MODERATOR: The theme of our
morning session so far was, of
course, the butterfly effect,
the various sources of changes
that affect us all and connect
us in unexpected ways.
We're now moving to a
second segment, which
is called In Charge.
It is looking at responses to
these kind of changes, and
looking at who has new
influence because of enabling
technologies, and how that
changes the balance of power,
the balance of command,
and all the rest.
I believe that Esther
Dyson is here.
Three years ago, when she held
the last of her legendary
PC Forum conferences, the
theme was Users In Charge.
She actually was ahead of
her time on that, as well
as many other things.
The power shift towards the
individual is being
acknowledged across the board:
in society, businesses,
communication, and
all the rest.
From bloggers to Youtube
performers, we find the
individual being more and
more strengthened by the
technologies of the Internet.
We're going to investigate that
in the sections we're going
to have before lunch time.
We are living our own gospel of
adapting to change-- being
flexible and responding to
unexpected connections.
We're going to begin this
segment with a part that
was originally scheduled
to come after lunch.
For this, we're going to have
the return of Eric Schmidt--
CEO of Google and the hardest
working man in show business
for doing back-to-back
interviews-- will be
interviewing Jeffrey Immelt
of General Electric.
The connective theme here is,
in a way, a sort of most
fundamental power shift and
putting up questions
of being in charge.
Mr. Immelt's going to talk a
lot about the sustainable
energy initiatives, the new
initiatives for power
generation that GE has been
leading the world in.
The corporation's motto, of
course, is imagination at work.
That's going to be one theme
that he'll discuss to lead
off this In Charge session.
I admire the confidence
of both Eric Schmidt
and Jeffrey Immelt.
This is a sign of their great
mastery of the field, that they
would be discussing these
questions of energy in front of
Vice President Gore, who is
sitting here in the front row,
and perhaps the world's
expert on the subject.
Please welcome Vice President
Gore, and welcome Eric
Schmidt and Jeffrey Immelt.
[APPLAUSE]
ERIC SCHMIDT: Thank you.
Thank you all again.
What I thought would be fun
would be to try to understand:
what is it that got you to the
point where you were the first
U.S. CEO to actually talk about
the biggest issue of our time?
JEFFREY IMMELT: What I would
say, Eric, is at the time when
we really got to thinking
about green investing, oil
was maybe $25 a barrel.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Ah,
the good old days.
JEFFREY IMMELT: The
good old days.
We were doing strategic
reviews in 2003 or 2004.
We looked across the
company at what our people
were spending time on.
It was fundamentally
energy efficiency and
emissions reduction.
We had just gotten into the
water business, so clean
water and clean energy.
We sent some teams around to
really study the science
of global warming.
We spent probably a year
talking to customers about
where we stood from a public
policy standpoint, and
what they wanted to see.
We put it all together and
launched it in 2004, and I
would say we had not super high
expectations for what the
response would be at that time.
The products that we considered
to be eco-imagination products
were about $4 billion or
$5 billion in revenue.
That'll be $18 billion today,
so in four years, it's going
from $4 billion or $5 billion
to $18 billion, that's--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Big numbers.
JEFFREY IMMELT: That's when
you can look back and say,
gosh, this was a good idea.
At the time, we thought we
would try to tie together a
series of technologies that
spanned the company and
drive it forward into
public thinking.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Did it feel
sort of lonely at that time?
You literally were on this
campaign, and nobody else
was listening to you.
JEFFREY IMMELT: As an old
company-- as an American
company-- we've been
around a long time.
We probably have more Superfund
sites than any other company,
just because if you're around a
long time, that's what happens.
Society changes its mind
about the environment.
We had lots of suspicious
people around our incentives
when we launched it, but we
felt like the time was right
to try to attempt to do
something like this.
We always wrapped it
in a business cloak.
In other words, we never
saw this as a corporate
social responsibility.
We kind of viewed this as if it
was something we wanted to do,
we want to have hard metrics.
We always measured R&D spend,
we always measured technology,
we always measured our own
reduction of greenhouse gases.
We always made it a
very hard initiative.
