At the risk of belabouring this, I think the intention here is just to make it clear that the goal isn't getting to net zero in 2050. It's acting in an immediate and dramatic way to reduce emissions. We heard testimony that expressed some concern about the way the deadline was being framed.
To Mr. Albas's point, absolutely, it's a point of communication around the intent, more than it is something that's binding, but it's still something I'll support for clarity.