GSXCCC files appeal motion

Appeal schedule

March 23: Intervenor motion books due

April 4: BC Hydro and DPP response books due

April 6: Leave to appeal argument in BCCA chambers, Vancouver, Smythe
Street, 9:30 a.m., courtroom number will be posted on the day

April 20: (if leave to appeal is granted) appellants' factums due

April 27: respondents' factums due

May 2-3: BCCA appeal oral argument.

GSX Concerned Citizens motion

1. The Commission erred by not disqualifying the Commission Panel on
the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

2. The Commission erred by denying procedural fairness and natural
justice to the Appellants, particulars of which include:

a. unduly restricting the scope of the hearing,
b. proceeding with undue haste,
c. unreasonably limiting the Appellants' access to confidential documents and other information; and
d. improperly conducting itself during an in camera session.

3. The Commission erred in law on grounds to be further particularized
once the Commission's reasons for decision regarding Order E-1-05 have been
provided to counsel.

4. The Commission erred in law and was patently unreasonable in
interpreting "the public interest" in s.71 of the Act as being determined
exclusively by the outcome of BC Hydro's CFT competitive bidding process and
without reference to the precautionary principle as a norm of customary
international law.

5. The Commission exceeded its jurisdiction when it held that BC Hydro's
risk of carbon tax liability associated with the EPA should be allocated to
BC Hydro's shareholder rather than the ratepayer.

6. The Commission had before it no evidence to support its conclusion that
the EPA is warranted because Vancouver Island has a long term electricity
supply problem requiring both new generation and renewed transmission.

7. The Commission had before it no evidence to support its conclusion that
the Norske Canada Demand Management Project is not a viable option for
addressing the Vancouver Island electricity capacity gap for planning
purposes between the F2008 zero-rating of the HVDC lines and the deemed
F2010 in-service date of the Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement
Project (230 kV lines).

8. The Commission erred in law and was patently unreasonable in holding
that in a hearing under s.71 of the Act the utility does not bear the onus
of establishing that the electricity supply contract in question is in the
public interest.

9. Such other grounds as counsel may advise.