DOCUMENT SUMMARY Document Id: 0011 c Document Name: DECISION- Fort Nelson Operator: C. Smith Author: J.D.V. Comments: March 12, l 985 STATISTICS OPERATION DATE TIME WORKTIME KEYSTROKES Created 02/05/85 09: : 18 3523 Last Revised 03/12/85 14:44 :00 8 Printed 03/12/85 11+:45 Last Archived 03/12/85 tO: !3 onto Diskette 0063B Total : 25 Total Wo rktirne: 5:52 Total Lines: 556 Total K : 42733 to be printed: I
IN THE MATTER OF the Utilities Commission Act, S.B.C. 1980, c. 60, as and IN THE MATTER OF an A.. . Fort Nelson Ltd. DECISION 12, 1 985 J.D. V. Newl Deputy Chairman and Division
The Application by Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. dated October 5, 1984 as amended, was heard in Fort Nelson, Bri Columb on January 29, 30, 31 and February 1, 1985. The Application was heard by J.D. V. New lands, Deputy Chairman and N. Martin, Com missioner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEARANCES LIST OF EXHIBITS I. INTRODUCTION II. THE APPLICATION III. TEST YEAR IV. RATE BASE (a) Administrative and General Charges to Construction (b) Contributions in Aid of Construction (c) Transmission Systems v. COST OF SERVICE EXCLUDING RETURN Treatment of Customer Secur (b) Income Tax VI. RATE OF RETURN VII. OTHER MATTERS (a) Wheeling (b) Financing VIII. HEARING COSTS IX. DECISION ORDER NO. SCHEDULES APPENDIX A Page No. (ii) 2 3 3 3 3 l+ 4 Deposits 4 .5 6 8 8 11 12 13
APPEARANCES MR. R.R. DODD for Applicant MR. L. HINDLE for the British Columbia Hydro and Power Au MR. G. A. FULTON for the Commission COMMISSION STAFF Mr. B. McKinlay, Acting Director, Accounting and Financial Analysis and Senior Financial Analyst Mr. J. Hodson, Senior Financial Analyst Mr. Y. Wong, Senior Economist Mr. D. Leach, Director, Hearing Coordination COURT REPORTERS ALL WEST REPORTING LTD. (i)
LIST OF EXHIBITS Publication of Notice of Hearing- Fort Nelson News, November 28, 1984 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Application dated October 5, 1984 for a General Rate Increase Supplemental Material dated December 7, 1984 to the Application by Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. of October 5, 1984 Letter dated December 19, 1984 from BCUC to Mr. Robert R. Dodd Request for Further Information Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Responses to Deficiencies dated January 7, 1985 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Direct Evidence of Robert E. Evans on Tax Loss Carry-forwards, Capital Structure and Comparative Investment Risks dated January 1985 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Direct Evidence and Exhibits of Jerry P. Evans on Rate of Return dated January 1985 Gas Wheeling Agreement Between British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Fort Nelson Gas Ltd., dated April 1, 1980 Amending Agreement dated May 14, 1982 to Gas Wheeling Agreement of April I, 1980 Letter dated January ll, 1985 from Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. to the Great-West Life Assurance Company Re: Mortgage Bond Financing Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. - Property and Municipal Taxes 1978- 1984. Prepared January 25, 1985 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. - Corporation Income Tax Return 1983 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. - Corporation Income Tax Return 1982 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Financial Statements for the Year Ended December 31, 1983. Prepared by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells Exhibit No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8A 8B 9 10 II 12 13
LIST OF EXHIBITS ----TC:oiit'<f)1 __ _ Exhibit No. Collection of Letters from Tackama Forest Products Ltd. to Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. dated March 14, 1984, June 22, 1983 March 29, 1979 and Letters from Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. to Tackama Forest Products Ltd. dated February 22, I 984, February 20, 1979 and Letters to Fort Nelson Forest Industries Ltd. dated February 22, 1984 and February 20, 1979 14 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. - Annual Report Revisions for 1978 to 1983 Inclusive 15 Extracts from Deed of Trust and Mortgage Securing First Mortgage Bonds and Providing for Additional Issues between Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. and Mon Trust Company 16 Letter dated January 18, 1985 from Swinton & Company to B.C. Hydro Re: General Rate Increase Application (attached is a letter from B.C. Hydro to Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. dated January 16, 1985) 17 Letter dated January 14, 1985 from Swinton & Company to B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Re: BCUC Order No. G-69-84 18 Affidavit of David Currie dated October 5, 1984. Attached First Draft of a Gas Agreement between B.C. Hydro and Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. 