everyone agrees that both cases before the court today are not just this will both decisions concerning the commission's authority over a child rape in the event that a party seeks to reject a commission jurisdictional power person remains in bankruptcy it appears he has never first problem with that argument your honor is this for a theoretical one it is always going to be the the argument is overbroad because it is always going to be the case that someone who is trying to overturn a decision is burdened by  and there is no there's no way to distinguish that that case here and that's written here from any other case if there were no better see court order it would still be finding themselves burton to the extent they felt that were true by the by the per order and so i think that any any step in that direction would begin to destroy the just for the rule the nd problem is really factual and that is that the commission's orders in particular the rehearing water very expressively disclaims any jurisdiction over the rejection process we merely explain orders is really belied by its conduct they one of the bankruptcy proceeding they began by seeking entertaining an order from the bankruptcy court that directed the commission not issue any orders it might mean anyway constraining what the bankruptcy court might do with regard history when a major national until he says it wants to reject forty two billion dollars worth of contracts and you can understand why it went for them it was it was really quite an important thing to get the answer from the commission and so we provided that answer it was  it was very facile if if if the agency is as you say and i think the right is differently situated then scores and then i would think that that would also cut against the agency's argument to try to have it treated like a co through that asserted process and you know courts are bound by they don't decide questions they don't decide they don't they have their brightness issues as such but i think you were just saying that an agency's slightly different on a standard kind of reach out there ahead so  torts and the commission where our previous encounters with this were a long time ago in the context of the proceeding and much has changed so this is our of the work a to pronouncement about how we expect to interact with the courts and make some important statements about what we expect inside you know whether exactly you had a right to be there and you know what and whether the bank was right about that but we're not going to decide that at this point  as i would have if i were in their position but it was talked about earlier as and used no doubt i mean people that live in california were aware of the problems that have occurred in paradise  dollars on the table so why isn't that kind of an extraordinary thing that isn't there maybe but while further unusual event the welfare fund was an unusual event all these things were unusual events but none of them bear on the question here what makes this including the temps where your hair isn't in the st place or all all important to p g needs considerations but they have nothing to do with the fight in this case what makes this case moot was not the expiration t 's not a deadline situation there could have been a wildlife fund or no wildlife fund what made this case moot indeed what made this case never right was the fact that p g any never ever suggested or attempted to from bankruptcy and worse for it to resume its regular course of business there was no reason certainly for us to do anything which would which would cause them to lose access the while parked on and i can't think that they would seriously contend that they would have preferred that we attempt to stay the bankruptcy court orders in order to endanger their abscessed either of those things that can't possibly be right as it is in terms of the way the berms are allocated there are only interest in this case ever has been to the only interest we've ever been vindicated in ever been interested in vindicated and that interest is in no way implicated by the wildfire three fund or any of the other considerations that wrote it through the the because of the bankruptcy i can't mentions that that and if various motive is a requirement it can certainly if a party absolute deliberately nefarious motives are trying to destroy destroy them and as if that's their that's their intent when of course that can be an aggravating factor but it is not your honor of a required factor and it if you like i can i can quote language from billy to that effect because they walk through bancorp on this on this very point and say they get your is not appropriate for an appeal was mooted even if  reject contracts that were valuable to us and of the state of california more likely going to p g and e what we are our side of the street rather than its side of the street it was on previously just as it was in the wake of its earlier bankruptcy when it opposed how heins bankrupt rejection arguments on the same grounds we would be moving it's caused by the prevailing party and the question would be well what do we do and the answer is the other ones it was but what this court in delhi and raise be confirmed is that if you have the converse which we all of this all of this is sort of built on the idea that you're talking about you so powerful argument that you know the parties don't really care so much about this or at least should it seems like per se like he cares they're here but what we're here for them in a  but let's say you're right they don't really care what we care it's thirty d rd party entities i mean that's exactly the reason you're right that's exactly the reason why sometimes your orders are left in place but  there's also i mean the general mussing where rule is you want to get rid of these decisions because you want to get rid of decisions precisely because people might care about them but they won't have actually been sort of fully vetted right is not a lower court decision that which is that that was an independent party deciding an issue and so now you should benefit from that this was deciding its own jurisdiction right and having had no court actually rule on that having that now a law that you all can rely on it seems to me that the general concept behind months where it no court has addressed at all it's been a fork sort of shockingly saying hey we have jurisdiction right it's a very self interest a decision like why why sides of the times as an issue or as i'm supporting her in her i understand and agree with the notion that that there are reviewing who are needs to