Good evening everyone, our group is going to present on product positioning. Sherith, next slide. Okay, in this topic, we are going to discuss what is product positioning, components of positioning, marketing positioning map, why easy steps for brand positioning, what are the real examples of market positioning map, what are the types of market positioning, product positioning process and approaches to product positioning strategies. Next slide. Okay, what is product positioning? Product positioning is nothing but the process by which marketers are going to determine the best way in order to communicate their product attributes to the target customers based on customer needs, competitive pressure, availability of communication channels and carefully crafted key messages. Carefully crafted key messages are nothing but the messages which are designed to convey how your product is different and better when compared to the competitive products as well as to address your value addition attributes which are important for the customers. Next slide. What are the components of product positioning? The components of pricing, retailer mix, media reviews, word of mouth, packaging, product features, competitor claims, integrated marketing communication mix. Integrated market communication mix is nothing but the public relationships, corporate communications, advertising, marketing and publicity functions. All this corroborately comes under the integrated marketing communication mix. From next slide, our friends are going to continue. Thank you. Market positioning map. It means it illustrates the range of the positions that a product can take in a market based on two dimensions that are important to customers. Like the two dimensions are the dimensions are like a price, quality, volume, luxury and heavy complexity. So based on these product can take a position like low price to product and high price to product, basic quality product, high quality product. Let me explain it through an example like in this figure, there are many fitness related, fitness related institutions like there are four positions. Like in this field health, the product stays in the broad range of services and low price. So it will gain the market share eventually and the active this institute, this company will eventually lose the high priced or rich customers go to a broad range and high priced position products. And like is the product stays in the position of high price and low range of services. It eventually loses the market share. So this beautiful matrix explains so well. Thank you so much. So just for product positioning, one of the major key factors is also market positioning. And here are the five easy steps to use market positioning for accelerating product growth. The first thing is like initially as we have said about the hidden messages that we have to give. So relative to our competing brands, we have to make sure that our product matches our consumers needs. That is the first thing. For this, we have to leverage our market positioning. Next, we have to invest in strategic alliances. We can't win alone. We have to use their external resources also. And this will also help in accelerating growth by using alliances of our of other companies. Third thing is data mining. We have to do as much data mining as possible to understand all the opportunities and also to understand our customer. This will only help us in better product positioning of the product. Next, when we are successful, there is always a requirement for change and innovation. As new products should come within the existing business. Our existing business has given us a good market position. But new products, if we leverage this position for introducing new products, we can increase our share. Next, we have to pursue strategies that will create value for all the customers. This includes both product and service. As previously I have seen, the gym is like a service and the products are things which the gym is selling to the customers. So we have to use these both things to leverage our product placement in the market place. The next is the types of positioning the product in the market. It depends upon the pricing, price of the product and quality of the product and differentiation of the product. Differentiation means the product should be different from the existing ones. Convenience, the product should make the consumers life easy. And customer service, a good customer service increases the successful interactions between the company and the customer. User group, this type of positioning targets a particular group of users and explains why the company's offerings are directly applicable to the customers. Next. Okay, here comes the product positioning process. It is the process through which the product should be positioned in the market. So there are several steps in this process. The first step is define the market where the product will compete. So we have to define the market like one or rural or international or international like this. We have to define the market where the product will compete. Next is identify the attributes to find the product space. Means the product will reach into the market. So we have to define the space for the product, whether it will be competing with the other product or not. Like this, collect information about the customers and other attributes. And if you determine each product share of the company and determine other products along with your product that you are going to place in the market. And determine the target market preferred combination of attributes. Means what are the attributes that you are combining with the product which you are launching into the market. And the last one is examining the fit between the product and the new market. Thank you. Next. So this includes the product benefits. Most use strategy is the product benefits. Things like things a product offers to satisfy the needs, desires and wants of the customers. And price approach the same product class. There are usually other brands that appeal on the basis of the price. So and product attributes, the characteristics of the products enabling you to uniquely describe a product. So product categories like group of products that offer similar benefits can be referred as the product categories. Like we can take luxury goods like BMW Mercedes etc. Next usage of in special occasions. So the customer will be looking for some special products. Some specific products in some occasions and competition strategies. Like keeping in mind the strength and weakness of the competitors. Company plans a long term plan of action. This is called the competition strategies. Thank you. Thank you very much. Superb. Thank you.


Hi, this is Gerald Friedman, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts in Amherst. And today we're here to talk about Keynes, Jean-Mainid Keynes of Cambridge, England, adviser to the British Treasury, author of The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill and, in 1935, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. I think it's safe to say that he is the most important economist of the twentieth century. He also is one of the most interesting, while arrogant, witty, argumentative, sometimes nasty. He also was a very romantic figure, married to a Russian ballerina, lover of many people of all various elks. And he died young, which is often a prerequisite for being a romantic hero. He died in 1946 shortly after trying to sway the U.S. to a more open-minded approach to post-war economic settlements. The U.S. did all right as these things go. The Bretton Woods Accords set up institutions that were a lot better than what was done after World War I. But there is no question, going into these negotiations, Keynes, who wanted a much larger international monetary fund, wanted a much more liberal approach towards balance of trade, balance of payments deficits, wanted the U.S. to put a lot more money into what became the Marshall Plan. Keynes was playing with a very bad hand, and the U.S. didn't do what he wanted, which is probably too bad. The world would have been a lot better if we had listened to Keynes. But for now, Keynes wrote his most important book, The General Theory, Drawing the Great Depression. And in it, as he makes clear not only in that, but also in his essays and persuasion, Keynes was a wonderful writer, by the way. That's a great asset. So was Milton Friedman, very clear, good writing, fun to read. You can read them out loud. Keynes was trying to formulate a theory behind the empirical observations of the Great Depression, which had actually started much, much earlier in Britain. Britain never really recovered from World War I, and it certainly never recovered from the decision in 1926, which Keynes described in the economic consequences of Mr. Churchill, the decision in 1926 to go back to the gold standard at the pre-war rate of exchange of the pound for gold. That was a decision that left Britain with an overvalued currency and a chronic balance of trade deficit, chronic on high unemployment. So what we in the United States experienced beginning in 1929, Britain experienced long before. Britain never had full employment in the 1920s. Instead they had a prolonged period of high unemployment, seeming equilibrium. So when Keynes looked at the world of the 1930s, he was looking at it through the vision of what happened in Britain in the 20s, which was a long period of unemployment, with no tendency towards full employment. Keynes was a great classical economist. He knew the orthodox theory. He understood it, but he looked at what happened to Britain in the 20s and what happened throughout the world in the 30s, and wait a second, the classical theory says law doesn't work. And that's where he had his most brilliant insight in the general theory, which agree or disagree, is a fundamentally different approach to economics. He said that demand on the aggregate level, you're not talking about individuals, but you talk about demand for the whole economy, it is fundamentally separate from supply. In fact, it's prior to supply. People do not make things because they want to consume. They consume, and then that determines what they're going to make. Robinson Cruser doesn't make a canoe because he wants to consume a canoe. Somebody buys a canoe, gives him an order to make a canoe, and he then makes the canoe. It's demand that comes first. And there's no mechanism in the aggregate economy for supply to be brought in line with demand, sorry, for demand to be brought in line with full employment supply. Supply will follow demand, but there's no reason why demand should ever be at the level that will provide for full employment. That is the basic idea in Cades, and here's how it works. There are two key points. The first is the multiplier. What determines the aggregate level of demand in the economy, the amount that people demand depends on some exogenous decision by people to buy things, which we'll call investment.  So they start out with $100, let's say they buy $100 worth of investment goods, they buy it from Dan, Dan has this $100, what does he do with $100? Well Dan spends it. In fact, Dan spends $99 of that $100, and he puts $1 in the bank because Dan's young, he has a lot of needs, he doesn't have much money, so he spends most of his money. He spends those $99, buying stuff from other people like himself who put $1 in the bank. So the $99 is spent, becomes $98, the next round becomes $97. You keep on going until all the money is in the bank. There's $100 in the bank and $1,000 worth of consumption. That is the economy. They start out with a certain level of external spending and that gets siphoned off through this multiplier process until all of that initial spending has been saved. So the savings equals the investment and the level of output is set at $1,000. If Dan saved $50 out of the $100, then he would get the $100, spend $50, the next person just like him would take the $50, spend $25, the next person would spend $12.50 and you would end up with just $200 of output. The level of output depends on the amount of initial spending investment and the marginal propensity to consume. And that's it. How many people get jobs? Well, if there's a very high marginal propensity to consume, like Dan's $99 out of the $100, then a lot of people will have jobs. If there's a low marginal propensity to consume, like $50 out of the $100, very few people have jobs and there'll be a lower level of output. And here's the second key point to Keynes. There's nothing here that equilibrates the level of demand with the potential of the economy. You could have 1,000 people out there, 100 of them at work because there's a very low marginal propensity to consume or very little investment and that'll be it. The level of demand does not change because there's more unemployment out there. If wages go down, that's not going to create more employment because that will just reduce the amount that people demand. There'll be less wages, less consumption. There's nothing in Keynes that guarantees full employment. What there is in Keynes is the potential for, as he described in the economic consequences of Mr. Churchill, as he found in Britain in the 1920s, that you can have long periods of unemployment. This by the way is what we saw in Japan in the 1990s is what we're seeing in the United States today. People associate, this is my last point on this, people associate Keynes with the depression of the 1930s. That's a big mistake. His theory was not written for the 30s. It was written for the 1920s. A long period of equilibrium, high unemployment. Okay, we're going to talk next time about animal spirits. Thank you and have a good day. Bye bye.


