You're welcome back. We move to other parts of Africa. Zimbabwe's President Emerson Ngwongwana on Tuesday found that general elections suspected later this year would be free and fair. His comments were made during a speech to mark the country's 43rd year of independence from British colonial rule. Ngwongwana won the country's disputed 2018 elections that his main rival Nelson Chimasa insists were rigged. The latest poll due to take place in July or August are expected to be tense and come at a time when his ruling Zano PF Party stands accused of cracking down on opposition voices.


I hope this is a stable arrangement here. All right, so thank you all for coming. Thank you all for showing up in such numbers at 8.30 in the morning. Thanks to both the organizers and the staff here at PCMI for inviting me to do this. It's a pleasure to do so. So, as Tatiana said, this talk is gonna be in some sense of an introductory nature. It has to do with finding criteria for to establish the L2 boundedness of singular integrals and square functions that are not of convolution type. In the convolution case, there's a standard tool for establishing L2 boundedness. You just use the Fourier transform in Planche-Roll's theorem. All right, that's not available in the nonconvolution case, so other techniques had to be developed. So we're gonna talk about some of those criteria and if I move expeditiously enough, then we'll show some extra applications as well. By the way, the prerequisites for the course in principle should be the basics of harmonic analysis, things like knowing about the Fourier transform in Planche-Roll's theorem, knowing about the Hardy-Littlewood maximal theorem, the basics of the Calderon-Ziegman singular integral theory in the convolution case. If you're not familiar with those things, that's not a disaster, but it means probably there are some things that you'll need to kind of take for granted and fill in the gaps later, okay? So first, let me start with some examples, okay? So the first example, sort of a fundamental example, is the Cauchy integral on a Lipschitz curve. Is that big enough? Can everyone see even in the back? It's okay? Good, good, okay. So the Cauchy integral is defined as follows. So we're gonna have a curve gamma, which is gonna be a Lipschitz curve in the complex plane. So it'll be the set of X plus IA of X, X on the line, and A is Lipschitz, okay? And then the Cauchy integral operator is defined to be C gamma F of Z for Z on the curve. It's gonna be the principal value. I'll say what that is in a second. There's a normalizing constant, one over two pi I, and we're integrating on the curve. And we have F of V Z minus V DV, okay? Sometimes that's normalized with a minus sign. It doesn't matter too much, all right? What does this principal value mean? Well, we'll say a little bit more about that a little bit later. It basically just means though that you're interpreting this in some kind of limiting sense, sort of like an improper integral from first year calculus. The reason being that you'll notice that the order of the singularity here is not absolutely integrable, right? It fails to be absolutely integrable. So that's one reason it's called a singular integral. Ah, I guess that's the main reason it's called a singular integral. So you can't just write this down as an absolute conversion integral. You have to say what you mean. We'll say what we mean in a little bit. But just for now, think of this as being some kind of improper limiting operation, okay? Now, if we write this in the, if we parameterize in these graph coordinates, we have that c gamma f at the point x plus i a of x is gonna equal, filling up my board here. Okay, let me write the integrand over here. So the integrand is gonna become one over x minus y plus i times a of x minus a of y. And then we're integrating f of y plus i a of y. And then the complex measure dv becomes one plus i a prime of y, d y. And we're gonna give this object a name too, this parametric thing. We're gonna call this, let's say, c sub a of g of x, where g of x is, well, let me say it this way, g of y, is gonna be this stuff with this factor absorbed in. And this is a harmless factor because a is Lipschitz, therefore, a prime is bounded. And because this factor is harmless, that means that L2 boundedness of this operator on the curve gamma with respect to the arc length measure on the curve is equivalent to L2 boundedness of this operator on the line, okay? Of course, there are many reasons that this might be of interest. Of course, if you've had a course in complex analysis, you know, several reasons why the Cauchy integrals of interest. It's also of interest for other reasons, which we probably won't have too much time to get into. But it turns out that once you have the L2 boundedness of this guy, there are transference techniques to let you get L2 boundedness for a huge class of singular integral operators that are not of convolution type. And in particular, there are transference methods that allow you to extend up into higher dimensions. There's some, I'm not gonna take time this morning to mention more examples along that line, but in the type lecture notes, which have been posted, there are additional examples. All right, so related to these are the so-called cauldron commutators, okay? So these are gonna be, again, A is gonna be this Lipschitz function. This is defined to be the principal value, one over two pi I, integral of the line. And again, there are higher dimensional analogs, but we won't say anything about that this morning. I'm not budgeting my space on the board very well. And then, of course, then we have F of y dy, okay? So for example, notice that the first commutator, you might wonder why do they call it a commutator? Well, C1A is at least formally one can make sense of this with some normalizing constant, which I guess should be minus one over two I. This is the commutator of the Hilbert transform with multiplication by the function, ah, not the Hilbert transform. The derivative composed with the Hilbert transform, take the commutator of that with multiplication by the function, a, and then apply it to the function, f. Well, this is the operator, okay? Culdron was interested in this particular object because it was the fundamental building block for his work on building algebras of singular integral operators in order to build sort of a pseudo-differential calculus to treat partial differential operators that had minimally smooth coefficients, say, Lipschitz coefficients. The standard pseudo-differential calculus treats see infinity coefficients, but Culdron was able to build a sort of pseudo-differential calculus to treat the case of minimally smooth coefficients and the L2 boundedness of this was, of this guy was sort of the fundamental tool that he needed in order to do that, okay? So let me point out also a connection between these operators and this Cauchy integral operator, okay, notice that if we look at this kernel here, the kernel for this operator that I'm calling C sub a, okay? All right, so what you notice is that one over x minus y plus i times a of x minus a of y, if we factor out one over x minus y, then we've got what's left is one over one plus i times a of x minus a of y over x minus y, which at least formally, at least if the Lipschitz constant say less than one, you can expand in a power series and write this as one over x minus y times the sum, k runs from zero to infinity of minus i times a of x minus a of y over x minus y to the k, which means that this operator, this operator Ca can be expanded in a power series in terms of these guys, because notice that, well, ignoring this harmless factor of negative i to the k power, this is exactly the kernel that we have for these cultural commutators, okay? Yep, they can be, you can interpret them as iterated commutators, yeah. If you wanna see the exact formula, it's actually in the notes, that's the published notes, or in the posted notes. Yeah, a good question, but yeah, in fact, yes. Okay, so this leads me to a couple of definitions. We're gonna give a definition of a class of operators that includes these operators as special cases and of course many more. So first of all, a Calderon-Zigman kernel, and for short, I'm gonna abbreviate that Cz, is a function k of x, y, defined on the product rn cross rn minus the diagonal. You'll see why we need to take away the diagonal in a second, such that these two conditions hold. There's a size condition, which is that k of x, y is bounded in modulus, oh, and we're, let's say, complex value. Okay, so this is an rn, so there's some uniform constant, such that this is bounded by one over length of x minus y to the n power, and then there's a smoothest condition, which is that k of x plus h, y minus k of x, y, and the same for y plus h, right? So there's smoothest at x and y. The size of this is less than or equal to uniform constant, length of h to the alpha over x minus y to the n plus alpha. Here alpha's some positive number between strictly positive and less than or equal to one, and this is to hold whenever h in modulus is less than or equal to, let's say, well, two times length of h is less than or equal to length of x minus y. By the way, there's a typo in the notes. The length of the vector was omitted, that doesn't make sense, okay? Okay, so you can see that in the case n equals one, these kernels that we're looking at have this property, right? Because