LETTER NO. L-30-08 ERICA M. HAMILTON SIXTH FLOOR, 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 COMMISSION SECRETARY VANCOUVER, B.C. CANADA V6Z 2N3 Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com TELEPHONE: (604) 660-4700 web site: http://www.bcuc.com BC TOLL FREE: 1-800-663-1385 FACSIMILE: (604) 660-1102 Log No. 22774, 25685 VIA E-MAIL June 23, 2008 TO: ALL PARTICIPANTS Re: British Columbia Transmission Corporation (“BCTC”) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) Application for the Interior to Lower Mainland Transmission Project (“ILM”) Project No. 3698486, Order No. G-137-07 By letter dated June 13, 2008, the Commission requested submissions on the Harris/Casselman application dated June 12, 2008 for leave to file further submissions in the ILM Proceeding. Submissions were received from counsel on behalf of BCTC dated June 17, 2008 and from the BC Old Age Pensioners Organization et al. (“BCOAPO”) dated June 18, 2008. A reply submission dated June 20, 2008 was received from Mr. Harris and Mr. Casselman. The Commission concludes that BCTC did not raise new issues in Reply that were not within the proper scope of Reply. As suggested by BCOAPO, the Commission does endeavour to accommodate unrepresented members of the public in order to facilitate their participation in the regulatory process. However, the Commission Panel cannot grant the leave application and maintain the integrity of the process. Therefore, the Commission Panel agrees with BCTC that the leave sought by Mr. Harris and Mr. Casselman should be denied. By letter dated June 17, 2008, Mr. Harris and Mr. Casselman filed Part 2 of the two-part submission referred to in their letter dated June 12, 2008. In this decision, the Commission Panel has not provided a ruling regarding Part 2; however, the conclusion above regarding the proper scope of Reply may be relevant to a leave application should one be filed regarding Part 2. Yours truly, Original signed by: Erica M. Hamilton cms PF/BCTC_ILM/L-30-08_Harris-Cassleman Part 1 Reconsider Denied
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.