Via email Original via courier responses.pdfindividual transformers as per CSA Standard C88-M90,...

FortisBC Inc. Fifth Floor, 1628 Dickson Avenue Kelowna, BC V1Y 9X1 Tel 250 717 0853 Fax 866 266 7976 [email protected] www.fortisbc.com

David Bennett General Council and Corporate Secretary

February 16, 2006 Via email Original via courier Mr. Robert J. Pellatt Commission Secretary British Columbia Utilities Commission Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street, Box 250 Vancouver BC V6Z 2N3 Dear Mr. Pellatt: Re: Nk’Mip (East Osoyoos) Transmission & Substation CPCN Application - Project

#3698407 In response to the directions set out in Exhibit A-18 and A-20, please find enclosed 20 copies of FortisBC’s response to information requests from Osoyoos Now Society (Mr. William Andrews), Ms. Barbara Smith and the questions received from Mr. Karow on January 12, January 15, and January 16, 2006. Should the Commission have any questions in this matter, please address your queries to the undersigned at the above address. Yours truly, David Bennett General Council and Corporate Secretary cc: Registered Intervenors Osoyoos Public Library

B-12

BHARVEY

FortisBC Nk'Mip

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 2.1.0 Reference: Exhibit B-4, FortisBC Response to BCUC IR2.1, p.1 1

2

3

4

5

FortisBC refers to the existing West Osoyoos substation Transformer 2 as a safety

hazard.

Q2.1.1 Other than reducing the potential load through the West Osoyoos substation by

energizing the proposed Nk’Mip Substation, what if anything does FortisBC propose

to do as part of the current Application to reduce or eliminate the safety hazard

regarding Transfomer2?

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A2.1.1 The project to rehabilitate Transformer 1 and replace Transformer 2 at the Osoyoos (West)

Substation to ensure safe and reliable operation was included in FortisBC’s Capital

Expenditure Plan that was filed with the BCUC on August 16, 2005. The project is

scheduled to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2006 and is not a part of the current

CPCN application.

Q2.1.2 What options has FortisBC considered for improving the safety of the existing West

Osoyoos substation, either as part of the proposed project or separately? Please

indicate the costs, advantages and disadvantages of each. Is FortisBC committed to

implementing any of these options, independently of this CPCN application?

A2.1.2 FortisBC is not aware of any safety issues associated with the existing substation other than

the issues associated with station Transformer 1 and Transformer 2.

Please refer to the response to Q2.1.1 above.

Q2.1.3 Please confirm that FortisBC owns land in the (Osoyoos) Industrial Park that would

be large enough for a substation.

A2.1.3 Yes, the land that FortisBC owns in the Osoyoos Industrial Park is sufficient for housing a

substation of the proposed size.

Page 1

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 2.2.0 Reference: Exhibit B-4, FortisBC Response to BCUC IR2.1.2; Appendices FortisBC

provides photos of the Daycare Centre adjacent to the West Osoyoos substation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Q2.2.1 Has FortisBC measured the noise from the substation at the site of the Daycare

Centre? If so, what were the results?

A2.2.1 FortisBC has not measured the noise level at the Daycare Center in Osoyoos since the noise

level at Osoyoos (West) substation has not been considered as an issue for the current

CPCN application.

Q2.2.2 How much would a sound barrier fence cost, between the substation and the Daycare

Centre? What would be the advantages and disadvantages?

A2.2.2 The noise levels at the existing substation are not expected to change and as such are not a

consideration of the current application. For general information, sound walls vary

depending on the engineering assessment, design and whether space would be available to

construct such a sound barrier. A preliminary estimate indicates that the cost would be

between $150,000 to $300,000.

Q2.2.3 How would the noise level of a new substation in the Industrial Park compare with

the noise level of the West Osoyoos substation following completion of the proposed

project?

A2.2.3 Please refer to the response to BCUC IR1, Q9.6 and the response to Karow IR1, Q1.2.2.

The existing Osoyoos (West) substation has two 12.5 / 15 MVA transformers with a

maximum allowable noise level of 70 dBA, at three feet from each of the individual

transformers as per CSA Standard C88-M90, Power Transformers and Reactors.

Page 2

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

On the other hand, as per Option 3 of the CPCN application, the proposed substation at

West Osoyoos (Industrial Park) would be a two transformer 24/32/40 MVA rated

substation with maximum allowable noise level of 74 dBA, at three feet from each of the

individual transformers as per CSA Standard C88-M90, Power Transformers and

Reactors.

Hence the proposed substation at the Industrial Park will have a higher noise level than

the existing Osoyoos (West) substation. However, as indicated in the response to BCUC

IR1, Q 9.6, it is difficult to compare noise levels at specific locations as the acoustical

performance of the substations will be subject to station configuration, transformer

loading, ground cover and distance.

Q2.2.4 Specifically, how do the two existing transformers in the West Osoyoos substation

compare with the new transformers in terms of noise generation?

A2.2.4 Please refer to the response to Q2.2.3 above, the response to BCUC IR1, Q9.6 and the

response to Karow IR1, Q1.2.2.

Q2.2.5 Would a sound barrier fence between the existing West Osoyoos substation and the

Daycare Centre reduce the induced magnetic or electrical field at the Centre?

A.2.2.5 A sound barrier would reduce sound but provide no significant advantage vis à vis EMF.

It would not reduce the strength of the magnetic field. The electric field would not be

significantly impacted since it is already largely blocked by the metal fence surrounding

the facility and other intervening conductive objects.

2.3.0 Reference: Exhibit B-4, FortisBC Response to BCUC IR2.3.1; IR2.3.2, p.3;

Appendices

Page 3


FortisBC provides distances between the proposed pole locations and houses and

buildings.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Q2.3.1 Please clarify whether the measurements are based on the location of the existing

pole or the proposed location of the new pole.

A2.3.1 Please refer to BCUC IR2 Appendix A3.1.1 to A3.1.3 and BCUC IR2 Appendix A3.2a to

A3.2f.

The measurements are based on the proposed locations of the new poles.

BCUC IR2 Appendix A3.3.1 to A3.1.3 indicates positions of the proposed pole locations

along Kingfisher Drive and the causeway. BCUC IR2 Appendix A3.2a to A3.2f cross-

refers to the proposed pole locations as indicated in BCUC IR2 Appendix A3.1.1 to

A3.1.3.