ERIC SCHMIDT: It's interesting
that the history of General
Electric-- by the way, it's
General Electric and important
to remember, people like Thomas
Edison, and none of us were
around-- was a big fight
between AC and DC power.
The technology of the time
resolved itself with
the creation of this
extraordinary company.
What's great about your
job is you get to build
really big things.
What's the biggest
thing that you build?
JEFFREY IMMELT: I'd probably
say today a wind turbine
probably takes the prize, when
you look at one of the blades
being several football fields.
You're talking about
some really big things.
I would say the marriage
between the neatest technology
and the neatest looking thing
we do is probably a locomotive.
It's great technology.
It's fun to be around, it's a
good customer base, and it's
a really great businesses.
It's high margin, high return,
and high market share.
These grumpy businesses look
better and better every
each and every day.
ERIC SCHMIDT:
Especially this week.
Let's go back to
the wind turbines.
The original wind turbines--
everybody had concerns about
the blades went too fast, they
would affect birds, and the
motors were burning out.
Your company essentially
solved, as best I can tell,
all of those problems.
Describe a modern
turbine today.
Actually, I really
want us to buy one.
Can I buy one?
JEFFREY IMMELT: We'll
put you in the list.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Is there
a waiting list?
JEFFREY IMMELT: We may,
in 2011, might be able
to squeeze you in.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Why can't you get
my wind turbine to me sooner?
JEFFREY IMMELT: Well,
Eric, since I'm here, you
get a selected place.
Winter turbines were hula
hoops five years ago.
The technology stunk.
The economics were horrible.
Basically, there was no way to
justify their existence without
strong government subsidies.
I think what's happened was
a combination of both
entrepreneurs, but also
bigger players in the game.
At the end of the day,
reliability was a big part of
the cost position, so driving
the cost down was
very important.
Making them more reliable
is very important.
What I would say is that
the production tax credit
has really worked.
The cost per kilowatt hour
might have been 15 cents a
kilowatt hour 10 years ago.
Today it's six, seven, or
eight cents a kilowatt hour.
That makes wind very
competitive with coal
and other technologies.
ERIC SCHMIDT: What's
interesting is you're now
actually getting to the point
where you can genuinely choose
wind over terrible, terrible
choices economically.
JEFFREY IMMELT: Today,
economically, it's about a dead
heat, and that's with a one and
a half megawatt wind turbine.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Why can't
you make more of them?
JEFFREY IMMELT: It's all
about supply chain today.
It's one of the
things we've done.
We'll probably be the biggest
wind turbine player in
the world this year.
The thing that GE has
really done is secure
its supply chain.
We make more, we sell more.
The demand is very global.
We have a $600 million or $700
million order out of Romania.
We've got 4000
megawatts in Turkey.
You really have an immense--
ERIC SCHMIDT: They see
it because they see
the same economics.
JEFFREY IMMELT: They
see the economics.
Some see it environmentally.
Probably the second biggest
market next year will be China.
Wind works.
On the renewable plate,
it's the most reliable.
It's the most economic
technology out there.
My own hunch is that if you
really wanted to address the
challenges, the U.S. would set
a goal to say that by 2020,
maybe 20% of the energy
generated in the country
should be renewable.
That's possible.
Wind would be a huge
player in that regard.
ERIC SCHMIDT: One more thing
about these turbines:
how big really are they?
JEFFREY IMMELT: Well, the
turbine itself is kind of like
this stage in circumference,
and then the blade is
just unimaginable.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
ERIC SCHMIDT: How do you
get the blade there?
JEFFREY IMMELT: If you look in
on the factory, occasionally
you'll get on the highway,
you'll see the largest
flatbed trucks.
Those will have blades on them.
The challenge has been
to make it reliable.
Our reliability has really been
fantastic, and that's been one
of the contributions that
people like GE bring
to the industry.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Obviously, you
have your turbine-- and I'm
looking forward to mine.
[LAUGHTER]
We have lots of space here.
You have to connect
it into the grid.
JEFFREY IMMELT: Is
you credit good?
Everybody's asking
that these days.
ERIC SCHMIDT: We
have good credit--
[LAUGHTER]
ERIC SCHMIDT: --at Google.
JEFFREY IMMELT: It seems
to be a big concern.
