FARRIS,

25th Ploor700 W Georgia St

Reply Attention of:Direct Dial Number:Email Address:

VIA EMAIL

Vancouver. BC I Tel 604 684 9151Canada V7Y 1B3 Fax 604 661 9349

George K. Macintosh, Q.c.(604) 661-9332gmacintosh@farris.com

I www.jarriJ.com

Our File No.: 05497-00095

March 23,2010

British Columbia Utilities Commission6th Floor - 900 Howe StreetVancouver, BC V6Z 2N3

Attention: Erica Hamilton,Commission Secretary

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: Shaw Cablesystems Limited and Shaw Business Solutions Inc.(collectively "Shaw") Application for Continued Use of FortisBC Inc.'sTransmission Facilities

I write further to the letter dated March 23, 2010 from Mr. Bursey, counsel for Shaw, in this

matter. Please direct this letter to Commissioners Rhodes, Harle and O'Hara.

Virtually no part of Mr. Bursey's correspondence constitutes proper reply or is responsive

either to my correspondence of March 19 or to the specific questions left outstanding after the

hearing of March 17. Respectfully, other than to the extent provided below, Mr. Bursey's

March 23 correspondence should not be considered by the Commission in reaching its

determination.

My correspondence of March 19, 2010 was directed to three specific questions asked by

Commissioner Harle, as identified in that letter (Transcript p. 158, line 25; p. 159, line 18; p.

160, line 7). Those questions were ones to which I did not have the information to respond

FARRIS. VAUGHAN. WILLS c"r MURPHY LLP

#947076

Barristers· Solici to rs Vancouver [ Kelowna [ Viera ria

C13-13

March 23,2010 -2- FARRIS

during the course of the hearing on March 17. As Mr. Bursey accurately noted at the

conclusion of that hearing, those questions related to "how the assets and the revenue are being

treated" (Transcript page 163, lines 3-4).

A substantial portion of Mr. Bursey's correspondence (that portion under subheading 1,

commencing on the first page) is directed instead toward re-arguing general issues regarding

the applicability of section 70 of the Utilities Commission Act. Both parties made extensive

submissions on those issues during the course of the hearing (including specifically in response

to a preliminary question from Commissioner Harle regarding the definition of "electricity

transmission facilities" [Transcript pp. 158, 161-162]).

The remainder of Mr. Bursey's letter is directed primarily toward issues related to the OTR

process (including whether FortisBC requires an amended CPCN, and whether increased costs

associated with a change in scope should be allowed in rate base), and toward neither the

application of section 70 of the Act nor the questions outstanding after the March 17 hearing.

These submissions are made in the wrong forum and should not be considered.

Finally, Mr. Bursey sets out at five bullet points on page 2 and the top of page 3 of his letter

what are described as clarifications to statements made by FortisBC (which would, to that

extent, fall within the parameters of reply). Lines 40 and 76 are long lines, the current cable on

a portion of which is owned by Shaw. FortisBC has the right to use certain strands of the

current cable on that portion. My March 19 correspondence did not suggest otherwise. Shaw

paid for the fibre optic holders on that portion, which are not in rate base. None of the items

that Mr. Bursey has raised detracts from or otherwise addresses the point in my March 19

correspondence, that no telecommunications equipment on the FortisBC system which is

#947076

March 23, 2010 - 3 - FARRIS

dedicated to Shaw is paid for by FortisBC ratepayers or forms part of the definition of

"electricity transmission facilities".

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

FARRIS, VAUGHAN, WILLS & MURPHY LLPPer:

George K. Macintosh, Q.C.

GKMlLBHIltC.C.: Boughton Law Corporation

Attention: Gordon Fulton, Q.C.

Bull, Housser & TupperAttention: David Bursey

#947076