things that come about that at wholesale prices? there isn't a whole lot of difference in what actually is provided in the cost of how were or what it costs us to provide power at the retail for the secondary or primary level. what happens with customers that receive wholesale service from san francisco they avoid most of the public purpose program charges. they are able to avoid the costs of low income programs,ho income free home weatherization, energy, battery, solar support. the very values to me are why i live in the city. very much san francisco values that we would want to support. taking the wholesale service we receive a lower cost service and we are able to have that

difference and unfortunately not avoid a number of programs are ones the city would strongly support. we respect the right to provide service. [please stand by] stand by.

-- to allow folks that would like retail-like service to take retail service, and those that would like to have a wholesale customer experience to continue in doing so. i have a number of things that i think that were not accurately characterized from the first hearing. i think that i would just say that the decision against ferk last week primarily was an admonition to a regulatory body from a court that has passed several of these in the past and said that the administrative agency has failed to provide

strong enough written decisions in favor of its opinions and it was merely a remand to that regulatory body to strengthen their own decision-making process. it did not find or reverse any of the precedents that ferk has ruled in favor of pg&e and it merely said that you must provide more evidence in your written filings. this is something that particular court has done to ferk on many occasions recently and has expressed its frustration with that particular agency. so it actually doesn't express any opinions pg&e or the matters at issue. we will continue to discuss these. my strong preference to find a settlement. we have tried hard in the past to settle these issues. the last time we almost had a bargain was in 2015.

with previous administrations. it was very challenging for pg&e to reach an agreement with the city. the city family doesn't always agree with itself, and we end up negotiating with each members of the family separately. so what we would ask of the city is in order for us to resolve these issues, to come together, and to bring us one voice that can help us to have that discussion and we can work through these matters. so we look forward to answering any of your specific questions and thank you again for having us. and i do want to say that anybody that's interested in coming to the thursday sessions and seeing how we sit down and roll up our sleeves and work through the projects, we would welcome anyone's presence in this meeting or any other member of the public, frankly that, wants to sit in and to go through -- you know, the challenging task of making sure we're aligned and getting projects moving forward. >> thank you. i have a number of questions.

i will say that it is true that different members of the city family often disagree, but i think that when it comes to pg e and the level of really below-the-belt actions, you brought this city together more than it's ever been brought together before. and we -- we speak with one voice when we say what you are doing -- your actions to delay these projects is unconscionable. it's not okay. and it is extremely consistent with your behavior that have perhaps now -- you're going on your third criminal indictment for the way that you treat your customers. so i'll just start with that. first question to you -- first let me make a comment and then a question.

the way that you characterize the d.c. federal court's decision is inaccurate, because pg&e intervened in the case. joshua levenberg was there arguing on pg&e's behalf, presenting any evidence that you have that requiring primary loads for projects that require a relatively low amount of energy have nothing to do with safety. so you couldn't convince the d.c. court that there were any safety justifications for requiring that 720-square-foot box on every third street. you live here, mr. johnson. do you want to see one of those boxes on every third street taking up parking spaces in your city? do you want that -- that 720-square-foot box in your child's classroom?

ironically, i tried to get air purifiers that are about this big in every classroom in san francisco. and i was told -- and i tried to get those because of pg&e wildfires that you have started and the air quality that our children are breathing. and the teachers didn't have enough room to store them in the classroom. but you want to put -- equivalent of one-bedroom apartment on school campuses to require safety upgrades? that's the opposite of safety. tell me the detailed safety reason why you need primary equipment to power small projects in san francisco? >> so let me speak first to the unmetered load because i don't think that was characterized.

>> first answer my question. why is a 720 primary load box -- 720-square-foot box required for every approximately three street lights in san francisco, when we never had any safety or reliability problems with them in the hundreds of years that we have been operating them. what is the safety problem there? >> there is no requirement to do that. that's the characterization of our filing in that requirement. we've never said anything to that effect. >> so you're not requiring primary equipment for every -- for the 25,000 city-owned street lights and -- we require metering of those and if they need wholesale power, they need that equipment. we provide a retail service to

