your intention your honour's to go eight minute speech between the two of us and then save a collective four minutes or so at its core this dispute is about whether it was legal for for to revive a dead license by retroactively applying a later statute but on the intervention side the question is narrower deferred unreasonably when it prevented n p c s or anyone else for that matter from even raising this issue as a party within that new proceeding and on this question at least the law's freight forwarder there is one rule within the federal power act implementing regulations that governs intervention and that's rule two hundred and  a party status but st didn't do that in fact it didn't apply real to fourteen at all instead it's cobble together a string of orders from a very different context the context of standard extension of time proceedings or other minor someone would intervene and for instance if this request for an extension had been made before the deadline and in the mood june th of two thousand and eighteen  so it was an afterwards where you're suggesting there was no authority to do that would you taken the position that there was a seating in which you would have a right to intervene there was true your honor that there might be some extension of time proceedings where st would like to not allow intervention but as the regulations are written on their face as well to fourteen is written in its plain terms we think that they would have to allow intervention in those cases all even if all extension was done there in the the period of the project he would say that's not administrative and there has a new proceeding has to occur and which notice is given and you get a right to appear it's say that it mean that's not how you interpret this under the plane regards to whether it's administrative or not and the nd question i have is if if we were to conclude as a matter of law that the extension could be given because of the subsequent  legislation that would then take you back to the only real issue you had was whether i had a right to intervene right here on or so i'll try to address those questions maybe starting with your liking st i think the question was you know if you disagree with us on our matter of law can we still get in if we don't think this is this was an illegal retroactive extension and the question there is yes for two reasons and you know going to your st question of if we deferred of percs other standard that the that the two sort of thresholds there are if there are material changes so the terms and conditions of a license or if there's an effect on property rights in a way not contemplated in the original license that intervention may be warranted that's for alternative standard and that's presumably i think what would be deferred to here if that is the case then we satisfy both of those and we satisfy both of those regardless of whether the court is willing to you know firmly agree with us on the merits of our retroactive revival position st because i don't think it's necessarily the case that the court has to one hundred percent agree i think it's enough that that is a debatable point whether or not that there was a lawful extension of a license here we should err on the side of a rd party being able to enter the proceeding and at least provide that comment to ferg but even if that's n case there were other significant changes that took place here in the environment in the regulatory contacts between the grants of the initial license and the grants of this extension whatever it was whether it was illegal under the f d a whether it was legal under this new law we know more about the groundwater dynamics in the area than we did when the initial license was granted there was the desert renewable energy conservation plan which was passed in the intervening years and now imposes new requirements on the development in the area so all of those are significant changes that in effect alter any of the material or that in effect alter any of the terms and conditions of this license once for decided to renew it but i think going back to this you know issue of whether a bill to fourteen can be said to control at all i think it's easy to take away from st briefing the notion that notice controls when intervention is allowed in other words you can't really gets rule to fourteen unless rule two hundred and ten notice has been applied one i think it's important to go to multiple orders where st has said that extensions of time can qualify as the sort of proceedings in which intervention is warranted they said that in his central maine power they said that in the city of tacoma it's not necessarily the that extension was then granted and the timeline expired on that so this is not the sort of standard extension of time cases in which byrd has articulated this rule in the past we're dealing with a much different much more extreme case so is the satisfy one or the other of those problems the last thing that i would just briefly push back on because i do want to turn it over to my colleague to discuss mandamus i but we definitely can't give any credence to burke's notion that there has to be a physical change in order to allow for intervention that's really unsupported in any of the st orders or regulations the source of authority that it has to go to for that are from a completely different regulatory context that's from proposed amendments to license applications not twenty second congress declined to make the infrastructure acts provisions to section thirteen retroactive and rd verse interpretation of the infrastructure act is contrary to supreme court precedent and should receive no deference  the court so why are we even listening to mr gallagher his argument if there is no other me well your honor for it does suggest that there might be equitable authority to reopen the mandamus petition but again that time has now the of the proceeding has now run its course so we need relief on both petitions to fully address our client's harms because we need to be able to be back in the case and we are back in the proceeding and we need the proceeding to be reopened and in order to actually participate let me ask you something if he would take the position that when the deadline for construction passed that there were no remedy that they for had to extend it but if you extend would exist because there was no written notice that it was going to be terminated and then for could then extended and as a discretionary decision to be made by fergus to whether to terminate the license or not was they didn't do they didn't give a ninety day notice and they didn't do it they extended it your honor we disagree that that was a discretionary decision by ferk section thirteen requires for to terminate the license when the time to but it doesn't change the fact that the plain text of section thirteen says that when the license the deadline expires the license expire the license is no longer valid at the point when the deadline to commence construction expires just as how when your driver's license expire did not consider a license to remain valid in a way that for a could have acted on it and so for example there are some projects specific provisions which we pointed out in briefing that explain that contain explicit reinstatement provisions and those provisions equate the expiration of the timeline to commence construction with the expiration of the license so that language suggests that that's the case and even if burke had terminated the license it would not have had the authority to extend it at the time that the that the deadline expired at that relevant moment in time when the events in this case complete were completed only one extension was allowed under the federal power act the additional remedies options provided had not come into effect at the time so you're saying as i decide when to terminate it it's fundamentally invalid at that point and can't be reinstated as work and here that's our  intervention in any proceeding so obvious there is no opposition to the motion i think i understand though because this thing might have a different kind of case so in those cases where there was intervention with there is an extension being granted and then the fact that the company busts the devil i have nothing happened then and they license expires by operation and law you have any other cases like that end to whether there is another available remedy but that petition has never been acted on is there something in the discusses the mechanism for seeking to compel an agency action otherwise without it's also a relates to the nd part of the california power exchange decision but i think it's important to realize or what with the commission did you know extending  that those really are relevant here so as i think further has conceded before us today there is real no direct already rejecting intervention in proceedings like this one because there frankly aren't very many proceedings like this one and i  reject that i don't think we're attacking any part of the prior proceeding the only reading is that is what grants the license for the but what we're trying to address here is the fact that ford is now trying to  proceedings and that's that's what i wrote down when she said it it wasn't that just an extension but basically like start over which seems to be a battle attack if you reopen the licensing proceeding as opposed to determine whether there's been due diligence and the like that you really starting a whole nother proceeding which is what st trying to avoid know your honor when we didn't we meant reopen this new proceeding which is about his life but it's not the underlying grant of license proceed these proceedings it's different things in fact it is allowed intervention by a group that intervened in the original proceeding because it said this was such a different proceeding t appreciate having students are heroes and it's always a very good bar for other attorneys to meet i am also a committed mr fisher and his argument is well so with that national park conservation versus submitted and we want now take a ten minute break and be lawyers in yazzie versus should that be ready to argue thank you my compliments of well well done