ORDER NUMBER

F-27-24

 

IN THE MATTER OF

the Utilities Commission Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 473

 

and

 

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

2021 Integrated Resource Plan

Participant Assistance/Cost Award Application

 

BEFORE:

M. Jaccard, Panel Chair

C. M. Brewer, Commissioner

T. A. Loski, Commissioner

on May 23, 2024

 

ORDER

WHEREAS:

 

A.      On December 21, 2021, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) filed its 2021 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Application (Application);

B.      The regulatory process included: two rounds of information requests (IRs); a procedural conference; filing of intervener evidence, and IRs on same; BC Hydro rebuttal evidence, and IRs on same; updates to intervener evidence; an oral hearing regarding BC Hydro’s load forecast scenarios; a workshop regarding New Energy Acquisitions; and written final argument from BC Hydro and interveners and reply argument from BC Hydro;

C.      On June 15, 2023, BC Hydro filed the Signposts Update and Updated 2021 IRP;

D.      By Decision and Order G-58-24 dated March 6, 2024, the BCUC accepted the Updated 2021 IRP;

E.       The following interveners filed Participant Assistance/Cost Award (PACA) applications with the BCUC with respect to their participation in the proceeding:

 

F.       By letter dated April 29, 2024, BC Hydro provided its comments on the PACA applications;

G.      By May 6, 2024, responses to BC Hydro’s comments were filed by BCOAPO; the CEC; Conifex; NTC; and RCIA; and

H.      The BCUC has reviewed the PACA applications in accordance with the criteria and rates set out in the PACA Guidelines, attached to BCUC Order G-97-17, and concludes that the cost awards should be approved with adjustments for certain interveners.

 

NOW THEREFORE pursuant to section 118 of the Utilities Commission Act, and for the reasons outlined in the decision accompanying this order, the BCUC orders as follows:

 

1.       Funding is awarded to the following interveners in the listed amounts for their participation in the 2021 IRP proceeding:

 

2.       BC Hydro is directed to reimburse the above-noted interveners for the awarded amounts in a timely manner.

3.       FNEMC is directed to reimburse BC Hydro $7,920.26 in a timely manner.

 

DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this    23^rd     day of May 2024.

 

BY ORDER

 

Original signed by:

 

M. Jaccard

Commissioner

 

 

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

2021 Integrated Resource Plan

 

1.0              Introduction

On December 21, 2021, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) filed its 2021 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Application (Application). The regulatory process for the proceeding included: two rounds of information requests (IRs); a procedural conference; filing of intervener evidence, and IRs on same; BC Hydro rebuttal evidence, and IRs on same; updates to intervener evidence; an oral hearing regarding BC Hydro’s load forecast scenarios; a workshop regarding New Energy Acquisitions; and written final argument from BC Hydro and interveners and reply argument from BC Hydro.

 

On June 15, 2023, BC Hydro filed the Signposts Update and Updated 2021 IRP. By Decision and Order G-58-24 dated March 6, 2024, the BCUC accepted the Updated 2021 IRP.

 

The following interveners filed Participant Assistance/Cost Award (PACA) applications with the BCUC with respect to their participation in the proceeding:

 

 

By letter dated April 29, 2024, BC Hydro provided its comments on the PACA applications. BC Hydro provided comments on the following interveners’ PACA applications: BCOAPO; CEBC; the CEC; Conifex; NTC; RCIA and Zone II RPG. BC Hydro’s specific comments on these interveners’ PACA applications are outlined in turn later in this decision. By May 6, 2024, responses to BC Hydro’s comments were filed by BCOAPO; the CEC; Conifex; NTC; and RCIA.

 

Pursuant to Order G-72-23 dated April 3, 2023, the BCUC’s PACA Guidelines (Guidelines)[1] continue to apply to all BCUC proceedings commenced prior to June 30, 2022, as set out in the directives of Order G-178-22 dated June 30, 2022. Accordingly, as the proceeding for the 2021 IRP commenced in December 2021, the Panel has reviewed the PACA applications in accordance with the PACA Guidelines. Section 4.3 of the Guidelines provides the factors the BCUC considers in determining the amount of a participant’s cost award. The key considerations from section 4.3 that the Panel has relied upon in these reasons for decision include:

•         Has the participant contributed to a better understanding by the BCUC of the issues in the proceeding?