meet their needs. there is no unmetered load at wholesale level. again, this is the issue of wholesale versus retail offerings. every other municipality that takes street light service from us, from unmetered load, does that as a retail service. that is not a wholesale service if you would like to be a wholesale provider and be a utility, with that comes obligations and responsibilities. so it's -- >> so, in other words, you are saying -- >> the desire is to provide to get wholesale prices for retail services. >> so -- because of the act, and because san francisco has a special set-up established by congress in 1914, we are an independent utility that under pg&e's own contract received wholesale prices. so you're saying to us under this new filing with ferk, you

are saying to us that we are going to hold you hostage if for the first time in hundreds of years, you do not install this on every street in san francisco, we are going to increase your prices through the roof. you don't call that anything less than hostage holding? you know that san francisco -- you live here. and you know that we do not the space to safely put a 720-square-foot box every three blocks in san francisco, so you are forcing san francisco, contrary to the agreements that we had and contrary to a legacy from the raker act from 1914, you are saying that if you don't

like the way that we do this, then we're going to require to you do something that is dangerous -- dangerous for your residents. >> so there's nothing unique about the raker act that provides wholesale service. it is provided to any entity, city or private that, wants it. and many take advantage. primarily we see water agencies that have large pumping load that choose to install their own generation on their side of the meter. and all of those entities have switch equipment and -- and participate as a wholesale entity in that market. so there's nothing unique about the service. we offer it the same and what we are trying to do in this filing is to make sure that those rules are 100% clear to all and that everyone can plan accordingly and then choose the option that best meets their service need. if it's a retail from pg&e, so

be it. if it's wholesale from the city, so be it. it's very important to remember that the sale of electrons is not the way that pg&e makes money as an entity. at the end of the day if we sell less or more electricity, that is chewed up annually by the state. and so, you know, from our perspective, it's the city's opportunity to choose whatever makes the most sense for its customers. >> supervisor ronen: mr. johnson, a couple things. number one, you are arguing that this is a safety matter, not me you argued before ferk and before the d.c. courts that the reason that you're acquiring this equipment -- requiring this equipment of san francisco is of safety. and now you're saying it's not safety. it's that you're mad that we pay a wholesale instead of a retail rate and pg&e in typical fashion wants to earn an extra buck off the back of californians.

compromising safety, fairness and rationality of what's required to -- to power public amenities that serve the people of your city. so i once again want to ask you the question -- i don't want to argue about the wholesale and retail price. you said in your documents to ferk and to the d.c. circuit when you intervened in the lawsuit that the reason that you require primary equipment is because of safety reasons. explain to me those safety reasons, because you didn't do it sufficiently to the court and we need to hear those reasons. >> so i'll quibble with one characterization there and then i'll get into the safety issue. the d.c. court took issue with

ferk's explanation of our safety issues, not with our -- >> i don't want to -- we could go back and forth all day. i just want an answer. >> not the utility. >> what are the safety issues? >> let me give you an example. so coming home from an event in december on the east bay, i was exploring some of our facilities out with our crews, we had an outage down at mission and spear. so i'm coming off the bay bringe and i come down and i was in the holding to go to a job site. so we go down there and the men and women of pg&e, there are about three crew there is, they have to climb into that manhole and deal with infrastructure that's over a hundred years old down there and make sure that's safe for them to work on and fix. we had matrix event coming up at

the water bar there that was raised to us by various public officials. in a few nights, you know, i thought about the downtown core and the ferry building and how that area has been devastated by the pandemic. but i have to ask men and women in these shirts to go down in that hole and make sure that they can fix that equipment. and that everything is turned off and switched appropriately. so we will take a complex network and we'll go to a central control facility that's located in concord and an operator there has a map of the system. a digital map. and they will move switches and they will try and find the smallest way to isolate where the problem appears to be, and they will -- they will narrow that down so we can affect the fewest customers. we can get some back right away and we isolate where those issues are. and they are sure that we have that isolated and that wires no

longer live when those folks climb in there and start working on it to repair that equipment. when we have the equivalent of jumper cables attached to our lines all over the system on the secondary level, or where major customers who may be taking activity on their own system have no intervening equipment that allows us to isolate customers that we do not have contact with -- they are not pg&e customers when they take wholesale service. they are customers of the city and we don't know what equipment they might have behind that equipment. >> i don't think that you're answering my question. we're not talking about -- >> you need a point of operation and safety in order for us to work on the system and that is what this is about. to switch gear to isolate equipment when you're working on that system to make sure that the public isn't affected by that and that the men and women that work on that equipment witn

