On December 22, 2023, the BCUC published its “final list of efficiencies”, following feedback from stakeholders on the BCUC’s draft list.
The BCUC did not identify the specific changes from its draft list of efficiencies, presumably on the grounds of efficiency. However, the BCUC acknowledges that there was concern from some stakeholders that its proposed efficiencies “may stymie effective intervener participation”, and wishes “to unambiguously state that this is not the intent.”
In the final version, the BCUC appears to have softened its position on intervention. The draft contained the following proposal:
“The BCUC will tailor the type and extent of participation in its processes to better suit the nature of a given application. Going forward, there should be no presumption that intervention will be permitted in every proceeding.”
Which in the final version was replaced by:
“The BCUC will tailor the type and extent of participation in its processes to better suit the nature of a given application. In particular, going forward, the BCUC intends to more actively assess requests for intervener status, and may reject such requests in accordance with the BCUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.”
In other words, the BCUC will be more critical as to which intervener requests are accepted in a given proceeding, which it already has the right to do under its rules of practice and procedure. However, the tone of the draft proposal, suggesting that it would become harder for interveners to participate even if their rights were at stake and they were not being represented, has gone.
There is always a balance to be struck between procedural fairness and efficiency, and the BCUC is right to examine whether intervener requests are unnecessarily duplicative or add little value. As we noted earlier, there is still the possibility that the BCUC will listen to fewer voices in future in the name of efficiency. But the tone of these final proposals on intervention is, at least, more reasonable than the draft.