unter Litigation Chambers

Transcription

1 C10-19 unter Litigation Chambers HUNTER/VOITH/BERARDINO/HARRIS November File no: Via - commission.sccretary@bcue.com Erica M. Hamilton Commission Secretary British Columbia Utilities Commission P.O. Box 250 6th Floor, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3 Dear Ms. Iamilton: Re: British Columbia Hydro and I'ower Authority - BCCC Order No. G Filing of Energy Supply Contract with Alcan he. as an Energy Supply Contract Pursuant to Section 71 - Proiect No Further to our earlier correspondence, 1 enclose for filing the District's Responses to the Information Requests made by the KTIDS on the Evidence of the District of Kitimat. Yours truly, Hunter Litigation Chambers Mark S. Oulton MSO!bb Encl. cc Bull Housser & l'upper LLP Attention: David Bursey BC Hydro Attention: Joanna Sofield, Chief Renulatory Officer Registered Intervenors Client Hunter 1,itigation Chambers Law Corporation Mark S. Oulton bvcst i:ciji.giii S?i.er.t. Vaiic,iii\er, 13C VhE jl11 direct: ho? tel: iioq im: e: ri~i~iiltiiri(ziitigati~~ncharril~er,r.cc~n~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. l i t i ~ ~ ~ t i ~ ~ ~ ~ c i ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~, i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2 - m f Kitimat / Page 1 of4 I Informatron Reauest recerved October *om KTIDS I Response issued Novernber Proiect No: / 2007 EPA! section 71 Filing by BC Hydro and Power Authority of 2007 Electricity Purchase Agreement with Alcan 2- : District of Kitimat Response to: KT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (KTIDS) INFORMATION REQUEST ROUNI) NO: Reference: Factum filed September 24, 2007 in support of the District of Kitimat and Richard W. Wozney appeal of Thc Ffonourable Chief Justice D Brenner dated - March 2007 Explanation: 'The Appellant's Factum filed by the District of Kitimat and Richard W. Wozney, makes the following submissions: Page 9 -point 29 -"The District appeals this legal conclusion and asks the court to conclude as a matter of legal construction of the statute and the statutory contract that Alcan is restricted in its use of power generated at Kelnano to industrial developments in the vicinity of the Kitiinat works and in particular to aluminum production." Page 29 - point "For these reasons, the District seeks an order allowing the appeal, granting the declaration sought that restrict Alcan from engaging in power sales that are not directed to the needs of industry in the vicinity of Kitimat and setting aside the two impugned orders to the limited extent to which they are inconsistent with such a limitation." Page 30 - PART 4: ORDER SOUGHT Point " The appellants submit that the appeal should be allowed. the Petition granted and the following orders be made: (a) A declaration that Kemano Power can only be used by Alcan: (i) for the establisl~~nent or enhancement of the alurnilium industry in British Columbia: or (ii) to encourage the promotion and development of'the District and other industries in the vicinity ofthe Works; and (b) An order setting aside: (i) Order No. M of the Minister of Energy and Mines dated June 6, 2002, and (ii) Order-in-Council No dated August 4, 1997,

3 Page 2 of 4 to the extent that they purport to authorize or have the effect of authorizing the sale of Kemano Power for use outside of Kitimat or outside the vicinity of the Kitimat U'orks, other than for the establishment or enhancement of the aluminum industry; with costs to the Appellants in this Court and the Court bclow" Request: In order to establish the relevance to the ability to sell power and the power contract (2007 EI'A) itself, please respond to the following questions: 1 In light of the above, as it applies to the application at hand (the 2007 EPA) is it the position of the District of Kitimat and Mr. Wozney that no power be allowed to be sold or made available for sale to industry, communities or British Columbia residents outside of the Vicinity of the Works? The n2uteriul.s refirred to ure no! in evidence in this proceeding und the District submits that the iilformurion regirest is it?~proper. In uny event, the is.sue.s ofwhether Alcun has a legal righl lo sell power or ~!het?zer any such right i.s,fit/erd by law are not within the scope of this proceeding. '4s such, the positions tuken by the District on these isszres in other z~nrelutedproceedings ure not relevani to or within the scope yfthi.~ proceeding. (a) If the answer is yes: r Please indicate how the involvement of the District of Kitimat in this process adds value to the rate payers of British Columbia, both within the vicinity of the Works and more precisely, the rate payers of British Colunlbia not within the vicinity of the Works. Is the involvement of the District of Kitimat in this process out of concern of only those rate payers within the vicinity of the works? If neither of the above, is there any other purpose to the involveinent of the District of Kitimat in this process? (b) lithe answer is no: Is it the intent ofthe District of Kitimat and Mr. Wozney to continue to appeal Judge Brenner's decision thereby, if successful^ restricting access to all and any power by any party outside of the vicinity of the works? In order for any EPA to be successful: does the District of Kitimat and Mr. Wozney intend to retract their appeal of Judge Brcnncr's decision in the immediate future?

4 2 In regard to the modernization of the Alcan smelter: (a) Does the District of Kitimat acknowledge the 2007 EPA as being a crucial part of the approval process for the Modernization? The District acknowledges that Alcan asserts that the conclusion of a power sale agreement with BC Hydro is one of several conditions Alcun has placed on the implementation of its liodernization Project. I-loivever, the District does not accept that the acceptance ofthe 2007 EPii is "crucial" to the approvu1proce.s~ or thal the acceptance ufthe 2007 EPA ~:il/provide any guurontee or assurance that modernization ofthe Kitit~iur smelter will be approved by the Board ofalcun Kio Tinto. (h) Does the District of Kitimat acknowledge that a delay through an extended process at the BCUC and thereby in the acceptance ofthe 2007 ETA, ill itselc creates a danger to the success of the modernization? No. Other necessary conditions to the modernization (e.g receipt of' environnzenlul permits and board upprovu!, have tzot yet been met (See Ex. BZ-I. pg 30-31). Furthermore, the acceptance ofrhe 2007 EPA itself creates significant risk to the "success" ofthe modernization. See the evidence ofdr. Shuffer (Ex. CIO-7) and the District's response to BC SEA et ul. IR 12.4 (Ex. CIO-15). as amended by Exhibit C10-I 7. (b) (sic) If the District of Kitimat considers the acceptance of the 2007 EI'A as a crucial part of modernization, would it concede that power sales to the rate payers of B.C. on acceptable terms be of equal importance? As nored in the previous responses, the District does not cicknowledge or consider that the acceptance ofthe 2007 f<pa i.s a crucial purr of modernizution. The District acknowledges [hat one ofthe principal issues to be determined in this proceeding is wheiher the price,fi~rpower delivered under ihe 2007 EPA i.~ in the public interest.

5 Page 4 of 4 (c) In consideration of (a) to (c) (sic) does thc District of Kitimat support the modernization? See the District j. Response to BC SEA el ul. IR 12.4 us amended by Exhibit CIO-17.