[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Fakes number 20-1256 EDA, United Power Inc.

[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
petitioner versus Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Mr. Petrezia for the petitioner, Mr. Glover for the respondent, Mr. Steele for the interviewees.

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:17] Speaker 04:
I'm Charles Petrezia, Paul Heston's lawyer.

[00:00:21] Speaker 04:
The issues before the court of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission aired in a certain jurisdiction

[00:00:30] Speaker 04:
For failed, indeed determined, would not be necessary to re-establish the issue.

[00:00:40] Speaker ?:
Necessary to make it worse than it was.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
And then second, for cared and asserting exclusive jurisdiction over all issues related to determination and exit.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
And pay money in order to terminate membership twice.

[00:00:57] Speaker 05:
Our argument is perfect.

[00:00:58] Speaker 05:
Can I ask you to step back and first address the commission's argument that none of your three major arguments were preserved?

[00:01:08] Speaker 05:
Let's just go through each one.

[00:01:10] Speaker 05:
There's two answers.

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
Please, the first is issues were preserved.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
hearing cited in the brief or references to an appendix at 576, specifically identified the issue of whether or not the state law can abide with.

[00:01:30] Speaker 05:
FERC's position is that none of those points, none of the language you point to in your petitions before FERC are specific enough.

[00:01:39] Speaker 05:
Under this court's very strict rules about preserving

[00:01:42] Speaker 05:
arguments in the FERC context.

[00:01:45] Speaker 05:
We've said this is, quote, an unusually strict requirement that will not be ignored by the courts.

[00:01:52] Speaker 05:
And FERC's position is that none of the things you point to in all three arguments were sufficiently specific, but FERC on notice.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
There's two answers, again.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
The first is that although the court correctly says that it will restrict, that the issues must be raised, the court has also made it clear that all that is required is to put the commission on notice of the issue and to bear the clear that it has an issue to decide.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
Here, the commission is clearly wrong because the commission itself said

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
You're referring to the contract issues?

[00:02:36] Speaker 03:
You're referring to which issues now?

[00:02:39] Speaker 05:
I'm referring to the state law issues specifically whether or not the ACO was properly... The commission cites our decision in Indiana utility regulatory commission.

[00:02:57] Speaker 05:
Are you familiar with that case?

[00:02:59] Speaker 05:
Yes, sir.

[00:03:00] Speaker 05:
OK, it's to me to be right in point.

[00:03:04] Speaker 05:
The argument there before the court was that the commission should have considered state law before it issued its order.

[00:03:16] Speaker 05:
And in its petition to the commission, the utility said, having the retail utility, they are a certification requirement.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
is an impeachment of Indiana's jurisdictional authority.

[00:03:31] Speaker 05:
And we said that wasn't enough.

[00:03:33] Speaker 05:
We said that was too general.

[00:03:36] Speaker 04:
It looks just like this case.

[00:03:38] Speaker 04:
Well, I think the other point here is that United Power specifically lodged with the Commission testimony in the underlying policy procedure.

[00:03:49] Speaker 05:
You have to raise it in your petition.

[00:03:53] Speaker 05:
It has to be raised on a statute.

[00:03:55] Speaker 05:
The argument has to be raised in the petition to the commission.

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
It has to be raised before the commission in the objections and in the notice.

[00:04:03] Speaker 04:
That logic is specifically done to the commission to identify the state law issues that were concerned and were not being addressed.

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
And the commission then said, to the extent United Power is raising state law issues, we're simply not going to determine.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
about what state law there are.

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
The commission said, we're not going to determine any of them.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
But then in your application for rehearing, you argued that FERC should wait for the state court proceedings to conclude.

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
You didn't argue that FERC should decide the state law issues itself.

[00:04:42] Speaker 04:
FERC had told us that it did not want to decide those issues, and it wanted to defer to the state.

[00:04:47] Speaker 04:
Therefore, if FERC continued in that view and did not want to decide those issues, it should wait for the state law determination.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
But now, before this court, you're arguing that FERC should have decided the state court.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
If it wasn't going to wait for the state court proceedings, it should have decided the state law issues.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
Exactly, Your Honor.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
But you did not raise that argument before FERC.

