Natural Resources Committee on April 27th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Good morning to our witnesses and to members of the committee. Welcome to meeting 11 of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on Tuesday, April 27, 2010.

Today we're going to be into wind and tidal, well represented by Mr. Sean Whittaker, vice-president, policy, for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, and Mr. Ronald Scott, from the Maritime Tidal Energy Corporation. Welcome to both of you, and thank you for being here.

Today the committee is resuming the study on the status of the ecoENERGY program. Today's session is on alternative renewable fuels.

Generally, we have eight to 10 minutes for presentations. Then we have a round of questions and answers from the members of the committee. It's in a particular order. Feel comfortable to ask for clarification on the questions. On the part of the committee, they will direct who they would like the question answered by. This is a fairly freewheeling event.

The other chair is in transit.

Maybe we'll just begin. Who would like to start?

Mr. Whittaker, would you like to begin?

[Sean Whittaker, Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Wind Energy Association]

Yes, I'd like to begin.

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you here today. I certainly appreciate the invitation.

My name is Sean Whittaker. I'm the vice-president of policy for the Canadian Wind Energy Association. Today it's my pleasure to give you a brief presentation on the status of the ecoENERGY program, particularly as it pertains to wind.

I have a slide deck, and it'll be distributed afterwards to members of the committee.

I am going to give my presentation in English. However, if you want to ask questions in French, please do not hesitate.

Just to start off with an overview of the current situation of where wind is in the world, there are about 160,000 megawatts of wind turbines installed globally. There are close to half a million people who work in the wind industry in manufacturing, in development, and in support services.

An interesting statistic is that in 2009, in both Europe and the United States, more wind capacity was added than any other new electricity-generating source, so it's the number one newly installed electricity-generating capacity in Europe and the United States.

Here in Canada we've had similar kinds of growth curves over the past six years. We've had a tenfold increase in the number of megawatts installed. We now have about 3,400 megawatts in the ground, which provides electricity for about one million Canadian homes, and that satisfies pretty close to 2% of Canada's electricity demand.

It's interesting to note that in the midst of the current global economic recession, in 2009 we saw record installation years in both Canada and the United States. That shows that even under difficult economic times, the drivers and benefits of developing wind are evident enough that growth has continued unabated.

Looking forward, wind certainly has a very promising outlook. Looking globally, it's been estimated quite conservatively that there will be about $1 trillion invested in the wind industry globally between now and 2020. That support for wind takes really two forms. There is direct support with things like the ecoENERGY program and, in the United States, the production tax credit. In the United States they are also pursuing renewable portfolio standards, so direct incentives. At the same time, there are also indirect incentives, which are essentially carbon pricing, regulatory regimes to establish and put a price on carbon. And the two of them work hand in hand.

In Canada, looking forward, certainly the growth prospects are extremely good. If you take all of the commitments the various provinces have put in place and add them up, we come to about 12,000 megawatts by 2015. But we really think that's just scratching the surface of what's possible. CanWEA has put forward a vision whereby wind would satisfy 20% of all of Canada's electricity demand by 2025, and this is a figure that's already been attained by countries like Denmark. If we get there, that will represent about $80 billion in investment, about 52,000 jobs, and GHG reductions of about 17 megatonnes per year.

Turning our attention to the matter at hand, to the ecoENERGY program, quite frankly, the ecoENERGY program by almost any measure was an extremely successful program. To be honest, wind would not be where it is right now if the ecoENERGY program didn't exist. It was a very effective program at kick-starting the industry and in really driving growth across the country. In fact, it was the victim of its own success. The funding was supposed to last until March 2011, but all funds for ecoENERGY were fully committed one year in advance. So no new projects as of March 2011 will be able to receive any ecoENERGY funding.

In the 2010 federal budget, unfortunately, new funding was not provided for the ecoENERGY program, so it's assumed that, as I said, after March 2011, no new projects will receive ecoENERGY funding.

Minister Prentice has indicated that the government's view is that the best way forward is to support renewable energy through regulatory frameworks, particularly around the introduction of carbon pricing. That's certainly something I'll talk about a little bit later.

