It is too hard to build things in America: Can permitting reform begin a new era for energy investment?

28:13And it, I mean, that's a sort of an exaggerated statement of the position, but it does feel like that's a bit similar to where the US has been in recent years, doesn't it? Yeah, I think actually the numbers bear that out. If you talk about transmission, interregional transmission. Since 2014, North America has built about seven gigawatts of interregional transmission, about half that in the United States. In South America, 22. In Europe, 44. And in China, over 260 gigawatts of interregional transmission. I mean, it's not like America doesn't need power. We're supposedly, we're going to see a huge increase in, I mean, we are going to see a huge increase in demand for electricity.

28:54We better figure out how to to you know build more generation and more transmission yeah the numbers are shocking aren't they i know we um follow this atwood mckenzie and i think our number is the last time the u.s built more than a thousand miles of high voltage transmission line was back in 2016 hasn't been more than that since then which is as you say given everything we talk about all the time about rising power demand we should probably make sure that um while we're on that that we understand that NEPA is a big part of the reform, but NEPA will not get reformed without transmission reforms.

29:30I think Democrats see that as critical for getting energy from where it's generated to where it's needed for reliability, for costs. And there's good proposals on that too, but I think it's hard for me to see NEPA getting enough Democratic votes in the Senate the speed act to get enough democratic votes in the senate without some assurance that we're going to deal with transmission as well i think they go they go together right so yeah let's talk about that then let's talk about putting those different building blocks together then so we've got the speed act as you say we've got um the certain act we have as you say a need for some kind of legislation on electricity transmission which is not specifically covered in the certain Act at the moment, is it, or in the Speed Act.

30:19So that's an extra element that potentially needs to be added in. As you say, possibly something on pipelines also. What does the kind of the final, if there is this kind of grand bargain to be done, this kind of big, beautiful permitting bill, if I can use that language, that finally gets passed, what does it look like, do you think? Yeah, this is an example of making the problem bigger to solve the problem. But But on transmission, that work has already been done, I think, to our satisfaction with the Manchin-Barasso work that they did in the last Congress. Senator Manchin, a Democrat slash independent, and Senator Barasso, who's part of Republican leadership, worked out a way for planning, for permitting, and for paying for interregional transmission, which are the three things you have to do.

31:08in the Environmental Permitting Reform Act or EPRA. I think we're looking at ways to take that off the shelf and add this in because I think that the permitting parts of that would be really, really helpful. And that's got its opponents as well, but that's part of it. And you could see a deal where if you dealt with NEPA certainty and transmission, that that would be enough. I would also say, we could talk more about this if you want. Republicans are very interested in pipeline relief from a provision of the Clean Water Act, Section 401. Section 401 has been used by governors, most famously in New York, to stop pipelines from going underneath their land, which is one of the reasons why in Massachusetts people are still burning fuel oil for their homes, which is insane.

32:00And they're importing LNG also at times, even though it can be 10 times the price of the gas that comes from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania. Just on that, one of the vexing things for Sheldon White House is that I think Revolution Wind is contracted to provide power to New England at$0.09 a kilowatt hour, where the regular price is$0.18. So, you know, there's lots of irrationalities. It's hard for me to imagine Democrats agreeing to amend the Clean Water Act without getting something. And I think the something that we need is some certainty around methane, fugitive methane capture. I also think that is not that difficult to imagine because Obama passed rules.

32:43Trump repealed them. Biden passed rules. And Trump is dismantling those as well. and over the objection of the industry, which says, you know, please just give us rules that we can comply with. And they know how to comply with it. It's consumer demand for clean gas from England, from UK, I mean, from UK, from the EU, from Korea, and from Japan, that's induced the industry to come up with technology, not just to detect the presence of methane, but the concentration of methane, and to give them all the ability to monitor and control methane we would want, we should write those rules down in a piece of legislation that can't change from president to president and give the industry certainty and also give the environmental community some assurance that we've dealt with this very, very low-hanging climate action of methane, which is a very, very, very much more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the short run, but doesn't persist in the environment.

33:50So if you could, it's a short-lived climate agent. So if you just get rid of that as part of the mix, you can have a real effect on the rate of climate change in a way I think that would be meaningful for those of us who care about that issue.

