What's going on everybody forest here ripping 2022 Star Wars chrome galaxy hobby four bucks number four random letter So again, we'll go by the checklist here on basically everything sketches are random to everybody Let's see what else I can go over here So like T is everything that has like the it's the first letter of the checklist The only one we don't use a checklist for is going to be the gameplay galaxy inserts They're all Star Wars as the first letter after Star Wars is where it goes The inserts were referred to the checklist of some of them say like be V2 It's gonna be whatever the first like title of that card is in the checklist. That makes any sense I'll drop a link to the checklist as well So if you have any questions about it, you can just refer to it. I thought I had it up We go we'll be using the cardboard connection one There you go See uh like the sketches like the the sketch variation chromes, you know go to whatever the first letter is Let's see what we got everybody start the tiktok. Let's see what tiktok. Thanks. Good luck everybody So, you know, we open these a little differently. I like to see the back of the card. So I know what the Title is didn't mean to intrude you've got Refractor x-wings in formation that goes x Fracture the sand trooper or stormtroopers with the desert there and sketch variation that's C crosshair You can refer to checker so that'll see like BV 90. It's crosshair on the checklist Crosshair Miami to the to the playoffs. What a time as Sean's happy Luke Skywalker on indoor Got a wedge and tillies refractor for W. It's all good J Didn't expect much going into this week or this season tech and a Harris and doula Don't think I'm gonna do recap on this one guys because it took a song to get it filled Darth Vader D Omega refractor. Oh, that is Leia, Organa L and this is gonna be Original trilogy concept art ot6. I believe this is just gonna be tea tusken raider Yep tea tusken raider Texans, how do you mess that up? How do you mess that up Texans? Ben Kenobi we've got wow Wow two of ten Grand Moff Tarkin G boom X-fractor grand Moff Tarkin You love to see that big big card Who's got G? Mark G with G Inside the meditation chamber and general grievous. Wow a car game of chance Obi-Wan Kenobi and Boga refractor That's a boba vintage Star Wars card Boba Fett B and Snowtroopers invade hop. Oh, that's a big one bush disguise B Yoda and Luke why? refractor didn't mean to intrude D and good morning guard. Let's go Jags. That's what I gotta say Luke Skywalker assembles lightsaber Refractor Luke Skywalker on indoor Grand Moff Tarkin and a gameplay galaxy that is just Star Wars So this one's just gonna go S There we go. That's a nice one Star Wars That's it. That's it Anakin for a Here we go Darth Vader refractor D. Nice card That one is called the Skywalker's for tea and that is Luke Skywalker L weakway W Finn F Let's say Life on Tatooine and Ben Kenobi refractor B. Let's get these last Star Wars breaks filled up guys wicket warwick Refractor a card game of chance goes to a Playing some sabacc there. I need to go buy sabacc BV83 sketch variations Kylo Kylo Ren okay, and Chewbacca's anguish Ella Sakura. We have an auto here. We do We have a Klaatu So goes to K again the autos go to the character they go to the character Not the actor 116 of 150 Corey D. Williams has Klaatu goes to K They should get one seed right I mean Giants are resting everybody really bush disguise refractor B and The Skywalker legacy I would expect Eagles to get one seed Yeah, they should be able to beat the Giants reserves Lord Vader and his stormtroopers Yeah refractor Yoda and Luke Skywalker why Bask and concept art. I think this goes a I think it was like ATST or something like that It'll be OT8 on the checklist again all these will refer to the checklist Yep, ATST on that one Han Solo R2D2 This one is refractor Luke Skywalker assembles his lightsaber and Hunter salacious B. Crumb refractor Anakin Skywalker as galaxy's greatest scoundrels and Vintage Star Wars v15 checklist is Wicked in the in the bright tree village. They'll be medical droid We've got a very nice Leia or Ghana prism refractor. What a box we got here 31 of 75 Prism refractor Leia or gonna go into the L spot Fantastic first box of the evening everybody 31 of 35 we'll get that magged got Vintage Star Wars v15 95 and 99 on the green We just had this one. This one's W wicked in bright village in bright tree village Wow, not only that but a third parallel There we go. Good stuff and Lord Vader ready to ship Go to on Degelba Weekway, it's refractor week way Gameplay Galaxy Empire at war goes to E Empire war II and Mace Windu's barrage so Leia or Ghana and bush disguise refractor Darth Vader no be one Kenobi and he walks under its hack You don't like Star Wars Doug no one's forced you to watch The shadow of the Dark Lord Love Star Wars got Greedo Wicked Warwick refractor Skywalker in action to keep it going. I want to see a neutral side AFC championship. I think that'd be fun Chiefs have the outright one seed, right Or no, all right, we got echo II Alas Ikora refractor for a Solo investigates S and Anakin Skywalker sketch variation. Hey, you've got Poe Dameron Refractor Lord Vader and his stormtroopers for L Chewbacca and that is gonna be a boba Original concept art original trilogy concept art wedge and tillies in battle. We've got a Ketsu Anyo auto K spot again 50 of 50 Gina Torres has Ketsu Anyo Two autos for K Han Solo refractor nice card there In X-wing Starfighters All right guys, let's get these next two breaks filled up. We've got creatures of the Cantina a dark turn for Anakin Skywalker 36 of 150 atomic refractor boba fat ambushed going to be nice parallel and bouncy hunters as well aboard the bridge refractor of R2-D2 got vintage Star Wars cards. What is this one V? 12 V12 is do lock shaman that goes D and then the Emperor's power Anything with T goes anything with the goes T Yoda refractor of salacious be crumb there. He is there. He is a galaxy within grasp and the dark lord and a new hope Sir money night game this week or no Last week attack on Hoth refractor medical droid Gameplay galaxy art gonna be shadows of the Empire goes s shadows of the Empire Star Wars got a Wookiees Wrath Qui-Gon Jinn 11 of 99 a wave refractor the Emperor's power nice T I like how the heads are getting spaced out here as well T with the Emperor's power 11 of 99.  We've got a refractor of the shadow of the Dark Lord Poncello Chewbacca and the cockpits and a Wookiee war dance an enemy of the Empire That's a cool one. I like that one a lot refractor of Of Greedo original trilogy concept are that's gonna be Boba starship for OT 5 B and battle the Dianooka that starship who's starting like what about the Giants? It was web Sanctuary was on a do back Emperor Palpatine Refractor mace Windu's barrage definitely one of the cooler cards seems to be a favorite C3 Po Cobb Vanth a refractor of Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi Versus Obi-Wan Kenobi Vengeance Star Wars v4 I'm sure what this one is v4 looks like a Jessica made in matrimonial, so that's Jay and Torah Doza lack of faith Refractor Ewoks under attack II Sith Trooper and the infamous Boba Fett a Wookiee's Wrath Refractor of Luke Skywalker in action gameplay Galaxy Battlefront to be Nice, that was the game when I was a kid man Boba Fett ambushed That was the game Enter Darth Vader God refractor solo investigates s. Oh Here we go Rebel rogue squadron rebel strike green to 99 this goes are Star Wars rogue squadron 3 rebel strike very nice gameplay Galaxy What's up, BC? How you doing Jay? Good stuff there and the Jedi and the princess There goes AJ Brown Qui-Gon Jin Kylo Ren Chewbacca refractor and Trudgin third box. Good luck everybody. Good break so far You're not gonna recap this one sus generators in their bantha refractor x-wing starfighters Base sketch variations gonna be wrecker w and there he is right there wrecker Big rookie hit this Star Wars Cooling about Star Wars is you just want Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader basically every time and enemy of the Empire a Fractor bounty hunters a Wookiee in the wilderness and Obi-Wan Kenobi sand troopers on a do-back the Emperor's power refractor Original trilogy concept art is this one is gonna it starts with L. It's Luke Skywalker Princess Leia Han Solo so L and Boba Boba all over this Tell Sam who day you tell him when you see him Andrew me back Tuesday Emperor Palpatine. I don't think they expected to win that game cop van Refractor of the Dark Lord and a new hope Tuscant sundown Grogu no grogu in this. This is more catered towards like the original trilogy stuff and even some prequel stuff lack of faith Refractor a galaxy within grasp a Vintage Star Wars V file refer to the checklist on that do on the Death Star What's up, Dan? Hey appreciate it, buddy. Good luck on that one stormtrooper assess their gear stormtroopers assess their gear refractor at Star Wars Stormtroopers or sand troopers. Yeah stormtroopers surveying the desert tech got Omega Obi-Wan Kenobi and Boga Refractor Sith trooper s Luke Skywalker Looking like on the next one here So soldiers one spot to go on the next one guys didn't mean to intrude Luke Skywalker on indoor Refractor the infamous Boba Fett and the skywalkers vintage Star Wars cards v14. Let me see if I can find this one real quick V14 through the bogs of tea. Oh That's a cool one inside the meditation chamber Prism refractor 12 of 75 Going to I inside the meditation chamber That's awesome, man, that's a nice color in this life on Tatooine Ben Kenobi refractor Boba Fett ambushed Gameplay Galaxy are bounty hunter B Star Wars bounty hunter and Chewbacca's anguish a card game of chance Bush disguise The Jedi and the princess atomic refractor goes to tea numbered 122 out of 150 You go tea And hunter Yoda and Luke Skywalker Refractor of the Jedi and the princess again here Refractor of patrolling the canteen it goes to pee two refractors there in BOSC Maybe have a pack that's just base now. So we're two in that two refractors there Princess Leia, Organa Refractor stormtroopers swarm Darth Vader for s galaxy gameplay art X-wing tour of duty viewing so it goes X And Harrison Dula A Vader one won't be freaking massive Lando patrolling the cantina Refractor Han Solo and Chewbacca in the cockpit and Leia Leia Organa nice healing. Good luck man appreciate it the smuggler Han Solo Wookie Ward answer refractor W That's general Grievous and inside of the meditation chamber bounty hunters Answer the Empire's call refractor Battle with the Dianoga or Dianoga base sketch card variation. That's Leia Organa and Snowtroopers invade Hoth first break man X-wing in formation X auto Again for K. It's Ketsu Anyo 11 of 25 this time K with a clean sweep of the autos through three boxes That's a turkey right there Gina Torres Ketsu Anyo It's a turkey Bryson C-3PO refractor for C Yeah, good morning our three straight strikes is a turkey all right wedge antelies Refractor Tordosa. Yeah, we're hatching original trilogy concept. I think that's just Princess Leia. It's OT1. Yep, Princess Leia Grammoth Tarkin Okay The cycle Let me go tweet out the next one real