At the same time as all of this is happening, the United States, through the U.S. Recovery Act, has introduced incentives that are about three times the size of ecoENERGY. Not only are they three times bigger, but they are slated to last until the end of 2012. So they have an incentive that they've just put in place that's three times bigger and lasts much longer. While Canada's commitment to ecoENERGY is declining, the U.S. commitment to their incentive is actually increasing quite rapidly.

It brings one to the basic question of why ecoENERGY is important for wind growth in Canada. There are really four basic reasons. One, it's a bridge to a future where there's a price on carbon. I think everyone recognizes that within the next three to four years we are going to see a North American approach to carbon markets. We believe that once in place, carbon markets will essentially close the cost gap between wind and conventional or fossil technologies. EcoENERGY basically serves as a bridge to get us from where we are now to that time when the carbon markets exist. But if that incentive is not in place when carbon markets come in, we risk being caught flat-footed.

The second reason is that ecoENERGY really helps Canada to compete for wind investment. Quite frankly, North America is seen as the next great opportunity for wind. We compete directly with the United States for this investment, and as I said, they are trending up in their support and we are trending down. This presents competitiveness issues.

The third is that ecoENERGY is a stimulus with net benefits to the federal coffers. GE Financial Services did an analysis of ecoENERGY, and they actually found that for every $1 the federal government invests in ecoENERGY, it gets about $1.30 back in terms of tax incomes and associated revenues. Over its lifespan you've got a 5% positive internal rate of return on ecoENERGY, so it's a good investment.

And fourth, it supports the government's objective of getting 90% of generating in Canada from non-emitting sources by 2020. There are three ways you're going to be able to get that: switching to natural gas, energy conservation, and wind.

Although ecoENERGY is and has been an extremely important element of supporting wind, it's not the only area where we believe the federal government can support wind energy. There are really three that I'll highlight here. The first is providing clarity with respect to carbon markets. We really do believe that once the carbon market is in place, you don't need a direct incentive for wind any more; it'll cover the cost gap. But there's an interest in having the government be proactive about looking at what that market is going to look like and providing the kind of certainty in terms of the basic rules of the game that will be in place once a carbon market is established. That provides a clear signal and certainty for investments, so that we can continue to attract investment to Canada.

The second area where we feel the federal government can play a very key role is in providing support for new transmission lines. I remember being at a conference once and they said if you love wind energy, then you have to at least like transmission. The provinces haven't made serious investments in transmission in the last 30 years, so we have to do it anyway. To make that transmission wind friendly, the incremental cost is actually extremely low. But it's a huge cost for the provinces to bear, and they are looking for support at the federal level to assist in what it would look like. Is that an east-west grid? It could take many different forms.

The third area is in terms of supporting R and D across the provinces. One of the most obvious areas is looking at what the economic impacts are of integrating large amounts of renewables into the grid. You can't do it on a purely provincial basis. You have to do it on a pan-Canadian basis. So that's an area where federal support would be welcome.

Also, there's a document that just came out. It's called the Wind Technology Road Map, an excellent document that Natural Resources Canada brought to the fore, and it provides a whole slew of recommendations on R and D actions the federal government can take.

Before closing, there are three myths I just want to address. They come up frequently, and I thought to open it up in the spirit of discussion, I would address them here.

The first myth we often hear with respect to wind, and particularly around the discussions on ecoENERGY, is that wind is significantly more expensive than conventional generation. It's important to understand that new conventional generation is much more expensive than the conventional generation of 20 or 30 years ago. We don't see the days of 3.5¢ for a kilowatt hour hydro-electric any more. New hydro developments are coming in north of 10¢ a kilowatt hour. Fossil fuel-fired plants, obviously, are increasing in price as fossil fuel prices go up, so in general we see cost trends going up. At the same time, cost trends for wind are coming down. And the remaining gap between this is covered once there is a price on carbon.

The second myth is that wind needs 100% backup power. We've found that the variability of wind is greatly reduced through geographic dispersion and forecasting. If you talk to any utility that has any amount of wind on their grid, they will say that the cost of backing up that wind is not 100%. In fact, it's less than 10% of the generation costs of wind. That comes from experience.

