 We're back. We're live. We're at 10 o'clock rock here on a given Wednesday after a given Tuesday, which was of course yesterday. That is what August 16th. Oh, the clean clean energy day. Sharon. It was fabulous. That's Sharon Moriwaki, my co-host here. And we are honored to have chair Randy Iwasi. Let me tell you a little about him. He's the chair of the PUC. He was appointed chair of the PUC in January 2015. He was named chair of the commission by Governor David E. Gay for a term to expire on June 30th, 2020. So he has plenty of time to change the world, right? Before his appointment to the commission, chair Iwasi served as the chair of the Hawaii State Tax Review and chair of the Hawaii Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board. He also served as a supervising deputy attorney general where his division provided legal counsel to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Public Utilities Commission. Chair Iwasi is a former state senator and a former Honolulu City Council member. He holds a JD from the University of San Francisco School of Law and a BA from the University of Florida, Gainesville, where he graduated with honors. I'm reading from the PUC website. It's a picture of him, which doesn't look entirely like him, but it's close enough. And also I want to mention this is very important that he ran for Governor of the State of Hawaii in 2006. Am I right? That's correct. Welcome to our show. We are honored to have you chair Iwasi. Thank you, Jay. Thanks, Sharon. And thanks for speaking yesterday. Can you summarize your remarks at Clean Energy Day? Well, it was just a brief recapping of what has been happening at the PUC at an operational level. We've increased staffing from 32 to 55. Staffing is critical. I've been in government now for 34 years and commissioners like me, we're like leaves in the wind. We come and go. But the staff, they provide the continuity. They provide the expertise. And the people we've hired are very energized, very committed, and I'm very pleased with what we've gotten so far. We have room for 10 more people. And they have... If you're interested, contact the PUC. Yes. And you have space for them now? No. We have to wait. We fill up the space. But it was critical because we had the merger case coming on. We had what I called the four major dockets, demand response, distributive energy resource, the power supply improvement plan, and the decoupling dockets. As I said yesterday, the Nxtera merger case sucked all the air out of the room. Because it was the case that everyone wanted to know about. But lurking there, just as important and in my view, more important, were these four dockets because the Nxtera case was about who would be operating the utility, but not where they're going to go. These four cases set out the blueprint, the pathway, and whoever runs the utility will have to travel those pathways. And these four dockets, which are very major, involving the utility, involving stakeholders from across the community. And that's what we're working on now. Does that mean you're working on modeling or remodeling the utility? No, no. You know, for example, PSIP, which is quite critical for us, it's asking the utility, you tell us how you are going to implement programs and initiatives so we can get to the clean energy goals that we've set. What kind of capital projects you're going to be looking at? What are your long-term goals? And it sets a framework from which we can look at submissions over, say, the next five years from the electric company to determine whether or not these are initiatives that should proceed or should not proceed. So it's, in many ways, a collaborative effort because, and that's a much overused word, collaborative does not mean you don't disagree. It does not mean you sometimes don't disagree greatly. But it's a process that has been in the works and we get input from the stakeholders. Hawaiian Electric has to hear it. We hear from Hawaiian Electric. We kind of manage this process. We will be issuing a PSIP order again within the next week or two, hopefully within the next week, and hopefully looking at a final PSIP order sometime in early January or late January or early February of next year. So it's not so much dictating. It's because this field of ours, this thing called energy sustainability, it's ever-changing, it's evolving, and so it's important that we involve everyone in the process. And for the community, just what is the power of PSIP? What is it generally the power supply plan? What does that entail? That's what we are working on now. It's asking the utility company, how are you going to get there? So the supply? How are you going to, what are you going to do about smart metering? What are you going to do? They had put in, for example, in the PSIP, heavy reliance on LNG. Okay, if that's not going to be the A transition view, what will you be doing? What kind of cost are we looking at? Provide an analysis to us of what you would want to do so that we can look at it to determine whether or not this is a good path to follow, whether it is cost effective, whether it will provide energy efficiency, safety, and reliability. And it's been an ongoing process. It's not easy. It's not going to be finished. Like I said, when I say we end the PSIP docket in February of 2017, it means that we move on to another situation or station, so to speak, and figure out, okay, further how we're going to go. It strikes me that in the past, before your time on the commission, in fact, maybe years before your time on the commission, the commission was not active like this. This