i have a condensed version of the presentation that was made in our capstone event and we know that this issue has been covered extensively over the last year and through this fall since the results of the return on investment analysis were presented early in august and there's been a number of opportunities for comment and presentations out have been made on a number of occasions options compared to a base case in the base case just as what was used in the guard for study was the case where we were at the permit for the circulating fluid i was bed unit and that's all that was really going to be built scenario twenty five year life cycle kind of cost assessment were the the community energy plan was a forty year plan so there's some differences of deployment time you know how much has been deployed of various resources but ultimately it's following that same pattern what it yields in terms of result here is you see that the natural gas options the big takeaway here the natural gas options that supply what would be our next resource provide face to intermediate type of case was the initial one which was roughly taking three offline yes keeping born five operational essentially as if yes and then replacing three with the seven hundred home the numbers come back at seventy ultimately we may be wrecked recommending some variation of all these we did the number of cases we did be so that we could understand relationships that exist between the cases but not necessarily would it be that case as it stands would be our record mandation what's informative in here is you're able to see the differences on scale of a combined cycle unit you're able to see what adding renewable resources means to the financial and sustainable picture specifically on the second case second point scenarios a and b the real difference there is the addition of renewable resources in the mix difference between scenario c and d white wise is the addition of renewable resources in the mix otherwise you're dealing with cases where natural gas provides your based intermediate resource in cases where solid fuels providing you're no new base intermediate resource then you have scenarios e n f which are this case where we said what if we rely upon the market for everything new  going forward and we looked at the difference that what that was illustrated of to show us was that we looked at the difference with on an economic and sustainable standpoint of the retirement of the young units at twenty sixteen or allowing those units to continue to serve a coal a cost standpoint not much different in terms of financial return and that helped us draw some conclusions with regard to the plan and so all that boils down to some recommendations will come to dan if you want to dance to the next slide again you don't look at when you look at a sustainable return on investment you don't know precisely what's going to happen twenty five years are over the next five to ten fifteen twenty twenty five years you have to consider a range of probabilities range probabilities of cost range probabilities on you know different policy or legislation that might affect you know cost changes on the fallow user range of values around some of the nonfinancial impacts all of that was considered and so what you really is a probabilistic result not a static it will be this number but a probabilistic it could be anywhere from here to here and so again the take away the high level takeaway in this case is that the curves over to the right of this as i'm looking at hopefully as you are as well as you're looking at the screen your right would be the curves that again represent the cases where natural gas provides the new base to intermediate kind of of generation resource the the all the other curves to the left are the curves that either are relying on the market or your solid fuel related options  what that gives us some comfort that not only on a static middle probabilistic kind of number the cases we're dasher gas place the big part make the most economic and fine and sustainable sense but also across a range of possible outcomes you also have that showing up you know very clearly from this kind of thing go ahead advances and then lastly again you know boiling it down to a cost of electricity because again you know that is very important to a large portion of our constituency is understanding of what's the impact going to be on rates this would say and again this is the fiftieth percentile probability again but you're looking at the comparatives here and scenario g scenario a and b the natural gas options are the lowest lowest cost scenarios being lower than a and b on a on on a cost of electricity but you know how much lower you're looking at you know somewhat in the area of about fifteen percent lower over twenty five year period then relying upon the wholesale market for electricity twelve percent lower than relying upon solid fuel as your next generation resource so some very good you know indications from a cost electricity and keep in mind just refresh and i know we spent a lot of time on this already and i respect the you know our the night we're at this point but we look at a lot of factors financial but also nonfinancial considering impact on the environment you know so we developed a series of staff recommendations i think total five different recommendations and the first one dan i think you is related to baseload generation and really you're talking about basic intermediate load in this particular case this is explain a little bit about what a combined cycle is but what the staff is recommending is that we pursue combined cycle technology and two on one configuration approx one hundred fourteen megawatts in size that sounds like a multiple multiple essentially what it says is we want to pursue a certain technology called combined cycle what is combined cycle it's a very efficient process you're using natural gas combustion