Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
charge by one vendor or billed separately by one or more vendors. Id. (emphasis added). There is no comparable Policy Statement regarding natural gas billing. Spectrum fails to articulate why it should not be required to pay tax on electricity delivery when the Commonwealth’s Department of Revenue has specifically called for electricity delivery charges to be subject to sales tax in the clear language of the Policy Statement. Although the disparate treatment of electricity and natural gas may seem illogical to Spectrum, it apparently is the scheme intended by the legislature. It is not within this Court’s power to alter this scheme and the impact of any inconsistency is more properly addressed directly to the legislature. See Martin v. Soblotney, 502 Pa. 418, 466 A.2d 1022, 1025 (1983) ; Commonwealth v. Rieck Inv. Corp., 419 Pa. 52,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation
B. holding that the colorado constitution reserves no authority in the state legislature to change add to or diminish the qualifications for constitutionally created offices
C. holding that a court may not legislate or by interpretation add to legislation matters which the legislature saw fit not to include
D. holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language
E. recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.