FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: October 22, 2020

RE: CAC – Power Generation Advisory Panel Meeting #2

Chair
• John Rhodes, New York State Department of Public Service

Members
• Corinne DiDomenico, Assistant Director, Large Scale Renewables, New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority
• William Acker, Executive Director, New York Battery and Energy Storage
Consortium
• Cecilio Aponte, III, Senior Analyst, Origination, sPower
• Elizabeth (Betta) Broad, Outreach Director, New Yorkers for Clean Power
• Rory Christian, President, Concentric Consulting, LLC
• Lisa Dix, Senior New York Representative, Beyond Coal Campaign, Sierra Club
• Annel Hernandez, Associate Director, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance
• Kit Kennedy, Director of Energy & Transportation, Natural Resources Defense
Council

1
• Shyam Mehta, Executive Director, NYSEIA
• Emilie Nelson, Executive Vice President, New York Independent System Operator
• John Reese, Senior Vice President, Eastern Power Generating Company
• Stephan Roundtree, Jr., Northeast Director, Vote Solar
• Jennifer Schneider, International Representative and Legislative and Political
Coordinator for New York, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
• Darren Suarez, Manager of Public and Government Affairs, Boralex Inc.
• Laurie Wheelock, Litigation and Policy Counsel, Public Utility Law Project

2
John Rhodes: Have a new task related to natural gas. Natural gas is a significant topic; CAC
has developed the following topic for recommendations. Each panel has a natural focus
when it comes to natural gas. Above is what each panel has been tasked with examining.
Have been asked to examine the transition from gas to clean power while maintaining
system reliability as well as the issue of gas leakage. Do people want to dive in or go to
other topics and circle back? Would suggest putting aside and circling back so they can
process it.

Lisa Dix: Can take this into the discussion but to frame some questions in advance of the
discussion we want to have, we need the CLCPA to guide us here. That legislation says we
dig in from now until 2030 and 2040, and ask how we are going to transition our electric
system off of fracked gas and oil. Fine talking about this because they will be doing the
tasks and forming recommendations but it needs to be looked into more. If we are going to
add new technologies that are going to derive from fossil fuels- is that legal and is that the
intent of the law? And if they are talking about existing technologies, what is that transition
and what are the technologies that are non-fossil that are going to replace the existing fossil
fuels in the system? Doesn’t think its productive to talk about new technologies that are
fossil in the context of the panel because the task is to get them out.

John Reese: Thinks it should be put aside so they have time to think about it, it is its own
morass of stuff to deal with. It is essential, his comments about 25% magic goes to this
issue, particularly the first bullet, what will be dispatchable technologies, how do we move
on from natural gas with keeping lights on. Thinks the leaks in the infrastructure are a
different issue. Would like to think about this and not go too deeply into it today.

3
Rhodes: Agrees, willing to do what the group wants. Thinks they do need to be able to go
back to the CAC and tell them if they are able to take this on, with Lisa’s and John’s
concerns. The initial ask is whether or not they are able to do it.

Bill Acker: The first bullet is pivotal to what they’re doing, views this as the key part to the
future needs subgroup. To John’s and Lisa’s point, this is difficult and needs to be
renewable. The way this is phrased is as a replacement and not what the need is. The need
is really that certain durations of power generation need to be dispatchable and requires
storage of different lengths, that could include many things not on the list. Critical they
address this and respond that they are addressing it as a future need to the grid question of
how to replace the carbon generators on the grid. The second bullet is not something they
need to address, not a power generation issue, do not see value in spending time on trying
to problem solve for issues in the natural gas infrastructure while they are trying to
eliminating it.

Shyam Mehta: Agrees with what Bill just said. First bullet has to be part of the group’s
efforts, falls into the resource mix subgroup. Shares some of Lisa’s concerns about the fossil
solutions that are proposed but can take that as it comes up. Thinks the conversations need
to include options that are dispatchable like solar and wind in energy storage. Also does not
think the second bullet is relevant.