quick. Yeah, I just want to go guys in the next one What are the odds of another k-auto? I don't know gotta be pretty good though And they're coming a bunch this year bounty hunters answer the Empire's call refractor is Trudgin sketch variation BOSC B and Galaxy's greatest scoundrels nine or signature play the CMC screen pass X-wings in formation wedge antelies Wrecker refractor W ward Vader assembles a ship Omega Refractor a Wookie in the wilderness Original trilogy concept art for that's Darth Vader Mace Windu's barrage Obi-Wan Kenobi Auto oh back-to-back Odyssey or twilight doorman T Isaac Singleton, Jr. Is twilight doorman T spot there for twilight and redemption is Base card mojo refractor docking Bay 94 goes D again. These are base redemptions Base parallel so docking Bay 94 goes D Grats on the mojo refractor. I think that applies to his regular base. It's gonna be a 50. I think You go congrats D Darth Vader Ben Kenobi Didn't mean to intrude refractor of Obi-Wan Kenobi Vintage Star Wars that's v10 v10. Let me check that one. You walks under attack Chief chirpa on v10. So see So we've got Darth Vader Luke Skywalker on indoor Luke Skywalker in action and refractor of Boba Fett. What do you mean vintage you McGregor? Ben Kenobi refractor tusk and raider at sundown And gameplay galaxy Star Wars Jedi Knight dark forces to so Jay Jay on that one And solo investigates. I've never pulled anyone McGregor. I think Caleb has a card game of chance Big card here the shadow of the Dark Lord purple 17 of 25 T again It's been a crazy four box break Awesome card. Congrats on that one the shadow of the Dark Lord of 25 X-wing Starfighters Chewbacca bush disguise Refractor duel on the Death Star the Emperor's power bounty hunters Yoda and Luke Skywalker a refractor of stormtroopers surveying the deserts Base sketch variation trudging and Of the Dark Lord and a new hope Luke Skywalker assembles his lightsaber Anakin Skywalker a Galaxy within grasp and refractor tech weakway Like a faith is cool Refractor Harris and Dula original trilogy concept art R2-D2 R Star Wars lack of faith is cool. I like Mace Windu's barrage Got Finn refractor Leia, Organa L Boba Fed battles the Sarlacc and Crosshair wicket Warwick Fractor inside the meditation chamber vintage Star Wars v2. That's going to be a close call for a The Bunta Eve classic bounty hunters the 50. That's a nice one. Definitely solid parallel Lord Vader and his stormtroopers on solo Stormtroopers storm Darth Vader and General Grievous refractor ala Sakura Separate here. Oh, we've got rebel assault two on gameplay galaxy goes to our Snow troopers invade off s and Han and Chewie in the cockpit H Last couple packs R2-D2 Refractor Gamordian Guard Battle at the Dynoga Wookie Ward ants Salacious be crumb Flash refractors Grand Moff Tarkin Torah Doza and C3 P. Oh All right, everybody that will do it really good break there another four boxer up next


What happens if an emergency occurs and I do not have my prosthetic leg on? Great question. On average, it probably takes 60 seconds to get this on. In a pinch, I can do it in like 20. But let's say something is really urgent, like a fire or a burtler, something crazy. And I don't have time to get to my leg and put it on. Would I just totally be screwed? Yes and no. I can actually move really quickly when I need to by hopping and or crawling. I wanna brag, but I'm like the world's fastest hopper. So if I like had to go out of a house or a situation really quickly and I didn't have my leg on, I could probably manage it. However, if I was being chased by a human or animal, I would be at a disadvantage.


The recommended uniform screening panel, RUSP, includes seven conditions recommended by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services for Inclusion and State Newborn Screening, NBS Severe Combined Immunodeficiency, SCID, Critical Congenital Heart Disease, CCHD, Glycogen Storage Disease, Type II, POMPA, Mucopolysacredosis, Type I, MPSI, X-linked Adrenalucidistrophy, XALD, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, SMA, and Mucopolysacredosis, Type II, MPS II. The adoption of SCID and CCHD newborn screening by programs in all 50 states and three territories, Washington D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico, took approximately eight and six years, respectively. As of December 2022, 37 programs screened for POMPA, 34 for MPSI, 32 for XALD, and 48 for SMA. The rate of implementation based on the average additional number of NBS programs per year was fastest for SMA. This article was authored by Shikha Singh, Jelalayo Jodoo, Alex or Kemper, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Welcome to 25 by 25 Michigan's Renewable Energy Ballot Proposition. This event is sponsored by Closeup, the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy. I'm Barry Rabe, a faculty member here at the Ford School, and as of July 1, the Director of Closeup. We also want to thank the Domestic Policy Corps here at the Ford School for their co-sponsorship, and also the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. There's a certain irony, a very nice irony in fact, in that we are finally finding ways for the Ford School and the CRC of Michigan, which were founded almost at the same time early in the last century, to begin to partner. These are two institutions that have a long-standing history of interest and engagement on issues of state and local governance, particularly in the state of Michigan. To our knowledge, this is the first time we've ever done a formal kind of partnership quite like this. We're very delighted to welcome Eric Lucfer, who will be our lead speaker today, one of the senior researchers at CRC, and President Jeff Guilfoyle. First just a few words about our format and then introductions, and then I'm going to turn things over to Jeff. One is we will have, as we proceed, cards. You may have already seen those as you came in, but we want to, after the presentation, allow for Q&A. One of the ways that we've done this traditionally at these events is allow you to fill in note cards that ultimately will be filtered down to me. I will be in something approximating the CNN debate moderator role, working through various questions and posing questions, and so we'll be following that format. So it's not too early to begin to think about questions that you might want to raise, but there'll be opportunity to get these cards out and circulate, and we'll try to leave as much time as possible to allow for Q&A. I also want to make note that the report that the CRC has published on this ballot proposition for which Eric is the lead author, Eric Lucfer, is available not only through the CRC website, but we have a link through the close-up website here at the Ford School. So we want to make that available to as many people as possible. Also want to note that it is ballot proposition season, aggressively so in Michigan, and questions invariably emerge in terms of financial support and the like, and just for the record, the center has not received and has not accepted any outside funds for the organization of this event, and neither the center nor its staff have taken a position on this issue. We wanted to have an earnest debate over this fundamental question about the future of energy governance in Michigan. So just simply wanted to note that, and also want to acknowledge thanks particularly to Bonnie Roberts, our project coordinator at close-up, and the Ford School facilities and computing staff for their help. Brief introductions. First, Eric Lucfer, who's already been mentioned twice in this introduction, is the director of local affairs at the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. Eric may know more about Michigan local governance and certainly ballot propositions than any other Michigander. He has the unenviable or enviable challenge of making sense and discerning and distilling and trying to present in an accessible way ballot propositions across the board as they emerge. And in this year in particular, Michigan is looking at a very diverse, really a bumper crop of these. As I mentioned, he is the lead author on the report and will be presenting key findings from that report to launch our conversation. He will be followed by Sanya Karle, who we welcome, who's an assistant professor at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Sanya has emerged as a leading national scholar on state energy policy formation and implementation, a wide range of very active and engaging questions that she is raising, including many of the policies that are highly relevant to the conversation that we are having today. She's also the author of a pair of just terrific articles in the review of policy research, Environmental Politics and Energy Politics Journal, in recent years looking at the state experience with renewable portfolio standards, which is very much central to this conversation, and related policy tools as well as issues of possible federal adoption of what exists in a great many states now. So we're very glad to welcome you from Bloomington, Sanya. And also delighted to welcome Tom Lyon, the Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce with appointments in the Ross School and the School of Natural Resources and Environment. Tom is formerly the director of the UM-Herb Institute for Global and Sustainable Enterprise, and he has made major scholarly contributions in many areas at the intersection of energy and environmental concerns, including some very important work on corporate environmental strategy. Here what I would only note among his many publications is perhaps the best single article that I have seen on the political economy of state government decisions to adopt these portfolio standards. That was published in a 2010 article in the Journal of Energy Policy. So we are very, very well represented with this range of expertise today. Welcome to Tom. And finally, I'd just like to welcome and introduce Jeff Gilfoil. As noted, Jeff is the president of the CRC, and this really is a nice moment for a unit that the Ford School has had some connection and relationship, including placement of students and interns, to think about other ways that we might come together and the like. And before we turn to our three primary speakers, I wanted to turn things over to Jeff and offer him an opportunity to comment as well. Thank you. Thanks. It's a pleasure to be here, and thank you for the opportunity to partner on this. I just want to give a brief commercial for CRC for those of you who aren't familiar with us. So the Citizens Research Council was formed in 1916. So it's been in Michigan 95 years. Our goal is to inform the policy debate and have better government in Michigan and do that by providing a source of non-partisan information on important public policy topics that policymakers and voters can turn to where they're comfortable that the information isn't being spun. It's just sort of being presented in a straight fashion so that you can make decisions that are consistent with your own values. Our primary output is research reports. They're all available up on our web page for free to be downloaded. We focus on issues that