Residents apply for VITR reconsideration
In this letter from the BC Utilities Commission to BC Transmission Corp, BCUC is advising BCTC that it has received an application for reconsideration of the VITR decision (approving VITR) of July 7, 2006.
The application is from Ms. Pam Sutherland, Dr. Kyong Nam and Mr. Mark Warwarick ("Sutherland et al.")
The BCUC explains that it must determine whether or not an reasonable basis exists for allowing reconsideration, by applying the following criteria:
- the Commission has made an error in law;
- there has been a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the Decision;
- a basic principle had not been raised in the original proceedings; or
- a new principle has arisen as a result of the Decision.
If the Commission determines that a reconsideration is warranted, it will then hear full arguments on the merits of the application.
In this letter to BCTC, the Commission is opening a written comment process on the applications, and asks the following questions:
- Should there be a reconsideration by the Commission?
- If there is to be a reconsideration, should the Commission hear new evidence and should new parties be given the opportunity to present evidence?
- If there is to be a reconsideration, should it focus on the items from the Reconsideration Application, a subset of these items or additional items?
- If there is to be a reconsideration, what process should be established for the reconsideration?
BCTC, intervenors and interseted parties are to submit written comments to the Commission by Friday, September 8.
Sutherland et al are to respond by Friday, September 29.
These written comments should address whether the threshold for reconsideration has been met, rather than the substance of the issues.
Sutherland et al base their application for reconsideration on a number of issues as described in occasionally emotive and somewhat unlawerly language, in the application:
1. certain right-of-way documents were not made available as evidence in the original VITR proceeding yet they contain important information. ...BC Hydro has a "confounded nerve"...
2. BC Hydro's right-of-way along Highway 17 allows it, and BCTC, "to do anything they darn well please. ... which is of cource precisely why Bruce Barrett (BCTC) chose not to reveal the ROW Documents to the public. It was simpler to stick to the hidden agenda, ignore the information requests, keep the documents under wraps, and tell everyone that "new agreements" would have to be negotiated - BLATANLY UNTURE!."
3. "Before the Utilities Commission made its unfortunate decision, it would have been a terrific idea if the Commissioners had actually availed themselves of the easement documents and read them. ... They [BCTC] have no legal right [to put up the new towers], which put simply, means they are breaking the law.
This application for reconsideration by the BCUC, follows three applications to the BC Court of Appeal to hear an appeal of the Commission's July 7 VITR decision.
Sea Breeze: http://www.sqwalk.com/current/000821.html
TRAHVOL: http://www.sqwalk.com/current/000823.html
IRAHVOL: http://www.sqwalk.com/current/000822.html