Hans Karow Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE) M2 /C14 121 5 Poplar Grove Road PENTICTON, BC: V2A 8T6 Tel. : (250) 493-8507 E-mail: hkarow@~shaw.ca

Commission Secretary B C Utilities Commission 900 Howe Street, BOX 250 Vancouver BC V6Z 2N3 Phone: (604) 660-4700 Facsimile. (605) 660-1 102 BC Toil Free: 1-800-663-1 385 Email: Commission.Secretary@,bcuc.com

Via FAX

November 17, 2005

Dear Mr. Pellat?;;

Re. Fol-tisBC Inc. Order No. 6-"15- 05 1 CerZifiicate of Public Convenience and Necessity Applicatior-r for KeMle Valley project

1 intervenorskip registration

l a Please accept this as my application for registering myself as intervenor in the subject project I b I kindly ask for submission of r n c o p i e s of the application (including plans) as well as hard copies of all Evidence A-E related documents and letters. I c . I also kindly ask for a weekly follow-up list of concerned telephone calls related to subject proposed projez: with a summary of concern including names, address and phone numbers of callers.

2. Reason for registration

2a As the Commlsslon and FortlsBC know, for years I have been interested In the health and well beins direct and indrrect affected people by proposed electric utility companres' projects I llke to see that the hear). application procedure is managed in a for lay-people timely fashioned manner, so that people can identif, themselves -in case- as dlrectly and/or indirectly affected by any means of proposed project's issue invol\/e;: that they understand that they can participate in the hearing process and how to become involved

2b Despite various comments from intervenors and interested partles after several power Ihne hear1 ENCLOSURES 1-3 1 the C;ommrssion has not responded to these concerns to have the generai public, and detailed ~nformed (in layman's language) as also happened again right now in the Terasen sell-out to US based Kinder Morgan and British Columbia Transmlssion Corporat~on CPCN Application for the 'J Island Transmlssion Reinforcement as well as local Nk Mip (East Osoyoos) Transrn~ssion Llne & Subs3 Project For that reason I like to follow up whether the general information process via the public media woula b- c D = ~ T I -

accomplished from now on

C3-3

rlulli ndib n d l u w LJV ?DO-J IOJ I u "rrn i r o n y I \ V ~ C ! L \i r CMCZLS

2c As the Commission and the Applicant also know my special concern and interest I pursue with regsrc the proposed project's electromagnetic radiation (EMR) issue, and I like to have the EMR related concerns kel dealt wrth in a manner that the general public understands this issue and -in case- are able to express their concern as well 1 antrcipate that the application will contarn all the detarled lnfo that I usually request with regards of the Ef,149 issue, so Deing able to prepare my info requests and evidence subm~ssions

3. Media notification 3a May I k~ndly ask the Commiss~on for a preview of the announcement in the newspaper, so that I ma. suggest any changes to assure that people do understand the nature of the proposed project and can iderTlf themselves as being affected of the proposed project or not 3b I krndly ask for an overvlew containing the lrst of media groups where the proposed project and CPC' application IS to b e publlcly announced Please the addresses telephone and fax numbers and e-mail adaresc- to be included The overvlew to please have submitted to me as soon as possible

4. Information Request #'I (preliminary info request to FORTISBC)

I kindly ask the Applicant to please fornlard a response to the following rnfo requests ASAP

4a Please state the numbers of properties in close proxim~ty to proposed projects facilities (all oDtions includ~ng all properties that will be totally andlor partially affected from the highest reading milliGauss AC magnetrc field down to a reading of 0 3 mrlliGauss at any t ~ m e of the year 4b Please provide names, address, phone- and fax numbers of residentsitenants and owners of thess affected propertres (max mG - 0 3 mrll~Gauss AC magnetic field range) 4c Please provide aerlal orthophotos map of the project with the proposed options marked into these orthopothos These orthophotos In a scale of 1 750 or 1 1000 4d Please prov~de list of landowner and res~dents contact ind~cabng location (a sisecial map -scale 1 I be provided with numbers indicating contacted property tenants and owners), const:uction to occur inc l~d i r - hydro posts and transformers legal status date of all notices (whether via letters phone or d~rect contast, sr owner and resrdents comment/posit~on mitigation) Please indicate whether tenants or owners or both of --hot-

have been contacted 4e Please provrde facility maps, scale 1 2000 wrth all indicated options marked into Property lines si-cr, be able to be identrfred 4f Please provide maps scale 1 750 property lines should be able to be identified with the 0 3 i-i 1 1 C- +

and 2 0 mG and 4 OmG lines drawn Into the map so property residents and owners can find out ho,rl t t - e ~ r property and house are affected at what magnetlc freld level 4g Please provide a list of all news media contacted with respect of subject project Please include +rr- media addresses e-mail addresses phone and fax numbers