turbines which are essentially the same things that hang under the wing of a jet engine and you're making electricity with those but at the end of that electricity production there's a waste heat that comes off from that but you can then capture that waste heat and make steam and you can make it for a number of different reasons you can make it to put through a turbine to make more electricity you can use and take some of it off to use for other heating purposes there's a lot of flexibility in what you can do combined cycle would use it for additional steam production for the electricity making electricity two on one means there's two combustion turbines coupled with a steam turbine why is that important redundancy you're looking at this unit not only being a very critical resource for a peaceful power supplier base intermediate power power supply you're also looking at it about install cost that is significantly less per kilowatt than what this would be for the smaller size and we considered a two on one of one hundred fourteen megawatts in size we considered a two on one configuration to give you roughly seventy eight megawatt side cost difference is around thirty million dollars or so if you're looking at the cost per kilowatt of being fifteen or all six hundred dollars per kilowatt versus roughly one hundred dollars a through the range jury you do lose efficiency when you drop down in all put on these machines but in terms of the relationship on the size if you're at one versus the other it's it's about the same that's wh wenty eight million b t u s per hour of two hundred degree water level in the larger unit versus nine million b to use of hot water available in the smaller unit so you have a significant amount that after the second pass or this being your term of the bill that you're talking about you know if you look at the passes that you have the first pass is extracting energy putting energy into it essentially tower potentially to reject heat if snow melting wasn't available when but when snow melting is available you're able to take that waste heat instead of using a cooling tower you can take and put it under the streets and sidewalks like we do currently our existing snow melt system is rated at about forty million b t u s per hour hour of heat rejection this unit here would have about two hundred nineteen million b to use for per hour available versus a bottle hundred seventy  two in the in the smaller unit so you're talking about increasing the size of the snow melt system four to five fold you know over a word is today in that that's the kind of availability you have on something like that  snow melt system right now so actually in this kind of system you'd be looking at a much higher quality of water in the in the cooling tower set up because you would be making that up through like waste water treatment our  plane would be to use any we would make up any evaporative losses using a waste water treatment plant effluent which actually is much cleaner product then you know then i'm not trying to say that now but i'm saying in terms of like sediment or you know up potential for algae growth and things like that you have a much better quality of of water than what you have right now and this is going to be exposed loop system  young plant retirement or repurposed singer speakers and that's an important point is that under the staff recommendations you see coming up a little bit later we're talking about some some questions about what we do with the dion units and what staff is i'll give more clarity when we get there but essentially what we're saying starts to change the purpose of that maybe retirement of you know is going to be in the cards at some point in will point out one of the reasons we're sort of saying let's kind of have to have something else provide that so you know that for example the mare asked a question about you know what what was the old the base low proposal it was seventy eight megawatts of new c f be taking away eleven megawatts of the old leaving sixty seven megawatts a new base load this proposal would have one hundred fourteen megawatts of of combustion turman might cycle rather you know and then if you change the purpose of that the young units to peakers or retirement you're talking of fifty four new megawatts of of base to intermediate type of service you actually have a lower amount of that kind of service under this under this scenario and that that's an important point to talk about but there also could be an opportunity in the short run of having an ability to interface with other public power for vipers there is a need out there generally among the michigan power agency providers i can't say you know we don't have a deal in the works or anything like that at this point but this provides an opportunity for us to help them out as we grow into this unit's need and that is you know when you look at the economy of scale in the operational efficiency that allows us to find i think a very attractive opportunity for us to be edited with other opportunities that they might pull utilize us and be a win win situation so  forward the other thing that's important here is that we're talking about a very historic low point in financing costs and right now if you go out to the bond market you know we're going to hope to get mean there are very very attractive rates right now and if you look at what that might be five ten years from now in terms of maybe let's do a more incremental bill when you look at that economy of scale then you look at the prospect of the higher bond rate in the future you know how is that going to be a second to be cost effective i think this is a very good very good time to make the investment right now and so i think the financing considerations are important and the rates are just right well and again i don't think of a twenty or thirty year maybe is going to attract that kind of rate but you know if we're