 Good morning everyone. My name is Carol Werner. I am the executive director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and a member of the steering committee for the Sustainable Energy Coalition. And we are very proud to welcome you here to this morning's, or to today's 16th annual Congressional Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Expo and Policy Forum. This forum is co-sponsored in conjunction with the Congressional, both the House and the Senate, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucuses, as well as you can see on your program as a number of other Congressional Caucuses as well. And so we are delighted that everyone has joined together in terms of saying that it is very, very important that we really have a better understanding of the enormous information that is available to have a better understanding of what really is happening in this country with regard to technology development and how much it is being deployed across this country and indeed across the world. So let's start off our first panel. This morning to get an overview and we're going to hear from speakers with regard to solar, geothermal, and from the overall business side embracing a look at a variety of efficiency and renewable technologies. Our first speaker, Scott Sklar, who is the president of the Stella Group. Also, Scott is an adjunct at George Washington University and the chair of the Sustainable Energy Coalition Steering Committee. Scott. Thank you, Carol. Thank you all. I want to say, actually my printer did not deliver my newest update, but there have been 27 clean energy studies done by various institutions. And if you read them in aggregate, they conclude that high value energy efficiency and renewable energy can meet most or all of the global or U.S. energy needs with existing technology we have today. This idea that this is out there in the end of the 21st century is absurd. And the issue is in up here on Capitol Hill and in the media and frankly in many planners and in businesses that I deal with, we fixate on one technology or another. But actually it's the blend that gets you where you need to go. The three newest best studies that I like are the Business Council Bloomberg study, which you will hear from, so I will not get into it right now. World Resources Institute puts out the REN 21 study, which is number 16 on this little paper I gave you. It's supported by the United Nations and they do an aggregate of what's going on globally. And they just released their 2012 review that said that private sector investment in renewables globally reached $269 billion. Now when I started in this field 30 years ago, the whole renewables didn't reach $100 million. So $269 billion and that's just private sector investment. If you look at governments around the world, federal and local governments, it's another $817 billion a year. So we're looking at a trillion dollars worth of investment in these clean technologies per year and growing at double digits. The third that's worth your look at is also a United Nations and that is their sustainable development office and they put out a study directly. It's called UN DESI. And they show globally again that the developing world, and we have 7 billion people on this planet now, one third have no electricity or water, and another third get electricity less than 10 hours a day. And that their conclusions are the only option are a set of high value energy efficiency and renewables. So here's the deal. The Institute of Local Self-Reliance number five on this brochure shows that 36 states in this country can meet most, can meet all of their energy needs with their portfolio of renewable energy resources in the state. And that the other 14 states can easily be powered by the overages from these other states. And even the worst state can meet about 30% of its electricity needs. So it's pretty astounding. So here's the one 10 second nutshell on these studies. Oak Ridge National Lab shows that waste heat and combined heat and power can meet 8% of our electricity needs. This is remember I want you to think about something. What is nuclear and natural gas and coal and heavy oil all have in common? They create steam to generate electricity. Here we're dumping heat into the air from industrial processes. Why would we not want to take that heat and make electricity? It's free heat, no emissions, 24 hours a day by the way. Water energy, the EPRI study, 10%. These are by the way all conservative. I picked the lowest numbers in these studies. By the way, most people live next to water, either on rivers or near the ocean. MIT study, geothermal, 10%. Combined lamp study led by Oak Ridge biomass only waste, not new crops, not food like corn, just waste. Biomass can be 20% of our electricity needs sustainably. By the way, electricity and thermal needs. Sandia in a combined lamp study, concentrated solar power, heat from the desert. So this is using the thermal side of solar, 10%. Navigant rooftop photovoltaics and solar thermal, 12%. And then national energy laboratory wind, 20%. By the way, if you add all that up, it's more than 100%. And that's the point. And these are the most conservative numbers, not the high end numbers. So I want to leave you here with a couple of thoughts. First of all, there's a lot of prestigious institutions that say the portfolio can deliver now. Secondly, the resources we have, the United States in particular, is resource rich in renewable technology. As the American Council on Energy Efficient Economy can