[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