Rep: OEB Doc: 12J47 Rev: 0 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD Volume: 1 30 SEPTEMBER 2002 BEFORE: G. DOMINY PRESIDING MEMBER A. BIRCHENOUGH MEMBER 1 RP-2002-0114/EB-2002-0355 TRANSCRIPT VOLUME #1 2 IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Sithe Canadian Pipelines Ltd. for an Order granting leave to construct a natural gas transmission pipeline in the City of Brampton; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Sithe Canadian Pipelines Ltd. for an Order granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to supply natural gas in the City of Brampton. 3 RP-2002-0114/EB-2002-0355 TRANSCRIPT VOLUME #1 4 30 SEPTEMBER 2002 5 HEARING HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO 6 APPEARANCES 7 PAT MORAN Board Counsel ROMAN CHYCHOTA Board Staff ZORA CRNOJACKI Board Staff KATHY LITT Board Staff DAVID BROWN Sithe DUANE CRAMER Sithe JAMES HARBELL Sithe HELEN NEWLAND Enbridge ROGER BEAMAN J. E. Cottrelle JAMES SIDLOFSKY City of Kitchener CLAY CONNER City of Kitchener ROBERT HOWE Sandringham Place TIBOR HAYNAL TCPL ROBERT WARREN CAC 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 APPEARANCES: [18] ISSUES LIST: [44] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. BROWN: [45] PROCEDURAL MATTERS: [66] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. BROWN: [67] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. HARBELL: [106] SUBMISSIONS BY MS. NEWLAND: [142] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. WARREN: [178] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. BEAMAN: [197] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SIDLOFSKY: [216] SUBMISSIONS BY MR. HOWE: [236] FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BY MR. WARREN: [248] FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BY MS. NEWLAND: [255] REPLY BY MR. BROWN: [262] 10 EXHIBITS 11 12 UNDERTAKINGS 13 14 --- Upon commencing at 10:31 a.m. 15 MR. DOMINY: Please be seated. 16 Sithe Canadian Pipelines has applied for an order of the Board granting leave to construct a natural gas pipeline, pursuant to Section 90 of the Ontario Energy Board Act. Sithe Canadian Pipelines Ltd. has also applied under Section 8 of the Municipal Franchise Act for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to supply natural gas to the planned Goreway power station in the City of Brampton. The Board is sitting today to hear positions on the issues list for this proceeding. With me today is Mr. Birchenough, and my name is George Dominy. 17 Before we start could we have appearances, please. 18 APPEARANCES: 19 MR. BROWN: David Brown for Sithe. 20 MR. DOMINY: Good morning, Mr. Brown. 21 MR. HARBELL: Jim Harbell for Sithe. 22 MR. DOMINY: And this is for Sithe Canadian Pipelines Ltd., or --? 23 MR. BROWN: For the applicant. And with us is Mr. Duane Cramer from Sithe. 24 MS. NEWLAND: Helen Newland for Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., Mr. Chairman. 25 MR. DOMINY: Good morning. 26 MR. WARREN: Robert Warren for Consumers' Association of Canada, and may I enter an appearance for Peter Thompson for the Industrial Gas Users' Association who is in Ottawa this morning, but has instructed me to make certain submissions on behalf of his client. 27 MR. DOMINY: Thank you. 28 MR. BEAMAN: Roger Beaman for J. E. Cottrelle estate. 29 MR. DOMINY: Good morning, Mr. Beaman. 30 MR. SIDLOFSKY: James Sidlofsky for the City of Brampton. 31 MR. CONNOR: Clay Connor for the City of Brampton. 32 MR. DOMINY: Good morning, Mr. Connor. 33 MR. HOWE: Robert Howe for Sandringham Place Inc. and Casa North Investments Inc.. 34 MR. DOMINY: Good morning, Mr. Howe. 35 MR. HAYNAL: Good morning. Tibor Haynal for TransCanada PipeLines. 36 MR. DOMINY: Good morning, Mr. Haynal. 37 Any other appearances? 38 MR. MORAN: Pat Moran, Board counsel. 39 MR. DOMINY: Good morning, Mr. Moran. 40 Before we start, any preliminary matters? 41 In which case, I presume we move onto the issues list and I presume that the applicant will introduce the issues list; is that correct? 42 MR. BROWN: Yes, although, actually if Board Staff would be kind enough to do all of the administrative work on it. You have a copy of the issues list, Mr. Chair? 43 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, we do. 44 ISSUES LIST: 45 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. BROWN: 46 MR. BROWN: As you can see from the issues list, discussions did take place last Friday at the Board, which were attended by the applicant, Board Staff, and a large number of the intervenors. As a result of those discussions, a proposed issues list was arrived at which obtained the concurrence of the applicant and the intervenors. So we present it today for consideration of the Board. 47 Just briefly, in terms of the issues on the issues list, Mr. Chair, you'll see item number 1, in a very broad sense, addresses the issue of need for the pipeline. Item number 2 deals with alternatives and evaluation of alternatives. 48 The language in items 2.1, 2.3 -- sorry, 2.2 and 2.3 have deliberately been crafted to be fairly broad. There was a fair amount of discussion at the issues conference on Friday as to various arguments and evidence that various intervenors and parties wanted to put forward, and the resolution that was reached was that the broad language that you see in item number 2 would effectively allow all of the parties and intervenors to put before the Board the issues that they consider to be material to Sithe's application, and the applicant is certainly very content with that approach. 49 Item number 3 really contains a collection of the different issues. You'll see that items 3.1 through to 3.3 essentially deal with the environmental/land-owning aspects of the proposed pipeline. The route of the pipeline is one which is proposed to run from the TCPL pipeline to the north, in a southerly direction down to the pipeline. 50 A number of landowners have intervened in this proceeding, and based on the discussions we had on Friday, it's certainly the applicant's understanding that they are content with the language of 3.1 and 3.3 and consider that those issues as drafted will allow them to address to the Board any concerns which they might have about the proposed routing. 51 Items 3.4 to 3.9 are, if I could describe them generically, public interest concerns. Of course, one of the unique features of this application, Mr. Chair, is that it is being proposed by an applicant which is not a regulated natural gas distributor in Ontario. That fact has attracted a number of public interest related concerns as to -- with regards to this application, and sections 3.4 through to 3.9 are really designed to try and deal with not only the criteria which should be applied to assessing this kind of application but, as you'll see from 3.6, what impact, if any, would this application have on the local distribution company, Enbridge Gas Distribution and their ratepayers. 52 Those issues are both, to a certain degree, factual in nature, but there's also a large amount of public policy and, to a certain extent, legal obligations contained within those. 53 Finally, item 3.10 is a natural item on any leave-to-construct, the appropriate conditions which this Board should apply to the application. The applicant has proposed some based on past practice of the Board. Other intervenors may have suggestions as to unique conditions of approval that should be afforded in this. 54 That's sort of the background, Mr. Chair, to the issues list and, as I say, it was worked on on Friday and appears to have the broad concurrence of all of the parties in this room, and so we tender it for consideration of the Board. 55 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 56 Are there any parties who would like to add any comments to that presentation? 57 So it's an uncontested issues list, from our perspective, so the Board will duly consider the issues list and issue a procedural order shortly which will cover the issues list. 58 I was going to go on. Are there other matters now? 59 MR. BROWN: There is one other matter, Mr. Chair, that we would like to address at this particular point and we discussed it on Friday as well, and that is the issue of scheduling of the remaining steps in this proceeding and the hearing as well. 60 The applicant would like to make some brief submissions to you right now, and what I propose to do is give you a bit of background to the schedule that the applicant is proposing and Mr. Harbell will take you through the particular schedule. 61 At the -- 62 MR. DOMINY: Can I just interrupt and then after that other parties can make various comments they would have on the schedule. 63 MR. BROWN: Absolutely. 64 MR. DOMINY: Do it that way and then you can have another opportunity if there are any issues arising from their comments, if you wish to respond. 