Sea Breeze drops cable bidUtilities commission has one remaining application to consider
Andrew A. Duffy, Times Colonist Friday, March 03, 2006
In a surprising move Wednesday, Sea Breeze Power Corp. announced to the B.C. Utilities Commission it was withdrawing its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to construct an underwater cable to bring electricity from the Lower Mainland to Vancouver Island.
John Landry, the lawyer acting for the company, told the commission that based on the decision to allow evidence from B.C. Hydro, Sea Breeze had no choice.
"Sea Breeze has now spoken to its principals and its financial backers to consider the options which you presented. Unfortunately, in these circumstances, Sea Breeze feels it must now elect to take the option ... of withdrawing its application for the (Vancouver Island Cable) project," said Landry reading a prepared statement into the record.
Landry went on to say the company would be applying to have its costs covered for bringing forward its application. When asked Thursday how much that could be, neither Landry nor Sea Breeze president Paul Manson would estimate.
Sea Breeze had proposed a new 550-megawatt cable (VIC) between Vancouver and Vancouver Island, while B.C. Transmission Corp. proposed the Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement project (VITR) to replace some of the existing transmission lines which have deteriorated. The two applications were being heard together by the BCUC at hearings in Vancouver.
The new evidence Sea Breeze referred to was Hydro's contention BCTC's project be funded by 100 per cent provincially guaranteed debt. Sea Breeze's Vancouver Island Cable proposal was to be funded on a ratio of approximately 72 per cent debt to 28 per cent equity -- which would have resulted in increased costs and therefore an increased rate to the taxpayer, making it less likely to receive BCUC approval.
Sea Breeze contends Hydro only made this known three weeks into the proceedings.
"If B.C. Hydro believed that the rate impact of VITR should have been done on 100 per cent debt, it should have raised it with BCTC before they filed ... it should have raised it with the commission ... and finally, it should have raised it as soon as Sea Breeze brought forward its CPCN," Landry argued. "It did not and it should not now be entitled to do so."
Hydro's legal representative told the commission the information was available and was only being introduced into evidence to clarify the point.
Hydro representatives declined interview requests Thursday, though spokeswoman Elisha Moreno sent a terse note saying: "We were disappointed to hear that Sea Breeze withdrew their application as we were looking forward to hearing about their project."
B.C. Transmission Corporation spokeswoman Jenn Hartman pointed out BCTC filed evidence to the BCUC on Aug. 26 that indicated that the VITR project would be financed by B.C. Hydro using 100 per cent debt financing and the rate impact using that model was provided in information responses to the BCUC on Sept. 28.
During his explanation in allowing the evidence from Hydro, BCUC chairman Robert Hobbs said the parties likely share some responsibility -- Sea Breeze for not taking enough steps to investigate and Hydro for not bringing up the clarification until this week.