talking about four percent you know as a conservative number you know we're talking about you know previous bond issues i don't have all the history on it but i know there's been refinancing over time of some things but you know i don't think that seven percent six percent you know earned and higher have been unusual numbers for thirty y bonds in the past so that's first of all and would you rather i walked through all the recommendations or do you want to handle them want to time f location in this particular case we value weighted options where we build it after the young site and we evaluate it options where it was off the d m site and so on the considers which considerations were your waterfront usage long term you know do we need to construct  at the young site it's not a solid fuel unit so you're not bringing in cargos you know by vessel we are recommending that the preferred site would be a site other than the unit for the following reasons but constructibility the site the  site was built essentially film still it was filled in there's a large pilings there so i mean there's probably other sites that are going to be better from a constructibility standpoint once through cooling is not an option there's regulations that are impacting our ability to use the kind of quantities of lake water that we do today for cooling at the de young plant and as i mentioned a cooling tower would be needed in either situation you're just talking about supplementing that or you are mixing up the of effort of losses so in that particular case you don't have to be right on the water to use the kind of volumes of cooling there are alternatives that could be closer to both the the stonewall districts and the they and the district heating opportunities within the community and there's also a you know overall what we do consider you need to have access to roads you need to have access to high voltage you need to have access to the gas pipeline we think there are sites that would still preserve those those fundamental issues associated with siting electric power generation we are recommending that you know for the waterfront considerations over the long run as well as for the purposes of that intervention here from a constructibility and you know the reasons technically better another site would be a better better option has been pointed out that this is a comprehensive set of recommendations it's not just a recommendation on base or intermediate power supply we have recommendations looking at renewables again there's differences in cost between scenarios a and b and between c and d show that looked at these other contracts we have brought contracts and had them approved by board and council one of them is a contract the other one's a member and understanding to try to reach an end point on a contract for the first one deals with a wind farm in indiana has very very attractive pricing relative to what we were looking at for developing our own preserves capital for other opportunities that we have and has eliminated the operational risk essentially we pay as it as it gets delivered so the next two recommendations are then to finalize the agreement on the wildcat wind an end we've had conversations this week we're very close to right at that point of being done with everything and so things are moving along this far as about one hundred hundred what twenty five wind turbines they have ninety six of them up now so there are real close to getting to commercial operation if you look at the next one talks about completing a twenty year agreement b wind here in michigan and if for about seventeen roughly megawatts of generation this one is contingent upon the extension the production tax credits which we expect will be a lame duck and a lame duck session i guess any more but it would you know i guess it could be for some for some yeah but it would be maybe taken up by in the next month here you know at the federal level if that happens with the pricing that we have is very consistent with the other one but has a longer term to it so we have additional security of a longer term on this wind and again we think that's a very good supplement put in those together we have about twelve percent they're the highest provider and maybe in terms of megawatt hours they are but in terms of percentage i think the b b w would be at the top of the list of renewable energy in his portfolio among michigan utilities well that is i think a very good mix of things from a new resource perspective and then we're talking about the young un i think there's been a lot of you know a lot of interest in this particular one because this is been sort of a regular recommendation in the negative you know we're talking about recommending that we do not invest in capital control capital or the controls of emissions at these plants why because we evaluated cases specifically in f where we saw the difference between doing it and not doing it in terms of retirement ok when you retire them or you don't retire them and you make the investment the cost was about the same the sustainable impact though was probably worse in the case were you when you left them operating as coal you ok that's what the that's what the information show now they are making those investments and control technology you would need to do that but what we are saying is that regulations are i would say fairly certain at this point for unit number five we know there's a time clock that it's working on and by that some time b class of regulations same type of same type of regulation same thing it's impacting but the e p a is reconsidering the rule we don't know the exact timing for that and as a staff we're saying look monitor that you know are we don't need to commit immediately on those things we know you'll see it a little bit we'll be discussing the fact that even making this decision now we're looking at a september time september twenty sixth time frame for