I think a way to illustrate this is that we are collectively trying to find those projects that are not quite economically viable on their own but could be close if there's a missing piece in the marketplace for some entity to come in as a bank-type function or a merchant or investment bank to help manage that risk between the two parties. An example is a municipality exploring a revenue model but not really sure what the revenue would be, it could be a water or energy tariff, or something else—it doesn't have to be toll—and it is worried about that revenue component. The private investor worries about the green phase of construction and in the long run says that, otherwise, if that were purely commercial, done through a bank, it would want a higher return.
The objective is that the government comes in through the infrastructure bank, manages down that risk for both parties, and transfers it appropriately to the investor parties. That's the way the agreement is designed to be struck. Whatever the end result of the cost of the debt or equity will directly correspond to the risk those parties are taking. Thus there is a benefit on the other side, given that you would have an asset being built without taxpayers necessarily having to build that, so it balances.