Speaker 1: Last time on drilled.
Speaker 2: All of a sudden, they are public enemy number one.
Speaker 2: They're now big coal, they are passing preemption legislation throughout
Speaker 2: the United States. They are a climate villain, and this
Speaker 2: is a new experience for many of those lobbyists.
Speaker 1: That was Charlie Spatz, a researcher with the Energy Policy Institute,
Speaker 1: talking about the gas industry grappling with its new role
Speaker 1: as a climate villain. If you're somewhat new to the
Speaker 1: climate issue, or even if you're not, it might be
Speaker 1: surprising to hear that the gas industry has historically thought
Speaker 1: of itself as a climate hero. I myself remember falling
Speaker 1: for it way back when, fifteen years ago or so,
Speaker 1: I was living in San Francisco and would see buses
Speaker 1: touting themselves as clean emissions vehicles running on natural gas.
Speaker 1: And I remember thinking, oh, that's good. The early marketing
Speaker 1: of gas as green really worked for a long time.
Speaker 1: How is that possible when gas is a fossil fuel.
Speaker 1: I know, well, a whole lot of people who were
Speaker 1: concerned about climate change fifteen or twenty years ago, we're
Speaker 1: very much on board with the idea of fossil gas
Speaker 1: as a quote unquote bridge fuel.
Speaker 3: But natural gas should be a bridge to renewables. And
Speaker 3: that's healthy, and that's good. That's clean energy that reduces
Speaker 3: greenhouse gas emissions. But natural gas also can play a
Speaker 3: prominent clean role.
Speaker 4: The fact that we're transitioning from coal to natural gas
Speaker 4: means less greenhouse gases. If you're concerned about pollution, if
Speaker 4: you're concerned about CO two mission, if you're concerned that
Speaker 4: this country imports two thirds of its oil, then at
Speaker 4: the end of the day, you have to say, I
Speaker 4: need an alternative to a worse environment, and I need
Speaker 4: an alternative imported oil, and the only scalable answer that
Speaker 4: is natural gas.
Speaker 1: The prevailing wisdom, even as recently as twenty ten, was
Speaker 1: that cheap, abundant gas would get us off of coal
Speaker 1: quicker than any other alternative energy source that would deliver
Speaker 1: rapid carbon emissions reductions and improve air quality, and bonus,
Speaker 1: fossil gas or natural gas could bolster the stability of
Speaker 1: solar and wind, kicking in when needed to keep energy
Speaker 1: flowing consistently. When fracking started to really boom in the
Speaker 1: mid to late two thousands, the situation got a little trickier.
Speaker 1: Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, which supported the Bridgefield
Speaker 1: idea nationally, had to contend with its own member groups
Speaker 1: in heavily fracked states like Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas, who
Speaker 1: were seeing firsthand what this bargain meant. Sierra Club executive
Speaker 1: director at the time, Carl Pope, had to defend his
Speaker 1: policy of supporting fracking.
Speaker 5: Well, it has caused friction, and it's going to cause friction.
Speaker 5: There are people who don't agree with the policy because
Speaker 5: they think the Sierra Club's role should just be to
Speaker 5: oppose anything that has any invat our mental consequences. They
Speaker 5: don't think our role should be to say, Okay, here's
Speaker 5: where we think we should get our energy.
Speaker 1: That's him talking to NPR in twenty ten about his
Speaker 1: group's support for natural gas.
Speaker 5: We see it as the cleanest of the fossil fuels.
Speaker 5: What's happening with the new discovers of natural gas is
Speaker 5: that parts of the country that historically didn't pay any
Speaker 5: environmental bill for energy production because they didn't produce energy,
Speaker 5: are going to start paying a bigger share of the bill,
Speaker 5: and people don't like that.
Speaker 1: Two years after that interview came out, an exclusive report
Speaker 1: in Time magazine rocked environmentalists with the news that the
Speaker 1: Sierra Club had accepted twenty five million dollars in funding
Speaker 1: from Chesapeake Energy, the leading fracking company in the country.
Speaker 1: Although it stopped working with Chesapeake after twenty ten and
Speaker 1: told Time that it had turned down an additional ten
Speaker 1: million from the company. The news did serious damage to
Speaker 1: the credibility of the bridge Field narrative. And then the
Speaker 1: story is about frackings. Environmental impacts started to really pile up.