commercial operation on this new unit when you look at reliable service community you're looking at snow melt provision and things like that to commit immediately and that's if the air permit process goes smoothly we get everything done very timely it's a very very realistic for aggressive schedule and if you if you look at that you want to make sure that you have not committed yourself too much in a corner unnecessarily the other thing to consider if you go to the next slide and there's been i think some confusion about this that this graph shows a value that could potentially be there it's projected to be there i should say not potentially it's projected to be there again we want to vent text provide us market information and there are two markets really that are out there there's a market for energy you know what actually comes off the generator but there's also a market for capacity what the capability of the machine is and we have an obligation to meet our reserve margin others also have an obligation to meet their reserve margins the extent that you own the b w in the city hall and own this asset in the dion's plant and it can be used in a gas fired mode to provide it peaking purpose there is a value that is projected to come from that based upon vent texas projection of that that number is represented by the total length of each of those bars they hold what i have done here just to illustrate if you will use the one  you right here also this is assumes a sixty five year life that's the planning purpose but i wanted to put that up there for illustrated purposes as well you see the bars decreasing in step amounts that's because after twenty eight thousand unit over three hundred sixty five years old so in the bigger case it would come off line unit number four would be sixty five years old after twenty twenty five and then you number five would go to about twenty twenty or twenty thirty three under sixty five your life so this proposes that if you consider that life as being a planning life and you have them as a peak or they still have a capacity value and the capacity value represented by the the total length of the bar the cost to maintain those as a peaker is much smaller than the cost to maintain those as a coal fired base load unit you don't need to staff them with the complement of staff that you have you don't need to do maintenance on fuel handling equipment and other things so your cost on an annual basis is much less as a staff were estimating somewhere around one point two million a year to staff and operate as a peak or if you look at the value that derive then the red represents a net revenue what are you going to get from the capacity market over and above what it cost you to maintain it as a peak or and it's revenue positive all the way through that period time ok yes  you are saying that you don't have you don't necessarily have to peak your unit that you're just talking about it has to be functional has to be up to date and compl everything right but the regulations that that we're facing after twenty fifteen twenty sixteen apply to coal and oil fired units so as a gas peaker you don't have the investment controls that you have to make it doesn't run sort of what three strikes kind of provision here if you don't if you don't meet the call you know you could lose the opportunity for the capacity revenues but if you meet that call when the call comes you have you know you can  yeah you're looking at the highest peak situation you know advance talk about two to three percent of the time i mean that's the kind of thing that we realistically would see you know because that they're not going to be even a speaker is the most efficient units that are out there so not going to be called very often to operate but they still have a value they still have a value for being and that's that's the point where not there are concerns about what about other uses for the waterfront long term that's true that is a consideration and i would say look you know when that red bar either becomes nonexistent or there's a competing value that the competing use that brings a community value that exceeds that rate all we're saying is it has a value it's paid for in terms of the pay down you have an annual obligation but your net year you're projected to be and you're going to have to you're going to you're going to put it into the case that this thing has a you know twenty four hour startup time that you're not going to have to do it if you say this is what the unit can do it can do a twenty four hour start time that's what the  people call for will do they'll look at what you did start to commit out a twenty four hour basis and if they commit you you've got a start up and run but you will have that kind of start up time frame you don't have to start up like a peak or if you say this is how it is this is what it can do that's fine you just have to do it based upon what you've committed in terms of start and manage and then the market value them twenty four hour notice unit and they less than what it would be or  peters that can start up on a very short notice again so for our own purposes we will do that during the summer time and i would say our uses you know somewhere between ten and fifteen per cent capacity factor which means that you time comes and prices go way up when we run a peak or actually turns out to be a revenue back to us is actually selling the power that we bought yesterday back into in today's market and getting ready for that so there is some of that going on but i mean we a nest eps that we believe are part of critical path obviously a critical path is site site selection why is it it's because you can't submit a new air permit application until you know where you're going to constructed a modeling tolerance that the organization in the city wants to see relative to natural gas pricing and to develop that hedge plan and appear that the actual natural