are specific to Michigan, state and local issues specific to Michigan. It's not academic research. It's designed to be immediately useful and accessible by people who are interested in having an impact on policy in Michigan. We also work directly with government officials. We give a lot of presentations around the state on various policy issues. We have an email list. So if you go to our web page and sign up, we'll send you an email whenever we publish a paper and give you access to that or you can follow us on Facebook or Twitter. Some of our recent work, we've done a lot of work recently on K-12, how schools are governed in Michigan, how they're financed, charter schools, a lot of the topics that have been in the news. We do a lot of work on government efficiency. So if you're interested in things like what's involved with emerging to governments or government collaboration on services, we've done work on that. We've done a lot of work on the city of Detroit's fiscal issues. So if you're interested in Detroit finances, I encourage you to go to our webpage and look at that. And in particular, we've done research recently on the six statewide ballot proposals. We don't take a position for or against the ballot proposals. So if you're interested, these proposals have a significant impact or have the potential to have a significant impact on state public policy. So I encourage you to go to our webpage and check out the ballot proposals. Again, we don't advocate one way or the other. We just try to present what they do and you can make decisions consistent with your own values. And with that, I'm going to turn the presentation over to the author of one of these ballot proposal write-ups, Eric Luffer. So Eric, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Jeff. As noted, our website is right there, crcmich.org. So if you do have interest in finding these, that's where to find us. I usually take two minutes going through this slide that's done now. So I'm right on my schedule for my 15 minutes. As noted, this year we have the most ballot questions since 1978. Five of these are proposed constitutional amendments. The first one is a referendum on public act four, which is the emergency manager law, also controversial. Proposal two is a question of putting the right to collective bargaining into our constitution. We're going to talk about question three today. Question four is an issue on the quality home care council and limited collective bargaining rights for in-home care workers. Question five is a supermajority requirement for new taxes. In question six is this issue, if you've turned on the TV, you've seen the beloved ads from Maddie Maroon on building a new bridge. So as we have the papers on our website, I encourage you to find them and do your homework so we know what you're voting on. It's going to be a long ballot. You should be prepared when you get in, not finding this information for the first time when you get to the bottom of your ballot. So let's talk about proposal three. This is an issue to put into our constitution requirement that our utilities provide at least 25% of the electricity from renewable sources. It's going to be scaled up so a little bit each year, ultimately by the year 2025, we should be at 25%. Within the definition in that proposed constitutional amendment, renewable energy is defined as that that naturally replenishes over a human rather than a geological time frame. And they go on to say that in their definition, that includes wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower. It provides that the electricity provided in retail sales must be produced from facilities located within Michigan or within the customer service territory of any electric utility, municipal-owned utility, or co-op. I know what within Michigan means, but what does it mean to be within a territory of a utility? You can see down in the bottom left corner, Southwest Michigan, where Benton Harbor is the little orange share. That is Indiana, Michigan electrical power that extends into Indiana. And so the idea is there that that utility can produce the electricity anywhere in Indiana in their territory and sell it to Benton Harbor and those people served by that down there. Similarly, up in the upper peninsula, those red and green shaded areas, those are utilities that extend into Wisconsin. The same rules apply there. So most of the energy will have to be produced in Michigan, but there are some exceptions provided in the law. The Constitution would also say that these utilities are to scale this up. And in doing so, the price of electricity produced from renewable energy cannot increase by more than 1% per year. And I think for the most part, I'm not electrical engineer, I don't work for the utilities. What I have been able to learn is that they're gonna have a hard time keeping within that 1%. And so it's likely that staying below that 1% would push attainment of this beyond the year 2025. That's provided for, and that's the sort of customer protection that was tried to be built in. It also says that the legislature in enacting laws to implement this is to promote and encourage the employment of Michigan residents into use equipment manufactured in Michigan. So pretty basic to encourage employment. And the idea then is if we have facilities producing windmill or producing solar panels, those are to get preference in the legislature as opposed to promote that. It's not quite clear how successful any state is in trying to promote job creation through legislation like this, but they're trying. So what do we have so far? Let me put a little lay of the land so we can have some context where we are now and where we're going. A number of states have implemented these renewable energy standards. Michigan is one of 30, 29 of our states have it. And it was all done, the federal government attempted to tackle this issue, failed and the states seeing that failure have tried to fill that void. In Michigan, that came about in 2008 with the Public Act 295, which requires that the state generate at least 10% of renewable, 10% electricity from renewable sources by the year 2015. The actual law as you would suppose goes into far greater detail about what a renewable source is and what counts and goes into great definition. It says that we can use hydro power but we can't build new dams to capture that hydro power. It allows energy optimization and advanced cleaner energy systems, which I don't think would qualify for this constitutional amendment.  So we are a few years into implementation of this and this chart shows, this is from the Michigan Public Service Commission. It shows that we evidently are well on our way to meeting that 10% standard. Based on the contracts let for the major utilities, by next year we should be at about 8.4%. And again, the target there is 10%. So another two years after that and we should at least be at 10% if not higher. This again from the Michigan Public Service Commission, it shows where our utilities were getting their renewable sources prior to enacting of this law, prior to implementation of the standard. This is from the year 2011 and recalling that last chart, we weren't very far into implementation of this. You can see most of it as our base was coming from biomass, hydropower and wind and landfill gas were making up the other big pieces of the pie. What's happened since then is we're getting about 94% of our new renewable energy power from wind. If you've gone up in the thumb area, if you've driven along the west coast of Michigan, just south of Luddington, if you've gone right up the middle of the state through Gracia County, you see these windmill farms with the blades turning away, hopefully the wind's blowing to turn them for you. And the main cause of this, the main economics of this, it's far cheaper to put up windmills than to invest heavily in these solar, landfill facilities. There's limited capacity, limited ability to get energy out of any of them. But given that landfill or the wind gives you the opportunity to do it in a cost effective way. So what are the issues to consider? That's kind of the lay of the land where we are now, where we're going. As you consider this proposed constitutional amendment, what are some things to think about? Well, first of all, is this issue, and if you've seen the ads for this, I think they glean onto this, is this really a constitutional, an issue worthy of amending our constitution? Citizens Research Council's been paying a lot of attention to our state constitution, and this is not the first time that we've had issues that are of marginal quality to go into the constitution, not to say this is a good or bad issue, but is it really constitution worthy? And when we think about whether that fits that bill, we talk about the state constitution should define the basic organs of power. So the constitution should say, we have a state government, we have school districts, county cities, there should be a separation of powers. It should define the basic principles that these are the things we believe in how we have taxing power and things like that, and it declares the rights of the people. So some of those are redundant from the US constitution, some of them are separate to ours, things like crime victims, bill of rights, and things like that, we put into our constitution. That document should be economical and compact, so it shouldn't go into great detail helping you to understand how a law should be implemented, but to find what that law should be and then tell the legislature they are to implement that. Details should largely be avoided, so it kind of comes hand in hand with the second one, but the difficulty in putting great levels of detail into the constitution is as things change, the only way to fix that is to have another constitutional amendment, which again requires putting the question to the voters, which is a very expensive and time-consuming process. Given that, I would ask you whether this, our proposed constitution fits the bill of being clear and concise without going into detail. It certainly isn't as long as the legislation, but there's a great level of detail there and would be one of our longer provisions in our constitution if adopted. Other issues to think about whether it fits into the constitution. This whole idea, I mean, we've had renewable energy forever when you burn a log, you're doing biomass when of course the Dutch have long had windmills and hydropowers as old as we are, so we've long had renewable energy, but this whole movement of investing heavily in renewable energy and these standards the states are adopting are fairly new and we're not quite sure that we can get there. I think for the most part we are, but putting into the constitution before we really have thought that out may be putting the horse before the cart, so to speak. We know that renewable energy is a very fluid and the science is evolving as we sit here. There's new ways of thinking about doing these things and so when we define it as wind, solar, biomass and hydropower, are we precluding something that's gonna be the new science in 20 years or 25 years? Are we gonna have to