►
From YouTube: Burlington Electric Commission - February 8, 2023
Description
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/02.08.23-AGE-signed.pdf
00:00:00 Call to Order/Agenda
00:00:36 Minutes of the January 11, 2023 Meeting
00:01:42 Public Forum
00:02:12 Commissioners’ Corner
00:02:35 GM Update
00:20:22 Financials: FY22 December
00:41:53 IRP Forecast Update
01:06:49 Commissioners’ Check-In
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
Start
the
meeting
this
is
the
monthly
meeting
of
the
Board
of
Commissioners
of
the
board
of
election
Commissioners
in
Burlington.
We
we
hold
this
meeting
the
second
Wednesday
of
the
month
at
5
30
here
at
585,
Pine
Street,
as
always
Burlington
residents
rate
payers,
are
welcome
to
come
down.
Join
us
join
the
conversation.
We
welcome
your
comments,
questions
concerns.
So,
let's
start
us
off
here.
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
tonight
is
the
agenda:
are
there
any
changes
revisions
or
to
it?
A
A
C
A
A
A
Yeah,
it's
not
saying
none
already,
I'll
reiterate
that
we're
here.
Second
Wednesday
of
the
month,
585
five.
As
always,
it's
an
open
meeting,
you're
welcome
to
come
down
any
questions,
concerns
to
the
department
or
the
board.
We
invite
you
and
welcome.
Welcome
you
all
here
all
right
on
to
item
number
four
commissioner's
corner
the
Commissioners
have
anything
that
they
would
like
to
discuss.
A
F
F
F
That's
a
fairly
concerning
policy
proposal.
We
had
a
fairly
strong
statement
with
a
lot
of
good
information
and
data
in
Edmond,
McNeil,
sustainability,
error,
emissions
controls,
jobs
and
economic
impact
and
carbon
profile,
so
we're
engaging
heavily
in
that
discussion
in
Montpelier
there's.
Also.
The
city
council
has
a
transportation
energy
utilities
committee
that
is
planning
in
April
to
have
some
sort
of
meeting
focusing
on
McNeil
and
looking
at
it.
F
The
irony
of
all
this
is
we've
submitted
now
the
ACT
250
documents
for
energy
through
Burlington
District
yard,
non-profit
partner,
run
by
Evergreen.
So
at
this
moment,
where
we
have
this
long-held
community
goal
of
trying
to
make
District
energy
happen,
it
feels
like
there's
a
particular
amount
of
discussion.
Around
McNiel
's
operations
in
general
I
would
say
that
this
proposal
by
Renewable
Energy
Vermont,
hopefully
won't
pass
as
written,
but
there
seems
to
be
some
interest,
particularly
in
the
house.
This
year
is
doing
something
on
renewable
energy
and
we're
going
to
be
engaged.
F
F
Our
local
city,
councilor
is
going
to
be
interested
in
this,
so
I
think
hearing
not
only
from
us
and
not
only
from
the
IBEW
but
hearing
from
the
commission
about
the
importance
of
McNeil
and
the
importance
of
giving
early
adopters
like
bed
credit
for
the
work
that
we've
done
and
not
forcing
us
to
abandon
existing
cost-effective
resources
for
more
costly
new
resources
will
be
an
important
message
to
share
and
I'd
be
glad.
You
know
to
work
with
the
commission
or
individual
Commissioners
on
avenues
for
for
sharing
that
message.
F
A
F
C
Okay,
I
just
saw
the
links
to
the
news
coverage.
Is
there
a
deeper
dive
that
talks
I
mean
I'm,
sure
we
can
find
it
in
the?
Is
there
an
easy
link
to
understand
the
deeper
dive
of
like
the
is
it
a?
Is
it
directly
related,
or
is
it
a
collateral
damage
of
the
greater?
You
know,
policy
change
like
what
can
we
understand
a
little
bit
deeper
like
what
were
the?
How
does
it?
How
did
it
manifest
of
being
this,
be
the
dramatic
shift
yeah.
F
F
This
is
to
me
a
little
bit
of
gimmickry,
but
they
would
propose
to
change
the
date
of
what
counts
as
new
Renewables
in
Vermont
law,
from
2015
back
to
2010,
which
may
Advantage
some
utilities
over
others.
Depending
on
what
investments
you
made
between
20,
20
and
2015
doesn't
help
us
with
resources
like
McNeil
or
when
you
keep
one
that
are
older,
existing
Renewables
and
then
either
way,
because
we
currently
are
able
to
participate
in
the
New
England
markets
with
a
number
of
resources.
