We are recording and I'll, I've got documents open and I'll do my best to bring them up as we discuss them. Okay, great. So these are from our meat from our short shorter meeting last week so we should be able to get through this pretty quickly. I'm going to let's see. Do you see the minutes now, or are you still on the agenda. Okay, I'm going to stop sharing my computer is starting to do a really weird freaky thing too. Okay, you good now. I'll make a motion to accept these minutes. Second second it. Okay, I'm going to go through our roof. Yes. Breger. Yes. Selman. I would, I'm going to approve them because I think I have to. Um, I don't know. Two, three, four. No, I think we're good. And I'll abstain. Do you want. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Der. Yes. Revy Kumar. Yes. Alrighty. Minutes are approved. There's Stephanie. That's okay. I got it, Steve. Don't worry about it. I got that. Okay, great. So I know there's some members of the public here. I think to speak specifically to agenda item number five, but if anybody wants to make a more general public comment, I see Felicia raising her hand. Okay. I'm just wondering, like, I do we have, if we want to make a comment, we have to talk about it now. And then just listen when it comes up or do we, can we wait until that time and answer questions or talk about it? I'm unclear. I'm comfortable with you all. Talking openly about it when we get to that agenda item, if nobody else has any issues with that. I think when we get to that agenda item, I can just let them in. So the discussion so that you can see them as well. Yeah, that'd be great. So yeah, Felicia, if you have anything unrelated to the electrification that you'd like to raise, feel free now, otherwise we'll bring you, we'll have that discussion and more open discussion in a bit. I just want to thank you for all your work. Thank you. Great committee. Okay. With that, I think we can move Stephanie to any staff updates. Sure. Just really quick. I wanted to let you all know that. The ethics commission has sent out their annual training where you have to watch the videos and. Go through the, the sort of questionnaire quiz and then sign a certification that you participated in the training. So I will be forwarding that to you all tomorrow. But you'll have, I think there's, there's a cover letter message that will tell you when the submission is due. So, but you all need to do that as committee members of the town. So. You have to know, I think this is a common. Training that everybody. Service gets so. Yeah. And if you've already done it, you don't necessarily have to do it again. So for those of you who have done it through your current position. It's, you don't have to do it a second time. Because it's on file. Yeah, the state has it on file. So do we need to do it annually? Did you say that? Yes, it's supposed to happen annually. I believe or buy annually. I think it says in the letter. I actually, it used to be annual. I don't think it is now. But it says so in the cover letter. I. Yeah. So. You'll get that tomorrow. Okay. Great. Anything else, Stephanie? No, that's it for today. Okay. Great. So we'll move on to ecac member updates. I have one update to share, which is related to. The packet item. Titled. 2021 0104 CRC request to town committees. It's a pretty dense document. So my suggestion would be that. I just mentioned it today and we put it on it as a more official agenda item for a future meeting. But the gist of it is, is that the CRC is looking for comments. On their draft comprehensive housing policy. So this document includes a summary of. Well, the backup one more step, they, they invited a couple of chairs to a meeting to ask us how we felt. What we thought the best approach would be to collecting feedback. And so we had asked them to send us a. Note that explained what kind of feedback they were looking for a little bit of history about why they were doing what they were doing. And then the policy. So that's what this document provides. So there's a bit of history. Then there's some summary of. What we talked about in our meeting and then what they work. Want in terms of feedback. They don't give a specific due date, but they do state that. They're hoping to submit. A recommendation to the council. Ideally by June 30th, but no later than October 30th. We're also welcome to provide more than one round of comments. So this is a, this is a draft that was circulated last week. I think we'll get an updated version of the draft at some point. So I'd like to suggest that we all try to take a look at this before the next meeting. And maybe we can talk a little bit more about how we might want to comment. And if there's anybody that looks at this and feels particularly passionate about it and wants to sort of lead up the commenting from ecax perspective. That's something we could discuss next time as well. I think that's all for today. But I'll add that to a future agenda. Unless there's any comment questions. Yeah, Darcy. Oh, I think you're muted. I was trying to call Andrew, so I muted myself. But I will send everybody a. Clarification that Mandy, Joe, Panicky who's the chair sent out yesterday. To a member of the public who was commenting on it. And she went into a very, a very lengthy. Description of what the process is going to be neck over the next six months. So I can pass that on to everybody. Plus just to review. My comment from the last time. There is actually no reason why we're not also commenting on the zoning and planning. It kind of parallel to that. They're doing both the housing plan. And the zoning and planning pieces. Simultaneously. So. Seems like they should be getting input from the same. Groups on those two things, but anyway, I said that before. Okay. We get, I mean, we could certainly. Ask if. About that. Yeah. And I, I just have one brief member update. And that is that in the packet was the information about the bio mass resolution. That the League of Women voters wants to put forward and they'd like to bring it to ecac. First. To get an endorsement. So they weren't prepared with an actual resolution for this meeting, but there were some, I think there were some things in the packet. Right. About it. I'm trying to, I think I sent it out to everyone as a follow-up item. Yeah. I, I didn't know what to tell them as to whether, where, when we would be able to get it on our agenda, but I suggest I just told them we're having another meeting in two weeks. And. That's a possibility. Or they could, they can send us their resolution when it's done. They weren't clear that they needed to write the resolution themselves. Okay. Yeah. I mean, we can, if they want to submit. A resolution, we can put it on the agenda for, for next time. Right. If we think that is the case, I can just let them know that. Does anybody have any thoughts or. Anything to add to that. Just when the time comes, I would have a fair amount to say about bio mass. And sort of the history of it as well as. I mean, just reading through the resolution. I think there's some merit there, but there's also some, there's a lot of. Miss characterization and lack of clarity and specificity that's needed when you talk about. What energy. Which I would bring forward when we discuss it. Jesse's got his hand up. Oh yeah, Jesse. Oh, just another update if that issues. I don't know if it's too late, but there's a opening on the historic commission. And I just, if people know. Possible climate allies that think it's a great place to have a voice. You know, they're, they're a commission that can say, no, you can't have a heat pump. In your front yard. Kind of thing. So I think there's, there's a lot of interesting. Overlap there. So. I maybe spread the word and then. For what it's worth our firm is currently working with North Hampton to do some net zero energy planning. On a number of large town owned or city owned masonry buildings. Keep you posted if anything interesting comes out of that. Jesse, that's going to do with the resilience project, right? Resilience hub. And North Hampton. Not sure. It's a good question. I think it's, I'm pretty sure it is, but. Or at least one is. There is. I'm sorry. I'm late. Is he getting people to call governor Baker? We're assuming that's what you were doing. Jesse. Thanks, Jesse. Just to, to close out the biomass discussion. Darcy, I think. If. We do. Next, I think it'd be helpful to understand the timing of when the resolution needs to be done by to influence any decision making. If it's a longer timeframe, then maybe we, we'll have to wait and see. We'll have to wait and see if we can hold off for another week. Because next. And it's coming to give us the update. So just. Also flagging that. Update on that. The timing on the biomass got extended. So we have at least. A couple of weeks. Okay. I think we'll have a quick discussion on it if we have time, but unless we need to discuss it next week. Next time, sorry. But just noting that. You know, if we feel like we're going to need to have a longer discussion on it. We may need to stretch it out over two meetings. You've got, so so far you've got the CRC discussion. For next time or review for next time as well as. If we're going to have a longer discussion on it. If we're going to have a longer discussion on the biomass, you could maybe do biomass and put the CRC one off. A meter or two. So when we say the following meeting, just, I'm just trying to keep track of them too. Okay. So for the. So that would be the October meeting for the CRC. Discussion. I mean, I'm sorry, February. Sorry. Okay. Not ready for that yet. I don't know why I got stuck in October. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if the biomass is ready, but. Okay. I'm just going to put first February meeting. Okay. Any other EECAC member updates. Do you want to hear the latest on governor signing the bill? Sure. Our new speaker of the house. Ron Mariano. Has threatened that they're just going to. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just going to call it instantly and push it through and. Have a veto proof. Majority. So. He has really no reason to veto it. Except if he wants to show whatever the. People whispering in his ear are saying to him. About. Not. Supporting it. But it would be really bad if he didn't sign it. If he vetoed or pocket vetoed. So we really wanted to sign and play nice and sandbox and say, yeah, we're all in this together. We're going to work together. So today, the deadline. Tomorrow. Mariano said that he would refile tomorrow. If. I don't know, showing them that they do have political capital. But it would be really bad if he didn't sign it. But he would refile tomorrow if. The. Governor doesn't sign. Oh, that's great. Great. Okay. Well, at some point we will add on the agenda to debrief. On that bill. Once it's signed. Um. Okay. So I think. If we're all good, we can move on to the electrification resolution discussion. I'm going to let. Chris in as well. Yeah. So just to. Refresh everyone's memory. This was, we had. A version of the resolution in our packet, I believe in our last meeting of December. We talked about it briefly, but we. I think all agreed to be great to have Felicia and Chris here to explain it a bit more. And so that's what we're doing today. First, I believe you're going to start speaking. I can if you don't want to, but. Oh, Chris, you might be talking and you might be muted. We still can't hear you. I can't see everybody. Let me make sure that he's not.  I don't know if his headphones. I don't know. Try unplugging the headphones and then plugging them back in. Oh, Chris, we can hear you if you don't have it plugged in. It's neurotic, but that's why I use the headphones. Okay, there we go. My question is. Did you receive our cover letter that went with it? Yes. Do you want me to put that up too? I don't know. What do you think Felicia Felicia. I don't think so. I think we can talk about it. Yeah. It just had some highlights about what the resolution had if we can maybe say three of the highlights and. And that how we incorporated some of the changes that were talked about at the last meeting. About the last meeting. Okay. Why don't you go ahead Felicia. Okay. So anyway, this. This is a. Resolution that's being presented at many towns around the around mass in Massachusetts. From who are part of the building electrification acceleration. Network. And basically we're looking at finding a way since. It seems illegal to say. Because of the building code to stop gas from. Being to stop gas from being put into building. So we have to find some other ways around it. So this resolution is a way to find, to make, to have a homeroom petition that individual towns. Can make choices about how they want to reach electrification and decarbonization. So one of the ways is to say. We can choose not to have gas come in. We can choose not to have gas come in. We can choose not to have gas come into new buildings. Another way is to say we want to make sure that costs don't go up. For low income people as we go around about this. This initiative and we want to have. Money made available and sent is made available to them so they can take part of electrification. Another one is that. Oh. I have to look at it, but. But it's a way to. Yeah. To find, to find ways to, to make buildings. Electric basically. And new buildings. And so that's the resolution. And I think what I'd have to do is look at my own. And take a look at my own really quickly. Oh, it's asking also the. The public to ask the CBRS to. To come to better. Rules with state level actions and more rapid. Decarbonization it's asking. That's a fossil fuel interest for structure. to what the, to obviously the Attorney General said about the, about becoming, let's rely on gas and more renewables, it's asking those kinds of things. All right. So the question is, last time it sounds like when you met there were some questions like we can't talk about in terms of economic justice, like what the rates will be for people who are lower income, but we could talk about costs, not wanting to increase their costs, we change that. And is there anything, like the question is, is this now acceptable? Is this resolution be resolved or they now seem to fit more with what is logical possible for us to stand by as Amherst, so that we can present it to the Town Council, that you can present it to the Town Council at the Energy and Climate Action Committee. We'd like very much if the ECAC sent it over to the Council recommending its adoption, the idea. But let's see, there was also, I believe Jesse, I think, are you hearing me now by the way? Yes, yes. You suggested a clause that we did put in here, which was about to make sure that we, that we committed to not overwriting the building code, building code's basic statutory function. We've got a, there's a clause in there, let's see which one is it, might be further down. This is the bottom. Maybe further up. I saw it, looks great. Okay. Basically, what the, what happened to this was started by Brad Brookline, Brookline wanted to prohibit new gas connections in new buildings. And it passed voluminously in the town, in town meeting. And when it went to the Attorney General, she wrote back saying we'd love it, we'd love to be able to do this, but it overrides the preemption of the building code or the towns and cities may not have their own building code. And so this is a request that we find some wiggle room on that, in that position and be allowed to make more rigorous energy decisions. It isn't just gas, although that's one, there's one clause about that. But it basically is to give towns and cities the right to be perhaps more rigorous than the building code. Dorsey, did you have a question or comment? Yeah, I just, so this is all just asking the state legislature or the DPU to do things, although it's asking Amherst to commit to things too. I guess my, where I see the possible, I'm, you know, I'm in support of this, obviously, but I, where I see the pushback is in residents and restaurants that use propane for cooking and heating. And so how does, how does it affect that? Because obviously we already, we don't, we already can't use, I mean, we don't, we already have a moratorium. So that helps tremendously, as far as missing past, but you know, the way people have gotten around that here is by using propane, especially restaurants. Well, one significant important answer is that we're not prohibiting natural gas connections. What the purpose of the resolution is to give the towns and cities the option of doing that kind of thing, but it doesn't do that kind of thing. The towns and cities don't have, don't have, can, can extra, can promulgate regulations as they wish, gives the town, the, it gives towns and cities the flexibility to issue regulations that could be thought of as otherwise preempted by the building code. But it isn't specific about those things, I don't believe. I think it just allowing the, giving, giving the towns and cities that wiggle room. I think it is specific about not allowing, the cities can stop gas distribution through pipelines. I don't think it actually addresses people getting their own propane. So it doesn't, doesn't prohibit that. It allows towns and cities to change the gas code. I'm sorry, I know what it allows. Change the gas code to get gas permits. But that's for gas pipe coming in, right? That's going to be natural gas. Right. Doing like that term, natural gas. Whatever we do, the municipalities would have the ability to, to shape it the way they want to. So they could prohibit natural gas and allow propane if they wanted to. Yeah. What it said, what we're, it says here, here's the wording. We call upon the Massachusetts state legislator to pass a law enabling municipalities to prohibit fossil fuel infrastructure and new construction and phase out fossil fuel infrastructure infrastructure in existing buildings. Well, that's, it gives you, it gives towns and cities that ability to do that, otherwise that might override the building code or the gas code. Right. So those of us who are going to advocate it just need to know how to answer those questions that are surely going to come up, you know, with the town council. But as far as this creative infrastructure, right? So is that, is that to, Chris, to suggest that it's actually broader than natural gas? It could also be a town resolution that says you can't put in oil heating either in your house. It's also fuel infrastructure. Yeah. Maybe. Meaning like a furnace in somebody's house. If we want to, we don't have to enforce electrification. Goal of this is to try to get buildings electrified as quickly as possible. Right. And I doubt that Amherst will want to do that right now. We don't have the capacity, we don't have the education we don't have is