[00:05:09] Speaker 04:
FERC having said to us that it was not going to determine those issues and it would defer to the courts, we took FERC at its word.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
But that means that FERC under Michigan VEPA cannot assert jurisdiction.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
If FERC wanted to assert jurisdiction, it would have to have those state law issues decided.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
FERC wants to defer it.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
That may well be true, but I don't believe you raised that argument before FERC.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
The Senate is premature for FERC to take jurisdiction without those issues being decided.

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
We noted that if FERC wanted to defer to the states, it had that ability to do that.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
FERC does that routinely in the state of the issue.

[00:05:49] Speaker 05:
Well, even if you're right that that particular issue was preserved, that is that FERC had to wait for the State Commissions Act as opposed to FERC deciding it itself, what's the possible?

[00:06:01] Speaker 05:
FERC says, look, we had a rape filing before us.

[00:06:04] Speaker 05:
We had to decide that.

[00:06:06] Speaker 05:
And we have lots of cases that say we don't

[00:06:09] Speaker 05:
intrude in FERC's allocation of priority in the way it decides cases.

[00:06:14] Speaker 05:
Exactly.

[00:06:15] Speaker 05:
So how could we possibly second guess that?

[00:06:18] Speaker 05:
I mean, FERC made this decision.

[00:06:20] Speaker 05:
It has an enormous amount of discretion to decide how it will act.

[00:06:25] Speaker 05:
It says it had a rate filing that it had to decide.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
There are two issues buried in that record, and I want to parse them separately.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
The first is that FERC has no duty to decide a rape case if it doesn't have jurisdiction over it.

[00:06:37] Speaker 05:
No, no, no.

[00:06:38] Speaker 05:
I'm not asking you about that question.

[00:06:40] Speaker 05:
I'm asking you about the other question.

[00:06:42] Speaker 05:
You have two arguments.

[00:06:43] Speaker 05:
One is, as I understand it, you have a jurisdictional argument, right?

[00:06:46] Speaker 05:
Yes, sir.

[00:06:46] Speaker 05:
That FERC couldn't act without resolving the state issue.

[00:06:50] Speaker 05:
And isn't your second argument that even if it's not jurisdictional, FERC should have just waited for the state to act?

[00:06:56] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:06:57] Speaker 05:
That's not what you're arguing?

[00:06:59] Speaker 05:
I misunderstood you.

[00:07:01] Speaker 04:
To the degree FERC asserts it has jurisdiction, it has to make a finding, necessary factual predicate and legal.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
It has no duty to decide a rate case.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
It has no duty even to accept unless it has jurisdiction.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
The issue of whether it has jurisdiction, its preparatory predicate,

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
of jurisdiction.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
If it has no jurisdiction, determining the rate would be not sufficient.

[00:07:28] Speaker 04:
It has no jurisdiction to hide the whole of it.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
Have you said anything yet about the preservation of the argument challenging jurisdiction, the commission's jurisdiction, and not the conditional jurisdiction with the state issues, but rather the jurisdiction that you, as I understand it,

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
Point two, for which you point to page 541, not six.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
Anything further about that?

[00:07:57] Speaker 04:
Burke only has jurisdiction if Tri-State is not owned exclusively.

[00:08:05] Speaker 04:
To the degree that Diego's admission is predicated for the determination, Tri-State is not fully owned by

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
cooperative utilities, then that issue was preserved.

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
Indeed, we spent a lot of time in our materials before FERC on the issue of whether MIECO was proper.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
Maybe I'm mistaken.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
I thought your threshold issue was, as you just said a moment ago, secondary, which was even if they had jurisdiction, it should have waited, right?

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
Even if they had jurisdiction, then they did not properly

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
Okay, all right, good enough, good enough.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
I want to go back to the beginning as to whether they have jurisdiction, okay?

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
The beginning.

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
And as I understand it, you say you preserved that issue by mentioning it at 541 in the hearing, right?

