scene i actually think that you you have a decent argument there as a plain statutory interpretation but how do you square that with our prior cases because our prior cases our challenge to an act of the legislature or your job by and by the u s constitution and what happened here is you have a collapsing you have the legislature and the p u c and the legislature normal way that they would normally proceed that's fine but i think they can set up a well for fun and that is done by the statute and then the whole point here your honor is that the the the range has to be done everything you just said because you're saying the rate can't be surcharged can't be set in such a way i don't understand how you can claim that they would have if the law were enjoying the statute we're enjoying how this california public utilities commission could implement a surcharge but the way with no authority to use that money for anything you know under the fact that they were the fact is is that what we're trying to knock out is that portion of we just said last year that although the text of the johnson act mentions only injunctive relief we have broadly construed the statute as precluding federal court jurisdiction over all suits that things state approved what was said and i think this is a really important decision and it and it comes from kind of a sudden they respond i mean at that point for purposes of whether that that requirement of johnson act was complied with or hide i mean wasn't there a notice of a hearing in weren't weren't interested parties allowed persons allowed to become parties and was there an avenue for these those unfamiliar with the c p you see to get  and weren't the parties allowed to prevent and present their views of multiple stages and they were given the right for oral argument the commentators issued a proposed decision comments were received to propose decision and then they addressed the commons in the final decision this does not sound like someone who was not listened to you know i understand you may think that there was a preconceived outcome but you know it doesn't seem like for purposes of the consistent with the president of other circuits that you can't do in directly what you could do directly but where does that there's going to be some wind of that because it seems like almost any action would you know in this arena would would arguably have some effect on rates and if we just go out the johnson act to be invoked every time that a lawsuit might potentially affect rates it seems that result of the law they have to go back and request a reasonable increase rates would that still be enough to satisfy you know to trigger the johnson act because there would be an indirect know the safety requirements the statue imposes and they come back and make the argument a year later or two years later and they say we have to increase our rates because the state on posed additional requirements your position would be the pla statue you know safety requirements are going to cost ten million dollars to implement and the only way obviously to comply with that is for the public utility to i mean and  so is there a way to flip that or should we look at splitting that to say hey look all claims that affect rates are precluded but other claims need to be looked at independently to determine whether there's a preacher's diction and because it then it then is you're not talking about a rate made it seems you see you're talking about a corrupt you know by closed doors and if you give me the opportunity the members who are at the stage you know you know i don't former sister united states attorney i've been practicing these for the johnson and one of the bases is that we have a plane's easy remedy in state court we don't you've already heard them say that in state court they don't even require a hearing one of the things i would ask you to consider then is an alternative caring that is required under the johnson act equates to how much factual actions are being made with a policy so for example they say that this is only going to go to say factors matter of due process exactly what justice o'connor warned about in the keil ok so disproportionate power by those who are politically and financially well connected make people with less money if money to people with more money and that's all that's happening here is a company that has been convicted of eighty five felony mass slaughters those eighty thousand dollars but the camp fire they now get to automatically get money from the state to pay those damages that is not just that is not what i can tell you that's not what i want johnson had in mind when he put together the johnson act i agree with you you know we're hung up on the johnson act and you are correct in your analysis is that it does