just saying that it gives municipalities when they're ready and when the people in them are ready to be able to do that. We're not there yet. But that is a question that will come up. Wayne's question. Right. Right. So no, it doesn't say you have to do that. It just says if you want to, you can. Which right now you can't because, well, at least as far as the gas code, you can't. As far as the building code is concerned, there's lots of discussions about furnaces and boilers and so forth in the building code. And you would be overriding some of those things if you don't allow people, for instance, to put in an oil boiler, something which was otherwise be permitted by the building code. So, you know, it's probably thinking in terms of the future, but it would be very nice to give towns and cities some control over this kind of stuff. Right now, we don't have any control over this kind of thing. And when we tried, when Brookline tried, they got turned down by the, by Mora Healey's office. And could towns do something like say that residential oil burners need to be phased out within 10 years? Yes, that would be something. Well, I think there are a few pieces, one piece is that it to not raise costs for people who are, you know, like an economic justice issue who might not be able to afford it. So that could contradict that. So until prices came way down and there were other options that that might not be able to fly, you know, so that there has to be thoughtfulness about how it's done and when it's done. Yeah, that, that sort of brings me to my question, which is, I think, I think this makes sense. I think it would require some, some explanation. So I think we would need to think about how we explain this to the city, to the, to the council. I'd like to see us specifically state that, that while this is giving Amherst the ability to do this, I would, I guess I'd rather, I'd like to better connect the call for just transition in environmental justice with Amherst. So it looks like it, when I read this, it says, you know, we call for the pass a law enabling municipalities to prohibit fossil fuel infrastructure and new construction and phase out fossil fuel infrastructure and existing buildings. And then it call, it says Amherst commits to ensuring that it does not impact the primary intent of the building code. That makes sense. And then it sort of says more generally Amherst commits to centering the need for just transition and calls on the Massachusetts state legislation to do the same. And then we sort of put it back on the Massachusetts state legislation and Department of Public Utilities to ensure elective electrification and new construction codes don't increase costs. But I feel like Amherst should also take the responsibility for thinking through that before we make any new, before we do anything that was, that we are allowed to do as a result of this resolution. Yeah, Ashwin. Along those lines, I wonder if there is a way that if we present this, if we, you know, decide that we want to go forward with presenting this to council and recommending it, that we can talk about it in terms of the climate action plan and connect the language of this resolution to our recommendations. Because we, I think it would be better if we appeared to have the carp, the plan that Lenain is developing with us be sort of the big framework that all of our, that most of our other recommendations flow from or at least are aligned with. I'm not sure if you all, Felicia and Chris, have seen any of the working documents that we have. But you know, it's, in principle, we in ECAC could try to work on thinking about how to do that. Another option, depending on the timeline for this, which I apologize for missing earlier, would be if we get language from the climate action plan out to you that maybe you could even think about ways that we might connect those dots more. But I do think it would be important to treat this as connected to our broader strategy, which is reflected, hopefully, in the plan. May I say that there is a desire to get of these various resolutions to look more or less the same in the many communities that are considering one and get it in that very similar form to the legislator and the governor. It's sort of at the same time to make the impact the effect. So the our group that we're part of is interested in getting this to happen sooner rather than later, if possible. I'm trying to put a little time pressure into it. I would think it would be also desirable to have it look pretty much the same. It doesn't mean that it isn't the same in detail, but it would be nice if all of these things that arrived on the desk of the governor and on the legislator's desk and the DPU's desks would look like, oh yeah, I've seen a lot of those. Boy, we're getting a lot of those things. Yeah. And to be clear, I'm actually not even suggesting modifications to this document necessarily, but rather if we as a committee can be empowered to when we take it or when we recommend its adoption to the council to be able to say, hey, council, this resolution is essential for us to be able to meet our climate targets. And it's going to be a vital part of how we meet the goals that we've set out and implement the priorities that we've established in our climate action plan. So I'm just hoping that we'll be able to figure out how to do that as kind of a messaging thing and just a way that we can better understand the consequences of this resolution and potentially state legislation ourselves. I also want to say that, you know, I'm reading it again and it's talking about fossil fuel infrastructure. So we're talking about the gas pipes coming in. That's infrastructure. It's already easy for Amherst because we're not having any gas coming in. So in terms of propane, it's not really addressing that. It's not preventing us from talking about it, but it's not, this is not really what's addressed in this resolution, I think. I think I agree with that, Felicia. I think that infrastructure could be also a furnace and ductwork and the components of fossil fuel burning, the boiler, that's all infrastructure. I think that it would give us the option of not allowing anybody to put in, for instance, a boil-fired boiler, say, for as an example. And we were building, yeah. I think that would need to be clarified because I think infrastructure is commonly considered pipes underground, owned by utility, et cetera, whereas the boiler is an appliance. Yeah, Steve. It might be easier to pass if we do this. We might want to add to it, but this might be an easier way to at least get this resolution through more quickly, too. If it was limited to public infrastructure, you're saying like pipelines? Yeah. Because I think that was the... I think we want to make it clear that this is a resolution requesting that the legislature allow towns and cities to come up with rules and regulations. We are not coming up with those rules and regulations right now. We just want the opportunity to do so in the future. And Andrea and I were both involved with Chris and Felicia in helping to develop this along with the RMI Institute. So I think somehow we have to make that more clear. So we don't... The town council doesn't get sidetracked by what could be done following this resolution. That's all discussions that would happen in the future. We just want that ability to... We're asking for that ability to towns and cities to have that opportunity to make future regulations. We're not looking to be specific now. Yeah. Thanks, Steve. Duane and then Andra. Yeah. I was just going to... One, three things. Maybe one is to agree with Steve. It's really important to make this clear that we're not asking the town to take this action, but this resolution allows them to possibly take that action sometime in the future. The one thing I'd be careful with is that if it is limited to essentially a moratorium on any additional gas infrastructure, unless there's some other language in here that's more general about fossil fuels, but there may be a tendency to... Maybe it's not so important in Amherst, because we don't have new gas anyhow, but for people to install oil instead of gas, which is sort of going in the opposite direction. So I'd be cautious about that. I think the other thing that we'll have to... I think if I was the council person or the manager sort of considering this, even though it's a non-binding resolution that just enables the town to do this if they want, I think the question of what is the... How do we really help defray the cost associated with electrification is going to come up in the discussion in terms of if we take this fairly draconian action, critical for our needs, but fairly draconian, what is this pool of money that's going to come and have some thinking? And I think we as a group have to do that as well as we get into the plan. But I think that would be a question that we would need to be prepared to speak about at least in some terms to address some feedback that I would expect that might come up. And I'm not sure if Brookliner or others have addressed that. Although simply by saying... I mean, we don't want to... We can't solve every problem with us, every future problem. We're just trying to say, this is the direction we want to head in, we want our town to be able to do it. And that is something that we will have to be able to think about in order for this to work. It's