 Okay, we're back. We're live. Wow. This is a day for energy. Mino Morita joins us by Skype phones, audio, and Marco Mangelsdorf of Provision Solar. He joins us from Hilo. And this is Mino Marco and me, and it's what's happening now in energy. And we're at a kind of crux point, aren't we? You know, things are still settling down from the decision of the PUC. So what do you guys think about that? I mean, what do you think about the next era? The first next era paid $90 million, and then it pulled up stakes like saying, you're not going to see us here anymore. We're going to Chile, just like the TMT. What do you think? For me, well, you know, I think, given the way they were treated, why should they remain in Hawaii? You know, now it's up to Hawaii Electric to perform on their own. You know, at this time, they've made it clear that they weren't looking at any suitors, so basically it's time to move on. Well, Marco, what about you? Well, good afternoon. First of all, to the both of you. Pleasure to be with you two Mondays consecutively. That is a real treat and a great way to start my week. I mean, the past 10 or so days in the energy world here in Hawaii have been rather monumental on a number of levels, and I think we're still kind of taking stock. Not surprising, I guess, that next year decided that not only were they terminating the merger agreement as they did a week ago, but that they're out. 100% it would appear from pursuing any renewable energy projects under C-Cable and so forth, so not only are they gone, but they're emphatically gone. So now we're in the day after, and it'll be interesting to see how things play out on the days and weeks to come. There was an interesting piece by Hiko President Alan Oshima and our advertiser yesterday that used some other interesting juicy language in terms of, you know, we're going to get it right, and we were still fully functional here and we know what we need to do, and let's try to move forward collectively, collaboratively, rather than go back into some type of toxic adversarial relationship. So I appreciate Alan's words, and I would hope that we can be more collaborative than we have been in the past because we've got so much, so much that we need to do to work together to try to go in the direction I think we all agree we need to go in. Yeah, I mean, his concern seems really legitimate to me that, you know, we've had this 18-month experience, now we go back and, you know, enjoy the same toxic environment as we had before. I mean, it's a real possibility that, isn't it? Yeah, and well, go ahead. Well, the thing is you need a willing seller. You don't have a willing seller. I don't see them re-entering that toxic environment in the near future. Well, sure. You know, I guess it opens up a couple of questions, but really, I mean, before the deal, the environment was pretty toxic. Everybody was, you know, complaining about HECO, and, you know, it wasn't really a happy time. I thought that when that deal was announced it was a good thing simply for the fact that it would give us a new deal. It would sort of, you know, make some distance from the toxic environment that existed before. Instead, the toxic environment seemed to infect the deal. I mean, the public reaction to the deal and the government reaction to the deal. And now the question is, you know, what's changed so that Allen or Schema's wish will be granted? Well, I think, I mean, it's too early to tell what has changed, but I think there, I mean, we simply just have to move away from from what I feel to be such a almost demonizing relationship towards the utility company that I think affects so many stakeholders in the energy realm, whether it's the legislature or the public writ large, because I just don't see how having such an adversarial relationship benefits us. And I think there's a lot more common ground than there is ground that could cause for differences. So I may be Pollyanna in that regard, but I think, I mean, we just, you know, in the words of that great philosopher Rodney King, can't we all just get along a little bit better? That's what we were saying before. But, you know, one of the many things that happened, you know, in this extraordinary transition of finding out, you know, where we're going now was that there was a piece in the paper where Chris Lee was, Representative Chris Lee was entertaining a group of people. That might have included you, or at least they were talking about you, Marco, to talk about other business models for utilities. And that was, you know, that was his reaction to the termination of the deal. So, Quiri, where does that take us? It's certainly, it's not a direction that is necessarily, you know, amenable to Alan Mochima's wish. Oh, Mina, you want to chime in on that? Yeah, I, you know, the thing is, and I wrote about this in a blog, that, you know, the government shouldn't be in the business of matchmaking private interests, especially when one is an unwilling seller. If government has a problem with the way the electricity service is provided, the legislature has the role of reviewing the franchise, revoking the franchise, and putting up for option. You think they would ever do that? That'd be pretty drastic. Well, that's, that's their, it's not their business, it's actually the people. It's a private business. So if they want to use their authority