[0:30] started here. Before

[11:33] I start talking.

[11:44] to order. This

[11:46] meeting is also being

[11:48] streamed virtual via

[11:49] Zoom. And I will now

[12:04] Valkenburg.

[12:08] >> Delegate Homer is

[12:10] here.

[12:10] >> Thank you.

[12:11] Delegate. We've got

[12:25] >> Here.

[12:27] >> John Farmer.

[12:29] >> Here.

[12:31] >> Lieutenant

[12:32] Governor Ghazala

[12:33] Hashmi here.

[12:44] >> Richard Caperton

[12:46] here. Tony Smith here.

[12:52] Don Alexy.

[12:54] >> Here.

[13:05] chair is present. A

[13:07] quorum is present.

[13:09] Before we move on

[13:10] with the materials

[13:11] today, we need to

[13:12] approve the draft

[13:13] meeting minutes from

[13:13] the last meeting.

[13:25] >> I move. We adopt.

[13:28] Second.

[13:29] >> Having a motion.

[13:30] And second, that we

[13:33] adopt.

[13:33] >> The approve, I.

[13:34] >> Guess approve the

[13:44] >> Aye. Great.

[13:49] >> So we're going to

[13:50] go to slide two here

[14:05] the key findings with

[14:06] the task force to

[14:08] vote on the Interim

[14:11] Task Force report,

[14:12] which is due October

[14:25] task force will vote

[14:26] on those final

[14:27] recommendations on or

[14:27] before the next

[14:28] meeting of ours on

[14:30] Tuesday, October 13th.

[14:32] And so that last

[14:33] meeting will be to

[14:34] review that final

[14:45] for today.

[14:48] >> Great. Thank you.

[14:49] And welcome, everyone

[14:50] to the third task

[14:51] force meeting. Really

[14:52] appreciate everyone

[14:52] being here. I know

[14:53] there was a couple

[14:54] conflicts. So thanks

[15:05] recommendations. I

[15:06] just wanted to open

[15:07] up with what does

[15:08] voting today mean? We

[15:09] are not voting on the

[15:10] final report. So a

[15:11] vote affirmatively

[15:12] today does not mean

[15:12] that you agree with

[15:13] all of the

[15:14] recommendations in

[15:25] the specific

[15:26] recommendations and

[15:27] the final report. We

[15:28] will, as chair Chief

[15:31] Almond just said, be

[15:33] voting on those ahead

[15:34] of the next meeting

[15:44] for discussion today.

[15:47] Essentially, the what

[15:48] and the how. So what

[15:49] we're looking at

[15:50] today is in the

[15:51] interim report that

[15:52] you all have received

[16:05] of that is how should

[16:06] these recommendations

[16:07] be operationalized?

[16:09] And how can we bring

[16:11] these things into

[16:12] fruition? Who should

[16:14] own the actions that

[16:14] we're talking about

[16:25] things correctly, the

[16:26] what and the how. And

[16:27] we would really love

[16:29] feedback specifically

[16:29] on the how. That's

[16:31] where we're kind of

[16:32] still working towards

[16:33] getting the correct

[16:34] owners of these

[16:45] these interim report

[16:47] recommendations,

[16:48] we'll have kind of

[16:49] the flow of this will

[16:50] work, is that we're

[16:51] going to have some

[16:52] folks from our

[16:53] Deloitte team and our

[16:54] empty team spend some

[17:05] very detailed of all

[17:06] the recommendations

[17:06] that we have so far.

[17:07] So we'll provide a

[17:08] brief overview of

[17:09] that and then provide

[17:10] time to discuss each

[17:12] recommendation,

[17:12] focusing on that. Is

[17:13] that this the right

[17:14] what and the right

[17:25] So if there's

[17:26] anything that's

[17:26] missing, anything

[17:27] that we haven't

[17:28] covered that we want

[17:29] to make sure gets

[17:30] into the final draft

[17:31] of the report, we can

[17:32] bring it up then, and

[17:33] then we'll have time

[17:34] for wrap up and

[17:45] more meeting before

[17:46] the final report will

[17:47] be submitted to the

[17:48] General Assembly. And

[17:49] as chief mentioned,

[17:51] we are going to plan

[17:52] to send that final

[17:53] report to to you all

[17:54] members and post

[18:05] with or don't agree

[18:06] with will be done

[18:07] online by October

[18:08] 12th, and then we

[18:09] will do some live

[18:10] editing during that

[18:11] final meeting to try

[18:12] to get consensus on

[18:14] as many of those

[18:15] recommendations for

[18:25] needed, as well as

[18:26] meet with the SEC or

[18:28] utilities, any other

[18:29] stakeholders as

[18:30] needed to make sure

[18:31] that all of that

[18:32] consensus is included

[18:33] into the final report.

[18:45] don't include the

[18:46] future. We have

[18:48] another report that

[18:49] will be due in June

[18:50] of next year. So we

[18:51] can talk about that

[18:52] in the final meeting.

[18:53] But I will go ahead

[19:05] My name is Anna with

[19:07] Deloitte. I'm here

[19:08] with my colleagues

[19:09] Andrew, Colleen and

[19:10] Bill, who will also

[19:11] be speaking from the

[19:12] Deloitte team. So as

[19:15] Kylie mentioned,

[19:25] I know you only got

[19:27] it a couple of days

[19:28] ago and didn't have a

[19:30] ton of time to review,

[19:31] but appreciate the

[19:32] comments we did

[19:33] receive and really

[19:34] want to take the time

[19:45] want to give a quick

[19:47] update on some of the

[19:48] key activities that.

[19:49] Thank you that we, as

[19:54] in Deloitte, support

[20:05] Task Force Meeting

[20:06] two, we met with the

[20:09] Massachusetts

[20:09] Department of Energy

[20:11] Resources to learn

[20:13] more about their

[20:24] Nyserda's beta

[20:26] program also provide

[20:27] their recommendations.

[20:28] In the last meeting,

[20:30] we had one on one

[20:31] meetings with many of

[20:32] you to get your kind

[20:33] of individual inputs

[20:45] well. We held the

[20:48] public input session,

[20:50] which was open to

[20:51] anyone. We had very

[20:52] good attendance and

[20:54] participation in that

[21:04] build on NEM as well,

[21:07] and to focus on

[21:09] interconnection

[21:10] modernization, which

[21:10] we've heard from all

[21:11] of you too. So some

[21:13] very similar themes.

[21:24] public meeting. How

[21:26] many people give me a

[21:27] sense of who was

[21:28] there, who they

[21:29] represented?

[21:30] >> Yeah. So we

[21:31] definitely have a

[21:31] list of that. I think

[21:33] there were about 30

[21:34] to 40 folks on the

[21:45] a lot of industry

[21:46] folks and a few of

[21:47] the kind of advocacy

[21:48] community.

[21:53] >> Great. Okay. Thank

[21:53] you.

[21:53] >> Yeah. Thanks.

[22:05] from Dominion that we

[22:07] took into account

[22:08] when putting together

[22:09] the draft

[22:12] recommendations,

[22:25] be included. Anything

[22:26] else on some of these

[22:28] key meetings that we

[22:30] held? Go ahead.

[22:31] Carrie. Yeah. Similar

[22:32] question relating to

[22:33] the industry

[22:34] listening sessions, I

[22:44] Tesla. Good leap.

[22:49] Those that that kind

[22:50] of those kinds of

[22:52] companies.

[22:53] >> I'm not familiar

[23:01] types of sectors do

[23:06] those companies

[23:06] represent?

[23:06] >> They're like

[23:07] installers of solar

[23:07] storage or smart

[23:08] thermostats. And some

[23:08] aggregators like do

[23:08] some of the

[23:09] aggregation of

[23:09] different years.

[23:10] >> Thank you.

[23:12] >> And Good Leap does

[23:13] some of the financing

[23:25] of the attendees of

[23:26] those meetings and

[23:27] some of the the notes

[23:28] as well. Moving on to

[23:31] the next slide. Sorrym

[23:49] task force meeting to

[23:50] those responses were

[23:52] as well as the

[23:57] readiness

[24:11] homework outputs, and

[24:13] drafted sections two,

[24:25] studies as well. And

[24:27] that has culminated

[24:28] in the draft content

[24:30] that we will discuss

[24:31] and get your all's

[24:43] findings? Okay. I'm

[24:48] going to go ahead and

[24:50] summarize some of the

[24:51] kind of key task

[25:05] building off of kind

[25:06] of Carly and Josephus

[25:09] objectives for our

[25:10] meeting today, where

[25:12] we really want to

[25:13] focus is not

[25:14] necessarily on the

[25:24] the recommendations.

[25:26] But however,

[25:27] definitely want to

[25:28] make sure we're all

[25:29] on the same page with

[25:30] the findings. So I'll

[25:32] go through a few of

[25:33] them here, and then

[25:34] we'll get into the

[25:46] recommendations

[25:46] should both be around

[25:48] d r adoption and

[25:51] pathways for d r

[25:52] market participation.

[25:53] And so we really

[26:05] enablement or just

[26:14] getting more ders out

[26:14] there, but really

[26:15] doing both and

[26:24] being represented as

[26:27] an untapped

[26:28] opportunity to deploy

[26:29] and aggregate ders.

[26:31] This can help with

[26:33] the governor's goals

[26:44] and kind of to better

[26:49] tell the story about

[26:50] how doctors can help

[26:50] with grid utilization

[26:51] and energy

[26:51] affordability. So we

[27:05] heard this pretty

[27:06] much in every meeting

[27:08] that it's been a

[27:09] great foundation, but

[27:11] doesn't fully

[27:12] compensate doctors

[27:13] for all of their grid

[27:23] apply in compliment

[27:26] to NEM as a possible

[27:28] next step, which

[27:29] we'll talk about in

[27:29] more detail. The

[27:32] fourth around data

[27:34] center growth. And

[27:41] newer large load.

[27:46] Facilities in

[27:48] Virginia today. And

[27:49] they need to be

[27:50] integrated as part of

[27:51] some of the

[27:53] recommendations

[28:05] compliance is still

[28:06] developing, you know,

[28:07] how can we make sure

[28:09] our recommendations

[28:10] are in tandem and in

[28:12] support of that to

[28:14] encourage more

[28:25] settlement, dispatch

[28:27] override. We heard

[28:28] those from pretty

[28:28] much everyone that

[28:30] they're important

[28:32] fundamentals for some

[28:33] of the larger VPP

[28:44] getting kind of

[28:46] better access to that

[28:47] customer and grid

[28:48] data. And just what a

[28:50] challenge that's been

[28:51] for the D R

[28:53] aggregators to

[28:55] participate in the

[29:04] been a top finding

[29:07] and something that's

[29:08] come up in pretty

[29:09] much every meeting

[29:10] we've had, just the

[29:12] need for greater

[29:13] margin modernization

[29:25] initial

[29:26] recommendations based

[29:27] on your all's input,

[29:28] that we'll talk

[29:29] through. The next one

[29:32] is that we know that

[29:44] we're we're creating

[29:46] these recommendations

[29:47] in a way that's

[29:48] building off of

[29:49] lessons learned from

[29:50] those pilots, knowing

[29:51] that they're just

[29:52] getting started and

[29:53] being done really in

[30:05] last two are how to

[30:08] noting that doctors

[30:11] could perhaps play a

[30:12] larger role in

[30:24] when utilities are

[30:26] conducting their

[30:27] planning and ERPs?

[30:29] And then the last one,

[30:31] definitely a big one

[30:32] that we've heard in a

[30:33] lot of meetings

[30:34] around both local

[30:44] customers, and just

[30:47] understanding the

[30:47] value of Ders, how

[30:49] they can be adopted

[30:50] and the benefits that

[30:51] they can bring to our

[30:53] communities. I will

[30:54] pause there. Those

[31:04] But let me pause

[31:06] first and just see if

[31:08] there's any

[31:09] additional input from

[31:11] Louise or Carly or

[31:25] >> This bill only a

[31:26] friendly suggestion

[31:27] on. As you do the

[31:29] next turn on this on

[31:31] the different

[31:32] recommendations, you

[31:33] may wish to use an

[31:45] executive branch can

[31:46] do, say it's, you

[31:47] know, executive

[31:49] branch, or if it's

[31:49] something else, then

[31:51] it's kind of stratify

[31:52] them that way. And

[31:53] that way people can

[32:05] It's certainly

[32:06] something we were

[32:07] also hoping to get

[32:08] the task force

[32:09] members input on. And

[32:11] you will see that as

[32:12] we go into the

[32:14] recommendations and

[32:25] don't and still need

[32:26] some additional input.

[32:28] However, that is

[32:30] certainly the goal

[32:30] for the next

[32:32] iteration of these.

[32:45] did on this report.

[32:46] It was a tremendous

[32:47] undertaking, and I

[32:48] did finally get

[32:49] through it today,

[32:51] just before this

[32:52] meeting, and added a

[32:53] lot of comments and

[32:54] feedback in there

[33:05] together. I saw a

[33:07] fair amount of

[33:08] duplication or areas

[33:10] where there was

[33:11] alignment amongst a

[33:12] recommendation with

[33:13] items that were

[33:14] provided later, or

[33:24] to do some of that

[33:26] streamlining.