is activity. This is action points. What you're saying is we got a goal here. We want you to, you do it. We want you to tell us how you're going to do it, and then we're going to comment on that. We're going to approve it, disapprove it, we're going to modify it. Do you ever call them in the room privately, not say privately, but out of a formal hearing, right? I know you have the power to do that and say, look, let's talk. Is that possible? Well, that's why we have in these dockets what's called technical conferences. We bring everyone into the room so that everyone hears what everyone else is saying. I don't think, let me add this, I don't think with so many parties involved, the word consensus is an operative word because when you have, you got three people in a room, you're going to have three different opinions. You add 20 and obviously you're going to have very divergent views. And so ultimately it's going to rest upon the PUC to look at all that has come in and to make decisions of what should be done and where we should be going. Part of the, everyone refers to now what the PUC issued about two years ago, I believe it was, the white paper called Inclinations, which sets forth the PUC's vision of what Hawaii's energy world should look like was in response to plans which were filed by the utility company, which were not satisfactory to the PUC. And so the response was, hey, look, we don't agree with what you're doing. We don't agree with what you're saying. And so let us suggest to you where what might be a better path. Let us suggest to you things like what should a 21st century utility be? Should we be looking at top down, you produce the energy, you do transmission, you do distribution. Should we look at a utility of the future where you may be doing the generation and somebody else does transmission? Is it possible? We don't know. Who should own the utility? Should it be, and it'll come to us in a separate docket, of course. Is it in a separate docket now? No, because we just finished one called Nextera, because that process means for that to occur, you'd have to go to the, what Nextera did. You go to the shareholders, first you get the board approval, go to the shareholders, get agreement, okay, we want to merge and get acquired. And so we're going to file a docket. Anyone who now wants to acquire or control Hawaiian Electric would have to go through the same process. Yeah. So, and this might happen. There might be somebody else out there in the wings, although I expect Wall Street is a little bit skittish after this one. But in the meantime, Heco keeps going forward with what you're saying, and so you don't stop that process. I mean, is this, can we, I don't know how far you can go in your comments, but is this something that we should expect that there will be a change, you know, a dramatic ownership change or model change in the utility going forward? I can't, on the ownership, I can't, I can't comment on that because we don't know. I just, I do want to comment on what you're coming to Wall Street. If you look at, you know, there are a lot of doomsday speakers about, oh, you know, if we do not approve next era, the world will collapse. That's hyperbole on my part, but that's how I took it. Well, when the decision was issued, the Heco stocks did not collapse. Heco did not come to a screeching halt. In fact, the stocks are maintaining their level that they were prior to the offer being made. In fact, it's even better, I think, on a day-to-day basis. So is Heco an attractive company? I would, I leave it up to those who might want to acquire it. What we did do in our over 400-page decision in the next era case, we set out a 17-page document called guidance, which was a guidance, and we said any future suitor for Hawaiian Electric, these are the areas of concern for the PUC. These are the areas we want you to address. And if you don't address them successfully, then we are going to have a hard time approving any kind of merger acquisition. Fair enough. What I, what I hear you saying is you're having a conversation with them. You're telling them your view of the 21st century utility? In the PSIP. Yeah, and another document. It's a conversation in writing, but it's a conversation. Yeah, and it's where should we be going? And the inclination is strongly hinted at certain things. One, we want to meet the renewable energy goals. That is the policy of the legislature. I was in the legislature. I am not an expert in the utility field. I am, however, comfortable to say here today that I have some knowledge about making policy and executing on policy and what it takes to get from here to there. And so we're going to push that. And so in the dockets itself, we're having this kind of diversity of renewables, not just PVs on roof. It's an important aspect. The public has to understand that there are other types of renewables that we have to engage in. I heard yesterday, well, I didn't hear yesterday, but I hear and I agree with some of the concerns about looking going forward. We've hit the low hanging fruit. It's going to be more difficult. That is true. But what I would want people to say, I think also in a more optimistic view, is we should not be judging where we're going to be in 45 years viewed from the technology of today. If you looked at what we have today, let's say 100 years ago, we would probably be saying we can't, we will not have a car going, we will not have hydrogen cars because all we got is the Model T. And we're not going to go beyond the Model T. I am sure with the money that's being plowed into the energy field now, with