Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, please. Sorry you saw me. I was learning a lot. Well, good afternoon. I'm glad to welcome you. I know you've probably been welcomed by others already. You, the merchants of America, back to the White House. It's hard to believe that two years have passed since we last met, two short years. But what a difference. As you probably remember, when we met in the Rose Garden, I didn't have very much good news to give you. The American people had paid a steep price for years of good intentions, badly misdirected. And as a result, our national economy had nearly reached the breaking point. As a result of that crisis that faced us, well, we weren't, however, pursuing a program based on the shifting sands of government expediency. Another quick fix certainly would have failed. There was only one way to go, and that was use three simple words as our guide. Trust the people. Lasting economic recovery had to be built on the solid rock of the American free enterprise system. And when I think back to all the critics who cynically said we couldn't possibly get it done, I find myself remembering my previous life in the entertainment world. You know, back in the days of Vaudeville, Vaudevillians trying to get bookings and even young ones trying to break into the show business had gone to an empty theater, and there'd be an agent sitting out there in about the third row all alone in the theater, cigar in his mouth, wearing a check suit, and the Vaudevillian would have to show his wares to this cynic. One day a young fella came in, the agent was sitting out there, and this young fella wanted to break into show business, walked down to the stage. The agent said, all right, kid, what do you do? And the kid never answered. He just took off and flew around the ceiling of the theater, made a couple of circles right up there at the top, and then zoomed down and stopped right in front of the agent. The agent took the cigar out of his mouth and said, what else do you do besides bird imitations? Well, I felt that way quite a bit about some of the people that were so critical of what we were trying to do here. There are still some of them around, and they think what we're doing are bird imitations. But as far as I'm concerned, we've passed the recovery stage. We're well into economic expansion. And from the mess we inherited just a few years ago, I think a strong and vibrant America is taking shape. Inflation, once out of control, they said it would take 10 years at least to make a dent in it. It's now down by nearly two-thirds, and we're determined to keep it down. Purchasing power is back in the hands of the consumers, and that's great news for retailers. And we're doing everything we can to keep it that way. Starting next year, tax rates will be indexed, as you know, so that the federal government will no longer be able to profit by inflation. And we're not finished yet. To provide greater incentives to every hard-working American, we're going to try to make taxes more simple and fair, and we will press for a tax simplification, not just tinkering here and there, but a sweeping comprehensive reform of the entire tax code. One thing I've had to rule out already is one proposal that was sent to me recently. It was a tax form, and it had just two lines on it. The top line said, how much did you earn in the second one? I said, send it. We won't do that. But I know there's a lot of talk about the monster inflation coming back. We don't think that's happening. Consumer prices rose a scant two-tenths of a percent in March, and last month the producer price index didn't rise at all. The pessimists made dire predictions about the economy when it was announced that the gross national product for the first quarter this year expanded at a robust 8.3%. Overheating they warned would cause a return of inflation, but the economy isn't conforming to their fears. Housing starts continue to be soft. Or strong, I should say. I looked at the wrong word there. Somebody's probably told you, but if they haven't, well, I'm going to tell it to you again. At 8.30 this morning it was announced that housing starts in April rose to an annual rate of 1.96 million. And that's an increase of 19% over March, and new housing permits are still holding steady at 1.7 million. New homeowners mean more retail business. Venture capital is up to four times what it was in 1980. Real fixed business investment increased by 13% last year, and that's the best increase in 30 years. Bankruptcies declined some 30% in the second half of 83, and that was compared with the second half of 82. The best news of all has been the steepest drop in unemployment in over 30 years. 5.4 million more Americans are working have jobs than just 17 months ago. And it's no wonder that the retail sales last year reached an all-time high of $1.2 trillion. We talk those figures we're dealing in deficits. We must and will go forward to keep opportunities expanding for you and for all Americans. Now just in case you want to call or talk to someone in a nearby public building while you're in town there's still a lot of things that we're trying to get done. We want to see the business community grow and grow. We're working hard to be sensitive to your concerns. The Federal Trade Commission with Jim Miller at the helm has built a solid, balanced relationship with your industry. And we're pressing to get passage of legislation which would tighten up consumer credit provisions on federal bankruptcy laws. I know this issue is important to you, so I hope you'll make your views known. And we all have an interest in making sure that federal spending is brought down into line with government revenues. And that's why I strongly favor constitutional reforms like giving the President the right to line item veto and the balanced budget amendment. I have told repeatedly other groups that have been in here as a governor in eight years, I had line item veto and I line item vetoed spending items that were attached to legitimate legislation 943 times in those eight years. And never once when they were faced with having to vote for an override on that particular item and hold it up to view, not buried in some other legislation, they never overrode one of those 943 vetoes. And yet it took a two-thirds majority for them to send me the proposal in the first place. So I have no quarrel with the big spenders so long as they spend their money at your stores. I just wanted to stop spending our money on government programs that don't serve the interests of the American people. Now before I close, I want to take this opportunity to thank retailers all across America for the work that you're doing to help our young people find that crucial first job. When America's youth can get their feet on the first rung of the economic ladder, everybody benefits. You're taking advantage of the tax credit for hiring disadvantaged minority youth and I'd like to see you take even greater advantage of this program. And while I'm at it, let me mention that more and more people recognize the problem the minimum wage causes for our unskilled young people. Our Youth Employment Opportunity Wage Bill will give a much-needed boost to those looking for their first summertime job and it deserves your active support. We can establish that the imposition of the minimum wage and then the increases through the years have been followed in every increase with a further decline in teenage employment in America. And so we're trying to do something about it and there's a lot of opposition to it, but I think it's necessary for those unskilled young people to not have that handicap to overcome. When it comes to the bottom line, if I can borrow a phrase that's the heartbeat of all retailers, it's a great time to be a merchant. But I believe that the best is yet to come and I hope that your 46th meeting will be a great success and thank you all for being here. God bless you.


Okay, come and clean. I've got to be completely honest. Everything in my book. Hey guys, it's Jess, and welcome back to my channel. I hope you're all having a very happy and productive week, and in today's video, I'm going to be addressing a bunch of your questions about my new study skills book, The High School Survival Guide. Or, wait, tada! It's really weird actually holding my own book. I feel very, I don't know, it just hasn't really sunk in. It doesn't seem like it's real that I can actually call myself a published author in my 20s. It's definitely been something I've wanted to do for such a long time, but I honestly thought it would be a possibility, maybe one day in the very distant future, maybe in my 30s or 40s or even older than that. So, I'm just so excited that I actually have come out with my own study skills book. And like I said a while ago, it's literally a brain dump of everything that I could possibly share with you to help you out with your studies. And a lot of you guys have been giving me such amazing feedback, so thank you so much. So, I know that there's a lot of questions about my book and my experience writing a book as well, so I thought I'd address them in today's video and come clean and be totally open and honest with you guys. So, I hope you guys enjoyed the video and thumbs up if you do. Also, before we get into the Q&A, make sure to subscribe if you aren't subscribed already, so don't miss out on more of my study tip videos as well. And also, if you guys aren't following me on social media at Study With Jess for Instagram and Twitter, make sure you do follow me because all these questions I did pull from social media. So, if you want to get involved in future Q&As, then all you got to do is follow me guys. Alright, so the first question I thought I would answer is, what do I love most about my book? So, I love so many things about my book. I don't know if I can choose one. If I had to choose one, I would say, look, we really didn't want to come out with just another study skills book. When I was drawing to the publishers and my editor, we wanted to make it stand out from other books on the market. So, apart from it being in color, which is so cool, I love that it's in color. I think that's really nice. The thing that I love most, though, would be that it's interactive. So, there's actually a lot of pages that you can write in, you can tear out, you can cut out as well. I'll have a little look for one of them. Okay, so this is probably my favorite little interactive activity. It's just a little bit of fun, but when I was in high school, I really didn't want anyone to interrupt my study sessions at home.  