not just like we would do it without thinking about that. The timing of this is important. This is a strategy by 17 municipalities to collectively and perhaps go beyond the building electrification accelerator towns to show that municipalities want choice in building codes. Clearly, that is not the best state policy because it will drive the building industries crazy to have different building codes in every town. So what it does is highlights the need for... It says municipalities want to be able to meet the ambitious electrification goals. So the state really needs to move. Yeah. The subtext here is that the BBRS, the Bureau of Building Regulations and Standards, is produced a code which is very anemic as far as climate change is concerned. It's... In the stretch code, the building code... The stretch code is now about the same as the building code and the stretch code needs to come on that zero stretch code. That's another subtext that isn't involved here. But it would be really... The fact that the BBRS is produced an anemic code means that you need the only other solution. Well, the solution would be to refix the building code. But if you don't do that, then you've got to give the towns and cities the ability to meet it up. That's what we're basically asking for. Yeah. Darcy. Yeah. I hate to extend this conversation too long, but I think that the new bill, whether it's not vetoed, whether it's signed by the governor or it's overridden by the legislature, has a provision that gives communities, individual communities the option to create their own codes? No. It has to... Go there. I think we should stay focused on this resolution and see what happens at this state level this week. If... Yeah. Yeah. So it's possible at own next meeting we'll have a completely different conversation because of the passage of the state bill. I think not. Why do I think not? Because the state bill has a stretch code provision to have a net zero stretch code. And that's very, very good. But it may or may not pass and it will be staged in. And it's local option. And it's a local option. The stretch code has always been a local option, but most communities in the time of COVID are adopted. But I think that it still is not... One thing it doesn't do, I think it doesn't... It allows fossil fuel infrastructure. You can comply with the building code and have a boiler which burns natural gas. And we want all buildings to be electrified. We won't have that not to happen anymore. So I'm not sure, but I don't think that... I believe this... Certainly the stretch code now does not prohibit burning fossil fuels. And I suspect that what it would be done... What will happen to it is it will make it be a net zero stretch code which can still have fossil fuels. And then you balance it by having it be on the roof. So we don't want fossil fuels at all. We'll need this even if we have a good stretch code. So a question. I recognize the desire to have them all look similarly. So I say this not... I guess I'm nervous that our town council is going to be overwhelmed by this when what we really are asking for is two pretty simple things. One pretty simple thing which is that the second would be it for the resolved... or the first be it for the resolved clause seems like to be the main piece that we're asking for. Are there any other members of the group that you've been working with concerned that that it may be over complicated or is that an Amherst unique to Amherst situation? I haven't heard. I do know that Brookline just passed theirs with like a 270 just three-pound meeting vote. And but I don't know whether it's passed in other places or not yet. I think that it's probably one of these documents that started out small and then as people saw it more clauses appeared. I don't know that. Sure. Are you like are you saying if we kept everything in... I want to jump in and just mention that we've probably spent as much time on this as we can at this meeting and I don't... I think it needs more thought. Or yeah, I hear you Lara and I think it is complex. Ashwin did you have a comment? Just quickly. I just want to say that I would like to move forward with recommending this or at least voting on this as a committee to submit and forward our recommendation or endorsement to the council and it would just help me if we had some language that we could submit to the council like our own committee preamble that explains our rationale for this to help break it down for them. I feel like that's something we could do. I still feel like I'm a little unclear on some of the details so I don't think I'm the person to do it but maybe Andrea or Steve could help us come up with something like that because if we have a good preamble from the committee I think it'll be easy to recommend this. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the cover letter that Felicia and Chris submitted is a good start to that and I think if the fact is that it's this long because we want to have everybody do the same thing I think we should say that in our preamble and hopefully help deter further discussion about the details of it. I would support that approach. Steve, I don't know. I guess my first response is that Andra and I were involved in writing this so we've given it pretty much our best shot and I suspect I guess I would suggest it would be perhaps another set of eyes might be the one to be better at doing what you just said. Nominates Sarah. That's kind of you. Yeah, I can probably take, I need to reread the cover letter. I think I didn't read it in, was it in this week's packet too? Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I can show on that. Okay. If that's overheaded. Yeah, that'd be great Sarah. So when do we plan on that and if you can get to it for the next meeting we can add it to the agenda and try to get to it. Is it allowable for Sarah to talk with Chris and Felicia in the process? Yeah, they can talk. You, Andra and Sarah can't talk but she can talk to Felicia and Chris. As much as I'd like to help you out Sarah, it sounds like Andra and I are muzzled the meeting lot. Okay, great. Thank you, Chris. And I think Felicia is back in as a, Oh, let me see. Hold on, I'm going to stop sharing this document first. Okay, well thank you all. You should be back in now Felicia. Sorry about that. Ah, there she is. Now you're muted Felicia. You did. I mute yourself. It sounds like we'll do a little bit more work on it and like fix some of those like points and then come back. That sounds good. Well, we'll work with Sarah on that. Yeah. Good. Great. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I guess we'll say goodbye. Okay. Welcome to stay, but all right. So next up on the agenda is the evaluator follow-up. So let me think about the best way to do this. I didn't load it just because it's so large. Maybe you can open it on their own. I have a version that Darcy worked on and I knew Darcy had put some comments in that I think you wanted to discuss as a group. So I can open that version. Yeah, I didn't realize you wanted us to work on a different version. Well everybody, it's not a Google sheet and it would be hard to make this into a Google sheet. So everybody, yeah, does need to do their own version and I will be responsible for compiling all of that when we get to that point. So. I was the impression that today we were supposed to just kind of give it a trial run and report our initial thoughts about the process and the content and that we wouldn't really be discussing the specific rankings yet. Exactly, Steve. Yeah. So Darcy had gone through and tested it out and had some comments that she wanted to share and she sent me those in writing, but otherwise I think it's an open discussion for anybody who has comments or questions or thoughts that they that they want to share at this point. I gave it a test run. And I got down the road. I was kind of weaving down the road a little bit, but and I did come up with a couple questions and just just, you know, my brain was trying to keep track of exactly, you know, how do I address how does this particular action relate to these different metrics and so forth. And and, you know, we evaluating the action itself for the expected outcome of those actions. So there's like a lot of things. And I obviously I was in the renewable section. And, you know, there's not a whole lot of here in terms of actions here in terms of where we're actually going to implement renewable energy. And that's where you get your greenhouse gas savings. It's more, you know, it was a lot about outreach and education, local ownership, which promoting those things or meet some of the metrics in terms of equity and so forth. But, you know, it's hard to say, okay, well, educating people on or like the solar siting analysis. Doing that analysis doesn't say greenhouse gas emissions. But it leads to potential siting that will and it's a critical step. So I wasn't, and there wasn't anything here about build a solar, you know, build renewable energy capacity. Which is sort of where at the end of the day, I would, so it's a little hard to figure out, okay, where do I show, do I attribute greenhouse gas savings to these actions if they're intermediate steps that are critically important to get to that, to that endpoint. So that was one sort of dilemma I was facing as I went through this. And I suspect we should all try to have a consistent approach if we're going to aggregate together our pluses and minuses and zeros and these. The other more logistical thing I had was, so if I had, we went over like where to put notes in.  