F
F
C
F
F
Solar
developers
want
more
opportunities
to
build
solar
in
the
state
of
Vermont,
and
they
feel
that
the
existing
markets
are
not
giving
them
as
much
runway
as
they
would
like,
because,
according
to
all
the
data
I'm
familiar
with
from
the
state
and
the
energy
Action
Network,
the
electric
sector
now
constitutes
between
one
and
two
percent
of
carbon
emissions
in
the
state.
Transportation
and
thermal
are
75
percent
roughly.
F
F
F
F
Power
purchase
agreements,
the
standard
offer
program,
40
megawatts.
We
had
roughly
20
megawatts
of
solar
in
the
entire
State
around
2012..
We
have
about
over
400
today,
and
it's
a
thousand
megawatt.
You
know
system
roughly,
so
you
could
have
potentially
on
a
day
where
solar
was
performing
at
its
at
its
peak
could
provide
a
significant
portion
of
the
energy.
But,
of
course,
solar
has
a
unique
profile.
It's
going
to
produce
more
in
the
summer
than
the
winter.
F
It's
going
to
produce,
obviously
during
the
day
and
not
in
the
evening,
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
align
perfectly
with
where
the
Region's
cost
drivers
are,
which
tend
to
be
in
the
winter
and
in
the
kind
of
evening
hours
now.
So
solar
has
a
great
role
to
play.
We're
a
huge
fan
of
solar.
We
will
support
solar
anywhere
in
the
city
that
we
can
add
it
to
our
mix
and
we've
been
the
top
City
per
capita
Northeast
for
a
number
of
years
now
relative
to
solar
according
to
environment
America.
F
F
G
F
Some
good
things
happening
as
well
and
I
was
down
in
Montpelier.
Yesterday
we
testified
in
favor
of
the
affordable
heating
act,
which
is
a
potential
kind
of
complement
to
the
res.
On
the
heating
side,
it
includes
currently
eligibility
for
renewable
District
energy
as
a
credit,
so
our
district
Energy
System
would
be
potentially
included
in
this.
F
It
includes
a
variety
of
other
measures
that
are
fairly
consistent
with
I
think
what
Burlington
is
doing
and
the
main
focus
of
the
utility
testimony,
not
just
us,
but
others
is
trying
to
make
sure
it
aligns
well
with
our
existing
incentives
and
how
the
process
will
play
out
at
the
puc
for
determining
that.
But
we
have
confidence
that
that'll
work
well,
so
we're
hopeful
to
see
that
move.
F
Think
the
committee
has
a
markup
scheduled
for
later
this
week
and
then,
after
that
happens,
I
believe
we'll
be
working
with
Efficiency
Vermont
on
the
ACT
151
extension
to.
Let
us
continue
to
use
our
efficiency
monies
for
Innovative
programs,
which
we've
talked
about
as
well
so
on
to
other
news.
Emily
will
probably
touch
on
this
more
in
the
financials,
but
I
did
want
to
Signal
the
commission
that
we
are
having
a
warmer
than
expected
winner.
F
As
you
may
recall,
when
we
did
our
budget,
it
was
really
based
on
the
idea
that
energy
prices
were
going
to
be
fairly
High
during
the
winter
period,
That's,
not
materialized
in
December
or
January.
It
materialized
momentarily
over
the
weekend
when
we
had
the
cold
snap,
but
we're
back
to
a
period
now
where
prices
are
frankly
at
levels
that
we
don't
always
even
see
in
the
shoulder
season,
and
this
is
during
the
winter.
F
So
you'll
see
some
of
the
impacts
that
unfortunately
event
financials
District
energy
I
mentioned
the
ACT
250
document
is
in
so
what
that
is
is
a
jurisdictional
opinion.
It
is
from
Jeff
hand
who's
a
lawyer
at
a
firm
era.
That's
well
known
for
their
work
on
renewable
energy
at
the
puc.
They
are
essentially
asserting.
That
is
a
municipal
project.
F
It
wouldn't
be
subject
to
full
act,
250
permit,
but
would
it
amend
existing
permits
at
ubm,
UVM,
medical
and
at
City
properties
that
may
or
may
not
be
accepted
by
the
district?
If
it's
not
accepted,
we
would
have
a
full
act
250
process.
If
it
is
accepted,
we'll
have
a
process
focused
on
amendments,
but
either
way
there
will
be
process
with
act.
250,
it's
a
momentous
step.
We've
never
gone
here
before
with
District
energy.
We've
never
been
designed
far
enough
along.
F
For
this
to
happen,
we
have
some
other
kind
of
activities
going
on
we're
working
closely
with
the
state
on
options
for
financing.
That
would
be
a
maybe
a
lower
rate
than
what
we're
seeing
in
the
markets
right
now,
because
that's
a
potential
cost
driver
for
the
project.
These
high
interest
rates
that
we're
seeing
we
are
working
with
the
federal
government
to
try
to
bring
in
the
leiki
funding
still
waiting
on
the
deepest
determination
there.
