In addition to letters of comment, interveners will now get to make a final argument, but the BC Sustainable Energy Association still won’t be able to participate.
Introduction
Earlier this month I described some procedural issues with the BC Utility Commission’s review of BC Hydro’s proposed long term resource plan for Fort Nelson. The BC Sustainable Energy Association (BCSEA) was barred from participating as an intervener in the proceeding, and the three parties who had been accepted as interveners were not being given the opportunity to make a final argument.
It appears that the BCUC has had a procedural change of heart. Interveners will, after all, be able to make a final submission (and BC Hydro will have a right of reply).
Assessment
This is an improvement on the BCUC’s original process, whereby interveners were only permitted to provide letters of comment and had no opportunity to ask questions.
Two of the interveners had already subverted that process anyway by asking questions in their letters of comment rather than simply commenting. As BC Hydro chose to respond to some of their questions, interveners will now have slightly more evidence on which to base their final arguments.
BC Hydro’s answers to interveners’ questions were not terribly detailed, certainly not what one would expect if the BCUC had allowed interveners a proper round of information requests (the utility’s responses to the BCUC staff questions are a far better example). Still, it’s better than nothing.
BC Hydro declined to answer some questions on the ground that they are “not directly related” to a long-term resource plan. One of these concerned BC Hydro’s possible use of diesel generation in Fort Nelson, which appears to me to be directly relevant to how the utility will provide safe and reliable service over the next 15 to 20 years. I think this question should be answered.
If the BCUC had given interveners a proper chance to submit information requests, they would have had the right under the BCUC’s rules to challenge BC Hydro’s lack of response (rule 13.05). As it is, they will have to work with what they have.
Conclusion
The streamlined review process originally suggested by BC Hydro would have been an efficient and procedurally sound way to allow for questions and argument. The BCUC should consider this process more often for smaller and less contentious matters – this proceeding would probably be over by now if the BCUC had gone down that route.
Sadly, the BCUC didn’t change its mind about the BCSEA’s participation. With due respect to the two interveners who submitted questions in their letters of comment, I think the BCSEA would have been able to dig deeper into the environmental issues and give the BCUC a better base of evidence to make a reasoned decision on the long-term resource plan for Fort Nelson.
It was always likely that the BCUC was going to accept BC Hydro’s long-term resource plan for Fort Nelson. But it would help the BCUC’s credibility if it at least listened to those parties who have something important to say.