[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Case 15-1139, et al.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
Amira Main, formerly known as Bangor Hydroelectric Company, et al.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Petitioners, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
Mr. Atkins for Petitioners, Amira Main.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Mr. Marshall for Petitioners, NESCO.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Banta for Respondent.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
And Mr. Mazina for Intervener.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, I am Sean Atkins on behalf of Transmission Owners.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
With me are my colleagues Ken Jaffe and Ambria Watts.

[00:01:29] Speaker 02:
The two sets of petitioners in this case were allocated 15 minutes for oral argument.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
We've elected to divide that evenly, seven and a half each.

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
I reserve one minute for rebuttal.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Unlike other cases that this court in the Seventh Circuit considered related to rights of first refusal under Order 1000, in this case the Commission recognized that Mobile Sierra applies to the contract rights in question.

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
So the question presented to this court for the first time is whether FERC properly applied Mobile Sierra in abrogating those contract rights.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
In the Order 1000 rulemaking, FERC found that the record was not sufficient to address mobile CIRA contract-specific issues.

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
FERC said that it needed a polar record on compliance to address those issues.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
In this case, FERC ignored that polar record, ignored additional evidence that came into compliance proceedings.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
FERC claims to have made a mobile CIRA finding and even pays lip service to this Court's decision in Texaco.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
But FERC disregarded this court's directive in Texaco that a Mobile Sierra public interest finding requires more than a simple reference to the policies to be advanced by a rule.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
Instead, FERC simply repackaged its Order 1000 findings and records and relied solely on that.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
Critically, FERC ignored evidence submitted by a neutral party, the not-for-profit independent system operator for New England.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
ISO New England, which has no financial stake in who builds transmission facilities in the region, and which has been responsible for transmission planning in the region for over a decade, submitted testimony explaining why they had concluded that aggregating the contract's rights would actually increase costs to customers, could lead to delays, could lead to a failure to get needed facilities constructed.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
This testimony included discussions of New England-specific examples at length.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
It included illustrative cost impacts.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
I would direct the court's attention to Joint Appendix 58 and 65.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
FERC also ignored evidence and testimony submitted by the transmission owners, which addressed the issue of benefits to consumers under the prior transmission planning regime and the contract rights, specifically laid out evidence of benefits to consumers through collaboration that will be lost if the contract rights are abrogated.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
Now when you look at the FERC orders to see whether or not they've actually addressed any of this evidence, it's important to recall that the way the FERC orders are structured is there's long portions kind of summarizing what all the pleadings are.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
But what you really want to look at is the commission determination portions of those orders.

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
So in this case, you would look at Joint Appendix 267 to 283 and Joint Appendix 429 to 441.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
When you look at those sections in the Mobile Sierra finding, the Commission did not address the analysis in the ISO New England testimony or the transmission testimony at all.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
For example, Mr. Rourke, the ISO New England witness, provided testimony that abrogation of the rights would be expected to delay construction of reliability upgrades by a year or longer.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
And it pointed out that delays in transmission upgrades could cost hundreds of millions of dollars of impacts to customers.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
It laid out, for example, one example in Massachusetts where two years of failing to address the transmission constraint resulted in costs of $300 million.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
So this is just one example.

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
If the requirement in Texaco to make a particularized finding of fact means anything, it must mean that FERC cannot ignore the evidence, the contract-specific evidence, that it invited to be submitted in the compliance proceeding.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
But that's exactly what FERC did here.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
And that is the reason why two of the five FERC commissioners dissented from the majority on the Mobile Sierra issue.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
Commissioner Moller specifically cited this court's decision in Texaco and said FERC had not made the particularized finding required by that.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
Commissioner Clark made the same statement, basically said that the majority decision had not made the granular finding and not addressed the facts necessary to address Mobile Sierra.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
For this reason, we request that this court remand the case to FERC

