Thank you, Chair.
Just to comment on this and to get some clarity from the witnesses, to me, this clause is very similar to subclause 4(2) in application, where it “does not apply to damage to the nuclear installation”. To me, these two clauses are very similar, because if a nuclear incident occurs, it doesn't matter whether it's a nuclear plant, a coal plant, or a hydro plant. It doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that if that plant goes down, the operator of that plant, under whatever other contract they would have, would be responsible for that replacement energy.
It is quite likely, if they were smart, that they would have insured themselves against that loss if that were the case. The concern I have is that you could end up with a plant, a nuclear plant, for example, that is actually selling power a thousand miles away into the U.S. They have a contract. No one knows how that energy is flowing and where they get it from, but that is the contractual relationship. If that business cannot get their power, that load is still going to be there, and then somehow, in some way, someone is still going to have to make it up.
This bill is specifically related to something that happens and damages people in some way, in that form, but the energy supply is a completely separate issue. It would be a separate contract and there would be a separate insurance contract. Am I not right?