So let's jump in and get going. Good afternoon. So already we are meeting number six of the six we're having soon this five-spotting group. I'll say something now that I might say at the end, but sometimes we end up with such interesting discussions that I forget some closing things. And I just wanted to thank everyone for participating. I know people put time and effort into travel, reading, reviewing things, offering comments. And I just feel like people have been very helpful and always chipping in remarks to help us make progress. So I just want to say, yeah, the legislature that's going to use the report that we're putting together, thanks very much for gathering a lot of useful information and the committee will be able to take this topic up and work much more productively faster by virtue of having all this material collected in our website and the report itself. Thank you. Last time we were going through the notes that we had all submitted back in late October and compiling them into this document. Items, pros and cons related to those considerations. And then we added in notes as we went. When we broke off, we stopped actually at Stephanie's comments. So I don't know if you have these with you. If not, we can pass by you and double back to give you a moment to find those. That is, we're 1, 2, 3 from September to October. Then about a little, we're using ways that need to be done. So while we do our committee, we get first figures. I'm up with the long-term. I sent in. And that's a page I'm not numbered, but maybe page 10 or 12, something like that. So as I thought about the same assignment we gave ourselves, I went back all the way to one chart and was reduced the use of some of the products. Because I felt like there was a temptation to sort of into the weeds on something. And it's easy to recite the overall objective. So for me, it was focusing again on the use of volume and then secondly, packaging. And then they started to get into different types of packaging. So we have glass, plastic, and aluminum. And one of my treat goes as three separate things. So we're using the volume of glass. And I guess it's not necessarily just glass per se, but glass that ends up as problematic glass. So bottle-gilled glass, which seems to still have a market, versus commingled glass, which seems to be higher, a cost to most of these things, because of a lack of a market for those materials. So let me just have a test to make sure with the two major processes of all this that that's still true. So the conversation we've had at different points was related to, so I guess, the use of volume of glass. And I suppose one way of saying that would also be use of volume of, can we back up, it's called waste glass by diversion to waste markets. I wish I'm trying to say that we would get a clean stream from more glass if it were to be made available through the bottle-gilled glass. So I pro, I guess, would be that we could reduce MRF costs and increase the amount of recycled glass. Sound true by missing anything? I don't know if the container glass ever gets used in a lower-quality use, but it still has some value. So I'm going to speak for CFWD, but I can speak to what happens with Rotman's glass. So we put glass cleanup equipment in, and last spring of 2019, and it cleans enough quite a bit to do more marketable material. So for a while, that was going up to 2M in Canada and being made into fiberglass. 2M has since stopped accepting that material from us. I don't know about you, Jen, but they apparently had too much unprocessed material on site, so their Canadian regulators totally couldn't take anymore. So we just. Is that temporary, or it seems like? I don't know. It's kind of hard to tell, but regardless, it's not reliable. So we are now beginning to rail it to North Carolina's to Striptigic, who turns it into either bottle-to-bottle or another media. There's various media that they make glass out of. Is it a cost center for you, or a profit center, or a cost center? It's a cost center, and I'm just curious to understand is that because of the cost of transportation of this heavy, not so very valuable material? By rail, it's expensive, and it's further distance, so the further you transport, the more expensive it gets. And it's happy. So if more glass end up going through the bottle-to-bottle chain, is that something that can sell as usual on, or supports, or are making a decision, but it's good to know? Yeah, it's difficult for us because we don't want to get concerned about what other materials are going to be taken with that kind of expansion. So is it just glass? Is it other materials? Because that drives volume of material that is more valuable to the MRF away from the MRF, which is already struggling. So just to make sure I understand, we've talked some about if that expansion included pet and aluminum, those are profit centers to MRFs.  Like glass and paper, yeah. So decreasing the cost is fine, but taking away the profits is less fine. Well, that was the way I was thinking about it. If there's a problematic material, can we divert more of it into a higher use that ends up being perhaps a profit or a center, as before, a cost center? And just get energetics, one of you and all the rest, more use out of glass rather than having a good cost to everyone. It's definitely driving up the tip fee. So you don't end up stockpiling any glass. I mean, as you process, you need to move it someplace. Right. Is that true for you guys as well? Well, some of our glass can't be processed into the PGA material in the ranger time. PGA, the process glass aggregate that we're sending to Whitman. So that material either goes to two men or we're holding onto it until we can continue to process it into PGA or find another outlet. But it certainly is at a cost. That's definitely true. And this was in one of my recommendations that I had passed on, was expansion of the glass. But with that was a repeal of aluminum and that going to the bottle bill because of the cost of the recycling system. And that concern that if you put expansion of the bottle bill of any type on the table, that it moves into other materials that would be pretty detrimental to the recycling system in its current state. So that is definitely a concern of ours. And why I moved it off the table was if we're moving towards talking about nuclear, that really is a system that an all material system approach, which is more likely preferable. And the producers would determine if it's in their best interest to separate glass out and manage it so that it potentially has better markets than a single-street system. But if you're requiring them to capture a high percentage of the material, single string, and you move those materials out of single string, you might move some of that material because it's more difficult for consumers to bring it somewhere separate. Can I ask you my question about the bottle bill? It's not based upon material, right? It's based upon the beverage type. So how would we pull out? Because there's sometimes excuse of a particular product to join aluminum or glass the next week, depending upon the season. How would we pull certain materials out of the bottle bill if it's statutorily based on the type of beverage, right? You'd have to change the law to do it. The entire bottle bill structure, though. Well, nothing else prior to the bottle bill, but those materials that are falling under. Subject to it, yeah. Instead of making one option to consider would be instead of making it beverage type, it would be container type. But that's not something that shows up on a skew that a retailer can scan necessarily, unless it's an entirely different skew line. It's the same 12-ounce coca-cola product if it's what it is. It's not going to scan any different for air and at the retail. We would have to, I mean, that's set internationally by the GPC one-source system, so. So the UPC, whatever that is, is the same, whether it's an aluminum or a coca-cola. It's the product inside that's being sold. So that's how the bottle bill queues off of the UPC scanning. Just throw it out there as a challenge. Yeah, that would be challenging. So even if it's, are they by side? I mean, so many permutations of five of them by. Yeah, there's different permutations. So if it's a 12.5-ounce or 16-ounce, it's going to be the same skew, but some bottlers may also run in glass and they run in aluminum. It'll change by season because, you know, glass doesn't go as well in the cooler, you know, and as water moves into aluminum potentially, in some cases now, it's still the same stock serving size. It, whether or not it's a different skew is based upon the product, the volume of sale, the ounces, that type of thing. At least that's how it is in all the other UPC markets. Whether or not you could create a separate skew that would have to be a different product in the entire global GS-1 system. So you would have to, in essence, create two sets of skews, almost for Vermont and non-bottle-bill states, you know. You would have to skews in two sets of agitating as well. Yeah. So Council had something to share with us. I think you're all right. And that's, the issues come up with wine bottles. And the proposal has been to manually sticker the wine bottles. That's what we do in Maine. Yeah. And it's in right there. But it's done in one state warehouse. And when they, in Maine, we exempted carton-based wine from the bottle-bill, that's been an absolute, from my understanding, nightmare. And why? And you just, you know, the reason's why. The chair of the Environment Committee was preferable towards boxed wine. But why is it a nightmare? Just because it's... The individual sticker. I mean, it all comes into the warehouse. It's sold by the same manufacturer, so they have to break it out, put it aside, not sticker that while they're sticking everything else, and then pull the skews back together to go out to retail. So it's really not the manufacturer doing that. Like, we've heard it's more the distributors. It's the distributor, the retailer, the retailer. State-run business in Maine, and not as familiar with the Vermont system, so I don't want to speak towards that. But state-run systems, state-public-private partnership at the warehouse, and then it goes out to the retailers from there all agency stores, but it's a state-run business.  Well, maybe Jen's suggestion then to put it all underneath the app for them to let the manufacturers figure it out. Can we just get clarity? This just came off with distilleries, too, with the glass bottles. I didn't say anything at the time when he was testifying, but there aren't stickers on... No, there were when they were originally moved into the deafness, which was in 1990, but then they started labeling their product according to the labeling requirements, because a couple other states went with it as well. Right, so why wouldn't glass, in this case, why models follow that exact same model? And he was testifying the current model, I think if you did, it's about the distributors and the manufacturers, because you probably are gonna have foreign wines that aren't gonna bother, right? Yeah, it's the international stuff that's present. But Tangray has no problem with it, right now. Well, Tangray, I think, is owned by that Canadian company. Which is a member of our company. But that's just one company, so, and I think it goes back to the conversation that we had at the last meeting, and it's just because one manufacturer can do it, doesn't mean that all manufacturers are going to do it. So, I guess I just wanted to correct that testimony, because there is a manual labeling happening on the seller and on the providers, and from what they have adjusted to the line. I think the only time that it would be is that there was a special order length, that's what they call it, a special order for a special kind of liquor through department of liquor, that's what I used to work for, I think. Well, I'm just kidding. I'm not a raking alcohol. I work for the lottery when we were going through the merger of liquor and water, and so I, by happenstance, learned a lot about, you know, it's liquor distribution, it's very similar, the main, main uses Pine State, the Pine Street distributors, and what does it all in-house in the warehouse, right there. So, what's the state on, it's a state control. So, I think right now, most of it's only gonna be a special order, but I don't know where you're gonna see that stuff. So, for products then, let me just pause and think about products that aren't, if, what, make sure of alcohol products in glass, sold in Vermont, that aren't in the bottle grill, currently, that are wine, and I don't know if there's hard ciders in glass. Ciders, wine. Ciders, three years wine. Anything else I can talk about? I think Kombucha has alcohol too, but it had a level so low that it's not, it's not really, it's not alcohol. No, there is alcohol at Kombucha, if it's over, 0.5, right? No, I can't, I can't with two. Two? I can't remember, but it's also carbonated. So, it gets in under carbonation. That it's captured or excluded? I believe it's captured. Captured. So, in stores now, like non-alcoholic Kombucha? Non-alcoholic, I, I, The formula is not captured. It's not regulated by the liquor department, but if you're talking about 2.2. Right, that would be regulated, but I think it all depends on how carbonated it is. It's a soft drink, right? Because that's one of the categories, it's a soft drink. Well, I have a high pain threshold, so I'm not giving up yet. Let's see. If I go back to trying to increase the amount of glass, it doesn't just end up as an expense. So, I'll throw open the group before it, starting to talk about expanding, for instance, a number of alcoholic beverages that are handled by the bottle. What's a suggestion that strikes this group as more workable than hand-stickering, for instance, a whole new category? Well, we've always suggested, we'll resubmit it in the original song, you know, like an EPR type of system, and then you capture all glass under that system, not just the bottle bill glass, you capture it all. And then, you know, I don't know where the inflamed desheets are fitting into all of this, but I know that they're currently being redirected towards the Clean Water Fund, and that money should really be redirected towards the modern recycled glass. Yeah, that's