Rep: OEB Doc: 12QQK Rev: 0 ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD Volume: VOLUME 1 12 MAY 2003 BEFORE: P. SOMMERVILLE PRESIDING MEMBER A. C. SPOEL MEMBER 1 RP-2003-0044 2 IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.15 (Sched. B); AND IN THE MATTER OF applications by Centre Wellington Hydro, Veridian Connections Inc., EnWin Powerlines Ltd., Erie Thames Powerlines Corp., Chatham-Kent Hydro Inc., Essex Powerlines Corp., Cooperative Hydro Embrun Inc., and Hydro One Networks Inc. pursuant to subsection 74(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 to amend Schedule 1 of their Transitional Distribution Licences. 3 RP-2003-0044 4 12 MAY 2003 5 HEARING HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO 6 APPEARANCES 7 JENNIFER LEA Board Counsel GORDON RYCKMAN Board Staff ANDY CHAN Centre Wellington Hydro MARY ANN ALDRED Hydro One Networks ANDREW LOKAN Power Workers' Union DENNIS O'LEARY Wirebury Connections JAMES SIDLOFSKY Hamilton Hydro, Hydro Ottawa, Hydro Vaughan, Markham Hydro, Brantford Power 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 APPEARANCES: [21] PRELIMINARY MATTERS: [46] EXPEDITED AMENDMENT REQUEST - CENTRE WELLINGTON HYDRO LTD.: [81] CENTRE WELLINGTON HYDRO LTD. - PANEL 1; CLARKE, MCLEOD, SHERWOOD, VAICIUNAS: [82] OPENING SUBMISSIONS BY MR. CHAN: [90] EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAN: [112] SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL: [326] 10 EXHIBITS 11 EXHIBIT NO. C.1.1: APPENDIX B, TOWNSHIP CENTRE WELLINGTON, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LICENCED AREA - MAP [145] EXHIBIT NO. C.1.2: LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2002, FROM MR. SHERWOOD TO HYDRO ONE [244] 12 UNDERTAKINGS 13 14 --- Upon commencing at 9:35 a.m. 15 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you very much. Please be seated. Welcome to everyone. The Board has convened this morning in the matter of an application made by Centre Wellington Hydro Ltd. for an expansion of its service area to include certain premises to be operated as the Grand River Raceway. 16 My name is Paul Sommerville, and sitting with me is Cathy Spoel. The application has been assigned file number EB-1999-0269. The application is opposed by Hydro One Networks Inc. This application is one of a number of service area amendment applications which have been joined by the Board in a proceeding bearing file number RP-2003-0044. 17 The Board has decided to consider a number of such cases together in order to facilitate the development of principles which may assist the Board in considering the service area amendments. In the procedural order establishing the combined proceeding, the Board invited applicants to make submissions to the Board to consider their application or some portion of their application on a more expeditious basis than had been provided for in the combined proceeding if it could be shown that their application involved critical in-service requirements. 18 Of course, it is the Board's preference to deal with the generic issues involved with the service area amendments in the combined proceeding. The applicant in this case has made representations representing the urgency of the in-service requirements, and the Board will consider them today on the basis of the evidence to be presented by the parties. 19 The primary issue facing us today is the consideration of the urgency of the in-service requirement. The Board is not convinced that such urgency exists and will defer its consideration of the case as a whole to the combined proceeding. If the Board does find that there is urgency in the in-service requirement, we'll make whatever interim order commends itself in order to address that situation, and for -- subject to further confirmation in the general proceeding. 20 Could I have appearances, please. 21 APPEARANCES: 22 MR. CHAN: Good morning, my name is Andy Chan. I'm counsel to Centre Wellington in this matter. Last name is spelled C-h-a-n. 23 MR. SOMMERVILLE: You're counsel, Mr. Chan? 24 MR. CHAN: Yes, that's correct. 25 MS. LEA: Are you a witness, sir? Are you going to be putting in an appearance? Then I think we'll wait. 26 MS. ALDRED: My name is Mary Anne Aldred, and I'm here on behalf of Hydro One Networks Inc., as counsel. 27 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Aldred. 28 MS. LEA: Jennifer Lea for Board Staff. 29 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Any others? 30 MR. LOKAN: Andrew Lokan, for the Power Workers' Union. 31 MR. O'LEARY: Mr. Chair, Dennis O'Leary, for Wirebury Connections Inc. And sir, if appropriate, we'd request that we enter an appearance today in respect to all four of the applications this week, if that is permissible. 32 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I'll consider that, Mr. O'Leary. Thank you. 33 Are there any other appearances? 34 Now, with respect to Power Workers' Union's role in the case, I'm not sure that I've seen any paper to that effect, Mr. Lokan. 35 MR. LOKAN: No, we haven't filed any written submissions. 36 MR. SOMMERVILLE: So you're making a submission this morning to be recognised as an intervenor in this case? 37 MR. LOKAN: We have made general submissions to be recognised as an intervenor. 38 MR. SOMMERVILLE: In the combined proceeding. 39 MR. LOKAN: In the combined proceeding. 40 MR. SOMMERVILLE: And, Mr. O'Leary, do you fall into that category as well? 41 MR. O'LEARY: That's correct. We have filed a request for intervenor status which has gone unopposed, and that was in the combined proceeding. 42 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. Mr. Chan, do you have any point of view with respect to the participation of Mr. O'Leary or Mr. Lokan in this proceeding? 43 MR. CHAN: No. That's agreeable. 44 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. The Board will recognise you as intervenors in this proceeding, in both instances. 45 Are there any preliminary matters that the parties wish the Board to consider? 46 PRELIMINARY MATTERS: 47 MR. CHAN: I'd like to make note, Mr. Chair, that there are a number of other intervenors in the generic proceedings, and if you're agreeable to it, I would like to have their names also put on the record because they have made submissions in response to the generic proceeding as well as this particular critical connection hearing as well. 48 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I think there is some value in the dichotomy between those that have made submissions in the generic proceeding and those that have made specific representations in this one. It's not necessarily -- it doesn't necessarily bar them from participation in this case, but it is a difference. 49 Are you away of any other submissions that have been made from any other party other than Hydro One with respect to this particular expedited proceeding? 50 MR. CHAN: We will be presenting that today. 51 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Okay. Ms. Aldred, do you have any preliminary matters that you want us to consider. 52 MS. ALDRED: Yes, I had a preliminary matter, Mr. Chairman, which I wanted to address, and it actually involves evidence that we filed. 53 I wanted to draw to your attention, before we start this morning, that there is an inaccuracy in the supplemental evidence which Networks filed on May 5th in response to Procedural Order number 3. And you will find that response at Exhibit B.1.14. 54 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Specifically, what is it that you want me to take note of? 55 MS. ALDRED: If I could just draw your attention to page 3 of that submission, at line 21. The following statement is made: 56 "As Networks is the incumbent LDC, the meter has now been located so that such building can be provided." 57 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Indeed. 58 MS. ALDRED: This statement is not correct. We wish to apologise to the Board and to the applicant for this inaccuracy. Plans were in place that the meter would have been moved, but as of May 9th, we learned that this had not happened. I intend to lead my witness through this, and as my witness will tell you, the work had been scheduled and coordinated with the IMO but has not yet occurred. Again, we wish to apologise, and I wanted to mention this at the outset of the hearing so that there wouldn't be any confusion as we proceed today over that particular issue. 59 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Aldred. We appreciate that correction. The accuracy of the information filed with the Board is absolutely of utmost importance, and we appreciate your correction. 60 Mr. Chan, have you been apprised of that? 61 MR. CHAN: Mr. Chair, this is the first time I've heard of that today. However, there is probably some elaboration with respect to those particular sections that Ms. Aldred, my friend, referred to. And we'll deal with those, again, in the proceedings today. 