F
And
then
the
DPW
in
the
city
has
been
working
with
the
Evergreen
team
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we're
aligned
well
on
the
impacts
that
there
might
be
from
the
project
and
how
we
work
with
the
water
department,
with
DPW
on
streets
to
make
sure
that's
all
working
correctly
and
I.
Think
next
week,
I'm
going
to
be
presenting
a
UVM
medical
meeting
with
their
neighbors.
That
they
meet
with
monthly
on
different
projects,
so
that'll
be
a
nice
step
as
well.
Financial
Peace
is
still
moving,
so
there's
still
work
to
be
done
there.
F
Question:
okay:
I'll
continue
just
two
other
answers
from
me,
both
of
which
we
had
press
events
for
in
January.
One
is
what
I
understand
is
now
going
to
be
ballot
item
two
on
the
town
meeting
day.
Ballot
is
the
item
that
we've
worked
on
with
the
Department
of
Permitting
related
to
the
carbon
pollution
impact
fee
for
new
construction
and
large
existing
buildings
that
don't
go
with
renewable
technology.
We
have
nice
event
at
hula,
which
is
geothermal
here
cool.
F
We
had
some
Burlington
High
School
students
from
who
had
been
part
of
the
city
and
Lake
program
and
we're
seniors
at
BHS
who
spoke.
We
had
bperg
Renewable,
Energy,
Vermont
and
bnrc
on
the
environmental
Community
side,
supportive
of
the
initiative,
and
then
we
had
our
partners
from
the
building
electrification
Institute,
who
joined
us
remotely
to
talk
about
how
this
work
fits
with
other
work,
that's
going
on
in
other
communities,
so
big.
H
F
Coming
up
in
just
about
a
month
now
on
and
we'll
we're,
not
we
don't
advocate
for
these
items
as
a
city
Department,
we
just
provide
information,
factual
information
about
the
items,
so
we'll
continue
to
offer
information
where
it's
helpful,
but
it's
now
in
the
kind
of
the
voting
process.
So
we're
not
going
to
be
really
engaged
on
that
side
of
things
in
many
places.
F
We
are
officially
partners
and
we
have
referenced
it
earlier
in
January
as
a
press
conference.
But
now
it's
going
to
be
an
item
that
we
can
support
customers
in
terms
of
on
Bill
financing
for
economic
modernization,
qualified
customers,
so
another
good
tool
in
the
toolbox
and
we're
working
as
well
as
I
mentioned
here
on
a
heat
pump
pilot
for
designing
a
potential
future
heat
pump,
build
credit
or
rate
I
am
one
of
the
customers
who
are
going
to
participate
in
this
pilot
and
volunteered.
F
So
we're
going
to
see
if
we
can
kind
of
look
at
the
real-time
data
from
heat
pumps
and
have
bed
send
signals
to
the
heat
pumps
to
be
able
to
reduce
energy
use.
You
know
in
certain
quantities,
not
completely
obviously
during
Peak
periods
in
the
winter
and
summer
time,
and
then
we're
going
to
use
that
data
to
try
to
drive
the
design
of
a
program
to
benefit
customers
in
the
future.
B
I
Okay
so
December
a
point:
23
financials
were
maturely
worth
the
budget,
mainly
due
to
lower
than
budgeted
energy
crisis,
and
I
can
tell
you
now
that
January
is
going
to
be
materially
worse
worse
than
this
and
yeah
so
I
think
we
you
know.
We've
talked
to
the
commission
about
the
unprecedented
unprecedented
nature
of
energy
forwards
volatility.
I
E
I
I
So
for
the
month
we
had
a
net
loss
of
66,
000,
I'm
kind
of
a
budgeted
net
income
of
434,
000
or
half
a
million
off
for
the
month
of
where
we
wanted
to
be
for
the
year.
To
date,
we
are
just
under
a
million
dollars
off
with
a
net
loss
of
921
000
for
the
year
to
date
versus
a
budgeted
income
of
712
000.
I
so
walking
through
the
details.
Sales
to
customers
are
generally
speaking
right
on
budget.
You
know
they're
a
little
up
down,
but
generally
speaking,
worldly
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
off
for
the
year.
We
had
a
positive
variance
of
53
000
for
December,
and
that's
generally,
like
that's
really
great,
you
know,
as
these
things
can
go.
I
Other
revenues
for
December
had
a
positive
variance
of
146
000.
Most
of
that
returns
from
the
EU
fund
are
offset
by
EU
expenses.
On
the
expense
side,
there
were
no
rec
revenues
in
December,
as
was
budgeted
now
moving
to
power
supply
expense,
which,
as
commissioner
Harrington
noted,
was
913
000
worse
than
budget.