[33:30] >> I don't think we

[33:31] disagree with that.

[33:32] So helpful input.

[33:45] recommendations are

[33:46] already underway to

[33:47] some extent because

[33:48] of recent legislation

[33:49] or which have a

[33:50] timeline. And we know

[34:25] very, very clearly

[34:26] right up front. The

[34:27] second thing is, I do

[34:28] think we should

[34:29] highly consider, or I

[34:31] would generally be

[34:32] opposed, given the

[34:33] urgency of some of

[34:34] the things we're

[34:44] energy officer or, or

[34:46] through through

[34:47] existing mechanisms.

[34:48] I think our bias

[34:49] should be towards

[34:50] that anytime we can

[34:51] in terms of

[34:51] recommendation. And

[34:52] if we need

[34:53] accountability in

[34:53] terms of timelines or

[34:54] things like that,

[35:04] recommendations that

[35:06] we're putting in the

[35:07] report.

[35:12] >> Very helpful input

[35:13] and I think gets into

[35:25] forward? So thank you

[35:27] all. Is there

[35:30] anything else on

[35:30] findings before we

[35:31] actually get into the

[35:44] of doctors. Do we

[35:46] consider the impact

[35:48] of adjusting that

[35:50] definition to more

[35:52] closely match like

[35:53] what we have a

[35:53] legislative

[35:54] definition of what

[36:05] accept that as an

[36:06] assumption that we

[36:07] can't challenge going

[36:09] forward?

[36:11] >> Would welcome

[36:12] other input on that?

[36:14] Yes. Please, Don.

[36:24] saw that in the email

[36:26] with the summary

[36:26] findings, but I don't

[36:27] see it on this list.

[36:29] Is it in one of these?

[36:31] >> I, I know that we

[36:33] had shared it in the

[36:34] last meeting, but we

[36:44] report afterwards.

[36:47] But to the delegates

[36:48] question I think.

[36:49] Yeah. Can you please.

[36:52] >> Yeah. Feel free to

[36:53] finish.

[36:53] >> Your thought.

[37:04] folks see a need to

[37:07] revisit that

[37:07] definition.

[37:12] >> I think for

[37:14] purposes of this

[37:14] report, it probably

[37:25] regulatory

[37:26] implementation. I

[37:26] think the

[37:27] inconsistency is more

[37:28] around when we're

[37:29] talking about order

[37:30] 2222 implementation.

[37:31] So I do think, you

[37:33] know, one of the

[37:34] recommendations is

[37:34] around creating a

[37:35] readiness framework

[37:45] assessment of Ders.

[37:46] The other thing that

[37:47] I'll say, and I don't

[37:49] know that this

[37:49] necessarily gets to

[37:50] delegate Homer's

[37:51] point, but the focus

[37:53] of the report on

[38:05] probably something

[38:06] that we want to

[38:07] revisit to the extent

[38:08] that we have

[38:09] non-dispatchable Ders,

[38:10] that that are

[38:11] discussed throughout

[38:11] the report as being

[38:12] integrated into the

[38:13] more comprehensive

[38:25] my opinion.

[38:28] >> And maybe we can

[38:29] come back to the

[38:30] Dispatchability piece

[38:31] in a minute. Just

[38:32] sticking on the the

[38:34] definition

[38:34] legislative

[38:35] definition side. I

[38:44] roadmap that that SEC

[38:46] could pursue. Anyone

[38:48] else disagree with

[38:49] that or delegate

[38:49] Homer. Any any other

[38:53] perspectives on if we

[38:54] want to be

[38:55] reexamining the

[39:05] than I can, but the

[39:06] general definition is

[39:07] less than Ders or

[39:08] less than five

[39:09] megawatts of. I think

[39:10] it names different

[39:10] types of technologies

[39:11] of solar storage,

[39:12] energy efficiency and

[39:14] different different

[39:25] >> Yeah. And the

[39:26] reason so that comes

[39:27] from the virtual

[39:28] power plant code

[39:29] section. And the

[39:30] reason we went with

[39:31] that definition there

[39:32] was to try and keep

[39:34] it as flexible as

[39:45] mentioned, like the

[39:46] net metering section

[39:47] of code, it's very

[39:48] specific to just

[39:50] rooftop solar

[39:52] photovoltaic. If you

[39:53] look at the shared

[39:54] solar, it's very

[40:05] broad and flexible

[40:06] from the VPP code

[40:08] section was

[40:09] appropriate to use

[40:09] here. Just because we

[40:10] are talking about

[40:12] solar and storage for

[40:13] sure, but also smart

[40:25] think that was the

[40:26] impetus for using

[40:27] that more broad

[40:29] definition.

[40:33] >> This bill, one

[40:34] last friendly

[40:45] beginning of my

[40:46] Dominion career 20

[40:47] years ago, a five

[40:48] megawatt solar

[40:49] project would have

[40:50] been considered a

[40:50] very large utility

[40:52] scale project for the

[41:04] know, the way it's

[41:06] scale may shift over

[41:08] time.

[41:10] >> Great. It sounds

[41:11] like maybe leave as

[41:12] is not have a strong

[41:13] recommendation on

[41:14] making any changes

[41:22] there. Okay. And then.

[41:29] Angela brought up the

[41:30] Dispatchability piece

[41:30] as well and would be

[41:45] particular value of

[41:46] things like energy

[41:47] efficiency or other

[41:48] solutions alongside

[41:50] Dispatchability, but

[41:51] would be curious for

[41:52] other folks.

[41:53] >> Angela.

[41:53] >> I would be curious.

[41:54] You describe that as

[42:05] resources. So I think

[42:06] the way that the

[42:08] mission statement was

[42:09] drafted is it's

[42:10] focusing exclusively

[42:11] on dispatchable

[42:13] resources. So I don't

[42:14] I don't think it's a

[42:24] report, there is also

[42:26] a focus on

[42:27] Non-dispatchable. And

[42:28] so I think you're

[42:28] sort of missing out

[42:32] on some unique

[42:33] characteristics of

[42:33] those

[42:34] non-dispatchable

[42:35] resources, in

[42:45] valuations for

[42:46] different types of

[42:47] resources, like

[42:48] dispatchable and

[42:49] non-dispatchable are

[42:50] different

[42:51] capabilities. And I

[42:52] think that's, I think

[42:53] you're right. Yeah,

[42:54] we should not be

[43:05] different depending

[43:06] on the resource type.

[43:07] And that's probably

[43:08] something that we're

[43:09] going to need to

[43:09] discuss when we get

[43:10] to that

[43:11] recommendation. And

[43:12] the Commonwealth, I

[43:13] mean, the state

[43:15] Corporation

[43:24] recognize that that

[43:26] would continue

[43:26] forward.

[43:30] >> Yeah.

[43:30] >> Please.

[43:31] >> Can you.

[43:32] >> Help me understand?

[43:33] Does the report at

[43:34] this stage set out

[43:45] utilization, such

[43:46] that we're maybe

[43:48] thinking about like

[43:49] the state of New York

[43:50] as they developed

[43:51] their roadmap. They

[43:51] had a big long term

[44:04] like a lot of these,

[44:06] all of these

[44:06] components are

[44:08] essential for getting

[44:10] further down the road

[44:11] than where we are

[44:12] today. But does the

[44:13] report make a

[44:25] this group in terms

[44:26] of like what is also

[44:28] technologically

[44:29] feasible at this

[44:30] stage, I think

[44:31] there's a tension

[44:32] point between what is

[44:33] feasible today and

[44:34] where does the state

[44:45] is going.

[44:49] >> Yes. And I'm going

[44:50] to call on chief in a

[44:51] minute. Do you want.

[44:52] >> To jump to the

[44:54] slide on.

[44:54] >> Recommendation one,

[45:05] comment as well as in

[45:06] homework. I think the

[45:07] value of, of having

[45:08] that kind of North

[45:09] Star vision of like,

[45:10] what are we trying to

[45:12] aim for? But one that

[45:13] was actually one of

[45:14] the pieces I think

[45:23] heard in the public

[45:26] stakeholder session,

[45:26] you know, a goal of

[45:28] ten gigawatts in the

[45:29] next ten, 15, 20

[45:31] years and then heard,

[45:34] I think, a range in

[45:45] feedback on if

[45:47] there's an appetite

[45:48] among folks to try to

[45:49] set that. And then we

[45:50] could take away and

[45:51] try to figure out,

[45:52] maybe come back with

[45:53] a recommendation in

[45:54] the next one about

[46:05] modeling, setting.

[46:08] Setting something,

[46:09] pulling a number, you

[46:10] know, out of our out

[46:11] of our hats. But if

[46:13] there's an interplay

[46:14] in this process, I'd

[46:24] goal versus what does

[46:27] technology say today?

[46:30] >> Yeah, and I think

[46:31] so at the next

[46:32] meeting, when we meet

[46:34] in mid-October, the

[46:44] think we can sort of

[46:46] address that moving

[46:46] forward. And to

[46:47] Louisa's point, in

[46:48] the interim, we can

[46:50] sort of gauge some

[46:51] more interest on that.

[47:05] a d e, yet I doubt

[47:08] anyone would disagree

[47:09] to include energy

[47:11] efficiency. So that

[47:11] would be one

[47:13] variation on the

[47:14] definition we might

[47:25] report, to also

[47:26] consider on the

[47:27] public facing side,

[47:29] some of the land

[47:30] conservation land use

[47:31] benefits of DERS. So,

[47:33] you know, mitigating

[47:34] against, you know,

[47:45] the conversation. A

[47:46] lot of localities. So

[47:48] as we socialize these

[47:49] ideas, I think that

[47:50] can have a lot of

[48:04] saw some of your

[48:06] comments around land

[48:07] use and want to take

[48:09] those into

[48:10] consideration. And,

[48:11] and Carrie, hear what

[48:12] you're saying on

[48:13] establishing the

[48:13] target. Sounds like

[48:25] the conversation and

[48:26] collect some

[48:27] additional feedback,

[48:28] we just went through

[48:30] kind of some of the

[48:31] top findings. Those

[48:33] then led us into this

[48:45] force input around

[48:46] that as well today.

[48:48] But just to go

[48:50] through these quickly,

[48:51] we have kind of two

[48:54] major cross-cutting

[49:04] for Virginia Energy

[49:07] to manage and

[49:10] implement a lot of

[49:11] these recommendations

[49:12] and oversee a lot of

[49:25] of these doctor

[49:27] adoption and VPP

[49:28] participation

[49:29] recommendations. The

[49:31] next kind of two

[49:45] enable each other up

[49:47] and around doctor

[49:50] adoption. You know,

[49:50] the recommendations

[49:52] culminated in one

[50:05] supporting doctor

[50:07] adoption with those

[50:08] facilities,

[50:09] modernizing doctor

[50:11] interconnection that

[50:12] would include some of

[50:14] the flexible load

[50:24] how much time we have.

[50:26] But doctor permitting,

[50:30] supporting and kind

[50:30] of complimenting

[50:32] energy efficiency,

[50:33] adoption, and then

[50:44] establishing those

[50:46] vbp enabling policies,

[50:47] which Todd will talk

[50:48] more about,

[50:51] establishing some of

[50:51] the doctor and Vbp

[50:54] compensation models,

[51:05] recommendations to

[51:06] get more doctors into

[51:08] PJM markets, and then

[51:11] aligning utility

[51:12] incentive structures,

[51:14] integrating doctors

[51:25] rest of the meeting,

[51:26] we have a slide per

[51:28] each of the bolded

[51:31] recommendations that

[51:31] gets into each of

[51:32] these and then talks

[51:33] through the initial

[51:45] overall feedback on

[51:46] the prior section

[51:48] around the findings,

[51:49] but are there any

[51:52] recommendations that

[51:54] folks think we're

[52:05] think in the framing

[52:06] on doctor adoption

[52:07] and then doctor

[52:08] market participation,

[52:11] one thought that I

[52:12] had that I was when I

[52:13] was reading through

[52:14] it is I think that's

[52:25] a VPP is sort of a

[52:28] really narrow context,

[52:30] and DES certainly can

[52:32] participate in a VPP

[52:33] in aggregations of

[52:34] Ders can provide

[52:45] necessarily think

[52:47] about narrowing that

[52:49] lens, especially on

[52:50] the DER adoption side.

[52:52] And then on the dir

[52:53] market participation

[53:05] dispatchable or

[53:07] non-dispatchable. So

[53:08] to me, that also

[53:10] speaks to the need to

[53:12] really more clearly

[53:13] delineate in some of

[53:25] something that wasn't

[53:26] just in one

[53:27] particular

[53:27] recommendation, but I

[53:28] sort of saw

[53:45] the nature of energy

[53:47] jobs is even if you

[53:48] stay at the same

[53:49] company, you might

[53:50] have 12 or 13

[53:51] different jobs. So

[53:51] the skills that you

[53:52] need for distributed

[54:04] workforce per se.

[54:10] >> One thing that I

[54:11] think I've talked

[54:12] about before, but I

[54:13] think it builds off

[54:14] of Angela's comment.

