[00:00:00] Speaker 02: Case number 201277 et al, a Mirren Illinois company doing business as a Mirren Illinois et al petitioners versus Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [00:00:12] Speaker 02: For the petitioners, Ms. [00:00:13] Speaker 02: Chu for the respondent. [00:00:26] Speaker 01: I'll see you when you're ready. [00:00:28] Speaker 00: Good morning. [00:00:29] Speaker 00: I'd like to reserve three minutes for a button. [00:00:33] Speaker 00: For over ten years, Emory spent millions of dollars on transmission materials and cost. [00:00:39] Speaker 00: These are things like schools of wire, poles, things of that sort. [00:00:46] Speaker 00: It is undisputed that that category of materials is recoverable under the Federal Power Act, [00:00:53] Speaker 00: And under further policy, because, of course, those expenditures are necessary so that customers get reliable energy transmitted through the transmission. [00:01:03] Speaker 00: Now, Amarin, during this period, following standard industry practice, reported all of those costs and materials on line eight of page 227 of form one. [00:01:15] Speaker 00: Of course, that made a lot of sense because that is the only line that identifies functionalization of transmission costs. [00:01:24] Speaker 00: Then in 2018, FERC changed how it wanted the form filled out, said that all those costs that are construction need to be put on line five only. [00:01:37] Speaker 00: Now, we have no particular problem with putting those costs where FERC wants them now going forward, even though that makes the form kind of a mess. [00:01:46] Speaker 00: You know, it's their form. [00:01:47] Speaker 00: We're happy to do it. [00:01:49] Speaker 00: But the problem is that then they ordered 10 years of retroactive refunds for expenditures that are unquestionably prudent, recoverable under the Federal Power Act and FERC policy. [00:02:03] Speaker 00: Now, in our brief, we talked about multiple independent reasons why this court should vacate the orders on review. [00:02:12] Speaker 00: But as we pointed out in our reply brief, the most straightforward way for this court to dispose of this case is apply this court's decisions in Code Gateway, China Concord, Gulf Power, and say that FERC entirely failed to exercise its discretion [00:02:29] Speaker 00: in determining whether in good conscience and equity, there should be refunds here. [00:02:35] Speaker 00: Now, again, the legal test that this court has laid out in those cases are articulated for retroactive refunds, which is an equitable remedy in the nature of discouragement, is in good conscience and in equity. [00:02:49] Speaker 00: Can the utility keep that money? [00:02:52] Speaker 00: Would the utility get some sort of windfall [00:02:55] Speaker 03: And can I ask you about the windfall? [00:02:57] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:02:58] Speaker 03: That seems like it's a key idea in all of these cases. [00:03:04] Speaker 03: So on one level, it seems your position has a lot of force. [00:03:12] Speaker 03: This seems hyper-technical. [00:03:14] Speaker 03: We're talking about lines on a form. [00:03:18] Speaker 03: And so [00:03:20] Speaker 03: There's no windfall relative to what might be thought a just and reasonable rate under the statute. [00:03:29] Speaker 03: But in the context of the filed rate doctrine, why shouldn't we think of windfall as windfall meaning something above and beyond the filed rate? [00:03:43] Speaker 03: And by that measure, there is a windfall because your tariff didn't cover line five. [00:03:50] Speaker 00: The nature of an equitable inquiry is you look beyond form and you look at substance. [00:03:56] Speaker 00: This court certainly found an error in Coke Gateway. [00:04:00] Speaker 00: That was an error. [00:04:01] Speaker 00: And this court made clear in Coke Gateway and those other cases that a finding of an error, which by the way, we dispute that we made an error, but a finding of an error is the beginning of the inquiry. [00:04:11] Speaker 00: It is not the end of the inquiry. [00:04:13] Speaker 00: In fact, there was an argument in Town of Concord where the firm was on the other side. [00:04:19] Speaker 00: The towns there were arguing first got to give a give a retroactive refund automatically. [00:04:25] Speaker 00: It has it has no statute inferred and it has no discretion and first argued forcefully. [00:04:29] Speaker 00: No, we have discretion. [00:04:31] Speaker 00: There's no automatic refunds. [00:04:32] Speaker 00: We need to do an equitable analysis. [00:04:34] Speaker 00: Well, they won that argument and they can't run away from it. [00:04:36] Speaker 00: Now they have discretion and they have to look into the substance. [00:04:41] Speaker 00: Were these