gas management services to put that plan in practice and so those are some of the things that are part of the next steps thing ok but we haven't read the details of the resolution and i know we're not dealing with a resolution tonight but these are the these are the details of what's in there so to have dave sort of orient dust on this topic and this would be the appropriate time if someone would care to talk to put the rules apply you know name residential address up to five minutes cetera et cetera but we're certainly happy to invite and and as i mentioned at the beginning of the meeting you could have elected to have your comments here i would you want to ask you if you'd come up to the front here we'll give you the microphone so that way people who are watching this on video can hear what your comments are as well thank you just a general question or rather i want to express the concern you mentioned a lot of natural gas in if you were to go that route i hope you're  still doing some research on other sources of energy but i wanted to ask you gentlemen you have some idea who your gas provider would be  board public works currently owns a its own natural gas pipeline that's interconnected in over a result of the southeast a town that has a nine mile long natural gas pipeline in or connected to the interstate pipeline so that we can go out to the suppliers of natural gas throughout the country really to be able to provide that gas into that interstate line and then we connect directly to that so you know we would there would be a number of different suppliers you know that would be putting gas into the line over the life of the unit we wouldn't be just just one supplier but it would be through our pipeline that we own and operate now the reason  legislature and they don't have to answer some of the environmental agencies they don't have to tell them what they used them and that's my fear of going to natural gas because if it's up and in that manner jeopardizing a lot of people's lives and how destroy small communities it shows up in the water it shows up in the an ironman and then people are paid big money leasing their land they also have to sign a non disclosure agreement so they are kind of like and i dread the thought of anything like that happening so close or anywhere for that so i just wanted to express my concern that it we were to go start the process of get into the process of producing natural gas we're not in the process of extracting natural gas we're talking about a use of natural gas for electric generation over one number two you know i would say that you know in this analysis we have not taken a look at tried to quantify impacts of things that are related to the production of fuel whether it's coal or whether it's natural gas or any other type of fuel that we're dealing with but we did estimate a range of values around the cost of natural gas in case there was some sort of regulatory pressure or some sort of operational pressure on the production of the fuel but the point i would say is that you go to the department environment faulty they are the regulators in the state of michigan they have produced fact sheets related to the process of hide your ideological i'm sorry i did geological  of shale for the purpose of extracting natural gas and they've done a very nice job you know i think a laying a lot of fears that were you know that are out there and dispelling a lot of mis related to  the process of fracking has been going on in michigan for years ok so and been done very safely and so i think if you go to the regulators the department are all quality you will see that i was also say that governor snyder today just announced that he's commissioned a report out of the university of michigan that's coming out the first that report coming out early this next year is trying to quantify the benefits and all the societal impacts of the process of and so that's something to stay in tune with as well i think will be coming out of there will be very credible and i think what comes out of the regulators is also very credible and so i'd ask you to take a look at that as part of the process greg and then you can go next month i'm sorry just a question you might pick up when you get to the  the way it was presented it sound like nothing could be done with the young site until all the units are retired and it's just the building roughly eighty percent of it could be used while that is happening inside the building you just walk through that that would be his letters there was someone there speaking from the e q you know and when you say fracking has been going on for years and years that's true however we're talking about a new kind of fracking a new kind of fracking that started in two thousand and eight i believe it started by halliburton they there's a halliburton loophole accent from the clean water act the clean air act a safe drinking water act i could go on and i mean the list of exemptions is is huge and the chemicals they use are toxic poisons and it's definitely becoming a reality in west michigan and we don't know where the gas that we're going to be getting is coming from and we don't know what the demands are going to be we don't know what the prices are going to be you know if there are further regulations coming it's a really really scary market right now and natural gas it's being touted as the next greatest thing and we've all heard about it it's also being talked about as a transition fuel i've even heard of this new natural gas wonder at what cost we're just replacing one fossil fuel with another it burns fifty percent cleaner oh yes we know that at the life cycle of natural gas from cradle to grave when you factor in this fracking there's saying it's worse than that a nets produce when they have to go in and extract it as is the greenhouse gas emissions to to be worse than what you get when you're talking about coal so i just i don't see