you want to do a carbon tax or you want to do cap and trade but really it comes there's a lot more kind of dimensions they're involved in the first dimension is if you're doing a tax or is the price path if you're doing a cap or is the cap and so this price path or cap level is obviously one of the very important design decisions and then as we flag yesterday what you do with the revenue we call it revenue recycling and economic speak the revenue use is very important we went through that yesterday and obviously also what kind of sectors you cover is important you know you don't have to design a policy to cover all emissions you could target certain subsectors and and so that's that's a potential source of variation across different policies and there's like the geographic or regional scope Reggie regional greenhouse gas initiative is covers emissions in 10 states British Columbia and carbon tax just covers this missions in British Columbia so there's different ways so you could look at a Vermont only policy or you could look at policies that covers emissions beyond just for month and so we kind of go through so that's kind of just the general description of that and then the next section is really going to tell you how we're going to evaluate these carbon pricing options the model descriptions are very very brief here but appendix B does include a little bit more model description and if you want way more model description than you could possibly handle there's a hundred pages of appendix in the back of this book that explains a very similar economic model to the one that we used to analyze here and so this is the gory gory detailed hundred pages of appendix and equations if you're interested in that this is the appendix yes so when we want to evaluate carbon pricing options we want to look or we want to look at both the environmental and economic impacts of those policies we want to look at the cost and the benefits and so to do that we're going to look at a lot of different dimensions and so for each policy design we're going to look at how those different policy designs affect these different metrics so the metrics that we look we evaluate our obvious one is greenhouse gas emissions the policies designed to reduce those and so I think that's the first thing we should look at we also want to look at what we call leakage which is the change in emissions in neighboring states so that's so we look at both the change in emissions in Vermont but also the change in emissions in the neighboring states and then as we mentioned yesterday criteria air pollutants are associated with burning of fossil fuels and as you reduce fossil fuel we use through a carbon pricing mechanism you will also reduce some of these local pollutants and so we quantify those both in just kind of the percent change and then we try to monetize using some EPA estimates monetize the value of those reduced emissions and then kind of going through the those are kind of the environmental impacts we're looking at but we're also obviously interested in the economic impacts and so we go through the the carbon revenues how much revenues is raised the macro economic impacts what happens to say GDP what happens to output by industry it's a data question I heard you yesterday talking about the differences between rural Vermont yeah and I and I think we have a lot of average data here yes so in Vermont with our economy the Chittin and County economy is growing rural Vermont's economy is declining and so what my question is as if there is a way there are key places that you think it would be important for us to try and pull things apart so we better understood the impacts okay does that do understand what I'm asking you so I do understand what you're asking one thing you could you could think about is these would be I would call back of the envelope calculations but we do show the change in in output by sector and the change in labor demand by sector if you know the share of those sectors by rural versus urban you could you could kind of calculate the back of the envelope how much the change like the change don't occur in Chittin versus change that would have to occur otherwise we don't have that data our data is at the state level so we weren't able to dive much deeper besides that distribution analysis results we showed that was the only place where we were really able to look at but I think there are ways that you could you could you could try to address that another way you could look at it is and this is what we did in the consumer and the household analysis is one of our impacts is the change in consumer prices as a carbon price is designed to change relative fuel prices so one thing that the information we did have was the share of expenditures on energy by different counties and so we're able to use that that data to help us look at how the impacts would be would vary across across the state so then the kind of the last things that we look at we also want to look at the change in household income how do incomes change when you implement a carbon price and that will have different impacts on kind of labor capital income and then this potential rebate income if you chose to to use the revenues to to rebate households what we define is the change in economic welfare is really going to capture the changes in prices and income on the average household and so we think this is kind of our best measure of costs and then what we want to do is we want to compare that to a measure of benefits and so we look at we kind of do some dollar analysis of the environmental benefits from reduced emissions to do a cost benefit comparison and then finally you know as just addressing here is that the last thing we do is we look at distributional impacts we're able to look at impacts across different households with different types of income we do that by quintiles so we have five different types of households by income so we're looking at the average impact on the lowest 20 percent of the state in terms of income and going up towards the highest 20 percent of the state in terms of income and we'll see much potentially much different impacts across those households we're also as I mentioned able to look at how those impacts vary across the counties using the data on how energy expenditure is vary across different counties but we're not able to do a low income by county analysis we didn't have the data to separate out income within a county and I just underscore there that that we didn't have the data because the data doesn't exist it's not sort of a shortfall of hours but we really worked quite quite diligently with all of the data sources in the state of Vermont to get the best data we could and it was impressive to see the work that had been done facilitated by efficiency Vermont on the mapping the total energy burden which is a report that was done I think in 2016 I'm blanking on the year but but that's what we use their data to look at this this the change per county and energy expenditure and therefore the change in relative costs per per county but they don't have this broken out by household income levels just sort of again your average energy expenditure by county which is again itself impressive that much data exists and then to go to that next level does just it's not there yeah yeah so just real quick so what we want to do here is I guess all these things I just told you we evaluate really the bulk of the report is going through different types of carbon price plans and showing how these things differ these these these outcomes change with different carbon price designs so different policies that have the same sectoral covers the same revenue use the same regional coverage but differ in terms of the price so we're trying to do in each of these sections section 4.3 we're trying to do an apples comparison where we're holding all the policy options fix except for the price path so you can see how the policy changes when you change the price path section 4.4 we do the exact same deep dive across all these different impacts but when you change the revenue use fully fix the price the next section 4.5 does the same thing by looking at whether you cover transportation or transportation heating or transportation heating commercial and industrial or an industrial so that that kind of gets us through quite a bit of the report because it takes quite a bit of time to for each one to go through all those different outcomes so that brings us to section 4.7 in 4.7 we do some case studies of three particular carbon pricing options the first one is the Essex plan and so we do try to make sure that we age 102 yeah and so in 4.7 we're really trying to look at these these three different types of policies kind of snapshotting in 2025 and 2030 and and so it's particularly the Essex plan we're trying to make sure that we account for the hybrid revenue use design where some of the revenue was allocated to low-income or rural households some revenue was dedicated to reducing electricity rates so