So the next talk is about the EU Cyber Security Act and let us all work our hands Thank you. Good morning. It's a very heartwarming to see a full room of people willing to dip themselves into ISO norms on a Sunday morning and I will promise to try and keep you awake With the emphasis on try so This is me The picture could have been taken at first. I'm here last last day, but it's not I Do some amateur winemaking and for it would be good to have a picture in which I'm not recognizable. I Want to talk about cyber. I want to be very precise about what cyber is who knows what cyber is Everyone right? Or at least everyone has their own idea about what cyber is Because we have so many cybers to choose from it's so nice. Just like you have ISO norms the beautiful thing is you have so many to choose from I love words that mean nothing and Cyber is just one of them The thing is if I see the word cyber in an ad for a consultancy company or something I usually start counting the density of the repetitions of the word cyber and the more cyber is in there The more likely is it that it's complete bullshit so Let's get the cyber part, but somehow people also have Embrace the concept that being the word cyber being somewhat imprecise being somewhat vague That really helps because you can mean a lot of things without and that's the nice about laws the nice thing about laws is that you try to Encompass a concept without over specifying it and without becoming too technological because if you create laws based on Technology then the the one thing you know for sure is that the law will be outdated the minutes that it's actually being brought up And this is one of the things that I think the EU is Starting to get right. I like the GDPR. I like the fact that the GDPR does not tell you what to do It does not tell you what you may not do. It only tells you how you should Handle your data how you should describe it and how you should inform your users or your your clients about it And what their rights are Apart from that you're completely free to do whatever it is you want to do as long as you describe it and as long as you Of course remain within some ethical boundaries but we are moving from a Situation in which laws are very specific about what you should and should not do into a more Compliance oriented type of lawmaking Which creates a framework and boundaries in which you yourself have to perform risk assessments risk analysis and implements appropriate and fit for purpose measures Law always comes last, but it does be technology Who saw the debates in Australia recently where they were trying to ban entrant encrypted Chats. Yeah, what I find most interesting is that there was this Minister on television and he was asked about this law Sir, do you not know the laws of mathematics and His answer was yes, but I do not care. I have the Australian laws and My first reaction was a real and my second was reaction was well Yeah, he has a point because you can have all your laws of mathematics as much as you want if you're in prison Then you have all the time in the world to perform mathematics So law beats technology and this can be good and this can be very bad, of course it blow itself is Not necessarily good or bad. It's just like technologies, but you do with it The current cyber security approach in the EU is fragmented or at least it has been in the last decades Mostly because countries were not exactly in sync when developing their own security or information management strategies Everyone basically created their own island and suddenly We realized that the internet might be a bit of a cross-border thing and then somehow Well, we thought let's regulate it a bit in the Netherlands we have the National Cyber Security Center and Not only in the Netherlands you have these and they have them in Belgium and other countries as well and they issue a Continuous and very comforting stream of papers Or PDFs if you want to be very tech savvy They issue best practices and guidance is what you should do and what you should not do and until recently those Guidances and best practices were mostly ignored and who of you has actually read one of the guidances of your national? I see one two Wow, I must be in the right room then And the thing is what We've been doing from the And with we I mean also some members of any south I do provide some input from them Occasionally what we've been trying to do is Create a basic level of neutral information Across several business domains. So we and myself and Part of several work groups who have to do with pharmacy and health care Which is a very specific topic with very highly Sensitive information. I mean who doesn't want to have life to have their complete patient files open for the world to see And we've been issuing guidance for some time now and the thing is that what we've done is create Let's say some level of plausible deniability That from the lawmaking side of things we can say look we've been saying this for years guys You should follow up because now we're going to create laws that actually force you or simply Not necessarily force you up front, but we can penalize you afterwards if you haven't followed them So the cybersecurity regulation Will be about harmonization will be about information sharing but it will essentially also mean informing and providing tangible tools and In general What it's meant to be doing is create transparency Transparency because in the cyber security world we hate being transparent somehow we use words like cyber Yeah, and what we want to do now is create schemas of or ontologies of Well, this with the well-described packages protection profiles And targets of evaluation so that the industry can see hey, I am in this field These are the protection profiles that apply to me Let me adopt them and let me formulate measurements on them So that's the the schemas that will be coming forward in the next couple of years the issue with that is that we're trying to do that from anything like an internet connected espresso machine to a nuclear submarine and there is a bit of a Difference in complexity although I must admit that most recent espresso machines tend to be very helpful when creating dealers attacks so creating transparency transparency means Mutual understanding it means what are we looking at and when I say this is green do you agree with me this being green And it ain't easy being green So towards a risk-based security strategy The difference that I often have to explain between the ISO 27,001 and the 27,002 whenever somebody asked me for a to 27,002 certification I'm like well No, you have 27,001 certification and the 27,002 is basically a list of stuff that you can do Or you should do Especially if you're an oral refinery in the 1990s actually that's where it comes from You can do a lot of stuff which is in there the 27,000 one Once you to think about what you have your assets your threats your vulnerabilities your procedures What are your crown jewels and if our man help here? We've been doing this for quite some time We've had a framework called gun which is essentially guidance on the Quality maintenance of a development process in pharma and it all revolves around the world the word traceability Describe what you're going to be building Describe how you will be building it Build it create tests upfront Validate it and make sure that you can actually trace back From the initial beginning where a feature comes from But not only that be very specific on how this particular feature can affect The quality of life or the risk for the health of the patient And that's the thing that somehow in IT We get a bit Distracted from the physical world. I mean we create virtual systems So what does that do well if you're in healthcare and you have like an insulin pump Which is creating its own not password protected non-encrypted by phone network without any kind of authentication offering endpoints to increase or decrease the insulin level Well, that is very handy if you want to kill people from two rooms Further on so We have been making the transition from a strictly physical world into the virtual world and the same thing is happening On a law level. It's not easy for politicians to understand all the fine Details and nuances of IT systems or architecture, but what they can do is they can tell you what they Like and don't like in essence if people start dying they don't like that So in farm and health care, we basically have the V model Starting out with describing whatever it is you want to achieve in the end Describing requirements on how you want to achieve that create design and in the meantime Also, make sure that you are able to exactly test and validate and qualify Whatever is in the end and if you're like, well, yeah, this is like Prince to or one of all methodology to It came from that time, but in essence as I was from is basically a lot of little waterfalls. So That's how that works as well The GDPR I like the GDPR and I already told you about why I like the GDPR because it doesn't exactly tell you what to do Or what not to do it tells you how you should think about and how you should formulate measures to ensure That whatever it is you want to do does not cause unintended side effects or data breaches or whatnot Oh, yeah, and then we have the individuals rights who can severely hinder your business operation Especially if you're a marketing company, it's very and helpful for people to ask to be delisted from your emailing list, but well Those are the their rights We're creating a competence framework the EU competence framework for Tech education is also another step towards harmonization of understanding How to compare Educational levels if you get a grade in country a what does that mean in country b and the other way around? so this is another nice to the puzzle and another part of the Cyber Security Act is the role of a Niza and a Niza will get a much more proactive role in handling security incidents on a EU level and also a very more in-depth role in In creating information packages and also creating the schemas that I was just talking about for your favorite espresso machine This literally is a copy paste from a Education book for PHP development. I recently came across so it's like 2019 What can go wrong? Let's not wait so long for that Whenever you feel that you can't fall asleep at night go to the ISO websites download The 15 408 which is an open norm. You can download it for free And it's surprisingly readable It has three parts The first part is a general outline on what it does. It's a It's a norm on how to formulate Evaluation criteria so that you can actually ascertain if your system is compliant to whatever it is You want it to be and also how you should formulate the requirements up front? So the first part is an introduction on how auditing and evaluation generally works Then do check after what not? The second part goes into the functional components of an application and I think that's on a really reasonable job in creating different modules and packages in identifying different parts of an application like authorizations and user data management and whatnot and the third part actually basically Second part, but then the other way around if you know the V-model start by creating requirements And then start by creating tests to validate the requirements part three maps into there This will be a voluntary scheme But but whenever Lawmakers start talking about voluntary. There's usually something fishy going on Because what they mean by voluntary is that if you don't do it like this You will have to explain How you do it then and in general that will cost you a lot more effort than just basically following this So whenever you read should Mentally replace it by must That's what I do with these There's a couple of concepts that you should be aware of the target of evaluation that can be a system That can be a combination of systems. It's basically What you should what you call an information domain? So if I have like HR systems and finance systems to help In registering employee information and to help pay them their salaries The combination of those system is the information domain HR.  