[54:14] We should think about

[54:25] having integrated

[54:26] Ders into utility

[54:27] planning as an

[54:28] example of that. And

[54:29] we might want to try

[54:30] to think about other

[54:31] things that are like

[54:32] that, that aren't

[54:33] traditional, like

[54:45] >> Really helpful and

[54:46] just want to make

[54:47] sure. So hearing,

[54:48] think through, I

[54:50] think agreed on the

[54:51] intent of market in

[54:52] the most general

[54:53] sense and trying to

[54:54] figure out the right

[55:04] passive or passive

[55:06] resource versus

[55:07] something that is

[55:08] engaging in providing

[55:09] a grid service to

[55:10] some extent might not

[55:13] even have that quite,

[55:13] quite right yet. But

[55:24] bill. And then I

[55:26] think just to make

[55:26] sure you're capturing

[55:27] the right pieces here,

[55:29] hearing. Focusing,

[55:32] and this ties back to,

[55:33] I think, making sure

[55:34] we're balanced on

[55:45] as clarifying, you

[55:48] know, not not every

[55:49] resource is the same

[55:50] and they're providing

[55:51] different types of

[55:52] value. And so

[55:52] clarifying those

[55:53] different value

[55:53] streams, is that that

[56:01] Thank you.

[56:06] >> One additional

[56:06] thought is that

[56:07] whether there are

[56:08] dispatchable or

[56:10] non-dispatchable ders

[56:12] or inverters, at

[56:13] least provide grid

[56:22] about modernizing the

[56:27] interconnection

[56:27] standards that we

[56:30] currently have

[56:33] mandatory application

[56:45] utilities. And that

[56:48] has created, I

[56:50] believe, the grounds

[57:05] 200 or 250kW, because

[57:06] they're treating the

[57:07] Ders as if they were

[57:09] under standard 2003,

[57:11] where they're meant

[57:12] to be contained. But

[57:25] reliability. So the

[57:28] point being that

[57:29] there's a crossover

[57:31] benefit of Ders,

[57:32] whether they're

[57:33] dispatchable or

[57:34] non-dispatchable in

[57:43] factor for the grid.

[57:47] So there's distinct

[57:48] and measurable

[57:51] benefit to the grid.

[57:54] >> Very helpful here

[58:05] >> You'll have to

[58:06] forgive me because I

[58:07] spent too many months

[58:08] and years thinking

[58:09] about low income

[58:10] access to solar

[58:12] through Virginia

[58:13] Department of

[58:14] Energy's low to

[58:14] moderate income solar

[58:25] I see data centers as

[58:28] a, you know, point to,

[58:29] to leverage to drive

[58:32] Der and VPP

[58:45] opportunities to have

[58:47] natural adoption of

[58:49] Der resources,

[58:49] whether it's a smart

[58:52] thermostat or solar

[59:04] and other components

[59:06] that tap into PJM. ET

[59:08] cetera. And I see

[59:10] data centers being as

[59:11] a potential funder,

[59:13] but I feel like I'm

[59:25] resident, low income

[59:26] or otherwise, to tap

[59:28] into financing

[59:29] mechanisms. And I

[59:30] think potentially

[59:31] there could be some

[59:33] work to be gleaned

[59:45] market adoption.

[59:48] >> And maybe I'd love

[59:49] to stay on, on that

[59:50] topic for a moment,

[59:51] because it came up in

[59:52] different ways and

[59:53] folks input of what

[1:00:05] different, other ways

[1:00:06] to help address

[1:00:07] upfront costs or cost

[1:00:09] in general. And

[1:00:11] whether that's

[1:00:12] rebates, incentives,

[1:00:13] low cost financing

[1:00:15] folks, I you know,

[1:00:27] external third party

[1:00:28] financiers or

[1:00:29] something to make

[1:00:29] sure that they have

[1:00:30] robust offerings in

[1:00:31] the state or

[1:00:32] something. But I'd be

[1:00:32] curious just for

[1:00:33] different

[1:00:34] perspectives of what

[1:00:43] types of adoption

[1:00:46] supports.

[1:00:47] >> I just think it's

[1:00:47] a whole category that

[1:00:48] we're not touching on

[1:00:49] in the report. And so

[1:00:51] there's, I think

[1:00:52] there's a lot of

[1:00:52] research that could

[1:00:53] be distilled that's

[1:01:05] like at that granular

[1:01:06] level for each

[1:01:08] recommendation. But

[1:01:10] yeah, definitely

[1:01:11] curious to hear

[1:01:11] others thoughts on

[1:01:12] this as well.

[1:01:14] >> I can speak to

[1:01:25] work on our own

[1:01:26] infrastructure, but

[1:01:28] equally and sometimes

[1:01:29] more important, how

[1:01:30] can we enable these

[1:01:32] opportunities in the

[1:01:33] community? And we're

[1:01:34] really focused on,

[1:01:44] to be thinking more

[1:01:46] about stakeholders,

[1:01:48] you know, in general,

[1:01:50] or how can from like

[1:02:02] plate, but.

[1:02:07] >> And while we're

[1:02:08] talking about it, I

[1:02:09] think there's also

[1:02:10] sort of like non

[1:02:11] fiscal impact having

[1:02:13] solutions to consider

[1:02:14] in that. So if we're

[1:02:24] lands. It could be,

[1:02:26] and I mentioned this

[1:02:27] in my comments to you

[1:02:29] all, but Agrivoltaics

[1:02:31] is another sort of

[1:02:32] stakeholder group.

[1:02:35] Rural communities,

[1:02:43] be worth exploring.

[1:02:46] >> Just to add a

[1:02:47] little more content

[1:02:49] on the non fiscal

[1:02:50] path. I think there

[1:02:51] are already a number

[1:02:52] of programs in

[1:03:05] thinking Pip, which

[1:03:07] doesn't allow for

[1:03:09] participants to to

[1:03:11] participants who

[1:03:12] participate in the

[1:03:13] Pip program are not

[1:03:14] also allowed to

[1:03:15] participate in any

[1:03:25] utility bills, but

[1:03:26] also create access to

[1:03:29] Ders and other clean

[1:03:45] the financing piece,

[1:03:46] and particularly

[1:03:47] looking at those like

[1:03:48] non-fiscal

[1:03:49] opportunities of how

[1:03:49] to leverage existing

[1:03:51] resources, including

[1:03:52] I know there's a lot

[1:03:53] of, I think utility

[1:03:54] LMI programs that are

[1:04:05] Covering and looking

[1:04:06] into the right ways

[1:04:06] to, to address some

[1:04:07] of those other

[1:04:08] financing or other

[1:04:10] gaps. Okay. Thank you.

[1:04:13] >> And, Carrie,

[1:04:14] you'll see a little

[1:04:24] as you you mentioned.

[1:04:26] So I think noted.

[1:04:27] >> Or even small

[1:04:28] business.

[1:04:29] >> Or even small

[1:04:29] business.

[1:04:30] >> Yeah.

[1:04:30] >> Yep. Okay. Is

[1:04:45] And now what we're

[1:04:46] going to do is kind

[1:04:48] of go into each of

[1:04:49] the individual slides

[1:04:50] for the bolded

[1:05:05] first one is really

[1:05:06] that cross-cutting

[1:05:06] recommendation around.

[1:05:09] Building the, the

[1:05:11] creating some

[1:05:12] capacity for Virginia

[1:05:26] whether or not there

[1:05:27] should be a permanent

[1:05:28] task force to kind of

[1:05:32] oversee some of the

[1:05:33] implementation and

[1:05:43] Energy. Three is that

[1:05:47] establishing a kind

[1:05:48] of formal feedback

[1:05:50] mechanism for the

[1:05:52] existing and

[1:05:53] potential future Vbp

[1:06:04] office to

[1:06:06] >> Learn from the

[1:06:07] pilots. And then four

[1:06:08] is really that

[1:06:09] determining whether

[1:06:10] we want that

[1:06:12] aspirational

[1:06:14] aggregation target to

[1:06:24] folks reactions, and

[1:06:26] then we can move on

[1:06:26] to the to the data

[1:06:28] center focused

[1:06:30] recommendation. So

[1:06:33] I'll pause here for

[1:06:44] around setting a VPP

[1:06:46] aggregation target.

[1:06:47] And I think, you know,

[1:06:47] here in Virginia, we

[1:06:48] have a lot of targets

[1:06:50] already. We've got

[1:06:50] everything in the VC.

[1:06:51] We've got the

[1:06:52] utilization bill from

[1:06:53] this year. We've got

[1:06:54] the VPP bill from

[1:07:03] Ders.

[1:07:08] >> Thank you.

[1:07:10] >> Yeah. I mean, I

[1:07:11] don't necessarily

[1:07:12] oppose having the

[1:07:13] North Star

[1:07:15] aspirational target.

[1:07:25] plan. At the same

[1:07:26] time, I did have a

[1:07:28] comment here that I

[1:07:29] think this

[1:07:30] recommendation of

[1:07:31] pursuing an

[1:07:31] integrated system

[1:07:33] space strategy is

[1:07:34] really important, but

[1:07:45] framing of what that

[1:07:46] is. And in my mind,

[1:07:47] it's actually a

[1:07:48] combination of many

[1:07:49] of the

[1:07:50] recommendations in

[1:07:50] here, but almost like

[1:07:52] a synthesis to sort

[1:07:53] of guide that work.

[1:08:05] >> Delegate Helmer.

[1:08:08] >> Thank you. I just

[1:08:09] I was ahead of time

[1:08:11] earlier on the

[1:08:11] comment, but on this

[1:08:13] one, I wonder if we

[1:08:24] in order to to do

[1:08:26] that, I think

[1:08:27] providing a. I don't

[1:08:28] know where we at

[1:08:29] because it doesn't,

[1:08:30] you know, to, to

[1:08:32] Bill's point earlier,

[1:08:32] like this doesn't

[1:08:45] for the executive and

[1:08:47] Virginia Energy to to

[1:08:49] execute it. So my

[1:08:50] recommendation would

[1:08:50] not be to establish a

[1:08:51] task force, but

[1:08:53] actually to establish

[1:08:54] a requirement that we

[1:09:05] the Senate and the

[1:09:07] Commerce and Labor

[1:09:08] and Commerce

[1:09:08] Committee in the

[1:09:09] House on our progress

[1:09:11] towards that, or some

[1:09:11] sort of regular

[1:09:12] interval, and then

[1:09:13] leave it to the

[1:09:14] executive on how they

[1:09:24] recommendation.

[1:09:27] >> Yeah, I was going

[1:09:28] to say something

[1:09:29] similar that maybe

[1:09:29] the more effective

[1:09:30] long term thing would

[1:09:31] be if Josephus and

[1:09:32] Louise feel you need

[1:09:33] more FTEs, and that

[1:09:45] their full time job

[1:09:46] description.

[1:09:51] >> Great. So hearing

[1:09:53] not a permanent task

[1:10:05] disagreements if we

[1:10:06] made those changes?

[1:10:07] >> My only concern is

[1:10:08] that we do want to

[1:10:09] make sure we have

[1:10:10] good stakeholder

[1:10:11] input, and that this

[1:10:12] the opportunity for

[1:10:13] this robust

[1:10:24] down. There's a whole.

[1:10:28] We're in the very

[1:10:29] beginning of probably

[1:10:31] a three stage process.

[1:10:33] This being the

[1:10:45] force is supposed to

[1:10:46] sunset July 2027 with

[1:10:49] a deployment report.

[1:10:53] And what happens to

[1:11:05] and July 1st, 2027,

[1:11:07] when the decision

[1:11:09] about a future, the

[1:11:10] future of the task

[1:11:11] force, we can make a

[1:11:14] wiser decision than

[1:11:24] kind of decide on

[1:11:27] this point, but I

[1:11:28] think that makes a

[1:11:29] lot of sense. Tony

[1:11:30] and Carrie, that that

[1:11:31] could be something

[1:11:33] that's completed

[1:11:45] asked Bill Murray.

[1:11:46] I'll tell you. I

[1:11:48] don't know who should

[1:11:49] set it or how it gets

[1:11:50] set, but I kind of

[1:11:52] like having some

[1:11:53] measurement out there.

[1:11:53] How are we doing?

[1:11:54] What's reasonable?

[1:12:04] motivate people.

[1:12:07] >> I'd be curious if

[1:12:10] and I think target in

[1:12:11] and of itself also

[1:12:12] comes out with a

[1:12:13] different has

[1:12:14] different contexts.

[1:12:14] There's like the

[1:12:25] what the scope should

[1:12:26] be of. Is it just

[1:12:29] megawatts of, of

[1:12:31] deployment of, you

[1:12:32] know, try to quantify,

[1:12:34] I think solar storage

[1:12:45] megawatts. Is it

[1:12:46] aggregated? Is it

[1:12:47] other pieces? As we

[1:12:48] think about what a

[1:12:49] goal could look like?

[1:12:51] >> I think we have

[1:12:53] some pretty strong

[1:12:54] processes and some

[1:13:05] we are we meeting our

[1:13:06] goals or are we not?

