►
From YouTube: Burlington Electric Commission - 12/14/2022
Description
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/12.14.22-AGE-signed.pdf
00:00:00 Call to Order/Agenda
00:00:26 Minutes of the November 9, 2022
00:01:05 Public Forum
00:01:44 Commissioners’ Corner
00:06:19 GM Update
00:35:22 Financials: FY23 October
00:45:38 McNeil Station 2023 CY Budget
01:00:50 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
A
Nope?
Okay,
second
up
is
the
minutes
of
the
November
9th
2022
meeting,
and
so
this
is
as
per
usual,
if
you
found
anything
substantive
that
is
incorrect.
This
is
a
great
time
to
bring
it
up
and
if
it's
just
an
editorial
piece-
or
rather
you
know,
typo,
that's
something
that
can
be
shared
with
the
clerk
just
via
email.
B
A
A
All
in
favor
aye,
thank
you
Lori
for
your
work
on
that.
Third,
is
the
public
forum?
I
don't
have
anyone,
it
does
not
look
like
it.
I
cannot
actually
see
that
far
okay
and
we
do
not
have
anyone
in
the
room
but
Folks
at
home.
You're,
of
course,
always
welcome
to
join
us
on
the
second
Wednesday
you're
also
always
welcome
to
reach
out
to
the
Commissioners.
A
A
A
We
are
going
to
shift
that
to
January
so
that
we
actually
have
the
engineer
who
will
actually
be
on
staff
rather
than
asking
munir
and
Engineers
from
his
team
attend,
who
won't
actually
be
the
point
person
who
will
be
overseeing
whatever
the
future
lighting
discussion
looks
like
so
my
understanding
was
when
I
spoke
with
you
Darren
last
week
you
were
doing
reference
checks.
Do
you
have
any
sort
of
timing
update
in
terms
of
what
that
might
look
like
for
January
for.
A
A
A
She
knows
a
lot
more
about
Energy,
Efficiency
and
sort
of
various
heat
pump
technologies,
that
sort
of
thing
she's,
a
quick,
read
and
very
interested
and
very
smart
organized,
so
I
think
she'll
be
a
great
addition
and
I
would
have
liked
to
have
served
with
her.
But
it
was
a
pleasure
to
serve
with
you
guys
all
and
with
you
all
as
well.
A
I
feel
like
it's
not
really
appropriate
for
me
to
just
not
show
up
so
the
first
meeting,
I
I
will
be
there
and
to
sort
of
tee
things
up
start
the
conversation
with
the
umbrella
concept
of
understanding
that
the
IES
regulations
are
pretty
nuanced.
Is
there
a
way
to
still
follow
those
to
meet
concerns
regarding
liability
and
to
also
interpret
them
in
a
way
that
perhaps
might
not
feel
as
bright
to
the
community?
D
You
and
just
up
front
we
we
also
thank
you
for
your
service.
We
do
have
some
cake
to
commemorate
your
time
on
the
commission
with
us
for
after
the
meeting
and
really
appreciate
everything
you've
done
for
the
Burlington
Community
and
we'll
continue
to
do
I
know
in
in
different
capacities,
but
thank
you
for
your
service
on
the
commission,
okay.
D
So
a
few
updates
in
the
report
a
couple
of
really
substantive
ones
that
were
certainly
interested
to
share
District
energy,
as
as
I
think
you
all
know
from
the
report
and
from
our
previous
conversations,
but
just
to
confirm
we're
expecting
that
to
go
to
act.
250
permitting
this
week
filed
by
the
non-profit
entity,
Burlington
District
energy,
that's
run
by
Evergreen
that'll.
Keep
us
on
the
schedule
that
we've
hoped
to
be
on
for
the
project.
D
D
Obviously,
the
rise
in
interest
rates,
not
our
friend
relative,
to
financing
the
project,
but
there
may
be
some
Avenues
within
the
state
to
help
get
a
more
favorable
rate
than
what's
out
there
commercially
us
we'll
explore
that.
But
really
our
hope
is
in
the
first
quarter
of
2023,
we'll
have
a
clear
sense
whether
the
project
can
pencil
for
all
the
relevant
entities
and
if
it
can
then
we'll
make
a
determination
at
that
point.
That
would
be
the
go
determination
for
the
project
and
would
continue
the
permitting
process
and
move
us
towards
construction.
D
We
also
still
have
some
work
to
do
with
the
federal
government
related
to
the
Leahy
funds.