an artifact of apology. The session is ending. Excellent. I know, but I just put that on record. And people saw that as environmentally friendly news of those proceeds. Well, what's happening now, those people are saying, no, my nickel, if I don't take it out of the redemption center, it goes to clean water, so I'm just gonna put it in the blue bin, so we're gonna see more bottle bill material coming to the burm, as a result of that. So the way to deal with that is to increase the deposit to a dime. Without fail, any state that has done that has seen a fairly significant increase in the rate of return for redemption. And so that is a way of not only encouraging higher participation, whether you leave the bottle bill as is, or my preference, of course, would be to expand it. If you expanded it to include wine, water, and sports drinks, you would add around 200 million more containers per year. That would be about a 40% increase in the bottle bill. If you have a 40% increase in the number of items covered by the bottle bill, and an increase in the deposit, even though you would have a higher rate of participation, you might see an 85% redemption rate instead of a 75% redemption rate, you would still have more money in an unpaid deposit fund as well. And I actually agree, our preference would also be to see it go to help improve recycling as it always needs. I think the nexus is undeniable, so count me on, but either one of us are making a decision. I've said that in testimony, there's nothing needed. You get the industry in my mouth, I agree. Yeah, I have no objection. But one way of thinking about that is if you expanded it in the way that we're talking about, you would have 40% more bottles in the system, and then you could use that a percentage of those unclaimed deposits, or if the money committees were so inclined, they could say, well, 60% is gonna stay with clean water, which would be the universe of what they have now, and 40% would go to any of the programs that we're talking about. Including, I would argue, potentially examining what is the real cost to the solid waste districts, for instance, if you were to take out additional aluminum and PET. All we're talking about is money, because there is no question that the better way to achieve the charge of this committee, is to reduce the volume of waste going to landfills to, as secondarily, perhaps encourage recycling, and recycling at the highest possible level. All of that happens when these containers go through the bottle bill system, because it is a cleaner product. I don't think there's any disappearing around the table there. So you get more material being returned, more being recycled, less going to the landfill, and yes, there would be a financial cost to the districts, but let's figure out what that is, and perhaps give them some money from the unclaimed deposits to make up for that. That way, you're keeping them whole, while also achieving the goals at a much higher rate of what this committee is supposed to be looking at. That's not just the districts, though, it's the private industry. So figure out if you want to do it. I'm not arguing that you wouldn't suffer some financial loss, but I think the financial loss that you or the districts would suffer would be far less than the volume of new revenue coming into the state from unclaimed deposits. So it's an opportunity to think about, first, how do you achieve the goals of this committee, not like, oh my gosh, I might be harmed, or if I'm a district, and so therefore we can't do it. It seems to me, let's think about how to achieve the goals, and then if there is a financial harm, how could that be addressed? Keep the two separate, yeah. Yeah, the one caution I would have about increasing the deposit from five to 10 cents is we're surrounded by states that either have a nickel or nothing on containers. And so part of that increase is, yeah, people are going to bring in more containers, but we're also going to invite more fraud. And frankly, we can't keep up with the, we can't keep up with the system that we have today. If the fraud increases, I don't know how we could keep up with that. And so should we try to reach out to our neighboring states, New York, Massachusetts, skip over New Hampshire, Maine, to see where they're at with their deposits. Maine's at five, except spirits are 15, and why is it two? Yeah, but I'm at, I know where they're at currently, but are they considering increasing? Because I think we are going to be a target if we are surrounded by states that have more. Well, we see it on spirits in Maine, where a lot of spirits from the Hampshire and wine from the Hampshire and it's at the Maine for the fraud to come in, you know. I'm probably probably here too. We have 15 cents on the lever. Yeah. Okay, and the other thing to offer a complicating factor to all this was that we talked some about the number of sorts currently involved in that, and that if we start adding volume, we ought to make sure that we're addressing the current point of friction and that the existing systems probably have that system to increase its volume. Well, there is a suggestion without this, which could easily be incorporated into this. It doesn't need to be before you do it, it could be simultaneous. Right, I just mean I don't want to decide. I totally agree. Thank you for remembering. So maybe in the, I don't know if these are any rates, something in the lines of current system, current system has too many sorts. Or redemption of notes. Coal mingling is voluntary, right? Coal mingling is voluntary, right? It's not against that half. So as I suppose this, I know then, right? Coal mingling is voluntary. And so what's the order in terms of when you're sorting for container type in the coping mingling program? There's roughly a dozen sorts, and if you're not in that, then there's up to over a hundred sorts for that. About a hundred additional sorts, right? Yeah. So we want to decide on that. And that's a real burden to retailers and redemption zones. Space and staffing. Can you also capture the most comment about that let's keep the optimizing the stream, the recycling stream separate from the finances so that we can, we might optimize in a way, look at the financial implications and then find another way to adjust as opposed to leaving materials where they are because the nickels travel with them or because there's a market for a pet or aluminum. So that people will be made whole but it could be after the fact. So separate from the financial stream. Yes, thank you. Any other comments on this one? Increase mirth, increase recycled glass, two different sorts. I suppose another note there too would be, as you were saying, this could be addressed with EPR. Of course, the many people, the bottle bill is EPR. So you can talk about it, another kind of EPR. It's just more than one stakeholder pays in the bottle bill than manufacturers. Share responsibility, which is potentially illegal. Well, and I think the other thing too, based on our conversations on last couple of months is that a full blown EPR for packaging waste, which I suppose is a bottle, small rest, is going to be a multi-year effort. So I wouldn't want a hand-strain leaving a piece because we don't have a whole thing back now. I think there's a sense of balance between the two. You don't want to push one thing ahead to the detriment of others, prematurely, whatever. So the second thing I'd put down here was reduce the volume of single use non-beverage packaging. And then for strategy I put down, implement EPR for this category of goods. So I suppose I'll just say that again. So it was reduced volume of single use non-beverage packaging. And again, so for pros, I think it would be reducing amount of material to the landfills. If we've already got EPR, the primitive package materials on the first sheet, do we combine the two or do we do separate? Yes, yes. I was going to ask, just to remind you, this included the package, the materials. So maybe back in that, can you point out where, where in the research? That's on page one. It's the discontinue slash integrate bottle redemption and replaced with EPR for printed and packaged materials. This one? Yeah, I think it sounds like the same to me. Yeah, yeah, thank you. So then, did you find that yet on page one? Yep, okay. Thanks. And my own notes on that when I had, see if anyone should go in on this read, breadth, scope, and timing to be determined depending upon, in part of what other, okay, that's who wrote this. That's who wrote this. That's who wrote this. I copy pasted, I swear. That's the one other elements we put into the EPR program. So, and the other note I had was, implement a post-consumer waste requirement to boost the marketplace for the solid waste system. The reason for the content? If you have that somewhere else, too. Which we've also said elsewhere. Yeah. Okay, so no new original thinking here. You don't have to add that one. Thank you. I want to remind the group that we had testimony from Unomia who had done the analysis and study from Ontario which was looking at not replacing the bottle bill but keeping and expanding their bottle bill program and expanding their EPR to deal with other forms of packaging. So I wouldn't, if I understand it correctly, just as it goes under this, with the languages to discontinue and replace the bottle bill, you could do that or you could keep the bottle bill, you could expand the bottle bill and do this for non-bottle bill items. And that's what the number of Canadian provinces have done. Again, you've got that analysis from Ontario and how it can work. Yeah, thanks for that. I mean, that's why it actually, we ended up adding integrate back to make sure it's not, we don't want it to be a false choice that we have to do it one or the other. We could even operate control. So there is another EPR mention on page four at the top and I wanted to make sure that, because that was on my list and I wanted to make sure that ECO modulated fees was part of that recommendation and this particular one is there and it talks about expanding the bottle bill in the notes under that recommendation. So I don't know if we want to try to confine the two or leave them separate for the sake of not really doing that to find it. I don't know, but it is in both places and the bottle bill is in both places, too, on different sides of the aisle. So I, you know, I- Top of page five. I think different flavors are the same. Ideas seem easier to hold on to rather than trying to reach a consensus as to how we would know them all together. Because there are competing interests, you know, that are all down soft. So I think with your, in that vein, eliminate use of single-use plastic packaging and with the ECO modulated fees are one way to get at that. So I would just, I would recommend that that comes with that recommendation. Okay, so did we, do we add that as the last, was the very bottom of our document right now? When we started and then stopped adding that. These were volume and class, so we stopped the class. Okay. So your ECO modulated fees is still in the ECO modulated. Yeah, you were, yeah, I was just commenting on your recommendation for ECO to produce the amount of single-use plastic. And do we have, sorry, I know we're bouncing back and forth for sure, so we'll see. Do we have a, let's add a push-and-to-release requirement in that earlier one? Yeah. Push one. I'm looking for a push-and-to-release requirement. Yeah, increase mandate for recycled content is on the page five right below our ECO modulated fees. Great. Thank you. And then a third, yeah. ECO modulated fees also appear as their own at the top of page six. And the third one I had in was, I think we already had, I mean it was EPR for single-use plastic packaging. So that's already rolled into the one we have. So having gone through those in the double pack and I have to step in which our monthly page shines seven or eight of our, do you have those now? Yeah. Okay. I think I would consolidate them with others. So back to the bottle bell, in the testimony that we did here that maybe I was supposed to represent, it's all of the restaurants. And so currently the bottle bell doesn't really work for restaurants in that the 15th and liquor bottle in my experience. And then I actually did a small sampling from Pradoborough, St. John'sbury and even one here. People are, the restaurant owners are redeeming the 15 cent liquor bottles that are beer cans. And that's for two reasons. One, to pay an employee to redeem something that's worth five cents. It's not, it's worth. You end up paying more than you're receiving back. And two, there's not space in these small restaurants to be basically sorting. And so the mechanism in which the distributor is supposed to collect the redeemables, they're asking us to sort. And so I'm sure you can all picture a restaurant and a size restaurant, they don't have the capability to sort. And now you're back to saffron.  