a particular amount of power under this arrangement we get a certain percentage of the output of certain federal generating facilities that they are hydro plants and other facilities the amount can go up and down over ended in two thousand and two september thirtieth two thousand and two there is a second dispute pending in this court for two thousand and three the parties have agreed to this whole litigation of the two thousand  they said that when you get this bill the slice purchasers can challenge that the slice purchasers can audit the slice troop adjustment charge that's provided for in the contract the slyest person purchasers can raise issues regarding arbitration and this was the procedure under which we were proceeding we got the bill in january of two thousand and three we initiated the audit that was performed by c p m g and the scope of that audit as provided in the contract was it was that k p of the cio find that we had been actually overcharged by thirty three million dollars rather than under charge by fifty million resulting in an eighty four billion dollars swing   and then the spice customers filed a notice of arbitration just the sponsible said that they were had to do that they were entitled to do this is the point where it which we got off track about two weeks after the notice of arbitration was served on will came out with a document that it called a response to our audit and it went through each item and said we don't agree with that there were there were two these are these are disputes were guarding bills that are going to come out on an annual basis for the next ten years and we're going to resolve them quickly and efficiently in arbitration the  jurisdiction cannot be arbitrated i don't think it can be read it should be read that broadly but that's not an issue here because the contract says if it is subject to your jurisdiction it's not going to be arbitrated but what we do know is that the parties clearly agreed that these this this contract your honor we think that this is jurisdictional issue is inscrutable i say not only to my clients who believe they had bargained for a dispute resolution proceeding that was offered by aluminum case again as a classic example of that sort of decision in that case the all the parties said well we think it's a contract dispute they actually came to this court and were arguing over bottles decision that a certain sale of power was subject to one rate and not the other one rate schedule and not the other rate schedule that's a classic implementation of a rape case determination but when you get into this area when you have what we believe are properly contract performance issues where the procedures for resolving disputes and in fact the parameters of the dispute itself have been carefully negotiated and set out in a that absolutely correct your honor and part final decision that was not contemplated that was not provided for this didn't have an administrative proceeding where we were allowed to make a record as to what we thought the proper it and i actually see that i'm running out of time finally i would make this point the courts finding of jurisdiction here is incredibly important in my clients because this court provides the public forum that we need to have an input in have these issues fleshed out and say that was the final action but rather it was part of the spine of the terminations the combination of the process and said here's our final resolution of this discourse and that was the final ash and it wasn't the worst part of saying this is was not a final action that made it e four of nine where they said that the that if you select arbitration and we were given an option and we selected arbitration if you if you select arbitration it will be limited to matters  to make a record and then if that if they were mistaken before it wouldn't get us anywhere but i think it is very very relevant to this issue that this rather was referring to regarding the true nature of this dispute and the parties the use of the true nature of this dispute before we were claiming money that i'm trying to ask judge breyer to question in a different way assume for purposes of the question that a that the answer to that question is that if you find that you have jurisdiction then you do and we don't arbiter and those letters make no difference to those those letters make no difference but we but we do believe