You
know
they're
looking
at
whether
or
not
what
level
of
NEPA
review
is
necessary
on
their
end,
which
will
affect
the
timing
of
the
project
funds
being
released,
but
we
can
also
seek
reimbursement
from
them,
so
it
shouldn't
hold
up
anything
on
RN
relative
to
construction
or
anything
like
that.
D
D
D
You
know,
as
mentioned,
there's
the
financing
piece,
what
the
rates
are,
how
that
affects
the
project,
cost
there's
the
construction
bids,
which
we'll
know
sooner
than
later,
there
is
the
what
level
of
pricing
we
need
for
Steam
for
McNeil
to
compensate
The,
Joint
owners
appropriately,
but
also
be
competitive
for
the
project,
and
then
there
is
essentially
the
renewable
District
energy
credits,
which
represent
the
environmental
attributes
of
the
project
and
the
premium
essentially
associated
with
paying
off
the
infrastructure.
What's
the
allocation
for
those
who's
willing
to
purchase
what
amount?
D
How
can
we
allocate
those
among
the
various
entities
that
will
participate
and
what
ramp
up
rate
would
there
be
for
that?
So
those
are
the
kind
of
the
key
pieces
that
we're
looking
at
so
more
to
come,
but
good
progress
to
date
and
we're
pleased
with
that
and
very
very
thankful
for
our
partners,
vgs
the
hospital,
the
interval,
Center
ubm,
the
city
Evergreen,
really
a
good
collaborative
working
relationship
and
all
of
those
Avenues.
D
So
essentially,
just
to
summarize,
we
proposed
a
few
different
things
and
this
work
was
informed
by
our
work
with
the
building
electrification
Institute,
a
National
Organization
that
we've
worked
with.
That
knows
a
lot
of
about
what
other
cities
are
doing
and
provides
technical
assistance
and
support
basically
for
new
construction
we'd,
be
proposing
starting
in
2024.
It's
100
renewable
for
all
thermal
uses,
not
just
the
renewable
heating
system,
that's
in
place
now,
and
that
that
would
be
applicable
for
everything,
except
for
domestic
water
heating
for
larger
multi-family
buildings,
and
that
was
based
on
feedback.
D
Only
non-residentials,
fully
Exempted,
but
for
large
exist
testing
buildings,
fifty
thousand
square
feet
or
larger
again,
starting
in
2024.
We
propose
that
if
they
pull
a
permit
for
a
heating
system
or
a
water
heating
system,
they
would
use
a
renewable
replacement
or
they
would
have
the
option
to
pay
the
carbon
fee.
In
that
case,
we
would
cap
the
carbon
Fiat,
no
more
than
75
percent
of
the
installed
cost
of
the
conventional
system.
D
We
recognize
in
existing
buildings,
there's
existing
distribution
infrastructure
that
in
some
cases
may
make
certain
things
cost
prohibitive,
and
then
we
recommend
renewable
be
defined
fairly,
broadly
similar
to
what
we've
used
already
in
ordinance.
So
it
can
be
any
renewable
system:
geothermal,
wood,
heating,
heat
pumps,
all
the
different
Technologies
there
could
be
a
renewable
fuel
in
a
conventional
system:
biodiesel,
renewable
Gas,
District,
energy
credits
that
goes
forward
or
even
the
option
for
other
fuels.
That
may
come
online.
That
aren't
here
now
like
renewable
hydrogen
things
of
that
nature.
D
So
we
try
to
be
Broad
and
inclusive
with
all
the
different
renewable
fuels,
and
then
we
propose
as
well
that
the
city
would
meet
the
large
existing
building
requirement
for
all
of
its
buildings
as
well,
and
then
propose
that
the
revenues
from
the
carbon
fee
could
be
used
for
helping
the
city
convert
its
Fleet
to
electric
vehicles
helping-
and
this
is
consistent
with
advisory
question.
Seven
from
town
meeting
day
21,
which
was
focused
on
making
sure
benefits
from
this
proposal.
D
Would
flow
to
lower
income
burlingtonians,
making
available
a
clean
heating
technology
fund
from
the
city
to
support
low-income
households
and
low-income
renters
and
then,
in
the
case
of
an
existing
building.
Only
if
the
payer
paid
in
and
proposed
a
plan
to
use
a
portion
of
the
funds
for
emission
reduction
projects
at
their
building
or
at
their
campus,
that
they'd
be
able
to
get
a
portion
of
the
fund
that
they
paid
into
back
to
support
those
emission
reduction
projects.
D
We
also
built
in
some
credits
essentially
for
existing
buildings,
where,
if
they
had
multiple
buildings
and
some
of
them
might
be
covered
by
this
and
some
might
not
or
some
uses
might
be
covered
and
some
not
if
they
take
steps
that
are
consistent
with
this
starting
in
2023
that
they
would
build
up
credit
towards
any
future
compliance
obligation.
