When discussing Hawaii’s solar tax credit, one must first understand that a solar system is an individually owned, operated and distributed power plant that substitutes for a centralized power plant. It substitutes free sunlight for fossil fuels over its 30-year energy generating life.

The state does not "lose" $70 million per year by funding the credit leading to a "revenue shortfall," as stated in recently published comments. Solar systems return more to the state than the credit monies refunded over their life. Individually, I go from a negative-$1 situation to import fossil fuel for energy, to a plus-$1 situation because I produce my own energy. If local, I spend my energy dollars saved in our economy. Anti-solar commentators also need to address Department of Taxation administrative rules adding to the credit cost in their "shortfall" accounting.

The "poor versus rich" language commentators use to frame their wealth-transfer discussion is politically charged rhetoric. That said, in spite of their wealth transfer impact, most Americans dutifully pay their taxes to achieve policy goals broader than their self-interest, including clean, renewable energy goals. Most significant, data that I reviewed does not support "poor subsidizing rich" assertions. The reverse is true. Do the "poor people pay the utility for the added costs of the rich people departing the grid?" No data support this assertion.

Anti-solar commentators must begrudge the wealth transfer to Hawaii households installing solar systems, wealth transferred from the "poor" purveyors of fossil fuels. Otherwise, why not comment that installation of a solar system leads to a positive wealth effect to these households?

Other assertions are made that the solar credit results in "public expenditures for private benefits." If the solar credit is exceptional in this regard, which it is not, shouldn’t we wean the tourism industry from public support? To quote one anti-solar commentator, such "a public policy would keep state budgeting a fair and stable proposition for the long term."

Anti-solar folk state the solar credit expenditure has "zero public benefit." So legislators, past and present, supporting the solar credit are ill-advised idiots? Rather, the solar credit supporters in the Legislature did their benefit/ cost math better than the anti-solar commentators.

"If it is cheaper than an alternative, it makes sense to import petroleum" in our globally interdependent world. I would agree with this assertion if for any analysis we strip both renewables and fossil fuel subsidies from the analysis, internalize all external costs and perform a dynamic, life cycle analysis incorporating energy generation cost trends. The commentators’ beloved fossil fuel costs would look dramatically different.

Anti-solar folk equate Hawaii’s "Clean Energy" policy with North Korea’s "self-sufficiency development strategy." Wow! A more apt and appropriate comparison is South Korea’s shipbuilding industry, which started in the 1970s with heavy state support and is now the world’s leader. So is it a globally interdependent complacent world or a dynamically competitive world driven by self and national interest?

As a public policy, the solar credit stands out as one of the most egalitarian. No population sub-group is targeted. It is not another corporate give-away. The solar credit primarily targets Hawaii households, a veritable implementation of trickle up economics. This is why the solar credit achieves multiple public and private goals.

In the context of all said herein, one wonders what special interest group the anti-solar credit folk represent — certainly not Hawaii households — and ask: Are their comments a marketing gimmick for some hidden political agenda?