do so safely. >> mr. johnson, we are talking about apples and oranges right here. >> no one in the united states -- no one else has these types of arrangements that we have in san francisco. and we're trying to -- >> can you please stop and answer a question. thank you. mr. johnson, i'm sorry that you haven't maintained -- thank you i am sorry that you haven't maintained your equipment to standards that you feel is safe for your employees to go in there and to make repairs when there are problems. that's par for the course with your company and it's the reason that you have faced bankruptcy and it's the reason that we've had -- you have caused more environmental destruction in this state than perhaps any other single event. the question that i have for you is in new projects, not old projects with 100-year-old pg&e equipment, in new projects that are creating essential amenities

to protect the environment, something that we actually put money and infrastructure into doing here in san francisco to make our schools safer, to make our streets safer, and to have the only trauma one hospital in the region, and to have open space during a pandemic for our children, elders and families to play. those are new projects. you are requiring an amount of equipment that you do not require anywhere else. you don't require it for yourself. you don't require it for any other municipalities. you don't require it for any other customers. you require it only for san francisco-based projects and you have not given us a single -- you have not given ferk, you have not given the d.c. court, and you have not given the city and the county of san francisco a single coherent safety reason

for requiring that expensive and burdensome equipment that have delayed the implementation of projects that have literally saved people's lives. and you do it over and over and over again. it went from bad to worse. it's getting progressively worse. supposedly patty poppy, the new c.e.o. of pg&e is all about safety. well, please give this message to ms. poppy. you are making dangerous situation after dangerous situation in this city and county of san francisco, because you're mad that we have a wholesale rate that is historic and that has allowed us to provide the safety and the -- the safest, and the cleanest and the most reliable energy. one more time i will ask you, can you give me one coherent safety reason why primary equipment is required for these

68 san francisco projects that require an incredible low amount of electricity? i'm still waiting. don't obfiscate. i don't want to hear about existing projects and, you know, your brave electricians going down and fixing your very old infrastructure. that is complete obfuscation and it is not answering my question answer my question, please. so whether the system is brand new or whether the system is in the older parts of the city where the networks is, the answer is the same. to operate the system safely we need clear zones of demarcation and we need to understand what is actually on that system in order for it to operate safely and for people to respond to that system safely. and there is no other utilities

that provide these services. we have a long track record in san francisco of those facilities. these change tariffs and these changed systems are ways for us to move forward with a safer system for everyone going forward. and we are going to have to make that transition at some point. and in order to improve safety in the city and improve this company's safety track record we need to draw that line. >> you know, i don't -- i honestly as a san francisco resident, father, i hope that you can look your neighbors and your family's friends in the face and tell them why they can't use their park, or why their friends don't have affordable housing. or why our city can't go electrical and help the environment. two more questions for you before i turn it over to my colleague. i understand that you just tried

to play this game because what it is is a game and it's a very dangerous one with ucff. and the new research facility. because they are ucff, and perhaps because they have the governor's ear in a unique way, a governor and a legislature that you've had to turn to time and time again for a bailout, you have finally reached an agreement with them. ucff was at the point of losing our trauma-one center status if this project didn't get energized, if their research facility didn't get energized in time. but luckily you said that you were going to work it out. now, unfortunately, ucff hasn't had the level of experience with pg&e that the city and county of san francisco has had, so i worry that you will not keep your promise. can we have your assurance today on the record that pg&e will follow through and perform any necessary electrification work based on the terms of settlement

that you agreed to with ucff to get that project energized in time for them to save their trauma one status? >> we will get into details of that, but we are happy to sit down with ucff or the s.f.puc and hash out details to meet -- to meet any particular deadlines. we have every intent -- >> you already did. you reached an agreement with them. >> we have made -- i do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of any project in the city, there are hundreds, and i can't commit to specific timelines and actions in those projects but i will make every good-faith effort to sit down immediately after this

and we will attend to that item at our thursday meeting this week and make sure that we are aligned across the city after pg&e on the status of that project. and i will be happy to do that. >> well, all right, we'll be sure to sit down with the c.e.o. of the hospital and the chancellor to let them know that you would not go on the record agreeing to maintaining the terms of that agreement publicly and making sure that our only trauma one hospital in the city remains open and available to deal with any emergency -- emergencies that come their way last question -- >> so i will -- i will make a commitment -- >> your new role as regional v.p.? >> so i just want to add to the hospital thing -- the hospitals are a very high priority for me i spent the last couple of years ensuring that the 35 hospitals that pg&e serve in the high fire threat area, have individual plans for each one of them to be