19 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. , ts to Exhlbi t 3, Tab 3, Pages 2, 5, 8 and 9. All Revision Ill 20 Updated Exhibits to Direct Evidence of Jerry P. ans on Rate of Return dated January 1985 21 Vancouver Island Gas Company Ltd. Financial Statements for the Year Ended December 31, 1982 22 Colonial Oil & Gas Limited Annual Report 1983 23 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Allocation of trative Overhead to Construction Account 729, 1984- 1985 24 Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. Amortization Analysis - Contributions & Grants 1978- 1985 Inclusive 25
I. INTRODUCTION Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. ("the Company" or "the Colonial Oil and Gas (a of approximately $75 million in 1983) owns and operates a natural transmission and and environs. The Applicant obtains Power Authority who in turn purchase the Limited and rese! it to the Applicant at cost. The moved the Applicant 20,000 Mcf/D) to supply the ial customers. In addition, a British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the transmission system, for its electrical Nelson. Fort Nelson is at mile 300 of from the discovery of oU gas in the I 960's Columbia !way in 1971. Mr. Ashdown, the of Fort Nelson Gas and an Alderman, evidence that Fort Nelson was not hurt as badly as other com carne as thev were not very an south Fort Nelson, m may indicate the existence of an oil field similar to Pembina in Alberta; that Tackama Forest Products had just resulted cr completion to Fort Simpson should currently underway with to Columbia which Fort Nelson ") a iented resource company with assets the community of Fort Nelson British Columbia and Westcoast ssi.on is its (capability of residential, and is provided to user of facilitv located in Fort Alaska Highway benefitted the arr iva! the Bri when t; oil was Prophet River 60 m with the Desan to north the construction of a plywood ; that the Liard a studv is m in north-eastern
2 II. THE APPLICATION Fort Nelson filed an Application Increase, the first such a1 increase since 1978. The rate base during this period was as follows: 1979 1980 l 98 t 1982 1983 The Commission pursuant to Commission Order G- 69- 84 increase of 7.5% effective December I, l98lJ. subject to refund with interest and set the Application for com on Tuesday, January 29, 1985. By letter dated December 7, 1984, the letter dated January 7, 1985. Application, with r to namely, an interim for which an Order has been issued, an Application with respect to final rates, an interim adjustment sought with wheeling rates, a final adjustment miscellaneous tariff adjustments. The Application was, amongst other reduced industrial volumes, the adoption of flow-through income taxes and the related treatment of the present treatment of security deposits. The ial volumes have lined to a volume of 116,000 M by Tackama Forest Products Ltd. and the bankruptcy of Fort Nelson Forest * Kona hot oil system with heat "'"'''"'r·::~ 5, 1984 for a General Rate return on 16.02% 11.84% 14.33% 13.86% 7.30% an interim in Fort Nelson, British Columbia was amended, and further is in essence divided into parts, to the in of wheeling rates and predicated upon significantly carry-forward, and the appropriate approximate! y 346,000 Mcf in 1981 to the installation of a Kona* system waste wood.
Industries Ltd. If volumes had not declined the increase have been approximately 3.5 In addition, an Application was made $400,000 bearing at HI. TEST YEAR The Application is based upon a mid-year rate base of approximately $1,590,000 and concomitant revenue requirement of approximately $2,044,000. IV. RATE BASE ssion has considered the proposed rate base Applicant and believes adjustments are required as follows: inventory, and expense items related to construction. (a) Administr The Uniform System of Accounting Administrative and General expenses, on behalf of Operating and Maintenance construction. These charges vary in accordance with construction activity, from year to year. The the amounts to be ed construction relative to total Commission accepts this tr (b) in Ald of _ The Commission concurs with the namely am or with the Applicant's that this since to the extent possible rate 3 would the approval of a bond of up to 13.5%. 1985 test year with an estimated by the of the of certain ve and to Constr Utilities a part of benefit be char!!ed to of 1985 on wages to and M The has made an adjustment accordingly. prospective treatment, ser not concur be made be prospective.