a is Lipschitz and it's easy to check that this kernel and these kernels here satisfies those conditions with n equals one, and with alpha equals one because, again, a is Lipschitz, okay? And then we say that, here we're defining the notion of a generalized Kaldron-Ziegman operator, CZO for short, and I'll sometimes also call these SIOs for singular integral operator, is a mapping T from test functions to distributions. So here, remember, D is the space C zero infinity of Rn and D prime is the, that should be a D prime there. D prime is its dual, okay? Which is associated to a CZ kernel in the following sense. In the sense that for all Fg in C zero infinity with disjoint supports, the pairing of Tf with g, which makes sense, g is a test function, T maps test functions to distribution, so this is a distribution. So this just means the pairing of an element in D with its dual space, okay? All right, so this is going to be equal to the integral of this kernel integrated against F of y integrated against g of x, dy of x, okay? And the point here is that if these guys have disjoint supports, then this integral makes sense because that keeps us away from the diagonal where this kernel has a singularity, okay? So notice formally what we're saying Tf of x is equal to the integral in Rn k of x y f of y dy, all right? And this actually makes sense if x is not in the supported app, okay? So what we're going to be striving for among other things are boundedness in this course and we're going to be bounding this criteria to deal with operators of this type, not necessarily a convolution type, but which satisfy these kind of standard Calderon-Zigman size and smoothness conditions, just like the kernels of the Koshy integral operator, for example, okay? All right, so let me say one more thing on this topic before we move on to the next topic, which is let's recall the classical theorem of Calderon-Zigman getting back to 1952, which is that if T is a Calderon-Zigman operator, of course they didn't formulate it with that language. And if T is bounded on L2, what do we mean by boundedness on L2 when initially this is only defined on test functions? It means that this pairing in absolute value is controlled by a uniform constant times the L2 norm of F times the L2 norm of G. And since C0 or infinity is dense in L2, then you make an extension by company way. All right, so the theorem is that if the signal integral is bounded on L2, then it is bounded or extends to a bounded operator on LP, one less than P less than infinity, and it's also of weak type one one. So of course in 1952, Calderon-Zigman were only looking at convolution type operators, but in fact their proof works the same way. It's the same proof. Convolution is really only an extra help in proving the L2 boundedness when you can use plantarole. Once you have L2 boundedness, LP bounds work the same way whether it's convolution type or not. It's just an artifact of these Calderon-Zigman kernel conditions plus the Calderon-Zigman method. Okay? All right. So the fundamental tool for us as we go through this course is gonna be little wood-Paley theory, by which I mean the analysis of square functions and the use of square functions to infer boundedness of other operators. Okay? So for the rest of today, we're gonna talk about little wood-Paley theory. In fact, I'll maybe call this section generalized little wood-Paley theory because at some point, I want to be talking about little wood-Paley square functions that are induced that are not of convolution type. Okay? The classical little wood-Paley theory, of course, is with convolution operators. Okay? So first, let me recall a couple of standard facts from basic harmonic analysis. Okay? We're gonna need a couple of tools from approximate identities. So here's the setting. We're gonna let, I suppose we have a function phi that's in L1 of our N, radial and decreasing. Meaning radially decreasing, decreasing as you move away from the origin. Okay? All right? And we're gonna set phi sub t of x. This is in our N. So the scaling will be t to the minus N phi of x over t. And let me recall also the hardy little wood-maximal function, which is the following thing. It's enough of x is defined to be the soup over all t bigger than zero of the average over the ball of radius t centered at x of the absolute value of f of y dy. Okay? And of course, as you probably know, we can also use cubes in place of balls. And we can also work with non-centered balls or non-centered cubes. They all give equivalent operators. Okay? All right? So then I wanna state a lemma whose proof is gonna be left to you as an exercise. And I'm gonna try to use the numerology that's actually in the type notes. So this is a limit 2.1. All right? So you can find it in the notes. Okay? So let phi be as above, okay? So let's call one radial decreasing. And suppose that g is some other measurable function which is whose absolute value or modulus is bounded by phi point-wise. Okay? All right? Then in that case, if we convolve gt, gt is defined the same way as phi t. If we convolve gt with a function f, this is gonna be point-wise bounded by a dimensional constant times the l one norm of phi times the hardly loaded maximal function of f at x point-wise. Okay? And the proof, this is safe for all f and lp, one less than or equal to p less than or equal to a. All right? And the proof is an exercise. And there's a hint in the notes to do the exercise. Let me just make one brief comment. This is actually true with constant one here. The argument is a little more subtle. For our purposes, having a purely dimensional constant doesn't bother us at all. And in that case, you can prove this by sort of elementary methods. Just making dyadic angular decomposition and just estimating things and adding them up. Okay? All right, and then a second related lemma. All right, so let phi and g be as in the previous lemma. Okay? And let's also suppose that phi of zero is finite and that, let's say g is continuous. Don't really need that, but it makes life slightly simpler. Okay? So then for all f and lp, one less than or equal to p less than or equal to infinity, we have that the non-tangential maximal function, which I'll explain to you in a second what that is, of gt star f at a point x. This is by definition, this soup over y, should be bigger, y and t such that x minus y is less than t. And there's nothing special about making the aperture to the comb be one. You could have any fixed aperture if you like. Okay, and then the constant's gonna depend on the aperture.  This is gonna be bounded also by a dimensional constant times phi of zero plus the l one norm of phi times the hardly little maximal function of f. Again, I think I will, well, not exactly leave it as an exercise, sort of an informal exercise, because actually the proof, the proof of this is in the type notes. So you can refer to that if you like, but it's basically sort of an elementary thing. So I'm not gonna prove it. Yes. No, we're taking the, it's a non-tangential maximal function. So think of a point x on the boundary and then we're looking at arbitrary y and t, taking a supremum over all y and t in the cone. Okay? So, so right, if the point y and t satisfies this inequality, then it's in this cone, right? That's what we're saying. That's why it's called a non-tangential maximal function. Okay? Okay. Let me remind you of the definition of the 48 transform, let's say for, initially for f and l1, f hat of c is defined to be integral on our n, e to the two pi i c dot x. Some people normalize it with a minus sign, it doesn't really matter, of f of x dx. And there's a famous theorem of Plancherelle, which I've already mentioned. The 48 transform extends to not just a bounded operator, but an isometry on l2. Okay? All right. So the first thing that I'm actually gonna prove for you, in the notes, this is proposition 2.4. This is gonna be easy. So let's let zeta be in C0 infinity on the uniball in our n. We're gonna define an operator qt of f is zeta t star f. Zeta t defined the same way we defined phi t earlier. It's t to the minus n, zeta of x over t. And here, besides being C0 infinity, we're gonna assume that zeta is real and radial and the integral of zeta is zero. Hence the integral of each of the zeta t's is zero. Okay? And we're gonna assume that, oh, I should have said it's also non-trivial. Non-trivial so that therefore, zeta hat is not zero, not identically zero. And so if it's non-trivial, we can normalize it so that the integral from zero to infinity of zeta hat of t squared. What am I doing here? I'm abusing notation because if zeta is real and radial and invariance properties of the Fourier transform tell us that also zeta hat is real and radial. And since it's a radial function, I'm kind of abusing notation here and identifying it with a naturally associated function of the real line. So we're gonna normalize so that this is one. Okay? All right, oh, why do we know that this is finite? Well, because, okay, since the integral of zeta is zero, this says that zeta hat of zero equals zero if you just think of the definition of the Fourier transform. And if zeta sees your infinity, then zeta hat is a Schwarz function. So infinitely smooth and rapidly decaying. Since it's rapidly decaying, this


