| Intervenor | VITR/JdF | Delta Routing [1] | Salt Spring Routing [2] | AC HVDC | EMF Risks [3] | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCTC | Approve VITR | Option 2 | Option 1 | AC | Accept | - Option 2 is
justified if 51 percent of affected landowners have agreed to an underground right-of-way within
90 days of the Commission’s decision. - The Commission has no jurisdiction to grant a CPCN for a revised VIC proposal |
| Sea Breeze Victoria Converter Corp | Deny VITR Approve JdF |
n/a | n/a | HVDC | Avoid | 404. the Commission should conclude that the JdF Project conceptually provides the best overall solution for meeting the Island’s reliability need in a way that will defer or avoid substantial ratepayer-funded investment in new transmission infrastructure, thereby yielding substantial savings to BC ratepayers. 406. the Commission should also conclude that VIC provides a better overall solution for satisfying the Island’s reliability need. |
| BC Hydro | Approve VITR | Option 1 | AC | 22. BC Hydro currently has all the rights required to proceed with Option 1 on an overhead basis through Tsawwassen. It does not have those rights with respect to the underground portions of Option 2 and would have to acquire such rights from landowners by negotiation or expropriation. BC Hydro believes that BCTC should only be permitted to proceed with Option 2 if the Commission is satisfied that the option can be built in accordance with the schedule identified by BCTC. Absent successful negotiations with landowners, that evidence is currently lacking. 23. In these circumstances, BC Hydro suggests that the Order sought by BCTC be varied to provide that BCTC be permitted to proceed with Option 2 if it has provided to the Commission proof that it has acquired or will be able to acquire through negotiation or expropriation rights of entry sufficient to allow it to complete construction of VITR by October 2008 in accordance with the project schedule filed for VITR. If the Commission is not satisfied with this proof, it should require BCTC to construct Option 1. |
||
| Islands Trust | Deny VITR | Submarine routing | the Commission should not approve ... VITR ... given that a submarine alternative will better preserve and protect the uniqueness of the Islands Trust's natural environment and amenities. | |||
| JIESC | Approve VITR | Option 1 | Option 1 | AC | Accept | - The incremental cost to the public for Option 2 outweighs the
benefit to a small group of property owners - The Commission has no jurisdiction to grant BCTC a CPCN for a revised VIC Proposal - The Commission has no jurisdiction to grant a CPCN for the JDF Project |
| Bradley Campbell | VITR Not Opt 1&2 |
not 1 & 2 | if the VITR project is chosen as the best solution for the future power needs on Vancouver island that a CPCN should only be granted for one of options 3 through 7. | |||
| Karsten Holmsen | VITR Not Opt 1&2 |
not 1 & 2 | The Highway 17 and Deltaport route options are both viable alternatives when all factors, economic as well as social and other attributes are considered | |||
| South Delta Secondary School Parent Advisory Council |
Deny VITR Opt. 1 & 2 |
not 1 & 2 | Avoid | -reject BCTC’s VITR Options 1 & 2 and direct them to go back to their drawing board to develop a proposal that does not jeopardize the health or safety of our children - remove the existing wooden poles and lines from the Tsawwassen right-of-way |
||
| BCOAPO | Approve VITR | Option 1 | Option 1 | AC | Accept | - The Commission has no jurisdiction for a VIC-like proposal |
| Corporation of Delta | Deny VITR or Option 5,6 |
Option 5,6 | Delta believes that both the JDF and a VIC-like proposal offer promise, and that either is preferable to the VITR. Delta believes that it would be appropriate and in the public convenience and necessity to order BCTC to undertake good faith negotiations with Sea Breeze. | |||
| Bazzard - Maracaibo Estates | Deny VITR | HVDC | We recommend that the Commission require BCTC and BC Hydro to meet with SeaBreeze and undertake a fresh review of the benefits and cost implications of an alternative using HVDC light technology | |||
| Commercial Energy Consumers | Approve VITR | Option 1 | - the BCTC proposal to recommend VITR Option 2 is inappropriate - the Segment 2 portion through Tsawwassen should not be constructed underground |
|||
| Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group (HTG) | Deny any CPCN | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | - the Crown has not met its legal duties to the [HTG] - there is no guarantee the Crown will meet its legal duties to First Nations - a CPCN should not be granted and the project should not proceed to the next level of authorizations until the Crown has fully discharged its legal duties to the First Nations |
| K.H. Nam | Deny VITR Opt 1&2 |
Not 1&2 | n/a | n/a | Avoid | If the BCUC allows the VITR project to go ahead through our backyard,we will not stop fighting it. |
| IRAHVOL | Deny VITR Direct BCTC to effect VIC & JdF |
n/a | n/a | HVDC | Avoid | 1. the only way to ensure reliable and quality service to Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands is to have not one, but two,
new southern circuits in place, as well as generation on VI. 2. the BCUC direct BCTC, BC Hydro and Sea Breeze [to develop] VIC 3. the BCUC direct BCTC and BC Hydro to enter into negotiations with Sea Breeze for JDF 4. the BCUC to approve the removal of all existing HVDC facilities and all existing 138kV facilities from Arnott to the Salt Spring substation 5. if the BCUC approves VITR, then ... order BCTC to construct the Gulf Islands portions underground 6. if the BCUC approves VITR, then ... order BCTC to initiate a buyout or compensation program for those property owners who no longer wish to live in the vicinity of the VITR right-of-way or wish to remain, but whose property values have been adversely impacted |
| TRAHVOL | Deny VITR Order BCTC to study JdF |
Avoid | 149 BCTC has not explored alternatives to the VITR project, and should be directed to explore with Seabreeze the feasibility of the JDF project... 150 BCTC's eleventh hour proposal to retreat ... to Option 1 constitutes an abuse of process and this Commission cannot approve either Option 1 or 2 151 The record reveals that the existing 138 kV lines through Tsawassen ... are unsafe and unreasonable and must be removed. |
|||
| 1. Delta Routing Options Option 1: existing ROW through Tsawwassen, replace both 138 kV systems with taller steel poles Option 2: existing ROW through Tsawwassen, replace one 138 kV with underground cabling, additional cost $13.8 million Option 3: remove one 138 kV, new routing underground along streets in Tsawwassen Option 4: remove one 138 kV, new routing along Highway 17 Option 5: remove one 138 kV, new routing along existing HVDC Pole 2 corridor north of Deltaport Way. Option 6: remove one 138 kV, new routing under Boundary Bay around Point Roberts to Galiano Island Option 7: remove both 138 kV, underground on ROW or elsewhere through Tsawwassen, with community funding contribution |
||||||
| 2. Salt Spring Routing Options Option 1: existing ROW across Salt Spring, replace both 138 kV systems with taller steel poles Undergrounding: according to BCTC, this would cost an additional $30 to $70 million Alternative routing: would cost a minimum of $175 million more (BCTC) |
||||||
| 3. EMF There is a polarized range of opinion on the health risks from EMF and from the proposed 230 kV system Accept: EMF risks are acceptable, because the evidence is unconclusive, or does not support costs of avoiding EMF risks Avoid: evidence of health impacts is conclusive, or persuasive, and/or prudent thing is to avoid risks |
||||||