properly, then it is the review of the franchise and the possible option of the franchise. It's not matchmaking. You know, and I think this will sort of put this in a more serious light than the constant improper intervening in a private entity. Yes, they have the right to regulate, but they don't have the right to, you know, run the operations of Hawaiian Electric, or find new owners for Hawaiian Electric. So, so we have that issue. And it's, you know, you still hear stories about maybe there will be somebody, even if there isn't anybody now who would be interested. But, excuse me, I'm just wondering about all these changes, and these changes are so far removed from the initiative itself, from moving down the track, you know, getting to 2045, which is really, I keep saying it's right around the corner, you can't wait till 2044 to do clean energy, you can do it now. And you're going to have a ramp-up plan to do it. So all these things to me seem to be distractions. The whole thing with, you know, what happened with the next era, you know, process, huge distraction. This thing, sorry, Marco, but this thing with changing the utility model, it's also takes us off the track. Are we going to get there any faster dealing with these things? It seems like, you know, where we started out saying, we're going to have clean energy, now every time you look, there's something else that distracts us from that path. Am I right? I think there are a lot of distractions. Jay, I agree completely with you. I also agree with Mina from her position as well, in terms of the legislature. And I mean, if I haven't done a poll of the 51 House members and the 25 Senate members, 76 total legislators, so I can't claim to have any data in front of me, but I would be very, very surprised if there was anything close to majority in either body, let alone both bodies that would essentially want to go down the path of what would be a very hostile takeover, essentially, in terms of somehow condemning the eco-franchise, taking it away, and using the power of eminent domain. I just don't see that happening. And it's this weird interplay of politics, regulatory bodies, and a private company. And I mean, there are ways to get private companies that are publicly traded to do what you want them to do. Typically, shareholders, right? Shareholders have a lot of power depending on how they feel the company is being run, dividends, and so forth and so on. And, you know, one kind of interesting thing that you guys have probably noticed as well is any talk of HCI stock price tanking after next year decided to go back to Florida certainly hasn't happened yet, at least. I mean, they were trading, as of this morning, $31 a share, which is just a scotch under what they were trading before the deal was pronounced dead. So to go back to your question, I think there are a lot of distractions going on, and I think Alan nails it. Alan Oshima nails it. We do have a shared mission here, collectively, and there's just a lot more that we can do together by talking to each other, with each other, than at each other. And I mean, again, showing my narrow kind of parochial interest running a solar company is that there are a number of really super critical dockets open before the commission. Now, the ER docket decoupling demand response, and I can only hope that now that there's been a substantial infusion of oxygen into the room with the commissioners, that they'll be able to move with more alacrity on these important dockets, and now that the folks in next year have been unceremoniously or ceremoniously told to go home, because, I mean, we got so much, so much from my business in the PV industry and the solar industry is writing on decisions that we need much sooner rather than later from this commission. I think it's a short break, Marco, and I sure agree with you. I mean, we've been talking about trying to collaborate for a long time, and surely it is the time to do that. We should be talking about getting to our goals without further distractions. It is the time to do that. Clearly, whether that is happening or will happen. Let's take a short break and come back and talk to Meena Merida about the status of her lawsuit on the PUC, because that's pretty profound also and will affect things going forward. We'll be right back. Aloha, Howard Wig. I am the proud host of Code Green, Think Tech Away. I appear every other Monday at three in the afternoon. Do not tune in in the morning. My topic is energy efficiency. It sounds dry as heck, but it's not. We're paying five billion dollars a year for imported oil. My job is to shave that, shave that, shave that down in homes and buildings while delivering better comfort, better light, better air conditioning, better everything. So if you're interested in your future, you'd better tune in to me three o'clock every other Monday, Code Green Aloha, and thank you very much. Okay, we're back, we're live with Meena Merida and Marco Mangelsdorf talking about what's happening now in energy. So Meena, as we left it, you were going to give us an update on your lawsuit that whole issue around the PUC and the dynamics of the PUC in the final days of Mike Champley's, you know, participation there as a commissioner and thereafter in the vote and the abstention and what might have been a switched vote by one of the commissioners. How does that