Kit Kennedy: Thinks this is a key topic and getting off gas is a CLCPA key idea. Likes Lisa’s
idea of building into each of these bullets the key ideas and deadlines of the CLCPA. Does
think leakage and natural gas infrastructure is important to take on as a whole. So, if this
panel is the best positioned to take that on compared to other panels then they should. In
terms of stranded assets and utility business model questions, how is that being addressed
by these panels if at all.

Rhodes: Believes they are the only panel to take that on, so it’s up to them. It is undoubtedly
a major issue and one that has not been well rustled with yet, but should be thinking about
it hard and responsibly, but that’s him personally not as the chair, as the chair wants to
know what others think, is important to take on, are people ready to finish this off or come
back?

Darren Suarez: Just one thing, the focus here is on natural gas but about a quarter of the
energy they are using are distillate fuels, in NYC units are duel fuel units between natural
gas and oil.

Rhodes: Let’s call that a friendly amendment.

Reese: The oil infrastructure is easy to shut down from one phase to the next, natural gas is
harder to maintain, oil is easier to cut ties with because you don’t have billions of dollars of
investment in the ground that need repair and maintenance. Fine with adding the friendly
amendment to the list.

4
Annel Hernandez: Agrees with a lot of what Lisa said, if they are in compliance with the
CLCPA, not sure all these options are carbon free and what their feasibility is. Right now,
many are in competition with renewables and giving major fossil fuel power plants the
opportunity to continue to operate. Have concerns with a focus on those types of
alternatives.

Rory Christian: Wants to echo what was just said and wants to amplify the air quality
components.

Rhodes: Christian was muffled, thinks he agreed with these issues but also noting the non-
greenhouse emissions air pollutant considerations as well. Will propose the following, will
say ‘yes’ on the first bullet in the spirit the CLCPA tells us to get out of fuels by a certain
date, so someone has to work on the issue and the power generation panel will but not be
wedded to any specific options listed here, may dismiss some right off the bat as being non
compatible. On the second bullet, thinks it’s a big deal, when we get out of gas and carbon
entirely there will be no upstream that is our business, but until we get out of gas there is
an upstream. No other panel is closer to grapple with the issue than they are, so they
should say ‘yes’ to this. Are people ok with this? Or have other input?

Acker: What does ‘yes’ on the second one mean? What do you envision the panel
delivering? Is it delivering solutions for leaks in natural gas infrastructure? A path?

Rhodes: Delivering whatever input they can come up with to make a difference. Could be
solutions, inventories, principles or regulations, the best they can do in the time they have.

Acker: Do they have budget for people to do studies?

Rhodes: There is preexisting work, NYSERDA has a study which is on point, the DEC has
done a lot of thinking on this, the State has an incredible fiscal challenge but has resources
and existing studies, always have the option to do smart additional work. Don’t have to
make this up, there will be a team that has more expertise on this area than you or I and
there is existing analytical work.

Acker: That is helpful, thank you.

Emilie Nelson: Agrees with Rhodes, thinks if the work needs to get done, someone has to
take that up. Does not think for the first bullet many of the topics which were identified
were being endorsed by the group. Certainly will be a challenge, they need to understand
and consider their recommendations. Identified natural gas in the resource mix group and
identified the need for innovations in the solutions for the future, in her mind the first
bullet speaks to both of those topics.

Rhodes: Any other thoughts? Lisa, are you ok with the formulation out there to take up the
topic but not committed to the solutions listed? They will stick to the carbon free principles
of the CLCPA during their work.

5
Hernandez: Yeah, think it’s concerning and wants to echo the importance of energy storage
particularly in maintaining system reliability. Thinks that the studies will demonstrate
some of these might not be the solution and will not have carbon free qualities. Stresses she
has concerns with these types of alternatives but it is important to show the negative
impacts they may have.

Dix: Agrees with Hernandez, need to look at the mandates of the legislation and what the
legislation allows. Do not want to make recommendations on things that are not carbon
free because that is not allowed under the CLCPA, need to set that hard boundary.

Reese: Agrees, thinks the list should include long duration batteries, would be wrong to not
include it. There is still a large technological need to get us to the end, would open those
doors.