the brain power we have out there, not just in America. I mean, we have other countries that are engaged in developing renewable renewable energy industry that somebody out there who's probably in high school is going to, I'm confident will develop something that will improve batteries. We'll find a new source of collecting energy and distributing energy. And so when you're looking out 30 years from now, which is 2045, I feel very confident that we're going to get there. We went from zero to the moon in eight years with John Kennedy with a space program, with a space capsule that I understand had probably less electronic and computer power in it than a toaster of it today. You know, so much can happen. Yeah. And that's the thing. You know, it's the old story. We can't anticipate the fabulous things that are going to happen in technology. But that doesn't mean we would sit around in our hands waiting for that to happen because you can never, you can never achieve anything that way. You're always waiting because it's always moving. That's right. So how do you deal with that? Well, one thing is, I said it when I first came onto the POC. The hardest thing is to say, this is the only way you're going to go. This is the only technology you would use because you might be wrong in five years. So it's how and somebody used this analogy, it's like a platform. What we create is a platform for people to put their stuff on. And we see what can we use encouraging a new new ideas and not not dissing it or dismissing it. The Marai, the Toyota Marai, the hydrogen car, is it in fact a viable option to the electric car? And then if it is, how do you produce hydrogen cheaply? Can we look at geothermal in the big island? Can this state produce hydrogen in a quantity and at a cost using geothermal that is viable? I don't know the answer to that. But you're looking at it. Well, I think we all should look at it. And if things come to us, we are kind of like a reactive agency, Jay and Sharon, because we wait for dockets to come. You have to. I mean, can you wake up one morning? Can you collectively, the commissioners, wake up one morning and say, you know, we're missing something. We're going to open a docket ourselves. We're going to require people to come to us and answer questions about this. And we're going to take action on our own initiative. We can. We can open an investigative docket. And I mean, we did that when, for example, when HECO shut down the contract with Sun Edison. We wanted to know why you were so quick in shutting it down and taking away from the people on this island, 112 megawatts of solar energy, after we had gone through years of review. And now we're left with only one solar, utility-scale solar project in Wynine. We had four. We started with eight, maybe more than that. And it was culled down to eight and then four. And so we did open that up. And that's what it was telling people, look, we are going to be active. We are going to be aggressive. What we cannot do, like I said, though, is commit to a certain kind of technology which may come to us in a docket. And then we'd have to make decisions on it. Is it cost-effective? Where is it located? And stuff like that. Who's going to run it? State of mind. It's a philosophy, I think you're talking about. And I certainly agree about the platform. In fact, that's what ThinkTech is. It's a platform. And the thing about our platform that may differ from your platform is that every 15 minutes we take a break. Okay. Just commercial break. Hi, I'm Ethan Allen, host of Lakeable Science on ThinkTech Hawaii. I hope you'll join me each Friday afternoon as we explore the amazing world of science. We bring on interesting guests, scientists from all walks of life, from all walks of science, to talk about the work they do, why they do it, and moreover why it's interesting to you. What science really means to your life, its impacts on you, how it's shaping the world around you, and why you should care about it. I do hope to join me every Friday at 2 p.m. for Lakeable Science. Aloha, I'm Kirsten Baumgart, Turner, host of Sustainable Hawaii. Thanks for watching ThinkTech this summer. We have a lot of terrific shows of great importance. And I hope you'll watch my show too every Tuesday at noon as we address sustainability issues for Hawaii. They're really pertinent as the World Conservation Congress approaches in September, and the World Youth Congress that's focusing on sustainability next year as well. Have a great summer and tune in at noon every Tuesday. Thanks so much, Kay. We're back with Randy Iwasi, the chair of the PUC. A man who's had a tremendous amount of experience with the Hawaii state government. A man who knows how to make decisions, I would say. That's a compliment, yeah. Oh, thank you. We need that. This is what happens. So one thing people ask about the PUC, why does it take so long to actually make the decision? Why did it take so long on next era? Why did it take so long on these other things too? I mean, this goes back 100 years. But is there anything we can do to speed the process? Well, you know, we're trying. And the more direct answer to your question is it depends on the case. Some cases are very complex. We also do, for example, motor carriers, applications for certification. We try to get those out quickly. So what we can do quickly, we're doing. The other thing was the staffing. When I came on board, like I said, in 2015, we had 32 people and the four dockets. And we had not heard of next era then, but we would have really had a trouble swimming if we had only 32 people and next era