is charged with representing the interests of wholesale transmission customers in kansas proceedings before the respondent of course permission i would like to reserve three minutes of my time f that is the very purpose of the findings the kansas commission is challenging was to determine legal rights of both not yet formed affiliates of transource kansas and can start under federal power exception to a five and it is like the kansas commission power to a six and the definitive effect of those legal determinations is the imposition of the section to a six person of proof on the kansas commission but is this still least conceptually possible and you would acknowledge that even though the commission resolve those claims that there still will be a lack of standing i don't think so because i don't think there's any outstanding factual issue here the issue is purely a legal determination and that legal determination involves the burden of proof under section two a five  the terminations have been made so it and any future proceeding the kids mission will not have the opportunity to challenge those determinations this appeal is the only opportunity if there is a person if there is a proceeding that's exactly correct but that's a factual determination no whether there's a proceeding or system and certain future exactly but the legal standard has already been decided in these orders that would apply if there if there is a proceeding and we would not have an opportunity outside of this appeal to challenge it but if we don't even know suppose that we have no idea whether there's going to be a proceeding then we have no idea whether there's going to be any concrete join or these issues in it in a cognizable controversy and if that's true that's typically a situation in which j letter in discussing injury in fact a concrete harm that case makes clear that the petitioner in that case was not harmed because there was no determination of legal rights and there was no imposition of a legal burden on the petitioner and here we have both of those things the determination of legal rights was on them both sections to a five to a six that i mentioned and then the imposition of the burden of proof is on the kansas commission and those worth final determinations there's no opportunity outside and that adoption replication would take place and with essentially a ministerial section to a five file not a subsidy of section two of five filing so whether the rate coincidentally turns out to be just a reasonable whether the kids commission has a moral certainty right now that none of them would come to pass and so that we didn't have a subsequent proceeding at all you'd still be saying that there's both standing and rightness there is back to your current challenge exactly because the determination me because then the formula rate is just an abstraction it's never going to be visited on anyone and if the formula is never visited on anyone actually then what's the concrete harm that would give us the from our perspective in terms of syria right now which would be one of these of his actually occur because they would also maybe not so good for you the best case scenario for purposes of consumers because then the formula rate is never actually applied exactly so good that's the case and we had none of those facts  we still think there is standing and right mishear because these are finally going to terminations but i don't think it's reasonable to assume these facts will never occur these entities are being formed in order to build the order one thousand projects or one thousand study prophecies are going forward the very purpose of these determinations was based on the assumption that there's at least a high likelihood that this process will mr straight use just before you answer those mentions i think was the that will that will be in effect when those entities are formed so we're not saying there's some certainty that they ever will be we recognize that's potentially the case but the very reason this filing was made and these determinations were made by responding further was to address that potential that in the proceedings below i apologise i was trying to provide some context to get to the pre approval and then the the current experience in the proceedings below there's only been one project that has p p d it was not one by any of these incumbents and that project is actually cancelled in other proceedings and in particular the one that supplied the court it's november third rule twenty a letter it which was a california independent system operator proceeding which is the california one of the south was powerful here project and then sought to implement the rate that's been pre approved the kids commission in that case rightfully will bear the section two or six birth because the two parts structure of the federal power act provides that is only after a brady is lawfully determined under section in the fact that they do not yet exist have never submitted a subset of section two of five filing and so first findings below as to why that's not necessary which we think are a legal issue that the federal power play requires it but the factual findings flow as to why that's not return on equity issues they submitted eighty four pages of expert witness testimony one entity and seventy four nine pages the other with many supporting exhibits and still found that they did not meet their section two or fi consistent with the kansas commission's protests and said that issue for hearing so there was additional process and the returns on equity that were ultimately approved were result of a settlement as part of that additional process with the not good form to fill it is we don't have any of that we don't have a filing we don't have process for it is pre determined that at whatever time in the future those affiliates are formed it will be just and reasonable for them to charge the same rates that were pre approved for transource kansas and can start and any question about whether those rates actually are just unreasonable either at the time those entities are formed or based on the specific facts unique to those entities will be determined under section two  there's been a number of questions about the standing and rightness issues just to be clear i think the panel seems to get that none of these entities whether the existing ones transource ken star or any of their own former affiliates will be able to actually implement the formular it's approved by the commission unless and until one of these entities is actually awarded a transmission project in the southwest competitive solicitation process and at may not be current when if and when our project is actually worth one of these and these well that's a problem that's that applies to all these entities because for all we know a yet to be formed affiliate can be the first one to actually run a project and the existing enemies may never want to project we just don't know