The third myth is that wind is the solution for Canada's electricity needs. We've always contended that wind is a part of a balanced energy diet going forward. It works very well and needs other forms of generation. Hydro is a particularly good complement, with 60% of Canada's generation.

In closing, ecoENERGY has been an incredibly successful program, but with its expiry Canada will be extremely hard-pressed to compete with the U.S. for global investment. It represents a huge opportunity to stimulate investment in manufacturing, provide benefits to rural communities, and meet the government's objective of 90% non-emitting generation by 2020.

There are lots of other ways the federal government can support wind: clarity on carbon markets, support for R and D, and investments in transmission. But in all these cases we really need to act very quickly if Canada is going to get its part of the growing global wind energy boom.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Whittaker.

I appreciate you trying to stay within 10 minutes, because we really want to get to questions.

Mr. Scott is next on tidal energy.

[Ronald Scott, President, Maritime Tidal Energy Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here. I hope I can help with your deliberations and your effort to effect policy in the renewable energy world. Ten minutes goes by quite quickly, so I'll get right at it.

Maritime Tidal Energy Corporation was founded and incorporated in Halifax in 2006. We like to think of ourselves as folks who are facilitating, advocating, and being the catalyst for the development of commercial tidal energy in Nova Scotia waters. We also like to think of ourselves as people who are interested in developing a tidal energy or ocean energy industry around those very impressive tidal energy waters.

Most of you know that in Nova Scotia we have a tidal plant at the moment. It's based on barrage technology. That basically means that water is captured behind a dam. When the tide comes in, when the tide goes out, it's let out through a turbine, and it generates about 20 megawatts of tidal power. In the 1980s there were plans to expand that to much larger estuaries, but investors didn't come to the table because the capital costs were extremely high--in the billions--and the environmental damage was seen to be a huge problem.

Recently there has been bubbling into the marketplace a new technology, if you like. They are tidal turbines, which look very much like wind turbines except they operate underwater. You can install them one at a time or in farms, underwater, just like you do on land with wind turbines.

There are a lot of advantages, of course. Because of the modularity, the big capital cost experienced with barrage doesn't happen. The experiments and demos that have been put in place to date have shown that environmentally they're pretty sound. They're basically invisible, because they're underwater and below where transportation on the seas operates. They don't make a lot of noise above water, at least, and they don't produce any carbon dioxide. They're sustainable. As long as the moon is going around the earth and the earth is going around the sun, we're going to have flow in the tidal regions.

All of that has the effect, long term, of leveling energy costs and improving the security of supply, because we can provide it to ourselves locally as opposed to Nova Scotia having to import non-renewables.

With all those advantages, what the heck is the world doing about tidal energy these days? Well, I can't talk about it all, but I'll highlight two things that are happening that I think are extremely important.

One is in the U.K. They've installed three test turbines, and there's one to be installed this coming year. Second, in Canada we've installed two test turbines, one in Race Rocks and one in the Bay of Fundy. We plan to install two more in the Bay of Fundy in 2012.

The U.K. has really become excited about what they've learned from these demonstration units. They're surrounded by water, like Nova Scotia. Their security of supply is somewhat problematic, like Nova Scotia's. They've looked at the potential and said, look, we can, in the next 10 years, produce one gigawatt of tidal energy. That's about 1,000 turbines they're going to install. Only one is producing energy to the grid right now in the U.K.

Scotland has really gotten behind this thing. They're very excited. They've said, look, we'll lease some undersea land or property to tidal developers in exchange for their generating some 600 megawatts of power in the next 10 years. So they're moving.

In Canada, we have a really big lead, relative to any other country in the world, except perhaps the U.K., with our demonstration projects, but we have no commercial activity at the moment. Given that lead, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to think we can install about 600 megawatts of tidal energy power over the next ten years.

We think that tidal energy will be very competitive with wind. Clearly, we have to come down. With multiple productions, the curve will drop. As our learning curve improves, the price will come down.