So I feel like the expansion of the bottle bell after sitting in all these meetings would be to expand, would have to need to expand the amount, if you're gonna expand anything, to make, if it's to- To deposit? Yes, thank you. To increase the deposit, if the goal is to get things out of the waste stream, that money is going to top it. So are restaurants limiting their cans and whatever? The other non-spirits that make wine. So I had originally written, expand bottle bell to glass bottles and increase deposit on the cans, but amending that, that it would have to be an eight. If the track record shows, it looks like 15 cents is what talks, that we put in the back of our car two times a week. Usually the owner, you don't want to pay someone, but it's worth the exchange. Well, the volume must be all lower, right? I mean, there are fewer bottles of spirits than bottles of beer. It depends on the rest of them. So are you suggesting 15 cents? Yeah, and then I also would like to look at the inefficiency of the system that is supposed to be collected, these redeemables. If there is a system in place. Yeah, yes. But that goes back, I believe, to the co-mingling and all the sorts. So my understanding is that beer distributors, when they drop off their product, they charge the middle deposit per container, whether it's at a store or a restaurant. And then they can and are responsible for picking up their brands from the restaurants. And that's where the restaurants would have to sort because the brand is only gonna pay for their brand. And that's the space limitation, which I totally understand. We have sent letters, we even did it again this year to distributors to remind them of their responsibilities for picking up their containers from restaurants. Because we are hearing from redemption centers that we can deal with residential containers. We can't deal with restaurant containers. We don't have the space. And I understand that from a redemption center. We're trying to remind the distributors, but then it's the sorting issue. And then doing my homework, there wasn't one rep that could answer the question without hanging up the phone, making phone calls. So none of the reps knew about the pickup. Well, it's up to the driver to pick up. And then there are stipulations in the pickup. You have to have full boxes. You can have incomplete boxes of the same scale. Perhaps one consideration would be exempting establishments where the container does not leave establishment, where the container leaves establishment subway, the Coca-Cola container leaves subway. So they would not be exempt. But restaurants where the container does not leave perhaps should be exempted from the deposit. That might alleviate your issue about having to do the sorts or lose that nipple and just put it in the recycling street. But it doesn't really be all of the recycling in this waste room current? Correct, no, no. So it would have to be in either one bin or the other. It can't be in the trash. We have mandated recycling for all these containers. Well, since you're speaking from the restaurant perspective, right now that's basically what's happening. Yes. It's just getting. But they're out on nipple. Correct. So cost of doing business in Vermont. Yeah. Yes. So thank you for that contribution to clean water, but... So should we put that over there? Yeah, I'm trying to think of, how do you want to phrase your suggestion? Increase the fee in the bio-global... To 15 cents. The deposit. The deposit. Thank you. Thank you. Very sensitive. I think we can optimize the inefficiencies of the system. Because that's the first I'm hearing, I'm hearing that the redemption centers don't actually want us to bring it to the different systems. I think that's going to be redemption, rather specific. Well, maybe it's better said that the system wasn't created to do that. There's another system that's not working. Is there any way that they can refuse somebody bringing the... They can't. But the real obligation is on the distributor to pick up from the business establishment. That's being part of the recommendations to figure out. That's maybe where it's pulling down. And we say that after Stephanie told us about this, we've done some research, primarily on Pili and Burley's and asking the same set of questions of restaurant owners there. And it's absolutely right that the vast majority say that if you recycle it, don't break a few grain back on their own. And then there were two or three that had an arrangement with the distributor who did take it, that they had figured that out. But others said, no, our distributor would never do that. So it seems like that there is not complete education, maybe, among all the participants in the system. Right, I guess as a representative of retailers who would essentially be off-put by restaurants getting an exemption, essentially, wouldn't it be smarter, A, to fix the system so that we don't lose the money or we're not just essentially saying, we're going to grow these seeds and not fixing the system? And our goal is to reduce products within the waste system. I don't think that exempting, I get it, restaurants don't have the space, but the redemption centers don't have the space either. But I think exempting them isn't fixing the problem. And so I think we should be looking at reducing the number of sorts and working, again, with the distributors and the redemption centers and the retailers and the restaurants to fix the system instead of just simply exempting one stakeholder. And raising a fee. And raising a fee. So I'm thinking we're better served this afternoon to not get into how this would work, but rather what we have up there, 15 cents, and reviewing efficiencies, reviewing the correct inefficiencies. Reviewing correct inefficiencies is a separate question. No, that would be part of that one, I think, because that's the bottle bill guy, one of the bottle bill guys. Right, reviewing correct inefficiencies. And the system, yes. Especially for restaurants or whatever. Somehow we want to capture that, because you're talking about a unique situation or a unique category, I ain't heard that before about restaurants. There's a lot of bottles. And it sounds like a lot of the inefficiency stems from the number of sorts. Like the space required is a direct result of the number of sorts. The waste is the same, the number of bottles are the same, you have to spread them out and sort them. There's a later component, as well as the space component. I would say that's equal to me being in this room and Kathy telling me is how I got the information that my truck drivers are supposed to pick it up. Oh, right, right. I'd say it's equal. Right, and rather, yeah. Yeah. It was mom on the box of the exact same problem. I am a small mom on the box.  So I think to put a finer point on it for the hospitality industry, you may be doing a disservice. So for pros, then let's keep on filling in our categories here. The pros would be, is that the tipping point that would extend the number of bottles that it goes into? Is the money that it goes into? As a question. I guess the pro is to increase the amount of bottles. Can I just clarify? So you want to increase the fee, the deposit, to encourage more redemption? Right. I'm saying that I have 15 cents that people are recycling those lip products. We're putting in the blue box, the five cents. And so that tells me that it's 15 cents makes it worth it. So I see. You're bringing it to redemption. Yes. So I see the goal is to increase, for some of us, is to increase the stream into the clean glass. But it's not fixing the space issue. You're either throwing it in the loop in the weekly or daily basis. Daily, correct. But I'm identifying that the system that was built for us isn't working. So that would be even a better boom if that started working. So right now, just because, so if the outcome is to get a cleaner system, then I would advise that we increase the bottle bill in what we collect and increase the deposit taken. And that would make people act while simultaneously looking at the inefficiencies so that the distributors could take our back in redeeming. So for five cents, it's also not worth figuring all of that out. But if you fix the inefficiencies and the distributor ends up picking it up for you, then the five cents versus 15 issue goes away for you. Correct. But I would also say that why wouldn't that hold true for anyone who's looking at redemption? It were a case study in saying 15 cents makes it worth it. Five cents doesn't ensure that that's happening in other places as well. I think all of this illustrates is that money is what drives people to go to the redemption center or not. And from what I've heard, I feel I'm more in the camp of going to the redemption center provides cleaner recyclables. Kathy, is there any requirement under law or rule or whatever, the guidance on how often these materials have to be picked up? Well, I can answer that. I'm not sure about what they told me. It's just whenever they order. So sometimes you order once. You can only order once a week, basically. And so. So basically when they deliver, they do that. Yeah, but sometimes you'll go two weeks without needing a product. A lot is not specific about the restaurant component. And you can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe it's that. So we had to be careful in the language we chose when we wrote the letters to the distributors about the need to pick up from restaurants this week. We didn't like that point in any specific paragraph. But if you read the law in its entirety, if they drop off something, have a pause at the man to pick it up. I mean, maybe we can claim it the law about that section so that there is better service to that segment. So we know there's an opportunity to go to white works. Exactly. Sorry about that. We'll figure it out. Okay, for restaurants especially. How about number two there? Amended that to fit within what's already been written and set a statewide goal of reducing least-person-lose packaging and products. And under that statewide goal, the review was already listed ban on single-use toiletry items and looking at a ban on the prosecuting in terms of some pills and bills. I guess the new thing that is up there is a statewide goal, I don't think I saw it. But we have, I don't know if the state has any sense of how much single-use toiletry material moves through the state of Vermont. You know, that is something that is getting discussion elsewhere in this country with the hotel business. And so I think you are gonna see a movement on a national level. With that, where hotels will stop using the single-use items and probably more of the wall-mounted items. I think they, it's... California. I wanna say that there's an emotional goal by 2020. 2025, I think. That was sort of a map, I think. You're looking at a ban as an industry. Oh, for a period of time, though. At the bottom of page four, I think we've done it. The hotels can't do the bottles. Thank you. And I know, right, there's nothing in California to build to those, just looking at the recent one. And then, I don't know if you have any more notes that you, things related to, well, I don't wanna go on to the next one. Do you have anything else you wanted to say about those toilet-free ones, we... Yeah. Okay, and then on EPR, I don't know if there are... I cheated. ...flights of your thinking that are on our EPR notes, yeah. I just slightly change it to be reduced volume of single-use non-veverage packaging for EPR, which seems like that's what we're saying. At the bottom of page two, EPR hard-to-recycle plastics, so that's the picture of plastics. Bottom of page one. Yeah, I just thought that was odd to long, discontinue, integrate bottle redemption and replace with EPR. I just didn't know. Well, then we have EPR, and it's pop of page five, and that would be... Right, I think that one feels more like where I was headed, page top of page five. Right, and this shorthand, I don't know if you were on the line when Jen Duggan was citing the goals of the bill. So, reduction in volume, there was public health impacts, I think we'll never say by... Increased recyclability. Increased recyclability. So that was what the shorthand of means all statutory criteria. Well, thank you. Thank you. Have a good break. That's it. I don't know if we spelled that out. We should, maybe on the first time we use means all statutory criteria of Act 69, we should spell out just at the bullet level what those are, so that we don't have to go debating the bill in order to know what that can work with in our communities. Right, page four, the reduction in waste, it's up by date, certain that sort of, the one that I had said through this is, set a statewide order. So if I could give a reason. So what, where is that? Now, it's in the law, maybe you can cut and paste later on, but it's exactly A through, is that E? A through E? Can you just reference that to me? Yeah, so we'll do that. Can you read about law right now for everyone in the group just so we hear them again, make sure that we're all thinking the same thing when we do that. Reduce the use of single use products. B is reduce the environmental impact of single use products. C, improve statewide management of single use products. D is divert single use products from disposal and landfills. And E, prevent contamination of natural resources by discarding single use products. Stephanie, anything else you want to add? Yeah, thank you. So, it gets harder as you go, but it does. Especially if you come up with something new. Anything else there? Yes. I mean, I feel like I can't add anything to this list that hasn't been said already. Spare that effort. But I have three, I mean, in my answer to the, that we're all working from, the three big focuses I saw was reduce the amount by volume or weight of single use products sold into the month. That's the suite of what we're talking about. Picking a measure, you know, we've heard testimony about lifecycle analysis and the advantages of things like the foil coffee wrap. I think those are important things to take into consideration as we move forward because they do have benefits. So, can I, sorry to interrupt, let me just ask. So, Kathy, when you're working in the department on these issues, do you have, is part of your own analysis that you tune and operate to do lifecycle analysis on different parts of the way stream? We don't have the capability of doing a full-fledged lifecycle analysis. They're very complicated analysis. We would have to really get, you know, probably contact out such a service or rely on others. We don't do VPA warm model with any score materials. We do use the warm mount model, yeah. And so when we, at the end of the year, look at how much material gets diverted and how it's diverted, we can tap into that. That's looking at greenhouse gas emission savings by opting one use over another. But if you wanted to do a lifecycle analysis, basically, let's say on comparing the use of a reusable water bottle versus a plastic, you know, disposable water bottle or recyclable one, you know, that's pretty complex analysis that looks back at, you know, from getting the material, the petroleum products and make the plastic, you know, all that stuff. We don't have the expertise in how to do that. We rely on others for that kind of analysis. You know, we can look it up when we have, for sure, but we don't do that ourselves. Did you want to add to that? Not at the moment, I want to add, Aster. Okay. Because you gave me the I. No, I did, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Sorry, interrupt, I just, when you were saying that I wanted, yeah, yeah, it's good to start. Check in and see where we stood on that issue. Right, in-house. Great. So I think in order, you know, to look at the waste stream and to drive recycling and do our part in the region to increase the benefit of recyclables to the system is to take steps to increase both the recyclability of single-use products and the recycled content. Through, you know, we heard setting mandates for recycled content and then also working with our own solid waste laws to make sure that recyclable single-use products are being recycled as we saw from the report. You know, we thought we'd do a good job of that in a month. There are steps, you know, there's still ground game there. One thing just to note is we continue to talk about recycled content mandates. Most food contact materials can't use recycled content, particularly FDA approved materials, so something we at least have to be aware of, conscious of and should be noted as at least a con or a note on it is you can't take a beverage bottle or you can't take, you know, your Clorox bottle and ever use that resin or that material with a lunch tray, you know, or something like that later. That's something we have to acknowledge. But you can take a Coke bottle and turn it into a Coke bottle or a water bottle.  