ERIC SCHMIDT: We want to
put the wind turbine right
next to the data center to
avoid transmission logs.
It's a separate issue.
What needs to happen-- and
again, General Electric was
very involved in building up
the original grid-- is we're
seeing tremendous capacity
issues with the grid.
In my understanding of the way
the grid works, it's largely
an old-style industrial
model of distribution.
It's sort of heirarchical
power distribution.
It's not very automated at the
level that it could be if
it had been done today.
The most obvious criticism of
wind is that wind doesn't
blow all the time.
An observation is, if you buy
enough of these wind turbines,
the wind actually does
blow all the time.
It blows somewhere
all the time.
No one has ever been worried
about the wind stopping across
the entire United States.
Right?
How do we solve
the grid problem?
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think there's
fundamentally two things that
have to be done, in both of
which we're working
with Google.
I think one is there's going
to have to be more capacity.
If we really want to drive
renewable energy to where it
could be in this country, we're
going to have to have more
transmission and distribution.
The government needs to
supersede in some way in
order to make that happen.
The second thing is that
there's got to be what's quote,
unquote, called 'smart grid,'
which allows it to operate more
effectively, both in the last
mile, but also as you wield
power around the country.
That's fundamentally software.
I would call it kind of
software and gadgets.
We make the gadgets: smart
meters, things like that.
People like Google could
make the software,
which makes the system.
People say that the system
might lose somewhere between
10% and 20% of its efficiency.
There is more capacity out
there to make the grid work
better, and that's the
key to renewable energy.
ERIC SCHMIDT: One of things
that we're announcing today is
that General Electric and
Google are going to be
essentially advocating in
Washington the development of a
new smarter grid to sort
of enable a lot of this.
I think many companies are
going to participate in
this, because it makes
such good sense.
What is interesting about this
is that there are people who
building things like
plugin hybrids.
The characteristic of plugin
hybrid is that you have a
hybrid and you have
a larger battery.
Of course, you plug it in
during the night when
electricity is cheaper, and
then you can in theory send
that battery-based power back
into the grid during the day.
That's actually a fairly
significant signaling and
control problem, and it needs
a smart grid Again, General
Electric is pretty heavily
involved in every stage
of that, of all the
instrumentation from the
control system all the way.
That's pretty interesting.
It turns that we've been
talking about wind because it's
the biggest thing you have, but
in fact, you all build a lot of
other things that
are interesting.
What you do with geothermal,
what do you do in the solar
area, what do you do
in other renewables?
JEFFREY IMMELT: Our approach
has been to be broad in the
energy space, so we basically
have funded all the
technologies, from wind to gas
to coal to nuclear to solar.
What I would say, Eric, is that
we bet big in wind and solar,
and then our expectation is
that things like geothermal
will partner with others on
geothermal as time goes on.
I've advocated both inside the
company and outside the company
not to pick one technology, but
to invest broadly across a lot
of the different technical
spaces, because I just think
you can never plot where the
dynamics are going to go
around the right technology.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Is wind the
farthest one down the path?
JEFFREY IMMELT: Wind is
the farthest-- well, I
would make two points.
Wind is by far the farthest
one down the path.
The other thing I would say,
and again, this is one that
people would disagree with, is
in the end, energy-- the
world you come from, and in
information technology, I ran
our health care business.
These were best in
breed business.
In other words the, best
technology always won in health
care information technology.
That's not true in energy.
Energy is a place where the
second best technology,
well-implemented,
frequently wins.
If you can get the cost down
fast, if you can get the
reliability up fast, then the
basic companies don't want to
take risks, and so there's a
real risk homogenenization
that takes place in the
world that we think about.
That's where energy is going
to end up being a little bit
different, in where utilities
or other people around the
world are going to take wind
and run with it, because
it's good enough.
It's clean.
It's relatively low cost.
There's only so many of these
technologies that can become
big enough and get down the
costs curve fast enough
to be meaningful.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Do you understand
now that you've been doing this
for at least five years-- in
many ways, your career at
General Electric will be
defined by your turning this
giant to solve again this
extraordinarily important
problem-- do you have an
opinion as to why it's been so
difficult for everyone else
to get on the bandwagon?