The reason we think it will be in the neighbourhood of wind is that there is much less steel required in a tidal turbine to produce the same amount of power as a wind turbine produces. Because steel is one of the major costs in these turbines, we think we can get there. I'm not the only one saying that. A lot of people who have done pretty significant analyses are also saying that.

What do we need to do to get into the ocean energy business in Canada? We need to understand the opportunities that are open to us on both coasts--and on the north coast, for that matter. We need to define our targets to capitalize on those opportunities. Together, with government, we need to support with actions and confidence the ocean energy industry and marine industry in general. We need to understand the rules, and they have to be clear. The permissions process has to be easy. That's no small task, given our multiple levels of government and the multiple departmental approvals that have to be obtained in order to set things on the bottom of the ocean.

Finally, we need to put sufficient incentives in place so that the early investors can make a reasonable profit. The early investors will allow us to continue to build on the leadership we have displayed with the demonstration units. We, together with Scotland, could, if we tried and wanted to, be to ocean energy what Denmark and Germany have been to wind and solar.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Scott, for that presentation.

We'll now go to questions.

Mr. Regan, would you like to lead off?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you both for coming today.

Mr. Scott, we arranged this weather for you so you and I would both feel at home today here, although usually, of course, it's tropical in Halifax, so this is really unusual for us.

Mr. Whittaker, you talked about the fact that basically nobody can apply now to the ecoENERGY renewable power program, although the funding goes to 2017 and is committed, and the application period theoretically goes until March of next year. Really, it's totally used up. I'd like to ask you about that as compared to the U.S. program. You got into that a little bit, but I'd like you to expand on that.

To what degree has the program accelerated the development of alternative energy sources? And do you think the government should consider extending the program and expanding it?

[Sean Whittaker]

Thank you very much for the question.

There's no doubt on ecoENERGY. We went back to our members many times and asked what the single best driver for wind is in this country, and it always came back to ecoENERGY.

The nice thing about ecoENERGY is that it really had two things about it that people liked. One is that it was very equitable. Whether you had one turbine, a community group, a municipality, or a large developer based in Canada or elsewhere, you could access ecoENERGY. So it was well thought out in terms of being equitable. It was also nice and consistent. It provided funding over 10 years.

Now, in the States, their program, the production tax credit, had two problems with it. One, you could only actually use it if you had a big tax appetite, so it was only really big players that could access it. And it kept coming in and out: they would renew it, there would be tons of builds, they'd drop it off, there would be nothing, it would come back in.

The Recovery Act did two things to the production tax credit. One, it made it refundable, so everyone could access it, again whether you were a farmer or a large corporation. The second thing is it extended out to 2012. It took all the advantages of ecoENERGY and then bumped it up, and it has been a huge driver.

On ecoENERGY, it is true that projects are being built this year that are receiving ecoENERGY and they will continue to receive it for 10 years, but after March 2011 Canadian projects will not receive any money from ecoENERGY. The same developer could go into the United States, spend $100 million on a wind project, and receive $30 million back in incentives from the federal government.

The Recovery Act really identified wind as being a driver for economic reform, particularly in difficult economic times. They were counting on their industry to jump up to meet that rising demand, and that's what they've done. In the last year we've seen 44 new wind facilities installed in the States, mainly through the rust belt, and their manufacturing has really gotten a shot in the arm. It's a very effective mechanism and we would very much like to see it continued.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me ask a variation on that question, and I'll start with Mr. Scott and turn to you if you have something to add to this, Mr. Whittaker.

How do our federal programs in this regard stack up against programs in Europe, the U.S., and even provincial programs like those in Ontario or Nova Scotia?

Mr. Scott, do you want to start?

[Ronald Scott]

The Dexter government has just announced some very forward-thinking plans that will positively affect the tidal opportunities in that province. We have to begin to think along the lines of incentives that Ontario had given to solar in order to really move tidal ahead.

For example, in the U.K., as you mentioned, where Scotland has taken the lead, the incentive program there I believe is north of 30¢ a kilowatt hour for these tidal projects that they're planning in the Pentland Firth, in the north of Scotland.