So
power
supply,
as
many
of
you
know,
is
a
combination
of
several
different
elements
and
so
for
December.
I
It's
one
element
of
the
913.
purchase
power.
Second
element
was
five
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
dollars
worse
than
budget
within
purchase
power.
There
are
several
subsections.
One
is
compellment,
that
is
where
the
unanticipated
payments
for
Mystic
are
coming
in.
So
there
was
a
almost
most
of
that.
150
was
a
hundred
and
forty
seven
thousand
dollar
capacity
payment,
Mystic
plant,
and
then
energy
charges
were
also
worse
than
budget
by
two
hundred
and
forty
two
thousand
dollars
of
that
147
was
related
to
the
iso
exchange
and
what
we
had
happening
there
was.
I
C
G
E
I
H
I
E
H
D
I
Long
as
the
marginal
price
is
above,
our
buyer
total
cost
right,
and
then
you
have
to
factor
in
the
Rex
that
we
generate,
which
are
then
available
to
sell.
As
part
of
that
then
yes,
you're
right.
However,
that
is,
we
have
been
watching
the
prices
and
positioning
the
plant
to
conserve
wood
so
that
we're
not
running
Full
Tilt,
so
to
speak
so
that
in
the
chance
that
prices
in
March,
April,
May
or.
H
Just
a
quick
note,
that's
true
everything
we
said
for
units
where
we
can
control
the
output.
So
if
it's
a
contracted
resource
like
a
wind
resource
or
a
hydro
resource,
there's
either
no
variable
cost
in
the
case
of
a
hydro,
say
or
we're
not
able
to
interrupt
the
output
of
the
wind
resources
under
contract.
H
E
E
G
E
H
B
D
Know,
but
it
does
seem
like
the
worry
is
so
what
is
what
we
took
and
and
bed
as
an
agency
right,
which
but
I
think
a
lot
of
what
we
are
interested
is
the
impact
to
the
residents
of
the
computer
development
and,
of
course,
it's
kind
of
like
a
bad
time,
because
we
just
had
a
rating
like
we've
asked
for
a
lot
of
money
and
the
community
is
invested
in
BBB
and
so
to
be.
Have
this
deficit
at
this
moment?
F
F
So
we're
going
to
look
at
everything.
We're
going
to
look
at
even
things
like
towards
the
year
end,
making
sure
that
Revenue
problem
expenditures
that
we
make
are
able
to
be
reimbursed
in
the
same
fiscal
year
so
to
bring
an
appropriate
amount
of
cash
on
hand
and
next
fiscal
year
we're
having
a
monthly
executive
team
meetings
with
the
finance
team
and
the
policy
and
planning
teams
staff
to
go
over
opportunities
to
reduce
expenditures
or
Decor
expenditures.
But.
G
F
Am
concerned
because
this
is
barring
and
change
in
the
weather,
and
a
change
in
prices
are
opportunities,
as
outlined
are
really
limited
to
kind
of
changing
the
power
supply
trajectory,
and
it's
one
thing:
if
we
don't
quite
hit
our
net
income
metric
or
our
adjusted
debt
service
coverage
ratio
metrics.
Those
are
unfortunate,
potentially
and
not
something
that
we
welcome.
The
bigger
concern
is
going
to
be
cash
on
hand
heading
into
next
year's
budget.
F
We
strive
to
maintain
the
90
days,
cash
on
hand,
that's
the
a-rating
metric
for
Moody's
and
we
feel
is
a
safe
metric
up
for
bed
and
just
maintaining
that
this
year,
under
this
circumstance,
if
it
continues,
is
going
to
be
a
challenge,
and
then
that
also
puts
additional
pressure
on
next
year's
rate
requirement
as
well.
So
that's
something
this
is
going
to
be
a
big
part
of
the
budget
discussion
going
forward
unless
the
dynamic,
fundamentally
changes
in
power
supply.
D
Yeah,
so
tough
conundrum,
so
you
can't
and
then
I
think
also
that's
what
the
public
health
is
frustrated
right
because
they
say:
don't
do
the
streetlight
projects
right,
save
that
money.
But
you
can't
do
that
because
that's
a
different,
well
I'm,
not
I,
know
that
may
or
may
not
be
the
right
example.
But
I
know
capital
and
operating
are
often
really
separate
for
Publications
right.
F
F
F
So
if
you're,
a
Vermont
Gas
customer
you'll
see
that
the
commodity
price
changed
and
the
gas
rate
changed
earlier
this
year
or
I
should
say
later
last
year,
when
there
was
upward
pressure
and
I.
Think
on
a
recent
bill,
I
saw
that
the
commodity
price
changed
and
the
gas
price
is
going
to
decrease
and
all
of
that
happens
relatively
automatically
at
the
Public
Utility
Commission.