we do incorporate that both those into the analysis there and then we do a will be as I was describing yesterday a Western Climate Initiative example where Vermont's transportation heating emissions are covered by the cap and trade program that includes California and Quebec and then finally we do what we call the TCI example transportation climate initiative again as I was explaining yesterday this policy proposal is going to be negotiated over the next year between Vermont and the other states that signed on to this memorandum of understanding and so we don't really know what it's going to look like and so this is kind of a speculative of exercise to say if you had a price somewhere around $20 this is what it would look like if the price was more towards the Reggie price Reggie has allowance price somewhere around $5 right now you'd expect that the impacts would be much smaller due to the chain lower price and then finally 4.8 is when we get back to this combining the carbon pricing and non-pricing approaches which we spent quite a bit of time talking about yesterday is what type of emissions reductions can you get from combining carbon price and the not the suite of non-pricing policies that were recommended by the Vermont Climate Action Commission and then finally section five is just some other observations we talk about which I mentioned yesterday the ability for us to look at innovation and that we don't include this kind of new innovation that would occur through Vermont policy although we imagine that in theory that could that could certainly occur but we're not able to kind of measure how much that would occur and then we also talk briefly about how we we'd like to see more analysis of the non-pricing options and something that was that was beyond our report and then we conclude with with much of the same kind of conclusions we we concluded the executive summary with. So something I haven't heard you guys talk a lot about in your presentation I want to make sure that I'm not either over emphasizing or under emphasizing this issue and I think a lot of the discussion that goes on around carbon pricing people jump you guys are economists jump to how does this change people's behavior are they going to buy less of a certain type of fuel are they going to drive less are they going to turn their thermostat down as well as kind of the the redistributive context of is this going to affect rural people is this going to affect lower income people is it going to move wealth around in some way is it going to take wealth out and invest that towards certain technologies that are going to further reduce submissions in addition to changes people's behavior that's kind of what this is all about something that really struck me in here it's on page five at the bottom and it talks about the health effects again I haven't heard you guys talk a lot about this but you know you're right decarbonization will lead to reductions in local criteria air pollutants and you lost some of the pollutants including particulate matter and then farther down you say using estimates on the value of reduced mortality and morbidity from these certain emissions reductions in these emissions are projected to provide annual benefits of six point seven billion oh that's a typo it should be billion I'm actually still surprised at that number that I think well for myself I don't read certainly in reducing pollutants there's certainly advantage and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to what's really got to be a national and global effort to reduce the Vermont's not going to solve global warming by what we're doing here but in contributing to what other states we might work in concert with I think we can have an effect but looking at you know some pretty serious you know health consequences again you guys aren't probably health experts your economists but you know to the extent that seven to thirty nine million dollars annually from health effects those are real numbers can you speak a little bit about some of the work that you've done there and today you know to the extent for monitors are affected including dying you know with some of the action yeah again as you mentioned them economists I'm not a health expert and so what we've done here is so p.m. 2.5 is is a very harmful pollutants it's it's it's so small that it can actually travel into your lungs three years through your skin and it can cause a lot of problems in your lungs and so there are a lot of health consequences of that in terms of people passing away in mortality or people having expensive hospital visits and being a less healthy morbidity we take these numbers from the EPA EPA in 2018 did a detailed analysis of of particulate matter pollution in the United States concentrations and emission sources and then used used values on mortality and morbidity from another study to estimate the dollar value you get from reducing one ton of that particular emission from 17 different industries and so we're able to we just take those numbers and apply them so the numbers really have a national context and are applied so those it's a it's not camera if it's east average or the national average I think it's the east average there's actually higher concentrations of emissions in the east than there are the West and so the health effects of going from the health effects of increasing or decreasing emissions are larger the larger your concentrations are and so there's larger effects in the east and so yeah again we just take those EPA estimates remembering to that those are estimates that are per ton so it's not applying an aggregate number to Vermont but it's from this overall research it's identifying what are those costs per ton of emissions and we've been applied and that's referred to as an emissions factor and we apply that emissions factor to Vermont's emissions levels and and the what we're estimating we look at the benefits are the reduced emissions the emissions that wouldn't have happened as a result of these policies and I think again I'll speak for myself you know I kind of view these as almost they're not secondary they're important but they're almost second derivative things that come out of changing I think we as policymakers focus on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that there are economic issues that play there and certainly when you're talking about carbon pricing you're you're dealing with dollars and cents so they're very tangible whereas you know we think of ourselves as living in a pretty green state we don't think of air pollution as being a kind of first-order issue in Vermont but again that's why this struck me that you know people thinking about producing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing carbon fuel use as a health issue that relates to people's quality of life their health and people dying you know morbidity as we say here so thank you well one way to think of it too perhaps and this is somewhat outside of expertise but more just colloquial understanding is that even if we don't even if in Vermont it's not high concentrations of ambient air pollutants to live I have a diesel vehicle for example to live with that in your life is exposure to pollution on the daily that has for me a man's choice that I'm making personally right now has health consequences and if I were to shift and not drive a diesel vehicle anymore and drive an electric vehicle I would no longer be exposed to those emissions so it's a way of sort of trying to make it a little bit more grounded in a Vermont context that even if it's not living in the middle of the city or these high concentrations of air pollutants many Vermonters are still exposed to these pollutants and that does have genuine health impacts. Is there a direct correlation between PM 1.0 and 2.5 and greenhouse gases and like question one and two is that higher or lower with some of the non-possile fuel heating sources like advanced would heat that you yeah so the there's a stronger direct correlation between like sulfur dioxide and burning fossil fuels or nitrogen oxide. PM the difference between PM 10 and PM 2.5 is just the size of the particulate matter and PM 2.5 is the one that has the whole larger health impacts. PM 2.5 comes from a variety of places driving in dirt roads and so there's a lot of dirt roads in Vermont that that that that creates particulate PM 2.5 pollutants and so we're not able to look at the change in driving on dirt roads as a part of this policy so we don't take that into account here but they're also you know it's a consequence of manufacturing as well and so some of these are not are not direct effects of the pricing it's if the pricing slightly reduces and as what we find it slightly reduces the construction which is another construction dust is another source of PM 2.5 we slightly reduce construction activity then we're gonna slightly reduce PM 2.5 emissions and that's I mean we do we don't find very large you know changes in those emissions there was actually the