~\c::,'A COl.U~ ~ Q) ~ ~"' c ? " ~ .0 ROBERT J. PELLATT ('/~ ::. ~ f: "'.:: C0 COMMISSION SECRETARY /~S CO~~\: VIA FACSIMILE Mr. David A. Harrison Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority 18th Floor, 333 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B5R3 Dear Mr. Harrison: Re: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Commission Participant Fundin~ AWards Detenninations I am writing in response to your letter of July 25, 1996 regarding the Commission's practices with respect to participant funding awards. In particular, you express concern that the Commission is not recognizing due process when making its funding determinations since the Commission has not asked utilities to comment on the merit of any participant funding application prior to determining an award. Accordingly, you suggest that the Commission's practice constitutes a breach of fairness and natural justice. As you know the granting of participant awards is governed by Commission Order G-1l7-93 and its attached Appendix which sets out the criteria which the Commission must use when determining an award. Of the six criteria to be used in determining whether an award should be granted, only one refers to the quality of the participation of the party requesting assistance. That criteria states that the Commission must consider whether the participant contributed to a better understanding of the issues ~ the Commission. As you will appreciate, this is something which only the Commission is able to assess . LETTER No. L-28-96 . _ & " .L ~ IrA l' t " ~ -' ~ Z SIXTH FLOOR. 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 VANCOUVER, B.C. CANAOA V6Z 2N3 TELEPHONE: (604) 660-4700 BC TOL1- FREE: 1-800-663-1385 FACSIMILE: (604) 660-1102 August 1, 1996 .. )2
2 The Commission does note that the Appendix also states that the Commission m..aI. distribute the application to parties who are judged to be affected and may invite their comments by written or oral submissions by a specific date. It is not required to do so. However, nothing in the Appendix prevents a party to the hearing from commenting on the appropriateness or desirability of awarding participant funding to another party to the hearing on their own volition and in fact some parties have taken the opportunity to do so in fmal argument. BaSed on both of the above, the Commission is convinced that no offense against natural justice has been committed by its current practice. Further, the Commission is convinced that the practice which you suggest, that is the implementation of a formal round of requests for comments with an opportunity for reply, would significantly add to the administrative burden of the Commission and hearing participants. Without evidence of a similar increase in benefit, the Commission is reluctant to impose these costs. Nonetheless, the Commission takes seriously your concerns with respect to our practices. Accordingly, the Commission solicits your comments with respect to a practice which would allow the costs of any party, including the Applicant, whose costs could potentially or actually devolve to the utility's rate payers to be examined by and commented upon by all other parties to the hearing. The Commission would then have the benefit of these comments in determining not only the awards to be made to intervenors but the amount of the Applicant'S cost to be collected from rate payers. Of course, any fmal determination would remain the prerogative of the Commission. Cยขistance M. Smith for: J(obert J. Pellatt DWFlssc BCHlCorlHarrison re PFC Award
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.