the slide that mr. metz showed that indicated we would have a drop-off in tier one going to the $14 premium, the higher premium product at a higher price, we sought a 14% reduction. we're now under a flat generation proposal that if adopted will see a $10 premium. that brings us more in line with expected participation levels we saw with the $8 premium, the 60% participation levels. one might draw the conclusion that it may increase the participation in our program by tier 1 customers to see the flattening of the raid occurred. >> that $10 would be on top of the now higher rate. is that right? >> the $10 would be the premium the customer would see under pg&e billed structure. >> thank you. >> commissioner schmeltzer? >> i had a couple questions about the survey. how long did the survey take per customer? >> on average between 15 and 20 minutes. >> you said at the beginning you completed -- >> 823 interviews. >> were there a number of people who got halfway through and in the start of losing them? did you do

. >> i have a question for mr. metz on the data. i am trying to understand slide two versus slide 5. it looks like there were split on the idea of paying more for renewable energy. half wanted to and half did not. and guess it is because you are drilling down now and going by teaier that there seems to be ls interest at the higher tiers. >> that is correct. the first side is a purely conceptual question asking if they would pay more in general principle. in five, we're giving them very specific information about what the rate increase would be. their reaction is to that specific context instead of the general. that is where you see this papee steeper creation. >> as we talk about program design, there will be a strategy for the targeted group, which tier it is, which groups will be more inclined to pay more for renewable. i was struck by slide four. it shows that once they heard more about the program, they were more cl