Let me speak to each one directly.
With regard to the commercial harm, I've already spoken to our point of view there. We just think it's good commercial practice that if you do get into a dispute and there is a need to determine what the recourse is--how do you fix it?--then obviously you need to look at what the commercial harm was. It just seems to us to be self-evident.
There is going to have to be some process that's going to have to happen anyway, so why not have it in the act and make it clear and just be done with it? That's just a matter of making sure the system works well.
With regard to the ancillary services, most people would agree there needs to be clarity between what's a service and what's a rate. In other words, what's a charge for something different and what's part of the rate? You don't want confusion there. It needs to be clear, and that's in everybody's best interest.