Hi. Good morning, everybody. It's Ben Pham, Managing Director of BMO Capital Markets. I wanted to extend a warm welcome for everyone's attendance virtually with myself and Al Monaco, President and CEO of Enbridge Inc. We're here to discuss and hope we paint a good roadmap for how Al and the team and the board thinks about the ESG strategy and how they incorporate it into their business plans. Also in particular, how they plan to achieve that 2050 target of net carbon neutral, which is, from our perspective, the gold standard that we're seeing out there. Government, companies are moving towards that path. Al, it's always good to see you in person, obviously, in this world we're in, but I'm always really looking forward to your comments, especially on such an interesting topic such as what we're going to talk about today. Well, thanks for having me on, Ben. We appreciate it. Everything's going okay over there? Seems like you're in office this morning and hopefully sunny over there in Calgary. I've deemed myself essential, so I'm in the office. Okay. For those that may not known about this topic of ESG or maybe 20 years ago, it was called something else, climate change or sustainability. Al, you put up your 19th report last year, so in some sense, you're ahead of the game here relative to some other folks that are just putting out a plan themselves. I think you've been living and breathing this dynamic for some time. You've pipelined, you're dealing with this every day, thinking about it, and I think you've been doing it for some time. Let's start the discussion a little bit. I got a couple questions, and we'll have a bit of time at the end of the session to take questions from investors that are listening in or potential investors of Enbridge. Maybe, Al, we can start the conversation and talk about why is it important to you, and what are the key messages that you would like to share with the audience this morning? Well, yeah, on that first point you made, actually, about being involved in this for the last number of years and a couple of decades. It's kind of ironic in a way that everybody's focused on ESG today, but it's been part of what we've been doing for a very long time. I think big picture on your question here, Ben, when you really get down to this, our business is about people trusting what we do, public trust. The way we look at ESG is it's almost like an all stakeholder measure of the public's trust in what we do. It's a way of doing business, as you pointed out earlier, I have to say, you can't achieve this overnight. We've always seen ESG as really an enabler, we call it, of not just how we operate, but in terms of executing our strategy. I think that's why we're a little bit ahead of the pack today on this. If you look at this, you're the expert, but from a capital markets point of view, it really is table stakes today. If you're not world-class at ESG and the components that go into it's gonna impact your cost of equity. Every investor class really has some form of screen over this. The difference today is you can't hide because there's so many independent agencies, and you can say what you want about them, but they really do a detailed job of evaluating performance. That's kind of the big picture here. On the E for us of ESG, it's about safety, environmental protection, and now more recently, reducing emissions and having public targets. We invest in the safety side about CAD 1 billion annually. That's a significant amount of capital to put to work. On the S, the way we look at that one is basically about how you engage communities, diversity, and your social policy. We've got a pretty diversified workforce today, about 30% women, 18% ethnic and racial. We're bumped up the targets now to 40% and 20%. The one thing that I would say is important here is what we call life cycle engagement for communities. Whereas you used to go in to a community when you wanted to build a project, and then you're sort of off the right of way and you're gone. Now it's all about starting a lot earlier with communities and going through the life cycle of the project with them. Then on the G side, this is a big focus for us, too. Board oversight and management accountability is what that means to us. Comp, the independence of the board, of course. How you report all this. You referred to our sustainability report. I think that's kind of the big picture of how we see this and the importance of it, Ben. Okay. Maybe I spent a bit of time looking into your 19th report the other day, just ahead into this event. Correct me if I'm wrong, some targets you set, 35% reduction carbon emissions by 2030, carbon neutral by 2050, and net carbon neutral by that timeframe. Maybe address really, what's the elephant in the room? What are the biggest sources of carbon emissions in your business today? To some extent, you can flip that and think about what are the greatest opportunities for you in terms of reducing emissions and getting towards those targets. Okay. Well, I think a bit of context here, it's a good question. It's important, though, because we're not a big emitter. If you look at the energy value chain-In general, the midstream component is about 2%. That doesn't mean we're not focused on this and leading