Thank you, and I apologize for the difficulty with the language.
Yes, we support the smallest possible area that you could look at as the basis for these deregulation decisions because it allows you the most precision. It also allows you to avoid the potential problems that could occur in either making or not making a regulatory decision in a larger area.
If you imagine a hypothetical large area, in which half is served by a number of competitors and the other half is not, and if you were to deregulate that area, then you would have a certain portion of the area not being served by competitors and deregulated, which is problematic. Conversely, if you choose to retain regulation, then the half of that area in which competitors are present is denied the benefits of complete competition because the regulatory framework stays in place.
If instead you can focus your regulatory decision on each half independently, in my hypothetical example, you can deregulate the area where competitors are present and allow consumers the full benefits of competition, while maintaining protection for consumers in the other area where competitors are not present.
So we always believe in going to the smallest area that can be practically administered.