Citing concerns about national security, dependence on foreign oil imports and economic growth, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell (D) outlined a wide range of energy proposals yesterday during a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. As his state moves forward with initiatives to promote coal gasification, hybrid cars and biofuels, Rendell also called on the White House to implement some of his ideas. Plus, he discussed what it will take from the Bush administration and members of Congress to make his proposals a reality.
Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell: Well, it is a pleasure to be here. And before I begin my remarks I want to introduce the two people who are most important in really being the architects of not only the EDGE initiative, but this initiative which we're going to talk about. It is my hope that America will adopt what we call the American Energy Harvest. And the two people who are the prime architects of this were Secretary Katie McGinty, who's the secretary of DEP as you've heard from Rick, who also worked in the Clinton-Gore White House, advising them on environmental concerns. And she has just done a fabulous job in Pennsylvania. She was, of all my Cabinet appointments, the one who was the hardest to confirm, but who now who is probably the best loved by legislators and citizens alike. So that is a great tribute. And Donna Cooper who is our secretary of policy and planning and probably the brightest person in Harrisburg. Now that may be damning with faint praise, but Donna is clearly the brains of our administration and is involved in virtually everything we do and was intimately involved in developing this plan. So with that I'll get started. And I apologize for reading this. I am an extemporaneous speaker. I don't like to read off of a Teleprompter or off written material, but there's enough facts and data in here that I don't want to get them wrong because I think the facts are important to making the case. So forgive me for reading.
In the 1970s America was abuzz with optimism about the potential for clean renewable energy. Solar, wind and synthetic fuels captured the imagination of environmentalists and scientists alike. But these alternative fuels did not capture the marketplace because they simply cost too much for each kilowatt and each gallon they produced. Well times have certainly changed. Today the wholesale price of synthetic diesel fuel from coal is half the price of diesel fuel made from a barrel of oil. The wholesale price of natural gas is three times that of a type of coal based synthetic gas used for industrial production. And twice that of coal based synthetic gas that can be used to heat people's homes. A kilowatt of wind power now costs the same as a kilowatt of electricity generated from traditional sources. And the cost of a gallon of ethanol is only 15 cents higher than the cost of regular gasoline. No long is investing in alternative fuels a fringe idea. In fact, our biggest competitor nation, China, is quickly building synfuel plants to generate fuels from coal and coal waste for transportation as well as for industry. The E.U. is already 5 percent dependent on biofuels for their cars and expects to get to 20 percent by 2020. Ireland's economic renaissance has literally been fueled by wind power.
And Brazil is probably the world's greatest success story. Due to 30 years of hard work, research and investment Brazil will not need one drop of imported oil at this time next year. Think about that. If anyone suggests to you that these ideas aren't ready for primetime and cost too much they're simply living in the past. Three weeks ago executives of America's major oil companies testified before the U.S. Senate. One by one spokesman for ConocoPhillips, BP America and Shell went out of their way to describe the critical role that investments in alternative energy sources will play in the future success of their companies. And as many of you may have heard John Brown, just a few days ago, from BP, made a speech about the investments they intend to make at the Brookings Institute here in Washington.
I venture to say that 30 years ago not one of the world's largest oil companies would have given credence to any of these technologies, let alone make investments in them to diversify their fuel sources. It's clear that the largest energy companies in the world realize that the only way they can offer a reasonable return to their shareholders in the future is by diversifying their fuel sources. But it is unrealistic to expect that these companies, whose profits depend so heavily on fossil fuels, will move fast enough without federal leadership. Throughout history, throughout American history, our biggest challenges have been met by just that type of federal leadership. President Roosevelt took charge and provided the resources to create the Manhattan Project and the National Institutes of Health. President Kennedy did the same to take us to the moon. The atom bomb, the virtual eradication of polio, the Apollo launch these challenges were surmounted because our federal government united the great minds, found the funds and put in place the policies necessary to ensure their success. I've written the president today and asked him to take the lead in creating a modern day Manhattan Project that relies on federal leadership, federal authority, federal purchasing power and redirected federal spending to turn our energy challenge into an economic and political win for this country.
