skip to main content
Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | British Columbia | Facilities

May 11, 2016

BCUC Convenes Proceedings in Response to Complaint Against BC Hydro

By David Stevens

As we previously reported, a complaint was made in December 2015 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), alleged that filings and testimony in a 2008 BCUC proceeding should have disclosed BC Hydro's decision to transition to an SAP platform, which was a new and more expensive enterprise financial IT system as compared to what was disclosed in the evidence.

The BCUC received submissions from BC Hydro and the complainant early this year and asked a number of follow-up questions. In early May 2016, the BCUC issued an Order establishing two proceedings in response to the complaint. The rationale for commencing these proceedings is set out in a May 3, 2016 letter sent by the BCUC to the complainant.

The first proceeding is an inquiry into BC Hydro's expenditures related to the adoption of the SAP platform. There are two main items to be pursued in this proceeding. One item relates to the prudence of SAP IT expenditures (past and future). It is not clear what remedies are available in the event that past expenditures are found to be imprudent. The other item relates to whether BC Hydro's disclosure was misleading. On this item, the BCUC's letter to the complainant notes that it is too late to pursue charges under section 106 of the BC Utilities Commission Act (UCA) because more than six months have passed. However, the BCUC does state that if additional evidence becomes available through the proceeding that supports taking action against BCUC, then it is open to pursue administrative penalties under section 109.1 of the UCA.

On May 9, 2016, the BCUC issued its Regulatory Timetable and Notice of Inquiry, setting out the five items that the "Proceeding to Review of BC Hydro's Expenditures Related to the Adoption of the SAP Platform" will address. Among these are the total costs of the SAP platform, the oversight and controls on the project and whether all SAP-related disclosures to the BCUC were appropriate, reasonable and in accordance with the UCA. The next substantive step in the first proceeding is a "Procedural Conference" that will be held on June 1, 2016.

The second proceeding is a more general process "to review the regulatory oversight of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's (BC Hydro) capital expenditures and projects." This review adopts a suggestion that was made by the complainant and accepted by BC Hydro in their response to the complaint. As set out in the BCUC's letter to the complainant, "[t]his inquiry will consider matters such as project expenditures (direct and indirect), their approval processes, disclosures to the Commission, and other details as they relate to how and why such costs were incurred."

On May 10, 2016, the BCUC issued its Regulatory Timetable and Notice of Inquiry, setting out the four items that the "Proceeding to Review the Regulatory Oversight of BC Hydro's Capital Expenditures and Projects" will address. These include a general review of the scope, timing and process for the BCUC's review of BC Hydro's capital expenditures, as well as specific review of the filing and approval rules related to BC Hydro's 2010 IT capital spending. It appears that the outcomes from this second proceeding will be aimed at future filings, rather than at past conduct. The next substantive step in this proceeding is for parties to file submissions about whether the "Proceeding to Review the Regulatory Oversight of BC Hydro's Capital Expenditures and Projects" should be completed before the "Proceeding to Review the Regulatory Oversight of BC Hydro's Capital Expenditures and Projects," or whether the proceedings should proceed concurrently.

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...