ORDER NUMBER

G-299-25

 

IN THE MATTER OF

the Utilities Commission Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 473

 

and

 

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

2025 Integrated Resource Plan

 

BEFORE:

M. Jaccard, Panel Chair

T. A. Loski, Commissioner

R. E. Murphy, Commissioner

 

on December 12, 2025

 

ORDER

WHEREAS:

 

A.      On October 31, 2025, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) filed its 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Application (Application), pursuant to section 44.1 of the Utilities Commission Act (UCA) and in accordance with Order G-58-24;

B.      By Order G-268-25, dated November 17, 2025, the BCUC established a regulatory timetable to review the Application, including, among other things, a deadline for parties to submit a request to intervene in accordance with the BCUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules);

C.      By December 2, 2025, the following parties filed requests to intervene:

•         Association of Major Power Customers (AMPC);

•         BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council (FNEMC);

•         BC Old Age Pensioners’ Organization et al (BCOAPO);

•         BC Sustainable Energy Association (BCSEA);

•         Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP);

•         City of Richmond (Richmond);

•         City of Vancouver (Vancouver);

•         Clean Energy Association of BC (CEBC);

•         Commercial Energy Consumers of BC (CEC);

•         District of North Vancouver;

•         FortisBC Energy Inc. and FortisBC Inc. (collectively, FortisBC);

•         Invinity Energy Systems (Canada) Corporation (Invinity);

•         Metro Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver);

•         Movement of United Professionals (MoveUP);

•         Residential Consumer Intervener Association (RCIA);

•         SFU Sustainable Energy Engineering Delta-E+ Research Lab (SFU Research Lab);

•         St'at'imc Chiefs Council (SCC);

•         Tlaoquiaht First Nation (TFN);

•         Tourmaline Oil Corp. (Tourmaline); and

•         West Coast Climate Action Network (WE-CAN);

D.      On December 10, 2025, the Community Solar Coalition (CSC) submitted a late request to intervene; and

E.       The BCUC has reviewed the requests to intervene and finds the following determinations are warranted.

 

NOW THEREFORE for the reasons outlined in the decision accompanying this order, the BCUC orders as follows:

 

1.       The regulatory timetable is amended as set out in Appendix A to this order. 

2.       The following parties are accepted as interveners: AMPC, BCOAPO, BCSEA, CAPP, CEBC, CEC, District of North Vancouver, FortisBC, FNEMC, Metro Vancouver, MoveUP, RCIA, Richmond, SCC, TFN, Tourmaline, Vancouver, and WE-CAN.

3.       The following parties’ requests to intervene (attached as Appendices B, C and D to this order, respectively) are denied: SFU Research Lab, Invinity and CSC.

4.       BCSEA and WE-CAN are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

5.       CAPP and Tourmaline are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

6.       The District of North Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, Richmond, and Vancouver are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

7.       CEC, RCIA and BCOAPO are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

8.       Interveners are limited to a maximum of 30 questions each, inclusive of sub-questions, for Intervener Information Request (IR) No. 1 to BC Hydro. Interveners grouped together as one intervener group for this proceeding are limited to a maximum of 30 questions, collectively amongst the group, inclusive of sub-questions, for Intervener IR No. 1 to BC Hydro.

 

DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this      12^th      day of December 2025.

 

BY ORDER

 

Electronically signed by Mark Jaccard

 

M. Jaccard

Commissioner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

2025 Integrated Resource Plan

 

1.0              Introduction

On October 31, 2025, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) filed its 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (2025 IRP) Application, pursuant to section 44.1 of the Utilities Commission Act (UCA) and in accordance with Order G-58-24.

 

By Order G-268-25, dated November 17, 2025, the BCUC established a regulatory timetable to review the 2025 IRP, including, among other things, a deadline for parties to submit a request to intervene in accordance with the BCUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).

