The big challenge for us is that what we're putting on the table as a policy is a carbon pricing regime that is dependent on government policy over the long term. As long as that policy is clear to investors, that this policy will be in place for a long period of time, people invest in that. The incentives financially are stronger than some of the ones in the IRA. However, if you ask a board if they're willing to make a bet on that, they're going to say, “Who's going to be in government in two years? Is that government going to continue the same policy?” That's the big change, as Mr. Friesen highlighted in the contracts for differences, that allows you to say to a company, “Do you know what? Regardless of a change in policy, we are going to offer you some certainty.”
My take on that would be to make sure that those are benchmarked to the consumer carbon price so that we don't have companies that are essentially locking in their own carbon price and at the same time arguing to remove carbon prices across the broader economy. Let's get the best of both worlds.