I'll answer the second question first, which is simply that we don't see less rigour. Of course, people can interpret it as they see fit, and we don't predict that we're going to do anything less rigorous in terms of meeting our responsibilities, balancing social, environmental, and economic concerns.
As we outlined in our brief, it's a very important direction in consultation with stakeholders and also engaging with first nations well in advance. All of our companies are doing that in an attempt to do the very best we can to accelerate the possibility of reaching solid agreements, even before the processes come to the regulatory forum—and that is a common practice that we take. So industry has done that. We think it's the right thing to do.
The consequences in terms of the changes that we're going to have to undergo as a sector could be significant. Large projects, obviously, gain most of the attention but there are many medium sized and smaller projects that make up the day-to-day work that has to take place. Getting the process aligned so that the right amount of review is taking place, and indeed that we do engage with good science people and that people have a chance to bring forward their concerns and issues, we're in favour of, but we think that given the number of projects to replace some of our aging transmission across the country.... We've seen examples in the last few years of problems that have occurred there, and getting permission to do transmission projects is one of the challenges that we face. But dealing with the replacement of our fleet to address environmental air emission requirements is also going to cause a fairly substantive change in the type of generation that we have.