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
541 and 547.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
Okay, well, I'm looking at 541.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
Maybe 547's more illuminating.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
In 541, it's a footnote 6, which doesn't degrade it.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
There's no mention of the word jurisdiction.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
There's no argument made.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
There is what appears to be more an address to the commission's discretionary decisions.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
Here's how it reads.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
The United Power notes the commission recognized that there are significant state law issues, blah, blah, blah, and that those issues are before the Colorado PUC.

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
is better suited to determine the state law issues.

[00:09:45] Speaker 03:
Commission's determination of tri-straits jurisdictional status while the state law issues remain to be fully determined by a better qualified state utility commission is premature as well as inefficient.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
Now, premature and inefficient are not jurisdictional criteria.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
And there's no suggestion that you're talking about lawful jurisdiction.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
I would say to you on a statement that it is premature

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
for FERC to take jurisdiction while there are state law issues pending, it is exactly a question of FERC's jurisdiction.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
Well, you might have said so then and called their attention to that and let them respond to it.

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
But FERC acknowledged that we had called their attention to it by saying in both the March and August order that it was not going to determine the state law issues, and it recognized that those issues would have impact on FERC's jurisdiction.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
What is it, a 547, I should look at?

[00:11:04] Speaker 09:
Yesterday, in the beginning of the second meeting, we were talking about whether the commission's analysis of this government is against the answer to climate change, and citing only the matter of climate change.

[00:11:27] Speaker 09:
But the committee, Carter and Princeton, entered a clerical summary that concludes

[00:11:34] Speaker 09:
state or state particles.

[00:11:39] Speaker 08:
Can you mention a jurisdiction?

[00:11:42] Speaker 09:
Then the issue of jurisdiction of the virus is unless it's exclusive, the kind of issue that it is

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
Did you have a question?

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
I mean, that may well be true as a merits matter, but it doesn't seem fairly raised by the arguments that you made before FERC.

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
I mean, if FERC was to decide the state law issues, there's no briefing at all to FERC about how those state law issues should be decided or how they should think about those state law issues.

[00:12:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's hard to see.

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
No briefing on FERC issues, as FERC said.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
Well, they said that their initial order and then you made an application for rehearing and did not say they must decide the state law issues because that's a predicate of their jurisdiction.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
Instead, you raised all of these arguments about the bylaws and articles.

[00:13:05] Speaker 09:
If the ECO membership, as Bert said, we are not going to decide on this issue.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
The decision on this issue, which Bert recognized, is not some obscure issue.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
ECO membership was there.

[00:13:35] Speaker 05:
You also argue that FERC's interpretation of cooperative ownership runs afoul of the federal power, right?

[00:13:45] Speaker 05:
That's true.

[00:13:47] Speaker 05:
But maybe you could show me in the petition before FERC where you made that argument.

[00:13:50] Speaker 05:
I see where you made an argument that it violates tri-state bylaws.

[00:13:59] Speaker 05:
But I didn't see where you made an argument that it violated the federal power.

[00:14:04] Speaker 05:
Would you show us that?

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
Well, for example, in turning to 7 and 10 days, no mission, no analysis.

[00:14:18] Speaker 04:
Christy's own term amongst the principles of the Washington arrangement and hundreds of other ways of voting in a couple of pages that membership issue is due to the requirement

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
Operator is an entity.

[00:14:46] Speaker 05:
That's the merits.

[00:14:47] Speaker 05:
I was asking where you raised the argument.

[00:14:51] Speaker 02:
Anything else?

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
I did have one question about if you were to receive a favorable ruling in the Colorado state courts, do you think FERC would be required to revisit its jurisdictional holding?

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
What would be the path forward if you were to prevail in Colorado state court at this point?

[00:15:12] Speaker 09:
or from any base, under true law, yeah.

[00:15:21] Speaker 09:
Exclusive.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
Remember, holding the state record, it goes, remember, there would be no basis for jurisdiction of Congress.

[00:15:32] Speaker 04:
Yeah, by states, interests, needs.

[00:15:39] Speaker 09:
Okay.

[00:15:41] Speaker 09:
Okay, thank you.