So To ease can be basically anything you it depends on what you want to target. So you can Perform an ISO 15 for a race like redhead and Susie did on an operating system Not awesome. Then you can test if the authorization Profiles and access control is actually do what they are supposed to do But an operating system by itself is not very useful You have blinking lights and if you have an espresso machine with an operating system, you will have a special hopefully But you want to use it in an application. You want to be able to create a cappuccino from it So you need software and then if you use a certified platform like whether the SUSE and different distros also apply Once you install applications on top of that especially if you develop them yourselves That becomes a part of evaluation and therefore you have to describe what it is you will want to be testing And you can register that in in multiple ways There's not a fixed way on how to describe a theory or anything. It can be an inventory It can be a box of CD-ROMs if we even use them anymore and if you see Examples like floppies and CD-ROMs in norms you have any indication of how old they are The target audience is basically everyone, consumers, developers, but especially evaluators So if you have a quality assurance or quality control within your organization, you should be wheeling up on this And we'll help you to create security requirements and What I personally find a bit dangerous is that we are looking at security as it being Not Directly the same as the application for me a secure application It is the application implemented in the correct way Security is not something outside of the application It interferes with it. So if you create security requirements in your Architecture definitions Include all the requirements in a single source of truth do not create separate security packages of separate information packages combine them create protection profiles a protection profile can be Firewalls, how do we How do we formulate what the firewalls should do or how do we formulate what an especial machine should do and then a security target is the actual instance of Detirative evaluation. So you have the protection profile a special machines and then you have the instance that's where so So I'm going to skip this a little bit Defining your assets defining your crown jewels is a very important part also of the ISO 27,000 one Assets can be anything People systems information books paper, but also Your public image it can also be an asset if you're an organization You have a lot to lose When you come under scrutiny for not complying to cyber security Digitation and and having data beaches. So also when you are formulating assets think about immaterial assets because they are least At least as important and also at least as vulnerable Define in which the what the environments are in which your assets reside and also what the interactions are with the assets Because an asset by itself is harmless. It only becomes Interesting once it has interactions with other assets and those interactions are the points in which an asset can become vulnerable In the eyes and on we have all kinds of interesting Places with arrows and dots including this one But the most important thing is to demonstrate fitness for purpose and What we do nowadays in security testing Tends to go from the outside in we do pen testing we do Fuzzy testing we do we try to overload systems with information and then see what they do And that's all cool But the problem with especially pen testing is that it's usually a black box approach The only thing you know is that the tests you did at that point in time Did or did not result in a hack But you have no idea about the actual state of the system under it the system under it can be as vulnerable as fuck sorry for just one little thing that you forgot to test at that point in time so The whole point of the 15 for a race is to do the other way around to look from the inside out What should the system do and per interaction? How do we protect these interactions? How do we? Know what data goes in and out of an interaction. How do we test if that still is valid? so and then apply measurements which are sufficient and correct for the certain senses in which the system is being deployed So functional components The target of evaluation and repeating this terms because you will be hearing them quite a lot And now you will already have heard them a couple of times so it will become easier over time You must you should create security function policies per component and those are The scope of control in which you decide Where the measures you implement start and finish and then you can if you have a component You can go all out like creating measures to defend the building in which the server Resides on which your application runs But that's not the point of this law the point is that you create measures that actually have a relation to the components More or less directly you don't need to go Across multiple hops defying measures from multiple components within one policy You should create different policies for different components and you should evaluate if they match together and how well they integrate Oh, I will be publishing my slides. So don't worry. Then you can now sleep on the part two defines a number of fractional areas in which you should create the the requirement packages and Just read up on them. It's it's quite a comprehensive list and what's especially useful about this I started renting about the word cyber and the faintness of the word cyber This actually creates a common vocabulary What we mean or at least what the ISO committee thinks we mean with certain terms and you can agree or disagree With how certain terms are formulated But at least we now speak the same language or we disagree that we speak the same language, but still And then we have part three so for every functional chapter that you define measures on or requirements on you have then the evaluation criteria for the measures that you've taken and And we call those composed assurance packages which are matched requirements and Evaluation criteria. So that's the traceability thing apparently a matter of time Or my laptop has decided not to go. This was the best part. I have I'm out of time anyway, so I hope I've brought across a bit of the Idea of what traceability means how you should formulate components and packages And I can go on for hours. So if anyone has a quick don't worry. I won't do it if anyone has a question for now then Speak now or forever alter silence. We have time for one question He was very enthusiastic Hello, thank you for the presentation my question is very simple what you just explained Exists for a very long time now. It's good that the EU has decided to and somehow and start to enforce it


Good evening. We are the last panel of a very long day, so we're going to try to keep you awake. I'm Laurent Cohen Tannugi. I have the honor and the pleasure of moderating this panel. I'm an international corporate lawyer based in Paris. And I would maybe start with a word of explanation about our topic tonight, which is the weaponization of law and globalization. So many people ask me, what is this about? So of course, you can object to this title that law has always been a weapon. When you go to court, you use law against your adversary in a litigation. Also, if you take the long view of history throughout centuries, law has been used by sovereign powers to legitimize or justify even the most horrible actions. So you would say, what's new? Well, what is new in my view, and I think probably some of our panelists, is that we seem to be moving from an area from the end of World War II, in the past 70 years, where law has been a key to the building of an international world order based on the rule of law. And that has been thanks to both the United States and the European community and the European Union. We seem to be moving from that rule-based international order to a more chaotic system of international relations, where law seems to be more and more used as a pretext for arbitrary or unilateral action. And so I guess our topic is, is that so? And if true, is that evolution troublesome for, is that a new threat, a new impediment to globalization? So to address these questions, we have a panel of very distinguished members, most of them lawyers, but not all. And so I will introduce very briefly, since we have very little time and a lot to say, I will refer you to the brochure for the complete biography. But very briefly, ladies first, Antida Nohodom at the far left here, who I would describe as a rising star in public international law academia. Then Michael Muller, who had a brilliant career in the UN system, had a number of positions in the UN system. Ye Min Lee, who had a brilliant diplomatic career in Korea, in particular in the international economic and trade area, he negotiated both the EU, Korea, and US, Korea Free Trade Agreement. And then finally, Stu Eisenstadt, who you all know, who was a close advisor to President Carter, who had a great biography of him recently, and was also US ambassador to the EU. So I will maybe start by illustrating what I was just talking about, this troublesome shift from a rule-based order toward a more chaotic order, with maybe an abuse of the legal system. In my area, which is international business law and international criminal law. And of course, many of you think about the issue of the extraterritorial application of national law, and particularly of US law when we think about the weaponization of law. I happen to think that extraterritoriality as such is not an issue. In fact, I think that in a globalized economy, the extraterritorial application of US and other any national law is actually the norm. And in fact, the European Union also applies its laws extraterritorially. The only difference is that the US has a more powerful enforcement tools. And so at least in the areas where there is an international consensus, like for example, the fight against international corruption, where there is an OECD convention, the fact that the United States tend to enforce its foreign corrupt practices act, its national anti-corruption law, more vigorously abroad, doesn't shock me. When there isn't rather instead a policy split, like in the recent Iranian sanctions of the US, then it is more of a concern because there's no international consensus. But what is more troublesome, I think, and what is more recent and illustrative of the trend I was describing, which is the subject of our panel, is what I would call the geopoliticization of international business law and particular criminal law. And this geopoliticization, I think, is due to three phenomenon. First, the targeting of individuals, and particularly corporate executives, in addition to cooperation themselves. That was the trend that was started by the US enforcement authorities, but is now spreading as a result of the financial crisis. There's a criticism that the CEOs of all these banks that created so much trouble were never actually indicted or jailed. So there's a trend towards targeting the individual, exactly. The second trend, of course, in the global economy is the rise of emerging powers who do not have a rule of law tradition. I don't need to cite them. You know those I'm talking about. And then the third factor is, of course, the growing conflictuality of international relations. So if you put those three things together, you have a situation like the Huawei situation, where Huawei CFO is arrested in Vancouver by the US authorities, which provokes retaliation and then China detains two Canadian nationals who have nothing to do with this or anything else. A French banker is arrested in Russia. And maybe the Carlos Ghosn affair, even though it's not so much a political, but it's sort of corporate politics in a system that is in a criminal law system that is at odds with most Western criminal justice systems. So all of those things, all of these evolution are quite troublesome, and I think are becoming a threat to globalization. Another example would be the use of anti-corruption laws by notoriously corrupt countries who enact them and then use them as they please against either political opponents or against selectively against foreign investors. So we seem to be moving from a rule of law-based system to a system of arbitrariness and force. And so that is, I think, what we should be concerned about. So to deepen that analysis, I would like to give the floor first to Antida to maybe give us a little doctrinal approach to this phenomenon. And Antida, please, the floor is yours.