So
it's
very
much
a
little
bit
of
a
carrot
and
stick
approach,
not
not
purely
regulatory.
D
In
that
sense
and
anyhow,
this
is
a
product
of
a
number
of
years
of
work
actually
dating
back
to
2020.
When
the
mayor
first
proposed
building
electrification,
Proposal
with
input
from
bed,
the
planning
office
and
the
Department
of
Permitting
and
inspections
going
through
the
charter
change
and
through
the
renewable
heating
order,
ordinance
development
last
year,
getting
the
charter
change
approved
by
the
legislature
and
the
governor
and
then
being
able
to
do
an
interim
report
in
July
and
then
this
final
report.
So
there's
been
some
good
analysis
included
in
the
memo.
D
You
know,
there's
definitely
more
work
to
do,
but
the
first
aspect
of
this
is
to
put
it
on
the
town
meeting
day
ballot
and
get
approval
which
is
required
under
the
charter
chain.
Subsequent
approval
to
implement
the
fee
portion
of
the
proposal.
Then
we
would
go
back
to
the
council
and
work
on
an
ordinance
language
in
the
spring
to
begin
effect
in
2024.
D
They
voted
not
to
pursue
a
charter
change,
that's
similar
to
what
we
did
pursue
with
our
Charter
change,
although
they
did
also
recently
adopt
essentially
a
version
of
the
renewable
heating
ordinance
for
new
construction
that
Burlington
adopted
last
year
and
theirs
goes
a
little
further
than
ours
does
in
current
ordinance.
They
also
require
that
for
water.
D
With
a
similar
delay
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
so
they
have
taken
steps
on
new
construction,
but
they
chose
not
to
pursue
a
charter
change.
I
should
mention
too
there's
we're
aware
that
there
is
housing
legislation,
that's
being
considered
or
will
be
considered,
potentially
in
the
legislature,
a
large
kind
of
Bill
and
in
it
is
a
proposal,
it's
being
Advanced,
that
would
limit
communities
to
ordinances
being
no
more
essentially
stringent
than
State
energy
codes,
and
if
that
was
to
happen,
that
would
not
only
impact
South
Burlington.
D
What
they're
doing
but
would
impact
us
in
terms
of
the
further
policy
work
that
we're
trying
to
do:
Under
the
charter
change
and
potentially
the
rental,
weatherization
standards
and
renewable
heating
ordinance
that
we've
already
passed
so
fairly
concerned.
If
that
was
to
move
forward
without
a
consideration
of
those
policies.
C
I
asked
that
question
because
I'm
kind
of
concerned
that
folks,
who
want
to
find
reasons
to
fight
this
we'll
try
and
one
thing
that
I
think
is
kind
of
critical
there
you've
touched
on-
is
the
idea.
If
the
fee
is
a
One-Shot
thing
and
you
pay
it,
then
the
incentives
you
have
are
essentially
zero
for
doing
it
from
later,
except
for
the
payback
scheme.
C
You
talked
about
right,
so
that's
kind
of
a
two-level
argument,
but
the
first
argument
would
be:
if
you
do
it,
then
there's
no
reason
to
do
anything
better
later
on
so
I,
don't
like
it.
You'd
have
to
then
go
to
the
next
level.
Subtly
saying
yes,
but
so
I
think
we
have
to
make
that
really
explicit
and
even
quantitative.
We.
D
Definitely
considered
those
two
points
that
you
just
mentioned,
because
you
could
have
some
sort
of
ongoing
or
attempt
to
have
an
ongoing
fee,
but
that
would
be
more
like
a
tax.
You
know.
Tax
on
fuel
consumption
of
a
certain
type
as
opposed
to
this
is
really
meant
to
be
kind
of
a
development
impact
fee,
and
what
we
really
want
to
do
is
impact
the
decision
at
the
time
of
investment
and
for
the
existing
buildings
to
impact
their
Capital
planning
process
years
ahead
of
when
they'll
have
to
go
to
replace
the
system.
D
So
if
we
were
able
to
enact
this
even
if
you're
an
existing
building
that
doesn't
anticipate
replacing
a
system
for
five
years
or
ten
years,
you're
going
to
know
that
this
requirement's
there
and
the
carbon
fee
we
propose,
starts
at
150
a
ton
but
ramps
up
with
the
rate
of
inflation
over
time.