[00:15:42] Speaker 09:
We'll hear from Ferg.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
It's great to be back in the room and I really want to thank the court staff and and for everything they've done and I think I'll start with the jurisdiction questions discussing a judge table.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
We think you're absolutely right that Indiana regulatory is on point and I would actually note something that the court said in Indiana regulatory which was it matters not

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
whether FERC is aware of the issue.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
And there, the context was someone else had raised the issue in their rehearing petition.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
So it matters not whether FERC is factually aware of the issue.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
It matters whether this specific party has raised the issue.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
And it distinguished the sort of strictness of this jurisdictional provision, which the court said many times, with a traditional exhaustion provision that could be waived.

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
I'd like to respond to the argument regarding the footnote.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
It's footnote six.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
by 41 and their reply brief at page 21 at the top.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
They say this court has previously found jurisdiction where an issue was only raised in the footnote and they cite one case called Columbia Gas and that's just not true of Columbia Gas.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
And I'm aware of no case where the court has said you've sufficiently raised something

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
But in Columbia Gas, the court quoted the rehearing petition.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
It had a quote of a sentence from page 12.

[00:17:41] Speaker 01:
And then it followed up with a sentence describing that.

[00:17:43] Speaker 05:
Are you saying that you can't raise an argument of footnote?

[00:17:47] Speaker 05:
If I were making the rule, I would agree with you.

[00:17:50] Speaker 05:
But is there any way the DC Circuit has said that?

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
So the DC Circuit has said that about the identical language in the SEC.

[00:18:00] Speaker 01:
revision 15 USC 78 why subsection C one has the same language know.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
Yeah, and we've said in that context that you can't really in a case was last year a case called Abbott.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
I'm embarrassed.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
It was argued December 1st, the same day as two cases I had argued.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
But the court there criticized a party for citing stuff in the background of their brief, and it cited some of the... Okay, the background of the brief, I've got you.

[00:18:29] Speaker 05:
Yeah.

[00:18:29] Speaker 05:
They can't do that.

[00:18:30] Speaker 05:
But where's the footnote?

[00:18:32] Speaker 01:
And it cited there, I believe, some other cases related to where this court has said in its own case law, you can't raise something

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Is that really what you want to rely on, Mr. Glover, that it was in a footnote as opposed to the substance of the footnote doesn't preserve the issue?

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
So I think I have all of those arguments.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
Let me back up and say, first of all, we think it's in a footnote to the introduction section, and so that wouldn't do it.

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
We also think that it substantively did not say you must decide the Colorado state law issues or you don't have jurisdiction.

[00:19:03] Speaker 03:
Well, that's the least relevant.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
Now, I mean, look, we have innumerable cases in which a party has

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
wants to raise, preserve an issue by which the panel is bound.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
It's preserving it for Anbach or for a Supreme Court review.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
And it puts it in a footnote.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
They don't say it for you.

[00:19:20] Speaker 01:
They preserve it.

[00:19:20] Speaker 01:
Yeah, but I think this is a stricter standard because it's about raising it to the commission so that the commission can decide something.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
And again, I'm not aware of a case where you've said you can put it in the background of your brief or you can put it in a footnote.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
But substantively, we don't think that footnote actually raises a timing jurisdictional challenge they're asserting.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
So now you're onto it.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
So right.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
There's no, I mean, that's my question.

[00:19:45] Speaker 01:
I think you were asking my friend on the other side about J a five 41 and we don't think five 41 note six says the argument they're presenting today.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
Um, you know, it says note that, you know, we, that we note the commission has recognized our state law issues.

[00:20:04] Speaker 01:
Um, and this is pretty,

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
like you were discussing.

[00:20:09] Speaker 01:
I think this contrast significantly was one of the cases they cited in a bullet point I believe at page 22 of their brief.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
It's the Louisiana case that had to do with a pipeline segment and there the petitioner had raised in rehearing if you decide that this segment of the pipeline is a unique segment then you need to decide two additional

