December 9,2005

from the office ofi P. John Landry dlrect tel: 604 643 2935

direct fax: 604.605 3588 john-landryadavis ca

file number: 66 107-0000 1

B.C. Utilities Commission Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street Box 250 Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3

Attention: Robert J. Pellatt

Dear Mr. Pellatt:

Re: Sea Breeze Victoria Converter Corporation ("Sea Breeze") Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Application - Vancouver Island Cable ("VIC") Project

- and -

British Columbia Transmission Corporation ("BCTC") Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Application - Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement ("VITR") Project

We are writing to comment on Mr. Carpenter's letter of today's date, seeking an extension of time for BCTC to file its Intervenor Evidence on Sea Breeze's VIC Application.

Sea Breeze will not object to whatever extension of time the Commission may consider to be reasonable for BCTC to file its Intervenor Evidence.

We must, however, make the following comments to set the record straight.

As BCTC and Mr. Carpenter are fully aware, answering IRs in any process is extremely difficult. In this case, that process was made even more difficult by the extensive IRs received by Sea Breeze from the Commission, BC Hydro and BCTC (nearly 1,100 in total, including IRs on both the VITR Intervenor Evidence and the VIC Application), and the limited time provided to respond to those IRs.

D A V I S & C O M P A N Y L L P 2800 Park Place, 666 Burrard Street , Vancouver, BC Canada v6c 227 w lv w davis . ca VANCOUVER TORONTO MONTREAL CALGARY EDMONTON WHITEHORSE YELLOWKNIFE TOKYO

B2-22

Page 2 of 4

As I have informed Mr. Carpenter on numerous occasions, Sea Breeze supports the Commission's preferred approach of having legal counsel and their clients sort out difficulties arising out of the IR process. In this case, Sea Breeze has actively attempted to follow that approach in dealing with the issues raised by Mr. Carpenter.

We were therefore surprised by the tone and content of Mr. Carpenter's letter.

Mr. Carpenter's comments can generally be described as raising two distinct complaints:

a complaint relating to the late filing of IRs; and

a complaint about the formatting of certain information provided by BCTC.

Sea Breeze wishes to comment on each of those complaints.

1. Complaint about IRs still outstanding:

As Sea Breeze indicated in its letter of yesterday's date to the Commission accompanying the responses it filed last night to BCTC's Information Request No. 1 regarding the VIC Project, Sea Breeze recognizes the importance of responding to IRs within the timeframe established by the Commission. Sea Breeze regrets that certain responses are still pending, which is substantially due to the large volume of Information Requests issued by BCTC, and is making every effort to answer the outstanding questions as quickly as possible.

As of now:

Sea Breeze has filed responses to all but 9 out of BCTC's 135 IRs on Sea Breeze's Intervenor Evidence regarding the VITR Application;

Sea Breeze filed answers last night to 262 out of BCTC's 405 IRs regarding the VIC Application; and

o Sea Breeze intends to file a significant number of responses to pending IRs later tonight and/or this weekend.

By way of comparison, it should also be noted that BCTC failed to provide responses to a very substantial portion of BCUC and Intervenor IRs by the September 27, 2005 deadline which had been established by the Commission for those responses under Order No. G-72-05 (even though

Page 3 of 4

BCTC was given two more days to provide those responses than were allotted for Sea Breeze's responses to BCUC IR No. 2 and Intervenor IR No. 1 on the VIC Application). In particular:

although, by our count, BCTC filed 630 responses to IRs on September 27, 2005, a number of those responses involved cross-references to other yet to be submitted responses;

o two revisions to those responses were filed on September 28,2005;

473 responses were filed on October 10,2005; and

59 responses were filed on October 14,2005.

In the circumstances, although Sea Breeze regrets the delays which have unfortunately occurred in its responses to IRs, it must also fairly be observed that those delays are not dissimilar to the delays which have previously occurred in this proceeding in connection with BCTC's responses to IRs, nor are such delays unusual in a proceeding such as this one before the Commission.

2. Complaint about information provided to BCTC:

The issues raised by Mr. Carpenter relating to "studies" have been the subject matter of discussion and correspondence between Mr. Carpenter and myself. I have attempted to facilitate discussions directly between BCTC and Sea Breeze's technical advisors, to ensure that difficulties arising out of information (or lack of information) provided to BCTC were resolved without the need for Commission involvement.

Unfortunately, BCTC has decided that meetings between BCTC and Sea Breeze to deal with such issues were not appropriate. As a result, the information requested was provided on the CDs referenced in Mr. Carpenter's letter.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Mr. Carpenter (a copy of which is attached) explaining for the first time the difficulties that BCTC was having in interpreting the information provided by Sea Breeze.

1 have asked Sea Breeze's technical advisors to write directly to BCTC to respond to Mr. Carpenter's letter. A copy of that response will be filed with the Commission later today.

DAVI S *y company

Yours truly,

P. John Landry ///

Enclosure

cc: Sea Breeze Victoria Converter Corporation Attention: James Griffiths

Sandy Carpenter

Registered Intervenors

Page 4 of 4

Dec-09-05 I2 :OTam From-

Fasken Martlneau DuMoulin LLP ' Bsrristers and Sollcltots Pat ant and Trado-mark Agente

3400 First Canadian Centre 350 - 7th Avenue SW Calgaw, Alberta, Canada, T2P 3N5

403 281 6360 Tolephone 403 281 5351 Facsimile

December 8,2005 Fife No,: 260254.00006/153 11

VIA FACSIMILE

Davis and Company LLP 2800 Park Place 666 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 227

A.W. (Sandy) Carpenter Direct 403 261 5365

Facslmlle 403 201 5351 scarpenter@cgy.fasken.com

Attention: John Landry I I

Dear SirslMesdmes:

Re: Vuncouvcr Island Cable Applicatio b BCTC hrts now had an opportuniry to aII:e+r to review thc mntnialr contdncd on the two CDs you forwarded last week. It appezys that thtse same marerials have now been forwarded to the Commission,

a I arn advised tlaat: the two CDS contain 298 fjles in total, approximately half of them are Powerworld saved cases and the other half for draw files, and take up about 720 Mbs. TIaere is no document on the CDs to introduce how the files are related LO Sea Breeze's Application, the Sea B~CCZC IR responses in general, the specific IRs that we requested the studies in supporc of in our November 24 letter, or to each other. Many cases on the CDs are vcry similar or simply duplicated, and therefore hard to diflcrentiate. Some cases do not appear to have any connection to Sea greeze's Application or the IRs.