(c) s In both this and previous proceeding, the uate construction at the time of installation, it is likelv that a portion of the transmission system wi.ll The Commission concurs Applicant's intention to mainline valve, replace a of "bruised pipe" and transmission pipe, the system capacity. V. COST OF SERVICE EXCLUDING RETURN The Commission has considered the proposed cost of ser return bel certain adjustments are required to efficiency, appropriate treatment treatment of income tax and loss carry-forward. (a) Tr --~·------~----------~--~-At page 462 of the transcript Mr. Dodd October 5, 1984 letter (Exhibit 2, customer security deposits, as follows: "The present treatment here is, it's a zero cost capital item, so it has been included as a deduction from rate as a particular component of return, the interest related to the customer deposits ls reduces return. So, the effect referred to in for an component on tariff, the company has proposed that we earn return equal to the proposed return on rate embedded cost the customer capitalization." 4 indicated that due to premature the I add the security of service increase exclusive of incr security deposits the ned Company's request its l, 8) to earn a return on than being offset In the derivation of earned that 8 is the company receives credit at the rate of us one the the interest expense be included in capital as a portion of
Mr. Heerensperger, on e 461 of the transcript, in answer to a question by Counsel : "The exhibit has been regarding the company on the accountl practice of a utility at The Com that and hence it is inappropriate for a return to be (b) Income Tax The Applicant proposed to and, through its why the carry-forward accrue to With to the Applicant's proposal to the proposal has been would inequity is due to in time when depreciation and the financial flexibility. Needless to say if circumstances be at a future With to the loss carry-for Commission is the that since normalized continued, the loss carr does not further consideration at this time. In this although lie ant's Vancouver Island Company Ltd. (" July 29, 1983, the Commission would observe that the circumstances the ies are inasmuch as Vigas, to the date Decision, never a not even a profit whereas the 1978 has been significantly different as set forth on 5 1978 decision the approved point." funds were provided by the customers thereon the the normalized method to Dr. Robert Evans, evidence as to of shareholders. from normalized to due to the intergenerationa! ity of the point tax purposes is than book Applicant's near term this can given . the tax income tax to some extent upon the ") of this Commission the or in fact in many years, y of the since 2 of this Decision.
6 VI. RATE OF RETURN The original Application October 5, 1981+ put forward a capital structure containing an equity component of approximately 77.6% upon which the Applicant sought a return of 16%. In Decem of 1984 the Applicant retained Dr. Robert E. Evans, President of Economic Research Associates Limited (" E.R.A. "), with to Loss Carry-forwards, Capital Structure and Comparative Investment Risks, and on Rate of Return Mr. Jerry P. M.A. Sc, M.B.A., Vice President E.R.A. Limited. Dr. Evans reviewed financial business risk, financing flexibility, the relevant sion of the Trust Deed and investment risks, and concluded that a 55% ty ratio should be considered as a lower limit unless there are significant ln the return on equity or unless income taxes are on the normal basis for rate purposes. He further the risks are no less than those T .S.E. listed companies generally and are also no than those privately-owned utilities ally. Mr. Jerry Evans reviewed r capital market conditions, equity risk premium and concluded that a 15.5% return on original cost common equity does not the rate of return to Fort Nelson at w specific it was " . . . In terms of those that we do a problem, both in of the enormous government deficits. And ly truly feel that those play an important pressure to the capital We'd talked about inflation earlier and although inflation and long-term interest rates traditionally held a relationship to some extent, I think by and that relationship today not of these And we spoke earl on in
cross-examination of what inflation rates were to at current of time. you're right, that if we did not have the that we do, that would come but we still have those deficits, they are a problem I quite frankly feel that interest rates in the term wil.l increase this . " r Transcript Vol. 4, In order to a return to the owners capital structure for the of rate payers the evidence with to rate of return on but bel the equity component must approximately 40%. This resulting interest coverage on funded debt is in excess of 3 times. w to the cost of this concern Inasmuch as it is Commission's view that the cost is relationship to the size of the utility. The direct (approximately $20,000) indirect costs represent approximately 25% of the hearing cost. In the alternative the Commission believes that the return on equity be mined on the basis of average returns on equity allowed by the Commission recent decisions, evidence was given, has merit and would reduce the cost significantly would not reduce the of the resultant return within reasonable limits. The Commission would adopting the above method in its next revenue 7 happen to interest rates if s for a prolonged bei equal, the interest rates 6371 a cost effective Commission has accepted of 15.5% by E.R.A. reduced from 55% to has been on Schedule V. The the must express its that the rate of rate return Applicant give consideration to application.