it as the future maybe people thought it was at one point but were you know what were making i was very last term recommendation on something that's kind of hot right now for the minute but worse we're always going to be buying it natural gas and where are we getting it from and generation but it's it's changing fast i mean just a year ago we were on the fast track to another coal plant and this whole h d r study look how natural gas has come around so quickly and i can show you several reports that show when trying actually lower the gas reports the less i report and several other institutions a series and rocky mountain institute are all saying now is not the time to build a huge natural gas plant and i just don't want hyland to to do this and be stuck with five you know it sounds like that plant is going to be there forever whether it's burning coal for a couple of decades or as long as we can squeeze it along so where we put this new gas plant really doesn't matter so much if i just sits there forever as speakers or whatnot i mean i thought the point was to maybe try to open up the waterfront holland wants to be a leader in clean energy and you know holland that you should be more of energy manager th provider i mean these are all things that we're talking about just just last year and i don't know how we quite got here this whole plan and i just have a lot of concerns you know and a lot of the and also got a one hundred percent renewable energy goal i mean these big users are using less we're just using less and less energy and they want to buy green power they want to buy the wind that we're not because we don't know the wind farm you know b b is going to do that all these other areas all these other places are looking to do what we could have died and still could do so thank you so much for listening  will my name is nicole i live it six to eight for one forty third avenue in holland i think that city council should really seriously consider this consider supporting natural or not supporting it it's really irresponsible to not consider the impact of the extraction process of natural gas when you talk about clean air permits  it's a hazardous there are so many hazardous air pollutants used in the process of fracking it has a huge impact on the community on communities where fracking occurs all we have to do is look at the stories of the people in these communities where it's already happening the d e q and the e p a are notoriously pro industry and they do not represent the interests of the community they represent big business and you can talk to people and communities that are being tracked and learned how it's impacted their lives their farms michigan is huge in terms of agriculture agriculture is huge here hunting fishing tourism and fracking stands to destroy all of that and i understand that you already made the point that b p w is not in the business of fracking and that's not what you're doing but the fact matter is what you're proposing works that and that's something that would take a very real look at and communities where fracking is occurring in texas for example so many carcinogens are used in the process that there are increase race ra breast cancer in communities where this is occurring and if you look at other communities and texas this isn't the case race of rates of breast cancer are actually dropping and if you look at how this is impacting farmers they're losing animals because these animals are drinking contaminated water they're giving birth to stillborn animals animals without her animals with palettes that this is a very real problem and the industry does not have to pay for this they don't have to compensate these people and they are faced with so many exemptions superfund laws clean air act clean water act toxics release inventory what is there to hide we can do better than that in michigan and we shouldn't be supporting an industry that's so dirty and has so many secrets no not in terms of what we we have here i mean there's nothing that's being proposed that would use that term it matter fact this process of doing a combined cycle requires a brand new permitting process  on this you know it says that we can provide electricity and heat other things you know and i do i think that what there are prohibitions on are using taxes and financing for private private unit number nine back in two thousand we had an agreement for a couple of years with detroit edison to be a backup for them for their power supply and we received yesterday payment like i'm talking about potential for a young you know as a result of that so and what was interesting was if you look at the community dialogue that took place and every citizen on the shareholder in the electric utility of the things that went on in terms of the decisions on why we built were where we were relocating at that time  growth we're planning for growth in this particular case and we're putting a resource in that smaller in terms of the purpose base load intermediate load and what we had originally proposed it has been slow but our industries are showing in our electric as well this is part of planning for the future once you do that you're looking at no long term arrangements with a private entity because if you are if we use exit financing that would be well i think we could do with that but are limitations under state law that we can't we have to serve an adjacent township you can't go beyond that adjacency fact i think we've gone through that and several occasions with the city council but on the wholesale being powered wholesale you know we're involved land same for instance has sold you know power to municipal like trix throughout the state for years  it's higher than what's the risk of investing into this bigger thing well let me know when the few i guess have worried about the fuel the or that badly or you'll down that's why you go back to the probabilistic curve and you see that