I call this plan the American Energy Harvest. It is a plan to address some of the our nation's most compelling problems; refilling our energy supply, cleaning our air and waterways and cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, improving our homeland security and putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work. And it is a plan based on the successes that are emerging throughout our states, the historic laboratories of change in this nation. This plan, the American Energy Harvest, calls on the federal government to take four common sense steps to change the course that our economy and our nation will take in the next decade.
First, the federal government can and should use its regulatory and legislative power to require greater reliance on alternative fuels by our utilities and energy companies. Second, it can use its purchasing power to stimulate private investment in alternative fuel production and fuel saving technologies. Third, it can redirect subsidies enacted before the energy companies began making extraordinary profits and allocate those funds instead to alternative fuel production. And lastly, it can launch a modern day Manhattan Project by unifying the disparate alternate fuel deployment strategies going on in our states, in the private sector and throughout the vast federal bureaucracy to accelerate the rollout of alternative energy production. BP and Shell and the other international companies are making investments in alternative energy because they've seen the data. And the data is nothing short of startling. First of all, whether we're going to run out of oil anytime soon is not the question. Regardless of who you believe about the size of the world's remaining oil supplies at some point in the next 25 or 50 years the price of extracting oil will make it impractical as a major fuel source. I hope for our sake that the most optimistic scenarios are correct, but even if they are time is running short for us.
And the same is true for natural gas. You cannot miss the weekly articles detailing the shortage of natural gas. The most telling quote I've ever seen is Owen Kean's statement in his role as senior adviser to the American Chemistry Council. He said, and I quote, "We were fat dumb and happy because everybody thought that supply was never exhaustible." The chemical industry, the steel companies and the American family are finding that natural gas prices may soon be beyond their reach. Gas that was selling for $4 per million BTUs a few years ago is now selling for $11 and due to go up this winter.
The energy bill passed by Congress in August took some steps in the right direction by increasing the tax incentives for alternative fuel development, but at its core the bill still relies on old fashioned thinking and old fashioned technologies to do more of the same. For example, the bill provided only $36 million to promote sugar cane based ethanol, the fuel source that is enabling Brazil's energy independence. This investment is dwarfed by the $1.8 billion provided for research on fossil fuels. It continues a very troublesome pattern of providing twice as much funding for oil, gas and nuclear research as we provide for research on clean coal and renewables combined. And the tax credits for renewables are set to expire in just a year or two, which causes widespread uncertainty in the marketplace and discourages investors from making long term commitments. In fact, this bill demonstrates that too many of our nation's leaders are underestimating both the scale of our problem and our ability to solve it. It shows that as a nation we have not yet embraced the painful truth that our nation's future security and prosperity is undermined by our dependence on petroleum and natural gas that originates outside our borders. What we're doing in Pennsylvania offers a vivid illustration of how our economy, our quality of life and our security can all be improved by investing in America's fuels.
In 1859 the first successful oil started pumping black gold in Titusville, Pennsylvania. And a short time later Andrew Carnegie staked his claim in coal and used it to build the American steel industry. Today Pennsylvania companies are sending $30 billion a year outside our state, and in most cases outside our nation, to buy energy. Think of the impact if we could keep that $30 billion in Pennsylvania, if we bought home grown energy. They're doing so because affordable energy alternatives are not readily available at scale. My goal has been to invest in energy development in my state so that these companies will once again spend their energy dollars in our state. This goal of keeping energy dollars at home ought to drive national policy and national investment as well.
From my first day in office I began applying the power of state government to break down barriers that have kept promising energy technologies from being deployed at scale. In Pennsylvania I have five tools at my disposal; state purchasing power, access to the tax exempt financing market, state funds for targeted investment capital, state authority to mandate the use of alternative energy and leadership, my personal leadership to mobilize other investor communities. All of the same tools are available at federal level.
Let me share some examples of how this works in Pennsylvania. Our state is home to one of America's most extraordinary energy pioneers, John Rich, who is building the first waste-coal-to-diesel fuel plant in Pennsylvania and in the nation. Once built, this will be the first new refinery in the United States in almost 30 years. And it will fill tanker trucks with diesel and jet fuel and generate enough electricity to power more than 40,000 homes. Although with the help of Senator Specter and Santorum this plant received a sizable federal loan guarantee, John could not get sufficient private investment unless a reliable market could be identified for the products that his plant will produce.
