follow its own rules and as referred to as the general rate schedule positions when it made its final decision to initiate a trigger of a rate making process that imposed what is called the safety net crack and net cracker was a provision that allowed bonneville to essentially raise its rates without the same source a cards that are in place for other great visions there are no statutory limitations on the frequency with which bonneville can change its rates bonneville agreed in establishing a five year rate that it would limit its right to change its rate in certain defined circumstances and i created what are known as the load unilaterally decide the amount of the adjustment and whatever it should be in effect for the rest of the right period and keep in mind this was a five year break area it was generally believed that bonneville would never be able to meet the criteria for triggering the safety net craft the requirements for the trigger of the safety net cracks were the only protections that house rumors had the safety net crack could only be triggered if the e p a had already mr treasury payment or if model that was in the underlying rate case and that model you simply plug in the numbers push the buttons the model spews out the number at the end in terms of whether they had fifty percent or last probability of making his treasur in the rape case there is a model and you simply plug in the amount of cash on hand and some other some things that are contained in that model and that's already in the rate case and so once you are going that one variable then the model runs and you get a number at the end and by us taking the same assumptions the same model and it's simply including the seventy six million dollars of cash that bonneville had on hand possession at that time you get a fifty three percent probability of making the treasury payment bible does not dispute that calculation so it's not a matter of a wide variety of discretion unless the world and we will use it to pay down our treasury have what they tell you that's what we're going to work that's why we want you to do x y and z and in existence to help it need that obligation and so they have money that eighty six million in your example should be counted toward meeting its obligations and i mathematical trigger as to whether they could then have this very broad discretion to r treasury i am not aware of any prior circumstances i'm sure if i am correct about that my colleagues look or will correct me that i am not personally aware of that is never present as far as i can tell on the record there was no representation one way or the other the assumption was that it would be all cash on hand whatever the source was really based all right and  that he in fact was interpret the contract and based his decision on this particular issue entirely on an interpretation of the contract now bonneville is argue that great length that there was a series of injury problems here but the decision the essential situation in this case is then the vast vast majority of bottles con bottles of preference customers in the the period of two thousand looking forward to the period two thousand and one through two thousand and eleven signed ten year contracts by law section by the way of the bought of a project that bonneville is required to have the contractual right to revise its rate years now in two thousand bonneville offered its customers two options they could take a five year contract they were setting five year rates in the intention was to have fixed rates for five years alternatively customer could take a ten year contract if it took a ten year contract they were guaranteed one of those lowest part of the firm rate for the second five years that and know what it was going to be that they were guaranteed the lowest priority for them or those who took the five year contract will not have that guaranteed so there was a trade off rate certainty that most favorable rate treatment now my client almost alone among bottles cost children rate cer it was willing to take a five year contract only in order to know the rates that it was that it was the being asked to pay for the duration of its purchase most of the customers choose josey other alternatives and the language in the contracts were administrator didn't say that there was no significance to the difference in the language it's very clear from the administrative decision that he recognized the language upon one of persecute me candies contract was due in the standard and he therefore said what meaning same meaning and the same legal consequence but what happened is bonneville had most of its contracts didn't have this limitation and consequently it adopted a set of g r s piece that provided for r speedier adopted mid term but because you only have a five year contract there is no midterm so i changed it but from the from the b p h point of view that with that that the interpretation that the bonneville is offering is because what it's trying to do is bootstrap what bottom will get after it signed the contracts and said well after we signed the contracts we then provided for revisions to the g r s piece and therefore they the standard for trigger terminations starting the curing is quote yes some crack will be available if the administrator determines that b p a forecast fifty percent or greater probability that energy northwest refinance you proceeds might end up being used to make part of b p s base treasury payment however all the proceeds from the energy refinancing are committed to paying an equivalent amount of higher interest push out yet but there is there are benefits to be if we can reduce our energy northwest by down additional higher interest treasury debt and what that does not only states us the interest money more actually works because these spines are something b p a can just take and say all women making the trigger determination predatory oh we're going to have some money and so we're going to just use it for  of the treasury payment there's the base treasury payment that we promise treasury will pay there's the additional treasury payment we promised energy northwest  we have cash we have available to make those payments and we apply it first to the base treasury payments now if we have enough cash to pay them both there's no problem if however at that time we only are able to pay paid some of our patients payment now if that occurred it would not be good because it would end up that we would have paid the treasury debt we community paying if you pushed out we'd have additional carrying charges more de that's the way it would actually work and the administrator had a basic principle when he did the calculation that is calculation should reflect the agency's normal financially responsible now in addition to the flaws with the jewish news arguments from their number of arguments petitioners made to support their position first i'd like to address this seventy six million dollars a quote cash on hand argument this was not that it was cash on hand good raised during the hearing we would have pointed out your honor that actually it was money in an escrow account from an energy northwest fund issue in the previous year it was dedicated to covering seventy six million dollars of energy northwest prince paul coming due in two thousand and three but regardless even if want to soon that there was seventy six million dollars cash on hand or three hundred million dollars that's not available for b doesn't it i'm sorry i guess i don't understand the question if you if you had to consider all of this money then the trigger couldn't be called right if we had to consider all the deduction is a sure like they are like are you like your opponents are you then you never could pull the trigger right if we improperly decided to use committed proceeds to just keep our calculation artificially high yes right then you'd never pull the trigger and so when  the drop dead date came you wouldn't have the money that well if we incorrectly did that yeah that would be i think as a matter of fact if we had we didn't have to use the or what the party started what the deal was they chose not to present any evidence any testimony any exhibits nothing for us to work with in the hearing they raised for the first time in their initial brief and we just worked with what they had given us through two quote to thank you x two very important points i want to bring to the court's attention first and foremost this case is about the trigger this has nothing to do with yet that language which is it minutely very simple was designed to be simple for the reason that it did not want to have a whole series of exceptions laid out it was just a trigger and it includes all the