So
you're
going
to
build
this
into
your
Capital
planning
and
look
at
the
alternatives
for
meeting
this
without
having
to
pay
the
fee,
and
our
hope
is
it'll
change
the
investment
decision
process
for
new
construction
and
for
existing
in
buildings.
D
D
No
there'll
definitely
be
criticisms
from
various
of
various
sorts
and
we're.
You
know
we
had
a
good
stakeholder
process,
so
we've
heard
at
least
some
of
the
concerns,
not
all
of
them,
I'm
sure,
but
some
of
the
ones
that
might
be
raised
and
tried
to
kind
of
proactively
address
some
of
those
in
the
memo
and
in
The
Proposal,
where
we
could-
and
we
also
went
to
all
the
mpas
and
tried
to
hear
from
folks
who
might
have
ideas
or
feedback
for
us.
D
C
E
D
Yeah
we
worked
on
this
and
there's
you
can
be
quite
wordy
in
a
sense.
In
some
cases,
you
kind
of
have
to
be
to
Encompass
all
of
the
different
aspects
here.
I
think
one
of
the
things
we're
focused
on
with
the
ballot
language
is
to
be
clear
about
which
buildings
would
be
affected
and
I
think
it's
equally
important
to
note,
which
ones
are
not
affected,
that
this
doesn't
affect
any
existing
residential,
existing
small
businesses,
even
existing
larger
commercial
buildings
that
are
under
that
threshold.
D
So
we
anticipate,
maybe
80
buildings
in
the
city
would
fit
the
large
existing
commercial
building
threshold.
So
we
will
have
a
our
hands.
Full
I
think
just
making
sure
that
the
accurate
information
would
get
out
there
in
the
face
of
whatever
else
might
be
discussed
to
make
sure
that
that
burlingtonians
know
exactly
what's
being
proposed
and
what's
not
being
proposed,
and
you
know,
we've
we've.
F
D
F
Think
I
mean
I'm
sure
you
heard
this,
but
the
cost
of
development
like
and
that
there's
this
Burlington's
a
little
like
I
think
it
sounds
like
a
great
idea,
and
you
know
really
Progressive
and
in
the
direction
that
everybody
wants,
that
we
should
be
going.
But
if
our
neighbors
aren't
doing
that,
we
already
have
such
a
large
property
tax
burden
on
residents
and
making
the
cost
of
commercial
development
higher
seems
like
something
that
would
be
a
hurdle
for
folks.
I'm
sure
you
would
talk
through
that
yeah
and
then
with
the
big
J.
F
The
big
hole
have
to
pay
or
whatever,
when
they
fall
under
this,
because
they
better
pay
but
yeah
I,
don't
know
I
feel
like
Burlingtons
were
a
little
bit
in
this
cycle
right
where
we
can't
break
out
of
it.
Even
if
we're
doing
a
lot
of
good
things
until
we
can
solve
some
of
these
more
structural
problems,
I
don't
know
if
it's
too
soon.
That
would
be
my
only.
D
Yeah
definitely
a
point
that
came
up
and
the
mayor
addressed
this
because
I
think
he
cares
a
lot
about
the
housing
conversation
and
talks
a
lot
about
that
and
the
importance
of
that
as
a
priority
for
his
administration,
but
also
cares.
Obviously
a
lot
about
this
about
climate
and
climate
action
and
I.
Think.
D
That
I
think
is
is
interesting
to
kind
of
get
into,
but
we
felt
obliged
to
propose
something
that
would
be
at
least
consistent
with
the
direction
that
we're
trying
to
go
from
a
climate
standpoint,
but
also
practical
and
not
overly
burdensome
in
terms
of
development.
Maybe
we
got
it
right.
Maybe
we
maybe
we
didn't
I,
think
we'll
we'll
have
that
conversation
so.
D
So
the
way
this
is
structured
is
any
project
that
would
be
pulling
a
permit
starting
January
1
of
2024..
So
if
they
already
are
permitted,
they
would
be
under
the
existing
renewable
heating
ordinance,
so
they
would
have
to
put
in
a
renewable
heating
system,
but
it
for
any
building
and
I.
Think
some
of
those
buildings
are
are
sequenced,
so
part
of
that
project
would
be
pulling
permits
after
that
date,
if
this
was
to
be
enacted,
would
be
subject
to
these
requirements
as
well.
D
Exactly
but
we
did
contemplate
that
in
terms
of
taking
you
know
if
you
pay
into
the
fund,
because
let's
say
you
put
in
a
conventional
boiler
and
you
didn't
do
a
renewable
boiler.
If
you
wanted
to
draw
back
some
revenues
from
the
fund
to
support
a
transportation
related
project
at
your
facility,
then
that
would
be
eligible.