amend the constitution so the utilities will be able to take care of that or include that in their portfolio? The other question, if you've watched the, at the federal level, this whole issue on the Health Care Act, it's a similar issue here. Should the government, should a constitution compel activities? In putting this into the constitution we wouldn't be defining the basic power, we wouldn't be creating a structure of government, we would be telling a private company, several private companies, they are regulated companies but they are still private companies for the most part that they should start doing an activity. They should start selling electricity from their renewable sources and if they fail to do that what does it mean that they would be unconstitutional? Is that worth anything more than a slap on the wrist? When a governor does something unconstitutional the courts can come to him and tell him to stop doing that or when there's an unconstitutional action usually there's a clear remedy. What would be the remedy in this case? It's not quite clear. There would be compliance issues to think about. Some of that would be clear because we have this act already in place but they didn't quite use the same wording and from this constitutional amendment to what the law says and it really begs the question of whether they meant to use different language and if so what does that mean? Determining the cost, what fits under that 1% is going to take some doing. Clearly windmills and solar panels those are the cost of implementation but what about the cost of transmission if they have to put up new lines? What about the cost of technology for balancing conventional power and renewable power? All those types of things are gonna have to be considered. The proponents are using this as a way of create jobs. They want to manage the externalities associated with coal, think how it affects the health and environment. They want to cut down the amount of money that's going to other states when we purchase coal and have to ship it back here. But really in doing so we have to ask whether that's a wise investment. Clearly when you put up these facilities you're getting energy from nature so there's no cost, we don't have to purchase wind to come into Michigan like we do for coal but there are other costs associated with that. The first one for the utilities is a lack of reliability. The wind isn't always blowing and when we need energy the most in the middle of summer when the air conditionings are blowing full blast is usually when the wind's blowing the least. So for the utilities there's that balancing act that they have to struggle with. At the same time that we're doing this natural gas prices are plunging. The ability to engage in this fracking activity get energy that we haven't previous gotten to been able to get to. So that's changing the equation. Even though we don't have the health problems associated with burning coal there are negative externalities with this with the whirring of the blades and the light strobing through the blades and so on. And then this whole issue of where are we gonna put these? We've already put the windmill farms in their best locations. Where's the next best and who's going to be affected by that? So let me just wrap up with that and I'll turn it over to the next speaker. We will indeed move into Q and A. I believe that the cards are being collected. Actually while they're coming down I'm gonna pick up Tom on your last slide and the question of energy efficiency and just offer a question to the panel about this issue of energy efficiency fitting into portfolio standards and the like because my understanding is in some states there's been some cross fertilization or engagement of energy efficiency as a sort of a counter way to do that. Does that figure in the Michigan case does that figure in other cases? How do we begin to think about energy efficiency as a supplement or alternative to renewable energy whether in this case or in other contexts? I sort of think Sanya's best position to answer that. I can give you what we've seen the experience across other states and that is at first a lot of states started to fold energy efficiency into their RPS and then they as I mentioned in my presentation they realized that they weren't actually pursuing energy efficiency instead they were actually the utilities were still just pursuing the renewables. So what we've seen more recently is that states have adopted a completely different policy which is an energy efficiency resource standard. And so now we see I believe the number is about 23 states have an energy efficiency resource standard that resembles entirely the RPS but is designed specifically for energy efficiency. The finding being that they don't really work well together. As to how it fits into Michigan's experience. Do you want to take that over? Oh, just I think the point here is that the proposal proposal three doesn't reflect an energy efficiency component of dealing with our energy needs going forward. So there's projected energy demand but there's a question of how much energy efficiency should we take into account to accurately forecast how much demand is going to be in the coming years. And that will feed back to the question of how much additional capacity do we need to build. And that comes back to the stringency question. You know, if demand were going to be met largely through energy efficiency we wouldn't need much new capacity. And that then means that the renewables requirement is more stringent than it might look like otherwise. All right, thank you. Let me begin to work through some of your questions. In fact, there's actually two questions that overlap a bit with the question that I just asked. And actually Tom, this builds on the second question from your slide, natural gas. Why are we not using more natural gas from landfills and developing gas through drilling for oil? What is the future of natural gas in this changing marketplace and how might that make us think differently about the future of energy in Michigan? I don't really know why we're not using more landfill gas. Do we know we're using the wrong amount of landfill gas? And I think honestly we can't really solve our energy problems with landfill gas. We should use as much of it as we can, but we're still gonna have to do a lot of other things. What was the other part of it? Getting natural gas. So getting natural gas as a byproduct from drilling for oil? I'm not quite sure what the question is. Part of the, I think part of the problem is that oil is not a direct substitute for this renewable energy. We're talking about electricity versus transportation if we're comparing oil to renewable energy. So oil's not the option. Natural gas could be something that we would consider as well. Landfill gas, is it even built into the current legislation that landfill gas is eligible? It is. And that's something that many states have had difficulty pursuing. Who owns the landfills? How do they comply? Are they allowed to purchase or sell renewable energy credits? These are all questions that different states have encountered and struggled with. Thank you. Another question. Without RPS standards, would states still choose to develop renewable energy? Or are RPS standards key in creating a renewable energy market? Well, I think I showed the one pie chart that showed how much where we're getting renewable energy currently. It's a small share of all the energy produced in Michigan. But in the absence of a standard, Michigan utilities were investing in renewable energy facilities and producing electricity in ways other than the conventional. So maybe not to the level that we would hope for, but in the absence of standards, I think you can clearly make the case that they would do some. Well, there's also the question of what would the policy alternative be if you didn't have a renewable portfolio standard? Suppose you had a stringent carbon tax. Well, that would definitely induce renewable investment. But failing that, if we have no policy to drive renewable energy investment, then we will get very little of it. It basically comes down to economics. It's the levelized cost of electricity. And we're comparing renewables, which traditionally are higher in cost, than fossil fuels, which traditionally are lower. Over time, this is the case with any emerging technology, we see the cost of these technologies come down so that they are cost competitive. Could this have happened without a policy? I would argue no, unless we had some alternative policy that was adjusting those costs. Now, we're talking about state policies. What about the federal policies that have subsidized windmills? And how would that play in the absence of a state policy? There's still the federal subsidization of windmills. Do you think that would, how does that play into this whole equation? It's a good question. There is definitely some support there. My sense, and I don't know if I've seen a paper that really parses out the effect of the production tax credit as opposed to the RPS. But my sense is that RPSs have done the majority of the work in driving renewable investment. But I guess I can't point to a study that shows that for sure. The closest I've seen is studies that actually look at the on again, off again nature of the production tax credit, which is the credit that we're talking about. It's a national level credit. And every time this credit elapses, we see a distinct nosedive in wind development. And so there's clearly some kind of causal relationship here between development and the production tax credit. However, as was just explained, with the RPS happening simultaneously, it's very difficult to parse out which policies were responsible for which amount of renewable energy. A question on climate change. Asking how much of an impact this kind of a policy would have on greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately on climate change. And some of the larger issues associated with that, how one begins to put this into a climate conversation. Here, mindful that there have been proposals in all recent Congresses to create a national version of an RPS, or clean energy standards. Simon, you've talked about this and written about this. How does one begin to think about the climate or the greenhouse gas ramifications of the kind of policy that we're talking about? This is a fun question. So the problem with renewable portfolio standards at the state level is that we have such a patchwork of different policies. And the difference across state borders with these different policies leads to unintended consequences or unintended effects of these policies. And so to give two examples, we have free writing and we have carbon leakage. And so free writing happens when one state does not have a policy and boarding states do have an RPS. And as a result of being the state without the policy, they're able to erect wind turbines and then sell the renewable energy credits across state lines and profit off of their neighbors. So not being proud of coming from Indiana, this is exactly what Indiana is doing. The opposite is the case with carbon leakage. When