The AutoDS platform can completely automate your ordering process. By enabling automatic orders, the system will order the products from your suppliers directly to your customers and update tracking information.  Plus, there's no need to download any third party applications or any extensions in order to enable auto ordering and AutoDS. Here's how you can set up your account for automatic orders. The first thing that you need to do is click on settings, and then buy accounts. Make sure that you have a buy your account. If you don't have a buy your account, click on add account and enter your details here. For more information on how to add a buy your account, check out the help links in the comments below the video. So once you set up your buy your account, go to store settings, and in the orders tab you'll have all of the settings that you need to set up automatic ordering. The first thing that you'll see is in order settings, use manage orders fulfillment. This is only if you're using the fulfilled by AutoDS service. It's not what we're talking about in this video, but for more information on that, check out the links in the help section in the comments below the video. The next option is automatically fulfill. If you check this in, the system will automatically fulfill your order as soon as it comes in. In other words, as soon as your store generates a sale, AutoDS will use your buy your account to purchase the product from the supplier and ship it directly to your customer. The AutoDS system will also automatically update tracking information and your order status. The main differences between fulfilled by AutoDS and automatic orders is that on automatic orders, you're using your own buyer accounts to purchase the products for your customers using your payment details. And on fulfilled by AutoDS, the AutoDS system have their own buyer accounts, which are used to fulfill the orders, and you will have to load balance into your account in order for the system to be able to fulfill your orders. If you do not have the automatically fulfill button checked in, the system will not automatically fulfill your orders, you will need to go to the orders page and change the order status from pending to send to auto order. Once you do that, the system will automatically issue the order from the supplier to your customer, and it will update the order information accordingly. For example, the next status after pending is ordered after ordered is shipped with the tracking information and so forth. Now let's go back to the settings, order settings. Now keep in mind that we are configuring the Amazon US supplier in this example. If you click on any other supplier, you will be configuring their auto order settings. The next option is to override a customer's phone number. So using this, instead of the customer receiving an SMS that he has a package on the way from a certain supplier, and then they'll know who you're buying from, you can just override their phone number, use any number that you want, and then they won't be receiving any SMS's that they have packages on the way from your supplier. The next option is maximum purchase order price. What this means is if you have an order higher than the maximum purchase order price set in this field, AutoDS will not automatically fulfill the order for you. It will keep it in pending and will wait for you to come observe and take action. So for example, if you have the automatically fulfill button checked in because you want AutoDS to automatically fulfill your orders as soon as they come in, but you have a maximum purchase order price set at $100, and now you just got an order totaling $120, AutoDS will not fulfill this order. It will keep it in pending status and will wait for you to come and issue the order yourself. Just as if you didn't have this box checked in. The next option is maximum loss, which works pretty much the same way as purchase order price, except this one asks you what's the most that you're willing to lose on an order and still have AutoDS automatically fulfill this order for you. Now I do not recommend anyone to ever lose money on their orders, but if for example, you didn't have price monitoring set on a certain product and your supplier increased the price, your store stayed with the cheaper price and you lost money on the order. So here you can tell AutoDS if I lose more than $10 or $5 like it was on an order, then don't fulfill my order for me, keep it in pending, and leave it like that for me. I will come and decide if I want to send it to auto order, or for example, I want to cancel it. So that's the maximum loss. The next option is automatic messages to the clients. If you're using Amazon as a supplier, then you know that they send their prime packages with gift messages to their buyers. So here you can edit what you want that gift message to have on it. Thank you for buying from us. Enjoy your product. Leave us with positive feedback and so forth. Save whatever you want. Next is your unique tracking email. You're going to have to forward all of the emails that you're getting from your supplier regarding tracking information to your unique tracking email in order for AutoDS to be able to successfully automatically update your tracking information for your orders. For more information on how you can forward your emails to your unique tracking email, check out the help links in the comments below this video. Last but not least is the auto order credits. If you click on orders, you'll see on the top right, your auto order credits. You'll need to make sure to have them, otherwise AutoDS will not be able to fulfill your orders. In order to buy auto order credits, just click on the buy credit button on the right with the lightning icon, and then you'll see all of the credit bundles that you'll have with their prices. The more credits, the cheaper the price. That's all of the information for creating your automatic ordering account. If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below. I will personally answer them, and please subscribe to our YouTube channel to stay updated with all of the cool stuff that we have going on in the dropshipping world and on the AutoDS platform.


Hey there lads and ladies, it is Petrifying Pumpkins here and welcome to another edition of PS Vior News. We got some of the juiciest news for you today. So without further ado, let's just jump right into topic number one. Dreams Virtual Reality Support has finally been confirmed to be coming on the 22nd of July, which is fantastic news. I am so excited about this game getting virtual reality support. Dreams of course released in February. They promised that it would have PS Vior support eventually that was supposed to come out launched but it got pushed back. Now we know for sure it's coming at the end of the month and not too much longer to wait now just 20 days or so you know. So here's what you need to know about this update and this information comes from the PS blog. Dreams players will be able to download a free update that enables PlayStation Virtual Reality Compassibility in Dreams with new tutorials, how-tos and kits to get you started when creating with the PS Vior system plus new content to play from media molecule. So we get confirmation that there's going to be brand new tutorials specific for virtual reality which I think is great. It's going to help us get the terms with the controls the you know what makes it different you know because we're going to have to change the way Dreams games are made for virtual reality. I'm sure there's going to be certain concessions or certain considerations that you need to take into account to make a virtual reality level compared to a just standard flat level so that's great I'm happy that's there. Now of course we also got this new gameplay trailer that's playing behind me it's only a minute long or so but this is gameplay footage that was captured from a ps4 pro and I must say it looks really good and you can see that breakfast that famous fry up in high detail and I'm relieved to see that it looks like it's still in very high detail so I was expecting maybe that if assets were even allowed to be brought into view in first place which it looks like there I was worried that they'd be downgraded significantly so that you know the the viewer headset could render them or the PlayStation could power that if you know what I mean so it seems to be the case that yes these assets that were in flash can be transferred over to virtual reality levels and that they won't suffer at least this one didn't suffer so let's read a little more from the blog when it comes to create mode in virtual reality sculpting is truly unique allowing you to bring your dreams to life around you if you have PlayStation move controllers you'll find sculpting in virtual reality is a very one-to-one experience and lets you fully immerse in the creation process of course you don't need to be in viewer to create for ps viewer and non ps viewer users will benefit from the updates as well we're introducing a handful of new gadgets to create mode and a full slice of accessibility features including comfort mode vignette strength static sky and more to make the experience of plane and creating as grace as possible so this is all great news to me as far as I'm concerned it's really cool to hear that sculpting is going to feel like a one-to-one experience the thing you're creating is going to feel like it's there in front of you I imagine people who enjoy the sculpting now especially if they use the move controllers they'd be really excited to be able to do that in virtual reality but I'm super excited to hear that you don't even need the viewer headset to make stuff for viewer so the people who have already gotten good at making things for flat dreams they can make things and then transfer them over to virtual reality and I think that's great that means they don't have to learn everything again from scratch it means that even if I wanted if I preferred the dual shock making things flash and then playing them in virtual reality that's a possibility that's something you can do I think that's great I'm very relieved to hear that it is also nice to see the comfort settings there the vignette something all that kind of stuff the stuff that we're used to now of course I just hope anytime I see these things I just want there to be an option just the option to disable them if I don't want them so that the player can disable them if they don't want them as long as that's there I'm happy our creative community will be able to specify if their content is playable in virtual reality or not and user-generated content in dreams will ask for a comfort raising from players so you'll be able to see what games are the best experience in virtual reality we're incredibly excited to see the experiences the dreams community will create and we've been busy making sure