Yeah, for beverage containers, but that's a different ballgame than taking mixed plastics and putting them into food contact that can't be done. Okay, do we have something up there that suggests that? So we should be adding that as I know. So if there's a place that- Close consumer. I'm going to clarify a little bit about what that means. We're a single plastic form. You're saying you can't- So for like a banger, banger granola, you couldn't use plastic resin unless it's been certified by FDA that it's only coming in contact with food materials. You couldn't use that resin into- But that system is already in place for them to certify that this has- If it's had any contact. So unless you can trace the entire stream, you can trace the where the material came from that never came in contact with Clorox or any of the other materials. Unless you can trace that, you can't use it in a food contact application. Right, and you're saying that but they've gotten over that problem in just under- Just the bottom bit. But like a recycled plastic form. That has contact with food. So how do we make a lot of recycled plastic form? They're not recyclable. They're not recyclable. Not recycled bowl, but- Not recycled contact, but I'm aware of it. It's biobased. Recycled plate. It's biobased. I've not seen recycled contact plates. Biobased, it's compostable. All the claims that you see on there, but it's not from recycled content. It doesn't say 50% PCR on it because it's a food contact material. So I think what they're looking for is a note on that one. Yeah. Increased mandate for recycled content. Yeah. Either a client or a client, no. FDA for recycled content. I don't know. I'm reading your comments, John. Yeah. One thing that's in here, right? Like line six, maybe. Single-use products that aren't recyclable. I'm just taking them for an exact kind of way that they can make a stream. So I just wanted to, is this a sort of a ease of sorting by consumers that you were thinking of? Like that, you know, we talked more, we talked about wish site when you're one of our days. Is that what you were talking about? Or I didn't know if it was something we should be capturing in our paper. I think there's a multitude of sources for that, for either things mistakenly making it into the blue bin. It's wish cycling. It's also, well, mostly wish cycling. But whether it's with a carton, a carton which isn't recyclable, a coffee cup, it's paper, people look at it and say, oh, this is paper. So it's a lack of education. Carton recycling is 60% in the US, though. Certainly not in Vermont. Not in the blue bin. Not in the blue bin. And I've seen that number from the carton council. I've seen that number. What's that? Yeah. So, yes, it is a, you know, whether it's by design of the product or by the knowledge of the consumer, those items are making it into the blue bin. Or it's keeping them out of the blue bin because they're not recyclable and they're in the landfill. On your number three, past some slash most of the cost, management of the waste caused by similar products from the factory. So, well, that's an EPR. It is, yeah. And I think that, you know, the page, the one that we've been pointing to, I think we refined our definitions of EPR as we moved through the system. But I think the limits on page six, I think that includes eco-modulated fees, includes expanding the bottle bill. It's that integration. Because they're both, the bottle bill, the blue bin, they're both recycling systems. They're both waste management systems. They've both had advantages. One is ease. The other is an economic incentive. And so, I'm not at this point splitting hairs on which one, but. So, is the one on the top of that page which says eco-modulated fees decided to be clear, and this is a question, should that be EPR programed with eco-modulated fees? And that was gonna be my comment when I was giving you the I. Yeah. I think that threw a circle. Because I feel that in looking at the two places where EPR is, it doesn't capture what my recommendation was, which was EPR for single use products that structure their way that encourages single use products to have a low carbon footprint for cycle content, be non-toxic and recyclable through eco-modulated fees. So, I would like it, because the other EPR one talks about costs, and it's not just about money, it's about all of those things. So, I feel like we need to capture that. Is that related in this one? If John, you know, agrees, I think we'll have the same page with them. Yeah. Yeah, we are. The question, all those factors, lifecycle weight, recyclability, recycle content, those are all competing factors. Sometimes they are. Yeah, and so I'm just wondering from your answers perspective. I think that's a no for sure. It's a what? I'm sorry. I was just gonna say, is it from your guys' perspective with the experience on them around, do you have an ultimate from all those factors? If we're gonna weight a particular factor, what's most important? I mean, if you're asking me, it would be low carbon footprint, but not necessarily recyclability or recyclable content. Okay. So it would drive us more towards films and class waves. That would be my, yeah, my perspective. Okay. Mm-hmm. Non-recyclability. I just said that's important. But I think it's important to capture all those things and then have that discussion and have that as a note that all of those can't be achieved. Yeah. You know, they conflict with each other. Okay, I think that's helpful in context because we haven't had that level of detail in discussion yet. And I'm sure from industry's perspective, there are different materials and uses that are gonna favor a film over a bottle and others that are gonna favor a bottle over a film. We put food waste into that just as a factor. It's not my way to say, you know, if we're gonna mandate, you know, paper and that results in 50% greater food waste spoilage. It's a fact that should be weighted maybe in a modulated piece. Just doing it out there. And carbon footprint. Is that counter-carbon footprint yet or would we have to do an analysis on it? Well, if you're, yeah. If you're getting into the waste of food that you're in a waste because you're in using a package that preserves it more. Yeah. And now it's gas that goes into growing that vegetable. It's hard. There's a building there? Okay, got it. Maybe we should add another item that includes and then list out what you were saying so we don't pass, we don't lose them to the conversation.  So EPR, personal products and structures are the way that encourages them to have low-carbon footprint. And here's that, this one? Sure, we could just add them to this one. Okay. As long as we're not overriding what someone else meant. Yeah, no. It's okay. And then. So, how about you add a piece to that here? That encourage low-carbon footprint, recycle content, non-toxic, and recyclable. Do you want to add a note any to reflect what you were bringing up about that? If we all agree that food waste is called, is captured in low-carbon footprint then I'm fine with that statement. If we ever got to a bill language out of this piece I would want to have food waste called out because I'm not sure it counts for when somebody composts their food waste in their backyard and emissions in methane. It's just the food waste on the production side. That's exactly right. Greenest gases. So maybe we put food waste in there just as a benchmark. Well. So after. I mean, so it's food waste, it's electronic waste, isn't it? A lot of this. Electronic waste? So if you mail somebody a computer and a bubble wrap envelope versus in packaging that. Okay, okay. The life cycle analysis of wrecking that computer over using more packaging. Yeah, but I'm suggesting that's the front side, right? The stuff that cannot be used by the consumer. I'm talking about the consumer opens it, eats part of it, then waste, the waste goes then to my compost bin and then emits methane and carbon dioxide. I thought you were talking about not packaging something well enough so that the food is wasted. Well, there's both. There's both because there's packaging that will continue to preserve it. So the squeeze out sour cream has got both preservation and extending the shelf life when the consumer has it. So instead of the consumer then tossing half the container into their compost bin, they can continue to use it for another month and a half. I've pushed it out of the good two months. I may have a child about it. Didn't visit me now. That was good digest and all. So, you know. So, just to clarify a little bit more here so that when we read this months later, we remember what we're talking about. It's for me, that's it. The EPR program, can we say just for single use products because there are some recommendations for batteries and other things. So just wanted to clarify a little bit more. Single use packaging products. PPP. Single use products and printed materials. Thank you. Packaging and printed materials. Printed materials. So do we have to note that captures this food thing and I don't think we do. What? Well, Annie was talking about is it assumed or not assumed, the food waste. Is food waste assumed or not assumed? Well, this is his comment about whether or not it's in the LCA. Food waste and composting assumed in LCA, not assumed. For the, yeah, for the CUP. Thank you so much. Under pros, should we add meats at 69? Is that right for short, Annie? Yeah, but what was that? Meats all statutory criteria back 69. We did the other ones. Is there any of these that don't? Yeah, well. To some extent, I can't at one point, I don't know. There was a battery. Yeah, the battery one, I don't know. That's like it's own work and do. Right. There's a problem there. Because we're going to debate whether or not everything meets every criteria or not. I'm not comfortable signing off on recommendations to say meets all the criteria and maybe doesn't, because we could spend hours like, oh, this doesn't meet that one and this meets that one. I think we can just assume it meets all the criteria unless we were to sit there and go through each criteria and go, does it or doesn't it? So are you saying that generally or for this particular one? I'm saying that generally, because I mean, I don't argue mine meets the criteria too, but we didn't put that in mine or some of the others. So it's either. It's all or nothing. And just from a group endorsement of, we consider these recommendations and these don't meet all the criteria and these do. If we're going to do that, that's fine. We got, you know, un-flexible. But. Another month? Yeah. We can order dinner and home by. Yeah. But I just, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying certain ones do meet all the criteria and others don't if we really haven't discussed. It doesn't apply that they don't. Some of them have that. Well, let's go through them. I'm not suggesting that I'm just, I'm kind of agreeing with you that there is a. That there's some. That's something. Okay. Yeah. Well, I think it originated out of who was reporting out the point and then. Yeah. That's. Yes. I'm not saying there's any dispersion of cast. I just, I wasn't smart enough to think to put it. It's all criteria where I submitted these things in there. So one of the things that Andy brought up with the point that those goals are in conflict, some of them are in conflict, or we didn't capture that in a note. So. Recycled content, low carbon footprint, non-toxic and recyclable. I think you could put it in just say, modulated fee factor to maybe in conflict. I think you might end up prioritizing them. And. Great. It prompts the others. Liz, John, do you have any more things you'd like to edit and whatever? No, my last paragraph is about 10 degrees for up possibility, which we'll just pass you out. I think that covers it. And I think we've heard from everybody, yes. So, to your point, any about, do we want to qualify each one of these, as whether or not they meet those? I would say, maybe we could just for the record, we could add a note that says, not every one of these suggestions has been measured against all the criteria. So, it's not an endorsement and that's not, there's no implication that others don't, but without doing that sort of analysis, which I think we're making a meaningful work to pull on time. We should add a note to our table. And for the ones where it's been, seven to bits we put in there, then you tell criteria that 69, are we keeping that language in there, or are we even moving that? You can put an asterisk there and put that note at the bottom. Things not validated by the working group. So, let's do that. Then, the first time it comes up, or on each instance, you can put an asterisk. Let's write what the asterisk represents at your mark at the bottom. And we can say that, the majority of the working group. I was gonna, well, I'll try something out. You can help me get what we all mean by it, right? I was thinking, it really like, items lacking this endorsement, or what do you call it? I don't want to talk on it. Script it in here. Items lacking this sort of phrase. Pro, I mean it's a characteristic. Yeah, characteristic. Thank you very much. May or may not, you know, solve all the criteria, or not? May also, may also says. Yes, thank you. Act 68, criteria. Right. 