Is it a failure of
political leadership?
It is the fact that the
people are so used to what
they're currently doing?
Is is money?
Why has this been--
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think if you
drew a map of all the R&D
that's been spent since World
War II-- if you just took a
chart of all the R&D in the
United States since World War
II-- you've got massive in
Department of Defense, you've
got big in health care
information technology, nasa,
things like that, and then
energy is about that big.
It's almost nothing.
Whereas technology has
transformed almost everything
else in this country, because
for 25 years oil had been
priced that $15 or $20 a
barrel, it was hard for
new technologies to
come to fruition.
I just think the
entrepreneurial spirit, the
technical spirit of this
country can be manifested, and
that's where energy takes off.
We're in the health care
business, and we're in
the energy business.
The industry of health care
spends about 7% or 8%
percent on R&D every year.
The energy industry
spends about 1% to 2%
on R&D every year.
The difference between those
two things is like $50 billion
of annual R&D spending.
I have no idea what the next
president's going to do, but
the one thing I would tell
you is that clean energy is
eminently doable and
eminently solvable.
However you put the solution
set: in other words, diversity,
more security, reduce
global warming.
These are all eminently doable
without economic catastrophe,
because there's been no
technology spent so far,
fundamentally, and there's a
lot of technical solutions
to this problem.
There's no such thing as
perfect free markets.
I think it's a market that
needs a little catalyst from
the government to say, here's
what we'd like to see done,
and then I think the
entrepreneurial dollars
will flow to that.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Do you think
that-- what I'd like to do is
ask for questions from the
audience, or comments, in a
minute-- the craziness over the
last week is going to screw
some of this stuff up?
Basically, over the weekend,
you saw all of the
financial things.
You all have GE capital, so you
were exposed to this maybe
a little bit, or maybe not.
What's going to happen now?
Are we going to get set back
for years because of all the
shenanigans that are going
on in the financial crisis?
How's this going to play out?
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think, Eric,
people should be concerned,
but not panicked.
I think so far that the Fed
and Treasury have been
doing the right things.
GE Capital is a part of GE, but
we earned $5.2 billion through
the first half of the year.
We do boring stuff,
fundamentally in
financial services.
I'm proud of that.
That's the best
that you can say.
People need to be concerned,
and this needs to be worked
through and resolved, because I
do think it's hard to have a
springboard to do other things
when everything intersects
through financial services.
I think this is smart for
people to be working on, and
to be concerned right now.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Basically, making
sure that the financial
structures and the funding is
capable, like governments and
so forth, to actually make this
happen, we're going
to need that,
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think that's
absolutely true, not just
for energy, but for a broad
array of different things.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Could we
get some comments?
Mr. Vice President, perhaps you
would like to make any comments
on this, since I think you, in
fact, inspired us to be here?
Sorry to call on you cold.
AL GORE: Thank you.
I hadn't planned to make any
comments, but I'll be glad to.
I just want to compliment
Jeff, for not only providing
leadership within General
Electric, but also having the
political courage as a the
business leader to speak up in
Washington, D.C., and to join
with other business leaders.
There's not as many
as we should have to
advocate policies.
I think it's quite
extraordinary that the
renewable energy tax credit
that gave rise to the wind
energy in the U.S, and is now
giving rise to concentrating
solarthermal-- which is very
nearly cost competitive
right now.
There are a lot of plants under
construction competitively.
Photovoltaics will intersect
with it over the next several
years, as will geothermal.
That renewable tax credit
is being considered right
now in Washington, D.C.
Over the last 20 years,
it's been allowed
to expire 17 times.
While the Congress is voting to
open up offshore oil drilling,
which will have zero impact on
gasoline prices for at least 15
years, as everybody knows, it's
just a Potemkin solution, and
while they're leasing oil
shale, which is a move that
would be game-over for the
climate crisis, they're
preparing to filibuster
against the renewable
energy tax credit.
I can't imagine that.
What can we do to
change that, Jeff?
[LAUGHTER]
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think today
everybody gets clouded because
of the headlines each morning,
but it is important for this
country to have an
energy policy.
That ought to be one of
the first jobs of whoever
the next president is.
