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) [email protected]
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