5 I kindly ask the Commission to consider the recommendations of the enclosed letter (Enclosure " -3

Thank you, Yours truly,

Hans Karow

CC. Georg lsherwood FortisBC Don Scarlett Kootenay-Okanagan Electric Consumers Association interested parties as per BCUC's intervenor list

ENCLOSURE 1-3 (to also be filed in same Evidence)

British Colulnbia rililities Commission 6" Floor, 900 Eiowe Street. Box 250 X7ancouver, BC f;GZ 2N3

ENCLOSIIRE 1 BCUC CPCN FCjRTZSBC Kettle Valley Project

Attention: Peter Ostergaard, Chair and Chief Executive Officer

Slte z7 C O I I I ~ :i RK i

Sor~tli Slocarr 1SC \ OG ?I( T

Re: Assessment of the EC Utilities Com~nission Interyenor Survey

Plwiie 2 i o - i i 9 - 4 1 ) i r

Concerned GitCzens F&y 250..><0-\1; I

South Slocan Shoreacres Glade Tarrys & ~hvums

Dear P\k. Oster,aaaril:

Tllis letter is in response ro the June 9". 2000 recluest by the BC'UC to p~ovicle feedback t h ~ t \-ioulci , i i , r x ~

BCUC in their strategic planning process. \Ve are colnpleting the interyenor sttrvey and it will be ioru ;lnil;ii

Liniversit~ of 'L'ictoria School of Public L~clministration for processing. il'e unclerstancl we ale late 'tntl our : I , N

may not be processed. Thus. we would like to liighligllt, to the Commission. some items of sign~fic,ln~, i t )

group that may be of assistance in your strategic planning process. - 1. We recommend solne changes, targeted to the layperson, in regards to the NOTICE OF PLBJ-I('

IF-DE'aINCrS in media publications.

e Provide a longer period of advance notice in regards to public hearings (S~g~qestion: 2 to 6 montli, ,111\ ,111,~

notice with follow-up adve~tisements every 2 weeks). This will allow the public a better oppofiunlt.i io 13,

inx~ol\:ecl in and informed of the process.

Kotice of Public Hearings could be worcled in a nnanner that allos s the public to r zcognlze the p o i i l i r r .I : impact ancl impor-tance a public hearing may have on them, and chat thz?. ha\ e tlre riglrt ancl oppoili~nli\

paaiclpate. (Suggestion: inco~porate ;\ITTENTIOX COhlitRWIT\- hlEhlEERS (OR C'IrJaLbS) ~ r l c l \ ! i t

the public to sources of inforlnation or inforrnation packages on how the application Inat '18ect &SIT) , 1

change may help present the notice ill a firendl? ancl app~oachable lnanner . . . as opposed to a teihnrc,~! (

legal announcement.

r Invite the public who are unable to attend hearings "i send their comments, concerns and questions

2. R'e recoln~nencl that the BCUC advise applicants (at o~ before the imti,jl application st'igt.) ~ h ~ t !iiLl

an obligation to inforrn the public that all idonnation collected from tl~etn can be used In rhelr

application. ancl as legal eviclence (luring the fo~tnal hearing process R'e also ~ecommend th ,~ t thb 1:

advise applicants to use objectivity in the inteqretation ancl presentation of data collecr~d. to c ~ ~ s u : , t i ,

is not skewed when presented as formal eviclence.

3. b - e reco~nrnend that the BCUC encourage applicants lo demonstrate clualitj~, integrity and clue ~ I O L L ~ , r ,

regards to the public consultation aspect of their application or pro-iect.

Respectfully,

ENCLCIStrlRE 2 BCUC: CPCN FORTISBC KeMle \'alley Project

Kootenay -Okrmagnn Electric Consurnrevs Association P.O. Boa 63-1 Kaslo, B.C. V0G l & l O - (250)353-2563 (phone/Ezas)

searlett(@~~etidea.conn

B.G. T Ttilities Cornmission Sixth floor. 900 Hocve Street Vancouver, B.G. V6Z 2N3

-Atten: Rob PellaM, Secreta~:

Dear Mr. PellaM:

This constih~tes my submissioli Lo the Comlnissioli for the above-referenced liearing. Pleaw I I O I - that I cvill make many references to "The Company'' in this document. .c\lliich should be underqtnod : ( I

liiean \Test Kootenay Po\x~er & Light Company Ltd., \Test Kootena!' Power Ltd., TTtilicorp Xch\ol h. Caliada (BC) Ltd., Acluila Neh;\7or-ks Canada (BC) Ltd., or Fo~lisBC'. dependiilg on tlie ti1112 r)e~~i\ii