Like I said, Eric, I don't
think this is hard.
I think health care is hard.
Solving the U.S.'s health
care system is actually
quite difficult.
Energy actually isn't hard.
The technology exists, and
doesn't have to be invented.
It needs to be applied.
It needs to be
price for carbon.
These are all things
that can really happen.
To Vice President Gore's point:
the production tax credit--
which is one of the
cornerstones to the renewable
performance standards, and to
really driving renewable
energy-- gets approved
every two years.
There's immense volatility
around the supply chain,
which makes the cost go up.
The only reason why it's
every two years is people
want to have their butt
kissed or something.
It's a real process.
ERIC SCHMIDT: That would
be a political statement.
JEFFREY IMMELT: That's
the most polite that I
would talk about it.
It's versus just saying, OK,
we're going to prove it for a
decade, and then we're
going to sunset it.
I'm not for expensive
electricity.
I'm for cheap electricity, but
the way you would do these
things, I think, is to put
them in place for a period of
time, and then sunset it.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Do you have--
it looks like Esther
has a question.
ESTHER DYSON: Sure.
Let me try and the move the
conversation in the direction
Eric was taking it already.
You've been talking about
two markets that are really
imperfect right now.
What is the role of
individuals, presumably aided
by better information on their
personal consumption and their
personal health habits.
There's a lot of information
floating around, but it's not
really specific to
individuals, so they play a
very passive role.
How could they be made more
active in solving some
of these problems?
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think there's
two different answers.
I think with energy, it's all
about working with utilities
to make consumers very
knowledgeable about their
energy consumption,
and what they do.
I think that's all about kind
of the last mile in the home:
making the appliances smart,
and having real economic
incentives for the utility and
the consumer to do a great
job on conservation.
I think that is only beginning.
That's in its nacent phase.
There's not enough data in
the home for consumers to
make the right decisions.
I would say the consumers don't
have to do it proactively.
It can be done passively, and
that technology exists today.
It's just a question of
getting it financed, and
getting it in the home.
I think that's key on that one.
Health care is much
more difficult.
Everybody talks about
information technologies
being the key to
reforming health care.
That is true, but I think we
still have to recognize that
it's basically a business
process issue that depends on
your insurance company, what
city you live in, and
things like that.
That's why I say health care is
going to be more difficult, but
information technology, in both
energy and health care, is one
of the avenues to really
driving cost down
and quality up.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Have you taken a
view on the rate at which-- you
said earlier you have
multiple debts, and
the various solutions.
Have you all taken a position
of a plan, a five-year plan or
a ten-year plan, of which ones
you think will be number one,
number two, and number three?
Does it make sense, for
example, for you all to
announce that in some framework
and to get everybody behind it?
Because you have a better
understanding of the rate of
technology improvement across
these things than, I
think, anybody else.
JEFFREY IMMELT: We straddle a
bunch of different-- we're
part of a group called U.S.
Climate Action Partnership.
We are in various
industry consortiums.
We hang out with Boone Pickens.
We hang out with a bunch
of different people.
I would say our own view
is renewables: big.
Huge.
Much bigger than we see today.
Gas, because it's the cleanest,
lowest cost alternative, and
then I would say we're long in
investing in power storage.
They call that batteries.
If we had three dollars
to invest, those would
be the first three.
For us, because we've been in
it for a long time, we put a
fair amount of money into what
I would call big bet base
load technology: clean
pool nuclear power.
Whether that happens in the
U.S. or not, those are going to
be massive markets in China,
India, and all the other
places where we do business.
We've done a lot to put
investment in those
technologies, as well.
I'd say were renewable, power
storage, gas, big bet base
load, and conservation.
Those would be the five.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes, ma'am?
AUDIENCE: I'm curious as to
where you see the intersection
of the public and private
sectors, especially in
the United States, in
this relationship.
We've seen where legislation
can bring this in terms of tax
breaks at the individual level,
or at a corporate level, but
how much investment are we
looking for from the private
sector in terms of involvement
from the government and
the public sector?
What does that look like
in 15 or 20 years?
JEFFREY IMMELT: I think
the private sector
gets the job done.
I think the public
sector is a catalyst.
It plays the world that it
always plays, which is here's
what we'd like to see happen.
We'd like to see
more renewables.
We're willing to put tax
incentives, or strict funding,
or things like that, but
ultimately this is going to be
solved by the private sector.
The private sector has
spent almost nothing
on energy so far.
If you look at the dollars that
have gone into energy over the
last decade of the venture
capital decade, it's been
almost nothing, so I think
there's lots of opportunities.
I would say this with humility,
as I sit here today: I'm
a lifelong Republican.
I believe in free markets, but
I think to a certain extent, we
worship false idols over time.
There's been no such thing, in
all the businesses we do, that
the government hasn't played
some role as a catalyst.
Let's just be clear about that.
The government does have a role
to play in energy and in health
care as a catalyst for
change, and it should.
I think sometimes we think
the free market is whatever
the price of oil is today.
That's not the free market.
I think we got to be more
facile about how we think about
the public's role, because in
the end, clean energy is both a
technology, and it's a
public policy, both.
ERIC SCHMIDT: In fact, there is
an opportunity right now to be
even more involved, because the
government is going do all
sorts of stimulus packages.
Why don't they spend some of
that money in something that's
really socially responsible--
renewable energy, for example--
because the products are there,
the investments are there, and
the payback compounds
enormously.
Jim.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
Could you tell us what you
believe the role media will
play in sustainability, and
also what the role media will
play with GE in the future,
specifically NBC Universal?
JEFFREY IMMELT: We like the
media business, so it's an
easy one to answer that we're
in the content business.
I think it fits well
with GE in total.
I think from a sustainability
standpoint, it's probably
around the edges from a
standpoint of information, of
how we run our own businesses.
We've had green weeks and
things like that around the
media space, so I don't
think it's going to
be massive in media.
We like the content
business, and are committed
to staying with it.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Our joint friend,
Scott Neely, taught me that
whenever you have a meeting
like this, you should always
turn it into a sales call.
When does the turbine come?
How much does it cost?
Tell me how much do
these turbines cost.
JEFFREY IMMELT: Let me put
it this way: I'll make sure
you get your wind turbine.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I want
the biggest one.
JEFFREY IMMELT: You're going to
pay full price, if you don't
mind, because I'm going to have
to move you up in front of
other people, but we'll make
sure it gets taken care of.
ERIC SCHMIDT: How much
do these things cost?
JEFFREY IMMELT: It's probably
a couple million bucks,
something like that.
ERIC SCHMIDT: A couple
million dollars?
You're kidding!
JEFFREY IMMELT: They're great.
Reliable is good.
They're the best in the
industry, and you can get them.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Like doesn't
everyone here want one?
JEFFREY IMMELT: Last time
I checked, Google wasn't
exactly hurting for money.
It's a good value.
ERIC SCHMIDT: How
many do you make?
JEFFREY IMMELT: The wind
business for us: in 2003, we
basically spent $300 million
to buy Enron's wind business
out of bankruptcy--
ERIC SCHMIDT: Smart.
JEFFREY IMMELT: --and that
business this year will
probably be somewhere
between $7 billion and
$8 billion revenue.
I've done some bad
deals in my day.
This isn't one of them.
Every new technology, we don't
do it because we've got some
kind of emotional connection.
We only do it because we
believe that it could be
low cost and high quality.
We were very skeptical about
the wind business when
we first got into it.
We finally acquired it, just
because we thought at that
level who could go wrong?
ERIC SCHMIDT: I think
you're being polite.
I think it took a lot of
courage at the time.
I remember when gas was
so cheap nobody wanted
these businesses.
It took a lot of courage.
JEFFREY IMMELT: We say green is
green inside GE, and that's
been a winning mantra, but
there's nothing wrong with--
I'd say it's a 125, 130 year
old company-- making money, and
solving big societal problems,
and we do that as well.
ERIC SCHMIDT: I think what I
really want to do is salute
you for not just running a
extraordinary and impressive
company, but taking the kind of
risks that I would hope all
CEOs take to really not only
build a great business, but
really have an impact on all
of us, and you did it first.
Thank you very, very much.
JEFFREY IMMELT: Thanks.
ERIC SCHMIDT: OK.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
