will be presenting and how much time you will be using it please the court counsel this is a pleasure for me in russia we don't get the opportunity for landowners to challenge a state action when somebody is going to take after take your land in china they don't give you this opportunity this is been an eight year ongoing battle it involves a public utility it involves certain things known as a certificate of public convenience a necessity now there is a case that i for a found after i did my frequent the supreme court case chicago railways vs l y commerce commission thirty three thirty six in the supreme court reviewed that i'm just going to touch on that but under eight four zero six unless a certificate of public convenience and necessity is exercised within two years it becomes null and void there isn't any question that that occurred in this particular case there isn't any question that they the initial applicant for the project is a pipeline certified as a public utility the lakehead project in the lakehead case that was cited here identifies that public need aspect of the statute  serve to protect and to restrict the exercise of eminent domain and really what happened here is the applicant we were hearing on the on the on seven four four six case where this fourth district u pheld the granting of a certain pick and a good standing back in two thousand and nine we were here applicant chose not to proceed with that project they ate they cite several things they did not there was a great recession they the market conditions changed but what happened is they didn't move forward and they left four years expire and then in two thousand and thirteen they moved forward and decided we're going to do it a different project we're going to do not the project that was approved not the project a thirty six inch pipeline to bring canadian crude from alberta but a different project we have the wrong project the wrong pipeline and the wrong product we're going to ship a completely different product true that line than what was originally proposed but because there was unprecedented opposition to that project they didn't want to redo and start backing that's where why so they said we're just gonna assume that this same project would be approved and we're going to move forward with that and we raised their hand landowner said you can't do that you've got to go back and start and square the main proceeding and actually the the precursor to the eminent domain is this process where we go through to get eminent domain authority but the the problem here is that they don't match up we now have eight certificate that granted them authority to build a thirty six inch pipeline for different projects for different products to come for a different pipe but they want to use the original certificate of good standing from extension pipeline is any mention about the change in the project they would ask that we just all ignore that and assume that they're they're moving ahead and we're not allowed to ask that question our brief is is this is an eight year deal eight year battle on call and i'm happy to answer any questions i assume your justices have reviewed the materials if you have any questions issues before you here today that we believe i will briefly respond to certain comments they made first of all this is a case under a five on the certificate in good standing granted by the commission and the prior docket of seven zero four four six was done pursuant to fifteen for a one under article fifteen of the public utilities at specifically fifteen one zero one there are only three sections under article eight  carriers eight one zero one eight five zero three and a file not eight for all six is not a political to pipeline carriers therefore the two year limit that's under eight for six simply isn't  if the journalist simply wanted eight for all six to apply to pipeline carriers they would have included it in fifteen one a what they did not do so once again this is not a rehash of the certification case commission entered in order in december i'm opening to address a number of the issues that were raised in the  forward and seek relief in the circuit of course i do the eminent domain act that is the goal that the general assembly has prescribed for instances such as this when utilities want to construct a pipeline and only issues here today are whether or not the commission was acting in a legislative capacity and whether or not the commission fulfilled its obligations under the statute to make sure that the two prongs  impasse were met substantial evidence of record included in the order that you have or you prove that the commission in fact did what it was charged to do the commission was not charged to act as a circuit court judge nor was the commission obligated to stand in as a jury to determine some of the matters that a circuit court would determine such as appraisals the amount of the land of birth that's put on the land owner none of that was p before the i c c those are matters for the circuit court so the only other thing i have to say is you currently have before you are motion to strike addressing three issues today i want to do two today but you are well versed in what they are the only issue that's before you today is the sufficiency of the evidence contained in the record with respect to eighty five that any questions of me doesn't appear that there are any thank you thank the proposition that the certificate is either expired or abandoned as a consequence of it's not exercised within two years it's very well established that to raise an argument on appeal and ample a order in their eval application for hearing me at once concede and i quote that you statutes and regulations not set a fixed right to exercise a certificate in good standing in other words this could not possibly be considered here second of all if the court chooses to reach the merits mr reed is correct there is nothing in section fifteen for one either it's t the structure of article fifteen that would lead to the conclusion that there is any date certain by which such a certificate has to be exercised there is simply no basis to read in to this statute a limitation or exception of the general somebody chose not to now one other issue that i would like to discuss briefly is the question of substantive due process and i will just say at the commission we take our obligation to render the highest level of the plot process very seriously and we've it's the commission's position that they were that the apple apple wants were not denied some of them due process in the proceedings follow the argument however couched is that they were limited in their evidentiary present taishan to only those issues relevant to the need for an appropriateness of eminent domain and if they were prevented from introducing evidence relating to public convenience and the subsidy public benefits and the applicant's fitness willingness  to operate and maintain construct the pipeline and the commission's position is that this argument should be rejected a due process violation or at least with respect to  requires that there be a in this case deprivation of property in a manner shocking to the conscience a lot simply cannot meet the standard  the commission made detailed reference to this in its order a low end and i can give you more citations than you're probably interest to that if you like them  finally the case law makes clear that the mere granting of authority to take property through eminent domain as opposed to seeking condemnation of a parcel or parcels under the eminent domain act simply does not give rise to do process right because it doesn't immediately put the property at everyone will get a early break or a lunch couple issues on page sixteen seventeen of our brief i'm sorry sixteen seventeen in regards to the waiver issue i think there is a misunderstanding below there it's very clear we did go state at one point as the statute and regulations did not satisfy six time i was referring to this actual construction process we then moved to view the i c c could issue wait eight finding of public convenience and necessity today and they could wait for twenty years and come back and say it's valid we've now decided to go forward the reason that there is this two year statute of limitations so to speak or two years move forward or it's not all is because things change and under their their view they could just hold the certificate for twenty years forty years and if you are in front of the commission they are you but you're now breaking statute but if you say i did not we supplemented the record and we we move to supplement to that very statute what about the hearing was over they don't say you have to start construction within six months of granting this permit they don't set eight eight eight eight timeframe at which you have to start playing that  down and then after that argument came up well wait a minute will you wait that no no that was a misunderstanding or taken out of context our point was it doesn't say you have to start otherwise you waited but what clear that under the statutes in that one nine hundred twenty nine case govern satter talks even about it it's not a new concept that you can't just do nothing you have to do something more than nothing and they did nothing nothing they didn't move