on it, and you saw that with the setting of our targets here. We're split about, in terms of our emissions and what we generate, probably evenly between liquids and gas. On the gas side, it's essentially our compression. For Scope 1, those are Scope 1 emissions. On Scope 2, it's essentially our liquids pumps. What we need to do in terms of generating electricity in order to move the pumps. I have to say, in terms of those targets, just for your audience here, that was sort of the easy part. Where we spent most of our time, though, was how we actually achieve the targets. We came down to what we call pathways. There's four ways to get to the numbers. Number one, modernizing our assets, certainly from an emissions point of view, so investing capital there. Technology is a big one, so t hink about predictive analytics, and other sources of technology used today to reduce the volume and intensity of the power you're using. Another big one for us will be displacing grid power, and that's using solar facilities at our location. Take a pump station or take a compression station, and essentially putting some solar power in there because we control those sites. Buying lower carbon emitting sources through natural greening of the grid that we're seeing out there. If we need to, if that's not enough, there's always natural offsets or buying credits. The biggest thing about this, Ben, is the model that we've created that essentially optimizes between those opportunities to reduce emissions. You've got variables like what's the price of carbon? How fast are things going to change in regulation? How much do you need to invest? How are you going to recover that capital? We put that all into the model, and we're optimizing between those sources. Not to carry this on too long, there's also Scope 3 emissions. I talked about Scope 1 and 2. The way we deal with Scope 3 is we've got renewables investments, hydrogen, RNG, which aren't actually offsets to Scope 1 and 2, but we're going to capture those, and report Scope 3 as well. That's how we look at that. Well, thanks for that. What about evaluation? Maybe this to some extent links to the governance and as you report to investors, how do you plan to evaluate ESG performance versus your goals? I guess it's kind of like a report card that you're looking at or the board's looking at at the end of the day. Then also linked to that really, can you remind me, what about linking these goals to executive compensation? What's the story around that? That last one's really important because frankly, that's what's going to drive our performance and being accountable. The first thing you need to do when we've got these broad targets, like you mentioned, the net -zero and the 2030 target, you've got to embed those in the business. We naturally do that anyway because each business has annual scorecards. We call it the Balanced Scorecard, which is basically operating and financial measures and a bunch of them within the scorecard. We capture our targets around emissions and diversity in those scorecards. That flows directly through to executive compensation. In a way, Ben, the scores you get on ESG around those agencies that evaluate you, to me, that's kind of reflected in your equity valuation. I think, though, another aspect of this today is the direct linkage that I think you're going to see between ESG performance and your cost of debt. You may be aware that we have now had the first, in our sector anyway, sustainability-backed or linked bank debt, where the cost of funding there is tied to your ESG performance. I think you're going to see that become more prevalent. Frankly, we like that additional scrutiny, if you will, or performance benchmarking to make sure that we're tracking to our goals. Actually, I think it is a big signal to the market of linking these reductions to your compensation, the management team, and where that's going. It's good to see that in your strategy. Maybe next talk about perhaps how do you ensure the ESG targets or policies are reflected in your strategy or potential projects you look at? How do you make sure you, the management team, the board, is constantly thinking about this as you evolve through the next couple of decades? Well, this is a great question because it's behind the scenes to your audience here and yourself, but it really is a key part of strategy. I got to take you just a bit back here. The strategy process here is essentially a year-long engagement between management and the board. We start the year with, okay, what's our current position? We do this annually, by the way, so we're constantly putting it together. Current position, what's the environment around us? What are the fundamentals telling us? What is our Corporate Risk Assessment telling us are the big issues. We bring in some external people, so EV adoption, for example. We'll have somebody talk about that, and supply and demand globally of energy. We try and do some high-level scenario planning based on that. Think about five, 10 years out, and then each year we'll course correct on strategy. I think it ends up, though, the way it comes out to you and the audience here, Ben, is the three-year financial outlook, and we have a plan that sort of backs that up. Another