On electricity, if you talk to the industrial accounts about what their number one objective is, it's reliability. They say, before price, before anything else, make sure my supply is absolutely reliable and that I'm not going to have sudden interruptions, because that's extremely costly. I think we do an excellent job in that regard.
In terms of the price of an electron or a molecule of gas, I think the picture we've been painting is that we are competitive. There are regional realities, which certainly appear to me difficult to fix through policy intervention without having probably unwanted side effects. So I think what you get down to is what I was trying to talk to earlier: what the practical things are that companies that supply electrons can do with their customers to ensure they have the right technology, optimized for the price ranges and circumstances they need, and that they have, within the regulatory environment—because, as I pointed out, for electricity we have regulated prices.... Are we able to make the investments in energy efficiency program offerings and recover those costs? Will the regulators allow us to make that investment, or will they say no, that's an additional cost that everybody bears and they don't want us to make it? This then denies industrial customers the opportunity to have that partnership.
That's a real issue. In Ontario, where the market was restructured, there came to be a disincentive to investment in energy efficiency by the very entities that are directly connected to the customers. Regulators are starting to deal with that and recognize that they have to create incentives or opportunities to earn back the investment you make as a company in that partnership. I think there are opportunities at that granular level for us to be strong partners in helping consumers use the product in the most efficient way in their own lights.