Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I consider myself a pretty big nerd, and I don't really understand what that meant. So maybe if I could get the Minister to explain it a little bit further in plain English. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to turn to the deputy one more time. I know we do have a bit of detail here that we could provide. Let me start there, and perhaps we'll also bring Amy into the question -- Amy Burt into the answer before we are done. Thanks.

Thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.

Okay, thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So would it not be something that could be addressed with regular project management processes, like GANT charts? It's -- or is there just way too many moving pieces? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, so some work that we do certainly does already include using things like a GANT chart or other strategic tool. This was really meant to be one that would look, again, at that process from a different lens. So, you know, you can say, for example, if you use that lens and you identify a process that's not efficient, this is the committee that would be then led or tasked with fixing the problem. So even a small example would be using eApprove for approving monthly variance reports that come through and obviously -- I shouldn't say obviously. But Department of Infrastructure does have a lot of variances on -- because there's such a large number of projects that are being monitored on any given time. So, you know, helps to coordinate that process as a whole. So it really -- you know, much like having the red tape production working group over in the Department of Finance, you could say it doesn't just naturally happen, and the reality is when, you know, folks are doing their day-to-day work and keeping the lights on, that doesn't necessarily lead to taking the time to evaluate whether or not what we're doing is the best way of doing it. This is meant to be a focused effort to do that. It's in the business plans focused effort to do that. It's a publicly reported target as part of that business plan that, really, we want to say this is an area that we know that we have some room that we could do some work on, and this is that initiative. I hope that's a bit more helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And when the Minister said eApprove, my whole body shuttered. Not a fan. But I understand why it does help projects move along more smoothly in theory.

Changing the line of question. I was hoping that the Minister could get into what budgetary implications can be expected from the department's commitment to get to net zero by 2050. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm expecting there may be some. I can't necessarily say with certainty at this moment, and the reason being that the energy strategy update is still being drafted. It is an item that I believe we will have something forward for within this fiscal year, and once we have the new updated strategy that outlines a bit more, that certainly puts us in a better position to be specific as to what areas of net zero will require funding. I mean, there's certainly with respect to any significant energy infrastructure changes, whether it's the Taltson Expansion, if that is an area that we move forward on, whether it's micro hydro projects in small communities, all of those will advance us to a net zero. Which one advances under which timeline, certainly that changes, but all of those items come with significant dollar value. So all of those, of course, are capital projects, Mr. Chair. Those are going to be the big-ticket items. But, yes, that's -- at this point in time, again, I -- what I can commit to is making sure we get that new updated energy strategy out as that will really outline ultimately where the budget will be needed. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that answer. So keeping that in mind, then, that you're expecting to see more through the renewed energy strategy, will there be a lens placed on some of these projects, the larger capital projects the Minister mentioned, that will provide information to both Members and the public around the sort of estimated spends that will help us get to net zero; will that be part of the information presented? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we already do provide certainly some information with respect to the amount of change or expected change that you would see in the capital planning process. The macroeconomic policy that we are looking to bring forward and to put -- apply a lens to will also include a consideration since there's obviously -- again, I shouldn't say obviously. Nothing's -- there's always open questions. But not having access to energy efficiency does, indeed, create risk of increased costs over time. So that would be part of that lens, and that is something that is coming through and will be part of the substantiation that we see for capital projects. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And with the time I have left, I guess I'll be -- I'll try and be a little bit more specific.

Could committee anticipate to see an estimated dollar amount attached to large capital projects in terms of how much of that spend would go towards net zero reductions? Obviously, I realize that might be very intangible in terms of, say, something like Taltson or -- but it could be something really tangible like increasing the spend through Arctic Energy Alliance on getting wood stoves into more small communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there certainly is a cost benefit analysis that does form part of the business case for any large project, and that would want to take into consideration O and M costs which, in turn, would reflect higher costs depending upon the source of energy or the volatility of the energy source. So Mr. Speaker -- or sorry, Mr. Chair, the short answer is I would think we would -- the answer's going to be yes, but maybe not on every single item or every single smaller project, but on larger projects it will be. Where I think this might -- the rub of the question, though, is on whether or not the information that we're doing or the analysis we're doing is meeting the request of the Member. I certainly heard different versions of this. So perhaps I can commit to sit down and just make sure that what we are bringing forward in our capital plan does meet the needs and requests, and certainly, if not, I'm only going to face more questions, so I'd be -- it's in my interest to have that resolved early. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member from Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is I'm kind of looking at the top of the list there for contributions advancing hydro public engagement, then has no more money here, and then looking down, energy corporation lease, lease agreement, energy, NWT energy efficiency projects. Is one of these, or maybe throughout the other pages, is there a program that is undergoing discussions and possible funding for the Deline hydro project? Thank you, Mr. Chair.