 Okay, we're back, we're live the noon show. This is Energy 808, The Cutting Edge, today with Marco Mangostorf, my co-host, and Randy Iwasi, the chair of the PUC. We are so delighted to have you both here. Thank you, Jay. My pleasure. Great to be here with you, and Marco, say hi. Thank you, Marco. Let's talk about that news. You've given notice. You're about to leave the end of the year, tell us the circumstances, tell us what's going to happen now. Well, you know, it's been something I've been thinking about a long time, Jay. My wife, who is a school principal, retired in June. There were things that happened to us personally over the course of this year that made me reflect, and I'm going to be 71 on December 1st, and I decided, you know, I think it's time to just spend time with the family. Whatever years you have left on earth, spend it with people of your family. Well, it's an historic moment, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure Marco agrees. You've served through the EGAI administration, First Administration. You've had some very, very high-profile cases, higher perhaps than anything that I can remember in the past as chair of the PUC. You've had changes in the PUC composition. I mean, gee, I mean, it's been a real adventure, hasn't it? Well, I'm glad you called it an adventure. It's been an interesting adventure, yes. What are the high points for you, Randy? Well, I think the high point, some of the high points for me are, first of all, getting the staff hired, and seeing them, they're very new, they're growing, they're energetic. I said yesterday or the other day to them, I hope, and I believe that it's true, that you will be committed to public service. It's not going to make you financially rich, but it will enrich you in so many other ways. And I think that's one of the things that I'm quite proud of. The second is how the PUC is functioning now. It is that the commissioners are interacting. The staff is interacting. They're working as a team, which is what we need. The PUC, when you're dealing with a docket, is not about I. It's the proverbial. There's no I in team. And we're functioning now better as a team. We need to because we're young. And those are some of the things I'm proud of. Anything that sticks in your craw over the past four years? Sticks in my craw. You mean I found it's out of the low points, if you will. Well, one was the disappointment with the nomination of Tom Gorak. I think Tom was one of the most qualified commissioners nominee we ever had. How that all played out was very much a disappointment for me. Fortunately, we had Jay Griffin to step up and take his place. Well, you can't ever take Tom's place, nor can anyone take Jay's place. But he moved into that vacancy and filled it well with the experience that he had at the commission. But that was, I think, the low point for me, the disappointment for me. And now you have two commissioners, two new commissioners. They both came on during your watch. How have they changed? How is it, you want to call it the character and composition of the PUC changed by virtue of their coming on? Well, Jennifer, I spoke to him about Jay. He brings a wealth of experience, knowledge, technical skills. Jennifer is just a bunch of energy. She is a joy to be working with, just so energetic and very knowledgeable, very much wanting to learn, very much wanting to interact in a harmonious way. And I truly appreciate that. People always use the word consensus, and I think I mentioned it once before to you. The commission is not about consensus. I told Jay, I told Jennifer, it's about how you feel about a case. That is your name going on that decision. You sign off, that is your reputation. And so if you want to dissent, if you want to write a concurring opinion, feel free to do so. Don't feel pressured that we have to be unanimous. Because it is, after all, your reputation on the line. And she's taken that to heart. She concurred in one decision already. But we're working very well together. And I won't have the time left to spend. I'll have a little bit of time left to spend with them. But I'm going to miss them. I'm going to miss the staff. What I hear is that you're leaving the PUC in good condition. And you're happy with that. Am I right? Yes. Well, you're hearing it from me, right? Yeah. Yes. Yes, yes. You know, there's much more to go, Jay. Like I said, the commission is young. The staff is young. And that's where Tom Gorak or a Jay Griffin come in, as well as the veterans on the staff. They bring institutional knowledge. And I've been around government now for 38 years. And I realize and I know that those with institutional memories are extremely valuable to an agency. So they're going to have to mentor the younger staff. And I think they're doing it. We survived the massive Nextera case. This year alone, we had, I think, 10 rate cases. Those are very time-consuming. And the staff was very new. They went into it. They're doing it. And so it's been a very busy year. People say, well, Nextera's gone. And Nextera was one case. It consumed a lot of oxygen in the room for that period of time. But these other cases, just as important, for the long haul, for the rate pair, for the public, they worked on it. We also moved forward with those cases that, for lack of a better word, contained the blueprint. As we go forward for our energy future. And they're working on it. And it continues to move forward. Marco, I know you have many questions. Why don't you ask your questions? Thank you, Chair. You know, Marco, maybe 40, 50 years ago, that would have been a statement that had some degree of truth or substance to it. I can tell you that in the Nextera case, it was not for the PUC. And I think I can speak for the governor. It was not a matter of them