Thanks for checking out this movie review video. This is for the 2018 film Jessica forever Which is just hitting shutter today when I'm posting this video. So it's a shutter original and Shutter first the marshes now this What are you doing? I mean if this is what the originals are gonna end up being like or continuing to be like I Don't do originals anymore Just do the exclusives and do other stuff and get licenses for older films like established because this is it's not good I mean the marshes was horrible. This is a little bit better Not much and I'm gonna talk about why so I won't do spoilers on this because if people really want to see the film That's fine. That's your choice and there might be some people out there who legitimately like this film I hated it. I didn't like I said I didn't hate it as much as the marshes and you should watch my review for the marshes because No holds barred hated it terrible I'm gonna crap all over this film because it is not good But just know it's better than the marshes and some people might enjoy it And if you do enjoy it go ahead and put some comments down there Tell me why I'm always open to listening Well in this case reading and finding out why people like things and that's fine We all have different opinions, but for me very strongly hate this So it was written and directed by caroline puggy puggy or poji. I don't know and jonathan vannell Previous to this they just did some short films. That's all that showed up on their internet movie database history and from the Experience of this film they should just stick with short films They can Physically make a feature length film But they don't have the ability to write the story For a feature length film is what this brings through to me These people don't have the chops to write a script For an engaging or even halfway decent feature length film. It's just not their ability It's a french film. Just so people know Which you know fine The opening feels like it's trying too hard to be cool and it's just straight up awkward Now that actually goes throughout the film. It's just it so many moments where it's like it's trying to be cool It's trying to be angsty. It's trying to be Artistic and amazing and it's not it it tries to be all these things And it never is any of those things not even close to it And there's nothing worse than someone trying to do something and not even coming close to doing it And that's what this film is is a whole series of those types of things if you don't have the ability Find someone who does Or you know get help just get help with these films The first five minutes has no dialogue in it, which is fine, but then there's a bunch of I mean for the most part there isn't a ton of dialogue in this film, which Might actually be a good thing because when there is dialogue, it's it's pretty dumb. It's not very well written There's a whole lot of cliche stuff thrown out there things that just don't play well And yeah, actually now that I think about it the fact that there isn't a ton of dialogue is probably better Because then that way you can just kind of focus on the visuals which by the way the camera work is actually pretty good Whoever was working their camera. I hope they get work past this Because they did a good job And you know, you can see where the the two who wrote and directed it have the ability to do directing They can do some films but just don't they should not write their own stuff They just should not write their own stuff or at least come up with a premise come up with an idea Give it to an actual writer. They'll write up the script and then they can direct it. That's fine Um Because there's a good premise here. There's an underlying good idea It's just nothing is executed well with that idea the script is the biggest problem with this It is terrible and the acting is also not good But you know with a strong enough script Bad acting isn't the end of the film you you need a strong script.  I was like, oh my Oh my this is and it was foreshadowing It was very strong foreshadowing of what the rest of this film would be like Um, just like those names just trying so hard to be cool Just not even close The dialogue and characters are overly simplistic Every character is boiled down to one thing and they're almost all the same Almost every character has the same emotions acts the same way talks the same way Everything's the same It's like a bunch of drones. It's terrible. It's just garbage Um, nobody shows emotion, which that is the best way to have people not care at all about the movie Nobody shows emotion. There's there's a flash here or there where someone has an emotional line delivery But for the most part from what I can tell it's written and directed to Have people not show emotion in their acting in their dialogue delivery. None of it and it's just like How are you gonna have the audience connect with a single character The first thing is you have these overly simplistic characters who don't develop Pretty much at all throughout the film. They're almost all the same. It's like cardboard and then you have them not emote and not I mean it it's giving the audience nothing It gives the audience nothing to relate to it gives the audience nothing to be interested in And it's just like you're just watching these robotic Like these androids just go about doing things and they're not even doing interesting things for the most part Here or there it gets a little bit interesting and when I say a little bit. I mean a very little bit They're just doing so many mundane things and like you can pull a film off this way Like they were trying to do but they just don't do it and I at the end of this I'll give some examples of what I think they were kind of going for and and good examples of that There are lots of scenes of people just sitting around or standing around And a lot of staring that goes on it just comes off as idiotic Lots and lots of staring like I said, there's no emotion. There's so many instances where something happens and the the reaction or lack of reaction from the characters is so in your face that you're just like Huh, what are we doing here? Like that's not even close to human like nobody would not react to that There wouldn't be a single person who wouldn't react to that or would just stand there and stare and there's so much staring It's unbelievable. It's obvious that this film should have been cut down to half an hour maybe It's an hour and 36 minutes half an hour of it could have been a movie Jesus There are lots. Oh, yeah already got that one It just got me kind of shaken up here Like I said, the camera work is actually pretty solid though Like there are some inspired interesting shots, but that's not enough to keep people interested in the movie They have a night vision sequence in this film that does not look good and actually Didn't matter at all. So it was just kind of like this. Hey, I think we can do this Let's put it in the movie not I think this makes sense in the movie or we'll add something And that's kind of what this whole script was. It's just like, hey, I've got an idea Don't let's not even think about if it makes sense or if it pushes story forward or anything If you have an idea just put it in It's just like what the hell? Oh my gosh A lot of the time it feels like there was little to no script and they just winged it Based on locations that they wanted to use now. I will say this the shot locations are cool They do have some cool locations that look very beautiful Wonderful backdrop to it. There's a house in it that looks really nice and everything But it's what they choose to do with that, which is pretty much nothing that just leaves you like Okay, like what what why? Huh There's a scene I love this Maybe my favorite scene of the film just because I laughed so hard at it because it's unintentionally funny Uh, there's a scene where characters are dancing in music and it's like the most awkward and laughable Like grooving slash dancing you've ever seen it is Terrible terrible, but I found it funny. So there was a little bit of light Within the dark tunnel in a sense Uh, I've never seen so many angsty characters yet.  There's no point and I'll get to that a little bit Like I said, there is an interesting premise here kind of this idea It's a little bit post-apocalyptic, but I can't figure out if that's what it was actually trying to do It's a little bit Trying to talk about um, you know, what happens when boys are left alone in society and defend for themselves And then they find uh, their own family or makeshift family and can that kind of repair them from their traumatic past Um, sounds like a good premise, right? Doesn't come through in the actual film though. Well, and that's what I'm saying Like there's a good premise here. They just needed to hand that idea off to someone who actually knows how to write scripts And then they could have shot that but they didn't so That's where why we're here. This is where we are and it's it's not good If you have a low budget film or if you have a low to no budget And you can't do big things you need a very good script with interesting characters Not even a very good script. You need a okay to decent script with interesting characters That will be enough and this doesn't even come close Whenever you write anything you need to look at it from the audience's perspective and ask yourself Why there needs to be a why for things that happen I found myself saying throughout this film so what? Continuously through this film. I'm watching it things happen and I'm like, okay, so what? And there's no answer to it. Basically nothing comes up after it that really matters It's a whole lot of so what moments that are never answered Terrible This is okay This is what happens when you give a shooting budget to a film school student who says they're an auteur But refuses to run anything by anyone else and won't even take a second pass at a script that they wrote That's how this film plays out to me someone who thinks they're amazing Someone who just had their first year at film school and says, you know what? I think I'm an auteur I can make amazing films. I write the best scripts. Okay. Let me see it. No I don't let anyone look at my work. I don't even write a second edit of it because it's that good It's just right out the gate. Let's do this and it's the best thing ever That type of person is how is who it seems made this film Okay, so Bottom line terrible hate it garbage. What are you doing shutter? Stop wasting your money on this stuff This and the marshes if it's going to continue to go like this Stop just go for the exclusives and everything else and we'll we'll be good. I love you shutter I love shutter. I advocate for shutter so hard on this channel That is why it's so particularly heartbreaking when I see them spending money on stuff like this the other thing is They did a thing some years ago called shutter labs where they brought in larry fessenden and they Uh, they identified really good perspective A horror filmmakers who are you know indy who are very little known and they brought them in and did a workshop with them with larry fessenden And I feel like the idea behind that was to start cultivating some people who could then Contribute to shutter They need to go back to that find those people track them down and give them the money To make shutter originals to pour into it because they had already identified them as super talented people Who could be you know people to watch for the future instead of just going out and throwing money to these rando people Who this was their first feature length film and they obviously can't do one. It's just It's crazy So I promise that I would I would give you some examples of films that do kind of what I think they were trying to do here But failed at miserably I would say uh Last life in the universe is a really great example of this. It's one of these films where There's a point to it. There's an interesting theme It's very slow and and you would say not much of anything happens in the film But it's beautiful and it's engaging somehow and it and it's good another one is called sonatine that's another really awesome one and then Going like those are like higher budget versions of what i'm talking about but going like really low budget There was a film on netflix called uh boys in the trees from 2016. That's probably closer Uh comparison wise for this one because it is very low budget and you can tell that that's another one where not a ton happens But the script was actually good and they You know they do they do a solid job. So In the end big old thumbs down on this one. It's trash But like I said, it's better than the marshes. So uh giving it a Rating out of five stars with half stars in play since I gave the marshes I believe just a half star and I won't go lower than that for any movie I mean just making a movie gets you half a star. I'm going to give it one star. This film gets one star I recommend it to no one Um, although if you do watch it and you are interested in it put some comments down there I I would love to know what people see in this that they like So anyway, thanks people for checking this one out Do me a quick favor when I go through frustration like this the best way you can repay me is with a subscribe I sit through some of these movies. So you don't have to this is a prime example the marshes being another one So pay me back with a subscribe if you already subscribe hit that Thumbs up and make sure you hit the notification bell and then put some comments down here Let's talk about real horror. Anyway, thanks everyone for checking this out and until next time keep it brutal