65 MR. BROWN: That would be appropriate. That would be fine. 66 PROCEDURAL MATTERS: 67 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. BROWN: 68 MR. BROWN: At the issues day on Friday, Sithe indicated to everyone who was there that it would be requesting that the Board consider a hearing that would result in -- a schedule that would result in a hearing of this proceeding in the last week of November of this year. That was something of an advancement over previous discussions that Sithe had had with Board Staff. 69 Just by way of background, Mr. Chair, this application was filed in late April, and over the course of the summer we've been in active discussions with Board Staff and have been requesting consideration of a hearing in December of this year or January of next year, based upon the applications filed. 70 On Friday, however, we indicated to Board Staff and to the other people who were present at the issues day that Sithe would like to accelerate the schedule, in large part, because Sithe was proposing that in addition to the 800-odd-megawatt combined cycle plant which forms the subject matter of the application, it was proposing to amend its evidence to indicate that it would endeavour to also construct a smaller 450-megawatt peaking plant on the site with the plant to bring that peaking plant into operation by June the 1st of next year. 71 That particular proposal wouldn't affect the location of the pipeline, the size of the pipeline or anything like that, but it certainly would affect the proposed construction of the pipeline, with Sithe proposing to construct a pipeline in March and April of next year so that the plant -- the peaking plant could be operational by June the 1st. 72 Perhaps I could give you the rationale behind the proposal which Sithe raised on Friday. The proposal is really driven by recent market conditions on the electricity side in Ontario. In particular, it appears that the resource or the generation capacity in Ontario was just barely sufficient this past summer to meet domestic needs, and Ontario had to rely significantly on imported power during peak times, and the IMO is forecasting that next summer reserve margins would be very thin. 73 Perhaps to put that background in context, I could provide to you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Birchenough, extracts from the IMO's 18-month outlook which was published early last week. 74 I'll just wait for everyone to get a copy of it. 75 As you are aware, Mr. Chair, the IMO, as part of this mandate, is required every quarter to perform and to publish an assessment of the reliability of the Ontario electricity system and that assessment really contains two parts: an assessment of the adequacy of resources to meet Ontario demand and then an assessment of the adequacy of transmission capacity. 76 On September the 24th, the IMO published its assessment of reliability for the period of October 2002 to March of 2004. I have put before you extracts from that publication, and if I could ask you to turn to page 4 of 31, Section 2.4. 77 The section is entitled "Summary of Generation Resource Scenarios," and you'll see from the second and third paragraphs that the way the IMO performs its assessment as to whether there is adequate generation capacity is that it comes up with a base scenario, they call it a reference resource scenario, which assumes that certain generation facilities will be in operation during the forecast time. 78 And you'll see in the second paragraph of 2.4 that with a particular reference resource scenario, the IMO is using the existing resources, but the second sentence says, "This resource scenario assumes that Pickering A units come into service on the dates that the facility owner has indicated to the IMO." 79 It goes on to say, "It also includes those generation projects listed in the IMO's assessment cue where the connection applicant has indicated that construction is in progress or has been completed, and where the proposed in-schedule service date falls within the 18-month period of this outlook. For this outlook, this includes the 510-megawatt TransAlta gas-fired project in Sarnia, and an additional 1,500 megawatts of capacity from the Bruce Power project." 80 And certainly the Pickering A and the Bruce projects have been in the news. Both of those are nuclear facilities. And Bruce Power, which is owned, in large part, by British Energy, indicated when it required a lease-hold of that facility that it would try and bring some of the mothball generation units back online, and OPG has indicated a similar intention with respect to some Pickering A units. 81 So the IMO's reference resource scenario assumes that those nuclear units will come back online. 82 As you can see from the third paragraph, Mr. Chair, the scenario B, or what they call the delayed resource scenario, uses the same assumptions except that the in-service dates of additional resources are delayed by one year. 83 The IMO then made an assessment of the resource adequacy on the generation side, and if I could ask you to move ahead to page 9 of 31, they dealt with -- specifically with the uncertainties associated with some of the assumptions that they made in terms of their forecast margins for reserve. 84 In particular, at the bottom of page 9, they dealt specifically with the solidity of their assumption with respect to the nuclear units at Pickering and Bruce coming back online. They wrote that the additional resources forecast for 2003 come from late nuclear units returning to service. The improved demand supply situation in 2003 is critically dependent on these units returning to service on schedule. To date, no laid up nuclear unit has been returned to service in Ontario, and there have been past delays in projected return dates. This history suggests a significant risk that some return-to-service dates will not be met. 85 For purposes of this assessment, the IMO has adopted the nuclear return-to-service dates provided to it in August. The 18-month resource outlook would deteriorate significantly should these schedules not be met. This risk has been considered in the delayed resource scenario. 86 So, against that background, if I could ask you to turn further in the IMO report to the actual assessment which they did on resource adequacy. In particular, appendix A, which commences on page 21 of 31. 87 It's not my intention to go through the table in detail, but briefly what the IMO has done in this table is it has taken each of the weeks in the forecast 18-month period, and for each week indicated what they project the demand will be for electricity in Ontario, the resources available to meet that demand. 88 And then in the last three columns on the table, they have set the required reserve margin, the percentage margin. They translated that in the second to last column into megawatts, what the required reserve is needed to meet the standard reliability factors, and then in the last column they have forecast the actual reserve margin in Ontario. 89 And if you go down on this page to May of 2003, you will see really starting at the beginning of May, the 11th of May, from there throughout the rest of the summer, through to September and October of 2003, the forecast reserve margin in the far right column is significantly less than the required reserve margin in the second column from the right, indicating that even on the reference resource scenario, that is, the best-case scenario with the nuclear units coming back online, there will be significant shortfalls in the magnitude of anywhere from 1,500 to close to 3,000 megawatts at various weeks during the course of next summer. That is the best case scenario. 90 If you turn to table A-2, which is on page 23 of 31, the IMO conducts a similar assessment using the delayed resource scenario, and that is the scenario which would envisage the Pickering A and the Bruce units not coming online to serve as a resource for next summer. 91 Again, if you go to the week of May the 18th, just to pick a starting point, you will see there that there is a significant difference, close to 2,700 megawatts, between the actual reserve margin that will be available and the required reserve margin, and then starting very quickly thereafter, the week of June the 8th, the actual reserve margin is actually a negative, which indicates that the generation resources available in Ontario will not be able to meet the required reserve of -- that would be required for demand at that time. 92 That situation, the negative reserve situation continues, in large part, throughout all of the summer until late August of 2003, as you can see from page 24, and then come September and October, you're more or less out of the negatives, but you're still in situations where there are significant shortfalls between the actual reserve margin and the required reserve. 