Briefing, which is going to be focused on City of Burlington's new efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage in the City of Burlington in our new buildings and renovated major buildings. Before we do that, however, given the events of this weekend, I do want to start with a statement about that, and then we will start the briefing. So first, we again have a terrible incident of violence in the early morning hours, down early morning. I want to offer my condolences to the Sharif family for their loss, in which them strained during what a terrible time. I've been getting updates on the police response from Chief Murad since shortly after the incident. The Department is working extremely hard on this case as they do with all homicide cases, of course, and he has expressed confidence to me that the perpetrator of this violence will be held accountable as the BPD has done, achieved with so many past cases. As I've said before, we should never get used to the kind of violence that we've seen in Burlington, especially this year. We've taken many steps to respond to this spike in violence since it began in 2020. Even before this latest homicide, we had announced that we are very close to releasing a new state, new new round of both local actions as well as actions that we need from our partners in state government to respond to this situation. I'm sure there's some questions for me about this incident. I will answer them at the end of the briefing after we've concluded with any questions that there are about this new proposal and we can let Darren go before we start that segment of the briefing. With that, I want to welcome our general manager, Darren Springer, to this Zoom briefing. See Darren coming on. Welcome, Darren. Darren has been working hard on this proposal for years really. This is to remind everyone how we got to today's announcement. This is the result of a charter change process that the place and was voted on by Burlington voters in the spring of on town meeting day and 2021. And that was on the heels of the roadmap that was released in 2019, which laid out there this very ambitious goal for the city of Burlington to become a net zero energy city essentially from on and on a net basis to have no fossil fuels being consumed in the community for ground transportation, electric generation, or for thermal heating and cooling by 2030. The vote was supported overwhelmingly on town meeting day by Berlin Tonians. It was not immediately acted on in the legislature in 2021 but in 2022, there was a serious review of it and Darren was part of a team of that answered many questions about this proposal, as it went made its way through both chambers of the legislature and then over the governor's desk. What this new authority gives us the ability to do is quite unusual there are very few municipalities in the country that have this clear ability to regulate thermal, how buildings are heated in cool the church change lays out a process whereby if we are going to introduce any new payments fees, taxes as a result of a further change that needs to go back before the voters. So, we've been granted that authority in the spring we've been really right at the end of the session in May, we have been working steadily on a on a proposal in the months since and this evening for the first time we're going to be briefing the city council on on this proposal and asking them to start the process of reviewing it and turning it into both ordinance and a new ballot item that could go before voters, we hope this coming town meeting day in 2023. So, with that and really the briefing tonight is being grounded in this final report that that the growth election department and the department of permitting inspections have collaborated on and which is now published and you can find on the city's website on board docs Darren's going to walk us through the top elements of it I think. Next slide. Darren, I think here I'll hand it over to you and jump in further as makes sense. Thank you, Mayor, and thanks for hosting this briefing. Good afternoon everybody. I'm a manager there and sprayer with Burlington Electric, and this effort was really a product of collaboration with our colleagues at the Department of permitting and inspections in particular, director bill Ward and Patty wayman as well as my colleagues at Burlington Electric, Jennifer green and Chris burns. It will all be at the city council this evening. We had issued this first report on the proposals related to the charter change back in July. And since that time we've been working intensively with stakeholders doing outreach in the community. We've been to all the different community meetings to share thoughts and take feedback. And we've also been working with the building electrification Institute, which is a national organization that works with cities around the country on on similar policies. So we've been able to analyze and learn from what may be going on in Boston and Denver and New York and other communities as well. And so this this slide just summarizes some of the stakeholder engagement outreach that we've done. On the next slide, really important to emphasize that the city council resolution that was introduced in May, related to this effort and the work that we've been doing from the administration is focused on a few key sectors in terms of building buildings. And so we are looking at new construction where the city already has some strong policies related to requiring a primary renewable heating system, but we'd be building on that. We are looking at large existing commercial and industrial buildings, over 50,000 square feet. So we're talking really about potentially around 80 buildings in the city that are the largest buildings. And then we're also looking at municipal and city buildings opportunities for the city, of course, to lead by example. What we are not focusing on in this policy is any existing residential buildings, and that includes single family homes, multifamily homes, rentals, condos, affordable housing, any existing residential buildings are not covered under this policy existing small business buildings are not covered. And in fact, any existing building under 50,000 square feet, that's commercial industrial is not covered. So just wanted to set that context up front. So in terms of the policy recommendations. Before you go for such an important point let's just unpack that a little bit for people and understand and talk about the logic behind this and why I think this is fundamentally reasonable and workable proposal. Especially because we're making this proposal now in in 2022, a decade ago. You know, perhaps this proposal would have meant raise bigger questions for some or other key values like generating new investment in homes and in businesses in Burlington. What has happened over the last decade and that is sort of the backdrop to this whole conversation is that there has been a dramatic improvement in all the technologies. There are some more than others, but the technologies that allow us to allow builders to come forward with build and build buildings homes and businesses that are not primarily heated and fooled by by fossil fuels that, you know, you see this on the renewable grid, we are seeing it in the increasingly in the heat pumps as well. This is in many cases now new construction is very competitive to be using these alternative non fossil fuel building, burning technologies may even be the cheaper technologies in many applications. They are, they often have operational advantages. And for example heat pumps can be used to cool spaces as well as heat them. And, and they also come with local and excitingly now federal incentives for this type of construction as well so there will be real opportunity. No new building should get built without serious consideration of using these non fossil fuel building technologies across the board and that's what this proposal really does is ensure that builders are going to have to look carefully at that. And in addition, not only is Burlington acting in this space, but our neighbors in South Burlington, for example, looked at the renewable heating ordinance that Burlington adopted in 2021, and just recently adopted a similar ordinance for South Burlington for renewable heating and renewable water heating in new construction so our actions here over the past year have inspired one of our neighbors to take additional action as well. And it's absolutely true that the technology has come a long way in the last decade, particularly heat pump technology in colder climate. So we've made these recommendations with that in mind. So here we have this slide the policy recommendations for new construction. And again, this is building on the existing requirement to have a renewable heating system, primary heating system that's already in ordinance. What we're proposing in the memo is that starting in 2024 and subject to voter approval as the mayor mentioned that new construction would be required to be 100% renewable for thermal energy. That would include heating that would include water heating with with one exception that I'll touch on in a moment. That would include cooking and appliances and other thermal systems. So the idea being that you would build new buildings starting in 2024 that are consistent with the city's net zero 2030 goal. And the exception that I mentioned is that for water heating domestic water heating technology in the memo we propose that that would not kick in for multifamily buildings affordable housing until 2026. That's one area of technology in that specific space that maybe