And I had, I wanted, you know, I was thinking, okay, I'm going to give that a plus, but I really got to write a note about what I'm really thinking there. I actually had just ended up putting it in that cell. Because then when I went, okay, if I was going to put it in the, where I thought we were talking about in the action detail, out to the right, that wasn't specific about a specific metric, it was more about that action more generally than the particular metric, evaluating a particular metric with regard to that action. So I tended to put it just right in the cell, which may not be helpful when everything's aggregated together. But that was sort of the question to where to put those sort of notes. But yeah, so that was sort of my, I will say it took me a little bit longer than I was. When I started the effort is like, I really think through each of these things. But yeah, that was sort of my experience. Yeah. Thanks, Dwayne. I think that's really helpful. I think it's fine if you want to put, if you've already put it in the cell, I would just leave it there. My thought, and I'd love for others to jump in is, yeah, I don't think we should give points to an action that's a precursor action, if that action is not going to actually reduce emissions. But we need to figure out a way to show how they go together. And I think our previous conversation is a great example of that, right? Like, we can't support electrification fully without doing this precursor of asking the state to change their out of date rules. That action of asking the state to do that is not going to reduce any GHG emissions, but it's a precursor to doing something more. And I think there's going to be a lot of examples. I know there's a lot of examples like that in here. I think the more important, or not the more important question, but the other question that I raised in my mind when you were talking was, if we don't specifically take it all the way to the end level of renewable energy, then that's an action we need to add. And so those would be my two points. I wouldn't give credit for GHG reductions to an action that's a precursor, but we need to make sure that the follow-up action is included in some way. That reminds me of this other point. As I was doing it, it gave me an opportunity to say, okay, is this the right set of actions to show? It's a step by step of what are the critical steps. Sometimes they were overlapping with each other. And to your point, Laura, sometimes they didn't really get to the end action of implementing something that would actually have the greenhouse gas reduction. In fact, in the renewables, I mean, even setting up a CCA, itself, it doesn't catch you there. Just once you have all the members engage with it and signed up and you procure cleaner energy, then that's the act. And you retire those certificates, then that gets the greenhouse gas. Yeah. And I would suggest if there's, we shouldn't feel like we can't remove actions or note them as actions that maybe are better suited for another plan or another group. So if you've gone through and you've noted that there's an action that you just don't feel like fits, then I think that's where in the action details on the right-hand side and the notes, you could add a note about that if it's not summarized in the notes you have in the evaluator. So while we're talking about renewables, I found that it's uneven. The actions, they're not just at different levels of implementation. Some are very specific and some are very general. And they're also kind of repeating very similar things as well, at least under the renewable. And so evaluating each one may not make sense. I'd have to do it though to be a trial run, to be sure. And just in terms of using it, that it would be, for me, a much more time efficient and probably cognitively more useful thing to do to go across rather than down. So rather than taking an action and going down through all of the permutations of the rubric where I have to read the rubric each time because it's different for each criteria to go across. You would say, okay, this rubric, internalize it, and now I can go across all of the renewable ones. You are more than welcome to do that. There's absolutely no evidence against it. You had done it down. Yeah, the way I did it doesn't mean that's the way you have to do it. I think as long as we, and if you've gotten, once you get started, if you feel like you know what, this action is not a right fit. Put in D and all the rest of them and call it a day, right? I wouldn't spend too much time. But I do, I like the idea of it. I do think that it raises the question of whether the actions are comparable in a way that it's useful to do this comparative evaluation. Yeah, I think that's a good point. And I think that, I mean, the idea of this is to use this as a tool to improve, right? So if there's, you know, I think it's in our hands now to say, this action is too high level. But we need something like this action. How do we change the action to be at the level that it needs to be at? Yeah, Steve. There we go. I lost my mouse. Yeah, I found in the land use category, very few things that I would consider actions. I saw things that I would consider goals. And so these are things, you know, more open space, better food supply. Those things were goals, perhaps strategies, but not actions. I see actions as a series of steps that you could take. So I had trouble with many of them of evaluating them because they were goals. And yeah, sure, yeah, the goal, if implemented, could lead to a particular trait or positive ranking for a particular evaluation. But it was kind of speculative, because there are a lot of ifs leading from a goal to what the expected actual actions might be. So I think, one, we might want to be more careful about distinguishing between strategies, goals and actions. And I think we need to move more towards the specific actions and from those goals and have a small set of actions with specific plans in our climate action plan and not just a long, long list of goals with no steps toward achieving them. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, Ashwin. I echo what Steve said. I felt very similarly about trying to do this for the land use recommendations. And it was to the point where I was, I was, I was basically getting a little worried that I was, because there's some of these things that I feel like I could, you know, kind of throw this framework out and articulate a positive case for why and how even we want to do these things. And I just was worried that some of that qualitative narrative might get lost in the framework. And I hope, I hope that doesn't happen. And it just ended up being kind of speculative, like Steve said. And I mean, I wonder if as we do this, and like, I guess we'll talk about this to some extent in our task groups, but do we have license to make some assumptions and, and even recommend like, hey, we think that for example, you know, pandemic like right now we have pandemic relief and community participation highlighted in land use change that these are good. And in order to be part of our climate strategy, they need to have these elements and be implemented in this way. And if that happens, then they will check these criteria, then they will meet these criteria, like in a way that's almost like reverse engineering, or kind of doing this whole exercise backwards. But that's kind of the way that makes more sense to me for how to do this. But I don't want to contribute in the spirit of what we're supposed to do and what everyone else is doing. I, my take is that whatever, when I, when I went through it, I had a very similar thoughts. And I found that as I was going through the evaluator and looking at each of the metrics, there were some metrics that were a definite no, this doesn't do anything. This action, you know, quotes doesn't do anything. There were somewhere I was like, this action could do that if it was reworded and read. And so I put next to the action details, you know, it needs to, to, to be able to get a check in this box or a plus in this box, it has to include this language and it has to include, has to be rewritten. So I think the end goal of all of this is that we have a list of actual actions that we feel good about, that we feel meet the goal of not only that meet the goal of all of these things that we have together said are important, obviously GHG reductions, equality, resiliency. And so any way that the, any way that individuals in this group feel like they can get to that, so it's either taking this, this action and reworking it first and then going through the evaluator or the way I did it, it's going through, you know, I think any way that we can get to that end goal of, you know, throw, I'd like to see us get to a list of really actionable actions that all come together to meet a strategy that show sort of the steps for when the actions maybe don't reduce emissions on their own, but they have to be done to lead to that. And I'd like us to be able to explain that, like as we go through it, like each of us to feel ownership over being able to explain how they got to their actions of their group through, through that kind of that process. Cool, that's helpful. And yeah, maybe