93 It is really the forecast that was published by the IMO which reflects an understanding of market conditions that have emerged over the last three weeks that have lead Sithe to consider an alternative or additional use for the lands up in Goreway, and that is to try and construct a peaking facility on the plant which would -- which could come online by June 1 of next year and add 450 megawatts of resources available to meet Ontario demand. 94 The IMO's outlook has indicated that there is going to be significant tightness on reserve margins next summer. It's indicated that there's always uncertainty as to when nuclear units are actually going to come back online, and of course, over the last three weeks there has been news from England that British Energy has been in difficulty, which simply raises more concern as to whether or not the Bruce units will be back on. 95 So in order to assist in trying to find a solution to the tight reserves that the IMO is forecasting for next summer, Sithe is proposing to construct a 450-megawatt peaking facility on its site. 96 And hopefully, Mr. Chair, you receive from the Board secretary a copy of Mr. Harbell's letter, September 27, 2002, which not only contains a schedule to which -- a schedule to which Mr. Harbell will make submissions, but also a notice under the Environmental Assessment Act. 97 Do you have that before you, sir? 98 MR. DOMINY: I have what looks like an e-mail. 99 MR. BROWN: Perhaps I could give you a hard copy -- do you -- a hard copy of the letters that were sent to Mr. Pudge. 100 MR. HARBELL: Circulated by both e-mail and fax. 101 MR. BROWN: For my purposes, I wanted to draw your attention, sir, to the last page of that letter. It appends a notice under the Environmental Assessment Act for this alternative or additional peaking facility which Sithe is proposing to put on the Goreway site. It provides the details of what Sithe is proposing and, reduced to its essence, Sithe has in storage now some simple gas turbines or gas-fired turbines. It would propose to move those onto the site to set them up to form a peaking facility, which would have demand of 450 megawatts, and to get that running for next summer. 102 The construction of the combined cycle plant would then take place in accordance with the schedule that has already been proposed. 103 But it's this additional facility that has really precipitated Sithe's request that the schedule for the hearing in this proceeding be accelerated to a certain extent, because it will be necessary to get gas to the site next spring in order for the facility to be up and running by June the 1st. 104 In that regard, I'll ask my partner, Mr. Harbell, to lead you through the schedule which we are asking the Board to consider today for this proceeding. 105 MR. DOMINY: Mr. Harbell. 106 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. HARBELL: 107 MR. HARBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 108 By way of background to the proposal set out in the September 27th letter, let me first explain specifically why we are looking to achieve the Board dealing with this matter by early winter of this year. 109 As you've heard, Sithe is seeking to have the peaker plant commence operations on June 1st of 2003. Working backward, Sithe believe that it's going to take two months to construct this pipeline and that it needs to be operational by mid-May of '03, so operational mid-May '03 meaning the pipeline must commence construction not later than early to mid-March of 2003. 110 The other significant requirement, working backwards, is to deal with certain outstanding land matters. Sithe may require the approval of this Board for an expropriation, one of a fee-simple interest, over lands that are allocated for the future Humberwest Parkway, and potentially second over a leasehold interest, again over similar lands that are part of the future Humberwest Parkway. 111 The Expropriations Act provides for 105 days as a timetable for such expropriation. The full 105 days needs to run, then we need to address this matter with the Board by middle to late December of '02. However, under the Act, a judge may also order that the 90-day possession date be adjusted to an earlier date. Obviously, there will be no certainty with respect to whether a judge's approval would be obtained for that. 112 Specific to the June 1st start date and a mid-May pipeline operational day, Sithe does take comfort that Enbridge believes that that projected construction date is achievable, based on the contingent leave-to-construct application that was filed on Friday. 113 In order to achieve the date that Enbridge has put forward in that leave to construct, they too will need a similar time frame as what we are proposing today. 114 Now, if we turn to specifically the September 27th letter, we note that the intervenors that are around this hearing room today are all sophisticated, are all represented by legal counsel, and that they all are in a position that they ought to be able to achieve an expedited review of the -- of each of the procedural steps. So we propose that Sithe will file as of tomorrow a revision to its pre-filed evidence which will set out in detail the proposal for the 450-megawatt peaker plant and any changes that that requires to the existing pre-filed evidence that's on the record. 115 From there you can see, basically using Friday's, that we have kept in place all of the traditional steps in this proposal, so any supplementary interrogatories to be filed by this Friday, our response by the following Friday, and then move through to October 18th that the intervenors would file evidence; October 25th, interrogatories on the intervenors' evidence; November 1st, the intervenors would respond to those interrogatories; November 8th, if there's any reply evidence, that that would be filed. And we are proposing, subject to the Panel's availability, that two weeks later, that a hearing would commence on November the 25th. 116 From our perspective, the timetable is not a significant departure from the tentative schedule that we have been discussing with Board Staff for several months. It's been Sithe's understanding that this matter would likely be heard either in December or early January. So, from our perspective, what we're suggesting is that this is being moved forward about three to four weeks, but more importantly that the next procedural order establish certainty with respect to all of the steps and the timing for those steps leading to a hearing. 117 As of late September, we have already been through an extensive process that has lasted for five months since the application was filed on April the 24th. There have been over 150 interrogatories that have been filed and responses given, and there is very substantial pre-filed evidence that has been filed and updated once on the record. 118 Conceptually, what we hope from Sithe's perspective is that while Sithe recognizes that the timing for this peaker plant is indeed ambitious as it tries to address the need of capacity in this province, it hopes that that timing is best dealt with and driven by the marketplace, and we hope that the schedule of regulatory approvals is not what makes or breaks the timing that would establish the opportunity for this peaker plant. 119 So on that basis, we hope that now is the time to organize the completion of this process, and to provide certainty to all parties in the room as to the timing with respect to the regulatory process for the gas pipeline. 120 Those are our submissions, Mr. Chairman. 121 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Mr. Harbell. 122 Mr. Harbell, one question occurred to me was with regard to the approvals for the power plant itself and the environmental process we have to follow. This is a variation on what you have been through. What are the time lines of that? 123 MR. HARBELL: We're anticipating that it can be completed within 90 days. The environmental screening is being done in the context of a completed environmental screening for a much larger power plant on this site, and as this Board knows, the transmission line is fully approved and that's the transmission line that the peaker plant would connect to. 124 So the zoning, the site plan, all of that is established for a power plant on this site. The site plan will need to be modified slightly, and the environmental screening process simply needs to look at the incremental effects of a peaker plant in addition to the approved Goreway station. 125 There will be at least one public meeting through the process, but Sithe anticipates, given the low level of public response when the power plant was approved and went through an extensive screening the first time, that this will not attract much in the way of public attention or of public concern. 