mr. scheidegger. >> i think the challenge we all have now, what was happening in 2011 and the commission sent the parties back to negotiate and work out an agreement? had the benefit of hindsight, a n.s.r. would have been the way to go. i think the expectation of the commission was, you will reach an agreement and you will reach an agreement that is acceptable to us, so that we don't have to address the project and the concerns we have with the project. from the standpoint of here we are later, without an n.s.r., but implied in the direction of the parties to go back and negotiate is the understanding that that is going to be the agreement with respect to the scope of the deck. we never got the benefit of the commission's views in 2011. i think it is fair to say that we did get the benefit of the views of the commission now, in 2019 with respect to what they thought of the project, whether they expressed it explicitly, with respect does it or does it not meet design guidelines as it has been noted, there asked asked that arguably do not meet the design guidelines. we certainly made those