Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
jurisdiction over the industry.” Connecticut Light, 324 U.S. at 531, 65 S.Ct. 749. Additionally, the Court was especially cognizant of the legislative history of the FPA in which Congress communicated its belief that the FPA did not give the FPC “jurisdiction over local rates.” Id. at 525-28, 65 S.Ct. 749. The Court also cited a House of Representatives report which stated that “no jurisdiction is given over local distribution of electric energy, and the authority of States to fix local rates is not disturbed even in those cases where the energy is brought in from another state.” Id. at 527, 65 S.Ct. 749 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 7, 8, 27 (1935)); cf. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Ind., 332 U.S. 507, 68 S.Ct. 190, 92 L.Ed. 128 (1947) . With this background in mind, we believe that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state court could not have unreasonably applied federal law if no clear supreme court precedent existed
B. holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right
C. holding nga extended federal regulation only to area which supreme court had held state could not reach and did not usurp state authority
D. holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court
E. recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.