being from the mainland. It was a matter of whether or not what they presented to the PUC are comported with law, that you provided the information that we needed, the facts that we needed, the assurances that we needed, and making compromises if necessary. And that didn't happen. We just approved the merger of Cincinnati Bell and Hawaii Intel, which was a mainland company, if you listen to the commercial of the Hawaii Intel's competitor. But no, we're not adverse. We understand that this is a global economy. This is a small place called Hawaii. And that there are times, perhaps more often than not, depending on the industry, when there needs to be different perspectives and different ownership. But I can tell you that in the Nextera case, the resistance, if you want to call it that, did not come from anything cultural. I know I mentioned to one of the witnesses, why should I trust you? That is a question, Marco, I would ask of anyone who is wanting to take over a major utility as Hawaii Electric. And I mentioned to him, I think it was Eric Lieson, that we had promises made during the monarchy. We had promises made during the republic. We had promises made during the territorial days. We had promises made at statehood. And many promises were not kept. But that is not so much a function of you being a mainland company, as opposed to you being a company that we can, for me, I'm using my words, that I can trust, that if we approve this merger, you will work to the benefit of the rate pair, specifically, and the people of Hawaii in general. So if it comes up again, if either Nextera or someone else comes up again, by that analysis, you would possibly consider them, or rather, the PUC that you're leaving, might possibly consider them. Well, if you recall what we said in our, I think it was dismissal without prejudice was how we phrased it, and that was done for certain reasons. In my case, I believe that we should have rejected the application. But nevertheless, we did what we did. We came forward in that decision with a set of guidelines that would guide the commission in the future, if there were applicants for a merger or an acquisition. That's valuable. Yes, and it was, it's valuable not only to the commission, but you're in law, Jay, you know, and we're taught that if you're going to ask somebody to do something and penalize them if they don't, you gotta give them notice. These are the rules. You play by the rules, everything's okay. You don't play by the rules, things are not okay. So we put out the guidelines for anyone to see. So if any company comes in and seeks to purchase Hawaiian Electric or even Hawaiian Tel, these are guidelines we're gonna refer to. Valuable. Can I shift for a minute, Marco, and just ask about LNG? LNG, you know, there was an effort, I suppose, next term might have relied more on LNG than the existing players. But where did LNG go during your term on the PUC? Well, it didn't go anywhere. You know, when I came in, interestingly enough, and maybe Marco or perhaps others in the energy industry would disagree with me, when I came in, I thought LNG was a transition field. That's three, four years ago now. I sit here today and I'm thinking, you know, maybe that's not a field we need to rely on. With the, maybe, although it's more expensive, maybe we can look at biofuel. Maybe we can look at solar, wind, or renewables with battery as quote unquote fillers for lack of a better term for me. That there, the urgency that appeared to have been there when I started just four years ago, to me it's no longer there, not in my mind. I think there are other ways we can go. And the question now is, you know, when we were talking about those LNG projects or proposals that did not come to the PUC but was floating out there, we're talking about a 20-year lifespan. That's not the Hollow Eye Bridge. That's the Golden Gate Bridge. That's a long bridge. And do we need to go that long? Do we need to, so that you can recover your capital costs? Is it necessary to have, to rely on LNG? And like I said, today, as I sit here four years later, I don't feel that there's that great sense of urgency. Marco? Well, that's a good question, Marco. And I'm glad you had that qualifier, however we define right, because I don't know if there's ever going to be a right. Things keep evolving. But you know, and Jay knows that from when I first began here, so let me start this way. I do not believe that the utility is a big, bad animal that, or that the utility is an enemy. I really believe that we are given the isolation of Hawaii all in one canoe, that we have to work together, that we gotta do all that we can to get all parties on board and then act to move enforcement if we have to, where one is very intransigent. In the case of PBR, I am heartened by the fact that the utilities are actively participating in the PBR docket, in the technical conferences that we have. We need them on board. We need them to be a participant in this process. Can we get it right? I will say this, I think we'll be on the target board when this process ends. Well, it'll never end. When this process comes to a point where we're gonna have to move decisions out, but as I said, it is an evolutionary process. We're gonna learn from what we have here. I think Marco knows that there have been efforts in other states to get close to performance-based rate making, or some other name that they call it. No state has gotten it right yet, quote, right. No state has it perfect. And what we can do is look at what their experience is, and we are, and take from them what can work here. We always hear that Hawaii is a unique place. And in the case of our energy needs, production of energy, distribution of energy, we are unique. We cannot shoot off excess energy to Nevada. We