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
And first, and the court's opinion saying there was enough to have raised it in the rehearing noted that the issue they were now pressing for this work was identical to that statement.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
If you decide this first, that first issue that they stated there.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
This doesn't even do that and say, if you reject our arguments about the articles in corporation and the bylaws and the sham transaction, you must then decide whether or not is a bylaws purchase agreement complies with state doesn't even do that.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
But what about your colleagues argument that FERC had already indicated quite clearly that it would not address the state law issues.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
And so in the context of FERC saying, you know, we will not address the state law issues, they didn't then make further arguments about state law in their application for rehearing.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
Your honor, the Commission stated what it had held and what it was not deciding, but they didn't make the argument that you have violated your jurisdiction and you must decide these issues.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
Again, they didn't make that argument in that footnote.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
And again, when the Commission stated what it stated in the first and the second re-hearing order, was just recapsulating basically, here's what we've decided, here's what we haven't decided.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
Wasn't responding to some argument that you need to decide this.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
So what is FERC's obligation, though, to properly determine that it has jurisdiction?

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
So I mean, under Michigan v. EPA, it seems that you had to have made some determination of state law before asserting jurisdiction, or at least arguably, that was a requirement that the commission had to meet.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
So if the commission fails to make a proper jurisdictional finding, and then a party fails to exhaust that argument, now FERC is allowed to assert jurisdiction over an area

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
without proper reasoning I mean is that is that where we are we are.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
13 B or 16 USC 825 L is jurisdictional as to this court's jurisdiction to raise that argument.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
I understand.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
I understand.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
But if I can take your hypothetical step forward and say, like, let's say did what the EPA did and actually said, we're not deciding whether or not the EPA and Matt said we have authority to decide what's in the in-country.

[00:22:53] Speaker 01:
We're just saying this is a question so like.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
FERC had said, there's a question about whether or not you're a jurisdictional entity.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
And so we're going to pretend you're one and exert jurisdiction.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
And they didn't raise that honorary hearing.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
In this case, you would still have to reject it because they didn't raise an honorary hearing.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
But they could come back with a declaratory petition to FERC tomorrow, or maybe after seeing the red brief and say, gee, you are exceeding your authority every time you assert jurisdiction by not deciding whether or not there's

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
But the commission was clear here that it did decide for purposes of section 201 F 16 USC 824 subsection.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
Diego was a member, it went through the bylaws, it went through that and it went through its analysis pointing to Enron, K.N.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
Wattenberg.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
I mean, the commission looked at one, it looked at the underlying documents, the corporate documents and it put aside state law.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
So it wasn't actually making a full jurisdictional

[00:23:52] Speaker 02:
And because it acknowledges that the state law issues were relevant, but then did not consider those state law issues.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
Yeah, absolutely.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
I think it's paragraph 76 of the declaratory order for technologists that it's not deciding those state law issues.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
But that they are relevant and that they are not being decided.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
Yeah, that they could have an impact.

[00:24:10] Speaker 01:
The commission was saying, this is a declaratory, stepping back, this is a declaratory order proceeding.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
You've given us this record.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
On this record, we've made a determination on the federal law question of whether tri-state is jurisdictional under 201F.

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
We're determining that you are jurisdictional because we think you are no longer

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
we were interpreting that part of 201 by non-jurisdictional entities.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
We're not addressing state law issues.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
And again, we were saying if something changes on state law, if something changes on the facts, if Mieko tomorrow or Mero Baney owns Mieko tomorrow or yesterday, Mero Baney had sold Mieko to the Department of Energy, he would come forward and say,

[00:24:51] Speaker 01:
Whether Mieko is an owner or not, it doesn't matter that the energy is an entity of the United States, we would be exempt under 201F.

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
The commission was ruling on the record before deciding the federal law to use.

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
So would the commission be required to revisit its jurisdictional holding if United Power prevailed in Colorado State Court?

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
If someone, certainly United Power could in the ongoing proceedings or could initiate its own declaratory order

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
proceeding, saying we have the state court ruling.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
We think that notifies me a ghost membership.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
We think it notifies it going forward or going backwards.

[00:25:24] Speaker 01:
That would depend on sort of what's going on there.

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
And the commission would, you know, have the opportunity to say, does that change our decision?

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
We made a decision under 2 0 1 F.

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
And on a different record, we might make a different decision.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
It's similar to sort of the distinction between the Delta Montrose case, the commission decided on the record there that under 201F, Tri-State was exempt because it was owned solely by public utility members.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
Here, it decided on the record here.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
Factually, Your Honor, there is some notes.