Understanding that his plant has the potential to be our next Titusville, I agreed to have the state make a 10 year pledge to purchase some of the products of this plant. Of course that was a win/win. We locked in a below market price for diesel fuel and he locked in a purchaser. And on top of that by using the millions of tons of coal waste spread across Pennsylvania this plant will vastly improve Pennsylvania's environment. After making the state's pledge I reached out to private fuel purchasers and asked them to form a consortium that would pledge to do the same. The result was a commitment to purchase all 40,000,000 gallons per year of the plant's output for 10 years. This enabled John Rich to go to Wall Street with firm purchasing agreements. This one energy project alone will put 600 Pennsylvanians to work in good blue collar industrial and manufacturing jobs. It will also help us move our nation towards a more secure energy future.
Purchasing power and leadership were the key ingredients towards getting this done. Beyond what state government purchases for its own use I'm focusing on how we invest our public money. One of the best examples of how we're making strategic energy investments is the nearly $16 million in loans and grants for the development of the first windmill blade and turbine manufacturing plants in the nation. Gamesa is a world renowned Spanish firm that due to our willingness to invest, agreed to open a U.S. manufacturing facility and to open that facility in Pennsylvania. On top of the 600 Pennsylvanians who will work at the Rich plant, another nearly 1000 Pennsylvanians are expected to be employed making wind energy possible for Pennsylvania and for America. When it comes to wind, geothermal or solar energy the resource, as we know, is basically free. So the economic opportunity lies in the production of the materials or the equipment needed to harness that energy. Wind and solar energy production are growing now at 30 percent a year, but most of that growth is happening outside United States of America. And that has to change. Our partnership with Gamesa will help ensure that the wind power industry continues to grow and that Pennsylvania will grow with it.
Pennsylvania, much to some people's surprise, is blessed with some of the best farm soil in the nation. As a result, one in four jobs in our state is linked to our farm economy. So it simply makes common sense to use some of our state's investment capital to stimulate the development and use of biofuels. Again, we needed to plant our state in the center of a fuel source and the fuel manufacturing process to guarantee the highest employment impact. The state provided the critical last dollar in capital to finance a state of the art biofuels injection facility. Every year this plant will replace 3.2 million gallons of foreign oil with biodiesel produced from Pennsylvania soybeans. As a result of our investment this cements us as one of the keystones of the future biofuel economy in America.
Overall since taking office I directed state funds to provide $45 million in strategic investments in our alternative fuel sector. These funds conservatively have leveraged another $200 million in private capital. And as a result our alternative fuel sector now has almost $250 million of new research and production capacity. If that's the scale of investment that one state can make just imagine the implications for a federal investment of existing funds directed towards alternative fuels.
In building a new energy infrastructure I wanted to be sure that we did not replace our dependence on foreign oil by ginning up an aging infrastructure that emits dangerous pollution into our air and water. Because Pennsylvania's home to so many very old coal fire and electric generating plants we were forced to confront this problem sooner than most, simply to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. I'm really grateful because of those requirements because they enabled us to have to meet them and as a result we partnered with our utility companies in a unique way to build new state of the art clean coal generating facilities. Under this plan Pennsylvania will leapfrog past the traditional way of reducing emissions, of adding scrubbers to old power plants. Instead, we're asking the federal government to give Pennsylvania the power to work with our utilities to close down these dinosaur coal plants and replace them with state of the art coal gasification plants that would be subject to strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions and will far surpass federal emissions requirements two years before the final clean air standards go into effect.
Earlier this week in Scranton I announced this plan with an unlikely coalition of partners. Large energy firms and unions stood with me, as did utility companies and environmentalists. Clean coal is a sound policy that unites public and private interests. Another exciting aspect of the approach we're taking in Pennsylvania is that we are employing technologies that make it possible for these agile coal gasification plants to respond to market conditions. If the supply of energy is short and there is room in the market these plants can put the gasified coal waste into a turbine to produce electricity that goes into the grid. Should the natural gas market spike the plants can shift some or all of its production to supplying synthetic gas. If demand for diesel is higher than supply the plant can undergo the second step and liquefy the coal waste after its gasified. And the plant can pour the fuel directly into trucks and get it to industrial users and to gas stations.