critical element that we talk about with the board is, okay, we've got strategies, but what's going to enable those strategies? It's always been three things for us. Talent management, so people, technology, because that's extremely important to enabling your strategy, and ESG. We've been using those three for at least a decade. An illustration of how ESG has been on our minds for a very long time is really through a few actions. If you go back and look at our asset mix over time, you've seen how it's sort of morphed here. We got a lot more natural gas today, and we got a fairly substantial renewables business. In a real simple form, we're trying to align the asset mix of the company to the energy fundamentals we see out there globally. Another part of what spawned here, I think, from this strategy look and enablers is how we engage with indigenous groups. That's evolved. More recently, as we were talking about carbon pricing, that's probably more the last three years that's developed. Basically, the board and management go through this process annually. We do quarterly updates to see how we're coming along. I think to go to the governance part, which I think you mentioned, so we'll have each board committee oversee certain aspects of ESG. We've got a Corporate Social Responsibility Committee who looks after certain parts of it, Safety and Reliability, AFRC, the Audit Committee, and then, of course, Governance. Each of these committees oversee their part of it. That's how the governance framework and sort of the interaction with the board works on this. It just seems, myself, yourself, everyone else is working more now with all of this ESG planning, but it's good to see that. Maybe let's switch a little bit to government policy, maybe on the Canadian side. You've seen our Prime Minister, for those folks that may not follow the Canadian side so much, is the proposal for carbon taxes to go up quite significantly, in fact, to CAD 170 a ton by 2030, which is, I think, the most ambitious carbon tax out there in the world. Someone can email me, correct me if I'm wrong on that, really. Clearly, this is probably an increasing friction or cost to you, assuming your carbon emissions stay the same here, Al. How do you think about really the impact on your cash flows if this carbon tax is actually pushed through, and what are some of the mitigants that you can utilize? Well, okay, great question. You're right. It's probably the most, I don't know if you want to call it progressive or largest carbon levy globally that I can think of. In any case, again, we're not a large emitter. The other sort of ameliorating factor, mitigating factor, is it only applies to Canadian operations. Probably 50%, 60% now of what we do is in the U.S. I think the other mitigations generally, though, are the commercial model. In many cases, i t's a small component of the toll, but also a pass-through to customers. For example, on a fuel charge, that is applied to our utility customers in Ontario as one example. We currently, I think if you look at the net amounts, roughly in the range of CAD 25 million, primarily in the liquids business. It's a relatively small number for us in the bigger picture. It doesn't mean we're not focused on it, but it's a small component. I think I got to tell you, Ben, that the bigger issue that I see in terms of carbon tax is what it means for the competitiveness of your industry. It's critical that our progressiveness or the desire to imply carbon taxes doesn't disadvantage the industry. The reason for that is there's countries, as you know, that don't have policies like that in place. I think that needs to be incorporated in how governments think about this. What we've heard so far, which I think is right, is we got to have border adjustments to levelize these impacts for countries that don't have those policies. Otherwise, you're really putting your own industry in a tough spot. In a way, this is already accounted for in Article 6 of the Climate Accord, but that's been a little tougher to come together and actually be implemented. That's how we see the impact on us, Ben. Okay. Maybe switching to the U.S. and sticking with government policy and new presidents. You have a big U.S. business as well, an overall mix, and with Biden's focus on climate change, what do you think Al are the opportunities and risks for you? Well, overall, if you listen to the new president, he's been saying this for a while, his four pillars are jobs, diversity, COVID, and a couple of other things, and climate, of course. My overall observation, Ben, I'm not trying to sound like an expert on this, but if you're reacting to changes in the administration like this every four years or eight years, you really got to question your strategy. I actually feel that we're in a pretty good position here. We deliver to the best markets, and those markets are not going away, as you've heard me say before. More importantly, we're already part of this transition. I think we're really well-positioned. The bigger issue here, and this is maybe the most critical thing that we all got to get our heads around, is the U.S., in particular, is dependent on conventional energy in any scenario. The fact is, economies, global economies or the U.S. economy, are