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
direct them to do the job they have to do under Mobile Sierra to make the particularized finding a fact and fully address the contract-specific evidence in the record and then basically make the right determination.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
Now, we believe that when FERC fully considers the evidence submitted with particular attention to the evidence of the independent ISO,

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
They will find that they cannot meet the standard of showing an unequivocal public necessity of aggregating the contract rights.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
When they address that evidence, we believe they will see that consumers in New England actually benefit from the contract arrangements and that, in fact, the additional harm that the independent ISO had identified should not be implemented.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
So basically, all we are asking is that this court direct Burke to

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
to undertake an analysis of the evidence.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
Now, there is precedent which says that an agency must account for evidence in the record that disputes its findings.

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
And it's really notable here that they failed to do that.

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
Again, if you look at the commission determination in those sections, they simply don't address this evidence at all.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
On rehearing, the TOs and the ISO, TOs, transmission owners, both pointed to FERC that they had ignored the evidence.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
Nonetheless, they just didn't address any of the specific testimony that I referenced in the joint appendix.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
The one fact that FERC references in rehearing is the fact that there has been approximately $5 billion of transmission built under the contact regime and an additional $6 billion planned.

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
However, if you read the FERC orders, you would somehow assume that was the only evidence offered in the ISO and transmission owner on the issue of Mobile Sierra and what public interest requires in New England.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
A review of the testimony in the record, though, shows that's simply not the case.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Now FERC refers to the plenary authority in the Permian error rate-based cases.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
And they act as if that statement stands on its own.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
They fail to acknowledge that the Permian error-based rate cases also refer to the unequivocal public necessity standard.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
And that standard, of course, had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
I will acknowledge that there is precedent in this course, which is quite different, and the Seventh Circuit.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
I particularly would point out that in the Seventh Circuit, although in that case the court found mobiles here did not apply, they noted, however, that competition is not always good.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
They noted that, in fact, in theory, someone could submit evidence that competition would increase costs, would have adverse impacts on customers.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
And in the Seventh Circuit decision, the Mysore transmission owner case, the court said, well, none of that evidence was in the record.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
This case, that evidence is in the record.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
This case, that evidence was submitted to FERC.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
FERC invited it to be submitted.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
And in their orders, they simply did not address it at all.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
So to make the particularized finding required by Texaco and properly implement Mobile Sierra, we request that you remand and have them address the evidence.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
Jason Marshall for Petitioners in case number 151141.

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
I'd like to request two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
The argument you just heard, Your Honor, concerns one aspect of Order 1000 compliance in New England, and this case concerns a wholly separate issue.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
Here, FERC has unlawfully expanded Order 1000.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
FERC has imposed a new requirement regarding the selection of public policy projects, effectuating a change to Order 1000 without observing notice and common procedures, in contravention of the Administrative Procedure Act.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
As a result, the New England states and stakeholders have been deprived of their right to respond to FERC's proposal, and the rules that are currently in effect are fundamentally flawed.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
This court can correct this deficiency by first vacating those aspects of the order that unlawfully expand the scope of the rule, and second, by directing that FERC modify its orders to ensure that its orders are in line with the Order 1000 mandate to consider public policies that drive transmission and nothing further.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
It's critical, Your Honor, is that the region be given an opportunity to comply with the Order 1000 mandate and not an expanded version of that order.

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, there appears to be a clear path to resolution in this case.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
FERC in its brief indicates that, or it seems from their brief that there is fundamental agreement on the issues that petitioners raise here.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
In FERC's brief, it appears at least to recognize that

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
Order 1000 does not require the actual selection of projects.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
And there's a clarity in that brief that is lacking in the underlying orders.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
In addition, FERC's brief also recognizes that states have a responsibility and an obligation to execute their own laws.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
It seems like all that's left at this point is for FERC to issue a subsequent order with the effect of law that provides that same level of clarity to the region.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
Unless the court has any questions, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

[00:11:00] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:11:02] Speaker 04:
It doesn't lower.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
Good morning, I'm Carol Banta for the Commission.