34:11The world is going to need more power delivered faster and at greater scale than ever before. Nuclear energy will play a critical role in meeting that demand. For more than 70 years, Bechtel has helped deliver some of the most complex nuclear projects in the world, supporting more than 150 nuclear facilities globally and helping to bring over 76 ,000 megawatts of nuclear power online. From early commercial reactors to today's next-generation technologies, Bechtel has helped shape the industry at every stage of its evolution. Now, as momentum grows around energy security and AI-driven power demand, Bechtel is helping customers advance the next wave of nuclear energy, including large-scale plants, small modular reactors, and advanced reactor technologies.

34:52Because building the future of energy requires more than vision. It requires the experience and expertise to deliver safely, reliably, and at scale. Learn more at Bechtel.com. That's B-E-C-H-T-E-L dot com.

35:14So, as I hear you describe it now, there are a lot of positive developments for supporters of permitting reform, a lot of things potentially coming together. I can't help feeling somewhat sceptical, though, just given the recent legislative history in that, I mean, as you well know, you don't need me to tell you any of this, but it feels like we've been here before a few times. You mentioned Joe Manchin earlier. One of the things that Joe Manchin said, the Democratic senator from West Virginia, one of the things he said when he supported the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 was he wanted that to be tied up with permitting reform.

35:57And permitting reform was the sort of the other half of that dual strategy to both support investment in clean energy and make it easier to get that new clean energy infrastructure built it didn't happen then since when we've had a few goes around as you say successive years successive bills have come and gone nothing has yet passed um i can also detect a certain amount of weariness and weariness in the industry when i talk to people about permitting reform been a lot of talk about this nothing's happened yet. Is actually Congress going to deliver on this? We're not sure. What's your sense of it?

36:39And if you had to kind of give people a positive message in terms of reasons why they should be more hopeful that this time it's going to pass when it hasn't done in the past, what would you say to people? First of all, you're right to be skeptical. I mean, it's the default position is always it's not going to happen. I would say, though, that I just told you a deal that would make a significant difference for the country that Republicans and Democrats, there's parts of which each party really cares about, right? And would get a lot. I think, you know, there's an inertia here to, you know, it's built to be hard.

37:17But I would say that people understand that this is an opportunity. I think Joe Manchin's point was proven by the fact that we did all, you know, we put all this money out there, but it stayed in the bank. It didn't get into the ground. And so we have to grapple with that process problem. I do think that when 85 % or 90 % of the energy projects that wanted to get permitted during the Biden administration were clean, where China and Texas are building out all this wind and solar, that's what we're holding back. I think the environmental movement is starting to recognize that. And so I think this is the time to do it.

37:58But the other thing I would say to people is that right now for Republicans, this is the best deal they can get. Because right now they control the House, the Senate and the president. All the leverage is in their favor. They can have permit reform. They can have NEPA reform. They can have 401 reform. They're going to have to give up something to the Democrats in the Senate because even though they control the Senate, they need 60 votes. That's seven Democratic senators they've got to convince. But it's only seven people. And, you know, the field is pretty narrow. So I think, yes, it's difficult.

38:36But I don't think we've been in a better position to do this, something big like this, since I've been here, which is my 14th year now. And do you think Congress can pass a bill that President Trump would sign into law? How big of a risk is there that he might reject something that you agree on? Well, first, he hasn't gotten in the way, I don't think. I don't think we've heard that he's opposed to it. I think actually he's issued an executive order or two that are consistent with these principles. I figure we just name it after him, give him all the credit, and he'll sign it. So, Ed, you can see my face on this, and I want to weigh in on a couple of different things.

39:15But one thing I'll say that I think, and Scott, tell me if this is not what you were communicating, but when I've worked with groups on both sides of the aisles, at states, at local, at federal, we agree on the end point we want to get to in the sense of being able to build things that are good for our communities. We want to find a way to do that in a responsible way. We disagree perhaps on what process changes might be necessary to achieve that. And we get stuck into that discussion a lot. So I talk to a camp that think we need whole hog reform on the entire center of the permitting world at the federal level.

39:47I've got others that say just leave that alone. I'll handle everything at the local level. And then I've got folks who are, you know, in line with the things that we've been talking about so far saying we need tweaks that make these things more practical. And so I will say it's interesting because this whole space is one that, Ed, when we've talked about permitting and getting infrastructure built, let's actually broaden it for a second. There is a space for a lot of agreement, I think, and a lot of movement forward. And we're getting we get caught up in the details in my experience. I don't know, Scott, is your experience different?