Laurie Wheelock: For leakage, could change the language to give considerations for natural
gas infrastructure under the CLCPA, this would underscore the fact that they are not
recommending anything at this point but will add it to the list of things to consider.

Rhodes: Thinks the topic of concern is leaks, could go beyond leaks but would be
disappointing to the people worried about the issue if they do not address leaks.

Christian: With leaks per se, having a hard time seeing how that fits into their work, wants
to amplify stranded assets are something they need to keep in mind as they come up with
recommendations.

Rhodes: Thinks they should take it on based on Kennedy’s logic no one else is better suited
to take it on, is that ok?

Dix: Concerned about the task at hand when it comes to the leaks, are the other panels
going to take it on? Thinks it’s a source issue and not really a generation issue. Wonders if
its really something they need to be concerned about.

Rhodes: Do they need to leave it open? Are they ok with saying ‘yes’, saying they might
require another panel to help?

Reese: Thinking about this, the electric system comes to mind. The outside power
generation definition, when looking at efficiency and housing and replacing natural gas
with sheet pumps will have to make substantial modifications to the distribution system,
certainly in some parts of the State. It brings home that when talking about the power
generation system and the entire T&D system as well, in that manner, natural gas is similar,
dealing with a statewide infrastructure that has a critical role (in this case one they need to
get rid of). Thinks by default this issue falls into this committee not by choice but doesn’t
know where else it goes.

6
Kennedy: Have three panels looking at aspects of phasing out fossil gas. There will need to
be substantial talks between the panels because all these issues are intertwined. Need to
figure out how to have those conversation.

Hernandez: Before approving the addition of this, more background from your team is
needed to understand what it is they are looking at and why they are looking at the leaks
and not broader natural gas infrastructure issues.

Rhodes: Have already agreed they will look at everything, the broader issues too, just
because they say ‘leaks’ doesn’t mean they’re limited to it. Understands if they need to
learn more about the issue before they say ‘yes’, should they leave it open before the Nov
5th meeting?

Kennedy: Would be helpful to edit these bullets per these discussions.

Rhodes: Yes, changed the wording that is there. ‘Yes’, on the first, maybe on the second. Will
work with other panels on these issues.

Rhodes: None of these topics are rigid. What do they think about the resource mix and
equity questions? First what about resource mix? Is it too big? How does it get split it up,
what do people think?

Nelson: Volunteered for the resource mix team, one practical question she has is, if they
split it up, and people who were interested join both groups then it becomes less efficient.
Was comfortable for waiting for the resource mix to gather and see if there is an interest in
dividing it, thinks a lot of it will be dependent on what they find as they dig into the topics.

7
Don’t see a compelling reason to break it up, sees herself as just signing up for two groups
instead of one.

Mehta: Thinks they should let the resources mix group convene and then let them figure
out what each topic really means, there is some consolation that will be done. As topics are
consolidated it will become more apparent if the group needs to split.

Dix: Might be the only one but likes they took the time to think about the main topics, is
getting stuck on the buckets and the rigidity of the buckets. Seems this group has the task of
figuring out how they are going to get fossil, fracked gas, and oil out of the sector by the
various phases. If they are going to go based on the frame of the legislation, the rigidity will
cause issues, some issues like equity will be cross cutting and will need to be included in all
recommendations. Need to think about what they need to do in phases and look at the
barriers at each level, there are different barriers for each topic. Also, need to look at what
is being done currently as well. Thinks issues maybe be being broken up into too small of
topics and they need to look at project at hand in terms of the bigger picture when they
form recommendations knowing they cross all subgroups.

Mehta: Building off what Lisa said, there are already some ways of segmenting the topics,
one way is by region, downstate vs upstate. Another is technology based, don’t have the
answer but is that the most useful way in breaking things down when it comes to resource
mix? If you are arranging these in a silo, will be missing the bigger picture and have to go
back.