recoverable costs as a matter of the Federal Power Act and FERC policy? [00:04:47] Speaker 00: Yes, that's undisputed here. [00:04:49] Speaker 03: But where that argument seems to point to is that the violation of the filed rate won't produce a refund if [00:05:10] Speaker 03: the amount is just and reasonable under the statute. [00:05:14] Speaker 03: I think that as a as a general matter correct but there could be other maybe I mean maybe but that's a pretty broad principle it seems like the default rule is in the in the run-of-the-mind case if you have a violation of file rate doctrine you'd get a refund. [00:05:31] Speaker 00: I mean that's certainly not what town of Concord said I think that was kind of the core submission of the towns in town of Concord that [00:05:37] Speaker 00: They're just like that. [00:05:38] Speaker 00: And Ferck argued forcefully the other way. [00:05:40] Speaker 00: He said, it's the beginning of the inquiry. [00:05:41] Speaker 00: You got to have an error to have, I mean, retroactive refunds. [00:05:44] Speaker 00: This is like, this is discouragement. [00:05:45] Speaker 00: It's a big deal. [00:05:46] Speaker 00: You're clawing money back. [00:05:47] Speaker 00: So the, the way that this course case law articulates that with respect to not like that is that there has to be an equitable analysis. [00:05:55] Speaker 03: But you don't have a huge number of cases where there's a violation, but no refund. [00:06:02] Speaker 03: You have Coke, you have golf, Concord. [00:06:05] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:06:05] Speaker 00: And your honor, I think this case is on all fours with Coke and with golf power. [00:06:11] Speaker 00: And, you know, we made a big deal out of Coke in our opening brief. [00:06:14] Speaker 00: I didn't even see my friends in Perkins in their response brief or the interveners even attempt to distinguish that case. [00:06:20] Speaker 00: And I think that case is enough. [00:06:21] Speaker 00: But I will say that there could be other considerations beyond fair, just and reasonable that could be taken into account in equitable balance. [00:06:28] Speaker 03: What can you give me besides [00:06:31] Speaker 03: There is a violation of the filed rate doctrine, but there is nothing that would make this unjust or unreasonable under the statute. [00:06:40] Speaker 03: What else distinguishes your case? [00:06:42] Speaker 00: I think if there was some sort of real carelessness by the utility, the utility was doing something very different from what everyone else is doing. [00:06:51] Speaker 00: It was a really unreasonable reading of the form. [00:06:55] Speaker 00: If there was some sort of allegation that they were doing is trying to hide the ball in some way to avoid an audit. [00:06:59] Speaker 00: But here, we're doing normal things. [00:07:02] Speaker 00: 20 other MISO transmission lines were doing it. [00:07:05] Speaker 00: All these big other utilities were doing it. [00:07:06] Speaker 00: I think it's the best reading of the form, but at least it was a very reasonable one. [00:07:09] Speaker 01: How would we distinguish, were we to hold that FERC failed to properly exercise its equitable discretion, how do we distinguish the Duke decision because it seems like [00:07:28] Speaker 01: This is really on all fours with the analysis there. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: Well, Duke Energy Progress was obviously the decision that started this problem. [00:07:36] Speaker 00: The issue there was that Duke Energy Progress never even petitioned for reconsideration or came to this court because they came to a negotiated resolution with their municipal customers. [00:07:48] Speaker 00: So the fact that Duke made a separate piece and [00:07:52] Speaker 00: You know, I don't know what the economics were, or this list were, certainly can't be held against us to cause us to have to give up $11 million of prudently expended materials and costs. [00:08:04] Speaker 01: Prudently expended, but I take the commission's position to be prudently expended in part on construction. [00:08:11] Speaker 01: And as you well know, construction is a sort of a very different kind of expenditure from [00:08:20] Speaker 01: operations and maintenance. [00:08:22] Speaker 01: And so the fact that there's a line there, I mean the physical ambiguity of the chart is only part of the picture. [00:08:30] Speaker 01: If you're operating a business in which construction is typically dealt with quite differently from operations and maintenance, that alone seems to me to be quite a practical guide in [00:08:44] Speaker 01: in reading and filling out a form like that. [00:08:47] Speaker 00: I mean, I don't think there's anything in the record here to suggest that the difference between