IN THE MA.T'I 'I'HE UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT S.B.C. 1980, c. 60, as amended IN THE MATTER OF a como~a1nt under Se BEFORE: J.D.V. Newlands, and D.B. R.J. 1 ER OF and Coal ted 30, 1984 sion
APPEARANCES I. INTRODUCTION II. ISSUES III. DECISION AND ORDER IV. DISSENTING OPINION ORDER NO. G-76-84 Page No. ( i ) 2 8 10
APPEARANCES J.J. CAMP Ms. H.L. MALKIN C.B. JOHNSON P.D. LLOYD K.E. GUSTAFSON R. B. L. KIMP'l'ON S. G. PRA'l'T D.L. RICE Commission Staff Officer Court (i J:i'ord Coal ted Natural Gas ted Crestbrook Forest es Ltd. . We star ing Ijtd. ssion Counsel B. MCKINLAY S.S. WONG J. GRUNAU D. LEACH W.B. AUDIOTRON ENTERPRISES LTD.
s matter came i on rate Vancouver on Co a ( II Natura Ga the comm1ss LUHIHLL S iOn On we reduc "com1nco" . s Fore st.ar Ltd. star"), industrial cla s. ( 11 ) eclare Ford to arose wi h 983 under 1 amoun re lls on from to u1 scrimina be to one " e Ltd. Products Ltd. ( "Cre " ) and s the Col and a between the rate and gas in
The Cornmiss on, in the ng led Col copy ot that letter wa cust.omers. commencement matters a the tnesses of Columbi g f in teres t.o s conclusion llowing s s on s nt. I. SUES F'ording contra t s sales ts rna or ndustrial t.he cts * References to Exhibits of the st , 19 , rected , n 11 ng te li 9 a s 1 contra he ]. tlon contract cu or conclusion the Comrni s on a e ng on's con ons ng is " 1 , of the ong-common feature s 11 I 1 1 re cord
con to be thin an contract s a 5 986. In thJ.S t di contracts, whi on a a s the lis coal the coal ons commenced. ed as an st al contract wi and s a ce for gas nco, Crestbrook and Westar (Balmer ons).* It is the Fording and that for the undue s The Ford t wa on s 11 of the ssues related to sult the context of of se contracts. stated contract until its terminati ate a new Cre on s was a erential rate * ** bit 2 shows an average rate of $ • 83 10 for lls. l class of service. The t.o December 1, str 1 end of th and are now or an t.e term. and star to de ne was entered into in Ju , 1983 This was n the ial ch is an average the ce that lis that the basis made Fording.** Columbia took the questJ.on was 1 with 1 contracts and consi ered n the Co a urther to , un ess i sed to the ssue was not one of to 11 son to fil - -1 , 983 (s Ford
contracts n lass f ng of i red t.he justment aga t ct, indu s ce, the posi pre t on the same s as any Greenhills contract rather on t t t.o Westa t.he int, i on iated and terms its the cont.ract s contract that lls contra concluded that a wa , at ses t.here f urther that class ch t was , i sed cati ls contract be t r contracts the lass of of the e Columbi 's s. had no ng on s a that there was both ing n ccordance with star, therefore, t.o s tion contra and s . y ]
similar service on involvi a reconsid iated 1 contract posi al on natural s 970 under been than recovered. cost t.he 1 would s s not nece too on does not - ce and pay as 0 t.he ce is too f a 1 the cal s, nor s ca ad t.he line s, low to the of vo s of s , or the sue broader, 1 the same cla s? The a s. ls e, t was ng was too of the commencement of ce in 1 g Stl ed t al 11 and s cost. mont.h payment to s dence, self, t.s of gas ce are ake account many n to amort ze e cost of ine over ime. I t lements , however, ce s) appear to j ce based on ion transmi t.ted s the "Kai er Junction". _ stment ce to nd reflects a ce ng 1 .
The Ford nt revolves not it is s U!ll al cus ce system 1 in the t of 1 contracts, there are also s resnect of the receint central sue of 1 Co a and the treatment of sor contracts dealt 75 at same le has been lowed th re to Co . s to lass of customer come with re t:hi s cl tracts te sis. The matters the i a has a ted deve a standard contra t 1 s. t 6 mater the on wa t.he sue of whethe or lls, bv la ad.mltted :t:terences s lari es i the same latera , however, of ga stri 1 s sales of s and a ted , and f led, s ta or sue was 1 sion. The sian of this e and this Commission to date , on s c treatment s There s to ven the interim 1 an reso on th 1 customers to f le o:t gas iled ns , reference to ch, on Westar and
'l'he solution of the sue rate ' revenue to lasse cus The Commi s on conc1 a narrow s ce n the 's " " may events, it entered a th intervenors it not lls rate, ch rs to be ra s to Crestbrook, nco and f another lateral the Co u s Clearly, the Greenh 11 ifferent from that of ated costs of ce and gas on the lateral rom service s taken g lateral mi of s sent matt s a of al contract, f e er cannot s . To do so lass ng , t s on cone udes, th to the one customer s s of , s rial class of s that, n l of contract, as comparison ica e. However, s evera be that Greenhills rate was _ it is e that an star lmer tor serv1ce cannot proper be on g t 1. shed on a bas contracts, ch lect ch on the costs of ce cate a more table and Greenhills, the a subject ch goes ately reso the .
