by Stephen Lacey
June 23, 2017

Stephen Lacey: This is The Interchange, conversations on the global energy transformation from Greentech Media. I'm Stephen Lacey in Boston joined by GTM's Senior Vice President, Shayle Kann, who is out in San Francisco. You've been a San Franciscan for a few days, now. How is the resettlement process?

Shayle Kann: Not so bad. I see fruit trees everywhere that I go. This whole area is blooming out of control because of these crazy rains that they had this winter, which incidentally, also made it impossible to install rooftop solar. The other side result of that, apart from a bad residential solar market, is that flowers are just going crazy here.

Stephen Lacey: You're not missing anything out here. We've had two weeks straight of rain. You're not done traveling yet, either. Today, Shayle and I are taking a journey across the solar market. Shayle took to the stage last month at Solar Summit to detail the state of solar in America.

Shayle Kann: I think that there are two stories that you can tell about the state of the solar market today.

Stephen Lacey: One of those stories is decidedly negative. One of them is extraordinarily positive, and they're playing out at the exact same time. We're going to detail them both for you, mixing our own reflections with Shayle's onstage analysis from Solar Summit. We begin with some storm clouds above. It has been a brutal year for solar. Public solar companies are getting thrashed. Module oversupply is causing severe financial pain for manufacturers, and even downstream companies who have benefited from cheaper equipment and growing demand have struggled as growth in certain markets flatlines. Shayle, where do we stand?

Shayle Kann: Well, I think you'd have a hard time right now finding a major success story for a pure-play solar company, especially in the US over the last year or two. It's been a weird time when the market is growing, but many of the companies have been struggling. You can go back to the beginning of last year, 2016. That was when SunEdison went bankrupt. That was when Vivint Solar was going to get acquired by SunEdison, and then had to dial it back. Since then, we've had companies like OneRoof Energy and Sungevity in the residential sector that have gone bankrupt or have been sold off in pieces. NRG basically got out of residential solar.

The module manufacturers are seeing margin compression, having to dial back their ambitions. Some of them are shuttering manufacturing facilities. It's not universally true. There are pockets of the market that have still been reasonably strong, but especially the big public solar companies have pretty much all had a rough year, and even a little bit more than that, maybe dating back to the beginning of 2016. So it's not been an easy time to be a solar company, and I think that that has dominated a lot of the news. Especially to the extent that it bubbles up into the mainstream press, to the extent that you're seeing anything about solar, generally speaking, over the last year and a half, a lot of it's been negative.

Stephen Lacey: All right. Let's explore these factors a little bit more. When you were on stage, you first put up this chart of the Guggenheim Solar ETF, showing just how badly public solar companies have taken a beating. Then you walked into some of these other factors.

Shayle Kann: Of course. Stock prices and public markets are not always the greatest indicator of the health of a market, but in this case, I think they do say something about something that's going on in solar right now, which is that many companies have had a tough year or year and a half. In particular, it's been hard for module manufacturers. This has been true, especially in the second half of 2016 through basically today.

Basically what happened to module manufacturers is a tale of two halves in 2016. The change between the first half and the second half of last year was pretty stark, and it went in two different ways. First of all, between the first half and the second half of last year, global demand for solar fell by 16 percent. This is despite the fact that we were having a banner year for solar overall. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a bit. But China pulled back on its fee and tariff program at the end of the first half of the year. That resulted in a big contraction in the Chinese market in the second half of the year, and despite the fact that we saw a lot of growth in the US and India and in some other markets, the global market shrank in that six-month period.

As has been the case many times in solar, and this is a cycle we tend to repeat, broadly speaking, module manufacturers, panel manufacturers, had not gotten the message in time. They continued to expand capacity, and so over that six-month period, panel manufacturers expanded their capacity globally by 10 percent. What happens when you have a shrinking market and increasing capacity at the same time? You get thrown into oversupply, and that's what happened at the second half of 2016. The result of that, of course, as is generally the case in an oversupply situation, is that prices crashed. They ended up falling almost 40 percent just over the course of 2016, mostly in the second half. Though they have somewhat stabilized in 2017, for the most part, they have remained pretty well depressed. As a result, we remain in an oversupply cycle for panel manufacturing, and panel manufacturers have suffered as a result. Their margins have compressed, and they have had to figure out how to survive through the downturn.