 

By December 2, 2025, the following 20 parties filed requests to intervene:

 

•         Association of Major Power Customers (AMPC);	•         BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council (FNEMC);
•         BC Old Age Pensioners’ Organization et al (BCOAPO);	•         BC Sustainable Energy Association (BCSEA);
•         Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP);	•         City of Richmond (Richmond);
•         City of Vancouver (Vancouver);	•         Clean Energy Association of BC (CEBC);
•         Commercial Energy Consumers of BC (CEC);	•         District of North Vancouver;
•         FortisBC Energy Inc. and FortisBC Inc. (collectively, FortisBC);	•         Invinity Energy Systems (Canada) Corporation (Invinity);
•         Metro Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver);	•         Movement of United Professionals (MoveUP);
•         Residential Consumer Intervener Association (RCIA);	•         SFU Sustainable Energy Engineering Delta-E+ Research Lab (SFU Research Lab);
•         St'at'imc Chiefs Council (SCC);	•         Tlaoquiaht First Nation (TFN);
•         Tourmaline Oil Corp. (Tourmaline);	•         West Coast Climate Action Network (WE-CAN)

 

On December 10, 2025, the Community Solar Coalition (CSC) filed a late request to intervene.

 

Rule 9.02 provides that requests for intervener status must be received by the BCUC by the registration deadline established in the regulatory timetable for the proceeding.

 

Rule 9.04 states that parties seeking intervener status must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the BCUC that they are directly or sufficiently affected by the BCUC’s decision. Rule 9.06, in turn, provides that:

 

The BCUC may deny a request for intervener status for reasons, including but not limited to, that the request:

(a) is frivolous, or vexatious;

(b) does not meet the requirements in Rule 9.04;

(c) is irrelevant or is not in response to issues addressed in the particular proceeding; or

(d) is not filed in accordance with the rules.

 

Rules 9.07 and 9.08 state that the BCUC may grant intervener status subject to conditions it considers appropriate and may determine the scope of an intervener’s participation considering, for example, the person’s interests, and the nature, importance and breadth of issues the person plans to address.

 

Rules 10.02 and 10.03 state that interveners are expected to take reasonable efforts to avoid the duplication of evidence and that the BCUC may require an intervener to coordinate with other interveners who represent substantially similar interests.

In this decision, the Panel:

a.       Makes determinations on parties’ requests for intervener status, and directs certain parties to participate as intervener groups (Section 2.0);

b.       Amends the timetable in response to a request from AMPC (Section 3.0); and

c.       Provides details regarding the scoping of the 2025 IRP proceeding (Section 4.0).

2.0              Intervener Acceptance and Collaboration

The Panel accepts the following parties as interveners in this proceeding, subject to the requirements regarding participation outlined below: AMPC, BCOAPO, BCSEA, CAPP, CEBC, CEC, District of North Vancouver, FortisBC, FNEMC, Metro Vancouver, MoveUP, RCIA, Richmond, SCC, TFN, Tourmaline, Vancouver, and WE-CAN.

 

The Panel notes that there are commonalities between the issues that certain parties indicated they intend to address in the proceeding. To avoid duplication of effort and the associated increase in costs and regulatory burden, the Panel determines that requiring certain interveners to collaborate is warranted, as described further below.

 

In its request to intervene, BCSEA indicates its willingness to coordinate with other interveners regardless of their respective interests in the proceeding, but requests advance notice and an opportunity to comment if the Panel is considering “making a forced ‘joint submissions only’ order against BCSEA in this proceeding”. BCSEA further states that BCSEA will be represented by legal counsel who would be “unable to represent an additional intervener(s) simultaneously with representing BCSEA in this proceeding.”

 

BCSEA states that it is committed to promoting sustainable energy, energy efficiency and energy conservation in BC, and supports the province’s transition to a lower-carbon economy. Similarly, WE-CAN indicates that its mission is centered on enabling accelerated, community-level climate action across the province. According to the WE-CAN website, BCSEA is a member of WE-CAN.[1] Given their shared interests, the Panel considers it appropriate for these two interveners to work together as a single group.

 

Although the Panel notes BCSEA’s request for the opportunity for further comment prior to a direction requiring BCSEA to work with another party, the Panel considers that procedural fairness does not require BCSEA to be provided such an opportunity in this case. In particular, the Panel notes that a direction requiring BCSEA to file joint submissions with another party does not require BCSEA’s counsel to represent that other party as counsel. Further, the Panel considers that such a direction will not prejudice BCSEA’s ability to fully and fairly participate in this proceeding.   