III. sion Ford is that and contract 1 class. the on other al contract must be Until ng ba is ed, the Commj ion cone r dis on stat s bot.h On the bas s of the facts n concluded that the issue does not what: con s e d s ss of s ce on s a rcumstances the , s undu scr From the , it i apparent that Greenhills contract was not ing or the other ndust Fording and i Is under subs al enj g al concludes, , that. a to its ted contract. t.he in th on Greenhills, ch s as an , the rates 1 clas s t s should be s another e ra on s 1 e a the United States Commission has re a determination of on. the ture of tes f iated contra t la te n t.he ned on the same bas s s l customers Because from same 1 may . ssion t. of the evel of r
and reasonable rates and other terms for service off the lateral is neces before can be made, and unt 1 that not fair or reasonable to interfere wi contracts for ce of Ford other al customers. Commiss orders as follows: shall prepare and file, cost of service data ch wi 1 allow the Commission to consider on under on 64(1) to rate to of Act. DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Columbia, this 30th day of November, 1984. J.D.V. NEWLANDS, D.B. R.J. *See Dissenting Opinion by J.D.V. Newlands, Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Division. 9 table adjustment on s made is the ated lls or, , the to 31, 1985, whether the lls is insuffi ent of t~ish * Chairman
1 IV. DISSENTING OPINION As stated in the ev ce, a contract between Coal Ltd., and provided for the con on of provide natural gas ce to of Elkford, British Col ical to the Spe al between Co a and its other the ion of Greenhills, asmuch as the contract represented, from Col a's perspe compensation for the ce rendered f r and reasonable return on the From the perspective of al Contract customers, the rate was a fair and reasonable and quality Co the respective parties, were basis the ssion With specific to ing, it aooears to me Fording contract s as rectly th extension as contract icable to as other resid industrial customers become users of the system above the "Kaiser Junction." With to Greenhills, this rate clear provision ce as rate is mere the average of rates 1 customers, ch rates reflect the service from the respect laterals. iated in 1971 a Natural Gas ted 39 le lateral order to 's coal opera ons in the a. This contract was 1 contracts industr 1 customers, th ce , a fair and reasonable the Uti , or, a sed value of its for the ce of the nature These contracts, when si for fil1ng on a s customer a ce s s ce from lates reduced rate al, al and does not reflect 1 as to large sian of
11 On the basis of the evidence, I conclude that the rate to be applicable for larae extension, 1 at least the contract is the Ford rate and, interim rate charged 1. DATED at the Ci of Vancouver, in the Co , s 30 of November, 1984. ate al service from this ry of the sting Ford , I f to Greenhills is nee of tish
"'s'r\ COt..u1?. Bkiii~H COLUMBIA ~ UTILITIES COMMISSION ~ ~J!i ? t ~ S 1: ~§ ~ q "->-/P. ~"'e:, ORDER <e:S coW."'' NUMBER G-76-84 IN THE MATTER OF the Utilities Commission Act, S.B.C. 19~0, c. 60, as amended and IN THE MATTER OF a complaint by Fording Coal Limited under Section 64 thereof BEFORE: J.D.V. Newlands, Deputy Chairman; D.B. Kilpatrick, November 30, 1984 Commissioner; and R.J. Ludgate, Commissioner 0 R D E R WHEREAS on June 20, 1984 Fording Coal Limited ("Fording") filed with the Commission a complaint alleging that the rates charged by Columbia Natural Gas Limited ("Columbia") for natural gas service to Fording were unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory; and WHEREAS the Fording complaint came before the Commission during the public hearing of an application by Columbia which commenced at Cranbrook, British Columbia on September 25, 1984; and WHEREAS the Commission has considered the Fording Coal Limited complaint and the evidence adduced at the hearing and has reached certain conclusions set forth in a Decision containing a dissenting opinion, issued concurrently with this Order; NOW THEREFORE the Commission hereby Orders as follows: 1. The complaint by Fording Coal Limited is rejected . . . . /2 TWENTY FIRST FLOOR. 1177 WEST HASTINGS STREET. VANCOUVER B C V6E 2L7. CANADA TELEPHONE 160o4) 68g..l6Jl. TELEX 04·54536
2. Columbia Natural Gas Limited shall prepare and file, prior to January 31, 1985 cost of service data which will allow the Commission to consider action under Section 64(1) of the Act to determine whether the rate charged by Columbia under the Westar Mining Ltd. (Greenhills) contract is insufficient within the meaning of the Act. DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 30th day of November, 1984. BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION ORDER NUMBER G-c-76-84 2 nai~
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.