proposed pipeline if it is required by the public convenience and necessity this demanding standard must be satisfied before private companies such as buyer can use eminent domain power to take homeowners property and permanently alter the natural landscape in the orders below for exclusively on a single affiliate precedent contract agree to behind closed doors and paid for by captive customers in a region  pipeline capacity and no new load growth works orders are deficient for many reasons but i highlight the two most egregious errors today st firk relied exclusively on an affiliate precedent agreement signed by utility with captive customers to demonstrate market need despite significant warning signs that the affiliate arrangement compromised the probative value of that agreement back and st violated its own certificate policy statement by performing a deficient balancing analysis which ignore the affiliate projects adverse effects on land owners the environment and existing pipelines and their customers and relied on  as to the st point in her dissenting opinion commissioner lafleur stated that the spier affiliate project is the unusual case of a pipeline application that squarely fails the threshold economic test for soley on the utility affiliate agreement to find need ignoring record evidence that significantly undermined the probative value of that agreement what do you significant the most significant evidence is a series of factors that eliminate the skewed and sentence underpinning the agreement and the market conditions in the area so spyer is a single dominant buyer within the region and can simply pass the overland there was increased demand and the project the next is pipeline was supported by a diversity of subscribers and so the question before us is whether for a little st decision was ar molecules of gas coupled with the transportation capacity if you look at the cost of the transportation capacity alone it was higher and even if you looked at the delivered cost of capacity st found there was no material difference  between the buyer pipeline and the neighboring high point and coupled with that there were significant market conditions the region has a track record of failed projects there is already available excess capacity in the region no other entities bid on the capacity the project provides no meaningful cost savings for customers to buy or turn back the cheaper transportation capacity on the neighboring pipeline the state regulator warned that the region could not support an additional four hundred thousand dollars dechen three per day project the president agreement was the result of internal discussions amongst fire not in open season there was no transparent or competitive process to compare the affiliate project with  nonaffiliated alternatives numerous parties protested the project including the neighboring pipeline and the state commission and the neighboring pipeline consider joining the project as a co developer but ended the discussions when it concluded  decision hansard liability and supply supply security reduce reliance on older natural gas pipelines etc there were several reasons given not just the present agreement right under the st certificate policy statement the threshold economic question is whether there is market need for the pipeline and to make that finding of market need for exclusively on the cross an agreement parties asked for  other factors and for it for is reciting to justify its approval so the the test is confusing as being applied you're arguing past each other or go behind it and what that means because they recite other factors that they think supports their approval so the st threshold question is is there a market need if you can answer that question in the affirmative you consider whether the projects public benefits outweigh adverse effects and for considering those other factors now do you think market in the absence of market needed or flat market kills a project that precludes for giving approval that's not my understanding so there could there could be an example of a project that is needed for reliability of this no one is sick there is no record evidence here to suggest that reliability would be compromised if the project was not built just like if you build what they're saying reliability will enhanced with the project being built right so just as if you built ten additional pipelines to st louis all of those pipelines should lose in all such cases we know there could be a situation where there is no new low growth and a project is proposed for that specific reason you know to enhance reliability that's not what the project was proposed here for it evidence a potential threat you know that you're going to have to answer because i'm not confused as to what point you're relying on because it sounds like i'm not interrupting day one i want to make sure she answer it's the that the for the threshold question is whether there is a market need for the pipeline and what for did in this case it looked exclusively at the existence of a process and an agreement it didn't look beyond the fact  so that's why i keep asking you do you think that that ends the inquiry because there is no need here at least as i understand the record they can show a need it's a flat market unless you define need as increased reliability and such factors there isn't a an increased demand here and i'm trying to understand from you are you saying that's the end of it if they cannot show an increase in demand to show that kind of a need much that should be the end of the inquiry is that what you're saying yes it should be the end so i'm not suggesting that there could never be a project where there is flatten man and a project is not demonstrated to meet a need for example of reliability or flexibility like that that is an example that could occur for could go down that path that is not what for did here and rely exclusively on the existence of the precedent agreement my saying that you mean if there were actual reliability