Speaker 6: Neighbors in that Colorado town are given the heat as
Speaker 6: well the round water there is apparently contaminated by natural gas.
Speaker 7: A Colorado homeowner is living in fear because their tap
Speaker 7: water is flammable.
Speaker 8: Does anybody have any idea what the cumulative effect of
Speaker 8: that much fracking material and radioactive material is.
Speaker 1: More recently, the idea of gas as more climate friendly
Speaker 1: has taken a hit as scientists have learned more about
Speaker 1: the fact that drilling, processing, transporting, and burning gas all
Speaker 1: released methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Because methane is more
Speaker 1: short lived in the atmosphere than co two, gas advocates
Speaker 1: have tended to downplay its impact on climate change, but
Speaker 1: what it lacks in longevity, it makes up for an
Speaker 1: intensity causing around eighty times more warming in the short
Speaker 1: term than CO two, so it's heating things up faster.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that, researchers have discovered in
Speaker 1: the past decade that there's a whole lot more of
Speaker 1: it being ripped into the atmosphere than the oil and
Speaker 1: gas industry has ever admitted to or reported.
Speaker 9: So I'm Sharon Wilson, and I'm senior field advocate for Earthworks.
Speaker 1: Sharon Wilson goes by the Methane Hunter, or sometimes Texas Sharon.
Speaker 1: She spends most of her days going around Texas's pipelines
Speaker 1: and oil fields with an optical imaging camera that uses
Speaker 1: thermal imagery technology to make otherwise invisible methane emissions visible.
Speaker 1: Wilson's relationship with fracking is personal.
Speaker 9: I worked for the oil and gas industry. I was
Speaker 9: uncomfortable with the ethics of the industry as a whole,
Speaker 9: and that was before I knew about any of the
Speaker 9: environmental impacts.
Speaker 1: That discomfort eventually led Willilson to leave the industry and
Speaker 1: move out to Wise County, a rural area north of
Speaker 1: Fort Worth, Texas.
Speaker 9: I bought forty two acres next to the LBJ National Grasslands,
Speaker 9: and I didn't know that that's where George Mitchell, the
Speaker 9: father of fracking, was experimenting with how to economically frack
Speaker 9: oil and gas from shale, and so I had a
Speaker 9: ringside seat to that adventure. And my air turned brown
Speaker 9: and my well water turned black. So yeah, that made
Speaker 9: me mad.
Speaker 1: Wilson had a young son at the time and felt
Speaker 1: she couldn't subject him to all that pollution, so they
Speaker 1: moved from the country to the Dallas Fort Worth area,
Speaker 1: to a town called Denton. There, Wilson started working with
Speaker 1: the local govern on a fracking band. Then she went
Speaker 1: to work for Earthworks to work on fracking across the state.
Speaker 1: In the course of that work, she made an open
Speaker 1: records request to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and
Speaker 1: got back videos of optical gas imaging that had been
Speaker 1: done at well sites and oil and gas facilities.
Speaker 9: That made visible the invisible pollution coming from these facilities.
Speaker 9: So when you look at it without an optical gas
Speaker 9: imaging instrument, you just see tanks and pipes, But when
Speaker 9: you look at it with the optical gas imaging camera
Speaker 9: that I use, you see big clouds of pollution coming
Speaker 9: from these sites.
Speaker 1: Wilson was hooked. She realized these images could expose the
Speaker 1: true cost of fracking that the gas industry was hoping
Speaker 1: to hide.
Speaker 9: I felt like it would be a great tool to
Speaker 9: use to help people prove that they were being impacted,
Speaker 9: because what industry does is they will blame the odors
Speaker 9: that you're smelling and your health impacts on cleaning products
Speaker 9: in your home, or the candles you were burning, or
Speaker 9: the dog. They will blame anything but the elephant of
Speaker 9: the oil and gas facility that is plopped down next
Speaker 9: to your home. So I saw it as a way
Speaker 9: to help advocate for people who were impacted.
