IN THE MATTER OF
the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 473
and
Applications for Participant Assistance/Cost Award
regarding the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Residential Inclining Block Rate Re-Pricing Application
BEFORE: L.A. O’Hara, Panel Chair/Commissioner
C.A. Brown, Commissioner May 12, 2011
D. Morton, Commissioner
O R D E R
WHEREAS:
A. On August 28, 2008, the British Columbia Utilities Commission (Commission), by Order G-124-08, approved the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) application to implement a residential inclining block (RIB) rate for its residential customers, with approval of pricing principles for BC Hydro’s Fiscal 2009 and Fiscal 2010 periods;
B. By Order G-47-10, dated March 15, 2010 and Order G-180-10 dated December 2, 2010, the Commission approved, on an interim and final basis, respectively, a pricing principle for the RIB for BC Hydro’s Fiscal 2011 period;
C. On December 21, 2010, BC Hydro filed an application (Application) with the Commission, pursuant to sections 58 to 61 of the Utilities Commission Act (Act), for approval of a RIB pricing principle for Fiscal 2012 and onward, under which BC Hydro would increase the three components of the RIB rate (Step-1 energy rate, Step-2 energy rate and Basic Charge) by the amount of any approved generate rate increase (Proposed Pricing Principle);
D. By Order G-204-10 dated December 23, 2010, the Commission established a Written Hearing Process. The regulatory timetable for the proceeding included one round of Information Requests from Commission staff and Registered Interveners to BC Hydro and written submissions from BC Hydro and Registered Interveners;
E. By January 17, 2011, the Commission and Interveners issued Information Requests to BC Hydro, which were responded to on February 7, 2011;
F. On February 14, 2011, BC Hydro filed supplemental responses to the Commission and Interveners Information Requests;
G. By letter dated February 17, 2011, the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association and Sierra Club of B.C. (BCSEA et al.) requested the right to reply to the Final Submission of the British Columbia Old Age Pensioners’ Organization et al. On February 21, 2011, the Commission Panel denied the request and ruled that BCSEA’s Reply Submission filed with the Commission on February 17, 2011 is not admissible as evidence in this proceeding (Exhibit A-5);
H. By Order G-45-11 dated March 14, 2011, the Commission approved a new RIB rate pricing principle for BC Hydro’s Fiscal 2012 to Fiscal 2014 periods.
I. Between March 27 and April 8, 2011, the following groups or individuals filed applications for Participant Assistance/Cost Awards (PACA):
• British Columbia Old Age Pensioners’ Association et al. (BCOAPO);
• BC Sustainable Energy Association and the Sierra Club of British Columbia;
• Commercial Energy Consumers Association of BC (CEC); and
• Energy Solutions for Vancouver Island Society (ESVI).
J. In a letter dated April 28, 2011, BC Hydro provided its written response to the PACA applications;
K. The Commission has reviewed the PACA applications with regard to the criteria and rates set out in the PACA Guidelines in Commission Order G-72-07 and has concluded that cost awards should be granted for participants in the proceeding.
NOW THEREFORE for the reasons set out in the Reasons for Decision attached as Appendix A to this Order, and pursuant to section 118(1) of the Utilities Commission Act, the Commission approves the following:
1. Participant Assistance Cost Awards in the following amounts with respect to their participation in the BC Hydro RIB Rate Re-Pricing proceeding:
BCOAPO $4,116.00
BCSEA et al. $5,103.55
CEC $5,493.60
ESVI $3,360.00
2. BC Hydro is directed to reimburse the above noted participants for the respective amounts that have been awarded in a timely manner.
DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 12th day of May 2011.
BY ORDER
Original signed by:
L.A. O’Hara
Panel Chair/Commissioner
Enclosure
Applications for Participant Assistance/Cost Award
regarding the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Residential Inclining Block Rate Re-Pricing Application
REASONS FOR DECISION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On March 14, 2011, the British Columbia Utilities Commission (Commission) issued Order G-45-11 wherein it approved a new Residential Inclining Block (RIB) rate pricing principle for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority’s (BC Hydro) Fiscal 2012 to Fiscal 2014 periods.
The Commission has received four applications from Interveners pursuant to section 118 of the Utilities Commission Act (UCA) for Participant Assistance/Cost Award (PACA) funding for the RIB Rate Re-pricing proceeding totaling $18,997.15.
The Commission PACA Guidelines set out in Appendix A to Order G-72-07 state that the Commission Panel will first consider whether the Participant has a substantial interest in a substantial issue in the proceeding. The Commission Panel will then consider the following:
(i) Will the Participant be affected by the outcome?
(ii) Has the Participant contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission?
(iii) Are the costs incurred by the Participant for the purposes of participating in the proceeding fair and reasonable?
(iv) Has the Participant joined with other groups with similar interests to reduce costs?
(v) Has the Participant engaged in any conduct that tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding? (This criterion will not, by itself, disqualify a Participant for pursuing a relevant position in good faith and with reasonable diligence)
(vi) Any other matters appropriate in the circumstances.
2.0 PROCEEDING AND PREPARATION DAYS
This written proceeding was relatively brief, focused on a narrow issue, with no proceeding days, and involved only one round of Information Requests. Interveners’ budget estimates for preparation days ranged from 3.0 to 9.0 days with the actual PACA Applications being based on preparation days ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 days.
Due to the nature of the proceeding and the small number of Interveners, the Commission Panel will not set a standard number of proceeding days in this case.
3.0 PACA APPLICATIONS
The four PACA applications received by the Commission are summarized in below.
• British Columbia Old Age Pensioners’ Organization et al. $4,116.00
• B.C. Sustainable Energy Association and Sierra Club of British Columbia $5,355.55
• Commercial Energy Consumers of BC $5,493.60
• Energy Solutions for Vancouver Island $4,032.00
Total $18,997.15
BC Hydro provided comments on the four applications on April 28, 2011, stating it believes that all four Interveners have satisfied the first consideration of the PACA Guidelines by having a substantial interest in a substantial issue in the proceeding. BC Hydro further noted that the majority of Interveners were all able to meaningfully contribute to the proceeding efficiently and that ESVI spent the most time reviewing the issues with 4.5 days claimed.
4.0 COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON PACA APPLICATION AMOUNTS
The Commission Panel concurs, in general, with the views expressed by BC Hydro. Furthermore, the Commission Panel has considered the factors outlined above and is satisfied that the Participants are eligible for the requested funding, subject to the amounts discussed below.
BCOAPO AND CEC
The Panel finds the applied for amounts reasonable. Accordingly, the BCOAPO and CEC claims for cost awards of $4,116.00 and $5,493.60 respectively are granted.
BCSEA et al.
The expenses claimed by BCSEA et al. are generally reasonable, except for the one hour counsel time (@ $225 per hour plus 12% HST) used for filing a reply submission that the Panel found not admissible as evidence. As a result, the adjusted BCSEA et al. cost award is $5,103.55.
ESVI
The Commission Panel notes that ESVI has claimed the most time in this review process and rejects the explanation that additional time was required to review the significant number of additional rate structures. The Panel has weighed both the contribution and effectiveness of all Interveners and finds that the additional time claimed by ESVI is not justified. The range of time claimed by other Interveners, namely from 2.5 days to 3.74 days, provides a good basis for awarding a reasonable amount of compensation to ESVI. Accordingly, the Commission Panel grants ESVI an award based on 3.75 days @ $800/day + HST or $3,360.00.