So, we decided to do the same. And on this page, it has a couple of different ones you can cut out and you can also stick on your door or put in a bag tag as well. There's also some really good ones like a priority matrix so that you can write down a list of to-dos and organize them. There's even things for goal setting as well. So, I really like that it's interactive and that it's not just a book to read, but it's something that you can actually write in, tear out, cut out and really put into practice. Alright, so question two was, how did I come up with the name for this novel? So, the whole idea is this is a study skills book that is applicable to students of all ages. It's not really age specific, gender specific, anything like that. But we called it the high school survival guide because ideally all of these tips should be implemented from as early on and if possible from high school. Now in Australia, high school is actually from grade seven when you turn 12. So, I know overseas it's a little bit different. I think high school for some of you is grade eight or grade nine, but honestly this book is full of tips for anyone. Yeah, I'd say from grade seven at the age of 12 all the way through to your university or college years till your 20s, 30s if you're a richer age student then I don't discriminate. You know, this book is also going to help you out as well. But yeah, we called it the high school survival guide purely because I think these tips should be implemented from grade seven when you're 12 years old in Australia and I just think that they carry through throughout your education. The next question was, what do I think influenced me to write this book the most? Honestly, I'd have to say you guys because you send in so many questions. I get so many emails. My Instagram direct message box is flooded at the moment. I'm doing my best to get back to all of you, but there are so many of you and I'm getting so many more questions. So the whole idea was how can I create another resource that's going to help you guys if I'm unable to get back to you and it's actually going to not only address one or two questions you might have but act as an ongoing support for years and years of your studies. So I'd say that you guys influenced me the most. The next question is, is everything in my book true? Okay, coming clean, I've got to be completely honest. Everything in my book, it's true. Honestly guys, I couldn't lie to you. I would never want to lie to 7 million of you. I make it such an important part of what I do is that I'm completely honest. So it's really, it's essential that I'm completely honest and open with you guys in my book. All of the stories that I include about my time in high school and university, totally true. Honestly, yeah, that stuff really did happen to me and I really did do some of those things that I said I did with a bit of regret. But I would never want to lie to you guys and I think it's really important, especially with YouTube that, you know, I'm just really open and honest and you guys get to see the real me. I don't ever want to have some sort of a shield or barrier up between us. I think, yeah, if you're gonna have relationships with one another and I want you guys to get to know the real me, then I have to be open and honest. Another question was, how long did it take me to write my book? Oh, too long and at the same time, not long enough. So I had a really pressured deadline. I had a really short deadline to get it all done and whilst I had the content, a lot of it already from all of my videos and I was condensing it and building on that for the book, I wrote it in honestly not that long. I mean, I worked really hard on it. I was probably writing my book full time for quite a few months, but I could have probably done with an extra three or four months if I had the opportunity to ask for it. But we were trying to get it out for the back to school season in America. So yeah, there was a really pressured deadline. How many words is your book? I don't know exactly. I'd have to go into my document on my laptop, but I'd say it's roughly 36,000 words. So yeah, this bad boy took a while to write. Okay, a couple more questions. What was my favorite story I included in my book? There are a lot of them. I honestly shared my favorite stories from my time at school and university, but one of my favorites that I really wanted to include just because I thought it was a bit cheeky was about my book report that I wrote in grade nine and it was based on a book that I never read and never existed. So if you guys want to read that story, I think it's in the chapter titled Managing or Tackling Large Assignments or Major Assignments. So yeah, if you guys haven't read it, then yeah, the good part is waiting. Will I ever write another book? Absolutely. I definitely plan on it, but I don't know what it's going to be about and I don't know when I'm going to be writing it. I just know that now that I've written one book, I just don't feel like I can stop at one. Last question is, will your book be sold around the world? So yes, it's currently in Barnes & Noble's Walmart. If you're in UK and Canada, I think there's chapters and another one. It's coming to Australia very soon as well and if you don't have any of those retailers, then you can also order it online from Amazon, Book Depository, Booktopia. I'll leave a few links down below, but yes, it will be sold all around the world, which is unbelievable. I'm so excited. So thanks so much guys for all of your questions. This has been really fun. I love answering all of your questions and just keeping you posted with what's happening in my life and sharing stories about my own experience and what I'm working on. So I hope you guys enjoyed. If you guys have read the high school survival guide, comment below. And if you guys also have your copy, then take a photo and post it on social media. Just tag me at studywithjesus. And if you guys don't have your copy and you don't want to miss out, then click the links below. Like I said, you can order it online or you can even go into one of your main bookstores as well. If you guys are in America, Canada, UK and soon to be Australia as well. So if you enjoyed today's video, of course, thumbs up to let me know and subscribe if you're not already subscribed. And I will see you guys in a couple of days with another study tips video. Bye.


Okay, so fun fact we wrote this talk title thought it was funny, and then we're like oh crap We have to write the talk Yeah, so let's see how it goes Y'all know me. I'm working right now. I work for HashiCorp as an engineer on our design systems team And you have been hearing about me ad nauseam, so I'm gonna introduce you to my lovely designer colleague, Jory Hey folks You probably don't know me at all because I'm a product designer I'm way out of my element here, but my name is Jory Tyndall, and I'm also a product product designer with Melanie on our HashiCorp design system team Yes, but you do more than that so tell us about your music Well Yeah, I'm also a saxophonist Yeah, whoo, I'm from from Seattle, so if you're ever up in the Pacific Northwest, you know check me out I've shared the stage with The Temptations, Johnny Mathis, the OJs, folks like that. It's pretty it's pretty sick So yes, we both work on this really pretty design system that we call Helios. No, we did not get to break the name I know it's really pretty you can visit the Design System documentation, but not right now listen to our talk first So let's first talk about what you can expect This talk to include because that helps you keep in mind When the end is going to be and you're paying attention to that because we're the last talk today So first we're going to talk about what design systems are themselves kind of give a brief introduction We're all used to UI add-ons shared components brand guidelines But a design system isn't really any of those in isolation rather It's all of those things and more in a cohesive kind of system of systems And next we'll talk about a few Challenges and I say a few because there's a lot of challenges and we singled a few of them out a Few challenges that we faced while starting our design system team while starting a new design new design system We'll get into that And I'll give you a hint. It was less about code and it was more about people Next we're going to talk about how we decided to approach some of these challenges and Some of the things that we did that we think are pretty cool to kind of solve them in our cross-functional team And finally we'll go over some lessons that we learned our learning will learn and how they can help anybody that is working on a design system Okay, before we start here's some photos of our cats The one the one that's yelling is Atlas is mine And the one who is being woken up so roughly is Avery Okay, design systems. Let's talk about that. So we all probably know what a design system is from a technical perspective But from a value perspective a design system really helps product teams ship UI at scale. That's kind of our main goal So what does this mean in the context of design systems at hashy corp? Well, we're focused on ember and we love that all the niceties that ember gives us when we're building a design system for developers and for our consumers We support a extremely wide array of products That are both on-prem products their enterprise level products and cloud products and They all kind of have divergent product lines, but benefit from a shared UI We also support multiple sub brands underneath the hashy corp brand terraform console boundary, etc Underneath the unified hashy corp brand umbrella And finally hashy corp products are complex. We're in the developer operation space, which is a pretty tough discipline the ui's are complex their data heavy and They're often geared geared towards power users So our consistent visual language and parity between design and code really benefits the consumers and helps them to move faster So here's an abstract representation of all of the moving parts of the design system This is kind of captured in a concept called the system of systems in which each focus area of the design system is Treated as its own System in isolation, but is part of a larger system of systems So that all of these systems operate in the cohesive environment So what makes a design system successful? I think the problems that a design system faces are kind of unique and Kind of multifaceted and kind of spanned across the whole company But generally I think a successful design system shares some common characteristics There's parity between design and code. There's a similar or shared framework that they use Really great really comprehensive documentation and even then you can't really get people to read it PS Organic buy-in Organic adoption from the teams that have to use it and then Communication and this is like the most challenging thing to overcome So what are the breakdowns happen in a systems team? It's usually less often in the data they work and more often in Designers and developers really struggling to speak the same language And I know this to a certain extent from a personal perspective because I'm kind of sit sometimes in between design and development You know if you if you ask me to write a complex function in Ember, you know come back a couple of hours later And maybe I'll have made some progress But it's these communication barriers that really are challenging in a cross-functional team for clarity's sake Webflow is not code for you designers out there if they're already And for engineers, maybe who don't don't understand design Fortunately Microsoft Paint is no longer here with us anymore Dreamweaver ceases to exist and fireworks is put on its last show So really Melanie just wants to be included in this communication Mind game. So what the folks around you in to help solve these problems in a collaborative environment? This is a baking hot meme zone right here. Yeah, Jory's our Gift maker sure. Yeah So as a design system team, we do have Some communication problems. Our team is really actually quite advanced Everyone has been doing what they do for a very long time and even we have communication struggles One of the challenge we do not have is Our framework we get to use Ember our product apps are Ember apps And this makes our lives easier for all of the reasons that we all are here in all November shared understanding common approaches to Problems easier to meet expectations because we have shared expectations for the most part Also shout out to hash for for using Ember from the start I think it speaks to the power of the Ember community that Hashacorp has apps that are nine and ten years old and still using Ember Michael Lang is going to talk about this tomorrow. So make sure you don't miss that talk So one of our huge challenges as a systems team at Hashacorp is scale And it's even more challenging when your design system has to support a variety of divergent product lines Some of these product lines exist in isolation now and may or may not exist in isolation in the future. We don't really know So at Hashacorp there are around 12 individual product apps that we support We think yeah, there may be some stragglers out there this is kind of just a capturing a little bit of the different Areas of DevOps where our product lines exist all of these product lines have Multiple teams working on them or different teams working on them and there hasn't really been a unified design strategy at Hashacorp to bring all of these different applications together under one roof and even though we all use Ember We you can still write a form 25 different ways in an Ember