We
don't
have
any
of
that.
F
So
we
are
under
a
traditional
rate,
making
process
where
each
year
you
go
in
with
the
numbers
that
you
have
and
they
may
change
and
there's
no
real
mechanism
to
adjust
the
rate
heat
or
have
any
sort
of
supplementary
charge
for
a
period
of
time
to
adjust
for
fuel
costs,
or
they
also
have
storm
Adjusters
in
some
cases
as
well.
So
that
would
be
a
nice
tool
in
the
toolbox
you
might
be
able
to.
F
If
you
were
looking
at
something
like
this,
you
might
have
been
able
to
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
have
a
temporary
surcharge
during
this
period
to
cover
the
cost
the
differential.
But
then
it's
not
going
to
necessarily
affect
our
cash
and
rate
needs
for
next
year
and
unfortunately,
that's
not
the
way
it
works
for
us.
So
it
will
affect
those
things
and
that's
something
that
not
only
we
looked
at
would
require
legislative
change,
but
a
charter
change
and
a
vote,
and
it's
a
lengthy
process.
F
So
not
something
that
would
be
an
easy
tool
to
access
for
us.
Unfortunately,
but
what
would
help
resolve
this
issue
a
little
bit?
We're
gonna
do
everything
we
can.
We
will
have
a
rate
requirement
for
next
year.
There
will
be
a
rate
change
for
next
year,
we'll
do
everything
we
can
to
keep
it
as
reasonable
as
possible,
given
the
various
Dynamics
on
the
power
supply,
side
and
I.
F
D
F
Yeah,
you
know
it's
a
frustrating
Dynamic
and
all
things
equal.
If
the
prices
have
been
higher,
this
winter
we'd
be
going
into
the
next
fiscal
year
with
the
larger
cash
Reserve,
our
rate
need
would
be
lower.
It
would
be
beneficial
for
our
customers,
we're
not
in
that
place.
At
the
moment,
inflation
is
still
fairly
High
still
impacting
supply
chain.
We
do
have
you
know,
labor
cost
increases
and
other
things
that
would
drive
a
rate
need
regardless.
H
Right
I
mean
the
numbers
that
were
included
in
our
rate
case
for
the
value
of
selling.
This
Excess
power
for
January
and
February
are
roughly
four
times
when
it's
actually
been
coming
in
at
so
you
know
again,
it's
coming
in
at
above
variable
cost,
but
it's
coming
in
at
you
know
a
quarter
of
what
was
expected.
So
that's
how
big
a
change
this
is.
I
Okay,
well,
the
rest
of
the
numbers
here
pale
by
comparison,
but
I'll
continue
between
hockey
through
the
last
other
operating
expense
other
than
power
supply
had
a
relatively
small
variance
of
136
000
over
budget
marketing,
Through,
Time
and
moving
down
out
of
the
operating
piece.
Other
income
and
deductions
we've
had
a
positive
variance
there
for
the
month
of
346
thousand
dollars.
That's
a
combination
of
things.
Interest
rates
have
gone
up
so
interest,
income
gains
on
investments
were
higher
than
budgeted,
and
our
miscellaneous
non-operating
income
was
also
higher,
driven
by
customer
contributions
to
capital
projects.
I
I
Was
4.2
million
dollars
to
date
compared
to
the
budget
for
the
Year
date
of
5.6
million,
as
Dara
mentioned,
we're
continuing
to
see
supply
chain
delays
of
getting
materials,
but
we
are
making
projects
moving
ordering
well
in
advance
and
being
creative
with
our
you
know,
our
planning
and
procurement
strategies,
as
well
as
we
can
be,
the
cash
position
for
the
Department
as
of
the
end
of
December,
was
4.7
million
dollars
that
is
well
below
the
budgeted
Target
we
had
for
December
of
8.9
9.
That
is
the
impact
mostly
of
the
lower
energy
prices.
I
I
can
tell
you
that
cash
approved
for
January
a
little
bit
by
about
a
million
dollars
still
well
below,
where
it
where
we
had
budgeted
it
to
be,
and
it's
well
below,
where
we
needed
to
end
the
year
to
have
90
days
so
so
we'll
be
taking
steps
in
the
next
month
or
so
to
preserve
cash
is
my
report.
Unless
there
are
a
few
other
questions.
H
H
So
when
your
IRP
is
approved,
if
in
your
IRP
you
said
you're
going
to
pursue
a
new
wind,
Generating
Station
that
doesn't
get
approved,
that's
not
what
is
being
approved
when
the
IRP
is
approved.
It's
not
a
determination
of
prudency
with
regard
to
any
action
with
respect
to
rate
recovery
either.
So
you
can
have
actions
in
the
IRP
that
is
approved.