we give them the right tools to make that possible so I really like the idea that you make a virtual reality level you publish us out there anyone who plays that can give it a comfort rating so if they found it that didn't make them sick at all they can give it like a 10 out of 10 I assume and if they met them puke here whatever they can give it a one or two or whatever I like that idea so that people can get an idea people who suffer from motion sickness is not really going to affect me I don't think but people who are susceptible to the or sickness they can see oh maybe I should skip this one it might be a bit too intense you know that's a really cool idea and honestly all this news hasn't made me just super excited for dreams virtual reality it was one of my most anticipated games last year of course got delayed to this year and even now I'm more excited for this than I am for Iron Man and even Star Wars squadrons I think this game has so much potential and I just cannot wait to see what other people make I'm going to try and make my own thing too and hopefully that will turn out somewhat playable but even if whatever I craze is just trash I know that there is people out there talented enough to make compelling experiences and a game like this that lets you make games is just so much content there especially if this gets supported on ps5 which it almost certainly will we're talking about a game the perfect game for virtual reality if you ask me so let me know down below are you in agreement with me is this something you're very excited for or is this to you know not your style you're not interested in this you want your games made by AAA developers or whatever not just by randoms or let me know in the comments below what you think about dreams you're excited you're not etc etc moving on to topic number two then Iron Man virtual reality reviews are going live as we speak now unfortunately I was not able to get an early copy to review myself however these reviews are going live right now so let's look take a look at what these guys were saying so IGN have given the game a seven out of ten saying that although it doesn't reach the lofty bear of something like a spider-man for ps4 and mission and enemy variety ran ten by the end of the game it was still fun to dogfice in the iron man suit upload vore gave the game four stars praising the intense combats and gray characters in story but criticizing the awful loading times and the move controllers themselves ps vore underground gave it a 7.9 out of 10 praising story combats and controls but criticizing load times frame drops and reused environments Dave station vore praised the game for making you feel like iron man and an enjoyable enough story although he did criticize the game for overly long loading screens some clunky vore interactions outside of flying and combats and some disappointing graphics particularly the Shanghai sissy stage ps vore without parole praised flying around as iron man and the game's combats also but acknowledged the game has many flaws too particularly when you're out of the suit as tony stark they also point out the excessive and lengthy loading screens and even some performance issues at times in the end they gave it an 8.4 out of 10 so it seems like the general consensus out there for iron man viewer right now is that combat is grays flying is grays visuals are kind of a mixed bag loading screens are atrocious apparently that's something that they all had in common they all haze at the loading screens and those too many of them they're too lengthy and that they broke up the flow of the game but still gathered a decent enough rate and when they did give scores sevens eights you know it's not bad so iron man viewer comes out tomorrow july 3rd let me know in the comments are these reviews gonna effect your purchase in either way are you gonna not buy it now are you definitely gonna buy it now or do you just not care about reviews you're gonna decide for yourself let me know down below moving on to topic number three so topic number three is a pretty quick one is just that first contact entertainment have come out on twitter and confirmed that solaris when it comes to psv or will indeed support the aim controller this isn't really much of a surprise considering firewall which is first contact's first game for psv or also made great use of the ps aim controller if you ask me the best use of the ps aim controller that game really comes alive with that control boss this news does make me wonder are we gonna have the same situation as we did in firewall where only the aim and dual shock four controller supported and not the move controllers because basically the aim controllers and the dual shocks both have the sticks and that gives them the advantage over the move controllers i wonder will they do the same thing there again it seems likely if they care about competition that is but if not then maybe you know that i let it let it up to the players you know let them decide what do you guys think about this do you think there should be move controllers or do you think it should be firewall style aim controllers and dual shock only let me know in the comments below and finally let's move on to topic number four and once again i have got an alvo updates that is kind of i like another setback basically this game keeps getting hit with setbacks all they want to do is get the open base up on the ps store so that we can play but sony seems to just keep putting roadblocks up in front of them we've got another one here i'm just going to read out the post that demolition shawn put up on their discord so you can get an idea of what i'm talking about update from developers normally virtual reality games go through two phases with sony the first being the or consultation the second being fqa now just let me put a quick note there i'm pretty sure the fqa means functionality quality insurance i know the qa means quality assurance i'm just think that that means the effort means functionality that's not really too important but let me just keep going in the heist of the covet 19 lockdown they were given an automatic pass for v or c and putting games directly into fqa now that things have eased up a bit they are making virtual reality games go through the standard process of consultation and fqa we have our v or c booked for july 15th we are going to be uploading the code today and alert and sony in hopes that maybe they will review it for v or c before then we feel we are ready for fqa but have to go along with whatever sony report back so it looks like this is another roadblock put in front of merton poll studios and we're going to have to wait until at the earliest the second half of july before we see this game coming up on the store as as just the open baza gets up on the store and now if i'm understanding this correctly they did say that they've uploaded the build anyway so there is hope that sony the fqa department will be going through the build that they've uploaded so that that can be ready once the consultation is done but that's a hope that's like a maybe there's no guarantee maybe the consultation has to happen first before sony will even start doing the qa part i'm not sure how it works that's sony very secretive i guess about their processes so i'm just starting to think that we'll be lucky if we see this baza before august at the earliest the way things are going now in the meantime however alvo's twister has been kind of keeping us entertained by uploading snippets of the game's features and functionalities and whatnot they've been teasing these attack dogs we've finally getting some glimpse of these guys in action we've also got the uh screenshot of a new drone in action so it looks like we're going to be using drones they're still working on the game while all these delays are going on so there is progress being made on the game so it's not all doom and gloom stuff is still happening so don't worry about that aspect of us and so that is it for this episode of psv or news thank you very much for watching but before i go let me give a huge thank you to my patreon supporters whose names are on the screen right now thanks to their generosity they're helping me improve this channel basically and in particular let me give a shout out to the top tier patrons over there we've got chopped 517 mr crumb columbus thomas the third p hawkins and tradition thank you very much for that support over on the top tier over on patreon if you want to support too the link will be in the description below but if not i'll be happy with just the likes subscribes all that usual shies one last thing before i go is to thank decepticom for letting me use music in all these videos if you want to check out his music link will be in the description as well as decepticon.com he's on the spot of eyes the bank camps all the places you want to listen to your music and that is it for this video i'll see you in the next one until then please stay boys


Hi, I'm Sandy Brown and I'm running for re-election to the Santa Cruz City Council. I'm running because I believe local government should reflect our community values. For me that means supporting policies and programs aimed at maintaining it and improving our parks and open spaces, tackling the climate crisis by building out bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and planning for sea level rise and other disruptions which disproportionately affect low income people and neighborhoods. Increasing the number of affordable units to be built in new developments and dedicating city property for affordable housing. Providing support and protections for renters and small business tenants struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting workers' rights and living wage job creation and critical support of services for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. My approach to public service is motivated by my lifelong commitment to advancing the goals of economic democracy, sustainability, and social justice. It is also informed by principles of good governance. I believe that people should have a voice in deciding how the city runs and that we must find ways to meaningfully involve the public in decision making processes. In talking with people across the city, I've learned that many do not feel like their voices are being heard and I want to be a part of changing that. As we navigate the challenging road of the dual public health and economic crises brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, our public servants must provide collaborative and participatory leadership. Now is the time to meaningfully engage with the public about recovery and rebuilding. To learn more about me and my campaign, please visit www.sandybrownforcitycouncil.com. My 2016 campaign motto was a Santa Cruz for all of us. And it is in that spirit that I ask for your vote this year. Thank you.