•         Are the costs incurred by the participant fair and reasonable?

•         Has the participant made reasonable efforts to avoid conduct that would unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding, such as ensuring participation was not unduly repetitive?

•         Any other matters which the Commission determines appropriate in the circumstances.

In the remainder of this decision, the Panel provides its determination on each of the PACA applications in descending order, including an explanation for the adjustments made to the funding awards where applicable.

2.0              Determinations on Intervener PACA Applications

2.1              The CEC

The CEC’s PACA application of $344,079.10 is comprised of:

•         A combined 36.7 funding days for its legal counsel C. Weafer and P. Weafer; and

•         A combined 213.7 funding days for its consultants D. Ince and D. Craig, primarily incurred by D. Ince.

 

BC Hydro provided the following comments on the CEC’s PACA application:

the total amount being sought is significantly higher than any other intervener in the proceeding. In addition, like BCOAPO, CEC’s final argument consists mostly of restating the evidentiary record.

In response to BC Hydro, the CEC submits its costs were warranted given the complexity and duration of the proceeding, and notes the cost implications of actions arising from the IRP are much more substantial than the regulatory costs. The CEC submits it participated in all aspects of the proceeding and provided unique contributions in establishing the evidentiary record.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that the CEC is awarded $172,039.55, which is 50 percent of the funding award applied for.

 

Overall, the Panel views CEC’s funding request as very excessive and disproportionate to its contributions to the proceeding. We are concerned that the CEC has failed to use its professional services – most notably its consultants – in a cost-effective manner (per section 7.1 of the Guidelines).

 

The Panel has reviewed the breakdown of time incurred by category[2] for the CEC’s consultants filed with its PACA application, and concludes that the number of days incurred for each task is considerably higher than the Panel deems reasonable. We note that while the CEC has primarily relied on a lower cost consultant (D. Ince) in this proceeding, this does not justify a corresponding increase in the number of days incurred. Despite use of a lower cost consultant, the CEC’s PACA application was over $100,000 higher than the next highest PACA application in this proceeding. Further, the Panel notes that the CEC incurred more than double the number of funding days for its consultants than any other intervener. The Panel has identified several other examples in the proceeding which indicate excessive or unreasonable use of CEC’s professionals time, including:

•         The CEC filed a greater volume of round one IRs than any other intervener, a significant number of which BC Hydro had already provided similar or identical information in the F2023-25 Revenue Requirements Application proceeding, or that BC Hydro declined to respond on the basis that the information would not facilitate a better understanding of issues in the proceeding. The Panel agrees with BC Hydro’s assessment of such IRs;

•         The Panel observes that CEC’s intervener evidence regarding load forecasting, and subsequent update to its evidence, were lengthy documents. The Panel’s interpretation of CEC’s intervener evidence is that while the CEC proposed recommendations regarding BC Hydro’s load forecast, the CEC generally did not identify substantive concerns with BC Hydro’s overall load forecasting approach.[3] In the opinion of the Panel, CEC’s intervener evidence was of limited value for the Panel’s determinations on the 2021 IRP, and the evidence could have been delivered in a far more concise manner;

•         According to the CEC’s PACA application, over 19 days were spent reviewing “relevant planning related submissions before the BCUC”, which the Panel understands included information that was not on the IRP evidentiary record, nor applicable to CEC’s intervener evidence; and

•         CEC’s final argument was the longest among interveners, and appeared to contain several instances of duplication and unnecessary restating of evidence.

The Panel acknowledges that the CEC participated fully in a lengthy and complex proceeding. However, we do not view the CEC’s contribution to the understanding of issues in this proceeding as materially different from that of other parties. Therefore, and taking into account all of the aforementioned concerns, we find no justification for awarding a significantly higher cost award to the CEC. Further, we note that aspects of the CEC’s intervention may have incurred additional burden on other parties, for example, in terms of the volume of intervener evidence to review, and number of IRs requiring a response.

