Thank you.
I think the key point is that while we're concerned about the amendments by the Senate, we're supportive of the amendments to CEPA as the bill was originally tabled. They were significant in number and made CEPA even more robust than it was when it entered the process.
I think I mentioned two. One was the demonstrable need piece. The other was about some of the provisions around CBI. I think there were other portions. The watch-list was another example of how there are currently mechanisms within departments to deal with that through “significant new activity” notices.
This would be somewhat redundant to activities that already exist. Throughout the amendments, there were a number that moved us away from the risk-based approach into a hazard-based approach or that added elements into the discussion that were not science- and risk-based.
There was a long suite of amendments from the Senate, and many weren't directly impactful to our industry. I would hesitate to go through others, but those are a few of the highlights in my opinion.