The aclverltisement of the hearing - -

I have read the s~tb~nissio~i by Mr. Heliii~~t JJ7artenberg and share his concern5 r e p ding II~, adver?ising of this bx7riMen hearing, vlz, tlia"E1ie advzrtising \\?as obscure to t112 p~lblic a~7cJ. did no1 i ,: _ nhat the -Application was about. It is ec;sential that the advertising fix any p ~ l b l ~ c BCT C p~ocrsi.clli~_ hmely. accewible to the p ~ t b l ~ c and explicit about the pote~itial iriipact of the d4ppllcation 011 t l~c pidi.1 mterest. In this e\'elit the adve&lsing was absolutely mininial, with olily one adx,ertise~aeni appz'ii I I I C - I

a11 i~icomplete set of FortisBG service area print niedia, and tliese ad\.e~?isemerits appeared a t inoi'i cJays and as few as 2 days before the dzadline for intervelior registration by the public (ref I;;:lt on Iiifot-niation Recluest A1 0).

Placing only one ad-c~e19isement in each ne\\rspaper indicates very little interest by the .ippil~c,l:~g ill achally reacliing the public. Not evepone reads every page of e \wy dayAs ne\it7spaper. Thai;: i i ~ ~ i i i i

be at least two to four insertioris, depending on \\?hether the necx7spaper is a daily, xxfeekly or bi-I\ eehi- The ad\lertisemeliLs should appear in as many newspapers as necessary, to reach the public 111 , i

parts of the Fo~lisBC service area. For exa~iiple. in my communi? eff'aslo, the Nelson Da~lx \ c i l ,

(publ~shed 70 kii away) is read by very few residents and the Valle! \-oice (published 45 la11 a\\,i\ i 1

a soniewhat larger number. adx'e~lisement placed I11 the Petiliynise, \xIiich has beell puhl~\hcd l~eekly in Kaslo fbr the past 301 years, u ~ o ~ ~ l d be seen Ity far mori: rcsidcnts Tllc same \\ ould doiir..i,

be true of man?. otlier co~iimu~iities in the FortisBC service area, especially the mlaller on*\ I hi: 1 1 - 1

adxrertising outlets should be updated to ilicl~~de a more comprehensi\~e list. lvith an empl-taii\ o i i

reacliing as many people as possible tlwoughout tlie FortisBG ser\#ice area Ad\ erlising n hat is s~lpposed to be a publiclv accessible hear~ng as fe\\ a\ 1x1 o cia\ hi: [or, iL

cSeadl11ie for intervenor regis21-ation \~~ould be laughable except that it fk~lls llllo the same pattern 'ii. ii>,

rest of the advertising defjclenc~es. There 1s no excuse for giring so 11ttIe t1111e I-hr the public to I c\p i

At least two weeks should elapse bet\.\ieen the co~npletioli of adverttsing and the first deadline 1\>1 ' i i i i

action by pote~itial public intercrenors. The fact that the Cornmissior~ Secretas?/ agreed In tl~i i i i l i l L r l i ~ -

allow me to register as an inter\-enor 12 days afler the a~lnounced deadlilie does not mitigate tllc appearance that the Applicant and the BGUC share a cavalier aiid dismissi\re attitude to\vardc p ~ l h l i ~ parZicipatioi~ in w7hat is supposed to be a "public" heariiig constikited under the Iltilities Cornmi\\~oi-i Act.

But the worst fatilt of the advedising was that it failed to indicate fitlly mrliat tlie _4ppllc:1t1ol? I actually about. Replacellletit of the 10% prollipt paylnent discount nith a 1.5% late pa?rriient c11:112,: 1.

all tliat was eqlicitly mentioned, and the p~lblished ~i~imbers i~nplied stronglv that the bi-month]\ customer charge and the energ?, rate cvould actually be decrsa,secl. Not only was tl11s ad-, zrtl\zm~111 diff3ctllt to ~tndershnd and likely to be misu~iderstood (ref I&-artcnburg submission. pp 2-3. pai,lyL,;li.x md 6 ) , but it omined mention that the Application i~icl~lded a 1 . 4 5 O 0 general rate lncreasz to COIIIP;I>\