tell you, another great non-profit here, that we can reduce our load within five year paybacks by 20% with high value energy efficiency. I have a zero energy home. I have a zero energy office building. I just finished a zero energy, a self-generating building at the Washington Navy Yard. What we were able to do is reduce the loads of these buildings by 55%. So then you need less to power them with the renewable technologies I have on board. And by the way, those two buildings are all a few minutes from here, so if anybody wants a tour, come to my table. I also want to remind you that renewables, you know, there's this view that renewables are intermittent. Well, of the five, geothermal, water and biomass, they're not intermittent. They're 24-hour power. Solar, actually, is your perfect midday power source. That's when we use more power. It is nonsense what I read sometimes that it costs utilities more. No, in fact, they have to bring in higher cost electricity midday, or turn on their older, less performing, polluting plants midday, or wheel power in from some other utility midday. And when the sun's hotter, is when you need more power. When it's cloudy, you need less power. It's naturally compatible. So, and what we're seeing with wind in terms of driving down cost on land, and it will be less cost and for longer periods offshore, we will have a set of solid solutions. My ending statement is, these technologies are manufactured here. Don't believe all this media stuff. Yes, we have big manufacturers in China as everywhere else, but we have new photovoltaic plants and wind turbine plants and parts for geothermal and kabaiheen power in the United States of America. So, don't assume that it's all being imported. It is not. So, thank you very much. And again, please come to the stellar group table. Happy to answer any questions. Or take my course at GW. Take care. Great. Thanks, Scott. So, now we'll hear from someone who is representing businesses who are actually providing these technologies that Scott was talking about, the immense resources that are there to use. I'm going to go to Kormick, who is the Senior Policy Associate for the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. We'll talk about that. I have a visual. Carol's going to help me show. I know no PowerPoints, but I did bring a visual. We think this tells a very compelling story. And what I want to do today is talk a little bit about the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and some of the work that we've been doing recently that will provide information about the impact that these clean energy technologies have been having on the US economy and on the energy sector. So, I'm Ruth McCormick with the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, which is a group of businesses from a broad portfolio of clean energy technologies. We include a broad portfolio of renewable energy technologies, hydro wind, solar, geothermal, fuel cells, biomass. We also include energy efficiency companies and associations and also natural gas. And together, these businesses have been working together on policy development for over 20 years, which we think is a very strong story in and of itself, the fact that they've been partners for that long. In commemoration of the Council's 20th anniversary, they had a report commissioned by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which is a leading market research firm. The purpose of which was to provide an updated market report on really what was going on in these business and energy sectors with these technologies. As Scott was saying, that it's not just one technology that's really having an impact, but to get a real understanding of what's going on in the US energy system. It's important to look at the suite of technologies. So we were finding that people tend to silo their look at these industries and they might know a lot about wind or they might know a lot about natural gas, but they didn't necessarily know a lot about fuel cells or biomass or hydropower. So it was important to provide for policymakers in particular the most up-to-date information about really what was happening in the market. So Bloomberg's report shows some interesting facts that we wanted to share with policymakers on the federal level and on the state level as well as with the investment community, anyone who's really interested in knowing what's happening on the ground. So the book is called, or the report is called, Sustainable Energy in America Factbook 2013. This is an infographic which again visually displays some of the key findings of the report. I have some of these displayed on the table outside the room here and we also have a table inside the expo if you want to get those copies and some other information. The high level takeaways from the Bloomberg report are really that these industries are having a huge impact on the US energy sector. That natural gas and renewables are increasing in market share largely at the expense of some of the more conventional resources of energy and one of the key reasons for this is the steep decline in the cost of these technologies. The report itself looks over the last five years so between 2007, eight time frame to 2012. Some of the key findings are that on the electricity production that installations of renewable energy have doubled between that in that five year period. Wind had a record year 2012 with 13.7 gigawatts installed and oh I'm sorry I think, yes that's correct. Solar energy is also up. I'm trying to find my figure on