sometimes pass on what an agency says but in this situation because of the fabric of administrative law share of that when one billion dollars as just sort of part of the landscape there's always going to be collateral consideration of the client a commercial arms actions in a man's context who knows why the why the bankruptcy settlement and bank or mean is that despite the market based system that for put into place long ago were parties freely enter into contracts and that's how rates are set each contract has essentially a regulatory shadow that creates ironclad regulatory runs throughout our law in a variety of areas and here i think some of the questions raised this point earlier her there is a reason the firm who wants to keep these workers place it's because having the orders in place is something that firm will use going forward it will treat these subject to judicial review the counsel i don't can i get you to clarify so i heard the argument and it seems to me that what would happen is if this order wasn't vacated from from our perspective as an as appeals court would be a net if this came up the same issue happened again you know a decade later this came up they  it wasn't that this decision from burke was left in place because of any decision on the merits by the court of appeals and that would be right and so it doesn't if i was a judge sitting in that circumstance i would give a lot of weight to that decision i probably actually look to the  court and so that decision may not stand but if i see so this may develop all the decision of standing separate because it is never it always a board it dish or reviewer that's exactly and there may be parties that are in bankruptcy that don't reject contracts when they otherwise could have under sanction recency five the banks because there may be parties that don't file for bankruptcy in the st instance because they fear that they won't be able to reject contracts appropriately certainly there won't be happy bankruptcies in this area which saves time and cost and are done quickly become very difficult but this part is with fear that they need to go to far been asked for its approval of rejection so for all those reasons there could be real consequences for all of it in this order please even though it hasn't been subjected yet you just interview and again i think that is why ferg and why the trustee in bankruptcy that party took the action that would be his own appeal which was selling property what this court said was the bank were principle doesn't apply because that was just the party acting in the normal course of his responsibilities as a trustee in bankruptcy callahan pointed out earlier there was also the june th deadline under state law that was important for p g and e to meet for a variety of reasons it helps p g and e was really the only reason that he jeannie was able to pay the claims in this case including twenty twenty one billion is laugh i'm not sure i have exact years in front of me your honor i know that i think approximately five billion dollars was paid out when the plan the human factor into the fire victims trust and i think approximately or rejection of these power agreements as well he genie entered the bankruptcy under the cloud of these four corners that was exactly what the counter parties intended when having received the required state law notice that p g was going to file file for bankruptcy it went to  but what does seem sort of significant to me mr s this talked about how he really likes to have this decision on the books and i don't know exactly all the reasons but i believe that they're him and his coalition want to have your decision on what if we could end up in a weird circumstance where you have like say seven adverse decisions from seven different courts of appeal except for the th circuit right and you have this one decision is left in place because we applied a the way you're saying and you the point of this decision to see this is precedent but that be really weird i mean you have you know seven adverse courts of appeal decision and eleven for this is a left standing only because no court ever reviewed it and you would be able to rely on it distresses would be really happy with that but that seems to be exactly against the reason why the general munson where rule exists but isn't that a problem for you ben your honor no one wants a national rule on this subject more than the  commission we would of course like to proceed with review of the of the six circuits decision as well as the best circuit's decision or both of those efforts were frustrated by by the following st in maryland there was no ability to pursue to pursue a review because happened again the party settled not only they settled but they settled in such a way where they precisely readopted exactly what the father it's always been and expect damages so no controversy no one wants to be in from the supreme court more than the not more than that than this let five minutes on earth phone birds inside going over everywhere so go ahead you're on the think you just want to clarify when i said before my colleagues from afar who give me the information about the amount that's been paid out to fire victims nothing in the twenty one prior and now is what is that anyway was any of that crippled based on the fact that you were getting twenty one billion dollars you grew up was based on a variety of participate in that go for cover that's the reason that it was so critical and one of the reasons that it was so critical to me that june th deadline for confirmation of the plan and approval by the california public utilities commission with respect to mar meckling bart are arguably actually is consistent with the idea that we would we would we would treat them we would we would approach d agency decisions with even less with more of  thought that we would vacate i'm right and that seems to be what it doesn't seem to be standing for the fact that they're that they're equal it says at least equally vegetable is what's he said agency orders but i think one place to start back to here is that if you had your focus previously on the difference between reviewing disabler court decision within the same branch i think it would be fair to say that when the court is stepping over to another branch to vacate their actions that that would be a reason to increase not decrease the strength of the test i don't know if that's true because that you know the ideas of the courts are not biased right i mean well i would think i would like to have judge van dyke and judge and mr sheppard sec precedent for what you're each arguing