 

CAPP indicates in its request to intervene that it represents oil and natural gas producers active in B.C, and one of the issues it intends to address in the proceeding is upstream oil and gas electrification scenarios. Tourmaline states that it is an individual BC Hydro industrial customer, and that BC Hydro’s long-term strategy as described in the 2025 IRP may impact Tourmaline’s decision/ability to electrify gas processing facilities in BC. According to the CAPP website, Tourmaline is a member of CAPP.[2]  Given their shared interests, the Panel considers it appropriate for these two interveners to work together as a single group.

 

The requests to intervene by Metro Vancouver, Richmond, Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver all indicate an interest in exploring how the 2025 IRP responds to provincial policy, and connecting long-term IRP level planning with local distribution level planning and regional analysis. Vancouver, Richmond and Metro Vancouver also indicated their intention to coordinate with other municipalities who intervene in this proceeding. The Panel considers it appropriate for these four interveners to work together as a single group.

 

The CEC, RCIA and BCOAPO submit that they represent the interests of commercial class, residential consumers, and economically vulnerable ratepayers respectively. Each also indicated interest in broadly addressing the adequacy, reasonableness and appropriateness of BC Hydro’s 2025 IRP.  While the Panel acknowledges that there may be certain aspects of the IRP which impact these ratepayer classes differently, we consider there are more similarities than differences in terms of the strategic planning level impacts of the IRP upon small and medium-sized ratepayers. The Panel considers it appropriate for these three interveners to work together as a single group.

 

Therefore, further to the above reasons and pursuant to Rule 10.03:

•         BCSEA and WE-CAN are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

•         CAPP and Tourmaline are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

•         The District of North Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, Richmond, and Vancouver are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

•         CEC, RCIA and BCOAPO are directed to participate as one intervener group, and to file all submissions jointly.

The Panel denies the requests by SFU Research Lab, Invinity and CSC to intervene (attached as Appendices B,  C, and D respectively). In its request to intervene, SFU Research Lab indicated they are affected as both an individual residential ratepayer, and an academic researcher interested in understanding the assumptions underlying the 2025 IRP modelling. However, the Panel determines that SFU Research Lab is not directly or sufficiently affected by the BCUC’s decision. The Panel notes that residential ratepayers’ interests will be represented in this proceeding by the RCIA and BCOAPO. Therefore the Panel considers granting intervener status to an individual residential ratepayer is not warranted in this case. Further, the Panel considers that SFU Research Lab’s research interests do not constitute being “directly or sufficiently affected by the BCUC’s decision” in this case.

 

Invinity is a manufacturer of flow batteries with long duration energy storage. The Panel is not persuaded that Invinity has demonstrated that the outcome of this proceeding will have a significant impact on the development of long duration energy storage by Invinity in British Columbia. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Invinity is not directly or sufficiently affected by the BCUC’s decision.

 

CSC is an informal coalition of community groups in British Columbia that work to advance customer-sited and community-based distributed energy resources (DERs), including rooftop and community solar, storage, and microgrid initiatives. CSC states it is directly affected by this IRP because its outcomes will shape the conditions under which community groups can pursue local clean-energy initiatives. CSC states the key issues it intends to address in the proceeding include:

 

• DER Valuation and System Planning
• Planning Tools and Distribution-Level Visibility
• Interconnection and Process Efficiency
• Evaluation of Emerging DER Programs and Resilience Pathways

 

Pursuant to Rule 9.06 the Panel finds that the issues CSC intends to address are not relevant to the key issues in the 2025 IRP. As addressed further in section 4 of this decision, an IRP proceeding is intended to address strategic planning issues, while the issues CSC proposes to address are at a considerably greater level of detail. They relate to implementation issues that are not relevant to resource planning, and/or are not reflective of the information presented in BC Hydro’s Application. Additionally, we note that CSC submitted its request to intervene late, which was not in accordance with the Rules. On this basis, the Panel denies CSC’s request to intervene.