concerns like the existing pipeline kept breaking up shutting down or was a very unreliable source and there was a real problem then that could certainly demonstrate need even if there were just to keep getting in what you're already getting has been to be a for having said the only basis for economic need is greenman than than it rises or falls on that at that st step and then at the nd step even if we go past that st step when we get to the related and the fact that if there are significant adverse effects as there were here that requires a heightened demonstration of need but doesn't as to the questions that you are being asked about the role of economic need just as an independent test by itself statement this should all be a question under the balancing tests so i you are correct that if this was an existing pipeline for it would look at to see whether you know other customers would be subsidizing that project but because fire is a new entrant pipeline that question was not implicated here so so far cast you under that st question look at whether there is a market need and here it looks exclusively at the precedent agreement and what whirl would affiliate abuse play with that just negate a sharing of asking you if there are concerns about just cheryl was asking about concerns about at least the sufficiency of analysis of whether to affiliate abuse and i'm trying to figure out where that fits into these different stages of the test we've been talking about the affiliate abuse undermines the probative value of the agreement and so to exclusively rely on the existence of an agreement without analyzing that the significant warning signs that compromise the program value you had gas regulated gas utilities seeking to purchase storage services at market based rates and ferk expressed concern and that case that a regulated affiliate purchaser could purchase a service or above those established in a competitive market and so it it denied the rate proposal in that request and found that you know there was a significant concern regarding the threat of affiliate abuse there's a whole host of it's sort of an eyebrow raising test it seems concerning them that takes material air out of my most need as in this case right it was the fret of affiliate abuse in the cove point case point again because i hear you starting out by so they relied soley on the present agreement period i can understand the argument in the abstract but i'm not sure that's what the record is suggesting they thought a justification for the pipeline was to enhance reliability and supply security reduce reliance on older natural gas pipelines reduce reliance upon mature natural gas basins and eliminate reliance on propane peaks shaving interest infrastructure did st credit those things so in the initial order for it declined to credit those it found that those issues fall within the scope and business decision of the shipper and i would not look at it in the risk e ring order and paragraph twenty four which commissioner glick described as a throw away paragraph st described those issues as benefits all right so that i mean that's my point that you characterize them a certain way to me is beside the point in the rehearing order one pushed their resting on it now are you saying their reliance on those interests are bogus and if so how so and if it's not bogus why isn't their reliance on those interests sufficient to overcome your claim that all they did was rely on the president agreement that's what i'm trying to understand here because they did cite these things now here what i'm hearing from you you're saying yeah judge they did in the rehearing but that's nonsense and i'm saying really why is it nonsense of the words are written so there was significant record evidence undercutting each of those justifications so multiple pile it's arbitrary and capricious because what they claim to be relying on is not supported by the record that your argument see i've got i didn't get that i would understand that's that's typical arbitrary and capricious review you're saying they claimed in the end analysis to be relying on these four things that the other side is relying on but really the record does not support that i didn't read you to me making that argument is that what demand that's the end of the inquiry and you said you don't have one you don't have any such case it has that's why i don't understand you're saying you're looking at the present in agreement and you're saying but there's no demand and this is with an affiliate and so that should end it and i'm saying that's fine if you're right where's your precedent for that for others ition there has never been a case before for with a zigzags accent of facts there has never been a single utility i think press ok so do it this way for me i know there isn't any such case so now you be the writing judge you're now asking us to make up something that has never been done before and what w justification be what would we say you're saying if the press in an agreement is all they have and in a flat market that's enough to overturn it there's no precedent to support that how would i write that so i would look to this court's decisions in three cases the tass decision and the missouri public service commission and the likely decision and those three cases all stand you know define f section seven obligation they all say the court has found that for cannot sell its section seven obligation by merely relying on the existence of agreements entered into by retail gas utilities because the utility can simply pass those costs on to captive customers for curtained the responsibility of making an independent judgment and has the duty to use its section seven power to protect the public interest ok so you know what let me let me immediately tell you what i'm thinking as you're saying this i'm thinking they have in the rehearing relied on the interest cited by the other side and use simply respond to me saying well that's a blow off why as a judge how can i just say well