[1:13:08] And so that could be

[1:13:08] one component is just,

[1:13:10] you know, not

[1:13:11] necessarily work that

[1:13:12] any of us has to do,

[1:13:13] but just reporting on

[1:13:14] what's out there,

[1:13:24] target. I do think

[1:13:26] for VPI, I mean, we

[1:13:27] have statutory goals

[1:13:29] associated, but

[1:13:30] ultimately, I think

[1:13:31] some of the modeling

[1:13:31] and information, you

[1:13:33] know, for the energy

[1:13:33] plan and then

[1:13:45] feasible. And so I

[1:13:46] think, you know,

[1:13:46] there might be maybe

[1:13:47] a preliminary number

[1:13:48] that we see with

[1:13:49] energy plan that we

[1:13:50] could start to talk

[1:13:51] about, but ultimately

[1:13:52] that's going to

[1:13:53] evolve over time as

[1:13:54] well. So maybe it's

[1:14:01] make one note that I

[1:14:07] believe and correct

[1:14:07] me if I'm wrong, that

[1:14:08] our scope is all of

[1:14:08] Virginia and a lot of

[1:14:09] the goals there for

[1:14:14] our largest utilities,

[1:14:14] they may not be all

[1:14:15] encompassing. So, you

[1:14:24] or municipal utility

[1:14:26] deployment, as you

[1:14:27] know, a small

[1:14:28] percentage overall,

[1:14:29] but important. So it

[1:14:45] indicators. So yes,

[1:14:46] capturing those

[1:14:47] metrics and stories,

[1:14:49] that's, that's

[1:14:49] sometimes just the

[1:14:50] hardest piece of this.

[1:14:52] So capturing that,

[1:14:53] but then also

[1:14:53] identifying what are

[1:14:54] the equitable

[1:14:55] indicators to make

[1:15:05] out there and see if

[1:15:06] adding one is

[1:15:07] beneficial, or if we

[1:15:08] should just

[1:15:08] consolidate them. But

[1:15:10] if we do need a new

[1:15:11] one, we could borrow

[1:15:12] from the way that the

[1:15:14] VPI lift off report

[1:15:15] looked at potential,

[1:15:25] by 2030.

[1:15:30] >> Just one

[1:15:31] observation. I don't

[1:15:32] have a strong view on

[1:15:33] whether to have a

[1:15:34] goal or not. I

[1:15:45] a percentage low goal,

[1:15:47] that will tend to

[1:15:48] take you towards the

[1:15:50] top end of the range,

[1:15:52] and it's easier to

[1:15:54] get to 1000 if you do

[1:16:04] number of customers

[1:16:06] enrolled, because

[1:16:06] that takes you in a

[1:16:07] different direction.

[1:16:08] You might want to

[1:16:09] just when you're

[1:16:10] managing just to a

[1:16:11] big number goal,

[1:16:12] you're going to use

[1:16:13] the biggest building

[1:16:14] blocks you can to get

[1:16:22] 100 once.

[1:16:27] >> Great. I think

[1:16:28] that.

[1:16:28] >> Gives us.

[1:16:29] >> Some good stuff to

[1:16:30] run with. And we'll,

[1:16:31] we'll bring some,

[1:16:32] some more ideas back,

[1:16:33] including an update

[1:16:34] on the energy plan in

[1:16:44] I think, kind of a

[1:16:46] all encompassing

[1:16:47] theme to some extent

[1:16:49] that kept coming up

[1:16:50] both in our meetings

[1:16:51] before, as well as in

[1:16:53] stakeholder

[1:16:53] conversations,

[1:16:54] homeworks, etc. was

[1:17:05] deployment here, I

[1:17:06] think do recognize

[1:17:07] it's not really on

[1:17:08] the, on the slide

[1:17:09] here, but I do want

[1:17:10] to name and we'll

[1:17:11] make sure we

[1:17:12] acknowledge that

[1:17:13] there are many

[1:17:13] different efforts in

[1:17:14] kind of different

[1:17:25] is running a

[1:17:26] stakeholder group

[1:17:27] right now, and Will

[1:17:27] will come back with

[1:17:29] recommendations in

[1:17:30] January around that

[1:17:31] program. There are

[1:17:45] take advantage of, of

[1:17:46] those opportunities,

[1:17:48] including, I think,

[1:17:49] volts and a shout out

[1:17:50] to Emily for some of

[1:17:51] the opportunities

[1:17:52] that that they're

[1:17:52] building around data

[1:17:53] centers, funding,

[1:18:04] sleeved PPAs, but for

[1:18:06] batches of

[1:18:07] distributed energy

[1:18:09] through utility

[1:18:10] programs or

[1:18:12] bilaterally. So

[1:18:12] there's kind of a

[1:18:13] variety of different

[1:18:24] and I think kind of

[1:18:28] overarching

[1:18:28] recommendation or

[1:18:29] opportunity here

[1:18:29] might be to help kind

[1:18:31] of keep an eye on all

[1:18:32] of those. It's not

[1:18:33] necessarily saying we

[1:18:34] only need to do one

[1:18:45] of resources. And,

[1:18:47] and looking at how

[1:18:48] can we ensure that

[1:18:50] the SB 371 as that's

[1:18:52] being implemented, is

[1:18:53] leading to that

[1:18:54] outcome, as well as

[1:19:02] what have you. I

[1:19:07] think. Yeah. Anyways,

[1:19:09] I'll, I'll pause

[1:19:10] there. But I think

[1:19:10] that's the broad

[1:19:11] sense for, for how we

[1:19:13] might start to think

[1:19:14] about it. Are we

[1:19:25] best do that, given

[1:19:26] this is a very fast

[1:19:29] moving space as well.

[1:19:44] So. So I think one

[1:19:49] recommendation here

[1:19:50] is to address the

[1:20:05] describing a lot of

[1:20:06] the efforts that are

[1:20:07] already underway. We

[1:20:08] did have a meeting

[1:20:09] last week that

[1:20:10] Dominion facilitated

[1:20:11] on the question of

[1:20:13] implementation of SB

[1:20:14] 371 and the load

[1:20:25] those. So there's a

[1:20:26] bucket of programs

[1:20:27] that could address

[1:20:30] broad capacity, value,

[1:20:32] grid level, capacity

[1:20:33] value. And it doesn't

[1:20:34] matter where the Ders

[1:20:45] or BONC as PJM is

[1:20:49] requiring it. That is

[1:20:50] one bucket, and there

[1:20:52] is a value for data

[1:20:53] centers potentially

[1:20:55] in that bucket,

[1:21:04] seems to be more

[1:21:06] interested in looking

[1:21:06] at. And that is

[1:21:07] localized value in

[1:21:10] Virginia, where we

[1:21:10] have a lot of data

[1:21:12] centers that are

[1:21:12] highly concentrated,

[1:21:13] that constraints are

[1:21:14] really transmission

[1:21:24] and have a higher D

[1:21:26] fact score. And I

[1:21:27] think that is not

[1:21:28] reflected here, but

[1:21:29] should be reflected

[1:21:30] again, because it's a

[1:21:32] different type of

[1:21:33] program and likely

[1:21:44] and three into really

[1:21:47] clear pronouncements

[1:21:50] around what a data

[1:21:52] center could

[1:21:52] potentially invest in

[1:21:53] or a large load

[1:21:54] customer could

[1:21:54] potentially invest in,

[1:22:04] point number four,

[1:22:06] you know, the whole

[1:22:08] idea of SB 371 is for

[1:22:10] it to be a voluntary

[1:22:12] program to test these

[1:22:13] different solutions

[1:22:14] and to have different

[1:22:25] requirement here is

[1:22:27] the appropriate place

[1:22:28] to do it. I think

[1:22:30] testing out those

[1:22:31] solutions via the

[1:22:32] implementation of

[1:22:32] that legislation is

[1:22:34] where we should be

[1:22:35] focused right now.

[1:22:45] >> I just wanted to,

[1:22:46] excuse me, add a

[1:22:48] narrative portion to

[1:22:49] what Angela just said.

[1:22:50] So technical benefits

[1:22:52] to kind of the

[1:22:54] locational aspect of

[1:23:05] creating the demand

[1:23:06] are also not creating

[1:23:07] the supply. So I

[1:23:08] think there's like a

[1:23:09] narrative benefit to,

[1:23:10] to placing ders in

[1:23:12] these areas. So

[1:23:13] people can both see

[1:23:25] force can can clarify

[1:23:26] my understanding is

[1:23:27] that hard to retrofit

[1:23:29] storage on site on

[1:23:31] data centers that,

[1:23:32] you know, don't have,

[1:23:33] don't have that

[1:23:44] to consider in terms

[1:23:47] of how we resolve

[1:23:49] that.

[1:23:50] >> Yeah. The SEC

[1:23:51] hosted a technical

[1:23:52] conference last

[1:23:53] December on this

[1:23:54] question of data

[1:23:54] center load

[1:24:05] centers versus new

[1:24:06] data centers that are

[1:24:07] in the pipeline that

[1:24:08] have not yet begun

[1:24:10] construction because

[1:24:11] of this issue of

[1:24:12] retrofitting those

[1:24:13] sites. So I do think

[1:24:13] that it is also a

[1:24:15] nuance associated

[1:24:25] backup storage in a

[1:24:27] way that may actually

[1:24:28] make it more

[1:24:29] difficult for that

[1:24:29] data center to

[1:24:30] integrate or to

[1:24:31] interconnect to the

[1:24:32] grid. Right now, as

[1:24:32] they're studying how

[1:24:34] those resources can

[1:24:45] >> And I appreciate

[1:24:46] that. Oh, please.

[1:24:46] >> I'm just curious

[1:24:48] where. Where there

[1:24:50] may be data on this

[1:24:52] or where there may be

[1:24:53] a need for data in

[1:25:05] the residential or

[1:25:06] small business

[1:25:08] participation in the,

[1:25:10] the design that's

[1:25:11] that's sort of

[1:25:12] envisioned here. So

[1:25:25] type of topic? And is

[1:25:27] it is is that a sort

[1:25:31] of necessary

[1:25:32] component of

[1:25:33] exploring the

[1:25:44] sort of customer

[1:25:46] sentiment about data

[1:25:47] centers, especially

[1:25:48] when paired with

[1:25:48] clean energy that

[1:25:49] they're funding. And

[1:25:50] so we can share that

[1:25:51] if that would be

[1:25:52] helpful.

[1:25:53] >> I guess it's more

[1:26:05] being offered. So is

[1:26:06] it that the data

[1:26:08] center would be

[1:26:10] funding a state run

[1:26:14] program that is then

[1:26:25] transaction? I'm just

[1:26:26] curious, like, what

[1:26:27] is the social

[1:26:29] zeitgeist of this

[1:26:30] type of like, what

[1:26:32] work, what will work

[1:26:32] well, what will have

[1:26:43] centers generally?

[1:26:48] >> I don't know of

[1:26:49] any I don't know if

[1:26:50] anyone else has

[1:26:51] familiarity with

[1:26:51] specifics. Oh, please.

[1:26:52] Yeah.

[1:26:53] >> Maybe in partial

[1:26:54] answer to your

[1:27:04] performed by Embold

[1:27:06] Research. It was

[1:27:08] across the board,

[1:27:11] demographically, in

[1:27:12] accordance with the

[1:27:24] forth. And what we

[1:27:27] learned is that

[1:27:28] there's a lot of

[1:27:29] concern, very high

[1:27:31] concern, about rising

[1:27:33] energy costs, and

[1:27:45] power using renewable

[1:27:46] energy sources. 76%

[1:27:51] think data centers

[1:27:52] should lower nearby

[1:27:53] residents electric

[1:28:02] and apartments, and

[1:28:06] 69% of voters opposed

[1:28:08] data centers. In

[1:28:10] Virginia, 77% oppose

[1:28:12] them in their own

[1:28:14] community. So against

[1:28:25] sentiment in the

[1:28:26] sense that there

[1:28:28] should be penalties,

[1:28:29] perhaps, or ways to

[1:28:31] prevent bad actors,

[1:28:45] generation plant in

[1:28:46] the country to

[1:28:48] generate their own

[1:28:49] grid bypass

[1:28:51] generation. So we

[1:28:53] might want to include

[1:29:05] grid bypass and maybe

[1:29:08] some support for data

[1:29:10] centers in helping to

[1:29:11] find ways to expedite

[1:29:13] their applications in

[1:29:22] be either prevention

[1:29:26] or heavy tax on

[1:29:31] generation through

[1:29:33] fossil fuel

[1:29:34] generation, whether

[1:29:39] like that. Thanks.

[1:29:46] >> Super helpful. I

[1:29:47] also recognize we

[1:29:48] definitely need to

[1:29:49] keep going because we

[1:29:49] have a lot more to

[1:29:51] get through, just

[1:29:51] maybe very quickly

[1:29:52] here. Here I'm

[1:29:53] bringing in a lot

[1:29:54] more nuance and just

[1:30:05] needs and focusing on

[1:30:08] that. I think there

[1:30:09] are a lot of ongoing

[1:30:11] efforts. Curious if

[1:30:12] there are any other

[1:30:12] specific legislative,

[1:30:14] regulatory or. It

[1:30:25] that we think might

[1:30:26] need to happen here.

[1:30:29] I think we have a lot

[1:30:30] of the foundation

[1:30:31] already.

[1:30:34] >> Maybe a two part

[1:30:45] >> Okay. So I'll also

[1:30:46] I will send some

[1:30:47] other feedback on

[1:30:48] this particular issue

[1:30:50] via email. Thank you.