62 MR. SOMMERVILLE: That's fine. 63 Are there any other preliminary matters? 64 MR. CHAN: Mr. Chair, I also have a number of preliminary matters, and I'll just bring it up right now at this point so we can get it on the record. 65 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Please. 66 MR. CHAN: We understand that the issues list has been approved by the Board for the main generic proceedings, and as that is being -- as that is the case, we will only touch upon the issues required, touch upon the issues of that issues list as required for the sole purpose of this hearing and we won't get into a full-blown debate with respect to all the issues provided to and approved by the Board in the issues list, pursuant to the generic proceedings. So we'll just try to touch on points with respect to the issues that apply today with respect to the racetrack. 67 The second thing I'd like to -- preliminary issue I'd like to address has to deal with the Board's practice direction on cost awards which was issued on February 3rd of 2003. We understand that under section 2.05, an applicant is explicitly unallowed to apply to the Board for costs. Now, I'd like to have on the record I've had previous discussion with Board Staff on this matter and there are no specific procedural directions relating to an applicant. They are disallowed under 3.05, but under section 3.06 of the Board's "Practice Direction on Cost Awards", it allows for special circumstances relating to costs. And I'd like to have on the record at this time that there may be a chance, and we will present that in the future, that Centre Wellington may refer to that provision and apply for costs in the future. 68 Finally, the last preliminary issue, and it kind of speaks for itself but I'd like to have it on the record as well, is that we do fully expect Mr. Chairman and the Board member to ask questions as they see fit at any time to the panel and to myself. And we also invite them to do so, as it is our objective to be as helpful as possible in this process. 69 Those are my preliminary issue submissions. 70 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Chan. 71 The order of proceeding I would anticipate -- and just to comment briefly on your cost awards. We'll listen to your submissions on that question, Mr. Chan, when you make them and we'll make a determination accordingly. Thank you for the invitation for us to ask questions as matters proceed. I appreciate that. And your case is your case and you bring it as you see, and we'll consider it as you bring it. 72 MR. CHAN: Thank you. 73 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I would think the course of proceeding will be that, as applicant, Mr. Chan, you will have initial carriage of the matter. You have witnesses, I presume, to call. We will then proceed to, I'm going to suggest Hydro One will have a right of cross-examination with respect to those witnesses, as will the other intervenors. In terms of proceeding in the presentation of the intervenors' case, I'm just going to arbitrarily suggest that Hydro One will go first with any evidence that it chooses to introduce, followed by Power Workers' Union, followed by Wirebury Connections. 74 Does that work for everyone? 75 MR. CHAN: That's agreeable. 76 MR. SOMMERVILLE: It's our intention to sit to -- we'll have a short break in the morning. We will rise for lunch at about 12:10 to reconvene at 2:00. There is a competing obligation that will cause us to have a fairly long break for lunch today. We will resume at 2:00, and then hopefully proceed to conclusion of this case today. If that appears to be problematic, we will seek submissions from the parties for rescheduling, and we'll try to accommodate all of the appropriate interests at that time. It's our fervent hope that we can conclude this proceeding today. Is there anything arising from what I've said so far? 77 In which case, Mr. Chan, please proceed. Ms. Spoel will swear any witnesses that you wish to present. 78 MR. CHAN: No, that's great. 79 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 80 MS. LEA: Would those witnesses who are seeking, then, to give evidence here please rise and go over to where Ms. Spoel is, and in order she will swear you. Thank you. 81 EXPEDITED AMENDMENT REQUEST - CENTRE WELLINGTON HYDRO LTD.: 82 CENTRE WELLINGTON HYDRO LTD. - PANEL 1; CLARKE, MCLEOD, SHERWOOD, VAICIUNAS: 83 T.CLARKE; Sworn. 84 D.VAICIUNAS; Sworn. 85 D.SHERWOOD; Sworn. 86 M.McLEOD; Sworn. 87 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Spoel. 88 Mr. Chan? 89 MR. CHAN: Thank you. 90 OPENING SUBMISSIONS BY MR. CHAN: 91 MR. CHAN: I'd like to first start by providing to the Board the guiding statutory principles and provisions for which we're relying on today. The basis of this hearing and our submission is under section 1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, schedule B, and it reads as follows: 92 "The Board in carrying out its responsibilities under the Ontario Energy Board Act or any other Act shall be guided by the following pertinent objectives: 93 "1, To provide generators, retailers, and consumers with non-discriminatory access to transmission and distribution systems in Ontario; 94 "2, To protect the interests of consumers with respect to price and the reliability and quality of electricity service;" 95 And finally, number 3: "To promote economic efficiency in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity." 96 More specifically, section 74(1)(b) of the Ontario Energy Act provides the Board with the ability to enforce these guiding principles. It reads as follows: 97 "The Board may, on the application of any person, amend a license if it considers the amendment to be in the public interest, having regard to the objectives of the Board and the purposes of the Electricity Act, 1998." 98 Even more specifically, and as it applies to this hearing, subsection 70(6) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, allows for the provision of electricity distribution services by neighbouring distributors. In our respectful submission, the intent of this would be to supplement the primary guiding objectives of the Board. Subsection 70(6) of the Ontario Energy Board Act reads as follows: 99 "Unless it otherwise provides, a license under this part shall not hinder or restrict the grant of a licence to another person within the same area, and the licencee shall not claim any right of exclusivity." 100 Mr. Chairman and member of the Board, we're here today not to challenge Hydro One. We're not here to challenge their vision or their approach to doing business. We're not here to ask Hydro One to speak to service quality issues. We're not even here to discuss their rates. This is simple. 101 We have a customer sitting there in that witness box, a customer located on a fringe area for which subsection 70(6) of the Ontario Energy Board Act contemplates, and that customer is one who has chosen Centre Wellington Hydro to be its electricity service provider. It's really as simple as that. 102 The reasons for its amendment, it is our submission that the guiding principles are paramount, the bedrock of the legislation, to protect the consumer. Here the customer is asking the Board to protect them, asking the Board to allow them the choice, all the while while working within the application rules for which the Board has reasonably set. 103 The focus of our hearing and for the purposes over the hearing, we're centering around the principle of customer choice. A number of other subissues may come out, but again, in our respectful submission, they filter out of the main guiding principle of customer choice. The customer here is one who has made a choice. Now, all that this customer asks is that the Board, in applying the guiding principles, utilize its statutory mandate to protect a consumer. 104 It's easy confuse the issue, and many will try to do so. In the end, however, the evidence will show that if the Board focuses on the customer, the right decision will be made. 105 The evidence will also show the urgency of this matter, as we will provide a chronology of events leading up to this critical in-service customer hearing as it relates to the Grand River Raceway. 106 We would like to thank the Board for recognizing the urgency of the matter in deciding to hold this hearing, especially in consideration of the necessity for this customer to be connected in a timely manner. 