40:18And it's like, oh, I want this, not that. And it's like, but the end of the North Star is being able to build things that we believe are good for our communities, good for our states, good for our regions. And maybe, Scott, just while you're thinking about your response to that, I want to come back to you, Melissa, on this point about, as you say, the discussions we've had on exactly this issue down the years on this show. And I feel it's quite often been a difference between us in the sense that I've been much more supportive of more radical permitting reform and much more prepared to say we just need change because the need to get this new investment is so urgent we can afford to or we we can't have put it the other way we can't afford to be over cautious here and so if there are some costs to expediting infrastructure investment those are costs we're just going to have to bear as they because the need is so great the prices are great and i feel like what you've said down the years to me in response is you know yes you accept the need for reform but as you say the details are important and you would i think be supportive of a model of reform that makes sure

41:36that various considerations, environmental considerations, considerations of community consent are still respected. And I think I would not be, well, I mean, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing your position. But one of the things I think I've learned from you is to say that these two points are not necessarily contradictory in the sense that if you actually win support from local communities that is the best way to make sure that you can actually get your infrastructure investment built and that the projects you have can make progress and that permits you're awarded will be robust and will last if you go through those processes the right way.

42:22And so actually worrying about those environmental and social issues is not necessarily inimical to making progress on getting infrastructure built in a speedy way on the timetable that is needed. Is that fair? I think it's fair. I think what we come back to at the core of our disagreements. I don't think they're arguments, but our debates back and forth comes back to, okay, let's go back to Schoolhouse Rock. Let's talk about how Bill becomes a law and how we decided to structure this country in terms of making decisions that affect all of us. And within that, we have practical structures and practical constraints on what we're able to do.

43:05I mean, that goes back to the founding of the country. That's just what it is. And when it comes to a practical pathway forward, what you hear me often say is that things move forward at the speed of trust. And so within this, it's like, how do we create transparency? How do we create, you know, practical pathways forward. I'm an academic in my former life or my current life. I don't know, but I'm like, there's the theory of how it could work. And then there's the practical pathway forward. And I think, Scott, you see this every day and how you actually get something to pass and how can you actually find that middle ground that can actually work through whatever, you know, head of whatever needle you're trying to thread.

43:39And we can't lose sight of what is the practical step forward and what are we trying to accomplish? And so what I'll say is I think we have tensions in our system around if we treat electricity and energy as a public good or not, it's something that protects us and keeps us healthy in our homes. It's something that powers our businesses. I mean, that's what it fundamentally is. No offense to a kilowatt hour and an electron. I don't really care. I care about the service it does and the service it gives me. And so I think I'm having a flashback to a discussion we had on a geothermal project, not too far from where I actually live now, and talking about how what was the acceptable trade off that was allowed on that project to move it forward.

44:18And I think where I come is that back to the core of what, you know, environmental impact statements and reviews are supposed to do, they're supposed to identify impact so we can make an informed choice. So we're not just blazing through. And so I'm saying, is the current structure actually supporting that end? Is it getting us what we need? Or is it become convoluted in a way that actually prevents us from recognizing and stepping into an opportunity. The other thing I will say is, you've also heard me say, and I've said this publicly, it's in one of my congressional testimonies, where I say, you know, one of my biggest fears in this moment is I spent 25 years working in power and electricity.

44:54I touch oil and gas and other sectors, but I have been in the conversation of, we just don't have the growth. We just don't have the, you know, opportunity to make the investments we need to, to make sure that we don't have dozens of hours of powder of the power being out if you live in Louisiana or, you know, other negative impacts. And I'm concerned that we won't be able to step into the opportunity we have now, or we have increasing demand for electricity coming from a whole host of drivers. And I'm like, how do we use this to actually make the system better and to make all of our communities healthier?

45:28That's where my focus is. So do we disagree? I don't know. I think we might fall in the camp of we disagree on the process to get to the outcome that we both agree on. Exactly. No, I think we're in 100 % agreement on the outcomes. But as you say, sometimes the details about the process and the means to that shared end, sometimes those can be quite significant. I mean, Scott, what do you think then? When you hear Melissa talk about the details being important and implementation being important, how do you get that balance right? And how do you get confident in what you're going to pass through Congress does get that balance right?