construction and maintenance in the transmission realm is more meaningful than the difference between production, transmission, and distribution. [00:08:58] Speaker 00: In fact, what do you need to buy in order to do a construction project? [00:09:03] Speaker 00: It's the same kind of schools of cable poles that you need to do an expansion. [00:09:08] Speaker 00: If you have a storm that knocks out a portion of your line, you're going to need to rebuild that line. [00:09:14] Speaker 00: That can be seen in construction. [00:09:15] Speaker 00: That can be seen as maintenance. [00:09:16] Speaker 01: But for rate purposes and for understanding a filed rate, isn't it quite different when there's a discussion of sort of [00:09:22] Speaker 01: What, what are the expenses of plants in service and what are the expenses of construction and that's why there's a there's similar materials, but if they're being used quite differently. [00:09:35] Speaker 01: Then something one thing can be an annual transmission requirement and the other is [00:09:40] Speaker 01: is building up capital? [00:09:41] Speaker 00: Well, I think in doing the equitable analysis, you know, and this isn't the nature of discourse. [00:09:47] Speaker 00: And I think that regardless of where one thinks of those as very different, it has to be, if there was a finding by FERC that because we [00:09:56] Speaker 00: didn't report this correctly. [00:09:57] Speaker 00: There wasn't an audit that couldn't have been done, and they would have disallowed some of those expenses. [00:10:02] Speaker 00: Yeah, sure. [00:10:03] Speaker 00: We could have a different inquiry. [00:10:04] Speaker 00: But here, they relied on what I would term some sort of perverse form of per se disgorgement. [00:10:14] Speaker 00: And there's no equitable principle that allows that. [00:10:19] Speaker 00: They really got to look at the substance. [00:10:21] Speaker 00: And I think there's two levels. [00:10:22] Speaker 00: One, are these, as a category, the kinds of materials and supplies that can be recovered? [00:10:30] Speaker 00: Undisputed that they are. [00:10:32] Speaker 01: Once used for construction as opposed to [00:10:37] Speaker 00: The way that it works, Your Honor, and you can find this at JA 356, which is them approving this going forward. [00:10:48] Speaker 00: And I'm just going to quote this directly. [00:10:50] Speaker 00: They said in approving this going forward that these were just reasonable and consistent with Commission President that allows [00:10:56] Speaker 00: materials and supplies assigned to construction can be included in the rate base prior to being assigned to specific construction projects and then transferred to accounts that are capitalized. [00:11:06] Speaker 00: This is the horn book for policy and applies in the same way as prior tenure as it does going forward. [00:11:13] Speaker 03: Sorry, this is a horn book and maybe dumb question, but is there some basic rate making principle that would treat [00:11:23] Speaker 03: construction and maintenance costs differently. [00:11:25] Speaker 03: I would think maintenance costs are more likely to be just expensed in the current period. [00:11:31] Speaker 03: And construction costs, you have to capitalize them. [00:11:35] Speaker 00: I mean, yes, I mean, there's certainly a way a way that is done. [00:11:39] Speaker 03: And that is how FERC does it. [00:11:41] Speaker 00: Right. [00:11:41] Speaker 00: But there's no suggestion here that there was a different. [00:11:44] Speaker 03: No, but it's sort of, I guess it hadn't thought of this, but [00:11:48] Speaker 03: Judge Pillard's question takes on greater importance the more there's just this basic distinction within rate making between construction and maintenance. [00:12:01] Speaker 03: And maintenance is more favorable, classifying something as maintenance is more favorable to the utility to recover the costs immediately rather than over time. [00:12:16] Speaker 00: I apologize. [00:12:17] Speaker 00: There's absolutely nothing in this record that would support that kind of distinction is that it will be more favorable. [00:12:23] Speaker 00: This were obviously on an APA review. [00:12:25] Speaker 03: That's why I asked you about how it works. [00:12:29] Speaker 00: I think it works differently for different utilities. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: But I would say that if your owners are concerned about that, if you all want to send it back to FERC for some limited review about whether it would have been $10 million rather than $11 million if we had classified it the other way, that wouldn't be a problem for us. [00:12:47] Speaker 00: We think it would cash out the same way. [00:12:49] Speaker 00: And I didn't want to talk about why our reading of the form was more reasonable, but I see I'm in my rebuttal time. [00:12:54] Speaker 01: Let me just ask you, Mr. Sandlin, line five costs. [00:12:57] Speaker 01: were not part of the filed rate until the rate was amended in, was it 2020? [00:13:03] Speaker 00: That's right, Your Honor. [00:13:05] Speaker 00: They weren't part of the file? [00:13:06] Speaker 00: They were not part of it because we were reporting this the way that industry was in a standard manner reporting this. [00:13:12] Speaker 00: And I think a very reasonable interpretation of the form. [00:13:15] Speaker 00: And I think the other interpretation is just frankly unreasonable. [00:13:20] Speaker 00: And I don't want to eat up all my verbal time, but I would ask Your Honors [00:13:24] Speaker 00: You know, to not overlook argument that we really think that we made no error that we think that order 200 gave us the choice to do it our way or first way and first argument that the way that they're wanting us to do it now under Duke energy progress is the only way is just contrary to what order 200 said, which is that those filling out the form have the choice on the method of functionalization. [00:13:47] Speaker 00: That's the that's the key word in order 200 that we have the choice on the method. [00:13:53] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:13:53] Speaker 01: We'll give you a little bit of rebuttal time. [00:13:56] Speaker 01: Good morning, Mr. Chiu. [00:14:03] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:14:13] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:14:14] Speaker 02: May it please the court. [00:14:17] Speaker 02: Order 200 did not give utilities the choice to lump together all of their material for both construction and operations and maintenance. [00:14:28] Speaker 02: Your honors are correct that there is a distinction. [00:14:31] Speaker 02: And going back to 1982, the commission made clear that that utilities need to report this information, that it was important for the commission to have [00:14:44] Speaker 02: to have the estimates of which amount of their materials are going to construction and which are going to their general everyday operations maintenance. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: If the materials and supplies had been properly reported on line five, there's no risk that the utility would not ultimately be reimbursed in some way for its construction. [00:15:10] Speaker 01: Fosser is there. [00:15:12] Speaker 01: Well, going not under the rate, but under some capitalization. [00:15:19] Speaker 02: I think, Your Honor, that this portion, if this allowed under their filed rate, would not be recovered. [00:15:28] Speaker 02: You know, it was not recoverable under Ameren's filed rate at the times that are relevant for this case. [00:15:34] Speaker 02: Now, going forward, Ameren, of course, has revised its parameters. [00:15:37] Speaker 02: And the commission had no problem with that. [00:15:40] Speaker 02: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:15:42] Speaker 02: The Commission had a problem with that, but with respect to the prior period, the Commission followed its general refund policy, which has been expressed in many cases. [00:15:53] Speaker 02: It's been expressed in the Consolidated Edison case, which we cited in the orders in the brief, in the Towns of Concord case, and in the Commission precedent, Puget Sound. [00:16:03] Speaker 02: So the commission has this general refund policy that where there is a violation of the filed rate as there was here, the commission grants full refunds. [00:16:15] Speaker 02: And that's because the commission, excuse me, the utility here misreported its amounts. [00:16:24] Speaker 02: And so the commission did do, I understand Judge Katz, as you were asking if, well, you know, isn't this, this may appear to be somewhat hyper-technical, but if, you know, I think it's not, as your honors were both pointing out, there are implications for rate making. [00:16:41] Speaker 03: Let me- Can you just explain that to me? [00:16:45] Speaker 03: Cause I had thought the purpose of this form [00:16:52] Speaker 03: was just to help the commission gather information for its planning purposes. [00:16:59] Speaker 03: The utilities objected that this was unclear. [00:17:02] Speaker 03: It'll be hard to characterize. [00:17:03] Speaker 03: And you said, yeah, that's right, but it still might be helpful to us. [00:17:08] Speaker 03: So do your best and we'll give you discretion. [00:17:12] Speaker 03: And that to me feels very different from the suggestion we had in the course of your friend's argument that [00:17:22] Speaker 03: there is this very basic distinction between construction and maintenance and it would have made all the