| Document | Date Filed |
| Broadband |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1 001 01 to 1_005 33 [PDF, 623 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| Dial-up |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_01 Review of BCH developed Section 17 Addendum 10 by BCUC [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_02 Independent Reviewer role in developing Section 17 or Cost Effectiveness Analysis [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_03 Updated load forecast analysis complete and available to those developing the process [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_04 Baseline variables and assumptions made by those developing the Section 17 and cost effectiveness ana... [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_05 When was the cost effectiveness analysis process itself completed [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_06 Method of comparing the 3 CFT outcomes only way to equalize them [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_07 When was the statement of VI capacity requirement in F07_08 developed [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_08 Was any gas price forecast risk factored into the Tier 1 option [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_09 Independent Reviewer involved in monitoring or review of conduct of Cost Effectiveness Analysis [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_10 Was the cost effectiveness analysis in Section 17 a part of the CFT process [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_11 REVISED BCH consider the cost effective portfolio with dependable capacity as low as 115 MW before on island ... [PDF, 49 Kb] | January 7, 2005 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_12 Where is Cost Effectiveness analysis in the Independent Reviewer flow chart for CFT [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_13 When did BCH senior management request cost effectiveness analysis [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_14 Who was tasked with carrying out cost effectiveness evaluation [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_15 Direction of BCH senior management in carrying out cost effectiveness analysis [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_16 Uncertainty or confusion about conduct of cost effectiveness analysis [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_17 REVISED When were bidders informed of how cost effectiveness analysis would be conducted [PDF, 83 Kb] | January 7, 2005 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_18 Cost effectiveness analysis consistent with commission panels recommendations [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_19 Did BCH run analysis of Tier 1 option at 150 MW [PDF, 52 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_20 Role of the Updated Load Forecast in development and computation of cost effectiveness analysis [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_001_21 How BCH came up with 600 GW_h total energy production for Tier 2 scenario [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_01 Explanation of Greenfield average unit availability of 91_3 percent as baseline for future generation [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_02 Factors other than price produced by alternative generating options [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_03 Identify subjective assessments and resulting input data applied to QEM evaluation model [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_04 Which individuals formed the QEC [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_05 Value of dispatchability in the QEM [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_06 Absolutely necessary to run projects through a CFT style process to guarantee a valid conclusion [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_07 BCH determination that DPPLP would return 1800 GW_h per year of energy [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_08 Why did QEM only utilize one gas price forecast [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_09 Electricity price forecasts BCH used in QEM consistent with those presented to other bodies [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_10 Which capacity is OMC payment based on [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_11 REVISED If a plant is dispatched are BC ratepayers still paying for availability [PDF, 47 Kb] | January 16, 2005 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_12 Why is QEM used in all other evaluations but portfolio assembly [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_13 REVISED How much was Duke Point dispatched when determining the energy margin [PDF, 45 Kb] | January 16, 2005 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_14 Why are interruptible gas transportation costs used instead of firm in the tender variable cost calcu... [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_15 What was the DPPLP projects adjusted bid capacity [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_16 Do interruptible gas transportation costs include any risk premium [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_17 Was the Green Island Energy project ever evaluated independently [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_18 Does BCH maintain its position of considering only on island generation [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_19 Where did the margin of error used to set the minimum threshold for CFT come from [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_20 Does BCH agree with Sanderson that CFT was by the book [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_21 Was QEM an unbiased means to evaluate cost effectiveness of qualifying portfolios [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_22 BCH treat CFT as a work in progress while aware of revised load forecast [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_23 Assessment of DPPLP project cost effectiveness in CFT essentially only compared to other gas fired pr... [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_24 How many maximum starts per year associated with the winning bid [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_25 Which average hydrological conditions used by BCH when conducting the analysis [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_002_26 BCH attained all permits for DPPLP to proceed if accepted as most cost effective bidder [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_003_01 Why TGVI tolling option used in CFT analysis and other options not modeled and averaged [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_003_02 Modeling done by BCH to determine gas prices exceeding projected levels and dispatch of DPPLP [PDF, 55 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_003_03 Operation of DPPLP during peak loads for next 25 years regardless of gas prices [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_003_04 GSX costs with regard to costs to date_written off_liabilities and gas supply analysis [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_003_05 Regarding gas supply and recent and projected use provide purchase contract details and costs per MW ... [PDF, 53 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_003_05_Attachment_01 Historical, targeted unit cost of production for Burrard [PDF, 54 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_004_01 Transmission options available to increase life or rating of HVDC cables [PDF, 43 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_004_02 What were the line upgrade costs attributed to the Tier 2 option [PDF, 44 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_01 Does BCH conclude that the number of projects evaluated made for robust competition [PDF, 43 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_02 How many possible portfolio outcomes identified by BCH while 23 bidders registered for the VI CFT [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_03 CFT identified all options for meeting capacity shortfalls on VI [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_04 New and cost effective generation and supply options available in future than those evaluated in CFT [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_05 Involvement of Independent Reviewer ensure CFT process fair and transparent [PDF, 59 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_06 Why didn't Independent Reviewer report to the commission as encouraged by BCUC [PDF, 49 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_07 Detail BCH gas portfolio and describe how it hedges costs across the portfolio [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_08 BCH president statements on portfolio assembly such as combo of Duke Point and Green Island Energy [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_09 BCH records of public input and comments relating to CFT process [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_10 BCH and public interest at stake in these proceedings [PDF, 43 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_11 Risks undertaken by private party and those remaining with BCH [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_12 Absolute need or capacity BCH needed to satisfy in the VI CFT [PDF, 50 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_13 Inclusion of all recommendations made by Commission panel in the VI CFT process [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_14 Reasons for any recommendations not incorporated [PDF, 43 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_15 When were BCH senior executives aware of bid sizes that were tendered [PDF, 44 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_16 Awareness of bidders of what BCH asking for and of evolving bidding process [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_17 Committees and panels that Mary Hemmingsen involved with [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_18 Regarding 50 million dollar recovery by BCH should DPPLP move forward [PDF, 53 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_19 Regarding 70 million dollar write down by BCH itemize and describe long range impact [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_20 Socioeconomic costs factored into CFT and evaluation [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_21 Differences between Mark Jaccard report and BCH decision on Duke Point [PDF, 47 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_22 How are GHG cost calculated under the CFT [PDF, 44 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_23 How are GHG costs factored into CFT [PDF, 44 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_24 Detail what GHG costs expected to be in each year of 25 year contract [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_25 Potential impact of Kyoto Accord and estimate of costs [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_26 Were these costs factored into the CFT evaluation process [PDF, 45 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_27 Effect of high gas prices on running DPPLP and meeting demand when plant turned off [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_28 First Nations benefits under DPPLP and costs [PDF, 48 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_29 Duke Point exemption from Environmental Assessment and real costs [PDF, 51 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_30 Regulatory risk under BC_WA state memorandum on Air Quality [PDF, 46 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_31 Costs of operating CFT and comparison with similar RFP processes [PDF, 63 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_32 Change of Law clauses rationale and comparison to other EPAs [PDF, 54 Kb] | December 23, 2004 |
| GOLDRIVER IR 1_005_33 Comparison of performance with ICP in terms of power generated_cost_tolls and gas price risk [PDF, 59 Kb] | December 21, 2004 |