46:07I just think we haven't done big things in 50 years in this country because we've got too much process. And Nick Bagley, the professor of law at University of Michigan, calls it Democrats fetish with process. And I think we have to look at what you give up to have those conversations. In the context of what I was told when I came to Congress was 10 years to get climate change done. uh you know we're supposed to be we're supposed to have a sense of urgency about this now i think melissa's right we have a sense of urgency about whether we can keep the lights on and i would just say that there's lots of protections we have um aside from from nepa and the other thing i think when you look at we of course we all agree what we want at the end right but how to get there is the issue if you ask um the people who are trying to build clean energy what's in the way, they say NEPA.

47:04Ask them. Ask them. They say NEPA. So, I mean, I guess I think I'm at the point where, you know, I don't think we could have done the interstate highway system with this regime of regulation. I don't know how we do an interstate grid system. Like, how do we get the grid to be not so old, dumb, and small? And I just think the process is the problem here. The process is the problem here to get to where we want to go. And I think we, when we, like I said at the beginning, when we had NEPA, we had no other environmental laws. Now we have a ton of them. Every permit that you get aside from NEPA requires you to answer a lot of questions about environmental impacts.

47:47I think we can let our foot off that one a little bit because we have other protections. We have other, lots of input opportunities at the local level. We've got to get this done. We've got to get this transition to a clean economy going. And I think just, I think the process has proven to be the biggest problem. I'm remembering a report from 2021 called, was it Building Cleaner Faster? It was out of the Aspen Institute and had Congressman Tonko and Caston. Yeah, and Jim and Katie, exactly. And within that, they kept highlighting. And when I talked to Jim and Katie just a couple months ago, we were reminiscing about this report and it highlighted how, So look, we're not, in no case are we saying, even if you change NEPA, if you change these processes, you still can't break the law.

48:33And we have these other laws, to your point. So we have a Clean Air Act. We have a Clean Water Act. Like we have the other things. You have to comply with the law. That is the end result, both in terms of what you're proposing, being able to comply with it, but then also your operation of that system being actually complying in operation. And it is important to realize like this is not the only gateway when it comes to, you know, different protections that we have across communities. But I want to step back into this. Do we think this is enough question, Ed, if we can, which is, OK, how far do we need to go?

49:04If you want to just practically speak about getting infrastructure built, stepping into this opportunity, I agree with you. If we haven't built something in decades, we got a little muscle atrophy. We need to work out. We need to like start start walking so we can run so we can go faster and faster. And I think that based on how our systems are structured, it influences how we will be able to build out this infrastructure. And again, going from the theoretically ideal to the practical. And I just I still am very curious about your thoughts. And Ed, if your thoughts have changed around how we practically stepped on this road and move things forward in terms of the conversation.

49:40So practically, you mean beyond what might happen with legislation or? No, I mean, so it's legislation. And is it this piece of legislation? Like what is what is the mix of things that has to happen for us to be able to have a different conversation? We've had a lot of conversations about permitting reform for my entire career. I did, Scott's background, I worked on the competitive renewable energy zones in Texas and how we actually did that. We had a structure that allowed it, that allowed the state to be a living laboratory for let's build these things out. So I'm like, where are those other places you can step into if we want to move this conversation forward?

50:14Yeah, well, actually, Scott, come to you in a moment on this, because a very practical example of that i always think is electricity transmission where um federal policy on transmission might be the least of the issues involved there the number of different organizations that have a say on whether a transmission policy gets built you know um the regional transmission operator the utilities the regulators the states localities sometimes individual landowners that where the land the line might go across their land and so on it's still a fantastically complicated picture which many many different parties can intervene on and so even if you get the federal policy right and of course federal policy has been there been these transmission corridors and things set by energy policy going back to the 2000s which didn't apparently have a massive impact it's just really really difficult and so and partly it's to do with the political system and the legal system of the united states and how complicated it is and the levels of federalism and so on um so as you say scott when you make those comparisons with china it's just such a different society from China.

51:40It's never going to be able to build infrastructure anything like as fast as China can. I wonder whether that inclines you to certain feeling of hopelessness in the sense that, you know, you can do something, you can do a little bit and you can make a change, but you're just not going to transform the entire system and make it radically different in terms of how rapidly infrastructure can be deployed. Well, Ed, I'm not going to start out by saying I'm going to lose. That's not how I think of it, right? I was also comparing to Europe and South America, which on interregional transmission are also kicking our tails.