exempt from the power shutoff program. so hospitals are always, especially in this time, our highest priority and they will continue to be and we'll do everything to that project to the best of our effort to meet that equipment. i just need to look at the details with both the hospital and the team before i can go on record and support that -- i have a colleague, my colleague darren may want to add a few words on that project much. >> . >> i'm sorry. supervisor roben -- >> mr. cline, can you answer -- will you give a public declaration that in order to make sure that ucfs maintains general hospital trauma one designation that you will meet the terms of the agreement that you made to electrify their research facility on time as

requested? >> yes, and i believe that -- yes, we will. it is not technically an agreement. it is a contract that goes through the system. so i believe that mr. johnson got a little, you know, when you talk about an agreement, there were a lot of different things and a lot of different issues at ucfs as you are building new things. so it's just in some of the definitional terms, so, yes, we are going to meet the terms of the contract. we have a contract with ucsf and we will perform the duties that we are obligated to perform. >> okay, mr. cline. thank you. your title? >> i'm a manager of local government relations for the bay area for pg&e. >> okay, thank you. and then, mr. johnson, my last question before i turn it over to my colleague anne peskin. how long have you been the regional vice president? >> since june of last year. >> and during that time have you

sat down with any sfpuc staff, any personally -- any staff from any of the departments or anybody from the city and county of san francisco to discuss any of the 68 projects that are currently delayed because of your unreasonable and unconscionable requirements? >> i get regular updates from the teams that meet with those projects and i'm generally aware of the issues that we are working through and we have been on numerous job sites but we haven't done a systematic review of the projects. >> i suggest that you do that and then you look your children and your neighbors in the eye and say what you're doing is okay. mr. peskin? >> thank you, supervisor ronen. mr. johnson, i'm inclined to like it because we share our first same names. but with that, i thought that

i'd change the subject to something entirely different which is not the world of wholesale and retail and hostage taking and 68 projects, but something really simple. which is the lights -- pg&e lights and not sfpuc lights have been out for the better part of the year. can you tell me when pg&e can get my lights back on? >> so we -- supervisor, i am familiar with that project. we have a very old type of lighting equipment that exists throughout the bay area. some cities own the same equipment. and it's street light technology. there are only a handful of individuals that handmake the replacement equipment for that. we are expediting in the next two years the replacement of all of that equipment on our system i put my foot down internally and it's time for it to go. and we need to take that out. and it's very hard to get parts

for replacement of that. and so we are see wag it takes to energy a project and change out that technology. that will be a fairly disruptive technology on columbus that will require some major trenching. so we are working that in conjunction with the city right now with the intention of hopefully we can mutually cooperate and find out a way to do that is as little disruptive as possible and really get that fixed. because it's not a sustainable thing and that's a public safety issue from my perspective. >> thank you. and then not to make a gratuitous comment, but i do believe that there are two entities that have actually gotten the very complicated city with all of its entities -- the mayor, the board of supervisors, various departments on the same page. and that would be -- and we speak now with one voice through both of those entitys and that would be the company that you work for and a company called

recology, and to the extent that things are complicated with historical patterns of electrical ownership within the city and county of san francisc)

we have half the street lights out for a long time and the city is dealing with public safety issues and dark commercial corridors are not helpful. mr. johnson, can you commit to putting your foot to tell me why we still have no lights there and also, putting your foot down was the expression you used in making sure we get those restored and we're trying to just get that out of the system and i assume recognize that the provision of street light

service is also very complex here in san francisco with the mix of city owned street lights and pg&e street lights so we did do, a number of years ago, an inventory so we now have that well-marked and demarcated with the sfuc and the street lights they have responsibility for. not specifically familiar with those and i'll have -- we'll follow-up with your office and we'll get back to you on the status of those. >> thank you. some issues are complex and sometimes they're sim pleasure than they seem and i want to say in looking into this and adhering the back and fourth on this and there are a lot of complexities and there are also at the end of the day and we're talking about retail pricing or wholesale pricing and i think a form of i would say negotiation