in the report and have a conversation with us. I just remember you've been here the last two days, so you know what we're up to. I don't know if we've been, or anyone who wasn't in the room, basically, I think we've recapitulated a miniature to act with me to proceed in a way. And we had a lot of conversations. Now we'd love to hear and view the report. And then have some discussion to follow. I'm looking forward to how we might construct a committee bill that takes advantage of what we've, what you're sharing with us and what we want next week. So, thanks again for coming over, and I look forward to your next. Well, thank you, Senator Gray. And for the record, I'm Barbara Cheney. I'm one of the three commissioners on the public utility commission. And with me today is policy director Tom Nower. And he was the lead auditor of the report and he'll be chiming in whenever he wants to, pad or correct ones. So, Act 62, which he passed, was signed into law in June, last year, June 2019. Among other questions, it asked the PUC to consider whether the state could create an all fuels energy efficiency program. With coordinated funding and implementation for all regulated and unregulated fuels. As a reminder, we have had a statewide comprehensive, fully regulated approach to electric and non-natural gas efficiency, which is funded by an efficiency charge on everyone's bills. Unregulated fuels, fuel oil, propane, diesel, and gasoline have no such comprehensive program or uniform or adequate source of funding. Of course, in considering whether to create such a program, funding is an essential element. Act 62 asked for two reports, one, six months, and the final report in January of 2021, next year. What we delivered to your committee on Wednesday is the approximately 60 page preliminary report, the result of an investigation that included a series of written filings and workshops with participants from state agencies, electric, natural gas, and efficiency utilities, building professionals, consulting groups, industry groups, and citizens. The investigation is ongoing and will conclude with the final report due a year from now. The first report lays out Vermont's existing laws, policies, and programs for all fuels and their multiple funding sources. Understanding the multiple, uncoordinated, spotting programs, and importantly, the various existing funding that goes with each program is a necessary starting point for designing a meaningful, coordinated, statewide approach for all fuels. What is not in the preliminary report is the answers to these questions. This will require more time for a much deeper dive. For example, if the focus switches to prioritization of greenhouse gas reductions in all fuels, over efficiency savings and regulated fuels, how would it even be measured? How would spending be prioritized? What would be the impact on bills? What are other funding options? What if there are no other funding options? The design of the program will be affected dramatically by the amount of funding and where it comes from. Again, this report is due a year from now. So to review what we have in place today, first, at the highest level, our energy policy is based on ensuring, and this is in statute, for a month's ability to meet its energy needs in a way that's adequate, reliable, sustainable, and affordable, and encourages economic vitality, the efficient use of resources, cost-effective demand side management, and protection of the environment. The Comprehensive Energy Plan, the second bullet, was the plan of 2016, includes a number of broad goals, but also specific recommendations to reduce energy consumption per capita by 15% by 2025 and more than a third by 2050. It proposes meeting 25% the need for renewables by 2025, 40% for renewables by 2035, and 90% by 2050. Remember, these percentages apply to all energy, not just electric. It suggests renewable end uses of 10% for transportation, 30% buildings, and 67% electric. Then, number three, in statute, we have targets pegged to 1990 baseline levels to reduce greenhouse gases by 50% by 2018, two years ago, and 75% by 2050. In the RES, we have specific requirements for electric utilities, both in the electric sector and in carbon reduction. We have long-established regulated programs for our electric, and now our natural gas utilities, our electric energy efficiency program. They're held to performance standards and have a dedicated funding stream. Next to last, section 209E, tagged funding for weatherization from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Forward Capacity Market, and requires the program to make, quote unquote, continuous progress toward attaining our building efficiency goals. And finally, the goal for weatherization is entitled 10 to improve the energy fitness of 80,000 homes by 2020. So it's a real catch work, but then there are regional and global efforts too. We fit within that context. Unlike the Trump administration, Vermont has signed onto the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement through the US Climate Alliance, which includes 25 states. Vermont is also engaged in the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premier's Climate Change Action Plan and of course, Reggie. At the federal level, we still have the Environmental Protection Agency's Affordable Clean Energy Rule and the Department of Energy's Appliance and Equipment Standards. Tom, don't forget to turn the middle of the time. So here broadly is where we are today. You can read it for yourselves. If you can see that, Tom, can you see it? Okay. The figure for electricity reflects our status as of 2016, which came from a 2017 report issued by the Department of Public Service. They just issued a report yesterday? Wednesday. Wednesday, and... Is there any more energy report under section 202B? So it may be necessary to update some of these figures that we didn't have access to when we issued our report. But we understand the electricity percentage is more or less the same. Onto specific goals and requirements, our success varies. All three tiers are on track for the REZ. We have continued success in the traditional energy efficiency world, electric energy efficiency, I should say. But as you can see, we're falling really far behind in our greenhouse gas reductions. The most recent report from the Agency of Natural Resources shows our greenhouse gases to have decreased 4% from 2015, but we are still 13% higher than we were 30 years ago, and this is solely due to emissions from our cars, trucks, and fossil fuel heating systems. I have an observation. After commissioning with Cheney to put these slides together, I was reviewing the side deck, and you can note the first two bullets, first regarding the REZ program, and the second is our traditional efficiency program. The first two bullets where Vermont can claim some great success, those reflect sectors of the Vermont economy where lawmakers have identified the policy and the funding. They've put the PUC and the Department of Public Service in charge of providing the regulatory oversight, and the lawmakers have tasked regulated entities with stepping up and being accountable. And my observation is the second can't be said about the second two bullets, where we don't yet have funding identified. So that's the difficult job that you guys have. It's easy. It's the easiest part for us. But if and when you are able to identify funding sources for these sectors of the Vermont economy, I'm confident that the Vermont community can step up and form the types of oversight and accountability that would be necessary to achieve the goals. And I think one example of what Mr. Nauer was saying was that in weatherization, we did have a goal that was in place for a number of years and for 50,000 homes short for the reasons that he mentioned. And to emphasize it again in a different way, why are we falling backwards? Most of them have to do with money and scarcity of trained workers in the weatherization area to adhere to that as a problem as well. But it could be partially tied to the fact that there is no security about what the funding level is. We're gonna hire more workers if there's not a program that is robustly funded. I think we talked with CapSnow last year when we were working on Act 62. They were asking us not to begin what had happened before where there was a surge of funding. I don't know if it was our money that flowed into Vermont. Yes, it was. So there was hiring at that time? Yes. Pick up the pace and then that was one time money, not ongoing funds and then the painful experience of hiring on training people and then having to reduce staff. That's a consistent message that we've heard in the investigation both from Capstone and from the Building Performance Professionals Association that contractors are hesitant to staff up or to invest in equipment for weatherization without a dedicated, stable, long-term commitment to funding sources. Respect to the third bill, I just wanted to span on that a little bit. We know that we have the weatherization assistance programs for lower income vermincers. Those programs will basically provide 100% of the funding necessary for the weatherization and the efficiency utilities get involved as well. If you need a new appliance, they often cover 100% of the cost. Higher income level vermincers who have good credit scores, they have access to financing so that when they know that they need to do some weatheration work, they can get financing. There's the middle part of vermin demographics that financing and addition funding is a real question mark. And so perhaps more accurately should have said for all of the very highest income levels, which presumably in which area many people may take action anyway. So through the renewable energy standard, our electric distribution utilities have a mandate, not a goal, to reduce fossil fuel consumption through their tier three requirements. They are meeting these requirements through a wide menu of options depending on the utility. For example, line extensions for a place fossil fuel generators with electricity, snow making compression, heat pumps, electric vehicle incentives and so on. Vermonters also spend more of their energy budget on the worst greenhouse gas emitters. First on filling their cars and trucks, which is the highest greenhouse gas sector. Second on staying warm, which is the second highest emitter of greenhouse gases and leased on their electric bills. And we're having a lease success in the sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases and costs Vermonters the most money. So where's the current funding for our various programs coming from, such as they are? First are established efficiency programs funded by a monthly charge on each rate payers bill relative to their usage. We have programs for large energy users from global foundries and down to slightly smaller industrial commercial customers that are self-funded and have performance standards. And utilities use rate payer funds to meet their res requirements. It's not confusing. Utilities use the rate payer financing. But you said the first one was self-funded. Yes, would you like that? Squelfle, for example, with SMEAP, which is the program for global foundries that was first started for IBM, in lieu of paying their customer, I mean their electric efficiency charge. So they're not self-funded. They use the money that... Not in that case. However, in the case of some of these other programs, can you explain how that worked? It's a little more complicated for those. Right, so yeah. So for the SMEAP program, rather than paying into the statewide system, entities that qualify, I think it's global foundries and al-Omia who was admitted to the program a year or so ago, they can enter the program, not pay the efficiency charge, as long as they dedicate to spending a minimum amount over a three-year period. The other two programs, the Energy Savings Account program and the Customer Credit programs, those customers in those programs do pay into the statewide efficiency fund, but they kind of manage it more than you and I do when we pay into the efficiency fund. They get the dedicated percentage back and they work with the efficiency utility. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, when you say that they're self-funded and they get the tax break over here and they spend their money differently, so it's... That may be probably a result of trying to be too efficient in the private slide. Thank you. When the public hears that they're self-funded, they think they're doing it themselves. Right, so thank you. I apologize for any interruptions.  Melody's not in the report is. He's trying to be efficiently expressed the idea in the slide. That's a quick question on the SMIC funding level. Is it comparable to all those they're managing themselves? Is it comparable that the dollars spent comparable to that they've paid in the energy efficiency check? I haven't done that analysis. My suspicion is that when the law was passed about a decade ago, probably it was expected to be about the same. I haven't done that analysis for today. I haven't seen it for a while, but I believe there's a requirement in that law that says they have to meet a certain standard of reinvestment. That's correct. They have to spend a minimum amount per year for global founders, I think it's a million dollars per year, three million over a three-year period, and for only I think it's less like. Going on memory, I think it's half a million per year. And Mr. Chair, we're trying to understand the facts so you can give us a recommendation in the future. SMIC, we have a mandate today in law to reduce fossil fuels and to do it in the least cost way, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The SMIC program allows those people who are using money not going to the ETC funds to spend it on fossil fuels and not on electric savings. That's one of the provisions in there. So that is contrary to, and the legislature passed it, but contrary to the mandate that previously existed, notwithstanding the mandate, they're able to do this. It's different. I think rather than self-funded, the better word would be self-administered. And they're allowed to use it, and we've not withstood your mandate about carbon fuels to allow them to use it for things not reducing carbon fuels, and perhaps increasing the use of carbon fuels. I'd say certainly for participants in the SMIC as well as the customer credit pilot, you're allowed to use that money on a wider variety of projects than for programs. It's what I just said, and you just said it differently. Okay, so the answer is yes. We're in agreement. Okay, thank you. Okay, so I will go on. I just started with some of the programs and their funding. There's more. No-income weatherization gets money from the Weather Assistance Program through a gross receipts tax on all fuels with intersections with the Department of Energy and federal LIHEAP assistance. Second, there's limited non-low-income weatherization provided by Efficiency Vermont with a dedicated fund from Reggie and forward capacity market revenue. But this source is volatile. At this week's Demand Resources Plan presentation, Efficiency Vermont forecast of the state will be receiving $3.1 million less in Reggie and FCM revenue for these programs. We have no control over that. And that's for what time period, please? Excuse me? The forecast of down 3 million is for... 3.8 million for 20... For the next three years of the false period, 21 through 23. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Senator. Senator. You didn't include in the... There's a substantial amount of low-income weatherization that takes place on fossil fuels collected through the Energy Efficiency Tax on Natural Gas. Is that true? That is correct. So that wasn't mentioned in one of the funding sources. Well... In low-income weatherization, you mentioned several, but not the carbon tax on the natural gas. Well, that's meant to be covered in the first bullet on the previous slide. Vermont Gas is a regulated utility, and they recently, in the last few years, appointed to be an efficiency utility as well. And so, in that first bullet there, they also levy a customer usage charge and have commission-approved budgets and performance. And then customer usage charges on fossil fuels. Yes. On natural gas. Yeah. I didn't hear that distinctly in your presentation. Thank you. That is, in the first bullet, that is a regulated fossil fuel. And that's one of the distinctions we're making between regulated fossil fuels and electricity, and which have programs that are funded in unregulated fuels. So we're... Finally, we also have some variable funding for electric vehicle incentives through utilities as part of their Tier 3 activity through the Volkswagen Settlement Fund and through federal tax credits. And here I'll put in a plug for a very comprehensive report we issued to the legislature last June, full of specific recommendations on how to grow electric vehicle use and charging infrastructure in the state, not all of which come with a price tag. Besides the recommendations in that report, we also include a recommendation in today's report, and this week's report I should say, that is for the legislature to approve the use of efficiency charge money collected from charging EVs for strategies aimed at upstream information and upstream market barriers. Like, for example, promoting awareness of electric vehicles, working with manufacturers, creating dealing networks, training sales teams, the strategic placement of electric charging infrastructure, and other supply chain activities. The goal would be to increase the availability of electric vehicles and improve the capability of the workforce to sell them. Now electric efficiency utilities are currently not authorized to participate directly in supporting the electrification and the transportation sector. So we support a limited application of the electric efficiency charge to fill this need. It could be done with the statutory change suggest this year. And finally, remembering from the efficient amounts of testimony earlier this week, currently that, which I heard, something in the order of $120,000 a year, is that right? That would be the monies you're identifying here. That's correct. We generally did a back of the annual calculation. We came up with the exact same figure that Efficiency Mon provided us in one of our workshops. And as you're considering this recommendation, I would advise the committee to also keep tabs on what the Senate Transportation Committee may or may not be doing with respect to electric vehicles and efficiency charges. I know that the Public Utility Commission was requested last year to do a follow-up study to the electric vehicle report that Commissioner Achini just discussed. And that request from lawmakers was, one of the questions asked was whether there ought to be a transportation efficiency charge. That would be the same level as, but in lieu of the electric efficiency charge. And my understanding is the commission's report recommended not to do that, not to have a transportation efficiency charge. And it wouldn't make sense to me to go down North Rose, both repurpose electric efficiency funds as we're suggesting you consider and dedicate that same pool of money to the transportation efficiency fee. It just wouldn't be feasible. And the report that he just mentioned was submitted to the Transportation Committees in December last month. That was at their request. That was your supplemental report. That was your supplemental report. Supplemental reports. And there are two reports. One I mentioned that we issued in June at School of General Recommendations. And the other is specific to fees. So thanks for that heads up. And I mean, I think if there was a word that was used more often than any other word this week in our discussions, it was collaboration, and well, collaboration would be that word. So it would be helpful to not have competing, disjointed things moving forward. Well, if I could add a word to your list, it would be coordination. So in compiling all the different programs and funding sources that currently exist in the all fuels landscape, we came to some general conclusions. First, our current efficiency programs are well coordinated. Here's the coordination. Are well coordinated and held to strong performance standards. They are successful. Still they engage only in portion of Vermont's economy. Second, efficiency programs for all other fuels are uncoordinated, inconsistent, and without performance standards. They are severely underfunded relative to our need to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goals. Just as in programs, the same disparities exist for funding. Existing law provides a reliable, fair funding stream for electric and natural gas efficiency. But funding for all other fuels is severely limited relative to what the state aspires to achieve. According to prior studies, the funding gap amounts to $30 to $60 million per year, but we need to examine this further for our final report. The $30 to $60 million is that from us. I am wondering if you know what the course seems more than one figure. But someone that was like the total energy, the total energy task force, so that's. The task force mentioned a range of $30 to $40 million. There have been a number of studies done, so here's the range. Right, to add to that, say the low end of this range reflects what the task force reported, the thermal efficiency task force, and their work was really focused on the weatherization goals. And the upper end of this reflects the regulatory assistance projects reported to lawmakers last February when they were looking at more holistic, looking at fossil fuel and greenhouse gas reductions, and that's the example of transportation electrification as well as thermal. And in terms of that, I know we're not here to really drill down into funding, but in terms of sort of the rough math for it, is that to put us on track to meet a particular target or all targets, what that spending case is? Correct, that's to put us on a path towards achieving the statutory goals. And it would be annually considering where we need to end up. But again, we need to do that analysis. Sure, yeah, we tried to be very clear in the report that these are not commission-generated numbers. These are, we've got existing resources and reports that have been provided to lawmakers. And in fact, I asked the question of participants in our case, is the task force report number, is that a reasonable proxy for today? I think that report was issued in 2013 or 2014, and we're six, seven years down the road, and people said, yeah, it's a reasonable proxy to begin the conversation. Senator McLean. I sense that your presentation today is moving from what you've learned to where we might go. And I wanted to ask, and I quibbled over a couple places in your report where I think you didn't state as boldly politically sensitive things that you've learned and I don't understand why. You may yet do so. Okay. So, patience. In doing this report, and you folks know more about the details in the nuts and bolts, what did you find that came to the members of the report that surprised them or taught you something that you didn't know when you started the report? What did you learn that you didn't sort of already know? There is one slide further on that, that is one thing that was not only surprising but also important to what we planned going forward and thinking of the different measures we turned on. Yes, I think that's... What was that? It'll be in a future slide. It's about... Okay. I'll find it when we get to it. Okay. That's one thing. Thank you. Go ahead. One theme that I don't think was surprising but that I've already alluded to that strikes us over and over is that if we are going to achieve our goals, we need funding for the heating and transportation sector problem. So, I'll keep going. Yes, please. So, weatherization, turning just to weatherization, we emphasize the funding point. And our next report will not just analyze the amount needed but we'll aim to make specific recommendations on where the money could or should come from. One example that has already been loaded appears here and on the next slide. This comes from the Department of Public Services Thermal Efficiency Task Force report which we've already mentioned that was issued in 