seven five zero four six percent the gas and electric company even united states the first one is the price there is no way that a price of one mil per kilowatt hours of electricity produced by these nuclear reactors you could remotely justify the very limited amount is being take the understanding can it be that there is going to be a significantly greater amount than with the government comes up with and you heard mr lester though he said well we were just getting started you know this was going to be a long long process why why isn't that an appropriate gauge of medication at a lower rate that it was almost starting rate and you seemed to agree to it well we didn't expect we did i mean we were we were handed a couple of numbers and we were told that if we asked for any number that exceeded the number that we were told it would be rejected and so then we submitted a number that was consistent so we complied with our regulatory obligations and notion that there was any serious cremata that seems to me is completely silly what we agreed to and what we agreed to pay three this contract in light of the statutory perks and the primary special purpose is to eliminate the accumulation that's the language in section one of the statute the accumulation of spent nuclear fuel and how you do that you don't do that by collecting  seems to me clearly intel for this particular product and and the last of the three elements of this is that you pick up eventually i mean that's the allegation is eventually pick up all the nuclear fuel and again if you're only doing it  convenient for the government that such a low number that's too low and that just simply ought to be rejected now the question is when i'm going to put this place that seems to me to resort to alternatives that are available to one is to approach the case conceptually and say that the answer is that we're going know this is because the judge there did nor does he need a specific number and then the other but that's not the cumulation problem that they're the mitigation problem that's kind of the whole contract right but the question is how are you going to deal with these spent nuclear fuel you're going to have i mean those numbers you can calculate to the you know to the app's at this stage because it's over regulated so it's not so that's it's what it is is a reflection of this is what we need in order to achieve what congress a lot of us to a i like to take a minute to talk about the greater than classy again i'm not sure that i can improve on because of the previous argument that regard i mean the reality is this is not a contract that says opt a rule you know there's a requirement of up by the federal agency then there's preemption use of any states to enter this of the country this comes up all the time the court routinely rules that if you adopt a rule whether or not you intended to preempt or not easy to satisfy the requirements of the rule the requirement and therefore preemption follows and the intent of the agency is not recounts i say this contract is identical to what it says is if the n r c adopts a rule that requires this  discretion you say oh absolutely welcome to it look at it in the first place it was analyzed against the backdrop of what was going to be a significantly lower energy you're anyway and so the exchanges are going to be distorted but second guessing at the end that ultimately it team in a point where breach was anticipated this is further from the contract formation than eighty seven why wouldn't we say the seven is a more indicative rate of contract intent who will not high it's going to be a long period of time and eventually you're going to take everything if we take the ninety one rate doesn't that assume they're going to have to be mitigating all the way along they're going to have to be building additional storage space because holds all the cards at this point and dictate the terms of what it's going to do for the next ten years it's not really fair to say that's the intent of the parties is it it's kind of what the government respond to the fact that it's a parent on the face and the courts indeed have made the findings that that was that dictated government raid was what you would do and there was no bargained for consideration on that point well as there are two responses  you enough how quickly it's going to be able to come to push through this program in the early years and use a slower acceptance rate in order to allow the doubt to try to tear up into  through sort of very vague one word choice but it was so clear thank you very sensitive about what it's specific statutory purposes we're certainly getting that one word should not be taken out of context statute defining purpose that the congress did not intend that they count and that the property itself again i did not incorporate those requirements details the technical aspects of the delivery scripts not with the fundamental question of whether the government was going to provide anything close to compliance with the time we gave it under this particular group of counsel for the government set out a number of times that there's nothing in the source about the purpose of the scheme being to protect the private interests here well i submit to you that the private interests are not being protected when they spend twenty billion dollars you know that much money into the federal government and then are being asked to pay dition or all the money in mitigation and not getting anything back but that's not protecting the private interests that's recognizing congress insisted that this beheld is a contract and that the ordinary rules of contract law