Speaker 1: More and more advocates like Wilson started to point out
Speaker 1: the enormous amount of methane being released into the atmosphere
Speaker 1: from pipelines and well sites, and frontline communities began to
Speaker 1: push back on the impacts the industry was having on
Speaker 1: their water and air. Suddenly, gas went from being part
Speaker 1: of the solution to part of the problem, and that's
Speaker 1: something the industry is having a hard time adjusting.
Speaker 10: To Good morning, everybody, If folks are ready, yes, we
Speaker 10: go ahead to start the next panel, which is entitled
Speaker 10: what do the election results mean for One Future.
Speaker 1: This is Pete Sheffield, vice president and chief sustainability officer
Speaker 1: for Enbridge Energy. They're a large Canadian pipeline company that's
Speaker 1: been involved with both the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing
Speaker 1: Rock and Line three in Minnesota. He's talking here to
Speaker 1: the One Future Coalition, a group of more than fifty
Speaker 1: gas companies that have pledged to work together voluntarily to
Speaker 1: reduce methane emissions. This was the group's post election call
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one. Audio of this and a few
Speaker 1: other industry meetings was leaked to the Energy and Policy
Speaker 1: Institute and shared with DRILLED. The audio cuts out here
Speaker 1: for a second as Sheffield is introducing this panel about
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 10: As we look at what happened last week, do we
Speaker 10: think natural gas is positioned part of the problem or
Speaker 10: a bit of.
Speaker 1: Bot It's hard to hear, but he was posing a
Speaker 1: key question, is natural gas positioned well as a solution
Speaker 1: or as part of the problem. Welcome back to DRILLED.
Speaker 1: I'm Amy Westerveldt. This season, we're digging into how the
Speaker 1: gas industry, from oil and gas companies to pipeline companies
Speaker 1: to utilities is grappling with its new role in the
Speaker 1: climate conversation today, the battle plan, how the industry is
Speaker 1: strategizing to fight the climate movement.
Speaker 7: Stay with us, what exactly would be the stance of
Speaker 7: a Biden Harris administration toward the Green New Deal. You
Speaker 7: have two minutes uninterrupted course.
Speaker 9: So first of all, I will repeat, and the American
Speaker 9: people now that Joe Biden will not banfracking.
Speaker 7: That is a fact.
Speaker 1: You might remember the question of a fracking ban coming
Speaker 1: up a lot during the twenty twenty presidential election. That
Speaker 1: question was driven in part by all the city and
Speaker 1: county gas bands announced that same year. By mid twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, cities and counties in nineteen states had passed
Speaker 1: local gas bands. In California alone, there are now fifty
Speaker 1: local bands, and New York is considering passing the country's
Speaker 1: first statewide gas ban. The fossil fuel industry doesn't often
Speaker 1: get caught off guard, but gas bands seem to have
Speaker 1: actually managed it. We get a rare glimpse into how
Speaker 1: the American Gas Association reacted to the flurry of local
Speaker 1: gas bands because they discussed it in detail at their
Speaker 1: twenty twenty conference, and the audio of that was leaked
Speaker 1: to the Energy Policy Institute and then shared with drilled.
Speaker 1: Here you can hear the Association's vice president of Advocacy
Speaker 1: and Outreach, Sue Forester, blaming the climate movement's strategy to
Speaker 1: her gas colleagues. The American Gas Association is the trade
Speaker 1: group for gas utilities.
Speaker 11: This isn't about lowering emissions, it's actually about fossil fuels.
Speaker 8: And so Britney is.
Speaker 11: Kind of a coordinated, cohesive plan of attack from the ENGOs.
Speaker 11: They have a lot of big funders, and if they
Speaker 11: get funneled to studies that are ven used by the
Speaker 11: grassroots folks to use in states and at local city
Speaker 11: council meetings, and then they have pre written codes.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this is pretty amusing because what she's talking
Speaker 1: about as though it's really nefarious and geo's coordinating an
Speaker 1: attack on the industry by funding studies that are then
Speaker 1: used by grassroots folks at the state level and in
Speaker 1: local city council meetings, having pre written codes that they
Speaker 1: can just hand off to lawmakers. Everything she's describing there,
Speaker 1: that's the industry's playbook, and particularly the right wing playbook
Speaker 1: funding universities and particular studies, check, getting those studies into
Speaker 1: the hands of local advocates, check writing codes and laws,
Speaker 1: and supplying them directly to lawmakers. That is the entire
Speaker 1: purpose of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a pro
Speaker 1: business group set up by the Koch brothers years ago.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why it took environmentalists so long to
Speaker 1: follow the same blueprint, or why industry would be caught
Speaker 1: off guard when they finally did. But here we are
Speaker 1: back to Forrester.