FortisBC for its anticipated loss of reve~iue fro111 hrfeited reside~itial discounts. It is outrsgcnt~, r c advertise a public hearing that proposes a rate i~icsease-and proposes to force customer\ \\ ko p ~ \ tiiiie to subsidi~e tliose who do not-\\iitliout mentioiling eitller issue. and in fict fklselx unp1\ 111g '1 r I

decrease. It mas \\.hen I learned-tlu-ougli a tip fi-om Ms. Wendv TA-est. a11 alert lmember o'r in\ co11iinu1iih;-tbal: there was a great deal 111ore to this Iiearing than thz advert~se~neilt let on. t11a1 I .I,L, to mter\.ene (albeit past tlie deadline). If the BCT TC and FortisBC took their respoiisibilitie\ and t 11, 1Ttilities Co~nmission Act seriously. this entire process would be started over, as a co~~vent~onal puiill. hearing. \nit11 timely. clear and explicit advertising directed to all tlie residents of tlie FortisBC \el 1 I L ,

area. Altliough for ulfk~iow~n reasons the BCUC has not required Fol-lisBG or its predeczsior

colllpariies to mail a copy of the hearing advertise~neills directly to each of its customers. or placc ,r c f

111 each billing e~zvelope, there is no good reason ~,\7hy this should not be done in the futL1re. The 11 cuL: over the past decade has been -to steadily increase barriers to public pa~licipation, despite the Commission's mandate and the spirit of nakiral justice that presumes iiiterested parties sfiould be 111,11, - aware ofpetidirig decisions tliat n 7 1 l l affect them. Tt's time tl-rat tlie BC11 JC: and The Coi~ipan\ i h o ~ i I_i

evidence that they achially wish to encourage public pal-l-icipation ~n their I~zanngs and c>ther puhiii processes.

The hearing process -- -

Someho~i~. ~\itllout any accountabilih.. tlie decision was madc to deal t\ it11 tllir A 4 p p l ~ c n t ~ i , ~ ~ I I , .

%\zriMe~~ hearing. rather than a conventional open hearing that \~ould give iiitervi=nors the ab11ii-i to ~ i i i

questions and pl-esent evidence. That decision was liiglily inappropriate to a proceeding \\htcil not I

invol.ies a rate increase. but also tlie issues of cross-subsidization of late-pa?ring customer\ ht tilc r the cuslomer base and a long-stallding violalion ofthe Criinirral Code of C;x~lada-arno~lil~g 10 il l ' l i ' \

milliolis of dollars-by the ~ ~ t l l i q . Beca~~se T have been deiiied the opporh~ml\. to ask clues~ion\ 01 n i _ tttiliv and present evidence in all open public hearing, I will ask those questions ~n t h ~ s subml\\lni3 '1 t ,(

agach lily ev~dence to it. This is being done ~~rrder protest as I am fi~lly aware that i an1 he~lig i!enlc:i 1

fair oppotZL111iQ to participate in this hearing by its reseicted scope. For the BCIJC to arbitrarily aiid m7ithout accountabilih' doc\~ngrads this hearing-as tliougil ti1 _

Applicatioii were a Qivial issue with no hiddeli implications-is a disservice to tlie c~~stomeri oi FortisBC and a betraval of its regulatory mandate. But I I-ecognize it as pa lmfa pattern \\7hicb h 3 ~ I>:. going on for tnaliy years ~ ~ i i d e r the guise of deregulation and --cost saving." So-called -'altzn~a~ir c - . . dispute 1-esol~itioii n~echanisms. Perforlnai~ce-Bzisect Raternah~iig. Incenli\ e Regi~lation and i l i l l i l < r

Revle\\ s jvhich haxe at times sul?jected public pat-ticipants to boilel I oom pr essur e tachc4. fail I,() 111 r the affected p ~ ~ b l i c of the issues, discourage or margii~alize public participation aiid d~\empc,\i c; I! ) , ) -

\\rho most need tlie BCUC to protect their interests. The BC17C's pattern of abandonlng II\

responsibilities to the public has coilicided with: I ) utiliq ~nisnianagement \vhich sul~jected its customers to third world style p0\\~2r SL~I-, ~ e s 111 1 'i",!"i:il-

was subsecjuently rewarded with cost recoIrep fro111 those custo~liers, md a capital project \\ hlLil

ensured even greater rate increases in the fuhre, 2) reckless cost-cutting ~ ~ ~ h i c h deprived custoniers of reasonable ser\pice and-in my comintllz~t-i. '1:

least-reasonable public safety (reE nmy letter of 25 May 2003, attached), 3) evasion of comniitnielits made in 1987 to maintain the utiliQ's liead ofice in Trail. 4) years of excessive profit extraction from the customers though lax enlbrcement of thz BC'I 'C-

mandated debt-equiq ratio. 5 ) repeated llams changes solely to hlfiill corporate objectives, cvitli no benefit to custo~iiers 01 ,el \ I,,

Le\,els, but v\ hicli ~ievertheless \\.ere instibted at the customers' expense, and 6) a i-1u1-1-51 of rate increases whicli allo\;\ied the private onnel-s lo extract the entire lierilage I ali3

differential behveen West Kootena?; Power- and B.G. Hydro be-litre tossilig the utilik. ai~clc: iAi: e111pl-y besr can.