[1:31:03] the next one, Ted,

[1:31:06] should we do a quick

[1:31:07] sound check?

[1:31:09] >> Hello everybody.

[1:31:10] >> All right. We we

[1:31:11] can hear you. Well,

[1:31:12] we'll pass it to you.

[1:31:14] >> All right. Thanks.

[1:31:25] lost the lost the

[1:31:27] slide. I can't see

[1:31:28] the slides now. Could

[1:31:43] >> Okay. So. To what

[1:31:47] we presented, what I

[1:31:49] presented before, on

[1:31:50] to this task force.

[1:31:51] We worked on a

[1:31:53] process by which we

[1:32:05] the state going

[1:32:07] forward, and then

[1:32:09] identifying the

[1:32:09] specific policy

[1:32:10] topics that you might

[1:32:12] scope into a piece of

[1:32:13] legislation or into a

[1:32:23] work on in order to

[1:32:27] implement the

[1:32:27] prioritized vrp types.

[1:32:29] And to the earlier

[1:32:30] conversation, I want

[1:32:31] to emphasize that

[1:32:32] this is on the market

[1:32:34] integration market

[1:32:45] deliberately scoped

[1:32:46] more narrowly and not

[1:32:48] around the larger

[1:32:50] value of doctors and

[1:32:51] doctor adoption. But

[1:32:51] this is really the,

[1:32:53] the right right

[1:33:04] provide grid services

[1:33:07] and be compensated

[1:33:09] for that? And how do

[1:33:09] we set up the system

[1:33:11] so that the market is

[1:33:12] compensating? And

[1:33:13] that's the market in

[1:33:14] general, not the

[1:33:14] wholesale market

[1:33:25] recommendations are

[1:33:26] scoped down towards.

[1:33:28] And, and for that,

[1:33:29] it's also

[1:33:30] specifically what

[1:33:31] we've been calling

[1:33:32] dispatchable doctors

[1:33:33] providing grid

[1:33:34] services. Again, not

[1:33:45] dispatchable ders.

[1:33:46] And so when we went

[1:33:47] through this process

[1:33:48] with with you all and

[1:33:49] got the feedback on

[1:33:50] the Vrp policy types

[1:33:51] and then the topics

[1:34:04] the state of the

[1:34:06] state that we

[1:34:06] presented in the last

[1:34:07] meeting. What we're

[1:34:09] talking about here is

[1:34:10] then the next bit of

[1:34:11] work was to think

[1:34:12] about where the next

[1:34:14] what the next

[1:34:15] milestone is, what

[1:34:25] like customer data

[1:34:26] access or on dual

[1:34:29] participation or

[1:34:30] these kinds of very

[1:34:31] specific vrp enabling

[1:34:33] policy topics. And

[1:34:34] the question was,

[1:34:44] so we did that

[1:34:46] exercise and we have

[1:34:47] the the you'll see in

[1:34:49] the report, the draft

[1:34:50] report so far, what

[1:34:52] those next steps are.

[1:35:05] and plan our policy

[1:35:07] work and our

[1:35:08] legislation and our

[1:35:09] proceedings going

[1:35:10] forward. And so you

[1:35:11] can see on the slide,

[1:35:24] framework so that all

[1:35:27] the future planning

[1:35:28] and scoping and

[1:35:29] procedures,

[1:35:30] proceedings can work

[1:35:31] off that as what kind

[1:35:34] of next policy steps

[1:35:45] that would be to

[1:35:46] establish a new

[1:35:47] working group that

[1:35:48] would then

[1:35:50] essentially create

[1:35:51] that framework, hold

[1:35:51] that framework, get

[1:35:52] consensus on the

[1:35:53] design of that, and

[1:36:04] framework. And so an

[1:36:06] example of that is

[1:36:08] bullet two on this

[1:36:09] slide is on the

[1:36:11] specific topic of

[1:36:24] of legislation. To,

[1:36:28] to implement it going

[1:36:29] forward. And so

[1:36:30] that's the idea. The

[1:36:31] idea here is that you

[1:36:33] create this working

[1:36:45] bills to execute the

[1:36:48] roadmap going forward

[1:36:50] along the

[1:36:51] prioritization that

[1:36:52] the state has

[1:36:53] determined is the

[1:37:04] the specific like the

[1:37:06] specific policy

[1:37:07] topics and the

[1:37:09] recommendations on

[1:37:09] each of those, which

[1:37:11] will go into the

[1:37:11] final report, but it

[1:37:13] will probably be an

[1:37:25] If people want to

[1:37:26] call out anything in

[1:37:27] particular or

[1:37:28] anything specific on

[1:37:29] one of these policy

[1:37:30] topics, but we're not

[1:37:31] going to go through

[1:37:32] the whole list in

[1:37:44] group. And I'll pause

[1:37:46] there for questions

[1:37:48] or comments.

[1:37:52] >> Ted, this is Kerry

[1:37:53] Hern with the Energy

[1:37:54] Commission of

[1:37:54] Virginia. Could you

[1:38:05] dive into these

[1:38:06] topics, as opposed to

[1:38:09] using our current Dir

[1:38:24] task force, I think

[1:38:26] that's it could be

[1:38:28] housed in there also.

[1:38:30] It's it's but it's

[1:38:32] the working group

[1:38:33] would be more

[1:38:44] stakeholder process

[1:38:46] that brought in all

[1:38:46] the stakeholders went

[1:38:48] through a very, you

[1:38:49] know, a couple rounds

[1:38:50] of, of feedback and

[1:38:52] input and then

[1:39:05] would that would go

[1:39:06] essentially to the

[1:39:07] commission to, to the

[1:39:09] SEC to implement.

[1:39:12] >> Okay. And as a

[1:39:13] follow up to that,

[1:39:14] what is the benefit

[1:39:24] benefit of having

[1:39:26] that separation of

[1:39:28] powers and duties

[1:39:29] where the state you

[1:39:32] know, the executive

[1:39:33] branch kind of brings

[1:39:44] stakeholder input?

[1:39:46] >> Yeah, in my

[1:39:48] experience, honestly,

[1:39:49] it often is easier to

[1:39:51] do it outside the

[1:39:52] commission itself and

[1:39:54] then provide input to

[1:40:05] formalized and it

[1:40:06] feels like it's more

[1:40:07] formalized. And it's,

[1:40:09] it's, and they feel

[1:40:10] like everything they

[1:40:11] say is on the record

[1:40:12] and it's something

[1:40:13] that needs to be like,

[1:40:25] problem together and

[1:40:26] it's less adversarial.

[1:40:28] So I would generally

[1:40:30] recommend that

[1:40:30] working groups that

[1:40:31] you can run out of,

[1:40:32] like the SEO, like

[1:40:45] formal kind of like

[1:40:47] positions and

[1:40:48] argument, like

[1:40:49] adversarial type

[1:40:50] setup.

[1:40:52] >> But I think the

[1:41:05] utility programs are

[1:41:06] evolving. And so

[1:41:07] trying to figure out

[1:41:07] what is the right

[1:41:08] mechanism. So would

[1:41:09] welcome input and

[1:41:11] feedback from folks

[1:41:12] who have rich

[1:41:15] experience in state.

[1:41:25] task force is in

[1:41:26] effect through mid

[1:41:29] 2027. You know,

[1:41:31] there's a number of

[1:41:32] ideas here that, to

[1:41:34] Ted's point, need to

[1:41:45] that Virginia

[1:41:46] operates, it's not

[1:41:47] always the case that

[1:41:48] you'll have a more

[1:41:49] robust process when

[1:41:50] you try to house

[1:41:52] something here versus

[1:41:53] there. And I do think

[1:42:05] unique and another,

[1:42:07] you know, meeting

[1:42:07] that folks have to

[1:42:08] add to their agendas.

[1:42:14] >> So it sounds like

[1:42:24] there's capacity, I

[1:42:26] think maybe a

[1:42:27] question mark to go

[1:42:28] back and see if

[1:42:29] there's capacity.

[1:42:29] >> I mean, I think a

[1:42:31] lot of these like are

[1:42:32] under the formulation

[1:42:33] of data access. But

[1:42:34] when you go through

[1:42:45] of these items into

[1:42:46] maybe like 2 or 3

[1:42:47] subcommittees.

[1:42:49] >> Okay.

[1:42:51] >> I'd love if we

[1:42:52] could narrow the

[1:42:53] recommendation to say

[1:43:04] already governed by

[1:43:06] PJM for PJM der

[1:43:08] market programs. I

[1:43:10] think the intent here

[1:43:11] is to streamline the

[1:43:12] process of Der

[1:43:13] participation, but my

[1:43:14] fear is always that

[1:43:23] wholesale market.

[1:43:26] >> Yes. I think

[1:43:27] intent is to

[1:43:28] streamline and

[1:43:28] standardize. So okay.

[1:43:31] That's helpful. Thank

[1:43:32] you for the the input.

[1:43:34] Anything else on, on

[1:43:43] >> Okay, great. I

[1:43:46] will cover

[1:43:47] recommendation four.

[1:43:47] And then David is

[1:43:48] going to walk through

[1:43:50] our Ferc findings and

[1:43:53] roadmap. So this one

[1:44:04] industry listening

[1:44:06] sessions, the need

[1:44:07] for a program that

[1:44:09] enables a value

[1:44:11] stacking so that Ders

[1:44:12] and VP's can realize

[1:44:14] the attributes that

[1:44:24] pulling together this

[1:44:26] need to expand air

[1:44:28] compensation, right?

[1:44:28] So we have, I would

[1:44:31] consider, number one,

[1:44:33] sort of a just

[1:44:34] imagining like a

[1:44:34] separate program.

[1:44:45] of the, the barriers

[1:44:46] there that are

[1:44:52] preventing some of

[1:44:53] the, the full value

[1:44:53] to be recognized of

[1:44:54] those systems. And

[1:45:03] to sort of built in a

[1:45:06] mechanism so that if

[1:45:08] caps are being

[1:45:09] approached, there's

[1:45:10] not a backlog in sort

[1:45:12] of a stoppage of of

[1:45:25] from from Tony and

[1:45:28] Asus on this over the

[1:45:30] last couple of days.

[1:45:31] Would just love to

[1:45:32] hear orienting at

[1:45:33] those key questions

[1:45:45] you agree with them?

[1:45:46] Any color there would

[1:45:47] be really helpful.

[1:45:50] >> Yeah. Excuse me.

[1:45:52] I've got two pieces

[1:45:53] of feedback, one

[1:45:54] stylistic and one

[1:46:05] other. Here we say

[1:46:06] Ders and VPP. So we

[1:46:08] should have a maybe a

[1:46:09] map somewhere. Like

[1:46:10] what do we mean by

[1:46:12] ders and and der

[1:46:13] aggregation and other

[1:46:25] easy for me to

[1:46:26] conceptually

[1:46:26] understand. I think

[1:46:27] for load and load

[1:46:29] flexibility, it's a

[1:46:29] little different. And

[1:46:31] I think as I think

[1:46:32] about it, one of the

[1:46:33] easiest ways to do

[1:46:45] cost of the system

[1:46:46] and their cost on the

[1:46:48] system, then the load

[1:46:49] flexibility would be

[1:46:50] more fairly

[1:46:51] compensated by

[1:46:52] default without

[1:46:53] designing a new like

[1:46:55] compensation

[1:47:05] a good way to

[1:47:07] compensate load

[1:47:08] flexibility.

[1:47:13] >> Thank you.

[1:47:13] >> Very helpful. I

[1:47:14] would just say, oh,

[1:47:25] develop an

[1:47:26] implementation

[1:47:27] framework. I'm, I'm a

[1:47:30] little unclear on

[1:47:32] does that mean the

[1:47:44] what the action is,

[1:47:48] and if there's a

[1:47:49] vision for that,

[1:47:52] where by when is

[1:48:05] would like some, some

[1:48:07] direction on.

[1:48:08] >> I guess you could

[1:48:09] do both. You could do

[1:48:10] a workgroup or a

[1:48:11] technical conference

[1:48:12] and then immediately

[1:48:13] go into, you know,

[1:48:14] opening a docket and

[1:48:24] you know, this to me

[1:48:26] strikes more of a

[1:48:28] need for legislation.

[1:48:29] And I'll say we just

[1:48:30] went through like a

[1:48:32] two year docket

[1:48:33] process to update our

[1:48:45] all of this, but I

[1:48:47] sat through those

[1:48:48] meetings and I think

[1:48:49] there's a lot there

[1:48:50] in terms of what we

[1:48:52] already established

[1:48:52] as the baseline value

[1:48:54] stack for various

[1:49:05] some discussion in

[1:49:06] the Vbp pilot of

[1:49:07] whether the JST would

[1:49:09] apply. The

[1:49:09] jurisdiction specific

[1:49:10] test would apply to

[1:49:11] VPP, or is there a

[1:49:13] different framing in

[1:49:14] terms of how you're

[1:49:23] there.

[1:49:29] >> Just so I get this

[1:49:30] in my head on the

[1:49:31] value stacking with

[1:49:32] solar, traditionally

[1:49:33] net metering, full

[1:49:45] thinking about what's

[1:49:46] the floor and what's

[1:49:46] the ceiling when

[1:49:47] you're looking at

[1:49:47] that?