solar energy. Renewable energy itself in total has grown to 12.1%. Natural gas also had a banner year. It's up 22%. So it now provides 31% of energy electricity production in the United States and together renewables and natural gas now provide 57% of US electricity production. So that's a pretty dramatic change in the electricity sector. And again the key cost for this increase in these technologies is the declining cost of the technology. So solar, the cost of solar has dropped from 31 cents to 14 cents per kilowatt hour and wind has dropped from 9 cents to 8 cents. On energy consumption there's also an interesting story that the Bloomberg report has found and that is that despite a slight increase in the gross domestic product over that five year time frame, that energy use has declined by 6.4%. So everyone attributes that decline or a lot of people contribute that decline in energy use to depressed economy because of the great recession. But GDP actually grew at a very modest 3% increase and despite that energy production has fell or energy use has dropped by 6.4%. Which to us showcases the fact that economic growth can occur while we're using less energy. So some of the factors that have contributed to this are that energy efficiency is really becoming a national priority and the expenditures by utilities and energy efficiency programs has increased. They are now spending $7 billion in 2011. The energy intensity of commercial buildings has also dropped 40% since 1980 and investments in smart grid topped $4 billion with 46 million smart meters being deployed. So the end result of all of these investments and this greater use of these clean energy technologies has been a big impact on CO2 emissions in the United States. So over that five year time period emissions declined 13% dropping to 1994 levels here in the United States. So again we think that the information and the facts in this fact book show that U.S. emissions can decline while still maintaining an increasing economic growth. So I think that these figures have been well received as we've been presenting them to policy makers on the hill and at the states. We commend this information to anybody who's interested in knowing what's happening today and on the ground. I think one of the most compelling things that I hear Bloomberg say as they make presentations for us about the information in the fact book is that things are changing so rapidly that it's very important to have very current information. So if you're looking at information that's over six months old it's probably already out of date. So this too will need to be updated over time but right now we think it's the most up to date information about what's going on in the market and I would be happy to answer any of your questions about it and please feel free to pick up some of our materials. There's a URL on our website for the full 90 page report. The information that we are distributing is really a summary but the 90 page report is there and has some quick facts and links for you to review on any of the technologies that you're interested in. So thank you. And I really do encourage you to look at the fact book. I think you'll find it very very interesting. We're now going to hear from Carl Gaywell who is the Executive Director for the Geothermal Energy Association. Geothermal is a technology and a resource that I think is often so overlooked and yet we have an abundant resource that is usable in many many forms. Carl. Thank you Carol. This is in the audience. Green light. Thank you. The other renewables sometimes I think the biomass and hydropower geothermal people often feel like we don't quite get the respect that we deserve. You know wind and solar are doing great things. They're really growing well and the technology is really moving forward. So it's their comment but I think good things are happening across the sector in the renewable industry and I think that's what I want to talk to you about with geothermal worldwide. We've seen a world market growing at double digits. We have over 70 countries that are looking at geothermal projects today from 25. Those 70 countries represent about a third of the people alive today in the world. So I mean the resource is already being exploited in very very large areas in the United States. We're actually a little bit behind that curve. We're looking at sort of single digit growth rates last year at about four and a half percent. But the U.S. has maintained a strong technological lead in this whole area because we've I think in part been one of the leaders in it since the early 60s when we first started projects in the United States. But also frankly our resources isn't as good. Now the good news about not having a resource which isn't as good as for example Indonesia or East Africa's is the U.S. companies to develop the U.S. resource have learned a lot of new technology and new techniques. And I think are viewed as some of the premier companies around the world and I think XM and OPIC and others have supported U.S. companies working in almost every continent except Antarctica. At the moment there's a little growth chart in the pack you just see and you can see the slope of the world market growth is significantly nicer than the U.S. growth. But the U.S. has not been not moving forward since 2005 we've seen a renewed growth in the U.S. geothermal industry. We've seen over 500 megawatts of plants added 30 projects and a lot of new technology hybrid plants with putting together foldable tanks with solar. And