69. 69, sorry. Just saying we haven't evaluated them. So, that way, we can leave them and not imply that other things won't measure up under all those criteria. If we, great. I'll just make sure the room understands because I'm not quite sure I do. That seems almost backwards. The asterisk when it's put on satisfies. Yeah, you're right. We would have to put it on all the ones that don't. Yeah, I think so. So it needs to be worded. Different, right? The other way around. Okay. Maybe I was wondering, yeah. Bring her back up? Yeah, please. Sure. To where? The note that you. I know you were just wondering. Yeah. The one down below? Yeah. And a note that's having a bumpy, this one? Production process. Yes, items with this characteristic may also, may satisfy all accesses. So take out, lack in and replace it with, with items with this characteristic. No. Because it's going on the ones that already say they need all the characteristics. It's going on the ones that say it needs all the requirements. Items without. How about we just put out, the note says something. Items, not. Items without. All the other ones aren't flagged. We can just remove it. Just leave it on. Yeah. I mean, that's the purpose of the group, is to come up with recommendations and figure out if they need the criteria. So I have a suggestion. We've been going an hour and a half. Let's take our break. And when we've had 15 minutes of fresh air, I'm sure it's an editorial solution. So let's start at 10 past. I think we're ready for 15. My front has kindly reprinted it with the changes we just made. And I also wanted to just pause because as we've worked on these things, or read them in the week in between, I know that some people have further thoughts or edits or any kind of that. So while we're still here tuning this up, this is in a certain way, when we talk about our report more generally. So the report that we're sending on to the legislature, we have a skeleton version of it last time. I mean, the people content was just sort of a sample from another report. Give us an idea of how we might fill in the blanks. And we'll talk, my great-grandma joined the table a little bit to help us walk through editing the things that are similar in the report. But rather than have it be recommendations that we're voting on as a group, let's get some of the points of, well, I'm fine on this piece, but not that piece, or I didn't want to ever, to me that we had to cash out through vote by vote, item by item. So it becomes a lot of overhead, just managing the votes on each thing. And I don't know how much help for it is, to the legislature to receive some more, we voted each piece through one by one by one. So the sign-off on the report, that for my point of view is just that as a group, we've worked, we gathered this information together, and it will be affirming that if you are feeling inclined, I would just like the chance for people to work on something that's signed as opposed to, oh, the process ended and then I would just sort of pass them an item without any formal approval. So it would be that we're putting together recommendations, we're not voting out the elements in there. So these are things for considerations that the legislature might address as they wake up the same topic every time they come back. So that's what you're, if you use song, you're affirming that you are part of the discussion, not that you agree with everything that's collected in our report. Because the other thing is the report is going to link back to our committee, our working group webpage, which I don't know the title of the page is in there, it's maybe it's over a thousand or something like that. We've received a lot of materials, we've had many power points, so we're really assembling all that stuff as kind of like a reference section that will be linked to from the report. So I would never assume everyone in the room would also agree with everything we heard as testing. Was it sometimes a variant, so that seems totally fine. Does that make it any clearer as to what it seems to be signing the report? It may be clarification. So this is going to be the overview, the charge of the group and the report as we read it, and this is the recommendations. Would it be possible to submit recommendations because we didn't debate them all or just to provide some of that context that these were collectively submitted by the group and discussed instead of just recommendations? Right, well, and Michael had some language to suggest as council, I thought I'd phrase it more hardfully than I have so far, so we're not endorsing each other. All right, so, Kathy, did you have comments about, well, anyone, but I was under the impression that you might have some comments, edits to what we've gathered today so far, or maybe sometimes you shift, and many other times you're so shy that I have to ask. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. I've never categorized myself as shy, but that's, this is good that someone does. So I just kind of real quick, we get almost like 18 or 20 recommendations, that's a lot. Yes. And so, I don't know how much time we have here, but is it possible for this group to say, these are suggestions that we have that we want consideration of, but of these, we feel really strongly that, this is a question, should the legislature pass legislation that is similar to that, that main pass last year? What main did last year was they passed what they call the resolve that directed their DEP to further develop our proposal for EPR for pre-inventory, no, for packaging, I'm sorry for that, I misspoke for packaging. And so I didn't know, does this group feel strongly enough to make that a suggestion in this report or not? Being from Maine until we see what comes out from the department, which I understand there's still lots of questions. There will always be questions unless we further explore it. No, agreed, agreed. Until we know how sort of the trajectory of that goes, I'm not sure I can commit to saying we want to go down the same path as Maine, just be a person. I'm cognizant of DEP's time. You guys have, I think, a couple of times, you've said especially in these committee meetings that you guys are very much over committed already, so my concern would be ending a significant lift on your plate is gonna be tough to address. Unless other, you know, that's something I would have to certainly check in with upper management on before I can speak on whether or not DEC could make that commitment. Is there consensus or willingness of this group to somehow want to commit to further exploring how to make improvements that address the five goals that are stated in Acts 69? Maybe that's a better question, less specific question for this group. Or do we want to just leave it to the list of several, you know, all of these recommendations, which is an acceptable option as well. I'm not sure I'm following what's the difference between those two. Well, I think one is, is there something more specific that we want to indicate to the legislature that this group recommends that be further explore or do we want to leave it to the legislature with the list of, you know, 18 or so different options? That's the question. I think, I guess from my perspective, you've kind of gone this far with the idea that we would present a list of options, alternatives, whatever the term is. If you get into prioritizing even among those, then you're kind of getting into, well, it's a recommendation process in which one has the support and so forth. So there's a challenge there where I probably could do that, but I don't, then you're gonna have to go to each one. I don't think you can pick out one as, can we all agree on this? Because then it becomes the one that everyone has agreed on and by the nature of it is prioritized above others. So that would be my, I think my challenge and perhaps the challenge to the group. I do think it's, because of the way this was put together, it is possible to, the number of them have to do with EPR. For instance, it is possible to come up with fewer than 18 if one wanted to kind of go through this list and say here are elements of EPR that, and because not all of them are the same, sometimes people take a different crack at the aspects of an EPR program. It might be just clearer in the NSA EPR that could have the following characteristics as one, as one kind of way to go here, but instead of 18 as though they're all distinct, there's really quite a lot of overlap between the number. So, what I think I'm hearing, Kathy, is right now we've done, we've gotten lots of material, maybe a thousand pages. We've got 18 suggestions to the recommendations, but we're lacking an action step. And rather than, for me, rather than that, the action step being we pursue what Maine did or we pursue what California did, or we try to prioritize which ones we like best and what legislature would look at those first, an action step could clearly, could simply say it's the recommendation of the group that legislature investigate the various options that we've presented and others as they present themselves for the furtherance of, and then you had a pretty good, for the furtherance of reduction in single use products in the state of Vermont. That seems, I mean, I always wanna have an action step. And I think we need one. And that particular one builds on what Kathy said, I think, but it doesn't get specific. We individually aren't endorsing any one of the particular ones in that particular statement. Only that, the whole reason we did this was to present a legislature of information in order to move this ball farther down the field. So, well, I think some of the challenge comes up. When I first made a quick table, I used the word recommendations for inclusion and report. And I think that word recommendation is hanging us up a little bit. If we called this collection of ideas, items recommended for further consideration by the general of December in furtherance of the goals of Act 69, something like that. That's the action statement right there of the headline of the table. But I wonder if we can consolidate some of these because some of them compete a little bit. So it seems confusing to get a statement that. I don't know how other people, oh, just be honest. When I think about consolidating them, but I think we might end up. So I think we might lose some of the action and then out back and forth in a way that I don't know that we'll, because we're not signing sort of off and say this is the one pursued, I don't know how we'll, how much we'll improve the usability of what I said. I think the only way for consolidation is if something in particular is somebody's item here that they see would fit into another one and say I would be fine with that. That's the one I want to stick to. They want to get that paid there, and we're right. I would say that that will come naturally in the committee process, along with the legislative committee process that will take all the 18 adults and I for one, and we'll do it like it suggests it stands. So I'll, maybe I should be keeping what I said about it. There, it says item, I just wrote out, items recommended for further consideration by the General Assembly in furtherance of the goals of Act 69. In furthering of the Assembly. Furthering of the Governments. Yeah. Yeah. The goals, the goals. The goals, yeah. Yeah. Well, maybe we've got it just for the response. Yeah. The goals, uh-oh. Yeah. And, there's only one way to make it there. Just going on to six-point, that's what we want to do. We really get a lot of it. In talking with Council, Michael, maybe over break, did you have something you wanted to say about how we would frame this section? I think you could add a paragraph right below the title of the table that says all of the proposals were proposed in furtherance or to address one of the goals of Act 69. There is committee discussion about whether certain proposals meet all or some, but they were all intended to address the goals. So you no longer have the asterisk issue. You can pull the asterisk out. You don't necessarily need to have that each of some of them meet all of the goals. They're all intended to meet one or some of the goals. So you don't have to argue about where the aster goes. Yeah. I like that idea. Anyone else? Oh, it's in paper, we could take one vote and fill a copy. Right, and then we don't write. So then in the table itself, the instances that say, meets all the statutory criteria Act 69 would all go with those with all the intended goals set from the outset. So if we do that, then it looks like there's no pros for some of those items, because we didn't articulate any other positive aspect with them, right? That's true. We've stopped enumerating them because we said we'd check all the boxes. Right, so I would just say, if you take it out, you've got to put something in this place that otherwise it looks like it doesn't have any pros. We need a chance to, for those slides, because they're, you know, I think one or two that I submitted that I had jotted down pros that I don't think I yelled out loud enough on the call last week. I mean, if we had a chance to edit those, we'd keep going and put some pros back in. And then as soon as there's gonna be a review process, right? Looking at the columns. And the one thing is right, so we don't have everyone here who's offered up that comment at the same time. So let's think about this. I don't want to review process to sort of spin forever, but yeah, and it will be easier for us to have a little conversation about adding things back in if we're all here. We offered to do by sending the document around. Well, if we wanted to minimize review process, could we keep in where it already states meets all the statutory criteria back at 69? But at the beginning, at the paragraph that Mike was suggesting at the top, so that the reader knows that every suggestion meets at least one criteria. And this is just for consideration. I mean, I've got two of mine that don't have any pros either, that I would say. Well, we could decide on them. We could amend that right now. Okay, so for consumer education on contamination, I would say improve material streams for pros. My answer at the top of the. Bottom