let's start with you, david rivkin. >> it's not about the dangers at all.about environmental protection agency in environmental cases taken on by the high court about e.p.a. we are writing the statute, they clearly required reasonable cost. putting out a rule that costs over $9 billion a year but has the benefits of between 500 and 6 million which is a high ratio which is inappropriate and the last minute a hail mary argument using a reason not articulated by the agency in the record namely that because of opportunity of costs under the different statute is subjecting the entire utility and the state of its regulation. disrespect of the law and the judiciary riin part because jieshed riis supposed to review the record and what the agency did, not grapple with the arguments. and it is utterly regrettable. there's nothing to do with environmental. the reason there's a special section that dealt with the electric utility industry is it's heavily regulated. >> ifill: i need to let vickie patton start to reply. >> the clean-air protections heard before the court