Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to start with Mr. Anderson. I was intrigued by a lot of your testimony. One of the things you said was there was no compelling reason for change. If there was no compelling reason for change, why do you think the commission made such a radical change in the status quo?
You mentioned there was a small group that got to them early, and after that, 75% of the presentations and representations in the public sessions were in opposition to these changes, but that for some reason the commission turned a deaf ear to this 75%. Can you expand on the history and the small group and how this radical change was pushed in the first place?