 

SFU Research Lab, Invinity and CSC may each still submit a letter of comment in accordance with the Rules, in order to have their respective views considered by the Panel.

3.0              Amended Timetable

In its request to intervene, AMPC requests that the BCUC modify the regulatory timetable to add a procedural step after BC Hydro information request (IR) responses, that canvases whether interveners seek to file evidence or, alternatively, a second round of IRs before the workshop. 

 

For the reasons that follow, the Panel orders that the regulatory timetable is amended as set out in Appendix A.

 

The Panel notes that the regulatory timetable for this proceeding established by Order G-268-25 already provides for intervener submissions on workshop scope by March 5, 2026, following BC Hydro’s responses to BCUC and Intervener IR No. 1. The Panel considers it appropriate to allow interveners to include, as part of these submissions, an indication of whether they seek to file evidence or a second round of IRs. This will accommodate AMPC’s request without extending the current timetable. The Panel also considers it appropriate to allow BC Hydro to provide reply submissions, by March 10, 2026, regarding workshop scope, any proposed intervener evidence, and the potential for a second round of IRs.  

 

Interveners that indicate, as part of their submissions following BC Hydro’s responses to BCUC and Intervener IR No. 1, that they seek to file evidence must include the following information in their submission:

•         Summary of the topic to be addressed by the evidence;

•         Explanation of the relevance of the evidence to the 2025 IRP proceeding and how it will assist the Panel in making its determination; and

•         Details regarding who would be preparing the evidence, their credentials, the estimated cost, and the anticipated length of the evidence.

Interveners are advised that by permitting submissions on the need for intervener evidence or a second round of IRs, the Panel is not making a commitment to accept requests to file evidence or to further amend the regulatory timetable. Additionally, costs associated with the preparation of evidence may not be eligible for Participant Cost Awards in the absence of the Panel granting a party’s request to submit evidence.

4.0              Scope of the Proceeding

To promote regulatory efficiency, interveners are limited to a maximum of 30 questions each, inclusive of sub-questions, for Intervener IR No. 1 to BC Hydro. Interveners grouped together as one intervener group for this proceeding are limited to a maximum of 30 questions, collectively amongst the group, inclusive of sub-questions, for Intervener IR No. 1 to BC Hydro.

 

We note that the majority of the accepted interveners were also involved in the 2021 IRP, and have been part of BC Hydro’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings.[3] The Panel observes that TAC meetings have provided extensive opportunities for parties to understand BC Hydro’s development of the 2025 IRP, and the Panel expects parties to leverage this experience to minimize the volume of clarification IRs required.

 

To provide further clarity to participants, the Panel provides the following additional guidance for this proceeding:

 

•         Interveners should avoid IRs which focus on data, methodologies, assumptions and other key information that are generally unchanged from BC Hydro’s previous IRP, or that address issues recently determined by the BCUC.

•         IRs should be proportionate, in terms of the expected complexity of the analysis required to respond to the IR, in comparison to the materiality of the issue in question as it relates to its impact on the 2025 IRP (for instance, whether the issue in question is likely to have a significant impact on the foundational assumptions in the IRP, or impact decisions regarding the acquisition of new resources).

•         The level of detail and granularity which is pursued in the 2025 IRP proceeding should be consistent with the strategic-level purpose of a resource plan and the BCUC’s Resource Planning Guidelines.^[4]

•         Interveners should be mindful of pursuing detailed information that will be the subject of future BC Hydro applications to the BCUC, e.g. project specific applications or revenue requirement applications.

•         If BC Hydro is not able or not willing to prepare a full and adequate response to a specific IR, BC Hydro must respond in accordance with Rule 19.03.

 

 

Dated at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this      12^th      day of December 2025.

 

 

Electronically signed by Mark Jaccard

_________________________________

M. Jaccard

Panel Chair/Commissioner

 

 

Electronically signed by Tom Loski

_________________________________

T. A. Loski

Commissioner

 

 

Electronically signed by Rose Murphy

_________________________________

R. E. Murphy

Commissioner

 

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

2025 Integrated Resource Plan

 

 

 

*Exact dates to be confirmed