107 You will also hear how Hydro One is proposing to or has already physically moved their metering unit in an effort to substantiate their case for this hearing. The location of the metering unit is of utmost importance. As we will introduce this evidence later on in this hearing, all we ask is the Board keep in mind that prior to Procedural Order 3 being issued, the metering unit was located in location A. However, after this particular hearing was scheduled through Procedural Order 3, Hydro One has moved or is proposing to move the metering unit to location B. 108 The effect of this physical transfer of assets has a number of consequences: Number 1, it attempts to justify Hydro One's actions; Number 2,it exclusively captures the Grand River Raceway as being Hydro One's customer; and finally, it has the ability to undermine this hearing process. 109 Accordingly and in light of my submissions today, we request that the following decision be made from the honourable Board: Number 1, we ask that the Board rule that the racetrack be connected immediately and on a permanent basis as per the customer's choice. We ask that the metering unit remain in its original location, and finally, we ask any order or orders the Board deems fit in this particular matter. 110 Those are my opening submissions, and I thank the Board for its indulgence. 111 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Chan. You may proceed to call your witnesses. 112 EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAN: 113 MR. CHAN: Could I have, I guess, each witness, starting with, I guess, Michael McLeod here, briefly introduce themselves and provide the Board Staff -- or and the Board members and everyone in this room with their background and their relationship to this particular hearing. 114 MR. McLEOD: My name is Michael McLeod. I'm President of Regulatory Compliance Services. We're a consulting firm that's provided advice to Centre Wellington Hydro in respect of this matter, and I'm here to support the Board -- the information to the Board and in any way, shape, or form I can. 115 MR. SHERWOOD: I'm Doug Sherwood, President of Centre Wellington Hydro. I've been involved in the -- several electrical distribution companies over the past 27 years. The last seven years I've been with the prior Fergus TUC and now at Centre Wellington Hydro. 116 MR. VAICIUNAS: My name is Darius Vaiciunas. I'm with COLLUS Power Corp. I'm regulatory coordinator there, and I'm also the chair of the CHEC group, Cornerstone Hydro Electric Concepts group, which is a cooperative group of about 20 utilities presently. I've worked -- 117 MS. LEA: Sir, could you repeat that name. We're taking everything down, and you need to speak a little slowly. What was the name of the group you were -- 118 MR. VAICIUNAS: The Cornerstone Hydro Electric Concepts Association. 119 MR. SOMMERVILLE: What was the first group? 120 MR. VAICIUNAS: The CHEC group. That's the acronym for Cornerstone Hydro Electric Concepts. It is a cooperative of about -- well, actually, right now, 20 different LDCs across the province, and we've been working together to try to get as many commonalities as possible so that we all approach and interpret the codes and legislation in a distinct and similar fashion. 121 And I'm here basically just to help out with the -- with Centre Wellington as one of our members, and as well to, hopefully, stand behind the customer's choice issue. It's a big issue as far as the LDCs are concerned. We were here to focus behind what the customers are after. We try to support them and that's why I'm here. 122 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 123 DR. CLARKE: My name is Ted Clarke. I'm a semi-retired veterinarian who manages a racetrack, and I've been involved with the racetrack for the last 12 years. I'm here to give the background as to why we got involved in this choice. Our entire project has been one of some controversy, one way or another, and obviously we seem to find these things whether we want to or not, so I'm here. 124 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 125 Mr. Chan, just a note to assist you in presenting your case. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the matter that concerns us most today in this proceeding is the urgency and the requirement that the Board act in order to facilitate a reasonable expectation on the part of a consumer for a critical in-service requirement. 126 MR. CHAN: Yes. 127 MR. SOMMERVILLE: So if you could ensure that you guide your presentation along that line, that would be very helpful. 128 MR. CHAN: In response to that, Mr. Chair, we will be focusing much of our submission on the urgency of the matter. But in Procedural Order 3, as I recall, they do ask for the reasons of this amendment, and as I mentioned earlier we will have to touch upon some of the issues. But, again, I will try to keep it as focused as possible. 129 MR. SOMMERVILLE: That's fair enough. Thank you. 130 MR. CHAN: Thank you. With the Board's permission, may I begin questioning the witness? 131 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Please. 132 MR. CHAN: Mr. Sherwood, could you please provide to the Board a brief background as to the Township of Centre Wellington. 133 MR. SHERWOOD: The Township of Centre Wellington was formed as a direct result of municipal restructuring. It was comprised of the former Town of Fergus and the Village of Elora, several townships, and that was done under the restructuring order. So through that restructuring process Centre Wellington Hydro was formed taking in a merger between Fergus PUC and Elora Hydro. 134 MR. CHAN: How is the Township of Centre Wellington developing? 135 MR. SHERWOOD: We've experienced a fair bit of growth on the fringe area of the former Village of Elora and Town of Fergus. It is right -- in several cases, it's right on the old geographical boundary of our distribution licence area. 136 MR. CHAN: What is the relationship of Centre Wellington Hydro to the development initiatives of the Township of Centre Wellington? 137 MR. SHERWOOD: We've always worked very, very closely together with the township planners, the township engineers, council, staff. As well, our staff take part in monthly development review meetings, as well as we attend almost all council meetings to stay current on what's going on in the community. 138 MR. CHAN: Now, I'd like to provide to the Board a brief description of the current service area boundaries of Centre Wellington Hydro, and I'll ask Mr. Sherwood to briefly describe it. 139 Now, we're going to project this onto the wall. I also have exhibits here which I'll hand out to the parties. 140 MS. LEA: We'll give this exhibit, which I presume is a map -- yes, go ahead and give it to the Board members and then you can come round to us, so on and so forth. 141 MR. CHAN: I think the setup of the room, normally I understand -- 142 MS. LEA: We're unique here. Can we have three copies, please, if you have enough. 143 MR. CHAN: We can provide them to you. 144 MS. LEA: Okay, thank you. We'll give this map, which is entitled, "Appendix B, Township Centre Wellington, Proposed Amendment to Licenced Area." We'll give that Exhibit number C.1.1, please. 145 EXHIBIT NO. C.1.1: APPENDIX B, TOWNSHIP CENTRE WELLINGTON, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LICENCED AREA - MAP 146 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Lea. 147 MR. CHAN: Again, Mr. Sherwood, could you provide a description of the current service area boundaries of Centre Wellington Hydro as it relates to the growth of the Township of Centre Wellington. 148 MR. SHERWOOD: Just from this map, it gives a basic overview of the two communities that are affected. The areas that are highlighted in red, they denote the actual geographical boundary of the former towns, the Village of Elora and the Town of Fergus. The areas in yellow were identified as areas that are going to be experiencing future growth. And the ones that are specifically numbered, the racetrack being one, the high school, and the subdivision are the ones that are slated to go this year. The racetrack, construction has actually started on that facility so -- 149 MR. CHAN: Yes, sorry. Go ahead. I was going to ask you to, I guess, try to limit your response just to the racetrack, in light of the Board's comments. 150 MR. SHERWOOD: I guess it's sort of part and parcel of it. I know we were asked why we didn't deal with this on a one-off basis with the Board, specifically to the racetrack, and I guess our response was that when we looked at all these proposals and different areas, we didn't feel that that would be an efficient use of the Board's time to come back time after time for each individual one and go through the process that we're going through now. That's consequently why we lumped them all together to do one application. 