2013. It suggested a fossil fuel excise tax or a thermal systems benefits charge as equitable and transparent. It estimated what would be needed to raise 10, 20 or 30 million dollars. They did not include natural gas in the analysis because Vermont gas at that point had not been appointed a efficiency utility and was not levying efficiency charge on great payers at that point. So, their analysis included a separate tax on natural gas. Again, we have not yet analyzed the amount of funding that would be needed to meet our goals. The same thermal efficiency task force report estimated that we would need about 30 to 40 million per year. But in contrast or in a different avenue, representatives from the regulatory assistance project recommended that fossil fuels should contribute to efficiency at a level closer to what is contributed by electricity and natural gas. And this chart shows how much will be raised by different levels of tax on liquid fuels. Again, it includes natural gas and that's a little outdated given that they have a program now. I think it's also, this is based on fuel usage at the time. And as we all know, fuel usage changes all the time. Some people who used to be burning fuel or propane now have access to natural gas in Madison County. People may have more efficient boilers or furnaces and so their consumption has already gotten down. So this reflects a snapshot in time and it will be worthwhile updating this. Yes, and this is not meant as a recommendation it is just meant as I said, a snapshot and an example, some of the analysis that's already been performed and we need to do our own version of the same. Another example for raising or an idea for raising revenue comes from a February 2019 report by the regulatory assistance project. Before I go on, I should say that the source I put on this slide is inaccurate and I will be providing a new slide to the committee and remember what the source actually was. Right, yeah, this was also discussed in the task force report. Okay, so this idea was to impose an efficiency obligation on all suppliers of unregulated fuels because they do not currently pay an efficiency fee. In common parlance, what's that recommendation? That would be, in other words, for example, for the electricity and the natural gas that ratepayers use, they pay an efficiency charge based on your usage, that model is another way rather than a simple excise tax it would be an efficiency charge. How would it live, Tom? So the way that I have understood this idea and been thinking about this idea is not mandate that you pony up and contribute to a central fund. Instead, if you're someone involved in the unregulated fuels sector, you could say you have an obligation to come up with two, three percent efficiency per year. You can do that by contracting with someone. You can do that by providing the services on your own or if those options aren't appealing to you, you could pay into a central fund. And the administrator of that central fund would implement the services for you. You've just mentioned both a several mechanisms for bureaucracy, systems to provide the money. You also mentioned that, percentage figure, what was the, just for example, say you have to come up with 2% efficiency per year. And since you, and what's the energy efficiency charge percentage right now for electricity? I couldn't tell you off the top of your head. We don't do that as a percentage basis. It's a fixed charge, a set of fractions of cents per kilowatt hour. And so, approximately five percent. You guys can't tell us roughly what the percentage is. Approximately five percent. Who else? Approximately five percent of your bill is a good fall apart figure. You could agree with that? Yes. But it's not done as a percentage calculation, but that's what it works out to. This is more of a model of performance standards so that they, people who are selling fuel. X percent. Need to address efficiency work. Thank you. I'll take that as an information request and we can send you the exact figures. Yes. Back to the overarching goal. Where do we need to be? Depending on whether we're taking state goals into account or international goals, the numbers are high. But there are incremental concrete ways to meet them. In February of last year, RAP issued to the legislature its report called Economic Benefits and Energy Savings through Low Cost Farm Amendment. The report estimated the greenhouse gas reductions that would result from specific investments in the thermal and transportation sectors. I've taken the top four returns on investment that were in their report. In other words, dollars spent per greenhouse gas reduction achieved. But the report goes into more detail and provides other investment calculations such as wood pellet boilers for schools and heavy duty electric vehicles. We have not independently assessed these results. However, if you took these four measures and compared them to the numbers on the previous slide in terms of million metric tons, and here we have dollars spent in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent achieved, you can see that the goals are achievable with the right strategy and the required investment. A comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions should consider a large portfolio of measures to provide opportunities for all remoders to participate. And here Senator McDonald is one of the surprises. It is possible to put a quantification on where you get the most bang for the buck. And here are four of them. However, there's a more recent report or calculation in the Department of Public Services energy report that just came out this week. And Tom can describe what they know. Right, I wouldn't manage expectations here. I haven't read the report in detail yet. This came out Wednesday afternoon at about the same time that we were working on getting our report out. But on page 18, figure six of their energy reports, they have kind of a cost of carbon for different measures. It's a very compelling chart and I would encourage you to get someone from the department here to discuss the meeting and their findings. The McKinsey chart? It's similar, right. And I think as you're considering the committee bill next year, the central question is what are you trying to achieve with that bill? We've been talking, or I've been listening this week about modernizing the efficiency utility programs and services. So the central question is why, what do you hope to achieve? And I think this chart and this analysis should be considered in that discussion. It shows that electric efficiency is the most cost effective use of dollars from the carbon sample. I'm sorry, would you repeat that? The electric. What I understand this chart to be saying, and again, I want to caveat this, but I haven't read their study in detail, but how I understand it on its face is that the most bang for your buck is funding electric efficiency. As we have to do. As we have to do. So I really think that this is part of the discussion that needs to be had. It goes on to, it looks at a whole basket of things that you could put your money towards. Electric efficiency, plug in hybrid vehicles, heat pump, water heaters, all electric vehicles, tier two renewable resources. So again, it has them ranked in higher in terms of the most bang for your buck to most costly. And a list that you just gave are that represent that ranking. After the electric efficiency investment comes hybrid electric vehicles. And then the same next. Right, and then heat pump, water heaters, and then followed by all electric vehicles. And the bang we're looking for on that chart is greenhouse gas reduction. That's how I understand it. Per dollar invested. Per dollar invested. So it's sort of a carbon reduction efficiency. Turn it down. And only when the electricity is not produced from carbon. I suspect that they have incorporated what is not doing it in this electric portfolio. So I'm in agreement with you. So you're, I think you're saying that the recommendation is if you want to reduce carbon, don't power things with carbon. And that in today's world, electricity has less carbon in it. Therefore you recommend electricity. And if electricity were made with coal, you wouldn't be sitting here today. Recommending, is that fair analysis? Thank you. Thanks for pointing that out in the report. And we'll hear from the department next week. Again, we'll be doing this heavy lift for the next report and it will include recommendations. But there are some principles that we're going to be relying on. I've stressed funding a number of times. Funding is essential if we're going to transform the sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases. And also, by the way, also represent Vermonters biggest energy burden. The funding must be consistent and equitable. And any programs that are funded need to be coordinated statewide. The needs of low income Vermonters must be considered. And finally, as you know, there's a long standing principle that electric and natural gas rate payers should not subsidize programs for unregulated fuels which currently pay no efficiency charge. If current efficiency charge funds were redirected, the bill savings and other benefits that were assumed when the amount of the charge was established would be tenuous at best and could be lost. Vermonters would experience the same rate effect but would not necessarily experience the benefits. And of course, that said, presumably the programs to which funds were redirected would provide societal benefits and possibly some rate payer benefits. The current statute, the commission's current regulatory process for setting efficiency utility budgets and saving goals and avoided costs were not designed for conducting the cost benefit analysis of using energy efficiency charge funds for non-electric efficiency. And in our next report, we will examine issues like this. Well, and as you know, we're contemplating how we might, while waiting for full reports, begin to make progress on those two sectors that are such a large source of emissions. So there's an, in part because we have expertise and staff and funds, as opposed to creating new adequate funding where it's precise with the full work that we're talking about. The challenge is trying to find a way to get started without weakening our energy efficiency. So one of the things we're talking about is a sunset on any provision that we do and that one of the balances is for utilities, EUs and EUs participating that they're looking for, excuse me, predictability, stability, something that they could actually staff and become expert in and start doing the work. But in the meanwhile, we don't want to create any kind of program that would allow anyone to feel comfortable with a long haul using energy efficiency charge dollars derived from electric in the unregulated fuel sector. So there's a balancing act that we're going to do. I'm very aware of that too, and I think the final slide speaks for itself and I'm thanking you for the opportunity to outline what we presented in our report this month. You read a read from your report about what you recommended, you read from your report, your recommendation on how we should move forward, which was to, could you put that into common language and how it might be reported on the radio or on television or underneath people's windshield wipers at shopping centers. What did you recommend that we do that we're not doing differently? We have in this preliminary report laid out the landscape. We varied spotting different programs. We needed to understand that before we could bring all those disparate elements together to recommend a statewide program and a statewide approach. We don't have a specific, as I said in the slide, about what is not in this report. It is not the answer to those really needy questions, whether to create an all fuels efficiency program or whether to expand the programs that are currently offered by the existing ones. So we don't have, this is what we recommend. We're saying this is where we are now. These are some of the considerations and if we're going to achieve our green gas gas reduction goals, we need to target the transportation and weatherization sectors with a lot of appropriate funding. And your recommendation about appropriate funding is? That's coming in our next report. Did you agree with that, Tom? I would say more to begin with. More. More funding. Rapp said yesterday, don't take the current pie and cut it up differently. Oh, absolutely. The pie should be bigger. Yes. So you're waiting to? We're waiting to see, first we need to analyze how much money is actually needed and then we need to present a recommendation on where those