The Panel finds that a 50 percent reduction in funding award is fair and reasonable, and reflects an amount that is more proportionate to CEC’s contributions to the proceeding. While not necessarily determinative, the Panel observes that a 50 percent reduction in funding award more closely aligns with other interveners that participated fully in the proceeding.

2.2              RCIA

RCIA’s PACA application of $235,862.48 is comprised of:

•         64.3 funding days for eight consultants from Midgard Consulting Inc. (Midgard), including C. Oakley and P. Helland;

•         A further 35.3 funding days incurred at the “Specialist/ Expert Witness” rate by C. Oakley and P. Helland;

•         14.3 funding days for legal counsel;

•         1.2 days for a case manager;

•         $26,775 regarding surveys undertaken by Innovative Research; and

•         Miscellaneous expenses.

BC Hydro provided the following comments on RCIA’s PACA application:

BC Hydro notes that some of the costs relate to market research on Intervener Funding in B.C. BC Hydro is unclear on how this study was used to inform RCIA’s intervention in this proceeding

RCIA acknowledges there was an administrative error, and part of the Innovative Research studies should not have been included with the IRP PACA application.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that RCIA is awarded $176,896.86, which is 25 percent lower than the funding award applied for. There are several reasons for this funding reduction, outlined in turn below.

 

Firstly, as acknowledged by RCIA, $6,563.12 of the costs incurred by Innovative Research were not related to the 2021 IRP proceeding, and are, therefore, denied from the funding award. However, the Panel also has concerns regarding the award of the remainder of the Innovative Research costs, which are related to a Willingness To Pay survey, which was included as part of RCIA's intervener evidence. The Panel does not consider that this survey provided any value in this proceeding. Additionally, RCIA made no mention of conducting a third-party survey in its notice of intent to file evidence,[4] and the Panel views the survey as an unnecessary expansion to the scope of RCIA’s evidence. Accordingly, the Panel denies award of costs related to the Willingness To Pay survey.

 

Secondly, the Panel notes that RCIA has sought the specialist/ expert witness rate of $2,150 per day for
C. Oakley and P. Helland for tasks incurred related to RCIA’s intervener evidence. However, these individuals also served as consultants for the remainder of RCIA’s intervention. The Panel does not consider the evidence filed by C. Oakley and P. Helland constitutes specialized technical expertise[5] to justify a specialist rate; nor non-partisan[6] to justify an expert witness rate, given that the individuals are employees of Midgard who act as the representative for RCIA. Accordingly, the Panel considers C. Oakley and P. Helland should be awarded the consultant rate of $1,850/day, resulting in a reduction in funding award of $11,123.47.[7]

Finally, after making the above-noted adjustments, the Panel is not persuaded that RCIA’s costs are proportionate to its overall contribution to a better understanding of issues in the proceeding. For instance, the Panel found RCIA’s intervener evidence of only moderate value, and not proportionate to the costs that were incurred to prepare the evidence.

 

In consideration of the above, the Panel finds that an overall reduction in funding of 25 percent is fair and reasonable and reflects an amount that is more proportionate to RCIA’s contributions to the proceeding.

2.3              AMPC

AMPC’s PACA application of $226,849.50 is comprised of:

•         55.65 funding days incurred by a total of six legal counsel M. Keen, M. Manhas, A. Baer, E. Russell, E. Chan and C. Yan; and

•         60.1 funding days incurred by AMPC’s two consultants.

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that AMPC is awarded $200,069.50. The adjustment in funding award is based on three issues as outlined in turn below.

 

Firstly, the Panel is concerned that the number of funding days incurred by its legal counsel appears to be high; as an illustration, the next highest among PACA applicants in this proceeding was 38.7 days. Upon a review of the detailed invoices provided in AMPC’s PACA application, the Panel is concerned that duplication of services[8] has occurred among the six legal counsel, including several instances where multiple counsel were heavily involved in preparation and review of IRs and argument. Further, it appears that some of the work incurred by AMPC’s counsel could have been undertaken by its consultants, noting the BCUC’s expectation that counsel perform legal services.[9] Based on the foregoing, the Panel determines that AMPC’s funding award be adjusted to omit 10 funding days by its counsel, prorated among the six individuals (as outlined in the table below).

