skip to main content
Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | British Columbia | Facilities

Jan 19, 2016

BC Hydro Responds to Complaint About Misleading Testimony at 2008 BCUC Hearing

By David Stevens

In December 2015, a complaint was made to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) alleging that BC Hydro had intentionally misled the BCUC about future plans (and associated costs) for its enterprise financial IT systems. This complaint, made by the NDP critic for BC Hydro (Adrian Dix), alleges that filings and testimony in a 2008 BCUC proceeding should have disclosed BC Hydro's decision to transition to a new and more expensive enterprise financial IT system. The complaint alleges that by the time that the case was heard, BC Hydro had changed course from its as-filed plans to upgrade its existing system rather than replace it. Based on the allegations made, the complainant asserts that BC Hydro and its management committed offences under section 106 of the BC Utilities Commission Act.

BC Hydro's President and CEO issued a prompt initial response to the complaint, indicating that BC Hydro takes the allegations very seriously, and is committed to ensuring that the highest standards of transparency are met in all of its regulatory proceedings. In this initial response, BC Hydro asserted that its final decision to move to a new enterprise financial IT system was not made until after the BCUC proceeding. However, BC Hydro acknowledged that more information should have been given during the hearing about the replacement option that was being considered and was emerging as a preferred option.

On January 8, 2016, BC Hydro filed its formal response to the complaint with the BCUC. The response has now been posted here. In the response, BC Hydro's President and CEO acknowledges that some of the testimony about the status of options being considered was misleading, and apologizes for failing to meet the standards that BC Hydro expects of itself in regulatory proceedings. However, BC Hydro maintains its position that no formal approved decision to pursue a different option had been made at the time of the BCUC proceedings, and strongly asserts that "the broad and inflammatory allegations made against [BC Hydro] are untrue." BC Hydro's response is summarized in a January 11, 2016 newspaper article.

There has not been any public statement from the BCUC about how or when it will respond to the complaint. In the event that the BCUC does not dismiss the complaint, one potential next step is to commence a prosecution alleging one or more offences under the Utilities Commission Act. Whatever next steps are chosen by the BCUC, it will be interesting to see whether the regulator addresses the question of how a utility should update its testimony and evidence as circumstances change after evidence has been filed, but before a proceeding is complete. This is an issue that arises relatively frequently given the long lead time between the filing and hearing dates for large rate applications.

 

*Please note that this is an updated version of an earlier post. The earlier post did not contain a link to BC Hydro's January 8, 2016 formal response to the BCUC, nor any discussion of the specific contents of that response.

Related Blogs

Posted in: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Ratemaking | Facilities

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Issues Its Largest Rate Case Decision Ever By David Stevens Jan 18, 2018 On December 28, 2017, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its Decision with Reasons in the Ontario Power Generation “Payment Amounts” case, covering the 2017 to 2021 period. Among the notable determinations are an approval of the forecast costs of the Darlington Refurbishment Project and reduct...

Posted in: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Facilities

Insights EnergyInsider
Ontario Court of Appeal Finds That Gas Utility’s Franchise Agreement Prevails Over Drainage Act By David Stevens Jan 16, 2018 In a decision released on January 10, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal found in favour of Union Gas on the question of whether the cost sharing provisions of a model franchise agreement apply to the relocation of a gas pipeline necessitated by drainage works. The Court found that the provisions ...

Posted in: Ratemaking | Practice & Procedure

Insights EnergyInsider
FERC Rejects Secretary of Energy Direction to Assure Cost Recovery for Coal and Nuclear Generators By David Stevens Jan 12, 2018 On January 8, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order terminating a rulemaking proceeding ordered by the U.S. Secretary of Energy (Rick Perry). This overrules Secretary Perry’s September 2017 Direction and “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to the FERC requiring the est...