Rhodes: Just want to remind people how they came up with the subgroups and topics

8
Rhodes: Everyone came to this group with different backgrounds, each topic is larger than
anyone’s background. It was collectively captured. It was never suggested they would be
rigid or siloed, but understands the fear. In past discussion, buckets and silos came up and
was asked who comes up with the issue, the answer is the subgroups and the panel as a
whole both owned the issues. The idea was to have dedicated focus teams on issues to
investigate the issue, who would then brief the panel as a whole. Not sure how to respond
to the fear about going ridged also not his place. The subgroups have the duty of making
themselves better informed than the larger group but do not have the final decision, their
job is to provide quality information. Thinks that helps with the discussion they were going
into. There will be overlap and interrelationships, this proposal is what was submitted to
the group. It’s up to the subgroup to decide what information is shared with the group.
Does not think they have to be fearful of topics being compartmentalized.

Reese: One of the things that would be helpful is the quality of facilitation in the subgroup
meetings, it would be helpful to have someone who can facilitate between groups.

Rhodes: Have an ask for a facilitation person and need to follow up.

Elizabeth (Betta) Broad: Based on the exchange so far this is a reasonable way to proceed.
Asks Lisa what she is thinking and where she thinks they could go if this is not the next
step. Sounds like she is thinking outside the box, if she could elaborate. If they don’t break it
up into buckets it will be hard to meet the progress in the short time they have, interested
in what she suggests.

Dix: One of the proposals is if they reframe the work they are doing, maybe one subgroup
could be tasked with gas and oil transition and find out what does that entail, what needs to
be done in five years? Ten years? What are the clean options what equity considerations
are built into that? Both for the dirty and clean energy sides, don’t mean to break it all up,
for the resource mix would just coming up with different technology and topics was good
for brain storming. Maybe the key is to go to the subgroups and come up with the big
questions and the road map and how it intersects with the groups. Fine to let it be like that.

Cecilio Aponte: Haven’t had the chance to get those big questions out there, thinks that is
the next step for this group. Right now, have these topics but don’t have the questions or
paths to go down, haven’t had a chance to dive into the deeper issues and explore barriers
and other aspects, the only way to do that is to start. Could even reshuffle the groups or the
internal groups to reshuffle around those pieces. Thinks even within the subgroups people
will focus on certain topics in that subgroup and that will help with topics being
compartmentalized. Asks how to include principles in the discussions, thinks the principles
were a way to not get siloed. Each subgroup should be framing solutions in terms of the
principles. Doesn’t think resource mix is the best structure but thinks it’s a good first step.

Rhodes: One of the main points is to ask the collective to share their thoughts on these
topics and priorities with the team, mentioned the staff is working on two pages for each of
these different topics, with basic staff work and the issues being shaped by these

9
discussions will be ready by the next meeting for topical work. Will have something that
articulates a deeper view into these issues and advances them down the road.

Acker: Supports what Aponte said about identifying the questions. Has struggled with this
structure because the electric grid is considered one of the greatest engineering systems of
the 20th century. No matter how they break this up all the issues will be connected. Thinks
the structure works as long they move towards interrelated solutions they encounter and
by identifying key challenges in each of the sub areas then pushing them back up to the
bigger picture. Need to trust the team to not be siloed but to do that they need level setting
in the beginning with identify key challenges each group is working on in each area.

Kennedy: Thinks everyone is saying, they go with subgroup structure, do the work around
recommendations in each of the areas but do not stop there, then come back to the main
group and then put everything together into a strategy they can recommend. Start with
subgroup, go bigger, answer questions, and come up with a cross cutting strategy, does that
make sense?

Rhodes: The only friendly amendment he would propose would be having the cross cutting
at any time, does not need to happen at any specific point but does think that describes the
process.

Broad: Does seem like barriers need to be a top priority for the subgroups, need to identify
the barriers as a group. Barriers and equity should at the forefront of the groups work.
Curious what others think about equity. Thinks equity and barriers need to be included in
all aspects.

Nelson: Thinks because equity is identified as a principle it would be considered

throughout. Thinks it would be important to have a subgroup on equity, not her strong suit,
thinks there are specific recommendations that could come out of a subgroup on this. In
discussions earlier, it seems they have the subgroup role and then landing out
recommendation but there is an interest and a need for there to be a synthesis of these
subgroups and how they meet the goals of the CLCPA. Although there is the expectation,
they need to allow for the time to make sure all these elements come together into a whole
to achieve the CLCPA.