That
is
an
approved
IRP
that
you
then
may
have
to
seek
permitting
approval,
for
you
could
be
chastised
in
a
rate
case
for
it
being
an
imprudent
decision.
H
It
does
have
the
advantage
under
whoops
I'm.
Sorry,
I
wasn't
definitely
legal
back
for
a
second
30
BSA
248
does
have
a
little
context.
That
says,
with
respect
to
per
the
30
BSA
248
is
the
certificate
public,
good
statute
criteria
and
statute
criteria.
Number
six,
which
is
one
of
the
things
you
have
to
satisfy,
says
that
with
respect
to
purchase,
Investments
or
constructions
buy,
a
company
is
consistent
with
the
principles
for
resource
selection
expressed
in
the
company's
approved
IRP.
H
So
really
approval
equates
to
approval
of
the
decision-making
process
decide
described
in
that
IRP,
not
any
of
the
results.
And,
honestly,
you
know
if
you
had
concluded
something
but
an
assumption
needed
to
be
updated
before
you
made
a
decision
and
you
didn't
do
it.
That
would
be
imprudent.
So
an
IRP
is
a
snapshot
at
a
moment
of
time,
but
how
you
make
decisions
about
resources
and
how
you
balance
them
against
each
other.
Next
slide,
please
some
of
the
major
statutory
components
of
an
IRP
these
are
pieces,
we'll
be
bringing
to
you.
H
The
forecast
is
certainly
the
primary
one.
That's
a
that's
a
primary
input
and
the
forecast
is
telling
you
what
load
you're
trying
to
serve.
The
forecast,
in
our
case
is
actually
net
of
Energy
Efficiency
effectively,
because
the
target
for
Energy
Efficiency
is
decided
in
the
second
process
called
a
demand
resourcing
plan.
So
these
are
two
disconnected
three-year
processes,
one
of
which
determines
the
appropriate
amount
to
spend
on
Energy
Efficiency
and
the
other
does
really
everything
else.
H
So
we're
not
really
trading
that
off
against
anything
and
the
and
the
target
is
maximum
achievable
potential.
So
you
really
can't
change
its
amount
all
that
much
even
if
you
want
to
you,
are
doing
resource
evaluations
and
there
are
trade-offs.
So,
for
example,
you
know
you
you,
if
you
could
do
more
Energy
Efficiency,
you
could
consider
that
an
alternative
to
buying
a
new
resource.
H
H
So
unless
there's
a
way
to
monetize
it
from
a
ratepath
point
of
view,
you
can
consider
it,
but
it
won't
affect
your
rate
path
directly.
It
might
affect
your
decisions
next
slide.
Please,
the
DPS
issued
new
guidance
for
irps
on
December
30th
2022.
That
is
an
update
from
the
prior
2016
version,
which
governed
our
last
IRP.
H
That's
not
a
lot
of
time
in
a
three-year
process
for
us
to
incorporate
these
Suggestions
by
September.
We
will
be
reviewing.
To
what
extent
can
we
accomplish
a
guidance
by
the
way
the
the
guidance
was
issued
in
draft
form
on
December
30th
comments
from
everybody
were
due
January,
31st
and
I.
Don't
think
they've
issued
a
final
version
yet
so
at
some
point
it
becomes
very
difficult
to
incorporate
new
guidance
in
a
document.
That's
due
in
a
certain
number
of
months,
so
we
will
look
at
these.
If
we
can
incorporate
them,
we
will
do
so.
H
H
One
other
thing
I'll
mention
is
that
there
is
also
an
mou
that
was
signed
as
a
result
of
the
last
IRP
that
has
certain
actions
that
we
have
to
take
and
those
will
have
to
be
in
this
IRP.
So,
for
example,
updating
the
McNeil
economic
analysis
is
one
of
them
next
slide,
please
Emily
from
the
forecast
Front.
H
H
So
sorry,
from
the
forecasting
front
you
know,
unlike
in
Prior
irps,
some
of
the
assumptions
regarding
the
pace
of
electrification
are
really
the
biggest
unknowns
in
terms
of
impact
on
the
load
we
will
be
serving
in
Prior
irps
2008,
12-16
Etc.
You
know
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about.
What
are
you
going
to
forecast
for
a
change
in
GDP?
H
You
know
what
do
you
think
the
population
in
Burlington
will
be
doing
over
the
20
years
compared
to
the
effect
that
those
kind
of
variables
can
have
on
the
load
forecast
the
assumptions
about
new
EV
deployments
and
about
new
heat
pump
deployments
and
about
how
much
they
will
consume
wildly?
You
know,
crush
the
impact
of
those
types
of
variables.
So
what
will
drive
the
cases
here
that
between
the
low
base
and
high
case,
where
we
try
to
look
at
multiple
cases
and
see
how
robust
the
answers
are
at
different
levels
of
load?