[00:11:20] Speaker 04:
I'll begin with the public policy requirements.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
There was nothing in the Commission's brief that wasn't in the orders.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
We cited to, in the rehearing order, paragraphs, not only the controversial sentence in 126 on

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
which is on J.A.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
400.

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
But we also discussed the next two sentences in paragraph 126 going over onto J.A.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
401, as well as 127, 128, and 133.

[00:11:49] Speaker 04:
There was nothing new in our brief.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
The commission in this proceeding

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
rejected in part the compliance filing by the ISO as to the public policy, the transmission solutions needs driven by public policy requirements.

[00:12:09] Speaker 04:
Because the ISO delegated everything to the state's committee and the commission said no, the evaluation needs to be done by the public utility transmission provider which in a regional transmission organization is the here ISO New England.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
And if something is selected to be put in the plan for cost allocation purposes, the ISO needs to be the one to do it.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
And the commission said that over and over in, again, paragraphs 26, 27, 28, and again in 33.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
I'd also refer the court to, in the compliance order, I think it's paragraph 108 in particular is talking about the problem with relying on the committee

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
to select if a selection is to be made.

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
There's nothing in these orders that creates a new requirement that wasn't in 1000.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
So there's nothing the court needs to do but affirm in that regard.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
The commission said, you're right, we meant who needs to be doing it.

[00:13:10] Speaker 04:
We're not saying they have to select something for every transmission need.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
I would also note that

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
The public, not only is the public policy set by the different states and to the extent federal public policy is involved by whatever agencies would do that, the transmission needs in the ISO procedure, the transmission needs driven by those public policy requirements are also identified by the state's committee or the individual states.

[00:13:38] Speaker 04:
In Order 1000, the Commission said, we're not saying who has to identify the transmission needs for which solutions will be considered.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
ISO came in and said we would like NESCO, the State's Committee, to do that.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
The Commission actually approved that.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
I think that's in Paragraph 108.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
It may also be earlier in 1967 of the compliance order.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
So unless the court has any questions on the public policy, I guess I'll move on to the public interest standard.

[00:14:11] Speaker 04:
The commission here, the commission in Order 1000 did say that it was not going to consider the individual regional claims

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
in the generic proceeding, because it did want to have the opportunity to look at everything in the separate proceedings.

[00:14:30] Speaker 04:
And it did, as they each came up.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
I mean, this court has already had the Southwest Power Pool won.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
Seventh Circuit has already had the Mid-Continent ISO one.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
I think the PJM one is pending.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
In ISO New England, the commission looked and, as it had in other proceedings, said Mobile Sierra does not apply as a matter of entitlement.

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
But we are looking at your particular agreement that we approved in 2004, and we said we'd give it Mobile Sierra protection, so we will give that here.

[00:15:00] Speaker 04:
So that was different than in the other proceedings.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
And it looked at the findings about the public interest that it made in Order 1000, which is entirely appropriate to do.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
I'm very much like what happened in Order 888 and the transmission access case.

[00:15:16] Speaker 05:
When is your response to Mr. Atkins' claim that FERC did not make particularized findings a fact?

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
Well, it did make particularized findings a fact, but I would argue that Texaco was not about making particularized findings a fact.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
It was about making particularized determinations of how

[00:15:41] Speaker 04:
the plenary public interest finding, or the generic public interest finding, applies to the contract before it.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
That doesn't necessarily mean new facts.

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
It does mean looking at this particular contract.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
So what the Commission said for its particularized findings, I think it's especially encapsulated in, I think it's 202, and we're hearing order paragraphs, 202 and 204, which is on GA 439 and 440.

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
It's said it elsewhere too, but the particularized analysis was saying we have already decided that it is acutely important to the public interest to introduce competition into the transmission process.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
That was decided in Order 1000 and affirmed in South Carolina.