that's nonsense and less you show me that what they've relied on that has been cited by the other side is not supported by the record and i didn't hear you to make that argument in the brief so so may i address that yes please i don't i'm sort of pressure but i'm really trying to understand the theory so is there a significant record evidence undercutting all of those justifications and you argue that in the brief claims i missed that if you did yes i and our reply brief we talked there there are three overlapping obligations here there's the obligations under the natural gas act there's the obligations under the certificate policy statement and then there's the obligations under the administrative procedures act and further orders here violate all three of those overlapping legal obligations because i thought this can't conclusion under the well i just want to follow up on right and that we don't even get to the down is that your theory in that and with respect to the four items emma let me ask you that am i right about that yes the point they were making here is that the correct there has never been a case with this set of facts where it was the project to support an exclusively by utilities captive customers that has never been presented before this court and so as commissioner gleick said in his dissenting to judge a good question when we do that paragraph twenty yes so so there is significant record evidence that undermined all of those justification so st there was multiple pipelines that already provide spire missouri access to supplies know really stay with me and i don't mean to be a pain but a but i really need to understand i hear what george titled just their shoes what i've been trying to ask you did you in your opening brief focus on those factors and say there's no record evidence to support those tonics because i don't remember it so so we really under we presented record evidence to undermine the claim that the you know the regarding the need for the propane facilities that was included in the opening brief and you know there is significant additional record evidence to undercut all of those other to justifications if i can walk through that now before i do that can i just say like your nd each new of your opening brief on page thirty nine is the record does not time either did or you didn't and agency relies on for things that clearly reliance of relying on for things they're doing it in the rehearing but they rely on it and all i wanted to know is do you think in your opening that brief i laid out the case for injury to a static recreational and safety interests which are ongoing and also independently procedural standing time it's enjoyment over property the character of the neighborhood also her recreational interests in the parks and the safety concern regarding the sharpest curve around character of the region in the trees it's not the view around the us i don't know we don't know that so we don't know me and i get that there's now a building where there were trees and you have a dangerous ask her the question is whether you could be any better on the ask or from trees rather than a building i would have to ask her how do you get the right well i could consult her and ask to find out that that doesn't help you rise and fall on your declaration here that i made it up maybe it's not enough that you know we don't we don't have that is that right and that was just expanded to this corner in the construction is that what happened no it really was brand new was brand new some record evidence indicates that they were connecting to an existing station but then there was some the park under which the pipeline was run or she does she does that prevent her from kayaking or hiking in the pipelines under underground there yes it is so she can still hike and kayak without seeing anything good morning your arse on this one often on behalf of the commission so there's a number of issues to get to but before i do i want to clarify one record point from judge to lots question about whether the chain of rocks  station existed before you can look at the beginning of the certificate order this is j a nine hundred and thirty four paragraph sixty seven forgot six says that they would be as a i will say that there's nothing in the affidavit that makes clear when that traffic condition arose like whether iraq was as a result of the project under review or whether it pre evidence of abuse when it comes to affiliate agreements and the nd one was i think whether or not the commission actually relied solely on the affiliate agreements your us interests and focus on terrorism or maybe i'll start there  and i think here it's worth clarifying there is a difference between the evidence that is offered or the evidence that the commission relies upon for showing a need for a project as well as versus the issues these independent obligation to address opposing views and so with respect to this issue i don't think you can separate those two so what the pipeline offered was it offered the affiliate a group and then as you all recognize it offered a number of other rationales as well access i plan infrastructure if the project were to be approved and so what the commission said in that paragraph twenty four of the rehearing more jay levin fifty five it said that it found that the the russians offered by spire sufficient to overcome concerns of overbuilding and based on that record it found no reason to nd guess the business judgments of the pipeline and so i think based on that based on that record i don't think it's fair to say that the commission relied exclusively on the affiliate agreements well if they're if they're saying nothing more then there's no reason to nd guess what has been offered that's really not an agency doing its all independent analysis of the factors that would justify this proposal if they have to go further than the president agreement and it's looks like a case where there's you know there's no demand all you have is a president agreement with one