IN THE MATTER OF
the Utilities Commission Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 473
and
Innergex Renewable Energy Inc.
Contesting Alleged Violation of Mandatory Reliability Standards:
EOP-008-0 Requirement 1 – Violation ID: BCUC2013000467
PER-002-0 Requirement 1 – Violation ID: BCUC2013000470
PER-002-0 Requirement 2 – Violation ID: BCUC2013000458
PER-002-0 Requirement 3 – Violation ID: BCUC2013000471
PER-002-0 Requirement 4 – Violation ID: BCUC2013000472
PER-003-0 Requirement 1 – Violation ID: BCUC2013000473
BEFORE: D. M. Morton, Panel Chair/Commissioner
L. E. Kelsey, Commissioner January 27, 2015
N. E. MacMurchy, Commissioner
O R D E R
WHEREAS:
A. Order G-123-09 approved the Compliance Monitoring Program (CMP), which provides a process for dealing with violations of Mandatory Reliability Standards (MRS) adopted by the British Columbia Utilities Commission (Commission);
B. On July 25, 2014, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), acting as the Commission’s MRS Administrator, issued a Notice of Alleged Violation (NOAV) to Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. (Innergex) for the alleged violation of the Reliability Standards listed above. The NOAV described the nature of the Alleged Violations and provided an assessment of the severity of the Alleged Violations. The NOAV also cited section 4.1.1 of the CMP, pursuant to which a NOAV will be treated as confidential unless and until the Commission confirms the Alleged Violation(s);
C. Section 4.2 of the CMP provides an entity 30 days to respond to a NOAV and allows that if the entity fails to respond within 30 days, the Commission may consider the Alleged Violations in the absence of a submission. The CMP also provides that if contested, WECC shall review any additional information submitted by the entity and may withdraw the NOAV, issue a revised NOAV or issue a letter affirming the NOAV. If the entity contests the revised NOAV or WECC affirms the NOAV, the Commission will hold a hearing;
D. By email dated September 9, 2014, Innergex contested the Alleged Violations identified above with reasons, following which, with further review, WECC affirmed the NOAV;
E. On November 19, 2014, Innergex submitted that it continues to contest WECC’s Alleged Violations and exercised its right to a hearing on the matter. Specifically, Innergex requested the Commission conduct a private oral hearing;
F. On December 2, 2014, by Order R-58-14 and in accordance with section 4.2.5.3 of the CMP, the Commission established a hearing into the NOAV and requested WECC and Innergex to comment on their availability and willingness to participate by way of a Streamlined Review Process (SRP). Both parties were also invited to file evidence that pertains to any formal relationship between Innergex and the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) as it relates to this matter and to provide a submission on whether or not BC Hydro should be included as a party to this hearing;
G. On December 15, 2014, WECC and Innergex filed comments. Innergex filed two letters: in the first letter Innergex confirmed it was amenable to an SRP and stated that it would be useful to include BC Hydro in the hearing process; and in the second letter Innergex requested a settlement discussion with WECC and the Commission. WECC submitted that it is conditionally amenable to an SRP if the Commission limits its review to only issues concerning the application and interpretation of the standards as applicable to a Generator Owner (GO), Generator Operator (GOP), Transmission Owner (TO) and/or a Transmission Operator (TOP). WECC noted if the hearing is to consider whether some GO/GOP/TO/TOPs should be subject to fewer standards than others, then an SRP may not be suitable. WECC took no position on whether BC Hydro should be made a party;
H. On December 19, 2014, by Order R-60-14, the Panel established a preliminary Regulatory Timetable, directed WECC and Innergex to file any remaining evidence on this matter by January 9, 2015, and noted the evidence will be open to examination by way of one round of information requests. The Panel also directed Innergex to notify the Commission by January 9, 2015 if BC Hydro will be an active party to the proceeding and limited the scope of the hearing to the following:
1. Has WECC properly interpreted and applied the standards?
2. If WECC properly interpreted and applied the standards, has WECC proven that Innergex did not comply with the standards?
I. On January 8, 2015, Innergex requested extending the evidence filing deadline to January 14, 2015. On January 9, 2015, the Commission Panel granted the request;
J. On January 14, 2015, Innergex and WECC filed evidence. Innergex did not notify the Commission if BC Hydro will be an active party to the proceeding. In Innergex’s submission it seeks the following relief:
1. An order that amends section 3 of Order R-60-14 to remove the limit on the scope of the review;
2. An order directing a without prejudice settlement meeting in order to allow the parties the opportunity to negotiate and resolve the Alleged Violations prior to any further advancement of the review;
3. An order setting out a pre-hearing conference to establish the format and the procedural matters for the review, which shall include an oral hearing if settlement is not reached; and
4. In the event the BCUC proceeds to determine the Alleged Violations, an order setting aside the Alleged Violations and confirming that CWEI was not in breach of any MRS and that CWEI was in full compliance with Order G-122-10;
K. The Commission Panel has reviewed WECC and Innergex’s submissions and has determined that it is appropriate to expand the scope of the hearing to include consideration of Recital H of Order G‑122-10, including the context and prior correspondence related to that recital. The Panel also considers it appropriate to defer consideration of items 2, 3 and 4 in Recital J until after the responses to information requests are reviewed.
NOW THEREFORE the Commission orders as follows:
1. The scope of the hearing outlined in Directive 3 of Order R-60-14 is amended to include consideration of Recital H of Order G-122-10 and the context and prior correspondence related to that recital.
2. Consideration of items 2, 3 and 4 in Recital J is deferred until the responses to information requests are reviewed.
DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 27th day of January 2015.
BY ORDER
Original Signed By:
D. M. Morton
Panel Chair/Commissioner