we've also seen real growth in what's called binary power technology which is a technology developed in the U.S. in the 80s which allows you to produce power from lower temperature resources. And we've seen resources as low as China hot springs at what 160 degrees Fahrenheit producing power to run their resort. And that's really been most of the growth in the United States. So we've seen the resource go from high temperature West Coast resources in California. And you'll see the charts and maps in here to a resource which expands from the Gulf Coast up to North Dakota and across the West from Alaska and Hawaii. Over a third of the land mass of the country now has projects under development and a lot of that is because of new technology developments in terms of being able to use a lower temperature resource. Mass produced power service equipment and also use new resources. For example in both North Dakota and the Gulf States they're looking at co-production of geothermal power from oil and gas wells which there are thousands of oil and gas wells which produce lots of hot water. And right now the oil industry buys electricity from the grid to pump that water up and then to pump the water back down. So there's some new developments which I think are really fueling some of the growth you'll see in the charts that you've laid out here. And you can get a lot of this more detailed information. We have a booth here at the GEA. We have an international market report which looks at what's going on around the world. We also have copies of our annual update. Every year we put an update that shows where the projects are, who's developing them, what's their stage of development. And those are available as well at our booth. But I guess since this is the policy forum I should talk for a minute about where we could go. I mean the USGS did an estimate looking at the US resource potential. We show something around 10,000 megawatts of identified sites where we know there's resource that have not been developed. The USGS said there's somewhere between 30 and 80,000 megawatts still out there of conventional systems. This isn't EGS or advanced technology. The problem with it is most of them we can't find. We don't use and have the same kind of technology as the oil and gas industry as we're a very small industry. But there's a lot of techniques which are just being utilized from the oil and gas field in the geothermal field. And our hope is that if technology can reduce the risk of finding and producing from the subsurface, the surface site is pretty easy. As Scott said, you're basically boiling water and turning a turbine. We're bringing hot water out of the ground. The problem isn't dealing with the water, the problem is finding the resource under the ground. But if technology could be developed to help us reduce the risk, that would make a big difference because what holds us back? Single digit growths could it be double digit growths? Well, one is the high risk of resource. I mean, we're talking about projects which, you know, you might spend $10 million on a well, maybe more. And I've been told by some of my company finance officers it doesn't take too many $10 million dry holes to discourage investors. So it's high risk and yet you don't have the same return as if you're drilling an oil and gas well. You drill an oil and gas well and you hit the resource, what do you got? You've got money in the bank. With the geothermal field, you've maybe got a resource and now you've got to figure out what to do with it and see if you can get the permits and see if you can negotiate with the power company. I mean, it might take you another five or ten years to develop it. So there's also long lead times between the time you invest your money and the time you're going to get a return. So we've got high risk on the subsurface, very early, which is usually high risk capital. You're not going to get a loan for that. You're going to mortgage your house or something else to do the initial exploration. You've got longer lead times than there need to be. And often we're finding ourselves fitting into regimes that were really built for other vehicles. For example, the production tax credit. We love being in the production tax credit. It helps for industry growth, but the production tax credit really does work better for projects which have much shorter lead times than projects which take five to seven years to build. I mean, Congress just passed a big change for us. The under construction role makes geothermal projects much fit better in the production tax credit. But when you had a credit that was being extended one or two years at a time with an industry that takes five years to build projects, it was a bit of a mismatch. So the incentives have been there at the state and federal level, but often they're not designed since geothermal in mind. And lastly, technology. We're just starting to see some of the subsurface types of technology like horizontal seismic work, which is done in the gas industry routinely, is brand new in the geothermal industry. And how that image is heat in the rocks and fissures in the rocks is still something we need to learn to do. There's a lot of room for technological improvement, but the support for that has been very minimal. You can see there's a chart of the DOE research budget in your packet. Up until 2008-2009, it was barely enough to cost share one exploration well. So you don't get very far doing that. In recent years, they've had a very aggressive program. We, in fact, the