that one stands to the right of everything under all the probabilities and i guess you know that that's why you test a range of of three to nine on natural gas pricing in today's dollars not just the first place you look at those you say yeah plus if you look at the effective cost for the seventy eight that we're going to build and so you the remaining amount is available for the growth i mean it's so much less expensive per unit to build and that much less expensive to run that it provides a tremendous opportunity for the community in that regard i get that but it seems like we're tying ourselves up a little bit for that opportunity but summertime those hot days that are during the summertime this unit would run every day either all day or sixteen hours a day when you started every day you're going to be overhauling an industrial free machine every year the cap that this is  narrow derivative machine is what we're proposing the kind that are hanging under the wings of jet engines so they don't get penalized by start to stop because when you poll in an airport you want to take off the next day or the next you know you know you hours and that's how they're built it's a different purpose we have ours covered with the king the issue that i'm bringing up is that the market we just within a market the nature of the industry today we exist within a market that markets so there's a value work have you owned a and one more time on the building itself four and five raided if you did maintain that we can recoup there's a fair amount of space there that i mean you know if you look at the footprint of the site right now the things that hang know all that that area now there's a remediation cost evaluate it was the cadillac remediation so depends on what that use is going to be but there's remediation cost about bringing restoring the site to some other  unstable ground you sorry if you didn't see the pilings that we had to put along seventh street when a transition road put it around it so it's not going to be this cornucopia of whatever we want to do there is there are possibilities absolutely but you're not going to put some sixty story highrise up there on you know get all this magic money coming day you switch out so both of them are capable right now using natural gas as a mean fuel unit three does not have that capability right now and so if you wanted to consider that that would be you well if you do otherwise you'd have to put the little more expense in a running gas line over three and putting burners that burn that fuse the gas into the boiler differently than what the cold you know would be diffused into the boiler so  vestment wouldn't be that great but you know we haven't evaluated is that enough to warrant because if you look at that curve it says it three comes off line and like twenty eighteen on a sixty five year life so i mean you're not seeing a long revenue stream for that but you know it has a value just as four or five would but projected within that market and so forth five if they're there today you know in terms of that  yeah yeah about a million dollars a year would be that for three for three if you look at the delta between  looking and say what are some other possibilities what is in any talks about in his book he talks about opportunity is a good thing but obligation is a stronger word and i think the city council has a really strong obligation to try to come up with the best solution to this whole thing and we some of the one fourteen that i'd like to see another option out there to kind of  small wind turbines and we still haven't really decided about warm water heating or cooler or ha ha water or the cooler kind of thing i think that's still out there before we make this decision i kind of you know being a teacher i kind  i'm recommending the swaps but we can we can make any of them work we think that we've got a green collar you know i think if you look at doesn't strike me that if you look at building a super ef  combined with the landfill gas in the bio mass that we have been putting ourselves in the top of the list of utility providers of michigan for newell energy that's exciting to me when you look at the things that we're doing on our energy optimization program and the work the groups are doing in the community community energy plan task force you know that's exciting to me any one of these doesn't preclude other things coming i think that bio digester technology is a real opportunity for this community given the amount of sludge that we already have in our we stream plant and the food processing that's in this area so that we have been in all our money this why are we going to have money in those other well if i if i go back to the charts and i believe you were at some of the generation this is one hundred eighty two million dollars in natural gas generation for equivalent amount of electricity was twenty five million less spent on this for the equivalent of a natural gas generation that we diverted to other investments such as pilot i just for technology or other things that we do we haven't developed a viable digester option to a point of saying here it's ready to go but but i think that's a real given what we know in terms of the fuel stock in our area i think that's a real positive thing for us to look at so i'm excited about it but there are options within here i mean we know that this provides a very efficient in a very low cost solution and a very environmentally attractive salut probability of that electricity coming up two columns from down in indiana is remote or selling it to somebody else we're getting money for that clarify that ok maybe i'm the way this is way this whole grid works is that there's generators located all throughout the grid ok i liken this to pouring a bucket of water in a stack of buckets or and water the top and you're the bulk at the bottom receiving it you're going to get water dropping over into that