With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". exceeds the original equipment cost — i.e., factors that, according to New § 1-201(37)[3], are consistent with true lease status); Owen, 221 B.R. at 61 (concluding that Brighb-Line Test did not establish a per se security agreement and then applying the following criteria in its reversionary interest analysis: (1) whether the option price is nominal; (2) whether the present value of the rental payments exceeds the original cost of the leased property; and (3) whether the lease term covers the total useful life of the equipment); Taylor, 209 B.R. at 487 (determining existence of significant rever-sionary interest by applying a mix of the Residual Value Factors contained in New § 1 — 201(37)[2] and the factors set forth in New § l-201(37)[3](a), (b), and (c)); Murray, 191 B.R. at 316 (<HOLDING>); Howell, 161 B.R. at 289-90 (determining that

A: holding that net lease provisions in agreement together with other factors establish that the transaction is a sale
B: holding the lessee in providing free gas to the lessor owed the lessor the same duty of care as a regulated public utility would owe its customers despite express lease language placing the risk of using the gas on the lessor
C: holding that the debtor could not treat a lessor as a secured creditor by paying the present value of the purchase option price of the lease through her chapter 13 plan
D: holding that factors cited by the debtor  including the fact that present value of total rental payments exceeds the equipments cost and the agreement contains net lease provisions  do not establish that the lessor relinquished its reversionary interest
D.