industry, I think, is really thrilled with their new program manager, Doug Hollad, who is for 20 years was the head of the unconventional oil and gas resource division, an exploration division at Marathon Oil. And he's bringing a lot of that expertise to him to apply to the geothermal field. We think with some continued work, continued support to grow out the industry, we could be seeing the U.S. industry in double-digit growth rates just like the world industry. So at the moment, I would say we're seeing strong growth. My timer tells me I'm done. Around the world, we're seeing the U.S. maintain a strong export role. East Africa, Indonesia, and elsewhere. It's great to feel like you're a leader in something. And around the world, the U.S. is viewed as a leader in geothermal. And we want to see the U.S. market catch up to the world market in the next few years. So thank you. And I hope you all realize the enormous wealth of information and experience that is in this panel. And please make sure that you follow up in the expo with their exhibits and have further conversations. We will now turn to Mike Hartley, who is the director of structured finance with Standard Solar Inc. All right. Standard Solar is a residential and commercial installer of PV systems. We're based out of Rockville, Maryland. And today, I'm going to give a talk about looking into the future a little bit. To 2016, as some of you are probably aware, the solar industry has had a great success story, a great growth story over the past several years. And that has been fueled, in part, by federal and state incentives. So there's a 30% investment tax credit from the federal level, as well as depreciation benefits that provide a large incentive to the solar industry. And then there are a myriad of state-level incentives in places like California, New Jersey, Maryland, et cetera. And those state-level incentives, at this point, make or break a solar project from an economic perspective. But looking into 2016, we see that the investment tax credit is going to be reduced from 30% to 10%. And so this begs the question, are we on the right path to reducing costs by 2016 to create a sustainable industry? That we can continue the success story without substantial federal incentives and also without state incentives. So right now, for residential systems, we're in about $3.25 to $3.75 a watt. That's $3.75 per watt for a PV system. For commercial systems, we're about $2.25 a watt to $2.75 a watt. So we get some economies of scale in the commercial projects. And we're competing against the retail cost of power with residential and commercial systems. So we're using a policy called net metering, which allows us to essentially run a business's electricity meter backwards at times when we're producing electricity, provide them a bill credit. So that's another state-level incentive that allows us to compete with the grid essentially. And what we really need is to look at the cost that we have today and figure out how we can get those costs down from, say, from a commercial project, $2.75 down to $1.75 or $1.50. We think if we can get to that level, then we can be competitive with the grid without significant federal and state incentives. And so that's what our industry is focused on in terms of significant cost reductions. We've already seen a substantial amount of cost reductions, primarily from the hardware side. The cost of panels has fallen tremendously as places like China have ramped up their production of solar panels. We've also seen some trade disputes happen because the price of panels fell so quickly that some of the domestic manufacturers were caught a little bit by surprise. But I think overall those reductions and prices are good for the industry, and we really need to focus on those and continue to move forward on those. So again, I said we need to get to this $1.75 per watt or less, and we're going to do that by continued hardware cost reductions as well as significant soft cost reductions. Now what are the soft costs in a solar project? Well, that's the development cycle that it takes to get a project from conception to installation. And there's a number of different processes involved. One of the significant ones is the permitting costs that we have to go through with municipalities as well as the interconnection costs that we have to deal with when we're working with a local utility. And right now there's a huge mix of rules and regulations at the state and at the local level that make every solar project and every jurisdiction different. So we need to get some standardization in those soft costs and look at reducing those soft costs significantly so that developing a project takes less time. We can do more projects with less capital and brings the cost of the systems down. Additionally, we need to gain some additional acceptance in the investor community for projects. Right now a solar asset is a very predictable asset, extremely good long-term performance of the asset. The panels are warrantied for 25 years. We have great field data that shows that the amount of electricity the solar PV system produces is very predictable over long periods of time. So it's a great asset class. However, investors are still demanding a premium to invest in solar projects. So right now cost of capital for a solar project is 9 to 12% in terms of a return on investment basis. Whereas if you look at other asset classes you're seeing maybe 5 to 6% is the return that's required from investors. So we need to do some additional