hasn't come as far as some others. There are really good domestic water heating options that are electric or renewable for single family homes and for commercial buildings. But there are some unique challenges relative to larger multifamily or rental buildings. And so we've taken stakeholder feedback into consideration there and proposed a 2026 time frame for that. Important to note that consistent with the city's existing renewable heating ordinance. The definition of what is renewable is broad and includes a number of technologies and fuels. We're talking about geothermal or ground source heat pumps. We're talking about air source heat pumps and water source heat pumps heat pump variable refrigerant flow technology advanced wood heating systems. As well as conventional systems if they have a renewable fuel supply and that can include renewable gas biodiesel renewable hydrogen or renewable district energy. And then if a building was looking at these requirements and determined that none of them were feasible or cost effective. They would be looking at an alternative compliance carbon pollution impact fee for the system that was conventional and did not use any renewable fuel so a fossil fuel system that had no renewable fuel. And the fee would look at not an annual assessment but at a time of permit assessment based on the lifetime of the system and the amount of carbon pollution that it would be putting out. So it would be a one time fee up front and the goal here would be and we have some analysis later in the deck that will demonstrate this to have someone look at that fee on top of the cost of the existing conventional system. And compare it to all the renewable options with the cost of pollution included and be able to make an economically rational decision based on that that really levels the playing field for renewable fuels and renewable technologies. That's the purpose of using carbon pricing here and that's discussed in more detail in the memo. So on this slide we're looking at what is the policy recommendation in the memo for large existing buildings and city buildings. And so again for large existing buildings we're talking about commercial industrial over 50,000 square feet of space conditioned space. Again that's about 80 roughly any buildings in the city. And then we're also talking about the municipal and city buildings. And it would be a requirement similarly starting in 2024 that if one of those buildings was to go to pull a permit to replace a water heating system or a heating system. They would be required to use renewable fuels or technologies or have the carbon pollution impact the apply as alternative compliance. Importantly this exempts residential multi family portable housing existing buildings small businesses. We also include the memo and exemption process for historic buildings if being on the National Historic Register or being eligible for that creates an insurmountable barrier to participating in the policy. There is a cap proposed for the existing building carbon pollution impact fee of 75% of the cost of a conventional system. So that's another effort to be practical and economical with the requirements and sure that their cost effective. And in addition, there's an opportunity here in the recommendations for a building owner to take action if they choose to reducing emissions that are outside the scope of the policy. Such as looking at renewable systems elsewhere beyond the heating water systems within their building or buildings as the case may be. And to get credit for actions they might take to reduce fossil fuels against future compliance costs. So we think about large existing buildings. There are a number of institutions in the city that may have multiple buildings as part of a portfolio. Some of them might be covered by the policy some might not be covered by this existing policy and existing building policy. And this really gives an incentive for them to take action across the portfolio of buildings to reduce fossil fuel use and emissions and gives them a credit from a regulatory standpoint in the proposal if they were to act on those other systems. So one question is what would the recommended use of the revenue be from the fee if there are proceeds to the city and in the report we recommended three possible uses. One would be to continue to support capital needs for the city to electrify its own vehicles and fleet. I know there's been significant progress that the mayor and the council have made on this effort on with our colleagues at the Department of Public Works and those who manage the fleet in the city. This would be a potential revenue source to accelerate that effort to electrify our city's vehicles and lawn care equipment, other opportunities there. In addition, there was an advisory question on town meeting day in 2021 advisory question seven that spoke to the need to have some of the benefits from this policy flow to low income Burlingtonians. And we're proposing creating a new city fund that would support installation of clean heating technologies for low income households and renters as another possible use of the proceeds from the carbon pollution impact fee. And then lastly, this would apply only to existing buildings that would pay the fee, not to new construction for fee payers with existing buildings providing an opportunity to have a substantial portion available back to that fee payer. If they produce a plan to reduce emissions at their building or facility with the proceeds, including electrification work energy efficiency work or other work. And this was an idea that really came from the stakeholder engagement process. This is something that stakeholders said would be meaningful to them and helping to reduce emissions in their facilities or buildings. Great there and thanks for laying it out there I think that puts the basic idea out there for for everyone understand in a moment I'll hit it back to you to kind of walk through a couple case studies that will give people kind of a sense of how this new fee will be implemented before I do that I just want to speak to a few things like first of all like what's the big deal here why why are we putting so much effort into this issue what that we've spent, you know years now going to the legislature to get this authority. And now are going to be going to voters for a second time. And what I hope comes through is just how central the electrification strategy is to Burlington's climate action plans but really more broadly I think really often underappreciated is how electrifying everything has emerged in the last few years as really the, the critical solution for getting to our clinicals for avoiding the worst impacts of, of warming that have been projected by by scientists it's not the solution to the entire problem, but it is. And if and when we get to the point where all of our vehicles and our other buildings run on fully renewable electricity is a is is already the case here in Burlington. Since 2014 the first city in the country to have 100% renewable electricity. Right there we will have addressed more than you know half of the, what we have targeted as a kind of country for for our climate goals. The positive momentum that is starting to become a part of the narrative about the climate emergency the fact that in just five years, there has been approaching a 50% reduction in the projected warming for the years ahead. The great majority of that are very substantial percentage of that at least is being driven by assumptions now about us succeeding at that electrification effort. But, you know, those projections are just projections to actually get there is going to take state and local governments, working with communities to implement these changes and to actually make them happen and happen quickly and that's what we're trying to do here. We've been trying to do formally as part of our policy since 2019. That's why we came out with these years ago now these incentives that encourage the electrification of cars and buildings, we're now taking the next step beyond just the incentives, we're taking another I guess I should say regulatory step that pushes the market in this direction. At the same time, I think it's important for people understand there, there is another option that was considered and frankly some of our colleagues advocated for which was something that for my perspective is is is extreme and kind of goes too far which is to just say at this point in the future we're going to we're going to prohibit all new fossil fuel infrastructure and new buildings that the technology is not there yet for in this climate for us to support that kind of policy that would result if we went that far. I think in some really negative impacts on our other goals on the creation of new homes and jobs. Carbon impact fee proposal. To me gets the balance right it creates very significant penalties for making decisions that take you in a direction other than the taking towards new fossil fuel infrastructure but it doesn't make it impossible. In the areas where there's really no good alternative no good commercial alternatives. Well, no I appreciate that context mayor and I did want to mention because I know this this will come up. You know we're calling it a carbon pollution impact fee, and it really is a fee as opposed to a tax and I think that the wording here is important because this is something that's alternative compliance in the event that