driven by affordable, reliable, secure energy. It's critical, absolutely critical to the health and social wellbeing of how we live our lives here in North America. The Texas emergency is probably an unfortunate, but most recent example. The issue that I see, particularly with deregulated markets like that one, is the reliability is not being priced in. You really saw that, I think, come to the fore. I think you asked, okay, well, what are the risks? I think number one, it's building and expanding infrastructure is a lot harder, as you very well know. That's going to hamper reliability, it's going to hamper the economic recovery, and of course, jobs. I think businesses, as you'd expect, needs to have transparency before they invest capital. The opportunities, though, I think, are really in front of us. We're not seeing this yet, but the value of assets in the ground, if you look at our map today, those assets cannot be replicated. The strategic positioning of where your assets go to those key markets is a big driver, I think, of that increase that you're going to see. We've got, luckily, many opportunities to expand, extend the existing assets. Greenfield projects are harder to do or not likely to be done for a bunch of reasons. I think it helps to have assets that spawn these opportunities. Natural gas. This is probably the biggest point here. It really enables, in many ways, renewables growth, because of the way it follows load and can really form base load power. The other opportunity, if you've been covering the Permian, certainly Canadian heavy oil is going to be even more important to U.S. refiners going forward. I think those are the opportunities and along with being what I'll call at the forefront of technology, we've been investing in renewables for over 20 years. Our existing infrastructure is really going to support the hydrogen economy. People forget that transportation and infrastructure is going to make hydrogen go around ultimately. I think you've seen us move quite aggressively into renewable natural gas. That's how I look at that issue. It's an interesting topic or comment you mentioned Al of really, if you think about steel in the ground, and you're right, it's just so hard to build new infrastructure in this marketplace. You look at your footprint, North America looks well-positioned to benefit from any sort of expansion needs going forward. I think we always take it for granted, the need for energy, really. We only complain when the lights are down or we're running out of gas. I looked at pictures in Texas, folks burning coal just to stay warm. It's incredible, really, the dependency we have on infrastructure and then how you guys could connect to that. You look at even your name, Enbridge. It's Enbridge, connect the energy. That's energy transition. Right? I want to insert a question from the audience because we're sticking with staying with the U.S. I'm just going to read it off verbatim here. Sure. How did Enbridge fare with the recent cold weather event in the U.S.? That's a great question. The natural gas transmission assets actually performed extremely well. We had basically no hookups, or h oldups at all. I'm not going to say it was easy. Obviously, with power down in buildings and backup power going down, we had to maneuver, let's call it, in order to keep the gas control business or business center running full time. We've got contingencies for that kind of thing. Generally, that worked extremely well. We've got a couple of wind farms there, which obviously froze up for a little while, but w e got back up pretty quick. The team did a good job. I think overall, we fared pretty well. On the oil side, we had to turn down volumes, simply because we didn't have power. We did a little bit of that on the Seaway system and a little bit of that on Flanagan, but it got back up right away. We don't expect a huge impact from all of that. I know for the longest time, it just seems there's an ongoing debate around oil, peak oil and whatnot. We've gone through that. One area we've been talking a lot to investment community is on the gas side and durability of gas demand long term. You got this interesting gas utility in Ontario, which is where I live, and as I mentioned before this, we've had our heat on pretty much all year, even during the summertime. We're obviously reliant on Enbridge Gas. What do you think about the thought process here with some pundits talk about banning gas to the home and how do you think about the long-term durability of your gas utility? Ben, let me put it this way, I guess maybe we have to say this, but I feel an affinity to the utility because I ran it for a while. It's a crown jewel asset for us. It's the largest and fastest-growing gas utility in North America by a margin. I can just tell you, many would love to own this business. I guess maybe to your question, though, I think it goes to this notion of banning gas hookups that's being talked about frequently. Yeah, I understand it, as you heard earlier, we're very focused on emissions issues and climate and so forth, and we have a renewables business. I think this tends to be politically popular, but comes with risks and challenges that really need to be taken seriously. I think in