151 So that's basically it. I think that by doing that we sort of felt that we were following the spirit and direction of Bill 35, to give this customers an option where it's viable, specifically on the fringe areas that we have infrastructure there that we can connect them up to. 152 MR. CHAN: Thank you. In light of the growth issues and the need to service customers in growing areas of the community, what did you do? 153 MR. SHERWOOD: When we identified those locations, that's when we applied for the boundary expansion. I believe it was submitted July 8th of 2002. It was actually worked on through -- in 2001. But as everyone knows, the industry was under a lot of changes, and there were other things that took precedence and so we didn't get it filed until then. 154 The one thing I would like to point out, though, that we were -- when we did this, the whole intent was for new customers. Our intention was not to take existing customers from Hydro One. We were cognizant of that when we did our application. We eliminated the Hamlet of Salem deliberately because it was already served by Hydro One and it's probably the highest density of customers that they have in that area. So our intention wasn't to go and take existing customers or try and strand any assets or so forth. It was strictly to offer new customers the option to choose between us or Hydro One, where applicable. 155 MR. CHAN: As a result of that application, it is my understanding you were directed by the Board to publish notice pertaining to your boundary expansion on January 13th, 2003; is that correct? 156 MR. SHERWOOD: That's correct. 157 MR. CHAN: And as a result of that notice in the local newspaper, a series of intervention letters were filed with the Board; is that correct? 158 MR. SHERWOOD: That's right, yes. 159 MR. CHAN: I have here a series of intervention letters that were sent into the Board by members of the public. We briefly discussed that, I guess, in the preliminary issues here, that I will be introducing such evidence. I'd like to enter those as exhibits as well. Now, the intervention letters also include, I believe, four letters from the Grand River Raceway which apply specifically to this hearing. I think the other letters of intervention, and we put it in an order which is, I guess, easier to follow than in the materials the Board originally has, that it applies and provides some context to the specific connection of the Raceway. I'd like to present those to the Board. 160 Secondly, I'd also like to mention, I have summarised briefly those letters of intervention, just to be helpful in this matter, and I'd like to present that to the Board as well. 161 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Ms. Aldred, do you have any comment? 162 Let me say, Mr. Chan, it would be helpful, I think, if prior to asking the Board to submit those documents as exhibits, to provide them first to Ms. Aldred so that she could raise -- and other intervenors as well, if they wanted to raise some issue with respect to the appropriateness of that. And sort of, going forward, that may be -- that's water under the bridge now. But for future, that may be helpful. That's a detail, sort of, of our practice that, obviously, you wouldn't have known. 163 So if you could make that available to Ms. Aldred, and then she can advise me if she has any difficulty with us receiving it, and we'll rule on it. 164 MR. CHAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did, Ms. Aldred and I, did speak briefly, I believe it was Thursday of last week, in regards to the evidence we will be presenting. She indicated to me they would be preparing a map and submitting that as an exhibit. I indicated as well that I'll be presenting maps through projector as well as other letters of intervention. 165 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I'm being probably more cautious than I need to be, Mr. Chan, but bear with me. 166 MR. CHAN: Okay, no. Thank you. 167 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 168 MR. CHAN: And here are -- I'll provide it to my friends first. 169 MS. LEA: I have a couple of comments, please, Mr. Chairman. 170 Do I understand, Mr. Chan, that these letters that you're about to present to us were originally included in the coil-bound book at tab 3 of that book -- 171 MR. CHAN: Yes, that's correct. 172 MS. LEA: Okay. I think what these are then, sir, is actually not letters of intervention, specifically. Intervention in this Board's proceeding generally indicates an active participation in the hearing, coming as an independent person to ask questions and make submissions. Do you know if any of the people in these letters are actively seeking an intervenor status, that is, the status to come and ask questions and make submissions independent of yourself today? 173 MR. CHAN: Could you -- I guess I'm not understanding that -- 174 MS. LEA: I'm sorry. I don't mean to -- I just want to label them correctly. Letters of comment are letters of support from people who support the application but are not coming to make individual submissions independent of yourself, and I was just wondering whether that is what these are. 175 MR. CHAN: These letters were submitted in response to -- in response to the application by Centre Wellington, and I guess I kind of raised that matter in the preliminary issues that I would have liked the Board to have addressed, is that -- 176 MS. LEA: Perhaps I could have a copy, sir. Thanks. 177 Sorry. I'm getting you to do about six things at once here by talking to you. Sorry. Fine. Thank you. 178 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Am I to understand that these are the letters that are in the filed evidence? 179 MS. LEA: Yes. Yes. 180 MR. SOMMERVILLE: In which case, they don't need to be an exhibit in this proceeding. They are already included. 181 MS. LEA: Yes. All right. 182 MS. ALDRED: Mr. Chairman, if I could just try to be a little helpful. I think there's one letter that was not listed by -- by Board Staff in the exhibit list, and that's a letter dated February 3rd, 2003, by a Mr. Ted Buczek. 183 Other than that, the letters have been listed in your exhibit list that you have. I may have some comments later about the weight of these letters, but I have seen them before. 184 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Indeed. And just a note to parties generally, as for this -- first of these proceedings, the Board attempts to have a -- be as workable and as sensible about its rulings and to steer away, if possible, from overly technically approaches to this kind of thing, and will be assisted if the parties can assist us to the extent possible in doing that. 185 So I take it, Ms. Aldred, you don't have any difficulty with these letters being received by this panel. We'll take a look at them, and subject to your comment about weight subsequent -- 186 MS. ALDRED: If I could just make one little gloss on what I said. I guess later on, I also want to make a comment about relevancy, because some of them are not directed to the Raceway issue. 187 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Correct. 188 MS. ALDRED: But they're already before you, so -- 189 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Indeed. 190 MR. CHAN: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, the last four letters are specific to the Grand River Raceway. The intent of the other letters is to provide context to the matters at hand. 191 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Fair enough. And I'm going to be a broken record about this, Mr. Chan, and that is that our primary concern today is the urgency of the requirement -- 192 MR. CHAN: That's correct. 193 MR. SOMMERVILLE: -- of the Raceway. That's our Number 1 fixation. 194 MR. CHAN: Okay. 195 MR. SOMMERVILLE: And all the rest, for the purposes of this proceeding, I'm prepared to listen to some introductory material, but I do want to get to that point sooner rather than later. 196 MR. CHAN: Okay. Thank you. 197 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 198 MS. LEA: Do I understand correctly that the letter dated February 3rd, 2003, from Mr. Buczek is not a part of your coil-bound book, Mr. Chan? 199 MR. CHAN: Sorry? 200 MS. LEA: The letter from Mr. Ted Buczek, I think Ms. Aldred indicated -- 201 MR. CHAN: I think -- no, that was -- 202 MS. LEA: It is in? Okay. That's fine. Thank you. I don't need to give it an exhibit number, then. That's fine. Thank you, sir. And this summary is, I suppose, in the nature more of a submission than an exhibit, so I guess I won't give that a number either. Thanks. 203 MR. CHAN: Okay. Given Mr. Chair's comments and the comments of the Board, I will move directly to the Raceway. 204 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you kindly. 205 MR. CHAN: Mr. Sherwood, how did the critical in-service matter with respect to the Raceway arise? 