funds should be acquired. We do not believe it should come from the electric efficiency budget. What does that leave as a possible list of choices? That's what's coming in the next report. No, no, no. The possible list of choices someone should be able to know and articulate today. You may recommend which of those are selected. I mentioned a couple that have been floated. For example, fuel excise tax. There could be a. Put that into the common language. Tax on the fuels. Fuel excise tax. I've never seen a leaflet under my windshield that says the legislature is considering a fuel excise tax. I never see the. This is what I would say. The fuel dealers like underneath my windshield for anything the legislature's done. So we need more money. Number one, number two, we don't know yet where it should come from. We need to do that work. Number two, we need to target the transportation and feeding sectors that are going to reduce our greenhouse gases. Do we, does that include shifting the entire paradigm so that instead of having efficiency be the goal, which is currently the goal of our standing efficiency programs and make the goal greenhouse gas reductions, that's a fundamental shift. Presumably that could also mean that we don't, that we raid the, if you want to put it that way, we raid the electric efficiency fund to do that. We did that for 18 months to give, to provide the opportunity to deal with the things in your first slides about training a workforce. There were X, Y, and Z where the money is going today. The study that we're getting today apparently almost suggests where the money should come from but we have to find a place. We've taken it from the electric for 18 months. We stole it fair and square to it. But in the future, it needs a funding source and you're saying we need a funding source. It has to be bigger than it is today. We shouldn't take it from the electric efficiency. And the list of choices is income tax, surcharge on the well-being, property tax, and the analysis for it yet. And that's what we've, that's why I believe your committee gave us till January of 2021 because that requires more than we had six months, nine months. Part of that analysis will be if there is no more money. I mean, because you have to consider all possibilities. If there is no more money except it's currently raised by the electric efficiency charge and that if may depend on political will to raise a tax or whatever it takes. That's our problem. I know, but let me finish. If there's, this is what we need. This is where it might come from. If it were to come from these different sources, what would be the effect on Vermonters? Including what would be the effect on this, in terms of the successes that we no longer achieve if the money came from the electric efficiency fund? Currently, the electric efficiency work is reducing greenhouse gases. It's saving Vermonters money. And it is the investment, it is the dollar that brings the most return. Every dollar invested in efficiency saves the most, lots of different things. Let's put it just greenhouse gases. Anyway, that's a complex analysis and we will be delving into all those considerations. So we... So to put it down, just to make a point, we asked them for acclimations next year, so to press them for an answer now doesn't seem quite fair. They have another year to do the work that we asked them. You have your own hypotheses. You're free to state that at any time. If it's gonna take political will to raise the money and do this, we're the ones, and we're basically, if we can't get any stronger answers today, we no longer have to worry about political will and we can wait until next year until we see a report to worry about it. We hope to. And you're gonna present what you're gonna present it. We hire these people to do what we asked them to do and when they produce what we asked them to do, that's fine. But to say that we shouldn't ask them, opinions is unfair. Where do I have to share? I'm sorry, you hired who? You are, we're saying to you, give us some report. Okay, so what is the report? There's nothing fair or unfair about that. No, it's not fairness. It's just what we are able to present to you today. And what we will hope to present to you in the next report is options and analyses so that you can make the decision whether it involves political will or not. It will ultimately be up to you to consider what we present to you in our next report. So if we were to do anything in the interim that, because fuel changes, fuel use changes all the time. If we were to do something in the interim before we get to the next report, would you question us to not do anything that would preempt or overreach or render your future report to do it less useful? Well, the way I see it is we didn't say this is your best recommendation for funding. That's clear. We did say here are some very strong principles that you should consider as you're looking at different funding options. And we say six years ago, seven years ago, the Global Efficiency Task Force did a very comprehensive analytical job in looking at this. There are a lot of stakeholders engaged in that process. They made funding recommendations there. They looked at, they recommended many different funding options.  Here's a, you know, social considerations and here's we just can get enough people on board so we don't recommend these. What do you mean you didn't get enough people on board? What I mean is, and I'm paraphrasing the task force report here. They're saying, here was an idea for funding thermal efficiency that was raised but not too many members of the task force thought that was a viable option and therefore the task force report didn't recommend it. Recommend? Funding? Sources? What are you saying? Did not include it in its highest order recommendations to lawmakers at the time. To do what? To fund? To fund thermal efficiency. You just say that. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And so I think what the commission's report says is there are a lot of good ideas there. You should consider those today and at the same time, we've got a lot of work to do and we will continue to look at those ideas to see if we can provide you with any updated recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Our question amongst ourselves would be in the meantime, what we do against this goal. Thank you. And I might add that the thermal efficiency task force targeted or focused on the weatherization which is a big part of the problem and I will turn you again to consider some of the recommendations we've made in the elected vehicle report in June of last year because there are some common sense ideas that would help jumpstart that area of it. Jumpstart elected vehicles? Although they don't really need jumpstarts. So we have those reports in the room to make sure everyone has access to them and we can get a resurrected copy of the thermal efficiency task force report so that we could be behind there. And remembering that it's a little out of date because that includes natural gas. I have your principles and formal future recommendations. The second bullet is any new funding should be consistent and equitable. And can you elaborate a little bit on that word equitable because we've talked about different perspectives and for instance, if any individual rate payer might have a different perspective than rate payers as a group and or members of one utility versus members served by another utility or even society-large looking at some sort of societal test. So how do you, when you say equitable, what, how are you thinking about that? Right, I think Senator, you have put your finger on it that equitable can mean different things. And I think at the highest order, when I hear this word, I go back to traditional regulatory making principles of cost-cozure pays. In my opinion, absent some other very compelling policy reason, one class of customers should not be subsidizing a different class of customers. So when we implement our current efficiency programs, we have a number of different equity standards that we hold efficiency of not brilliant electric from not gas to. We know that the residential class of customers contributes a certain amount to the funds, commercial, industrial, contribute a different amount. We want the outcomes to be, to kind of not exactly repress each customer class's contribution, but there ought to be pretty close outcomes. Same thing with geographic equity. I know that this committee heard from other witnesses over the past couple of days talking about geographic equity. Currently it's done on a county basis. You know that the VEPSA members have been discussing rather than or in addition to doing it on a county-wide basis, let's look at this on a utility by utility basis. Another idea might be let's consider low income customers and make sure that we're returning at least as many benefits to those customers as they contribute to the fund. And those are the types of things that I believe the commission was referring to when it used this word. Which one? Equitable.  What do you mean? You said consistent. Well, can I stick with one question here? So equitable, when we do something like low income sensitivity equations. So that seems as though we're adding another criteria in perhaps shifting benefits. So it's, I'm equitable. Sounds like you want me to aim for it, be conscious of it, but there could be inequities as in greater benefits delivered to the lower income demanders than non-low income demanders that the social policy sort of laid on to the equity discussion. Is that my, on the right track here? That's how I look at it is here's what the traditional principles, here's how that would guide us. There may be other compelling policy reasons, societal reasons why we may go beyond what would traditional regulatory rate making approach would guide you. Senator King, we had a question about consistency. No, I put a period of consistency because that's a principle everybody understands and we've all talked over and over again that for this advantage for matters shouldn't be put farther behind when we implement the program. That's one of the principles that you're trying to say when you use the word equitable. Is that what you're trying to say? It includes the notion of not cost, again as Mr. Narrow said, the cost-causer pays. So just another way of thinking about that is cost shift, people and people benefiting from what they're paying as well. So those are all forms of being equitable. So for this advantage for matters today, regardless of what we do where the principles is when we do it, we shouldn't leave them farther behind and finding life less affordable than they do before we make the change. That's one of the principles. That's another principle, yes. We think that low income considerations are important as in this next slide here. We need to be sensitive to the needs of lawyers. Thank you. Any committee questions for the commission? So our plan as a committee is to put together a committee bill and we'll share that with you all. So just one way to have it and invite you and all the other, and all the stakeholders that you've seen and actually continue to weigh in on the draft we produce. But I think the direction that we were going based on this week's discussion could be something quite narrow both in terms of new permissions to use some funding in the transportation sector, fully recognizing that every fuel should pull its own weight and that would, but we're not ready for that complete discussion. And that build in some limitations to be conscious of limitations so that we keep an eye on the equitable at least that we're just talking about. If there are not any more questions, then thank you very much, both. Thank you and thanks for the opportunity to talk to you and we look forward to the next step. We'll work this through on January 17th, 2021. Ready to go. Thank you again. Thank you. And for anyone in the room, this is the PBC's report is up on the whole page of the committee page. We'll get onto that page as well, the department's report and we'll be here in the department next, we'll be scheduling with the department next week to come in and spend time with us in more detail so we'll get to go through that with you. And so for the moment, I just wanna pause and see if based on that report, if there's, I mean, almost everyone in the room participated in the hearing in the last two days, I don't know if anyone has any comments or questions they wanna share now before we back up in here. So in that case, thank you all. Keep an eye on us next week. We'll be inviting you all back in as we start to shape up the bill and we are adjourned for today.


