issues are distinct you're fighting over here in the firm you'll rate back it over your rates but what you have in front of us in this packet is the smart meter deployment schedule as your whether because they were going to lose money or not they had a right to defy the point that it was the i c c this decision to decide whether or not the scheduling order if she and directed tended to follow mr channing your clients in this case are so we as rate payers are right basically as customers of common absolutely and there's nothing particular with respect to their homes or businesses that's different than m carrie thank you and what the supreme court seems to be telling us is that if something affects the rate it's within the province of the commission but if something different happens for instance for instance you get hit by a comment truck or write a comment line falls on your ruff then you can sue in court for that and so everything focuses on you know what are the damages what's the the underlying chancery case and isn't it something relating that you would have lower rates you'd have lower bills if in fact the snappier technology was rolled out and untap your i mean if if the case and how do we get around was a period shaft were the only cases if that were the entire history of exclusive jurisdiction in this state i would i would agree with your i don't understand exactly where they're not the only cases there are several  volley famous for civil damages when the essence of the complaint is that the utility has done something else wrong the plaintiff and if you go back and look at those because the commission will still be able to use formula rate which is the new system to charge for smart meters in the exact same way it would have done it from the get go all that happened in this case is how they and their own initiative and in violation of the commission order moved the schedule from here to hear what is the full flask of consumers they sue on i believe that's correct ok so there's a little bit different in here because that's where i'm leading to my next question what if you look at who securities paragraph twenty and i'll just paraphrase you to hunt it down but putting aside the foss claims act which is probably already hearing ok but the supreme court says well there's another reason why we're doing what we're doing and they same paragraph twenty it's not possible to determine how much to front increase the rate without to tell me what the rate would be and the use of expert witnesses would not resolve the fact the circuit court would be simply asking experts exercise the judgment statutorily reserved to the commission in the court would be setting rates which is something the commission should be doing how is this different than that how do we get around paragraph twenty and puts a teary into price of two primary ways one we believe that what we're asking the court you in this case is something that every day there is nothing about that technology or the specialized knowledge that the i c c commissioners and l a j l case that they have that will be used to assess the horror that the that they caused in this case all right but it what is the harm if it's not a higher rate than the bill for energy services formula rate its subjective judgment and its expertise about the utilities fielded in this case electricity to to establish a fair rate can they do like operating under that system and  calculating the weights that it's going to allow that charges customers and the amount of money there and they will receive for the electricity that its supplies this decision of how much harm was c over the formula rate thank god bless you we hope you get the larger formula great whatever happens but in the time they were smart there's customers out there who need these smart meters you know you know the legislature when they passed the i m a  and then two years later right the supreme court that being one of them but that's what happened they filed their petition there were hearings there were experts there were community groups there was the will read there was testimony there were stacks and stacks of frankly i don't think any of that is necessarily relevant to this appeal we have accepted the will we did faith in the complaint that comment was in violation of the order we don't agree with it and to your question justice cunningham this order did not work why your comment to do anything this was in order approving a schedule that hit been submitted by  and you i don't need to decide the merits or way of merit of that argument for purposes of this appeal but it is something that comet is reserving on if this case were to go any further but the reality of this case is who said theory makes it crystal clear that the decision of the circuit court reject in this case and grounds of exclusive jurisdiction on the chef work ace was eminently correct and let me give you five reasons poussette terry combined with chef or requires that decision be a firm first of all one of the things that appellant's always objected to about chef or was that the language about exclusive satirically makes it absolutely clear that the supreme court meant what it said in scheffler and who satirical wise as your honour's know very heavily on the shuffler decision set forth in paragraphs eighteen and nineteen of who sit erie first thing it does it says exclusive jurisdiction depends on whether the claim is one for reparations as opposed to civil damages or to a claim is for reparations when it claims that the rates that customers are paying are too high or is in this case will be too high in the future but it's for civil damages when the utility has done something else in the site interesting only enough war noise to support it something else i don't want to get into all the facts so for when at this point i'm happy to answer questions about those let me move to the four point of who sits here and this is exactly our case here the supreme court said i violated a commission order with the result in customers will pay too much for delivery services electric delivery service and the force point inclusive robin hawkins was one of those people who were supposed to get one hundred one of the hundred thirty one thousand meters in twenty twelve robin have been screwed have gone to the commission and could have come complaining to the of regulation at the commission is the commission is not going to simply order comet to install a meter for robin hawkins if in fact there was merit to what robin hawkins was sane and the commission agreed with it then all of those one hundred thirty one thousand customers would have benefited from whatever robin hawkins just did at the commission and i'm not saying that it ought to be held against robin hawkins in any way but there is something that  difference between what rates would