Speaker 11: What I really want to impress upon everybody here is,
Speaker 11: don't think this is just a.
Speaker 8: Coastal elite issue.
Speaker 11: We're seeing activity in Columbus, Ohio, Lawrence, Kansas, Detroit, and
Speaker 11: even Austin, Texas. Yeah, that's right, Texas, the home of
Speaker 11: oil and gas, which is quite surprising.
Speaker 1: Again, it's highly unusual to see any part of the
Speaker 1: fossil fuel industry caught off guard by the climate movement.
Speaker 1: So it's strange to hear an industry lobbyist scrambling to
Speaker 1: react to an effective climate strategy. But of course it
Speaker 1: has not taken the industry long to figure out a
Speaker 1: counter strategy. Part of that is a push to pass
Speaker 1: preemptive laws that prevents states or any cities or towns
Speaker 1: within them from ever passing a gas ban, so essentially
Speaker 1: bans on bans. But of course the word ban is
Speaker 1: never anywhere near these laws. They're all about so called
Speaker 1: freedom of choice. Here's Forrester again.
Speaker 8: So the idea behind choice is to really get ahead
Speaker 8: of the localities, the big cities and counties, and say
Speaker 8: we are allowing our customers the right to be hooked
Speaker 8: up to any kind of energy they would like. So
Speaker 8: again preserving energy choice, because we're trying to beat counties
Speaker 8: and localities from passing bands that then force the hand
Speaker 8: of governors and state legislators to pass something nationwide.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that they call these choice bills because they're
Speaker 1: effectively removing a choice from voters before they've even thought
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 11: We now see the environmental side talking about indoor air quality,
Speaker 11: telling you that your stove is dangerous because it emits
Speaker 11: things and it's causing asthma and kits, and so that's
Speaker 11: one of the big pooses that we're working on right now,
Speaker 11: is trying to tell you that's not through any kind
Speaker 11: of cooking emits things.
Speaker 1: Well, it's technically true that any type of cooking emits things.
Speaker 1: As Forester puts it, cooking with gas emits at least
Speaker 1: twice as much particulate matter. That's the type of air
Speaker 1: pollution that's linked to everything from asthma to shortened lifespan
Speaker 1: as electric. Cooking with gas as opposed to electric also
Speaker 1: produces nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde. This
Speaker 1: is just one small example of how the gas industry
Speaker 1: is working overtime to wrestle back control of the narrative
Speaker 1: on gas and in this case, the gas industry, and
Speaker 1: again that includes oil and gas companies like Chevron or
Speaker 1: Exon Mobile, as well as smaller companies like Pineer Fuels,
Speaker 1: but also pipeline companies like Enbridge and Energy Transfer Partner
Speaker 1: and utilities like Sokel Gas in California, Orever Source in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: They're trying everything they can to make the bridge feel
Speaker 1: narrative stick just one more time. Forrester explains here what
Speaker 1: her organization, the American Gas Association, is doing on that front.
Speaker 8: Folks understand that the climate is changing, but they don't
Speaker 8: necessarily know what to do, and so that void is
Speaker 8: where AGA is really going to step in to really
Speaker 8: change the narrative and say that we are part of
Speaker 8: America's clean energy future, and we are here to make
Speaker 8: sure that we can support our customers having choices and
Speaker 8: options that are cost effective and reliable.
Speaker 1: You can hear similar language in a recent TV ad
Speaker 1: from the American Petroleum Institute.
Speaker 9: Renewables are great, but we need natural gas too. That's
Speaker 9: what we use now, so when the sun is down,
Speaker 9: you have a backup.
Speaker 1: You sound just like your granddad.
Speaker 12: Plus, emissions have gone down because natural gas is the
Speaker 12: number one source of electricity, Grandma, American energy is leading
Speaker 12: the world.
Speaker 9: Natural gas equals a cleaner future.
