the beginning. So we received eight issues -- papers -- with multiple questions on each of those. It -- I believe the -- my understanding is that we would have to have 100-percent consensus on all of the issues completely in order for anything to be agreed upon. So my question is, is that realistic ever in a negotiation and -- and can we -- and/or can we decide as a group to do them by issue? Where we have consensus on one issue but maybe not on another issue and so on and so forth? So that we can break it up into chunks that -- so you're not feeling like it's all or nothing. Mr. Ramirez: Yes, I will tell you -- I will let Greg comment on this as well, but I will tell you that we we have gotten agreements on -- on all issues in other regulatory negotiations, so it can be done. And as far as process goes, what we were planning on doing was going and trying to get as many pieces of these items agreed to, but then it would have to be an overall consensus vote. But I will leave it to Greg as far as the answer on the all or nothing aspect. Mr. Martin: You're correct, Javier, that -- that consensus does need to be reached on everything. I would point out that by consensus we don't mean 100-percent agreement on -- that everybody absolutely -- this is the way everybody would have it if they had their -- if they have their way with it. So it is -- it is a process of some give and take. Traditionally we've reached consensus on about half of our packages. Is it realistic to expect consensus? Well -- and I won't address that. I think it's always realistic to -- to hope for that outcome at the -- at the beginning and hope that we can come to some some agreement. But again, the whole consensus process does involve a give and take that we will hopefully be able to -- to have happen here. Mr. Ramirez: And that -- that idea of the
the beginning. So we received eight issues -- papers -- with multiple questions on each of those. It -- I believe the -- my understanding is that we would have to have 100-percent consensus on all of the issues completely in order for anything to be agreed upon. So my question is, is that realistic ever in a negotiation and -- and can we -- and/or can we decide as a group to do them by issue? Where we have consensus on one issue but maybe not on another issue and so on and so forth? So that we can break it up into chunks that -- so you're not feeling like it's all or nothing. Mr. Ramirez: Yes, I will tell you -- I will let Greg comment on this as well, but I will tell you that we we have gotten agreements on -- on all issues in other regulatory negotiations, so it can be done. And as far as process goes, what we were planning on doing was going and trying to get as many pieces of these items agreed to, but then it would have to be an overall consensus vote. But I will leave it to Greg as far as the answer on the all or nothing aspect. Mr. Martin: You're correct, Javier, that -- that consensus does need to be reached on everything. I would point out that by consensus we don't mean 100-percent agreement on -- that everybody absolutely -- this is the way everybody would have it if they had their -- if they have their way with it. So it is -- it is a process of some give and take. Traditionally we've reached consensus on about half of our packages. Is it realistic to expect consensus? Well -- and I won't address that. I think it's always realistic to -- to hope for that outcome at the -- at the beginning and hope that we can come to some some agreement. But again, the whole consensus process does involve a give and take that we will hopefully be able to -- to have happen here. Mr. Ramirez: And that -- that idea of the
mondaydecember4transcript.docx