From: Aristides49@aol.com [mailto:Aristides49@aol.com]
Sent: October 22, 2007 4:53 PM
To: BoardSec
Cc: Nabih Mikhail; Marissa Eser
Subject: Interrogatory Process.

Ms. Walli, et al:

I would greatly appreciate some advice and direction regarding the Interrogatories. I had some assumptions regarding the process. I now believe that some may be erroneous. I do not wish to waste the time of the applicant, myself, the Board or the Board Staff, by asking questions that can simply be ignored.

My experience of the Technical Conference suggests that the Applicant will continue their strategy of evasion to whatever extent possible. The Applicant and their proponents have previously suggested that the approval processes are too cumbersome and too lengthy for their liking. Yet, they have seen fit to make the process more cumbersome and overlong when it suited them. I would like to avoid the unecessary and time wasting type of wrangling such as was initiated and constantly persued by the Applicant.

  Please comment on the following assumptions. While some may be valid, I just want to be sure. I learned, a long time ago, that one should never make assumptions.

    1. I assumed that the Interragatory Process would be based on both the Approved Issues and the process, progress and results of the Technical Conference.

    2. The IESO and OPA attended the Technical Conference and were availabe for questions (answered or not) and comment. I, therefore, assumed that because of this and #1, above, that the Interrogatories could be directed to them, as well, either directly, or through the Applicant. I now realise that this may not be so. If it is not, then any questions, about this Application, more appropriately within the sphere of the IESO or OPA, can be immediately ignored by the Applicant.  

       While I feel that all questions regarding an application should be asked and answered, if the Board does have hard and fast rules that can preclude this, then it is absolutely necessary that the Intervenors fully understand the restrictions so as to better focus their attentions on the attainable. 

       An example of inappropriate manipulation of the process by the Applicant follows.

       On the one hand, the Applicant derided some of our technical questions. They said, for example, that the Transmission System is complex and that any project can impinge upon other components of the Grid. Especially as regards Series Compensation, they said that you couldn't just consider the immediate line in question, but had to factor in the possible interactions with all associated transmission lines, etc.

       However, when questioned about the application of Capacitor Technology to other projects around the province, they claimed they were irrelevant. They said that they were other projects and not in the present application before the Board. Their claim was that we could only consider this application, in isolation.

        I find this outrageous that they can manipulate and switch the validity of considerations, in midstream, based only on whether or not it is in their best interest.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Chris Aristides Pappas