All right, great. Good morning, Maurice. Thanks for the question. So, in terms of the ALJ's recommended opinion and order, I think we're fairly close. We've got the normal things that were not included, like LTI and various things like that, but I think the biggest gap here is the ROE and the fair value increment. And so, that was the exception that we filed in our testimony last week, was really pressing back on that ROE, that we've requested a 9.75%, and the ALJ has recommended a 9.4%. And her recommendation for the fair value increment is 0.2%, and ours is 0.66%, so, pushing back on that a little bit. She also did not recommend the expedited or accelerated depreciation at Springerville, nor did she support the system reliability benefit. So, expecting to have those issues heard in the open meeting, next week, and see where those turn out. But I think, largely, we're mostly aligned on all the other recommendations. I'd say the other big thing is the cost allocation that she's recommending to shift more of the cost to residential customers versus commercial. So, we did recommend that that take a more gradual approach than what she is recommending. In terms of relationship with the commission, I think the decision that you're referencing was a different makeup of commissioners. And so, two of those commissioners have been replaced since then, and I think we have a good relationship with our commissioners now, and I think that they have a commitment to improving the regulatory environment in Arizona, and we've seen some good decisions come out of the commission. So, I think they're headed in a better direction overall. Did I answer all of your questions or did I miss anything?