That's a very good question.
We looked at a number of different options, including the regulatory option. The way it works is that the Northern Pipeline Agency has one proponent, and the NEB does not, so it's a different scenario there. With dramatic fluctuations in the way that the agency has to bill the proponent, it causes it to over-collect based on the estimated costs that it bills the proponent on.
At the end of the year, we're looking at actual costs so that the proponent would only be billed based on actuals. That puts more efficiency in the system so that we're not billing up front, four times a year, based on estimates. We're actually billing once at the end of the year based on actuals. It would be more transparent to the proponent as opposed to using the formula that we have right now, which would perpetuate the problem that we're dealing with at the moment.