206 MR. SHERWOOD: I guess the -- I guess Dr. Clarke can talk to some of that, but I believe that they -- they went through quite a drawn out process with the OMB to get approval for this site. And that was finally approved, and they're, again, on the fringe of the Village of Elora, and they're in a -- under construction right now with an intention, I believe, to open sometime in the fall of this year. So it's imperative that they get connected as quickly as possible. 207 MR. CHAN: What did you do next? 208 MR. SHERWOOD: We -- 209 MR. CHAN: When you recognized the urgency of the matter? 210 MR. SHERWOOD: When we -- we went through, again, with this -- we made a call to Hydro One. I sent them a letter on November the 20th just requesting some connection costs, as they own the LV system through the Village of Elora. And I didn't get a response to that request, but we had subsequent correspondence after that. I believe it was mostly with Dr. Clarke. 211 MR. CHAN: Can any members of the panel please describe the site -- I guess that would be you, Mr. Sherwood -- and the system setup with respect to the racetrack and where service is expected to be connected. 212 Now, we're going -- you're going to need the assistance of the projector again. I also have exhibits and maps relating to that, if the Board would like me to provide that to you. 213 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Great. 214 MR. CHAN: And again, I'd like to stress, they are in the original submissions in the materials. However, I think for efficiency purposes, it would be useful to provide it now. 215 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Great. 216 MR. SHERWOOD: If I can just speak to this map as appendix D. In the Village of Elora, as I said, Hydro One owns all the 44 kV system. In Fergus, we were able to purchase the 44 because it wasn't -- it was a dedicated feed to the Town of Fergus. In Elora we were not allowed to, because it feeds into another area. 217 But consequently, at the entrance into the village, we have an additive primary metering unit, and then the 44 kV line goes throughout the community, services some of our large customers as well as our substations, and then it goes out of town. And at that end of town is a subtractive primary metering unit. 218 In that -- between there, we are responsible to pay all associated costs with that. We are a wholesale market participant, so we settle with the IMO for all the -- all the energy consumed, plus applicable losses. We pay Hydro One for the use of that section of line. 219 The Racetrack is located in this position right here. If you could click the next slide there. This is just a blow-up of it going out of town. Our boundary is actually right here on the County Road 7. As you can see, the 44 kV goes out. The location of the primary metering unit is located here, and the customer preference pole, where he's going to be connected, is going to be off of this location here. 220 So he's in between our two metering units. Now, what -- the urgency issue that came up specifically with respect to this, when the customer asked to be connected immediately, Hydro One indicated that they would have to move this primary metering unit one span this way, so they will be out of our system and we won't be selling it. 221 So that's kind of the situation that we're at right now. We were proposing that the customer just be connected now and we can deal with this issue at a later date, but unfortunately, my understanding is, and Dr. Clarke can probably clarify that, is that Hydro One will not connect this location up until that unit is moved. 222 Now -- and I say, we like -- anything else within the community, as Hydro One owns the infrastructure, if we had another customer here, we would have to request Hydro One to make the applicable connection for us, and then they would bill us and we would connect it -- we would provide the metering. 223 Next slide. 224 Just so we have -- we have a couple of photographs so you can see. This is the actual subtractive primary metering unit here, in front of the racetrack. This is the tangent pole that the customer wants to connect off of. And then the Village of Elora is down here. 225 Next one, please. Again, this is the pole they're planning on connecting to. The building is actually going to be back in here as well, the transformer. 226 Again, this is the service pole here. You can see here, here's the Village of Elora right over here on the outskirts. Hydro One was proposing to move the primary metering unit to this location here before they would connect the customer. 227 And this is just looking at it from the other way, going out of town. And that's about it, I think. 228 MR. CHAN: Turning to, I guess, I have to keep stressing the issue of urgency here, when did the racetrack request the quotation for connection of services from Centre Wellington Hydro? 229 MR. SHERWOOD: We received a request from the racetrack, I believe, in the fall of last year. They were aware of our application before the Board, and I believe that they wanted to just explore all possibilities to see if there was an option that they could get another quote. So it would have been in the fall of last year, I believe, in October, November, something like that. 230 MR. CHAN: I see the customer, Dr. Clarke, also has some comments in this regard. 231 DR. CLARKE: If I might. Our consultant informed us that, because we were located at the junction of two potential servers, we might have an option under your revisions to request quotes. We explored that, and I believe it was actually in November of 2002 when we made the request from both Hydro One and Centre Wellington Hydro for quotes on that. I understood at the time, at least, that we did have some potential for choice in the matter. I'm not sure if that still exists or not. But that's -- that was my understanding at that time. 232 MR. CHAN: Turning back to Doug. How did you respond to the Grand River Raceway's request for connection? 233 MR. SHERWOOD: When we received the request from Grand River Raceway, as I said before, I sent the request to Hydro One for the quote. I had a conversation with one of the Hydro One representatives about what our intention was, and just said that, as in any application within Elora, we would require them to do the necessary work as far as changing the pole, making the connections, and so forth. And I needed a costing on that to be able to pass that on to the Raceway. 234 I didn't get a response to that request, but I did forward just a copy of our OEB-approved rate structure for their consideration, and just left it at that. 235 MR. CHAN: For the Board's information, I do have a copy of that letter from Mr. Sherwood. I don't believe it's in the application materials. If you would like a copy of that letter, I can provide it now as an exhibit. Otherwise, we can just have it on the record. But essentially -- 236 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I'd like to see it. 237 MR. CHAN: Okay. It's dated November 20th, 2002. This copy is not signed. But I think since we have Mr. Sherwood here, he can assure the Board that it was signed. 238 MR. SHERWOOD: It was e-mailed. 239 MR. SOMMERVILLE: The scourge of our time. 240 MS. LEA: Mr. Chan, this was not in your previous book of exhibits? 241 MR. CHAN: No, it wasn't. 242 MS. LEA: Then we'll make this an exhibit and we'll give it number C.1.2, please. 243 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Lea. 244 EXHIBIT NO. C.1.2: LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2002, FROM MR. SHERWOOD TO HYDRO ONE 245 MR. CHAN: In addition to the letter request to Hydro One, how else did you try to contact them? 246 MR. SHERWOOD: I did -- I phoned the representative from Hydro One on, I think, November the 22nd and left a message, and on November the 25th, I just wanted to confirm that they received the e-mail. On November 25th I received an e-mail from them indicating that they had received the e-mail and they passed it on to the appropriate people. 247 MR. CHAN: What happened after that? 248 MR. SHERWOOD: That -- that was it. That was it. 249 MR. CHAN: I'd now like to turn to some of the specifics relating to Hydro One's Procedural Order 3 submissions. 250 We provided the Board with our submission relating to this critical customer hearing on April 28th, 2003. I believe the Board has that material in front of them. Hydro One submitted its response to our submission on May the 5th of the same year. As such, we'd like to take the opportunity to address some of those contentions made in the submission more specifically, and this is the matter that touches upon the critical nature of this hearing. 251 We'd like to address the significant matter of the metering unit. For the Board's information, Hydro One indicated -- 252 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Mr. Chan, if you're going to be suggesting evidentiary issues, you're going to have to raise those through your witnesses. 