Each of tliese occurrences-all i~-?jurious to the public interest-mas either a~iticipated or evpilci~i\ predicted by the Kootenav-Okaiiagan Electric Coiisuniers Xscociatto~i (KOEC',A) in tlie i - hearings into tlie takeo\,e~- b) 1 Jtilicorp l i~iited, Iiic. These OCCLIITSI~C~S west: 111 a d d ~ t i o ~ l 1,) 11 ,

long-tiine BGVC pract~ce of allov~711zg the cost of the ~l t i l~ t ) *s appl~catlo~ls and partlcrpat~ii~~ hearirigs (including high-priced witnesses f om all over Nortli Ai~erica) to be passed o n to l i i ,

customers despite the fact &at its ptnrpose was to extract greater profit from tliose cuitcin~r31 i Namral justice and logic would suggest that any costs incurred by the ~ l t i l i9 primaril? In 111~: 2' - its own profit should be recoverable from the utilily shareliolder(s), not the custo~ners \\ e 1 3 1 ~ I <

with the Conlmission to put a halt to tliese unfair and unreasonable practices, and end tlie towards deregulation and nontraditional processes m7hich marginalize and exc1~1dc the pul i l :~

Reductioli of the Commission's workload or the trtility's heariiig cost is insufficieizt I-eaioii f

e.;?~scerate public proceedings. We ask that a new pubhc mput process be set up to alloj\ 1 1 3 ~

p ~ ~ b i i c to assist the Commission to re-create the public intzres"rmaiidate of the BC'I -C'

Finding a solution - -

One of tlie 1110~1 niost di-l'iictllt proble~iis for the p~lblic anct 1112 public intere\t ~ ~ m r ~ ~ i ~ n i ~ i i i l

BCl iC proceediligs hac been tlie absence of an experienced and commilted pubhc ad\ ocatc I I K ~ I \ I L I

members of tlis ip~tbli~ can't affbrd to participak kxio\\?ledgeably and fi11l!, the KOEC--I a\ ,I \ o i u i r l , , r

orga~i~zation often is uiiable to hlG1l tlme need.. and tlie Public Interest Ad\.ocacy Centre (Pi liC) do,i I ,

consult with -hts ~iiember groups to determine when atid how to part~cipate at BCl JC proceedirig\ (KOEGA \;\?as surprised to learn that tlie PIAG would not intervene at this lieanng, for euamplc) 11~: 111

the takeover liearings in 1986-87 the KOECA called attelltion to this problem and proposed tlic establislxnent of a P ~ b l i c Ad~~ocate, a Provincially-sponsored lawyer with office and staff imodeliecr along the lilies of tlie official from biissouri (IJtilicorp's home state) \vho a ~ e n d e d tlie take01 21- hc::i~ 11" and testified at the recluest of the KOECA.

1-Jndoubtedl?;, the creatioli of a Public Advocate in E3.G. was held back by tlie Pro\ iilcini Go\rer~x~ient's ~ln\;\illingness to coniliiit the necessary fiizids. \;17e \ \ ~ s h novv to propose a solutlo~.; ui,,t

by a number of1 T.S. jurisd~ctions, that would not cost the gover1111ie11t il ceiit rl. CI~IZSII~ ' 1 t1l111 i tti,t (rzf CTTR Q&A and nlodel legislation. attached to this subm~ssion) \\rould ej~ablz an ot-~a1117,li1i>n , I

FortisBC customers to raise the necessa? finds to properly consult uith the entire CL~S~OIIIZI- 1x1~1: ~ii:

engage the services of a co~~ipeteiit and accountable public ad~~ocate to represent their iiiti=rciI~ .it i f i

and other proceedings. W11ile PAS recognize that the fbr~iiatio~l of a Citrzens' I Ttlllh Board ioi 1 I r custoiners is not -A ithill the direct ji~risdictioli of the BCI TC. we req~lest that the C'oilimliiion ci>il\~i! - taking initiati\.es (such as niaking a debate of its ~llerits part of the nen public i n p ~ ~ t pl uceii 11 e , I~ I ,L , , *

above) to support tlie cotlcept and be b\iilling to n~ork with a p~rblic ad\.ocate \\rllen one appeal i on ~ i l - scene.