difference in the world as to how those costs are treated, capitalized or not, depending on which line they are put under. [00:17:39] Speaker 03: So which of those is more accurate way of looking at things. [00:17:44] Speaker 02: Right. [00:17:44] Speaker 02: So let me try to explain your honor. [00:17:46] Speaker 02: Thank you for the question. [00:17:48] Speaker 02: You're correct that this page of Form 1 is informational, but it's not just for the Commission. [00:17:55] Speaker 02: And the Commission pointed out in the refund of the hearing order that this is part of a formal challenge. [00:18:03] Speaker 02: This case comes up as a formal challenge by a customer to a utility's annual update. [00:18:09] Speaker 02: And the formal challenge process is pretty iterative. [00:18:13] Speaker 02: As you may have noticed in the joint appendix, there are just pages and pages of inputs to the formula, just pages and pages of numbers. [00:18:20] Speaker 02: And so there's a lot of back and forth, actually, between the utility and the customer before the case comes to the commission. [00:18:28] Speaker 02: And there can be disputes as to what amounts are appropriately folded into the filed rate. [00:18:36] Speaker 02: So the information on page 227 is not just for the commission. [00:18:41] Speaker 02: It's also for the customer. [00:18:43] Speaker 02: And that's where the commission is making clear that the utility is on the burden. [00:18:51] Speaker 02: This is like a section 205 filing, as this court has found, actually. [00:18:58] Speaker 02: The formal challenge is somewhat similar to the section 205 filing. [00:19:02] Speaker 02: That's the Northern Virginia case. [00:19:04] Speaker 02: So it's the burden is on the utility. [00:19:08] Speaker 01: And there in Ameren's brief, they refer to many other utilities who have following Duke Energy submitted amendments and they suggest that many other utilities have completed form one with a zero on line five. [00:19:29] Speaker 01: And so should we anticipate [00:19:32] Speaker 01: many cases from other utilities in a similar situation who are dealing with a similar overcharge. [00:19:41] Speaker 02: I don't think so, your honor. [00:19:42] Speaker 02: I think those I'm not aware of. [00:19:47] Speaker 02: any cases that are exactly on all fours with this. [00:19:51] Speaker 02: I'm not entirely sure, but I don't expect the court should anticipate a whole slew of cases along these lines. [00:19:59] Speaker 02: But I also want to point out that the commission made clear in the hearing order that predecessor affiliates of Ameren were aware of this reporting requirement. [00:20:09] Speaker 02: So this goes into the balancing of the equities. [00:20:13] Speaker 02: knew, going back to 1982, AMRA knew that the commission wanted it to break out construction materials from materials that are used in maintenance. [00:20:26] Speaker 02: And let me give you the citation for the predecessor companies. [00:20:29] Speaker 02: That's at the rehearing order, paragraph 29, note 64, JA72728. [00:20:35] Speaker 01: How common is it was true that a line rather than an account [00:20:43] Speaker 01: is treated differently under a formula rate? [00:20:56] Speaker 02: Your Honor, I'm not sure. [00:20:59] Speaker 02: For accounting purposes, my understanding is that it's [00:21:04] Speaker 02: For accounting purposes, there's no particular importance. [00:21:10] Speaker 02: Because all of these lines, they're in account 154 for materials and supplies. [00:21:17] Speaker 02: But that said, again, this is going back to the Duke energy case, paragraph 22, which [00:21:23] Speaker 02: which says that there are there are rate making implications for where you report these lines and and your honors are right that generally construction materials are they eventually are capitalized and the rate making specifically on the question of lines five versus six within account 154 right both of those lines are in account 154 no i understand but there is a rate making [00:21:52] Speaker 03: consequence on that. [00:21:55] Speaker 02: Right. [00:21:55] Speaker 02: Well, I mean, as you can see here, Your Honor, I mean, this formula rate did not did not fold in line five. [00:22:02] Speaker 02: So there was a rate consequence. [00:22:04] Speaker 02: The formula rate draws from certain inputs from the FERC form one. [00:22:09] Speaker 01: Where can we see that in the record? [00:22:12] Speaker 01: That the formula rate, I mean, the closest I get is [00:22:20] Speaker 01: in, I guess it's JA 832. [00:22:25] Speaker 01: But I wonder if it just, you know, I am envisioning a formula and I'm envisioning a box, you know, a variable that's got a line reference and, you know, that it's plugged in. [00:22:39] Speaker 01: I mean, it's