Secondly, the Panel observes that a total of 2.9 hours were incurred by AMPC’s counsel E. Chan and M. Keen regarding AMPC’s PACA Budget. The BCUC typically does not award costs regarding the preparation of PACA budgets or applications,[10] and accordingly these costs are denied.

 

Finally, AMPC has sought costs which slightly exceed the Maximum Daily Fees as outlined in Appendix A of the Guidelines for M. Manhas, A. Baer, E. Russell, and E. Chan. Accordingly, the Panel adjusts the funding awards to align with the Maximum Daily Fees.

 

The table below summarizes the adjustments in funding for AMPC’s legal counsel:

 

Professional	Eligible Funding Days[11]	Adjusted Funding Days[12]	Daily Rate[13]	Adjusted Total[14]
M. Keen	16.95	13.8842	$2,800	$38,875.78
M. Manhas	23.25	19.0447	$2,550	$48,564.01
A. Baer	9.6375	7.8943	$2,250	$17,762.26
E. Russell	4.375	3.5837	$1,900	$6,809.00
E. Chan	0.825	0.6758	$2,550	$1,723.24
C. Yan	0.25	0.2048	$880	$180.21
Total	55.2875	45.2875		$113,914.50

 

Based on the adjusted total in the table, AMPC’s overall funding award is reduced by $26,780.00.[15]

2.4              NTC

NTC’s PACA application of $202,657.00 is comprised of 38.5 funding days for its counsel D. Austin and 41.5 funding days for its consultant J. Weimer.

 

BC Hydro provided the following comments on NTC’s PACA application:

BC Hydro notes that while the other interveners in this highest cost category submitted some form of intervener evidence, NTC did not provide any intervener evidence in this proceeding.

In response to BC Hydro, NTC submits is not going to critique the efforts of other intervener to justify its PACA application, and that the level of costs and effort required for this IRP was substantially exacerbated due to causes of BC Hydro’s own making. NTC submits it had to spend considerable effort to piece together pertinent information regarding greenhouse gas reductions, which it says should have been clearly and concisely available.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines NTC is awarded $182,391.30, which is 10 percent lower than the funding award applied for.

 

The Panel acknowledges NTC’s comments that NTC does not wish to comment on other intervener’s PACA applications to justify its own costs. While a comparison of costs compared to other interveners is not necessarily determinative, the Panel does consider such a comparison provides illustrative value as a starting point for evaluating the reasonableness of costs. In this case, we observe NTC’s funding request is over $40,000 higher than any other intervener that did not file intervener evidence. However, the Panel’s determination on PACA awards is based on its assessment of several factors which are specific to the intervener in question.[16]

 

The Panel is concerned that the costs incurred by NTC are somewhat excessive, and we do not consider NTC’s contributions to a better understanding of key issues in this proceeding to be proportionate to the overall cost incurred. It appears to the Panel that much of NTC’s intervention was focused on a relatively narrow set of issues, and we are not persuaded that NTC’s professionals operated in an efficient manner in terms of addressing the overall purpose and scope of a long-term resource plan proceeding filed under section 44.1 of the UCA. We note that NTC did not file detailed timesheets in its PACA application upon which to make more specific observations, but based on the foregoing reasons we do not find the amount sought by NTC to be fair and reasonable. The Panel determines that a reduction in 10 percent would more fairly reflect the Panel’s assessment of NTC’s participation in the 2021 IRP proceeding.

2.5              CEBC

CEBC’s PACA application of $198,545.45 is comprised of:

•         18.875 funding days for its legal counsel G. Fitch and M. Cherkawsky;

•         15.44 funding days for its consultant C. Lustzig;

•         38.34 funding days for its expert witness T. Lusney; and

•         $5,677.93 in miscellaneous expenses.

By Order F-31-23 dated August 14, 2023, the BCUC awarded CEBC $67,488.77 as an advance against the BCUC’s final cost award determination after the conclusion of the proceeding.

 

BC Hydro provided the following comments on CEBC’s PACA application:

it appears to BC Hydro that the hourly rate billed for consulting and legal services exceeds the rates stipulated for those services in the guidelines.