Q2.3.2 FortisBC has said that the new poles will be located adjacent to the existing poles.

What is the maximum distance between a new pole and an existing pole? What is

the average distance?

A2.3.2 The proposed replacement poles are estimated to be installed within a maximum distance

of 4.5 meters from the existing poles. Virtually all the new poles will be within 2 meters

of the current location. However, between the east end of the causeway and Lakeshore

Drive, there are 2-3 cases where the distance from the present and proposed pole

locations will be up to 4.5 meters.

Page 4

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 Q2.3.3 The photographs and maps appear to show that some of the existing poles are very

close to the traveled portion of the road. For each of the road segments along the

proposed route, please specify how many of the existing poles (that would be

replaced) are within 1.5 metres of the road?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

A2.3.3 There are 40 poles in the section from the Osoyoos (West) substation to Lakeshore Drive.

The 12 poles along Kingfisher Drive will all be within 1.5 meters of the road. The

remaining 28 poles along Highway 3 to Lakeshore Drive are generally more than 1.5

meters from the travelled portion of the road.

Q2.3.4 What design standard(s) does/will FortisBC follow in locating power poles adjacent to roads?

A2.3.4 FortisBC works with municipal governments, regional districts and the Ministry of

Transportation to determine appropriate pole placement. Municipal regulations vary, but

for the most part, including the Town of Osoyoos, the regulations do not include specific

distances from roadways. The Ministry of Transportation, the governing authority for

Highway 3, does have standard “clear zones” with pole setback distances based on speed

limits. However, where room is inadequate to maintain clear zones, FortisBC designers

work with Ministry of Transportation planners to ensure the installations are safe. In all

cases, FortisBC works with the appropriate authority to establish acceptable pole

locations.

FortisBC follows CSA Standard C22.3 No.-1-01 Overhead Systems for placement of

lines relative to buildings.

Please refer to the response to Karow IR1, Q1.1.8.1 and the response to Karow IR1,

Q1.1.8.2

Page 5

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 Q2.3.5 Have the design standards for locating power poles adjacent to roads changed since

the installation of the existing distribution poles (that would be replaced)? If so, in

what way have the standards changed?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A2.3.5 FortisBC is not aware of any design standard changes since the installation of the existing

poles. Please also refer to the response to Q2.3.4 above.

Q2.3.6 Do the design standards for the location of power poles adjacent to a road have the

same requirements for 13 kV line as for a 63 kV line? If not, what are the

differences?

A2.3.6 FortisBC confirms that the design standards for the location of power poles adjacent to a

road for a 13 kV line have the same requirements (except for the ground clearances of the

lowest conductors in different voltage grades) as a 63 kV line.

Please refer to CSA Standard C22.3 No.-1-01 Overhead Systems for further clarification.

Q2.3.7 Does FortisBC consider it desirable to have 63 kV transmission line poles located

within 1.5 metres of a road? Please discuss the safety issues concerning power poles

located very close to a road.

A2.3.7 FortisBC reviews each individual pole placement to ensure the location of the pole is

safe. Generally, FortisBC does not consider 63 kV transmission line poles located within

1.5 meters of a road to be a safety hazard. Please also refer to the response to Q 2.3.4.

Page 6

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 Q2.3.8 The maps and photographs appear to indicate that the distances from pole to

building are in some cases longer than the horizontal distance from the wires to the

same building, due to the building not being parallel to the wires. Please confirm if

this is correct.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A2.3.8 Yes, FortisBC can confirm that in certain cases the above statement is correct.

Q2.3.9 For Kingfisher Drive and the causeway, please indicate how many buildings are

closer to the wires (horizontally) than they are to the pole, and provide the distances

by address.

A2.3.9 All of the buildings are closer to the wires than they are to the poles. Please also see the

response to Q2.4.3 below for the distances from the centre conductor to the buildings.

Q2.3.10 The map provided at Appendix A10.2 appears to show approximately 36 properties

along Kingfisher Drive that would be impacted by option 1A. Please reconcile this

with FortisBC’s statement in B-3 BCUC IR1 A10.2 that 11 customers would be

“impacted directly (poles/wires on their property)” and 4 customers would be

“impacted indirectly (on the same street but no direct impact)”.

A2.3.10 FortisBC has defined “impacted customers” as those on the same side of Kingfisher

Drive as the proposed transmission line. Although there are more properties on

Kingfisher Drive, only 15 customers will have direct / indirect impacts based on this

definition.

Page 7

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 2.4.0 Reference: Exhibit B-4, FortisBC Response to BCUC IR2.4.1, p.3-4. Figure 4.1

“Comparison of Magnetic Field Profiles for 55 Feet & 60 Feet Poles”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Q2.4.1 Please list all the (a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of using 60-foot poles instead

of the proposed 55-foot poles for the proposed transmission line. Please address

reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness.

A2.4.1 The main advantages and disadvantages of using 60 foot poles are as noted:

Advantages:

Reduction in EMF Levels: Please refer to the response to BCUC IR1, Q10.6 and BCUC

IR2, Q4.1.

Disadvantages:

Incremental Costs: The installation of 60 foot poles will increase the cost of the project

by approximately $60,000 (Please refer to the response to BCUC IR1, Q10.7).

Increased Right-of-Way: The installation of 60 foot poles will require placement of

anchors at greater distances from pole resulting in acquiring increased property rights and

incurring consequent cost.

Q2.4.2 Please explain the terms “normal” and “max” for Magnetic Field.

A2.4.2 Please refer to the response to Karow IR1, Q2.3

The term “Normal” refers to loading conditions of a power line when it is supplying an

average demand for electricity. The transmission line between East and West Osoyoos

substations is anticipated to carry, an average 10 MVA of power based upon historic and

anticipated demand. The term “Max / Maximum” refers to loading conditions of a power

line when it is supplying the peak demand for electricity during normal daily and seasonal

fluctuations in power consumption. The transmission line between East and West Osoyoos

Page 8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

substations is anticipated to carry a peak power of 16 MVA, based upon historic and

anticipated demand.

Q2.4.3 Please provide a revision of Table 4.1a in which the Number of Buildings by

Distance from Centreline is broken down by Building Type: house, apartment

block, commercial, hotel, school, daycare centre.

