With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on CPS Energy’s Billing Years 2005-2010. No evidence was proffered regarding CPS Energy’s pole-attachment rates in 2011, nor were allegations made in the proceedings below that CPS Energy’s 2011 pole-attachment rates were discriminatory or otherwise failed to comply with PURA Section 54.204. In similar situations involving what is essentially a pre-enforcement suit, courts have concluded that the controversy is ripe for review only if an enforcement action is not merely remote, conjectural, or hypothetical, but imminent or sufficiently likely. See Trinity Settlement Servs., LLC v. Texas State Secs. Bd., 417 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. denied); see also TXU Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Tex., 51 S.W.3d 275, 287-88 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam) (Owen, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>); Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. CenterPoint

A: holding guidelines to be only advisory
B: holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only
C: holding that commissions decision that an adjustment for loss on reacquired debt should be made in future proceedings was an advisory and premature finding
D: holding that exercising control over other participants is one factor among many that should be considered not a requirement for applying the adjustment
C.