126 MR. DOMINY: And the advertisement has already been published. 127 MR. HARBELL: The advertisement was indeed published yesterday in the Brampton Guardian. That's the first step under the screening guidelines for purposes of this project. 128 MR. BIRCHENOUGH: A question for Mr. Brown. The 1,350 megawatt that you propose for this site, is that the ultimate development of this site, or is there any future development beyond the 450 and the -- than the -- sorry, 1,250? 129 MR. BROWN: That's what's on the drawing board, and I'm advised that that's basically the limit of what can be put on there. 130 MR. BIRCHENOUGH: Is there a requirement when the 800 comes along to revise the SIA that you anticipate, that the SIA might need to be revised at that point? 131 MR. BROWN: There will be an application for the second connection and discussions are being held with the IMO in that regard. 132 MR. DOMINY: Mr. Brown, perhaps you can help me. I've never been involved in any cases that involved expropriation, at least never any pipeline that has gotten that far, and perhaps you could go over your -- Mr. Harbell, you had a statement with regard to the time lines related to the expropriation activity such as required. 133 MR. HARBELL: The specific time lines are that there is a notice required of expropriation which must be filed 15 days before the application is heard, and these are absolutely the tightest time frames. 134 Then there is a 90-day period under the Act before possession can be achieved by the expropriating authority, pursuant to the jurisdiction of the Board. With Board approval Sithe, in effect, becomes the expropriating authority. 135 I raise this in the context that we have said in the pre-filed evidence that we intend on working both with the City of Brampton and with the landowners to try to achieve this on a consensual basis. Obviously, there's no certainty that that can be achieved, but Sithe has been at it both with the City and in specific discussions with landowners for a certain period of time. The time frame that's now being proposed is of concern to at least one of the landowners, and we recognize that that may cause the need for an expropriation. 136 MR. DOMINY: And the notice of expropriation could not be issued until an order of the Board giving leave to construct is issued? 137 MR. HARBELL: That's correct. 138 MR. DOMINY: Thank you. 139 Are there parties who would like to make submissions? I'm not sure which sequence they wish to proceed? 140 Ms. Newland. 141 MS. NEWLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have some brief submissions. Thank you. 142 SUBMISSIONS BY MS. NEWLAND: 143 MS. NEWLAND: Mr. Chairman, in order to ensure an in-service date by mid-May, which is what I believe Mr. Brown and Mr. Harbell have described to us this morning, Sithe is proposing to advance the procedural schedule by about one month, and I say that based on our understanding of what the procedural schedule might have been based on informal discussions with Board Staff and with other intervenors. 144 Before Sithe announced its plans last Friday, it appeared that we might expect a hearing on Sithe's application in December/January time frame, and Enbridge, accordingly, was proceeding on that basis. 145 Sithe is proposing to move up the schedule by more than one month. It's an extremely aggressive procedural schedule, by their own admission, with supplementary interrogatories due this Friday. I can tell you that we will find even meeting this Friday's deadline an extremely difficult deadline to meet, in light of some of the changes in the nature of the Sithe project, as we understand it. 146 Far more critical, however, from our perspective, is Sithe's proposed date for the filing of intervenor evidence and their letter stipulates an October 18th date for that evidence to be filed by intervenors. 147 And I say to you with the absolute greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot live with that deadline. We could turn ourselves inside out and perhaps meet this Friday's deadline for interrogatories, but we simply cannot file our evidence by the deadline of October 18. Let me explain to you why we say that. 148 We're saying that we require at least four weeks beyond the October 18th deadline proposed by Sithe. The Sithe application, it's not simply a case building a small pipeline -- a small segment of pipeline. If it were, Enbridge wouldn't be here. It's no secret this case is about the bypass of the Enbridge Gas Distribution system. This case is about bypass. The Board has recognized that there may not be a duplication of facilities in all cases of bypass, and that's been established 15 years ago in the Cyanamide case. The issue in this case is the bypass of our distribution system entirely and the impact of that bypass on our ratepayers. 149 Now, bypass raises very, very important issues of public policy and public interest and ratemaking. These are the issues that are going to be debated in this case. Now, these issues have not been debated since the late '80s or the early '90s, at least not in any kind of detail, and that is why you will see the participation in this hearing of parties who would otherwise not attend a simple facilities proceeding. 150 Intervenors, and I would suggest even the Board, expect Enbridge to take the lead in ensuring that all of the issues in this case, the public policy issues of bypass, will be laid fairly and squarely in front of the Board and debated fully and vigorously. Enbridge has a responsibility on behalf of its ratepayers to ensure that this will happen. 151 To do this, we will be filing extensive evidence. Our evidence will deal with the impacts of bypass on our ratepayers, the longer term implications and impacts on ratepayers of allowing a customer such as Sithe to construct dedicated facilities to serve itself, the safety implications of permitting the construction of a lone, single pipeline that is not integrated into the existing pipeline network in a large metropolitan center such as Toronto. 152 We also intend to demonstrate in our evidence that Sithe's arguments regarding the economic need for a dedicated single-purpose pipeline simply don't hold water, they don't stand up to scrutiny. 153 We cannot pull all this evidence together by the 18th of October. We have just retained the services of an expert witness to assist us in making our arguments. We have been proceeding with a view to a hearing in the December/January 2003 time frame. 154 Moreover, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the company is involved in the 2003 rate case, our Starco application, our Welland port application, we've just filed our QRAM application. We simply can't change gears, turn on a dime, and have everything ready to go by October 18th. 155 And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we don't believe that the Board should be asked to act with such haste either in a case that involves such important issues. It should have the very best information in front of it to be able to make the very best decision in the public interest. 156 Because - make no mistake about it - your decision in this case will be critical and it will set the course for similar cases that involve bypass candidates such as Sithe in the future. 157 Enbridge respects Sithe's business objectives, and it understands it wants to catch next summer's peaking season. No matter how worthy those motives may be, Enbridge seriously questions whether Sithe can, in fact, construct a pipeline by the beginning of May 2003. 158 Quite frankly, we were surprised that Sithe is asking the Board to accelerate the hearing process by more than one month and, indeed, even set a hearing date at this time. 159 We're surprised because Sithe's application is still a work in progress, and I mean that with no disrespect, but it's yet to finalize the location of its meter station and thus the exact length of the pipeline it's asking you to authorize. It has outstanding issues with the landowners. 160 The latest plans, however, to install a peaking plant will increase the throughput of the proposed pipeline, and we also understand from discussions we had with Sithe on Friday that it may be necessary to install compression at the actual plant site, something which was not part of the economics of the project before. 