Now normally, when you have oversupply in panel manufacturing -- or this would be true if you have crashes in pricing for other components as well -- that's bad for the manufacturers, but it's good for the downstream. It's good for anybody who is buying panels, anybody who is developing projects, if you're an EPC, and so on. Indeed, I think that was true for many companies in 2016 and through to today. We have a lot of developers that have benefited from that, but it's not universally true, and especially in the US. We've had a simultaneous challenge specific to the residential solar market.

The residential market in the US was booming for years. From 2012 through 2015, four years in a row, the residential solar market grew by over 50 percent a year. Then in 2016, it started to slow down. We saw 19 percent growth last year, and all indications are that 2017 is basically going to be flat overall for residential solar. A lot of this is due to California alone. California is not only going through a transition to its second iteration of net energy metering, switching to time of use rates, but also, in the first quarter of this year, had unprecedented rains that made it basically impossible for a lot of that quarter to get people up on the roof.

California has been a down market for residential solar, while the rest of the country has sort of gone flat at the moment. The result of this, broadly speaking, has been hardest on the largest residential solar companies, with one notable exception, which is Sunrun. With the exception of them, basically everybody else has dialed back on growth and in some cases, you've seen even more drastic impacts.

If you combine over the last 16 months or so the impact of the oversupply on upstream companies and here in the US this sort of slow growth, and in some cases, flatlining of the residential solar market, you've ended up having a lot of negative headlines. There have been bankruptcies from SunEdison last year to Sungevity to OneRoof Energy to SolarWorld in Germany. It's been a rough time in the public eye for solar. And yet ...

Stephen Lacey: This brings us to the second part of this story, which is a lot more hopeful. While the industry is certainly in upheaval, the macro trends couldn't be better for the technology. It's one of the strange contradictions in solar. Where do we stand on the growth trajectory today, Shayle? It's pretty remarkable when you start to look out a few years.

Shayle Kann: Yeah. It is. Even without looking out a few years, it's remarkable how far solar has come.

Stephen Lacey: Global installations grew 50 percent last year.

Shayle Kann: Yep. 50 percent globally. Like you said, 100 percent in the US. 2016 was the first year in which we added more solar capacity on the grid in the US than any other source. Wind, coal, natural gas. The market, it's been diversifying, so there's all sorts of new sources of procurement for solar. Utility scale solar is all over the country now, not just in the Southwest. Residential solar has all these new businesses popping up that are offering direct ownership. Smaller installers proliferating in new markets. Companies entering states that didn't historically have a lot of rooftop solar, like Texas, which we just saw an announcement that Sunrun is entering this week. It's a market that is rapidly growing and rapidly diversifying at the same time.

Stephen Lacey: The reason for this is because when you actually look at utility procurement, let's just isolate the utility scale side here. The reason why there is much more diversity in procurement is because the technology is just competitive with all forms of new generation. It's pretty remarkable, and voluntary procurement on the utility side is ramping up simply because solar is the cheapest form of generation.

Shayle Kann: Right. Accounting just for the federal investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation, so just federal incentives, nothing at the state level today. If you're a utility anywhere in this country, but especially in the Southeast or in the Southwest, and in some cases in the Northeast, and you just put out an RFP and you say, "I want 500 megawatts of something, and I want it to be the cheapest resource you can offer me," solar is going to win on a dollar per kilowatt hour basis a fair amount of the time right now. When it doesn't win, it might be in the Midwest, because wind will beat it.

In many swaths of the country, solar right now is just the cheapest available resource, given the federal incentives. There's also a pretty clear runway over the next few years to the point where solar will be the cheapest available resource on a dollar per kilowatt hour basis even as the ITC rolls off over the next five years. If all you care about is cheap kilowatt hours, solar is winning and will continue to win. That's a very dramatic transformation that I think hasn't fully entered the consciousness of the electricity sector yet. That really changes things, especially for utility scale solar.

Stephen Lacey: You highlight a very important case study that I think shows utilities are really starting to grapple with this. You point to an integrated resource plan developed by Dominion, which is one of the largest power companies in the US. You show that solar is just dominating their future procurement plans.

