fore the settlement i write making hearing process the difficulty is that under the northwest power act great making decisions  based on trigger case that affects that case quite a bit and the case may well go to a different panel and we may have two different decisions theoretically on this which leads one to believe where do we make where is the judicial review of the trigger decision or is there i do not believe because this case is not about weight making i do not believe that it has any precedent in terms of when there is able to challenge every great making decision down the essentially there are two categories of money that are at issue that we believe that none of the needed to consider when it ran its trigger determination and the first category of money is the seventy six million dollars that bonneville had cash on hand that was an income for cash on hand that they had already received in the door for these energy northwest finally it seems refinancings the category your money is the three hundred fifteen million that you referred to that money was in process so it was very very likely even according to bonobos own documents to materialize fifteen million that was in process as it was likely to occur but bonneville didn't have that cash in hand if you accept that bivalves should have considered all of its cash on hand at the time it made it triggered determination all you need is only six million dollars if you put the seventy six million dollars into the truck that well and then you get a result that shows that bible had a thing fifty three percent the opening argument i'd like to correct those as we go through the argument that first there is no question that the trigger issue will be addressed by the court the question is when we believe it should be a the petitions that were filed after for granted final confirmation approval that's when it should be addressed and will be addressed and why i don't the trigger decisions not rainmaking now you'd agree with that stablished that's what we're required to do right but the rule making record under section nine the rule making record is not just the hearing record it's not limited to the hearing record seven i five of the northwest power act so it's not  hearing record it's additional documents that are developed by or submitted to the administrator and when you have a preliminary information like this that's part of that rule making record even if it's not part of the intervening hearing record and so that hearing and they were saying big p a use new information that happened since the trigger determination to revisit you triggered a termination and we said no you can't do that the trigger determination was made the particular time based on the information at that time you have to use the information at that time as was described in the such that evidentiary record to make that decision we're trying to keep them from you know viewing this as some sort of final action that they can revisit into a new in the hearing what we're saying is that you can't do that you have to you you have to look at the record in the hearing where it fully litigated right so that doesn't the initial i think the consequence of time i understand you correctly is that the initial determination is never subject to challenge no not at all your honor in fact we have i mean i may be right but i not what they're saying and that's that we want to revisit that initial determination based on the evidence of the time and that's why it's separate our petition for review and then all of the subsequent events that happened there when i was speaking to your i was your earlier question about the rationale and the northwest power act and there this court said even if does not have jurisdiction over the issue you have to wait for judicial review until fir to avoid in terms of ruling years they say all right it's it's on right now and for them later of that then for you to come up later and stop them proceeding saying no no you should have raised that way you're right i think you're probably right doesn't have jurisdiction to determine whether or not you mean definitely and i swear to you right here we will definitely not make that argument the transcript of this argument can be used against us if we make any attempt to do so our position is consistently banned and even in the record requirement what would be the remedy for that and when with a party half that would also be raised during the evidence your hearing your honor because that would also be an alleged defect in that at the beginning of the year and that's one of the many hearing there were numerous others that are not here today and they're not going to be able to have their views heard they will have their views or if the court reduced based on the final approval because at this these parties are there those parties are there everybody is there at the same time and also there is a legitimate concern about piecemeal review and sensually going to in fact that was one of the primary points the court made in such a way consider they were saying you know look if we have to review a decision to start hearing an ex parte allegation an issue that would totally remove any possibility of increasing rates all those things would be brought  over time there could be dozens of them and the court would have to address each of those on its docket you've got potentially dozens of new cases or the court said we can wait til the end where there's a definitive point where everything is certain to be final and and forth it's fairly fluid during that hearing process parties present evidence some evidence suggest that if you if you did the analysis to the british remaining rate which is completely separate from the trigger determination just because there's a trigger determination it was just a relevant and completely irrelevant to have had the trigger germination that's why why review something now when you know it might not of even had to be addressed because there might not have been an  restoring the standing b p s borrowing authority which is the primary purpose of this program lowering our overall interest expense providing us cash flow flexibility advancing the amortization of our highest highest interest there was a specific purpose for those proceeds if we had done what they had proposed there would have been a number of very negative consequences b p a would have been left virtually defense but as if it ever faced short term liquidity problem it would subsequently or a larger rate increase subsequently their proposal just pushes out the issue it doesn't resolve it properly and it would have jeopardized the bond ratings on our b p a that barb's those to us telling energy northwest we're going to this this proceeds to pay down debt and we turn around and don't do it and so we push our debt out farther and the bond rating agencies get mergers well that makes us very very nervous and it's not good for us or our customers also there's a reference to the petitioner's contracts and and i think it's important to recognize there's really no contract problem here the contract says that the p eight cannot adjust its rates during the term contract vision adjustment of the actual rate not to the trigger determination so there is no problem here with the contract in terms of implementing the here it also the trigger record  the rule making record everything we did for that initial trigger terminations contrary what councils that is part of the rule making record it was there we knew we didn't have to make that case in its entirety again we had made the determination that came in in the hearing and said no you didn't but that record from the trigger germination is part of the rule making record under section nine doesn't have to be in the hearing it's in the rule making record which is the subset i mean wh chute leaving all of the other claimants and consumers who have challenged those behind and their views are really being represented and they may have contrary views and all of us would have yes your honor i believe that if you look at the petitioners who are represented to you before you today we are representing a very broad range of interests and i don't know of anyone that's left out behind on the like and i was trying to find it in the record as to who strong view that the trigger determination was not only to terminations because it did not occur in the context of seven i if you accept that then the central link in line of cases do not apply here centrelink and line of cases are weight making cases the trigger determination was not rate making it by definition could not beat because it didn't occur in a rape proceeding so leave you with the argument that until the right is imposed your clients are not suffered injur improper trigger determination that injury was that are can trash will right to have the rates known for the five year rate period and basically vand it went away as a result of the trigger determination so we no longer had the great certainty contained in our contract as a result of that lack of great certainty certainly positioner so do take immediate action if you take a look at  one such example is one of the aluminum companies took a look at the situation and said well we have a fifteen percent rate increase there's absolutely no way that we can produce the women on and continue to make money and so they with regarding what in the strait are decided in the context of the seven i hearing it is absolutely correct that we need our arguments and i will tell you for the first time in the seven a hearing because keep in mind that the trigger determination was not a public process the illustrator behind closed doors made that decision there was no public input then that decision was announced in the context of these two letters we raise all of our arguments in the seven i rate making process and i would urge you to read the record of decision what you will find is that the administrators didn't know the rule on this substance of those arguments the administrators said a matter of procedure you're you're asking us to revisit our target determination that was made before the seven i have great process so yes there are twenty two pages of analysis but they're all going to they're saying over and over again that we are making is a very narrow point is that they just don't raise schedules at the point that the administrator triggered the safety net crack he was required to consider all the cash he had on hand and that is just simply a mathematical formulation that you have to put all the cash you have on hand into the formula to see if you have what probability of making your treasury payment payment if you got into dire circumstances and needed to use that hidden in the mission absolutely dictates that that seventy six million dollars had to be put into the formula that's all we're saying we're not saying how that