Speaker 1: It's a fine line for the gas industry because they
Speaker 1: want to be part of the clean energy future, but
Speaker 1: they also don't want when in solar gaining too much
Speaker 1: ground because that means selling less gas. It also means
Speaker 1: being stuck with a bunch of gas infrastructure they can't use.
Speaker 1: So they've come up with a solution, which we talked
Speaker 1: about a bit in our last episode. Renewable natural gas
Speaker 1: or RNG, essentially methane captured from industrial dairy or meat operations,
Speaker 1: sewage treatment facilities, or landfills on the surface. It's an
Speaker 1: okay idea except that it kind of helps greenwash industrial
Speaker 1: ag But the gas industry is using it to keep
Speaker 1: gas in the mix, despite the fact that, according to
Speaker 1: global consulting firm ICF, the most RNG could ever hope
Speaker 1: to provide is around sixteen percent of the gas supply,
Speaker 1: and critics say that's a wildly optimistic number. Here's Forester
Speaker 1: again on the role of RNG in the industry's plans.
Speaker 8: We also have positive legislation in Minnesota and Colorado on
Speaker 8: RNG trying to make it part of the fuel mix
Speaker 8: and to keep electrons moving through our infrastructure, which is
Speaker 8: great news on that front.
Speaker 1: So the industry's positioning now hammers on three key points.
Speaker 1: First freedom of choice, then gas is part of a
Speaker 1: clean energy future, and finally affordability. Again here's Forster.
Speaker 8: Our financially challenge communities. We want to make sure things
Speaker 8: stay affordable for them.
Speaker 1: This is something that's showing up over and over again
Speaker 1: in industry advertising and pr. The green transition is going
Speaker 1: to be expensive. The environmentalists don't care about you, but
Speaker 1: we do. And it's not just the message itself. It's
Speaker 1: important who the messenger is too. That's why Forrester explains
Speaker 1: the importance of recruiting influencers in key sectors to sing
Speaker 1: the praises of gas.
Speaker 8: We have convened the National Group of End Users and
Speaker 8: Consumers to help carry our message. Again, we keep hearing
Speaker 8: from our message. Testing the industry. Talking about industry isn't effective.
Speaker 8: We really need our end users like AARP, the restaurants,
Speaker 8: home builders, labors and agriculture farmers specifically are the more
Speaker 8: effective voices for us out there. So we talk twice
Speaker 8: monthly with our coalition partners. We have used them to
Speaker 8: testify in cases in front of the legislatures as well
Speaker 8: as at city councils. We are also increasing our outreach
Speaker 8: to include local mayors, legislators, African American groups, and all
Speaker 8: kinds of different folks so that we have more friends
Speaker 8: on our side willing to talk about how great natural
Speaker 8: gas is.
Speaker 1: And just like those pesky environmental NGOs Forrester was complaining
Speaker 1: about before, they're meeting with local officials and bringing studies
Speaker 1: in sample legislation to them as well. There are currently
Speaker 1: nineteen states with preemptive laws banning gas bands. They all
Speaker 1: have similar language in them, drafted by the gas industry,
Speaker 1: often by utilities in particular who have really been leading
Speaker 1: the charge against electrification. Here's Charlie Spats from the Energy
Speaker 1: Policy Institute Again.
Speaker 2: I've spent a long time researching the electric utility industry.
Speaker 2: They have a pathway to decarbonize their electric generation. But
Speaker 2: when you're looking at the gas utility industry, they are
Speaker 2: essentially a fossil fuel company. They're selling and distributing a
Speaker 2: product that is not easily decarbonized, and worse for them,
Speaker 2: there's solutions on the table that can more or less
Speaker 2: replace the need for their services.
Speaker 1: That gives gas utilities in particular a real motive to
Speaker 1: fight against energy transition. And it's nothing new for utilities
Speaker 1: to be climate obstructionists. Doctor Lea. Stokes, a political science
Speaker 1: researcher at the University of California at Santa Barbara, wrote
Speaker 1: a whole book about how corrupt many US utilities are
Speaker 1: and about their role in blocking climate policy for the
Speaker 1: past several decades. It's called short circuiting policy.