[00:25:52] Speaker 01:
I know the 28J opinion noted this.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
Tri-State now has two additional non-utility members.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
So a ruling on Diego's membership, I think you would still need to address whether those other non-utility members

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
I'd like to just quickly pivot to respond to one other point in the reply brief.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
In the reply brief at page 27, they described it as an alternative argument not made in the first rehearing order that the commission treated the exit charge as a charge or fee or in connection with provision of work jurisdictional services.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
That's quite clear in the second rehearing order at JA 94 paragraph

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
uh, by the commission, both section 205 a, which is eight 24 D a and I tell us as that language for, so I don't think you can argue that the commission didn't make a determination to that.

[00:26:43] Speaker 03:
Well, it's, it's an assertion.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
There's no argument for your son.

[00:26:48] Speaker 03:
I think it says, or at least in connection, right?

[00:26:50] Speaker 03:
Directly affects or at least is it quick?

[00:26:55] Speaker 03:
Uh, it's paragraph five.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
What's the page on them?

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
Yes, section 205 a refers to all rates charges made demanded received by any public utility.

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
I know I'm in the red light.

[00:27:20] Speaker 05:
or in connection with.

[00:27:22] Speaker 01:
Or in connection with an italics, the transmission are still electric energy leverage to the jurisdiction of the commission and that's put in the statute.

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
Tri-states exit charge falls within this.

[00:27:32] Speaker 05:
It's in connection with, right?

[00:27:34] Speaker 01:
Yeah, with the provision including the or in connection with.

[00:27:39] Speaker 05:
No, but is it for or is it in connection with?

[00:27:43] Speaker 01:
The commission is saying that it falls into that provision that includes.

[00:27:49] Speaker 01:
You know, I think it's got an or.

[00:27:51] Speaker 05:
Sorry, it's kind of worse is for or in connection with.

[00:27:55] Speaker 05:
Yes, and it's saying that it was which one is it.

[00:27:58] Speaker 01:
The commission didn't say whether it's for or in connection with said it fit within that provision that covers the jury.

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
What do you think?

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
I think that it's at least for or in connection.

[00:28:10] Speaker 01:
I don't blame you.

[00:28:12] Speaker 05:
You can't go beyond what your client has said.

[00:28:15] Speaker 05:
That's fair.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
I think it's fair to say that four is more direct and in connection with in connection with being broader.

[00:28:24] Speaker 01:
It's at least.

[00:28:25] Speaker 05:
Okay, fine.

[00:28:26] Speaker 05:
That's good.

[00:28:26] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:28:27] Speaker 01:
I know I'm over time.

[00:28:28] Speaker 05:
I don't have any.

[00:28:31] Speaker 05:
We'll hear from the interviewer.

[00:28:33] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:28:33] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:28:48] Speaker 06:
Please, the court.

[00:28:49] Speaker 06:
Simon Steele, on behalf of intervenors, responders, respondents.

[00:28:54] Speaker 06:
Just to be clear, that is on behalf of Tri-State, in part of interest to Tri-State members.

[00:29:01] Speaker 03:
Mr. Steele, it's very difficult to hear you.

[00:29:11] Speaker 03:
I think the whole podium comes up.

[00:29:15] Speaker 06:
Is that any better?

[00:29:16] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:29:17] Speaker 06:
Yeah.

[00:29:17] Speaker 06:
OK.

[00:29:18] Speaker 06:
Okay, so on behalf of the interviewees and respondents, we agree with everything that Berkett said and what he just briefly said, as you're aware.

[00:29:31] Speaker 06:
So I'd just like to make a couple of points and then answer your questions.

[00:29:36] Speaker 06:
If I can just go in reverse order and just address the preemption issue.

[00:29:45] Speaker 06:
The commission obviously decided

[00:29:48] Speaker 06:
This was a rate charge for connection with service, as you just discussed.

[00:29:56] Speaker 06:
However, sections 205 and 206 of the EPA make no distinction between rates and charges and classifications, practices, and implementation of effective rates and charges.