cannot import energy when we need it from California. We're self-reliant. And so it is more important that we get as close to the target center as we can, and we're working to do it, and we have good minds on it. We have stakeholders involved. I was sincere when I said to them, we need all of your input, because none of us here has the answer for everything. Each of you has a bit of an answer. And that we also, as the POC from the POC side, understand that each of you represents a special interest. And so you will articulate and advocate for that special interest, that you're not necessarily looking at the broader perspective. We have to bring that. And so that's the mindset that we have entered into this PBR process and others, Marco, DER, PSIP, PSIP, DER, all of it, I am sincere in my statement that we need the input of all the stakeholders because no one person is omniscient. And all these factors somehow play in the big question is whether we can reach our goal, our 100% renewable goal by 2045. And I wonder if you could discuss that. Do you think we will reach that goal? And what has to happen? What are the factors that would play into whether we do or not? I am very optimistic. When I came in four years ago, I thought the goals were aspirational. I am now more of the belief that it can be done. And we just came back from Kauai about two weeks ago. On some days, that island is 97% renewable for a certain period of time. Big Island and Maui, I believe are over 50% or close to 50%, or somewhere thereabouts. It is this island, as I think I said at the last program, that we're going to have to really work at it. This island, Oahu, with four fits of the population, nearly a million people, would not much land area and you're gonna have and you always will run into now, not in my backyard, you don't put up the windmill, don't put up the solar farm. So this island is, I am very hopeful, I believe we will achieve a 100% renewable, even if the formula is adjusted. You know, Henry Curtis talks about the formula allowing for a whole lot of fossil fuel. So even if that formula is adjusted, these islands can reach it. I believe that, I sincerely believe that. In four years, we went from no battery to battery. And, you know, it's a quick changing field. It's evolving, it's sometimes revolutionary. We're gonna get there, it's this island. And what can we do? I think it's what's gonna be more important on this island than anywhere else. Things like energy efficiency, things like demand response. We don't have hydro being looked at. Can we look at Lake Wilson? Can we look at elsewhere on this island? For pump hydro pump storage. Can we do any of that? And how much of the need will that address of talking hydro if it's done? But, you know, we're talking about offshore wind and all that stuff for Oahu. Well, at this point as I see it today, it's good luck. You know, I think I've told others, we'll get the Navy's approval first. Yeah. So, you know, we can talk about that, but we gotta look at what is existing now and making room for what will be invented in the future. But this island is gonna be more difficult. You know, Randy, there's a certain tension between rooftop solar for individual residences and community solar and solar on top of condos and all that. It's an inherent tension. And it's a legal tension, it's a regulatory tension. How do you see that working over the next few years on the way to 2045? Well, you know what, on this island, we are trying, we got so much, we have a lot on this island already. We're probably going to need utility scale storage for some of the other, excuse me, yeah, storage and solar farms or wind farms when we expand into things like community-based renewables. We certainly do not want to slow down the residential rooftops. That is why, because I believe that if you put, if you are in CBRE, if you are a resident with solar or in CBRE a renter or person a condo and you are participating now in renewable energy, you become what Bob Oshiro called the messengers, the sparrows, you become a believer in renewables and you become the messengers for renewables, the way to commit to renewables. So I think there's room for both, it's not an either or, but like I said, with respect to the solar rooftop, we certainly had no intent or desire to bring it to an end when we closed the NEM program. There were other factors involved, but we then immediately substituted community, customer self-supply, customer grid supply. Now we have customer grid supply plus now we have NEM plus. So we're trying to again incentivize people to go out there and put solar on your roof. Second, with customer grid service, CGS, we did that because now we want to see if people would be incentivized to utilize battery storage. Because I think for the short term and maybe for the medium term, especially battery prices come down, that is going to be something that we have to do. Do you have a message to the legislature on that point? No, because it won't do any good. But, because I know they've been going back and forth on the credit. And the credit helped and still does help the federal credit and the state credit for solar. And take the lesson from there. But I think for the short term and the middle term, medium, intermediate term, that is something we got to look at is battery storage at the home level, at the utility level, and just keep plowing ahead. This, again I used the word, this is an evolutionary process. Don't stop, don't be discouraged, keep trying. And the solutions or the programs, the innovative programs, they're not going to come from the public sector. They're going to come from the private sector. We didn't get to the moon because somebody in the Department of Energy, or we didn't have that, somebody in the federal government