around that issue that is depriving some critical services in our city of the power they need so i won't retrade the ground and thank you for going over this in detail and i will y this, the proud democratic socialist on this board and there are moments when the failure of the private sector and the absolute needs for the. >> my colleague supervisor preston knows i'm not a democratic socialist and we agree and i think in terms of public utilities being a public

good and healthcare and childcare and we are on the same page of that. i will ask mr. johnson if there is an e-mail address that we can follow-up on because i actually have several streets and directing 7 that are in that category and it's a little bit harder because we have all the of the right of ways and alley ways behind houses that are not so much but they do pose a significant safety issue and we have seen, in during the pandemic, and if we can follow-up with a list, i would appreciate it and i understand that we're understaffed just like puc is but you know, since we are customers, wholesale or

retailer i would i appreciate you. >> thank you. and before we open the item up for public comment i wanted to give an opportunity to puc general manager, or assistant general manager for power barbra hail to make any remarks or ask any questions. >> supervisor, i don't have any questions. obviously, i would just say i appreciate this board having this hearing. we have engage in with

conflicting messages and what has happened in the past. i can tell you, sir, with respect to things going forward, as far as the puc is concerned, the person who and the person in this agency who is going to make a decision that get run by the mayor's office and the board, is me and i have a longstanding commitment to making sure and working in collaboration with this board so ensure we get reliable, safe public power here in san francisco and that we work together to make sure that rate payers and our residents are fairly treated and supervisors, you can make sure that that longstanding commitment that i've had working with you from my prior work is steadfast and will remain one of my stop priorities in this new information and i will keep you informed as to the progress that we make in our on going conversations with pg&e.

>> thank you general manager her herrera. >> there's one issue i want to be clear on the record and thank you for the additional time. mr. johnson referred to san francisco's paying a wholesale rate and avoiding certain contributing to middle income programs and the like and i wanted to make it clear that san franciscos through the hetch hetchy programs through our rate payer programs not avoiding those obligations at all rather embracing them with the programs we offer and the discounts we provide to our low income residential customers but i wanted to make sure it didn't

hangout there. there's a lot of other things we can talk about but i'm sitting down with mr. johnson and having a opportunity to do those through. >> i do want to thank you mr. johnson for coming here and presenting and being willing to answer questions that has not always been the case with pg&e in the past. so hopefully with your new leadership, at the company, you can be more engage in these projects because the truth of the matter is pg and he's bee hiv year is causing real harm to real people and these are not abstract issues. projects are being delayed months and months at a time and the estimated cost of san franciscans is $19 million when we stopped a worldwide pandemic and needed every dollar to do so and we needed every bit of outdoor space to give people mental health reprieve and we

needed every affordable housing unit so people can get off the streets and into safe housing. we need our hospital to work and functioning. we needed our public transportation system more than ever. you just survived this pandemic with us. it's not true we need primary equipment for these projects. you know that and i know that. it's a way for pg&e to squeak extra dollars out of the city and county of san francisco for its own profits and it is not ok. san francisco spends $20 million a year providing reenumeration for the service that you provide and to us and we are happy to

take it off your hands if you don't want to offer that wholesale rate to us. there are 2,000 projects that have secondary service that's have run safely for decades in the city. you know that this is not a matter of safety. and so trying to hide behind that and pretend it is is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. we expect better. the one last question i had for our city staff is, i was looking into mr. johnson's background and i understand you come to pg&e from the california public utilities commission and we've been talking about ferc and having to gain some accountability for this corporation through this federal

appointed body but i'm just wondering if the california public utilities commission, where we have a lot more direct relationship through the governor where we can do some advocacy there can intervene and require that the company acts in a more up right manner with the city and county of san francisco. mr. gur era, can you answer that question? >> yes. >> we are in front of the cupc in terms of making our request for the evaluation study in terms of the value. so they're differing involvement but each has its own

respective -- it's own respective areas. i will say and i don't know this off the top of my lead with the unmetered load issue, if ferc made a decision, if they were to go along with pg&e and there's action that would be needed by them cpuc and the involvement is related but in a different way. like i said, the evaluation valn study. >> madam chair, if i can turn it over to you to open this item up for public comment. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. madam clerk, if there's no other questions or comments from my