ones that were kind of least responsive so I want to go back to if I could go back to your question about people being responsive to prices you know we the model is has a lot that goes into it a lot of data a lot of elasticities that kind of govern how the household in our model changes this behavior relative to price to change the prices we try to be kind of balanced in what those are we don't want to take the high range or the low range we try to be somewhere in the middle to try to give a better sense of what we think is maybe it's appropriate to take the middle ground I would just say that there is I just saw study this was on Canadian gasoline taxes and so in in Canada including the the carbon tax in British Columbia and Quebec's cabin trade program with this all included in look how gasoline taxes have changed in Canadian provinces over time they found that households were three times more responsive to changes in taxes than they were to changes in prices so they didn't change their behavior as much response price they did taxes they found that about 60 percent of the change in driving the change in energy use was associated with people buying more fuel-efficient cars 40 percent was associated with people just driving less lowered vehicle miles traveled it's not just one study there are others out there there is some evidence that people are more responsive to taxes than they are to prices but I say also I think when you just look out on the road between the last 10 years when we've seen wild fluctuations in gasoline you see that the the vehicle fleet has changed you saw you know I don't think I saw as many F-150s on the road when the price of gasoline was was $5 a gallon when I lived in California but as it's fallen you've seen that those sales have continued to go up and so we do see this behavior over time and just response to the fluctuations in gas gases are high price they're high people drive less and they drive more fuel-efficient vehicles than when it falls they do the opposite yeah so a couple of questions in the economic welfare results that you have there when you show that say pretty sx plan on page 103 for the second quintile you have plus 24 so that's people in the 23,000 to 45,000 dollar range right they would see an economic benefit of about $24 per year per year for also and then if they're in the rural area you have a minusc so does that mean you subtract the eight from the 24 or that's the simplest math you can do that's what I've done is I say that it seems to be about an eight dollar differential between urban and rural so there's about an eight dollar difference between urban and rural and so during the second quintile yeah but again these are average households and so it's there is a lot of heterogeneity one of the important things that got out of this was the any elasticity for transportation and eating fuels respect and the the carbon pricing models or proposals that we're looking at here don't go anywhere near enough to change behavior I think this your point do do all these models and assume that they that they're revenue neutral close to yeah so the carbon pricing only policies we look at our we're assuming that they're revenue neutral where we have a there's some page here we we talk about very briefly about why we can't look at the direct directly expending the money on on non-pricing and do an economic analysis of that so on page 61 we kind of have an explanation of what would happen if you just kind of like just in words what we think would happen if you if you use the revenue to finance green investment I think the point I was trying to make yesterday with the trade-offs and the revenue uses that yes it's it's certainly true that you can take those revenues to finance green investment to the extent you do that though you're reducing the revenues you can return to households through rebates or through tax cuts or through electricity rate reductions those those those ways we know those revenue neutral ways that we've looked at our ways to help offset the the increased price in electric of energy and so for every dollar you spent there's an opportunity cost there for green investment every dollar you spend on green investment you might get more emissions reductions but you you you lose the ability to give that money back to households and so there's a trade-off there and and so if and so I think one of our things is saying is that if you are committed to those climate goals then our modeling suggests you would have to take a hybrid approach because the pricing policy wouldn't do it by itself so take looking at the Essex plan that goes from five dollars per ton the first year up to forty dollars per ton after eight years and that's supposed to be revenue neutral is supposed to help reduce electric bills and it's probably not going to change behavior that much because at forty dollars a ton people are not going to and with the amount of rebates they can get on their electric bill they're not going to be investing any of that return into anything that will help them reduce the greenhouse gas emissions like weatherization or buying electric vehicles like that so one of the questions I asked yesterday was how the prices fluctuate over a year and as we know they can go up and down 50 cents within a year price of gasoline and heating oil is the same so just as a I don't know what you can do this on the back of the envelope type of estimate or not but if we were to take a very minimal carbon price that's well within that range of fluctuation say five to fifteen cents per gallon and take the revenues and use them entirely for programs that would help people weatherize, purchase electric vehicles, things like that. In your opinion based on what you've studied and everything would that have an effective influence on reducing greenhouse gases? So without having a major economic impact in the households because Exxon raises the price 15 cents a gallon which can happen in a week we don't get anything extra for that whereas if we put a 15 cent per gallon price on carbon we can take that money and help people do good things. So just if you go to page 107 we have like the changes in economic welfare by household groups and this is for 2020 I think we have somewhere around I have the number for 2025 it's a 2020 I think the number is somewhere around $50 million of revenue that's going to equate to 40 or 50 so that's going to equate to the rebate size here is somewhere around $200 per person. So 107 just looking at TCI that's the impact in 2025 is about a 16 cent increase in gasoline on page 107. And so that policy is going to raise that the amount of revenue is going to be about $200 per person those rebate sizes are about $200 per person per year or and then growing over time as the price increases. But so on page 107 if you just take $53 for Q1 well if you don't give them that revenue then you have to subtract that $200 so instead of being $53 for the good it would be $150 for the worst. So you could take that revenue and spend it but you're taking it away from these households who are using that revenue to offset their higher education prices. So long story short I mean just to make sure that's really clear that it's around $150 cost one of your questions right is what would that cost be and is it a reasonable cost if you didn't use the revenue to offset cost is about $150 right. Now one thing we did not estimate is basically that these same kind of cost benefit analysis per household of taking that revenue and investing in weatherization that's a very important caveat. Again it points to the limitation that we had on our ability to do a detailed analysis of these non-pricing policies. We don't know what that will be we do think that there will be some benefit to those households of taking that money and investing in weatherization or investing in something else that improves energy efficiency because energy efficiency reduces costs. Now there's a whole lot of literature out there that points to the fact that those cost savings may be less than are estimated by engineers because of the behavioral response and something called the rebound effect. We think there's some benefit though right so I think you shouldn't see that as no benefit we don't know what that benefit would be and it is a good subject for further study. Our understanding is that the regulatory assistance project or RAP is doing some work on these non-pricing policies that may be published within a month or two but that's an important consideration. You're also asked would we expect that the investment of those revenues in weatherization or whatever it may be would further reduce emissions and what we find is that yes it would. That seems quite clear. Very short clarification you said households and persons $200 per person or $200 per household. I know this information is available somewhere else but I'm wondering if you know offhand you did this dividing income into wind tiles. How those wind tiles relate to population percentages? So