Okay, once the deployment is completed, we can actually configure it as a service. So let's go ahead and go ahead and do that. Very similar process, very similar commands. So again, we're going to use kubectl to create the YAML file for us. So we'll say kubectl, here we're going to say create service, cluster IP, and we're going to give it the name that we did before. So that was KBE rest. In this case, we want to expose the ports, so we want to do tcp equals, remember Tomcat's running on 8080, we're going to expose that port for that, and again, we're going to use a strive run flag, because we're not telling kubectl to actually create the service. We want that to actually be output, and then we need to do the minus o of YAML for the output. And again, we're going to redirect that, and we will call this service YAML. So, see that runs pretty quick. I'll ask, you can see that I have the deployment that we previously created, now we have the service, and now if I come in and do kubectl, again apply minus f for file, this time we're going to tell it the service, and we see that that gets created fairly quick. And we can do kubectl again, get all, and now we can see the service has been created. Right here, we have the service, KBE rest, gets a cluster IP, so this is going to have a specific IP address, and also exposing the port 8080, where our Tomcat application server is running. So that was the command to create the service, we never did take a look at the actual file. So let's go ahead and do that, and go ahead and do a VI into the service, and you can see again this is YAML, so API version one, kind service, provides it some metadata, but the primary thing that we are looking at is the ports 8080 protocol TCP, and then the selector is going to the app that we previously created in the deployment of KBE rest, and we're giving it a type of cluster IP. So again this is a very minimal service file of the creation, and we just specified the basic options that we needed to create this. And if you're not familiar with VI, just call in queue to exit that, and we'll go ahead and clear this.


Hi everyone Joe for jaspys case breaks calm with Nick's help right here right over my shoulder There he is. He's gonna start ripping open the 11 box of the jaspys 11 box windmill The windmill basketball mixer with a Yanis giveaway. What? Wow, look at this Give away that Yanis rookie card right here nine fives all around. What does this go for Nick? I think the last one went for around 1200 bucks. The red back version as well. You saw the red on the back So pretty good stuff All right, so at the end we're gonna re-randomize everybody's names along with other whatever randomizers There may or may not be but we'll re-randomize everybody's names and the name on top. We'll get it. It's gonna be pretty nice There's all the boxes involved right here a lot of good stuff in here So big thanks everybody right here for getting into the action They're the teams right here and Big thanks to the people who participated in those filler breaks as well So let's randomize names and teams one out of four five times one two three four and five after five times we got Li Xiaocheng and Matt Lieber and then five times for the teams one two three four and fifth and final time after five we got okc down to Portland all right trades are allowed but trade at your own risk Chen has the okc thunder Oliver with a spot you won pelicans Interesting Robert with the Wizards Brett with the Lakers Chris Murphy with the Kings Brian with the Bulls JC with the Sickers Matt with the Clippers Logan with the Hawks Sam with the Pacers Kyle with the Grizz nice Matt with the Rock is Brett with the Warriors Matthew with the Raptors Logan with the Celtics Travis with the Timberwolves zoom in with the Knicks Richard Johans No, he fell Daniel Jones couldn't make it. Oh boy What happened there? How is he that wide open and how did he trip? That was a walk in touchdown There's just nobody he everyone got fooled everyone people were still looking Eagles are still looking that way How did he not score there though the quarterback not a running back folks Richard with the Pistons Ryan H with the Suns Asa with the Heat Kyle with the Cavs Robert with the Jazz Dejuby with the Magic Matt with the Nuggets Gilbert Thursday on football folks Christopher P with the Spurs Roger with the Hornets Seth with the Mavs Robert with the Nets and Matt Lieber with the Portland Trail losers Logan has Hawks and Celtics up for trade Like every day.  We'll leave it open for 30 30 seconds or so Obviously you can fast forward through this part if you are watching this rewatching this video There'll be a recap at the end to don't forget about that. He's gonna be so no All right spurs up for trade Phoenix up for trade Maybe Chris P thinking he'd swap for either of your teams All right trade window going once trade window going twice and Trade window close TWC. All right. Let's print. Let's rip. Here's some donors basketball There's the final print out right there. You sure did Oliver Now let's hope this break cooperates with you Sorry Kevin love At 242 scoring Kings Julius Irving how to solve Goran Draga to press proof to 199 It's easy to warn Feel like he had a pretty good good run in the bubble. There's Suns Draga to remember. This is 2014-15 edition And it's Rudy T There's playing days to 199 Rudy Tom Jonovich going to Houston that'll be Matt Lieber. How much do you think he gets paid? This is Sandra Belichick Just a stand there in a subway commercial not say a word He's like he's getting paid That show was doing that well Big bang theory No, it shows terrible And it's kind of free to 35 can't believe that Really Wow game threads Tim Duncan Tim a That's for Christopher P and the Spurs tried to trade couldn't trade mojo But they said in in Giants history though I guess back in the day and I don't know I just thought maybe like Tiki barber like ripped one off and it was like a 90-yard And then See Jim a column LeBron James elite press proof Lamarcus Aldridge There's LeBron's calves edition go to Kyle and there's a Markel Brown 57 out of 99 die-cut autograph for the Brooklyn Nets that goes to Robert Runkel. I Oh, you a Tatum Logan What happened? Yeah, Nicholas there that O lines banged up and Eagles O lines banged up So he's rushing a lot of throws So it's yeah, it's hard for him to do anything really There's a welding John wall Al Horford Zach Randolph dominator elite dominators in 999 And a Spencer didn't witty rated rookie car. It's pretty good He's pretty good Zach Randolph will go to the gris. It'll be for Kyle Spencer didn't witty rated rookie. It's his that's pistons edition going to Richard the hoops retail Nice So that's that big hoops retail edition here We're gonna get kind of the heavier stuff out of the way first as we like to do in these mixers before we get to some of the Some of the higher-end stuff Derek Rose to 125 Bacon Dwayne Bacon Larry Nance, Jr. That orange Darren Collison number to 25 Oh, Gianno Obi. That's pretty nice Matthew Kelly with the Raptors gets the oh Gianno Obi Mmm, and there's Shaquille O'Neal. I thought it was fooling us with that This is 1718 So that's the John Collins rookie year The Donovan Mitchell rookie year. That's about it Lonzo ball rookie year certainly nothing for Logan's team No Celtics in 1718 Logan. Frank to the keen as in this Do we not like Terence Ferguson? Oh, is he Sheep deal check the aloe Bam out of bio as a nice one right here Miami Heat rookie car for ASA Yeah He's Giving that it that a flag duck watch out a flag duck. I get COVID from coach Saban Trevor Arisa orange 25 for the Rockets That'll be for Matt So I'd Howard to 125 champion Yeah, yeah He's not fitting in that Alan Williams to 125 K Adams gonna hang out with this Oh, yeah 125 carousel over it. I Have to win. Oh, that's what he said in the chat, right? Yeah, if I win the league then he has to get K Adams to like host our drafter Do the first round of our draft or something like that? I'm sure she'll do it. I think that's asked nicely. Oh, we're done. Thanks, Nick Easy Logan. We got we got another half to go buddy. Thomas Satoransky There's Lonzo for the Lakers for Brett Lucanar to 25 Seth Curry to 125 There you go, Logan See before he was like what not one Tatum dude Logan RELAX like your quarterback once said There is the Jason Tatum NBA hoops play to the whistle ladies and gentlemen lesson learned Donovan Mitchell to 125 It's for the jazz Robert Runkle Raider Raider Raider. Is that what Carson went to say? What does that mean? Oh? What a catch the Henry rugs play That's what it was Raider Raider Raider It's like hey, we're running the Henry rugs play. Oh protection call And we got an autograph right here great sig nificance Samaj Kristen For okay see that'll go to Chen nice Kobe for Brett Joe Harris Some Chronicles hoops sure That Damon Lillard to 299 and a Frank Tillichina autograph to 199 Going to the Knicks It's gonna go to zoom in 1718 Chronicles basketball Deep breath Logan will be okay There's the 99 Malik Monk for Charlotte Josh Hart Lori marketing to 49 Kevin Love This guy Jersey and autograph We'll trouble for him. Okay, see that will be for For Chen Dwayne Bacon 299 Mark assault and orange Julius Randall 151 out of 1 at 99 Lakers edition going to Brett Dan Smith Jr. to 190 he was hobby hot for a Second or two Fox in the box here in Fox and there you go Jason Tatum rookie card for Logan and the Celtics and that De'Aaron Fox will go to Chris Murphy and the Kings And All these cars that I'm sleeping right here will be top-loaded before they're sorted and shipped out of course All right Let's go with this. What's this tall stack right here? Oh 2012 2013 elite basketball Wow See what we got in here. We got these Kobe cards going to the Lakers And we got prime numbers Kobe 81 That's a good number There's Kevin Durant right here elite series And we got Kevin Garnett craftsman It's making me think like those are autos. Come on elite tricksters Trixie elite you're looking for that Popovich rookie Christopher You know Here's an autograph rookie inscriptions Jared Cunningham. That's for Dallas.  