a state enacts a policy, they increase the amount of wind, let's say, development that they have or wind generation. And as a result, their excess electricity, let's say their coal electricity, becomes significantly cheaper and they therefore are able to export it over state lines to other states that don't have the policy. And so these are both examples of what happens when we have differences across states when electricity is the flow of electrons, they move back and forth across state lines. And so this patchwork is essentially causing this inconsistency, which is causing problems. It's, I think I'm going in a roundabout way of basically saying this is an energy policy, a state level energy policy is not the same as a national level climate policy. We have climate implications of this patchwork of state policies. So let me pick up on that. Even if we had a federal renewable portfolio standard, economists would normally say, this is not the best way to solve the carbon problem. The way you want to do it is put a tax on carbon or cap carbon emissions in some way and then allow that to be traded. So we don't do that. And an RPS is a second best policy. Part of the problem is RPS is tend to substitute renewables for natural gas where what we'd really like to get rid of if we were trying to solve the climate problem is coal. So some people think that's not true. We shouldn't, either we should not be getting rid of coal or renewables don't substitute for natural gas. But the work of Dallas Palmer, at Dallas Bertron, Karen Palmer at RFF suggests that that's exactly what happens. Could I speak to that? Well, I don't know, Barry. Do we have people in the audience speaking to questions? Sure, take a quick comment from the audience. So I don't disagree with that. I just think it's a separate point. I mean, the point is we want to try to do a good job of bringing natural gas out of the ground and not waste it. And I think it's true that fracking offers a greater risk that there will be gas leakage around a well than traditional drilling does. So it's certainly a consideration. Barry, the other part of this, going back to your question, how much can it reduce the pollution related to coal? Some of the studies I was able to read in my research and talking with the utilities, granted they have their own backs to grind in this.  They're powering it down a little bit, but they're still burning coal. It's kind of the metaphor of the tanker out on the ocean. You don't start and stop it on a dime, and so it's true with the coal plant, they're gonna keep burning that coal whether the wind's blowing or not. I understand the technology is evolving now that they're better able to manage that. But because we have more windmills because it's a windy day, does not equate to burning no coal. I think that's a really important point, which goes back to the observation that wind tends to substitute for natural gas instead of coal because it's much easier to turn a natural gas plant on and off. Both wind and natural gas are intermediate resources. So we have a base load, we have intermediate load, we have peak load, and wind and natural gas tend to fill that intermediate load quite nicely, which is why they are substitutes for each other. I'd like to turn to the constitutional issue. There are at least three questions. It looks as if there's some collusion in the audience. They're worded somewhat similarly, but I'm gonna provide a hybrid of three questions. How many other states have written some form of an RPS into their constitutions? And what are the particular provisions or ramifications of going the constitutional route versus legislation or statute? It's a short answer. Michigan would be the first to put it in the constitution and the ramifications are, as we saw the slide on how states on a regularly basis are updating and tweaking and modifying. In order to do that with a constitutional provision, it requires a separate vote and either the legislature putting another question on or another petition process. Now it's possible that while this is fairly wordy by constitutional standards, it is fairly broad in saying wind and hydropower and solar. So it's possible that some tweaking might be done legislatively, but in terms of going beyond 25% in terms of a number of those types of issues, another vote would be required. Only a small handful of states have adopted an RPS through a ballot proposition. In research, only one study has actually looked at whether or not this affects the effectiveness of the policy and they found that it really is completely irrelevant how the policy was adopted in the first place. And one related constitutional question. Is there any correlation between legislative gridlock and the amount of constitutional amendment activity we're seeing now in Michigan? Go for it, Eric. I think, yeah, there's a high level of correlation. What we have now is severe polarization in our legislative branch and government generally. And what happened in 2008 was that they were able to get people in a room interested parties, the utilities, the environmental groups and others that had a cared about this in one way or another. And it was a legislative process as you would imagine. There was give and take, there was negotiation and ultimately they agreed on 10% in a fairly short implementation standard. They had to have a give and take on what would be included, what renewable sources counted and which didn't. The outcome of that was that some of the groups that didn't get as much as they wanted in this process ended up going this petition route to say 2008 just wasn't far enough so we need the people to vote and make it more stringent. And I think when we look at the other questions that are on the ballot, the collective bargaining provision, this home healthcare worker, the two thirds of increased taxes, all those are emblematic of the polarization and one side we're trying to instill their point of view on everyone else rather than going a legislative route, they're going the route of the constitution. Just to add to that a little bit, at the time of the public act 295, there were a lot of elements involved. Just as Eric was saying, one of them that I think was very important to the utilities was they wanted to undo retail rate competition. So that had been put in place in I believe 2001 and so part of what the utilities got in exchange for accepting the renewable standard was they didn't have to deal with retail rate competition any longer. Two questions, a series of questions actually on economics. One being the estimated job creation in Michigan of proposal three is passed and with that a question on in-state versus out-of-state generation and how that would operate under this provision, both in terms of economics but relating to job creation, the job components and job aspects. I know Sonny you had some reference to that but anyone want to respond to that question? I didn't entirely catch what the question was. First of all the estimates of job creation on Michigan of proposal three is passed and then trying to weave in one other question. Does all the electricity and all the new job activity for this come from within the state of Michigan or is it possible for Michigan to import some of the electricity which could have some impact on job creation if it's produced in another state? Well starting with the latter, the way that renewable energy could be produced out-of-state and count towards Michigan's RPS is only if the utilities have service territories outside of Michigan and therefore they could build let's say wind farms, wind turbines outside of the state. Otherwise as far as I understand the language is that the renewable energy must be produced within the state and as far as the state can do so they need to make sure that the manufacturing as much manufacturing happens within state as well to support it. And Eric spoke to that right off the bat pointing out the territories of some utilities that are mostly in other states but could sell into this because they have a presence in the state of Michigan. I think it's also useful to go back to something that Sonia was pointing to a little bit earlier which is the patchwork quilt effect. We have 29 different RPSs that aren't really coordinated and a lot of times each state is thinking well I don't want my money to go to another state I want all the money to stay in Michigan I'd like to secede if I could. And the notion of the commerce clause in the United States is we create one great big market and we trade so I don't have to buy typewriters that were made in the United States. I buy a lot of typewriters and I don't even have to buy cars that were made, I said most spoke I don't have to buy typewriters from the state of Michigan. I don't even have to buy cars from the state of Michigan and normally economists think there's a lot of efficiency gains to be had from trading across states so I think it's a little bit unfortunate the way the states are trying to put these protectionist clauses into their RPSs that make it hard to trade across one another. The other part to keep in mind with this for every job gained in the renewable energy there's the potential of offsetting jobs and conventional fuel so if we're purchasing less coal than some transportation costs or some costs related to that jobs related to that. So I don't know enough about it to know what the offset is. Are we just breaking even? Are we creating more jobs with renewable energy? But it's not solely a gain by investing in renewable energy. The slide that I showed about job effects with the estimate of the way at all paper the meta analysis they actually did account for jobs lost within the fossil fuel industry so their estimate with a 30% RPS national RPS was that it was a job gains by four billion. Given the large number of portfolio standards in place around the country what are the best practices? What are the best cases? And how close does Michigan come to the best practice model? It's funny because the best practice is to have a lot of renewable energy to capture so if we had all the sunshine of Arizona and all the wind of Texas we'd be much better off but it's hard to import that and we just have to do the best we can with the resources we have. I'm assuming this question is designed not just to the resource issue but sort of design of policies because of the many, many ways you can set these up. Are there? My point being that even with the Cadillac policies you're limited with the resources you have. Although Michigan does have pretty good wind resources compared to most other states. So I haven't really done an analysis of the structure of all the different RPS's but my overall impression is this is one of those areas where Texas actually did a really good job. They wrote a very simple, I think it's just a two page RPS. They got a very clear penalty for failing to meet it and it's worked very well. California wrote a long messy RPS where the penalties for failure were not clear and it's much harder to figure out even how the game works there. So my impression is Texas maybe has the gold standard on this. I think so. Yeah, I would say very