substantial evidence mr christiansen when he appears will explain that even under the public interest under the stick or should prevail here before i get to my first point your honour's i would like to commend you for commissioner massey's compelling t two separate cases of the december final heard one of those cases involve three separate petitioners there are slightly different facts and slightly different contractual circumstances with respect to each of those  christian star who was involved in those cases little bit more familiar with their details than i certainly the legal issues are very very similar counsel because they're somewhat unusual rule as i recall that if  a petition for rehearing they come up with something new you have to petition for rehearing again and in this case there wasn't a petition for rehearing from the decision on rehearing and it looks like they came up something new with something new that language at the very end of the decision where they say regardless of these other things we still wouldn't exercise their discretion for pacific or what jurisdiction is there and commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable grounds for the ferry to do so or so they do now what i'm focusing on is they've got this new thing at the very end of the when asking is there reasonable grounds for do so and i'm asking if not what is there for us to do well your honor i guess and i don't believe that we did not address that argument that argument is part and of what we were arguing all along if you look at the very minimal facts that struck it drastic and the paragraph or two paragraphs that dealt with this issue there the very same facts that were part of the case all the way along there's merits i had trouble distinguishing your argument from the argument of somebody who buys a house during a fumble for five hundred thousand dollars and then it drops to three hundred thousand in the market and he wants to walk away from his mortgage and it looks to me like for a kid similar problem it's that it's part of the public their eyes open and and they knew what they were doing it's a very small part of their net worth what's more it's even hard to see that the rates of justin are not just and reasonable even aside from that public interest discussion the fight for because that's what the market was at that time for these forward contracts even if we get to the merits i don't quite see what  transaction and the reason that it differs from other commercial transactions is that it is governed by sections true law five of the reverse from the homeowner is that the law doesn't let the homeowner appeal to some government agency to get out of this deal and doesn't allow an electric utility to be able to win agency at the end of the spiel but as for whether it should get out of its deal and at first says well you can't look at just and reasonable retrospect and if you don't and there's no problem there there's no problem and you don't even use that standard anyway he used the public interest thing entered and it would not be in the public interest to let pacific  assets and since we review only to see whether it's arbitrary and capricious i'm having trouble seeing why it is all the difference with the five hundred thousand dollar house hypothetical is that the five hundred thousand dollars purchase price is not hearing orders simply offers a new rationale that doesn't change the standard result of the case there's no obligation to file your magician and in fact it make that requirement would allow for to defeat judicial review by just continually adding a new the tweak saying something different from a rationale grafter now it's a new reason for the same result but this is kind of the result that says even if we're wrong on whether to use just in reasonable or public interest and even if we're wrong in our mean your honor is that the commission made an entirely alternative holding which is that even if you assume that everything they had proven everything that they were alleging to be true we are going to exercise our discretion not fran is your position brought the issue before us or not well now your honor because it wasn't raised on the hearing and because it was never raised in the brief i don't believe that it is even properly before the court that the power business for a very long time they are very skilled in the arts of how to contract for wholesale supply and as john prior pointed out is the record self sold at our sole power price does well in excess of those in the contract that challenges  excuse a party from a contract simply because it is an economic pacific or admitted that really because a contract becomes an economic hindsight does not make it i'm just unreasonable or even contrary to the public interest throughout this we've had a tough time getting pacific or down to one particular theory as we tried to explain our brief history with ever evolving and often it appeared not to stand the test of reciprocity for example in the spot power proceedings that mr nor modify them to serve the public interest and your honour's in this case is about nine contracts out of approximately two hundred fifty executed more or less contemporaneously take represents less than one half of one percent of this of course t changes but all contracts here price as a firm fixed price object of the contract these contracts are all about price when you executed these contracts fifteen months in advance of delivery everybody knew issue that we discussed before i can only reiterate i believe that the issues that we dealt with the very facts that we dealt with and argued all along was that the language of the federal power act is unequivocal it requires an already just