A2.4.3 Please find the requested table below:

Types of Buildings

Sl. Distance from Centre

Conductor to the Buildings

Hou

se

Apt

. Blo

ck

Com

m. H

otel

Scho

ol

Day

-Car

e

Oth

ers

TO

TA

L

1 0 to 5 meters 1 -- 2 -- -- 1 4

2 6 to 10 meters 5 -- -- -- -- -- 5

3 11 to 15 meters 4 -- -- -- -- -- 4

4 16 to 20 meters 2 -- -- -- -- -- 2

5 21 to 25 meters 6 -- 4 -- -- 1 11

6 26 to 49 meters 21 -- 5 -- -- 1 27

10

11

12

13

14

15

Q2.4.4 In Tables 4.1a and 4.1b there are figures indicating the number of buildings within

certain distances of the centerline. Please clarify whether these distances were

measured from the pole or the wires.

A2.4.4 The distances were measured from the centre conductor to the buildings.

Page 9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Please refer to the response to BCUC IR1, Q10.4, Figure 1a and BCUC IR2, Q4.1, Figure

4.1a.

Q2.4.5 For each of the 9 buildings within 10.0 metres of the centerline (Figure 4.1a), please

provide the estimated size of the magnetic field at the building at the height of the

highest rooms in the building and at the point closest to the wires.

A2.4.5 In order to compare options, all magnetic field measurements and calculations that have

been provided are referenced to a height of 1.0 meter above ground level (please refer to

the response to BCUC IR2, Q4.1). FortisBC does not have the required data to provide

the requested estimates but does note that the magnetic field may be higher at greater

distances above ground if these locations are closer to the conductors.

2.5.0 Reference: Exhibit B-4, FortisBC Response to Karow, A1.1.12, p.7

On the issue of an alternative routing for supplying the new east Osoyoos

substation, i.e. tapping the 63kV Oliver-Osoyoos line (44 Line) at the lakehead and

routing the parallel line down the east side of the lake, Fortis states that this would

be less reliable from a service point of view (“increase the vulnerability of the

transmission line network to outages as there will be no discrimination for faults

between the Osoyoos West and Osoyoos East (Nk’Mip) legs of the network”).

FortisBC’s proposal, i.e. feeding the proposed Nk’Mip substation from the West

Osoyoos substation along Kingfisher and over the causeway would create a L-

shaped configuration; the alternative suggestion can be likened to an inverted Y

(“the Y option”).

Q2.5.1 Please confirm that in option 1 a fault on 44 Line would interrupt power to both the

West Osoyoos substation and the proposed Nk’Mip substation?

A2.5.1 A fault on 44 Line would interrupt power to both Osoyoos (West) and Nk’Mip substation

as long as it remains a radial line feeding both of these substations. However, the

Page 10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

proposed transmission line between Bentley and Nk’Mip stations will complete the

transmission line loop and will enhance system reliability by ensuring uninterrupted

supply to both Osoyoos (West) substation and Nk’Mip substation under the situation of a

fault on 44 Line.

Q2.5.2 Please confirm that if a switching station were added at the T-point in the

alternative design then both the east side (to Nk’Mip) and the west side (to West

Osoyoos) could be independently isolated.

A2.5.2 Please refer to the response to Karow IR1, Q1.1.12, page 7, line 32.

Yes, construction of a switching station at the tap point could provide discrimination of

faults between Osoyoos (West) and Nk’Mip (Osoyoos East) legs of the transmission

network, but at an additional cost above that indicated in response to Karow IR1,

Q1.1.12, Item 7, page 8, lines 18 to 27. The additional cost is shown in the response to

Q2.5.10.

Q2.5.3 Please confirm that in the option 1 design, only the Nk’Mip substation could be

independently isolated; the West Osoyoos substation could not be isolated without

depowering the Nk’Mip substation.

A2.5.3 FortisBC is proposing to tap the existing 44 Line “upstream” of the existing West

Osoyoos substation and then extend this line to the new Nk’Mip Substation. For planned

substation maintenance this will allow either substation to be independently isolated

without affecting the supply to the other substation.

Page 11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 27

28

29

30

Q2.5.4 Please confirm that the ability to independently isolate both the West Osoyoos

substation and the proposed Nk’Mip substation provides greater reliability than a

design in which only the Nk’Mip substation can be independently isolated.

A2.5.4 Please refer to the response to Q2.5.3 above.

Q2.5.5 Please confirm that in option 1 a fault on 44 Line anywhere between Oliver and

West Osoyoos would interrupt power at both the West Osoyoos and Nk’Mik

substations.

A2.5.5 Please refer to the response to Q2.5.1 above.

Q2.5.6 Please confirm that in the Y option only a fault on 44 Line between Oliver and the

“T” would interrupt power at both the West Osoyoos and Nk’Mik substations.

A2.5.6 No. In the above referred “Y” Option, without a switching station at the tap location, a

fault anywhere on 44 Line will interrupt power to the whole radial circuit and all

substations connected to 44 Line, namely, Pine Street, Osoyoos (West) and the proposed

Nk’Mip substation.

Q2.5.7 What is the distance from Oliver to the West Osoyoos substation on 44 Line?

A2.5.7 The circuit-kilometer between Oliver and Osoyoos (West) substations is 23.5 kilometers.

Q2.5.8 What is the distance from Oliver to the “T” in the Y option on 44 Line?

A2.5.8 The circuit-kilometer between Oliver and the proposed “T” tap point is approximately

11.5 kilometers.

Page 12

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 Q2.5.9 Please confirm that 44 Line from Oliver is on the east side of the valley until

approximately 1 km north of Road 22, where it crosses to the west side of the valley

and proceeds south to the West Osoyoos substation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A2.5.9 Yes, 44 Line is generally on the east side of the valley until approximately 1 km north of

Road 22 (near Dead-Man Lake Provincial Park along Road 21), where it crosses to the

west side of the valley and proceeds south to the West Osoyoos substation.

Q2.5.10 What is the cost of a “switching station at the tap point” (p.8)?

A2.5.10 A preliminary estimate indicates that, subject to land availability for the switching station

and the transmission line right-of-way, the capital cost for the switching station would be

between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.

2.6.0 Reference: Miscellaneous

Q2.6.1 Please explain how FortisBC defines and applies the N-1 criterion as it is used in

this CPCN application.