253 MR. CHAN: Okay. Thank you. 254 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Okay? Thank you. 255 MR. CHAN: Mr. Sherwood, or members of the panel, Hydro indicated in its Procedural Order 3 submission, on pages 3,17 -- page 3 -- line 17 to page 3, line 18, that the location of their metering unit is not relevant to the Board's determination of the urgency of the application concerning the Raceway. On the other hand, it indicates on page 319 to 321 that the meter should be in an optimal location. In that same sentence, and I guess Ms. Aldred did refer to that matter briefly, but I'd like you to discuss again the metering unit and the relevance of that to this particular application, and how it affects the urgency of the matter at hand. 256 MR. SHERWOOD: Well, the metering unit is a significant issue because if the metering unit is moved now, or tomorrow, or whenever it's slated to be done, it's going to effectively eliminate any options the customer will have. We were proposing -- I did send a letter in on the 24th of February outlining an alternative, and our suggestion was to keep the unit where it is, make the connection, and at least that way if we go through due process with this application, if the application is deemed to be approved, then the customer could be served now and the metering unit would be able to remain where it is and everything would be fine. 257 If the application was not approved, the metering unit could be moved at a later date, in the fall or whatever, but at least the customer would still be connected, they would be able to go on to their business. It would be relatively seamless to the customer. 258 DR. CLARKE: And if I could speak to the issue of the metering unit. My consultant, again, Roy Ojala, advised that the movement of the meter would probably constitute making a choice. I thought that, within the context of this being before the Board, it would be imprudent to be signing an offer to connect with Hydro One which involved the movement of that meter. And so we have held off in doing so. 259 In a conversation with Ken Olfield at the Guelph office last week, he indicated that they had arranged or would be arranging to move the meter tomorrow, May 13th, and I then wrote a letter to the Board asking -- or to Mr. Olfield, actually, asking that they wait until that date for the signing of a contract so that we could have input. I do hope that we will have input. 260 We do have structural steel going up. We have masons starting today. We have a need for small tools on the site. We have the conduit into the road, and the transformer is now sitting on its PAD, not entirely hooked up yet. But we will need to have power relatively quickly from whatever provider. 261 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Right. 262 MR. CHAN: I have here a letter dated February 24th, 2003, from Mr. Sherwood again, and I'd like Mr. Sherwood to, I guess, briefly explain this letter to the Board. It is in our materials. If the Board would like to see it, I would present it and pass it out to the members -- or to the public who are here today or the people who are here today. 263 MR. SOMMERVILLE: That might be convenient, Mr. Chan. 264 MR. CHAN: It would probably be very convenient. 265 MR. SOMMERVILLE: And it's part of your initial submission. 266 MR. CHAN: Can you explain that letter to the Board? 267 MR. SHERWOOD: In February I met with the Grand River Raceway's consultant, electrical consultant as well as representatives from Hydro One. And as we knew there were issues with this boundary expansion, and it was going to apparently take a little longer than we originally anticipated, we suggested to Hydro One staff about the possibility of doing a temporary load transfer. 268 And consequently, we realized that we needed approval from the Board to do this or to authorize it, and -- but they -- I was led to believe that that was absolutely not a consideration as far as Hydro One was concerned. 269 So in a way that we were just trying to -- as a suggestion just in a way that we could deal with this issue, allow the Board to go through the due process with this boundary expansion and have the customer connected up, we suggested this alternative about dealing with the customer as a temporary load transfer if the Board would so authorize. That would allow the customer to be settled by means of a PAD, a physical allocation of data. 270 It's in the market rules. It's allowed. It's permitted. There are, I believe, a couple instances of them in the province right now, and at least the customer would be connected, have power, and we would go through this process. 271 So I addressed the original letter to Paul Pudge, to the Board Staff, as it was an issue that the Board had to consider as far as trying to determine whether or not this would be allowed or not, so -- but that's basically the intent of it. 272 I mean, ideally we would have preferred the Board to just rule in favour right away on this customer if it was dealt on a case-by-case basis, if it would have been in an -- an individual one-off, that they would have approved the -- the racetrack to be connected to our system and make that adjustment to our distribution licence for that one spot. But in going through the process, we thought maybe this would be something, because we thought maybe it might be reticent to make a decision right now prior to the rest of the proceedings. 273 MR. CHAN: Dr. Clarke, can you please describe to the Board, just provide a brief background as to the racetrack and its reasons for locating within the Township of Centre Wellington. 274 And then from there I'm going to move on, Mr. Chair, to the specifics and the urgency of this application again. 275 DR. CLARKE: Yes. In the year 2000, we began a quest to have slots at the racetrack, which met with disfavour in Woolwich Township, our original location and our location at this date at Elmira. 276 We went through a number of proceedings, eventually resulting in two votes to -- negative to us being in that township. We then sought out other locations where we might find a municipal government that found that to be something they could agree with, and, in fact, in an effort to beat a moratorium imposed by the provincial government, managed to have a positive vote in Centre Wellington Township for that establishment to take place. It occurred in March of 2000. 277 We then entered into a long period of both OMB and court issues that finally were cleared away late in 2001, I believe, and we moved on to get the planning done to locate in Centre Wellington. 278 In going to that March meeting, we were advised by the County of Wellington that we must locate adjacent to services provided by the municipality. We could not locate out in the middle of a farm field, based on the Wellington County plan for having development associated with municipal services. 279 And so we looked around the county -- or around the township, and a planner there took me on a tour of the township. And we looked at the various sites, many of which we ruled out on the basis that they were too close to residential areas, which was the source of our difficulty in Woolwich Township. 280 And we finally located an area that is surrounded by highway, commercial, municipal government, and some industrial, and some farmland. There literally is no residential adjacent to us. And so that -- and it had the right contour to be a racetrack; it's relatively flat. 281 So all of those things led to us locating in that particular position. It has obviously taken quite a long time to get to where we are. In the course of this matter, we at first suggested we would come in with an overhead line at a different position on the road that would have been in keeping with Hydro One's service distribution. The lottery corporation that we deal with was very opposed to an overhead connection. 