Ontario, this has actually been a pretty good test case for us. Because we've been talking about that kind of scenario, shutting down gas, for as long as I can remember. The harsh realities are this. Natural gas is the most reliable and lowest cost energy source, whether it's heating, cooking, and it's about 60% cheaper. Let's start with that one. If you look at manufacturing and petchem industry, it's the most cost-effective and reliable there. The infrastructure is in the ground, and it's essentially paid for, whether you look at the storage, the distribution, and the long-haul pipe that gets the gas there. Replacing a system like that in a congested area like Toronto, for example, is just unfathomable. The one that I always think of is, Texas again was a good example. If you were to replace the peaking capability of natural gas with electricity, you would need 80,000 GW, which is roughly 2x, 3x that the amount in Ontario today. That's how I look at this. I will say that natural gas supporting our renewables targets, I think can also be quite a strong lever. That's how we assess that. I would say how people should look at this is give natural gas a fair shake on reducing emissions. It's been the major contributor to lowering emissions in the U.S. Again, it works really well with renewables. It's going to be part of the RNG solution. Conservation has been a big impact in our own business, and of course, LNG. If you look at how LNG can be created in North America with low emissions standards being applied, it can really be a source of reducing global emissions. Sorry for the long answer, but that's the way we look at it. No, I think it's definitely worth discussing in a bit more detail. It's something that I think, at least my conversations, there's been some modest concern about, and we as capital markets professionals, and I'm always flattered to hear that you're considering me an expert in some of your earlier commentary on the markets. The debate's going to continue. Let's go back to oil for a second here. There's some pretty scary figures coming out from BP or these energy agencies around where oil could go in 2050. I I think there's one scenario where oil is going to drop 80% from today. Not asking around what your views on that specifically. I think it's worth going back to your Investor Day. You had some pretty interesting charts around, let's just assume North American demand does drop, and that could be a probably realistic scenario, but you have emerging markets, the middle class emerging, they're going to want to fly. I think that's a very logical outcome of what we're going to see. When you think about your footprint in the Canadian oil sands, how do you think about your positioning to benefit from that expectation, and is there anything you need to do strategically to lever yourself to that longer-term dynamic? Well, I think you're right to point this out. I don't think there's any argument that North American demand is going to turn down. As you're pointing out, global energy demand is going nowhere but up. We know why. Population growth in the middle class, greater urbanization. I don't think anybody is really arguing that energy is gonna grow by roughly 20%-25% by 2040, depending on who you listen to. Again, the reality is that our economies are driven by low-cost, reliable energy. If you look at any of the scenarios, including the most drastic in terms of carbon legislation, which would still need a lot for that to actually happen, it's very clear that all sources of energy are going to be required. As we keep saying, it's gonna take a long time for that equation to change materially. Natural gas is gonna play an even larger role by 2040. Crude oil, you're right, probably tapers off in North America, but globally, it still grows. I think fundamentally, the biggest change, to get to your point and how it affects us, commodities have transitioned now to global connectivity. We know that developing economy energy demand is growing substantially. It'll continue to do that. Oil and gas supply growth over that same period, though, for U.S., Canada, and OPEC, has gotten even better. If you look at all of the fundamentals on this, it's pretty clear that North America's got this great advantage. You got global growth in energy, and you've got North America, who's in an ideal position to supply that energy at very low cost. We've got the technology, infrastructure, and resources. What we're doing, essentially, is trying to point our infrastructure more and more to export markets. You saw, we did this probably, I guess, now 10, 15 years ago, pointing those oil sands barrels to the Gulf Coast. That's where heavy oil refining capability is located, and they're the most competitive globally, maybe aside from one or two areas. The infrastructure we've got along the Gulf Coast for natural gas is extremely well-positioned to feed LNG, and then, of course, export gas into Mexico. I think for us, the export strategy, if you want to call it that, has been developing for a long time. I think that's where the future is for the industry in terms of gaining global market share and our opportunity to be a big part of that. Okay. Thanks for those comments, though. It's good to encourage folks to go back to