it does not number one it owes deference to the commission when the commission is construing its own rules and regulations and the commission did not construe its rules and regulations here it was only one reason decision of our five attempts to intervene it was only one reason decision of the st one by the l t a l j relied upon to circuit court cases but applied the intervention statute which is in a an answer to the regulations don't say it's an abuse of discretion standard there's a strong legal argument for the notion that that's not the standard because in two hundred dollars b in the regulations they say when the o j is considering whether or not to allow intervention in its discretion the ale j mail out their party to be in temporarily demonstrating that when they wanted to impose a discretionary standard they knew how to put it in and they didn't  then you look to the regulations two hundred dollars and it's mandatory there standards and in there the regulate their own regulations say that when discretion is being applied  for me i want to make sure i get the language accurately with court but where discretion is being applied  section two hundred dollars a requires discretion quote shall be exercised to accomplish the principal goal of the hearing process which is to assemble a complete factual granted them a monopoly they're going to put a pick they're going to put a built in everybody in this courtroom they can put a bill in your mailbox ok and we're going to allow them to make a profit but the state's going to regulate them and so when the state regulates them it should be an open   i've i will ask the course question i would say the prejudice is not required to be shown here ok because that's a notion for the code a civil procedure answer is that they do not have to show great they do not have to show prejudice but the court asked me if they were one who is in that business is mr foley so he makes the energy and he says i want to sell it and if i'm going to sell it to justice raise i better connect on to the grid because that's how energy gets to his house and this general assembly in a public utilit really in all the briefs govern how this is supposed to happen they said come it we'll let you guys own the wires we're going to let you make a profit but private companies get to provide the energy and this is how you have to allow them to do  gotta let him get the game they say they said no more no more producing energy for combat private companies are doing so now how is your prejudices i am on your question here mr foley wants to kind necked in energy what studies you have to pay for what engineering hoops you properly have to go through how to demonstrate it's safe to live well it's not going to corrupt with the rest of the scats not going to invite terrorists to come in there's rules for sixty six and for sixty s still want to set up that he's aware of all the hurdles all the hoops all the costs all the regulations and all along with it it's difficult it should be difficult when one of the things one of the concerns of quite pa you know we have jumped all the way to in america maybe i think that's exactly the i think that's exactly the question i don't think there's a dispute over whether my guys were treated unfairly they were and i spent probably thirty pages in the brief landed that they were treated this really from everybody else in even if you were in there as an intervener the result would be the same that is parable hard cynical truth because if the i c c was willing to is the most knowledgeable intervener with his humble attorney approach the i c c and said well if you have to consider i d's interview these other parties which they never did consider in our absence are these other parties who are going to provide the energy are they can be subject to the regs for sixty six and or sixty seven are they going to be subject to the text gross up so they can be subject to the h thirteen tariff charges i'm not so cynical as to say you know i'm going to i'm go rely on those fact finders to do their job and and make the decision fairly and honestly and let the chips fall where they may i've been a lawyer for thirty years i know sometimes you lose and sometimes you're sure you you're right on the facts and sometimes you lose but we shouldn't be in a position of sanctioning the regulated utility who's allowed to earn another return for shareholders to put their finger and somebody only that the overriding goal and the languages in there the principal goal of exercise of discretion is to is to gather a completely accurate record for a legally correct decision and the other princip for the exercise of discretion is for persons appearing in an affected by the commission proceedings must be treated fairly new to the set so the wrong thing judgment he must after a reversal make restitution and if he has sole property erroneous lete a judge to belong to him he must account to the true owner for the value in other words they were grown ups here and believe me they know how to play hardball because we experienced it and it wasn't right so the coroner as we prayed for in our opening brief should reverse should brief this is going to this project going on for another ten years so as a fallback the court could reverse the exclusion of life that to for the consideration of any other matters still to be considered in the docket compaq it's a case it's because they're not cases they're not losses they're not contest who am i to consider the issues that we said we're very these people provide the connections with the grid to supply the energy here it's only fair but the regulation that apply to everybody should still apply the purpose of them is for equity and for safety and for security and will very the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention to bypass developing l l c for over fifty years the commission has had a rule one practice requiring in writing a pla this rule requires disclosure of sufficient legal interest in the proceeding under consideration it's not satisfy blame their statement that the petitioner has an interest as claimed by glide if we're so interested then there's no point for the rule to say the  correct directly directly to says it's about the fairness one that said is it's about how the parties affected by the proceeding which of course is an interest in the case and we keep coming to this they can't explain how the granting of these limited issues after all we weren't we were dealing with certain rate related findings here and how any of that affects comment by its ability to sell th to rd party the customers and whatnot it doesn't affect anything they do in you know the very good prejudice however they did to help with the test bed which was program those contracts have been awarded but they weren't awarded because someone got involved in this case or not they were just set the building things were set out and people  haven't been prejudiced in anything they do every issue well getting to that and getting a little bit off here but their issues and their amended petition to intervene which was the last  asserted interconnection issues as they did today about how they want to know how the rd party distributed energy resources will be handled and contract reform rules and regulations and taxes nothing to do with this case this case wasn't about their mission that kind of thing so one of their major grounds was in the ground that has anything to do with the case and then find a basis for me to see this the decision allowed ten different organizations to intervene  the if the the micro grid this redesign of the distribution distribution keep grid in bronzeville it is done and they don't they can still sell their products to the customers on that grid and whatever else it just isn't there the commission for over fifty years has followed the general legal analysis in illinois and intervention in lead that intervention is either of right or by commission and course that's the le ramsey and both of which said we do not find that there was an abuse of discretion when the mission denied intervention is that's really clear the court we have details here is ruling on the amended petition to intervene which was the last one filed it's clear as to why the grounds were that they didn't have a sufficient interest in this case that required the permit them to intervene