app, right? And of course all of our product apps write forms 25 different ways So we have to that's where one of our challenges comes in and that's where the design system really helps because if the design System is providing the form components, then we start to gather around. Oh, hey, wouldn't it be easier? Wouldn't it be better if we all did our forms like this? Yeah, so the goal of this design system is to kind of be the glue that holds all of these products together and By bringing these products together, of course, we mean the Hashacorp cloud platform. It aspires to unify our products offerings Into a single platform. We use Ember engines and our design system and that helps bring it all together But of course like any company we have that one react app The developer documentation team decided to build the Hashacorp product user documentation app in react But then they saw our awesome design system and they were like, oh my god, we want to use that so So they use our design system artifacts our components that we design our foundational elements colors typography etc But they write all of the code and react and build their own kind of component library for this developer documentation Anyway, I don't know about you but when our manager recruited me He was like come work on this brand new design system and I was like, oh my god Yes, I've been wanting to do this for years because maybe we'll get it right this time And maybe it will be accessible and maybe all my dreams will come true Yeah, and I was like, man, I'm in corporate America and it's great. I love it And I'm also an angular world and I would really like to get out of there But yeah, I was happy to kind of continue my design system work at Hashacorp where there's a ton of buy-in from the top down to develop a great Develop and deliver a great product Except, you know, once I was there I found out that this was not the greenfield I was looking for and that a brand new team did not Equal a greenfield project I might have actually cried, you know, there's a saying in Zen Buddhism desires suffering and I experienced a lot of them But of course we started strategizing about a path forward So not only was there this legacy design system that existed at Hashacorp before our systems team existed It's known as structure It was versioned in independent Figma files so these are two of the Figma cover screenshots version 1.9 and 1.8 and What this resulted in was both of these libraries were being used by our product designers And it wasn't really clear what the differences between them were An add-on to this is structure only existed partially in code so the different product teams implemented this legacy design system in different ways and Led to a lot of kind of divergent implementations of the system There was also mixed buy-in from the product teams across Hashacorp. Some teams use structure of this design system extensively, but other teams kind of Forged their own path ahead We also found out that all these different products had their different UI own UI add-ons So not only did we have to think about how we were going to move everyone forward from this partially implemented legacy design system But we also had to figure out well, how do we help them transition from their own UI add-ons, which they're probably really it Some of them are really well crafted and like if they were mine, I'd be like, I don't want your design system I worked really hard on these so How do we do that? We had to think about that and it's really been like Hurted cats. Yeah pretty much So this led to the creation of the Hashacorp design system Which is an integrated group of designers and developers And folks that kind of go back and forth and the goal of the system was to to hurt the cats So an integrated team is essential to building a successful design system, but it surfaces other challenges Mainly surrounding the ways that designers and developers conceptualize things really differently A couple of examples This is a little screenshot of our Helios badge component Also known as a tag a chip a lozenge a pill These are a little strange, but they do exist a stamp a bullet or just plain status so designers and developers Use the same words, but sometimes mean different things. What is a variable? What is a variant? Also, we use the same words for different things. What is a drop-down versus a pop-over?  What's a pop-up? How are all these things different? We also have a difference in tooling as a designer. I spend the majority of my day in Figma Yeah, which if you've worked in Figma is sometimes a little bit we'll say Removed from reality when it comes to actual browser implementation right I click on something and then I've like created a new branch and Moved everything and all I was trying to do was like zoom in so I could see What it is I'm supposed to create in CSS. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so if you have a Developers often working in an IDE or working directly in the browser And these differences in in context and in kind of day-to-day activity are What cause a fair amount of divergence, but also a little bit of overlap kind of depending on how you think about it There are folks on our team and throughout hashy corp that Sit in the middle of design and engineering Oftentimes though these folks skew to one side or the other They're either a designer who can write a little bit of code or a developer who can Has a little bit of an eye for design Yes, and that's why we're giving this top Although I like to design in like, you know code pen with code So we literally just think differently. Yeah as people But we still agree on most things most of the time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, sometimes it takes us a little while to Sort through the details, but we get to the same page eventually How do we address some of these challenges? well first we crack open a cold one or poor scotch poor scotch or Yeah, multiple of either of those And our process has grown and adapted to meet our needs as a as our design system grows in both size and complexity Here's an over complicated Graphic that represents our process as a design system team right now. We didn't start here This is the evolution. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of this But you might be asking why is this process so complicated? Why is the process so important? Who manages this process? Well This process exists out of a necessity really to support the scale that we need to support at the enterprise level And this process is largely managed by everybody on our team. It's a team effort. We're small but we're integrated and That leads Lots of opportunity for us to manage our own kind of day-to-day exercises So this clearly defined process has Really helped to establish this shared language between designers and developers and has Essentially been the foundation for our work and that allowed us to get to the scale that we're at right now Because we're all fairly advanced in our careers Having this shared language So any of us designer or developer could walk their way through the process. That's very clearly defined That's important because there's really I don't know about you But like I've been doing this for 25 26 years and it really sucks when someone treats me like it's my first day on the job Or that's not your job role like yeah, but it is So Part of this process we recognized that to successfully build a component We would need to do some upfront planning It was a necessary first step because the answer is the question where do we start in a really consistent way And we have three parts now to our component planning process first we do an audit of both our design assets and Code to figure out well already exists in our partner teams In this process we partner with a group of folks that we call our ambassadors to Help us dive into these complex use cases that may exist in their product lines and Then we organize all of our examples from our audits and we brainstorm our spike topic discussions into a components requirement document or CRD and this helps us align on things like scope naming conventions The structure of the component like it's anatomy The features that we want to make sure we add and the features that we want to add later We'll write all of this down We fight about naming so no one else has to But they still kind of do So what's this CRD is Fleshed out we meet synchronously with our internal stakeholders to discuss the CRD and the rules of results of it and the component strategy going forward and In this kickoff we cover the rules and responsibilities of the project We identify the stakeholders whether they're internal or external to our team. We align on the scope We discuss any risks or unknowns about the project We nail down a broad or loose timeline and some milestones we address any open questions that folks might have before the actual work starts and We assign some next steps to the individual contributors and we do this Because this kickoff creates a space for internal discussion To make sure that we're all on the same page Because the designer and the engineer that's assigned to the components might have different Expectations than the rest of the designers the rest of the engineers on the design system teams It also allows us to tie up any loose questions before we start our work Now that we've done this initial planning we can actually get into the component creation work So let's talk a little bit about our design process Melanie is super familiar with this so This is a little bit of an oversimplification of our process, but We start with design exploration And I like to call this design playtime because that more effectively captures the attention of the process It's quite childlike. Yes, but you know as is we are designers This can be a messy process a lot of the time if you look into my figma file when I'm going through an exploration phase You may be very confused by it and that's partially intentional a lot of circumstances and it's meant to stretch our our thinking in our creative juices Then we progress on to a more tactical implementation where we're defining the structure of the component the variance the anatomy mocking it up in context and Getting an initial round or a read from our ambassadors And our internal stakeholders to get some feedback So obviously then we iterate off of that feedback if necessary, which often is the case and we release that component as a beta experimental component for our Ambassadors to test in their design and in their mock-ups and then finally we actually release the component Hey, unfortunately, this is the process in an ideal world and the world is hardly ever ideal depending on the complexity of the component this cyclical pop process might be quite repetitive and Repeat itself many many many times before we actually release the component, but Google doesn't can't we just do it because Google does it? Yeah, that's a trigger warning right there so from engineering perspective I start with thinking about the component from What does the web give us by default? What do we already have? Let's start there I'm thinking about the markup then I start thinking about the functionality and I'm doing it a long time before I'm thinking about what it might look like Typically, I'll do a spike. I'll explore what pieces of code might already exist in our design system that I can reuse because that's awesome Then I'll get feedback from the designer and from the engineers on my team and we're to create the actual component in code But like Jerry said it really is cyclical in nature because we want to get it right and With all of the products that we support getting it wrong the cost of change is pretty high, right? backwards compatibility lessons that I've learned from member have proven very useful in creating a design system We I Have to look at this closer, so we'll do a spike right a spike of the Component as it might exist we'll meet and we'll talk it over and usually there is some One that will say hey, have you thought about this edge use case? I don't know. Sorry And we'll iterate and then we'll ship a beta and then