clear legislation just repeating the same point as well as very strong penalties to have language that is very specific about which utilities must comply to remove all escape clauses and exemptions or exceptions just to make it a very straightforward policy that is specifically tailored as much as possible to the state circumstances. And just would note, Texas really does emerge as an interesting case for many, many reasons. It's one that was initially passed, I believe, in 1999 but with a reauthorization and a much higher target in 2005 and so it sort of passes that component of what you were talking about, Sonia. The growth has been really quite large. My understanding the costs have worked quite well. It's also interesting from a cross-state standpoint what you were talking about, Tom. It's one of the relatively few states that given the configuration of the grid is relatively autonomous. It's pretty hard to export and import electricity independent of sovereignty and secession issues to be merged historically in the case of Texas. So interesting that we'd be bringing that case up. A couple questions, we're actually running very low on time. Couple questions on benefits and how cost analyses take account of indirect costs for fossil fuels, either health costs because of exposure to air pollution or how one begins to calculate benefits, health benefits and other benefits from renewable sources and whether or not any of the studies that have been done have systematically calculated these kinds of costs and benefits in that way a more nuanced look at the impact of shifting your electricity generation. All eyes turned. Yeah, there was a study done fairly recently and I wish I remembered the details of it. It was looking at the health costs, essentially of coal fire power in the state of Michigan and they're pretty high. Unfortunately, most of these kind of analyses don't take those into account. They just assume companies meet the regulations that are in place, but if our regulations don't fully internalize the health costs of, say, coal, then coal's getting away with a cheap deal as it has for a very long time. In my understanding is there are a couple of very old coal plants in the DTE service territory. They got grandfathered into the 1978 Clean Air Act. So grandfathering means they got exempted from the requirements and everybody thought these old coal plants will just die a natural death very soon, but what companies figured out was if they can just keep these things limping along, they don't have to put all the modern pollution control on them. So they're getting an especially good subsidy by running these 75-year-old coal plants without modern pollution control equipment. Now, apparently DTE is planning to retire a couple of those and consumers energy is planning to retire seven relatively small old coal plants. So we'll all get a benefit from those, but yeah, I think the health impacts remain underpriced in all of these analyses. I think that was very well said and the only thing I would add is whoever wrote that, check out resources for the future. I'm sure that you could find a couple of publications there on that topic. I have far more cards left in my hand than we have time for. I think we have time for really only one question. I apologize to all of those who wrote questions and we will not get time for it. Well, my understanding is all of the presenters will be here for more informal conversation immediately, immediately afterward. And we will be assuming permission of authors be posting the presentations on our website. That was a question that came from one of you. There are actually several questions here at the draw on experience outside the United States. I'm gonna try to synthesize those. What we know about the experience of trying to increase renewable energy at a large rate if one looks at member states of the European Union or other nations. What it means for generation, cost, the intermittency, the need to provide supplemental supplies. If we look beyond American boundaries, whether it's neighboring Canadian provinces or the European Union, is there anything we can say and draw some lessons for the evolving Michigan case? Well, in a lot of other countries, they don't use renewable portfolio standards. The most common alternative policy probably is the feed-in tariff, which Germany has used to what you could call great effect in the sense that it's brought a lot of renewable energy online relatively fast, but it's been at a very high cost. So Germany has paid something like 50 cents a kilowatt hour for a lot of the renewable energy that they've brought in through the feed-in tariff. And our average price here in Michigan is something like 11 cents. So they're paying five times that for solar. So it was a calculated decision to build a solar power industry within Germany and it came at a very high price to energy consumers and they are now backing away from it, thinking they've built enough of an infant industry now in Germany that it doesn't require the same levels of support. So in some sense, it's basic economics. If you pay enough for anything, you can get people to produce it. Sure, the US really has been the pioneer with the renewable portfolio standard. Just in the past five years or so, we've seen a ton of countries adopt their own, but there's not, nobody has enough experience to date. It's even questionable whether the US has enough experience today to really know the full effects and effectiveness of this policy. But I would echo that the feed-in tariff is another example as well as cap and trade programs. And those are the two major policies that we've seen actually have a very positive effect in terms of renewable energy development internationally. And here in closing, I can't help but note, especially given the reference to feed-in tariffs, actually goes back to your point earlier, Tom, that the overwhelming consensus across policy scholars, economists, and even very diverse presidential administrations is that some kind of a pricing mechanism through the form of a tax or something like that would probably be a far superior policy option. That option to put a carbon price or an energy tax on the ballot is an option in Michigan and any other state. But the last time I looked, no state had done it. There was no aggressive pressure. Indeed, we had earlier today a visit by Frank Zarb, who was Gerald Ford's energy czar in the 1970s, and made very clear that one of the goals of the Ford administration or recognitions of the Ford administration, even then, with looking at natural gas decontrol and other areas, is that only by raising the price do you really provide a really substantial trigger. This is one of these interesting issues where we engage between what is economically feasible and what is politically feasible. And so we continue to explore what seems to be within the realm of political feasibility, and that is a renewable energy mandate. It's my sincere hope that this has been an illuminating exploration as we begin to contemplate the last stages of this campaign. I very, very much want to thank our speakers, our panelists for very thoughtful presentations and comment. And please join me in thanking them and do feel free to come up and engage in more informal conversation. Thank you all.


passive optical network FAQs. What is passive optical network? Passive optical network PON is a type of fiber optic access network. A PON reduces the amount of cabling and equipment required compared to an active optical network where each user has a separate connection to the network hub. Generally, a PON configuration contains an optical line terminal OLT at the service provider's central office and a number of optical network units ONU or optical network terminals ONT near end users. How does it work? PON uses an optical splitter to allow multiple subscribers to share a single fiber connection to the service provider's network. Furthermore, the splitter is a passive device that does not require any power. The OLT contains a laser that sends an optical signal down the fiber to the splitter. As a result, the splitter then separates the signal into multiple signals, each of which is sent to a different ONU or ONT. The ONU or ONT converts the optical signal back into an electrical signal that can be used by the customer's equipment. advantages PON offers a number of advantages over other access technologies such as twisted pair or coaxial cable. PON is more scalable. It is easier to add new subscribers to a PON system than other types of networks. The passive components in a PON system do not require power which means that there are fewer potential points of failure. Cost effective, the use of optical splitters means that a PON system can serve many subscribers with a single fiber connection. As a result, this reduces the amount of cabling and equipment required compared to other types of network. Disadvantages PON has a number of disadvantages compared to other access technologies. PON is more vulnerable to environmental factors. For example, components can be damaged by water, humidity, or temperature extremes. The OLT and ONU or ONT equipment required for a PON system is more expensive than the equipment required for other types of network. Longer installation times, passive optical components must be carefully installed and aligned, which can take longer than other types of network. What is Ethernet Passive Optical Network? Ethernet Passive Optical Network, EPON, is a type of passive optical network, PON that uses Ethernet as the transport protocol. EPON is standardized by the IEEE 802.3AH committee. EPON offers a number of advantages over other PON technologies. Uses a standard Ethernet interface, which simplifies equipment compatibility and reduces costs. Supports a wide range of data rates, from 10 megabits per second to 1 gigabit per second. Can be easily upgraded to support higher data rates, by simply changing the optical transceivers. What is Gigabit Passive Optical Network? Gigabit Passive Optical Network, GPON, is a type of PON that supports data rates up to 2.5 gigabits per second downstream, and 1.25 gigabits per second upstream. GPON is standardized by the ITUTG 984 series of recommendations. What is Next Generation Passive Optical Network? Next Generation Passive Optical Network, NGPON, is a type of PON that supports data rates up to 40 gigabits per second downstream, and 10 gigabits per second upstream. NGPON is standardized by the ITUTG 989 series of recommendations. Advantages of GPON and NGPON, over other PON technologies. Supports very high data rates, making it ideal for applications, such as HDTV, and video on demand. GPON and NGPON are scalable, it is easy to add new subscribers or upgrade existing subscribers to higher data rates. Cost effective, the use of optical splitters means that an NGPON system can serve many subscribers with a single fiber connection. As a result, this reduces the amount of cabling and equipment required, compared to other types of network. For further assistance or a free survey, please email or call on the details below, and click like and subscribe if you have enjoyed this video.