some of the slides at the investor day. There's some pretty interesting charts there to look at. First Nations communities, I think we got to address that during this session. I've talked about the E, environmental aspect a bit. Let's maybe switch a little bit to the S for relationships then. How do you foster and manage that part of the equation? First Nations communities? It's clear that over the last 15 years, it's been a more vocal voice in the pipeline industry. There's been legal cases the First Nations communities have won. It's definitely important to maintain that. How do you manage that? How do you foster those relationships? I think the biggest change that we have, I guess, undertaken, and it really has to do with something that is going to sound esoteric, but it takes time, and that is building respectful relationships. It's hard for people to put that in their financial model. Essentially, it means you've really got to train your staff and the people that are engaging with tribes in the U.S. or First Nations, Métis here in Canada to understand individual cultures and governance. I think that's the key thing. You've got to really get a feel for their connection to land and water and the environment. That, I think, is the basic understandings that you need, and earning and maintaining that trust over time by delivering on what you promise. All of that happens. People focus on the economics and training and jobs and all of that, but you need to start with building trust. Otherwise, you're not going to get to the economic framework. Again, it's listening very early on in the process to their concerns. I would say the big thing is incorporating their feedback. In many, many cases, they have a much better understanding around local environmental water and land issues. Take that feedback, put it into the design. Involve communities in the construction and monitoring process. That has worked extremely well. I would say you've got to make sure that the opportunity sets are included in your supply chain work so that it becomes normal or usual to have them part of the contracting effort on big projects. Line 3, for example, we've got roughly CAD 600 million of contracting opportunities. These are businesses that partner with us to get the project done. It has been unheard of. In the past, it would be, okay, you'd have some jobs for First Nations and tribes in the U.S., but these are real economic partnerships when you get into supply chain. Let's talk about people. I don't need to spend a lot of time on safety. You look at your data, you have a very strong safety record. Let's talk about the D&I. Diversity, human capital is quite important to an organization such as yourself. Can you remind us what are your key goals in diversity and inclusion, and what are you advancing there in your workforce? I hate to sound like we're saying we thought about all this before, but we've always thought of diversity maybe in a broader sense. It's been amplified here over the last year or two, of course. To us, diversity means diversity of race, obviously, and gender. It's also about experiences and thought. I always had the view that when you're sitting around the table in a company like ours, you got everybody around there trying to battle over a problem. Diversity of thought, experience, and history is really big in terms of making good decisions. Everybody should feel safe at work and included. I think that's just part of who we are socially, but also good for business. I think you saw this in the last year or two. I think CEOs, executives on diversity need to lead on that issue. We can't speak to every issue out there socially, but certainly this is one we need to lead on. Part of that, what I have found, Ben, is educating, again, ourselves on those issues. We talk to our people quite a bit. We train ourselves on issues like unconscious bias, and you really got to put yourself in the individual's shoes here because we, myself in particular, in this case, we can't relate to many of the challenges that we see in Black people or gender issues. Basically today we've got about 30% representation women, 21% minorities. The new goals we just set a little while ago are 40% for gender, and 28% for minorities. We're bumping them up. By the way, these objectives or targets, they apply to the board as well. It's really got to be top-down. As we talked about earlier, you got to tie this to compensation as well, those targets. That's how we look at D&I. Okay. I know you mentioned the hydrogen, I'm switching gears now, renewable natural gas. I want to touch on that a bit because that is the topic of the day, or topic of the year, however you want to frame it. Let me ask you, can you maybe set the backdrop for opportunity that you see in RNG and hydrogen? Okay, sure. Let me see here where to start. The good thing about hydrogen and RNG is you're talking about proven technologies. It's not bleeding-edge stuff here. It's been done. The way we look at it is we can capitalize on our existing assets, all four platforms, whether it's utility, transmission, liquids, or of course, the renewables business. We're kind of building on what we already have and are good at, and we're not just bringing capital to the table. The way