education with the investor community so they'll accept solar as a very high quality, very low risk asset class, drive the cost of capital down. That also helps to scale up the industry. And then the next thing that we need is for electricity prices to increase a little bit. We've seen in the past couple of years due to a slowdown in the economy and a great success story on the natural gas side some declines in electricity prices. We think that trend is going to reverse as the economy picks up speed again and also as industry finds a ton of uses for cheap natural gas. As we see truck fleets change from diesel to natural gas. As we see new manufacturers spring up to use cheap natural gas in manufacturing processes as even we potentially see some exports of natural gas onto the world market. So I think we'll see those increases in electricity costs over the years. But how can the federal and the state policy makers help us get to this tipping point prior to 2016 when our investment tax credit is reduced? One of the things that you can do is make sure that we at least have certainty that the 30% investment tax credit does go all the way to 2016 to provide us with some certainty in that policy environment. And then consider potentially a step down from 30% gradually to 10% rather than have a big cliff for us. Another thing to do would be to preserve the depreciation benefits that we enjoy today, the five-year accelerated schedule. It's a very important benefit for our investors. And then look to passage of some climate legislation, a carbon tax legislation that also reflects some of these externalities in our traditional fossil fuel-based electricity prices. So if fossil fuels had some sort of a carbon price on them, it would help us be more competitive as a carbon-free electricity source. And additionally, we'd like some support from federal government agencies and state agencies in terms of directly purchasing electricity from solar facilities. We've already seen some good work from the Department of Defense and other civilian agencies as well as some states have gotten into purchasing solar electricity directly. So those things help and I'm getting a look here. So I just want to review very quickly on the state level, defend the RPS policies that are currently in place, defend the net metering policies that are currently in place and look to expand those in states where they don't exist already. Great. Okay. Thank you. Obviously, there's lots that needs to be done and I think that we would hear from businesses throughout how important some certainty is and some consistency for planning purposes, just like what we all need. So our last speaker on this panel to finish this up is taking another twist with regard to Solin at Stan Greschner, who is the vice president for government relations with grid alternatives. Stan. Thanks Carol. Again, my name is Stan Greschner with grid alternatives. Just a little background on grid alternatives where 501C3 non-profit solar installers kind of have a very unique perspective and a unique model within the industry. And we also administer in California where we're headquartered the low income solar rebate program on behalf of the public utilities commission there. We use a volunteer-based installation model similar to what Habitat for Humanity does for construction, home construction. We do the same thing for solar, so work with job training organizations throughout the state to give their students hands-on experience required to get jobs in the industry. And what I want to talk a little bit about today is how smart solar policies continue to expand the solar adopter base. And we had a very interesting conversation in California last year about California solar programs and who they're benefiting. And one of the negatives that was being repeated there was that solar was perceived to be a technology that only wealthier families could benefit from. And maybe, you know, five, six years ago that was true. But as my colleague here was talking about, solar prices have come down significantly over the past three years. Solar financing models have been developed and matured over the past several years that have made solar accessible to all types of families and our organization in collaboration with, you know, policymakers and the solar industry has made it even available to low-income communities and families. So I just want to give an overview of California's model. Again, this is low-income solar is not something you think of traditionally. It was pioneered in California and we've been talking to a lot of different states who've called on us to come talk to them as they're exploring different solar financing models to see if they have something that can be included in their state programs. So it's, you know, when you talk about low-income solar, inevitably you have to think creatively. It's not something that you've likely discussed in the past. And it's not, you know, a model that the general market can easily transfer over to the low-income solar market. So in California we have an energy efficiency component that, you know, we've talked about in the loading order of most important things to do first is reduce the consumption at the household level and then install a solar system that is based on, you know, a lower load. There's a higher incentive for low-income families. We have the workforce development component. Again, this is a value to the whole solar market, the whole solar industry in California to develop a trained workforce and through