282 There are a number of services that run from east to west on our site, and it was judged inappropriate by the consultants that we approach the road anywhere other than where we have, so that -- that led us to the position we're now -- we have our conduit in the ground to the road. 283 And that's really the background as to what got us to today. We have had a long process in getting ready to go. I'm sure this winter's cold weather delayed us by another two months, which if you go back in the submitted details, you'll see where we were asking for connections at the middle point or late in February. But in fact, our foundation didn't get into the ground until the end of March. So we literally could not meet the schedule that was outlined at that time, and we have been delayed from one thing and another up to this point, which means that we have to now cram probably seven or eight months' worth of construction into about a five-month period in order to meet the suggested opening deadline. And that really has torqued up the pressure on everybody to be working full speed on the site. 284 At a construction meeting last week, a very pointed question was asked of me by Buttcon, our constructor, as to when we would know what service we were getting. And I again referred him to this date as being a date at which the matter would be heard. And so they are anxiously awaiting whatever the outcome might be of this. 285 MR. CHAN: Whom have you chosen to provide you your service, electricity service? Who did you choose to provide you your electricity service? 286 DR. CLARKE: Based on the advice from our consultant, again, Roy Ojala, who did the analysis for us, and, as I said earlier, suggested that we had a choice, he came back with an analysis that would suggest that it's in our best interest on a financial basis to link up with Centre Wellington Hydro. 287 On an even more important issue, we recognize the need to blend in with the community in which we are now coming. And so using a service provided in Centre Wellington is a pretty good alternative -- a pretty good method to do that. Even further to the point, the Township of Centre Wellington is, in fact, a major player of this development in that they gain by five percent of the net revenue from the development. And of course they are, I think, a significant part of Centre Wellington Hydro. 288 I notice that George Pinkney is listed as one of the directors. He is the mayor of the Township. That whole connectiveness provides to us, I think, a position of having some input into the issue of service and how we might be viewed by the server. 289 I think we're much more -- we are a relatively small organisation. We're probably a lot more comfortable dealing with people that we know than people that we don't know. And so it's sort of a natural fit, I think, that we would be connected to Centre Wellington Hydro. Certainly, it's a natural choice for an organisation like ours to make. Several of our board of directors are, in fact, taxpayers in Centre Wellington Township. 290 MR. CHAN: Why do you need the connection now? Why is it urgent? Hydro One actually stated in their submissions that this is an alleged urgency. How do you respond to that? 291 DR. CLARKE: Well, I don't think Hydro One disputes that we need connection now. I think their point is that -- they're suggesting they can provide that connection now, provided I would sign the contract to move the metering unit. And as I indicated in my letter to Mr. Pudge, that leaves me in a position of somewhat of a conflict in that I know the wishes of my board, I know the analysis of my consultant, and I know the need for our power, which is now. I think everybody agrees that we need power this week, or as soon as possible. It's just a matter of how we're going to get that power. 292 As I said in my letter, I don't wish to fly in the face of something that's anticipated to be dealt with, and so I'm -- I'm of the opinion, at least from what Hydro One has said, and certainly from what Centre Wellington has said, that they can move expeditiously to give us power if we can figure out the mechanism to do it. 293 MR. CHAN: For the Board's information, the exhibit provided earlier today includes the Grand River Raceway letters. They speak to the urgency, as well as reasons for the amendment, dated February 3rd, February 14th, February 20th, and April 9th, respectively. 294 MR. SOMMERVILLE: The witness has indicated, Ms. Aldred, that he's expressing the idea that Hydro One also accepts the idea that there is urgency associated with this requirement. It could help matters if you could indicate that that is an accurate representation, and we can move on to other issues. 295 MS. ALDRED: Okay. This is our position on the matter. I'll try to be as clear as I can. 296 Hydro One does not argue with Dr. Clarke that he needs to be connected. I don't want to put in evidence, so I'll have my people come up. I don't want to do that. We don't argue that he needs to be connected. I think what you're going to hear from our witnesses is that the issue of the meter and the moving or non-moving of the meter is not connected in any way to whether Dr. Clarke and his facility will get power. 297 So while we agree he needs the power, we do not agree that the issue of the meter is determinative. And we would also be making submissions later on that, in fact, this issue of whether the Raceway is a customer of Centre Wellington or Networks is not -- does not need to be decided today either. But in terms of his needing power, we're not going to take dispute. 298 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. That's very helpful. 299 MR. CHAN: Perhaps the members of the panel can, I guess, provide some more technical evidence relating to this metering unit and how its effect is of the utmost importance to this particular hearing and the urgency of the matter. 300 MR. VAICIUNAS: If I may. In all of my discussions with Mr. Sherwood up until this point, the Raceway could easily have been connected by Mr. Sherwood and Centre Wellington Hydro quite some time ago, had the issue of the customer choice of supplier not been raised in the first place, and the added difficulties of moving the wholesale metering point. 301 So I look forward to hear how Hydro One is going to say that not moving the meter is -- or moving the meter or not moving the meter is not an issue, because it does appear in all of the process that moving the meter has been the primary issue with getting that connection done in a quick and decisive manner. 302 Mr. Sherwood has offered, in his letter of February 24th, the opportunity to leave the meter as is, connect that customer quite some time ago so that that customer could actually have power when they needed it, have the connection in place, and offer the settlement issue then to be just handled between the LDCs and leave the customer out of the picture at that time. And that has gone nowhere, either through the use of the PADs because that basically keeps the customer totally isolated; the customer doesn't get involved. They basically don't even know that all of that stuff is going on in the background. 303 So I think that there is some urgency in the issue with regards to moving of the meter. I heard Mr. Clarke actually mention that he was told that they were planning on moving the meter today or tomorrow. To me, that means to me that the customer will lose its opportunity of choice, because I doubt if Centre Wellington would be even standing in front of the OEB today if that meter had already been moved, because that would just add more costs to the whole process. And since ultimately, regardless of how we look at it, the customer pays, I don't think that any of the LDCs are going to sit here and start fighting about moving stuff and spending more money than necessary when it's the customers that get affected. 304 So I think the urgency, as requested at the very beginning, is that we get a ruling to at least leave the meter in place, allow that customer to have that choice, get the customer connected as they are today, and let the utilities handle that back-end processing, and leave the customer isolated from all those other issues. 305 MR. CHAN: Any other comments? 306 MR. SHERWOOD: No, that's good. 307 MR. CHAN: I leave the panel to the Board and my friends. 308 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Ms. Aldred. 309 MS. ALDRED: Yes. I just want to clarify a process, if I can, and I understand that we're trying to get to the bottom of this issue as well as we can today. But I just wanted to explore. I had organised a cross-examination on issues broader than the meter, and indeed, had addressed the issues about who would ultimately connect the racetrack, because I wasn't sure how we were going to proceeded today. 310 I can do one of two things. I can do a little cross-examination on the urgency issue now, thinking that perhaps later in the day I can recircle to the broader issues, or I can just proceed and examine on some issues that are a little bit broader than the meter itself, depending on how -- if you would like me to, I could just focus on this meter issue which seems to be -- 311 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I think that there appears to be a consensus on this issue that the requirement of this customer for power in the very near term is understood, and the question is how is that to be accomplished. Given our interests, as the Board has indicated in its Procedural Order, in dealing with the generic issues associated with these service area amendments in a combined proceeding in which the genuinely principal issues can be explored. 