it might not be the same water that it got  in the top but you're going to get the same equivalent to what came in you caused that power to go on to the market and displace something else so you are causing that to happen it might not be the same electrons as a mine of the same water but you are causing that by that construct you're causing that over the talk for a second about you know how consistent you see this scenario gee we put a little bit of discussion tonight about the community energy plan and you know that general framework i know that  in that plant now when we went out and we looked at commercial technology that's out there in the sizes are seventy eight one hundred fourteen it's it's close but you're looking at roughly the same on a natural gas it goes into a little bit different configuration because you're talking about all of in combined cycle as opposed to some of it in combined cycle and some of it in combined heat and power we're not attached to a steam turbine but you still can be flexible of terms of how the heat recovery steam generator diverts the steam whether it goes to steam turbine whether it goes somewhere else for some of the other use in the wind category you're talking about thirty two versus thirty seven scenario be had it's solar situation where you grow to twenty four megawatts but you don't start that process till twenty thirty because the technology needs to mature yet right but that grows to twenty twenty four we don't have that as a recommendation they but it's not twenty thirty today either you know we're not going to need more power in the scenario top twenty twenty nine well that's about the time that we talked about bringing solar on under the community energy plan scenario b scenario b also talked about the bio digester we don't have that in there yet but i think that's a very promising opportunity e hundred fourteen plus thirty two of the wind you know that we have so i mean we are less overall generation being added than scenario b called for and in terms of the types we're following very closely the kind of mix that was in there i'm trying to remember and i apologize for not knowing the answer to this but what did be in the generally speaking the c e p t think of foreign fine for those it was actually i was indifferent to it it basically said one of two things you either retire it and you get some power from the market or it runs either case for me emission standpoint it's a very similar situation so he was you know all the plan was nonspecific on that for that i want one of the things that i think gets lost in the discussion is how the scenarios were developed and how the numbers came about from a contractual stamp point you have to go back and look at what we were doing at t w at the time all those numbers that peter put into that were based upon what we were doing the thirty seven megawatts isn't some magic number that we should be shooting for that's what we were looking at us a project sized for a wind farm at that time but twenty two megawatts was based upon what we thought we were studying as far as converting unit five to a biomass plant so those numbers are relative and i kind of bothers me that we get hung up on  upon technology that was available in those kind of sites and also because of the the substantial importance of using the whole collar the whole big you for it in the you know creating it district we have a growing area we value that in terms of having a growing area we're trying to stay ahead of the infrastructure needs of those businesses that want to locate grow here and that's what that's what this is about in still finding a solution that benefits the community in many different ways and if we were to simply buy off the grid first of all that would not be in conformity with the secrecy second we would lose the benefits of district heating and third i mean true or false mean pick we buy off the grid ninety plus percent of the time where they're buying coal or we're buying natural gas anyway and i think in probably from generators that are going to mit and disperse right to our area now it's not in our backyard so maybe you know that makes it ok college using a hallmark system right now it might make sense to tie in what we have with that but then when you look at other buildings other commercial buildings and residential buildings putting some sort of network in place that has a geothermal application could be the best overall solution so i mean we're studying that right now but i think you know these things are put in place in various places but you know not very often and not the kind of system that we probably  meeting there was a very good rater agreement with this the comprehensive set of results being in line with the community plan involved and good for our community so i mean i i don't want to lose sight of the fact that there are a lot of people that look at this set of recommendations in a very positive light take one more question for them try to see the recommendations on the three four five six right before five the i mean those i imagine those aren't cast in stone in the sense that if for example in one of the early years it looks like we've got roughly a five million dollars net net of you know revenue net revenue and that revenue grows probably closer but that's why we've made a recommendation in the negative rather than a recommendation the positive saying we're not going to vest in the controls but we're not making a recommendation that says this is the date for this or this is the date he sort of expect that to be part of the next it's something if you want to change the goal without their primary measurements of success better than our very young for their economies of scale and the reason that they will have a life and some point will be looking at what we do replace that and i don't want to say exactly what that's going to be but will a new reactor technology be the thing