In response, CEBC stated:

Regarding the fact that [CEBC] submitted hourly rates that exceed those allowable by the BCUC, please note that CEBC did so in error. Please readjust the amounts of labour so that all hours submitted in our application are the maximum allowable for both the legal counsel and specialist as they both have 20+ years of experience.

Panel Determination

As indicated above, CEBC has requested fees which exceed the Maximum Daily Rate outlined in Appendix A of the PACA Guidelines, which the Panel finds should be adjusted. Additionally, C. Lustzig and T. Lusney incurred costs at the expert witness rate, which is higher than the maximum rate for consultants. Upon review of the resumes and tasks undertaken by C. Lustzig and T. Lusney, the Panel determines that it is reasonable for both professionals to be awarded the maximum consultant rate of $1,850 per day. Although T. Lusney provided intervener evidence on behalf of CEBC, T. Lusney was also the primary resource for other tasks not related to CEBC’s intervener evidence. The Panel does not consider such evidence or other tasks constitutes specialized technical expertise[17] to justify a specialist or expert rate.

 

Additionally, the Panel notes two minor corrections to the miscellaneous expenses filed by CEBC. Firstly, CEBC seeks to claim an additional 5% GST on certain disbursements for G. Fitch where tax was already included in the cost.[18] The Panel determines the award for such disbursements is reduced by $122.06 to account for this duplication. Secondly, CEBC is seeking award of two meal receipts for K. Sayers ($99). However, Appendix B of the PACA Guidelines specifies that the daily cost award for two meal expenses is $36.50, and therefore the Panel determines the award for K. Sayers disbursements is reduced by $72.50.

 

The table below summarizes CEBC’s final cost award taking into the above noted cost adjustments:

 

	Funding Days	Guidelines Maximum Daily Fee	Total Award  (including GST)
Counsel Fees
G. Fitch	16.69	$2,800	$49,068.60
M. Cherkawsky	2.1875	$1,900	$4,364.06
Consultant Fees
C. Lustzig	15.44	$1,850	$29,992.20
T. Lusney	38.34	$1,850	$74,475.45
Other Expenses			$5,483.37
TOTAL			$163,383.68

 

Based on the foregoing table, the Panel determines CEBC’s final award is $163,383.68, of which $95,894.91 is owed to CEBC.[19]

2.6              BCSEA-VEVA

BCSEA-VEVA’s PACA application of $160,524 is comprised of:

•         38.7 days for its legal counsel W. Andrews; and

•         20.16 days for its consultant.

By Order F-31-23 dated August 14, 2023, BCSEA-VEVA was awarded $72,715.75 in interim PACA funding, therefore BCSEA-VEVA is seeking award for the remaining $87,808.25.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines BCSEA-VEVA final award is $150,524, of which $77,808.25 is owed to BCSEA-VEVA.

 

While the Panel considers the overall funding days incurred by BCSEA-VEVA are reasonable and proportionate to its participation in this proceeding, the Panel observes that the time is skewed heavily towards BCSEA-VEVA’s counsel. Upon a review of the detailed invoices included with the PACA application, the Panel observes that W. Andrews was the primary resource in terms of time incurred for tasks such as reviewing evidence and preparing IRs, which would typically be led by a consultant. Section 7.4 of the PACA Guidelines states legal counsel are expected to perform legal services. We acknowledge that some degree of involvement from counsel may be required for all tasks in a proceeding, however we do not consider it is a cost-effective use of resources to have higher cost counsel acting as the primary technical resource where a consultant is also being utilized. Accordingly, the Panel finds that a $10,000 reduction in BCSEA-VEVA’s cost award is fair and reasonable.

2.7              Zone II RPG

Zone II RPG’s PACA application of $118,688.15 is comprised of:

•         18.65 funding days for its counsel S. Ennis and J. McLean; and

•         36.7 funding days for its consultant L. Dong.

BC Hydro provided the following comments on Zone II RPG’s PACA application:

BC Hydro notes that the Commission determined, in August 2022, that the NIAs were not within the scope of the BCUC’s review of the 2021 IRP (see Exhibit A-11). BC Hydro requests further information from Zone II RPG regarding their intervention following this determination so that we can better understand the reasons for their cost award application.