There are some references on &o CDs to some Rs. Howcvcr, cvon for these cases the saved cases do nor appear to ncccssarily match the topic in the responses. For exatnple, the saved case 1 x VIC-2325MW-13CUC 7.l.pwb pointe to BCUC 1.7.1 but this TR actually is about something else (four terminal sitos around INC). Some cases whose file nrtmes point to BCCUC IR 1 7.1, are saved under folder IR 25, but the VI losses in the saved oases do not match the data mentioned in rhc response KO BCUC R 1 25.1.

In our letter oPNovernber 24, we specifically requested copies ofthe srudies <and analysis that Sea Breeze indicates that it has performed in BCTC IIZ responses 1.5.1, 1.21.1, 1.29.3, 1.30.2, 1.30.4, and 7.32.1, and BCUC IR responses 1.17.2, 1.25.1 and 1.80.1.

DM-CGYPC1603S~l-OD006/I8536.1

I:-rhen Maninornu OuMoutin LLP 8. a UMIM ~ t m n i t i t ~ patmufaNo u m r ihe IYW PI Ontslfr, ona Induaae l6w wrpornrions,

Vanoouvar Celgar teramo hllontriaf Oudbac CIw New Yatk London Johannesburg

Received 08-Dec-ZOO5 1 1 : 06am From- To-Davis & Coinpany LIP Page 002

MARTINEAu Page 2

Would you please provide us with new CDs wiih rhcsc srudies on them clearly fonnaaed to sllow which studies are mlmcd to which &. 111ank-you for your rsttenrion to this marter,

Yours mly,

FASKXN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP

c.c. BCTC

DM_CCYPAOZ%W006/I 8536.1

Recer ved 08-Dec-2006 1 1 :Obarn From- To-Davls L Cornpany LIP Page 003

Dec-OQ-05 12:07an From-

Fasken Martlneau DuMoulin LLP ' Barrisrers and Sollcltora Patent and Trade-mark Agente

3400 First Canadian Centre 350 - 7th Avenue SW Calgaiy, Alberta, Canada, T2P 3NQ

403 261 6360 Telephone 403 261 5351 Facsimlk

December 8,2005 File No,: 260254.00006/153 1 1

A.W. (Sandy) Carpenter Direct 403 261 5365

Facslmlle 403 281 5351 scarpentor@cgy.fasken.com

VIA FACSIMILE

Davis and Company LLP 2800 Park Place 666 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 227

Attention: John Landry

Dear SirslMesdames:

Re: Vuncouvcr Island Cable Applicatio pl BCTC has now had an opportuniry to am to review thc materials contained on the

forwarded to thc Commission. two CDs you forwarded last week. It that thcse same ma~erials have ~low bean

a I am advised that rhe ~ W O CDs coatain 298 Gles in total, approximately half af them are Powerworld saved cases and the other half for draw files, axd take up about 720 Mbs. Tl=w is M document on the CDs to introduce how the files are related to Sea Breeze's Applicarion, the Sea Breczc IR responses in general, the specific IRs that we requested the studies in support of in our November 24 letter, or to each other. Many cases on the CDs are vary similar or simply duplicated, an$ therefore hard to differentiate. Some cases do not appear to have my comecrion to Sea greere's Application or the IRs,

There are some references on CDs to samc I%, Howcvcr, cvcn for these cases the saved cases do nor appear to ncccssarily match the topic in rht: responses. For example, the saved case 1 x VTC-2325MW-13CUC 7.1 .pwb points to BCUC 1.7.1 bur this lR actoally is about something else (four terminal siros around INC). Some cases whose file names point to BCUC IR 1 7.1, are saved under folder IR 25, but the VI losses in the saved oases do not match the data mentioned in rhc response KO BCUC 1K 1 25.1.

In our letter of November 24, we specifically requested copies of The srudies analysis that Sea Breeze indicates that it has performed in BCTC IR responses 1.5.1, 1.21.1, 1.29.3, 1.30.2, 1.30.4, and 1.32.1. and BCUC IR responses I .17.1, 1.25.1 and 1.80.1.

DM,COY/26UlS~190006/18$36.1

- Fmakon ril.n(nenu D u W n LLP la a IMW iolDiiiw whur8NO u m r the IOW d Dniorlo ona lnduIIai4 law wrporntions,

Vancouver Caleay reram WIontr6~1 Oudbec ClW New York London Johannesburg

Received OB-Dec-2005 1 1 :06am From- To-Davis & Company LIP P a m U ~ Z

MARTINEAU Page 2

Would you please provide us with new CDs vviih rhcsc studies on them clearly fonna-d to sllow which smdies are mlzurcd to which IRs.

llaanlc-you for your attention to this matter.

Yours rruly,

FASICEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLF

A.W. (Sandy) Cqenier

C.C. BCTC

Reeelved 08-Dee-1006 1 1 : 06am From- To-Davls Q Company LLP Page 003