Hi everyone, I'm Diane Grunick and I'm here at Stanford and our panel is Advanced Energy Efficiency. That would be great. And we have an awful lot we're going to cover so I'm not doing introductions other than to say our first person is going to be Greg Wickler who's at Navigant and has done the world's most comprehensive study, it just came out last week, this week, on what is the potential for energy efficiency and while it's focused on California it is applicable certainly throughout the United States and in developed countries and it really breaks ground in terms of thinking about how we can understand areas of energy efficiency. Then we're going to move to Lauren who was a long time senior management at Clear Results, one of our premier consulting energy efficiency companies and now has her own company and she's going to be talking about some of the innovations that she's bringing in as a practitioner implementer in the field and then last but not least is Kirk who is the executive director of the Global Cool Roots Alliance which is white and other cool surfaces. So do we have the ability to get started? Not with the slides, I'm trying to get it to work. Greg, can you without slides at least introduce your potential study? Sit down, I kind of need to move. When it comes on, let me know if I'm blocking the screen. Yeah, I can help so I can move over here. I can also down there. I've learned why don't you get started talking about it and then we'll worry about it later on. Okay, good afternoon everybody, it's great to be here. I'm so glad it's Friday. This has been one heck of a week. He's given not one but two, three workshops. Three workshops, every day there was something going on. But certainly happy that it's Friday and happy to be talking about a really great topic which is energy efficiency potential. An area that I've been working on for many years is thank you Diane for mentioning such wonderful accolades about the potential study that I'm going to talk about today. If we get the slides up, that would be great but It would be good. But I'm just going to start speaking and then I will just get into the slide that appears at that point. So what I wanted to speak about was initially just give you a sense about where California is in terms of energy efficiency. Number one we've shared, so we've been, there's a ranking that the American Council for Energy Efficiency Economy AC Tripoli does every year. And California actually was ranked number one for many, many years. Then we kind of lost the ranking to I think Massachusetts for a while. But we're back at number one. I think one of the things and folks may have heard about the Rosenfeld effect which is this curve of per capita energy use. California has maintained a flat curve of per capita energy use relative to the rest of the country and we credit that to our pioneer in the field, Art Rosenfeld who sadly passed away earlier this year. And much of that success of energy efficiency in California can be attributed to programs that utilities have been implementing for 30 plus years. So energy efficiency accomplishments largely credited from the utility program efforts that PG&E, so Cal Edison and San Diego Gas Electro and the other utilities have implemented over those years. So one of the things that is also really worth noting is that there's legislation there's policies in place that are really strong and supportive of energy efficiency. One of those policies is SB350, Senate Bill 350 that the governor signed about a year plus ago that is essentially among other things aimed at doubling the efficiency that we do pretty much now by 2030. So we are on the path to doubling our energy efficiency activities in 2030. So how are we going to get there? That's a big question. I just wanted to note that nationally energy efficiency has also been on the rise and this is kind of an interesting statement to make in light of where we're at in terms of our politics right now with climate change and energy efficiency hasn't necessarily been a priority of the current administration. Not quite, but we've located you. There you are. So page three, please. And once you get it, why don't you move over to the lecture. So transition time. Thank you Jim. Okay. A master of many talents. This works too. You can use it to that. I am going to move it. Alright, so this is where I'm at in terms of nationally energy efficiency has played an important role. Spending is an indicator. In 2015, nationwide utilities and states have spent about $6 billion and achieved about 0.7% of total sales reduction which is a pretty impressive amount that amounts to 26 billion kilowatt hours of savings in that year. But the message, I think the important message is even in spite of where the political situation is right now, there's room to improve on that number in that amount. We see signs of that. There's several states that have very aggressive energy efficiency policies in place. I say the states because the states are going to continue down that path. California is one of them, New York. Some of the other states here in the west, Oregon, Washington and several others that are going to continue to enhance and expand their energy efficiency efforts. So as Diane mentioned, we have been doing energy efficiency potential work. This is for the state of California, the California Public Utilities Commission. It's actually been doing this study for the CPUC for several years now, about six years. What the CPUC uses those studies for is to essentially set goals for the utilities to accomplish savings in the next program cycle. So as Diane mentioned, last week the CPUC released our latest draft of the potential estimates and what we found is that if we just kind of go with the existing policies that are in place at the CPUC, we're not going to actually see any more potential. In fact, we're going to see less potential than what we have seen in previous years. And we realized as we were doing our study that, gosh, that's not consistent with current policies. So we really have to think about some other scenarios of our analysis to increase the projections for savings. So we went down this path of doing some scenarios, saying what if we were to really be aggressive in our policies? How much potential could we extract? So I wanted to talk about that a little bit, at least set the stage for some discussion. So here's the result of a little bit small print for you all to read in the back there. I will provide a link to the potential study in case anybody's interested in diving into the details. In our reference case, that's the case where we're about, I'd say 20% lower than the potential that we've estimated in the previous cycles. That equates to about 2600 gigawatt hours per year. I have megawatt hours there, that's actually a typo. And if you think about the aggressive scenario, we would get up to about 3500 gigawatt hours per year. So a significant bump up in the, if we just assume or imagine, well what if we were to change the policies? Some of those changes include, let's look at a different way for measuring the economic value of the energy efficiency. So changing the economic test perspective, looking at carbon as, avoided carbon as a benefit, whereas in the current methodology we don't look at that. Looking at increasing incentives and whatever opportunities we can get to incentivize and motivate customers to participate at greater levels of energy efficiency. And you know, I think the bulk of the savings that we see come from two different areas. One is utility based programs. This chart here just shows what is the sort of the possible potential areas of savings. So one of them is utility based programs. I think those are the the dark gray bars. And then the second area is what's called behavior retro commissioning and operational efficiency. What is referred to as BROS and California parlance. So those two areas, those two upper areas are really where the greatest opportunities lie for expansion. The lower bars you'll see are consistent across the different scenarios. Those are for codes and standards and for low income programs, which are fairly consistently predictable in terms of how much impact could be achieved through those different mechanisms. Looking at the savings from a percent of total sales perspective, so you recall from a previous slide I had that 0.7% reduction in 2015 nationwide. So that comparable number is illustrated in this chart here for the different scenarios. So looking at savings as a percent of the electric sales under the aggressive scenario, we get up to 1.2% of reduction relative to total electric sales by 2030. So the question is that's under the aggressive scenarios. The question is, well, is that enough? Is that enough to reach our goals, our aggressive targets to essentially meet the SB350 reduction goals? And the answer is no, it's actually not. We're still quite a bit short. In fact we should be at 1.5%, 1.6%, 1.7%. And so the questions that I kind of posed to our discussion today is well, how are we going to reach that doubling goal? What is it going to take to kind of get us to a point in the state where we actually could see the savings or realize the savings that are essentially stipulated in this legislation? And what's really going to have to happen from a market and policy standpoint to get us to that level? So I have some ideas. I'll just throw out a few ideas here. From a policy perspective, we have a lot of rules in terms of how energy efficiency is essentially governed by the policies that are put into place. So we really have to revisit a lot of policies that I would argue kind of inhibit customers to participate in energy efficiency programs. Some of you may have heard of the notion of free ridership, dean baseline. So there's a lot of things that the Public Utilities Commission rules have been put into place to say, well you can't claim those savings because people would have done it anyway. Well how do you determine that? That's kind of a subjective question. You could allow more energy efficiency measures to be counted than what we were allowed to look at in our study. So that could be more behavior based measures. It could be industrial measures that are really now considered to be industry standard practice. And then we could look at additional benefits or different test perspectives like using a societal cost test or at least capturing the added benefit of a reduced kilowatt hour in terms of carbon savings. We should also think about delivery of the energy efficiency programs and really try to get more innovative in terms of our delivery approaches. So one of the things that the PUC has been looking at in the current proceeding is whether it's better to have third parties to have the value of the industry actually help harvest more of those savings. So third party performance approaches that are not necessarily as well embraced right now. There might be some other models around end use services. So thinking about how to change the nature of how it's not delivering kilowatt hours but maybe it's delivering services like lighting HVAC service that might remove some barriers that are currently in place. Looking at where are the locations for better value for energy efficiency are as opposed to just doing a statewide approach. Might even involve local private investment and financing mechanisms that aren't as widely embraced currently. So those are just some of the delivery approaches that we have been thinking about and that we want to try to have some conversation about today. So I'll leave it at that. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Good afternoon and I know it's Friday afternoon so we'll try to keep the conversation moving and somewhat lively. While he is getting that out I wanted to just talk about business. I actually started my career as a PDD so I also bring the intelligence perspective and working in a regulated environment for quite a while and have a lot of experience representing the business voice. I was also co-founder of a group in California called the Energy Efficiency Industry Council that just changed its name. Greg, you have to help me. California Efficiency Demand Management Council and that is in recognition that the world is changing which is a bit what I want to talk about. But just from a business perspective, can I just get a quick show of hands how many of you have been involved in energy efficiency for the past couple of decades? Okay. Fast couple of years. Okay, under a decade. Let me see under a decade. So I just didn't want to put the full 35 years on everybody. But as Greg said, it's been about 35 years of really a robust industry growing in California. But if you, so those of you that said they had been in the business for a couple decades, one of the reasons I ask that is if you think back 20 years ago or so, it was very different than it is if you think back over the past decade in efficiency. And one of the things that's happened in this past decade is the example of how many states have mandates now. If you think back 2005 there were about six states that have mandates. Now, or as of 2016, there were about 25 states that have mandates. So it went from this cottage industry, a lot of the businesses can you all hear me? Okay, by the way, I realize I'm kind of far away from the mic. A lot of the businesses that were involved, thinking back two decades ago, really small cottage industry, but there's been tremendous growth. And what has happened is that businesses have really thrived. So what was once this cottage industry grew up. A lot of us that have been in the industry a while talk about it that way about how we really have gone mainstream. And through that process there's been companies lots of acquisitions. And Diane mentioned in the introduction that I was a part of that acquisition. I started a co-founder of a company that was acquired in 2011 by ClearResult. And I can talk a little bit about that journey. What happened was ClearResult again was a cottage industry coming out of some players that were involved a couple decades ago. And private equity saw what was happening in this industry. And so they approached ClearResult and said, you know, what do you think about doing a roll-up model? And anyone that's worked in private equity knows what a roll-up model is where you bring a lot of companies together. What happened, my company was about the second in that roll-up model. And it was amazing education. As I joined, my company made the total unit about 700 people. And we acquired eight companies in about four years and grew that to about 3,000 people doing work all over the country. And really rode that wave of small business up to mainstream ClearResult is now I think the largest energy efficiency company in the country doing pure just energy efficiency. So what happened is that we went not just from a business side, but in terms of creating real impacts. I think it was looked at more like social welfare type programs. Going back a couple decades ago, energy efficiency was like nobody really counted it. Nobody really believed that the savings were going to be there. And over this past decade, there was recognition that energy efficiency was creating meaningful impacts. Companies, the COOs, were beginning to look at the return on investment and realizing that it was impactful in their bottom line. So huge, huge decade of change. So now, you know, there are many changes on the horizon. And, you know, love this sort of foggy, you know, where is, we actually have been talking about like bridge to the future. Well, where is this leading? And those of us that have been in the pure energy efficiency business, some companies have demand response and they are sort of on a different place in the curve. But for pure energy efficiency companies, there are a lot of changes at play in the energy market and the market in general that are really making that future a bit unclear. But on the flip side of that, it's really exciting to watch energy efficiency, you know, move from that past, you know, social welfare type program to one that really is looked at and challenged to be a real supply side resource. So I think the industry, as you think about, I think about my colleagues, you know, everybody is very excited about that. But, you know, on the flip side, you know, there's this potential of being really a valued resource. But there's a lot of you know, devil in the details, if you will, about how is energy efficiency really playing in this new arena and how does it really become a valued resource. So let me just talk a little bit about what I see in this next decade of what I really call next decade of transition. So one of the things that my colleague Greg talked about is the regulatory process. And right now there's a proceeding, has several different phases that is taking energy efficiency into what we're calling rolling portfolios. Because one of the criticisms with energy efficiency over the past is it was sort of start-stop, start-stop, that's one of the reasons it really couldn't be relied on. And there has been significant delays in the regulatory process. And to give you some example, when I founded my last company, not this company, prior one, in 2006 I bid on a lot of programs in California and I think just about all those programs, maybe with the exception of one is still operating because it's been that long since the regulatory process has really gone out to bid and brought sort of new innovative programs. So this proceeding that's been going on for the past couple of years has been to really change that dynamic, think more market based, but the reality is that there are significant delays. One of the really huge upsides for business is that there used to be a 20% mandate so the utilities implementing energy efficiency portfolios had to put 20% of that out to the open market to bid. In this proceeding it's now been increased to 60%. So that's huge. I mean the market in California under the utility programs is about a billion dollars. Greg mentioned that the national market for energy efficiency programs, utility funded energy efficiency programs, about a billion of that is in California. And so 60% is a huge opportunity so a lot of the businesses that have been around for a while are very much looking at that and trying to determine how they're going to play in that. But there have been significant delays and what happens with some of the hoops Greg talked about with free riders, etc., is that big industry decides they just don't want to bother with the programs. It's just too much work and so they don't necessarily participate. And so there's lost opportunities created in that process. So as we, and I'm running out of time, to fast forward a little bit but as we look to the future energy efficiency is moving from a sort of siloed resource advocacy program to one that really is thought of as a supply side resource. And so with that comes very different ways of looking at energy efficiency rather than just resource advocacy which is the way a lot of these companies design the programs. Now they have to think about location, time dependent energy efficiency. These are very different skill sets. And so while the businesses, you know, there's probably about 70 really active businesses that do implement energy efficiency programs in California, a lot of them weren't designed to operate in this way. It's a very different business model, solicitation process, financing is required, there are acceptance fees. As you start to look at energy efficiency if it plays out as a real supply side resource, the whole procurement process is significantly different. And these companies are trying to figure out how exactly they're going to play in that arena. Incrementality was another on there I didn't mention, but one of the ideas there that's getting a lot of conversation is if energy efficiency is being funded through utility programs but it's also been out as a supply side resource, how do you decide where the incremental savings are? And those are really important to discern but really challenging as well. So thinking about the future, again, I think energy efficiency has an amazing place to play in the future. But there's going to be different companies that I think are going to surface or a lot of the existing companies are really going to need to look at playing in this market in a very different way. The traditional programs that have been around are still going to be really important, but as Greg pointed out, they're going to have to be much more innovative. They're going to have to be designed differently if we really want to meet the 2030 goals that we're all talking about meeting. Some of the things I'm doing in other places in the country, not necessarily here in California yet, because there is such stall in the new efficiency programs, but looking at full community programs. And so there's a real transition going from the siloed market, we're going to do different programs for each market to thinking holistically. How does the market work anyway? How does energy efficiency play into that market and thinking about aggregating through these broader markets or thinking about approaching there's that overused term that you hear about the customer journey but really energy efficiency is just one stop along the way. Companies are not going to implement energy efficiency just because it's the right thing to do. It needs to be a valued resource to them and we have to integrate that into the way things normally happen in the market. So that is a really big shift that we see talked about. Data analytics is going to be really important. These partnerships that are going to need to come together for the programs of the future I think are going to take real financing companies coming to the table, data analytics coming, and this idea of like efficient or joint ventures I think is going to be critically important for energy efficiency to really be able to be valued and to play in this new arena. So maybe during discussion. Love to talk about that more. So thanks for your time and with that I think Kurt is up next. Thanks for staying late and I'll go through this pretty quickly so we can get to the good stuff. I'm Kurt Schickman. I'm with a group called the Global Cool Cities Alliance. We're a non-profit organization that was founded about six years ago by Art Rosenfeld and our mission really is to work with cities and national governments to promote the use of cool reflective services. So roofs and roads in an urban context to help reduce urban heat island and access urban heat. So this is just some of the cities we work with. We do that through a combination of different methods. We do a lot of peer to peer discussions with cities talking to each other. We do a lot of linking of cities to experts along a wide variety of different disciplines that are affected by heat. That's actually sort of the purpose of my talk today. We do a lot of tool development to help cities develop and implement policies and programs as easily and successfully as possible. Some codes of advocacy and then obviously just general outreach and that sort of thing. And the reason I'm on a panel called Advanced Energy Efficiency talking about a technology that's thousands of years old is that it's a little awkward. But the issue for us is not so much the technology that's advanced. It's really how we have to talk about it. How we have to promote the idea of energy efficiency through a larger set of co-benefits and a conversation about a larger set of urban practitioners' interests. I'll skip this slide and move it along. So when we first started this we really came at this from a building perspective looking at the traditional levers of changing behaviors on the building level. So things like energy codes and green codes. We still do that. And that was partially because we saw this as a major heat as a major energy issue. And this graph is from Washington DC. It just looks at maximum daily temperature against daily load, electricity load. This is DC. I could have showed you a graph from New York, LA, Miami, New Orleans. Any AC dominated city has a graph that looks like this. And basically after about 80 degrees you see an exponential increase in energy demand as people flip their ACs on. Cool rules allow you to save about 20% on average on your cooling energy demand. We see that it actually increases as the temperature goes up. And there's obviously a peak demand reduction benefit there. So that was really our first entree into this. In addition to the global climate benefits which were depending on who you're talking to, the thing you either lead with or sort of keep in the back pocket. Once you kind of extrapolate a little bit further back from the building and start thinking about what happens when you do this on multiple buildings in a community, or you start talking about city scale deployment, you can actually start talking about this in a much more robust way and start getting to benefits and obstacles that are much more important to a city's leadership and much bigger impact on their economy. So this is a similar graph looking at air quality. So again it's maximum daily temperature across the bottom and then ozone concentrations. The red line on the horizontal is EPA compliance levels at that time. You can see 80 degrees pretty much every day in this location. This is actually Baltimore airport but again this graph looks similar in most places we go. Almost every day is a clean air day. It's a in compliance day. But within 10 degrees getting up to 90, almost every day is out of compliance. So all of a sudden you're talking about bad air quality, you're talking about all kinds of ancillary health problems that people have with that, cardiopulmonary renal disease, diabetes that are both related to heat and air quality. So now you're also talking about a social equity problem because the communities