Conclusion An electrical :s &liged no less than any c?thG'husiness to e~~sttre that ~ t s G U S ~ O I I I C I \

billed fairly and h-ansp%-entI\.. Evide~ice in this hearing i~idicates thaflhe Cornpan? ha\ at bcit L " ~ > I ~ L

poor job of this and at worst has traded off its customers* inkrests for extra profit, Tlie Be1 C' i l l t i i t

rexrisit its mandate to protect the public interest, sonlething it can only do tl~rougli a ge~lui~iz p~li?lli

involvement process. Dabbling with deregulation. incentive regulation, performance-based regular~c~,l and various flavours of alter~lative dispute se"c"1emen-l niechallisms olrer recent years has 1101 seri eci I!;, public n7ell. This hearing, with its legal implications, inulti~nillioli dollar stakes, and ethical and ~ L I I I I I'

interest issues. may have marked the nadir of the BClJC's public processes, tlia~llis to its m~sleaiiin~ inadequate and late advedisements, limited scope for intervenors, iriladequate oppo~hrni"res to ail, yuestiol~s or present eliidence, and sliockingly sparse stakeholder participation. Things I I I U C ~ 1n1pt 0:

the RCT-C is to hold any credibiliq ill the fLlture as a regulatoe age11cv md p~lbllc i~~tescst ~ L ~ ; - I I c S I : ~ I ~

A final word --

I have ~ l o t personall?! participated in BCT hearings and proceedi~igs h r a fen \ 22.11 \ no \ \ t v \

to ";170rli and fa~iiilv comi~~it~i ie~lts . I can only state that the qualie of the pl-ocesces and the I3Ci C . commit~nent to tlie public interest appears to have declined in that time. I am not ret~red i O~LIIII ; , I *

tinie to the E;ootena\~-Okanagali Electric Colis~r~iiers -4ssociatio11. 1-7 '2 had to put rnkr proieiiioll .il-i.i business on liold for several days ~\~liile I 11 orked on this submission I and the other t-Liree pulii IL

inter~~e~iors 111 this proceeding are doing the Cor~lmission's \vork-to ide~ltlfi. and defencj. the p ~ i l > i l ~ ~nterest-because ~t appears that the BCl lC seelns to have lost i~iterest in rt.

Publtc iiiterve~lors should be welcomed, encouraged, educated and offered rel-tlunzl-ation accordillg to the qualiv a d qyuantiq of thelr conlrrb~ltiot1s. The g~tidzli~ies fhr remunerat~on of prii>i~~. i~~terve~iors should bc: sent autoi~latically to ally member of the public who expresses an iiitcrcii 111

pal-ticipating in a BCLJC proceeding. Even tho~tgh 1 have pal-ticipated in past BCT TC proceedin~s. I ,! I

not knon7 wvlie"rl.ler a i17ri"c"en hearing precl~~des any co~npensation for lost u7ork time for a 1ne111Im 0 1 I r

public. Right no\\ I can tell you that if you do not find a \\ay to of&r some material assistance to p i i ~ i

pal-ticipants. you ~ 3 1 destro~. the last vestige of the Comn~ission's crcdibilll\i ac a rzguiatol- oi j ) i i j > l j i

utilities.

Si~icerel\.

Dol-rald Scarlett Kaslo Director, Koote~iay-Okanagan Electric Consumers Associati012

66. George Isher~iood. Fol-tisBC Inc. Carl Hilland, KOECA Hans Karo\v. CORE l-Lelmut U'adenberg Bill & Linda Mellus Marie Tat-r Wend!, \Test Dick C;atl~srcole. PIAC

A Cltizen Ut111l\: Board (CLTR) is an mdepender7ii, non-profit, organ~zation of residentlnl utilit~ ratepa\ er5 ('1 135 L

UI four states UI the U S . and the first CUB was organizecl m W~sconsm m 1979 CLBs advocate for farr tzlzpi301i cable TV, electric, gas and water rates. and seilslble energy policies before uttilihi regulator\. corrru~rss:on\ tlie gox7emlleizt and the courts Zlld~duaI C L J s can be set up for each u t l l ~ e or one CUB can be set up to ach o a t L 1 0

some or all utihw ratepayers together

1% EXAT IS THE DIFFERENCZE BETWEEN CLXs OTHER M T E P A Y E R C=ROLTS? The he\? to CLBs is the right, bv lamr, to enclose a fiver m utlll@ companl~es' b111111g e ~ m l o ~ e s TIus Rr, zr udor 11ii

consumers about the C L J and u~x~ites them to lo111 for a rlomlal anr~ual inembersl-ri~~ fee ($10-15) "Piggvbnii\~ii~~ i,