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
And with regard to now looking at this particular contract and the right of first refusal, the particularized, again going to paragraph 204,

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
It says, the particularized analysis of the manner in which the contract harms the public interest and the extent to which abrogation mitigates the deleterious effect is that this anti-competitive right of first refusal, which is designed to prevent competitive transmission entry to keep incumbent transmission providers

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
in charge of transmission development, it directly negates.

[00:17:03] Speaker 04:
It doesn't just implicate the public interest that was so important in Order 1000.

[00:17:08] Speaker 04:
It directly negates the Commission rules promulgated for the purpose of protecting the public interest.

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
So having found

[00:17:17] Speaker 04:
that competition in the coming massive expansion of the grid, the large amounts of development that are expected to occur throughout the country, and factually specifically here in New England as well.

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
The Commission made the decision, the determination in Order 1000.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
that the public interest acutely requires for the interest of the consumers, the ratepayers, making sure that this massive amount of transmission development happens in the most cost-effective, efficient and cost-effective manner possible for the purpose of getting the best ideas, getting the most efficient

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
projects getting maybe more projects suggested that that would serve the public and doing it at just reasonable rates why isn't our decision in oklahoma dispositive on this question

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
well it certainly is as to whether mobile syrup well and because in new england at the same contract we're talking about the same or is there anything missing something uh... well not missing they can say in rebuttal they think there's something different but when i read oklahoma it sure looks like that's kind of the end of that question well it certainly is reflects the court's understanding of the anti-competitive nature of uh... and

[00:18:33] Speaker 06:
And then that FERC is entitled to carry that policy determination from order 1000 forward.

[00:18:42] Speaker 06:
And it mightily affects their thinking about individual cases.

[00:18:46] Speaker 06:
There's no presumption coming from Mobile Sierra now in light of 1000 in these kinds of cases.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
I certainly hate to disagree because obviously that favors the agency.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
The only reason the commission went on to do something here is because ISO New England was in a unique position in that it had the 2004 orders where the transmission... Right, no, no, I understand.

[00:19:08] Speaker 06:
It doesn't... There's nothing wrong with the commission saying more, but Oklahoma seems to have a very strong statement about 1,000 means.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
Yes, I agree.

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
And in particular, that these contracts that have the right of first refusal, which reflects the common interest of the transmission owners.

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
Yes, the independent system operator was a party to the contract, but the commission said in its mobile CIRA determination, that doesn't tell us anything.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
I think, as actually the Oklahoma court said, that doesn't reflect an adversarial

[00:19:44] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I'm agreeing with you.

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
Yes, and certainly both Seventh Circuit and particularly this Court understanding that the right of first refusal provisions are anti-competitive in a way that is directly contrary to Order 1000.

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:20:02] Speaker 04:
If the Court has no further questions, I'll see you the rest of my time.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
Paul Mazina for the interveners supporting the Commission on the Elimination of the Rights of First Refusal.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
I think it's important not to lose sight here, as Judge Edwards' question suggested, of the fact that what we're talking about is an agreement between competitors to exclude competition.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
That's something that the Commission has found and this Court has found.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have any of the basic characteristics that justify applying Mobile Sierra.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
And I think that's important to this Court's analysis for three reasons.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
First, as you know, we've argued the Commission would not have had discretion to uphold these contracts after South Carolina and after Oklahoma gas, based on a heightened Mobile Sierra standard.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
I think that's right, and I think that's an alternative basis on which you could affirm.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
There's no chenery problem, obviously, with saying that the Commission reached the right result as a matter of law without embracing all of its reasoning.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
But second, at a minimum, if we're in a world where the Commission is doing mobile Sierra as a matter of discretion, I think that the Court's review has to be especially deferential.

[00:21:14] Speaker 01:
And I like the way Judge Millett put it at the oral argument in Oklahoma Gaps, where she said if we're doing this based on discretion,

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
We shouldn't even really call it Mobile Sierra.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
We should call it something else.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
We should call it Mobile Sierra Prime, because it's really the commission's interpretation of what sort of public interest showing should be required under the just and reasonable standard in this particular context.