By working smarter our nation's great coal states can offer an environmentally sound way to decrease our reliance on foreign fuels and to clean our air. Instead of becoming more dependent on the Middle East for our fuels we can increase our dependency on Middle America. And that sounds a good idea to me.
We all know that our dependence on oil is primarily fueled by the use of gasoline. America is losing the innovation race when it comes to research and production of conservation technologies. The hybrid car shortage is the most compelling example of how far behind the curve we actually are. Fortunately there's plenty of room for new competitors in the conservation sector. And we need to ensure American companies and American workers reap the hefty rewards of this market.
Amazingly when I took office in Pennsylvania there were no real fuel efficiency standards set for our state government fleet. In my first year in office I got rid of our biggest gas guzzlers and directed our fleet managers to move 25 percent of our fleet to hybrids. For too long government fleet purchase decisions have been made on the sticker price of the car alone. Now we're selecting cars that offer the most economically competitive package for the cost of the car and the cost of the usage of the car over time. I believe every state and the federal government should do the same.
Beyond what we purchased I wanted to be sure Pennsylvania utilities were actively investing in alternative fuel production and environmentally sound energy management. A year ago I signed Pennsylvania's alternative energy portfolio standard into law. Our portfolio standard took the best from the 20 other states that have such standards and added two improvements. Pennsylvania's energy companies will be able to meet the mandates we have enacted by investing in conservation and alternative fuel development. Our standard promotes the use of renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, as well as Pennsylvania's own waste coal, coal gasification and coal mine methane. Within 15 years 18 percent of all retail electricity in Pennsylvania will have to come from these sources by law. As a result Pennsylvania now has the largest solar photovoltaic requirement in United States. And our portfolio standard will likely result in nearly 4,000 megawatts of new wind power. Just to provide you with a sense of scale, 4,000 megawatts of wind energy is equivalent to the average power output of one of Pennsylvania's five nuclear power plants.
In contrast to this home grown strategy 59 percent of America's private and public expenditure for oil is spent outside our borders. And that percentage is expected to rise to 66 percent by 2015. To make matters worse the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow. And one big reason for the widening gap is the rising price of oil. Our volume of oil imports grew by about 2 percent last year, but the cost per year swelled by 36 percent. In my estimation we're digging ourselves into a hole that will get tougher and tougher to climb out of if we do not change the way we do business starting today.
To succeed we need to make significant progress in reducing the imports of two commodities, natural gas and petroleum. Right now we spend $250 billion a year buying these fuels from abroad. Imports of natural gas can be cut in two ways, first, by generating more electricity using wind and solar energy. That will allow us to consume far less natural gas. And we can cut our imports by tapping our coal reserves to produce natural gas. We shied away from this approach for years because of the pollution caused by coal. But now that we have clean coal technology it should be put to use. Plants, like the coal gasification ones that we propose, cut mercury emissions by 30 percent, particulate emissions by 50 percent and sulfur dioxide emissions by 75 percent. Even more important, by extracting more energy from the same amount of coal these plants actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming by a third over conventional coal burning.
To reduce imports of petroleum we need to aggressively invest in plants that produce transportation fuels from our reserves. And we have plenty of reserves to tap. Consider that Pennsylvania alone has 27 billion tons of coal reserves. And nationally the estimates are as high as 494 billion in reserves. We must cut our petroleum imports by harvesting energy from the crops grown on American soil. There can be no argument about the sustainability of that strategy in light of what Brazil has accomplished. Combining crops and clean coal is a big economic win and a big environmental win for our nation. But some may ask if there's so many possibilities for progress, what's the problem? Well the issue is speed. Given the profits that are being made in traditional fossil fuels over the short run government leadership and action are essential to stimulate the capital investments needed to build the plants and scale based distribution systems for alternative fuels. The time is now for the federal government to galvanize the best and brightest minds in the public and private sector to chart the road to energy independence.
Step one, the federal government can and should replicate the actions that I and other governors are taking. Right now the agencies of the federal government spend $10 million annually to purchase energy. The U.S. government is the largest single energy purchaser in the nation. From my vantage point that gives U.S. taxpayers tremendous leverage in the decision of energy suppliers. If the taxpayers are assured a competitive price, and remember in Pennsylvania we've got a more than competitive price, if the taxpayers are assured a competitive price it makes sense for the federal government to use its purchasing power to pledge long term support to fuel providers who are putting new technologies in place to tap our domestic energy resources. These pledges are critical to attracting the private investment capital necessary to move this sector of our economy to scale.