each one is 20% of the population. So that's how the parameters were set. So we basically order all the households by income take the lowest 20% wherever that cutoff is they go and bin one next 20% they go and bin two. Can I just say something on that briefly actually in terms of the revenue use so therefore the way we've done this lump sum rebate which is that rebate in the revenue use calculations is taking 20% per quintile. So it's taking that whole pie dividing it by five and then you get 20% in each of those slices of the pie and that gets given to each quintile. And so the reason why I want to communicate that to you all is that you could have as some policies do have a more stylized rebate where the rebate is only delivered to certain income levels. If for example the concern were to keep whole so to speak the lowest two or three income quintiles in our current framework if it's the lowest one that's 20% of your revenue is the lowest two that's 40% of your revenue is the lowest three that's 60% of your revenue. You have the remainder to invest in weatherization or whatever else may be a policy priority. What you've done here is simply flat and it would be less actually if you were aiming at keeping again the average household there's heterogeneity within the quintiles just as the quintiles represent heterogeneity across the entire population. But within a quintile is heterogeneity so if you're just looking at the average household and keeping them whole let's say in the lowest income quintile that would be less than what we're currently giving them. Because what we're currently giving them gives them a surplus of about you know $7 and $50 depending on your pricing scenario. Does that make sense? So we did one little calculation yesterday that showed that it would be more like 12% of the revenue to keep the lowest income quintile whole instead of the 20% that we're giving them currently which is giving them a surplus. Now maybe you want to give them a surplus these are all your decisions right? This is the public policy decision making process. But just I think one of the things that's important for us to convey in this is that it can be much more nuanced than it is being represented as here. We had to bound our analysis somehow. Another question is for the purposes for your purposes is wood heat, biomass, carbon neutral. Yes, right. Because you know we look at important products as a way to stimulate local economy and I'm just wondering how that figures in and also carbon neutrality is a different question than particulate matter. Yes. I don't know if your calculations were based on removing carbon fossil fuels out of the mix and not increasing wood particulate emissions. So just removing carbon and assuming that whatever replaces that is clean, no particulate emissions. Was that your basis? So not quite. We have, it's actually in our model the most distinguished we can get is fuel oil and other fuels. And so that represents heating oil and wood heating. And so we can't, and so the emissions factor represents kind of the average emissions for the combined. So we can't, we haven't been able to piece out exactly how much the shift is fuel oil and wood. But we do have some emissions factors for wood consumption. And in terms of the PM 2.5 and I think we do see a little uptick in that. Mark, I asked you this after the presentation yesterday, but I know we've been a CTC carbon tech center. And it's talked about how it would be very difficult if not impossible for the individual state to administer such a carbon tax scheme. Do you, did you look at the industry board doing about the actual administrative costs to any of these proposals? No, we didn't look at the administrative costs. I think there are, there has been research out there on how you can implement these within the existing framework of how the state already taxes entities. So for example, adding a tax on gasoline that you already have a gasoline tax. And so you just change the, you can easily implement a change there. Whereas somewhere you didn't already taxing something it might be more difficult. That's something I don't have at my fingertips now, but it's something that over the next week or so I could try to find some of those reports that show how you would implement, administratively implement these programs. I'm trying to get my head around how much additional analysis we would need to do for months specific if we wanted to proceed in any of these options. Yesterday I asked a question about whether you would consider the cost of income eligibility determination if we were going to give a benefit to lower income people and that's not, you hadn't done that. So if we wanted to do that, that would be part of what we would need to consider and a different level on the sort of benefit side rather than the cost side. Did you get into things like on advanced, would heed for instance, the economic and employment benefits of promoting a Vermont based economic activity or is that something that was outside of what you were doing? So I would say that the model does account for changing and spending money outside Vermont versus spending the money inside Vermont. The way these models work is every dollar has to go somewhere and so if it doesn't go out it can stay in and that dollar might stay in or might stay out. Maybe 50% stays in depending on how that dollar is spent. So we don't have, I don't have any analysis that would tell you how much of the fossil fuel spending was now kept in state. That's all part of this big contraption that at the end of the day you can't really ease that out but it's in there. But I think some more research on those types of things would be great. So my question was sort of following up on Mark in our room about the administrative costs of a rebate system. I mean there would be some cost in setting such a thing up and you did really try to quantify that as what I'm getting, right? That's correct. Well then the other questions I was thinking about sort of again globally. If there were a carbon tax or carbon pricing that would affect actually not just fuels but really all the economy because everything that we consume has a carbon footprint. Did you consider that as well? Yeah, so the way that our model works is that kind of the, we call it a social accounting matrix and what it does is it tracks how people spend the money and how it flows through the economy. And so what you see is that for, we have 18 sectors, we know how much each of those sectors is purchasing in fuels versus purchasing in other goods. And so you'll see for example that like the services industry spends a lot more of its revenue or expenditures on labor than it does energy. So it's a relatively energy, a non-energy intensive industry whereas the natural gas utility has to purchase the natural gas that is obviously very energy intensive. And so we do allow for looking, so the model does account for differences in intensity across different types of industries and goods. And then lastly, just one last follow-up about electrification. As the economy electrifies both with electric vehicles and heat pumps, is that also built in? Is there an increasing dependence on electricity for heating and transportation? Yeah, the model allows for substitution from different types of fuels to electricity. You see that especially in the part of the report where we allow for the rebates, the revenues to be used to reduce electricity prices. You see a large increase in demand for electricity. So we're three minutes over time and we've got another hearing that started three minutes ago. Three hours more questions. We were saying to the last group that we spoke with that if you do have follow-up questions to please send them to Joyce and Catherine.


As mentioned earlier, our example sentence has used a regular verb to play. With the regular verbs, we simply add ED. This spelling pattern changes for words that end with a consonant and a Y. Cry goes to cried, try to tried. Another spelling pattern we have to be aware of is our consonant plus vowel plus consonant. In these instances, we double the consonant used, shop needs the double P, and ship needs the double P. With these spelling patterns, and most spelling patterns in general for the English language, there are always exceptions to the rules. So we have to be aware of those exceptions. We also have to impart those exceptions onto our students. We can do so through various exercises and various activities to end our class. To form the negative sentence here, again our subjects are in the beginning of the sentence. We keep our helping verb whether it be have or has, and between our helping verb and the main verb in our sentence, we of course add the word not. For forming the question of the present perfect tense, again we're going to follow on with our form of inverting the subject and the helping verb. Now we'll begin with have or has. So we end up with questions such as, have I played football today, or has she played football today?