VII. OTHER MATTERS (a) In addition to the distribution of environs, the Applicant provides a transrnl British Columbia Hydro and Authority. The Applicant proposed in A eased by approximately $15,200 interpretation of the argued that the increase could only be $367 or approximately $1 per day. In its consideration the Commission considered not only the legal argument put by B.C. Hydro but also the eement. Mr. Dodd, Counsel for the App as "Mr. Chairman, Dr. side carne to speech, and when he made the speech he promised the people of Fort Nelson a gas service and an Chairman of the British Columbia Power Com The British Columbia Power Commission then built a gas line from the Clark field into Fort N and they proceeded to take over, I think from Northland Utilities? He took over the svstem from Northland Utilities. However, the contained 20 percent carbon dioxide and contained sulphuric compounds. It was therefore unsuitable but it was suitable for burning Then came the Anschluss bet ween Commission and British Columbia carne to me me what we could do about this, and we requested a Edmonton to -- who in Fort St. John. They were promoted and they were going to do two things. They were going not only to they were not only going to ibute going to liquify peddle it up 8 to customers in Fort Nelson and or ng service to the that this ser be B.C. Hydro, on its historical circumstances of the ibed circumstances Nelson and a service. He was for generating electricity distribution as a diesel plant. Br l ti sh Columbia Power ic, and Dr. Keenleyside to distribute in Fort N I should say, in Fort Nelson, they were Alaska Highway. They
thought there were opportunities Mr. Sparling, who was the promoter of dead, came in with that proposition. So they bought a scrubbing plant which I think had previously been used by another an in this room, to scrub the gas, to provide a gas for local usage. It has a very limited capacity, this scru B.C. Hydro did not want to provide any here to run this gas was made whereby Nelson Gas and Cryogenic would operate the pipeline, pipeline, connect the second supply to B.C. Hydro This took quite a bit of went ahead. Now, the capacity insignificant and it was, after a short period of time B.C. Hydro's plant reverted back to burning the unscrubbed of doing but I guess it would reduce because it was only 800 btu gas instead of 1,000. The next thing happened was that Mr. D.P. McDonald carne over to see me on endless Transmission's plant to Fort Nelson, and he had Mr. W .A.C. Bennett to do this. There was a competition of Alberta and Southern was Nelson gas and run lt down through Alberta, ship it all off to San Francisco and we were all concerned about to be no adequate way to assist Mr. McDonald in his scrubbing, in his extension It was a major extension which he had another company under provincial control, so he And finally I got up with this and lay aw devised a method of financing it, so about two days Ia ter I drafted the documents Mr. Barchard's office and sat there and went through his har again as if you knew Mr. McDonald you'd understand went through his Finally I said, "Well, D.P., we think we can help you and we have drafted some documents", at which he leaned out and wiped it off and threw it on it". 9 LNG here as well, and who is now long since it up here And at that point, operating division up after it, so an the two and ng station. and it was eventual done. It the scrubbi plant was very which it was efficiency the wanting to extend We stcoast encouraged to come in grab Fort but there under construction with coming over. one night Mr. came over to some thinking about this and everything was on floor. He said, " see Vol. 2, 32h-327l
10 We brought it out, we had dr this document especially for the bankers, contained three consecutive foolscap long pages payments that we guaranteed to We stcoast Transmission, if would build this line up here, and we would ee then to replace the burning of oil in the Burrard Steam Plant which we were then operating, with [Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 326-3271 On the basis of that he was to to the financial people with guaranteed payments, which were about a quarter to half a dollars per month, they were a substantial sum, he went to his financial people who eed then to finance the line up here and build the line up which they did. So we wound up, then, in the Fort Nelson area, with-- ••. " [ Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 327-330 ] " ..