Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
thirty years later or to the impact that a second power line within the same corridor might have on the remaining property. ¶ 24. Where — as here — a new use is consistent with the general nature of an existing easement, the burdened estate may nevertheless be entitled to compensation if it is more onerous than originally contemplated. See, e.g., Minot v. United States, 546 F.2d 378, 381 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (recognizing that, where local power agency installed higher and wider transmission towers in place of existing line within easement owned by United States, power agency could be “held to account for an inverse condemnation” in overburdening plaintiffs’ property, although there was no basis for holding United States liable); Grimes v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 96 S.E.2d 713, 714 (N.C. 1957) ; City of Sweetwater v. McEntyre, 232 S.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that placement of additional lines and crossarms on existing power poles by second power company imposed additional burden on easement entitling landowner to compensation
B. holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements
C. holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement
D. recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power
E. holding that the owners of the dominant estate had the right to build utility poles along side of a road easement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.