we've always approached this, Ben, is what we call low-cost optionality, so that you can make sure you're recovering the capital through good commercial models before you go too far down the road. Hydrogen, for example, our view on that is excellent opportunity to reduce emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate areas. Obviously, hydrogen today is higher cost. Blue hydrogen is somewhere in the CAD 4-CAD 5 per kilogram, green hydrogen, CAD 5-CAD 7 per kilogram. It's going to come down. That's what I mean by low-cost optionality, getting in early so that you can have the option to parlay this into a bigger opportunity. There's a few technical challenges with hydrogen that you're familiar with, metallurgy, for example. You need more compression. There's some safety issues around flammability. I think starting now and moving forward on this, we've got a couple of pilot programs, one in Ontario and one in Quebec, that we're going to be moving forward with. I think it's going to be a great outcome for us because in the end, hydrogen is going to need infrastructure. That's where we come in. I think on the green side of hydrogen, we're already a large renewable generator, so there's a good match there. On blue hydrogen, again, natural gas transmission is going to be a big part of that. I think we're moving along well there. The RNG one, that's a higher cost. Certainly being well supported today by policy, w e could see 5% of the gas market being renewable natural gas. Again, I hate to say we have already been working on this again, but we've got six projects in operation or in construction right now. Who knows? Maybe we can parlay that into a lot more opportunities. That's our view on hydrogen and RNG. Okay. I just want to squeeze in a question from one of the listeners, what are your thoughts on nuclear playing a bigger role or even replacing gas as a reliable energy source? Oh, this is great. Glad you worked that one in. First of all, it is the answer, for many reasons. I think the problem is, let's put cost aside. Nuclear is by far the highest cost form of replacing let's call it conventional energy. The permitting problems that relate to this, and we've studied this at length, you're looking at roughly 10- 15 years to permit nuclear. It is a very good answer, and I think the technology has really come along, particularly with small nuclear capability. Again, it's probably one of those things that I would put even further out than the other ones we talked about. Okay. Let's talk about renewables next, because sometimes that gets lost in the overall Enbridge story is just really the size of your renewable business is actually quite significant. Obviously, you're a big company, so it looks small when you look at it from that lens. Can you remind us what your strategy is in the renewable space side, and I know you put up targets of CAD 1 billion CapEx a year. That seems quite small relative to CAD 3 billion you spend a year. I'm always wondering or curious, why isn't it a bigger number? If we made it too big a number, you'd be the first one to be, you know, upset about it. The way I look at this is, this has been a very good couple of decades of building up our capabilities in this area. I would say the good news is, this is now a core part of our business. It's the fourth platform. I think on the growth question you're asking, I think the short answer is yes, we could easily spend more. In this frothy market, you've got to be focused on return and not size. There's so much capital chasing this, and I have to be honest, we've lost a lot of bids on renewables because of that. I think we're not going to sacrifice returns given the model we have. The bigger reason is, Ben, I think we don't need to, because we've got so much in the hopper right now. As you know, we've got three projects in construction now in France. Those are extremely strong in terms of their commercial underpinnings. They're going to cash flow by roughly 2022 to 2024 once they get done. The other good news is we've got a lot of development opportunities. The Rampion project that we put in a couple of years ago has got a big expansion to it. We've won an opportunity offshore France again, Dunkirk. The big one, I think going forward is going to be floating offshore wind. We're working on a pilot right now, again, offshore France on the south. Solar self-power is another big one. I would say, we're in decent shape. We think we can spend CAD 1 billion a year for the next several years achieving the criteria that we want. It's a matter of can you generate the returns and where do you make that cutoff? Okay. There's a related question from the audience here. I just wanted to weave in, being mindful of the time here as well. The question is, does the fact that so many renewable projects where Enbridge has been active are done with partnerships hurt or help your ability to generate returns above your hurdle rates? Are there enough projects over the medium to long-term to satisfy all the capital that are chasing these projects? I know it's a long question. Hopefully I got most of it or all of it. Okay. I think I got it. I'm going to focus a little bit on the first part. I think the JVs that we've done have been extremely helpful