312 What we're dealing with here is really in the nature of an interlocutory proceeding: To try to enable Mr. Clarke to give the answer to his construction crew that they need to hear. And that we need to be able to assess the least intrusive method of doing that that can be either -- that can be changed in the context of the combined proceeding at the end of the day if the principles associated with that proceeding determine a different outcome. Our primary interest is ensuring that Mr. Clarke can give the answer that he needs to give to his construction crew, and to handle that as light-handedly as possible so that the principal matters can be considered appropriately in the broader proceeding. 313 So does that help you? Within that context, you may want to focus your attention on the -- I think what is the relatively narrow issue that's before us. I'm, frankly, not going -- I'm not inclined at this stage to consider an awful lot of the issues and principles that are the proper province of the combined proceeding. I'm more interested in Mr. Clarke's immediate interest, and how we get there in as light-handed a manner as possible; okay? Is that of assistance to the parties generally? 314 MS. ALDRED: Yes, it is. And I would take from that that the issue of customer choice, then, would be a principle that would be carried forward to the generic hearing. 315 MR. SOMMERVILLE: That's correct. 316 MS. ALDRED: All right. I'll try to be guided by that in my questioning, then. Thank you. 317 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Why don't we take a short break. I'm going to suggest that we convene at 11:10. If I may suggest, that that would give the parties an opportunity to discuss these issues so that we can even further narrow the concern. You know what the Board's interest is; you know what we want to produce here today. And if we can focus everyone's mind on that, that might be a worthwhile exercise. So I'm going to suggest that we reconvene at, say, 11:10. Is that an adequate time frame? 318 MR. CHAN: That's fine. 319 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Okay. Again, I urge the parties to discuss this issue somewhat. So we'll rise until 11:10. Thank you. 320 --- Recess taken at 10:47 a.m. 321 --- On resuming at 11:53 a.m. 322 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Please be seated. 323 MS. LEA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The parties have a proposal to put to the Board for settlement of this urgent application. 324 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 325 Mr. Chan, will you be presenting that? 326 SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL: 327 MR. CHAN: The parties have agreed, we've drafted -- I'll let Ms. Aldred go ahead and we'll interject. We've already agreed upon the particular aspects of the agreement. 328 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Mr. Clarke, are you aware of the discussions that have transpired? 329 DR. CLARKE: Yes. I was part of it. 330 MR. SOMMERVILLE: And I think that what I'm being presented is consistent with what your requirement is. 331 DR. CLARKE: I think both parties have tried to see that I get what I need. 332 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Well, you're a very lucky man. 333 Ms. Aldred. 334 MS. ALDRED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we've got a practical solution for Dr. Clarke that will preserve the status of this case over the combined hearing. 335 MS. ALDRED: Both parties would agree that, no matter what happens, even at the combined hearing, ultimately Dr. Clarke will be connected physically to Networks' assets, in any event. So we've agreed that the wholesale meter which we were discussing this morning which measures Centre Wellington Hydro's load will not be moved at this point, pending the outcome of the combined proceedings. It will stay where it is. Dr. Clarke will be connected by Hydro One on a without-prejudice basis as to whether he will ultimately be in Networks -- Hydro One, or a Centre Wellington customer. 336 Dr. Clarke will not be charged for moving the wholesale metering if it is ultimately moved as a result of the combined hearing. He was not going to be anyway, but we'll just confirm that. 337 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you. 338 MS. ALDRED: In the interim, the Raceway's load will be measured by way of a Hydro One customer interval meter which will be installed on Dr. Clarke's -- the Raceway's site, to measure the Raceway load. And the two utilities will settle between them; so Centre Wellington Hydro and Hydro One will settle in accordance with IMO requirements, using the reading from the interval meter that's on Dr. Clarke's site to adjust. 339 The interval meter has to be installed in any event, regardless of the outcome here, so depending on the outcome of the combined proceedings, if the Raceway were to be transferred to Centre Wellington as a customer, then there would be some costs to Centre Wellington connected to that. There would be no costs to Dr. Clarke. And Networks has agreed to provide a reasonable current estimate of the cost of that infrastructure transfer to Centre Wellington Hydro. 340 And I think that -- at this time there would be no service amendment required. Thank you. 341 MR. CHAN: If the Board feels there's anything else they can add to this, I'd be certainly happy to hear from them. 342 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I will not interfere with perfection, Mr. Chan. 343 Now, that resolution seems to be perfectly appropriate. 344 Ms. Lea, do you have any comment? 345 MS. LEA: No, I don't think so. Thank you, sir. As I understand it, what the parties have agreed to, then: The Board will not be issuing an order at this time for a service area amendment, and if the Board finds that this proposed settlement of the urgent application aspect of Centre Wellington's application is in the public interest, and I see no reason why it is not, I think that we can proceed to recognise the agreement and dispose of the urgent application on the basis of the settlement proposed by the parties. 346 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Mr. Lokan, Mr. O'Leary, do you have any comment or observation with respect to this? 347 MR. LOKAN: Nothing to add. 348 MR. O'LEARY: No, we don't, sir. 349 MR. SOMMERVILLE: In which case I'm going to accept the advice of counsel. The Board does regard the -- given Dr. Clarke's indication that the arrangement satisfies his requirement, the Board will recognise the arrangement that's been arrived at between the parties here, and will not make any determination with respect to the service area amendment. We'll leave that consideration to the combined proceeding. 350 And with that, we propose to adjourn. I noted at the beginning, Mr. Chan, that you were going to make some submissions with respect to cost awards, and I think that that is probably most appropriate in the course of the combined proceeding as well, and we'll certain receive those submissions at that time. 351 And unless there's something else that anyone would like to raise, I'd like to thank the witnesses for their attendance and assistance to the Board today. I know that this is an issue that was of very special importance to you, Dr. Clarke, and thank you for coming, and I hope that the outcome is satisfactory. 352 And most especially I'd like to thank counsel, all four, for their dedication to finding a very positive and useful consensus that allows us to proceed to the combined hearing in the way that we really would like to. So thank you very much, Mr. Chan, Ms. Aldred, Mr. Lokan, and Mr. O'Leary. Thank you very much. 353 MS. LEA: I think there was -- Mr. Sidlofsky wanted to put in an appearance. He has been here throughout. 354 MR. SOMMERVILLE: I noted that. 355 MR. SIDLOFSKY: Sorry, sir, I apologise. I missed the introductions this morning. I've been here on behalf of Markham Hydro Distribution Inc., Hydro Ottawa Limited, Hydro Vaughan Distribution Inc., Brantford Power Inc. and Hamilton Hydro Inc. Those distributors will be involved in the larger hearing. I was simply here to observe this morning, so we haven't taken a position on the urgent application. 356 MR. SOMMERVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Sidlofsky. The record will note your attendance. 357 Without further ado, the Board will adjourn, and this matter will be, in effect, reconvened during the course of the combined proceeding when that occurs, which I guess is going to be September sometime. Thank you very much. Have a safe trip home, all. And thank you. 358 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12:00 p.m.