H
Do
you
get
the
same
answer?
If
you
don't
get
a
lot
of
deployment?
Do
you
get
the
same
answer?
If
you
get
more
deployment
than
you
expected,
the
drivers
for
the
number
of
EVs
and
the
number
of
heat
pumps
is
really
going
to
be
two
of
the
biggest
things
we've
got
to
deal
with,
and
we've
got
a
couple
of
slides
where
we
want
to
talk
about
those
deployment
rates.
H
In
this
case,
it
was
fairly
easy
to
give
a
comparative
value
from
The
Net
Zero
roadmap,
and
that
is
the
20.
The
green
line
is
the
2030
Net
Zero
roadmap
deployment
rate
of
EVS
to
achieve
Net
Zero
in
the
transportation
sector
by
2030,
and
this
particular
graph
is
focusing
on
light
duty
Vehicles,
which
is
really
the
predominant
type
of
vehicle.
That's
being
modeled
the
right
hand,
margin
shows
the
approximate
saturation
or
market
share
under
each
of
the
cases.
The
only
qualifier
I
need
to
give
you
and
the
reason.
H
There's
an
asterisk
under
market
share
is
that
the
denominators
for
these
two
calculations
are
not
the
same.
The
Net
Zero
roadmap
used
an
increasing
number
of
EVS
over
time,
so
it's
a
growing
denominator
and
the
IRP
cases
right
now
for
load
ratio
share,
are
calculated
on
a
static,
25
000
roughly
vehicles
in
Burlington.
H
H
We
are
having
some
difficulty
putting
these
things
directly
against
each
other
and
we're
going
to
talk
about
that,
particularly
in
the
next
slide,
which
is
on
heat
pump
rates,
but
I
mean
I.
Think
the
what
this
shows
is
that
there
is
a
shortfall
between
the
projected
deployment
rate
of
under
the
IRP
scenarios.
The
base
case
would
have
us
at
60
roughly
a
market
share,
and
we
knew
that
we,
we
don't
necessarily
think
that
we
are
on
trajectory
to
meet
the
2030
Net
Zero
roadmap.
H
H
In
this
particular
context,
under
the
IRP
and
I
don't
believe
there
is
Under
The
Net
Zero
road
map.
There
are
some
very
complicated
interplays,
for
example
they're.
You
know
projecting
increasing
efficiency
of
vehicles
over
time
and
things
like
that,
but
but
by
and
large
you
know,
this
is
based
on
an
average
use
assumption
over
time.
We
can
pull
that,
but
I
don't
have
it
with
me
as
a
graph.
H
H
G
H
H
Comparisons
for
deployment
rates
of
heat
pump
technology
between
the
Net
Zero
roadmap
and
the
IRP
modeling
is
very
difficult
and
will
probably
need
synapse
to
calculate
a
few
things
for
us
before.
We
can
actually
do
that.
So
synapse
is
looking
at
whole
home
conversions
to
heat
pumps
over
time,
with
a
changing
percentage
of
the
home
load
being
served
by
the
heat
pump
over
time
and
with
changing
efficiencies
in
heat
pumps
over
time,
that
is
almost
certain.
H
H
They
have
also
done
that
work
for
Green,
Mountain
Power,
so
the
Green
Mountain
Power
is
a
deployment
of
units
of
heat
pumps,
as
are
our
three
graphs.
We
are
trying
to
convert
The
Net
Zero
road
map
to
being
equivalent,
but
it
requires
some
estimates
of
the
average
number
of
heat
bump
units
required
to
do
what
they've
modeled
in
their
plan
in
their
roadmap.
C
H
What
this
data
shows
is
that
we
are
below
gmp's
base
case
in
our
base
case,
the
blue
line
and
the
gray
line,
which
is
our
low
case,
and
only
in
our
high
deployment
rate
case.
Are
we
exceeding
gmp's
base
case
gmp's
High
case
would
probably
be
higher
than
our
high
case.
Virtually
certain
and
I
guarantee
you
that
the
Net
Zero
roadmap
would
be
higher
than
all
of
those
okay
and
as
soon
as
we
can
do
that
math.
If
we
can
do
that,
math
we'll
put
that
out
as
well.
H
But
this
feels
sort
of
intuitively
correct
to
me
in
the
sense
that
at
a
base
case,
deployment
rate
I
would
expect
GMP
to
be
deploying
heat
pumps
faster
than
Burlington
Electric.
We
are
looking
at
competing
against
a
95
saturation
of
natural
gas.
They
have
significant
Oil
and
Propane
that
they
are
competing
against.
They
do
not
have
universality
of
natural
gas
in
their
customer
base,
and
the
economics
of
deploying
a
heat
pump
against
Oil
and
Propane
are
certainly
better
than
deploying
them
against
natural
gas.