[00:30:13] Speaker 06:
If we have a practice or a regulation or a rule of contract protecting

[00:30:18] Speaker 06:
Charges must find justice.

[00:30:21] Speaker 06:
Charges must determine just and reasonable justice.

[00:30:27] Speaker 06:
Charges.

[00:30:30] Speaker 06:
As such, I'll agree with properly.

[00:30:35] Speaker 06:
I see charges here.

[00:30:37] Speaker 06:
Charges.

[00:30:40] Speaker 06:
We submit it doesn't matter.

[00:30:44] Speaker 06:
United centrally in the sea, it's

[00:30:47] Speaker 06:
Pages 46 to 48 initial brief.

[00:30:51] Speaker 06:
Exit charges in this case are based on classifications by state charges in the West.

[00:31:07] Speaker 06:
Exit charges are regularly something the Commission addresses within its jurisdiction.

[00:31:16] Speaker 06:
United, therefore, ends up intending that there is tricultivation.

[00:31:21] Speaker 06:
There's three types of things.

[00:31:24] Speaker 06:
Yeah.

[00:31:25] Speaker 06:
Wholesale, charges, exclusive jurisdiction.

[00:31:30] Speaker 06:
Retail, generation matters, state exclusive jurisdiction.

[00:31:35] Speaker 06:
And then there's this third category of things directly affecting charges and rates, supposedly, currently.

[00:31:45] Speaker 06:
They cite no precedent supporting that.

[00:31:48] Speaker 06:
There are tons of Supreme Court precedents which cite the same nature of the scheme.

[00:31:55] Speaker 06:
It's exclusive.

[00:31:57] Speaker 06:
It's a dichotomy.

[00:31:57] Speaker 06:
It's either one or sometimes very fine.

[00:32:01] Speaker 06:
It's either a statement.

[00:32:03] Speaker 06:
It isn't conclusive.

[00:32:07] Speaker 06:
And in narrow.

[00:32:09] Speaker 06:
It's called HALA, Classifications, Practices, and Regulations.

[00:32:18] Speaker 06:
Just briefly, if I may pivot to the jurisdictional issues and bypassing the waiver issues we discussed.

[00:32:24] Speaker 06:
As Judge Rao pointed out, if the issue is preserved, it's preserved in footnote six of page five.

[00:32:34] Speaker 06:
That footnote does not say,

[00:32:39] Speaker 06:
It says the state should decide.

[00:32:42] Speaker 06:
Indeed, specifically, it says this is a decision that should have been made by the cohort to me.

[00:32:50] Speaker 06:
Later in 2020, as we look at the site, page 12, footnote 12, cohort answered the matter's question.

[00:32:59] Speaker 06:
Its answer was that it's not a decision to me.

[00:33:04] Speaker 06:
It's a decision between the two sides.

[00:33:12] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:33:14] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:33:16] Speaker 05:
You're I think you're out of time.

[00:33:18] Speaker 05:
And council was out of time, right?

[00:33:23] Speaker 05:
Yeah.

[00:33:23] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:33:23] Speaker 05:
Mr. Progetio, you can take two minutes.

[00:33:29] Speaker 09:
Very briefly.

[00:33:45] Speaker 09:
The commission hearing said that as such, Diego is not a member of the state.

[00:33:55] Speaker 04:
The alternative to the declaratory order of analysis is that the commission has overstepped the person.

[00:34:21] Speaker 09:
Second, the language is rural English.

[00:34:35] Speaker 04:
Contracts are for the sale of this green horse.

[00:34:42] Speaker 04:
That on sale is not in English.

[00:34:54] Speaker 02:
Well, what is your view of the intervener's argument about the fact that even if it's not a rate, it's directly affecting a rate?

[00:35:03] Speaker 04:
The Supreme Court said it's not enough for it to affect a rate.

[00:35:12] Speaker 04:
It must be targeted in what it feels like.

[00:35:13] Speaker 04:
It certainly occurs daily.

[00:35:16] Speaker 09:
It's been at the conference.

[00:35:20] Speaker 09:
That would be the conference.

[00:35:22] Speaker 09:
The court didn't argue.

[00:35:24] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:35:27] Speaker 09:
The case is submitted.