| Document | Date Filed |
| Broadband |
| JIESC 1 001_00_a to 2_009_00 [PDF, 490 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| Dial-up |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_a Sensitivity analysis to evaluate the Energy Margin and variable costs [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_b Confirm that gas and electricity prices in models reflect those used in final evaluations [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_c How seasonal gas price variations and volatility reflected in Cost Effectiveness Analysis [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_d Sources used for gas and electricity price forecasts [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_e Spreadsheet showing comparison of 5 gas price scenarios to EIA reference case [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_f Determination of electricity prices for each of 25 years in the evaluation [PDF, 52 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_g Assumptions about electricity prices based on spark spread and market heat rate [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_h Identify where and if BCH altered forecasts by 3rd parties or used averages and weighted data [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_i Compare Duke Point heat rate to other CCGT and cogeneration technologies [PDF, 52 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_j Laymans terms describe what various Capital Cost Recovery scenarios mean for Capacity Factor and Energy... [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_k 24 month Back cast analysis of Duke Point using actual gas prices and hourly electricity prices [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_l Net present value of cash flow assuming Duke Point not at capacity after transmission line installed F2009 [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_m Annual costs of both keeping Duke Point ready to run and mothballing [PDF, 49Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_n Accepted reliability of Frame 7A CCGT according to supplier and in the industry [PDF, 52 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_001_00_o If Duke Point cant maintain 97 percent reliability are they in breach or subject to payments [PDF, 54 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_a BCH need to purchase gas and transport it from Station 2 to Huntingdon Sumas [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_b Forecast of Station 2 gas prices obtained for CFT or supply management purposes [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_c Confirm that gas at Station 2 trades in CDN dollars [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_d Annual forecast of units and total costs of gas at Station 2 compared to Huntingdon Sumas [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_e Transportation and cost mitigation strategy for gas delivery at Huntingdon Sumas hub [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_f How change in trading hub and delivery to Station 2 affects BCH portfolio cost and mitigation strategy [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_002_00_g Inflation and exchange rates used in CFT analysis and how they were applied [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_a TGVI correspondence about forecast gas transportation costs used in the CFT analysis [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_b Effect of using different system gas ratio in TGVI system and the evaluation [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_c Confirm BCH pays toll a 1_25 times the cost of service and assumption is true in CPCN IR responses [PDF, 52 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_d Assumed gas transportation contract demand on TGVI required to serve Duke Point and ICP [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_e If BCH contract at rate assumed by TGVI will unit tolls increase proportionately [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_f Has BCH factored TGVI toll risk into its evaluation [PDF, 52 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_003_00_g Forecast annual firm and interruptible gas volume to Duke Point and ICP [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_004_00_a Load duration curves for 2004 through 2010 to support hours required [PDF, 56 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_004_00_b Identify hours or days of operation and siting required for peaking facilities [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_004_00_c Correspondence of potential proponents identifying times and locations and notice period for curtailment [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_005_00_a REVISED Average capacity factor assumed for Duke Point Power [PDF, 51 Kb] | January 16, 2005 |
| JIESC IR 1_005_00_b Information available to BCH on capacity and reliability factors for North American CCGT plants [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_005_00_c Capacity factor experience of Frame 7FA CCGT generation in NA for last 2 years [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_005_00_d Capacity factors of generator a function of market heat rate [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_005_00_e If new CCGT generation technologies are more efficient than older then the gap would widen over time [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_005_00_f BCH factored in market risk experienced by existing gas fired generation into CFT evaluation [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_a Transmission upgrade costs applied to Tier 2 150 MW option [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_b Details of Tier 2 resources totalling 122 MW [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_c Tier 2 and contingency considered by BCH as alternative [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_d When VI demand forecast revised why did BCH not change the CFT [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_e Presentations and analysis provided to senior management in October [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_e_attachment_01 Presentation to Senior Management [PDF, 77 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_f Details of disqualified bidders and BCH reasons for disqualifying [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_006_00_g Disqualifications alter Tier 2 options available to BCH [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_007_00_a Forecast capital costs for Duke Point in as spent dollars for BCH_BCTC and Terasen VI [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_007_00_b REVISED Total payments in as spent dollars over forecast 25 year term [PDF, 53 Kb] | January 16, 2005 |
| JIESC IR 1_007_00_c REVISED Total fixed and variable charges in as spent dollars for each of 25 years [PDF, 49 Kb] | January 16, 2005 |
| JIESC IR 1_007_00_c_Attachment_01 [PDF, 12 Kb] | January 16, 2005 |
| JIESC IR 1_008_00_a Explain differences in 230 kV in service date [PDF, 53 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_008_00_b Studies and reports relating to earliest in service date for 230 kV transmission to VI [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_008_00_c Critical path for 230 kV transmission to VI and identification of delay and advancement activities [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_008_00_d Documents of life or reliability extension of HVDC line to VI produced since VIGP [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 1_008_00_e Are BCH or BCTC continuing evaluation of transmission options [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 20, 2004 |
| JIESC IR 2_009_00 Provide DPP Tendersheets as used in the QEM [PDF, 16 Kb] | January 14, 2005 |