somebody can't build with 100% renewable fuels or technologies. It's something that is by possible in that way. Not every building would have to pay it if they're able to comply with the policy attacks on the other hand would really be based on fuel consumption and would be not by possible. We don't we don't have the option typically to not pay a tax. It's something that we pay based on the consumption of a fuel or or purchase of a good. So in this case, we've called it the carbon pollution impact fee and that really is the appropriate way to think of it. It's kind of a development impact fee of sorts. If somebody's not able to comply with the policy. And can you speak to sorry. Can you speak to how we arrived at the proposed fee. Absolutely so we looked in the memo, we're recommending that the fee would be based at $150 a ton of carbon pollution. And we looked at what other cities have done. And in some cases, it would similar building policies on New York, Boston and look at the structures that are higher. $234 a ton, $268 a ton. On the other hand, the Vermont climate council has done some analysis or looked at some analysis that's been done in New York as well that was suggesting something in the neighborhood of $128 a ton. At the federal level, they use a social cost of carbon that's that's far lower. I believe it's in the $51 a ton range or $56 a ton range. So 150 we used as being kind of a practical number. It's relatively close to the number that's being suggested to be used in Vermont. And it's not as high as what some communities are looking at. But it's impactful enough to make the determination on which technology to use in a building on meaningful. And that's kind of what this this next couple of slides, the analysis demonstrates. Great, why don't we get into these two examples and then we'll open it up for questions. So, I think these, it takes a little bit of interpretation here but I think this gives a pretty good indication based on a real world example of the kind of options that a builder would face today. And how that will change when this new regulation is in place. Absolutely. So this first example is a new construction example. It's based on a real world example in Burlington where we have new construction. This was a multi family building. And we look here on the far left in the light gray shading is the baseline fossil fuel heating and water heating system for that building. And the cost was approximately 5.2 million. And in this case, if you took the carbon feed that's that's looked at here and added it to the cost of the baseline system, you see in the darker gray, the $5.8 million. And then to the right of that in the green shading are various renewable options and again this is an upfront capital cost determination. This is not an operating cost determination. Before we move on to those scenarios there and can you just make sure people are understanding so the, this is this building had conventional systems that the cost $5.2 million. Correct. And this analysis looks at all the fossil fuels. And so based on the way this capitalized payment upfront net present value payment of the projected carbon for the life of those systems would have worked. It would have been that same building today roughly with 2022 pricing would have been an additional $600,000 to get 10% premium basically for putting a fossil fuel system in place is that I have that right. You have that right. And, and that's that's this example based on the fossil fuel output of those systems in that building obviously vary depending on the building but that's exactly right for this example. And so that should give people some sense of you. Every example will be a little bit different depending on those systems depending on the fuel, you know potentially if someone was going to use oil instead of natural gas maybe that would have an even greater impact but in this case was about a 10% premium and then the rest of the this draft shows that the builder has a whole range of options for bringing down the cost, either very comparable to the new fee and base system or even lower as a few of these examples are then then the conventional system at all so That's right. So in this case, there were options, such as the air to water heat pump and water loop heat pump, as well as the air source heat pump and electric resistance and the ground source heat pump and water loop heat pump that you see labeled here that were actually cheaper upfront than the conventional system even without the carbon pollution impact fee. And obviously they become even more cost effective and economical when you include the fee. So you're comparing in some cases 4.8 or 4.9 million for those systems compared to an upfront cost of 5.2 for the conventional fossil fuel system or 5.8 million if you include the carbon pollution impact fee. We looked at what the cost would be if you did the conventional system but bought renewable natural gas and didn't present value analysis on that and it's almost identical to what it would have been to have the baseline system plus the carbon fee. So that's an important point is, as you mentioned, we're not banning any infrastructure here, not proposing to ban any infrastructure. So somebody could look at this example and say I want to use a baseline system, conventional system, but I'm going to purchase renewable fuel for that system. That's one option. But in this case as well, there were other options on the electrification side that would have yielded a significant savings up front. And then as I mentioned, it's not an operational analysis. So the cost to operate these different systems varies. And I would say that Burlington Electric continuing to have very reasonable rates compared to the Vermont state average and certainly compared to the New England average is beneficial when we look at the operating costs. In some cases, running a heat pump system can be cheaper in some context than a conventional system, a fossil fuel system. In some cases, it might be a little bit more expensive. It really does vary, but our lower rates in Burlington benefit us when it comes to looking at the operational side of that relative to the rest of New England. Great. And to these models, and I see it's even in the, there are some incentives as well that are being offered that the policy should be understood in that context. This is there is sort of a regulatory stick, if you will, here at the same time, again, depending on the system, there are a significant and growing number of incentives that can help builders realize the projections were shown here. That's exactly right. So Burlington Electric has been offering very, very strong incentives, both for existing buildings and for new construction to switch to heat pumps to geothermal heat and cooling. And all of those incentives will continue to be available under this policy to new construction and to existing buildings. So there is an opportunity to have lower costs. It wasn't captured in the prior example, but it's captured in this one. And that is, this is the existing building example. This is based on a retail building, again, a real world example in Burlington that was right around that 50,000 square feet threshold. And the analysis here shows that the baseline fossil fuel, this is just for a heating system, not a water heating system. The baseline fossil fuel heating system replacement cost in this case was just under $24,000. When you add the carbon pollution impact fee to that baseline system, as you see in the darker gray shading here, the cost would have been $40,700. And what you can see is that the various renewable options here, two different options that look at renewable natural gas, both a blended version and a local only renewable natural gas, as well as looking at the proposed district heating system, which we're also going to talk about tonight at the city council, what credits would be if that system was online and building could purchase renewable credits from the district energy system, as well as a heat pump, what we call a variable refrigerant flow heat pump system that's more common in commercial applications. That was $36,350. But when you include the incentive at the farthest right on the chart, the BED incentive that gets down to $20,350. And this is an important example to demonstrate how the carbon pollution impact fee can really level the playing field. If we don't account for the cost of carbon pollution, the health impacts, the societal impacts, the environmental impacts. If we don't account for that, then the fossil fuel baseline system is cheaper than the renewable options here and might be the system that the building owner might decide to go with. With the carbon impacts accounted for in the baseline plus carbon fee example, we now have a level playing field where all of the externalized costs are accounted for. And now the renewable systems and the renewable fuels are all cost effective in upfront capital relative to the fossil fuel system. So that's the concept here. It's the idea that we're not saying that there's no environmental impact or health impact when we're burning fossil fuels. We know there is. We know there is a cost associated with that. And by putting that cost into the upfront decision making process, we can have a much truer apples to apples comparison between renewable systems and a fossil fuel system. And I think that's what this chart shows in more clear detail. Very good, Darren. And