for us because remember, we've done a lot of work offshore pipelining in our number of decades of being in business. I would put offshore wind in the not too difficult category, technically, but we still have a lot to learn. Over the last decade or so, we've partnered with people that are really good at this, and we bring our expertise to the table in terms of development, operations, and construction. We've got some really good partnerships, but in terms of the return, though, I think the best example of that, Ben, is our partnership with Canada Pension Plan and how we've brought them into the onshore project. Sold down a bit of the interest, and we were able to generate some higher returns overall from bringing them into the project. That's how we would look at bringing them in. As I said earlier, I think we've got enough going on here for the next three, four years, and my guess is things will turn around. Things will get less frothy going forward. I'm happy that during this period of time here, where we've got all these projects in the works, again, we don't have to chase stuff. Okay. I know that there's a number of questions here, and I want to be mindful of time. Again, maybe we can take one or two more. Al. Sure. Does that sound good to you? It is. Before closing? Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. This one's about, do you have any procedures to ensure ESG compliance of partners in non-operating minority projects? Boy, you got a bunch of good questions from the audience today. Yeah. I would say that is probably our biggest challenge. When you're not operator, it's hard to sort of imply every rule that you have and procedure that you have. The way we deal with that challenge is through our representation on the management committees. Frankly, before we get into the deal, we try to make sure from a contractual point of view that that's covered off. I would say, though, generally speaking, particularly in the European projects, for renewables, great companies. I'm not as worried about that consistency with what we do on ESG. Maybe a little bit behind, I would say, in the U.S. and in terms of everybody getting on the ESG page. That's something we have to work with. We can have influence, but it's not perfect. Okay. The better question is, in time, looking upstream, and I guess this is in reference to the producers, will you differentiate or discriminate among peers you transport, i.e., will you only work with aligned partners that meet your ESG standards? Well, of course, we're going to have to focus a lot more energy on that going forward. It's one thing for us to have our own ESG standards, but obviously, that's sort of the next evolution here. I have to tell you, on the upstream side, let's just use liquids for a moment. I'm pretty comfortable that if you look at the majority of our supply on the liquid side, for example, I think about Suncor and CNRL and all the other big players, Cenovus. That makes up a very big chunk, Imperial, a very big chunk of the supply base in Western Canada. They're certainly very much aligned with focusing on R&D to reduce intensity. The other things that we talked about around diversity and inclusion and ESG generally. The answer is yes, we will have to look at that, but I'm pretty confident that our customers have very strong progressive thoughts on this. Okay. Well, time flies by quickly here, Al. Is there anything that maybe we may have missed that you'd like to close off here? For those with questions on the board still, feel free to reach out to the IR team with outstanding questions. Al, anything you'd like to share? Maybe just given your topic here today is ESG, and by the way, thanks again for doing this. It gives us a great opportunity to talk about what we can do, not just ourselves, but as industry. I think, number one, ESG has got to be part of the business. It's not a check the box. Secondly, more and more ESG, it just can't be a nice-to-have. It's a must. That means that I think in our case, it's a differentiator. I think others are going to have to catch up. Maybe just last point, I encourage investors to really look at the independent sources on this. You've got our stuff, Ben, and I'm sure everybody can look that up on our website. Really look at what the other agencies are saying about what we do on ESG. I think that'll be, obviously, the most credible source. I think we've got a good record that is coming through in all of those scores that you're seeing today. No. Absolutely, that fourth quarter flying, you scored quite highly on the ESG score thing. I encourage listeners, again, to look at that 19th report. It's just around the corner, 20th there. Al, really thank you for your time. It's been a great conversation. A lot of good questions answered. Thanks for your time. Well, look, Ben, we enjoy coming on with you here. Obviously, when people that cover us, cover us with strength and with knowledge of our industry, we're always happy to come on and talk about our business. Okay, great. For listeners, hope you've enjoyed the conversation with Al Monaco, President and CEO of Enbridge on ESG and where they're going long term on net carbon neutral targets by 2050. Stay safe, stay healthy, stay positive, everybody. Thanks.