I would just make the general point that there are different technologies that become more cost-effective at different price points. There's no singular correct or right path. It depends on the industry. As you know, there are significant coal-to-natural gas transitions in certain jurisdictions. There are different incentives that lead to different things.
Really, I would say it's the range of measures. Carbon pollution pricing creates a particular price signal, but it works in conjunction with other regulations and complementary measures. I would also just note—and maybe carbon capture and storage is one good example—that carbon pricing rewards and recognizes the investments that are made by industry to improve their performance. There's an ability to get surplus credits for clean performance, which can be traded or sold for economic benefit. There is that incentive to improve performance. It doesn't necessarily determine which trajectory a firm will take—that will be shaped by a range of factors, like business decisions that are obviously informed by a whole range of considerations—but I don't think it would be fair to frame it as a sort of disincentive for a particular kind of clean technology.
Do you want to add to that, Matt?