does that include the expected incentives coming from the new inflation reduction act? Or is it this is before, before you even get to this, what can be very sustained when the rules finally all are written here and we know how to use it. This, this graph could change considerably I don't think right. That's correct. Yeah, this was, this was analysis that predates the inflation reduction act incentives being available. We're still learning the details of those programs. In this case, you're correct that the heat pump based systems might have an even greater incentive compared to what's shown on the graph here. And those incentives be very important in a variety of contexts and driving down costs for consumers and providing more access to renewable technologies. All right, well, as you know, I'm looking forward to getting to come back and have a briefing that shows Burlington homeowners and drivers and business owners, how the new federal incentives will work in combination with local incentives. And when that happens, we really think there's going to be an acceleration of these exciting trends here in Burlington in the last couple of years. So, but I think that is for another day. Thank you for walking everyone through that. Thanks for sticking with us everyone for an extended briefing here hope that helps understand more posing and now happy to answer further questions about it if there are any. All right, so I see we have hands up from three people Samantha, are you going to be able to. I guess I can hear. Yes, I can take care of it. Yeah, Courtney from seven days I just enabled your microphone you can go ahead. Great, can you all hear me. Yes. Okay, couple questions. Does municipal buildings does that include school buildings for one. I think in the memo, we did not include school buildings in municipal buildings but there may be school buildings that are in the threshold of being 50,000 square feet or larger. So there are, there's potential eligibility in that category but with the other category city municipal buildings we were focused primarily on on city buildings and not school buildings. Okay, great. And then just sort of a process question. What happens next. I know it's on the council agenda but I don't. It looks like the recommended motion is is to place it on this on file. Does it has to go through the ordinance committee or something next. Yeah, I believe it's our hope that there will be council will. I think there will be a need for some committee work on this and we are talking to the council about initiating that as soon as tonight and getting that work started so that about language can come back in the next by mid January the latest for action to put this to put language on the town. Do I have that right there. That's my understanding as well. Okay, great. I did. I did have some questions about the weekend the homicide over the weekend but if you want to come back to that maybe at the end so people can ask Darren questions. Happy to wait. Okay, I appreciate that Courtney let's do it that way. Okay. Okay. I think Catherine Huntley. You can go next. You can. Okay, great. So, with all of your housing plan and all the stuff that you're hoping to build here how can you hope to make sure that you're protecting the environment but also making sure you're not deterring builders from spending higher costs. Building with these heating systems with the carbon fee and not you know maybe wanting to build in South Burlington or elsewhere. I, it's a really important question. Fortunately, as I hope you saw in the examples, the where we are right now in 2022 excitingly is a place where there are very competitive alternatives to fossil fuel systems. And not only that, we are a place where our local Burlington Electric Department is offering incentives that don't exist in South Burlington or really anywhere else these are only. I don't believe any other utility. The street utilities in the country that has been as aggressive as Burlington Electric has been about offering incentives. And we know in a matter of months as soon as they get the rules written here. We, there are even further federal incentives that can be layered in here and then are going to make these alternative technologies even more competitive so I really. I would say for that for most of what builders need to do today. There is no substantial premium it's even sometimes even less expensive to be working with these alternatives what this regulation does is really ensure that builders look carefully at that. And in the rare cases where there is a, there is not a good alternative to fossil fuels builders still can. We're not saying we're not prohibiting it we're not saying, we're, you know, we're not putting some project killing restriction in place. What we're saying is if you if you have to go that direction, you're going to have to pay this modest fee that in other ways helps the city and the community meet it meet its climate goals. I don't believe I'm pretty hopeful based on the feedback that we've had with the various stakeholders so far that we've gotten it right here and that this is a balanced proposal that is not going. It is going to help us achieve our climate goals without fundamentally seriously undermining our, our, our housing goals. You know we do expect some additional public process over the next couple months if we flush something out that suggests that's not the case will, you know, we'll consider it because certainly housing is very important as well. I think we need to do both fundamentally, that's what why we're bringing this forward we need, we need housing and a lot more housing it is one of the biggest problems we face, but we can't be building new housing that doesn't also advance and forward us towards our climate goals we need to be doing both I think we can. Thank you. Great thank you Catherine. I, the next step is Patrick Crowley. I was just, I wanted to ask about the application of this policy to existing buildings. Are you able to give an example or two for the sake of comparison of those buildings that are right around that 50,000 foot square foot threshold. Yeah, we can get you want to do that. I think the, you know, the last example that we went over was was exactly that kind of building was an existing building, a retail in that case, right at that 50,000 square foot threshold, looking at the conventional system versus the renewable alternatives. We did some of this analysis with the building electrification Institute. And we don't have an exhaustive list, obviously, you know, each building is going to be different. That's part of the reason for putting in the cap on the fee for existing buildings at the 75% of the installed cost of the conventional technology as the mayor pointed out earlier. In some cases, the premium associated with the carbon pollution impact the might be 10%. I think in the existing building example that we used it moved from being a $24,000 system to being a $40,000 system. So the percentage was higher in that case. But by capping it at the 75%, if that really creates an additional kind of economic protection against having the fee being, you know, a much more significant portion of the cost for putting in a new system. So if somebody was replacing, let's say, a $10,000 boiler, the maximum amount of the fee would be 7500 in that case. And not something more extreme like, you know, $100,000 or $300,000 on a $10,000 system. So it's a really important pragmatic step to make sure as the mayor mentioned that we're considering these alternatives when we make these investments, but it's cap such as not to be in any way punitive for existing buildings. We do understand that the distribution infrastructure and existing building creates different challenges than when you're building new. Karen, I think Patrick was in part asking like, I think what is a 50,000 square foot building? For example, Memorial Auditorium is a little bit more than 50,000 square feet. There are a number of buildings up on the UVM campus and in the hospital certainly. Right. Do you want to add any other examples, Karen? Yeah, absolutely. No, those are good examples. I think if I'm remembering correctly, City Hall might be in that category potentially. Buildings like that. Certainly UVM, UVM Medical Center, Champlain College and buildings in that size range. You know, the school district, they have buildings in that size range. We looked at it. It was really among the 80 or so buildings that might be in that category. And the number of them were either the city, the school district or the University Medical Center or Champlain College as well. We have been engaging UVM and UVMC through this process and getting their feedback. Did that cover it, Patrick? Yes, thank you. Okay, great. Next up, and maybe our last question, Liam. Yeah, just two questions first briefly. Right now you're not contemplating existing residential structures and smaller commercial buildings, but do you think that you will want to consider a policy for those in the future? You're correct. We're not considering those right now. We, from my perspective, it will be, we certainly care about what happens with existing buildings, other small buildings. We are going to get to our climate goals ultimately if we don't see action there as well. We are entering this new era of dramatically expanded incentives, federal incentives for those buildings. And from my perspective, I think we want to see how