So it says that instead of doubling capacity, which we did, we should have tripled capacity, when instead we developed more solar, because it was cheaper, and therefore more to efficienct. Personally, I'm glad to see we doubled wind capacity, and spent money more efficiently on solar. I don't understand why everything has to be framed as a negative. I think I used too many commas in that first sentence but I'm sticking with it. Honestly, you guys are lucky I'm proofreading at all.