commission that after a case is over with reports are ordered and are filed with the commission and that's what's happened in this case the case is not open in the sense that we are going to do anything or there's something pending comment we'll file this report with us of take a look at it if something needs to be done to commission will now open another proceeding and they probably would open a new proceeding rather than just reopen the old one if there was something they needed to handle but of course this case s to do with whether or not they should go plant panels and also in these batteries systems in the st this is the st phase of the project and this is partially funded by the department of energy and the components are somewhat set by them as to what they want to distribution grids so they can stand alone if in case the electric grid fails generally that they'll be able to supply electricity for some period under own completely separated from the rest of the grid this is the st one com has ever done and it's one of the  st in the country there's a few other projects similar but not identical to comment project so it's a whole it's looking to the future but it it's we don't know how it's all going to work out you know we're going to trial so what's the answer  less is it so it serves the public has because if they can create these these separated distribution grids then then we will have a better reliable more reliable electric system is the main it had two main issues the st is that they should be allowed to own non storage distributed energy resources like solar panels and at the end of the day the commission said yes khanaqin on those things rd parties are going on those things and the evidence was were to make this project work how that has to be able to own the batteries because of the operational and engineering constraints of the project and usually who owns the batteries or the storage of the bat the question is who owns the batteries the batteries that was uncontested they've never proffered any evidence whatsoever even in their offer of proof in their rehearing petition suggesting that they had anything to offer how true that on that issue and so what's the point of green than for them to put in findings in the ultimate final water are supported by substantial evidence and they've never intended otherwise and as for the intervention decision that spirit strange to say that that needs to be supported by evidence because there is no factual finding that's involved with the commission does this receive the petition for intervention looks at the allegations that are made by the petitioner evaluates the legal sufficiency of that just like you would on a motion to dismiss and makes a legal judgment about whether intervention should be permitted so to talk about substantial evidence is just batteries that would be stored that would be installed the batteries have been purchased by kind that they've already been installed and even if there is a reversal remanded that is not going to unplug and the install the batteries that have already purchased and are already expended a lot of money to install that money is sunk and the batteries are going to stay there if there is a reversal really and the only question that's remains open is whether condit should be able to recover the costs of having purchased install those batteries that's an issue th expedite this course consideration of this issue if our it's opening brief ten months after the rehearing order in this case search of no urgency even though a new facts were were being made on the ground a comment was acting in good faith reliance on the commission's order and it's basically too late now for why pathic any practical relief to the issue that they care about which is having their batteries be the ones the comet is using now turning finally to the issue of the merits justice r path different the st thing that make what path different is that unlike anybody else in the proceeding they were the only entity whose primary interest was being a bender of the batteries that would be used in the project and when you're talking about  of the proceeding to address all sorts of general market policies that this proceeding wasn't about this was about a particular pilot project in brownsville and the costs and how this possibly recovered and that's all it wasn't about general market policies about batteries on the grid and it was complex enough as it was and count how ed and the commission justifiably didn't want to allow a party in that would seek to expand the scope of this proceeding to lots of other issues and the ramsey case it's instructive there it talks about how the resolution of the relative merits of competing economic and market theories was not the commission's task in this case and observation is equally true in this case and that's why the commission's decision should be affirmed and the it's if it is running the micro good as the company that runs the distribution wires in bronzeville so the idea of the whole idea of a micro grid is if there's some problem of a larger grid can we cut the connections between this small area in the larger areas of the smaller area can continue to operate and electricity can still flow over the wires and to do that need to have a balance of demand and supply in that smaller area and that's what a micro grid is designed to accomplish a comment as the energy that manages an operates the distribution wires is overseeing in we'll run the micro grid as a whole the other questions thank you very much if i only had ten seconds i have to take a look at that section that counsel for comment just cited and take a look at page seven of our reply brief when he says that you have to show prejudice con ed points you to a section for review and it was subsection keppel he that we are natch proceeding under so weigh all of comments arguments before this court and before the i c c in light of the credibility that and so the commission and help j acting for the commission preliminarily has an obligation to go and this court has an obligation to review to determine whether the rulings were supported by substantial in this case the substantial evidence would be the stipulated facts what was in the verify pleadings so two things arise that number one this court absolutely has your thorny and the application to review that a court of public utilities act in the section that we come to this court under number two this is this removes the abuse of discretion standard as counsel said i wish i had a transcript we have the whole lot about how they're see how the decisions will be made and what this court is supposed to use to judge and then we have facts that are on contested it's a question of law application of the law the statute to the facts which as they point out are uncontested it's just what was in the pleadings de novo not of use of discretion abuse of discretion i'll take it all day because there has to there is not there are not many more clear examples of abuse of discretion and when counsel says if the question of whether or not comment should be allowed on batteries was on contested in the evidence that's certainly something we would have contested because we're in the battery of this and there certainly is prejudice to an independent rd party market provider of these energy sources and the regulations the fine battery as generation if they generate the energy because they put it out there it's the fact they don't want to admit that but it's in there and we cited if somebody is in the business privately in the marketplace of conflict of competing and providing the same we don't sell the combat we have other people by the energy were put it back on that is just the marketplace guys can only batteries which according to the regs are generation and you can release the solar and the wind which is also impressive that those are big those are the winds that's what happened and senator joe biden who was a commissioner at the time when he spoke on our behalf he said let's be clear what comment is seeking here they were denied by the general assembly so they're coming here for a nd bite if you have and what they're looking for is a substantial expansion in what they're allowed to do and every piece of equipment they're allowed to only gets connected to the grid they not only do they charge the rate payers for that but