161 So we think that with an additional throughput and a change in the need for compression, the economics of the overall project are sure to change. We would like to explore that change in economics by way of interrogatories, and we haven't seen Sithe's evidence. It may be that that's set out in the evidence, in which case it will take us a bit to digest that and we look forward to seeing it. 162 In any event, it's not the regulatory schedule or regulatory requirements that's going to stand in Sithe's way of getting a pipeline commissioned by mid-May of next year. There are many other critical path items that will all have to fall in place for Sithe's project to be achieved in that time frame. And these include land acquisition, the expropriation of land, materials acquisition. 163 I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Enbridge did file its application to build this line on Friday and we will be filing our pre-filed evidence as soon as we can. Enbridge is ready, able and willing, and is proceeding now with the steps that are necessary to provide service to Sithe by next summer. We filed our application on Friday, as I've mentioned. We've mobilized our resources to get a pipeline in place to meet Sithe's new project schedule, but I can tell you that even for an experienced pipeline company, which Enbridge is - we are in the business of building and operating pipelines - it's going to be tough to meet their project schedule. And I'm not talking about the regulatory challenge, necessarily. I'm talking about ordering pipe, ordering fittings, getting everything in place. But most of all what I'm talking about is the idea of beginning construction in mid-March, or in March, which is I think where Sithe's schedule lands us. No one but no one begins pipeline construction in the spring unless there's simply no other choice. It's simply not an environmentally sound practice. Do it in the winter or wait for the summer. Don't do it in the spring. We all know that. In this case, the pipeline is crossing undeveloped land, so the problem of wetland is even more aggravated. 164 The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is as follows: We don't see the need for regulatory speed because we believe there are far more critical milestones that will be far more difficult for Sithe to meet. 165 Having said that, a four-week extension of the date proposed by Sithe for the filing of intervenor evidence will not jeopardize Sithe's project schedule. A late January or February decision from this Board should not jeopardize a May commissioning date, provided everything else falls into place for Sithe. 166 Enbridge and its ratepayers should not be prejudiced by an unnecessary and an unrealistic procedural schedule. We ask you to give us a full and a fair opportunity to prepare and present the best possible evidence on behalf of all of our ratepayers. 167 Thank you. Those are my submissions. 168 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Ms. Newland. 169 Ms. Newland, just before I came into this hearing room, I was handed a piece of paper by the Board secretary which was an application by Enbridge Gas Distribution to construct a pipeline, and in that application it says, "Enbridge also requests that if the application is approved, the Board issue the applied-for order by January of 2003, with an effective date which accommodates a construction start date in March 2003." This is consistent with what you're advising me. 170 MS. NEWLAND: That's correct, Mr. Dominy. Our preference would not be to start construction in March, but if that's -- if that's what Sithe requires, and that's what the Board feels appropriate, we want to be there too, if I may put it that way. 171 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Ms. Newland. 172 Can I just go back just one moment. You said that if you looked at Sithe's proposed schedule for the filing of intervenor evidence, that you could live with a four-week extension of the date for intervenor evidence, if that was what the Board ultimately were to consider. 173 MS. NEWLAND: Yes, sir. 174 MR. DOMINY: So in other words, October the 18th would become November the 18th, or something like that. 175 MS. NEWLAND: Or thereabouts, yes. 176 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Ms. Newland. 177 Next is Mr. Warren. 178 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. WARREN: 179 MR. WARREN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 180 As I indicated at the beginning, these submissions are made on behalf of both my client, the CAC, and Mr. Thompson's client, the Industrial Gas Users' Association. 181 Our two, Mr. Thompson's and my client, respectively are, in a sense, the juicy sandwich meat in the case, in the sense that our clients will have to live with both the short-term and the long-term benefits from -- if any, from the Sithe plant, and also the long-term impact on cost, changes in cost for ratepayers, consumers of natural gas. So our perspective on the matter is a little different from both Sithe and Enbridge Consumers Gas Distribution. 182 And let me say at the beginning that we are sensitive to -- particularly residential consumers, but also industrial gas users are sensitive to the issues of sufficient electricity supply and the cost implications of that. We by no means dismiss or do not take seriously what the IMO has said about reserve capacity, and we are sensitive to the importance of having a plant built in a timely fashion. 183 The difficulty for us, however, is this: As Mr. Brown has acknowledged, and it is clear from -- it's clear from the pre-filed evidence from the interrogatory responses and from the issues list, there are very important regulatory policy issues which are raised by this application. And as well, this application and the decision on the application are likely to have significant long-term precedent value for the new era, if you wish, of building electricity generation plans in the province. And it is, in our respectful submission, because of those public policy and precedent considerations, important that this application have the fullest possible evidentiary base, that the parties and the Board feel at the end of the day that all of the relevant policy issues have been examined, and, in addition, that there is a sufficient evidentiary base within which to consider those public policy implications. 184 And for that reason, we submit that there should be the fullest possible opportunity for evidentiary -- for intervenor evidence, consistent with the legitimate commercial interests of Sithe. 185 As I said, we appreciate the commercial pressures on Sithe, and it is, we think, legitimate to respect them. But those commercial interests must be held in balance and equipoise, if you wish, with those of the ratepayers, both the industrial and residential, who must ultimately bear the burden of this decision in both the short term and the long term, as I have said. 186 As Ms. Newland has indicated, and as Mr. Harbell has indicated as well, there are, as a practical matter, other regulatory approvals which must be dealt with which -- regulatory approvals, the nature of which will be discussed, I presume, by the counsel who follow me in the queue this morning. 187 Given that in particular, the importance of the public policy issues, we submit that there should be a period of time of one month after the completion of the Sithe evidentiary process for the delivery of intervenor evidence. Thereafter, if Sithe wishes to compress the time within which it can answer -- request, or ask interrogatories, that is its choice. It can do that if it wishes, but the key, in our respectful submission, is allowing sufficient time to get intervenor evidence. 188 If the Board were to follow, for example, the time line which has been proposed by my friend Ms. Newland, then there would be a hearing in January which would allow the Board some two to two and a half months in which to make a decision. And I don't mean to be facetious when I say this, that if we're going to put pressure on anybody, I'd rather put pressure on the Board rather than put pressure on the hearing process, pressure on the Board to issue a decision more quickly than it would perhaps allow. The important point, however, is the front end, that there be a sufficient evidentiary base. 189 We anticipate -- with enormous respect for Mr. Brown and Mr. Harbell as counsel, and I take the risk of anticipating that one of the arguments they may raise in reply is that intervenors have had now a substantial amount of time in which to prepare intervenor evidence if they wanted, we are not - neither Mr. Thompson's client nor my client - privy to the discussions which have taken place between Enbridge Gas Distribution and Sithe with respect to the building of this pipeline, and we are not privy to whatever assumptions may have been made as to the time line that may have arose out of those discussions. 