A2.6.1 In this CPCN application:

1) A Transformer N-1 contingency means that one Transformer is out of service:

Under such circumstances, FortisBC’s planning criteria permits 80% of the peak

load to be served.

2) A Transmission N-1 contingency means that one Transmission line is out of

service. Under such circumstances, FortisBC’s planning criteria permits 100 % of

the load to be served with a looped system. Transmission N-1 contingency is not

applicable in a radial transmission scenario since no load can be served with a radial

system, unless it is adjacent to distribution feeders from another substation.

Page 13


(Please refer to CPCN: Item 5.2.1 at page 32, Item 5.2.2 at page 34 and Item 5.2.3

at page 36).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Q2.6.2 What is the current status of discussions or negotiations between FortisBC and the

Town of Osoyoos regarding matters related to this CPCN application? If there are

other topics of discussion between FortisBC and the Town of Osoyoos, please

identify them for clarification.

A2.6.2 FortisBC has held two formal meetings with the Town of Osoyoos regarding this CPCN

Application. As the Town is one of the authorities that will provide project input, based

on Town plans, it is important that the Town be aware of the project design and the

resultant implications. Topics of discussion included projected load growth, development

plans, project design and project schedules.

To facilitate mutual planning, FortisBC meets regularly with municipal councils, regional

districts, first nations and other governmental organizations.

Q2.6.3 Please discuss the current status of the conduits placed in the causeway by

FortisBC’s corporate predecessor in association with the Town of Osoyoos. Would

these conduits be used in Option 3? What are the advantages and disadvantages of

using this infrastructure?

A2.6.3 There are six ten-inch polyethylene ducts buried along the causeway for an approximate

length of 390 meters. Out of the six ducts, two were found to have minor blockages

during a test carried out by FortisBC on January 16, 2006. The remaining four ducts

appeared to be in good condition with no blockages.

The advantage of using the ducts:

Page 14


1. The cost of underground installation of the transmission line as indicated in the

response to Wonch & White IR1, Q11, may be reduced by a maximum of

$500,000.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

The disadvantage of using the ducts:

1. High cable termination costs for the short run of the cable;

2. Placement of termination poles at either end which may have negative aesthetic

impacts;

3. Transmission faults in this section of the cable will require high repair / restoration

time;

4. Route approvals required from Ministry of Transportation and the Town;

5. The proposed underground cables across the causeway are not allowed to parallel

the gas line which is already in place. This will involve civil design for the bridge

and likely a lengthy approval process with the Ministry of Transportation.

Q2.6.4 Does FortisBC currently operate a system for logging customer complaints? If so,

please describe it. If not, why not?

A2.6.4 All calls received by FortisBC’s Customer Contact center are logged.

The process may be described as follows:

Generally all customer complaints start with a customer call to the Trail Contact Centre

(TCC). It results in various levels of response depending upon the complaint and

includes escalation procedures that start with the FortisBC Help Desk. The General

Tracking System (GTS) is utilized to log and track responses by area and individual

departments on most escalated complaints. Customers can initiate GTS level complaints

by themselves via FortisBC’s website as well. FortisBC keeps track of the volume of

complaints on its phone system and records every call made to/from the TCC to have a

complete documentation of interactions.

Page 15


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Q2.6.5 FortisBC has provided statistics for SAIDI and SAIFI as measures of reliability of

service within the service area affected by this CPCN application. What levels, in

terms of SAIDI and SAIFI, does FortisBC expect to achieve upon completion of the

proposed project? Please discuss how this compares with FortisBC’s system wide

reliability objectives.

A2.6.5 FortisBC has not established a specific level of SAIDI or SAIFI for this area. Please refer

to the response to BCUC IR1, Q5.1.

Q2.6.6 For clarification, please define the acronyms SAIDI and SAIFI.

A2.6.6 The indices SAIDI and SAIFI are defined as follows:

1. SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index): Measures the

amount of time the average customer’s power is off in a year.

17 18

19

20

21

22

SAIDI = Total Customer-Hours of Interruption Total Number of Customers Served

2. SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index): Measures the

average number of interruptions per customer per year.

SAIFI = Total Number of Customer Interruptions23 24

25

Total Number of Customers Served

Page 16

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 Q2.6.7 Please discuss whether FortisBC proposes that this CPCN application should be

evaluated strictly on its own merits, or whether it should be evaluated in

conjunction with the proposed Oliver/Bentley to Nk’Mip transmission line.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A2.6.7 FortisBC proposes that this Application should be evaluated on its own merit, taking into

account the possible future benefits of the proposed Bentley / Nk’Mip Transmission Line.

Please refer to the response to BCUC IR1, Q2.2

Q2.6.8 What is FortisBC’s policy regarding aesthetic implications of transmission line and

substation proposals such as this one?

A2.6.8 FortisBC, like most utilities with a similar rural/urban mix is primarily an “overhead

lines” company, which is to say regulated capital cost recovery is usually based on the

construction of overhead facilities. The installation of underground or other facilities that

are more expensive to construct than overhead facilities is done when issues of safety

and/or reliability are identified such that the construction of an overhead circuit is not

considered prudent.

FortisBC uses industry standard materials and design, which takes the aesthetic impact

into consideration. However, aesthetic upgrades that are of significant cost would be

implemented when a third party wishes to pay the incremental cost. That is to say, the

difference in cost between the overhead wood pole option and the aesthetic upgrade

would be borne by a party other than FortisBC.

Notwithstanding the above, in FortisBC’s 2006 Revenue Requirements Application

submitted November 24, 2005, the Company proposed to adopt an aesthetics and

environmental upgrade program. The purpose of FortisBC’s proposal of an “Aesthetics &

Environmental Upgrades Program” (AEUP) is to co-operate with local governments in

achieving their objectives with relation to environmental concerns and visual objectives.

Page 17


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A copy of FortisBC’s proposed AEUP is attached as Appendix ONS2.6.8. It should be

noted that this program is a proposal and must receive approval from the BC Utilities

Commission before it can be applied.

Typically, FortisBC’s design policy endeavors to rebuild existing lines and incorporate

double circuit construction, wherever possible, on the same poles and structures to reduce

the number of multiple electricity lines in an area. In addition, FortisBC employs joint

use agreements with other utilities to have overhead utility cables and lines on common

poles, reducing the overall amount of infrastructure as well as the collective utility cost.