52:18Look, my approach to this, and Melissa, I don't know if I'll have a perfect answer, but I want to make a better process, and then we can see how we—I want to improve it, right? We can do better than we're doing today. and you talked about that bill in 2005. They set out this notion of designating corridors, certain corridors as of national interest and then we gave backstop authority to FERC that if the states couldn't agree or the regions couldn't agree that we would come into it and that hasn't worked. We haven't built a single line off that. So I want a new process. I want a process that's going to build lines.

52:54I don't think, I'm not scared to try something else. I'm scared not to try something else. I know it doesn't work And right now we have a bunch of systems that don't work. And one of them is, I think, the way NEPA is being deployed. I think the way transmission is being planned and not being planned and not being built. So my perspective is, you know, I probably won't come up with the perfect answer, but I just think we've got a lot of agreement about a different way to try stuff that shows a lot of promise for doing a lot better. And I don't mean a little bit better. I mean a lot better. And maybe, I mean, of course, we're not going to be China.

53:30We have labor laws. You know, we have all sorts of respect for land and things like that. But on the other hand, I don't think we can say we're never going to be able to compete. We just don't want to give up on the AI war. We don't want to give up on providing reliable energy for our constituents. We don't want to give up on, you know, retiring old coal plants and replacing them with clean. I think we've got to work toward that stuff. So that's why I get on the plane every week from San Diego, which is much better weather than here. Around that, while you're here and while we're all recording this together, Scott, I so I've become way more interesting at cocktail parties again in my work around energy.

54:10People want to know about electricity. They're thinking about where their energy comes from for a lot of different reasons and not just for the past several months. But it's just over the past few years, it's become a lot more interesting. I'm curious how you approach those conversations and also what are the biggest concerns you hear when you're engaging with your constituents in San Diego, which is, yes, a gorgeous part of the country. I want to enjoy visiting. But you're spending a tremendous amount of your time on this because it is really important for a variety of reasons. How do you explain that to someone who doesn't live, breathe and eat this?

54:40My communications people sort of said, who cares about, you know, permit form, right? So in San Diego. You're like, this is why. We just really talk about costs. You know, I think, you know, I sort of, someone said to me, I think this is right. We face a future of either higher energy costs or astronomically higher energy costs. And I think that's true. I just think we know that energy is going to become more dear and more expensive. And the longer it takes us to build new energy, people understand that that means it's going to be more money out of their pockets. And here in D.C., I just say, look, I mean, we all came here to solve problems.

55:21There's a few people here who came to be on TV and a few people here who came to be tourists and look at stuff. But most of us came here to solve problems. This is a huge opportunity where, like I said, the paperwork is almost done. Like, it's not that hard. It's just a matter of putting it on, you know, getting us all in one room and sign it up. And so it's an opportunity. I think this year is a unique opportunity to get this done. So I'm trying to really press on everybody that whether you're concerned about climate change or whether you're concerned about business growth, this is an urgent moment and a moment of opportunity.

56:01And I just hope we'll jump on it because, you know, I think that there's real improvement opportunities right before us. yeah and to cite some more wood mackenzie data again on that point about costs we have these numbers showing that the cost of installing utility scale solar in the u.s is more than twice what it is in china and i guess you'd say well okay you kind of expect that that's sort of but it's also very significantly more than it is in europe and that's you know when when the u.s is the higher cost jurisdiction than europe that's kind of i think that um should give everyone pause for thought in this country and if you look at the breakdown of where the costs come actually a lot of that sort of permitting and planning and designing the system all those kind of things that are driven by regulation and legislation those are a really poor important part of that cost stack.

57:00And so that, I think, is, as you say, just in terms of thinking about why people should care about permitting reform, that whole issue of costs and affordability, which is so live for everyone at the moment in terms of energy, I think it is, as you say, directly relevant to that. Another perspective on that, though, and that Melissa may have some insight onto, is Texas. Like, Texas has the most, the closest to a free market in energy development that we have in the United States. Texas is very proud of being an oil and gas producer, and they should be there. That's very important. But I think other than China, they have more wind than anybody.