Welcome to the overview of the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit offered by the Association of Research Libraries and made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. This presentation introduces the purpose and intent of the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit, reviews some basic definitions related to assessment, describes the stages of the assessment cycle, provides a brief overview of the five modules included in the toolkit, and closes with the impetus to focus library assessment on outcomes and impact. We hope the content is useful to library practitioners seeking to conduct assessment projects. At the close of the presentation, you will find a link to a feedback form. Please let us know what elements were useful to you. Let's begin with the intent and purpose of the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit. One of the lessons learned from the IMLS-funded Research Library Impact Framework Project is that many library workers need skills and a toolkit of information about assessment methodologies to launch their projects and see them through to their conclusion, including acting on their findings. The Research Library Impact Framework Project also reinforced the interest, desire, and need for library workers to continue developing skills and assessment. In concluding the Research Library Impact Framework Project, ARL had an opportunity to ask experts in library assessment to develop a set of training materials to share with the broader academic library community. Thus, the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit was developed to support assessment needs in research and academic libraries. The goal of this toolkit is to share materials that review the principles and practices of library assessment, enable library workers to develop the skills necessary to assess library programs, services, resources, and spaces. Our modular, accessible to newcomers to library assessment and easy to follow can be self-paced or used as training materials for collaborative efforts and are supportive of a community of learning. To provide your feedback on the usefulness of the content provided in the toolkit, please use the feedback forms available at the end of each presentation. Overall, the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit is envisioned as a starting place for library assessment practitioners to access information about assessment processes in libraries. The toolkit is not intended to be comprehensive and covers information that can be used by library workers at all levels of assessment experience. To those ends, it's helpful to begin with some clarifying definitions. There are many terms and phrases related to library assessment that can be confusing or unclear. To some degree, these terms are used interchangeably or synonymously in discussions. In other situations, knowing the nuanced differences among them can be helpful in creating shared understanding. Two such terms are evaluation and assessment. These terms, again, are often used casually to mean the same general concept. Having said that, there are differences between them. Evaluation is a term more associated with discerning service quality or user satisfaction in libraries. The goal of evaluation is likely to be managerial in nature, that is, ensuring that libraries run well, are properly resourced, and are satisfactory to users. Assessment, on the other hand, is associated with the process of determining progress toward a goal or outcome, usually related to the ability of the library to enable users to achieve their goals and aspirations, fulfill needs, and so on. Whether focused on a concrete outcome, perhaps in the immediate or short term, or a more long-term impact, the goal of assessment is typically continuous improvement towards change and more beneficial experiences, engagement, and accomplishment for users. Related terms include reflective practice, evidence-based librarianship, and accountability. Each of these has slightly nuanced connotations as well. Reflective practice involves the commitment of library workers to add to their learning, knowledge, skills, and awareness to make improvements in library services, resources, and spaces in alignment with user needs. Evidence-based librarianship has roots in the health sciences and is focused on the use of research data and evidence to make informed decisions in professional library practice. Accountability involves providing users and both internal and external stakeholders with evidence of quality, improvement, and progress towards organizational missions and goals. All of these terms are useful in considering the purpose of library assessment, which is to include users, partners, and stakeholders as co-creators of understanding and change, pursuit of continuous improvement, informed decisions and actions, and communication of results in order to improve outcomes and advance equity, engagement, and excellence in libraries. To achieve these goals, assessment follows a process or cycle, one that is never completed, but which should help library workers accomplish improvement over time. The assessment cycle is based on five major steps. Typically starting at the top of the cycle, library assessment practitioners begin an assessment process by choosing a focus and setting goals. The focus and goals are usually centered on a library service, resource, space, or some other library offering. Once the goals are set, data of various forms is collected and analyzed, decisions are made, results are shared, and goals are revisited to start another iteration of the cycle. While this is a general framework of assessment, of course variations occur. For example, it's often advisable to share results with users, stakeholders, colleagues, and partners prior to making decisions, as all those individuals and groups may be integral to the decision-making process. Thus, the cycle is suggestive but not prescriptive. Let's look in just a bit more detail at each stage in the general assessment cycle. In the first stage of the assessment cycle, library assessment practitioners will determine what questions need to be answered by an assessment project. They will discern what the goals are, typically both of the service, resource, or space being assessed, as well as the goals of the assessment project itself. They will also pin down the aspects of the service, source, or space, resource, or space that is of interest in a particular assessment. Knowing the goals of an assessment is essential in making subsequent choices in the assessment process. In the second stage of the assessment cycle, library assessment practitioners collect data using appropriate methods, review the collected data, analyze it, and derive meaning from it. In the later stages of the assessment cycle, library assessment practitioners, in collaboration with colleagues, communicate with users, partners, and stakeholders, make decisions and take actions, and revisit goals to improve services, resources, and spaces, and restart the cycle for another iteration. This pattern can be seen in other processes central to librarianship as well. In evidence-based practice, this cycle is used. Beginning with formulating a question, librarians find evidence, appraise it, apply it, and evaluate the impact of it before beginning anew. Reflective practice follows a similar process. Librarians identify a situation of complexity, decide to find a solution, seek information to inform the solution, decide to act, and then do so in order to improve a situation of complexity, continuing to check it through subsequent cycles of action. Pragmatism in the workplace also incorporates a pattern like these. Individuals reflect on past experiences and interpret their environment, engage in inquiry to reduce doubt about a situation, use reasoning to create new rules for practice, build knowledge through experimentation, incorporate what they learn, and then reflect again in order to move forward. Information literacy itself moves in a similar way. An information seeker formulates a question based on an information need, finds sources and information that help answer their question, evaluates the information they discover for use, applies useful information, and assesses the final product in the quest to answer their initial question, perhaps beginning again to improve upon the initial process or seek out answers to a related question. Likewise, the information literacy instruction assessment cycle follows a path reminiscent of these others. Over and over again in library practice, similar cycles are encountered. New comers to assessment practice will likely find the assessment cycle to follow familiar patterns such as these. Now let's take a look at how the assessment cycle forms the basis for the research and assessment cycle toolkit. In general, library assessment follows a basic cycle or process. Library assessment practitioners begin with a question or problem to solve or another need to fill. They consider carefully the problem area or knowledge gap that the question seeks to address. If the question, problem, gap, or need can be situated in a larger theoretical framework, they do so. Then they develop a plan for attempting to learn more about the answer to the question or possible solutions to the problem. Library assessment practitioners then gather data needed to solve the problem or respond to the question, determine the meaning of what they've collected, and decide whether the information is sufficient to act on their improved understanding or whether more information is necessary before deciding to act. This process is reflected in the five modules of the research and assessment cycle toolkit. The five stages that form the organizational structure of the toolkit are identify, articulate, collect, organize and analyze, and finally act. In the identify module, materials are provided that will help library assessment practitioners discover what they need to know, why they need to know it, and how anticipating what is needed will help ultimately to lead to action in the form of decisions made and actions taken at the close of an assessment project. In the articulate module, library assessment practitioners will learn to identify and construct research questions, user stories, or hypotheses to guide an assessment project. The collect module focuses on identifying potential information that can be gathered in order to answer assessment questions, understanding the wide range of assessment methods and tools available to collect assessment information, and determining an appropriate sample size for various assessment approaches. It also provides starting places for conducting some of the most common assessment strategies, including interviews, focus groups, participatory and observational research, and surveys. The organize and analyze module supports library assessment practitioners in seeking to clean, organize, and analyze quantitative data, including the use of Excel, Google Sheets, and Tableau. Finally, the act module helps library assessment practitioners prepare to reflect and make meaning from their assessment results, communicate the results to others, and use the results to take informed action, realize outcomes, and create change. Modules include video lectures, handouts, and selected external links to support library assessment practitioner learning. All modules also include forms to gather feedback on the modules. Taken as a whole, the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit can be used to support newcomers to library assessment and provide a foundation for future practice. Thank you for viewing this overview of the Research and Assessment Cycle Toolkit. Please use the link provided to complete a feedback form on the usefulness of this information for your purposes.


