 It's 12 o'clock rock here on a given Monday. This is Think Tech. Of course, you knew that. And more than that, this is Marco and me. We're talking about energy here on a Monday. Marco joins us from Hilo, from Provision Solar in Hilo. Hi, Marco. Welcome back to the United States. We have to follow our energy. You know, it's like these national issues tend to, you know, take the 20 top stories in the New York Times, and the New York Times opinions, and the New York Times, you know, what do they say, things you need to know. And local news, you know, falls by the wayside. And there was, in fact, an article in the Civil Beat this morning by Brett Obergard, who is one of our contributors, to remind us that, yes, there is local news and we can't, you know, be completely distracted with the Trump news, which is distracting us. So I'm happy to talk to you, Marco. So let's talk about, let's talk about solar, because solar, you know, has been the big drama, and solar has been the big promise. It's the center of the promise. It's what we think of when we think of moving to 100% by 2045 or 2040, if you like. But solar seems to be in trouble. And that's what I want to talk to you about now. It's in trouble nationally, and worse, it's in trouble locally. What's the trouble? Is this going to, is this immediate effect of this going to affect our ability to do 100% by 2045? Or is it just a blip, you know, it's like this kind of a climate change approach by some people. Oh, it's just a blip, right? Or will it have a profound effect on our goals and reaching them by 2045? This, though, that I don't think we have a plan where you can say, well, this is where it's going to be in 2020, 2025, 2030, and so forth. We don't have a plan. If we had a plan, then we could at least have an aspirational track trajectory of where we're going. But without a plan, I agree with you that predicting is very nigh impossible. So I guess if we had a plan and then we did reality tests on each one of the steps in the plan, we'd be in a better spot. Still wouldn't be certain, big cone of uncertainty for the lengthy period involved. But, you know, we'd be spotting more issues, we'd be spotting more risks, we'd be factoring in more, you know, more of the realities, and we could make better prognostication. What do you think? I mean, is this going to drive government and the, you know, energy industry to make a plan? Right now that is only a proposed plan. That is not an approved plan. That's not being implemented or executed. It is merely what they wish to be the plan. Right? The thing is, this may be wishful thinking and not likely of success. I mean, do you feel these things can be achieved? And does the plan provide for ways in which they can be achieved? Not a single one has been agreed on. Not a single one has been actually in place, approved and implemented as once, okay, this plan was approved. I mean, I'm not particularly optimistic after all the years and years and all the efforts and opinions and meetings and, you know, that we have had without a plan. But let's assume it's approved and let's assume that we are ambitious and we want to sort of a 25 percent increase in the next five years across the board. I mean, by that time, you know, it's likely that a lot of people in the solar installation industry will be out of that business and we will not have the juggernaut we had a couple three years ago of solar installers who can put solar on a roof and while you watch, we won't have anybody with the, you know, who is in business or with the skill and the resources to do solar. And my question to you is assuming that be the case and it's happening, you know, it's devolving right now, that industry as you know is devolving right now. Assuming that we get to a plan which says, let's go for 25 percent next five years, how will we achieve that without an industry? We need to take draconian steps to rebuild an industry that has been mortally wounded, you know? Cliffhangers and on that note, we can take a short break, Marco, and we'll come back in a minute and we'll talk about the solution to all of that and there are solutions. Be optimistic. You'll see. We're going to take a short break now. Aloha, Howard Wigg. I am the proud host of Code Green Think Tech Hawaii. I appear every other Monday at three in the afternoon. Do not tune in in the morning. My topic is energy efficiency. It sounds dry as heck, but it's not. We're paying five billion dollars a year for imported oil. My job is to shave that, shave that, shave that down in homes and buildings while delivering better comfort, better light, better air conditioning, better everything. So if you're interested in your future, you'd better tune in to me. Three o'clock every other Monday, Code Green Aloha, and thank you very much. We're Think Tech, we're Marco and me on Monday talking about energy and we're talking about the health of the solar industry and the intersection between that and an incipient plan, a putative plan if you will, to have a dramatic increase in rooftop solar over the next five years. And so the question I put to you is what happens if the solar industry, the solar installation industry is wounded and right now it is already wounded? And one answer I want to throw at you is a possibility, Marco, is that we can do this if we really attend to it. In other words, if we say we're going to do this, we're going to have 25% increase across the board and we will do what it takes. What does it take? Well, it takes a tax credit. We go back to that. It takes incentives of one kind or another. It takes financing arrangements and I don't mean gems because that's not, in my view, not a viable financing arrangement to get this done. And whatever else. And if we focus on it, then the industry will come back, don't you think? We really don't want the state to get in business because the state can never do business as well as business can do business. And where did I see recently an article about gems, about how the really minimal amount of loans they made were to insiders, oh, that just makes it much worse. So you wouldn't use gems and you wouldn't have the state get in business. You try to incentivize business. You try to incentivize the people who would do installer companies. And that means that, to me, that's the challenge. We can make all the goals we want. It's all aspirational until we figure out how to get people to do those things. And we haven't done that yet. Now is the time for us to be thinking about that. That should be an inherent part of any plan, how are we going to get it done. And that means the legislature has to act. And it has to find creative ways to act. But looking at it on the flip side, yeah, it's not going to be disruptive. But if we don't do it, I think we'll have disruption on the downside. Because this project will not get off the ground unless we provide some kind of incentive. And for the lack of incentives on batteries, when they're going to have batteries. And without batteries, I think we've taken all the low-hanging fruit. It's not going to grow at 25% in five years. So I'm a little worried. And I hope the chairs get together and make a deal here and push that legislation through. It's not only the tax credit for the batteries. It's also, it's iconic. It's a statement. It's a symbol. We care about this, that we want this to happen, that it's a priority, that energy is a priority, that solar is a priority. We've got to make that clear. Teachers out in front of the Capitol today, there must be 1,000 of them in red shirts protesting. The schools are a big issue. But let me offer this last thought before we go to our last point. And that is, if we want to achieve these goals, we can't do wishful thinking. It's not going to come down from heaven and make it happen. It's not going to happen by some divine process. We actually have to make it happen ourselves. We have to find incentives to change the way to encourage people to take the action necessary to reach the goals. If we don't do that, it's the goal that's silly. And so I leave you with that thought. However we do it, we got to actually do it. But let's go to the last point. And that is the article in yesterday's Star Advertiser about thermal solar and about the exemptions. Can you talk for a minute about that? The office is $4,000 for the solar thermal system. They're trying to avoid the cost of it. It's as simple as that. The house is that much cheaper. But it is not a good idea. It is not in accordance with state policy. And what are the tests for the exemption? What do you have to do to get an exemption here? But what's interesting to go back to the point of who handles this is the energy office presumably in D-bed that is giving away all these exemptions. That office, formerly under Mark Klick, now they're looking for a new leader, that office is dedicated to reaching our clean energy goals. I do not completely understand from this story why they would give exemptions in this number. It doesn't seem to me to give any, appropriate to give any exemptions or maybe a few for special circumstances. But this is a huge number. And what it means is whoever is giving the exemptions doesn't care too much about clean energy. Sorry to say. Yeah. Well Marco, wonderful to talk to you as always. I look forward to every discussion with you. And I look forward today to a discussion two weeks from hence when I know there'll be other things come up that we will have a lovely time talking about exploring, philosophizing, romanticizing, and predicting, don't you think? Marco Mangelstorff, Provision Solar in Hilo.