57:40I think they just passed California and solar, not because there's some big climate advocates, but because that's what the market's installing. That's why I just say, I think you were talking about it being more expensive than China or Europe, Yet, there's coming up in Texas where there's a free market. It seems to me that today the market and the environmental movement are pretty aligned, and getting out of the way would do everyone a service. Yeah, to be fair, those numbers I was citing are US averages. And as you say, I'm sure it varies considerably from state to state. And also, I have to say, very interesting.

58:13I noticed you mentioned this earlier on as we were talking. You talked about clean energy development in China and Texas and sort of linking those two things together. that. And it's perhaps not that often that you think about those two jurisdictions in the same breath. But as you say, it is very clear in terms of renewable energy development, they are two places that are getting it right. Rhetorically, they're really good points of embarrassment because Republicans don't want to lose to China and Californians don't want to lose to Texas. So we all need to get off our backsides and compete with these people.

58:49Yeah, good point. Good point. So I have a thought about this then in terms of sort of framing this question, which is, what does the world look like? How is the world different if this reform passes? If you get this package of changes through Congress and get signed into law by President Trump in five years, what will we be able to look at in the United States and say, hey, this is something that's happened that could not have happened if we didn't pass reform i'm having a a bit of a vision of it you know that kind of meme of the sort of utopian idyllic kind of futuristic society and and the picture of it and the work the caption says like you know the world if dot dot dot then it's the way um you know things could be different if only something had happened if you think about that with permitting reform are we going to see i mean i'm choosing five years as sort of arbitrary time horizon?

59:46Do you think we'd see a material difference in five years, or does it take longer than that? And what would those differences be? I think right away, if we had certainty, people would feel comfortable about investing in the United States again. I think if they knew that the timelines were shorter, it would be more attractive. Potentially, prices would be lower. And we might actually, you know, have data centers. We didn't talk too much about data centers, but there's ways to have data centers deployed that actually can help lower energy costs for the communities around them. But, you know, we've got to, you know, I think we might be proud to see things getting built again.

1:00:25But I think on the ground, more energy, potentially lower prices, more reliability, that's what we all want. And, you know, I think we got to change the process if we want to get that. And as you were saying earlier, you're not in it to lose, but how hopeful are you that something will happen this year and legislation will get passed? Well, I got to get out of bed every morning, Ed. I think, you know, I do, I want to work really hard to see if we can't close this deal. I think, like, you know, it's asymptotic. Remember the asymptote? You just keep getting closer and closer, but you never get there.

1:01:01I hope that, But, you know, it's very close to, as I said, the analytics are a lot, the analytics, the academics are a lot easier than the politics. We just got to convince a few important people to step into the arena and be willing to trade. And, you know, gosh, if we could do it, it would really make a big difference. I think that's why a lot of us came. So I want to appeal to that. Melissa, then what do you think? Looking at it from the outside, how optimistic would you be? I'm optimistic we're going to move things forward. way faster than I thought we would, even five or seven years ago. There's too many pressures on the system that make some kind of movement forward make a lot of sense.

1:01:43And you know me, Ed, I'm a data and analytical brain engineer in my heart. So, you know, I'm looking at all the pressures in the system saying, all right, there's so many reasons why forward movement makes sense, I bet we will. Now, in terms of what that looks like, I think it will take on a different form than any of my energy systems models may have been able to model over the years. So we'll see. It's certainly a hugely important debate to follow. And we are going to be following it closely on the energy gang as things unfold over the coming year or however long it takes. Scott, I hope you'll come back to talk to us again about it as things develop.

1:02:18Come back and celebrate, maybe take the victory lap once it has been signed into law. For now, though, we're going to leave it there. It's been great talking to you both. Many thanks, Melissa. Yeah, good seeing you, Ed Scott. It was really nice to have the conversation today. Thank you, Melissa. Thank you, Ed. And, you know, wish us well. We certainly do that. Yeah, you do as well, don't you, Melissa? I think we both do. Like, we work in energy. We want to figure this all out. It's a complicated mix of things. We do. We want to figure it out. Thanks very much indeed to both of you. Many thanks to our producers, Molly Bowen and Toby Biggins-Gilchrist.

1:02:51And above all, as ever, many thanks to all of you for listening. We really do value your feedback, so please keep that coming. and we'll be back very soon with all the latest news and views on the future of energy. Until then, goodbye.