Wheelock: Thinks it’s fantastic to acknowledge these principles, was nervous about making
things their own subgroups but is glad to be able to have this discussion. Think if they can
work out some of the process issues, they can make sure the principles will be in all of their
recommendations.

Stephan Roundtree: Agrees with Mehta about equity considerations and barriers.
Somewhat worried they do not have a unified interpretation of the law or guidelines of the
law and how that pertains to executing how resources are being allocated to disadvantaged
communities. Want to get ahead of that before it is interpreted differently by the
subgroups, would that make sense to discuss now as part of the main panel or if it should

10
come from the panel? When talking about equity that means in terms of the law, thinks this
is an important issue to look at.

Mehta: When talking about subgroups, not questioning the value of subgroups, thinks that
the right idea. On the issue of getting stuck on topics, thinks it’s not an issue because of the
amount of overlap, thinks there will be natural interaction between the subgroups. On the
issue of resource mix and breaking that up, thinks as each subgroup dives into the topic
they could come up with different subgroups than what was started with but that will
happen organically. On the issue of equity, thinks people have pointed out it should be
taken into consideration for each topic, but functionally people have a natural tendency to
tunnel vision based on what they are looking at. There is a risk of missing out on other
aspects so it makes sense to have dedicated subgroup on equity and there will be a natural
conversation between the equity group and the other subpanels.

Rhodes: Will attempt synthesis. Will preserve the subgroups and topics for now, will have
staff prepare briefing notes on the various topics before the next Nov 5th meeting. This
meeting will be an opportunity for a deeper look. This will not lock them into these
particular subgroups but will give them a better idea whether equity and barriers will need
their own focus or if they should be addressed in the context of each subgroup. Will start
off in the next three weeks in this mode. Will also come up with ways to make sure they are
cross cutting in each task. How does that sound as a summary of this discussion?

Hernandez: Thinks equity, affordability, and justice should be included in each subgroup.

Rhodes: Separately, there is a question of the interpretation of the law that has been
brought up previously. Do they want to get someone from the council to inform them of the
law the CLCPA established? Is that an ask?

Nelson: Thinks if there is something available, they should look at that, do not think they
should wait for that. One of the assumptions the task that the CAC has at hand is how to
take the legislation and make it a reality. Thinks the work from the panels will shape what
that looks like, do not want to wait to start conversation son on these topics.

Roundtree: Agrees they shouldn’t be held up on this but think it’s an important issue, don’t
want recommendations based on a separate set of facts, and should be informed as soon as
possible.

Suarez: The CLCPA establishes a process and procedure for identifying and reviewing
disadvantage communities and annually reviewing them, that is already based in statue
there. Also, can look at what NSYERDA has listed in their latest RFP which laid out some
initial criteria based on what environmental justice working groups and the DEC has
already worked.

Rhodes: Knows there has been work going on to define disadvantaged communities and
there is an interim definition, will make sure to share that, and what comes next in the
process. When you heard this phrase, it sounds like there is a final definition that has yet to
11
arrive, will procure that for the panel. On the work the group need to do - have had a
conversation and have come to a rough understanding of a work plan to start their work,
want to avoid silos, and thinks equity is a principle that should be addressed in by groups,
barriers too.

Dix: Are they voting on that? If they are going to say ‘yes’ this is what they are going to do,
also not sure they decided if equity and barriers will be subgroups or if they will be taken
up in all the subgroups. Would be nice to have a high-level synopsis of what they’ve
decided, what subgroups will move forward to work and what will happen with the equity
and barrier subgroups.

Rhodes: Yes, can vote. On equity, thought Hernandez captured the sense of the group which
as seeing the value of having a subgroup but also emphasizing it should be a consideration
in every recommendation on every topic, but did not hear if anyone was signing up to
continue that subgroup or if it did not make sense. Could discuss that further and then take
a vote if that’s what people want.

