please the court and not walls a deputy attorney general here representing the california department of water resources in its capacity is the manager of the state water project  california traps manages stores and delivers enormous amounts of water and to do this it needs to take alexis city from its generators and move it to its parts in order to pump the water and so in this capacity of course the independent system operator came in to being to regulate the transmission in california and because of market dysfunctions in two thousand two thousand and one the federal energy regulatory commission or for started looking into what that might have been some of the causes for the market dysfunction to suspects were that some of the market generators might be withholding energy in order that the i s o would have approval authority over the orders the state wire project and other said must africa doesn't work for us because we are a multi purpose  function we have to move wider around we have to the timing is important we have to move water for irrigation for recreation and for other purposes for which the state water project is now managed including getting water to large metropolises in southern california as well and by the way in the bay area and first said yes we understand because of the multipurpose limitation  take the actions that are required to to maintain the state wire project so it's outages equally could not be subject to control whereas the recognized the must offer and took that away as an obligation on hydroelectric  no reason to pieces on the record for its refusal to also exempt hydro power from the average control can you help me understand perhaps part say it has a certain capacity part of the capacity or none of the capacity has been scheduled by either the generator to be sold into the market meaning they're not generating the play and the outages when we need to have them at the best time of the year considering when wonder needs to be delivered what the species requirements are at a particular time and all the other concerns we also we think intrusive but in the one case they're selling saying you must come into the market today and bring your product to market and the anyone saying you can't have your sillies out of operation taken our facility apart and it's not up and running we can't just flip the switch in and tell you that the power will be coming your way well if your facility is honestly disassembled how in the world can they require you who provide well i think they couldn't obviously obviously they couldn't and that was why they they one it's to have control to approve outages additionally for the reason that there was never any evidence that was suggested by anyone that hydro power providers who are gaining their market by withholding facilities were in any way improperly withholding is there something in the record that tells us where the california department of water resources has a pattern of having it all  raised by other municipalities notably the california municipal utility association had made that and the court said no if you're going to transmit in on this interstate transmission you keep track before i turn to the jurisdictional questions that issue here i'd like to step back and focus on the limited focus of the orders at issue here prior to these two orders the california department of water resources was already stopped ject to coordination and some controlled by the california independent system operator the focus of these orders is merely to expand and strengthen oversight at the california i s o previously held over the california  that make a difference to us and determining whether or not there's a jurisdictional basis from your earlier control compared to the leader control yes it does make a difference because it demonstrates the reasonableness of the commission's actions and also focuses it's not my understanding that the commission previously directed to coordinate and control the operations that you are and indeed here this is not a matter of the commission directing the ice against its wishes to further oversee the operations of the wors units rather than the record it is clear that there is a substantial  g strength and or enhanced oversight authority over the generators including that of yours generators indeed even before the commission staff issued its staff report the i s o indicated that it was prepared to file revisions to the tariff that was already on file with the commission and after the staff report issued indicating that the  and already have the ability to disapprove any generator outage schedules if necessary to ensure the reliability of the grid in the event of any system emergenc overriding focus of the commission is to provide for additional sources of supply and to alleviate any potential there may be for the exercise of certainly aware of the concerns raised several junctures here in this proceeding buys you to be water and in fact that's why the commission provided the extent exemption with respect to the must offer requirements for there are two requirements there's the must offer requirements and there's the independent generator outage for control and i believe your honour's asked what is the distinction between those two they are devoted to the same overriding objective which is to provide for additional supply but the timing of the two requirements is in fact quite different with respect to the must offer location we're talking about  offering the real time energy and balance as necessary to alleviate system emergencies on a minute by minute or hour by hour basis when we're focusing on generator maintenance schedules where focusing on longer term planning we're focusing on annual planning or focusing on averages with more than seven days advance notice which was the stance of the necessary to have the control over our to just give them the special needs and need a b or i can understand why they want it but what i'm looking for is some statement that has fought about reconciling the reconcile those two competing needs it is of course they balance thing and a reconciliation indeed the section of the underlying order that focuses on this requirement that's found at one eighty two of the  service as provided by the titian or the very first paragraph indicates that the balance here is between providing sufficient energy resources versus providing for reliable plant operations to be sure to the extent that the commission applies its various requirements that could have an effect on plant operation about g w are hydro generators that's correct the commission was responding to dozens of comments and in the rehearing order it was responding to approximately forty requests for rehearing to be sure  in the initial order the april order in the section of the order of the commission did not respond directly to the w r v s but it just has to hydro with respect i must offer a trade careful to say hydro people have different  well certainly with respect to the must offer requirement the commission it clear that it was responding directly to do to be a war and was responding to the specific concerns of hydro electric generators in the order make an exemption with respect to generation outage with respect to any specific category of generator whether it's hydro electric units or smaller qualifying facilities and cogeneration units  issues which talks about the various reconciliations and balance things that the commission must undertake on all of these issues which provides a fundamental framework analytical framework for commission's analysis in this case the focus is on promoting supply the focus is on the summer of two thousand and one and making sure that sufficient supply is on hand to avoid the of several orders precisely responding to the the full concerns of whether in fact the state would be able to administer its water response abilities at the same time clarity before the commission the commission is not ducking that issue indeed must offer sections of the orders on the issue and indeed in the later orders that are not presented to you at this time  the commission did discuss in excruciating detail the nature of its regulatory oversight over governmental entities or non public utilities the issue  titioning for review in the larger california case the california public utilities commission versus fir which is the zero one seventy one zero five one case this case is really a preview of coming attractions and the commission believes that the support would really have great difficulty assessed thing the merits of the issues presented by g w are in truly understanding the reasonableness of the commission later filed by the i s o with the commission thank you to that and then the question cries out in large part because of the exemption from the must offer if they can't be required to offer what good is it do tell when they can't be out the larger issue about who's selling power prices in the for a regulated market this is the question as to what do you do when you're staying at home trying to run your water project can can  out to you then and tell you when and how you can conduct the maintenance on that so this is a very very narrow issue and it's not part of the larger question that is in part of the underlyin