before us. With respect to next era, that was a very complex case. I think it fell within a range of other cases on the main. Some did it quicker than us. Others did it about the length of time we did. We wanted to make sure that because of the magnitude of the case and the interest in the public, we wanted to make sure that at the very least, the public would have a feeling that they could make a statement to us. So we did a listening session. We went to all eight islands. I wanted to make sure we did that. And we did do that. And then the hearing itself, we had no control over the timing because the lawyers, we did not want to disrupt or get accused of denying them the opportunity and your lawyer to examine or cross-examine a witness. And it took 22 days. Much longer than we thought it would. We tried to structure the process where we could go through rounds of questionings quicker and we did. I think if we had not devised that process, which was really Tom Gorak's idea, we probably would have extended the number of days to 22. Then we had, and Henry Curtis, you know, Henry does his blogs and he actually, I don't know what he was doing, but he counted pages. He said it was like over 100,000 pages of documents. So I'm going to take him at his word because I'm not going to count the number of pages. Thank you, Henry. And so that was there. There was just reams of paper, reams of testimony that had to be read. We had a docket team, a very good docket team that took the time to review. And it came out to over 400 pages. 265 for the substantive decision, but we added other things, like the guidance. So it's a good thing you're a lawyer, no kidding, because as a chair you were able to do this in a legal fashion and, you know, keep control of the proceedings. It would have been easy to lose control if you didn't. It was good with all the interveners that came in that you were able to manage it. That was like some task, just to, you know, manage that. Yeah, like I said, we had a process where we had rounds of questions and it was a process that Tom Gorak developed and it worked. And I think what happened was the first round, everybody was charged up. It was like the first quarter of a football game and the first plays from the football, everybody's charged up and we're just going at it. And we went like three or four rounds. Towards the end of the process, people asked less questions. And so, yeah, really. And so, it moved, it moved faster. But it was a process that had we not, had Tom not come up with it and we not applied it, it would have been a longer hearing process. Because like I said, the one thing, there was something that was told a long time ago, I believe it was a attorney named Ben Matsubara, who was a hearings officer. And he said, when you do hearings, don't get reversed on procedure. If you're going to get reversed, get reversed on substance. So we wanted to make sure that procedurally, we gave the parties all the opportunity they needed or wanted, so that they could feel like all the questions that they asked were asked. And they have confidence in the system. Yes, really important. But trust in the process and, you know, how it comes about. On Tom Gorak, how do you feel about his appointment? I feel very good about it. You know, Tom, I said it yesterday. Tom, I did not know Tom Gorak when I came to the commission. I was, had been retired for eight years. But you know, I've seen people working for government. I know good people. I know people who are committed, who work hard, filled with integrity and care about the agency and its reputation. He's all of that. He brings with him a wealth of experience from both the private sector, because he was, he had represented private utility companies. He was a consumer advocate and was on the, was here actually to retire until my predecessor, Mina, called him out, called him back to the commission. And he's been invaluable from a legal standpoint. And the other thing is, having been where he was, there is a difference between knowing utility industry, the field, and knowing how to regulate, how to be a regulator, how to be a decision maker, because that's a very different perspective you have to have. You're not there to second-guess the utility company. You're not there to say, if I were chair or president of Hawaiian Electric, I would do this. Your job is to say, this is the law. This is what we have to do. Have you done it and then make the call? You know, that's actually more important going forward. I mean, as we go forward, let's assume for a moment there's another opportunity, another suitor for Hawaiian Electric. And people express the view as, well, you know, we may not be able to control this company for some one reason or another, because, you know, they're from offshore, whatever it is. But if the Public Utility Commission takes control of the situation, and I feel that you have a special view of this, that the Public Utility Commission can regulate and can deal with, you know, any suitor. Isn't it true? You can apply the kind of regulatory philosophy and activism, if I can use that term, so as to control the situation no matter what. Am I right? Well, that's my view. That's why I say, first of all, we can control the process for a merger acquisition, as we did with Nextera. But that's why I started off today and yesterday by saying, the merger case was just, had the notoriety. Everybody was excited about the merger case. But to me, more important than who was what that company would be doing going forward. And those four dockets would set the parameters, set the pathway, not