Does that answer your question?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes, it does.

Do you have anything to add to that?

[Sean Whittaker]

There was an analysis done recently that looked at comparative per capita spending in the U.S. and Canada on renewable energy. The per capita spending in the U.S. outstrips or outpaces Canada by about a factor of 18 to 1. So, yes, there's no doubt that there is a gap.

In terms of Europe, it's important to note that Europe is doing two things. There is the creation of a carbon market, which is kind of an indirect benefit to wind because it applies to many emitting technologies, and that bridges the gap. But they also provide direct incentives for wind, mainly as industrial developments. So they're certainly outpacing us at the moment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Whittaker, you mentioned that in Canada we could have 20% of our energy needs met by wind by 2025. Is that an optimum level if there was maximum support from government, support that isn't really there at the moment in terms of ongoing, or is that where you see us going at the moment?

Secondly, Mr. Scott, a similar question: how much of Canada's energy supply do you think tidal can meet?

I'm going to complicate this question even further. Some on this committee suggested that investing in wind was not a good deal for the government because it's intermittent. Of course, this could apply to both, so I'd like your thoughts on that as well.

[Sean Whittaker]

On the 20% target, Denmark is already at 22%. There are times when Denmark runs 100% on wind. Other countries are fast approaching 15%. So we think it's certainly very reasonable.

One of the things that Canada has that is a remarkable attribute.... Well, first of all, we have a lot of wind and we have a lot of hydro, and hydro and wind are perfect dance partners, as it were.

For example, in Quebec's energy strategy, they have actually pegged wind development to hydro development, recognizing that synergy. So 20% is certainly achievable. Is it optimal? We certainly think twinning it with hydro and other sources will allow us to get there quite easily.

In terms of the intermittent question—and I mentioned this before—one of the funny things that you see with wind is that individual turbines will come in and out. A single turbine generally will generate some amount of electricity about 70% of the time; otherwise it's not a well-sited turbine.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt you, Mr. Whittaker. We have come to the end of the time for that particular question.

Mr. Scott, if you could just hold that thought, you might want to incorporate your answer into a question asked by Monsieur Guimond.

Monsieur Guimond, s'il vous plaît.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen. I found your presentations very interesting.

I am going to address Mr. Whittaker first. How many years has Canada been investing in windmills?

[Sean Whittaker]

The first large-scale windmill project in Canada was Le Nordais. For nearly 20 years Canada has invested mainly in research and development. However, particularly since the creation of the ecoENERGY program in 2001, there has been considerable expansion in the industry.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If memory serves me, the Le Nordais project is located in the Matane region in eastern Quebec.

I come from Rimouski and I'm an agricultural producer. In recent years I was president of the Union des producteurs agricoles. At that time, a lot of windmills were built in eastern Quebec. There were 75-megawatt or 100-megawatt wind farms, and a number of companies. I was very active in this issue, when wind energy came onto the scene. I saw some beauty in it, but I also saw some negative effects, some collateral damage.

In your presentation, you talked about the benefits for rural communities. I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to hear that. I would like it if you could elaborate on that subject. What do you think are the advantages for rural communities dealing with wind farms?

[Sean Whittaker]

Thank you for the question. A few years ago, I had a discussion with the mayor of Matane. She talked about the benefits of major wind infrastructures. Where she lives, Marmen Énergie makes the towers, and Composites VCI makes the nacelles. In Gaspé, LM Glasfiber makes the blades.

The mayor of Gaspé and the mayor of Matane said this gave the community hope for the future. Young people are coming back to their communities to work in these fields. Even the prices of houses in those towns have risen since the plants were built. That is what is happening with the industries.

In terms of the communities, some farmers have one or two windmills on their land. They receive money paid by the promoter. Very often that enables them to stay in their homes, because that income enhances the viability of their operations.

So industrial development creates benefits for farmers, communities and rural settlements, but we also have to consider the taxes paid. Public buildings are being built because of the payments made by the promoters or wind energy projects.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I see you are very familiar with your issue and your line of chat as a windmill salesman.