what I'm saying is really obvious to other people, but it kind of helps me just to say it out loud to get my head around it. I think that maybe another way to look at this is rather because nothing has actually been done yet and because we only have a frag, a skeleton of what these things might look like, more than being asked, does this action meet these criteria? We're being asked, how might this goal be met in such a way that meets these criteria? And having thought about that, do you think that's actually very feasible or not? Right. And so for some things, the answer will be, yeah, we can easily think of a way that we can meet this goal and, you know, in accordance with the criteria that we've established or at least some of them, but there's others where having thought about it, actually, no, it's going to be really hard to do this in a way that empowers people, reduces emissions, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't know, I think if that does that sound, I'm just trying to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. But yeah, Darcy. Yeah, I would just say that, you know, we had said, we had had a little discussion earlier about how, you know, some of the actions that we talked about in our task groups are, you know, would be incredibly good to somehow implement, but they might not fall exactly under us. And that we might be able to figure out, like, a way to refer them so that some appropriate committee would receive them in as full away as we looked at them so that they, and then we could advocate for them in that area, you know, like it might go to the CRC so that they could try to incorporate it into the master plan or something. So that if it isn't something that doesn't, you know, there may be some of the things in there that, you know, don't neither fall under, you know, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions or they might not fall under climate resilience. So, but that doesn't mean that we throw them out. That means that we, you know, we nurture them and put them somewhere where they can be taken care of in the appropriate place. Yeah. And so I think what I would suggest is that, and part of the reason why I want us to focus in on our task groups is that I think if Steven Ashwin want to go through and change some of the descriptions of these action, change the actions, they can do that in the spreadsheet that they're working on and I can compile them all together. Just it just needs to be noted that like we change the wording of this so that we know that we can make sure we're not losing any of the richness of this exercise by trying to compile it together and hand it back to Lynanne. So the notes, you know, when you hover over the action and you see the note that gives more detail, you can add another note or a comment and say, you know, here's what I wish it said, and I'm answering the evaluating based on that. I would put that, we edit that note. I couldn't. That's a good question. I would actually just put it in the action details tab. It may automatically up, it may be worked set up to automatically update that note. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, Darcy. You know, one thing when I went through this was just trying to grapple with the meaning of the rubric itself and like I think that in November part of our timeline was that we were going through a process of trying to prioritize our actions. And we ended up coming up with this list of actions. And the climate action plans that I've seen do include, you know, a list of the co-benefits. So, you know, I had a little bit of confusion about like, how are we going to use this rubric? Are we using it right now to edit and prioritize or are we planning on putting this rubric into the plan so that public can see, okay, so these are the co-benefits of these actions. Because I'm assuming that our plan will state the co-benefits. Or is there some prioritizing that's going on now? And if so, how is it, how does it work? You know, like, are we attributing points to these things or yeah, so anyway, I'm a little confused by it. Yeah, so I'll give my take. And if others have other ideas, please jump in. I don't think we should be worrying about prioritizing right now. I don't think that I think what this metric is really helping us do and based on the conversations we've heard, I think it's doing that is figuring out if these are even the right actions and if they're written correctly and if they're leading to the end goal that we want to achieve. The benefit of applying the metrics is that we're forcing ourselves to have these multiple lenses that we know we wanted to have but that are easy to forget when we don't actually try to do it, right? So I would say let's table that for now. I think what we first need to do is clean up this list and make it a list of real actions that we feel either lead our stepping stones to a to meeting a goal that we feel are stepping stones to meeting a goal. And then once we've done that, once we've narrowed that down, I think that at that point we can decide, okay, what are the things we're doing first and what are the things and maybe we need to do some sort of ranking to figure that out or maybe we don't maybe it just comes to us after doing this exercise, right? So that would be my take. Yeah, Jesse. I just reiterate something I think either Laura or Ashwin said, I'm not sure, was this part of this exercise is allowing us to really take ownership of each of these and what I'm hearing is, and I apologize because I've missed a lot, we do whatever we take to the we do whatever we need to do to make to feel like we're behind these actions, that we believe in them, we love them, we think they're going to work, we think they're going to achieve our very clear goals. We just we do that. And I think that'll be a very powerful exercise. And I do think there, yeah, I'll go back to yours. I do think though that we would definitely want to put in the report that these have co benefits. I mean, I think that that has always been the goal of doing this analysis. And so we may find that we want to use this some version of this in some way in the report. I just don't think we have that answer yet. Yeah, I know I was sort of struggling with, you know, trying to figure out whether certain actions should be combined with each other because they were related to each other. And because it seemed like that's combining them as the way to get more greenhouse gas reduction. But on the other hand, they did seem to be separate actions. You know, for example, you know, transitioning the municipal fleet to electric, and also having a campaign to to encourage our owners to buy electric, which is some is is an action that actually isn't in there, but I was suggesting the added. So those are two related things. And in waste, it was sort of like, you know, reducing residential food waste, reducing commercial food waste.  But then the the resulting greenhouse gas reductions look like they're less.  Yeah, I think to Steve's earlier point, like both of those sound like goals. And then if the actions under those goals are different, like if the campaigns that we need to take to to address commercial food waste versus residential food waste need to be if those actions need to be different, then it probably does make sense that they're separate, but they're all going to roll up to to that strategy around food waste in a way. So I guess I wouldn't overthink it at this point unless you think that you want to combine things or separate out things because it's easier to to because it makes more sense as an action or a goal would be my suggestion there. Sarah, did you have a comment? I did. But Oh, so having equity sitting along the left side, I think has been throwing me a bit. And I think it's maybe perhaps a bigger conversation of how far do we want to go to make sure that these are all a plus when it comes to equity, because a lot of these things, I don't want to say are out of our control, but a lot of these things are tied to the systems and town governance in Amherst. So this all like equity to me almost feels like we get all the the actions and strategies outlined and then we add equity on each individual one and kind of see like how do we elevate that.  