Dix: So, the next steps are everyone will get into their subgroup?

Rhodes: The next steps are - the staff are already working on writing up information on the
selected topics but not in any direction, just setting up a way just to capture facts and
identify issues. In addition, each person will sign up to share thoughts on those topics over
the next week or so. Then, will dive into the material and decide if the subgroups and topics
make sense. Need to find some way to organize their work. Think the consensus is the list
they have isn’t bad and can be used to get the ball rolling. Then everyone can do short write
ups and then everyone can share their thoughts.

Dix: Is there the expectation subgroups will be meeting before the next meeting? Also are
they going with the four? And if so, would those be two separate meetings or four separate
meeting and will those happen before Nov. 5th ?

Rhodes: If there is an appetite to have the meetings then they should happen, if there is a
proposal to do that, happy to make the time to have a discussion on that, do groups want to
meet before the 5th?

Reese: There is so much work, if it can be arranged and scheduled, they should.

Rhodes: Are people ok for meeting with the subgroups as they stand knowing they may be
adjusted? There has been considerable appetite for not keeping things locked down.

Nelson: Thinks it would be a good idea to meet, thinks sharing ideas at the next meeting is a
good idea. If they are able to meet early next week or the week after, it would make the
Nov. 5th meeting more productive.

All agreed to meet before the next meeting.

12
Rhodes: The state team will organize the scheduled.

Dix: For subgroups, how will agendas and schedules be set? Will there be a state lead for
each subgroup? Or is it up to the subgroups? Curious how the subgroups will be organized.

Rhodes: What do folks want?

Christian: Thinks each subgroup should be left to figure it out, everyone will have their own
work flow. For the resource group suggests everyone exchanges their emails and try to
figure out what the group should do, volunteered as a moderator for that group going
forward.

Rhodes: Silence is consent. Also proposes a state lead that could play whatever role they
could play, like a chief of staff for the subgroup so there is at least a name for people to go
to. This will provide a support to the subgroup and can evolve as needed.

Nelson: Thinks that sounds fine.

Rhodes: Wants to be explicit on how they make decisions. Want to synthesis what they said,
won’t have voting and non-voting members on the panel, will aim for consensus, and when
there is none, they will report the multiple point of views. The objective is to have this be a
collective to think through the recommendations rather than a vote for your favorite
exercise. Everyone will have the same voice.

Dix: Are there four subgroups or two?

Rhodes: Are having four, after the 5th they can change.

Christian: So, everyone can see where they are please see the chart.

13
Dix: Can someone request to be added to subgroups?

Rhodes: Yes, also can ask to be removed. Any amendments, questions or concerns?

Suarez: One thing people raised was to make sure to have one person from each subgroup
to work with another subgroup, volunteering to work with CJWG and EJAG panels. Thinks
its great idea

Christian: Will volunteer for the same.

Mehta: Asked to be added to the siting subgroup.

Broad: Also wants to be added for siting subgroup.

Roundtree: Wants to be on the siting panel as well.

Dix: Would like to be added to all the subgroups.

Acker: Would like to be added to potential barriers and siting subgroups.

Reese: Wants to be added to building electrification.

Nelson: would like to be added to building and transportation.

Schneider: would like to be added to transportation and electrification.

14
Rhodes: Will circulate the list to make sure it is updated accordingly.

Rhodes: Have to have at least one public engagement, scheduled for January. Also has been
talk of engagement in other ways either with specific groups (consumer groups,
environmental groups, or others) or experts who can come talk to them.

Dix: What is the date for the recommendations?

Rhodes: For planning purposes, the end of March next year. Is January a good time?

Reese: Sure, January is good.

Dix: Thinks its aggressive, but for now given the tasks at hand if the end of March is the
deadline for recommendations, it’s a good milestone to involve the public. Helps them to
make sure they can adjust with the public input before submitting their recommendations.

Aponte: By the public forum should have a draft recommendation. Will that be a forum
based on a presentation of the draft recommendation and giving groups an opportunity to
respond to that in a live setting? Or would the feedback come later? What does it mean?