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
So I think extra deference is appropriate.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
But my question is why do we need to reach any of that?

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
I mean, you won.

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
Yes, I agree.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
And that comes to my third point.

[00:21:47] Speaker 01:
I think the public interest finding under any version of mobile CR is amply supported.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
When you're dealing with this kind of facially anti-competitive contract, which the court has already agreed, as you're supposed to put it, almost resembles a cartel, it's really not clear what more the commission can or should have to do

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
When you have a party like my client saying, we'd like to compete, we think we can do better, we can do better with these projects, do them more cost effectively, sort of economics 101 to say they should be given a shot and that's going to benefit consumers.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
I see my time is up if there are no further questions.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:22] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:22:34] Speaker 05:
Council, I think you had no time left, but we'll give you a minute.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
Oh, I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
I thought I had reserved one minute.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
Just quickly to address the question of whether or not Oklahoma Gas and Electric is dispositive.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
We believe it is not.

[00:22:49] Speaker 02:
This is a case where

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
FERC had afforded mobile CR treatment to the contract provisions in 2004.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
They concluded in the orders below that they must be bound by its prior application of mobile CR.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
So, in fact, this is a case where they must meet what FERC itself conceives as a heightened standard.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
We also know that Texaco tells us that the public interest finding to address Mobile Sierra is different and more exacting than the standard for making just a generic rulemaking finding.

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
Again, the thing you should really be focusing on is the fact that there was ample evidence that the contract rights, retention of the contract rights, furthers the public interest and elimination of them would harm the public interest.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
And we should be troubled that FERC did not address this in its orders.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
And for that reason, we ask for a remand.

[00:23:38] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, FERC cites to the rehearing order as providing the clarity that petitioners are seeking here regarding project selection, yet that rehearing order lacks the clarity that's in FERC's brief on that issue.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
And curiously, in paragraph 126,

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
First brief wholly fails to grapple with the operative sentence there, which is, we clarify that if the system operator does not find that there's a more cost-effective or efficient project, we need not select.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
They never address that sentence, and as our brief demonstrated, that sentence drives the conclusion that a substantive outcome will result from this process, whether the selection of a regional project or a local project.

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
And furthermore, Your Honors, the current rules that are in effect now are based on the system operator's reading of FERC's order as requiring project selection, as is reflected in the system operator's reharing request.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
And just on Project Selection, Your Honor, I just underscore what I stated at the outset, which is it appears that the parties don't disagree that the states can play an appropriate role in the valuation process.

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
And that would be an issue that we would seek to address on remand.

[00:25:02] Speaker 06:
So if there was an opinion issued from this Court that said, we read for it not to be saying that this controls substantive results, then you don't have any concern, right?

[00:25:14] Speaker 06:
In other words, we just disagree with your reading.

[00:25:16] Speaker 06:
You're reading it very tightly and narrowly.

[00:25:17] Speaker 06:
That's not the way I read it.

[00:25:19] Speaker 06:
And so if we read it the way you say their brief says it, then you have no issue.

[00:25:26] Speaker 06:
You're done, right?

[00:25:29] Speaker 06:
You should say, sure.

[00:25:30] Speaker 06:
I'm happy.

[00:25:31] Speaker 06:
That's all I need.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
Yes, if you read it the way that we're reading it.

[00:25:35] Speaker 06:
This doesn't control the substantive results.

[00:25:38] Speaker 06:
It certainly doesn't look like what they're doing.

[00:25:43] Speaker 06:
no maybe you're right if you get an opinion that says that then you can tell everyone you won that issue i mean i just don't see it in an opinion better than a remand right you have it in an opinion that says that you're done you get it right that that your honor but we would obviously be very happy with that that they're just a little the one point i would make is the rules that are in effect currently are based on the system operators reading well then they would have to

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
rethink what they've been doing this week we would that's what we want the rules of your eyes and i don't resist goodness without your honors i'll conclude