this new regulation works with larger buildings and we want to see how well we do. This is purely from an incentive strategy with the smaller buildings before we seriously consider expanding this regulation to others. We've been pretty clear with people throughout this process that we have no active plans for that, and that's still the case. I think that's a conversation for some years down the road. Okay. And then sort of more on the types of renewable energy that people could use for buildings. You know, I know that there's some kind of discussion about what actually is considered renewable energy. You know, I know things like green hydrogen is still kind of a developing technology. Renewable natural gas is a little bit controversial from my understanding. So in terms of what has the city, what you're going to decide is considered renewable. Do you have any safeguards to make sure you're not going to like fall prey to things that companies are greenwashing that aren't actually really renewable. Great question. Darren, why do you take that? Absolutely. So I think we're really trying to build on the definition that was included already in the renewable heating ordinance. So renewable gas is offered under a tariff structure that's regulated by the Public Utility Commission through Vermont Gas. So there's some built-in protection in terms of procuring renewable natural gas. There's already public utility commission regulation of that process. I think we've looked at including hydrogen if it's renewable, but as you mentioned, that's not really commercialized at this point. So that would be something that could be included for the future, provided it is renewably sourced. We also include all the various electrification technologies, which we know are being sourced through Burlington Electric's 100% renewable energy. So anyone putting in a heat pump or air to water heat pump or a ground source geothermal heat pump, they can know that they're getting 100% renewable electricity through Burlington Electric. And of course, we're also regulated by the Public Utility Commission, and we report every year on how we procure our resources and how we meet that standard. And I think we also included in the memo the opportunity, I think this is important, for the Department of Permitting Inspections to be able to qualify additional renewable fuels or technologies in the future. Because what I've learned working in this space for a period of time is you can't predict what may end up being commercialized. And as the mayor said at the outset, if we were talking about this maybe 15 years ago, the idea that heat pumps would be working so well in a cold climate wasn't something that was a really prevalent topic of conversation. But now we know they work really, really well, even in negative 13 or negative 18 temperatures. So we wanted to make sure that the process would remain that we could qualify additional renewable fuels or technologies if they aren't truly renewably sourced. And if they are new and coming on to the market, we don't want to just create a static definition in 2022 and not have it be adaptable for future developments. Thank you. Great, thank you, Liam. I'm looking at the attendees and not seeing any other hands up from members of the media. So, give people another couple seconds if they, if they want to jump in on this, but then we're going to let Darren go Darren any any final thoughts about about this topic we haven't covered sufficiently. Well, we're looking forward to talking more about it tonight. I think it's, it's important to know that we're acting, we're not acting alone in Burlington. We're acting in conjunction with communities around the state around the country that are working on this. Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example, has adopted a similarly ambitious net zero 2030 goal as we adopted here. We were first, I think, but other communities are looking at that. And even closer to home, as I mentioned, South Burlington has adopted a renewable heating and water heating ordinance. So we know we're not acting alone and that we're not unique and having some of these requirements. But at the same time, as you mentioned, Mayor, this is this charter change gives us a really unique aspect to be able to work on and not only to demonstrate progress towards our net zero 2030 goal, but to use carbon pricing in an economically rational way to really help shape these decisions. So I think what we're doing here has has importance to the climate conversation at the community level, both in Vermont and nationally. And I think that in addition to the inflation reduction act incentives, there's a possibility at the state level of having a clean heat standard, which would further support a lot of the approaches that were outlining here. I know that was considered last session and is likely to be considered again in the legislature so appreciate that we're working in that context and appreciate your support and leadership on this issue and we're looking forward to being there this evening to talk more about it. Hey, well thanks there and it's even a great partner working with on this. I'm I'm excited about this proposal I think it does advance the conversation about where we need to go at really all levels of city, state, federal really even internationally, we need to find more market signals to help us move it move in the direction that we need to do it. I'm sure, you know, in the past, there's been any time proposals like this gets offered. There can be some pretty kind of cheap and inaccurate I think headlines about taxes and make it making framing this as some kind of extreme idea and it's, it's just really not this is more and more around the world, there are structures for pricing carbon into market decisions in one way or another. There is quite a bit of bipartisan discussion happening about proposals like this in Congress. And again, the way we have proposed it here. I really see this as a really pragmatic way of moving us towards our climate goals. We have extreme mandates that would really cause cause big problems to our to our housing and other economic goals so I hope the proposals understood in that context. I hopefully by having this to be here in Burlington by. Again, I think it's another point I just want to remind members of the media, this, we are doing this after the endorsement of about 65% of the city's voters, encouraging to get into the direction and voters get another shot at this, this, this coming year will certainly intend to be out there educating voters and advocating for to a certain degree. But this is, this is a proposal that can only go forward. If, if the council and then ultimately the voters support this as a way to try to achieve our, our critical climate goals I think will happen, given that I know bro and I know deeply about the climate emergency and want to be on the cutting edge of doing something about it and taking consequential action. And I'll be out there. I'm sure you go to Darren talking to voters about it through time be today. Make sure people understand what they're voting on. All right with that. Thank you Darren, you can can log off and I will go back to you Courtney. As far as


What's up everyone takedown here welcome back to another video today I'm gonna be showing you guys how to ship hockey cards the right way on eBay I am an eBay seller. I do sell hockey cards video games and other things on eBay So today I'm only gonna be tackling hockey cards because there is a right way to do hockey cards And a wrong way to ship them and today I'm gonna be showing you guys the right way to ship hockey cards in a future video if you guys want to see me tackle video games or other things that I sell on eBay and how I ship them Let me know down in the comments section below, but for now, we're just gonna be doing hockey cards Let's get right into this. So like I said, there is a right way and a wrong way to ship hockey cards on eBay and shipping hockey cards on eBay is extremely Cheap and easy to do for the most part if people are buying less than a hundred Grams from you usually shipping should only be around two dollars sometimes three dollars depending on where you're shipping your hockey cards But for the most part whenever I ship hockey cards It's usually individual ones or less than five hockey cards sometimes less than ten and they don't cost too much to ship So take this video. I'm gonna be showing you guys just on some base cards I have so just for base cards that one. That's what I'm gonna be demonstrating on how to package them up What you are going to need is First some penny sleeves. These are really cheap. You get a hundred of them for I think around a dollar and You definitely need them. You need some top loaders. So these ones here I think are just some that I had lying around, of course I do see that there's a smudge on it So if it's me and if it's a hockey card that I'm selling on eBay I'll make sure that it is a perfectly new Top loader that I'm giving them not something scratched up or dirty That way instead of them having to take it out of the top loader and put it in their own top loader to put in their collection They receive it. It's ready to go. So you need a top loader if you are selling a thick hockey card Make sure you get the right size of top loader where it's not going to be squished in the top loader If you're selling multiple cards if they're cheap enough, you can just