continued operating its transmission facilities and western nebraska pursuant to its own tariff and pursuant to the western nebraska joint transmission agreement known as the net's agreement in this proceeding cautious and rate increases of sixty eight percent to m p p d and the other customers in zone seventeen are the amounts of rate increase in dispute or is i believe tri state would have an additional adjustment they'd like to make to that but the commission did not except that adjustment in there are under review so that's why i referred to this no dispute in the orders under review about the size of that rate increase six percent now as i understand it this is not a rate proceeding like the illinois commerce commission this is a an approval of s p p d s plan to choose determining a just and reasonable zone placement sonal placement it should not be the only consideration as in p p d suggests off facts and circumstances should be considered that strikes me as  as incontestably right well your error that all things should be considered but the caution is just the starting point and even though this is not it's not the starting point the starting point is a lot more than that what are we if we were to agree with you on the on the cost causing issue what's next we're almost oh we're supposed to order for the order s p p d to put put ts in zone nineteen thought that the cost is the four no you're only liberating a fish in season and everything else is is at least of equal significance and you don't even you don't even question those mistake no what we settled you run it was the amount of revenue that tri state was entitled to as a transmission owner but we did not settle we expressly reserve the issue of whether rolling in that revenue requirement that we settled tri state what's next well it's the right place for tristate because they receive an answer the question please what if we say if we just do the narrow issue before us and conclude that for methodology to this new zone seventeen right no you're out of this would be the end of it because the license plate rate methodology is in place and s p p in a poor attempt to challenge that stone if we affirm how can that be well the rate design is in place and we had no control of that was already just unreasonable when we when we joined it was in place but but now i know you say it isn't now but poll there needs to be an analysis of the relative kashif that would take place where there was well there was no analysis many pages and how many pages and their one hundred page opinion were devoted to look at the role of caution eft that takes place between two eligible sons you have to appreciate that tri state could have been placed in either zone seventeen zone nineteen in fact when tri state decided to join s p p you know the st thing they did they went to s p p and asked them to analyze which zone would give us the maximum benefit that's like saying which song would allow us to shift the maximum  customers there their members there's no question their members were standing up and cheering because they managed to shop for a subsidy and get it and it's not just unreasonable that's why we're here in the do you deny that n p p d is used in benefit from tri state facilities you know we recognize that there are benefits in terms of joint planning and joint you and we had a witness testifying that those benefits are measured by the anyone equalization payment so and how can it be inconsistent with cost causation to have an p p d and its customers pay for that yes because it's all in terms of there are some benefits like in illinois commerce commission the rd th circuit said yes there are some benefits but the important question is how much benefits and whether those benefits are spreading equally are all customers and the annual equalization payment in the nets agreement demonstrates that tri state was a net beneficiary of this joint use and joint planning and they had to pay m million dollars a year and the other thing your honor is tri state proposed a modification to that formula to change the usage base component of that calculation and even on the tristate preferred method of measuring benefits the three million five hundred thousand dollars annual kasha was six times more than the five hundred and fifty thousand dollars a benefit measured under try state's methodology so that's the important point are sufficiently balanced yes with benefits and if i can get back to your question about financial or non financial benefits the benefits are listed in the next agreement include financial and nonfinancial benefits and the annual equalization payment and that let's agreement is designed to provide compensation for the net beneficiary of all it's going to fit it's not just financial benefits although the payment is financial but the benefits being addressed are all benefits under that agreement including reliability joint  joint planning and the avoidance of the cost of constructing duplicative facilities and fork at least respondent in their brief claims that that annual equalization payment addressed only usage related benefits and that would be you know the financial benefits and st never made that holding you should we would ask you t the annual equalization payment is just one measure of the relative benefits that the parties receive under the next agreement and they went on to say that m p p t provided no reason why the alternate methodology proposed by tri state for measuring benefits isn't appropriate but struck never that the so his tri state ever been compensated by and p p d for the use of  well the agreement that they have governing joint use requires each body to pay for the cost of each stories and the party receiving the greater benefits has to pay the other party for their greater and in all the years of that agreement was in place for the last thirty years tri state was the net beneficiary under the formula for measuring benefits and had to pay m p p about one million one hundred thousand dollars a year p never paid tri state for that but it but it's your honor it's a it's a net calculation the formula calculates the benefits that each party receives so each party is receiving some benefit cost invested so if one party invested more cost than the other in even if the use was five thousand and fifty dollars the party that had invested less money would pay the other party so it's more than a use space it's a cost based formula as well if i could save my time for a bottle but i i don't want to stop answering any questions but i have three minutes left for a bottle sort of maybe reserve your time thank you please the court i'm matt s disappearing on behalf of the federal energy regulatory commission i guess to clear up any confusion judge loken the the commission is a party to this appeal and defending its order here tri state other than arranging for transmission service which they pay for under the relevant tariff which is different than here because here in nebraska district the commission could change that then s p d would have to do something or would be ordered to do something about that within the confines of zone seventeen yes that's correct your honor that's is that the kind is it was a two hour six proceeding that was  those utilities did not use the transmission lines they were allocated significant amounts of the cost of those lines i think the record showed that program line in new jersey it please the court larry friedman and i'm representing the intervening respondent tri state and we agree with the commission that the petition for review should be denied i just want to separately on behalf of tri state just emphasize a couple of points this is about the regulatory proceeding which involved the decision of where to place transmission facilities in a multi state regional transmission organization that covers a very whether the level of the annual transmission revenue requirement criteria the geographic footprint criteria the commission looked at that and finally the factors about the integration and of the for review is whether the commission's decision upholding the placement seventeen was just and reasonable and it either is or it isn't and they don't have the authority what's likely to be next if we were to reverse this you would go back to the commission commission with the commission have the authority to order s p p to put tri state in nineteen i don't believe they would but what the commission would do i put i wouldn't want to speculating but the commission presumably are there any i mean and in the illinois commerce commission and it took them three tries but they satisfied the th circuit and let it go the quantum is there has there been a case where thank you your honor just to follow up on the question in answering that would just occurred it's clear that much before or for in this case as well as a proposal to place try satan's own seventeen is just and reasonable and it's our position that it's unjust an unreasonable and it's also our position that st needed to look at the evidence of what would happen if they placed tri state and zone nineteen to  issue before this court right now is whether fork had substantial evidence to support the finding that the three and a half one million dollars kasha was accompanied by commensurate benefits and we're saying that there's no evidence that supports what we're saying iran or is that under the seven circuit precedent forecast to make some effort at quantifying the other benefits and st made no effort to do that in this case these are not financial benefits humans here which are post talk rationale the argument that the annual equalization payment relates only to usage related benefits and it's our position that it relates to haul benefits that are identified in the next agreement and nonparty took the position in the case below that the end will use utilization be and will equalization payment related only to not use it related benefits metric proposed by tri state are five hundred and fifty thousand dollars to m p p t that's the measured benefits that my karma's commission said needs to be an effort at quantifying benefits to quantify how much greater and that's the other issue that we believe requires a remain and because the th circuit precedent clearly requires stroke to make some effort to quantify the other benefits in the record that for it merely presumed would be enough to offset the large room balance between allocated costs and quantify benefits