have been under their compliance schedule versus what rates might be fifteen or twenty years into the future i think this is so my point even though all you know basically changed the rules in the middle of the game right and then everything the i c c did was just fine and everything counted it was just fine and therefore the i c c no longer has authority to do anything about the it's the scheduling order but this is not a case about whether a particular stage will was better not it's a case of up we were in to what extent rates are going to reflect benefits of smart meters that is the schedule is pure red herring in this case the real question is how much are people going to pay for electric service into the future and the i must sets for timetables and  consumption on any active meters for example reducing estimated electric bills and there are a number of others and collectively those were expected to produce about one hundred maybe two million dollars in benefits under the original schedule but it's important to know that imus says on it if you don't meet certain goals with respect to consumption on any active readers and estimated bills some of these other things then in rate proceedings the commission will reduce your allowed return on equity by a certain amount they had still a recourse that's available to any customer assuming it in the event that those benefits of smart meters are not achieved like i am also sets forth a remedy in the event that a company does not meet a deployment schedule smart meters if the company is material we defer in implementing its deployment schedule wall there is a remedy and that remedy is for better or worse a corrective action plan but the general assembly has contemplated that they have addressed the issue they have said here is what the remedy will be in the event a company does it meet deployment schedule so i think the not related to the schedule by itself for example this is what i was telling you about the reduction on return on equity in your vent the metrics are not met that can happen even if the schedule had been met if they had a regional june twenty twelve schedule had been met but these performance objectives had not been achieved con ed face the consequences of a weight reduction so that's why i say this the schedule is really not what produces the benefits by itself it's the performance of these meters and this is not directly relevant but we keep hearing about this hundred  eighty two million dollars in the near brief they have said now the situation is even worse that even though we now have an accelerated schedule was benefits are going to be even more that is not correct that's a gross misinterpret most recent evidence before the commission in fact most recent evidence before the commission shows that under the current spiritual placed in effect in the summer of two thousand and fourteen the benefits to customers twenty years into the future are going to be even greater than the benefits that would have been achieved under that original schedule that's because early on of the meter installation has been has been accelerated the last meter will now be installed in twenty eight team instead of twenty twenty one so the benefits are accelerating again it's more of a rhetorical point frankly than one that goes to the question of the jurisdiction of the of plaintiffs there said well we can bring expert witnesses in before the courts and we can have the experts make predictions about what rates were to have been had not these allegedly false reports  of that switcheroo so to speak i know you argue that they don't have state but let's not talk about their government for well the claim has been made a they claim that the section sixteen want to wait point five l is of exclusive jurisdiction but it was brief below and i think it's right for decision here and i would just say with respect to that they have not cited a single case that says that a legislature cannot undo  results of even a final ministry of agency decision he claimed primarily it is digital issue only for the i c c because it is utility regulations considered legislative can the legislature passed a law saying well we don't like it that the human rights commission wrote in favor of that waitress so we're going to pass a law saying that you know denny's restaurants you know we shall be keen to have now finally to her for civil rights you know i don't know the answer to that it's certainly not the issue here but i will say the united states supreme court has answered dead question twice in essential he said yes the congress can undo overruling of final agency action in which there was a hearing they had all of these so called ways i judicial procedures that appellant's talk about here and the court said it's not a problem for congress to do that congress just did it the wrong way it was one house of congress in the bill was presented to the to the president there's an important footnote to it take a look at footnote eight and shot which says  was really congress could have done this had they done it properly so that's one case you know there's there's a difference here though the illinois constitution one nine hundred seventy s uses you somewhere in there that you dress as administrative agencies so i'm going back to my days waitress argument are you saying the illinois legislature can just pass a law saying we don't like it when the human rights commission did something if the human rights commission is a creation of legislation i would say yes even after they've rendered a final an  i i didn't get to my final point some course it's eerie but i think you obviously read the opinion closely i really have nothing further to say i think i should be affirmed on grounds of exclusive  mr shannon you've got enough for five minutes go back to the commission and make an argument that they violated your order and so will laugh so and i'm and my colleague met another point while we were sitting there mr stall parked about this corrective action said that the corrective action plan is the only way to correct utilities direct violation of a commission order and it didn't for queiroz plaintiffs from still using section five to one and go to the supreme court in appropriate circumstances so if your orders are concerned you should be and it sounds like you are that there would be that this is a right without a remedy that there is no place for our clients to go to to that that five to a one route open in a situation like this one other thing about in some sense is everything is alternately about rake but when the case is asked your honour's to focus on is the nature of the predicate allegations in the first instance it's a little point six eight the definition of cost benefit and under that definition there are teenagers that occur to our clients that they should be able to see