In a letter dated November 21, 2023, the BCUC has denied a request from the Association of Major Power Consumers (AMPC) to participate as an intervener in a hearing that will affect the BC Hydro rates its members (and other ratepayers) pay.
The matter concerns BC Hydro’s rates for fiscal year 2025, approved by the BCUC in its decision on BC Hydro’s F2023 to F2025 revenue requirement application.
BC Hydro is requesting that, rather than reducing bills (not rates) by an estimated 5.9% in F2025, as would happen if it followed the BCUC’s directives in the F2023 to 2025 rates decision, it be allowed instead to increase bills in F2025, by 2.3%.
The reduction of 5.9% in bills in F2025 is forecast due to an unexpectedly large trading income from Powerex in F2023 ($827 million higher than BC Hydro’s earlier forecast). This trading income is owed to BC Hydro’s ratepayers.
BC Hydro’s request, if approved, would allow it to smooth out bill increases it now forecasts for the years following F2025, including those associated with the start-up of generation at the Site C dam. For example, BC Hydro now expects a 12.1% increase in bills in F2026, unless it is allowed to use the F2025 bill reduction to offset this increase.
BC Hydro had suggested to the BCUC that all interveners in the F2023 to 2025 revenue requirements proceeding be automatically registered in this new proceeding, but that interveners only be permitted to submit letters of comment; they would not be able to ask questions of BC Hydro. BC Hydro wants a quick decision, by February 29, 2024, so that it can adjust its rates before April 1, 2024 (the start of its fiscal 2025 year).
The BCUC set out a regulatory timetable on November 3, agreeing to BC Hydro’s requested process and dates.
On November 9, AMPC complained that it would not be allowed to ask questions of BC Hydro, or to “submit proper argument”, and that the proposed approach “damages the integrity of BC Hydro and BCUC processes.” AMPC cited procedural unfairness in that it was not being given the opportunity to be heard, and the BCUC’s own rules of practice and procedure, which states that letters of comment “are not automatically accorded the same weight as evidence that has been either adopted under oath, subject to information requests or otherwise tested”.
AMPC also pointed out that the BCUC has already ruled in the F2023 to F2025 revenue requirements decision that the reduction in bills in F2025 is just and reasonable, and is a result of BC Hydro repaying monies owed to ratepayers. BC Hydro’s request thus amounts to what AMPC refers to as “a second kick at the can”, something the BCUC does not normally allow, this time without the benefit of interveners to test BC Hydro’s evidence.
On November 21, the BCUC denied AMPC’s request for additional process. The BCUC stated that the proceeding’s “narrow scope” and “discrete issues raised” mean that the BCUC’s process (i.e. exactly what BC Hydro suggested) is “fair”. The BCUC added that letters of comment in this proceeding “will not be automatically given less weight” than submissions by BC Hydro. The BCUC did not directly address the lack of ability for APMC (and other former interveners) to ask questions of BC Hydro, but implied that the BCUC’s own questions will be sufficient to test BC Hydro’s evidence, and for AMPC to make its case.
This appears to be an example of the BCUC’s new efficiency drive, even though the BCUC had not, by November 21, completed its process and responded to the stakeholder comments it asked for on its proposed approach. We noted previously that this initiative would likely reduce the participation of interveners. In this case, AMPC is not being given the opportunity to intervene, in fact no-one is. Although the process does allow for interested parties such AMPC to make submissions, they must rely on the BCUC to ask the questions they need to make their arguments, even though the BCUC has no knowledge of the parties’ issues. And, perhaps most significantly, those parties who want to submit letters of comment will not be eligible for the BCUC’s participant funding, which is only available to interveners, which will discourage those groups who rely on this funding to participate.