Orders

Decision Information

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ~ Filing of Electricity Purchase Agreement with Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. as an Energy Supply Contract Pursuant to Section 71 ~ Final Order

Collection Orders
Date 2010-11-10
Document No. L-91-10
Order Type L-Letters
Company Name BC Hydro

Decision Content

 

Via Email                                                                                                              November 10, 2010

 

 

BC Hydro - Reconsideration of
2007 Alcan EPA                                            Exhibit    A-3

 

To:          British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

                Registered Interveners (BCH-Alcan-07EPA-RI)

 

 

Re:  British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro)

Filing of Electricity Purchase Agreement with Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.

               as an Energy Supply Contract Pursuant to Section 71               

 

By Letter L-48-09 dated June 12, 2009, the Commission deferred the re-opening of the 2007 Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. (RTA) Electricity Purchase Agreement (EPA) proceedings until the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on granting leave to RTA to appeal the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission) 2009 BCCA 67.

 

The Court of Appeal had ordered:

 

THAT the proceeding identified as “Re: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Project No. 3698475/Order No. G-100-07 Filing of 2007 Electricity Purchase Agreement with RTA as an Energy Supply Contract Pursuant to section 71” be re-opened for the sole purpose of hearing evidence and argument on whether a duty to consult and, if necessary, accommodate the appellant exists and, if so, whether the duty has been met in respect of the filing of the 2007 EPA.

 

RTA’s leave application was granted.

 

On October 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, allowed the appeal of RTA and BC Hydro from the decision of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the Commission’s decision approving the 2007 EPA.

 

Accordingly as it is no longer necessary for the Commission to re-open the proceeding, it will not be doing so.

 

                                                                                                                               Yours truly,

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                Erica M. Hamilton

cms

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.