the third is hetchy cip. let me address those briefly. it does make sense to me intuitively that 100% renewable product would cost more under current circumstances than -- and 18% sounds right. i am not willing to pay another $84 a year for the same power knowing it will be greener. i am not and i suspect other folks are not and that probably goes to the upgrade. what is not clear here is if we had a non-100% of renewable product, how much that would cost. i assume the previous efforts have looked at that. i do not know what the last number on that was. i would assume that is not as high as 18% because it is not constrained in the same way. if that were closer to pg&e rates, you get a higher top generate. you would be able to see a revenue stream sooner and we would be able to build the grenoble's. having options there rather than just the 100% product may be of interest, but i am sure there is more in history on that but i do not want to be burdened with but i am sure i will hear more about trade with regard to their rates to other city