the low-income program the state is achieving that in part. And of course having more community engagement and community education by getting folks like yourself out on an installation up on a roof to help install solar and actually touch and feel the technology and see that it's not a space age thing that, you know, is not accessible to you. Anyone can do it and it's a fairly simple technology. There's two major components, panels, an inverter and then a bunch of wires. So, I mean, you need trained pros, professionals to do it, but it's not that complicated. So why solar for low-income families? It's a conversation that, you know, again, three or four years ago we found ourselves having to initiate all the time. But over the, you know, or through the past year or two it's been a conversation that's been initiated by policymakers and regulators who've reached out to us just asking how, A, we're interested in doing this. The solar industry is mature, maturing in our state. You know, we have the early adopter base covered. How do we continue to expand the accessibility of solar to other market segments including low-income renters, others who might not traditionally have be able to, you know, purchase panels for their roof space. So, for the low-income side, you know, there's, the economic returns are much better for low-income families than general consumers because they pay a higher proportion of their take-home income on energy needs. So, by reducing their energy costs they really have a significant amount of money back in the home that can be used for very important, you know, food, clothing, education for their kids. There's an environmental justice component where power plants, traditional power plants, cited often in low-income communities. In California, you know, there's higher rates of asthma in these areas than children, so there's certainly an environmental justice component to ensuring there's equitable access to solar energy. On the job side, again, this is one of the fastest growing segments in California or any state that has strong solar policies. And these communities that we serve have tremendous need for new employment opportunities and job training jobs. Again, these are all local jobs, especially rooftop solar installation. These aren't jobs that go across state, go overseas. These are jobs that stay in the local community or in the local county traditionally. And it moves the conversation beyond the early adopter phase that, you know, solar is not just for an elite group of people, but hey, if we have a low-income solar program, we're highlighting that it is accessible to all types of families. So as my colleague was mentioning, you know, there's a lot of, on the policy side, things that make solar programs successful, which are the same for low-income. It's still a new market segment that we're trying to reach, so it does continue to need price support, so dedicated budget or some sort of incentive or rebate structure that can be leveraged by low-income families. Unfortunately, the ITC that you're talking about, you need a high credit score or you need tax liability that takes advantage of that 30 percent. Low-income families traditionally don't have that, so we do our best as a nonprofit to fundraise for that gap that other families might have available to them. And, you know, there's a long-term vision for solar. Is this a technology that we want to see grow and expand and be inclusive of all communities, all families? And so that long-term vision helps propel, I think, the industry forward. And so as, you know, we've been talking to other states, you know, we have a strong California presence. We've spoken to Colorado who, in their solar gardens program, have set aside for low-income. We're talking to folks in New York right now to include something in their programs that they're discussing. And, of course, we do a lot of work in tribal areas throughout California. And a few years ago, we had a discussion in D.C. here with the D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility. And just last year, they installed a bunch of, or several community solar projects in Wards 7 and 8 here in D.C., which are low-income wards to really pilot a low-income program here. So solar is becoming more available to consumers. And on the policy and regulatory side, you know, in D.C. I know a lot of you are probably renters. And you say, I can't go solar without the right policies in place and support from utilities. It's a challenge for you to go solar, but with solar community solar gardens or shared solar programs, and I don't know if standard solar works with shared solar developments, but that would be a development where it's based in your local community that you can buy a share in this bigger system. So these are the types of policies that move the whole industry forward to include more participants. So I think the goal is to continue to expand the market base and, you know, those of you involved in policy, energy is still a very policy and regulatory-driven environment, so all of that happens here. So if you have any questions, we have a booth out in the exhibit hall as well, so we're happy to meet with you out there. Thank you. And of course there are lots of opportunities, as you have heard, and we're dealing with very unlevel playing field in terms of looking at renewables, but developing the market, developing the interest and awareness and consistent policies is all part of making everything work. And the more we all know, the more we can do.