of page six. Oh yeah. Okay, a little bit of something. A little bit of something. Yeah. I did hear you on the no on consolidation, but isn't that line the same as increased consumer education motivation to recycle? This category and this category, couldn't those be combined? Well, that top one's not mine, so. Increase consumer education motivation to recycle on page three. Yeah, that wasn't my signature. Right. Yeah. The same as consumer education on contamination. Well, it's not just on contamination. So it's two separate topics. But it's all under the heading of consumer education. Well, if we're gonna get that technical, then we can go back to and validate all the EPR suggestions as well. I mean, we're gonna, I wasn't talking about just contamination. When you consumer education, they need to understand, consumers need to understand. Well, it's its own. Yeah, so it's not just on contamination. I'd say it comes from education. So why don't we just edit these ones that are lacking pros and then we'll, when this gets kicking back up again, there'll be a chance for a lot more conversation. But so the one that's quite under avoids, avoiding increases in consumer prices. So that one there, consumer education, kind of a motivation to recycle. That's your identity. No, that's not. Okay, so Erin, you want to spell out what the pros are from your point of view? We'll get it while we're here. For understanding, there would be increased issue cycle. There would be less recyclables going through this whole thing. So increase your cycling, less material for the less, less material. To the landfill. Oh, I think she wants it in the next box down, Michael. Oh, sorry. You may have these questions over here. So funding and stakeholders was meant to address who's working on that part, right? I mean, is the state gonna be doing it or is it the shore or is it the... All stakeholders should be participating in the education, I think that's what we... Jen, that was your question, who's paying for it. So it would be all stakeholders. It would be manufacturers, retailers, producers, etc. Okay, so then let's turn that into a statement about all these questions. So all stakeholders should participate. In consumer education. And you were actually a little more explicit, so they were... Manufacturers. So after the manufacturers, retailers, there was like the waste industry and the waste industry and the state. Was avoiding increases in consumer prices your... That was mine as well, okay. There would be a reduction in the potential of shopping out of state. Reduction in the potential of a lack of access. For levity, get more landfill items for last month. That was levity. I picked that up. So those are your two, or they didn't come in. Andy, where is the one you had put in? So that was, let's see, consumer education and contamination. I just put improved material streams. Or improved recycled material streams. And I would say if we're going to do this for art, we probably should do it for the ones that just say it meets all statutory criteria for 69 as well. Because there's some criteria around costs and benefits that we haven't really talked about, so I'm not sure I can say it meets that criteria from my perspective. So, well, so it all came from individuals. I'm wondering, does it... Does it create enough... Can we finance it by saying, Proposer Beliefs? Yeah, that sounds right. There you go. Yeah. Proposer? Well, that's true for everybody. I just mean otherwise we're going to have to go for A to E. But that could go in Mike O'Grady's initial paragraph, something about that. All the pros and the cons really are pros and cons. We haven't been disputing these. I have the folks that suggested those fill them in. Because we're not disputing any of these, right? So it feels a little bit like if you didn't do your homework and write out a pro, because I didn't either, but I didn't. So that's why we filled mine in. But then we need to have somebody write it in. And if you can't collectively write it, then whoever wrote it the first time should write it. Explosive and saying, you should support this. We all believe in our recommendations. Right. That dismisses the ones that we put it down. Yes. Yeah. I'm fine with that. Because again, like Andy and Paul said, nobody is disputing any of our pros. So if the people that have said it needs all certain criteria, they can send it along. You know, Mike can include it in the... And to be clear, because I want to make sure I understand what we're talking about. I understand those five criteria that's in the beginning of the charge for this working group. So it's to reduce the use of single use products, reduce the environmental impacts of single use products, improve the statewide management of these materials, divert them from the landfill, and prevent contamination of natural resources. And I think when I saw that for the first time as mentioned for EPR, I did agree that it met all five of those. But you can write them up. But so EPR was one of the items that I had suggested. And are we then going to be debating people's suggested pros? Yeah. And I'm not really... Yeah. I'm looking for a solution that doesn't have us trying to test every item on the line against all five criteria. And, you know, this was at the time a working shorthand for saying, oh, well, there's five things we're trying to address. And we think it addresses all five. So another way of phrasing it a little less assertive is to say that it's comprehensive or something like that. And it doesn't really get us out of a fix of appearing to have a stronger state about some than others. The ones that we've got labeled that are criteria of concern I'm hearing and it could be a reason. And it is, in fact, maybe a reasonable... It is, in fact, a concern for us to consider that elevates that particular item for legislature when they consider it. And so I'm going to go back to the committee process in legislature when we get all of these items. There will be people who say, wait a minute, this doesn't even come close to meeting any of that for any of the requirements. And others will say, well, actually it means all of them. And so I guess maybe I'd suggest that either we can agree that the disclaimer that Michael's writing gets us out of this situation. And if we don't think it gets us out of the specific one where we do say the various ones of us have said meets all the statutory requirements. I'm not sure what my action step here is. But my action step, I guess, would be we agree that the disclaimer will take care of this issue. Question. We're only at two that the only pro is meets all statutory criteria. I think there are some... Yeah, I know. But should we allow gender to... They're five? That is the only thing? I mean, it's in... It's also used in the other... But there are other pros on the other ones. Right? But there's only one where there's nothing but that. Okay, so but when people suggested using that, they were thinking about reduction of the material itself, improving, you know, decreasing the amount of disposal, improving the management. So if we move that, what do we replace it with? I think leaving it blank is not fair to the... And that's just another blank. I'm suggesting have the proposal fill it in. Yeah, I'm not sure that. It's very clear to say that. So insurer manufacturers are bearing costs. That meets all statutory requirements based on what I'm reading here. I don't think there's a connection there. So... I would say that it relieves the cost of... of the consumer and the... It relieves the cost of the recycling system is the direct pro of that. I think it's the improving statewide management of single-use products, that comment. Right. So I don't think it's maybe fair to say that it meets all the requirements if it isn't connecting there. This one is. Thanks for that. To build up those representative McCullis comments, we allow the committee process to happen. The committee is going to weigh the pros and cons. So what if we remove the pros and cons column, and we can leave the notes column, and the committee can decide the pros and cons themselves. Could we include them all as notes? Right. Move them all into notes. Move them all to notes, because then it lists... And then tag pros and cons. No, just put everything as a note. Instead of a pro or a con. Okay, yeah, because the note were late, yeah. I think it's helpful to have pros and cons. And I did too. I think we'll all be in front of this committee. So, setting up the pros and cons rights. Okay, so, yeah. It's sweet to seeing this document again, and my own voice. I'm in another room.  So rather than cash them all out, let's just... There's only five. We are not aiming for a comprehensive... Let's pick the most compelling reasons we can think of for the pros and cons, and just put that in a few. We don't have to come up with A-P-E. We can just say, amongst the things you'll consider are some may be... The fluence is the very first one. Reduction in ways of... I think I actually said, increase the clarity of the timeline. This... Yeah, maybe I take the timeline for action. I would definitely, through A, reduce the use of single use products, right? Right. So let's add that one in. Reuses volume. Reuses volume. Volume of single use products. Okay. Yeah. The way on the right one. Yes, sir. Reuses volume. Single use products. Yeah. Does it reduce the environmental impacts? Listen. Yes. Okay. I'm just kind of accused of being presumptuous. I like this process. The environmental impacts, yes. Improves management of systems. Yes. Divert it from disposal. I would say yes if we're not allowing it anymore. How does it improve management of systems? Less volume. Yeah. If you're not allowing the use of certain single use products by a certain date, then they're not there to have to be managed. So you wouldn't get it in your recycle stream. Elimination is a movement. Yes. Redaction's at least the best. Top of the pyramid. Absolutely. I understand your point. I wouldn't argue that if you wanted to. But either way, that doesn't really matter as long as you get these other systems as far as I'm concerned. I think a probe on that one is goal oriented. Which we all made. Measurable. And does it do anything to prevent contamination of natural resources? You can certainly make that argument. Yeah. So E. Prevents contamination of natural resources. Reduces contamination. Yeah. Thank you. There's others we won't. I appreciate it. We'll see. So one possibility is that you select all those copy notes. Make them in a block. And then we can edit them. Yes. We'll take something out. So it will give us a way to move our way along. Copy all of these and then replace the next one. Put it in the next one. Let's go to another block. Yeah. Right below it. So like that. Yeah. Okay. Don't go away. So do these ones. Yeah. All right. So anything we want to eject from the list? So which one is this? BAMs. So these are just BAMs on it. Not an EPF. Just BAMs. I think you'd eliminate goal oriented. It's not really the same. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Well, if you're opening a problem out of material for the same reason. Yeah. The system works better with less problems to deal with. Divergent, measurable. Under the next. No copies. No, no. I'd say the original list because the original list had all of them in it. You. The original list was broken into two pieces. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. It's a bit easier for you to have an experience about it. That's okay. You got it. It won't let you drag through. Yeah. It will. Yeah. Divergent. Well. Yeah. Ensure manufacturers are bearing the cost of EPR. Okay. So that's some C-thull of different. Yeah. So let's. Does it reduce volume? No. Because. It doesn't reduce volume? It doesn't reduce volume? I'm sorry about that. Not necessarily. No, necessarily. It doesn't necessarily reduce environmental impacts. The first one. That was really a planning one. Yeah. So I think that. It's not goal oriented. I would say that it does reduce environmental impacts because it has the eco-modulation schedule over in now. It improves management of the systems as well. Because over time it will become more efficient. Your eco-modulation is actually another one. I know, but I would not agree that it doesn't reduce environmental impacts. We don't know what manufacturers are using as an alternative. Well, it says eco-modulated schedule. And the purpose of the eco-modulated schedule is to give preference to producers for producing materials that are less in more environments over here. So then can that one be combined with a other one? The only reason why I wouldn't want it combined is because this one has a note on expanding the bottle bill. That's not mine. And I don't want to take that out of there because that is somebody else's suggestion under the note. Well, it's a fair point. There isn't actually one. It just talks about expanding the bottle bill. Senator Brett, you had on the last page. I don't want to divert attention from this right now, but you kind of talk about expanding the bottle bill to the last. But that doesn't even capture all of what Lawrence's initial suggestion event. So it might make sense to just separate out one. There is a line just to increase the bottle bill. It's the last one. Yes, you could take it out. Just to increase the deposit on the bottle bill. But Senator Brett talked about glass only. So just change your take. The suggestion was an expansion of the scope of the bottle bill beyond glass and an increase in the deposit. So I think it's a fair point. You take that note out of here and make it your own thing. And that's what you're doing with that. Sure. As a proposal, you're willing to edit that way. That seems like a useful thing. Stay a little more compact. So what we would do is keep the other EPR one, because we worked on that earlier today, and move that, the pros, into the other one. So these pros. The whole list actually was pre-engineered. The whole list. The one with the environmental. The one with the commercial list and head above. I still have it in your pocket. And then move that down. So it has me at 1.69 minutes. I did it myself. That one. So in addition to or in place of? In place of me. Place of Jess up. Perfect. Right after the one we were editing. This one? Yes. So ensuring manufacturers are paying full cost. It seems like a characteristic. I think you can delete this one. I think it's captured from the other one. And then you want one for spanning the bottle. Right. I think that's useful. I think it notes. The touch pad is messing me up on this computer. The notes are in there. Just keep expanding Bottleville to cover water wine. And that becomes the item. This one becomes the item. This one becomes the item. Like that. And then this goes away. Like that. You can modulate scheduling. And then we can. We can get all of those. Yeah. So. Now. Can I just suggest though that among the pros. It's not. Those may all apply but it's also a higher quality of recycled. Material. Which is. Which improves the marketability of. Higher quality recycled material. Yeah. You probably just leave it down. So that. Improves management of systems. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure I agree with that one. Yeah. And then. Is it cool? The measurable is. Because of the non-transparent. Yeah. Yeah. Because of the non-transparent. I don't mind the name. Both of those. Thank you. But don't you want. To increase the string that's going into. The. Redemption centers and that. We need to fix the whole system. And just. The redemption. It isn't going to fix. The system itself. Should we have a note. The. The sorts at redemption centers and retailers. Needs to be addressed. Well there is. Towards the end. Increased deposit. Redemption bottle bill. 15 cents review and correct. Inefficient season system. Maybe that's. Inefficient. Inefficient. Maybe this one goes away. Yeah. I'm willing to combine mine. I still stand by what I say. Which is the test study that's happening right now. That people do it for 15 cents. They don't do it for five. So why go to 10. But I'm finally consolidating. So change mine to be 10 cents. Or. Would yours fit in this one? Right. So. Let's correct and combine them. Correct inefficiencies and system. Yeah. Yeah. Why. I want to serve the group. And not injure your discussion. So. This one. Here. Review and correct. Inefficient season systems copies. In case. To the other one. As a note. Right. Inefficient. Inefficient. Yeah. For that matter you could say. Address. Encourage. More commingling. I'm in. You could be to put it as a note. Or part of it. Somewhere it needs to be noted. Either increase commingling. Either increase commingling. Or decrease source. Yeah. Yeah. Good. As a note. That's. That's one strategy. That would help. But someone might bring up something else. Yeah. So then under nurse restaurant redemption. Right. That's the other piece. Yeah. Right. And then cons. Potentially increase. Recycling. The cost for recycling system. The curbside. Yeah. Curbside. Or curbside. Well it's not all curbside. Yeah drop on curbside. Moving. Recycling. Moving.  Which one. So. You can pop back up and grab the full list. Yeah.  That was something. Yeah. That's how it is. There's more moving pixels in here than an 8L game. What? Yeah. Yeah. Maybe we can. Yeah. One more up. One more up. One more, okay. Yes. I think. Yes. Does it straddle the page? Yeah. Remember? Yeah. No. And now, we go back down. Next time you see, we saw the criteria of activity. Of course. There you are. And then, if you can take off, increases clarity of time on it. Yeah. It's not part of that. The general scope would be, all right. Yeah. Recycle content, really. It won't produce the volume. Yeah. Switching one container for the other. But you're promoting the use of recycled content or reducing the use of virgin material. It doesn't really make a bottle. It just changes the bottle. The next one would be germane. It's a better one. Because you use the best virgin material. Yeah. LCA. LCA. Yeah. So, yeah. I would have that. I mean, if you want to just leave that, that's fine. But I think I would add one about promoting circular economy. Because that's just a goal unto itself here, right? A benefit of itself. And it benefits the recycling system by creating demand. Is it helped with just split off? Slide down. Okay, so we're deleting that? Yeah. Okay. It doesn't improve management of systems. It doesn't diverge from disposal because it doesn't do any good at it. I would argue that because there would be more incentive to recycle, collectively recycling those materials because of the demand for recycled content. Yeah. For a con here, we do need to put, manipulates the marketplace for residents. It may. I've been told at least that Poland Springs switched to 50% PCR. The entire supply of PCR east of the Rockies. So it's going to manipulate the market. Manipulate the market.  Yeah. Is that a bad thing? I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Well, it's a con in the sense that if you're going to legislate that, if you're going to put in statute, all beverage bottles must meet 50% recycle content. Suddenly your bottle goes from $1.50 to $6 because you're simply chasing, or you just simply can't meet the supply, right? And then you get into penalties. It's going to manipulate the market. And that's the stated goal. But the con is that it manipulates the market, right? Well, it increases consumer costs. Potentially. Yeah. What you're trying to say. Yeah. But it causes change in the marketplace. Can we say it may disrupt the market or alter? I mean, I'm here. Alter would be better. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That way we would aren't be prejudged. OK. It's going to happen. It's going to be negative. Manipulate. OK. Sure. Alter, distort. I'm not saying it's a good idea. No, Andy, you would want it to be adversely over the market. I mean, if it's a con, it could adversely. I mean, it could put some of the small borrowers out of business. Some of the small water folks. They could either pay a penalty, right? Or they can't afford to borrow anymore. Or maybe we could use relevant ones. Put about the business all together. No, that's not equal to plastic bottles. I'm not with diversion from disposal. Yes. Because you could have containers that are disposed now. But because they'll be valued, they'll be more incentive for them in recycling, OK? Would it be better to just put incentive to incentive against disposal versus diversion? Yeah. In the sense of, I guess. The incentive should reduce. It's right or wrong. And then in terms of goal-oriented and measurable, those, they're, if everything up here is goal-oriented. I would definitely say it's measurable. Right. But measurable, because there would be a specification. Yeah. There would be. OK. So it's goal-oriented. It's gone. There's something else. Yeah. Reduces contamination at wood sources. Well, by reducing the use of virgin materials, I think there's a direct connection. Yes. Yeah. OK. I thought that that captured the virgin material in number one. But I think about the contamination natural resources. I'm thinking of litter in the micro-process. And I don't think it reduces that because, you know, it doesn't matter if the plastic bottles are recycled plastic or not. If it gets out in the environment, it's going to break down into micro-processes. Yeah, I'm not. I wouldn't dispute that point. But I think reducing the contamination of natural resources might have to do with fracking and so forth. There's less fracking involved in creating a bottle that's made of 50% of natural resources. True. But if we're relating, because we're, we copy these from the charges, and it specifically says, prevent contamination of natural resources by discarded simply used products. So it could be just like alteration. Yes, it reduces pollution. Yeah, it reduces environmental impacts already. Yeah. All right. Sorry there. Well, that's fine. That would be good. Right. As I know, you can say reduces the use of virgin materials and else. Yeah. Reduces the use of virgin materials. Materials? Mm-hmm. Like that? Right. And I think that was our last instance. You guys do that. All right. So are we going to give Mike, the village is just going here and cleaning things up a little bit. Just because some of these statements don't really say this Michael or Mike. Because like the one we were just on, it was an increase mandate. It's not what we're talking about. We're talking about increasing, mandating to increase recyclable content. Right. So how do we, how do we, how do we, how do we clean this? We don't necessarily have to word Smith as a committee. I don't have to. Scriven your improvements. Thank you. Well, against this group, high marks for, there was, no weapons were brandished during a group edit process, which is probably one of the most challenging things you can do as people are going to work at. No one member did leave the room briefly. For oxygen. Right. So any other notes on the, I think we, we spelled out what was missing for it. I have a couple of clarifications that I would like to just bring up. Okay. If we start at the top of the document, it says no standard ASTM. And this was when Andy was on the phone and we were talking about compulsable versus recyclable, I think. And there, it's not clear here, but there is an ASTM standard for compulsable. This was biodegradable in the environment. It was the climate, I think. Okay. But we're at the top of the page. Very top of the page. Cons. Oh, this one. Okay. So. This is the, we were debating, I think, does the, if it doesn't biodegrade in the environment, right, that was kind of your point. You wanted it to, if it's littered to disappear. Naturally. Naturally. Degrade. If not, it's going to be banned under, I think, the recommendation. And so my, Oh. So what I was saying is that there is a Composability Standard, ASTM and. I agree. Yeah. There's Composability. I think he's trying to remind me, I was trying to say there's no standard for natural decomposition. That's it. Okay. Not composting, but under natural ambient. All right. So if we want to keep it in out, either way, I just want it to be made clear that there's no standard for natural decomposition, but there is an ASTM standard for Composability. Yeah. We don't even use ASTM in that comment you're on right now. Yeah. Just leave it like that. Thank you. Are you ready? And then down on the next recommendation, I'm just continuing to integrate while in redemption, we'll place with EPR for printed materials. I'm not sure why we got into the percentages at the MRF, but they don't match the percentages that I have for our MRF. So if we want to keep that comment. 40, 20, 20, 20. Yeah. I'm not sure how that helps the reader in this particular recommendation, but if we do want to keep it, I would say that line numbers are quite a bit different. Yeah. And how about yours, Kent? Do you have a 20% resident? No. No. No, we don't. So these are facility-specific, so let's not flip that. Okay. Yeah. Is it over yet? Yeah. I'm just going to launch my joke and we're done with this one. For a con, can we include cost to consider increases, but also it essentially puts over 50 reduction centers out of business? To eliminate the bottle bill? Yes. So it's reduction centers? Since you should say if the bottle bill is eliminated because there is a slash ending rate, so it is a confusing one. Yeah. So the cost to consumers, I am not convinced that will increase because consumers are paying a lot of them out right now to recycle. It would be a difference cost, but I'm not sure it will be any shift. I'm not convinced of that. I would agree with that, but it comes out in a disclaimer. We have to remember there's a handling fee to, on top of the five, or 10, 15 cents. That will go away? Right. If it's discontinued, but what do you mean? Well, what I mean is how about if we put a note that just says impact on consumer prices should be a factor. Yeah. I mean, this is true. Sure. I'm sure the legislature will be presenting. And then should we delete that one? Yeah. But does success for you as a model needs to be? Yes. Well, I was going to say it was a half a sentence. I think it was developed that was dropping. Right. That's why we're going to have mine. We got lost, and then it didn't get replaced when we got onto something else. Exactly. We lost it. So we looked at models, but we, we know they're sorry. So what are we doing with that? It should be developed. Developed. Developed. Like that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So we're going to contaminate of emergency concern. And this comes into the Michael edits right there. Right there. I wasn't sure what that recommendation was anymore. It was just a statement. It's just a thing. Okay. They're working. So is this span upstream work? I mean, it could be could be upstream and downstream. Right. It could be I mean, you can have all kinds of. So Kim, you were the one that brought this up. I think the contaminants of emergency concern. What action, what, what do you mean by contempt? What do you want done with contaminants of emergency concern? Like, do you use, do you use exposure to or? Ban them from putting products? It's more the, yeah. It's more the food packaging. Peafelt? Yeah. And recently, we just learned one for a dioxin. So. Sounds like a ban. Right. Well, right. Yeah. Our conversation, was it something like, why does it have to fall to the solid waste hand or in the end? Right. When it was created, lay up string. Right. Yes. Yes. Okay. So does that, that sounds like eliminating or ban? Ban products that contain. Toxic additives? Yeah. So. Especially if they're touching their food. Yeah. Toxic additives in single use products? Is that, yes? That contains, no ban, I think it's ban toxic additives in single use products. Would that capture it? Yeah. Yeah. I think, yes. Yeah. Food packaging. I'd prefer to say. Yeah. Present foods service. Present foods. Present foods. Packaging. Food service. And food. Yes. First of all. And we have something on the first page that's content, which is similar to the voices of other tubes. It's a fan food packaging that contains, only said, PFAS, but maybe it should, PFAS another toxic. Another. Yeah. Yeah. You've got the merging, you may not want, lead. You know, something that might not categorize as an emerging contaminant, but that's where I have the toxic. Right. Isn't the toxic clearing house covered? Some of those things? Yeah. So. Bantoxic additives and food packaging. And service, I would say. We'll give you all right, instead of using packaging, because utensils aren't packaging. That's what we're here. That's what we're serving. Food service. Food service. And food service. Yeah. Items. Good. How is that to do then one? Okay. So my, okay. So perhaps with the very first item, keep this the way it is, because it's very complete. Go up to the very first item and maybe we can just delete the last part of item one. It says and food packaging that contains pecos. Right. Right. Okay. But keep keep the rest of that one the same. Yeah. Okay. Excellent. Okay. So. So combining this. Sorry. Getting rid of some of the other things. Perfect. Thank you. Okay.  