Shayle Kann: Right. This is a recent phenomenon. This is why I think this isn't fully recognized yet, is because you can see with Dominion how dramatic the difference was, even just from one year to the next in their resource plan, in which their 2016 resource plan was calling for a little under a gigawatt of solar to be developed in their territory over the next 15 years. One year later in 2017, it's over four gigawatts. It was more than four X increased just over the course of one year, not because Dominion just likes solar, but because the models that they are running, which are least cost best fit model, given what they expect technology costs to be, are now telling them that basically they need to be building solar if they're trying to build the cheapest resource.

It's worth noting that this is going out through 2031, so well after the ITC is scheduled to expire. It doesn't incorporate the clean power plant or any other Paris Agreement driven carbon price. It's saying that solar is going to continue to be the cheapest resource available on the grid, again, if what you care about is kilowatt hours.

Stephen Lacey: Forgive the bad idiom, but this is the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. Let's hear more about it.

Shayle Kann: Despite some of the turmoil in the market, this is an inflection point for solar. This isn't just us making up numbers. There's lots of ways that you can look for proof points that this is true. Here's one example. Let's talk about Dominion. Dominion is a utility based in Virginia and North Carolina. Dominion submits ... It's a vertically integrated utility. It submits an integrated resource plan every year to its regulators. In that integrated resource plan, what Dominion and most other utilities are doing is they're basically running a model to determine, given their resource needs, expected costs of various sources of generation, what the least cost best fit set of resources is going to be in their territory.

They also model it out in a few different scenarios, including one that doesn't include the clean power plan. Let's separate federal climate legislation from this question. They're modeling this out basically based on economics. If you look at their 2016 integrated resource plan, they were already planning to build out a bunch of solar in their territory over the next 15 years or so. A little under a gigawatt by 2031, mix of assets that they would own and assets that they would procure power from. They just a couple of weeks ago submitted their 2017 IRP, just one year later, running similar models, and the amount of solar more than quadrupled. They now expect in a no clean power plan scenario to build mostly solar, more than any other resource by a long shot, and over four gigawatts just by 2031. If you extend it out to 2042, which is how far the IRP ultimately goes, it becomes more like five gigawatts.

Here's what they said about it in the IRP. Basically, they explained that they added so much more solar into that plan due to the optimal economics, the fact that it has lower zero emissions, and importantly, the fact that the cost of solar from their perspective fell 24 percent between the time that they filed the 2016 IRP and the time that they were doing the analysis for the 2017 IRP. This is what happens when we get these drastic cost reductions for solar. It has a real meaningful impact on solar's competitiveness versus other sources of generation.

Lest you think that Dominion is alone in this, there are a dozen vertically integrated utilities in the US in whose most recent integrated resource plans they have suggested that they should build at least half a gigawatt of solar in their territory. This, of course, is just the big vertically integrated utilities, and just among this dozen companies, they add up to about 20 gigawatts of utility scale solar that they expect to build. Just by way of context, we have about 25 gigawatts of utility scale solar operating in total. Just these 12 utilities, if their IRPs go through and they act upon all of it, they would nearly double the size of the cumulative utility scale solar market in the US. This is 12 utilities. We have 3,000 in the US. This is a very real transformation.

Stephen Lacey: In one sense, we've got this clear future ahead of us. Solar growth is inevitable and likely explosive. What's not so clear is how you manage all that solar. I know you've been putting a lot of thought into how markets and integration techniques evolve to make sure that that growth is good and not damaging for electricity systems, and in California, for example, we're already getting signs of solar over saturation, a problem that will creep all over the world. What are the next set of challenges that we're starting to grapple with, Shayle?

Shayle Kann: Here's the scenario that plays out. Solar is the cheapest resource on the grid, so it makes sense to add more and more of it. As you add more and more of it, the next bit that you add gets less and less valuable on its own. We've talked about this before. It's the marginal value decline of solar because it's all largely generating at the same time. You need it at that time less and less, and the time when you really need it-

Stephen Lacey: Right, so solar is a price taker, not a price maker.

Shayle Kann: Exactly. The time when you really need the power increasingly becomes in the evening when the sun is setting. That's basically the duck curve phenomenon in a nutshell. What do you do about that? The Secretary Perry of the DOE seems to have decided that what you need to do about that is try to dampen down renewables in order to support base load power, but I think that's the wrong way to be thinking about it. The term that we're starting to hear, we've used on this podcast a few times, but is going to become maybe the most important term in electricity circles for the next decade, is flexibility. What is going to provide flexibility on the grid that allows you to manage higher penetrations of variable resources like solar?