CUB Bj7er wlth the utihh7 bills n a cheap and eEective uTa\ to reach ratepaj rr\

IYKAT DO C:LBS no'? Even w a r the utilitr: cornpdnlea 5pencl millloris to ackocate for lugher utll~t\ rate5 Ironicallj tile LO\I C I ~ 111. u ~ i ~ , t

advocacy is passzd on to coizsmlers tllrougl~ thelr util~@ bills CLBs g x e ratepayers a .;La\ to fight bn~j, kb, ~ ) c i c i j i , l

their resources. CUB illeinbers hue theu 05\11 profe>sronal stafi of l a n ~ e r s lobbvist:, ancl orgamzsri to i l rdi i i r~~, u~nfalr r t e hikes

1% 1110 ('ONTROLS CT,Bs? Rate~)a\'ern~rIlojorn a CUB control the grou~p t1voul& the elect~on of regional clelegates and 11s board of t l ~ r c ~ t ( ~ i ~ : I board kves the CtiB's professional staff and clete 2s the group's pol~cles CCBs are de~nocratic organlzaiioi~\

HO\\ ARE CXBs n i - W E D ? CL3s are h ~ l d e d by volmtaql corltrnbutrons from ratepavers GLBs do not recelve a1137 govenmeilt or lltllih i h i ~ ~ i i i ~ r

Elon' ARE: <:L%s CmATED? CLBs can be created bv an act of the Legislature or b\; order cjf the u ~ d i t \ ' regulatow colmnissron Some nctol~ b\ g o \ e m ~ e ~ ~ t IS u sua l l~ 11eeded to allow the CLB access to the ult~libes' b~llrng e~~velopes

.\1 HERE H2l\'E <:LrE:s BEEN ESTABLISHED? There are no\\ CCIJ'Bs m full operatloll 111 U isconsm. Illmo~s (-)regon. ancl rl local ('1 l? callecl I 7C A\ In Sai l i > i t L. 1

\\-~~;ls~orlsm dnd Illmols CL35 nere eslabl~shecl by the state Ieg~sldiures m 1979 and 1983 rzspe~ti\ el\ i O I L ~ O

CLB nas approved a1 a brndmg referelldurn 111 Notember 1993 Sari Diego's IJC'AN n a > set up b\ orclrr 0 1 > 1 r t

Publ~c CTtrlit1e5 Coi~u~lrss~on m 1983

'tZ. HAT IS TIlE TRA<'Z\: REC'OTZI) OF <'L7Bs'? CGTRs have been vm. successful Tlzerr membersh~~, and savings to consuixler, 1s as folio\\ 5 ti laconrm ( 1. 13 i (

mrmbers and savmgs of over $100 nullion. Illmols CL7) 170.000 members ancl iwsr $3 brll~o~r m sa\ing\ ( i r i ~ o T CILR 10 000 rnen~berr and $124 11ul1ion m sa-vmgs. LCAN 224 000 mnlx~bers a i d $265 nullloll m \axmg\

For- more information about proposals to set up (:LTBs in (lanada, coiltact Democracy \Tatch. Tel: (613) 241-5179; Far: (513) 241-4758

Helmut Vtlasteslbesg 603 - 16'" Ave. M. Creston, B e VOB " t 5 Phone ' 250 - 428-58a 7 -di FAX : 250 - 428-5830 Emaiji : 11uarr~nbc:_r&~!5jba~\ ca -- - - -

.- - b ,-. s. .', - , I<"" 4 i.,. .': J , >--. , ;, .; ,<*-. J , ..-

a ~ , . , i.~'.;- : .liL.. i' --_-- I-LII_.~..-L --.. 1-,. . .,

Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street, Box 250 Vanco~tvel-, I3 %C. V6Z 2N3 Fax 604-660- 1385

AttentinniMr. Robert Pellatt, Commission Secr5ja1-v

Re: E smdisBC Inc, j bYofiis13Q'"> (fg)rinerly known as Acjttzla Netwcsl-ks Canatla (ISrirish Colulnhial i. tcl j

Frqject No. 36983 75 - Orders No. G-53-04 a:xl G-56-06 Application 10 Replace Residenlial Rate Discowlrt

Dear bfs. Peifatt and Members of the Comlnission :

1 petition you for your understanding and crsmptrtssion to allom m e t o present to the Britisl~ CoEunlbia Utilities Con~inlssion the f o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ g suppleimen-taly Strb~nission.

Zt js n-nat a frivolous or Icntcc-jcr!~ a?pc reaction ~-1:;clt has ft7;czed mc to rmaLi his s~ryplemcnta~y motion ro my srrginal document to rhe Commission. ULt: previo~tsly ~nn8mourn facts to m e a ~ ~ d dela-tands from the p i ~ l ~ l l l : at larye . .IS well as Cons~iltab-iol-ts w i ~ h my fe'e2lcdw ilater~~cnors lea\ es me no other C ~ I O L C ~

but to Petitaon this Corx~rnlssjon lo accept rny appended S~xbnlibsiu~l. The f~7iloviring brief shall in no way alter my expressions and be!ievcs in thc original subnnission.