[1:49:52] >> I think that's,

[1:49:52] that's an open

[1:49:53] question. We talked

[1:49:53] if this is answering

[1:49:54] your question,

[1:49:54] looking at some of

[1:50:05] compensation is, is a

[1:50:06] full NEM rate plus an

[1:50:08] adder. I think it's a

[1:50:09] flat $0.03 across the

[1:50:11] state. That's still

[1:50:12] very much under

[1:50:22] would look like.

[1:50:27] >> And without

[1:50:27] getting into a

[1:50:28] running debate, to

[1:50:29] the extent the

[1:50:30] concern is

[1:50:31] affordability, the

[1:50:33] extent you go north

[1:50:34] of full retail, I

[1:50:45] go above full retail,

[1:50:47] do you accelerate the

[1:50:49] do you accentuate

[1:50:50] those concerns.

[1:50:51] >> Yeah. No thank you.

[1:50:53] >> Yeah I appreciate

[1:50:54] the point on that.

[1:51:05] I think we are

[1:51:06] hearing interest from

[1:51:07] previous meetings

[1:51:08] around the idea of

[1:51:09] something like this,

[1:51:10] recognizing that, you

[1:51:13] know, there's some

[1:51:14] opportunity to, to

[1:51:14] flush this out of how

[1:51:25] if this is of value

[1:51:27] or if it's not, and

[1:51:28] if it is something to

[1:51:29] consider or to, to

[1:51:31] pursue any

[1:51:33] recommendations or

[1:51:34] suggestions of how

[1:51:35] this actually might

[1:51:45] expertise on, you

[1:51:46] know, if if the

[1:51:46] outcome is we want

[1:51:49] additional

[1:51:51] compensation models

[1:51:51] to support the

[1:51:53] economics and help

[1:51:54] compensate these

[1:52:05] full value stack for

[1:52:07] what NEM resources

[1:52:08] are paid, but also so

[1:52:09] you're separating out

[1:52:09] the value stack into

[1:52:10] its component parts

[1:52:12] so that you can opt

[1:52:13] out of ones that you

[1:52:14] would rather provide

[1:52:25] a broken up memory is

[1:52:27] use less of it.

[1:52:31] >> And smart. That's

[1:52:32] the Massachusetts

[1:52:33] program. The I

[1:52:45] >> I for for Veeder

[1:52:47] talking about

[1:52:48] specifically for beta

[1:52:48] and NEM like the New

[1:52:49] York Sun program,

[1:52:52] those are upfront

[1:52:54] incentives as opposed

[1:52:54] to like a per

[1:53:05] Yeah.

[1:53:07] >> So. Andrew. Andrew.

[1:53:07] To be clear, the beta

[1:53:10] stack itself is a

[1:53:11] replacement for NEM.

[1:53:12] It's not on top of

[1:53:13] NEM.

[1:53:14] >> Right. So New York

[1:53:25] for value. Right?

[1:53:26] >> Right. Yep. Sorry

[1:53:28] if that was unclear.

[1:53:30] >> I think.

[1:53:30] >> The funding

[1:53:31] mechanism, as I

[1:53:32] recall, is

[1:53:34] multifaceted, comes

[1:53:34] from RGGI and maybe

[1:53:45] think New York

[1:53:46] theater is less value

[1:53:48] than full retail

[1:53:49] compensation. And at

[1:53:50] least that's how I've

[1:53:51] been conceptualizing

[1:53:52] it as sort of retail

[1:53:53] NEM 1 to 1

[1:53:55] compensation is sort

[1:54:04] that different values.

[1:54:06] But.

[1:54:11] >> I was, I was just

[1:54:12] going to flag, as you

[1:54:13] all are looking into,

[1:54:14] you know, exploring

[1:54:24] always also did a or

[1:54:27] commissioned a report

[1:54:27] with Dunskey climate

[1:54:29] group that looks at

[1:54:30] the value of solar.

[1:54:32] So avoided cost to

[1:54:34] distribution and

[1:54:44] thinking about this.

[1:54:48] >> And any, any

[1:54:50] steers or thoughts,

[1:54:50] or maybe it's just an

[1:54:51] action item for us to

[1:54:52] go back and refine

[1:54:53] the how of how we

[1:55:04] feelings, no worries.

[1:55:06] But I think.

[1:55:07] >> Yeah, I think if

[1:55:08] it is a legislative

[1:55:09] pathway, it would

[1:55:09] need to be through

[1:55:10] the state Corporation

[1:55:11] commission because

[1:55:12] you would actually

[1:55:12] want it to have some

[1:55:14] teeth and be

[1:55:14] implementable, like

[1:55:25] just a layer of

[1:55:27] complexity to this

[1:55:28] before legislation,

[1:55:30] or could we go right

[1:55:31] into legislation?

[1:55:31] Just strikes me that

[1:55:33] program design of

[1:55:34] this type could could

[1:55:45] something is proposed.

[1:55:47] >> Well, I think in

[1:55:48] my mind the

[1:55:49] legislation would

[1:55:50] create that process,

[1:55:51] and it would

[1:55:53] establish the

[1:55:53] mechanism to bring

[1:55:54] stakeholders together

[1:56:05] suggest that we

[1:56:06] amplify on the how to

[1:56:07] include the when. We

[1:56:11] have the capacity

[1:56:12] here in Virginia, we

[1:56:23] department. We have

[1:56:27] capabilities in the

[1:56:28] private sector.

[1:56:31] Utilities that are

[1:56:43] factor here. Just the

[1:56:46] transition from 23 to

[1:56:48] 24, the drop off in

[1:57:05] we've shared with all

[1:57:06] the task force

[1:57:08] members. The public

[1:57:11] school sector has

[1:57:12] never recovered since

[1:57:13] then, and so we're

[1:57:24] Who, whether it's the

[1:57:27] legislature, SEC

[1:57:28] executive branch and

[1:57:30] the how, whether it's

[1:57:32] legislation or

[1:57:32] working group, but

[1:57:44] those measures that

[1:57:46] can be done quickly,

[1:57:50] because one of the

[1:57:51] the benefits of Ders

[1:57:53] is that they're fast

[1:58:05] time. And, you know,

[1:58:07] whether you're

[1:58:08] looking at. The huge

[1:58:12] impact on public

[1:58:13] schools that are

[1:58:14] already facing

[1:58:25] need to create some

[1:58:27] carve outs for public

[1:58:28] entities to have a

[1:58:30] quick path to

[1:58:32] streamlined

[1:58:45] Public Schools to

[1:58:46] separately meter

[1:58:47] battery storage would

[1:58:49] meet their

[1:58:49] requirements not only

[1:58:50] for net metering, but

[1:58:52] it would allow for

[1:59:04] support to other

[1:59:07] developers and so

[1:59:08] forth who are have

[1:59:09] this quandary. How do

[1:59:11] you how do you

[1:59:12] address the double

[1:59:13] counting? So we're

[1:59:14] learning as we're

[1:59:25] apply for for all

[1:59:26] adding a time who and

[1:59:28] the complexity of

[1:59:29] implementation.

[1:59:29] >> I would just

[1:59:30] second that sentiment.

[1:59:31] Just as we talk about

[1:59:45] after this

[1:59:46] legislative session,

[1:59:47] I don't think we'll

[1:59:48] see until about a

[1:59:49] month from now with

[1:59:50] the grid utilization

[1:59:52] metrics. And so if

[1:59:54] that's what we can

[2:00:05] And so I just think

[2:00:06] it's important to

[2:00:07] keep that in mind,

[2:00:08] right? If we're

[2:00:09] talking about

[2:00:10] solutions that can

[2:00:11] meet the moment, I

[2:00:13] don't think we should

[2:00:24] And I was first

[2:00:27] thinking like, you

[2:00:28] know, Minnesota's

[2:00:29] value of solar

[2:00:30] methodology, and

[2:00:30] there are all these

[2:00:31] great programs out

[2:00:32] there that we could

[2:00:33] learn from, but it

[2:00:34] does take a lot of

[2:00:45] local government or a

[2:00:48] specific SEC, you

[2:00:50] know, legislative

[2:00:51] priority. Yeah.

[2:00:53] Somehow coming up

[2:01:05] now? I don't want to

[2:01:06] lose sight of the

[2:01:07] need for that.

[2:01:13] >> Thank you. John.

[2:01:14] >> I think that ties

[2:01:25] at these from a

[2:01:26] adding in those

[2:01:27] pieces of like, what

[2:01:28] would a roadmap look

[2:01:29] like for, for

[2:01:30] Virginia, including

[2:01:30] all the things that

[2:01:31] are already underway

[2:01:32] and what are those

[2:01:33] timelines? So we can

[2:01:34] kind of think about

[2:01:45] discussion for, for

[2:01:46] our next meeting as

[2:01:47] well. When we have

[2:01:48] that a little bit

[2:01:49] more on paper.

[2:01:52] >> Okay, we'll move

[2:01:53] on here to the next

[2:02:05] >> Yes. Floor is

[2:02:07] yours.

[2:02:08] >> So I'm going to

[2:02:09] try to do this as

[2:02:10] quick as possible.

[2:02:11] Given that we have a

[2:02:12] number more

[2:02:13] recommendations

[2:02:24] 22 to 22. The

[2:02:26] recommendation

[2:02:27] actually reflects the

[2:02:28] finding that was

[2:02:29] reviewed earlier and

[2:02:31] an input of the task

[2:02:32] force members and

[2:02:45] this recommendation

[2:02:47] does recommend that

[2:02:49] actions should be

[2:02:50] taken on

[2:02:51] implementation of

[2:02:52] order 2222. The

[2:03:05] five actions in

[2:03:06] parallel with the

[2:03:09] continued focus on

[2:03:10] demand response, the

[2:03:12] specific actions are

[2:03:12] listed on the slide.

[2:03:14] I'll just go quickly.

[2:03:24] the SEC should

[2:03:26] establish minimum

[2:03:27] statewide procedures

[2:03:28] on the participation

[2:03:29] of Der aggregation

[2:03:31] and PJM markets. A

[2:03:33] number of those

[2:03:34] actions are listed on

[2:03:44] and others. The

[2:03:46] second is that

[2:03:48] Virginia should

[2:03:49] consider continue

[2:03:51] proactive engagement

[2:03:52] with PJM under demand

[2:03:53] response A, D, E, and

[2:04:05] in front of the

[2:04:06] pigeons proposed in

[2:04:07] front of Ferc on the

[2:04:09] reliability backstop,

[2:04:11] procurement, and on

[2:04:12] the Interruptible

[2:04:14] curtailment program

[2:04:25] issues. Third, as was

[2:04:27] noted earlier, a

[2:04:30] initiated proceeding

[2:04:31] on developing a

[2:04:32] minimum and a uniform

[2:04:44] net energy metered

[2:04:46] resources can

[2:04:47] participate in PJM

[2:04:48] ancillary services

[2:04:49] markets, as was

[2:04:51] approved by Ferc, and

[2:04:51] that could be part of

[2:04:53] this earlier

[2:04:53] discussion about how

[2:05:04] and the SEC support a

[2:05:07] continued use of and

[2:05:08] broad deployment of

[2:05:10] Ders to participate

[2:05:11] as demand side

[2:05:12] resources in PJM

[2:05:14] market. So I was

[2:05:19] discussion.

[2:05:29] >> It seems like

[2:05:30] based on Tony's

[2:05:30] conversation with AEP,

[2:05:31] that we could expand

[2:05:33] point four to say

[2:05:45] >> Yeah, I still

[2:05:47] would.

[2:05:48] >> Thanks, Emily.

[2:05:50] Thank you. Good.

[2:05:51] Positive

[2:05:52] recommendation. It's

[2:05:52] still a little fuzzy

[2:05:54] in terms of grid

[2:06:04] that's where maybe we

[2:06:06] still want some

[2:06:08] clarity from that.

[2:06:10] But other ancillary

[2:06:12] services there was no

[2:06:13] issue was the f r

[2:06:23] Yeah.

[2:06:29] >> I think just one

[2:06:30] sort of process

[2:06:32] recommendation is

[2:06:33] that at least the way

[2:06:35] it's drafted, it

[2:06:44] that addresses all of

[2:06:47] these related items.

[2:06:52] >> Great. So yeah,

[2:06:53] agreed on, I think

[2:07:04] to bring Virginia

[2:07:06] into harmony with PJM,

[2:07:08] even as we

[2:07:09] acknowledge there's

[2:07:10] some other other

[2:07:11] things going on at

[2:07:12] PJM to work out. So

[2:07:13] continuing to focus

[2:07:14] at the retail level

[2:07:15] in the meantime.

[2:07:25] related. I think this

[2:07:26] was trying to be a

[2:07:27] little bit more

[2:07:28] double clicked on

[2:07:28] exactly what the 22,

[2:07:29] 22 and some of the

[2:07:30] PJM specific pieces

[2:07:31] were. But yes,

[2:07:32] ideally they would

[2:07:33] all sync up so that

[2:07:34] we're we're

[2:07:42] be the same for both

[2:07:46] recommendation three

[2:07:46] and recommendation

[2:07:49] five?