Zone II submits it continued to participate in the 2021 IRP proceeding following the BCUC’s determination on scope to ensure its interests were not compromised. Zone II RPG's electricity rates will be directly informed and impacted by the BCUC’s decision and key action plans resulting from the 2021 IRP. In addition, Zone II RPG's participation focused on key areas of policy concern (e.g. reconciliation) for Kwadacha Nation and Tsay Keh Dene Nation in order to assist the BCUC’s in better understanding issues raised by the 2021 IRP.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines Zone II RPG is awarded $118,688.15. The Panel considers the funding award to be proportionate to Zone II RPG’s contributions to the proceeding, and agrees with Zone II RPG that following the BCUC’s determination on scope regarding the NIAs, there remained sufficient issues of relevance to Zone II RPG interests to warrant its continued participation in the proceeding.

2.8              BCOAPO

BCOAPO’s PACA application of $116,586.24 is comprised of:

•         24 funding days incurred by its four legal counsel; and

•         24.3 funding days incurred by its consultant W. Harper.

BC Hydro provided the following comments on BCOAPO’s PACA application:

BC Hydro notes that, as part of the Commission’s regulatory efficiency initiative, the Commission stated: “The BCUC will not award costs for needlessly restating the evidentiary record, which unnecessarily lengthens submissions. Parties’ arguments should be concise and to the point.” BCOAPO’s final argument consists mostly of restating the evidentiary record; however, BC Hydro notes that while an initial list of efficiencies was published prior to the deadline for intervener arguments in this proceeding, the final list was published after arguments had been submitted.

In response to BC Hydro, BCOAPO submits its counsel is obliged by the professional code of conduct to act as a “competent lawyer” which includes identifying all relevant facts on which an opinion is based upon. Further, that the summary of evidence was already recorded in notes and memos, and did not require significant time to reproduce.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that BCOAPO is awarded $116,586.24. With respect to BC Hydro’s comments on BCOAPO’s final argument, the Panel notes that upon review of BCOAPO’s detailed invoices, BCOAPO incurred less than three funding days on its final argument. The Panel considers the time incurred to be reasonable for final arguments in the 2021 IRP proceeding, and we do not identify other concerns regarding BCOAPO’s overall cost award.

2.9              FNEMC

FNEMC’s PACA application of $62,026.49 is comprised of:

•         13.4 funding days for its legal counsel Gowling WLG;

•         14.4 funding days for its consultants InterGroup Consultants; and

•         21.25 funding days for FNEMC staff acting as case managers.

By Order F-13-23 dated March 22, 2023, FNEMC was awarded $74,946.75 in Interim PACA funding as an advance against its final cost award. FNEMC requests in its PACA application that the BCUC consider approving an administrative fee on top of the costs incurred for the proceeding:

While we appreciate the BCUC undertaking an Indigenous Intervenor Capacity Funding pilot

project beginning in August 2023, the cap of $5,000 per proceeding does not allow for

meaningful participation in a complex multi-year proceeding like the review of BC Hydro’s IRP.

We trust the BCUC will consider these challenges in evaluating this final cost claim and consider

approving the roughly 20% of the original budget advance as a contribution to FNEMC’s admin

costs. Alternatively, FNEMC can refund the unused portion of the budget.

Panel Determination

The Panel notes that in August 2023, the BCUC launched an Indigenous Intervener Capacity Funding (IICF) pilot program,[20] which provides funding for up to $5,000 per eligible group per proceeding. While the start date for the IICF program was for groups who requested intervener status on or before August 21, 2023, the Panel is willing to make an exception with respect to making a PACA award in this case, and determines that FNEMC is awarded an additional $5,000 as a contribution to FNEMC’s overheads as incurred resulting from participation in the IRP proceeding. Additionally, the Panel observes that FNEMC relied heavily on its own staff to act as case managers in this proceeding, which likely significantly reduced the need to use other higher cost professional services in this proceeding.

 

Therefore, the Panel determines FNEMC final award is $67,026.49. As this amount is lower than the interim PACA funding awarded by Order F-13-23, FNEMC is requested to refund the remainder of $7,920.26 to
BC Hydro at its earliest convenience.

