electricity used to be transported over the wires of the overture to tolly through warm entity but now as a result of the restructuring the commodity you are tricity is purchased at our competitive market and we only have wiring utility but if that section used to mean anything there in a circumstance where you've got your commission making a finding that particular facilities are not used by existing finances of customers customers for facilities that they do not use but that's exactly what happens underneath this or well how i'm sure that the livery system are we to parse that or divide in the way he used he described this he said i if you're trying to understand what systems are used by the largest customers and which ones are in view of the common system by a forest which is with a bunch of trees and i hesitate to you know reduce this to a family like a speck in family law we read the language fear means just it doesn't mean equal and it seems to me you are trying to make a sort of  we're still going to sign them and of those costs that doesn't seem to square with the direction that is being given to the commerce commission the clarification that was given to the commerce commission this is the these charges showering  charges how it is what is it that you're going to how is it they're going to come up with the charges those charges shall cost base when you're coming up with an each one of those categories as you build that off with each customer determine what charges should be assigned to you or charges should be assigned to other people based upon that and that it is mandatory that you have an opportunity for response or reply to face or choose thank you very much up and send them to the various customer classes no desire to raise that will allow them to recover their revenue requirement for computer opportunity to recover their revenue requirement and it's an extremely complex type of analysis if you can probably imagine when you're looking at a single phase one hundred twenty volt service to residential all the way up to sixty nine thousand killable service to the large customers and so on and because of the inquiry the commission is always considered to have a great amount of deference to its decisions and so what you're looking at is an abuse of discretion standard as to whether or not the commission properly allocated costs and between and among the parties that were at this hearing there is this nine million dollar gorilla in the corner that seems to be causing the problem that it seems to be outside  censorship so how do we deal with that because if it doesn't then the rates charged to the react customers do not seem to be cost based in that amount well the question isn't how granular do you get in your cost based analysis and what level of granularity is required by the statute because they're looking at themselves in same read the subclass of the primary customers  that the charges are to be to customers and use the facilities and services associated with such costs which are delivery services so what the commission has done consistent with industry practice is decide the level of service divided into two broad categories secondary which is like a presidential primary which is all our customers and then allocate based on the customer's  i don't think there's an amount that's really an issue the question is how do you recover the cost of crime or systematic in the commission in the industry recover say oh oh by allocating money to everyone that uses the system not do to allocate between primary secondary and i don't think react this is saying that there's anything wrong with the cost of peace in those respects it's just that they say we don't use some of this primary put and so it should not feel good to us it should be allocated everybody certain facilities did they want more or was it just one of those you didn't follow my direction but will accept this as as you presented it by the time we judged the thirteen case they finally met the commission's concerns except  big customer comes in and they've built a big wind to serve them and everyone's going to pay for that even though those costs are necessary to serve residential customers so that staff we think that if you're going to start getting into those kind of things you have to be fair can be susceptible more reasonable interpretation and when the case is that case the court might find it appropriate to defer to the interpretation please the statute by the commission and the court didn't do that in the case i just cited from two thousand and one i think it's important to understand several things first of all of course want to wait to see does not point but it does require that these delivery service charges be cost based no one contends that this case that these charges are not home last based they go dollars one point two million dollars deal is reasonable but at what point is it no longer reasonable that's maybe asking a question in a different from a different perspective innocently think it's a very appropriate question but i think the it reasonable if it's ten million dollars off and this is only reasonable if it's twenty million dollars of that to mean that touchstone a reasonable list has a finite it good something becomes be an egregious miss ala occasion in a reasonable ale occasion over the cost of facilities and i don't think it would be ever if the result of the ala cation was ten dollars or nine point two billion dollars it just simply makes no sense to was signing all of whom was facilities to oprah's eventual customer class what we are striving to achieve here are reasonable ala cation methodology if we could directly assign all of the costs of every facility used to serve customers to specific customers we would do that do you separate all of these costs out because as mr gilmore her said this is a system gooders you're not building justice to residential customers and then we have another aspect of the system built to serve says those not using space see because they had different characteristics of the usage the imposed it was believed different costs on the system and the real world class is a good example of it to customers for certain facilities based on an entirely different record that's not involved in this case and that made sense but this two customers come it is four point eight million  yes we have done the study we believe it would be extremely expensive it would be extremely contentious because the customer who feels that he or she is being overtures by ten dollars will have every right to complain about it or charged as mr intel since customers complain about the nine point two million so it's known to be contentious at the end of the day not going to achieve a result that we think is really any more a hero in the egret than what we have today and i think a perfect example of the last point that i just made is the proposed solution that mr customers and what is known as the marshmallow in your large low customer classes and mr to human testified in the case that most customers are already paying for even more facilities that they do not use so i don't think there's any basis to conclude that the state should leave this world reacts as it goes but even if it does what they propose here particular litigation that clearly is in the real world situation clearly do not are not used by these react customers that can't be identified or have the authority been identified well court to decide what a statistically valid study is and i don't know how in the world this court would do that with all due respect it would be difficult enough for the commerce commission to do that much less their sco the general assembly and certainly the commission recognizes it as part of those who wrote a report of the cases you don't want to go through this reveal occasion process every year that's why they decided to do it every three years he used to disagree it might not be done at the court level by the time you're stepping in to the next next step in the allocation period as well correct salute leave it as a happen from time to time refunds and things of that nature it's unusual when they happens foot but it's not unprecedented in fact this court was involved in a refund case very recently from the zero seven rape case of general restructuring of the electric utility industry in illinois in which delivery services what we're talking about here today transmission and distribution facilities were separated from sol whole production facilities the war on standing prejudice of course still education and i think guys can speak for everyone in this room when i say there has never been a commerce commission decision or a court decision only what they are using and only what they are benefiting from so i certainly appreciate the court's indulgence and if you have any further questions i'm happy to answer noth union to your clients might actually be paying a little more if that's not where i'm going i'm looking at what is now he or any of us in this room who aren't one of the reactor members or the big users w looking specifically at what my services are mining you know when i use these and putting a half percent on top of my bill on reasonable because that system is so they do use that system in the we know in this case they do as well