affiliate related to fill it and the suggestion has been made and the possibility of cell dealing and the suggestion is being made in that circumstance st got to do more so it's not enough in the rehearing to just say question you wanted to just say in passing while they propounded these and we have no reason to nd guess that's not agency analysis well i think two separate issues there those are words i think number one what the agency can rely on number two i think you also reference the issue of self dealing with respect to what the agency can rely on i mean the certificate policy save it makes clear that number one servicing existing demand is just as valid a reason to approve the project as servicing new demand to put an obligation on her to look carefully with additional well i think that the way that the commission has treated contracts with affiliates consistently is that it treats them the same as contracts me that what we said there and what happened there bears no resemblance to what's happening here for exactly the reasons judge table said so so let's just be careful that we're saying about what we said was permissible with respect to fill in agreements and we have overland to take in that understanding the city of oberlin i'm interested in your answer to just a little spice so i think the question was what more would need to be shown with respect to abuse or self dealing have a fork was falling because there was no reason for them to go behind anything or like really and judge tate alist asking you very pointedly in this situation where there are no needs in the no cost savings isn't enough for us to accept your argument i guess our point is that they're not that's not a comparison of like things like why why is that not as to the risk of affiliate manipulation why is it different whether they're doing it for r raising eyebrows or setting up the radar at least the obligation to inquire further why is a difference whether it's a rate case or using the affiliate to justify to its part of charging a rate or you're talking about using them to establish me why is that different because i just for one the what the commission is doing here is it's not it's not being asked to review an agreement application for a certificate so that is different then i shan't that purse say julie what they're doing here is different i'm asking you not for differences to what burke is doing how is it different as to the concerns about the relationship between the between buyer and its affiliates where missouri and part of this gets to a slightly different issue but i think it's worth going there now which is the commission point out that it's not the commission's role and i should the state regulator also asked the question to clarify that it is not the commission's report that's changing residual is ok so your point is that this could be just as bad but at this at this this procedural a it's not f at this stage to the commission's role is to rely on if an agreement is offered in support of a certificate to show need the commission is looking at the existence of the agreement it's not reviewing the terms that's in this case that's up to the sound i don't you just said that there were isn't there different is because this is the missouri commission public service commission wheelhouse not for to look into that right no i guess that i misunderstood them well i think what i'm trying to s it's up to the state regulators sit inside whether the terms between the the local distribution company and the pipeline are fair within their authority mean of course that it's the commission's role to assess whether there is a need for the pipeline  when it's reviewing need it considers agreements but it's been in the commission's consistent policy that it's not going to treat affiliates differently unless there is evidence offered of abuse and that is different than how the commission approaches said there is no evidence offered here but i guess one way to look at it as might is maybe with the open season process if you had an open season process and you had a company that wanted to bid for service services and somehow was ignited the ability to do so and that party pressed forward with where you're going to commission i suppose that could be a potential issue where that party would say there was an open season but it actually wasn't i don't know how the open season doesn't hurt you rather than help you because its own volition this agreement appeared only after open season failed completely there's no cost savings there are other where nobody there's no contracts for it nobody's nobody wants it i mean i assumed that would not happen but they had to come up with something oh well i guess my point is that the commissions not focused on one  when a party decided to enter into an agreement it's whether there was an opportunity for others to participate i understand others were asking is whether when you have timing like this does that make it i understand the commission didn't i think we all understand the mission have what i have to have what evidence would be sufficient ok so i guess let me put it this way to contrast this with the record we have here so if the pipeline offers a number of rationales for project and opposing parties come forward and respond and and those responses don't and the commission and those responses fully address and rebut the pipelines russia city rationales i think that could be something that's not what happened here and i think  one of the issues you pointed out was a bill one billion existing pipelines all the commission made a finding that there was not sufficient available yes on existing pipelines you can look at ok i do tell me that one because i thought there are and the illinois interstate public do not have adequate available capacity to meet the needs of one project and the specific data that it's referring to you know but there are other pipelines besides unable that's correct that they're not all serving the same side of see that anywhere i just saw in the hands reliability and flexibility where is there they don't even have enough gas coming where is that i think what i just pointed you to judge millette the commission found that the existing options did not what i don't think it says it that's specifically but the spire missouri signed up for eighty seven point five percent of the capacity here and if you look at the numbers that it was it was spire missourian neat were they not get enough yes they're the source of need we don't we don't on the other pipeline has need we're asking whether there's a need for someone have this capacity that this new pipelines provide and so i don't understand what it they don't meet the needs of the surprise fire pipeline project where is where the same no need to support it there's no question that they all they'll produce more but we're seeing is they're producing more than is needed i don't know that it's more than it's needed it's what the customers are asking for and part of what the reason they're asking for his to provide as we've talked about the more diverse supply options to the region to replace expiring contracts amen to replace an aging  this it's not their only source of gastroesophageal it is i mean to be clear that spire missouri has gas coming in from i think the east side of it sarah curran from the west side and so for example there are pipelines like i believe the missouri gas company what would give us confidence to well i mean part of the mill is a big part of the argument that's been raised that the commission only relied on the press and agreement we point out we disagree with that based on what the commission a sudden the record but if the court thinks the commission can provide more explanation on that if you remember for further explanation i also point out that this is an operational pipeline that's been operational for question of disruption couldn't couldn't to the point you're simply to back to getting that natural gas from its previous sources i'm not sure we have a  show how easy that would be the judge said all i know that this as i mentioned by has been operational for some time and it's been receiving gas on speier for you know roughly two years so i think that could be a question of mr franklin might  said i'm trying to make sure sounds like the commission credit all of them and that was that it would move capacity or supply away from a seismic zone is that right yes that's one of the rationals offered by that something of concern to the commission the pipelines not be not traversed seismic zones i think that's i mean that's certainly a think the commission's point here is that it's a valid reason for a supplier to want to think making a finding that that was a real the liability it was i think the point here is that the commission is finding that these are the sorts of issues that based on the record before it it's not going to try  concern and as the nd sentence says we're not going to nd guess that's what i've understood you to be arguing all along and that rehearing they weren't really making findings i was saying these are been asserted we're not going to nd guess them i mean i'd like to start with what i think is a misconception about what st found in instead of original order he did consider the allegations of anti competitive conduct what it said was we have a precedent agreement that would normally be sufficient in itself to show need but it's between affiliates so we're going to look and see if there is evidence having been presented by the petitioners below  take competitive conduct and it specifically considered and rejected the argument that there would be unnecessary overbuilding and it did so by rely on legitimate non pretextual statements of need that are undisputed in the record and to your question judge had words there's nothing in the opening brief or p d f challenging any of these needs except for footnote to where they say the propane peaking facilities was not a real issue because they were rarely used and that's obviously incorrect and it shows to me the for sites reason why this was needed the propane sylvie's was one of the reasons that facilities no existing pipeline could meet those needs and you can find that your honour's at page one thousand and eighteen wait in one of the nineteen of the rehearing order which cites the environmental assessment pages firk was looking at and my only point here by the way your honour's is to show that all of these cost estimates and all of the environmental assessment were based on the predicate that all parties agreed to that in order to retire propane peaking facilities something new would have to be built existing pipelines simply could not provide that capacity and this is important your honor because this is where it gets into the question of and i competitive activity the what firk said is we're not quite a nd yes spire missouri's decision to retire its propane peaking facilities that's within the business judgment of the company it's it's talking about all of the benefits that's that the project would provide so there are there are at least all of the benefits and it's saying those could not be provided without additional facilities so what  was no longer in this case was saying was you know you could do something else you don't have to use spire s t l you can build an additional loop on to the most gas pipeline you can use some of our facility and one for found as a matter of fact in the environmental sense monette the pages that i mentioned is no you can't you cannot do it without the building additional facilities and by the way each of those additional facilities environmental end of things was let's look at the alternatives and the alternatives all required building new facilities but again we're going with our ukraine man that even if there was no demand and you didn't was no anti competitive conduct because there were legitimate non pretextual needs that could not be met by the existing system and i'm going to focus really right now on one of the g problem what they