principles relating to the planning of transmission expansions and upgrades on their facilities across the nation as i understand it includes approve projects why is that a mismatch why does it seem like it's automat is already skewed if one side is including approve projects in figuring out its  of the other sides including a group projects why does that happen it seems odd to me i think what you think which you hit on here are is one of the i'll call the complexities i guess of order one thousand in the interim regional coordination process under thousand one to each pair of regions has to come up with a method of allocating costs for into regional projects between the regions right but then each region separately comes up with a way of allocating the cost within that region  know its share of the interregional in this particular case and the reason for that year i think it's fair to say is because there can be differences between the internal regional planning process in each region ok and in this instance goes forward with the mice of developing alternative projects that might be viable to for various needs in a system goes through stakeholder that a lot of those process of those projects and in that course of events that's responsible for developing that project in many cases that's the transmission others who are involved here but it can also be an independent developer in fact myself in some cases which projects out for competitive bidding and select there such projects right now that would be displaced by the the in a regional plan well under this order these orders as it stands your are every project currently listed and if that makes a is potentially susceptible to being bumped by an interracial plan to petitioners interests and therefore gives it standing to challenge the first orders in this case your honor there are literally dozens of projects even just the most recent weiser transmission plant entergy for example has nearly fifty projects in the twenty seven team just added to the twenty seven thousand myself last year which already has invested approximately nine million dollars and expects to eventually invest almost nine hundred eight hundred million dollars so i'm going on missing something very very secure which is  why are we talking to cases about cost allocation why are we talking about whether the projects ultimately which projects alternately may or may not be approved because it just seems like those are two potentially least conceptually distinct steps one is you take to you to you figure out what's going to factor into allocating costs between the two regions four and into regional projects that doesn't necessarily have to do with which that right there you're talking about what's going to ultimately happen with the projects and i guess my question is when we're talking about the cost allocation formula we're not necessarily talking about what's all the money going to happen with the projects really talking about a mathematical formula how to portion costs between the two regions but you're right i guess maybe what i need to explain is that the cost allocation step is important in determining whether the interregional project that's being evaluated meets the cost benefit threshold for going forward in my so you have the southeastern region so if by by definition under this process if the cost benefit threshold is met and by virtue of having looked at projects already you know kind of a it might be in that based brief arbitrary caprice instead it's all very differentials you're asking us to second guess the commission's judgment about what elements go into a cost allocation formula that just seems to me not the kind of thing we do without some very powerful argument that if it's illegal or arbitrary capricious what what is what is your very best argument that this is something we should we should worry  respond to your it didn't he just you just don't like its response for the reasons we've explained in our reason i'll be happy to go into again if you like your honor i think we actually did not directly address those horns and much of the reason for example the displacement of a project already listed in the and exact they apply only in circumstances that are really under the developers control the developer goes bankrupt if it's qualifications to proceed with the project or change or if it runs into problems getting regulatory approvals cost overruns or other circumstances that might prevent completion of the project and that is that my so will reevaluate the project and look for a way of mitigating the problem it doesn't necessarily won't developers or everybody else is involved in this let's assume that we reaffirm we deny the petition here and and and my services required to include approved projects won't developers and question about this so why is it the case that everybody seems to be assuming this is true that if approved projects are excluded from the field of vision for purposes of cost allocation that necessarily means that  projects can't be displaced when you get to the point of picking which projects why and why is that i get that everybody does that mean that you're briefed that the way you're discussing assumes that is it because of this one point two five cost benefit is just it's business in such a basic assumption that that is often left field but you could have a situation in which the cost allocation formula is just fifty fifty fifty and you know it's not grounded in anything it's just that on average these are roughly divided fifty fifty so that's just going to be the cost allocation for me off and then we're going to go and pick which projects are going to be approved and for that we have to do a bunch of calculations decide whether make sense to displace either a group project  yet unapproved project and what that shows that there's not necessarily a linkage between the cost allocation formula and the determination of whether to approve or disapprove a project and in a regional project that's what i'm not quite understanding is that it seems like the assumption across the board is that if one were to exclude approved projects from the relevant field of projects for purposes of cost allocation that necessarily means that approve projects can't be displaced when you're talking about picking whether when you talk about determining whether to approve an international project and that's what i mean that's what i'm using there's got to be some association between those two stages the cost allocation and then the ultimate you're going to use the same methodology when you're deciding whether to approve or disapprove a project that's just what happens that's just using something totally different conceptually seems to me you could do something totally different you could decide for cost allocation purposes we're going to figure out the benefits  information developed in this proceeding these cost efficient principles are going to be the metrics for determining whether project displacement occurs in the future but pretty persuasive is not a foregone conclusion even if you're looking at this information generated by this complaint about there's the question hasn't addressed the issue of whether whether and when a project should or shouldn't be displayed yeah i get that i get that i get the point i think i get a point that we don't know yet whether a projects going to be displaced because there has to be a lot more stuff that ratio one point two five percent are going to bite you and that's at the age to twenty six the first order current seventy two and the practical effect of that one point two five benefit to cost ratio is that not just any interracial project you can displace original project even if you find it interesting project that could satisfy the same transmission needs because of that ratio which is also referred to as in the benefits test that int will project which is going to be bigger they think original will also be at least twenty percent cheaper than the interest on projects project or projects it's displacing and that tips the tips the scale against displacement hasn't been decided yet right that's right so so for example suppose suppose is a project that's completely proved and it's ninety percent complete he said that that could be displaced this before us but suppose it is to sliced are there methods for compensating the developer for the five percent costs developers put into developing a project difference whether displacement of an approved project is even possible because i think that what michael's argument would be i take it is that look either we were going we like a  group project is possible that has current implications for investor implications occasions and all sorts of other things whether whether it's true that we don't know yet it was just hypothesized is true that we don't know yet whether in fact project displacement on a group project is going to happen once we know that it could happen that has a current role effect on us which gives us enough of a concrete interest to go forward with the case i mean we may or may not mean it we went on the merits of unity but it does mean that we have enough of a concrete interest as a little boat and rightness and we don't really need any more information do we need to know how to review this question of whether or not approve projects should be included or not that's the only question for us correct that's it that's one question  being ordered to coud approve projects you know is awful or not so they are injured because they're operating under a tariff that has to be revised in the because of clear legal issues that we don't really need any more information right wide ranging yeah the second issue is whether there's independent of whether you're an object of the commission actually you have standing because of uncertainty and yeah and i think that's i think the answer the question is no they're not  agree yes with standing so they can break yes and then the question is what's the basis for drawing distinction between my so in the transmission owners and make up myself and i guess you would also allow that in certain circumstances the underlying the degree to which my son has agreed and the degree to which the transmission owners who make up my sims agree sufficient to deny the underlying transmission owners agree for excess and that's all really talking about that's what we're talking a this court's president the burden is to show the children of standing affidavit or other evidence and your allegations in brief in this vision and all we have here are mere allegations in the briefs that generally they may have a project that could be subject to displacement they haven't  specific projects that they've been granted and also it's a good purpose earlier question not only have they wanted identified any projects that they have they're going to prove their seventy's but today there have been no injuries or projects proposed in this region per seconds and ask you six of them to respond to the standard argument that we just heard him and particularly the point that at this stage neither you or the allegations in your brief  was this affects this all relates to the question of risk correct i believe that's right you're right and i think the only point i want to make an addition to that is the commission general policy which has been in place for a long time is that utilities are entitled to recover only fifty of the cost of a band of projects from rate payers unless in advance they get approval for incentive treatment never committed to recover more than that ok all right