toss them all in a thicker top loader and do it like that You may also need a team bag now you can get away with other things but team bags are the way to go Again, this one is a dirty one, but I'm just showing you guys what I would typically use Now you will need some green painters tape This is a must if you're doing hockey cards any other tape will leave Residue on either the cards if you accidentally get tape on the cards or on the top loader and it'll just look dirty and Really really messy. So this is the right way to do it Not only does it save the hockey cards and save the top loaders, but it's super easy to get off So the buyer will not have an issue taking off the tape unlike some of the other tape now The other thing is going to be a bubble mailer These ones here the exact size that I use but I do have other ones depending on how many hockey cards You're selling you don't want this to be over stuffed And you definitely want it to fit through the slot at the post office if it's too thick It won't go through the slots and you do have to pay a little bit more Now I go above and beyond whenever I sell my hockey cards Because I want to know exactly what it's gonna cost me to ship my hockey card so I have this little kitchen scale that I just tossed my Finished products my packed hockey cards ready to ship up on it And then that way I know how much it's gonna cost and normally I'll just put the stamps on them myself if I know roughly how much it's gonna cost to ship So these are everything that's I use now When I sell on eBay for my cheapest mystery packs, I get away with tossing 10 of them in this little ziploc baggie I've never had any that came damaged before now what I'll do on top of this I'll put a top loader on evils either side of it to make sure it is sturdy and has something hard And then I will put tape on all four Corners of it around the top loaders and that keeps it nice and secure now. This is about 10 to 12 hockey cards So putting this in I can successfully put I think two of these packs in I sell these for a dollar on eBay They're just my overstock base cards. I can put two stacks in an envelope like this On top of each other and if there's room I could put another two here So sometimes for the four dollars I can ship four of these packs Sometimes I cannot so now how you package up your hockey cards I'm just gonna show you on good old pk Subban you're gonna take your hockey card that you're sold I'm gonna take a penny sleeve and you're gonna put the hockey card in the penny sleeve properly Just like so And then you're gonna grab yourself the right size top loader and you're gonna toss it inside and make sure it goes all the way to the bottom Now again, make sure you grab the right size top loader that way the card does not get damaged since these are base I know the regular top loaders will work for it for the sake of this video now if they're jersey cards or something like that You want to make sure you get the right? Top loader to ship it in rather than just jamming it inside one that you have and possibly damaging the corners The edges or anything like that now for me. I only package them up like this Individually if they're worth more than five or ten dollars I'll give them their own top loader and put them in the envelope like that now if they're worth Less than that then I get away with a thicker one here. So I'll go I'll toss all the hockey cards in the thicker top loader. I will if there's extra space I'll put some extra cheap base cards inside as just free cards for them Not only do they get extra cards for free But it also saves the cards from bouncing around inside if I don't have extra hockey cards on hand. I'll put a dummy cards in which are the thicker hockey cards I'll put some of them in like usually one just you want to get rid of all the empty space inside So the cards aren't bouncing arounds then just like you would the normal one This one here you would tape it off on the edge with the green painters tape So once you have your top loader packaged ready to go just on the top without squishing it down You're just gonna flip it over just like that And you're gonna tape each top loader that you're gonna sell just like this Now again, if you're going to package up a few I'm just gonna show you guys how I would do that I'll take my penny sleeves each hockey card would get their own penny sleeve just like that They all have their own penny sleeve and then you will grab the bigger top loader now If I was just selling three hockey cards, I probably wouldn't put them in something this big But for the demonstration, I'm gonna just show you here You're gonna take all of your hockey cards that you sold Put them all in this top loader here So now as you can see there is some wiggle room here and the cards can bounce around What I would do now is either insert a dummy card or some extra base card that I have lying around Without overcrowding this just so they don't bounce around and then again You'll take your tape and you'll tape off the edge without squishing it in Just like so I'll put it on here and Without squishing in because you don't want to squish this in and then tape it because that may damage cards You're just gonna flip it around just like that Just so it keeps the cards secured during transits and they will not come out of the top loader So like I said, I only go individual top loaders if they're worth more than five dollars Now if they are if I have let's say three or four or however many I sold if they all have their own top loaders I'll definitely put them in a team bag like this. So that way they're all secure safe and sound So I'll just put it in just like that And just for the sake of this demonstration, I'm just gonna show you if you have multiples You just put it in just like this Right down to the bottom and you'll pull fold the edge and make it nice and secure Now you have all your hockey cards ready to go in one package And they're not gonna be bouncing around each top loader is taped off So the card secured in the top loader and all of your top loaders is secured now in this team bag Now the next step is to put them inside your bubble mailer You have to make sure that you get the right size You don't want something too big that the cards are bouncing around but you don't want one That's too small that all the cards are basically getting squished inside So you're just gonna take it here since I know this is the right one You're gonna put it inside All the way to the bottom and then I would take this tab off and fold it down Just like that and it would be ready to go one tip that I have whenever it comes to these bubble mailers is I Typically put my return address and the address of the buyer on it first before filling it up Just because it can become harder to rate on it if there is stuff inside and then from here I'll go and I'll take my little scale turn it on and I already have it set to kilograms I would toss this package on top now since it shows that it is 38 grams since it is under a hundred grams This will ship anywhere in Canada for two dollars and anywhere in the United States for three dollars Now you also have to make sure your thickness here because there is a slot system at the post office Or at least that Canada post where it does matter about the weight But it also has to fit through the slot to be classified as regular mail if it fits through the slots Then it will be the two dollars in Canada or Three dollars United States if it doesn't it will cost you a little bit more but not much like I said normally I will sell these here their dollar on eBay just my overstock eBay cards I do have other stuff on eBay, but I just wanted to show you guys these I would package them up Like I've already explained with a top loader on each side with Green tape on each edge just so the top loaders aren't moving around so the cards are secured with some hard top loader on each side Now these ones here. I have gotten away in the past with shipping them in a bigger Bubble mailer and I could put up to four of these inside and it still fits through the slot So this is the right way to ship hockey cards on eBay Some people use just a plain white envelope if they have a card in a top loader that is fine in some way but sometimes that card can still get bent if the post office does not realize and Also, some people will go and they'll use other tape besides the green tape. This is so easy to remove It doesn't damage the cards It is the right tape to use if you guys have any questions on how to ship hockey cards on eBay Successfully let me know in the comments down below and I'll try to help you to the best ability that I can But this is the right way to ship hockey cards on eBay now The scale is not necessary, but it does help me whenever I sell my hockey cards or anything that I sell on eBay I will use it because if I know what the weight is and the size of the package I can kind of estimate what the shipping will cost hockey cards. Like I said are around $2 Video games are surprisingly if I'm shipping one video game Of course, it's gonna be a bigger size bubble mailer But if it's a video game usually it's around the $2 mark the same as my hockey cards And then anything else depends on the weight the size of the package if it's in a box It all depends but this is how to ship hockey cards that you sell on eBay the right way Hope you guys enjoyed this video. I'm gonna leave this here. Please take care. Peace