To Ashwin's point, I feel like it's more how creative can we be right to get it to a plus for some of these. So I keep putting zeros, which is the middle one, because I can't foresee a path forward for some of these, but I don't want to say that and then leave it. I want to see all of them have a plus. Maybe that's just my naivete. Sarah? Buildings. Yeah, Sarah, that's a really good good point. I think that the way I approached it was, I guess my take is that if any of these have a negative, we should talk about it, because I don't think we want any of them to have a negative. I also don't think we should assume that they're all going to be plus, because that also seems unrealistic, but I think that there's going to be things, but some of this is not action specific, and that was my one comment about the procedural equality piece, is that to me that feels like a townwide thing, like how is it a town? Are we changing how we include stakeholders in decision making? Yeah, how does that trickle down into all of our committees, not just ECAC versus and so in solving that action by action is not an effective way to do that. That needs to be a higher level thing, and so we may decide after going through that that procedural quality is something we want to talk about in the report as like a high level thing, but that we're not going to build into each action step, whereas some of the other pieces we may be, in some cases, we may be able to tweak the language on how we talk about an action or tweak how we plan to address the action that would move something from a zero to a plus or move something from a negative to a zero. Yeah, Ashwin. I don't know if this is like the right moment to get into the weeds of trying to do like an intercoder reliability type of check, but it's just funny. Maybe I'm like way more optimistic or something, but when I looked at the actions under buildings, all I saw were pluses and potential pluses, you know, for equity in particular, like I saw potential for huge equity benefits across all of those just at a glance. Yeah, I think so I just wonder if you and I are like am I thinking about this totally differently from you or I wonder what's going on. I wonder why we're seeing. Yeah, I think I'm just looking at it through the lens of how I know things are now and obstacles that need to be overcome and over to kind of shift people's thinking into this. I think I'm looking at it assuming that people are going to hedge and that like sure we could like if we're talking about affordable housing, it depends on how we do it, right? Like it depends on how things are done and who's brought to the table. And I guess this like one, two, three system feels to me like there's all the layers in between and I'm uncomfortable just marking it as one. That makes sense. Yeah. Okay, I think I think I think I'm on that. Yeah, we I think we are I think I'm being more pessimistic about how aspirational others will want to be alongside of us. Yeah, and I think I'll go ahead, Andra. I think that speaks to the need to probably put comments in like Dwayne was doing whatever way makes sense to you right in the cell if that sort of makes sense. Because we're going to get a lot of rich insight about the how if we do that while we're thinking it through that might kind of we might be able to pull out for as examples, you know, not obviously we're not going to have that much detail in the whole thing. But for me, I don't I don't I'd almost like to see, you know, your thoughts, Sarah, when you're, you know, putting in a zero, but it's really, you know, you're thinking all these things about what could be in in I personally think it would be easier to see it in the cells themselves. But I'm willing to go to another tab. Yeah, I am putting notes the way Laura did on the other other comments. So all of my have an asterisk. Sorry, I'm going to be the pain has a lot to say. But a lot of mine have comments. And yeah, I'll just reiterate that I don't think there's any perfect way to do it. I think the reason why I suggested doing it on a different worksheet is so that we could look week to Darcy's point, look at the evaluator in more of a comparative way. And that's harder to do when there's lots of notes in the cells. But if that's the way that it makes it easiest for you to process this work, like, please do it that way. Just don't put it in other people's cells. Because when I copy and paste it, it's going to get messed up. That's like my biggest, if you want to add a comment to another task groups section, please do that in the action detail page. Laura, are you copying pasting or am I? I thought I was putting these together. I think that I'm going to have to do it, but we can talk about it. Okay. Yeah. But I think to Sarah and Ashwin, to both of your points, and Sarah, that was a really good point. You can add that to the other comment tab if there's some higher level things that we really want to make sure that we're pulling out of. As you're going through it, you're thinking, man, we really need a section in the whole thing on this. Let's make sure we capture that somewhere so that we can have that discussion amongst ourselves and then together with Linnean. Yeah, Darcy. So is our goal to have the different task group leaders put all their comments in before the next meeting so that we can actually have a document where we have everybody's comments so that Laura is going to have the horrible task of copying and pasting all of our comments into a master document that we can share at the next meeting or hopefully a little few days before? Yeah. So that's the goal and it may be a combo of me and Stephanie. We'll see how we figure it out. I think what I had put in or what I have in the eCAC info tab is a goal to to have everybody get their versions of the spreadsheets to me by the 20th, which is next week, so that I can have a few days to pull it together to get it to you, ideally by the 20 seconds but at the latest by the 25th. It'd be helpful if they came from a task group, but if you all are splitting it up, then that's fine too, just as long as it's clear who's doing what piece is. And I found when I went through it that after I went through the first one or two, like in real detail, then I had it in my brain how it was working and I was able to go a little bit more quickly through the others so just flagging that as and you don't need to, I think again, I think Jesse restated what I tried to say much more eloquently as usual, like it's all about we need to really be able to understand what these actions are, that they're actually actions that are going towards the goals, that all of these co-benefits and lenses have been applied. And so I think however, whichever way you use this document to get to that place, I think is the right way to use it. I just want to say to Laura that when you talked about this last time, and I think the idea was that even if you're doing the work individually and splitting it up, you as task group co-chairs need to have consensus on what you're putting forth. So it's not just your own individual perspectives. I mean, you might put that in, but then you have to have that conversation with the other task group co-chair prior to your final submission on the 20th or the 22nd whenever. Yeah. Yeah. And if you haven't been able to have that conversation, then maybe just note it, like to be determined, you know, to be discussed. I'm assuming that folks that are unsure and want to talk to their task group are probably going to note it as an NB, ND or something. But yeah, that's a really good point, Stephanie. Darcy. Yeah, there are some categories that aren't covered by our task group. So we have to figure out how to do that. One of the things that I had suggested was that the green infrastructure pieces, if somehow or other they could be done by Linnae, and that would be nice. And, you know, for the items, there's a section for us to suggest additions for, I guess, deletions. And so that is an issue because we want to figure out the, you know, like we are adding something like creating new renewables. That would be an action that we would need to, you know, come up with these co-benefits for, or if we decided to reorganize it in some way. So anyway, I guess after the next meeting we can discuss if somebody has a really strong desire to add something or reorganize, we can discuss it at the next meeting. Don't you think we should be just adding them if it's your task group's area? And it's missing. I think we should just, you know, on another sheet or, you know, somehow we should do the evaluation for installing renewables. We could do it a couple of ways. You could just add, I think that if you've gone through the evaluator and that's caused you to recognize that there needs to be more actions, you sort of kind of evaluated them already. So you can put them in the action. So on the bottom of the action details worksheet, there's a space for additional actions. So you could just add them there and then we can decide at the next meeting whether we want to redo the evaluator to be updated with all the actions that we've edited or added, and whether we want to go through it again or whether or not. But I would caution us not to add columns to the evaluator spreadsheet, just because that creates more possibility that I don't copy and paste it correctly. Yeah.  