Speaker 6: Way back in the early twentieth century, there was a
Speaker 6: person named Samuel Insul and he's actually the guy who
Speaker 6: came up with the way our utility system works. He
Speaker 6: invented the idea of a monopoly utility that had a
Speaker 6: public Utility Commission that would oversee it at the state level.
Speaker 6: And you know, there are quotes from that time that say,
Speaker 6: for a decade, he was the most powerful business operator
Speaker 6: in the United States.
Speaker 12: And that really is how it is.
Speaker 6: State by state, these companies are often the most most
Speaker 6: powerful company in a given state.
Speaker 1: And Stokes points out all that power can make them
Speaker 1: pretty dangerous.
Speaker 6: If you take Arizona Public Service for example, you know
Speaker 6: they are extremely corrupt. They have spent over fifty million
Speaker 6: dollars on elections for their own regulator, fighting against a
Speaker 6: clean energy ballot initiative. And you know, it's hard to
Speaker 6: get clear on how terrible they are because they are
Speaker 6: funding the campaigns of a lot of politicians in that state,
Speaker 6: and a lot of community groups, you know, soccer clubs,
Speaker 6: probably United Weight campaigns, you know, social welfare organizations. These
Speaker 6: groups take money from utilities, and so they end up
Speaker 6: being a kind of octopus that has its tentacles in
Speaker 6: all different parts of the state.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, a lot of utilities are
Speaker 1: able to avoid rigorous scrutiny.
Speaker 6: So I think it's hard for people in a given
Speaker 6: state to get clear on how corrupt and problemat these
Speaker 6: monopoly utilities are, and then.
Speaker 12: Across the whole country.
Speaker 6: Because there's so many different utilities in different states, it's
Speaker 6: hard for people to get the same sort of big
Speaker 6: picture as they would for a company like Exxon that
Speaker 6: operates across the whole country and the.
Speaker 12: World, or Chevron.
Speaker 6: You know, these companies like Southern Company are in a
Speaker 6: couple states, or First Energy, right, and they're also changing.
Speaker 12: Their names all the time, right.
Speaker 6: Or they have subsidiaries, so you've got Southern Company as
Speaker 6: the parent corporation, but then they've got Georgia Power, for example,
Speaker 6: or Alabama Power, and so it's a really complicated area
Speaker 6: that makes it hard for people to pay attention.
Speaker 1: That's certainly been the case with utilities fighting gas bands,
Speaker 1: But people are starting to pay a bit more attention
Speaker 1: as some particularly egregious tactics have been coming to light.
Speaker 1: So cal Gas, the utility that fought the gas measure
Speaker 1: in San Luis Obispo, for example, has been at the
Speaker 1: center of a few other scandals for its aggressive tactics
Speaker 1: against gas bands. It's currently facing a potential ten million
Speaker 1: dollar fine from California's Public Utilities Commission for, among other things,
Speaker 1: using its customers utility payments to fund a front group.
Speaker 6: These just spam texts out of nowhere that say, you know,
Speaker 6: urgent alert Santa Barbara City is going to ban gas
Speaker 6: and destroy the grid and drive up energy prices.
Speaker 12: Contact them immediately.
Speaker 1: Come back next week for that story. Drilled is an
Speaker 1: original Critical Frequency production. Our producer is Jules Bradley. Our
Speaker 1: editor of the season is Jude Joffy Block. Sound design, mixing,
Speaker 1: mastering and original music throughout this episode, including our new
Speaker 1: theme song by Peter Duff. Fact checking by wood An
Speaker 1: Yan our First Amendment and hen me is James Wheaton
Speaker 1: at the First Amendment Project. Our artwork is by Matt Fleming,
Speaker 1: and of course the show is reported and written by
Speaker 1: me Amy Westerveldt. If you'd like to support our work
Speaker 1: and get access to ad free episodes and exclusive merchandise,
Speaker 1: check out our Patreon at Patreon dot com slash Drilled.
Speaker 1: You can also sign up for our weekly newsletter, which
Speaker 1: includes bonus episodes, via Drilled podcast dot com, and you
Speaker 1: can follow us on Twitter at we are Drilled or
Speaker 1: me at Amy Westervelt. Please also leave us a reading
Speaker 1: or review wherever you're listening, it really helps us find
Speaker 1: new listeners. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.