• British Columbia, we in British Columbia, wound up in the fort Nelson area having a major, the world's scrubbing out here 15 miles out the highway. And here we are with an inadequate system here, so it was eed that Mr. Bannister, who then taken over this system from Mr. Sparling, agreed to raise money to build a pipeline in from to Fort Nelson and the the wells that we were tappi in the Clark Lake field, be put directly into the gather of W estcoast Transmission, through the scrubbing plant. D.P. McDonald agreed on a scrubbing plant rate figure of 3¢ per Mcf to scrub it, so they then built that line. Under all these conditions lt was B.C. Hydro that had the investment in the pipeline, the first pipeline. So a new pipeline to be built from Mile 284 up to the Muskwa where it would then the one from Clark Lake. This was done, a three-inch line was built by Mr. Bannister, and deal then was that the company here would an option for $30,000 to buy the pipeline and would carry up to 2,500 Mcf per day through the transmission system for B.C. Hydro to 1986." [Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 330-331 ] " ... And that was what we were with when we came into the negotiations. What happened was that they got beyond the 2,500 day." [Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 330]
II The Applicant excercised its option in 197.5 and purchased the facility. Subsequently, the system was expanded to rneet current and forecast requirements of B.C. Hydro and the Fort Nelson market. The contract at issue was negotiated by the parties and accepted by the Commission on May 12, 1 982. The Commission has considered the evidence and given, concurs with Mr. Dodd, Counsel for the Applicant, that the initial proposal was more beneficial to the Applicant and other customers but finds pursuant to the executed contract that the increase to B.C. Hydro as argued by B.C. Hydro's Counsel, be as set forth in the contract ( $367 per year). The short-fall w.ill necessarily be collected the other customers. In general it would appear that the agreement places B.C. Hydro generally in a similar position to that which it would have been in if it had constru the transmi system itself. In the alternative, if this had been done the utility would have suffered a loss of revenue of approximately $104,900 in 1984. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that the terms and conditions of the contract should be altered at this time and if any change was considered, additional evidence from both be required. (b) The Applicant indicated that it would be seeking additional long-term financing of approximately $400,000 at ! 3. .5% from Great West Life in 198.5 to replace a portion of existing shareholder loans. In the case of this Applicant and in view its cost effective financial arrangements with Great West Life, whereby they can increase their long-term debt at minimal cost; the Commission approves the of up to approximately $400,000 at a rate not to exceed 13.5%, the issue to be placed or ior to 31, 198.5.
12 The appropriate adjustment has been made in the cost of capital schedule of this Decision. Needless to say if the Applicant can a lower rate the shareholders will be the beneficiar in the m with a substantial benefit accruing to the customers over the life the issue. VIII. HEARING COSTS The Commission is concerned with the magnitude the cost incurred proceeding and believes must be reduce costs ( Appendix A). In to the Applicant, it must be recognized that this is the first Application for general rate relief in five years and that the Application, by was prepared with external assistance. The is not totally the process but to some degree reflects internal in the !kant's parent company which are reflected in the refiling of the Gas Utilities Annual Reports from 1978 to 1983 and major changes ln the Application from the initial to the hearing date. The Commission bel that cost reductions will take at future proceedings inasmuch as the applicant's senior financial officer now has a good under of the process will able to prepare a concise Application in considerably less and expense. A concomitant benefit will be substantially ch in turn the cost to both the Applicant, the Commi other participants. Accordi the Commission ieves ItO% of the Applicant's costs incurr exclusive of the $24,000 incurred by E.R.A. should be written-off over a per The balance of the costs are to be written-off over a four-year period. If Applications become more frequent the amortization iod will shortened.