we'll review it again And then we'll iterate again because I I just didn't get that token variable named correct It was supposed to be like Active on surface instead of just active. I don't know and then we'll really release it But we released the component code and the code in figma Or the component in figma at the same time at the same time So designers and developers both get access to this component at the same time And we do this on purpose because we're working to create a shared language between designers and developers to give them one less hurdle one less giant gap and it's important because It ensures that everyone has access to the same assets at the same time It consolidates our announcements, so we're not Being really confused by oh wait, did you mean you released the design the component or the other component? They're both called component. What's going on here? It reinforces like the cross-function nature of our team and it doesn't prioritize design or development ahead of one another We're partners. We're standing side-by-side as equals And there's probably more than I'm not thinking of but like these are the heavy hitters for me Yeah, so of course, we don't just release figma components and code components documentation is also a core part of our process We document everything as code Absolutely everything so that there's everything is in sync between our component packages our figma libraries and our documentation website So this documentation is Another touch point that creates the shared language between designers and engineers And it really helps our consumers move faster and align on consistency across all of our products For both usage and implementation However Designers don't generally work in GitHub very often We've been very intentional about this process This part of our process to really keep everything in a visible nature So that both our internal and external stakeholders have visibility on what part of the process we're in What the process has gone through over its life cycle and what the intended deliverables are So there's definitely a learning curve for designers in getting up and running with the general process of working within Working within a PR, but it's totally necessary Learning step to bridge that gap between design and development Which we don't really tell them this because their egos are already too high But like it still feels like an accomplishment when I do a cherry pick. I don't know like first try. I'm like, yes Anyway, our ambassador engagement is another part of our process and we've mentioned our ambassadors a few times already But let's take a quick look into what that relationship is and how our ambassadors help us deliver at scale We work with a designer and a developer. They're they volunteer to be their products ambassadors and We include them because they understand their product line better than we do and they help with the audits and so we can include them in the process of designing and developing our components and And we really depend on them. We depend on them to tell us where the edges are We depend on them to tell us give us that early iterative feedback and like know this won't work for us because Whatever reason and we can then plan to either pivot ourselves Or maybe we need to get them to stop doing the weird thing So not only does working with these ambassadors make our lives easier Means we don't have to dig through all of these Figma files that may be spread across a variety of different teams or dig Through a bunch of different repos and code implementations But this arrangement with our ambassadors really helps us build strong relationships with our internal partners To promote the best end user experience and to get buy-in for our system So not only is this a massive time save in the long run for us as a systems team It helps us produce better components and write better documentation And because not everybody needs to be at not every meeting We've developed a meeting cadence that helps and works really well for our globally distributed team Yeah, we're calling in from all over the globe including Vancouver, BC Seattle, which is where I'm from Vancouver, Washington San Jose San Francisco Chicago Milwaukee ish a little bit and we have a couple of folks over in London So we only really have a couple of hours per day where all of us overlap Yeah, and I'm in the middle, which means I can never move because my meetings are like a perfect time They're not too early. Not too late. They're just right Yeah, so generally speaking this is a little bit of a outline of our meeting cadence All of these meetings generally happen in the first couple of hours of the day at least for me as somebody on the west coast Which means, you know, I'm up too early for me But so my meetings are in the morning our Midwest and east coast folks are in the afternoon and our folks in London are in Closer to the end of their working day Okay, so what about accessibility because y'all know me and obviously I was gonna talk about accessibility in a design system So where do we fit this in our design system process? We fit it every single step of the way accessibility is not an Add-on It's integrated the day one from the CRD has accessibility requirements in it Design has accessibility built into it. We are talking about accessibility every single step of the way by including accessibility on purpose in Every step of the conversation. We're making sure that everyone is on the same page about our conformance goals We have accessibility built into our components as much as possible and Wherever possible we'll use the handy assertions to let a developer know that they haven't included a vital piece of information so this is our button component and you're when you invoke this component you have to provide a Text value even if it's an icon only button because we then Automatically use the text value as the aria label value So we built that in for you and if you forget it's fine. We break your build There's an assertion through home and it just reminds you to like, you know, do the right thing. It's fine You can do it and in in our documentation. We're very clear about what level of conformance our components will achieve This is especially important if we need to Transitionally support a component variation. That's not WCAG conformant So right now one of the limitations of tech is there's no way for a keyboard only user To access truncated content if it's in a non-interactive element Somebody can fix this solve it. We'd love it, but right now we can't do it. So because we have to support truncation and One of our components will let folks know. Hey, if you use this variant your App will not be WCAG conformant. We do however make a really nice modal In our foundation documentation, we include the foundational elements of accessibility across an application Because no matter how good of a component we give you you could still put them together in a non-conformant way And That would suck It's our policy to just to provide the component variant Let me try that sentence again because my brain just can't word It's our policy to provide the conformant component variant as the default So when you invoke that component all the defaults that are there that one is you can depend on that one being WCAG conformant if further customization Bending the rules a bit is required for the time being Because remember we're trying to take all these people that are on these legacy UI add-ons these legacy design systems and we're trying to get everyone to be in the same place So we have to let them do weird stuff for a little while while we get them to the same place But we let them know what's conformant and what's not and where those lines are because we want that to be really clear Sort of we learned in this process. I mean, honestly, we're still learning and there are probably plenty of things that we're gonna learn in the future Where we'll screw up and piss somebody off But legacy everything is real Legacy libraries are challenging to replace and hard to get buy-in for internally Figma updates are very very regular and have largely changed the way that we build components We still have some components that were built at the earlier Era of our design system that are not utilizing some of the latest and greatest Figma features which creates a certain amount of of tech debt and this tech debt is real across both disciplines and This is largely why our process is so important and our bar for quality is so high One misstep in this process can impact hundreds of designers developers and consumers so we make sure to get it right or as close to right as possible the very first time and The lesson another lesson that we've learned is that our process is absolutely vital Shared expectations help us increase velocity Everything is code helps us unite cross-functional teams We get shared version control We get the ability to track things and measure things and have really cool metrics and it provides transparency and visibility to folks outside of our teams and all of these things unite us and Our team has a very high bar for quality in our components now Now this means the trade-off is of course time This can cause delays and shipping components, but it's worth it Sometimes you have to just be willing to like bite the bullet and say this is going to take longer than we expected We're sorry, but we promise it will be worth it and every single time it's been worth it We don't have to revisit components as frequently We have a very clear justification for our decisions Which turns out is really important because we've properly vetted our designs and our codes before we ship it so If someone comes and say why don't you do this thing that Google does we can say hey, we did this research in here Here's why It also gives us an additional touch point to make sure that the final product is fully accessible Or if it's not then we document that too or file, but We've also learned to engage with your consumers anytime you can this is a photo of our team and Several of our consumers Consumer teams at a team off-site in Seattle. Anybody's familiar with Seattle. That's over in West Seattle on Alkai Beach I really regretted not bringing so much. It was a gorgeous day Yeah, and we've really learned to celebrate our wins Adoption is scaling rapidly across all of our consumers when engineers and designers try our design system like oh my god We really like this and we've begun. It's like allowed us because of our process. We've iterated on this process We've got this process pretty good now. We feel pretty confident about it That's allowed us to start accepting internal contributions from other teams into our own code base And because our design system is still largely driven by organic adoption The fact that it's being adopted communicates to us that there's a lot of value in the high bar of quality And our detailed documentation So back in July July 29th almost a year ago, we released version 1.0 of the Helios design system We're now on version 2.8 at the time of this slide being created. We may have released a patch since then Maybe they did stuff while we were gone So this is a this is a massive accomplishment for us and it really speaks to in the importance of our process and It showcases a successful cross-functional team Which can oftentimes not be successful for all of the reasons that we've already spelled out And it captures our ongoing commitment to the consumers and our end users So some numbers because those are fun We've released 38 components 325 design tokens 537 icons and we have support for three complex patterns We've also had eight of our product teams adopt our Design system we have around 3,400 instances of our components in code 30,000 figments, it's too many, but that's just next to that and hundreds of happy developers and consumers our consumer system so Here are a couple of little accolades from some of our consumers The pagination component took something very complicated In a matter of minutes Especially in pagination it's well thought-out and handles 95% of our use cases It's incredibly composable within the limits of what a component should be doing Imagine getting that I did a dance y'all. I did a little happy Adopting the design system fixed major accessibility issues we had Alright, so it's time for this designer and this developer to go walk into a bar So I'm gonna leave you with this like I always do You do not require permission to create accessible code And that's it. Thank you. Thanks