All right, thank you. Thanks everyone for coming. So yeah, what we're gonna be talking about today, Lightning Talks is super fast, is source attestations with a project called GitSign. So a little bit about myself, my name's Billy Lynch, I'm a software engineer over at ChainGuard. I'm a maintainer for the GitSign project as well as some other supply chain security projects, Tecton Chains, and I also make contributions to the rest of Sigstore and Tecton as well. So source attestations. So the first thing we're starting to talk about is what is an attestation? You might also hear another word called providence. So what's the difference? So the two terms here, providence we're really talking about sort of the who, what, where, when, why. So these are metadata about the artifact, where did it come from, what's in it, why is it here, why do we care about it? An attestation is the metadata itself isn't necessarily enough because that could be populated and produced by anyone. So an attestation is really trying to say is it coming from someone that we trust? Is it from a trusted developer? Is it from our CI pipelines? So really the difference between the two is providence plus some identity is what really makes up an attestation. And when we talk about identity, usually this is where signatures come into play. And if we're talking about signatures, then we're gonna be, you know, one of the things we're gonna be talking about is Sigstore. So Sigstore is a project under the open SSF. It's goal is to make signing software artifacts easy, whether this is images, git commits, anything part of your software supply chain, we wanna make that signing easy. And one of the really cool things about Sigstore is it has this process, what we call keyless signing, which allows you to basically generate ephemeral keys to sign objects and artifacts using certificate authority called Fulcio and to produce signatures and attestations and put them into a transparency law called Recor. And what this lets you do is sort of offload the complexity of managing keys to Sigstore tooling so that, you know, all you need to worry about is like making sure that those things are signed and not having to worry about managing GPG keys and rotation and stuff like that. So one of the tools that people are sort of most familiar with just because it's been around for a little bit longer is a tool called Cosign. And Cosign is really focused on container signing. So making, signing OCI images, it can also do blob stuff like that very easy. So Cosign has a really nifty command called Cosign Attest where you can actually attach provenance data to an image and sign it to make it an attestation that about that image, right? So you can attach S-bombs, you can attach, hey, like, hey, we ran this check on this image and you can attach it and upload it as in the same registry. So you can see at the bottom here, there's this .att file that actually has the same SHA within the tag that references the image that it's attesting to. So this really nifty trick, what it lets you do is store the attestations in the same location, right?  So that's a really, really useful tool, really, really powerful. So one of the things that we were sort of thinking about for Git sign is we have this behavior with Cosign, we can add attestations to images. OCI images are just one artifact, one part of your software supply chain. Git commits are another part, right? The source that goes into your CI, the source that goes into the images that you build are another artifact that you might want to add attestations to, right? So the question is what can we do there, how can we add attestations to repositories and make that easy for users? So as I mentioned in the beginning, one of the projects I work on is called Git sign. So the original sort of goal for Git sign was to make Git commit signing easy. So traditionally, you would use a GPG key or an SSH key to sign your commits, but with Git sign, you can actually use the full six-store keyless flow. And we were thinking, hey, can we apply the same sort of principle of Cosign Attest to Git sign? And that's what I sort of want to show off today. So we have a really quick demo. I'm just gonna hop over to the GitHub repo here. So this is just a sample repo that I put together. So within the Git sign repository, we have, it's right now a separate binary. We're working towards upstreaming into the Git sign binary itself, a tool called Git sign attest. So it's very much mirroring what Cosign Attest does. And as an example here, I have a few GitHub actions that are producing attestations, some things that you might want to attach to your source commits, right? So this could be an S-bomb. What are the transitive dependencies that are part of this repo that are going into my builds? I'm gonna hand wave a little bit here. Salsa source attestation. So I was talking right before this. One of the things that if you look at the Intodo docs, the Salsa docs, sort of the concept of two-party review and have all my changes been reviewed by someone I trust. Can we generate attestations for that and add that to the repository? Things like scorecards, static analysis. And you can extend this even further, right? Fuzzing, have CI tests ran against this. What were the results of those CI tests? These are all things that you might want to attach to these commits and put in a discoverable location so that other tooling knows how to find it and then can take advantage of it. So as an example here, here's the S-bomb tool that ran. So we're just using the Kubernetes bomb tool. So it's pretty simple, pretty straightforward. We're just checking out the code, installing the bomb tool, installing get sign to test. We're generating the S-bomb and then all we're doing here is adding this attestation, making an attestation associated to commit. So all we're doing here is we're running get sign to test. We're giving it the file. We're telling it's type spdx. And what this is doing is it's actually storing the attestation in a special ref space within the repository itself. So just like branches and tags, we can actually push and pull these custom refs. If you're familiar with get notes, this actually works in a very, very similar mechanism. But this is sort of a different carved out space where our goal is to really make this a space for to put attestations into put attestation data. And so what we can do with this is just push the repository. And if we cut over to the repo here, we just have a simple repo. We can actually go fetch the attestations. This isn't actually gonna do anything. It's already having cloned locally. We can do full get things with it. So we can actually check out refs attestations commits. And so this is gonna dump us into a folder that looks pretty gnarly, but it's actually just a structured sort of format for, hey, here are all the commit shaws that we have attestations for. So if we do, if we just get the commit shaw for whatever that means, so we have this a4a. So if you see the into a4a. Here's where we see all the prominence data and all the attestations, right? So each one of these files, there's sort of a pair here. It's storing what is the prominence data that we added. So in the case of the S-bomb, this is just an SPDX S-bomb, and then the corresponding signature is the signed data of that S-bomb that we produced using this extracurricular flow. So this looks pretty gnarly because it's a base-64 blob of the prominence data that we had before. And we can do this for the other things as well. So like for the review thing, here, let me just pipe this into jq. So it's a little nicer to see. So for this, just for the demo, I just sort of spat out the pull request data. So for this pull request, I reviewed it, I approved it, and we can actually store this data in the Git repository itself only using Git protocol, so you don't need to, you can do this in sort of a Git repo agnostic way, so it doesn't really matter if it's GitHub, GitLab, anything like that. And then the other thing is, so here's a nifty UI that we use for just inspecting RECOR log entries. So this corresponds to the S-bomb that I produced before. So you can see it was issued by Sigstore, it's a short-lived certs. I ran this three days ago. And what's really cool about this is because the cert was issued to the OIDC identity of my GitHub Action CI, we can use the certificate in this attestation to say, hey, no, this came from my CI, it came from like a known runner. It wasn't just a random developer that sort of produced the attestation, uploaded it to the repo, things like that. So that's sort of the value that Sigstore can add to a process like this. So this is a lightning talk, so we unfortunately don't have that much time to go into the specifics. But yeah, so I just wanted to show this off. It's things that we're working on, it's things that we're actively thinking about. You know, the things that are on our mind is source attestation data. Like I mentioned before, it's another part, it's another piece of the software supply chain. We want to have attestations. So things that I would like to hear from everyone, if you want to grab me during lunch or something, is like what kind of data would you like to see in attestations? Obviously, I think there's a lot of value in having this data present next to the commit. Yeah, so we want to see how we can grow this. I am definitely interested in the intodo, salsa spec for the two-parter review, stuff like that. But yeah, I think it would be really interesting to see how we can apply this for other things. Yeah, so thank you, that's all I have. Really short talk. If you're interested in Git Sign, here's the link for the GitHub repo. And if you want to come and chat after, more than happy to. So thank you.


