any person or company to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever the commission's refusal to exercise jurisdiction here to consider any of his complaints that this separation of these two pipeline systems is nothing but a sham to denies videos of the statutory protection and i didn't mean to cause any confusion on that your own republican i know the court has asked the parties to brief questions related to the motion to dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction in this court's i'm happy to talk about that for a moment and then to talk about the commission wasn't issued orders issued by staff under delegation order because it was a lack of a quorum of the time that were was specifically subject to further order from the commission and us move for rehearing and that were on the further order was issued in january and also denied the motion for rehearing which put any of us in a difficult position we didn't know whether we should then go ahead and file a petition is one of them down for a hearing or whether we needed to go ahead and file in the rehearing motion because the further order from commission so we did the best we could and we did both we filed the petition for review related to the denial of rehearing which is docket in this case as number eleven and then we saw here and then that rehearing motion was ultimately denied one of the things that makes that particularly difficult here is that this is the opposite of what the commission did in the p j in case which is cited in our briefing to pitch thirty five dollars in that case commission did a similar thing there were three workers it was initially ordered by staff there was a further order by the commission itself the reported to both do further things and also to deny rehearing and on the further motion for regaining the commission recognize the rehearing motion lot that was proper in that case in their response they also acknowledged that the january further order constructively reached a different result from the july at work and therefore i think they will come up say this but i think for that you have to conclude that the rehearing did live from the january in our case didn't get to that question in deciding that the commission didn't have jurisdiction at all to decide these issues the commission didn't get to the point that it got to the other cases where they declined to exercise or declined to hold  hearing here we are so one step ahead of that y assumed the answer to our question going to court if it's an incomplete event if the corporate bill should be peers because they are using this separation as a sham then they should further investigate i think the problem is their decision  under hackler vs germany you agree with a reprieve that there's another line of cases which neither party is cited that says that if you have a decision that itself is and reviewable that  so so for you to say well the reason that they didn't investigate is because they thought they had to didn't have jurisdiction is to carve out of a non reviewable action somethin circuit correctly i don't know what your response possibly but i think my response you know to be that we're not trying to carve out in the way the course described but instead we're saying we don't need it because you didn't get to that question the commission didn't exercise its discretion to decide not to investigate the commission st had this initial question of do we even have jurisdiction and i think that's a completely different before you answer judge roger's question mr goodman is let me just remind you that heckler versus cheney which is the leading case you're familiar with are in that case itself the agency st said we don't have jurisdiction and then went on to give a reason why even if it did have jurisdiction wouldn't exorcise so isn't out there i mean that was up from judge rogers question because that's pretty much the situation here with two answers to that i think the st one is again i come back to the fact that there are reasons why are premised on their incorrect conclusion that they don't have jurisdiction and  because again our argument here is that this is not a complete abandonment by it's a sham transaction they're saying that it's a complete abandonment of looking at the abandonment cases both the ones aside from this court and the commission's own decisions party it's not a situation there is no more traffic on this line well the commission did express the opinion that this was not a situation where there were record evidence  there's really two findings that they have been there related to their explanation or their finding that there's no reason to pierce the corporate veil argument there st is there's no record of this because we haven't had a chance to investigate it we have that's the reason we asked the commission to set it for hearing and give us a chance to do that discovery because we believe there are enough indicators and of red flags here they give us the opportunity to make that investigation here this is not a situation of even putting in a completely different part of the company we pointed out to the commission to this court the same person is president of mid america and vice president of lover the same person and again i think because of the close relationship of those entities because of the timing the close relationship in time to our inner connection requests the fact that the result of this is that essentially only affiliates of this  company can now nominate destination and points on leverage the system is completely separate there's no joint tariff that would allow someone to nominate a destination and that in origin pair on map will and on the decision that's a complete abandonment and therefore doesn't have jurisdiction i struggle understand how it could be a complete abandonment on the one hand and everything is the same on the other hand if everything's the same then it's not a bad of the commission  complain i don't i don't think we've ever said it's not available to the fact that we have an alternate remedy through the complaint process does not really answer the question of whether the commission has jurisdiction over this process and whether we should st get this resolved before we get to the complaint process which is our point we're just want the commission to exercise its jurisdiction and the last point i want to make and i think it's important and i don't weigh all my time and i appreciate important bills but the this court just last friday reminded the commission that this court insists on reason justification and even to the extent that the commission says ok we don't have jurisdiction but if we do have jurisdiction rocket exercises i would say that what's in these orders as their explanation for why they're not going to exercise it does not pass muster we've explained in our brief there's really only two things that they put in there as to why they say that they don't need to exercise their jurisdiction the st is an assumption about whether the two systems are interconnected which we say is an open issue we want to best to get it and the in their actual order and so i'd said to the extent that they have so they've made a decision not to exercise edgers stiction they're not adequately explained that in a minimum the court needs to send it back in as and to do to explain that so we commission decision not to investigate intersection fifteen point seven is not subject to judicial review for a number of reasons if the language of the statute and b is the supreme court sense of the railway the decision not to investigate is not ruling stacked i think they would have to bring section declined to initiate an investigation if that's beyond their authority the next to be subject to immediate judicial review but going beyond that and getting into the reasons why the commission declined to investigate so it's no for based on this course this isn't based on the statute or the language of the i c a we don't have jurisdiction over complete cancellation of service then went on to say let any of us wants us to look at this is a whole let's do that even if we did have jurisdiction we don't believe there's any reason to conduct an investigation here because the terror doesn't change any configuration system at all it's open to all comers and we really don't see how this attacks you know isis competitive position it  statutory obligation to give reasons and even their own that the court so will look at the reasons to make sure they're there but in the exxon pipeline case and we're not going to get into the merits we're just going to make sure it's there so i think in this case we have one review word start is what we talked about before by saying that they don't have jurisdiction in the commission found it didn't have jurisdiction then that's not an exercise of discretion preliminary question that's the thing that we asked this court to review and to say the wrong and again what we heard here disappear from from my colleague was to say we don't have jurisdiction because it's not complete cancellation but that is to assume the question we've asked them to consider which is that it's not a complete cancellation because of the fact that they should pierce the corporate base and brought all the red flags that we talked about but moving to the nd question again i don't think that they've given to enough of a reason explanation to say that everything's the same a play on the record you don't like and there's also the extremely cost this isn't just sending it to another division of the company it's under the exact same control as it was before the same person timing same control right like yes it's there is this everybody keeps saying there's no functional difference is being operated exactly is the same as what before the same people are making decisions about both of these pipelines as we're making them before that's not a complete abandonment all the cases here to the sighted to talk about complete abandonment is when they're getting out of the business of carrying a product that's not what happened here they get out of the business of carrying the product the same company is doing the same thing they were doing before the other thing i'd point out is that even the commission recognizes there is an adverse it says in any of that we're not getting there because we don't have jurisdiction so the jurisdiction question is fundamental to this and i think that while they do come back later and say even if we had jurisdiction we would next or size it for the reasons we talked about her brief and i talked about in my that may be as far as it goes but they have to do that they need to exercise that jurisdiction the harm we face is that they are not doing what section thirty one dollars says they're supposed to do and i think that brings that leads to some extent have acted outside the statutory command that there is opposed to prevent that from happening