Rhodes: Have to figure that out, but thinks they have to do more listening than speaking,
but to get input there needs to be something for people to react to. Thinks there should be
something of a live input model. Thinks each person could have five minutes for input.
Thinks this is a topic that attracts attention (has over 80 people viewing now). Might have

15
more input than can be accommodated in a live forum so should have other ways to
provide input but that can be determined. Happy to hear any feedback from the public.

Suarez: Agrees January is aggressive but thinks it’s good to have a date. Prior to COVID -
had discussions with the public in person and then provided time for the public to react.
Would be good to see how other agencies have done this.

Acker: Agrees January is a good time. On the public engagement, these meetings are already
public, are the subgroups public? Thinks these public meetings will provide feedback as the
meetings progress, how should feedback be shared? Is it Chatham House Rules?

Rhodes: Think it’s a foundational principle these meetings should be open. At some point
the subgroups will provide written materials to the panel as a whole. Also, thinks those
notes should be made public. Believes the subgroup meetings should not be public, they
will be working meetings. There should be opportunity for input from others and feedback
to the subgroups should be brought to the panel. If there are speakers or panels during
subgroup meetings it should be public.

Acker: So, it would be Chatham House Rules to some extent for the subgroups, would be fair
to discuss what is done in the subgroups but not attribute feedback to a specific person.

Rhodes: That makes sense but wants to know if anyone thinks differently.

Christian: Is the January forum the only forum planned?

Rhodes: That is the required public input meeting, could decide to have another one, also
could decide to have a panel of environmental justice folks or other groups that could be
another panel.

Dix: This would be in addition to stake holders as part of the recommendation process? Or
are you saying this is something in addition? Is this different from having experts come and
talk to the groups.

Rhodes: That will depend on issues that come up in the subgroups. Also trying to decide
what people want for input.

Dix: Could have the working groups decide gaps in information so if there are stake holders
not represented where they need input because of a specific recommendation they are
working on they could discuss it in their subgroup and organize a way to bright it back to
the panel to organize an interaction either in the subgroup or to the main panel.

Rhodes: So, the suggestion is giving that decisions to the subgroups as they see fit?

Everyone says that makes sense

16
Reese: Disagrees, thinks it would be beneficial to hear from those panels. Many of the issues
being discussed are sweeping and everyone should hear and input on these topics.

Suarez: Thought the idea was for the subgroups to identify information gaps and bring
those topics to light to the main panel.

Reese: Might have misunderstood.

Suarez: Says if that’s not the model being agreed on it should be.

Rhodes: Nothing prevents the panel from bringing in other groups to speak, the idea is to
have the subgroups to identify information gaps and find people to speak, would be open to
all. Could leave open the idea the panel as a whole could request other groups to come in
and speak to the group.

Dix: Wants to make sure there is time for subgroups to talk to the main panel about the
gaps identified.

Rhodes: Can you explain more?

Dix: Is there a process where the subgroups identifies the gaps and bring them back to the
main panel to see if there needs to be a broader group review of the topic.

Acker: Supports that point of view, there is some risk some subgroups do not take up the
invitation with the overlap between the groups, thinks the invitation should be decided by
the main group.

Nelson: Thinks this should be a near action term item to address, should be talked about
during the Nov 5th meeting.

Rhodes: Thinks this works. Will go for January for public engagement. Will ask for
subgroups to identify and share any areas where they would like to hear from outside
resources, so they can start working on that process by Nov 5th. Need to submit their
workplan at the end of the month to the CAC, will circulate an updated version of what
people have already seen, asks for input by Oct 28th. A few things they won’t get to today,
there is information on the different studies that are underway. Nov 5th will be working
meeting and will need an agenda, if everyone could think about items for the agenda, will
circulate a starter email next week. Will have starter thoughts on topics and starter
thoughts on identifying information gaps and starting to work on bringing in people.

Aponte: Have been doing this by email, if they are going to be doing a live document could
we do it via a shared document?

Corinne DiDomenico: Might have to sure share point, it is the only thing NYSDERA can use.
Can explore alternates.

17