certainly the way both parties have briefed it, it has a bit of that feeling, but I haven't actually been able to see something that corresponds to that understanding. [00:22:46] Speaker 02: Oh, well, Your Honor, that was it, JA 832. [00:22:50] Speaker 02: It's a little hard to see, but it's line 27 where it says materials and supplies. [00:22:57] Speaker 02: And in the second column, it says 227.8.C and 0.16.C, which indicates that the input is page 227, lines 8C and line 16C. [00:23:12] Speaker 02: Line 16 is not an issue here. [00:23:15] Speaker 01: So that's how about line five. [00:23:18] Speaker 01: I mean, for example, plant and service above in the middle of that very same page has net plant and service and it refers to transmission and it seems to encompass lines to line eight. [00:23:37] Speaker 01: There's a bunch of bracketed line series that would include line five. [00:23:45] Speaker 02: I'm not sure what that is [00:23:55] Speaker 02: In this second column, these are different pages in FERC Form 1. [00:24:01] Speaker 02: So you can see there's page 205, 207, 219. [00:24:04] Speaker 02: I'm not sure which lines those are referring to. [00:24:11] Speaker 02: But I will say that the materials and supplies that we're talking about here [00:24:17] Speaker 02: in line 27 and column 2, that's what Ameren revised. [00:24:24] Speaker 02: Ameren revised that portion to add in 227.5 as an input. [00:24:31] Speaker 02: So going forward, line 5 costs are folded in. [00:24:34] Speaker 02: But going backward, Burke felt [00:24:38] Speaker 02: There is a violation of the formula rate here. [00:24:40] Speaker 02: And this is a formal challenge context where the utility is obligated to show its work. [00:24:48] Speaker 02: And here, the customers had overpaid to the tune of $11 million. [00:24:54] Speaker 02: And the commission felt that it was equitable to follow its general refund policy and order full refunds. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: Did Rogers do questions? [00:25:07] Speaker 01: If I do, I'll speak up. [00:25:10] Speaker 01: All right, great. [00:25:12] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:25:13] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:25:27] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: I think I can clear up this issue that you're asking about, Judge Katz. [00:25:31] Speaker 00: There would have been absolutely, absolutely no rate implication from changing up from construction to maintenance. [00:25:37] Speaker 00: You can see it on the line that Council just mentioned. [00:25:40] Speaker 00: The clearest way to look at it is on J9. [00:25:43] Speaker 03: I'm sorry, to the J832. [00:25:48] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:25:49] Speaker 00: Well, J9, I think it's cleared because it's in red line. [00:25:52] Speaker 00: I'm sorry, where? [00:25:53] Speaker 00: J9 is cleared because it's in red line. [00:25:55] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:26:01] Speaker 00: Okay, so let's see the very last line there. [00:26:05] Speaker 03: 27. [00:26:05] Speaker 00: Yeah, that's right. [00:26:06] Speaker 00: So you see the C. C is added there, right? [00:26:10] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:26:10] Speaker 00: So it's calculated the same way. [00:26:12] Speaker 00: The math works out exactly the same is because the recovery here is for carrying costs for keeping it in the warehouse or for buying it in advance. [00:26:21] Speaker 00: So the carrying cost to keep in the warehouse maintenance related schools and towers of the same. [00:26:29] Speaker 03: So in other words, work [00:26:31] Speaker 03: allowed you going forward, not simply to recover line five in the abstract, but to put line five into, I'll just call it line 27 of your formula rate and line 27 is treated, however it's treated, but it picks up [00:26:53] Speaker 03: except 5 and 6. [00:26:54] Speaker 00: That's exactly right. [00:26:55] Speaker 00: And this is why this is the most trivial of ministerial errors if there was an error and we strongly dispute there was. [00:27:01] Speaker 00: Perk wouldn't have done any differently. [00:27:03] Speaker 00: None of the customers would have done any differently. [00:27:05] Speaker 00: This is, again, unless the court is prepared to overrule Coke and golf, [00:27:12] Speaker 00: Ministerial errors cannot lead to retroactive refunds, which are in the nature of this court. [00:27:19] Speaker 00: This court's case now holds it over and over again and no distinction of distinguishing attempt to distinguish coke. [00:27:25] Speaker 00: And for those reasons, I would ask honors to make the orders on review. [00:27:34] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:27:35] Speaker 01: The case is submitted.