and under what this court has said a number of cases regardless of whether any determination legal determinations were made by the commission there still needs to be an a concrete injury flowing from those determinations and both ellis he and i believe the new york regional interconnect race involve the similar factual context of the bidding process for transmission projects in regional  both of this case there were no active proposals as there is no in a threat of harm from the orders on review and that's the exact situation we're in now also point out on this idea of the legal determinations there's been a number of decisions from the score that  worst the record before the commission reflected that there is a limited amount of time between when the southwest powerful actually announces the projects and the time in which bids are due for that project and so the record for the commission reflected that  these enemies could not wait until the project to been announced before they submit an application to the commission which is why they submitted all of their applications in advance of that bidding window that's something the commission has approved prior to the orders on review commission found and they agree with the filing parties that these entities need to be able to have those approvals prior to the start of that bidding one does that they could put together the most competitive bids possible and put themselves in a position actually want to project one our other point those raised the ability of enemies like kansas to actually challenge in the future these these rate terminations the future they absolutely have the ability to challenge them the commission quite are made clear in the orders on the view that they can bring a complaint under section two or six of the federal power rights the commission can also itself investigate whether the rates if they are to be paid in the that they were presenting to the commission and so because of the fact it was the exact same rate these are energies operating in the same corporate family and therefore for the same purpose they're participating in the same regional competitive solicitation process the commission didn't see the need to rea similar situated how how do you intend to use that would that apply to kansas well i think you're referring to the p g and order of the commission issued this year and in that relates not apply now because the orders on review were about and he's operating in a different region which is the southwest powerful i know but why is that any different from any other so i mean  it's a different regional on anything and i don't really have a good explanation for why that particular order seemed to take a different person all the other workers on the issue of yet to be formulates using formula rates in the u grammar and you also you may not be able to say this if you also can't tell us whether that's going to be a clarification that applies to this particular powerful  well i mean the orders on review did not include that clarification so we know that it doesn't apply to southwest our whole i don't really have a good answer for why that language is inserted into orders regarding different regional oddity and it does significant points in the story not participate likely and qantas commissions never indicated why that is a harm to it's state ratepayers for us to be in those competitive auctions what it does is allow an additional competitor to in play which the more competitors the more downward pressure on prices and that can only be a benefit to the kansas consumers also the only time that our clients will come back before the commission in a section two  ways the fact of the matter is that's how readmitting works you take a snapshot of the are we at the time the market conditions which is what we did and that are we stays in place unless and until it's changed to rescue people with the cones did what three or four years the are always that the burden under section two five i think we just don't know how the commission will rule and that may be that we argue that they should rely on the orders from twenty fifty to twenty sixteen the commission may choose not to do that i think the other point is that counsel for that my last five and have rates approve those rates may change over time and that's exactly how remaking works and that's what we did i don't know who the we in that context was it was intended to be the not yet former fillets because they did not submit section two of five filings so the fact that a rate may change over time affirmatively found it to be just a reasonable that's how the federal power works by presuming that a rate of stablish for someone else is just unreasonable and that rate may change over time we skip that very important f and the commissions of the drug dealers if i understand the question we do not object to any of the affiliates once their form coming in and filing for pre approval the formula rate but they have to make that fourteen separate filings that counsel referred to was because they will be similarly situated they will have the same parents the joint interviewers brief demonstrates that that there's no basis for that fine in the corporate disclosure statements they explain to transource kansas is own in part by great plains energy that can stars only part by west or in the great plains energy and west or are involved in a transaction where ownership of those entities will be combined so what that means is that the time one of these not yet formed affiliates seeks to implement the the names of the holding companies will be different that's really the issue we have with first findings here we don't know how they will be different and the federal power act is structured in such a way that once they are formed and we know all of those facts we can engage in a substantive discussion through a section two zero five case where we could hammer out all of those issues where we seem like the better your argument gets on the merits as at least one understanding argument the better it gets on the merits because there's the possibility that these entities that come along could be differently situated the worse it gets on future for making these arguments and without relief from the court now we would not have any opportunity to challenge the allocation of the burden of proof so we're really addressing two issues but i see harm either way that one is harmed by the legal determinations and then warning is the the speculation about what those entities may look like you know that's hard to us as well because we just can't determine rates now for it is that we don't exist and i would submit the answer if you are sympathetic to the practical considerations is while there is no current project they could either submit fourteen individual filings but if that's burdensome the answer is to do it for ph it and not start over not start from scratch and recreate a new formula rates but allow the