our view the lower court and not the only commerce commission should determine the damages that ensue as a result of bridge this has not and never has been a of determining damages that is really nothing more than a calculation to establish how much more of the customers who were impacted by the breach paid beyond that cited to essentially published tariff rates this case is not about an unfair rate it's not about a discriminatory read it's about the failure to live up to a promise set essence of reach of our contract but in the or really clear that goes to the commission in that instance i would agree with your your honor that it does but best a different scenario than what we have here fact is that i agree with your honor maybe a little better context of of the contract that is really at issue here world will be helpful this is not a case in which we're talking about sort of a very open with consumer contract with a utility for the provision of service this is a little bit more convoluted than that one time american lake waters but assessor company decided that it wanted to construct a pipeline to transport lake michigan water into the western suburbs that contract is the conflict in issue in this case and when that contract is judged yard determined it was very clear not a big us that it was the intention are the parties at that time  an issue of it of it of improper rate of infrastructure problem of a service problem we're talking about a a breach of a promise the promise was you're not going to have to pay more than anybody w bring out of the system clearly the lower court determined that was the case as a result of a bridge of contract the i c c doesn't have any special expertise in anything other than rates and we're not arguing that they publish their operate the way it was being charged was excessive or somehow improper we're simply saying that good privately but very long fully american like water came up with a price to lower the cost of whether to a new customer for whatever reason by virtue of the reimbursement that's a new term a new condition exactly back which the parties agreed with not occur it affected question that i have that they the question of jurisdiction of course is addressed in the water companies feel we've we've talked about that i think to your was simply put a bow on it and simply say that they've tried to characterize this as a different kind of case we don't think it is different kind of case for the reasons i've stated it's really not in our view even even in accordance with submit that were we are not it is not our position that the rate was excessive the rate that is the published hero phrase that in this that's an illness was was correct in the first instance only because charges sort of deference in his ruling of the reconsideration motion to put the question the damages even become an issue and so i really was clearly the entire case law long before the trial for that most certainly the issue of bridging damages the breach itself certainly does you will have to many without going through each one of the cases that i'll slip further to there in the briefs we've done our best to distinguish and explain why those cases differ from this case in terms of why this is not a case for reparations and those are in some virtually everyone if not all of them based on her involve some kind of issue relative to service in the utilities that type of thing it had a direct impact on what to do with race this has nothing to do with service this has some it's simply about age far and while yes we're seeking that because you said that this rebate and you know giving them back ten cents on twenty cents the something that is not heard of is that something that had been done or to me that seems to rockley under the authority by the i c c tough terminal services and what is a reasonable charge for those services and somehow you're saying that by them getting this paying the same amount when they're actually paying the last because that charge doesn't relate to the transmission which is all you have to compare to so it seems as if that is directly an interpretation of then maybe i can explain it this way if if american like were did not provide the reimbursement to the village playing field there wouldn't be a bridge why not because effectively lower such cost for the very same service for the transmission of that water from point a to point b then you need to make an adjustment that those charges that you are making to the original customer that was not earlier so a lot that has nothing whatsoever to do with this and else if the village you're playing field because of dislocation he's doing against another company to move the water further that's the issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the agreement between american like water but it would not provide any additional customers were better for with better terms and conditions that lower the cost of water on its surface and providing a reimbursement for a different different service and you had different ability to charge for that used to be in the old days it was all the same and now it is is unbundled even if you might get a bill that looks like it is the same point  happy to see it is something else that can be charged for independent of the a to b and if there was no b to c there is no ten cent rebate contract that the manner that he has because i think the i c c is to determine whether or not i mean you know going back in the history we're going to get two bills for transmission delivery of your electric on the ways that they could still remain the same even though they really weren't the same and this is pretty much this is in the nature of the same thing which is why it isn't just a clear cut you breached a contract and i will certainly respond in this fashion if i may your honor nothing like warner's whole sale of water and so it's it's it's two different scenarios it's it's the that's a that's a private agreement that these two parties have been injured that said we're going to charge of x to move the water from point b to point c and i would submit that that's not part of an overall scheme and there's no need to determine whether or not those two should be separately or together in our view it's very