I firmly belief in Democratic pr-incipies and the Syste~ns and Snsti~u~ions associated vvillr it, whicl-1 tell 1-11s that this Process is Funrlamentaily Rawcal and therchre ask the B.C, L:tilities Commission to Abort the above rel'erred LO AynrpIicaLion Process foril~i.z~ith. Please allc~w m e to give the fol'rs.iri,ing reas<;i~s for this recluest*

1 ) Aliuw m e to point out that thc timil-tg of this Appiicaii~~il \t a~ t.x-treine_> maniptilativs. I a111 saying this bccaase the 111ajori5 nf fhe customer bas,_. of the Appiicm~t in this Region "osicaily com-islst of /$gnccltt~ral. Farm cr Oscharc% work dependent citizen:, who are up to their ar~l-inpius ilavs~ved ii: to the tending of their crops and s~tbseqiient halvest. The 14pplii;ant rnd? as we31 have published their advertised Application on Christmas EL c ir order to achieve such a poor resuit of r~aching the public and I-csidcntra; energy consumers.

5 ) '4'he Advertising on the ~vhote was totally inadequate and at -tome locations the time between publisl~jng and the final date to apply was only 2 or- 3 days ( see Scarlett; "T/?e -4clvertisI~7g c;tJ the bicai-~~zg"anb "kknro-+t. ,4 10 "1-

3 i 'I'he wording of said advertising was or such a nature, it cotilci I~avt: beLv as well In foreigia lamgttagc, because ths average penon did nor h2x.e :&

clue zs to its contents. l mentio~aed in zmy original brief that i tack :I nori- scisntitYc survey in my cc;rmmunity. These people are on13 n o w :i aking irp to the kc;% of \that the Appiicant is trying lo do. l'hese people i ~ - i c ; ~ ~ ~ J c a wide cross-section of Ctktze11s in rhe Town, ranging f ron ~'l-oL't3ssi01~2~~ ;12d Tsacl~crs to ordinary people like Joc Six-pac. These fel1ot.i Citizens o f m i n e are now asking me what this is all about! I can only stim r ~ p tnai thc format, stylc. and content was inadeq~lare at best. Again piease re%r r:. my initial submission.

4.) 1 must rekr to the ~ l l e ~ ~ l b e r s of the C O I X H ~ I ~ S S ~ C ) ~ to a lettcr written to the BCUC on October 4; 2008 It? which the Concerned Citizens s f Sough Sloean, Shoreacres Glade, '%TarVs &Thrums made rcci~la.litt'reiidatie:li:s in regard to YO'd'iia"7iC.: dPF i3;"k/HtiklC BTEANNCS ii.3 media publicatio~is. l i

seems do 111e that those reco~nine~lda~ion fell on dzaf cars.

5) Why were some deadlines set i~u t in this hearing allowed to he eutcnciet? to so1iIe and other requcsred deadline oxtensions to otlael-s denied (rklri-r;11 ri2hg 06, ~ ? n ( l j ") '2

I I... t .-.It- 1 . 1 . 1 , . --- I-.- v .-- . -. ---.---.> . .---.. -.

and restart with the foXXswingf Guidelines:

A. Acjvertising to comlncllce 0x1 BPI about October 15, 2004 B. I would highly re~oanla-rend the process to be of tz public rather than a

kvri r len one. C . 1x1 case he process must be in the naturc ok'a ttjrinen hearing, thela

provisal must be made available to remulierate Inter-venors. as tilei\ are pcrforrrling a service tbr the good of their Cotnmunitics and ~ t l c p~lbl ic ;LI iargc.

D. The advertising of said hearing 111ust be ut2derstandahle to the COITIIT~O~;

folk, ie. no doubfe talk, enhanced by sxsrnpies and lully transparent \\ i th the reasons given for any request.

k, This advertisir7g is to be in the local media a? least thrrcc lo four f imes a:ld the last p~blication to be at minii-nelm of 2 weeks prior to any Applizarlcn deadline,

F ,4 notice of s ~ ~ c h a Heal-ing shal? be irzci~lalesi with the Billing in\ioict: ol' the Utiiiey. Again provision must be made tr-s allow lkr aia ata~pFe tiins frame to act if one SO desires.

Againz i ask you to consider my request, and I am awalting you; earliest rep! y ,

Sincercl) , Signed

Ps, Please acknolviedge receipt of this letter.

Hans Karo\v, CORE

Doraald Scarlett, Moo tenay-Okanagaai3 EC A

Carl 1-Billandj Kootenay-Okanagan ECA