[2:07:51] >> If we if we went

[2:07:52] the docket route for

[2:07:53] number three. Yes,

[2:07:55] probably it would

[2:08:05] of docket as to not

[2:08:08] slow us down. But yes.

[2:08:10] Yeah, I think if

[2:08:11] you're going that

[2:08:11] route could could do

[2:08:25] >> Thanks, David.

[2:08:26] >> Did you still want

[2:08:27] to do a break?

[2:08:28] >> Do we want to do a

[2:08:29] quick five minute

[2:08:30] break. Would folks

[2:08:31] appreciate a quick

[2:08:32] breather. And then

[2:08:33] we'll come back and

[2:08:33] wrap up in the last

[2:08:45] break. Reconvene at

[2:09:04] going to call us back

[2:18:25] over to Colleen for

[2:18:28] the second half of

[2:18:29] the discussion.

[2:18:29] >> I think.

[2:18:45] >> Thank you. We're

[2:18:46] skipping ahead a bit.

[2:18:47] Just in the interest

[2:18:48] of time. So next

[2:18:51] recommendation is

[2:18:52] recommendation eight

[2:18:53] if folks are

[2:18:54] following along. Oh,

[2:19:05] recommendations is

[2:19:06] drawing together

[2:19:08] separate pieces of

[2:19:08] feedback we heard

[2:19:09] around the untapped

[2:19:12] potential of public

[2:19:13] facilities, whether

[2:19:25] saving money on

[2:19:27] energy bills, and

[2:19:28] also to perhaps

[2:19:29] function as

[2:19:30] resilience hubs or

[2:19:31] microgrids. It's an

[2:19:32] aspect that we are

[2:19:33] required to, to

[2:19:44] education. I think

[2:19:46] our team put a word

[2:19:47] cloud together after

[2:19:48] the first meeting,

[2:19:49] after we got

[2:19:49] everyone's feedback

[2:19:50] in the first round of

[2:19:51] homework. And the

[2:19:52] biggest word was

[2:19:53] education. So we have

[2:19:55] we actually have a

[2:20:05] direct support for

[2:20:08] resources like model

[2:20:09] PPA templates,

[2:20:12] training sessions as

[2:20:14] both complimentary

[2:20:25] suggestion for

[2:20:26] clarity instead of

[2:20:27] cooperative, say

[2:20:28] joint or shared or

[2:20:30] anything that doesn't

[2:20:30] imply this is all

[2:20:31] done through an

[2:20:32] electric cooperative.

[2:20:44] been about storage

[2:20:46] and solar. We should

[2:20:48] think about busses

[2:20:48] and bus

[2:20:49] electrification and

[2:20:50] manage charging for

[2:20:51] bus fleets that might

[2:20:53] be here or not.

[2:20:54] >> Yes, I believe you

[2:21:05] does require a lot of

[2:21:08] thought on the actual

[2:21:10] in the weeds of it,

[2:21:12] which is not the

[2:21:14] place for it here.

[2:21:24] sector projects. We

[2:21:26] can't meet our goals

[2:21:27] without that. So

[2:21:28] anything we can do to

[2:21:30] open it up for, for

[2:21:32] government agencies

[2:21:33] across the state, to

[2:21:34] be the leaders on

[2:21:45] the biggest barriers

[2:21:47] that educating the

[2:21:49] internal agencies and

[2:21:52] departments and

[2:21:52] decision makers,

[2:22:04] the community. And

[2:22:06] it's really the the

[2:22:07] decision makers

[2:22:08] inside these

[2:22:09] organizations. So

[2:22:10] that's really

[2:22:11] important. And then

[2:22:12] of course,

[2:22:13] interconnection just

[2:22:25] They think of this as

[2:22:26] an extra. So comes

[2:22:28] back to education

[2:22:30] that you can

[2:22:30] integrate it and be

[2:22:31] really smart and even

[2:22:32] more sustainable. So

[2:22:34] that that second

[2:22:44] through these power

[2:22:46] purchase agreements.

[2:22:48] You know, the

[2:22:49] governor, I think

[2:22:50] that right now, this

[2:22:51] government grant I'm

[2:22:52] hearing, we held a

[2:22:54] webinar last week to

[2:23:04] And so specifically,

[2:23:07] those costs and the

[2:23:11] education piece is

[2:23:11] most important to

[2:23:25] times it does fall on

[2:23:26] one person, typically

[2:23:27] at a school to kind

[2:23:28] of put that project

[2:23:29] in, do they want to

[2:23:30] do more work or, you

[2:23:32] know, do they have

[2:23:33] the capacity to do

[2:23:34] more work? So making

[2:23:45] program or some other

[2:23:47] sort of like RFP or

[2:23:48] kind of reverse RFP

[2:23:49] process. So people

[2:23:50] are learning at these

[2:23:52] meetings, maybe

[2:23:52] they're putting their

[2:23:53] school bill through a

[2:23:54] financial calculator

[2:24:05] people have, you know,

[2:24:07] you're basically

[2:24:07] handing a lead to the,

[2:24:09] to the people that

[2:24:10] are going to put the

[2:24:11] project in. So it

[2:24:12] just doesn't sit in

[2:24:13] idea purgatory. It

[2:24:24] assistance to support

[2:24:26] schools, communities.

[2:24:27] Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[2:24:29] >> Yeah. They

[2:24:30] specifically wanted

[2:24:31] direct technical

[2:24:32] assistance, someone

[2:24:33] to kind of hold their

[2:24:34] hands through this

[2:24:45] removing that for

[2:24:47] government bodies or

[2:24:48] extending this grant

[2:24:50] and, you know,

[2:24:51] raising the cap, they

[2:24:52] love the grant, we

[2:24:53] need that to be

[2:25:05] facilities, has been

[2:25:06] the complex

[2:25:07] procurement processes

[2:25:08] that they have to go

[2:25:09] through, and that's

[2:25:10] not always worth it.

[2:25:11] If you're talking

[2:25:12] about an elementary

[2:25:12] school and the small

[2:25:13] battery that would go

[2:25:24] to add that. Speaking

[2:25:29] to Dawn's. Comments

[2:25:33] about overcoming

[2:25:44] thing that could help

[2:25:46] overcome some of this

[2:25:47] that we've seen done

[2:25:49] by private

[2:25:50] philanthropy with the

[2:25:51] Richmond Foundation

[2:25:52] and also

[2:25:54] Charlottesville

[2:26:05] cover the capital

[2:26:07] cost, the maintenance

[2:26:07] costs, the

[2:26:08] performance risk. But

[2:26:10] what it doesn't cover

[2:26:11] is overcoming

[2:26:13] institutional inertia.

[2:26:25] could leverage huge

[2:26:28] private capital

[2:26:29] investment in these

[2:26:31] public facilities. If

[2:26:40] can be overcome by an

[2:26:46] incentive grant. And

[2:26:50] it's already spoken

[2:26:51] to in here with

[2:26:53] support pathways for

[2:26:54] large. Any energy

[2:27:04] of taxpayer funds. It

[2:27:06] could be perhaps a

[2:27:08] contribution by large

[2:27:09] energy customers to

[2:27:11] support such a fund

[2:27:13] that could be used

[2:27:22] built.

[2:27:28] >> This is a dumb

[2:27:29] question on

[2:27:30] procurement that I

[2:27:30] just don't know the

[2:27:31] answer to. Can the

[2:27:32] state is a state

[2:27:45] to go through its own.

[2:27:47] Or is it two ships in

[2:27:48] the night?

[2:27:48] >> Yes, we have that

[2:27:50] with performance

[2:27:52] contracting and with

[2:27:53] the demand response

[2:27:54] program. But we it

[2:28:05] regulations and

[2:28:06] requirements.

[2:28:11] >> Thank you everyone.

[2:28:12] Interest of time

[2:28:12] again. We'll move on.

[2:28:14] We'll hand it over to

[2:28:24] here with you all. My

[2:28:26] name is Colleen

[2:28:26] Wallace. We have

[2:28:28] skipped over

[2:28:29] recommendation six

[2:28:29] and seven for now in

[2:28:30] the interest of time

[2:28:31] regarding utilities,

[2:28:32] but we'll head to

[2:28:33] recommendation nine

[2:28:34] to talk about

[2:28:44] has two components.

[2:28:46] The first will

[2:28:48] operationalize

[2:28:48] chapter 314 framework.

[2:28:50] And the second ties

[2:28:52] to that work for

[2:28:54] directive three,

[2:29:05] compliance and the

[2:29:07] plan with an action

[2:29:08] deadline in February

[2:29:10] of 2027. So framing

[2:29:24] replacing those

[2:29:26] frameworks with a

[2:29:27] target alignment

[2:29:28] around the Irec model

[2:29:31] interconnection

[2:29:32] procedures. So this

[2:29:34] effort will be

[2:29:43] in this filing could

[2:29:46] have a cascading

[2:29:47] effect. So sequencing

[2:29:49] these is worth

[2:29:50] flagging for the

[2:29:51] group. We did have a

[2:30:04] action. Two will be

[2:30:07] that the SEC would

[2:30:09] assess the alignment

[2:30:10] with the current IEEE

[2:30:11] and UL standards, no

[2:30:12] less than every three

[2:30:14] years. I think

[2:30:25] rulemaking as needed

[2:30:27] to align with these

[2:30:28] irec interconnection

[2:30:30] standards and

[2:30:31] requirements. This

[2:30:33] directly responds to

[2:30:34] a scoring concern

[2:30:45] the absence of a

[2:30:46] standing mechanism

[2:30:47] for keeping pace with

[2:30:48] national models. And

[2:30:49] obviously, that Iraq

[2:30:51] is our our national

[2:30:52] model. So this covers

[2:31:04] addresses Ferc order

[2:31:06] 2222 compliance

[2:31:07] directly. It will

[2:31:09] establish rules for

[2:31:10] coordination between

[2:31:11] aggregators and our

[2:31:13] electric electric

[2:31:14] distribution

[2:31:14] companies. So it will

[2:31:24] retail and wholesale.

[2:31:27] And the anti double

[2:31:28] counting provision

[2:31:30] really can be

[2:31:31] addressed in our

[2:31:32] report. And described

[2:31:32] as a safeguard

[2:31:45] once through the PJM

[2:31:46] wholesale market.

[2:31:48] >> I was just going

[2:31:50] to say that's good.

[2:31:51] If you add in at the

[2:31:52] same time, right?

[2:32:03] meter socket adapters.

[2:32:10] >> The only feedback

[2:32:12] that I have is just

[2:32:13] on number one. It

[2:32:15] feels like it's going

[2:32:24] 14 and and 315

[2:32:26] address different

[2:32:27] scales and sizes of

[2:32:29] Ders. So I think that

[2:32:30] there is actually

[2:32:31] some value in having

[2:32:32] them separated out.

[2:32:33] So I do wonder if

[2:32:34] it's sort of like

[2:32:45] think is going to

[2:32:46] just take a lot more

[2:32:48] time than necessary.

[2:32:49] >> That's a great

[2:32:49] comment on time. I'm

[2:32:50] curious, do you think

[2:32:51] that still aligning

[2:32:53] with Irec processes

[2:33:05] >> Okay. Perfect.

[2:33:06] Thank you.

[2:33:09] >> Yes, I would

[2:33:11] concur with that just

[2:33:12] because of the time

[2:33:13] element, not because

[2:33:24] such as timeliness

[2:33:26] for interconnection

[2:33:28] and things of that

[2:33:29] nature, which are not

[2:33:30] currently in. 315.

[2:33:44] 1547, 2018 into

[2:33:48] chapter 315, that it

[2:33:52] provide for mandatory

[2:33:53] inverter grid support

[2:34:05] through that would

[2:34:07] open the pathway

[2:34:08] really for improved

[2:34:25] are steps designed

[2:34:29] for systems that

[2:34:33] don't have those

[2:34:34] capabilities, like

[2:34:39] certified. So that

[2:34:52] have that language

[2:34:53] about mandatory

[2:35:05] your comment around

[2:35:07] ride through and ride

[2:35:08] through requirements.

[2:35:09] Do you think that

[2:35:10] they should be

[2:35:12] delineated according

[2:35:13] to like the scale of

[2:35:25] yes, unless proven

[2:35:27] otherwise. Certainly

[2:35:29] for and again, this

[2:35:30] is something that we

[2:35:32] can, if you're if

[2:35:34] we're suggesting

[2:35:44] recognize how

[2:35:46] inverters, how that

[2:35:47] technology has

[2:35:48] changed so

[2:35:49] dramatically since

[2:35:50] 2003. And we're not

[2:35:52] using that capability

[2:36:05] of those standards no

[2:36:06] less than every three

[2:36:08] years. Would you like

[2:36:08] to see that extended

[2:36:09] or sped up?

[2:36:14] >> Well, there could

[2:36:25] forget what it's off

[2:36:27] the bat. 29 something

[2:36:30] that provides for

[2:36:32] cybersecurity and

[2:36:45] that's going on these

[2:36:46] days from foreign

[2:36:50] sources. So yeah.

[2:37:05] there are now, and

[2:37:07] this is for exactly

[2:37:08] the reason Tony just

[2:37:09] mentioned. There's

[2:37:10] now some federal

[2:37:12] nexus to some things

[2:37:13] that used to be

[2:37:14] purely state. And

[2:37:19] the cyber stuff.