That's great. That's great. Okay. So I think this is my last comment. Um, down to the hotel shoot shampoo one. Band single use food packaging. So my question was, do we want to clarify whoever made this suggestion? Okay. So, I think we're going to clarify whoever made this suggestion. There's single use food packaging and then there's single use packaging. And I was wondering because it's associated with hotels, which is just packaging. So our or define what single use packaging is like, is it include um, the service where that we're just talking about. So it just single use food packaging. So if if I buy a can of soup, that can is a single use food packaging. Is this a van on cans containing soup? That's what needs to be clarified. We only debated I think on the hotel part. That's a great question. Or it's a chicken. I got to bring my sister out. You might be sick.  What if we take out the single use food cheese and organise the food. Oh, right. I don't know who has suggested this one and obviously had something appropriate. Maybe it was service for them . probably was looking at Berkeley. There are those municipal ordinances that have taken on single use. It's food service. Yeah Seattle, Seattle maybe as well, you know. So are they banning all single use packaging or just the non-reseverable? I have to look at it honestly, why don't they recall it? It's content specific, what it's made out of. It's plastic. They're looking at plastic, but I don't know what to say. So they don't ban like bamboo? Right, they're not compostable. So everything you buy in the grocery store will be great? I think it's focused on food, is that what you're talking about? But for state and municipal? No, the state, the packaged water is actually the use of essentially government funds to purchase bottled water. The single-serve bottled water is the emergency. But I think that's why it says in the notes now. It does, it seems like that's three different bottles. Yeah. Package of water for state municipal. Or is it the beer that bottles? It's single use food packaging. Contact with plastics and chemicals added to plastics and consumer products is a pathway for exposure to toxic chemicals. So it's kind of related to what I said. So should plastic be put in between ban single use food packaging? I think that would at least make it a little clearer. Or could it be under yours? Could we go back to what yours was? If that was her. So just eliminate single use food packaging from this one and keep everything else, but then your point would cover it. Right. So if we need to leave that. Yes. Look, I'm training mine here first, but go ahead. So I might say, I think we all understand what me and my band hotel shampoo bottles, but really it's single use. Toiletries. Toiletries. Yes, yes. Motion. Yeah, I'm trying to cause a personal care product. Personal care. Single use personal care products and hotels and early band rooms in the bathroom. You can go to the front lobby and get Oh, in case you didn't bring it. Right. Yeah. And you might have to have us a little bit, you could exempt smaller. The California's hearing. Yes, just right. California exempts hotels with fewer than 500 rooms or something. I don't know. I'm not exaggerating. The second half of this package water for state and municipal. What that means is a band use of of public dollars for single serve water bottles. I think that's the point. Not necessarily single serve. The five gallon jugs as well. You, well, you could, although you can fill up. I mean, I think the point is you want to get rid of the 16 ounce or whatever we certainly do. But I would like I, I was also considering in this that, for instance, we made the switch here in the state house. We aren't getting these five gallon jugs anymore. We did an alternative and tap water to be filtered tap water. That's better. I mean, I don't think she would object. Just kind of clarify the personal care products because you don't want to include feminine products in that category. So shampoo, soap, conditioner, any other product you can put on your skin. I think this up in testimony. Yeah. Can I see the next one now? I just want to get a reminder where we ended up on this. Holy. I lost my way. That was our last box. I think. I don't want to discourage you. I think that will help like edit it a little bit. I just want to. She's moving her hand. So I'm just a little confused. This is a weird catcher. I didn't keep good notes, I guess. Okay. So that's the one I want to see. Oh, go back. Go back. That's food waste there. I did think of one more thing for this one. And that's help with the finances of our recycling system. As a product. Assist with finances of our recycling system. Yeah, that's about why food waste is there. It might be covered in the note. Remember, this is what he is. Yeah, I think that would be over that. It's a little confusing. For the cons. Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. We don't want any bear or food waste. Yeah, okay. The left out of the building here. Yeah. Just that. Yeah. Vermont rarely thinks that. But the cons can be increased cost to consumers. I would see, we added above language that can consider the impacts to consumer cost. We added it there. To. This is a different language. Yes. But we added similar language. I just want to make sure it's consistent. So let me check when someone asked a little increased cost. It might increase the cost for the product, but decrease the cost of running a waste system. So that you can come up with one more at the end in the way that it could be saved by anticipated. It'll also encourage shopping in future or could. It could. It could, yeah. That's a quarter of a shift. There's a language in the second, potentially, I think the second item. There you go. Okay. Increase cost. Okay, let's go back up. Isn't the notes. Increase cost. Impact to consumer price issues. Should be effects. Yeah. Great. We added the note down below. That's the note, don't we? Nope. Add that to the note down below. And which one was that? Is it EPR? Yeah, there it is. So, boom. And then open up. That's where we are. That's where we are. That's where we are. That's where we are. There we go. That's where we are. That's where we are. That one. That one. That one. There we go. This one? This one. The one that did modulated fee factors may be in conflict. Okay. So does it go into the notes? It should. It should. We also added right here on access to products to channels that need access to. I think we just put that in one. Impact on consumer prices and access. Two products. Two products. Like that. Thank you. Of course. I sent an overwhelming content. We need to include. This must be the sound of Calais. Going once, going twice. So. That's how I'm getting a little bit. I think we need to include. We need to include. We need to include. So getting a little bit. I think we made it from one end to the other. Re-editing. I'll hit the third button. That's a good time. Setting off. So. Michael Rady. Can you join us at the table and help us. Know. How these things can get put together. Report. That way. So. Yeah. One of the things. That I. I'm looking at when I look at the table is. Not necessarily content. How certain other proposals have similar themes. But are not grouped together. And so. One of the things that I did is I looked at. There are themes where you can group. Some of your proposals together. There's a theme about. Product standards. Where you have proposals to address. And so. Recycability. Recyclicontact. Composability. You can put that underneath one. The other theme is. In general. The scope of this is. Hard. Six. Whether or not to integrate with the. Bill. There's a cost function underneath. The proposals. And. To. There's a potential for. Echomodulated fees and then the impact on consumers. A third fee. Is those echo modulated fees sector. For example. One of the proposal being a fee on printed materials. For them as the bottle bill. In general. You just talked about increasing. You talked about increasing the deposit. You talked about correcting the inefficiencies. And you have it. be not specific or not integrated with EPR. So that's another theme. And then the last theme would be consumer forward or consumer focused consumer education, motivation to recycle consumer education or contamination. And when increases on consumer prices maintain access to products, the task force will oversight and then generalize enforcement. So you could consolidate all of these into those themes. I'm not changing any of the content of what you just did, just putting kind of subject matter over each of them. And that will allow for me to summarize your discussions in the content of the report. Everyone comfortable with that? Yep. Yes. Thank you. Sounds like a great idea. Be more user friendly for all of us. So we already talked about how, at a paragraph with the disclaimer, I tried to start writing one, but you guys are all a little bit of a moving target. So I will have to give you some language and I fully expect some edits on that. And then I want to just kind of walk through the skeleton framework of the report. So this is just a skeleton. It's based off of another report of substantial size that the Ledge Council did for a study committee. You have a table of contents, and you could include in this table of contents all your written testimony or your commission response. You didn't really do much of that, but you do have a substantial amount of information on the website. So as Senator Bray referenced earlier, you could include effectively a reference page with a title of each of the documents, the author, and a link to it. So the report will basically be interactive in nature and allow for people to look at all the material that's been provided. So you could look at Chas Miller's presentation. You could look at the recycling institutes and information. So it's not excluding anything, and everything's available for reference within the report. Is that good to everyone? Yeah. One of the attachments that's already attached is the report that ANR supplied at the beginning of the study committee. It addresses the first two to three charges of the committee. I recommend that it be included in full as an attachment to the report, which it is right now. So that would be another attachment. Your table would be another attachment in full. So it could be referenced. And so everyone can go and look at exactly what your recommendations or alternatives are. So that would go in as you approve it. Are you suggesting as you did at the beginning about grouping things together, changing how the table then is put together? Yeah, just reorganizing the table. There will be subheadings for each one of the different themes. I'll call them that. I'm not going to call them proposals. It's just themes. Then you get the statutory charge. It's exactly what was in the act. Then one of the things that you can do is a background. Some committee reports do this, tell you how it got here, and summarize the discussion at the act 69 level. Frankly, I would probably call for my act summary for act 69 to give the background on this. And then some reports do a summary of the meetings that they've had. That's really up to you if you want to include it or not. It's usually basic. You met on this day. You heard from these people. Do you want that? All right. And then you get to the recommendations. I don't think, at least I heard you said you didn't want to call them recommendations. You can again call them themes or alternatives for discussion. Items for further consideration is what? Items for further consideration. And then if it's OK with you, I would group those items. Generally, it has the themes that you have on your table. And I would just summarize effectively what those are and refer for detail to the table. And that's basically what the report would be. Anyone think of something they thought we should be putting that we had online? So, Michael, when we look at the draft report on page 11 in the background section. All right. So this is the A&R report that they provided. I'm at the beginning of the reporting group. OK, yes it is. OK, so I will stay right out of that. And I can probably, on page 10, there's the title. All right. So I think I can get you a draft. This week's going to be harsh because of the Senate drafting deadline and other working groups. But I will have time early next week to start writing this vigorously. Well, then I thought we should just send everyone a copy. Directly. I had talked about we could list everyone who's on the committee. That would be one of the traditional things to do. I don't know if people are feeling ceremonial or if they want to actually sign off on the report. Or that's your John Handtack. Some of the stricterly piece of paper, people sign it with their name. And then that goes in. This is time for a sentry. I don't think we need that anymore. Just listing. Are you saying listing and affiliation? Yeah, right. There is that list from representing, such and such, representing, such and such, that would be a useful thing. So people know who was here for what reason. So we'll stay modern just how it comes out. Anything else? So again, thank you, everyone. Thanks for hanging in there on figuring out a way to edit. One of the things that's unusual around this group is that sometimes when we have meetings, we have a pretty clear idea of what you're going to ask people to do and how it's going to come out. And here, over and over again, that's what we call what's to think about together in real time. And we gave ourselves five minutes to reread something. And then we re-enact our conversation. So I really appreciate people just digging in and doing the work with others. Thank you. First, we turn. Yes. Thank you.