Marija Tresoglavic Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Acting Commission Secretary Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 2N3 P: 604.660.4700 Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com TF: 1.800.663.1385 bcuc.com F: 604.660.1102 May 28, 2020 Sent via email Letter L-30-20 Re: FortisBC Inc. – Complaint filed by A.A – British Columbia Utilities Commission Review Dear : Thank you for contacting the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC). The BCUC received your initial complaint against FortisBC Inc. (FortisBC) on November 26, 2019, offering a timeline of events leading up to your complaint stating that a “change of direction at this point in order to upgrade Fortis BC’s power grid at our cost – 1 year after the initial contact was made, appears petty, arbitrary and without reason” (Complaint). The BCUC has completed its review of your Complaint. We have evaluated FortisBC’s response to your concerns and FortisBC’s obligations under its Electric Tariff (Tariff) and the Utilities Commission Act (UCA) 1 . The BCUC is satisfied that FortisBC has reasonably responded to your concerns and acted within its Tariff and the UCA. This letter outlines the BCUC’s review process, and then provides a summary of your Complaint, the issues raised, a summary of the submissions the BCUC has gathered from you and FortisBC, the BCUC’s review of each issue, and the BCUC’s determination. Review of the Complaint Review Process After receiving your Complaint, BCUC staff provided FortisBC an opportunity to respond to your Complaint. FortisBC provided responses on December 11, 2019, January 22, and February 14, 2020. You provided additional comments on December 11, 2019, January 7, 29 and February 11, 2020. BCUC staff issued Staff Information Requests (IRs) to FortisBC on February 3, 2020, in order to seek further information. The BCUC received responses to the IRs from FortisBC February 14, 2020. Summary of the Complaint In October 2018, you began the process of planning the construction of a carriage house at , . You state you contacted FortisBC by phone to discuss whether the construction would impact the location of several utility poles located adjacent to the property. 1 For more details about the BCUC’s complaints process, see the BCUC’s Customer Complaints Guide at https://www.bcucu.com/Documents/Complaints/BCUC-Customer-Complaints-Guide-Feb-2017.pdf. File 011499 | Complaint filed by A.A 1 of 4
Letter L-30-20 On October 30, 2018, you received an email from FortisBC in response to your information request regarding pole location, discussing options for dealing with the poles including the option of underground wiring to alleviate any concerns about limits of approach and confirming the minimum limit of approach is 1.0 metre. On December 14, 2018 you received an unsolicited quote of $4,200 to move a pole to avoid encroaching on the 1.0 metre limit of approach minimum and noted that FortisBC recommended a site visit to confirm. On December 19, 2018 a site visit was performed. On January 17, 2019, FortisBC confirmed that the structure was not in violation of the limit of approach. In August 2019, a meeting occurred between FortisBC and your electrician in order to confirm with the electrician that the location of the “meters heads” was confirmed to be on the carriage house and the power to be 200 Amps. On September 11, 2019, an email from FortisBC to , with an attached cost letter to relocate the pole ($3,633.83), was received. The quotation included an installation charge for up to 200-amp power for an additional $739. On September 16, 2019 you contacted FortisBC to confirm the new structure was not in violation of the limits of approach and therefore there was no need to relocate the pole. This was confirmed by FortisBC on the same day. On November 6, 2019 your builder received an email from FortisBC stating that the overhead power lines cannot accommodate power to the carriage house and further the cost of the movement of the pole will be $6,300+ tax, payable by the homeowner. In your Complaint you asked the BCUC to address the following concerns: 1. FortisBC provided you with varied quotations, the first in October 2018 for an optional pole relocation, which concerned the limits of access. There is no mention of the cost to provide power to the new structure. When installation of power was quoted, FortisBC initially stated that the total cost would be approximately $700 to energize your new structure. You were then subsequently quoted approximately $5,300 with a new design requirement to replace a pole and update the transformer to better accommodate the power load and energize your new structure. 2. FortisBC’s communication and customer service were both inadequate during the course of your project. Conflicting information was offered and several attempts to communicate were left unanswered by FortisBC. Review of Issues FortisBC’s Varied Quotations and Communication Accuracy The BCUC sees both issues as inextricably linked and as such will be reviewed collectively. In a review of the timeline of communications between the and FortisBC, the BCUC notes no evidence was provided that a design regarding power requirements or a subsequent quotation that included fees to provide power service to the new structure took place until November 2019. File 011499 | Complaint filed by A.A 2 of 4
Letter L-30-20 Over the course of 13 months, starting in October 2018 until November 2019, you had repeated communications with FortisBC regarding the location of poles near your new structure and limit of approach requirements for your new structure stating, “At no time did indicate that there was any extension required to “energize” the carriage home (old or new). Only after we determined that the existing pole did not have to be moved did he then create a new plan for a new pole and transformer.” Further to your concerns with the communication and accuracy during the design process of FortisBC, the BCUC investigated through IRs sent to FortisBC. The BCUC notes that FortisBC has provided significant amounts of documentation related to the design process, responded to IRs, and described its business practices to the BCUC. In IR 1.2, BCUC staff requested clarification on information offered in communications with you during October to November 2018. FortisBC’s response noted that during this time frame, the communications with you concerned moving a pole that may interfere with the planned construction of the carriage house on your property. FortisBC also stated that they informed you of the extension policy, including the customer portion of costs as outlined in its Tariff. The BCUC notes that in an email dated October 30, 2018, FortisBC’s communications included the FortisBC Service and Metering Guide and the FortisBC Specification for Installation of Underground Conduit Systems, Document No. 801-07. The BCUC finds FortisBC’s communications lacking in complete detail during the initial stages, however notes that they did follow their design process as outlined in IR 1.13, showing a progression of information including “specifics of service size, location and site requirements” until final confirmation of service size and location was received in December 2019. When FortisBC had all information gathered they provided a final quote on December 11, 2019. In FortisBC’s IR 1.5 responses they also stated that they provided a preliminary value of $5,500 for the upgrades on November 5, 2019. The same email identified the Standard Installation Charge of $739 (before tax) for an overhead service drop up to 200-amps. It was further noted by FortisBC that the installation of the new duplex meter base was on the new structure rather than the existing house. Due to the location of the meter base, an upgrade to the pole and transformer was required due to the distance of the new carriage home from the transformer currently supplying the property. “The length of the existing secondary distribution voltage wire results in excessive voltage drop, therefore service from the existing transformer would not be able to meet FBC’s voltage standards.” The BCUC has approved FortisBC’s Tariff including the associated terms and conditions of service between FortisBC and its customers. The BCUC has limited jurisdiction over FortisBC’s business practices, including how it conducts communications, so long as its actions comply with theTariff and the UCA. The BCUC finds that FortisBC’s actions have been consistent with its duties and responsibilities set out in its Tariff and the UCA in relation to how it conducted the design process for the new building on your property. Summary Based on the BCUC’s review of your Complaint and related correspondence provided in this matter, BCUC staff sees no indication that FortisBC was in contravention of its Tariff or the UCA. Accordingly, your file is closed. File 011499 | Complaint filed by A.A 3 of 4
Letter L-30-20 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. The Office could request that the BCUC reopen its investigation, though it may not result in a different outcome. 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: Marija Tresoglavic Acting Commission Secretary DD/ae cc: Mr. Doug Slater Director, Regulatory Affairs FortisBC Inc. electricity.regulatory.affairs@fortisbc.com File 011499 | Complaint filed by A.A 4 of 4
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.