Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I echo what the Chair said: mandate is very different from maximise. The language in the opening statement is a bit discouraging. It says providing "a pathway for LEU connections ... minimising, where possible, potential negative impacts on national renewable energy targets and carbon emissions." We need to be far past "minimising, where possible" the negative impacts; we are in a space where we need to be positively delivering on our renewable energy targets and carbon emissions targets. Maybe the witnesses could clarify and confirm the following. It was Deputy Daly who brought this up. In the CRU's previous draft policy statement, it had said that the climate Act did not provide a legal basis that was adequate in terms of specifying emission reduction measures, for example, or specifying renewable energy. Is that no longer the case? Is that legal position under review? Has there been an analysis of the impact on our overall national renewable energy target in terms of percentage usage? What we have heard from experts who have come in previously to the committee is that, effectively, the increase in new renewable energy capacity is being matched by an increase in demand from these large energy users such that we are not advancing our overall percentage. Will those be in this connection paper? I am focusing on that because the decision is pending.