[2:37:27] >> It's important.

[2:37:28] >> We get 3.5 billion

[2:37:30] with a B cyber

[2:37:31] attacks per month,

[2:37:32] attempted cyber

[2:37:34] attacks.

[2:37:46] >> Okay, I'll pass it

[2:37:47] off. Thank you.

[2:37:50] >> Did you want

[2:37:50] feedback on the meter

[2:37:51] socket adapter

[2:37:52] portion to if.

[2:37:53] >> Yes.

[2:37:53] >> So I think the

[2:38:04] gets hung up is the

[2:38:06] deployment

[2:38:06] requirements. And so

[2:38:08] what work is allowed

[2:38:08] to be done by a

[2:38:09] contractor? What's

[2:38:10] allowed to be done by

[2:38:11] a customer contract

[2:38:13] electrician? What

[2:38:14] requires a utility

[2:38:25] so we will add

[2:38:27] validity to

[2:38:28] contractor and

[2:38:28] tagging assessments

[2:38:30] when we do the sub

[2:38:31] action. When we

[2:38:32] mentioned meter

[2:38:33] socket adapter

[2:38:45] I'm advised we're

[2:38:46] doing our next direct

[2:38:47] transfer trip filing

[2:38:49] on November 5th. And

[2:38:51] I realize that is

[2:38:53] uncommon. That is

[2:39:05] So the the November

[2:39:06] coming up November

[2:39:08] 5th.

[2:39:11] >> Great. All right.

[2:39:12] I think I'm going to

[2:39:13] I'm going to jump in

[2:39:14] and give in timing.

[2:39:25] I've been taking a

[2:39:26] lot of notes and

[2:39:27] appreciate the

[2:39:28] feedback before

[2:39:30] moving to see if we

[2:39:32] approve submission of

[2:39:33] this very draft

[2:39:45] regulatory, executive

[2:39:47] actions, industry

[2:39:48] actions that we

[2:39:49] haven't covered. We

[2:39:49] want to make sure to

[2:39:50] talk about.

[2:39:51] >> I'm sure a lot of

[2:39:52] us have additional

[2:39:53] feedback. What's the

[2:39:54] best way to get that

[2:40:05] If it's kind of

[2:40:06] comments and very

[2:40:07] specific. Otherwise,

[2:40:08] if it's a little bit

[2:40:09] more general, feel

[2:40:10] free to just email it

[2:40:11] in bullet points. If

[2:40:12] it's kind of meta

[2:40:13] meta level. Okay,

[2:40:15] that makes sense.

[2:40:25] >> In the interest of

[2:40:26] engaging someone who

[2:40:28] doesn't, hasn't had

[2:40:29] much opportunity to

[2:40:30] speak, I John Farmer.

[2:40:45] party DES and making

[2:40:50] investments in

[2:40:51] improving grid

[2:40:52] utilization. I know

[2:40:54] that's a little bit

[2:41:03] time. From a

[2:41:07] ratepayer perspective,

[2:41:08] on the surface that

[2:41:08] would look like, oh,

[2:41:10] why would we as

[2:41:12] ratepayers want to

[2:41:13] provide extra rewards

[2:41:14] to utilities? Well,

[2:41:25] Brattle Group and the

[2:41:26] Pew Charitable Trusts,

[2:41:29] where improvements in

[2:41:30] grid utilization

[2:41:31] translate to

[2:41:32] ratepayer benefits.

[2:41:34] So this is something

[2:41:45] interconnection

[2:41:46] guidelines and

[2:41:48] incentivizing

[2:41:49] utilities to make

[2:41:51] those kinds of

[2:41:52] investments so as to

[2:42:04] grid. So I would

[2:42:08] really welcome John's

[2:42:10] comments on that.

[2:42:11] From a consumer

[2:42:12] perspective, how what

[2:42:13] are some ways in

[2:42:24] utilization?

[2:42:27] >> Yeah, I appreciate

[2:42:29] that, Tony. And, you

[2:42:32] know, we did skip

[2:42:33] over recommendation

[2:42:34] six, and I did have

[2:42:44] you know, enhanced

[2:42:47] ROE is something that

[2:42:48] that will raise raise

[2:42:51] my eyebrows. And so

[2:42:52] this is something

[2:43:03] impacts here. I think

[2:43:06] it's important to, to

[2:43:07] be able to quantify,

[2:43:08] you know, the, the

[2:43:10] net benefits. And so

[2:43:11] I, I just think, you

[2:43:13] know, often the devil

[2:43:14] is going to be in the

[2:43:25] so I think as we as

[2:43:27] we look at at this

[2:43:30] recommendation, I

[2:43:30] just think that's an

[2:43:31] important important

[2:43:44] the of the

[2:43:46] conversation today.

[2:43:46] And this isn't a

[2:43:47] concern that would

[2:43:48] that would, you know,

[2:43:50] upset my vote related

[2:43:52] to that.

[2:44:04] energy resources. And

[2:44:06] my read of the G T, S

[2:44:08] a and the eligible

[2:44:09] projects under that

[2:44:09] is that Dominion and

[2:44:11] Apco already can

[2:44:13] petition to include

[2:44:13] things like the Irrs,

[2:44:14] whether they're

[2:44:24] And so I just

[2:44:26] challenge, I think

[2:44:26] the underlying

[2:44:27] assumption there that

[2:44:28] there's somehow a

[2:44:30] uneven playing field

[2:44:31] between the resources.

[2:44:32] Like we could

[2:44:33] certainly work with

[2:44:34] our utilities to

[2:44:45] sort of tool that's

[2:44:46] already out there.

[2:44:47] >> Mr. chairman, I

[2:44:48] have the same

[2:44:48] recollection of that

[2:44:49] bill. It's been

[2:44:50] almost nine years and

[2:44:51] I'm getting older.

[2:44:52] But I do think that

[2:44:53] that's.

[2:44:53] >> That's right.

[2:44:54] >> The way I remember

[2:44:55] it.

[2:45:05] filed, at least for

[2:45:06] the IOUs through the

[2:45:08] DSM framework, they

[2:45:09] can earn a rate of

[2:45:10] return and an

[2:45:11] enhanced rate of

[2:45:12] return. So I do think

[2:45:13] that the framing here

[2:45:25] >> Can I ask the task

[2:45:27] force one quick

[2:45:28] question. On action

[2:45:28] two, we note the

[2:45:30] unified cost benefit

[2:45:32] analysis. And to

[2:45:33] everyone's points

[2:45:34] call out that they

[2:45:45] specifics that you

[2:45:46] all could give us

[2:45:47] feedback on that.

[2:45:48] >> I would say let's

[2:45:49] not recreate the

[2:45:50] wheel there. We

[2:45:52] literally spent two

[2:45:52] years in a docket

[2:45:53] going through all of

[2:46:05] test has a lot of

[2:46:07] detail in it

[2:46:08] regarding

[2:46:09] quantifiable and

[2:46:10] non-quantifiable

[2:46:11] benefits, and some of

[2:46:12] the benefits that

[2:46:13] typically have not

[2:46:14] been quantified are

[2:46:25] as the foundation.

[2:46:33] >> Angela, can you

[2:46:34] clarify, was that on

[2:46:45] you know, one

[2:46:46] question that we have

[2:46:47] is how the GST would

[2:46:49] be applied to other

[2:46:51] ders going forward.

[2:46:51] And I think that's

[2:46:52] still an open

[2:47:05] the next couple of

[2:47:06] days, thinking to

[2:47:08] move forward and turn

[2:47:10] it back over to chief

[2:47:11] to. See if we approve

[2:47:24] not a final set of

[2:47:27] recommendations yet.

[2:47:28] We'll vote more

[2:47:29] specifically on that

[2:47:30] the next time. So

[2:47:32] before we do, do you

[2:47:45] this very room in

[2:47:46] January and February,

[2:47:47] I may have to express

[2:47:48] an opinion on some of

[2:47:50] these that result in

[2:47:51] pieces of legislation

[2:47:53] that have not yet

[2:48:05] together so quickly.

[2:48:08] >> And I just have a

[2:48:09] clarifying question

[2:48:11] when it comes to

[2:48:12] emergency operations

[2:48:13] and reliability and

[2:48:23] actions around that?

[2:48:26] >> I would suggest

[2:48:27] our utility

[2:48:29] operations and

[2:48:29] planning section.

[2:48:31] That would probably

[2:48:32] be ideal alongside

[2:48:34] anything that is a

[2:48:35] standardized process

[2:48:45] currently not

[2:48:46] feasible.

[2:48:47] >> And yet to done.

[2:48:49] Adding to that, if

[2:48:49] you're kind of

[2:48:50] speaking to the

[2:48:53] resilience hub model,

[2:48:54] like funding for

[2:49:05] a lot is baked in

[2:49:06] there, but that's

[2:49:07] considered under that

[2:49:08] recommendation. Yeah.

[2:49:10] >> I have a similar

[2:49:11] question. So if I

[2:49:13] didn't mention it,

[2:49:13] but just Agrivoltaics

[2:49:26] and engaging the

[2:49:27] rural communities is

[2:49:28] the value stack

[2:49:30] portion of the

[2:49:31] recommendations the

[2:49:31] best place to to put

[2:49:34] any recommendations?

[2:49:45] framework for for

[2:49:46] Agrivoltaics as well.

[2:49:49] >> That's that's

[2:49:50] where my mind went,

[2:49:51] at least when I was

[2:49:52] reading your comments,

[2:49:53] is that would be in

[2:50:01] >> Thanks.

[2:50:09] >> All right. Now I

[2:50:11] will call the roll to

[2:50:13] to get a vote on this

[2:50:45] >> I.

[2:50:48] >> Kerry Hearn. I

[2:50:51] John Farmer. I

[2:50:54] Lieutenant governor,

[2:51:02] Kapoor. I Richard

[2:51:06] Caperton. I Tony

[2:51:08] smith I. Don alexy. I

[2:51:23] votes I. All right

[2:51:30] well I'll now ask

[2:51:31] Luis to give an

[2:51:33] update on next steps

[2:51:34] and wrap up.

[2:51:44] next meeting, Tuesday,

[2:51:46] October 13th where we

[2:51:47] will review the final

[2:51:51] final materials ahead

[2:51:53] of the November 1st

[2:51:55] deadline for this

[2:52:05] set up one on ones

[2:52:07] given the really

[2:52:07] quick turnaround.

[2:52:08] Would appreciate any

[2:52:10] feedback this week if

[2:52:11] possible. And we'll

[2:52:13] try to turn that as

[2:52:13] quickly as, as we can

[2:52:25] we'll send some more

[2:52:26] logistics information

[2:52:27] on this, but I think

[2:52:28] we'll. Ahead of the

[2:52:30] next meeting, likely

[2:52:32] we'll do some sort of

[2:52:32] kind of online, like

[2:52:33] an initial

[2:52:34] preliminary vote to

[2:52:45] it won't really count

[2:52:46] towards we'll redo

[2:52:47] the vote basically

[2:52:48] live.

[2:52:48] >> Sorry.

[2:52:49] >> I just had a

[2:52:50] question just given

[2:52:50] the mentions today of

[2:52:53] the energy plan, do

[2:52:54] you think we could

[2:53:05] >> And we we are not

[2:53:07] allowed to do virtual

[2:53:08] or email voting. Is

[2:53:09] that correct? Are we

[2:53:10] allowed to vote like

[2:53:12] remotely? I've got

[2:53:13] out of state travel

[2:53:14] during the next

[2:53:22] >> Yeah. All right.

[2:53:26] Great. And then turn

[2:53:27] it back to chair.

[2:53:31] >> All right. This

[2:53:32] task force values the

[2:53:33] input perspective and

[2:53:45] Individual should

[2:53:46] state their full name

[2:53:47] and organizational

[2:53:48] affiliation, and we

[2:53:49] will give everyone

[2:53:51] three minutes to

[2:54:05] citizen of Virginia

[2:54:07] and just representing

[2:54:08] myself, and I've

[2:54:09] attended all your

[2:54:10] meetings and I read

[2:54:11] your report. Thank

[2:54:13] you for giving me the

[2:54:14] opportunity to share

[2:54:25] have to be realistic

[2:54:27] about what you can

[2:54:27] get done. But I also

[2:54:29] see that this group

[2:54:30] is really high

[2:54:32] horsepower and fires

[2:54:33] on all cylinders, and

[2:54:45] that's what can be

[2:54:47] accomplished within

[2:54:47] the term of your

[2:54:48] sunsetting. I think

[2:54:50] that's both important

[2:54:52] because anybody going

[2:54:53] forward that doesn't

[2:55:05] I would say just

[2:55:06] think a little bigger.

[2:55:07] Think about what

[2:55:08] exists beyond you

[2:55:09] after this, after

[2:55:10] this team sunsets.

[2:55:11] Thank you.

[2:55:26] >> All right. Seeing

[2:55:28] no more individuals

[2:55:29] wishing to provide

[2:55:30] public comment, I

[2:55:31] will close the public

[2:55:32] comment period. The

[2:55:34] task force agenda for

Distributed Energy Resources Task Force

Transcript