Stephen Lacey: I was really struck by some comments that Charlie Gay of SunShot made on stage. MJ Shiao interviewed him and interviewed Dick Swanson, who is the founder of SunPower. Charlie Gay got up there and said, "The most important thing for us is the temporal value of solar." It's not just reducing the cost of hardware and modules. There's this time value of energy, the locational value of energy. We need better rate design, and we need better data and information and communications techniques to allow solar to be more responsive and to be flexible. This idea of flexible solar and the broader concept of flexibility for distributed resources has become front and center in this industry.

Shayle Kann: Right. I think there's a couple of different ways to talk about how solar interacts with the grid, and oftentimes they get conflated, but in my mind, they're largely separate from each other. One is how does solar interact with the grid from a reliability perspective? This is something also at the conference that Mark Widmar, the CEO of First Solar, talked about, because they've been running these tests with some of their operating projects to see whether solar can provide things like voltage support on the grid and finding that when operated in a specific way that it can.

There's this question of as you add more and more solar to the grid, will it cause reliability concerns, or could it actually help with reliability? That's related to the locational value of solar as well. If you put solar in a specific place on the grid, can it relieve congestion? Can it reduce the need for some new distribution grid upgrade?

The other way to think about solar is not just how does it impact reliability, but how does it impact the resource mix and wholesale markets, which are basically there to ensure resource adequacy, that we have enough stuff on the grid so that people don't have blackouts because there's a power shortage. That's where issues like the daily, the diurnal variations in solar generation all the way up to what we've talked about before, which is seasonal variations, become an issue you one way or another, at higher levels of solar penetration, have to deal with.

Stephen Lacey: Yeah. Dick Swanson mentioned that on stage, too. He said one of the coolest areas of innovation that he's thinking about is seasonal storage and the use of solar to create fuels like hydrogen or ammonia or methanol that can be used to deal with seasonal variability. This is a concept that we talked about with Mateo Jaramillo, and it's one that a lot of solar visionaries are starting to grapple with. So with that, let's hear a little bit more about flexibility and what it means for the future of solar.

Shayle Kann: Flexibility is a word that has started to proliferate a little bit in electricity circles, and I think it's going to become a buzz word for the next few years. You're going to hear a lot about the need for flexibility, and indeed, grid operators are already thinking about this. In California, the ISO basically thinks that that three hour upward ramp, the time in a spring day between highest source of solar generation and peak, is almost going to double between 2015 and 2019. As a result, they basically need a similar increase in the amount of flexible capacity on the grid.

We've modeled this out for Texas, where you have a lot of wind already, and we're adding a lot of solar, and we think at a bare minimum, you're going to need triple the flexible capacity in 2035 that you needed in 2016. There's a real need for some form of flexibility.

What does this mean for solar? First, it's worth noting that we talk about the duck curve a lot. It is largely just a California phenomenon today, because California has the highest penetration of solar of anywhere in this country. One, I think, decent benchmark for when do you have to start thinking about this kind of challenge is roughly speaking when solar gets to about 10 percent of electricity load. Then you start to see duck curve like phenomenon. As of 2016, only California and Nevada were at that point already, and Nevada, of course, selling a lot of that power into California. This was a pretty California specific phenomenon. We have a few other states in the Southeast, or the Southwest rather, that were approaching that point.

If you look out a few years, our forecast calls for solar penetration nationally to grow from a little under two percent, as I said last year, to about five and a half percent. That's a dramatic increase by 2022, but it's going to be relatively concentrated amongst the major solar states, which means that you still aren't going to have a ton of states that are facing a duck curve like challenge, but you will have some. You'll have a few states that are already above 20 percent penetration of solar. Certainly California, but potentially a couple of others. You'll have a number of states, including some in the Northeast, that are up over 10 percent, and then a bunch of states that are emerging as the next set of high penetration markets. This is all to say let's not overstate the proximity of the duck curve challenge across the entire country, but let's also recognize that it's not that far into the future.

What does that mean? Well, I think it raises the question of what do you need to do in order to continue having solar grow? If we're at the point where solar is competitive today, what's it going to take to keep it competitive for the next 10, 20, 30 years? I think it requires a few things to all happen. The first is solar has to keep getting cheaper. I think there's this notion that some people have that solar had to get cost competitive. We had to hit grid parody, and that once we hit grid parody, we're done. Solar has achieved what it set out to achieve, and we'll continue to grow forevermore. I don't think that's probably what's going to happen, in part because the more solar you put on the grid, the less value it's going to have on its own, and that means that it has to continually get cheaper to outrun its value decline. So solar has to keep getting lower and lower costs.