2.10          Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs

Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs’ PACA application of $49,350.00 is comprised of:

•         16.5 funding days for external consultant S. Janzen; and

•         8.5 funding days incurred by three representatives of Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

Panel Determination

The Panel observes that the daily rate sought for S. Janzen ($1,880) is slightly above the Maximum Daily Fee for consultants of $1,850 as outlined in Appendix A of the Guidelines, and accordingly the Panel determines a reduction of $519.75[21] is warranted. Therefore, the Panel determines $48,830.25 is awarded to Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

2.11          Conifex

Conifex’s PACA application of $42,194.25 is comprised of:

•         15 funding days for its consultant S. Janzen; and

•         6.4 funding days for Conifex employees.

BC Hydro provided the following comments on Conifex’s PACA application:

BC Hydro does not recall Conifex Timber Inc. being particularly active in the proceeding, submitting only a few information requests (see Exhibit C33-2). The cost award being requested seems disproportionate compared to this level of intervention. In addition, BC Hydro has reviewed the invoice associated with this cost award request and notes some items that appear high (e.g., four hours to apply for intervener status) and some items that may be ineligible (e.g., six hours for summary of final arguments and summary of decision).

In its response to BC Hydro, Conifex submits it prepared additional submissions for the IRP process, which are withheld currently due to ongoing legal considerations concerning Conifex’s electricity access.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that Conifex’s PACA application is denied in full.

 

Firstly, the Panel agrees with BC Hydro’s observation that Conifex did not contribute to the proceeding, and therefore the funding award sought is not justified. Secondly, Conifex appears to have only represented its own business interests in this proceeding. The Panel notes that under the BCUC’s new Participant Cost Award (PCA) Rules, participants representing solely their own business interests are not eligible for funding.[22] While the Guidelines do not include such a provision, the Panel finds that it is fair and reasonable to apply the same principles in this proceeding, and it is not reasonable for Conifex to be awarded funding for representing its own business interests.

2.12          Kanaka Bar Indian Band

Kanaka Bar Indian Band’s PACA application of $40,220.25 is comprised of:

•         15.75 funding days for external consultant S. Janzen; and

•         4.6 funding days for Chief J. Spinks.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel observes that the daily rate sought for S. Janzen ($1,880) is slightly above the Maximum Daily Fee for consultants of $1,850, and accordingly the Panel determines a reduction of $496.13[23] is warranted. Therefore $39,724.13 is awarded to Kanaka Bar Indian Band.

2.13          NRM

NRM’s PACA application of $29,400 is comprised of 9.4 funding days for its legal counsel D. Bursey.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that NRM’s PACA application is denied in full.

 

NRM is the part owner of the McMahon CoGeneration Facility, and the Panel notes that NRM’s participation in this proceeding appears to be solely related to the future status of its electricity purchase agreement with
BC Hydro. As noted above, the Panel does not find it reasonable for parties representing solely their own business interests to be awarded funding in this proceeding.

2.14          Saanich

Saanich’s PACA application of $20,300 is comprised of 12.7 funding days for its consultant R. Stout.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel determines that Saanich’s PACA Application is denied in full.

 

The Panel observes that under the BCUC’s PCA Rules, municipalities and associations of municipalities are not eligible for funding.[24] While the PCA Rules do not apply to this proceeding, the Panel finds that a similar principle should apply, and that it is not reasonable to award funding to municipalities for participation in the 2021 IRP proceeding.

2.15          MoveUP

MoveUP’s PACA application of $19,244 is comprised of 7.075 funding days for its legal counsel J. Quail.

 

Panel Determination

The Panel observes the invoices for J. Quail include 0.4 hr claimed for preparing a PACA Budget (equating to $152.32 including tax). As noted earlier, the BCUC has previously disallowed such costs from PACA applications, and the Panel determines MoveUP is awarded is awarded $19,091.68, which represents a reduction of $152.32 from the amount applied for.

 

 

 

 

Dated at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this     23^rd    day of May 2024.

 

 

Original signed by:

_________________________________

M. Jaccard

Panel Chair/Commissioner

 

 

Original signed by:

_________________________________

C. M. Brewer

Commissioner

 

 

Original signed by:

_________________________________

T. A. Loski

Commissioner