discovered and built the rocket. Everything came from the private sector. And so this is the meshing of public private sector with the president and the Congress with NASA pushing these programs, buying things, asking the private sector to produce Velcro, produce Teflon, all that stuff. That comes from the private sector. It's going to take that working together. Marco, you follow, you follow Solars so carefully. I can hear your ears pick up, perk up in this discussion. You had an article, what, in this morning's paper about the number of installs on the Big Island and on Oahu. Can you, you want to formulate a question on this to Randy? You know, Marco, when you're an old carjer like me, and having been in politics, I don't think there's much that really shocked me or surprised me. I was very much discouraged and surprised by the, what happened with the Tom Gorak confirmation and how that all played out. But short of that, you know, getting letters or phone calls from elected officials or people from the utilities or people from the special interest groups, that was expected. And so, I think the most, the thing that pleasantly surprised me was how committed, you know, when I started, Marco, we had 35, including people, including administrative staff. We are now up to 59. But at the time of next tarot, we may have had 43 people, including the administrative staff. And what pleasantly surprised me was how hard they worked and their commitment to doing well. We had, Tom was the chief counsel in that case. We had Caroline Ishida who had just come on board. We had Mark who had just come on board. And then we had Mike Azama who had been there a while. But Caroline and Mark, they acted like pros and helped us tremendously. And as we grew the agency, the commitment of these young people, millennials are often maligned. But you cannot, I don't at least, question their commitment to a progressive social values for our society. And that has been a source of wonderment to me. You know, Randy, the energy policy forum lost Sharon Moriwaki and the Senate gained her. Yes, yes. My Kamaki High School alumnus. Is that right? Yes. Okay, small town. Congratulations, Sharon. And Sheryl and we was selected by a search committee. Yes. Not to be the new executive, if you will, of the energy policy forum. And you've followed it. You've seen them and you know the kind of things they've been doing. What role do you see the energy policy forum playing as we go forward? Continue to articulate as a neutral body, although it's hard to say that they're neutral given the membership that you have. But you know, it is important. Let me talk about my PUC perspective. It is important for us looking out when we have issues before us to get, to look at, okay, that organization will be presenting a neutral point of view. This organization will present this point of view. That will present a contrary point of view. The contrary, the pro push backward and forward between interest groups, that's a given. What's rare is an organization that is going to look at issues in a, first of all, holistic way, but in a neutral way, not with an ideology. That to me is important to have that kind of an organization. And then going to the legislature and presenting that information. Like they're at the legislature, they're gonna have people with their special interests, but you need someone or organization or organizations there that can present this straightforward objective. This is this, this is that. This may be a controversy. You take the thing with GMOs. You don't know who to believe anymore because you have one side saying this, you have one side saying this, and somebody's gotta be in the middle saying, okay, this is what everything is all about. Same thing with climate change. And that's, I think, it's very important. Not only for the energy field and this organization, but I think in general, so that there can be some kind of civil objective discourse when you're dealing with important issues. One last question for me, and then we'll have to wrap up. And that is, gee, you've been in government service as you mentioned for 30 years, 35? Not 38, I think. 38, but it was counting. You've served in the legislature for some years. You've served, obviously, in the PUC. You ran for governor back a few years ago. It wasn't that long ago. And you're in and around government your whole professional legal career. So I guess it's an irresistible question to ask. Now, at the end of your term at the PUC, could you go back? Would you be interested in some other position? Is there another chapter in this journey? You know, I don't think so. I'm leaving for the very reason I started telling you about. And that is my family. They sacrificed so much for me. And you know, we lost our middle son in May. Sorry to hear that. Thank you. And you start to think, you know, there's the thing I've given enough here. I would like to give more if I could. But I'm thankful for the privilege that I was afforded. First, by the electorate in my district. Secondly, by a Governor's Cayetano, Abercrombie, and Ige, to allow me to serve. But I think this is it. I think it's time. What is it? It was a General McCartney, you just fade away. You know, it's time to fade away. We'll still talk to you. I hope you still talk to us. Oh, yes. I'm sure you have a lot of opinions that you would be more free to discuss after your term is over. Maybe. So, Marco, I'm leaving the farewell to you. Because I know you're, you know, highly interested in Articulate on this point. And I'd like you to sort of speak for both of us. I'm farewell to Randy. Thank you, Marco. Amen. Amen to all of that. We wish you well in all particulars, Randy. Thank you, Jay. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Jay. Aloha. Aloha.