So
if
you
wanted
to
convert
some
of
your
Fleet
to
electric
or
do
something
that
would
reduce
emissions
on
Transportation,
but
primarily
it's
focused
on
the
thermal
sector.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
overlap
there.
A
Foreign
ly,
if
I
recall
correctly,
the
efficiency
team
for
new
commercial
construction
does
half
of
an
incentive.
You
know
at
the
time
of
the
build
and
then
half
of
an
incentive,
the
other
half
of
the
incentive,
after
a
Year's
worth
of
data
collection
and
Analysis,
to
see
whether
or
not
the
expected
Energy
savings
were
achieved
is
is
I'm
just
curious.
A
A
How
the
various
incentives
or
renewable
energy
standard
tier
three
interplay
with
sort
of
helping
that
conversation,
because,
frankly,
when
I
look
at
page
64
of
the
packet
and
I
look
at
you
know
the
new
building
examples
for
upfront,
Capital
costs
and
I'm,
looking
at
its
5.8
million
for
a
50
000
square
feet
to
do
Baseline,
fossil
fuel
system
plus
carbon
fee.
But
then,
if
they
choose
to
do
you
know
an
air-to-water
heat
pump,
you
know
renewable
options,
it's
4.8
million,
so
it's
a
million
less
if
they
take
this
choice.
So
it's
in
the
long
run.
D
Questions
all
you're
accurate
on
the
incentive
structure
that
is
How,
We,
Do
It.
Our
goal
would
be
to
make
sure
any
incentives
that
are
available
now
are
still
available,
that
this
doesn't
in
any
way
preempt
us
from
offering
the
incentives.
We
have
precedent
for
that
with
the
renewable
heating
ordinance.
So
we
would
keep
that
structure.
We
referenced
that
in
the
memo
in
terms
of
Staff
capacity.
We
very
much
designed
this
in
a
way
that
was
aimed
at
limiting
the
need
for
additional
staff
capacity.
D
D
So
initially
we
looked
at
a
performance
standard
approach
and
that
very
much
would
have,
in
my
view,
required
additional
Staffing
capacity
to
be
able
to
work
with
buildings
to
monitor
individual
carbon
reduction
or
fossil
fuel
reduction
goals
on
a
building
by
building
basis,
and
it's
not
that
we
couldn't
have
done
it
or
maybe
that
it
didn't
have
some
Merit.
We
ultimately
gravitated
back
towards
this
idea,
both
for
the
reasons
I
mentioned
to
commissioner
Harren
Dean
about
impacting
the
capital
planning
and
capital
investment
process,
but
also
because
this
really
is
consistent
with
processes.
D
We
already
do.
Our
efficiency
team
is
involved
in
almost
any
new
construction
project
in
the
city
in
terms
of
doing
some
commissioning
work,
some
modeling
work
and
whatever
happens
with
this-
can
really
build
off
of
that
and
with
the
existing
buildings,
as
I
mentioned,
there's,
maybe
80
of
them
and
in
most
cases
again
we're
already
engaged.
D
A
number
of
them
are
using
energy
Star
portfolio
managers,
insight
into
how
they're,
using
energy
already
so
very
much
kind
of
trying
to
limit
the
additional
strain
not
only
for
bed,
but
also
the
Department
of
Permitting
and
inspections,
which
ultimately
would
be
the
implementer
and
the
regulator
for
the
policy.
You
know
interesting
with
this
new
build
example.
This
is
a
real
world
anonymized
building
that
was
built
in
Burlington
multi-family
building
and
you
can
see
even
without
the
carbon
price.
D
The
new
construction,
fossil
fuel
heating
system
was
5.2
million
and,
as
you
mentioned,
there
were
renewable
options
in
the
4.8
to
4.9
million.
The
building
did
not
go
with
any
of
those
options.
My
understanding
is,
they
went
with
the
conventional
system,
so
it
kind
of
gives
Credence
to
the
point
that
having
the
carbon
price
might
have
been
a
further
nudge
in
the
direction
of
you
know,
widening
the
Delta
between
the
renewable
and
the
fossil
fuel
option,
but
the
other
point
here
is
operating
costs
are
going
to
matter
too
and
I.
D
Think
a
few
years
ago,
if
you
looked
at
operating
costs
for
a
heat
pump
relative
to
a
fossil
fuel
system,
the
Delta
was
not
in
favor
of
the
heat
pump,
with
more
recent
rates
included,
at
least
in
single
family
context.
For
example,
the
heat
pump
now
is
cheaper
to
operate
than
a
gas
system
in
Burlington.