Consider if we build 50 coal gasification refineries in the next 10 years, each capable of producing 50,000 barrels per day, that's 2.5 million barrels a day of domestically produced fuel cutting down on our need for imports. Critical to getting these plants online now is the government aligning its purchases with its policies. We can pledge some of the value of our annual federal energy purchase to these new fuels so that we can decrease the risk for critical private investments necessary to build these plants. And interestingly, as we were putting the Rich plan together, the consortium to buy the fuel, we had discussions at their initiative with Defensive Department officials, mid level Defense Department officials. The Defense Department has a section it's looking into alternative fuels. These Defense Department officials were interested in joining the consortium, but obviously did not get the go-ahead from above. But a Defense Department official actually attended our press conference to say what a good development they thought this first new refinery or coal gasification plant was.
Well, cynics might claim that if the technologies are so promising and are economically viable, why won't the market invest in them without intervention by the government? And they might point to the lack of eager capital as a way to suggest that the technology is not ready or is too expensive. In fact, Wall Street is interested in investing in renewable and other domestic fuels, but they're skittish about actually doing so because they're not certain that there will be buyers. I've been to Wall Street. Secretary McGinty has been to Wall Street and we've heard this firsthand. As we did in Pennsylvania we must use the power of the federal government as a purchaser and the leadership of the federal government to link together other purchasers to close the loop for investors. Just imagine if President Bush called some of the private companies who are the major energy users in America into his office and said, "You've got to reduce your costs. America has got to get energy independence. We want you to join a consortium." Just as Secretary McGinty did with the Motor Carriers Association of Pennsylvania and with some metal manufacturers. Imagine the impact of that. Imagine the purchasing power we could dedicate to making these done.
Once this happens the capital will flow to these projects. And as a result dramatically expand our domestic production of clean renewable fuels. And the best news is that after a federal purchasing power helps to get these started, the first five or six plants, and after those plants prove to be reliable and dependable sources of energy the capital markets will jump them without the need for federal purchasing. They just want to see that it works. They want guaranteed buyers. They want their investment secure.
Step two, if the federal government matched or exceeded Pennsylvania's 25 percent hybrid standard for the entire 600,000 plus vehicle federal fleet we could cut our oil imports by more than a million barrels a year. Excuse me, by more than a billion barrels a year. And since the federal government is the largest purchaser of cars in the nation, the largest purchaser of cars in the nation, such a move would make a major impact on the demand for hybrids and higher fuel efficiency cars. The result, the cost will drop, making these great fuel saving cars more affordable. Of course the impact of lowering the price of these cars is that more Americans would buy them and each hybrid car driven begins to cut our fuel demand.
Think about if the federal government said, "In four years we're going to want to purchase 150,000 hybrid cars." Think about how the industry would gear up to producing hybrids. Think about what that would do to the overall price of hybrids. Think of what that would do to consumer purchasing as the price goes down because the federal government has placed this incredibly large order. If states and federal government lead the way through their purchases we make it closer to the goal of one third of our cars sold relying on hybrid or other very high efficiency technology by the year 2015. If that happens we will save another half a million barrels a day.
Step three, beyond the power of federal purchasing the federal government needs to set goals. It should follow the lead of 21 states that have passed laws requiring alternative energy portfolio standard. The federal government does not need to spend one dime to make a sweeping impact on how we transition to a secure energy future. One of the good things in the energy bill was a requirement that we increase production of U.S.-made biofuels to almost half a million barrels per day by 2012. If we double the standard yet again and give producers until 2015 to meet it, 10 years from now we will be producing one million barrels per day of biofuels. And that standard should include a requirement that at least 10,000 megawatts of solar and 100,000 megawatts of wind power are to be deployed.
To support this standard we should make the existing tax credits permanent and ensure progressive net leadering is in place nationwide. It is absolutely essential for us to do this. A national alternative energy portfolio standard would jumpstart alternate technologies like nothing else. Twenty-one states have done it. There was an attempt to do it in the Congress in the last year or two. That attempt failed because there wasn't strong leadership in Congress and at the presidential level. It's time for us to have American advanced energy portfolio standards, tremendous impact without spending a dime.
