between this case which looks at the contract someone contracts the bonneville sun the cases that you will hear later this morning which focus on amendments to those cases and to those contracts in the case that you hear on wednesday which challenges pressure it was receiving from the state public utility commissions that it was necessary for it three this that the level of benefits that it was provid settlement authority bungles thought that when it invoked settlement authority it could sign contracts that contain provisions that were contrary to specific statutory provisions even provisions that were  designed to benefit man settling parties so the common thread in these cases is that each one involves an instance where bonneville took an action whether it be in contractor or a setting to implement its new policy and it did so when it so it overrode the specific statutory provision different provisions in each case saying basic decision same basic result in this particular case you in the statute section five c authorized bonneville to make payments to the investor in utilities but that section also specified that the payments were to be calculated based on the difference between the utilities average calculate the benefits for the units the clear purpose of the statutory provisions was to make the surcharge of plenty of all to the rate used to calculate the benefits for the auto use and to make those benefits subject to diminution agreements that would override the other was little limits contained in seventy two the media elsewhere what happens i believe in that case the contracts would be set aside because they justified in being able to sign either and settlement that conform comports with the law or a new residential exchange program contract covering the period that what they would otherwise have one in place had they not made a mistake in law or were headed battery so a matter of whether these contracts conform with the law but it's some point the amounts of money paid under the voided contract would have to be compared with the money they were entitled to and or a proper before bonneville signed these contracts it had already determined that the benefits it was permitted to pay the ious under section seventy two and three was limited to forty eight million dollars annually and it also determined that the the contracts anyway and i believe they signed those contracts based on the mystique of law they left believe that when they have to resize their settlement agreement they may do so with disregard to other limitations in my last point has to do with the type of case this presents to your honor's we believe this is a case of the statutory interpretation rather than one of judging bonneville discretion or any other type of case in this court congress has spoken clearly and in detail there is no equivocation there is no gap there is no silence congress told bonneville what to do they told them how to conduct their business and section five seen with clarity section seventy two and in section seventy three there is no choice in this matter bonneville was required to implement that will of congress by signing the contract they simply fail to do so and we believe for that reason these matters also swept those up i suspect that was not the court's attention because i think those are important to have in the record as a basis for the entire appeal we filed a very short motion to something to clarify reconsider on that narrow issue just to make sure that i want to bring to the court's attention of fact that technically right now the six contracts that we're feeling from are before the court and would hope that the court would include them in the ultimate disposition i want stops at the point where congress has issued a clear directive of its intent so really the analysis here is basic chevron analysis the first step is to look and see exactly what it is that congress in that amount we know that what will stamp settlement on it and by calling it a settlement seen money seem beneficiaries of by calling it a settlement we have the authority to do it so if you don't dispute then that the bonneville has the have the power gone beyond a direct meaning of converts they paid eight dollars maybe it's a different case but in this particular case congress is that there is a great protection for the public utilities and there's a specific mechanism in seventy the residential exchange program let's expose ourselves to billions of dollars of litigation exposure or we could have worked with twenty eight hundred parties in the region and try to come up with a reasonable settlement for their change claims now in that case the court said ok this is return on equity ok p p a we're going to let you have this now but it's not a permanent approval of this and we know that's coming out that's what that hundred eighteen million dollars almost the full co of twenty eight hundred people to try to find out what's the right consideration for the settlement it was never what can we do to start the program different from the exchange it's that we're all familiar with the exchange program we've done the settlements before what's the right amount of limitations apply you're saying we don't have to abide by them because of our power to engage in settlements is that right no your honor your honor what we're saying is first of all the court just remember when we came up with the settlement announced we are already taking seventy two into account are those numbers too high if they were simply part of the exchange program irrespective of any settlement no and the reason i don't understand the litigation let me explain your it's two thousand and one there was a watershed event that is good we're going to to the forecast of what the exchange that this could be and there was a range there is no one number you are i think that's where the confusion is coming from we can't tell you one number what the exchange benefits are going to be for that ten year contract was the argument not mean at all or nearly not made by these parties well that's a good question it's a complicated one we want this question simple but let me let me say the simple question that requires a wanted more power to be available so that they could get some sort of via size retaliating that power aspect now in their arguments about that they would say will be if you can just sell power instead of implementing the exchange but the argument that there to permissibly given under the residential exchange program irrespective of any extraordinary settlement sorry we're no we're not arguing that we believe this amount is well within the range of the benefits they can receive under the program absolutely all well then you did you don't need actually and the truth of forms of this and they were short changed not because congress put in a program that was unreasonable and needed to be changed but because in our view d p a had systematically understated the be that it would no longer pay for equity part tax cost of generation resources that was appealed to this fort boncelles claim was that very special circumstances at the time justify this decision argument on appeal to the value of that argument was over three hundred million dollars a year in addition bondable in our view had implemented this seventy two test in an extraordinary aggressive manner can argue resource like any other resource it's sad when it runs to seventy to thirty five of us made the discretionary decision the conservation will be excluded as a resource in that test bottles record of the surgeon laid out what the cost to our customers were was of that decision if limitations station was a approximately one hundred twelve million dollars a year when added to the forty eight million dollars they projected from if they want every issue with challenging if somebody is getting more than their title somebody is getting less and if the party getting less challenges there may be an issue if none of the parties challenge i view the the non parties to the settlement is as has not being affected by could have otherwise had more money will unless one of the parties affected by only the parties signing that are affected by the will had to settle with all parties or couldn't get the claims dismissed and if all the parties together say we're  title claims of three hundred million we'll settle for one hundred forty million and we're satisfied with the distribution of the settlement and our regulators are satisfied with additional settlement is the only way bonnet will cancel is to is to have a settlement that all the parties legal costs and any other costs can be recovered in general rates is a question for the regulators lou that in other words may not get passed on penny for penny pressure to explain how it is done and that might help the regulator set up a special credits on that account to equal every dollar paid by bonneville plus any interest on a balance that might be held before it is paid are the question of whether any of the costs of the company  speak two points one goes to the point you were just discussing with mr wood a moment ago and that is that all of the benefits for the residential exchange that we've been talking about go back to the residential small farm customers and you've had your discussion about that and i want to answer that but i want to give you the other side of the equation and that is that money comes from the residential and small farm and commercial and industrial customers that i represent that take their power from the public utilities and so this is in essence visitor some gain it's more it's more like the i r s code the government set the rules on how this money is supposed to be taken from one party and distributed to the other those rules are in section five c they're in section complete compliance with those of the room that is their argument your honor we contend otherwise we think that they are not because we think that the application of the rules then by abominable their determination they made the judgment they concluded based on that that they could not pay in excess of forty eight million dollars that was the limit placed on their benefits that they could charge us and slightest of particles argue with the data be that they had been had a whole range depending on o contracts that's that's the range she was giving you that's not the limiting factor the limiting factor in this particular instance is how much this section seven need to retest permits mongul to charge my clients to provide the on this case very clearly but i'd like to reinforce that and that is mr to say has spent much time talking about the length of the process and the response of the decision in those type of factors and that's all good we don't take exception to other provisions of the statute requires them to formulate settlements that do not agree with rights that the statute gives to other customers such as mine we think that what they did in that contract abridged points some extracts from the record i won't read them all to your honor but i'll give you just a quick flavor are there were comments filed that said the parties objected to by those decision to sell the residential within the residential exchange program including whatever imitation is might apply coming out of seventy two yes your honor all of the seven going to mammoths that i mentioned ranging from forty million to over three hundred million dollars and it and for about the next five pages and a record eight r s zero eight zero seven bondable explicitly evaluated the claims under seventy two of the invest going in still of these it was