Welcome to Behind the Enemy line presented by Windows 11. I'm Mike Keith, joined by the voice of the Buffalo Bills, John Murphy, looking at the numbers. The Buffalo Bills have outscored their last four opponents, 156 to 41. You've seen a lot of good Bills teams, a lot of good stretches, it's a pretty dominant stretch of football though, isn't it? Yeah, they're playing great right now. The offense was almost unstoppable again when they beat the Kansas City, but it's the defense Mike that's the big difference this year. They're just doing a great job defensively and that was where they struggled a year ago. They got to work on it and so far it's really worked. John, who is jumping out to you on the defense so far? The first draft pick, Greg Rousseau has been great from University of Miami. They got an eight sometimes nine man rotation. They just work guys through there. Rousseau is one of the standouts up front there. The Bills second round pick, Boogie Basham from Virginia Tech has also started to play the last few weeks and he's making a difference. The best players and I think the most consistent players on the Buffalo defense and it has been for a couple of years. It's the back end of the defense. The two safeties, Micah Hyde and Jordan Poyer are just outstanding. Hyde came up with an interception in Kansas City. Poyer's been solid. Trudavius White is a Pro Bowl cornerback. They usually by Wallace at the other corner, he's pretty good, but it's the back end of the defense that is solid. What jumps out about the defense to me, John, in watching them is everything is hard for opposing offenses.  Let's see if you can do it again. That's exactly what McDermott wants. Yeah. And Leslie Frazier too has got to get a lot of credit for it. The former NFL head coach and the defense coordinator now in his fifth year in Buffalo. I mean, that's really the key. I think the fact that there's such continuity in the coaching staff and both coordinators are here now for four or five years and Frazier's been an outstanding coach for the bills. He's an outstanding guy. But yeah, that's what John McDermott wants. John Murphy, we know about this offense converting 49% of third downs at this point, 410 yards a game, 140 rushing yards, 270 passing yards per game, scoring at an incredibly high clip at this point, nearly 35 points a game. Where is this offense even better than it was a year ago when it was really good? I'd start with the running game, you know, and they got the Devin Singletary motor who's kind of leaner and quicker and he's got an explosion now that he didn't have last year. He's sort of a potter last year. They get the second year from Zach Moss, his partner in running back. The two of them share snaps. Those two I think make a big difference to have an effective running game is important for the bills, but they are a passing team. They replaced John Brown, who I always thought was a great wide receiver. They replaced him this year with Emmanuel Sanders, who's been not just a good villain. He's exceeded what John Brown gave him. He's a versatile. He's a flyer down the field. He's very versatile, can run routes. He's a good leader. He's a guy with a ton of experience. I think he's an upgrade over where they were offensively. But the key man, of course, is the trigger man, Josh Allen. He was great last year. I don't know if I'm ready to say he's been better this year, but he's getting there. They're benefiting from continuity in the coaching step, right? His fourth year with Brian Dable is fourth year in the system. He knows what's required of him. He knows what they need, and he seemed to provide it on a regular basis. Is he better than last year? He was awfully good last year, but he's kind of trending in that direction.


Hey guys, it's Gabrielle, I'm over here today at Oxmer Toyota, so I'm going to go over some information on a 2021, this is the Toyota Sequoia, now this is the limited and it's in the Nightshade Special Edition. So you guys, as you can see, it's totally different from a regular Sequoia, that Nightshade Edition is really going to have those beautiful black accents.  Now going on to the interior, you have that black leather, there's a seven inch touch screen and it has the premium audio, so you'll have the JBL speaker system, there's a sunroof, so it seats seven passengers or seven people total, so you have the two in the front, you have two captain's chairs, and then you have a third row seat as well. So let's move into the back real quick, show you the storage on here, let's open this guy up, alright so you have a pretty significant amount of storage back here with that third row down, but let me show you all something real quick, there is an automatic adjuster I guess to sit him up, so you have the left, do do doot, and then the right as well. So just for time sake I'll put him back down, it takes a sec. Alright guys so that is the 2021 Toyo Sequoia in the Nightshade Edition, if you have any questions feel free to let us know, all of our contact information is right here, thanks all for watching, I'll see you soon, bye.


I think Riot and Bay Medical Center is a very unique program. We're very small and so the training is always interactive. We don't have large group training. Our didactic sessions are always very small, very interactive. It works well for us as a community and as a teaching program because we get to know our residents very, very well. We work with our residents in many ways. The residents take care of in the Perth Amboy campus. The residents take care of about 42% of our population that we serve. So they are integral to the survival of this institution. We have a wide range of residencies available through family practice, internal medicine, emergency department and various surgical specialties and medical specialties. I think one of the strongest points of this program is the residents are really kind of the engine who run this hospital. We are always on the front lines taking care of all the acute issues, whether it's RTS, whether it's codes, we're putting in every single central line, our tier line that goes in. We're dealing with critical patients, cardiac arrest, septic shock patients. So just because we are always on the front lines, we're always managing patients through the ER. I feel very well prepared to go into the independent practice. It is a very good work environment for them to learn as well as to be supervised by our hospitalist program to get the best education possible. My favorite part of working with residents is teaching. I like teaching and also getting residents feeling more comfortable in the ICU and seeing them enjoy their experience. It's a very interactive an hour and a half to two hour rounding period where they're presenting their plans to me, I'm critiquing their presentations, I'm teaching them pertinent landmark trials and evidence based medicine and guidelines like for subsist and septic shock and things like this. They'll call me at night to help with admissions or questions in the ICU so we try and make ourselves very available for teaching 24 hours with the residents. I think that our program strives in the working environment and making sure that that working environment helps to facilitate both learning as well as the family feel. We spend a lot of time here and it's very important that our residents feel very supported during a very stressful time. Raritan Bay has a unique culture because of the people that work here live in the communities that we serve. Many of them walk to work, drive their bikes to work, live and breathe in this institution. We have many family members, we have many individuals that have used this place for their care. It is very unique. One of the amazing things about this hospital that I feel is that not only are the attendings and faculty invested in the residents but it's also the nurses, also the case managers, also the social workers. You do feel a lot of support from them, you know we work really close with them, we build very strong bonds. It really helps us do our job well, we learn a lot from them and anytime we need anything from each other we're really out there to help each other out and I think at the end of the day it makes us better but also needs great patient care.


Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything One Piece. Today we're going to get into a bit of what's becoming an age old discussion with One Piece and that topic is, which was better, pre-time skip One Piece or post-time skip One Piece. And I feel like we're getting to about the right time for this discussion to happen because we are rapidly approaching a point in the life of the series where we have been in the post-time skip era for almost as long as we were in the pre-time skip era. So officially we made the transition in October of 2010 and it's now 2009 so after almost nine years, and I think we have enough to go with to make, you know, semi-decent comparison. And how I'm going to go about doing this is I'm going to rather straightforwardly present the case of both halves of the series, going through what makes them great as well as highlight what shortcomings they may have. And I think it's best to do it this way because at the time of writing the script, I'm not even sure what conclusion I'm going to come to. But before we properly launch into it, I would like to highlight that the pre-time skip era comes into this fight with the distinct advantage of being a more or less complete piece of story. Even though we've been in the post-time skip era for an awfully long time now, we don't appear to be nearing a conclusion to it. And so that sort of thing does need to be kept in mind when we examine that half of the series. Oh, and one more thing. This video is going to be extraordinarily subjective and based entirely on my own personal experience with One Piece. I don't think it's possible to come that with an objective victor in this debate, so I'm not really going to try. Which means that I will be very keen to hear your thoughts in the comments below after the video. But for now, let's jump into making the case for the pre-time skip era. So right off the bat, the most immediate thing that strikes me about this half of the series is unavoidable nostalgia. The beginning of the series is what charmed me into following it through to the New World era. And a lot of that has to do with the simple promise of adventure. Pre-time skip up until the whole Paramount War saga was about pure exploration and discovering this ever-growing world with every new island really putting into perspective just how small our protagonists really are. Which is a fantastic thing because this is their huge period of growth. And as such, we spend most major arcs in this era with one or multiple Straw Hat members who aren't Luffy as the emotional center of the action. So that's obviously true for sagas like East Blue, but even more so than that, I'd like to highlight the Water Seven saga which masterfully weave the stories of three Straw Hats being Robin, Usopp and Frankie, all into one gigantic and bold piece of storytelling. And yes, there are arcs like Skype here or the later pre-time skip arcs leading up to the Paramount War that don't have this direct connection. But for the most part, these pre-time skip arcs are heavily focused on our central characters, which is a great achievement considering everything else Oda needed to include in terms of world building to make one piece what it went on to become. By which I mean this is our introduction to the grand line. The core locational concept of one piece, which was able to consistently surprise and amaze after coming from the realm of East Blue where everything was made quite purposely regular and simplistic. It was like being on a magical adventure where absolutely anything could happen. You know, you could turn a corner and there would be a giant, a princess in need or even a man on stilts. There was no predicting what could happen next. And not only that, there were a lot of situations and hints that raised huge questions about this world and the people in it. Many of which would not be answered in this half of the series, but rather left lingering to entice us to think about the world even more. And all of this was happening to characters who were wildly unprepared to deal with the situations presented to them, but through various hardships, managed to break through them for the sake of their dreams. As for negative aspects of this era, I feel like most of them stem from the advantage of knowing where the story takes us in the future. As a result, a lot of the pre-timescape era, especially the first half or so can seem very small in scale with much less captivating villains to take command of their respective arcs. Now, to be clear, these villains would have been serviceable at the time, but in retrospect, they generally lack the depth of their post-timescape counterparts. And this obviously doesn't apply to all villains because we receive some of the greatest antagonistic forces in the series, like Arlong and Crocodile, but you do also get a lot more instances of less than fantastic villains like, say, Don Creek. And the other thing I'd argue that the pre-timescape era suffers from is the art style. When first getting into the series, one piece can be quite an adjustment because it's very stylistically goofy and a lot of artistic choices can take a while to settle into. A primary example of which is early Usopp. This is a character design that just plain turns many people away from the series. And at times it can be more of a burden than an asset. Of course, that investment in Usopp does eventually pay off and he becomes a frankly glorious character, but it is jarring, as are a lot of other characters and elements of this world. So it does require a fair bit of settling in time, which you would not have to deal with in the post-timescape era because you would, presumably, already be settled in by then. Now, the crowning period of the pre-timescape era is most certainly its climax with the Paramount Wars saga, which masterfully brought everything we knew about this world and threw it together in one of the greatest battles ever portrayed in fiction. I maintain that there was never a better time to be reading one piece weekly than during the Marine for Dark specifically. It was a spectacular Infinity War endgame style ending to everything we'd built over the first decade or so and makes the pre-timescape era a very satisfying piece of story to experience all on its own. A magical journey from simple beginnings, featuring incremental growth of small characters with big dreams in a world constantly threatening to engulf them. It's captivating, charming, and even on its own, one of the greatest journeys ever put to page. So how does the post-timescape era compare? Well, it starts by taking everything previously built and expands on it like crazy, be it the world, the characters, or even the greater mysteries. And as a result of this expansion, the world and the story grew incredibly complex, paving the way for larger arcs, significantly more characters, and grander settings for our protagonists to explore and encounter. And speaking of the setting specifically, almost all of my favorite islands in the series have come from the New World era. Locations like the underwater paradise of Fishman Island or the civilization of Zoe on the back of a giant elephant are able to very effectively capture the pre-timescape sense of wonder and adventure, only even better with much more detail and well-planned-out stories to play out within their boundaries. But of course, all of this does come at a cost, because longer arcs with grander settings mean that we as an audience do a lot less traveling post-timescape. Once we land on an island, we could be there for around 30 chapters, at the very, very least, or we could be there for almost 100 chapters, the latter of which is a more common outcome. And I'd like to point the finger particularly at the Dress-Rosa arc, which spanned 102 chapters all on its own and took more than two years to publish in real time. And this can very unfortunately lead to a fatigue effect in these sorts of arcs that can be quite difficult to overcome reading or watching from week to week. But it is these long-form arcs