190 But frankly, if I could put it crudely, we don't care. At this point, the critical issue is if we're going to go into a hearing, let's make sure we have sufficient evidence. And under those circumstances, we submit that there should be a sufficient amount of time for filing of intervenor evidence, and we adopt the suggestion made by Ms. Newland that there be another month. It isn't going to significantly distort the time line. There still will be a hearing some time in December or January and that allows, I say with respect, more than enough time for the Board to make its decision. 191 Those are my submissions. Thank you. 192 MR. DOMINY: Mr. Warren, just to clarify, it's a month after replies from the supplementary interrogatories, is what you're proposing? 193 MR. WARREN: That's right. I describe that as the conclusion of the Sithe evidentiary process, which is October the 11th, which would be November the 11th for the filing of intervenor evidence. That's the suggestion I would make, and thereafter, as I say, if Sithe wishes to expedite the time in which it answers interrogatories, that's of course its privilege if it wants to do that. 194 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Mr. Warren. 195 In the sequence of appearances, I think it's Mr. Beaman next. 196 MR. BEAMAN: Yes, sir. 197 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. BEAMAN: 198 MR. BEAMAN: My client is an estate that owns a substantial property that is currently draft-approved but not registered plans, so there's no actual construction going. And as of Friday, I may say that I expected to walk in, having my issues addressed and be able to not attend a hearing. 199 And the reason for that was through the interrogatories, two issues that were of concern to my client had been addressed and those two issues were possession date, namely January '04, which is the point at which my client ceases operations pursuant to arrangements with the City for handing over that roadway. 200 It is an agricultural operation and since the timing of that was now suitable to me, I raise no issues with respect to impacts on agricultural operations whatsoever, and these will now have to be addressed. 201 The second issue of concern was the construction schedule for Humberwest Parkway. This is a pipeline seeking to go in in advance of a road. There is no design yet from the City for that road, and it was agreed at the interrogatories that at least the design would be done up front of the pipeline so that one knows the depth of pipe, the depth of road, the grading, and this is vital to my client as well, because the grading of the road affects the grading of the subdivisions adjoining. 202 So I had felt, until about 9:00 on Friday, that my issues were addressed. 203 To find the following changes that have occurred, I'm now faced with an EA process, I'm now faced with being one of the parties threatened to be expropriated. I'm now faced with a pipeline seeking to go in, in advance of any design criteria being settled by the City on the road, and as a new issue, unrelated to Sithe, the region is now in the picture seeking to put in the same roadway a 7-foot-wide -- or 7-foot-diameter water pipe along with a smaller one. 204 So back on the table comes a crowding of services within the pipeline, back on the table comes the question of how does one accelerate the design, and back on the table comes severe questions of possession for my client and utility of that farm for another period of time. 205 I fully expected, Mr. Chairman, a hearing in December and January, and frankly, I didn't care at the time. I now care. And so I echo my friend's sentiments about deferring and getting the best evidence available and allowing parties the opportunity with this short deferral to harness their evidence, and find out the situation with the region, find out the situation with the municipality and, potentially, do some preliminary designs on the road. 206 I may say that I found the letter requesting the procedural order also out of keeping with the Board's procedural orders. I thought we were here today to talk about the issues list, so there was no advance notice by anyone about talking about the hearing schedule itself. But be that as it may, my suggestion would be that we defer for one week the first item on Sithe, because I believe they should get it right. It is a work in progress. I do not believe they even knew or accommodated in their supplementary evidence the region servicing, which has to be coordinated as well with the conservation authority, but I may be wrong in that. So to defer the October 1 date by a week, the next two dates for interrogatories by two weeks, and the following dates by a month. 207 It's still aggressive. It still raises real substantial issues for me because I have to come back into this whole process, and I must say, I dropped everything in terms of preparation of witness statements when I saw that the dates and the construction schedule and everything were to be accommodated in the interrogatories. So with that in mind, I echo my friend's sentiments. 208 The other thing is that I've now got to look at the impact on agricultural. That has not been done. That was dropped as an issue by Sithe, so an advancement on their evidence by a week is sensible as well. 209 Thank you. 210 MR. DOMINY: Can I clarify exactly what your suggestion is? Rather than October 1, October 8th for supplementary evidence. And then if I add -- 211 MR. BEAMAN: Two weeks on the next two items. 212 MR. DOMINY: So the 22nd would be for supplementary interrogatories or the supplying of supplementary interrogatories. It's a week after the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and then November the 18th? 213 MR. BEAMAN: Yes, sir, and so on. Two weeks -- so for the dates -- the latter dates, all a month later. 214 MR. DOMINY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beaman. 215 Mr. Sidlofsky. 216 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SIDLOFSKY: 217 MR. SIDLOFSKY: Sir, the City of Brampton has a number of concerns. One is the construction of the pipeline as it relates to the construction of the future portions of Humberwest Parkway in the City of Brampton. Portions of that road are already constructed. Further portions in a number of cases have already been acquired but not constructed, and in other cases, portions will still have to be acquired. 218 Mr. Harbell and Mr. Brown have mentioned a possibility of expropriations to you. 219 Fairly recently in this process, the conservation authority has come out with some comments on the -- the proposed alignment and the proposed location of the metering station at its connections to the TransCanada pipeline. There are now two options on the table, and those were presented, I believe, late in August with the -- with the issuance of the responses to the interrogatories. Sithe presented some maps and other material on what are now options 1 -- excuse me, options 1 and 2 for the location of the metering station. 220 The original material filed showed a metering station in the area and partly in a storm water detention facility. I expect Mr. Howe will be speaking to that, as he acts for the current owners of that facility. 221 The conservation authority position at this point is that it would prefer that the metering station be located within a wood lot to be conveyed to the City. This will be of some concern to City Council. Mr. Connor will be present at a session of Brampton City Council tonight to discuss these two options. I don't have a position for Mr. Harbell or for the Board at this point on the preferred option, and presumably that will come out in the City's evidence when that evidence is required to be presented. 222 I've discussed the timing with Mr. Connor, and in light of the other requests that the deadline for intervenor evidence be extended by one month, that would certainly be of assistance to the municipality. Once council makes a determination on its preferred option, City staff, possibly with outside consultants but certainly at a staff level, will have to prepare subsequent reports to council on the impacts on this -- certainly of both options on municipal lands. 223 As Mr. Beaman indicated to you, there are also issues with respect to road design. The design of the future portions of Humberwest Parkway and the co-ordination of services are matters that will have to be dealt with by town staff or by staff working with outside consultants. There has been some acceleration to the proposed construction schedule that might involve -- that might raise the need to bring outside consultants into this matter, but I think that is something that the City can deal with. 224 At this point, the key concern for council at its next session will likely be the discussion of the two options, which are now on the table for the metering station. 