D
Now
that
may
be
different,
because
there
are
different
rate
structures
for
multi-family
for
commercial,
but
the
broader
point
is
is
accurate,
that
the
operating
cost
Delta
is
beginning
to
diverge
a
little
more
in
favor
of
the
heat
pump
and
that
I
think
is
important
too,
because
there's
maintenance
and
operating
costs
to
consider.
So
somebody
might
look
at
The,
Upfront
cost
and
say
oh
I'm,
willing
to
spend
a
little
extra
on
a
boiler
instead
of
a
heat
pump,
because
I
know
how
to
maintain
that
I
know
what
the
operating
cost
is
for
that.
C
A
I'm,
just
thinking
about
all
the
overlapping
with
you
know
the
the
requirement
now
for
efficiency
improvements
for
rental
units.
This
there's
a
lot
going
on
I'm
glad
to
see
also
just
that
the
team
is
you.
You
also
have
Bill
Ward.
You
have
Patricia
Wayman,
so
good
to
see
everybody
kind
of
at
the
same
place
and
at
the
same
table,
but.
D
A
D
A
D
D
It
was
a
long
time
owner
there,
I
sold
the
business
and
our
our
new
partner
there
Nick
is
in
the
photo
that
I
included
as
well,
so
we'll
look
forward
to
continued
collaboration
with
them,
as
well
as
our
friends
at
the
lake
monsters
champ
the
mayor,
others,
but
it
was
nice
just
to
have
this
event
in
person
with
American
Flatbread,
sponsoring
the
pizza
and
have
cake.
We
had
Lori's
assistance
and
a
number
of
others
who
helped
plan
out
the
event.
D
So
just
wanted
you
to
be
aware
that
we
were
doing
that
in
person
again
and
it's
a
great
engagement
opportunity
with
the
community.
Some
some
interesting
themes
in
the
calendar
this
year
here
a
lot,
a
lot
of
clothes
lines,
a
lot
of
windmills
and
then
apparently
a
lot
of
focus
from
what
I
heard
from
the
folks
at
Veep
on
toilet
efficiency
as
well.
I,
don't
think
any
of
those
made
it
into
the
finals,
but
yeah
we
had
a
lot
of
clotheslines
anyhow.
C
B
E
G
Here
to
do
the
financial
review
for
October
fiscal
year
23
to
date,
so
we
had
a
net
loss
for
October
of
366
thousand
dollars
compared
to
a
budgeted
net
loss
of
629
000.
So
we
performed
better
than
budget
by
264
thousand
dollars
under
revenues.
Sales
to
customers
were
154
000
below
budget
for
the
year.
G
To
date,
however,
noting
that
we're
essentially
on
budget
only
ninety
four
thousand
dollars,
which
is
a
very
small
variance,
we
are
seeing
commercial
sales
overall
for
the
year
slightly
under
budget
and
residential
sales,
slightly
above
a
budget
even
above
the
sort
of
covid
bump.
You
know
sort
of
long-term
every.
You
know
people
doing
more
remote
work,
even
above
that.
What
do
we
that
adjustment
that
we
had
budgeted
for?
G
Other
revenues
are
primarily
EU
which
are
offset
and
expense
below
those
were
up
versus
budget
by
328
thousand
dollars
this
month,
I
was
not
a
wreck
delivery
month,
so
we
had
no
power
supply
revenues,
as
was
budgeted
for
the
year
for
rec
revenues
were
258
000
below
budget.
We
expect
this
variance
to
worsen
throughout
the
year
where
we're
expecting
to
see
wreck
revenues
in
the
next
delivery
quarters,
also
below
budget
due
to
lower
production.
G
Earlier
this
calendar
year,
moving
to
the
expense
side,
power
supply
revenues
were
favorable
to
budget
by
173
000
in
October.
This
is
a
combination
of
increased
purchase,
power,
expense
offset
by
decreased
Fuel
and
transmission
expense.
Mcneil
was
offline
for
the
entire
month.
Therefore,
we
had
the
savings
on
fuel,
but
we
paid
more
for
power
than
budget
through
the
iso
exchange.
G
I'll
also
note
other
income
kind
of
moving
to
non-operating
items
now
was
eighty
four
thousand
dollars
below
budget.
This
is
due
to
the
timing
of
customer
contributions
to
capital
projects
and
the
unrealized
loss
on
investments
in
our
construction
funds,
where
the
revenue
Bond
unspent,
Revenue
bond
funds
are
sitting
and
so
year
to
date,
we
have
a
net
loss
of
171
000.
That's
compared
to
our
budgeted
net
income
of
265..