parameters, there's really none, none as we evolve. But the pathways, and to tell them that's what you will be doing. That's what, that's the thing with the guidance. We are telling them things like, you have to tell us that you're not going to impact the competitive bidding in Hawaii. You're not going to, you're a small state. You have to tell us how you're going to meet the clean energy goals when you make your filings. Something which was not true in the Nextera filings. It was all maybe, no guarantees. We'll do it after the merger is completed. Tell us how you're going to meet the clean energy goals. You tell us all of these things so we can then look at you and make a determination whether or not you fit Hawaii. When I say that, I want to make this clear. It's not about being just local, that it's so easy to say, well, they got denied because they're from the mainland. That's not the case. The case was, can you provide us the information to tell, so that we feel comfortable that if you take over this company, you understand that this is a unique company, given where we are in the Pacific Ocean, that given our culture, there are unique expectations from the people of this company. And finally, yes, you have the money. What are you going to do with it to meet those things? When we talk about competition, for example, small place, one big guy can take it all over. And we didn't want that. We want to make sure that there'll be competition for solar panels, for PVs, for wind energy, for geothermal. You're not going to rule it all. That we, in this state, in our inclinations, do not want a top-down, one monopoly controlling everything. That we've made clear. And those things were not meant in this case, for us at least. You know, one thing that occurs to me is that you have two really very different utilities that you're regulating. One is Hawaiian Electric as a, you know, the classical model, and the other is KIC. Is there a difference in the way you approached that? Is there a difference in the way you regulate them and have that conversation with them? Not, in terms of the law, no. The same law applies to both. And KIC has certain advantages that HECO, and I will use that for all three of the companies, does not have. KIC is small. It's got like, what, 80,000, 60,000 people on the island. When you did the NEM program, you didn't see this massive wave of people charging out of the house. They put something on my roof, unlike Maui. And so, and they're a cooperative, which means that they're all in. When they make a decision, it's not a board of directors and shareholders. It's everybody on that island is going to be affected by that decision. And so what I found for them, because they're smaller, and it doesn't mean it can't be transferred over or make analogies to what HECO can do. They're quicker. Dave Bissell and his crew appear to be much more innovative, much more willing to try. They have now a solar project with batteries, which I hope will happen here, because batteries is part of the future for us. HECO is bigger. And I'm going to look at just Oahu, because Maui and, even the Maui and the bigot are a bit different because of the population side. We have a whole lot of people here. We had a whole lot of people that put PVs on, Maui did too. And so you have issues that affecting the grid that we have to deal with. But we hope that without any feeling on their part of being pressured that maybe they look at their smaller company on Kauai and maybe take some advice on what they're doing, look at what they're doing. When you talk about how we deal with them, if, I said this yesterday too, if there is a good project, they've submitted things to us that are all in order. The information is there, the analysis is there for us to make a determination. We want to try and get those decisions out. And we've done a couple of with Kauai utilities. Some are still sitting, because they want to be different from the big utility. And we're trying to say no, you've got to still follow the same law. But we're not going to treat them differently, but we try to encourage the innovation and the willingness to try that Dave Bissell and his crew seem to be pursuing. So on the personal side, your term expires in 2020. It gives you four good years. I said that right. Yeah, 2020. There's four good years to change the world. You're going to want another one? This is a capstone, isn't it? This is a great opportunity. I tell you this when I saw you in the legislature after you'd been appointed. This is a great capstone for your career after all that you've done. But will you go further? Would you want another term? You know, I don't think so. I'll be older than Sharon in 2020. I'll be 73 years old. And what's the judge retirement age? 70? 