225 So, sir, certainly, we will -- or our client will do whatever it can to not stand in the way of the appropriate scheduling of this process, but certainly, if the Board is going to consider an extension of time for intervenor evidence, that would be of assistance to the City of Brampton. I understand from Mr. Connor that the next opportunity to bring a report forward to council, and that would be after staff has reviewed this matter, would be mid-October. 226 While it may be possible to provide some evidence which may not be complete at that point, but some evidence on Sithe's schedule, the additional four weeks would allow for the City to marshall the evidence that's appropriate for this proceeding. 227 Thank you. 228 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Mr. Sidlofsky. 229 MR. BIRCHENOUGH: Just one question related to the design of the roadway and servicing. Is it possible, in your judgment, to advance the design sufficiently to accommodate the precise schedule as presented here? 230 MR. CONNOR: The short answer is, at this point, I'm not sure. We have a meeting scheduled with representatives from the region, and their consultants, on the watermain project. Maybe if I can just fill you in with one or two details on what exactly this is. 231 The Region of Peel has entered into an agreement to provide water to the Region of York, and I think the agreement requires this pipeline be operational by around the end of 2004. It's a fairly major undertaking. The diameter of the pipe that's eventually going to go all the way along Cashmore Road [phoen] to York region from Humberwest Parkway, it's a 2.2-metre pipe. There will be an additional smaller watermain that will service northeast Brampton. 232 My engineer told me today that -- to give you an idea of the size of the thing, one of the sections of the pipe that is to be constructed south on Queen Street to bring the water along and up into the reservoir to be on the Cottrelle property, you're talking a 4-metre-wide excavation. 233 There will be some fairly detailed engineering issues to accommodate both Sithe's application, the region's, and then the normal sorts of services you find within a typical road cross-section. And I'm no engineer, so I can't say. Maybe after we had a chance to speak to some consultants and get some ideas from them as to how long it would take them to do the work, we can give you an answer. But I can't do that today. 234 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Mr. Connor. 235 I think it's Mr. Howe. 236 SUBMISSIONS BY MR. HOWE: 237 MR. HOWE: Thank you, sir. Just very briefly. 238 My client is a landowner adjacent to the Humberwest Parkway, which is the route of the -- the proposed route of the pipeline, and also the owner of lands, currently the owner of lands that -- that constitute one of the options for the construction of the metering station. 239 Unfortunately for my client, the portion of Humberwest Parkway is constructed already, so we don't have the same concerns that Mr. Beaman's client does. We do have some potential concerns, I guess, with the options for the metering station, although my client feels they could probably live with either option, provided that the facilities are appropriately engineered. 240 They have indicated a preference for one of the options, but our client really at this point is sort of monitoring the situation, so from that perspective, sir, I don't think that we -- I don't think that we really want to take a position on the scheduling. 241 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Mr. Howe. 242 Mr. Haynal, have you anything? 243 MR. HAYNAL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any comment to make, so I take no position. 244 MR. DOMINY: Mr. Moran, would you like to make any comments? 245 MR. MORAN: No, Mr. Chair. We have no further comments. 246 MR. DOMINY: Thank you. 247 It's back to you, Mr. Harbell and Mr. Brown. 248 FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BY MR. WARREN: 249 MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, just before Mr. Brown's response, I wonder if I could raise a point. I wanted to raise it now just so that Mr. Brown or Mr. Harbell have a chance to respond. 250 It has nothing to do -- anything to do with scheduling, it has to do with the substance of the interrogatories. 251 One of the issues that Ms. Girvan has reminded me of, one of the issues arising out of the first tranche of interrogatory responses, we, and I believe other parties, had some concerns about the sufficiency, if I can put it that way, of some of the answers that were given by -- aside from the first tranche of interrogatory responses, and we would ask that if -- for the second tranche of the new evidence, if it be made clear whether or not the parties can ask, if you wish, further and better interrogatories or interrogatories seeking further and better answers. 252 I apologize, that's really a submission which is offline with what we're talking about today, but I wanted Mr. Brown and Mr. Harbell to have an opportunity to respond to that. I don't know whether other parties share my concern about the sufficiency of some of the answers, but certainly my client and I believe Mr. Thompson's client wanted to ask a few -- there are not a substantial number but a few interrogatory -- supplementary interrogatories seeking further and better answers. Thank you, sir. 253 MR. DOMINY: Mr. Warren, if I understand correctly, what you're suggesting is supplementary, supplementary interrogatories are not just on the supplementary evidence but also on the existing evidence. 254 MR. WARREN: That's right, sir. And in fairness to Sithe, the fact that we should ask those shouldn't be a factor in determining the schedule. We will live with whatever schedule the Board determines with respect to the supplementary evidence. It's just a question of whether or not we can do that, we can ask those supplementary questions. Thank you. 255 FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BY MS. NEWLAND: 256 MS. NEWLAND: Mr. Chairman, if I may add my voice to that plea, we support Mr. Warren in his request. 257 I did mention earlier that Enbridge has recently engaged the services of an expert who will also be our witness in any proceeding, and this expert did not have an opportunity to assist us in asking interrogatories the first go-around. So in the interest of making sure that everyone has the best possible information in front of them, when the case proceeds to hearing, we would also ask the opportunity to ask supplementary interrogatories on the evidence that has already been filed. Thank you. 258 MR. DOMINY: Thank you, Ms. Newland. 259 Any comments, Mr. Moran? 260 MR. MORAN: No, Mr. Chair. 261 MR. DOMINY: Mr. Brown or Mr. Harbell, it's yours. 262 REPLY BY MR. BROWN: 263 MR. BROWN: Mr. Chair, if I could deal with the last point first, and that's on the supplementary interrogatories. 264 Although in discussions with Board Staff, we have rather gently tried to resist a further round of interrogatories on evidence that is already filed. Certainly, if the Board considers it appropriate to allow intervenors to file supplementary interrogatories which are designed to clarify responses which Sithe has given in its interrogatory responses, Sithe would have no objection to that. 265 However, Sithe would certainly oppose an effort by intervenors to have a second kick at the cat, so to speak, on evidence that has already been filed; that is to say, if you thought there are questions now that you should have asked back at the end of July, well, quite frankly, with all due respect, they shall have been asked at the end of July. 266 But if, as Mr. Warren has indicated, his client has concern that some of the responses that Sithe has made to interrogatories have not been either directly responsive or adequately clear, Sithe would have no objection to supplementary interrogatories designed to clarify existing responses. 267 Certainly with respect to additional evidence which Sithe is proposing to file this week, intervenors would be entitled to ask any relevant interrogatory that they would see fit on that evidence. 268 So on behalf of Sithe, I'd like to make that distinction clear with respect to further interrogatories. 269 In terms of the submissions that have been made by the intervenors today, as I comprehend them, they really boil down to the timing of intervenor evidence. And perhaps I can put the context of Sithe's request for this schedule in a more general view. 270 I think, as you have heard in the submissions this morning, Sithe is endeavouring to make a good-faith effort to propose a solution -- only a partial solution, but at least some sort of solution -- to the anticipated reserve-margin problem that the IMO is forecasting for next summer. 271 Sithe certainly acknowledges that the change it is proposing to the construction schedule is a significant change from what is in the pre-filed evidence, but it's doing so as a market player in an effort to try and bring a market solution to a problem which the IMO has identified that Ontario will face next summer. 