Yes. I realize this is an oversimplification, but at the end of the day, we want this policy to reduce CO2. If the policy is set up to be a credit for investment, that is indirect. If the policy is set up to create value for actual volume of CO2 sequestered, that seems to be a lot more direct.
A concern would be a policy that, again, is tied to the amount of capital spent. It might result in inefficient use of capital. What would be a more direct approach would be to directly incent putting the CO2 in the ground, which is what this is focused on.