This is our, this is the time when we should, to the extent that, you know, we as task force co-chairs or whatever, didn't quite, and we're now recognizing that we didn't quite get the list of tasks right. You know, both in terms of the language as well as, you know, the set that we put forward being sort of comprehensive and of similar level of scale. And it would seem like, I don't know, I'm sort of like, when I was doing this, I was like, I wish I could just like rename the task. Maybe it's because, you know, we didn't, we did this like months and months ago, but it's like, okay, now that we're really getting into these actions and evaluating that's based on all these, these rubrics, I tend to be inclined to spend a little bit of time you know, recasting with, under my case, you know, the set of actions to better reflect, I think what we want to evaluate, if this is, you know, sort of, I think really our best chance to do it now, better now than later in terms of getting it into the report in the fashion that we really want the public to see. And I didn't look at the other ones, but you know, I was looking at the other ones just as we were speaking, and yeah, they're all, so much of them are like goals instead of action. I mean, Ashwin mentioned affordable housing. It's like, yeah, I mean, we definitely want affordable housing, but the action is how do we get, you know, the action, what's the action to get to, you know, net zero affordable housing, or something along those lines. And then, and then, and then you get into, you know, it's not all positive, it's going to cost down the bottom where it's like budget items, you know, there's going to be some budget implications that wouldn't, wouldn't, might not otherwise show up. And I sort of doing that with the renewable ones as well. So I mean, would you give us sort of the openness to, maybe as a pass force group, me and Andra in my case, to provide a, perhaps a recommended version 2.0 of our, of our, of our set of activities, not wildly different, but Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly what you need to be doing. So this is the, this is the moment, right, we need to be redefining these actions to be actual actions. If you want to add new actions, let me rephrase what I said before, I would suggest them at the bottom. Or if you want to, if you want to copy the evaluator, make it a new tab and write renewable, then I, it'll be easier for me. I realize the spreadsheet logistics that you don't want different columns showing up different in different spreadsheets. Yeah, so just kind of recopy the evaluator tab. And if you want to add them in and evaluate them that way, I think if you change the language on the action details of the actions, that it will change automatically on the evaluator. But if you want to add completely new actions, I think that's where I tested it and it didn't work. But it's, I don't think it does that redo that you have to update it. Yeah. And I don't know how Lauren did that, to be honest with you. So I would, I don't know. I didn't know that before either. Okay, I think this has been a really helpful discussion. Do folks feel like they can go forward in a way that is going to get us to a good spot for next next meeting? See some nodding. Okay. This is a heavy, you know, we're ending. Just give me a minute. This is a heavy homework. Two weeks. Yeah. So we can, we don't have to get it done in two weeks. So do folks want to have more time? But then we're putting it off even more as zoning decisions are made and budget decisions are made. Yeah. I think everybody was nodding. I saw everybody nodding. That what it was too hard to do in two weeks? No, that they could do it within before the next meeting. That it is hard and that we will do it probably. If we give ourselves two more weeks, I'll just start it in two weeks. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so I think we're in a time crunch because I think we want Linnean to be able to get the report done when we've asked them to get the report done and for which the grant has, I think we have to get everything done by May, Stephanie, correct? Yeah. I mean, well, actually, technically you would change it to April, but at the very latest May. Yeah. So I would suggest that we try to do this by next Wednesday. And we can, I don't think that we would necessarily want to present it to Linnean at the next meeting. Linnean will be at our next meeting to give an update on their end. But we certainly want to talk about it at our next meeting and figure out how to, and we can talk with Linnean about what we've been doing with it and how we've been working to make the actions more actionable and all of these things. I think that's a discussion we would have. But I think we would probably still need to have more discussion as a group around it and decide those next steps that Darcy was raising. Yeah, Steve. I guess I'm thinking that a good goal would be for each task group to identify one, two or three strategies that really can be evolved into a series of actions. And that I think would be great for the Climate Action Report. Just a couple of things that we really prioritize and really work out in detail so that they can actually happen. And then be a lot of other ideas that we can work on in the coming months and years. But for now we have a handful of concrete things with very specific actions, very specific steps, time lines, who's going to be responsible, what are the barriers that we foresee, things like that that will really allow us to move them forward. So that would be my idea of a success for this process would be a small number of things that could be fully developed into detailed actions. Yeah, so I think that's a great suggestion. And I think that'll take a little more time. But I think if we can come next, if we can use this process to start to narrow down those one to three actions, then we can start to continue to, with the help of Linnaean and figuring out how we're going to put it in the report, really get more detailed. Okay. Any other last comments about this? I don't see any. Okay, so we've got a lot of homework to do, but that's okay. In terms of the next meeting agenda, we've sort of been talking about it as we've gone. Linnaean is going to come and give us an update on how they're doing on the report more generally. Of course, they know we're working on this, and so we can give them an update on what we've been doing. From the timeline perspective, I did include just a rough timeline in the packet. They're coming to us next week, next time on the 27th. We have one more meeting on the 10th, and then we're meant to get the first draft of it by the 19th. So we probably want to get back to Linnaean with the finalized list of actions pretty soon, in early February, if possible. We have a lot more things to discuss, I think, as a group related to how we're going to review the plan, how we're going to present the plan to the community, what do we actually want from the community in terms of input on the plan. So I think all of that will have to come at a future meeting, but I just want to flag that for folks that I've started to think about the things we need to think about, but that's about as far as I've gotten. So in terms of next meeting, we'll have Linnaean update. We have these other kind of things that we will need to resolve or talk about, and we'll figure out how to fit those in, either at this meeting or the following meeting, but that's the electrification, the biomass and the CPC. Anything else? Yeah, Darcy. Do you think it makes sense for us? I know the Finance Committee of the Town Council, when it comes to crunch time, they meet every week, and I'm wondering if there's a period of time where we might want to do that as we get into our crunch time. Just think about planning. Is there a month or two months where we want to meet every week?  I think that we just need to think about that. Yeah, definitely. We certainly will need to think about how to get all this done. Meeting altogether is the right way or something, but yeah. Right, yeah. It could be every other week with our task group or something like that. Just to be clear, if I was to email Andra to set up a time when we can discuss and resolve what set of actions we want, are we able to do that with public meeting law? You can do that. You can do that because you're just reviewing and prioritizing actions. You're not making any, you're not coming up with anything new, or you're just sort of, you're just tweaking a list that you've already created basically. Okay. And clarifying things. Okay. Okay. Does anybody else have anything to raise for this meeting? Otherwise, I think we can call it. Just a minor logistical thing, I think. At least I was trying to find these coming up meetings on my calendar. And I think Stephanie's recurring meetings have expired this last one. We changed. I think we changed. I can double check. I mean, it came up for me and so I mean, I've got it. It shows up as recurring, but I'll double check, Dwayne. Okay. I have this one as my last one that actually showed up on the calendar from you. Okay. I'll double check. Okay. The other thing I wanted to say is for your next meeting, Linnean is coming to do their presentation, but they certainly don't have to stay for the whole meeting obviously. So you could limit the time so that you have more time to continue with this effort. It might be good just to get some time and clarification with them, front-load them at the beginning of the meeting and then have more time to follow up after. That's a good point, Stephanie. And be helpful maybe if you could ask them to of course submit anything for the packet in advance, but also if they could tell us how much time they think they need based on what they, the updates they have, I think that would help us plan for the agenda. They're coming because they were asked to. So I think they're just giving an update. So if you can ask them how long? That's what I mean. It's just to give you an update of where they are. So yeah, I don't, I think they can, you know, you can also tell them we're going to give you a half hour in our meeting. You can do it that way too. Well, if you could just ask them, that would be great. And we can talk about that more. All fine. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions or thoughts? Okay, great. Well, look forward to getting your evaluators next week and we will talk again soon. Want to ask for any public comment at the last? Oh, there's no public left. So I think we're good. Thank you, Sita. All right. Thanks, everybody.