How do you do that? Well, I really like the SunShot Initiative's example of this. The SunShot Initiative is a DOE initiative. We have the head of SunShot Initiative up on stage a little later this morning. Initially in 2012, SunShot Initiative set out a target for solar for 2020, and that was supposed to be basically as a benchmark for utility scale solar, a dollar a watt fully installed or about six cents per kilowatt hour for a project in the Southwest. Indeed, we've hit that, and in fact, we've hit it early.

SunShot more recently said, "Okay, what's the next target?" Now they're setting out to 2030, and they're saying, "How do we get from what their 2016 benchmark was ... About seven cents a kilowatt hour, reality being even a little lower than that today, again, with no incentives ... to a sustainable three cent per kilowatt hour solar cost for utility scale solar, and then they have different numbers for distributed solar, by 2030? What does it take to get there?" They have some, I think, pretty reasonable assumptions built in there. Aggressive, to say the least, but possible. The way that you get there is by reducing panel costs down to 30 cents a watt fixed and with no import tariffs, presumably. You reduce balance to system costs by 30 cents a watt over that period. You get a 50-year lifetime solar project that is bankable with a .2 percent per year degradation, and you drop O&M costs by two-thirds roughly.

Those are ambitious targets. You've got until 2030 to get all these things done if you want solar to be three cents a kilowatt hour at that point, which means that everybody in this room ... Many of you are the solar innovators that can make this happen ... have to continue to push on cost and on performance and on lifetime. Even that on its own probably isn't sufficient, because you can get really cheap solar on the grid and you can keep adding more and more of it, but you're still going to face this over generation problem in the middle of the day, and you're still going to face the ramp in the evening. The duck curve doesn't get solved by very cheap solar. That just let's you keep building more and more because it has enough value relative to its cost.

What else do you need? First, expanded grids. This is one of the solutions that the Southwest is looking at or the West in general, the energy and balance market. Basically the wider your geographic array through which you are trading electricity, the better off you are. The more resources that you've got within your trading area, the better off that you are. The more you have diversity of resources, the easier it is to manage the peaks and valleys of any given resource, including solar, but also including wind. You need transmission to take these resources from the places where they are cheapest to the places where there's demand, but you also just need the markets to expand. That's also a partial solution. I don't think that's a full solution on its own. You still need flexibility.

I think there's one bucket of solutions to the flexibility challenge that you might call traditional resource flexible capacity. The incumbent answer to this question right now in most markets, if you say, "Well, we're going to add a lot of solar to the grid, and we need something to ramp up in the evening," it's probably going to be natural gas. Natural gas is currently our most flexible, dispatchable resource that can ramp up and down pretty quickly, depending on the design of the generator.

There's also some people will make an argument that over the long term, if you have major carbon constraints, that maybe the next generation of nuclear reactor could be flexible or that even something like coal with carbon capture could serve that purpose. Now, of course, both of those far more unproven from both the technological and an economic standpoint, but they all fall into this bucket of traditional resources in one way or another providing the solution to flexibility.

But they're not alone, and there's this emerging suite of next generation flexibility solutions which is, I think, where the solar industry and adjacent industries have paid a lot of attention and are investing heavily over the past few years for good reason. That would be energy storage, which takes generation from one time of the day or one time of the week or one time of the month and shifts it to another time. Or it could be electric vehicles, which soak up demand in the middle of the day if electricity pricing is right and if the charging capabilities are there, or even in a vehicle to grid type of situation, electric vehicles acting as storage on the grid. Or demand response, which initially was there to solve critical peak challenges. We would have demand response events very rarely, but it's evolving quickly to a point where it's customers' loads adapting to fluctuations and needs from the grid via price response.

All these things can also provide flexibility, and I think they're coming faster than certainly many of the incumbents recognize.