So
we
are
436
000
off
of
budget,
so
far,
questions
on
that.
G
And
so
we
are
seeing
the
strong
day
ahead,
prices
this
week
with
the
cold
weather,
even
higher
than
diet
day
ahead
in
real
time
on
some
hours
and
the
McNeil
operations
team
is
sort
of
monitoring
that
closely
and
running.
You
know
up
to
52,
53
54
megawatt
hours
to
capture
those
real-time
megawatt
hours
when
they
can
to
you
know
and
keep
the
plan
reliably
operating
and
not
you
know
not
stress
it
right,
but
to
do
that
for
periods
when
we're
seeing
really
high
prices.
G
So
yes,
I
mean
we
think
we've
got
wreck
revenues,
sort
of
breaking
against
us.
We
have
unbudgeted
Mystic
capacity
charges
which
we've
discussed
kind
of
hitting
us,
and
then
we
have
those
are
called
Mystic.
Well,
the
plant
is
okay,
okay,
got
it
yeah,
so
that's
what
we
refer
to
it
and
then
yeah
sort
of
the
change
in
operating
schedule
for
McNeil
right.
So
we
had
planned
to
be
operating,
McNeil
kind
of
being
net.
You
know
bringing
in
net
revenue
from
McNeil
from
power
supply
in
October.
D
I
would
just
say,
like
more
than
any
budget
that
I
think
I've
been
a
part
of
at
bed.
We
really
are
looking
at
those
winner
prices
as
being
determinative
of
how
we're
going
to
end
up.
So
there
are
some
pieces
that
are
against
us
at
the
moment.
The
prices
are
turning
as
Emily
mentioned,
but
it's
going
to
be
I
think
for
us
a
little
bit
of
a
roller
coaster
for
the
next
four
months.
D
Keeping
making
sure
McNeil
can
stay
online,
making
sure
we
optimize
in
real
time
where
there
are
opportunities
to
do
it.
But
knowing
that
the
that,
essentially,
this
budget
was
built
around
the
idea
that
there
were
going
to
be
higher
winter
prices
and
we're
beginning
to
see
that
materialize.
But
it
hasn't
gotten
to
the
point
where
you're,
seeing
it
lined
up
fully
with
the
budget.
G
And
just
to
add
that
James
and
his
team
have
developed
kind
of
a
dashboard
of
you
know:
load
versus
doll.
You
know
load
and
resource
and
sort
of
the
cumulative
effect
right
of
the
both
in
magwood
hours
and
in
dollars
of
kind
of
where
we
are
on
power
supply,
and
so
you
can
kind
of
see
where
we
wanted
to
be
and
where
we
are,
and
you
can
kind
of
see
like
the
line
starting
to
get
back
up
towards
the
right
spot.
H
I
mean,
as
Darren
said,
this
is
really
about
this:
the
prices
Energy
prices
in
the
second
half
of
December
through
February
and
March,
and
if
they
come
in,
where
we
thought
you
know
or
even
potentially
higher,
you
know
significant
Revenue
value
to
us.
They
come
in
lower
significant
lost
Revenue
potential.
All
of
those
revenues
would
be
above
the
cost
of
the
assets
but
their,
but
their
lost
potential
revenue
from
the
budget.
E
G
I'll
move
to
the
next
page,
if
there's
no
other
questions
oops
okay,
so
this
is
capital
spending
year
to
date,
we
have
spent
3.1
million
versus
a
budgeted
of
4.4
million
at
this
point
in
the
year,
34
percent
of
the
budget.
Overall,
not
much
of
note
here
to
report.
You
know
supply
chain
challenges
are
perhaps
you
know
continuing
and
perhaps
worse
than
they've,
been
at
any
point
in
covid
really
I
mean
we're
we're
still
seeing
those
so
that's
affecting
things,
but
we
are
purchasing.
G
And
let
me
go
down
to
cash
so
related
to
sort
of
monitoring
things.
Cash.
As
of
October
31st
was
6.4
million.
That's
compared
to
a
budgeted
amount
of
7.2,
so
it's
only
83
days
on
cat
83
days,
cash
on
hand,
that's
lower
than
where
we
like
to
be.
So
that's
something
we're
watching
closely
again.
It's
a
combination
of
all
the
things
I
just
talked
about,
and
so
with
those
again
back
to
those
winter
Energy
prices.
G
If
those
come
in
where
we
had
budgeted
them
to
be,
that
will
will
turn
around,
but
we're
in
a
place
now,
where
we've
paid
out
the
cash
for
the
wood
for
the
fuel
right,
but
we
haven't
generated
the
revenue
using
that
yet
so
adjusted
debt
service
coverage
ratio,
1.01
currently
for
the
12
months
ended
and
the
regular
debt
service
coverage
ratio.