Q2.6.9 Does FortisBC acknowledge that replacing the existing above ground distribution

system with an above ground transmission line and underbuilt distribution will have

adverse aesthetic impacts particularly in the Kingfisher Drive and causeway areas?

A2.6.9 Given the subjective nature of aesthetics, FortisBC acknowledges that some members of

the public may view the larger poles and double circuit as having an adverse aesthetic

impact.

Q2.6.10 It is understood that FortisBC has agreed to put some portion of the proposed

transmission line underground. Please confirm and provide a map showing the

location. Would FortisBC consider putting other portions of the transmission line

underground?

A2.6.10 FortisBC has not agreed to put any portion of the proposed transmission line

underground.

FortisBC staff attended a meeting with staff from the Town of Osoyoos in late 1997 to

discuss the installation of ducts under the Pioneer Walkway for future use. This was

based on the belief by West Kootenay Power (as the company was named at the time)

that garnering future approval for overhead facilities along that (approximately) 400

Page 18


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

meter section of land would be difficult to obtain. In 1997, a Town sponsored erosion

control project lead to the construction of a rock wall along that Pioneer Walkway. Since

the walkway was being excavated as part of that project, it was an opportune time to

install the duct for a lower cost and with less community impact than if it were installed

at a later time.

Q2.6.11 FortisBC has indicated that if it is unable to obtain easements required for the

transmission line it would resort to expropriation. Will that affect the project

timeline?

A2.6.11 The project schedules that have been developed for the various options include a four

month time allotment for land acquisition. Without the need for expropriation, and

assuming cooperation from the relevant land owners, securing land rights would take

approximately one month. The expropriation component therefore extends the project in-

service date by three months.

Q2.6.12 It appears that FortisBC has limited its attention to load growth on the east Osoyoos

side. Is that correct? If so, why?

A2.6.12 Please refer to CPCN Section 1: Executive Summary at page 2 and CPCN Section 5.5:

Project Justification: Thermal Capacity at page 28.

FortisBC has not limited its attention to the load growth on the East Osoyoos side,

however, it should be noted that load growth in the East Osoyoos area is significantly

higher than that of the West Osoyoos side. This is a major driver of this Project.

The Nk’Mip project will transfer load from the Osoyoos (West) substation. This will

allow the Osoyoos (West) substation to accommodate the load growth that is occurring

on the west side of Osoyoos.

Page 19


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

The following is a summary of the larger development activities in Osoyoos that

FortisBC is ware of. It indicates a higher level of development on the east side of

Osoyoos.

West Side Developments:

1. Lakeside lots. Expected load 500-750 kW. Expected to be developed by 2008.

2. Gateway Square shopping center: Expected load 200-300 kW. Expected to be

occupied by 2006.

East Side Developments:

1. Cottonwood Dr-Sole’ Vita: Beachfront homes (86). Expected load ~250-300 kW

by 2006;

2. Cottonwood Dr-Casa de Lago: 118 condos and 67 townhouses. Expected load

~500-600 kW by 2006;

3. Cottonwood Dr-Luna Rosa: 42 townhouses. Completed two years ago. 2005 load;

4. Cottonwood Dr- Lot#8000 Cottonwood, lake property next to Luna Rosa. Expected

2008/09;

5. Spirit Ridge, winery, interpretive center, golf course, condo developments.

Expected in 2006 (100-200 kW);

6. Hwy 3 and Cottonwood Dr-Desert Mirage condos and retail space. Estimated 200

kW in summer 2006;

7. Cottonwood Dr-Casa del Mila Oro: condo development. Estimated ~200-300 kW

in 2006;

8. Lakeshore Dr-Island View RV Resort: Estimated ~100 kW in 2006;

9. Lakeshore Dr-Village on the Lake, 46 condo units plus 42 unit hotel and retail

space. Estimated 200 kW in 2008;

10. Lakeshore Dr-Sole Vita: 46 beachfront homes. Estimated ~100-150 kW in 2008;

and

11. Anarchist-Regal Ridge: Rural residential development on Anarchist Mountain.

Estimated load contribution ~100 kW/year.

Page 20

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission & Substation Project ONS (William J. Andrews) Information Request Request Date: February 3, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response Date: February 16, 2006 Q2.6.13 To what extent has FortisBC developed the current Nk’Mip proposal bearing in

mind the prospects for development of various lands on the west side?

1

2

3

4

5

6

A2.6.13 The Nk’Mip project application considered the load growth in the Osoyoos area as a

whole, and the proposed facilities have been designed to accommodate the entire forecast

load, both in terms of normal service and backup supply.

Page 21


1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9

10 11 12

APPENDIX: ONS2.6.8

FortisBC’s Proposed

Aesthetics & Environmental Upgrades Program (AEUP)

Page 22

2006 Revenue Requirements Aesthetic and Environmental Upgrades - Tab 11

November 24, 2005 FortisBC Inc. Page 2

Introduction 1

The purpose of FortisBC’s participation in the Aesthetic and Environmental Upgrades 2

Program (“AEUP”) is to cooperate with local governments in achieving their objectives with 3

respect to environmental concerns and visual objectives. 4

5

Funding Objective 6

Local governments may request FortisBC to share one third of the costs to upgrade FortisBC 7

distribution facilities, beyond the Company’s usual distribution standards, for aesthetic or 8

environmental reasons. The determination of usual distribution standards and costs of the 9

upgrade will be at the Company’s sole discretion. 10

11

Funding 12

The Company’s budget will be limited to $100,000 per fiscal year. Applications for each fiscal 13

year must be received by December 31 of the preceding fiscal year. Funding will be limited to 14

$10,000 per distinct project, except where the total number of applications does not exceed 15

$100,000. In the case where the total of all applications exceeds $100,000, successful applicants 16

will be chosen by lottery. Unsuccessful projects must be reapplied for the following year. 17

18

Construction of AEUP projects must be anticipated to complete in the fiscal year applied for. 19

20

Applications for provincial or other funding are at the discretion and responsibility of the local 21

government. 22

23

FortisBC will not be responsible in any manner for costs and arrangements with third parties, 24

such as telephone or cable companies. 25

26

Shared costs are only applied to facilities owned by FortisBC. 27

Appendix ONS 2.6.8

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Barbara Smith Information Request Request date: January 27 & February 6, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 January 27, 2006 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q1. I would like to know when conduits are installed underground, are they insulated?