were finding your honor was that the needs of aspire missouri that were identified that were legitimate not protection by the way all of these needs were identified in st certificate policy the only l t c in the company country that was injecting propane at times into the gas supply but newer things like electric vehicle natural gas vehicles and high efficiency boilers can't use that propane mixture it's too hot so they needed to retire that and no existing pipeline could meet the demand and the only thing that and judge edward diskettes your question the only evidence of need that was a challenge in the opening brief was that footnote two of e d s brief and they said oh the propane people peeking facility that's nonsense because you only use it on a occasionally well that's clearly wrong give me a natural gas fired vehicles and then there are these new high efficiency boilers it's an aging system and so what burke said is we are not in the business of questioning whether or not an l t c which we don't even regulate has  to me is strange in the sense that it's kind of all over the place but one of the things that i focused on and one point of it's sixty one some forty seven rather than relying on only one test we need the commission will consider all relevant factors reflecting on the need for the project the commission will do this these might include but would not be limited to president's agreements demand projections attentional cost savings to consumers or comparison the projected demand with the amount of capacity currently serving the market that's the commission's  all right so no what i'm trying to figure out is apart from pointing to the press an agreement which is only one of the things listed in the it sounds weird that the commission in its opening disposition with respect to the  are you kept referring to a lot of different documents including submissions that you made i don't want to i don't care about where you use a minute i want to know where in the analysis did ferg go through those five or six factors and say we've considered them all on this project a say wise house counsel and the other side so you're suggesting that the president in agreement which is what we've been worrying about is it that's all that was required in this case and they had consonant that then where where is there the problem was were all saying to you whether you like it or not facially it looks like this is a case where some kind of balancing might be required just common sense intelligent people looking at those would say some kind of balance and require it and the mere existence of a present agreement in this situation where there's no demand and an affiliate i don't know whether there's assault dealing concern in any event it reeks of is there anything else soledad i so then that you cited doesn't answer my concern because i don't president i don't read the president to say we're case reaks a need for more for it doesn't have to give it i don't and this is where they said the other side and this is still u b s argument of page twenty two of their brief they say there is no rational explanation for this decision to sign on t correct not to go behind and to to nd guess the business just i'll use the propane as a good example fork is not in a position to tell a gas company it cannot retire its propane picking facilities that is within the business judgment of the gas company that is something that is not going to nd guess what fork is going to do is saying you have said you want to retire your propane peaking just sillies we have found and i  the pages and there are other ones as well we have found that that cannot be accomplished it cannot be accomplished without some new facility so the pipeline serves that need and it shows that the precedent agreement is not merely an anti competitive grab to to enrich the company at the expense of the rate payers and if i might i just want  it's consumers there will be no cost savings from this project years and that raises our eyebrows not i don't know whether it raises an eyebrow is about self dealing but it raises an eyebrow for me about needs and  and it certainly picks up on some of the points that are in the policy statement and you seem to be agreeing that yes for a cause to respond to that and then you say their response is we're not going to look at what's been asserted to answer that question that's not an easy answer it is an answer to the question just the argument your honor the argument below was thin and it is still the argument on appeal there is no other rational explanation for this pipeline except anti competitive activity and look at that argue the argument is there is no other rational explanation for it said you know there is and if i might i'd just like to return in fairness that you're going to read the evidence offered by the proponents of the project and then they followed up by saying and we're not going to look to see whether that's right or wrong because that's their call that isn't or didn't you know how you characterize that but that's one of winning argument there is a rational explanation but we're not going to check it that to me no no no no other side the other side is honestly going to say you know we think we're right and works not going to look to see whether it is in fact right they weren't that none of these things were disputed your none of these benefits were disputed below the only argument was you could achieve them through a different series of other pipelines that could have been  let me hold this down in my mind because this is what i was raising the other side as well your argument that the justifications that you offered from the get go to support the project have never been contested by the petitioners below or now that they really have not made a claim that there's no evidence to support those justification than the justifications were there uncontested for guys to do nothing nothing more only because i rightly your hon that they did these needs could not be met by existing