3.53
happy
to
take
questions.
I
I
In
Canada
23,
we
budgeted
397
691
tons
with
a
price
of
approximately
40
per
ton,
based
based
on
the
current
two
chip
markets.
The
remaining
expense
budget
increase
about
610
416
dollars
is
due
to
the
rising
cost
of
material
and
labor
the
capital
budget
for
calendar
year.
23
is
about
2.85
million
as
compared
to
calendar
year
22,
which
was
about
2.06
million
difference
of
about
seven
eight,
seven
thousand,
eight,
eight
thousand
seven
thousand
eighty
four
one
sixty
five
dollars.
I
The
main
reason
for
this
increase
is
we're
trying
to
do
really
too
large
to
to
large
projects.
One
of
them
are
the
front
loader
replacement
about
675
000,
as
well
as
the
tournament
control
upgrade
project,
which
is
about
five
hundred
thousand
and,
of
course,
the
Labor.
You
know
the
inflation
and
the
labor
prices
and
material
prices
has
increased
versus
calendar
year.
22.
H
D
H
I
think
I
would
offer
on
top
of
that
too.
Darren
is,
of
course,
Scott
multi-year
contracts
unless
there's
a
requirement
to
deliver.
Don't
really
do
you
any
good
if
it's
voluntary
deliveries,
you're
you're
really
going
to
have
to
move
the
price
to
get
the
deliveries?
We've
never
been
paying
enough
per
ton
to
impose
minimum
deliveries
on
anybody
and
have
them
accept
the
contract.
C
H
Let
me
well
let
me
revenues
do
appear
on
the
second
spreadsheet,
but
this
is
the
first
year
we've
budgeted
Emily
suggested
we
move
to
budgeting
Revenue
side,
and
so
I
don't
have
an
actual
history
project.
For
you,
the
number
I'm
giving
you
is
a
is
a
25
increase
over
the
actual
calendar
projection
over
actual
calendar
22..
E
C
H
Sorry
go
ahead.
There's
two
components
to
keep
in
mind
too,
which
is
the
price
of
the
wood
itself
is
a
commodity,
but
the
access
to
trucking
is
also
a
problem:
the
transportation
access,
because
some
of
these
suppliers
as
I
understand
and
Betsy's
the
expert,
we'll
read,
we'll
divert
their
Trucking
to
other
more
lucrative
purposes.
H
The
more
we
compensate,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
when
you're
looking
at
energy
revenues
of
a
hundred
and
sixteen
dollars
per
megawatt
hour
projected
before
wrecks
and
capacity,
you've
got
to
do
what
you've
got
to
do
to
get
the
wood,
because
the
economic
impact
of
not
getting
the
wood
is
way
way
worse
than
this.
Okay.
C
I'm
not
complaining,
maybe
I'm,
carrying
some
baggage.
So
let
me
tell
you,
you
know:
I've
been
here
around
a
long
time
and
around
here
a
long
time
and
we
were
asked
way
back
when
what
did
we
think
was
going
to
happen
to
Wood
prices
and
most
people
said,
but
being
an
environmental
pessimist,
I
thought
it
was
going
to
go
up
it
didn't
for
about
10
years
so
and
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be
driven
by
scarcity,
because
it
was
an
environmental
pessimist.
H
You
know
by
300
percent,
between
February
and
and
May
and
Diesel
is
a
material
cost
of
our
delivery
people's
business.
So
again
you
know
it.
This
is
not
I,
don't
know
that
anything
can
be
interpreted
from
this
just
yet,
in
terms
of
long
term,
I
mean
I,
think
of
all
the
supply
chain
disruptions
and
all
of
the
volatility
in
all
of
the
fuel
side
of
the
business
Energy
natural
gas,
electricity,
diesel
right
I
mean
you
know.
H
H
J
D
H
H
A
It's
taking
us
a
little
while
I
think
because
I
it
was
probably
three
four
years
ago,
when
someone
from
New
York
State
came
here
in
person
saying
he
couldn't
get
a
contract
and-
and
you
know
we
always
hear
that
the
Wood
Forest
Wood
Product
Industry-
is
you
know,
caving
in
there's,
not
enough
demand.
There's
only
rygate
and
McNeil,
so
I
think
I
mean
peeling
back
the
layers
to
clarify
it's,
not
it's
not
about
the
wood
product,
it's
about
the
bodies
to
move
the
product
and
then
the
cost
of
diesel,
and
then
inflation
generally.