Explain the mechanics of a conduit, in laymen’s language.

A1. For the purpose of an electrical utility, conduits are installed underground to let the power

cables pass through them. Another way to look at a conduit is as housing for the power

cables that needs to get from one place to another. Conduits are generally made of high or

medium density polyethylene duct, and provide additional mechanical protection for the

cable, reduces installation time and allows for quick access and cable replacement. Due

to the nature of their usage, conduits are not insulated or required to be insulated for

power cable purposes.

Q2. I understand that the West Substation in Osoyoos on 89th St. is old, can you explain

to the writer, what the life expectancy is for this Substation in its present state?

A2. The Osoyoos (West) Substation was built in 1951 with a significant upgrade in 1976. The

station is in good condition, but has some operational issues with the transformers. These

deficiencies will be corrected in 2006 with the replacement of one transformer and the

refurbishment of the other unit.

The life expectancy of a substation itself is indefinite if the equipment is maintained and

replaced on a regular basis. However, major substation equipment items such as power

transformers have an expected life of approximately 40 years.

Substations generally become redundant when they are no longer of adequate size to

accommodate the equipment necessary to meet customer load requirements.

Page 1

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Barbara Smith Information Request Request date: January 27 & February 6, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 Q3. How often are safety inspections done on this Substation, and who does the Safety

Inspections?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A3. Inspections of this substation are carried out on a monthly basis. The inspection covers all

issues regarding safety and operations.

The inspections are performed by FortisBC Electricians who are trained to identify non

conformance issues.

Q4. Does WCB have field officers who inspect for safety issues?

A4. Worker’s Compensation Board (WCB) does have field safety inspectors who inspect for

safety. They do not inspect (on a routine basis) the technical components of the

substations, although FortisBC understands their mandate does allow them to do that. In

general they rely on FortisBC’s inspection program to ensure compliance with

the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations.

February 6, 2006

Q1. Please refer to the picture of a Platform that was built about 4 months ago on the

East Bench on 82nd Ave. I live 1/2 block on 35th.from this platform. Because this is

the East Bench, I would like to know why and what this project is. Please explain in

Layman’s language.

A1. The structure identified in Exhibit C11-6, is a distribution voltage regulator. This

structure was installed in December 2005 as part of the FortisBC Capital Program to

mitigate voltage issues in the East Osoyoos area.

The above issue is not a consideration of the current application. However, for general

information, please note that all residential customers on electrical distribution systems

use appliances requiring a normal voltage input in the range of 110 to125 volts. Each

customer’s toaster, fridge, lights, TV, computer, etc is designed to operate most

Page 2

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Barbara Smith Information Request Request date: January 27 & February 6, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

efficiently in this voltage range as specified by the Canadian Electrical Standards

Association. Throughout each day, as customers utilize their electrical appliances, the

“voltage” moves up and down depending on where they are on the line and the amount of

electrical resistance in that line. As distance from the source of supply increases, the

voltage on that line drops and as customers use more or fewer appliances the voltage will

increase and decrease. For example, a TV or fridge will not function very well under low

voltage.

A device called a “voltage regulator” which appears in this exhibit is used to maintain or

“regulate” the voltage to ensure the customers are receiving an acceptable voltage

level. This device can boost and lower the voltage depending on how much power

customers are using and need. Electrical utilities will typically have many of these

regulators located throughout their systems.

Page 3

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 January 12th Question: Mr. Karow noted that FortisBC did not answer Karow IR1. Q 2.5

to his satisfaction and requested a revised response.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A. The Tables below provide the requested data up to 50 meters from the Centre Line of the

Electricity Power Line (for proposed and existing line loading conditions). EMF data

beyond 50 meters from the Centre Line is not available.

As Indicated in the FortisBC response to BCUC IR1, Q10.4, the creation of the EMF

profiles is based on a program called CAFÉ (acronym for “Corona & Field Effects”)

which was developed by Bonneville Power.

Table 1

Present Normal Load Levels (6.5 MVA on the 13 kV Dist. Line)

Present Ultimate Load Levels (10 MVA on the 13 kV Dist. Line)

Distance from Centre Line (m)

B-Field (mG) E-Field (kV/m) B-Field (mG) E-Field (kV/m)

1 0 17.30 0.020 27.10 0.020 2 5 13.04 0.047 20.30 0.047 3 10 7.42 * 0.033 11.49 0.033 4 15 4.30 0.018 6.64 0.018 5 20 2.70 0.010 4.17 0.010 6 25 1.83 0.006 2.82 0.006 7 30 1.31 0.004 2.02 0.004 8 35 0.98 0.002 1.51 0.002 9 40 0.76 0.002 1.17 0.002 10 45 0.61 0.001 0.93 0.001 11 50 0.51 0.001 0.79 0.001

Page 1

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006

Table 2

Proposed Normal Load Levels (10 MVA on the 63 kV

Transmission Line & 1 MVA on the 13 kV Dist. Line)

Proposed Ultimate Load Levels

(16 MVA on the 63 kV Transmission Line & 2 MVA

Distance from Centre Line (m)

B-Field (mG) E-Field (kV/m) B-Field (mG) E-Field (kV/m)

1 0 2.54 0.041 4.28 0.041 2 5 2.22 0.141 3.75 0.141 3 10 1.50 ** 0.125 2.51 0.125 4 15 0.97 0.084 1.61 0.084 5 20 0.65 0.057 1.07 0.057 6 25 0.46 0.040 0.75 0.040 7 30 0.33 0.029 0.54 0.029 8 35 0.25 0.022 0.41 0.022 9 40 0.20 0.017 0.32 0.017 10 45 0.16 0.014 0.26 0.014 11 50 0.13 0.012 0.22 0.012

Notes: 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

* B-Field for present normal loading at 10m from centerline has been inadvertently

indicated as 8.3 mG. The correct data should be 7.42 mG as indicated in the Table-1

above.

** B-Field for proposed normal loading at 10m from centerline has been inadvertently

indicated as 1.6mG. The correct data should be 1.5 mG as indicated in the Table-2

above.