services yes and the only argument that's made in the opening previous at footnote two and that relates to propane peaking facilities and that argument is clearly wrong because the fact that they didn't use them very often doesn't mean they didn't need them and if i could just this is what i want to read your honor page page eight hundred and thirty three of the record and this is when same part of the record i just identified for this is buyers giving to that commission its explanation for why it needs the project and one of the key things it said is it's a reliability concern and it said we need it because quote regional events such as supply for use off major storms or extreme cold can create significant regional price spikes in the cost of gas that can be mitigated or avoided completely by having access to multiple differing supply basins in differing geographical regions that is spread public knowledge that exactly what i just read to you happened last month there was a freeze up in texas where gas supplies literally froze up at a time of peak demand so that the t metropolitan area would have remained captive to the m r t system that drove the true gas from go same areas which meant that exactly what was predicted at page eight hundred and thirty three dollars of the record would have occurred market study for could have done would have predicted that there would have been record cold and gas crisis in texas in the year two thousand and twenty one for three or four years later that's the business judgment of the company but what did say is we're go exactly in exactly those exact words your honor in those exact words and the reason was eight hundred and thirty for the record it had happened before in two thousand and eleven and the point i'm making is that ferk said i'm not we're not going to we're not going to nd guess the company's business judgment on piece things now the other side it said this is this is a bunch of the lotos who eat it's never going to happen it couldn't happen there's no reliability issues then they might have looked saying your honor is they could not do it and they only recently it's about ninety percent retired now they could not do it absent they could not do it without this pipeline so far can't deny them the approval they were seeking they would alternatives that we're talking about the ones that were evaluated and yes they all involve building new facilities looping other pipelines putting edition of pipelines through the existing systems could not handle and that is undisputed there is no dispute and nobody can give it to you because it's not there that capacity that was needed to retire the propane peaking facilities could not be provided with out exist on the existing system so there was a need for this pipeline they had shown an assessment for this pipeline then they looked at the environmental impacts and said we're evaluating the alternatives what are the alternatives all of them involved filming something else that's why the no action alternative was rejected they all involved building something else and we're going to say in our get expert judgement the spire s t l pipeline which is doesn't cost materially more is sufficient so it is in fact exactly what you want for it to be doing you don't want to be coming in and frankly i'm not hearing your honor saying that this is true you don't want to be coming in and saying to fire missouri you've told us you want to retire your propane cylinders and judge millette as you said they had already made that decision that they wanted to do this date this court is not a position focus knowledge and position to tell the company it can't do that you have to keep the stuff in place when you're telling us that it has operational difficulties we're also saying you're telling us you need reliability because there might be a major freeze offer a storm or cold weather page eight  of the record for just saying we're not nd guessing that because nobody has told us and there's no evidence that that's a pretext that that's some sort of a made up thing and what is what saying is yes when there is an affiliate agreement we're going to look a little bit more we're going to say is there evidence of self dealing or or is there evidence fanuc competitive activity here that was not and that was not because there were legitimate thank you so i just want to clarify one point our opening brief attacked went for said it's rationale regarding the need that it relied on the contract and had to do more because the cost of the contract case that because the commission's task under section seven of the natural gas act is so crucial and has such far sweeping consequences if there is a situation where an application probably would not be in the public interest a certificate of should not be issued here as commissioner glick explained the record is patently insufficient as there is neither evidence that the spier project is needed nor that it's limited benefits outweigh its harms  supposed to act as the guardian of the public interest it's blinkered reliance on precedent agreements to satisfy and market need has gone too far in this case the viability of existing pipelines is threatened captive customers now pay higher rates and e d s members land has been taken and damaged false fire continues to pay itself millions of dollars per year based on an unneeded and legally unjustified project we respectfully ask the court to vacat alternative it was not denied by for it because it didn't build anything but because for defined the project in exactly spiers terms which they are not allowed to do this is an example of the procedural injury that we suffered the e a a the certificate order of the order i'm hearing are a medley of inconsistent and contradictory justifications for evading need for example they simply refuse to consider the climate impacts that we're trying to challenge because they define to me live in packs as necessarily local but global warming is global in nature must be considered in that context and they