Everyone, Luke Marland from Legislative Council. I'm here today on S171, the proposed amendment of Senator Bray. And it has the indicated version 11. If you remember yesterday, we were looking at version 10 and this new version incorporates decisions you made yesterday and also some additional changes. The copy that the committee members have, the paper copy has highlights on it. The copy on the website is exactly the same, but it doesn't have those highlights. I'll try to always indicate what line we're on. So everyone can follow along. As to section one, you'll see on lines 15, 16 and 17, there's new language added. There was also language in the last draft about low to moderate income, which was taken out. So now those lines are reading services for residential customers, including those at the income level that's the same language as before. 10 projects that may result in larger greenhouse gas reductions. That new language about greenhouse gas reductions was added in response to some of the comments that were made yesterday about figures back from the bottom. Going down to two, lines 21, 22 and 23. There was language added. Any funds that are allocated to efficiency remod and VAT, comma, and this is a new language, as a result of operational efficiencies are not spent on or committed to another project in 2019 or 2020. So there was some discussion about parameters or guidelines. These, this language is added to make clear to people where that money comes from, and that is not money that would have otherwise been spent on another project. And any questions about those changes? Going on to... I think I have one later about taking money that haven't been spent from treating the ones from commercial industrial money that has been taken. Thank you. On page two at the top, B states in the once again we're still in section one, funds used pursuant to subsection A of this section where we just talked about shall not be used to supplant existing programs and services and shall only be used to supplement existing programs and services. C, efficiency remod, shall report to the PUC on one, how funds were spent pursuant to subsection A, and two, the costs and benefits of the programs and services delivered. So once again B makes clear you're not taking money from the program and it's only to use to supplement an existing program or service and C is the reporting back to PUC.  Any questions about that text? Straight C is not making any changes to funds. All seeing the sense that they can access and use the carried forward or the unspent funds, you're correct, they still can do that. But it does get a reporting requirement that's new and does perhaps give some guidelines. Okay. Going on to page three. Now we're in section two, which is the Public Utility Commission proceeding. On page three, you'll see that in line one and two. There's a reference to furthering the objectives in 30 BSA 209 D3B. This used to be on line six or seven. The reference was there, it simply was moved up. That was a reflection of suggestion made by stakeholder yesterday. So to no change in substance, it's just moving that cross-preference. Going on to page four. We're now on lines 12, 13 and 14. This is the funding area that the PUC will have to report back on how to pay for. This recommendations as to one and two, 13, equitable was added, I'm sorry, line 14, equitable was added in. So it reads the commission shall consider and recommend how best to provide consistent adequate and equitable funding for, et cetera. Proceeding on to page five, B, on lines 10, 11, and 12. This is new language. And once again, we're still in the section about funding. These states in reaching its recommendations pursuant to subdivision A of this subdivision three, in other words how to pay for any recommendations it makes pursuant to one and two. The commission shall consider how any recommendation may affect the financial and economic well-being of remarks. Now going down to lines 15 and 16 we're in the process language. And you'll see on line 15, the language was added, the commission may use contested case procedures if the team's appropriate. Those are all the changes from the draft you saw yesterday. Are there any questions about that? Mr. Chair. We're making some changes here as to not do business as usual. We're gonna do less of one thing and more of something else. And I can see where the language is clear, what we're gonna do less of and what we're gonna warm up. And then we're going to take redirect money that used to be limited exclusively to electric efficiency work that was distributed by fees, homeowners, dwellings, and spending to do work which was previously not permitted under law to do weatherization, thermal work in those homes. So we're reading this jump right out I don't know if that's what we're doing but I don't see that, but it just seems to be. Let's look. I think it's in the council can help that I hear. We'll come to the cross-reference. So for instance, the cross-reference. Okay, so on line 13 of day one it says that so that what they can do that's cited on line 13 is the process rules of efficiency work that will include weatherization. These process rules of electrical efficiency that's the category under which they carry out the life of weatherization work. So we're saying that they can use funds to carry out the programs decided by the USA joint one. And then for what funds you try to develop and this code age, these are funds that actually follow the order of efficiency program versus the amount of water in your application. That's the point you're back to the weatherable efficiency charge program. So that's, it's, models, the ones to use those funds to do the programming that they currently deliver to their region and for capacity market dollars. So basically the services they go to use for capacity of 30 dollars are with what are pointed out by 1.13. So we're saying they can use funds to do this and what funds, the funds that can now be used in that way come out of their electrical efficiency charge and that's the best pointer than one. Just because a point of line 20 is carried forward. But what you're saying is correct, which so the first cross-preference, Senator McDonald, is there existing ability to do thermal efficiency programs? That's why they are saying you can do that, but it does not listen any more specificity. You are correct. I have a one-line complaint about contracts that have a lot of small print and they'll come out and say, well, it's happening, it's not happening. I'm seeing reason why people can't have some of the greatest and know what we're proposing and have to say we're proposing to do the following and then you will only find it by going to the law books and doing the cross-references. If we're making a policy change, why don't we say that? Can I ask, is that normal? I mean, is this the sort of normal part of a field of gravity? Maybe I'm missing something. I understand what you're saying. You want it clear, but I don't know any, none of my constituents are going to say, I'm going to go take a look at the bill they're going to read about it. You know, sort of a summarized version of the press or somewhere else. That's the part that I'm just trying to understand. I also believe we intend for money is used for as well as we now have the next period of months perhaps the rest of this year that some of those might use to create more people to engage in activities or being authorized. It doesn't say that or it doesn't clearly say that. But maybe the cross-references can be interpreted by some board to do what we haven't said explicitly. Like a distance of surprise, so usually a little bit more. Well, let's move right forward. The law is carefully crafted, implemented, the PUC, we use it, they have to bring a plan forward and an introduction plan, get approval, deliver performance measures. So we're trying to be precise by wiring this shift of policy into the programs that they already have. What are the reasons I consider them? I mean, I agree it's not that readable to go through. I mean, a more user-friendly part of it is to say, in my 14, we're basically a letterization services for residential customers. And then we specify income levels. And then we add, what you were talking about yesterday, projects that may result in larger greenhouse gas reductions. So it's not just about a kilowatt hours that we're talking about, are we just seeing emissions? Priority is showed up, that's what I can say. Too cute. No, I've never, okay, too cute. Okay, too cute. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. First, so why do we choose a route which you have to examine around microscope and asphalt to explain that for us references when we're saying we're taking money from here and we're gonna spend it there. And we think spending it there provides more benefits. And then you say, and then we talk to people, what we're doing. The only, yeah, I know, I was just, yeah. This might be for another time. I'm not, yeah, that's what I'm talking about today. I mean, the only thing I can say to dislike that is maybe the finding or a purpose where there's a merit. Right, but I think we can discuss it. I know you have a lot of rights coming. So I appreciate that. And maybe we'll find a way to communicate more clearly about the policy changes, I'll tell you. In terms of the tools, we're wiring it in very carefully. We're, it all really is effectuated. So, does anyone in the committee have any concerns about that dispute or that dispute? Okay. Any questions for council? Thank you very much. So let me pause before we go on. I know that Mr. Springer's here to talk to us about this draft. Is there anyone else in the room that has a concern about any of the attitudes made from yesterday to today? Okay, that's, so what can I do like to just bring back to what you just said? I have a question. I missed your hand. That's okay. So for the director at Abbey Way, efficiency Vermont, this is a department of public service and efficiency Vermont have a question about a section one, subsection A one and two. Wondering, and please TJ jump in here, but with section one without the dates, does it imply that the carryover could be used in this way in perpetuity? And is it implied there that both one and two are needed together? Well, they're handed, right? So that's just some, we wanted some clarity on that. That's required that they would be taken together and that there wouldn't be a scenario where the funds would be used in that way. Right, so if one, you know, my counsel, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, one says that you can use balances and then two says, but for calendar years 19 and 21. And the explicit timing was to be complimentary to the receipt so that while we're doing this interim program, it is strictly interim and then the proceeding will conclude and there's gonna be a ongoing change that we use the recommendations out of the proceeding and that the legislature will sit down and rewrite in order to make it a permanent change. Search and test for next year. We'll get an interview. So how long begins in 2000? That's okay. So are you all set with that? Yes, I think we're good. Let's go for it. And then I have one additional comment by the way. So under again, section one, section A, last line 1617, the reference to greenhouse gas production. You're on section, so you're section one. Sorry, section, yes, section one, section A, line 1617. Thank you, yep. Just wanted to point out that for a practical purpose, this may be difficult to operationalize because we don't evaluate homes and we don't prioritize projects and homes based on GHG production. And our intent would be more to get the dollars out, drive volume of homes throughout the market going from 80 to 140 and then also using TDP across the country now to serve the full market. So that would be the priority. But you do prioritize in some ways, you mentioned yesterday when you get to a home right around, in fact, this is Senator McDonald's comment about how do you get the most, how do you prioritize so you invest in a particular area in a home so that you reduce the amount of greenhouse gases? It sounds like you do that already in a way, right? Right, for every home, we're looking at the maximum impact that we can have. And on reducing greenhouse gases or on? Right, I mean we're looking at a reduction and technically we're looking at reduction in air flow. So this is what I talked about yesterday. There's a, we're looking primarily for cost effectiveness and sometimes many cases, cost effectiveness is a good correlation to greenhouse gas reduction, but in certain cases it's not based on the fuel source that's in the home.  