I'll give you one example, which is in South Australia. South Australia has made some news recently, but for anybody who isn't familiar with what's been going on there, South Australia has added a lot of wind to the grid ... A fair amount of solar as well, but really, a ton of wind ... and earlier this year had some really painful blackouts on the grid, in part because they had so much wind, but also there was some rules. There was a storm. It shut down some of the lines, and for some people in South Australia, there was a 13-day blackout. That made news in Australia, but of course, it hit the more broad public eye when Elon Musk tweeted about it, which is how we know things are important in this sector. Elon Musk tweets about it and says, "Energy storage can solve this problem," and now all of a sudden, there is a bunch of energy storage getting developed in South Australia. We wanted to ask this question of, "Well, what could energy storage do on the South Australia grid, and how could it manage this flexibility challenge?"

We modeled out what it might look like in 2025 in South Australia with pretty conservative assumptions. Here is a February day. This is all the generation. The dotted line at the bottom is the net load, so that's what the duck curve would normally look like. Everything on top of that is all the generation from renewables. You have at that point, using extremely conservative assumptions ... In reality there's probably going to be more solar and more wind at that point. Being conservative, about four and a half gigawatts of wind, one and a half gigawatts of solar on the grid. So here's your duck curve challenge. In the evening, as solar generation decreases, wind generation doesn't really pick up all that much, and so the result is that what South Australia has to rely upon is imports, which are pretty expensive, and gas peakers.

What if you just wanted to use energy storage to replace the gas peakers and the imports? What would that take? It's actually not all that much. What you could do at that point is because you have over generation of wind during the day, you charge your energy storage with the curtailed wind, you feed that into the grid in the evening, and all it would take in order to completely displace the peakers and the imports is about 400 megawatts of energy storage for hour duration, roughly. Just by way of context, 400 megawatts of energy storage is not that much. There's already 100 megawatts getting built in South Australia now. To imagine that you could get to 400 megawatts by 2025 is not crazy at all. As a result, you have no imports at all, and there's no need for a peaking generator.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think it's crazy to imagine that gas peakers or peakers in general are going to be an endangered resource on the grid before too long. Energy storage, and to a lesser extent demand response, can replace that need in many cases. As the costs fall, they will be the most economic resource to do that.

Stephen Lacey: What we're seeing is just massive scale, and it's coming quickly. IEA projects that we could see 25 percent electricity generation from solar by the middle of the century. Growth trends today suggest that that could be coming a lot sooner. Even some of the more conservative analysis groups are saying that solar could be the dominant source of electricity generation, not just new capacity, but actual generation, in the coming decades. It could outpace nuclear, coal, gas, everything. Shayle, do you think we're prepared for that world?

Shayle Kann: I think largely speaking, we are making preparations for that world. I've spent a lot of time over the past year working with our colleagues at Wood Mackenzie who do a lot of this really global fundamental modeling of the energy sector, and they have a scenario that looks a lot like what we're talking about here. It's called the Carbon Constrained Scenario, and it's basically saying, "What happens if a real dramatic transformation takes place?" In that scenario, we're modeling out solar getting to 17 percent global penetration of electricity generation by 2035, which is more or less on track with what you were talking about, at least 25 percent, if not higher, by mid-century. You can get there. There's a real world in which that plays out. I think what that means ... 17 percent doesn't sound that high, but that's global. There are going to be some markets where it's going to be well above that, and those are the markets where a lot of these questions that we're asking now about flexibility and about seasonal variations and things like that will come to the forefront earlier.

I think that the conversation is rapidly shifting in energy circles, and if you want to zone in in electricity circles and renewable energy circles, it's moving a bit past the question of, "Can solar ever become economically competitive?" and toward the, "When solar does become economically competitive in this location, what do we need to do next?"

Stephen Lacey: Yeah. There's definitely a shift in the literature. More people are grappling with the implications for market design, not necessarily if it will happen. It's just like, "This is happening right now. Here are the potential trajectories, and this is what we need to do to prepare for it." That is markedly different, something that I think has shifted in the last year or two. That has a lot of pretty serious implications for market design and for utility specific procurement. We're going to dig into all of that at Grid Edge World Forum and at the Power and Renewables Conference. You'll probably see Shayle up there walking around on stage, giving some good data, talking about all this stuff. Shayle Kann is our Senior Vice-President, my regular co-host. Good to chat with you. We'll talk with you next week.

Shayle Kann: All right. See you next week.

Stephen Lacey: With Shayle Kann, I'm Stephen Lacey. This is the Interchange, weekly conversations on the global energy transformation from Greentech Media.