VICFT Reasons for Decision

COMMENT: Skimming through the CUC "reasons" for approving the EPA (released today), it strikes me that almost none of the many arguments advanced by the many intervenors apparently was correct. What is the chance that so many trained and intelligent people could be so wrong (according to BCUC) so consistently? Whatever that chance, I'd say there is a stronger explanation - in the bias of the Panel.

By the way, (and here may be something for the appeal), as far as I see, the Townhall Meeting never occurred, and the hundreds of letters of comment were never received, much less summarized, much less taken seriously. Further, except for going through and accepting all Hydro's arguments topic by topic, the BCUC never takes the trouble to assert that actually the EPA is in the public interest. Is that a significant omission and/or have I just not read the thing completely? - Shadybrook Farm

By and large, the BCUC pretty much accepted BC Hydro's arguments on the need for on-Island generation; the usefulness of DPP as a long-term capacity addition on the Island; and the cost-effectiveness of DPP versus the other CFT bidders.

While the BCUC did accept that there was some chance that greenhouse gas liability costs might come to be attached to the fuel ('upstream' costs), they pretty much discounted that as a factor, saying that they (the Commission) might simply pass that cost on to the shareholder, rather than the ratepayer. If BC Hydro were a private corporation, that would be a meaningful distincion, but since the ratepayers are, roughly speaking (with exceptions), the people of BC, charging the ratepayers for GHG liability would amount to about the same thing as charging the shareholder.

In any case, BC Hydro gets away with handing off the legal liability for GHG emissions to DPP (which is simply gambling that there will be no liability -- probably has taken no steps to offset anything), and because the BCUC is only charged with looking at financial costs that might hit the ratepayers, they don't look beyond that to assess the fact that GHG emissions will hurt us all, i.e. a matter of public interest.

The Commission also saw fit to say BC Hydro was right to assume that the 230 kV sub-sea cables might only be in service by 2009. - Tom Hackney

The only reason that they would have a second hearing was so that they could reverse the decision of the first one. - Gabriola resident

March 9, 2005

Further to our letter of February 17, 2004 regarding the above noted Application, attached please find the Reasons for Decision for Order No. E-1-05. Hard copies of the Decision will be distributed by the Commission no later than Friday, March 11, 2005.

Reasons Cover Letter
Reasons for Decision