Well I don't think it does with the May, but I just wanted to be clear around the way in which we would intend to operationalize the funds to expand the money, which I think is the primary. So as long as the May is there, you're comfortable with that language? Okay. But I wanted to just clarify that for the committee. Thank you. Okay. Obviously the whole chat makes sure that we're all, I think the words mean the same thing. Okay? Great. So there are other comments from the movement in large that I guess they're by Mr. Springer, good to see you again. Thank you for having me. Thank you very much. Darren Springer, general manager of Burlington Electric Department. Joined by my colleague, Chris Burns, who is the director of energy services and helps to run the team that does our energy efficiency utility work in Burlington. Prepared some very brief slides if I have a couple minutes just to walk through or we got a briefer, I'm happy to be more concise. I think the committee is familiar with Burlington Electric. First slide just has some background information. We are an appointed energy efficiency utility for the city of Burlington. So we are in the EU along with efficiency Vermont and Vermont gas. And roughly 95% of our service territory is also served by Vermont gas. So most folks in Burlington have access to thermal weatherization services and efficiency incentives through either through us or through Vermont gas depending on which measure. And we work very, very closely with them for the very few oil and propane customers in Burlington we serve as the EU for those customers. And I would note we've had no rate case since 2009. We're trying to go another year, hopefully. So hopefully when we're back next year we can say it's been 11 years without a rate case. Currently it's 10, we're trying to keep that going. So no cold lightning? No, no prudent management is the effort. The first slide just talks a little about our energy efficiency utility efforts. We've really been working on efficiency since 1980s and we really try to track our data back to 1989 because in 1990 we had an 11.3 million dollar revenue bond to invest in energy efficiency. So we always track back to 1989. And even with the growing community population growth of I believe over 12% and a commercial square footage growth that's a good bit more than that, we actually are using 6.1% less electricity today than we did in 1989. And that figure was fact checked by Vermont digger and found true, or mostly true. So take that to the bank. So and you know in thinking about the comparison just to give some context, statewide electric consumption is up 8.4% during that same period of time. Nationally electric consumption is up around 29% during that same period of time. I went back and looked at some data yesterday. I believe if my math is correct that if the United States had followed the Burlington trajectory and was 6.1% lower than the US was in 1989, you could essentially eliminate all megawatt hours currently produced by coal for electricity in the United States. I think we get about 27% of our electricity from coal and that gives some fair context into the accomplishment of decoupling the electric use from the economic growth that's happening in Burlington. In addition to those numbers, between us and our customers, we've invested over 70 million during that period of time and we are now saving for our customers on electric bills 12 million annually. And that's a factor of avoided wholesale energy costs, avoided capacity costs, avoided transmission costs and other savings. So a really good return on the investment for our customers in terms of energy efficiency. In addition to running the energy efficiency programs, and we are also recognized as one of the utilities in the state with a 100% renewable portfolio of generation, we are working very hard on reducing fossil fuel use in the heating and transportation sectors as part of a net zero goal that the city has a 2030 vision to move away from fossil fuel in the heating and transportation sectors. The renewable energy standard legislation that I know this committee worked on in others in 2015 has given us some strong tools to make progress in that area through tier three. I laid out on slide page four some of the programs that we're currently offering in the tier three space. We have electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid incentives. We have an electric vehicle charging station incentive that goes along with our EV incentive. So you can get $1,200 if you buy an EV or lease an EV. If you're low moderate income, you can get $1,800. And then in either case, you can get an additional 400 towards a charging station. And then once you have the charging station, you can sign up for our off-peak rate and charge between 10 at night and noon the next day for the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon of gas. So it's a really good deal for EV drivers. And one of the ways that we're working on demand management with new EV drivers is to try to incentivize off-peak usage so that we don't end up having to build more infrastructure for the grid. We also are working all throughout the transportation sector. We have two electric buses that we've helped to incentivize that'll be coming to the Green Mountain Transit Fleet this summer. We have an electric bike rebate program with a number of local retail bike shops in Burlington. And we also offer cold climate heat pumping centers for our oil and propane customers and are working on efforts to expand that to also cover our natural gas customers as well. I have a quick question on the EV rates. Absolutely. So do you know when your up-to-date rate is compared to the state-in-line average? On EV rebates? Yeah, and how many of you are in the energy program? Well, slide five has at least our numbers. I don't have a comparison for the rest of the state, but we've done 77 rebates since we launched the program on May of 2017. Three of those have been low and moderate income rebates. Obviously, we'd like to do more. And we continue to offer the program with the hopes that the growth will continue to be strong. I think the most significant moment we saw was when Nissan was doing a really good deal on the outgoing Nissan LEAF back in 2017. I think we and Green Mountain Power and other utilities are participating in that. The uptake was very strong. You could get $10,000 off the LEAF, plus a $7,500 tax credit, plus the utility incentive. So you could get a brand new EV at that time for around $13,000, which is a very good deal. A lot of people took advantage of that. So 77 rebates. We also, we have 14 public charging stations with 26 charging ports in the city that we operate, and we're going to be expanding that in the coming year. We're gonna be adding several new ports, new charging locations. I provided here just a one month snapshot, March of 2019, 875 sessions, 7.2 megawatt hours of consumption. We find that in a number of cases, particularly near the downtown, a number of the drivers are from outside of Burlington or even outside the state of Vermont who are coming through to stop, charge, and continue on to a destination here. And then just going to page six, really what we're here for today with S171, we're really focusing our comments on section two on the PUC proceeding with a request for the committee to consider language here that would accept us from the consideration of the appointment of new entities to manage an all fuels utility. With the reason being, as I mentioned, we're in a unique spot in the state where we're both the distribution utility and the efficiency utility. We're the only utility in that situation. We also are unique in that Vermont gas, which is also in the EU covers almost universally our entire service territory. And we don't see that there would be a need for an appointment of an additional entity to cover all fuels programs because we believe they're currently covered in the city of Burlington comprehensively either through us or through Vermont gas. And obviously running the efficiency program is a critical benefit for us. Chris and his team of, it's a lean team of six professionals, engineers and specialists, HVAC specialists and others work with our commercial and residential customers. We are doing all kinds of interesting outreach with multifamily units, rentals, new American communities trying to help get more access to our programs and our incentive and our expertise. And the proceeding, as I understand it, because it's a PUC proceeding that might consider the appointment of new entities would potentially have us focused for the next year or two on trying to defend our appointment essentially as opposed to continuing to make progress on our programs. So we would respectfully request the consideration of the language on page six for that reason. Well, and, you know, in discussions with Mr. Springer this afternoon, when I said, I asked him to come in and make a presentation on this. I'll lay out the position, you know, as I saw it, that we were opening a proceeding that was quite wide open as in, we were talking about changing roles for distribution utilities. We're talking about changing roles about the energy efficiency utilities. We've been talking about non-utilities and bringing to the mix S purposes. Exactly. So, and my, you know, so as much as I admire what you need to be doing and if you're doing great things, I just said since we're trying to create a level clean field where we're going to evaluate everything on the basis of what's best for the long term, I was comfortable with myself saying that I could see carving out any particular factor. You could or could not. No, okay, you know, that. So, I don't say that.  Sounds confrontational. They know how I could say we're doing something different in the case of this one. So, that's the background for the meeting.  