Binghamton, NY ; February 12, 2015
Part 1 is a PowerPoint presentation by Anthony Belsito.
Part 2 starts with a statement by Public Service Commissioner Diane Burman, and then moves on to public comments.
Statement From: Agree New York
Alliance for a Green Economy
What is REV?
Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) is a process initiated by the New York Public Service Commission (PSC), which is the state agency that regulates the utility companies in New York. REV seeks to speed up the transition to energy efficiency and renewables by overhauling the regulations that govern utility companies and designing new energy markets. The PSC says that REV will give consumers more control over their energy use and engage them as energy producers. By promoting efficiency and distributed energy, REV also seeks to avoid billions of dollars in investments to repair or replace our aging energy infrastructure.
Read more at Agree New York
Production Notes for Geeks:
The venue, Binghamton City Council Chambers, had no provision to record audio directly from the PA system, and my attempts to record acceptable audio of Judge Mullany's comments failed. These have thus been omitted from the video. Luckily, Judge Mullany's comments were 95% procedural rather than substantive.
Also, because I couldn't get acceptable audio of the questions (no direct feed from the PA, no audience microphone), I had to omit almost all of the questions, many of which were interspersed with the PowerPoint presentation, and show only the presenter's responses. Occasionally the presenter paraphrased the questions, but if not, the questions can be inferred from the responses. I omitted responses where this was not the case. There was one instance where the questioner spoke very loudly and was in the vicinity of my second camera, so I was able to get reasonably good audio and video.
Production Notes for Geeks:
The venue, Binghamton City Council Chambers, had no provision to record audio directly from the PA system, and my attempts to record acceptable audio of Judge Mullany's comments failed. These have thus been omitted from the video. Luckily, Judge Mullany's comments were 95% procedural rather than substantive.
Also, because I couldn't get acceptable audio of the questions (no direct feed from the PA, no audience microphone), I had to omit almost all of the questions, many of which were interspersed with the PowerPoint presentation, and show only the presenter's responses. Occasionally the presenter paraphrased the questions, but if not, the questions can be inferred from the responses. I omitted responses where this was not the case. There was one instance where the questioner spoke very loudly and was in the vicinity of my second camera, so I was able to get reasonably good audio and video.
No comments:
Post a Comment