I raised this issue with you before, and that is that when the project was submitted they talked about the generation of power, but they didn't talk about the transmission of power. I thought that might be problematic from a project splitting perspective, which is not applicable under federal law. So I'll just make that comment.
In terms of the relationship between the lower Churchill and reducing dependence on diesel generating stations, particularly on the coast of Labrador, what do you anticipate there? We have a lot of small communities that depend solely on diesel. It's expensive, you know. It's a fossil fuel burner. Is there any link between the coast of Labrador getting off that dependence and the lower Churchill project? We're talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions with this green energy.