I'm interested in many discussions about your interest in creating basically a carve out. And if I could further clarify, we are happy to participate in the proceeding. We would offer whatever value we could in the proceeding if that's desirable. Maybe that the model we have is something folks want to look at. Others may want to look at it. The reason for the request is, you know, quite simply unless there was going to be an effort to have our efficiency programs taken over by efficiency Vermont, there is no other entity that could credibly make a pitch to run the programs, I don't believe, in the city of Burlington. Between us and Vermont Gas, we already run them. We have good history on them. There's a lot of infrastructure around that. So, unless there was a move for that, which I don't believe is the case, there doesn't seem to be a need to consider appointment of a new entity in Burlington, given that we already have coverage. I understand a little bit about, so if this language, we don't include this language, what's sort of the worst case scenario that might put you guys, or what might happen that you'd be concerned about? I think, given the language in section two, the PUC could consider and, you know, potentially recommend to the legislature to remove our appointment as an efficiency utility and replace us with a efficiency Vermont or potentially somebody else, but that's hard for me to see who else would have the infrastructure to run that type of program. And we really do see a unique benefit in continuing to serve the community. We were doing this before efficiency Vermont was created. That's why we have the exemption that we have. And there have been other places in law, including, I think, in the renewable energy standard, where our unique role as a distribution utility and an efficiency utility was recognized and granted some exemption from other processes like this. Do you want me to chime it down? Do you have anything? No, thanks. Thanks, Leifert. Leifert, since we have a fine idea, they just do not participate in it. These things are pretty boring up there. They'd like to work with us. This is our proposal of what we're going to do. 1-1-21 there. I don't want to ask to see what will take place beyond 1-1-1. Well, I think we're very happy to work with the committee. My understanding, and please correct me if I don't have it correct, my understanding was that the proceeding was to look at the coordination between efficiency Vermont and distribution utilities, how Tier 3 is working, how different programs on energy storage, the man-management are working, how the electric efficiency program is working, where there are gaps. And those considerations are quite different in Burlington given the setup that we have. These would be the rest of the thing to say. Do you see what we have in front of for the 1-1-21? Well, and you'd be delighted to participate in that discussion. We would be very happy to participate in the discussion. Senator, I'm wondering if the QC has anything to say about this or a position as to whether or not it makes any difference to any of you if we were to pull them out. I mean, honestly, in some ways it may have made sense to... I don't think we have any problem. I haven't discussed it, but they didn't want me to have the setup. You'd rather use your formal position on it rather than get back to me. That would be helpful. Inefficiency Vermont? Are you looking in your mind? No. I think the department's position on the study throughout is to not presuppose any answers to the questions you're trying to ask. And so, keeping it broad, we don't know what the answers are going to be, as Mr. Springer pointed out. It's had a long history of delivering a bit of programs and it has really pushed forward on the tier 3 as well. But, you know, we don't know what this proceeding is going to say long term. And so, I think the department made that we don't want to presuppose any answers and providing an exemption probably we would do that. If that language was in here, we probably wouldn't put a big objection to it. You know, but in further regard, sorry, TJ Watson, the department of public service. So, is it the chair, or may I ask, is it partly your intention of keeping it in, Herbert, not putting this in that, indeed, the PUC could come back and recommend that Burlington Electric not have the world it currently has as energy efficiency. I'm just trying to get a sense, is that I'm not presupposing prejudging any outcome, but we're really saying we're asking the PUC to help guide the next decade or two on providing energy efficiency services across thermal, well, we're talking mostly about thermal, but then across the variety of fields we use and we're not presupposing anything. And so that was, you know, as much as I appreciate the work that you've been doing, drawing the line that there's, you're not actually, you could mean we're not allowing the PUC to consider how they might participate in some sort of recommendation back to the legislature. What's coming back is a recommendation that we as policymakers would have to change the law and the status that the PED currently has is already established, but it wouldn't change during any kind of procedure. At the legislative issue. Did you testify that they wish to remain unstudied? No, and that will allow you to be careful, and that's what Mr. Spring said right here. The question was whether the recommendations could include a recommendation that would impact their situation. Are all recommendations around the table? Senator, I would tend to agree with the chair. I think you guys have done a good job. I don't think you're in any danger of losing that. I don't think the PUC is going to make a drastic change and say now you're going to let somebody else do that, or that's the recommendation. But I guess I would be concerned with naming one utility and carving it out. I think it's been fair in the stuff that we've asked them to do for us, and so I'm sure they're a little worried about it, but quite frankly, I think it will be a fair process and they'll continue to work as they have. I would not want to comment on that. I think honestly we've made a lot of points. Who are we trying to open any of the discussions? If I can respectfully with the committee appreciating the conversation, I do think it sends a signal when the legislature asks the PUC to reconsider the appointment of the efficiency utilities or new entities. I appreciate that they will run a fair process. We will participate in that process regardless, but certainly if this language is not included, we'll participate vigorously and defend our record against any potential change. That will require a fair amount of effort, but I do think it sends a signal when the legislature puts language forward saying we're dissatisfied with the status quo and we want you to consider change. Our concern is that that can be interpreted down the road a year or two from now, potentially with different actors, in different places, differently. If there's a way to have a signal in here that there's not an intent to change the energy efficiency utility in Burlington, we would welcome that signal given the work that we've done. I would think that we are asking to look at all alternatives and perhaps there are entities out there that want to get into the game whether they want to compete with you or work for other utilities or what they want to do, but I think we as a legislature need to have all the options on the table and see who can provide the most best services and as I said, I think you guys have a good track record, you've got your foot in the door I think it's hard for anybody to compete in your area, but there may be other people out there that we don't know can provide these sort of services that I think we need to look at, no matter where from. Are you the only ones that did predate efficiency reform? Well, I believe other utilities were running efficiency programs at that time and I think, well, Senator McDonnell may quibble with my characterization of efficiency programs, but we were the only ones whose program I believe was credible enough to maintain our status, if I could say it that way. And we're public power utility and we have, I think, demonstrated that we have, even to our own revenue detriment, a commitment to efficiency that is strong and continuing. Well, as you know, so important, fiduciary responsibility when there's a legislator, we're a part of what's driving the whole sense of we, because we're through law, directly, we pay our dollars to future programs that we're going to go all the way payers and say, we're looking out for the low cost alternative and that could involve changes to the system overall. I think that we're asking people about computer merits and I think a person like you would have a very strong base in computer merits. But one thing I think I'm sorry to say that our signal, you can see the signal signifies dissatisfaction. I think it's not a signal around dissatisfaction. The signal, from my point of view around the electric control system has changed so dramatically in 20 years, but is it a good time to pause and say if we're looking ahead for next year, what kind of regulatory lens do you want to have that would allow us to do more work, more cost-effectively for more people. That's the thrust that's really positive and forward-looking not in any way specifically about past performance. No, I appreciate that and I think the concern again is we have different models obviously with the efficiency utilities and with Tier 3 consciously created differently. The utility model except for Burlington and Vermont Gas is a statewide program. There was thinking I think during the time when Tier 3 was developed that you could simply expand that statewide program to cover these new purposes and have an all-fuels utility in some sort and it would require more money but it would cover more things and the beauty to me of Tier 3 the way that it's played out is different utilities are trying different things. We are doing different things in Burlington for our customer base we don't have an electric clock. We don't have seasonal maple syrup producers who we can help get off of diesel but that's a great program that they're running in the Green Mountains running. We have buses that we can electrify which may not be as prevalent in other parts of the state so I think our concern would be we really do see a value in continuing to serve our customers as an efficiency utility and we would not want to be and I don't think there's any desire in Burlington to be part of the statewide efficiency and deliver good value and good service and I still don't have a clear signal as to whether that's in any way the not from the committee necessarily but whether there's going to be a move for that or not. Sure. I think that's part of why the language is also as new or existing we're going to align around any current set of actors and say we're not inviting anyone else into that workspace and pick anyone who's in the current environment. Right. Senator Perron, do you have any thoughts for any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. So I think you have Mr. Burns with you. I don't know if you wanted to walk around comments or if you have any extra information you need. Exactly. All right. So let's take a break and John's here. Ryan told me we had adjourned. It's part of my strategy. We adjourned for the session. Go home. Go quiet. During the break Mr. Mountain approached me about talking about working the working thing. Am I saying you're listening properly? Yes. I didn't know. I'm sorry. I stick with those things. So we're going to spend quite a bit of time joining us at the table to get a proposal to run past us. Good morning. Thanks for coming back in. Good morning, Senator. Good morning. For the record, I heard Manca testifying on behalf of the Lamont and the Lamont Community Action Partnership. So thanks for the time. I won't take a lot of your time on the agenda but we had sent having reviewed yesterday's version of S171. We had some good concerns about section two paragraph three on funding and the concern goes to we have an existing dedicated funding source for low-income weatherization assistance program and our concern was that this funding source could end up in the mix of reconsideration by the PUC under this language. So we had sent some suggested language that would essentially carve out the existing funding for low-income weatherization run by the Community Action Partnership and their weatherization assistance programs in paragraph three, a small I and small two I shared that with Senator Bray and appreciate a moment of your time to speak to that. I guess I would start off by reminding folks that we've heard a lot of testimony about low-income weatherization for one of the major features I think of that testimony is to remind you all that it is both an energy efficiency program as well as a human services program and that it has been around for many, many years. It's been multiple vetted through studies. It's been vetted every few years when the funding sources come in for reauthorization by this body three years ago. There was a restructuring of that dedicated funding through the fuel taxes that are currently in statute and actually up for reauthorization as of July 1 and are being considered for reauthorization next door in finance in the revenue bill. So we would ask you to put language into those