good morning it's a beautiful day in the fourth district we're very pleased to be here on this  unfortunately had it yes yesterday of an immediate family member so i encourage him to stay home and attend to that and he won't be here today there are two points the landowners would like to don't hesitate and it rubs me i'd rather answer questions and make the two points i want to make it if you do have a question so you've always been very quiet and i would encourage you to ask questions you have any the first point i'd like to discuss are the facts surrounding the contention of the land owners that certified pipeline and issue in this case user is using it under a private contract of range before the third hearing before the l like commerce going to the one where the decision is being appealed in this case we know who the parties were to the contract we know that it provides exclusivity and priority to marathon for the use and access and shipping on the sex pipeline we know it's long term we know that marathon guarantees that ship or otherwise pay a penalty under privacy is the reduction in the diameter of the original sort of addition was for thirty six inch pipeline it's now certified is a twenty four inch monitor the difference seems like it's a foot determine that is to look at the provision of the early records back in two thousand and eight when the commission sought to combine the sax project with the  project which was a big diameter pipeline from a token if used and that was going to be a joint venture between amperage and exxon mobil now that project never came about and that was satisfied with that project that is the contention of the landowners here the facts of the instant case before the commission in this third proceeding spirit in exchange commission online and filings it was on or about august one twenty fourteen which would have ended after the motion to  case the authority for imminent domain condemnation then they can still sell their troops to a private what company that is another point why we believe this is a  private pipeline rather than a and public utility finally sold one hundred percent we were on the down well they could but they sold thirty five percent and we believe essentially what happened harry has between the  contract the shipping and marathons infusion of capital as the thirty five percent owner at the original public detail the certificate was essentially sold for a private or filling the capacity i point i've described most of what we know about the contract what another reason we believe it's a private arrangement rather than public is the paper itself that that contract is contained on has not been subject to two thirds of the capacity of the pipe in marathons fame the record doesn't suggest that there's in the record in this case it suggests that the anchor shipping contract was made in tw and we believe that you know is is is is evidence that this is a private arrangement and and it's a misuse of the public utility law i have a like this on here i'd be pleased to answer your good till it turns red ok one of the concerns we have here is that that paper that contract hasn't been filed it hasn't undergone any public scrutiny  the terms we do know that have been amended in the record it is well established that that you know that there is one user private user who is also part pushing have any relevance in the here or the line that goes from the act indiana called mind cindy we've been doing three or four years so they all fit together but in answer to your question marathon by the approval of the federal energy regulatory commission committed to taking firm capacity on the sax and the level of two hundred thousand barrels per day your problem my problem got me let me interrupt you and say this idea that marathon is a private ship or the commission itself is rejected by the commission listen to this argument that said if you have a committed original pipe requests it was not necessary for the public and dollars at that time representative you needed thirty six of your honor i know exactly where you're going but what you're suggesting is wrong because the project i mean it was a staged wealth you know when i when i argue with your doesn't mean i don't respect your position but i got to say that i was i mean we go fishing under strain to get down to that ok fact so i can understand it  ne here's the point the project that was approved was not dependent totally upon the size of the pike the project was designed to bring a movement of crude oil from production sources feasible down to the pipeline of it but folks further down in southern illinois in marion county which is the major connection point who are the national network of interstate crude oil pipelines from folk who are move south and you go back and you read this course decision which you were involved in and you say in there that it's it's abundantly clear that there's a need for the project there's a need for this additional pas i think are going to argue however that they took your representations in making its their original decision and limited you to what you had committed to that was it thirty five percent ownership in two congressman thank you for entertaining oral argument today i find myself responding to both mr turner and mr ambrose i was told many years ago when i joined the nation that you know if everybody did do a good job with this order and its order on reopening of december seventeenth two thousand and fourteen should be affirmed in its entirety with respect to arguments raised in brief fight the interv c oh i think i'll start with those because they do seem to interest the court mr ambrose indicated that federal law is controlling and i would agree with that up of you know prepared to offer if they were prepared to offer anything and i suspect why that isn't why they came to us but having come to us and having represented to the illinois commerce commission barrels per day of capacity would be reserved and they at marathons ownership interest would not exceed thirty five percent  and the commission having relied upon those specific statements made by the applicants it is difficult to see how the capacity restriction and upon the restriction of increase in the ownership interest and moreover it's something that the commission found to be intertwined in its c provided to it into consideration in meeting its findings now we don't concede that those findings are in any way defective unsupported by evidence unsupported by the record without jurisdiction but in the event that the court does eat take that view we request that we get the whole case back in light of the fact that capacity eighty percent or ninety percent or had ownership in marathon it fifty percent or fifty one percent is that fair to say i obviously cannot divine the commission's w don't believe that that information was identified as confidential because it was competitive sensitive information that's my understanding i don't know for a fact you what is our attention of the term production but i think that it means that the that the commission has more of forty two in the event that it it can condition its certificates to make certain that public goals such as ensuring the public is satisfied or eight public u case such as this where the employer in itself has stated that specific facts and circumstances will of change if it is when the authority the commission and reasonably do precisely that had the commission had the pipeline not come back before the commission said we want to reduce for thirty six twenty four reopening aside the approval  cooking and that's for what it's worth the conditions here are limited to the facts and circumstances of this order rehearing that the fact is that the company came in and i know you're hearing said that we're going to reserve this capacity and you know no bounds our ship is this and the commission took them at their word the second yes so what these conditions are what they said they were going to do certainly that's our position or well  bunch of stuff you don't know about this arrangement is now out there and the commission doesn't know anything about it and shouldn't have done anything to approve this new or maybe to the way to approach it is to to sort of go back to first principles i think under the you know what the court may find pretty enlightening is something that i spent a whole lot of time you know barrels per day both of them were out of state one of them was affiliated under those circumstances capacity which logically has to be finite but we're talking about the comfort of my  was you know whatever the excess capacity was over and above what two committed shippers were going to use which seems to have been based on the case itself a substantial percentage of the available capacity not commission have everything before they have to fully understand this proposal and to resolve it i think if they head everything they needed to you know based on the order to determine ambrose's point correctly and i believe he was talking about the late head pipeline decision i think that we would argue that the holding there case refers to that is not preempted by any federal law is woeful control the real smart people for don't have any idea generally speaking about by the ministry of agency there in addition to that you know local people aren't informed of the of actions of her none of the land owners in this case were given any notice that prior to him bridge coming to the commission that for made some of it but also providing priority access to it which did not exist and the decision made in july of two thousand and nine marathon had no reason to have those contracts in place back in two thousand and nine because there was huge capacity there and it was going to be utilized by several shippers  oil and if it reaches a destination and heavy product goes into a heavy storage bin and light product goes into a light one provision where somebody says i get to dominate the pipeline and use of whenever i want federal law doesn't control whether it's a common carrier illinois law as an illinois oh i thought you were asking me why should an illinois allow for to make their decisions and i believe the only commerce commission should be entitled to certified public utilities but when it already and certifies a major private use then you don't need to know specifically how well it is transported up pipeline which you can determine whether marathon as a ship because it is really doing with you guys precious no we did not tell the commission any time that we would never have more than two hundred thousand barrels from marathon that's authority is the federal law implemented by for one hundred units to congress act in the transportation act for has the exclusive jurisdiction to set rates and terms and conditions of service in that includes capacity marathon as a as a