Letter L-53-19 In your complaint, you disputed the CPC of a pole replacement to accommodate a new extension to a carriage house that had been planned and was subsequently built on your property. Schedule 16 (previously Schedule 74, as referred to in FBC’s correspondence) provides the framework for CPC. Section 16.3.4 (Special Contracts) states: The special contract may require the applicant to pay for Extension Costs and upgrades or reinforcements of existing facilities, and to pay for any replacements of the Extension that may be required. Following the relaunching of your complaint, the BCUC notes that FBC provided the following information regarding your concerns regarding the pole replacement, neighbourhood work, and aerial trespass: • FBC stated that the existing infrastructure was installed in the alley behind the customer’s property in 1979, according to the standards at the time. The pole was placed close to the property line to avoid undue congestion. A third-party contractor performed a title search and confirmed an aerial trespass of a cross arm and a primary conductor on the pole adjacent to your property. • FBC stated that the carriage house was constructed at a one-meter setback from the property line adjacent to the alley, resulting in an encroachment on the primary and secondary conductors, which necessitated the relocation of the power pole. • FBC stated that the proximity of the carriage house to the infrastructure has created a safety concern. FBC further stated that: “FortisBC’s portion covers all costs associated with rectifying the trespass issue, as well as the shared costs in replacing the poles because of the safety issue and Mr. [S’s] new service requirements for the carriage house.” • FBC addressed your query regarding other poles being replaced in your neighbourhood at no charge to the residents by stating that these upgrades were performed to remedy identified safety and/or trespass issues and were not related to any customer-initiated work. In order to accommodate the extension and address the safety concerns arising from the construction of the carriage house on your property, FBC has performed an infrastructure upgrade. The BCUC notes that FBC has acknowledged its responsibility for addressing the aerial trespass and has adjusted the shared costs accordingly. The utility has an obligation to address the safety concerns, as required by the Tariff. The safety issues resulting from the construction of the carriage house made a further customer contribution necessary. Accordingly, your file is now closed. Office of the Ombudsperson If you have concerns about how the BCUC handled your complaint, you may wish to contact the Office of the Ombudsperson. The Office of the Ombudsperson receives enquiries and complaints about the practices and services of public agencies within its jurisdiction. Their role is to impartially investigate complaints to determine whether public agencies have acted fairly and reasonably, and whether their actions and decisions were consistent with relevant legislation, policies and procedures. If you decide to file a complaint with the Ombudsperson, they will review the BCUC’s process to ensure it was fair. Though this may not result in a different outcome for you, the office could request that the BCUC reopen its investigation. File 11117 | J. S. Complaint 2 of 3
Letter L-53-19 Provided is a link to the Office of the Ombudsperson’s website: https://www.bcombudsperson.ca/. You can also call their office toll-free at: 1-800-567-3247. An employee at the office will be able to assist you and inform you of your options. Thank you again for contacting the BCUC. Sincerely, Original Signed By: Patrick Wruck Commission Secretary OK/mp cc: FortisBC Electricity Regulatory Team Gas.Regulatory.Affairs@fortisbc.com File 11117 | J. S. Complaint 3 of 3
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.