January 15th Question: Mr. Karow noted that he needed clarification of FortisBC’s

response to Karow IR1 Q2.2 and asked a series of questions. Listed is FortisBC’s response

to these questions.

Page 2

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’MKarow InformProject No. 3698407

ip Transmission and Substation Project ation Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006

Response date: February 16, 2006

Page 3

Source: Karow IR#1, response date January 6, 2006, page 19, Figure 1 on Page 19

contains:

1

2

3 4 5 6 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

“Proposed Maximum : 16MVA ABC over - 2MVA ABC Lag 30deg” Q1. The "-" in the above can not possible be a minus amperage sign; what does it mean?

Maybe 16MVA -2MVA? Please explain in more details.

A1. The "-" sign indicates that the current flow in the Distribution Circuit is in the opposite

direction relative to the Transmission Circuit. However, in this scenario the currents in

the Transmission & Distribution Circuits are in the same direction and hence the "-" sign

may be ignored. A revised data Table is given below which considers that the current

flow in the Distribution Circuit is in the same direction relative to the Transmission

Circuit.

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12 & 15, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 15, 2006

Page 4

Description AC ('A') or DC ('D')

Bundle 'x' Coordinate

(m)

Bundle 'y' Coordinate

(m)

Number of Sub -

conductors

Sub - conductor Diameter

(mm)

Bundle Sub -

conductor Spacing

(cm)

Phase Voltage (kVrms)

Phase Angle

Phase Current

(kA)

1 Nk’Mip Project 63kV/12.47kV Transmission Line, 55ft Poles 2 Proposed Normal: 10MVA ABC over 1MVA CBA Lag 30deg 3 'Top A ' 'A' -0.94 12.03 1 20.68 0 38.19 0 0.092 4 'Top B ' 'A' -0.15 13.78 1 20.68 0 38.19 240 0.092 5 'Top C ' 'A' 0.94 12.03 1 20.68 0 38.19 120 0.092 6 Bottom C' 'A' -1.09 9.28 1 20.68 0 7.56 90 0.046 7 'Bottom B' 'A' 0.48 9.12 1 20.68 0 7.56 210 0.046 8 Bottom A' 'A' 1.09 9.28 1 20.68 0 7.56 330 0.046 9 'Neutral ' 'A' -0.22 6.77 1 12.75 0 0 0 0 10 11 Nk’Mip Project 63kV/12.47kV Transmission Line, 55ft Poles 12 Proposed Maximum: 16MVA ABC over 2MVA CBA Lag 30deg 13 'Top A ' 'A' -0.94 12.02 1 20.68 0 38.19 0 0.147 14 'Top B ' 'A' -0.15 13.77 1 20.68 0 38.19 240 0.147 15 'Top C ' 'A' 0.94 12.02 1 20.68 0 38.19 120 0.147 16 Bottom C' 'A' -1.09 9.27 1 20.68 0 7.56 90 0.093 17 'Bottom B' 'A' 0.48 9.11 1 20.68 0 7.56 210 0.093 18 Bottom A' 'A' 1.09 9.27 1 20.68 0 7.56 330 0.093 19 'Neutral ' 'A' -0.22 6.77 1 12.75 0 0 0 0

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 Q2. Does the term "Lag" mean what we would call Sag; the part of lines which gently

hang lower between pylons? Please explain the term "Lag".

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

A2. No, Lag does not mean Sag. The term "Lag" means the Vectorial Phase Shift between

the Transmission & Distribution Voltage & Current Vectors. This is due to the ∆ / Y

Substation Transformer configuration at the Osoyoos (West) Substation.

Q3. If so, how does one calculate the lowest point between pylons?

A3. FortisBC uses a software program to calculate sag between adjacent poles.

Q4. Please explain the term "30deg"

A4. The term "30 degree Lag" indicates the Vectorial Phase Shift between the Transmission

& Distribution Voltage & Current Vectors. This is due to the ∆ / Y Substation

Transformer configuration at the Osoyoos (West) Substation

Q5. Are phases located as follows from right to left?

Top: A B C

Bottom: A B C

If not, please provide the correct phase location.

A5. As indicated in the Table above the proposed phase configuration is as noted:

Top Circuit (Transmission) Configuration: ABC

Bottom Circuit (Distribution) Configuration: CBA

Page 5

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 Q6. Page 20 contains printed material which can not be read. Could you please provide

a bigger or clearer picture so that the printing can be read better?

1

2

3

4

A6. Below is the requested structure drawing.

Page 6

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006

Page 7

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 January 16, 2006 - Exhibit C1-54 1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

In your letter you stated:

“Both US and Canadian studies involving the effects of high voltage

transmission lines on residential developments have indicated that the impact to

value is negligible, if any.”

Q1. Could you please refer to all US and Canadian studies, from where you draw

the conclusion as expressed in your statement above.

A1. The following three studies were referenced:

a) “Studies of the Effects of High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines On Real

Estate Values” – Canadian Study, authored by Danny R Grant, P. Ag, SR/WA of

Interwest property Services (1973)

b) “International Right of Way Association Journal, Impacts on Residential Property

Values Along Transmission Lines” – US Study, Steven C. Bottemiller, MAI,

James M Cahill and J.R. Cowger (July/Aug 2000). An Update of a study done in

1996.

c) Transmission Lines and Industrial Property Value – Right of Way Journal,

Nov/Dec 2005, Dean Chapman, SR/WA, MAI, SRA

Page 8

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 Q2. Are you aware of any studies/papers that do indicate that proximities of power

lines have an association with reduced property values? If so, please state

those.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

A2 Mr. Pavlakovic is now aware of the information supplied by Mr. Karow. He is not

aware of other studies that suggest an association between proximity to power lines

and a loss of property value.

Q3. Are you familiar of the power line frequency electromagnetic radiation’s

(EMR) possible impact of different natures in the environment, and EMR’s

association of adverse biological effects?

A3. Mr. Pavlakovic is an expert in the fields of property values and land acquisition. He

does not profess expertise with respect to electromagnetic fields and their effects on

different natures in the environment.

Q4. What is stated in section 3. , have you considered the EMR issue in your

letter’s statement as well? Please explain in more details and which of the

EMR issues you have considered.

A4. It is Mr. Pavlakovic’s understanding that any public perception regarding EMF is

manifested in the data indicating a negligible impact on property values.