that are most affected by higher energy bills and lower air quality and health problems tend to be lower income communities of color. You can start talking about grid resiliency when you're talking about this scale because you can, if you're reducing peak demand during the summer days, you're actually improving the resiliency of the grid. So it's a whole, and then across the string running through all those is it's now an economic question. It's much bigger than just saving energy at a building scale. What we know now based on some studies that recently been published in the journal Nature Climate Change, it's just how big this is when you think of it from a negative side. If we did nothing on heat, by 2100 the average city will be spending 5.6% of their annual economic output, their GDP, dealing with urban heat. And the worst hit cities will be close to 11%. So more than one out of every $10 is sucked out of the economy to deal with this problem if it's not dealt with. So that starts to become something that gets mayoral and council members' attention when you start talking about it. So for us, extrapolating from the building to look at what the opportunities are to impact those sort of community and city level benefits, cool roofs were also a good fit for that. Because once you start thinking about deployment in the sort of 20% range, 20% of your roofs with a cool roof, you're looking at about a half degree reduction in average temperature and about a 1.6 degree reduction in peak temperature. And while that may not sound like much, if you consider that since the industrial revolution we've had a full degree of global change, that's a half degree, it actually starts to sound like a big number. When you consider some of those transition zones on the previous slides in energy and air quality, a little change in temperature at the right sort of ambient-outdoor temperature can be the difference between millions of dollars in live-state. So it sounds small, but it actually makes a big difference. So I guess the question then is, back up again, I guess, this also translates into dollars as you think about the solution. So I talked about the sort of negative, the cudgel of the 5.6% of your GDP going away if you do nothing. What that similar study also found was that if you invest in a modest cool roof and cool pavement program, that's again about that 20% penetration on roofs, about 50% on roads, you actually can every dollar invested in that type of program will return $12. That's huge. So why isn't everyone doing this? Well, so that's where we get into our big challenge, which is this is actually from a study that Greg Katz from the previous, oh, he's in the back here, that we worked on with him looking at DC. And the problem is with heat, we have a situation of the split incentive on steroids. You can see, and besides that it tells you, besides my sort of elementary school level design aesthetic, what this is telling you is, you can make the case to a building owner between the red and the blue bars there. That's the energy savings to the the building owner. So this case can be made, but it won't move the market as fast as the urgency requires. So we have to start looking at how we recognize the benefits in that green bar. That's a full 75% of the benefits sit in that green bar and they're hidden from the building owner. So a lot of what we try to do is help cities quantify what's in that green bar for them in a credible way so that they can take it to their decision makers, the policy makers that are looking at a whole slate of different policies that are important, and figure out either how to internalize that in their policy making through regulation ordinances or shift it to that blue bar through incentives and that sort of thing. So we started to do that with some of our cities in just a few examples if I've got some time, I think I do. Okay. On the sort of incentive side, there have been utility incentives for cool rooms in the past that have not really moved the market very well because they're only focused on energy savings. But in cities where we've seen them adopt incentives like in Toronto and now in Louisville, Kentucky, they're significantly higher in terms of the dollars per square foot that they can offer and they're almost immediately subscribed in both cities. The Toronto program's been around for six years and I think they've oversubscribed in as little as a week in those programs. So we're really seeing that play both on the residential side and the commercial side. Louisville's just started and they were subscribed completely within two weeks. We also have folks that are out there doing more of the regulation and ordinance side of things which if you want to move and transform this market, that's really the best way to do it besides how hard it is to actually get to that point. Because we have roofs that basically turn over 5% to 7% every year not including new buildings but just replacement roofs, you can actually get to a substantial cool roof deployment in terms of building timescale pretty quickly. If you're trying to get to 20%, 5% to 7% a year actually gets you there fairly quickly. So we've seen cities like Los Angeles which is already operating under the pretty good Title 24 cool roof requirements go a step further and add it for residential roofs and then of course Chicago, New York, Paris and other cities have also done this as well. So we're really starting to see that pick up. But one other area of interest that I've seen is outside of this sort of natural sort of building energy policy mechanism, cities that have really picked up and looked at this from a completely different perspective. In New York last week they just announced $106 million investment in their urban heat island mitigation programs. They've been around for a while, they've actually thought they're going to be amping them up to a huge degree. None of the decision making process has been made around energy. It was social equity issues in South Bronx and other communities. It was health opportunities and it was expanding an existing jobs program that's graduating over 100 people a year who weren't employable before but are now working in the city with good jobs. That's what generated $106 million in the venture capital Silicon Valley world. It's maybe not that much but first those of us working in city policy that's a tremendous amount of money. And so those types of programs that are justifying energy efficiency, what are at their core energy efficiency investments through completely different means I think is really critical for us. And so we're really trying to work on how we can get the benefits in the green more recognized by cities and accepted by cities so that we can really move this urban heat island mitigation activity at the rate of urgency that it requires. Thanks very much. I've got one general question that I'm going to pose to the panel and then we're going to open it up for questions if you all don't have questions. I've got many more up my sleeve. But this panel is about innovation and we probably should have given the caveat at the beginning. It's not necessarily innovation in technology for energy efficiency. I mean that's very, very important but we're trying to think about in order to move the needle on energy efficiency which all studies on climate change say we've got to do. How can we think more about innovation in terms of delivery of programs in terms of who's involved, what type of partnerships we have even literally what do we think about when we think about programs and how can we couple it with what Kurt just talked so eloquently about as well maybe it's not just dollars savings. Maybe that's not really going to move the market if we can think about who's interested in these areas like local cities and a broader perspective of interest beyond just sort of our traditional energy savings. So my question to each of you is I've now magically appointed with my magic wand your czar of your particular world and you heard a bit about how constraints are for energy efficiency a lot of it has operated within a very strict regulatory structure because the original concept when we first started it 40 years ago was it would be delivered by utilities because the concept was you would do energy efficiency instead of building power plants and so we still have this construct that developed 40 years ago about sort of it's our utilities our major deliverers of energy efficiency and because a lot of it comes from charges on their customer bills we have to be very very precise about where the money is spent and not waste it which makes sense but it's a very different paradigm for example from what we've done on the renewable side which is we've set a goal of we're going to have 20% an RPS renewable portfolio standard or we're going to have some level of distributed generation and while the payments for that may come through charges on the bill we haven't made it utility centric we've said we want to embrace the private sector and when I say the private sector I do include local government we want to you know have something outside of a monopoly construct so my question to you is okay you have become supreme decision maker in your area unlimited by this sort of 40 year history of very stringent regulatory requirements what do you think are the one maybe two most significant things that you would undertake now that you've got freedom to start to move in a direction you think and how would that change things whoever wants to start first I'll be happy to start that's a that's a fun question so I'll stick with my little world right now which is energy efficiency policy in California so my my wish is to be the czar over at Van Ness and the Callister Street in San Francisco is to go to the CPUC and basically tell them you guys are going to adopt the aggressive scenario for energy efficiency that was laid out in the potential study as a starting point and so that's a that's a pretty tall order for the CPUC to handle I think it could be done in fact we can do this we have proven that we've been able to meet significant challenges in our past in terms of bringing energy efficiency up to a high level of performance and I know we can actually increase it but we're going to have to change policies as I sort of alluded to in my presentation we have barriers in place right now that are very policy centric so as as as the czar I'm going to basically identify several areas where the the PUC could remove barriers and thus in open up the floodgates if you will of more efficiency and it's say that aggressive scenario of 1.2% reduction by 2030 I'd say that that would be our starting point that we should really be targeting a bit of a higher standard that would essentially put us in line to meet our commitments our goals as part of SB 350 so that's my that's my wish great well I have to jump on that I'm very excited about this new world that Greg is creating and from a business perspective one of the things that's been so frustrating is how siloed all the various pots of funding are so as an example when you are on site as a business implementing a program I remember we had a school energy efficiency program we were implementing for example and that was all we could do was focus on the energy efficiency improvements of the school we couldn't look at the water savings with all the urinals and you know so renewables at that time and you know again it had to do with the policies so you know we actually did get a pilot approved once to go out and look at everything together and what a tremendous difference it made not just from the standpoint of the various resources out there but also from the standpoint of the market players there were teachers there were facility managers there were kids that went home to the residents at home and there were barriers to the various services we could provide there was this chance to holistically do it all hit all these markets hit all these resources and the policy barriers and the siloed way that money flows impeded that so I guess my you know being the czar I would love to see barriers removed for us to see what could we really do if we could think about this the way that business looks at challenges without the policy barriers and having been fairly involved in the private equity arena and seeing how that world works over the past five to ten years there is a way to make things happen just different resources different energy comes and people blow goals out of the water like the kind that Greg's talking about so that's my happy moment I guess I would say just in keeping with my kind of basic comments that we need to be better about capturing co-benefits I would probably compel the insurance and reinsurance industries to come to the table to help develop a credible set of ways to measure this because they're the industry in my mind that is a globally available the issues we have in Dar es Salaam and Auckland are going to be