2023-09-25 Applicant Support GGP - Meeting #20

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

1.  In general, for comments where there are suggested wording changes, staff to illustrate changes as redlines for better understanding in those cases where WG members agree to the  changes.
2. Staff to integrate intent of Gabriel Karsan’s comment into draft Final Report as redlines, even if the text is not applied verbatim.
3. Staff to integrate intent of Com Laude’s comment into a working document as redlines for WG members to review.
4. WG members to review comments from Com Laude, Gabriel Karstan, and BC to suggest wording changes.

Notes:

1. Welcome & SOIs:

• Apologies for Satish Babu and Mike Silber
• Paul McGrady Chairing as the Council liaison. Goal today is to continue the review of public comments.

2. Review and Analyze Public Comments – See the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ODG6uTTbaWlANMnA-uDrF9WSMBgnPJ5Io4RtQC0N32o/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com].

• Still awaiting input from the GAC, which should arrive today. Staff will integrate into the working document and the team can review along with the rest of the input. The GAC and NCSG were provided extensions, though the period closed on the scheduled date.
• As a reminder, reviewing public comment received is a critical part of the GGP process and all comments should be carefully considered. The working document and the GGP Final Report will reflect the group’s review of the comments.
• Since the members are expected to review the comments, comments will not be dictated live during calls.

Guidance Recommendation 1:

• No suggestions on the NCUC comment.
• Suggestion to be able to have a redline version for suggested amendments. And potentially to parse longer comments into separate thoughts/concepts.
• For NCSG comment, belief that the report defined underserved adequately. Reminder that the comment received is categorized as support, no changes needed. While the comment is categorized as such, it is suggesting that additional clarity be added.
  • The specific elements are about being clearer on definition of underserved.
  • And also a suggestion to look at metrics for response rates and why (e.g., they did not understand the question). This seems to go towards the effectiveness of the delivery of information to potential applicants.
• Question about whether the requirement is to respond to each commenter. Response is that the requirement is to carefully consider each comment and determine if any change is needed. That way in which the comment is dispositioned is what is meant by “response”.
• Under support intent with wording change, two comments received.
• It’s unclear how the suggested text change improves clarity, including improving implementability. Noted that any suggested changes that are agreed upon will be captured in the report.
  • From an Org perspective, it seems that the IG already captures the concepts identified in the comment. Unclear what the intention is.
  • Some support for the language change because it seems to enhance the intent of the recommendation. It seems to make the recommendation more inclusive.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to integrate intent of Gabriel Karsan’s comment into draft Final Report as redlines, even if the text is not applied verbatim.

• We will need to come back to Rec 1 anyway, assuming the GAC provides comments.
• Com Laude comment is worried about excluding certain parties. The wording of the rec could add language that says “but not limited to”. The BC comment is also related to this theme. Support for integrating this concept into the language.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to integrate intent of Com Laude’s comment into a working document as redlines for WG members to review.

ACTION ITEM: In general, for comments where there are suggested wording changes, staff to illustrate changes as redlines for better understanding in those cases where WG members agree to the  changes.

• In respect of the BC comment, some opposition to leveraging limited resources for for-profit entities. While for-profit entities should not be excluded, given the nature of the program, it seems preferable to emphasize the support for non-profit organizations.
• Unclear whether the group wishes to accept BC comment or not. Will need to revisit this topic when the GAC comment arrives. It seems that the comment can be addressed by making it clear that for-profit businesses are not excluded in the Rec/IG itself. For-profit businesses are of course different, especially across geographic regions. The BC believes that outreach should also be equally inclusive.
• The communication aspect is strongly emphasized in the comment.

ACTION ITEM: WG members to review comments from Com Laude, Gabriel Karstan, and BC to suggest wording changes.

Guidance Recommendation 2 – No time to address

Guidance Recommendation 3 – No time to address

Guidance Recommendation 4 – No time to address

Guidance Recommendation 5 – No time to address

3. AOB: It appears that there are enough apologies to cancel the 9 October call.