70. Hey, if it's good enough for a judge to leave at 70, it's good enough for me. And I came back for a purpose. And my hope is that whenever I leave, that I can look back and say we did something positive to move this thing along, because that's why I came back. When we're our age, I think we have a responsibility to look at the future and the kids and leave a better place. And when I left politics in 2000s, well, I didn't, I left politics. Yeah, I didn't leave. I left it in 2000. And then I was doing the labor appeals board. But in 2000, I don't know if I could say that about what, you know, I can look back on my career, 10 years in the Senate, two years in the council, all this stuff. I, other than looking at Central All Regional Park and the Aloha Tower Project, which I can show my grandkids, that's, that's not something you can really say, all right, I made my mark. This is different. Yeah, this is different. Yes. So how do you want to, how do you want to leave the PUC? I mean, how do you see it evolving between now, 2016 and 2020? What is your vision for the PUC? Its influence, its, its place, its role in the Clean Energy Initiative. Well, again, we are the regulatory body. And when I came on board, you, that's why you don't see as much of the legislature. I know, I believe my predecessor went and testified on policy issues. I believe the administration should speak with one voice. And that's the governor through his energy office. And so we backed off the policy. We've dealt with anything you affect us, procedurally we'll talk about it. But from the regulatory standpoint is to build that staff. I want, we've increased the salaries. I go back to staffing because it's all important. Build, we've increased the salary. Hopefully there'll be some means for them to, to get promoted so that in, they'll stay for 10 years or they stay for 20 years because you need that experience like Tom brought to the commission and still brings to the commission. And to be as aggressive in, in the pursuit of the policy that the commission was when it issued the inclination paper. And then now it's the implementation, for implementation portion. We're pushing, we're getting the stakeholders involved. We want, we want this implemented. So that by 2045, I think it's 2045, 2045, 100% will be reached. And, and don't take your, your foot off the gas pedal. Just keep it on. That's an interesting reference. So you mentioned staff and you mentioned space. I mean, do you need more, do you need more resources? Do you need a legislature to provide you more? Do you need, you know, more legislative structure? Like for example, an energy authority, any, any notion about that? How do you see the, you know, the governmental infrastructure question in the next four years? Well, from a, the legislature recognized, I think the year before I came on board, the needs of the PUC. So they passed allowing restructuring, allowing the hiring more quickly. And Governor Iggy, when he came in, he just signed right off, giving me the authority to go hire. And so like I said, we went from 32 to 55 in a year and a half. Yeah, we need more space. We'll be, there is a renovation project going on. We have separated the agency. So now our research policy group is, is next to the district court. We'll all come back together about 2018. So that's the first thing. Second, I know there was always, there was this discussion about a PUC that is separate with one looking at energy and one looking at everything else. I haven't made my mind up on that. I remember talking to Governor Abercrombie when he was Governor and I believe Governor Iggy saying, I don't know if we need to do that right now. And, and so I'd have to look at it because you create two new bureaucracies. And we don't, we don't want to do that if it's not necessary. Right now, we're handling what we've got to handle and who knows what's going to happen in five years or four years. Maybe they'll change. But again, the operative word in politics, as it is for the utility field, is evolution. We've got to keep our eyes open, our ears open and see what we've got to do to get where we've got to go to. We agree, absolutely. And we, we think that this is a moving target at all times. Things happen, things change, things, you expect it, you want it almost because you want to stay current and we want to stay current with you. We'd like you to come back and talk to us from time to time. I hope that's okay. Sure. This has been very good. And, and you know, translating what you're doing there, because you see all the legal, the orders that come out, the public doesn't really understand that. So how you've explained it today is terrific. So please, come here. Well, you know what, I tell my, it's because of me. I mean, I see all this gobbledygook called acronyms from the utility field. You know, I was getting lost and so I had to, but I tell my, my office overlooks the bus stop on Punchbowl. And when my staff comes in and tells me, you know, I tell them, stop. You see that guy at the bus stop? You see that woman at the bus stop? Talk to me like you talk, you talk to them so that they would understand. If they understand, I'll understand. Absolutely. And that's, that's what I hope we're going to do. And, and, and finally, as we, I know you guys don't have much time, but there has to be a, an outreach to the community to get them involved because we don't have the buy-in yet. I think that we can with renters, people in condominiums who cannot participate in PVs. And so we're going to push the community-based renewable energy program. We're going to push the time we use program because I think people want to participate in energy sustainability. They understand about climate change, even if a certain members of a certain political party do not, but they do. And they see it, they see it. And we're going to, we're going to try to reach out. Sharon, you got to close. You on turn. Okay. I'm really pleased that you came to join us, Chair Iwase, and telling us all that you're doing because it really is important. As you say, bringing the community forward and, and understanding what you do is so important. And we hope we can be part of that and helping you get the word out and getting more people to understand the gobbledygook to make sure that, that it, that you are working for our best interests and interests of the public. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My pleasure.