There's Jeff Taylor Charlotte stuff will go to Charlotte by the way Roger What yeah, his arms are all over him. Yeah, even even Troy Aikman stun and we got Grant Hill elite signatures We got to look that up actually What edition of Grant Hill is that? Oh, they don't have teams attached to this. Come on All right, maybe we'll not maybe we'll have to go to a group rate checklist. I'll come hopefully they assign a team Waiting for it to load stand by folks group rate team checklist PDF Grant Hill card number three Is that really Clippers edition of Grant Hill? Wow Look at that Grant Hill elite signatures card three Clippers. Oh, there you go clip show That's for Matt Lieber They might I wonder if they even have this guy. I know it's expired Matt, but it's worth giving them for this caliber of flair It's worth worth talking to them and seeing if they've got anything for you another Grant Hill autograph maybe or Maybe they'll give you a nice chunk of points in return or something like that. This is Galanari late Griffin craftsmen And we've got a minute bowl Throwback threads nice for the Sixers. That's gonna be for JC Kevin Love Timberwolves edition and Steve Nash right here This group right here is crown rail and that's a rookie Jason Tatum It's another one for Logan. All of these add up Logan. We've got Wayne Seldon Silhouette autograph three color patch and on-card auto that looks nice seven out of 25 That's grizzly is that's gonna go to Memphis that will be For Kyle. We also have Justin Patton right here 22 out of 25 rookie jerseys Travis with the T Wolves And then we've got 15 out of 99 Lakers Channing fry that will be for Brett and my Lakers. I barely remember Channing Friday on the Lakers They deck they get a flak for that. All right, we got some Donneress optic basketball 2019-2020 edition Aaron Gordon Lucas Samanich No name. He lost his name here. I think Kendrick Nunn lost his name on this to Yanis Chris Paul, where does he end up? They're gonna trade him right Chris Paul There's a Jason Tatum red wave this guy right here Kyle guy say good and boy Ignis Rodriguez rated rookie My house RJ Barrett red. What else do we have here? Let's go with some prism here. Actually, let's do this first. What is this? Let's do this illusions first Maybe some of that chronicles Then prism then contenders optic basketball All the way back here and then we'll give away We'll give away that at Yanis Which will be a really nice hit for somebody at the end So even if you've been if you're like going through this break and you're like man, what a terrible break for me, Joe Don't worry because that that Yanis could still be yours There's Anthony Simmons to 25 And I can't believe the Giants just marched right down the right down the field. There's our John Morant. Oh Right, right, right that's that flag certainly helped them Yeah, if that mosaic sells out in the next like 15 or 20 minutes, Jarell, I'll do it I don't think anyone's interested in the break credit for the encased. Yeah, not a spot sold there So so yeah, if we get that filled in the next 15 or 20 minutes, I'll do it at John Morant bronze going to Kyle and the gris Because we're almost done with this and I don't think anything sold out after this First impressions rookie Jersey and Otto Mephondu Kevin Gehle clip show Matt Libby van bleat to 10 If they got a re-sign this guy Toronto, don't they that'll be for Matthew They did throw it Nick Jasper Eagles fan not happy with this game at all Brandon Clark to 10 Deandre Aten sons Ryan Harold, can you challenge the challenge flag? Can you challenge the throwing of the challenge flag? Don't you just we got that Trey young though Hawks Logan, there you go, Logan. All right now into some prism. Which one is older? This is 2015 16 That's 16 17. So let's do the older one first Alan Iris and green Kobe fireworks Andre Drummond orange wave that'll ship. There's the touchdown I Here 16 17 prism and we got torn Prince Rookie Jersey for Logan and the Hawks. Oh nice Jamal Murray Rookie card here for Denver Matt Lieber with the Denver Nuggets They should bring this logo back. I thought that was gonna be the score I thought I was gonna be eagle 21 to 10 and Wayne Baldwin the fourth and a Yanis Nice Yanis for the Bucks. That's gonna be for Gilbert Wayne Baldwin. It's gonna be for the Grizz Kyle We're almost there folks And we've got some contender optic basketball. There's the auto on the bottom Don't know who it was, but there's Alonzo morning for the heat ASA and LeBron James winning ticket One out of ten That's Miami Heat Edition.  That's pretty nice That'll go pretty well in the secondary market. I think Nice. All right, there's Markel Folt Silver Orlando that'll be for Dejuby and There's Davis Bertons for Robert and the Wizards and then behind Jalen is Lucas Amonich 87 out of 149 for the Spurs. That's for Christopher P. Tried to trade Did not trade mojo Might need to come visit Jasper's autograph camp work on that auto workshop that auto a little bit And there's Jalen Brown right here There is the Yanis right here ladies and gentlemen Who's gonna win the Yanis? No other randomizers, right? No, that's it. All right. Nice. So let's go get some new dice right here Let's grab everybody's names From Logan down to Robert and let's roll it and randomize it Six and two eight times name on top gets the Yanis rookie card after eight. This is huge one two three four five six seven and Eighth and final time after eight Congrats to Wow Lee is Yeo Chen Congrats, I don't think I called your name very often in this break, but congrats you that Yanis 95 on its way to you Wow From 1314 hoops Yanis onto the compo centering edges corner surface all a nine five How young and skinny he looks right there The red back addition as well. So some excellent stuff and an excellent break. Thanks for getting to the Jasper's windmill Basketball mixer we appreciate it on a Thursday. We'll see you next time for the next break. Bye. Bye


Alright, hello people. This is Billy and I'm about to go and check out what people are doing right now. We're at J's Foo's, Oone's Hack Night and we're going to see what people are going to hack today. It's 5.45pm, hopefully people have some idea what they're going to do. Let's go check it out. We're entering the layer of the hackers. Okay, first up name and what you're going to do. Yeah, I'm Ignesh and I'm building a URL shortener. So it's like my first basic like JavaScript application and I'll be using Node along with it. You'll be using? Using Node.js. So I'll be learning that. So that's a good part. Nice dude. Alright next up, name and what you're going to do. Hi. Even if you have multiple ideas just say one thing at least. I'm Prateek and I'm waiting for my partner right now. What we are trying to do is... My partner, you mean girlfriend? No. No, okay, it's fine. Okay. So exactly what we are trying to do is make a local search engine. We give it a set of URIs and you can search, you know, it's a biased search. So you can say I want to, you know, results of stack or flow should be up, etc. It's your own personalized search and plus you want to add a social element to it. So I subscribe to your ways of searching. That is it. Okay, nice. Let's see what happens later on. Alright, next up. Okay, name and what you're doing. I'm Ramke. What am I doing? Somebody told me there was free food here on Twitter. So just give me. That's it.  There must be something you're doing. Okay, what are you working on right now? Right now I'm just... What? So J.S.Fu's one of the hacks is checking Facebook apparently. Yes. Okay, so next up. Hi, Piyush Varma. I'm here for the Red Bull. Okay. And okay, on the side, what do you plan to do? Well, pretty much, I heard there are some good people out here doing interesting stuff. And I'm here to solve bugs. And at the moment, the window in front of me, I'm trying to create dynamic XML STT with request through an object. Is this even visible? And isn't saying glow off there. So... Alright, let's just hope we can be added up later. Alright, fine. Zoom, zoom, zoom. I think it's amateur phone. Alright, here we have our chief. Okay, chief name and what's happening? Hi, I'm Kiran. And I'm not doing JavaScript, but I am doing some hacking. I'm fixing up Plastuser, which is the app that we use to manage user accounts across all the Haskeek websites. And it was missing a few features that they had put off, adding for a long time. So I figured I might as well use the hacknet to dive into the code and add those features. Last year, there was an Oath server, and Oath 2 has two components. It's got an authorization component and it's got a resource server component. And we hadn't added the resource server part because so far, we've only used it for login. So I'm fixing that tonight. And hopefully that will allow us to continue building up the services that we had sort of left midway for a long time. That's the word. Awesome. Where's Netroy? Netroy is disappeared. He's in the balcony. Go show them the balcony. Yeah, okay. By the way, after it's done, just push this and it will be safe, right? Awesome. All right, we're off to see Netroy. Netroy, Netroy. Yes. All right, so no, no, no, we'll do both. So name and what you're planning to do. Not all people know Hindi, okay? At least I don't know Hindi, so I can reply. Okay, so I'm at Singh and I am planning to hack on WordPress, not exactly JavaScript, but something which will use APIs and JavaScript a bit, but it's ultimately in the WordPress thing. Okay, nice. Hey, I'm Aditya. I'm helping out people with the hacks. And in the meanwhile, I'm hacking on Hasgeeks code stuff like funnel and last user. Could you go a little more into that? What is last user? What is the funnel? There are a couple of applications used internally by Hasgeek managing the activity. Sol privacy privacy. Sol on GitHub. You can go to GitHub.com slash Hasgeek and have a look. All right, then, then, okay, let's see. Final person, me. Let me go find the mirrors. I can do this. Right, so this is me. I'm the intern at Hasgeek. Apparently I get coffee, tea and all sorts of other stuff. The worst joke I've ever heard till now. You don't need pseudo. He's an intern. All right, so, so basically I do nothing. Okay, I tried to do something and at least justify why I'm here and hopefully do a bit of hacking tonight. Don't know what I'll do, but let's see.  All right, that's it Billy signing off.