Sea Breeze applies for BCUC VITR reconsideration
Sea Breeze has filed a request to BCUC to reconsider its July 7 decision approving BCTC's VITR project.
The long form of that sentence is here: Sea Breeze has a filed a request to the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) to reconsider its July 7 decision approving BC Transmission Corp's (BCTC) Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement (VITR) project.
Sea Breeze makes three points in support of its request.
1. BCUC erred in adding in an unsubstantiated $153 million for wheeling charges to the cost of Sea Breeze's Juan de Fuca transmission project.
2. The National Energy Board affirmed Sea Breeze's assessment of revenues attributable to the JdF in its statement that, "the Board accepts Sea Breeze's evidence with respect to the potential ability of the Project to support increased transmission transfer capacity across the Canada/U.S. border."
This is misconstrues what the NEB said. The NEB said, in essence, that Sea Breeze's evidence was sufficient for the Board to carry out its duty as regulator, but that the market would determine if, in fact, JdF is a viable project. The NEB didn't qualify or validate the numbers. See "Views of the Board" beginning on page 9 of the NEB decision, here, and our comments, here.
3. BCUC "did not adequately address or consider much of Sea Breeze's evidence regarding its proposed pricing and costing scenarios for JdF."
Sea Breeze then appears to attempt to make a deal, either with BCUC or BCTC or both, through this request for reconsideration. It says, "Sea Breeze will assure the Commission that, if ... BCTC might actually incur wheeling charges for the use of the JdF Project as an alternative to the VITR Project that exceed the revenues actually attributable to the JdF Project, which would have the effect of making it more costly than VITR, Sea Breeze will absorb those charges to the extent necessary to ensure that JdF will not be more expensive than VITR."
Unusual things have happened through this application for VITR - not the least of which was the BCUC decision to bring competing proposals from Sea Breeze into the proceeding. But this attempt to cut a deal through the BCUC is unusual stuff indeed.
Sea Breeze is asking the Commission to vary its July 7 order, and direct BCTC and BC Hydro:
1. to enter into discussions with Sea Breeze "and such other parties as may be deemed necessary." Hmm. Interesting to see how Bonneville Power Authority might respond when it falls into the "other parties" subject to a ruling by BCUC.
2. to report to BCUC whether JdF "will be able to be used for the purpose of satisfying Vancouver Island's need for additional reliable transmission capacity."Hmm, again. And then what?
By my reckoning, we now have two requests to the BCUC to reconsider its July 7 order approving VITR, and three requests to the BC Court of Appeal to hear appeals of the VITR order.
Posted by Arthur Caldicott on 15 Sep 2006