272 There is no doubt that if -- there's no doubt that it will be a challenge to try and get that plant online by June the 1st. Certainly the regulatory process before the Board is only one of a number of considerations and variables that Sithe has to address. You've heard from some of the intervenors representing the landowners that there will be landowner issues, design issues, and all of that sort of stuff. 273 There is certainly a recognition by Sithe that there are a number of balls up in the air, but it is making this proposal in a good-faith effort to try and bring a partial solution to next summer's pending problem. 274 One can only deal with that which is within the confines of this proceeding. And as I indicated, the intervenors, as I understand their submissions, are essentially saying, Well, we're with you part of the way, but we need another month for intervenor evidence. 275 If I can make some brief responses to that request, because the nature of the submissions being made by the intervenors on intervenor evidence really does vary and, I think, merits different responses. 276 First, Ms. Newland on behalf of the utility has made a rather impassioned plea that since bypass may be an issue in this hearing, they require more time to deal with that issue. And she's indicated that they've only recently retained an expert. 277 With all due respect to Enbridge, Sithe's proposal to build the pipeline rather than have the utility build the pipeline and all of the public policy implications of that were canvassed in lengthy pre-filed evidence that was filed with this Board on April the 24th of this year. That was five months ago. And there has been no secret since that time that the bypass issue or whatever a party intends to call that issue will be a live issue in this proceeding. 278 In my respectful submission, it does not lie in the mouth of the utility at this late date, five months later, to say, Well, we've only just retained our expert; therefore, we need more time. 279 There certainly has to be a fairness in process, Mr. Chair, but it's a fairness in process that applies to everyone in the proceeding, including the applicant. And the applicant has put this issue on the table back in April, and in my respectful submission, it is not fair for an intervenor to come before this Board to say effectively, Well, we're just thinking now that this is a serious issue; we need more time. 280 Certainly, an intervenor as sophisticated as Enbridge and with the resources of Enbridge should have had its expert in place and its evidence under development well in advance of today. So in my respectful submission, that is not a valid basis upon which to ask for an extension in time for intervenor evidence. 281 If I might also submit, in that regard, the interrogatories in this case were filed by intervenors at the end of July. Sithe responded at the end of August. 282 Certainly given the sophistication of the intervenors in this proceeding, they certainly appreciate that just as night follows day, after interrogatories on the pre-filed evidence are submitted, there will be further steps in the proceeding, the next logical step being the submission of intervenor evidence. 283 Now, in this particular proceeding, we have had, I guess, a delay or a hiatus of about a month from Sithe's answers to the IRs to the setting of the issues conference, but certainly every intervenor would anticipate that shortly after that, intervenor evidence would be due. 284 So given the amount of time that has passed, in my respectful submission, there is no valid basis to ask for an extension of intervenor evidence with respect to the bypass issue. 285 Now, as I indicated, there were different approaches taken by the intervenors. Ms. Newland raised a second issue with respect to the timing of intervenor evidence, and that is with respect to any change in economics that Sithe's proposal to put a peaker facility on the plant might bring to the pipeline. She suggested that there might be a greater throughput on the pipeline, and, therefore, the economics of comparing the options might change. 286 We're getting into the merits, I guess, with that. It would be Sithe's response that directionally there will be no change, that the relative attractiveness of each option would not change; although, the absolute numbers might. And at the end of the day, Option 3 would remain the most appropriate one. Even that being the case, in my respectful submission, the two weeks that we're proposing for intervenor evidence would be appropriate even on that issue. 287 The economic model that Sithe has proposed to compare the various options was contained, again, in its pre-filed evidence filed in April. Enbridge or any other intervenor has had five months to look at the model that Sithe used and to come up with their alternative model by which to value the projects. 288 And presumably, that alternative model in the case of the utility is the EBO188 model, which governs their economic expansion. So there's no need for them to craft a new model. There's simply a need for them, if any, to plug in new numbers to an existing model. And in my respectful submission, that doesn't require four weeks, especially when the intervenor is sophisticated and experienced in facilities applications, as is Enbridge. 289 The third and final argument, as I understood it, with respect to intervenor evidence really came from the landowners. There were issues with respect to the meter station and its location. That issue has been on the table, again, since April when the pre-filed evidence was filed, so there's really nothing new then, and the parties have recognized from the start that there is going to have to ultimately be agreement on the location of that facility before the proceeding goes any further. 290 And then other issues with respect to co-ordination and whatnot have always been live balls in the air, so to speak, and would be live balls in the air, regardless of whether Sithe was going forward just simply with its initial application or its amendment. 291 So at the end of the day, my submission is it really doesn't bring anything new to the table with respect to the timing of intervenor evidence. 292 So for those reasons, Mr. Chair, I would submit that Sithe's proposal that the intervenors have two weeks to file evidence from this date is fair under all of the circumstances of this case. 293 And again, I conclude by highlighting that what Sithe is endeavouring to do here is a good-faith initiative to try and alleviate some of the resource constraints that will be present in the Ontario market next year. 294 There are challenges to meet, but what we are respectfully requesting from the Board is the Board's assistance with respect to procedure to help us meet that challenge, of course recognizing that ultimately it will be the Board's determination in the hearing as to whether or not to approve Sithe's application on its merits. 295 Those are my submissions. 296 Sorry, Mr. Chair, I've been advised that I slightly misspoke. Apparently the meter station issue was one that arose more in mid-August than it was in April, so I stand corrected on that point. 297 MR. DOMINY: Thank you. 298 I believe at this time the Board will think about the various submissions that have been made and will, in due course, issue -- expeditiously issue a revised procedure order. 299 But I must advise you right now that my expectation is the procedure order will not cover every step in the process but will try and move the process along to the next steps of the proceeding. 300 The Board has heard the position. We fully understand the concern expressed about the availability of electricity supply. We've also heard the concerns expressed by the landowners with regard to their planning needs and the concerns of the other intervenors with regard to the public-interest issues, and I think the merits -- sorry, you can't hear me? 301 I don't know how much of it you heard, but basically I said that we would reserve on this. We would issue expeditiously a procedure order. The expectation is the procedure order will not go the whole way down the laid-out process, but we'll put in some dates for the next steps, and that we have heard the views expressed by all parties with regard to the impact of the schedule on their interests. 302 And the procedure order will also include the issues list, which we discussed as the first item on this agenda. 303 I think with that, I did make the statement that we would issue it expeditiously, and that is our intention. 304 Thank you for your attendance. 305 --- Whereupon the hearing concluded at 11:56 a.m.