sections to make it clear that when the PUC does look at all existing and or new funding sources to possibly realign that that existing funding source be taken off the table for consideration. We have no objection to looking at ways to accelerate low-income and moderate-income weatherization. In fact, we strongly support it both but in terms of the existing funding source and what it raises currently through the two cent fuel tax on number two heating fuel and natural gas as well as electricity that be carved out. Program's been around, like I said, 30 years. It's been vetted multiple and to have the PUC basically take a look at a program that has this dual purpose of both energy efficiency and human services and look at it purely from an energy efficiency standpoint really I think would be it would be do it this service to the program and everything else that it does in addition to the energy efficiency that it provides for low-income verminers. The language we're modifying here and the proceeding we're asking for is that it's 30 and low-income verminization program is 33 so I'm not sure that the PUC would start reimagining how the statue outside the purview would be altered. No, I expected that the PUC would start but I agree it would be completely out of there. I'm just looking at the language in section in paragraph three on the funding where it's pretty global if you just read that then it's look at all existing potential future funding sources so that's where our concerns come in from. Understandable we're highly supportive of the program that's where we started on. Understood. And that's where we're going to end up closing so we've ended up so we've turned off on some moderate income organization programs and how efficiency will be able to use savings they've achieved through changing their program to do more work in space but also additional money bringing to the both certainly testified to that and floating all boats we would welcome that we're not sure exactly how that's going to happen yet but we'll stay tuned and we'll clearly welcome that. I guess with those assurances I guess we should get comfortable with that I would still say for someone that just reads section paragraph 3 on funding and looks at existing and new funding sources to better support existing efficiency conservation programs and services I think a plain reading of just that would lead someone to believe that everything's on the table. Part of the reason the language is so broad is because we realize that if we can't look at that if the board couldn't look at unregulated fuels then we would be constraining the discussion across the street in an important way. And we're not suggesting that unregulated fuels shouldn't be looked at for an increase and for both and for that increase to go as we testified multiply to go to both low income and moderate income weatherization so we're fully in agreement with the committee's intent on that. Any questions? Thank you very much. Sir, for the community discussion I think though it was a prohibition or a carve-out that we should go on for a long time. That's a good question. I'm looking at the vehicle for this is it going on its own or can you talk for a moment about that? Thank you. So how can the board discuss the next 17-minute pathway to that up this morning? So my sense is in terms of having a bill to move I'd like to see us just tidy up our amendments and hand it off to a committee which is I think it needs to come from here. So I'd like to for us to finish up once at one and then to go strike on 63 so we can still do the a cheat three minutes modification. So this would go on 63? And we lay it on 63. It also says new fuel packs so we're not that was because once everyone was introduced we included the two sets on new fuels. We're going to provide some moose and beer language in that bill too. Keep it exciting. Moose and beer language. We need to find both for that to ride though. We've got the to the signs. Signs, firms, that could become like a miscellaneous. So we would do that and then we would go it out because it's a for sure it goes down to all the finance. When it's in finance that's where I think the conversation about if you're financing a process with a conversation about finding additional revenues to bring to growing and more a little bit resolved. I'm not sure if finance might then say the best way of what we see is to take 863 is loaded out of the natural and put it into something else that 63 would be a career container for us to pass on to our colleagues. That's what I would recommend. In terms of our earlier conversation Ms. White brought up around how we read back on page 1 like 18 through 23 about money being generated and money being spent Council have a suggestion that we could specify the calendar years in the sectionary in the feelings of Eddie that says we're trying to make it to what not only for raising money but also for spending money to build suspenders and things that it does. Given some reallocation of the direction of expenditures of our grant even though it has to be a little different as we're doing. So if you could include that that would be more explicit yet. Thank you. And another question that came up earlier was around the relationship between the different providers. So I don't know if you both have a low implementation space who wish they could do more moderate work or I don't know if they should see their marks posted that as a result of these proceedings you'll deliver services in every city throughout the state. Coming back to the BD discussion is that sort of on the table from your point of view I'm not people are asking me so I'd like to just hand it to you part of our discussion prior to that. Sure. Abbey white efficient leader on is it our desire to serve every city in the state to know I think that or at least voices that you can say pretty much. Now she knows what we feel right. Is it really aren't I'm just so much fun more coffee please. No the work that Burlington Electric does is as they're testified is really nation leading. So it's always been our hope through the proceeding that we can find ways to improve the collaboration with existing entities. I've testified to that I think that we have as well should the proceeding determine that efficiency Vermont is not the proper entity. So but it's definitely not our intent to supplant any of the good work that's happening whether it's through Burlington Electric or any of the other utilities but to figure out how that can be bolstered and improved all of our work together. So anyone else who has a question about the version as it currently exists. Mr. Coyote. Matt Coyote of the Vermont Village Association disappointed about it yesterday. I'm not a lawyer but I'm trying to play one. I'm just trying to make sure that I know what hats to wear. We're going to be proceeding from the best all-fields and businesses to come along. When you look at public utility commission proceeding with unregulated fuels and fossil fuels as defined by 30 BSA 2093 and those three things. Regulated fuels, unregulated fuels and fossil fuels are on 2093 D, E and F F will be thermal fuels in your profession. Regulated fuels of course will be the regulated fuels and D fossil fuels which would encompass gasoline, diesel fuel, died diesel fuel. So it is just thermal but also if you use the word fossil fuels as defined by 30 BSA it could include diesel fuel and gasoline. I'm just trying to find out so I can know what the other represents. So we're not in 10? If you say we're that transportation right. I guess there's two thoughts coming to mind. Let's figure this out. One is we're not asking way in on older fuels or transportation fuels but there's not quite as bright of a line as I might think. What they're also looking at is low management over time in an environment where we're increasingly electrifying. We went on and say they can't think about electric vehicles because we're now trading on the new fossil fuel for transportation portion. So I don't know if those are the two things that I'm feeling are just co-organizing in a slightly different way. So I appreciate your question and I'm kind of sure that we're clear when we get to council I don't know if you are in position based on do you want me to try to answer this question? So as he indicated, this is something we just discussed previously. It states that the commission shall consider whether to recommend that one more entity should be appointed to provide for the coordinated development, implementation, monitoring, efficiency, conservation related programs and services as to does not limit by appeal. Then it has the indicated fuels, unregulated fuels and fossil fuels and it has cross-reference to that definition. When we went through a prior version as I mentioned that those definitions are also over each other. So would this include gasoline? Yes. Would this include all other fuels? Yes. Yes. It's all fuels. Depending what their recommendations are it could be quite good. Okay. Well given that the charge is coordinated development, implementation, monitoring, efficiency, conservation, implementation programs, it seems that we're steering enough from up to as far as the specificity. Anyone else? So thank you for raising it. Four more. With that then I would look or one with the command 171 as proposed and we're getting one more headed to it. And that was the additional section. Section one. Correct. So if we call that draft version 12 so then that would be version 12 so that would be the portion. And then that's when something went using version 12. Sorry I wasn't even just taking it out. Okay. So we'll be doing two years of strike law. Strike law. And well I think we'll also one section one is preserved that we have language on building energy based on where we're going the FPG sticker for building building energy labeling was already in there. We would be removing the fuels follows? Let's do the ending first. Then we'll start building. Let's start with the strike law which is through it as an addition. And then we'll have the whole thing assembled and then we'll pull the pieces out together looking. So do you want the motion to be withdrawn for now or are we No. We'll be amending to append this work. So get the further of it. Are you including the other strike law you were talking about before? Yes. Yes. Yes. We'll have a slightly overly big build so that everything that we've looked at will be in one place and we'll show things out. Mr. Chair, may I just make any sense just to a lot of things are happening just to get one more draft or I just think from hearing from others that maybe it might be confusing. So we we don't mind. As long as we have something maybe in front of us. Okay.


Air pollution is not just polluting our landscapes, it is costing us real money. Various studies around the world have found that air pollution is costing us trillions of dollars every year. It creates economic burden primarily through its impact on productivity and people's health. OISEM helps you relieve that economic burden with smart environmental monitoring and analytics. Air quality monitors such as OISEM's Palludrone helps businesses, governments, and communities in understanding their unique air pollution problem. Such a data-driven approach provides the opportunity to reduce the economic burden of air pollution. Investment in air pollution mitigation pays back with improved productivity at workplaces and also reduces medical bills and hospitalizations of employees. At a national scale, pollution reduction translates to better living conditions and improved life expectancy. As a result, they proactively participate in strengthening the national economy. OISEM routinely partners with various smart cities' projects around the world in developing sustainable and healthy cities. Investment in understanding air pollution is also investment in the future. It will help us in building a sustainable, healthy and productive economy which is not just profit-making but also resilient to future challenges. To know more about the economic burden of air pollution, click on the link in the description below.