Natural Resources committee  Mr. Weiler, it just comes down to the cost impact and whether or not you're looking at using and utilizing existing infrastructure that we currently have that can move clean molecules versus building new additional infrastructure. That's the difference. I think Mr. Patzer brought up the impact assessment in terms of building the new pipes.

Natural Resources committee  Again, keep all those options open.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, Mr. Cannings, but it's not necessarily an industry or government conversation. It's probably both. There are ways that government can incentivize industry to actually invest in that type of infrastructure, with things like tax credits. We use those down in the U.S. quite a bit.

Natural Resources committee  Again, those are great questions. They're ones that we talk about quite often at our gas company in B.C. We do have studies on the cost differential. Obviously, I don't have them at my fingertips, but we can provide that. That has to be part of the conversation from the committee's standpoint to understand this, because what we do is we respond to policy.

Natural Resources committee  Mr. Zimmer, I don't have an exact number for that, but that's obviously something that we can follow up on. It really does all depend on the cost curves on a going-forward basis. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been in one of my previous answers. The basis of what we should be doing from an energy policy perspective is trying to get as green as we can, as fast as we can, and the next thing that has to come out of everybody's mouth is “without sacrificing affordability or reliability”.

Natural Resources committee  Mr. Cannings, it's nice to meet you virtually, although I think I may have met you at one of the events we had out in B.C., in Kelowna over the past couple of years, as I've been involved in that province overseeing the FortisBC company now for, boy, I guess three years. It's a pleasure to at least see you here.

Natural Resources committee  Mr. Cannings, that's a good question. It's not one or the other, it's both or all of the above. Hydrogen should be viewed as being used in different ways within the economy to clean up the greenhouse gas emissions. It can be used, as you've mentioned, whether it's as direct end-source use for transportation fuel cells or whatever that might be, but you have to look at the economics of how much hydrogen costs to transport it to where you're using it.

Natural Resources committee  Just to clarify my earlier response and maybe tie a couple of those pieces together, when we were talking about the $2 and $20 numbers, that is for the commodity alone. I think I referenced the percentage of the bill that is. You have to look at the overall bill impact. You also have to look at how these costs can come down, and will come down over time.

Natural Resources committee  It is, again, about looking at that balance of options. It's finding the cheapest renewable natural gas sources we can. It's trying to get breakthroughs in technology on the hydrogen side of things. Hydrogen is going to play a big role, but not necessarily within the current structure that we have.

Natural Resources committee  Fortis is 80% electric. I just want to be clear on that. We're 80% electric and 20% natural gas across North America. So we see both sides, and we want to make sure that both sides get it right.

Natural Resources committee  You're right. The percentage increases, the bill increases, but you also have to remember that the portion of the commodity on our bill is only about 20% to 25%. So the rest—

Natural Resources committee  Yes, Mr. Lloyd, that's another good question. It gets about as close to net zero as you can. That's going to be something that has to be absolutely figured out on a going forward basis—

Natural Resources committee  Yes, it's really just the difference between that CO2 being released naturally from the decomposition process at that farm or at a landfill or being flared, whatever it might be, and capturing that. So it is truly, when you look at it on an apples-to-apples basis, a net zero from a carbon cycle perspective, because anything additional that used to process that gas has to be worked into that equation as well.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. That's a great question and one that we talk about quite often. You have to make sure, in the transition to cleaner energy resources, that you are absolutely focused on customer affordability, and when you set climate policy and realize that you have to reduce the amount of carbon that you emit as a society, there are only so many options that you have.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I would recognize, obviously, the great portfolio that Canada has from an electricity perspective. It is very clean to begin with, but when you look at the amount of energy and the amount of capacity that would need to be added to, say, completely electrify the province of B.C., that would basically be, in terms of projects, about eight additional site Cs that would be needed to provide the capability to deliver that same amount of energy that the electric system currently provides and to replace the natural gas system.