Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the burdens of the regulation upon the interstate market, while excluding similar in-state interests. The court concludes therefore that, in light of the exemption for the local preference, Section 115A.47 is not evenhanded in its application. Further, in support of its argument that the effects of Section 115A.47 are merely incidental, the State asserts that any impact on interstate commerce is small because most waste is already managed in Minnesota. The MPCA estimates that approximately 193,000 tons of Minnesota waste per year, or four percent of the total waste generated in Minnesota, is managed outside of the State. The court finds that this argument misconstrues the nature of the incidental impact on interstate commerce that is permissible. See Waste Systems, 985 F.2d at 1387 . The volume of interstate commerce impacted is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss
B. holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else
C. holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa
D. holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand
E. holding that the loss of 10400 tons annually was not incidental
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.