one the california independent system operator or i s o properly build its customers under its tariff under the neutrality adjustments clause of its tariff section eleven point two point nine for over one hundred million dollars in costs associated with energy exchange transactions entered into during that period some time after those transactions were over in august two thousand one the california i s o had second thoughts about the way that it build those charges to its customers the i s o made a filing at parc in august two thousand and one after all the transactions collaterally attacking the prior order in or for referred back to the prior order that was uncertain october seventeenth two thousand and one that's why i believe that all the answers to this case can be found if we look at the agreement with b p a and the agreement with b p a is was proposed to be effective january two thousand and one whereas the change in methodology was effective november of two thousand but this as it goes back to january two thousand  adjustment charge mechanism there at every argument they make claims that it was changed in this case so you filed you filed for a reconsideration of a certain order right yeah right first who your claim is that this change in method methodology first came to your attention when your honor this order didn't put anything to our attention because this order the energy exchanges to be mitigated and leaves argued that the energy exchanges should be mitigated if we were if we were to prevail on that that would substantially reduce the number of dollars that have to be assessed to customers here because instead of a lot of dollars they would be mitigated back down to reasonable levels right now the energy exchanges unlike other energy charges are being charged at the inflated prices of the period rather than at the lower amendment fifty one was filed and after we had father protests of them in the fifty one i would note that if you think that there is some confusion as to which case we should be pursuing this and that's not a reason to dismiss our case we shouldn't be you're aware he has solid ministers the majority of the transmission system in california is part of that responsibility he needs to keep going to maintain the reliability of the transmission system in order to maintain that the same way any disputes going to rate credit card companies operations would go out they would have a right to say you know you know we're handling this whole energy crisis situation and we don't want to spend our resources to this we're dealing if the commission determined that that was the gaming violation it specifically determined that there was a violation of the basically of the mit and maybe you can't really correct the errors without investigating to see if right there's been a double selling and the investigation are the prosecution part of that is firm and inferred has decided that it's going now the other point is that this is essentially a collateral attack on those enron shall cause orders about to double ancillary sales so if there are many proceedings going on here but this is at its heart it is a collateral attack and it's very simple we don't have to worry about the retroactive rate making the noticed issues  collateral tax situation that was looked at now rehearing and they whether you know the fact that they may or may not have raised that on their petition or preview in the proceeding that is currently before the court and the other case that was there you know that was the to address that issue in their proper setting the price in the refund proceeding it's clear that they raised the issue in the report in the request for a hearing and before the commission they specifically mentioned the cd fourteen eighty seven method and they have problems with the allocation the accounting methodology furthermore the out of market sales which were in the dockets are zero five five five which is and then the twenty three and the and then the thirty three docket and also the three previously you you know challenge the methodology but then you let it drop there and didn't bring it up in your petition per media i mean if you're challenging it  but then it went on to say that it was adopting the methodology from the r o one twenty eight twenty eight eighty six and i think this is the only order that's ever come out and you are a one twenty eight eighty six and this order refers to no methodology other than the neutrality adjustment charge methodology which is the one we want and so for instance in the october sixteenth two thousand and three order that they reference that the only place the issue comes up there is footnote seventeen you thank you for the fine argument