the same as we have here in terms of that market and they're the ones that are going to have to accept the way we develop those methodologies and if we're going to find any substantial funding moving into that space or any substantial sort of private sector money moving into that space to support what the governments are doing because that's obviously not always the best most consistent money in the world especially at the city level so that would be my hope and I do appreciate you embracing our new overlords by calling us ours okay so let's open it up to questions just come on up to the mic and I would ask you to give your name if you are with an organization your affiliation hi Jeff Alps I'm with Peninsula Clean Energy where the CCA provider for San Mateo County the most interesting thing one of the most interesting things I've seen recently potential things is pay for performance the pilot programs now that are coming from PGD my question is how much impact do you think that will have on energy efficiency what are the potential challenges of it from an administrative standpoint and can we can we factor social benefits into a pay for performance scheme statewide well so the pay for performance that you're talking about I think are the residential pilots that are out there right now so I did look at that solicitation and you know I also talked with several organizations that looked at that solicitation and honestly and organizations that have the software and the technical tools to deal with it and there they did not even want to play so I you know I that's not much of an answer but my initial reaction is how much is that going to change it I think that there are a lot of barriers and I think it had to do with the way that those RFPs were written as well for companies however it is the knot we have to crack so you know I guess you know again that's not much of an answer but somehow we have to get to the point where we really can show what the savings are out there and we have to be able to compare it to sort of prior and post insulation so Greg one minute before you jump in because I want to hear it but I'm now giving back that magic wand and you do get to design a pay for performance program with Greg's goal of let's think big about what we could accomplish could you do that if you were given I mean in other words can we really design a pay for performance that would work from companies viewpoints who want to be running them and making a return on it and customers viewpoints to get them to participate can it be done well so the term pay for performance also I should just stop by defining that because I think that means a lot of different people. So for example the contracts right now that utilities execute with implementers those are considered pay for performance from the standpoint of you get paid once you deliver energy savings that then go through EM&V process however there's no risk post EM&V to the implementer so there are those kind of pay for performances out there right now and those work quite well I think you can push a lot of risk onto the implementers if you allow them to operate like a real business but one of the things that has happened is that a risky contract like that will be put out and then at the same time they the utilities have tried to treat it like a time of materials they change it they want to see information that in private industry you never would ask to see so if pay for performance is put out there to businesses I think my colleagues at business would say let us compete the way private businesses compete that's one thing but back to this gentleman's question about that particular pay for performance that one was very specific to meter if I have the one you're talking about correct this was specific to you know metered savings and I think there was so much risk put on the implementers for that project it was essentially an experiment and they asked people to bid on it and to carry all the risk for it so that is what I understood about it again I've not been involved day to day but I think that you need to treat it that way invest in it so that like we as a community can figure out we have to practice not but we can't do it by asking to take all the risk I'll just add that I think the biggest issue is that the payment terms are really predicated on measured performance after a period of time and that's a problem for customers because they would have to make the initial investment somebody has to make the investment to put the equipment in and customers aren't going to wait to get any payment or reimbursement for their investments be their incentives so who takes that risk or is that policy reasonable in the current paradigm we have a foundational approach that is essentially saying we deem estimates of savings upfront and the rules should not change as you suggested Lauren over the time frame of that implementation experience if that sort of mindset comes back and we can get greater confidence in our estimated savings upfront that that should be that approach should really help pay for performance take off I think the market will respond and it has in the past yeah set clear consistent rules that's sort of our mantra and then let business play let them come to the table okay any other questions just come right up just identify yourself please yeah Bruce Nagel from Sustainable Silicon Valley and Carbon Free Silicon Valley which is the group that advocated for the CCE in Santa Clara County couple comments first off one is the benefits have got to flow back to the people who paid the bills the things that I saw that were a number of us who were in some of these groups are working to try to figure out how to get heat pumps in heat pumps are the next big thing to in order to be able to move from from gas to electricity we got to stop burning gas so one of the things that we were looking at as a program we haven't found quite the right one yet because the efficiency isn't quite there is something called pay as you say where the payments go right back to the owner now the one that I saw that was workable because the fact that it actually went back to the owner of the business was one that was done in Hayward and it was related to water savings and what they do is they because apartments are done with a central water facility there aren't separate water meters inside of them you know the savings went back to the owner which is great but we also have to figure out how to do it for the people who you know install things for saving electricity in their homes and so we've got to figure that one out the other part that I'm concerned about I'd love to hear maybe not this but at some side discussion about how you guys actually measured the efficiency and how much you actually got for some of these things because the challenges in some cases is the things are not there example in this mild climate you're not going to get a good return on double pane windows you know it'll be 30 years and the only thing that I've heard people say and it's a couple people that said this is the comfort improves you know I don't have these cold spots so we got to figure out how to make those tangible in order to make that work but in a lot of cases you know if we're going to meet the goals we've got to get an awful lot of energy out of this which means I don't know how we're going to make these business these things as efficient as they need to be given that we have a mild climate so I don't know how anybody can answer some of these things but I think at some point we've got to get to we've got this level of efficiency and we know we can actually reduce the the energy load by this amount and Kurt you're the only one to talk numbers okay so I'll leave it at that you want to take a stab first yeah I actually build on Kurt's one of his slides so I take exception I had numbers too but we didn't have the slides up but it you know I think it does go back to are we counting all the benefits of energy efficiency right now in the current policies you know we use what's called a total resource cost test which is really you know not reflective of what we all know is that blue at the green the green bar that you had in your chart so nicely laid out which is there are more benefits out there than just avoiding you know the construction of new power plants there's benefits to society as a result of avoided carbon which you know easily make the argument for measures that would normally not pass the economic screen like double pane windows like even wall insulation other measures that were on the margins that when we tested it out using a carbon adder $250 a ton in our models which is what is being discussed as the as sort of that representative value for carbon it really changed the landscape for a lot of energy efficiency and that's where I think we need to go policy wise and say you know we've got to change the the calculation the viewpoint of what constitutes benefits. Did either of you want to add anything? No that was great. Yeah I liked the green too I guess just my one comment about the customers contributing is that I think if we were able to implement these programs customers would pay for a lot of these things so you can invest in an overall project customers would put more money towards it I think if we designed them differently because there is value but they shouldn't necessarily go into the energy efficiency funding We may have to take that discussion offline since we're not doing the solar financing Hi I'm Yamarnath from EPRI. Let me ask two very separate questions. The first question is any comments from the panelists on pricing real time pricing and effects of that on energy efficiency question one. The second question is something very different that I've been hearing more lately and that is somebody mentioned this water efficiency you know related to water and energy efficiency what is called as the water energy nexus and the startling information that I've heard is that these are coming from the water agencies in the country saying that if we were to save water that is currently being discarded or wasted the amount of energy that would save that that saving of water would save is more than the energy efficiency programs in the country the 8 billion dollars that you're talking about so that's a very startling statement but I wonder if anybody wanted to comment on that the water energy nexus and the real time pricing I could do a quick comment on the water efficiency because I worked in water efficiency programs for quite a while and I have to say that it currently there are tremendous barriers to integrating water efficiency in many cases they're still not even fully metered as you might know and if you look at that industry what I found is it was you know about like the energy efficiency industry a decade or two ago that is a broad statement that's not 100% true but I think there is so so much potential there and I think we can apply so many lessons learned from this industry and I think it is a huge opportunity and I don't see a lot of real solutions coming so I would put that on the we need another czar for that one next year we'll be back with saws Ami I'll reply to the pricing questions that's a topic that's near and dear to my heart is you know right now we don't have good price signals that are being sent to customers we're not necessarily sending the signal to essentially be efficient and so you know the move toward real-time pricing or even I mean let's just go basic here let's talk about time of use you know if we actually got a default time of use tariff in place here in the state which is I know we're trending toward but there's going to be a lot of customer pushback but if we did that we would see a lot of energy savings right off the bat because of behavior change we tried to model some of that in our study but you know we still live in these little silos so energy efficiency proceeding is supposed to look at energy efficiency measures which now include behavior to arguably price response could fit into that but technically speaking price response goes into another proceeding at the CPUC which has demand response so if I were to put my czar hat back on I probably would say we need to look at a broad comprehensive overview that you know it encompasses energy efficiency encompasses a broad array of options including price reform tariff reform real-time pricing using these meters these smart meters that we have in place you know eight million or whatever however many we have in California that we spend a lot of money on use that functionality of those meters to set the right price and send the right price signals to encourage conservation. I have in my program that we're supposed to end at 340 which was two minutes ago nobody has stopped us but in consideration of people having time before the main next and last big session which we'll start up for I think we're going to have to wrap it up so please join me in thanking our panelists.