affect the PUC internally, externally and going forward? Well, I, you know, the major question at the PUC right now is whether or not you have a new commissioner that's properly seated. You know, I contend that Tom Gorak is not properly seated and that his appointment is unlawful. So to that effect, you know, we have a lawsuit moving forward to address the question. My understanding is that my attorney has a stipulated order that is in the process of being signed by the judge laying out the procedures. One is a coronso petition which is issued by the court to the defendant, Tom Gorak, where he needs to state what lawful right he has to sit in that position. And then, you know, the state will have a chance to file its statement of position in August. I don't have the exact dates in front of me where we will reply five days later and then there's a hearing set for August 25th. Well, while this is pending, it certainly leaves things up in the air and if you prevail, not to say what your chances are, but if you prevail, then that arguably undermines the decisions they make in the interim. Well, I think right now, you know, if we prevail, it's sure as hell taking ongoing proceedings right now that Gorak participates in. That would include the next era decision. And I guess what's really interesting, well, I suppose it could include it that he abstained, and maybe it wouldn't include it. It makes it another wrinkle, another nuance. He abstains. So, query, if you prevail, does that undermine the next era? And even if it does undermine the next era, you can't put Humpty back together again. Next era would not, you know, return to the table. They're out of town. They're not. So that's an interesting hypothetical. Well, let me ask you a quick question. Go ahead, Mark. I'll ask you a question. I was just going to ask you, Mina, whether do you see any plausible, plausible realistic scenario where Mike Champley would conceivably be reinstated, or do you think that that's not even a possibility? Oh, I mean, if we prevail, if we prevail, he never lost the seat in the first place. And he is, my understanding, he is a desuring officer. So he is legally entitled to that position, and he never lost it. Yeah, but that's only until someone else is appointed and qualified. So even if you prevail, I doubt that the Governor E. Gay is going to appoint him again. He didn't want to appoint him before. He'll, and he'll, I guess he can reappoint Tom Gorak. Yeah. He would sit in that position until some successor is appointed and qualified. Well, which would not take place unless Mike were to resign, which would not take place until January next year at the soonest, because that's when the legislature goes back in a session. Well, that's an interesting question, because if Mike, you know, if Mina prevails, then it's not going to happen. So, you know, if Mina prevails then and no successor is appointed and qualified, then I think the law is clear that that Mike would continue as a commissioner. Question then, just like the next era question, is whether he'd be willing to come back. Mm-hmm. So, you know, and this lawsuit is important for other reasons that, you know, it will clarify the process on, you know, when that language, when the holdover language is used and when a vacancy is created. You know, I have no farm with the governor appointing when there is a vacancy. You know, but in this case, given the successor language, I don't believe a vacancy has been created. Mm-hmm. Let's move on to another topic in our remaining time. Excuse me, and that would be the topic of LNG. We, we've heard about LNG for years. We've had discussions and programs and oh gee, everybody has weighed in on LNG as part of the package. But now it seems like the next era is gone. They would have provided some funding to develop LNG and and Hawaiian Electric has said it, you know, it terminated its LNG development contract, big contract. And I don't, we haven't heard from Hawaii Gas about it that I know of. But it sounds really quiet now about LNG. I mean, is LNG still around? What's the deal? Well, I think, you know, again, you know the administration position on LNG. We've had good programs on your show on, you know, what the benefits could be for LNG in mitigating oil price volatility and give us a little bit more stable pricing as we move forward. And so I think it's incumbent on this administration, the IK administration, to show where can we get cost savings to offset the investment that needs to be made as we develop our clean energy infrastructure. You know, and that's what we have not heard is, you know, as we move forward, we know it's going to cost money and what's the potential offset to those consumer costs. Yeah, it's really, you know, in the end, I think money is a big part of this whole discussion. So we talked last time about how my electric was going to use the net received after taxes of that 90 million and that would be what, I think, 60 million to develop the grid. I was going to put in another, according to the paper, I'm going to put in 100 and a quarter more as I develop the grid, but that may or may not be enough to actually develop the grid. Next day I was not around to throw its resources into development. The LNG, you know, benefits, savings, if you will, won't be around if my electric is not going to develop LNG. So where does the