recognize there's a maybe a difference between seven and twelve in the sense that twelve is greater than seven but i think it's important to note that st orders don't draw the line at seven or between seven and twelve but they don't throw them why didn't they did know  your case that it was a longer period which inscrutable but that is absolutely right or up but they didn't make up the basis for denier recovery but also they didn't even give us seven so has never really explained the difference a period equivalent to the monkey period for which they had allowed it yes your honor we raised that issue in their application for rehearing we raised that issue when we found out that fork was not seventy two i'm referring in particular paragraph one through two at the very end of the decision in the footnote attached to the program i'm sorry i see you have in this summary that case i but what folks said is that if the public utility had reserved its right to recover these tax announced their settlement terms it could come in anytime within the next two years to recover those amounts without a time limit whatsoever and work said that that exception didn't apply because it interpreted by the form of the rate they were left in the attic and all the parties understood that and they could be dealt with they don't run and perk seems to want some kind of magic words to provide for express reservation other than the fact that  sense that the parties all agree that will we can defer this is issues to later on and we don't really know what's in the trunk we don't know where the costs are going to favor the utility or people repairs then  disagree later on we don't need to resolve these issues now and that's exactly what the settlement agreement of two thousand and six provided what it could express the that these amounts were the recorded but not recovered through the formula rate and i think it's important to note that no one protested our twenty six thousand filing when we came in to ask for these amounts and i think that's quite quite important because one would think that if indeed we are trying to unravel something that the parties that agreed to are upset expectations that these cosseted abandon you would have seen the interveners come in and actually file a protest but they did not all they did was file a blanket a blanket sort of plain vanilla intervention and said nothing until burke essentially dropped a gift into their lap and now they're here trying to protect that kept and the other two morning or honors and a p is the court church fish for the commission judge williams you're correct this case is all about the matching principle and to align the tax effects of the facility expense with the rate payers who pay the costs of that so the expense or one  different your honor because remember the settlement agreements are filed with the commission for its approval if the settlement agreement includes language that addresses the issue and says ok we're not going to address deferred taxes now we're going to address that in five years the commission has an opportunity to baltimore gas did not address the deferred taxes in that settlement the commission reasonably determined here that i had not satisfy the sudden exception any reasonable interpretation of the words reached a settlement seventeen and no forty one the commission did a straight actual analysis and found that because the because that is the settlement was both silent on this point that it had an awful feel the we're going to revisit this is some point in the future could be seven years twelve years could be twenty five years we're not going to tell you then we're undermining the entire thrust of one hundred and forty four and that and again you know that's just not that's not just me saying the i mean what is that what does that mean the commission acknowledges that it means that those those amounts were not included in the rates in the settlement but just because a utility is not compliant with the regulation doesn't somehow ratify it's here seven years five years conundrum yes your honor st of all the court doesn't have to enter the fray that the commission's discussion of twelve your son years five years was in response to baltimore gas saying look there are these other cases where the and any ready waiting twelve years certainly wasn't a reasonable period of time to do so was different screens having a trial well again that's not that's not the commission's that's not the basis for its holding here that the time difference next rate case requirement is what controls that the commission was simply saying moreover you waited you know you waited longer so they're under no formulation was this reasonable period of time and you've admitted there were here are you saying that the there as in here the cases that are cited as precedent did not actually decide the issue in dispute here and that issue was not squarely presented to the court and that was enough for san diego gas to say prior commissioners which by the what was whether it was zero out the balance sheet in those different tax accounts and serve it definitely would but what the commission didn't consider what was not squarely presented was the time yes you get it all comes back to the natural principle whether the utility did it in time i'm by analogy if if a taxpayer fails to file taxes in either one and then twelve years later goes the i r s and says i'm filing my tax return now i'm entitled to the refund i should have received had a timely file well sure as baltimore gas argues they were required to file their tax return but timeliness matters chances are you're not going to get the refund queue might actually get a penalty or even worse timeliness matters and that's from two thousand and five to two thousand and seventeen repairs from pain costs if there are fact recoverable should have been recovered from root historically from two thousand and five to two thousand and seventeen where's the court to affirm the commission's decision for that a twelve year gap we don't need to decide whether ten years is good or five years is good i mean it's an enormous hole in the matching principle of say seven years if that is what the decisions add up to it shows a lack of attention to the match and it does in those part cases and we can't do anything about those cases in this case what we have here is a twelve year delay bible to more gas and as a legal matter matching principle prevents the company from seeking recovery of those costs now because it's the basic principle of rate meeting that the cost cause or should be the cost pair future repairs did not cause those costs from two thousand and five to two thousand and seventeen future repairs are because there's a certain costs they will bear those costs but they should not also bear those historical and with that i see more time and if the court has no further questions for me maybe as the court to f about how could understand each of these intent as one of abandonment when everyone in the industry i mean utilities don't just willy nilly abandon costs that they might want to recover everyone in the industry was doing the same thing that resulted from confusion about what the rules sort of claim that your well let me address that your honor that's not true the only issue in those cases was whether companies could recover these catsup amounts that had built up in between the formula rate and the