When we evaluate a project, we look at it from all aspects of sustainability. The first thing it must have is innovation.
Innovation can be that it's new intellectual property being developed, or it can be that you're taking a technology that exists today and redeploying it to address a need. That's the very first thing. If there is no innovation, the SDTC does not fund it.
The second but equally important point is that there has to be a market and a need. Sometimes it's a push; sometimes it's a pull. It is up to the proponent to be able to express that--and also for us to validate that there is indeed a need.
The next one, of course, is that even though there may be a push or a pull, there must be the economics that will make it feasible. So having a business plan and a pro forma of how they're going to arrive at that are the things that need to be demonstrated.
The last one, which is equally important, is that it has to have environmental benefits. If it's just a technology that is good for the economy, we would not address it because of our mandate. It has to be clean water, clean soil, clean air, or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Our preference would be that it's a combination of those, because you get more for your investment.
When you take a look at each of those criteria, you can see that both of these projects have met them. The argument is whether there is sufficient requirement for the investment or industry can do it on its own. That's where we evaluate whether the investment is there, the level of risk required, and also whether industry is willing to step up to the table to evaluate it and say that if this is demonstrated they'll adopt it and take it to market.