And we'll take our next question from Angie Storozynski of Macquarie.
Benjamin G. S. Fowke - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Hello, Angie.
Teresa S. Madden - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Hi, Angie.
Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: Hello. How are you?
Benjamin G. S. Fowke - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Good.
Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: I just want to go back again to this Minnesota legislation. I mean we've been following it, and so here are a couple of concerns that we have. First of all, it seems like the legislature is split in Minnesota. And so, why do you feel convinced or hopeful that both House and the Senate can agree on the version of a bill that will actually include those multiyear rate cases? And more importantly, so we had this issue in Colorado already, that the regulators then didn't necessarily think that the new law is really binding, it's more of a suggestion. So, how likely is it that we do get a bill, and then the regulators in Minnesota think that it's still an option for them to pursue or not, and then we may end up in yet another rate case?
Benjamin G. S. Fowke - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Well, couple questions that you asked. First of all, as we all know, sausage making and the political process can be kind of messy. And that's what we are in. But what we're being told, and what we understand is, while there is controversy between the House and Senate bill, and that's the difference between Republican versus DFL controlled, and their different interests, the multiyear plan provisions really aren't controversial. So, when this thing goes to Conference Committee, we think it's a very good possibility that the provisions of the multiyear plan remain. While you can only be cautiously optimistic, because it is a political process, and if there were things in the final bill that was passed by both House and Senate that were unappealing to the Governor, you always have a risk of veto. So, that's the reality there. In terms of whether it will be viewed by the Commission as an option versus a mandate, I think, one, you'd have to look and see how the legislation is finalized. But I also believe that the Commission is frustrated with how the process works in Minnesota to sell (35:30). So, I think you kind of saw that as the Commission was thinking about the opportunity that we said to stay out of 2016. And I'm not sure that they felt they were – it was quite ready. And so, with legislation, even if it's an option versus a mandate, I think, they feel much more comfortable with that. We have Chris Clark here, I don't know if, Chris, you want to add to that?