13 W lth regard to the Commi charges to the A of approximately $18,000, these, in conjunction with the Applicant's balance of approximately $55,000, will be written-off over years. IX. DE CISlO N The Commission confirms the interim increase approved January 1, 1985 and will accept for f April I, 1985 tariff rate schedules to permit the Applicant the opportunity to earn the revenue requirement set forth on Schedule II. are the rates as proposed by the Applicant but to costs. The "Wheeling Agreement" rate between B.C. Hydro the Applicant is to be incr by approximately $367 per year and residual costs initially the Applicant to B.C. Hvdro must be recovered from the other customers. The Commission approves the connection set forth in the Application. The above adjustments are to April 1, 1985 subject to timely fit DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia this l 2th day of March, 1 N. MARTIN, Commissioner
"'st\ co'-u,z, ..;:- <5;-{j) >' c: <: ..A 0 "(' / , ;-. :. c; r J '> ORDER ;f's cow.~' NUMBER G-22-85 IN THE MAT'l'ER OF the Utilities Commission Act, S.B.C. 1980, c. 60, as amended and IN THE MA'rTER OF an Application by Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. BEFORE: J.D.V. Newlands, Deputy Chairman; and March 12, 1985 N. Martin, Commissioner WHEREAS Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. ("FNG") filed an application for rate relief on October 5, 1984, as amended December 7, 1984 and January 7, 1985; and for corresponding amendments to its filed Schedule of Rates; and WHEREAS pursuant to Order No. G-69-84, FNG was granted an interim refundable increase of 7.50 percent effective November 1, 1984; and WHEREAS pursuant to Order No. G-69-84, the Application was heard in a public hearing in Fort Nelson during the period January 29 through February 1, 1985; and WHEREAS the Commission issued a Decision in this matter dated March 12, 1985. NOW THEREFORE the Commission hereby orders as follows: 1. The revenue requirement of Fort Nelson Gas Ltd. for the Test Year ending December 31, 1985 is, as determined in the Decision issued concurrently with this Order, approximately $1,920,000. . .. /2 FOURTH FLOOR, 800 SMifHE ST1i£E r: VANCOUVLR H C VGZ 2E 1, CANADA, (604) 660A700, TELEX 04·54536
2 ORDER NUMBER G-2L-2. FNG is granted the opportunity to earn a rate of return of 15. 50 percent. on common equity. 3. The interim rates authorized for implementation effective November l, 1984 are confirmed as firm rates. 4. The Commission will accept, subject to timely filing, amendments effective April 1, 1985 to the Tariff Rate Schedules; and to the Service Connection charges contained in FNG's filed Tariff which will reflect the results of the Commission Decision. 5. FNG will comply with the directions incorporated in the Commission's Decision, including the appropriate adjustment on charges payable to FNG by B.C. Hydro in accordance with the Wheeling Agreement on and after April 1, 1985. DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 12th day of March, 1985. Chai;J.{J
FORT NELSON GAS LIMITED Notes to -------------~-----(B) To just 1985 inventory to reflect the use of 4" pipe in 1985 construction. (C) To italiz inistrative the amount of $14,000, as (G) To r uce Working ital $26,000 ementat of c (H) To increase Deferred Rate Hea ing Costs reflect actuals. u I e Rate Base $8,000. General ex se in it by ant. to ter billing system. $20,000 to
FORT NELSON GAS LIMITED Notes to Sch I (A) To reduce off e salaries e to greater eff iency vancouver staff. (C) To italize Admin strative General nse amount of $14,000, as submit . (D) Reduction in sales due to projection of r ustomers. (N) To just Rate Heari Costs $19,000 to reflect revi amortizat r s. {K) To just ling revenue. (L) Adjustment to meet revenue requirements.
FORT NELSON GAS LIMITED Notes to Sch le III (E) To revert to a de r tax sis. (F) To allow tion of nte est on customer sits r tax purpo s. (H) To just for actual Rate Hearing Costs.
( 1 )
FORT NELSON GAS LIMITED Notes to Schedule IV ( I ) To ref t a 4 0 % i r tio propo f nancing.
NELSON GAS LIMITED N --ot e s ·to -(E) To revert to a de rred tax (I) To reflect a 40% i (J To reflect rr income taxes as a capitalization. S c h -ed u l e sis. rat and proposed f nancing. rt of
FORT NELSON GAS LTD. Schedule of Rate Deloitte Haskins & Sells W.W. Mcilroy, C.A. Swinton & Company Econom Research Associates Limited Colon l Oil & Gas Limi Company Costs All-West ting (transcript) Fort Nelson News (advertisements) British Columbia Utilities commission Costs Total Rate Heari Cos APPENDIX A $ 9,750 9,273 17,505 23,992 12,000 2,644 940 191 $76,295 1 793
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.