colleagues, let's please take public comment now. >> thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we have seven listeners with three in the queue. if you unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is garcia and i sit on the sfpuc citizen advisory committee representative directing 9 and i am a chair of the purchase submit' since late 2019 and elected chair of the cac last month. thank you supervisor ronen for sponsoring this hearing and the board of supervisors for reaffirming the 2018 resolution last year to continue to report issues that highlight pg&e

deplorable behavior and do real harm to san francisco and the residents. to continue and grow interaction issues our primary reason why the sfpuc passed a resolution supporting. the take over of pg&e transmission and distribution assets. i continually rewind the cac it took 70 years to end the spring valley water monopoly of the local water system and hearing highlights why we can't wait decades to end the anti competitive business practices even with the recent dc circuit ruling and if which want critical and essential services while trying to address climate changes issues and thank you power aging agm and barbra hail and deputy agm for your consistent and with me and

lastly thank you chair mill gar and other members of the committee for your sfpuc c.a.a. appointments who hit on the power subcommittee. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker. >> yes, hi, this is chris tanevance and i'm calling today on behalf of the haiti ashbury association so supervisor preston has referenced the project that i was concerned about. we had construction that took place along the haight-ashbury corridor from 2016 until 2021 as the work was completed in early 2021 and we still have half of our street lights are unpowered. the contractor has completed their work and the polls are

installed yet the north side of the street and the south side of the street is one block is not powered at all and these are pedestrians scale street lights that have very low amount of power to them and they're environmentally the latest technology and i will they cost about two and a half million dollars and to power them requires maybe just hundreds annually or a few thousand but i was told the reason we did not have the power on in those street lights is because pg&e was requiring equipment that would total about half a million dollars additional cost to the project and so obviously, i'm hearing what supervisor ronen and others are saying about pg and a primary equipment for secondary youth and i really

appreciate this hearing of transparency so why it's now more than a year that we've had the project completed the polls and called and they're still unpowered. thank you so much. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, that being to your attention that pg&e was created when this city stopped 30 miles south and pg&e was created to bring in the lines. the public housing in past got free electricity and so did san francisco the military. and the municipality. we have to sit down with pg&e and ask them how much money are

they making from our public housing? how much money are they garnering from the presidio in san francisco. how much money are they garnering from the municipal city hall and the using pg&e. we have to have tough negotiations. do you know who pg&e has on the outside. willie brown? do you know what willie brown likes, money. we need to sit down with pg&e and make a check list of why they're bullying us. they are bullying us because you know, we don't know our own history and because with people like willie brown. he has a finger in every pie. a dirty finger in every pie.

the corruption in this city has reached saturation points and the general manager from the spfuc knows about this but he is talking in generalities. the supervisors are talking in generallal tease. they do not know the history. >> let's take the next speak. if you want to speak on item number 3, press star 3. >> hi, my name is wendy williams and i'm a small business owner in district 4. i'm hoping a new bakery at 3928 irvin street and purchase an electricity oven as opposed to a gas one because of that decision, i need an electrical upgrade. i've been communicating with

pg&e in last february and my contractor has been trying to coordinate with them about the equipment her electrician needs to order for the project which has a two-month lead time and will cost me $30,000. which is a lot for a small business and that's just for the equipment. so, as we say now the construction of the business could be i will wait on pg and he to upgrade the electrical. i hope this isn't a case and i appreciate the sf supervisors holding pg&e accountable. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. next speaker, this is the call last caller in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors, today i'm calling for the city to in its desire to embrace

city-owned clean affordable power and embrace nuclear power. clean offshore nuclear power is the renewable source we need in our city and have needed in our city for a very long time. we can see in europe, where they've embraced nuclear power in france and have 100% renewable. where germany has chosen not to do so. they can't even manage to stay warm. they need russian gas. were they to lose their lives what i have to tell you, is that it's not just the germans, it's not just the french that are depending on nuclear power to stay warm, we all are. it's the majority of heat that feeds the earth. our earth core has a nuclear react are running in at all times. it keeps us run and it's most of our heat not the sun that most people would imagine.

so we're looking for a clean source of power to run our civilization, one that already does. one that is safe to operate. one that's been proven so. we should look to what we can build here. china is building dozens of nuclear reactors all over there country. and we have the option to build a micro nuclear react or here. [please stand by]