The BCUC has rules that allow someone who is “directly or sufficiently affected” by one of its proceedings to register as an intervener. They may ask questions of the applicant (usually a public utility), submit their own evidence to challenge that of the applicant, make their case and reply to the arguments of the applicant.

A number of public advocacy groups have emerged to represent groups of individuals with common interests at BCUC proceedings. They typically have legal representation and are experienced and efficient in their participation.

The BCUC’s rules also support interventions from those with “experience, information or expertise relevant” to the proceeding. This allows someone not “directly or sufficiently affected” to contribute if the BCUC thinks they will provide evidence or argument of value, or if their intervention will be seen as adding legitimacy to the decision because a particular viewpoint was considered.

The difference between these two categories is sometimes hard to distinguish. Someone directly affected by a decision will often be bringing information and expertise; experts often represent the views and interests of segments of the population directly affected by the decision. The BCUC usually doesn’t identify the reason it accepts specific interveners in a proceeding.