Message: D12-16363

From: BoardSec
To: Susi Vogt
Cc:
Sent: 2012-09-13 at 4:20 PM
Received: 2012-09-13 at 4:20 PM
Subject: FW: EB-2012-0087

Â

From: Dey, Debbie [mailto:ddey@foglers.com] On Behalf Of Brett, Thomas
Sent: September-13-12 3:42 PM
To: BoardSec
Cc: 'khockin@uniongas.com'; 'SSkipper@uniongas.com'; 'AGalick@uniongas.com'; 'joanneclark2@uniongas.com'; 'csmith@torys.com'; 'David.Butters@appro.org'; 'john.beauchamp@nortonrose.com'; 'jwolnik@elenchus.ca'; 'Marion.Fraser@rogers.com'; 'jhughes@blg.com'; 'pthompson@blg.com'; 'vderose@blg.com'; 'paul.clipsham@cme-mec.ca'; 'jgirvan@uniserve.com'; 'rwarren@weirfoulds.com'; 'ric.forster@directenergy.com'; 'daveduggan@ecng.com'; 'fcass@airdberlis.com'; 'EGDRegulatoryProceedings@enbridge.com'; 'DavidMacIntosh@nextcity.com'; 'spainc@rogers.com'; 'drquinn@rogers.com'; 'ian.mondrow@gowlings.com'; 'mnewton@igua.ca'; 'jfstacey@interlog.com'; 'bott@justenergy.com'; 'nruzycki@justenergy.com'; 'randy.aiken@sympatico.ca'; 'vyoung@aegent.ca'; 'barbara.reuber@opg.com'; 'opgregaffairs@opg.com'; 'basil.alexander@klippensteins.ca'; 'jack@cleanairalliance.org'; 'kent.elson@klippensteins.ca'; 'murray.klippenstein@klippensteins.ca'; 'jgibbons@pollutionprobe.org'; 'jay.shepherd@canadianenergylawyers.com'; 'wmcnally@opsba.org'; 'paul.kerr@shell.com'; 'nick@sixnatgas.com'; 'jim.gruenbauer@kitchener.ca'; 'laura-marie_berg@transalta.com'; 'pete_serafini@transalta.com'; 'eric_nadeau@transcanada.com'; 'nadine_berge@transcanada.com'; 'jim_bartlett@transcanada.com'; 'murray_ross@transcanada.com'; 'jwightman@econalysis.ca'; 'mbuonaguro@piac.ca'
Subject: EB-2012-0087

Â

Dear Ms. Walli,

Â

I am writing to transmit the Final Argument of BOMA in this case. In addition, I am including some explanatory comments, which you should consider part of BOMA's Argument.

The argument refers in several places to the Tolls Task Force ("TTF"). The TTF was established in the 1980's by the traditional parties that appear in TransCanada rate cases before the National Energy Board. It was initiated by TransCanada and sanctioned by the NEB as a part of the toll-making and amending process. The NEB defined the TTF in, for example, RHW-2-2005, as follows:

"A joint industry task force initiated by TransCanada. Its membership is comprised of a wide cross-section of the natural gas industry, including representatives of the producing, marketing, brokering and pipeline segments of the industry, provincial governments and local distribution and industrial end-use customers."

The basic idea underlying the TTF is any proposal to add a new feature to an existing service, amend a toll, establish a new service, amend existing tolls, and similar initiatives, must be discussed by the TTF prior to being submitted to the NEB in the form of a TTF resolution. The TTF tries to reach positive consensus on an issue or at least an unopposed resolution (an unopposed resolution means that parties vote against it in the TTF but agree not to complain to the Board about it), and sometimes does. Sometimes it does not. If a consensus is reached, or a majority favours a proposal, a TTF consensus resolution or opposed resolution is reported by letter from TransCanada to the NEB. Parties who voted against the resolution in the TTF are entitled to ask the NEB to resolve the matter.

Â

You will note from the description of the TTF membership, that it includes only IGUA (and, more recently, the Association of Power Producers of Ontario ("APPrO")) as end use customer groups. The small to medium industrial, and commercial, institutional, and residential customers do not have representatives in the TTF. The idea is, it seems, that Union, Enbridge, and Gaz Met are supposed to represent the interests of the customers other than the large industrial and power plant users. The TTF also operates in secret. Its minutes are not made public and its members are pledged to keep confidential the deliberations of the TTF. This obligation is taken seriously. In these circumstances, BOMA suggests the obligation on Union Gas (and other eastern gas LDCs) to fully represent the interests of the customers is a heavy one, almost fiduciary in nature. Given that the RAM program originated from discussions at the Task Force, Union had a special obligation to inform its customer group of all of its implications, and how Union would propose to use it.  The evidence in this case suggests Union did not do so.

Â

As a result, most of Union's customers did not have the opportunity to contest the characterization of the revenues realized from the RAM programs.

Â

Â

Regards,

Â

Tom Brett

Partner

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

95 Wellington Street West, Suite 1200

Toronto, Ontario M5J 2Z9

Â

Direct Line (416) 941-8861

Fax (416) 941-8852

tbrettHYPERLINK "mailto:tbrett@foglers.com"@foglers.com

HYPERLINK "http://www.foglers.com/"www.foglers.com

Â

 _____ Â


This communication may be solicitor/client privileged and contains confidential information intended only for the persons to whom it is addressed. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and delete this message from your mail box and trash without reading or copying it.

P Before printing, please consider the environment.

Â