depending upon what the level of demand is for the electric but i think we need to remember the constitutional basis for the sherman antitrust act it's rooted in the commerce clause the commerce clause is what tied together not only the because in the decision in order that is relied upon by defendant have police the public utility commission recognized that by promoting solar  customer and says i can start a system for you for fifty five hundred dollars now he is not eligible for the rebate and the explanation quieten gave him is their only lighting it's a certain amount of approved contractors on their list and he's seven or eight i think right outside competitors who aren't on this list that don't have this rebate who cannot compete they cannot make sales with them and all the monopoly is the buying cartel created by quiet island and this is in the record not buying the water heater the customer by the water with the assistance of the electric company that doesn't make the electric company apply here that's what i'm having a hard time understanding what your a raise prices to super competitive levels or has the power to exclude competition but one competitor competitor that it is in the sense if you're on it is in the sense that they're getting the buying price they want through the use of these rebates plans think about what the relationship here is that there is if those people had if they didn't have this surplus charged on their lectures and this program one in place they could use that money to pay paul lucas but because electric company takes that money and controls the buying process they literally tell the customer you can't buy from paul this will help you buy solar but you have to he's outside this trust he's outside of these now there's eight approved contractors work for apparently am perfectly competitive market that in terms and for all the record shows i met greg in terms of the impact on customers are competing with each other pro war eaters some of them probably come from off the island of hawaii and also how the state of ohio so the warriors and shelves as some interstate connection although i don't know that gives you an interstate connection to the alleged misconduct and i would agree with you there's no nothing in the record that indicates there's nothing in the complaint that indicates that we're talking about the solar water heaters that are observed by mr delicious the old system of having to get your water heater usage determined in advance has been done away with and in fact the number think you have to go and take a look at why they had to be qualified as an installer in the first place in order to go through the system and if your why systems to be eligible to buy a water heater where you get the rebate you have to be sure that what is being sold to the individuals is something that meets your specifications that the contractor and there are a bunch of regulations that are necessary in order to be sure that in fact what the p c required which was that there would be a net benefit to society by having a rebate given and that savings from th yes you know mr lucas is is prescribed from getting customers who are entitled to the rebate but that's because he violated the current i don't percentage so you're going to give the seventy percent rebate and if they had a real high price then you'd have to give them more of a rebate and you wanted to you know actually that's not it the reason that there was a maximum price has to do with the concept of the band side management programs as described by the public utilities commission of the state of hawaii demand side management programs are such that if you lower the demand for fossil fuel generated electricity by alternative energy programs such as solar hot water heaters then what happens is you will have some savings the savings are both in fuel and running your regular generators and the savings are not having to build generation to cover that last demand and so but in order to do that you have to make sure that the amount of a rebate that you're giving will be justified by the amount of savings and that was the whole program there was a staff that was hired they were hired to go out and talk to the applican rebate is not nosy the amount that you pay for a system is too great in malaysia and shipped to the savings you'll never amortize the rebate that's given so they set a cap on the cost of a particular you see that in fact there was a net savings to society because if you paid this much restore here you get eight hundred dollars or forty five percent whatever it may be repaid you are in fact saving money for society by doing this the money and that's how you that's how they determine what savings you have to have in order to be able to justify a certain price for a system you how much fuel you save also what is the incremental savings for the   is that in fact the maximum price on the particular system in order to be able to save the amount of money that's necessary by the amount of power that's generated by that system  changed the burden on a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss and i would argue a motion for summary judgment if used to be just the mere possibility of a claim the united states supreme court has now said as of late may plausibility and this case argument that can be made as to why the utility would have an interest in setting math on price here and if you if you joined that with the fact that it was authorized by the state public utilities commission  hundred dollars rebate for all the customers all the sudden they don't care if it's cost effective or not any more you come to they're doing ask for a rebate because you're putting in solar cost effective went out the window that is not a