You talked about the industry in Matane and the Gaspé, in terms of making the blades. But I'm going to talk to you about the village of Baie-des-Sables. I first want to address the question of collateral damage. The village of Baie-des-Sables is in the centre of a 79-megawatt wind farm built by Cartier Énergie Éolienne. I know that the municipality and farmers have benefited from it. Four or five years ago, a windmill might net a promoter about $125,000. The farmer who had a windmill on their land got $1,500 or $2,000. Myself, I didn't think that was very equitable. However, you say it's income for the farmer, and I can't deny it. On the other hand, the price of houses in Baie-des-Sables has fallen because when people see the wind farm the decide not to buy a house there. That is collateral damage.

In terms of agriculture, I would like you ti give me some figures. Each windmill is built on farmland or on a private woodlot. I would like to know how much farmland is lost to agriculture each time a windmill is built.

[Sean Whittaker]

The loss is about 2 to 3%. For a windmill, you need a location with 60 or 70 or 80 acres. In the case of a 200-acre lot where there are two or three windmills, they occupy about 2% of the total land area. We have seen that a majority of farmers were really in favour of that. They get fairly substantial benefits from the windmills and are still able to carry on their usual activities.

In terms of land value, a study was recently done of house prices around Chatham-Kent, Ontario. There have been windmills there for several years. The study, which was completely independent, showed that the windmills had no effect on the value of homes in the Chatham-Kent region.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

We're out of time now. I hope we'll get a little more in. Thank you.

We'll go on to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Scott, I've always been a bit confused by the lack of support for tidal energy. Looking at the engineering and looking at the project intuitively, it seems to make sense. It's a consistent, reliable source. We're a country with three long coasts. What would you say is the main factor for why countries like Canada have invested so little compared to other sources of energy? We've known about this energy source for 20 years. It's been proven there are some technical aspects, but every energy source has that. Why so little? I don't want to cast aspersions, but you feel like the poor cousin when you come in. It's there, but there's so little funding. There are two tests sites and two more to go. I compare that to the growth of wind or the attention to the oil and gas sector and others.

[Ronald Scott]

There are several reasons. The old technology, the barrage technology, was too expensive and too environmentally destructive. The new technology is so new that people are still trying to figure out how it can work best. If you look at these test sites, they've had many difficulties with them. They've learned a lot of, course, but they've still had a lot of difficulties. It's a very tough environment to work in, under sea.

I was just talking with Sean about the difficulty of offshore wind and he said that's very tough. Take that a step further and put it under water. I'll just use one example to drive that point home. The last turbine that was installed in Canada was in the Bay of Fundy. They were monitoring it with remote devices. Suddenly those devices stopped, and now they don't know what the heck is going on down there. It's so dark down there they can't send divers down. It's a whole new area.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks.

Mr. Whittaker, you mentioned at the very beginning of your presentation that the wind energy incentive was a victim of its own success, that it works too well. You talked about investment ratios of $1 to $1.30 back for taxpayers. It got the program up on its feet, creating jobs. Canada lost 400,000 jobs during the last seven years in manufacturing alone. This is a manufacturing industry. It was the only industry to do well that we know of during the recent recession, with a gain in employment.

Why would government have a success like this and then run away from the project?

[Sean Whittaker]

We certainly felt that there was a very compelling case for continuing ecoENERGY from a purely economic point of view, just in terms of stimulating investment and stimulating industrial development, but also in environmental terms. As I indicated before, I think wind has to be a part of achieving the government's target of 90% non-emitting by 2020. There are very few options, and wind is one of the only ones you can put in the ground by 2020.

As I indicated, Minister Prentice had suggested that the way forward was to establish a regulatory framework for carbon emissions, basically a carbon market. We certainly support that.

But it's important to point out that the United States and Europe and most countries that have been successful take two approaches to it. There is indirect support, which is the creation of a carbon market, which helps to level the playing field. But then there are also direct incentives for wind. The Recovery Act has a production tax credit for wind, and it's also looking at establishment of a carbon market. The two work very much side by side.