Q5. Have you made an assessment of other previous power line effects, if yes, could

you give more details, including locations.

A5. No, Mr. Pavlakovic has not personally conducted assessments at other locations.

He is an expert within the industry, and has relied on published reports on the

subject.

Page 9

FortisBC Application for a CPCN for the Nk’Mip Transmission and Substation Project Karow Information Requests Request date: January 12, 15 & 16, 2006 Project No. 3698407 Response date: February 16, 2006 Q6. Are you a certified appraiser? 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A6. Mr. Pavlakovic, B.A., RI(BC), SR/WA, FRI(A) holds his senior right of way

accreditation, which enables him to conduct property appraisals.

Q7. May I kindly ask for your Curriculum Vitae.

A7. Mr. Pavlakovic’s Curriculum Vitae is attached.

Page 10

Ron Pavlakovic, B.A., RI(BC), SR/WA, FRI(A) Ron Pavlakovic has over 22 years experience in the real estate consulting industry specializing in the acquisition and management fields. A graduate of the University of British Columbia with a Bachelor of Arts degree, Mr. Pavlakovic has gone on to receive further accreditation in both the appraisal and negotiation fields. He has completed numerous courses in the appraisal, legal, negotiation and engineering disciplines and holds his Senior Right of Way Agent (SR/WA) designation with the International Right of Way Association. He is a member of the Expropriation Association, the Appraisal Institute of Canada, the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia and the Real Estate Institute of Canada. The founder and principal of Lands West Property Services Inc., Mr. Pavlakovic also holds directorships in several companies providing real estate expertise. Mr. Pavlakovic is a past Director of the North Fraser Chapter of the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia and past President of the BC Chapter of the International Right of Way Association. Mr. Pavlakovic has participated in a broad range of real estate projects involving valuations, negotiations and full, partial and partial interest acquisitions, representing individuals, corporations, and governmental bodies. Active knowledge and conversance with the format and process required by both corporate entities and governmental agencies is well understood and successfully applied in the practical interaction with the public. He is well qualified in the preparation of Project Reports, Crown Applications, and ALC Applications. Mr. Pavlakovic has worked on numerous lineal projects representing utility companies in addition to both the Municipal and Provincial levels of government. His career experience includes management, administration and active participation on projects, the most recent of which include CPR’s Shuswap Sub Infrastructure Project, FortisBC Inc.’s Osoyoos Transmission Projects, the Kootenay 230kV Powerline Project, Terasen Gas’ Southern Crossing Project, Terasen Gas’ Southern Okanagan Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Terasen Gas’ PortMann Pipeline Project, the Surrey Langley Natural Gas Pipeline Project (BC Gas), as well as numerous Lineal Highway Projects including the Scott Road Widening Project, the 208th Street Widening Project for the Township of Langley, the Vancouver Island Highway Project and BCEC’s Westwood Plateau Project.

Continued on Page 2

Resume

Ron Pavlakovic B.A., R.I.(B.C.), SR/WA, FRI(A)

Lands-West Property Services Inc. 518, 22-2475 Dobbin Rd., Westbank, B.C. V4T 2E9

Phone: 250.769.5571 Fax: 250.769.5511 EDUCATION: 1997 International Right of Way Association Senior Right of Way Agent Designation 1986 - 1987 Langara College, Vancouver, B.C Certificate - Realty Appraisal 1981 - 1985 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Bachelor of Arts - May 1985 WORK EXPERIENCE:

LANDS-WEST PROPERTY SERVICES INC. (November 1991 - Current) 518, 22-2475 Dobbin Rd., Westbank, B.C. Property Negotiator/Appraiser/Commissioner Negotiations for full, partial and partial-interest acquisitions, appraisal, valuation,

environmental property review reports, feasibility studies, project reports, Crown Applications, ALC Applications, negotiations for various property interests including leases, rights of entry and temporary workspace

Projects Include: • Osoyoos Transmission Projects - FortisBC • Shuswap Sub Infrastructure Project – CPR • Notch Hill Upgrade Project - CPR • Kootenay 63kV Decommissioning Project – Aquila – Land Manager • Kootenay 230kV Powerline Project – Aquila – Land Manager • South Okanagan Natural Gas Pipeline Project – Terasen Gas • Southern Crossing Budget Valuation, Trail to Kitchener – BC Gas • PortMann Pipeline Project, Surrey-Coquitlam – BC Gas • 208th Street Widening Project, Langley – Township of Langley • Kelowna Encroachment Identification & Removal Strategy, Kelowna – BC Gas • Como Lake Road Widening, Coquitlam – N.D. Lea • Pipeline Right of Way Acquisition, Burnaby – Petro-Canada • Northwood Pipeline Looping Project, Prince George - BC Gas • Parkridge Pipeline Lateral Project, Prince George - BC Gas • Foothills Pipeline Lateral Project, Prince George - BC Gas • Surrey-Langley Pipeline Looping Project - BC Gas • Crown Applications, Coquihalla – Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co.

Resume - Ron Pavlakovic Page 2

• Island Highway Project - Ministry of Transportation & Highways • Cambie Road Widening - City of Richmond • Numerous Files for BC Gas throughout the Province including re-instatement of

rights-of-way; pipeline right of way acquisition, station site acquisition, crossing permits, leases, Crown Licenses, Environmental Property Reviews, ALC applications, subdivision applications, budget valuations

INTERWEST PROPERTY SERVICES INC./FRASER LAND SERVICES LTD. (May 1983 - November 1991) 650 Columbia Street, New Westminster, B.C. Property Negotiator/Appraiser Market Value, lease, full and partial takings, and partial interest appraisals; project

reports; negotiations; and feasibility studies Projects Include:

• Scott Road Widening Project, Delta/Surrey - Ministry of Transportation & Highways

• Johnson Street Widening, Coquitlam - British Columbia Economic Corporation • Bowen Road Widening Project, Nanaimo - City of Nanaimo • Advanced Light Rapid Transit Lineal Appraisals (Vancouver - New Westminster) -

BC Transit

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS: Member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada Member of the International Right of Way Association

Member of the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia

Member of the Real Estate Institute of Canada

Via email Original via courier responses.pdfindividual transformers as per CSA Standard C88-M90,...

Documents

Transcript of Via email Original via courier responses.pdfindividual transformers as per CSA Standard C88-M90,...