Orders

ORDER NUMBER

G-118-17

IN THE MATTER OF

the Utilities Commission Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 473

and

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Complaint filed by M.U. and L.Y.

BEFORE:

B. A. Magnan

on August 4, 2017

ORDER

WHEREAS:

A.      In a letter dated September 1, 2016, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) customers (M.U. and L.Y.) filed a complaint with the British Columbia Utilities Commission (Commission) concerning the Extension Fee required by BC Hydro to connect a permanent service to M.U. and L.Y’s property (Complaint);

B.      Prior to their home renovations, M.U. and L.Y.’s existing service (up to 100A) was changed from a permanent service to a temporary service on March 23, 2014. After completing the renovations, M.U. and L.Y. requested that BC Hydro reconnect the permanent service to their property;

C.      BC Hydro’s states that M.U. and L.Y.’s electrician requested a 200A service to M.U. and L.Y.’s property before the renovation; therefore BC Hydro asserts that M.U. and L.Y.’s request is considered an Extension under section 1 of BC Hydro’s Electric Tariff (Tariff). Based on this position, BC Hydro informed M.U. and L.Y. that an Extension Fee would be required to connect a permanent service to their property;

D.      M.U. and L.Y. viewed their request to have their permanent service restored and did not view their request as an Extension and therefore disagreed with BC Hydro’s Extension Fee requirement. M.U. and L.Y. clarified that they want to return back to their original service;

E.       From September 1, 2016 to July 4, 2017, M.U. and L.Y. provided the Commission with additional information regarding their Complaint;

F.       Commission staff reviewed the Complaint according to the Commission’s Customer Complaint Guide, and through various correspondence between September 8, 2016, and June 29, 2017, Commission staff requested additional information from BC Hydro regarding the Complaint;

G.      Through various correspondence between October 27, 2016, and June 30, 2017, BC Hydro provided the Commission with information in response to the Complaint and Commission staff requests;

H.      On January 20, 2017, the Commission issued Order G-5-17 for the BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application which included changes to the Tariff definition of an Extension;

I.        On January 27, 2017, Commission staff issued a summary and evaluation closing the Complaint based on information suggesting that M.U. and L.Y.’s house required a 200A service due to the renovations to their property;

J.        On February 3, 2017, the Commission received further information from M.U. and L.Y. and the Complaint was reopened;

K.      On June 30, 2017, BC Hydro confirmed that M.U. and L.Y.’s property can remain connected to a 100A service; and

L.       The Commission reviewed the various correspondences and supporting material in relation to the Complaint and determines that further process is warranted.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to section 83 of the Utilities Commission Act, the Commission orders the review of the Complaint follow the regulatory timetable as set out in Appendix A to this order.

DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this         4^th             day of August 2017.

BY ORDER

Original signed by:

B. A. Magnan

Commissioner

Attachment

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Complaint filed by M.U. and L. Y.

REGULATORY TIMETABLE