money come from? And let me add one for you, Marco. If you prevail Hawaii Island, you know, co-op, energy co-op, would you do LNG? Would you seek LNG? Would you advocate for LNG? Well, let me, let me opine a little bit about LNG. I think, I mean, practically speaking, if the largest company in the state, Hawaiian Electric Industries and HECOMECO-HELCO, if they decide not to move forward with their stated plans to develop LNG as a power source for their power plants and to what extent their cancellation of the contract with Fortis Energy in Canada is that they are pretty definitively pulling the plug on the LNG option. I really don't know, I'm not privy to that discussion, but I think it's a big step at any rate. It's a big step that they're not moving forward with Fortis. So, you know, there can be a lot of talk on the policy levels and environmental groups and solar groups about LNG good, LNG bad, but the main players in the state regarding LNG are the utility companies and Hawaii Gas. So, you know, kind of regardless of what the governor wants to do or what Chris Lee wants to do, I mean, that's kind of exaggerating somewhat. I mean, ultimately, these are business decisions which two of the major players, the utility companies and the gas company are going to be making. Does this make sense or not? What's the risk-reward? What's the likelihood of a near-term payoff versus losing their shirts? So, I think, you know, if you're looking at the trend lines, the odds against LNG are certainly greater now than they were two weeks ago, two months ago, six months ago. Well, I mean, LNG could have been a bridge possibility. Maybe there's still a possibility, but Governor Rige has a way of, you know, following through on his opinions and inclinations as he did on next era. That certainly was an interesting connection between his remarks a year ago and what happened a few weeks ago on next era, and maybe the same effect will happen on, is happening on LNG. But, you know, in the end, and I like your opinion on this to close, in the end, if you want to put in new infrastructure, if you want to move ahead to 2045, if you want to build out the grid and take advantage of all that technology out there, make it happen in accordance with our goals and requirements and what have you, you have to install new equipment. New equipment costs money. Somebody has to pay for that. And that means if nobody else pays for it, well, even if somebody else pays in the short term for it, the consumers are going to have to pay for the new equipment. Am I right? Kind of makes us a bit wistful for the days of Daniel Linoe being such the breadwinner and the pork bringer as far as federal money from Washington over his long and distinguished tenure is in the U.S. Senate and the junior people we have there now, you know, they're great folks, Macy Hirono and Brian Schatz, but you know, things are different than when Daniel Linoe was there. So yeah, people are going to have to pay for it. So I'm more interested myself in kind of near-term savings that are going to pay immediate, more immediate benefits to ratepayers and give relief to people to pay their electric bills and how things look 5, 10, let alone 29 years from now in 2045. Yeah. Well, you know, we could have A, the cost of, you know, introducing all that new equipment, B, you know, not have the funding we hoped for and C, we could have oil go up again and all those three things would mean higher rates for the consumers and that would take us to another place and that possibility that we could use out there. What are your thoughts about this, Mina? Well, you know, I think we need to dig down and deal in pragmatic reality, you know, and the EGA administration has to come up with a plan B. They can't move forward and quash all of these ongoing efforts without a replacement and this is what I'd like to see in the near future and near future me now. You know, what is the plan B? You know, what is the plan B to move forward, give some kind of customer relief as we head off to our clean energy endeavors? You know, how do we deal with this pragmatically moving forward? How do we make sure that these benefits are realized by all customers, not just the ones that can afford or take advantage of tax credits to adopt the newer technologies? So, you know, what is the system's approach that we have here as we move forward? Big question and even though we knew that it was a logical possibility if not a substantial logical possibility that next Tara would be denied this deal, somehow we find ourselves in a moment of surprise, perhaps to some extent unprepared to move forward, unprepared with the plan B. And as you said, Marco, and I think as Eleanor Schema has said on many occasions, it's time to get together and, you know, find common ground and move forward in a collaborative way. This is hard. We haven't been successful at this in the past, but now's the time. Anyway, I want to mention that on August 16th is Hawaii Clean Energy Day by the Hawaii Energy Policy Forum. Meena, you're one of the speakers there, I think. And I hope people sign up. You can sign up and get more information about it at HawaiiEnergyPolicy.Hawaii.edu. Any closing words, you guys? I have a feeling we're no longer in Kansas anymore, Toto. Okay, let's have another discussion soon. Thank you so much, Meena. Thank you so much, Marco.