Today,
now,
they've
gotten
better.
H
As
Darren
has
said,
you
know
we're
probably
a
little
bit
above
break
even
right
now
you
know,
but
you
know
again:
it's
you're
occurring
a
capital
cost
to
more
or
less
Break
Even,
whereas
against
Oil
and
Propane
you're,
incurring
at
Capital
cost
to
save
operating
costs.
Better
economics
again,
you
know
we're
not
surprised
that
our
heat
pump
deployments
would
not
be
meeting
the
Net
Zero
deployment
rates.
Again,
there's
no
reason
that
they
would.
H
We
don't
have
a
program
or
an
active
dynamic
or
a
requirement
or
something
else
that
would
push
us
to
the
Nets,
your
deployment
rate.
Yet
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
when
we're
looking
at
the
Net
Zero
road
map
is
figure
out
how
to
close
the
gaps
and
and
move
the
deployment
rates,
so
the
Technologies
up
to
where
they
need
to
be.
C
Oh,
are
you
considering
the
overlay
of
Vermont
gases
efforts
in
this
plate
efforts
in
the
sphere
because
of
it
not
being
a
whole
cloth
replacement,
but
actually
encouraging,
at
least
through
their
pilot,
the
remaining
heating
system
in
place,
but
the
t-pumping?
It
addition
and
therefore
potentially
extending
that.
C
H
Unless
Vermont
gas's
activities
would
push
us
outside
of
the
orange
line,
which
I
don't
see
in
any
case
right,
we
will
be
testing
a
case.
That's
that
high
right
I
mean
again.
We
will
be
testing
a
combined
High
case,
which
would
be
the
summation
of
high
heat
pump
deployment
in
residential
units,
the
the
height
deployment
of
EVs,
and
that
will
become
a
load
forecast
that
is
tested
for
its
impact
on
our
system
and
our
decisions.
H
Well,
it
depends
like
you
say:
you
know
you
you
can.
You
can
use
those
explanations
to
understand
what
might
move
you
from
the
base
case
to
the
high
case
or
the
locations
where
what
might
be
needed
to
move
you
there
and
you
can
use
that
when
you're
deciding
what
case
you
put
the
most
weight
on
in
terms
of
deciding
to
make
investments,
I
mean
you
don't
want
to
sit
there
and
invest
in
tnd
upgrades
on
the
orange
curve,
without
some
real
reason
to
believe
that
you're
not
going
to
be
on
the
blue
line.
H
H
H
C
H
I,
don't
think
they
assume
a
change
to
the
backup
heating
unit.
I'd
have
to
double
check
that
the
model
is
pretty
deep
Bob
as
to
whether
they
actually
I
think
what
they're
doing
is:
they're
replacing
natural
gas
customers
with
heat
pumps
and
a
residual
natural
gas
load.
I.
Don't
think
that
they're
moving
that
residual
load
then
over
to
Electric,
but
that
I
would
have
to
check.
H
H
So
what
we're
doing,
though,
is
we're
combining
these
cases
to
drive
variations
around
a
base
case
so
that
we're
not
sitting
there
20
years
ago
the
IRP
would
have
had
a
single
forecast
line
and
all
of
your
planning
would
be
meeting
that
forecast
and
you
would
assume
the
forecast
was
accurate.
Now
you're
going
to
be
looking
at,
you
know
what
happens?
What
do
you
need
if
you
do
hit
the
orange
line?
When
do
you
need
it?
H
H
H
We
will
just
simply
share
the
PowerPoint,
as
we
have
always
done
in
the
past
in
the
past,
whenever
we
did
an
IRP
PowerPoint
for
the
BEC
or
any
of
the
Committees,
we
would
share
with
the
DPS
right
afterwards
and
seek
their
commentary,
and
then
let
you
guys
know
what
their
commentary
is.
If
it's
material.
H
A
B
F
We
did
and
I
mentioned
that.
Well,
we
shared
the
statement
that
I
hope
you
you
saw
an
email
I
was
in
Montpelier
yesterday
we're
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
advocating
about
that
and
we
welcomed
and
as
part
of
the
conversation,
the
commission's
active
engagement
on
the
issue
as
well
and
so
Sheriff
Moody
suggested.
A
B
F
A
H
E
H
It's
it's
itron
will
need
to
run
the
energy
forecasts
through
a
peak
demand
model
and
we
need
to
then
understand
it
won't
be
as
high
as
as
the
140
megawatts,
because
none
of
the
itron
cases
are
Net
Zero
by
2030
or
2040.,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
if
we
get
numbers
that
are
lower
than
140.
What's
driving
the
difference,
is
it
an
assumption
about
the
saturation?
Is
it
that
the
average
use
assumptions
are
different?