Sea Breeze response to BCUC IR#1
concering Vancouver Island Cable

On October 6, 2005, Sea Breeze Power Corp. filed an application to build a transmission cable system from the Lower Mainland (Surrey's Ingledow Substation) to Vancouver Island (Victoria's Pike Substation). See Sea Breeze: Vancouver Island Cable

See also, BCUC Sea Breeze - VIC CPCN Project site (link)

On October 17, the BCUC presented Sea Breeze with its first Information Request (IR#1). The extensive IR was challenging, and intervenors in both the Sea Breeze - VIC proceeding and the competing BCTC - VITR proceeding have awaited the Sea Breeze response with interest.

On November 7. Sea Breeze responded in a set of documents totalling 40 megabytes. The entire response is available in one humungous download at the BCUC Sea Breeze - VIC CPCN Project site. (link)

The response is also available at the Vancouver Island Cable website (www.vancouverislandcable.com), in smaller, more convenient chunks: 269 page main document, plus separate appendices.

One of the more interesting BCUC questions was 1.11.3

1.11.3 If the Commission were to conclude that HVDC Light® technology as set out in the VIC Application and/or the VIC route is the preferred option, is there any reason why it should not direct BCTC to adopt this option?

RESPONSE:
Sea Breeze VCC is satisfied that the near term transmission needs of Vancouver Island could be met in a satisfactory way if the BCUC were to direct BCTC to utilize HVDC Light® technology, provided the interconnection points to be used are Ingledow and Pike, as proposed in the VIC Application.

However, in the circumstances, it would be unfair and unnecessary for the BCUC to grant a CPCN to BCTC for that purpose (as opposed to Sea Breeze VCC), given that BCTC has, to date, demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the HVDC Light® option, and has failed to adequately consider that option in
the VITR Application, despite Sea Breeze VCC's active promotion of HVDC Light® as providing the best solution for the Island's transmission needs; and, considering that, as a result, Sea Breeze VCC has now dedicated very substantial resources and has incurred very significant expense to put forward the VIC Application.

ABB's support for the Sea Breeze VCC proposal, its involvement as part of Sea Breeze VCC's technical team, and its contemplated responsibility for design, delivery, installation and commissioning of the parts of the system under a turnkey contract are also critical factors which the BCUC should consider. If, despite the foregoing, the BCUC does grant a CPCN to BCTC for the purpose of constructing an HVDC Light® facility substantially similar to what Sea Breeze VCC has proposed in the VIC Application:

• the BCUC should make an order under section 118 of the Utilities Commission Act requiring BCTC to compensate Sea Breeze VCC for all of the substantial costs it has incurred over the past two years prosecuting the HVDC Light® solution with the BCUC and BCTC; and

• the BCUC should also require BCTC to employ an objective project manager with experience in the construction/installation of HVDC Light® technology, to ensure that the prejudicial attitude previously demonstrated by BCTC toward this technology does not create a situation that could compromise the timeliness and effectiveness of the Project.

---