The last step, step four, like the Apollo mission and the Manhattan Project we need to unite these efforts if we are serious about accelerating our access to the fuels we all know show great promise. The energy policy act became law only 20 days before hurricane Katrina hit our shores. Immediately after the storm prices for natural gas and oil went sky high and so did the profits of the nation's largest energy companies. According to the Standard & Poor's Stock Index, the 29 major oil and gas firms are expected to earn $96 billion this year, up from 68 billion last year and 43 billion the year before. Given the enormity of these unexpected earnings we need to rethink the subsidies provided in the energy bill.
Our energy companies are flush and their traditional lines of business are swelling their bottom lines. The $2.6 billion for oil and gas production incentives are certainly no longer necessary. I think it would be difficult for any energy company president to come before any panel with a straight face and say that those incentives are necessary. So let's redirect that money. And direct it to an investment in the research infrastructure that will have the leadership, diligence and single minded purpose that we know from history can change the path we take to the future. Only this sort of bold national call will guarantee that we put the best and the brightest to work to make it possible to shift from imported oil and natural gas to fuels we make right here at home.
If we did all the things I propose, where does it get us? First and foremost, it will get us off the ruinous path that we're on right now. In 1994 we were importing 50 percent of our oil. Ten years later in 2004 it was 59 percent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that this will rise to 66 percent ten years from now in 2015. Common sense tells you the first thing you do when you're in a hole is to stop digging. If we adopt the American Energy Harvest template instead of imports going from 59 percent to 66 percent by 2015, they would fall to 50 percent. Clearly we won't be done, but this will be the first step in working us out of this significant hole. A problem that's been getting worse every year for the past 40 will start getting better and dramatically better.
And ladies and gentlemen the stakes are huge, but the benefits of getting it right are even larger. The plan I've described enables us to increase domestic production of alternative fuels by 3.5 million barrels a day. And avoid the use of half a million barrels through conservation. The result, based on the current market price of $60 a barrel for oil, is that $87 billion that would have gone overseas to purchase energy stays right here in the United States of America. It will keep more of our natural gas expenditures here as well. In essence this plan helps us stop digging the hole, the hole that otherwise is likely to bury us.
The template that I've laid out today for the American Energy Harvest offers us economic opportunity. It offers near term benefits for the American economy and for American consumers by driving down energy costs and the cost of energy efficient vehicles. And it will slow the hemorrhage of American dollars flowing out of our country to purchase fuel and to keep it at home employing American workers. America needs a sound, forward looking energy policy. And it needs federal leadership. The time is ripe. Republican Senator Mel Martinez saw for himself what was happening in Brazil and said it was, quote, 'a real eye-opener'. John Engler, the former Republican governor of Michigan and now the President of the National Association of Manufacturers, is calling for a 10 year plan to shift to hydrogen fueled cars. The American Energy Harvest will also advance our homeland security goals. By decreasing our reliance on repressive nations for our oil we can take a more active role in urging these nations to adopt democratic values. In fact, America will be more secure when our international relationships are not subject to economic ties that bind us to countries that demonstrate little respect for human rights.
This plan changes our path. Increasing our energy independence will make a secure America and a much more secure world. It will also result in a more decentralized system and therefore secure energy generation for the nation. We all witnessed the extraordinary havoc wreaked by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our current system of centralized energy supply is obviously more vulnerable than we ever imagined. Our plan uses the power of the federal government to enable home grown energy sources of all sorts to feed into our power grid. The basic principle of diversification will result in less centralized power supply and will make our nation more resilient in the face of terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
So this is the plan for the American Energy Harvest, a plan for jobs, security and prosperity. It's a plan that taps our nation's best entrepreneurial spirit. And extracts from our domestic resources the energy we need to fuel our economy and ensure America's place in the world. And perhaps the best thing about this plan is it requires no additional federal dollars. For too long people have come down to Washington with unrealistic plans with unachievable price tags, this plan does not. All that's necessary for this energy harvest to become reality is the political will of our nation's leadership. Thank you.
[End of Audio]