that also allowed this era to feature a heavily extended cast of characters, all just as wonderfully written and drawn as our main cast. So for example, getting to know all of the members of the worst generation has been one of the most exciting experiences I've ever had with fiction. The trade-off, of course, is that we get less time to really focus on the straw hats. But in most cases, that's pretty fine because we're spending time expanding this extraordinarily large world and loving every panel of it. The New World era also provides us with arguably stronger villains, many of whom I could only dream of encountering in the pre-times skip era. Figures such as Dolph Lamingo, Big Mom, or Kaido are being directly challenged in this later portion of the story. And finally being able to explore them, their crews and their territories has been an unimaginable pleasure. Although the downside to this may be that by finally exploring these figures, we're lifting a shroud of mystery that existed within the pre-times skip era. During that half of the series, characters like Dolph Lamingo were captivating because they appeared so rarely. And in fact, Big Mom and Kaido were only ever mentioned by name with one heavily inaccurate silhouette each. They were lurking figures that played on our imaginations and really getting into them in the New World does demystify that somewhat, which is both a good and a bad thing. Another thing that potentially plagues the New World is the advent of Haki, to be honest. And yes, it was present in the pre-times skip era, but it wasn't given any real focus until the very end of it. In the New World, Haki is a staple of combat and it does have a lot of very interesting uses such as Karakuri's Future Sight, but there are also many situations where it's difficult to look at a fight and not just have it be about whose Haki is better. I mean, to even stand up to Luffy or Zoro when opponent needs to have Haki. In the case of Luffy, a serious opponent needs to have Conqueror's Haki in particular. And it really does make me miss the old style of purely scissors paper rock matchups that you would get in the pre-times skip era. Haki is essentially the closest one pieces come to developing a dangerous power system like Ki, Ryutsu or Chakra. And it does still worry me too this day because it's become so essential to New World combat. However, Oda has to, his credit thus far, been able to keep it quite interesting. And one final negative I'd like to state about the post-times skip era is that this portion of the story has very much seen the decline of Nami and Robin as characters. These two were centerpieces of entire sagas in the pre-times skip days and in the modern times, they don't even get individual fights anymore. I mean, Nami's last one on one encounter was during the Enis Lobby arc against Califer and Robbins was even further back against Yama in Skypeer. I'll say that one again, Skypeer. You know, around 700 chapters ago now, there is no reason why they should not be given the same combative focus as the rest of the crew and in fact, the same focus that they once actually commanded. If a musician and a shipwright can fight regularly, then so can a navigator and an archeologist, especially considering they both have such exceptional power. But for whatever reason, our two female straw hats have been kind of left in the dust for this era and that is a big negative. But in general, what post-times skip delivers is fantastic expansion, exploration and depth of the world, as well as the characters that were established pre-times skip. In order to accomplish this, it answers a lot of the questions that were presented to us pre-times skip and is leaving us with fewer and fewer mysteries to contemplate, but that's okay because we are treated to very satisfactory characters and ideas as a result. And now we come down to it. How do we directly compare the errors? Well, one broad method of thinking about it is to equate pre-times skip one piece to the idea of magic and post-times skip to the idea of science. There is something instantly fascinating and curious about magic and at the same time, there's great satisfaction and intrigue to be gained from science. One of them evokes a more childlike response to wonder while the other delivers on those childhood promises and not only that, but still continues to hypothesize and explore further. It's a very difficult decision for me to come out with a victor here because one piece is a series I've been following for far too long now and I've enjoyed both halves of the series for very different reasons, as well as many of the same reasons, actually. I mean, we've spent a lot of this video talking about the differences between the two but in these discussions, I don't think anybody really takes the time to highlight just how similar they are. For example, Luffy in chapter 900 and whatever is still just as captivating to follow as the Luffy we encountered in chapter one, which is incredible considering the sheer amount of time we've spent with him. The world is just as exciting, the enemies are just as overwhelming and the dreams that began this journey whilst edging ever closer to completion are still far away in the distance, maintaining that sense of romantic adventure. I mean, after all, they're both one piece, two parts of the same story. But I'm not going to be that guy who makes you sit through all of this just to give the verdict of a tie. No, no, no, no. There will be a victor here today and in all honesty, it was a tough call but I have to award this bout to the pre-timeskip era. It's a lot simpler and in many ways not quite as hype as the post-timeskip series but it's such an exceptionally solid piece of storytelling that takes us from humble nothingness to the beginnings of acting on a global stage, introducing this wonderful world with these brilliantly written core characters. And yes, it being a fully rounded story saga does help as does general nostalgia, but this is not to say that in the future post-timeskip will not come out on top. There is an awful lot of story left to tell here enough that the new world era of one piece could come to completely dwarf the first portion of the series. I'd say it's certainly getting there and I consider the two pretty damn equal right now. And as always, that leaves me incredibly excited for what's to come in the future. But that pretty much does it for my pre-timeskip versus post-timeskip discussion. If you enjoyed this video and the content this channel produced in general then please do consider donating to the Grand Line Review Patreon because the support of all of your amazing people is what continues to make this channel possible. Also do check out my Teespring store if you're interested in shirts, hoodies and other miscellaneous items with the proceeds going directly to support the channel as well. And if you'd like to join the fun at any time then please do head over to my Discord server where a wide array of shenanigan retakes place on a daily basis. And finally, please do comment with your thoughts on pre-timeskip versus post-timeskip. This has been the Grand Line Review and I'll see you next time. Plus in the pre-timeskip era, Robin had a cowboy hat. In the post-timeskip era, she does not. Do better post-timeskip, do better.


My name is Vien. I'm from Vietnam. I've recently completed my 120-hour online topical course. I found it very interesting, useful, and I really enjoyed it. Therefore, I would like to tell you a little bit about my experience about online topical course. This was my first experience studying online. What I liked most about the course was flexibility, so I can study by my own time. Through the course, I learned a lot of interesting fight about grammar, such as different tenses, as well as there were very useful tips on how to teach listening, speaking, writing, and reading. I strongly recommend to anyone who willing to work as a teacher. I hope my video has been a good reference for you and hope you enjoyed. Thanks for watching and have a nice day.