In the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, women who got 5 or fewer hours of sleep a night gained about 6 pounds more over the subsequent 16 years than those getting 7 a night. Even if that was all due to the difference in sleep, that's still only 6 pounds for 10,000 plus more hours of sleep. If even a tiny fraction of that time we spent on diet and exercise, biking to the nearest farm stand, more weight could have been lost in 16 weeks than in those 16 years. Very little bit helps though and getting at least 7 hours is healthier for you anyway. The biggest reason to lose sleep over losing sleep is motor vehicle accident risk. Driving drowsy increases risk of killing yourself and others. People might think twice about getting behind the wheel after staying away for 48 hours straight, but even just 2 weeks of sleeping 6 hours a night impairs your cognitive performance as much as pulling 2 all-nighters in a row. So what's the best way to sleep better?  Those prescribed even less than 18 pills a year of so-called hypnotics, the class of sleeping pills that includes Ambien, appear to have triple the risk of dying prematurely. Since up to 10% of the adult population has prescribed these drugs, if the drugs really are killing people, that can mean a 6-figured death toll every year. Ambien's manufacturer questioned the study, but that's just one of dozens of studies that found a significant association between sleeping pills and premature death. When the principal investigator, the Scripps Clinic Sleep Center, was criticized for reporting alarmingly high death risks from these commonly used medications, he replied, We can't hide risks, even if they might frighten patients out of taking hypnotics. Patients have a right to know. What's more, non-pharmacological methods have been found to work as good or better than the drugs. The recommended first-line treatment for insomnia is what's called cognitive behavioral therapy, which combines conditioning techniques to re-associate the bed with sleep and education surrounding optimal sleep hygiene. Here are the four rules of sleep conditioning. Number one, go to bed only when you're sleeping. Number two, only use the bed for sleep and sex. No reading, eating, or screen time. Number three, if you can't fall asleep within about the 15-20 minutes, get up, leave the bedroom, and don't come back until you're sleepy again, and repeat as necessary. And finally, number four, get up at the same time every morning, no matter how little sleep you get. And although avoiding napping is often added, contrary to expectations, the majority of research does not show that daytime naps interfere with nighttime sleep. If there were four rules of sleep hygiene I'd pick out, it would be number one, exercise regularly. The best time to exercise to improve sleep appears to be four to eight hours before bedtime, though it appears to be a myth that exercising right before bed is somehow disruptive to sleep. Number two, avoid caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol before bedtime. We used to think as long as you don't drink caffeine in the evening, it wouldn't affect sleep, but four cups of coffee worth, even six hours before bedtime, can reduce total sleep time by more than an hour. Even just two cups in the morning at 7 a.m. can change what your brain waves look like on EEG that night, though it's not clear if this has any clinical relevance beyond delaying the onset of sleep by an average of 10 minutes. Late afternoon alcohol consumption, six hours before bedtime, may also impair sleep, even after it's cleared out of your system. And nicotine, whether from gum pill, patch, or cigarette, can also have negative sleep effects, though so too can active nicotine withdrawal.  Meat intake is associated with napping, suggested as a proxy for sleepiness. This may be one of the reasons insomnia has been reported as a side-effect of low-carb ketogenic diets. Supplement-wise, a single megadose of vitamin D was found to improve sleep duration and quality in men and women ages 20-50 with sleeping disorders. And I've already talked about melatonin-rich foods and supplements in previous videos. Number three, make the bedroom quiet, dark, cool, and comfortable. Nocturnal noise can adversely impact sleep even if we're not consciously aware of it. Within a few days you can become habituated to noises such that they don't wake you up, but EEG studies and subjective sleep surveys show the quality of your sleep can still be affected. Thankfully earplugs and sound masking like white noise machines have been shown to help. And finally, number four, establish a relaxing bedtime routine. Relaxation techniques such as massage, mindfulness meditation, and soothing music may also help. So may taking a relaxing hot bath or shower. One of the reasons late night eating can delay sleep is that it may interfere with the drop in core body temperature that normally occurs about bedtime. That's thought to be one of the cues that it's time for bed. So should you not take a hot bath before bed? No, because as soon as you step out of the bath or shower, the rapid decline in skin temperature can accentuate the natural nighttime drop and improve sleep. Even just a warm foot bath may help you fall asleep about 15 minutes faster.


How to stop absorbing the Narcissist energy. How to not let the Narcissist affect your energy. How to stop giving away your power to the Narcissist. When you are around the Narcissist, you might feel as though they are draining your energy. You might feel sad, confused, tired or sick. You might have tension in your face, throat or other parts of your body. You might have a dry mouth. You might feel as though it is difficult to breathe. You might start developing negative thoughts and negative ways of thinking. You might develop a mindset of feeling hopeless and as though nothing could ever be enough. You might develop chronic stress, anxiety or depression. These are the kinds of symptoms that you might experience when you are around the Narcissist. Emotions are very contagious. We often mimic each other's emotions without even realising it. Whether the emotions are positive or negative, they can be contagious. The more someone expresses their emotions, the more likely it is that you will then notice their expression and then mimic their emotions. It has been said that it is easier to catch an emotion than it is to catch a cold. The difference with catching an emotion is that we often don't realise it and we assume that the emotion belongs to us. We don't realise that the emotion might have been transferred from someone else. When you catch the Narcissist's negative emotions and absorb their negative energy, it can lead to sadness, fatigue, stress, anxiety and depression. You might have been positive or in a good mood before interacting with the Narcissist. When you are interacting with them, you may notice a feeling of heaviness, a feeling of great density or thickness, of great intensity or force that just seems to bring you down. It is as though you have been brought down to their level, their frequency. And no matter how positive or high energy you are, you can still be brought down. Negative energy seems to have a greater density or thickness, a greater intensity or force. No matter what you do, it feels as though you are being sucked in. It feels as though you are being pulled down to their level, their frequency. Sometimes there can be certain topics that people are talking about that then affects your energy and lowers your mood. Other times they don't even have to say anything. You can feel it just from being around them. You can just sense their energy. And that is enough to bring you down. That is enough to make you feel stressed, anxious or depressed. You cannot have power over the Narcissist's energy. You cannot control the vibe that they are giving off. But one thing that you can control is your own mind. You have the ability to choose or decide what something means to you.  When you let the Narcissist's energy affect you, when you absorb their energy, it is because you are matching the condition that they are in at that specific time. You are matching their frequency.  And that is when you feel that you are absorbing their negative energy. You feel as though it is becoming a part of you to avoid absorbing the Narcissist's energy. You need to remain in your own energy. You need to be the cause rather than the effect. Remain in your frequency. Remain in your good mood. The Narcissist will be unable to partake. And they will be unable to bring you down to their level. So then they will be forced to leave the interaction. The disagreement or argument will be unable to continue. If you are dealing with a toxic or negative person, they will have to match your frequency or energy state to continue the interaction with you. Emotions and energy are very contagious. Our emotions and energy are very contagious to other people. It's not always about what you say or even how you say it. It's about the energy underneath the words that you are saying. If you focus on staying in a good mood, laughing, smiling and just having a good time, at first they might be resistant to your positive energy. But eventually they will catch your energy, your emotions. Your energy will transfer onto them. When you are interacting with someone, whoever has the most certainty about something has the power. Whoever has the firm conviction that something is the case. Whoever is the most confident has the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behaviour of others and the course of events. Their frame, their rigid structure is unable to bend or be forced out of shape. It is not flexible. It is not able to be changed or adapted. So it then has power over who is leading the interaction. Remain grounded in who you are. Remain steady or balanced rather than shaking or moving. Choosing accordance with wisdom or prudence. Be at the cause rather than the effect. Give rise to action. Be committed to a principal, aim or movement. Be prepared to defend or advocate your objectives or interests rather than being a result or consequence of an action or cause. You don't need to change their negativity. Change the way you think about it. Don't even label it as negativity. When you label someone as being negative, you are giving them power over you. You are stating that their negative energy has the power to affect you. Which means that you are at the effect rather than the cause. Change the way you think about it. Change the way you respond to it. Choose to have control over how you feel. Choose the direction of the conversation. Instead of mashing their frequency, remain in your own frame. And they will be forced to either match your frequency or leave the interaction. You don't have to resonate with their energy or emotions. You don't have to resonate with their frequency. You don't have to resonate at the same level or way of being as they are.  If you choose to remain in your own frame, in your own frequency and you are certain that it is the state of being that you prefer or the state of being that you resonate with you are no longer absorbing the narcissist energy. The power is within you. You have the power over how you think and how you feel. Be at the cause rather than the effect. Thank you for watching. I hope this video resonated with you. Please like, comment, share and subscribe. Click the bell icon to receive notifications for my future videos. If you would like to donate, my PayPal link is in the video description. Coach an enquiry, you can email me at nagsforumcoaching at tumour.com Check out the merchandise in the Nagsforum store where you can purchase your own Nagsforum t-shirt, tank top or mug. The link is in the video description. Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon.