bc gas utility ltd.

Transcription

bc gas utility ltd.

Scott A. Thomson
VP, Finance & Regulatory Affairs and
Chief Financial Officer
16705 Fraser Highway
Surrey, B.C. V3S 2X7
Tel: (604) 592-7784
Fax: (604) 592-7890
Email: scott.thomson@terasengas.com
www.terasengas.com
Regulatory Affairs Correspondence
Email: regulatory.affairs@terasengas.com
July 14, 2006
British Columbia Utilities Commission
6th Floor, 900 Howe Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3
Attention:
Mr. R.J. Pellatt, Commission Secretary
Dear Sirs:
Re:
Terasen Gas Inc. ("Terasen Gas")
Application (“Application”) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
("CPCN") Seismic Upgrade of the Mission Intermediate Pressure System
Response to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (“BCUC” or the
“Commission”) Information Request (“IR”) No. 1
On June 20, 2006, Terasen Gas filed the Application as referenced above. On June 30, 2006,
the Commission responded with a letter and BCUC IR No. 1.
Terasen Gas respectfully submits the attached response to BCUC IR No. 1.
If there are any questions regarding the attached, please contact Mr. Tom Loski, Director,
Regulatory Affairs at (604) 592-7464.
Yours very truly,
TERASEN GAS INC.
Original signed
Scott A. Thomson
Attachments
cc: Registered Intervenors in the TGI 2005 Annual Review
Parties Listed on page 25 of the Application
Terasen Gas Inc. (“Terasen Gas” or the “Company”)
Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
Mission Intermediate Pressure System Upgrade
Response to British Columbia Utilities Commission (“BCUC” or the “Commission”)
Information Request No. 1
1.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 1
Reference: Cover Letter dated June 20, 2006
1.1
In its cover letter, Terasen Gas states:
“The Company’s current 2004-2007 Performance Based Rates (‘PBR’)
Settlement Agreement requires the Company submit CPCN applications for
capital investments in excess of $5 million.”
The Settlement at page 8 states: “Except in very unusual circumstances, CPCNs
will not be filed for projects below $5 million.”
A plain reading of the words indicates that the Settlement generally prevents
Terasen Gas from filing a CPCN application for projects costing less than $5
million, but is silent with respect to when Terasen Gas is to file a CPCN
application. Please explain the basis for Terasen Gas’ position as set out in the
cover letter.
Response:
The Settlement did not specifically state that projects with capital costs in excess
of $5 million require a CPCN, however, current practice, accepted by all
stakeholders, requires a CPCN for such projects and no changes to that practice
were being considered by the parties to the PBR Settlement Agreement. The
basis for this position is set out in the Commission Decision attached to Order
No. G-7-03 dated February 4, 2003, regarding the Company’s 2003 Revenue
Requirements Application. On page 31 of the Decision, under Paragraph 5.1 it
states “Projects with budgets greater than $5 million are generally reviewed
through a CPCN process and are excluded from regular capital”. The Company
believes that nothing has transpired subsequent to that decision that results in a
change to that $5 million CPCN condition.
The Company is confident that it is required to submit CPCN applications for all
projects in excess of $5 million and that this is wholly consistent with the PBR
Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the Company is of the view that any
changes to the $5 million CPCN threshold would be in violation of the terms of
the PBR Settlement Agreement.
1.2
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 2
If Terasen Gas believes that a CPCN is required for capital investments in
excess of $5 million so that such expenditures can receive a project-specific
public review, please explain why Terasen Gas believes that the review process
and time period that it proposes for the Mission IP System Upgrade Project is
adequate for this purpose.
Response:
Terasen Gas acknowledges that it has requested an expedited review period for
the review of this application. However, Terasen Gas believes that sufficient time
is available for the Commission to review the merits of this Application, which had
been proposed as an upgrade that is a prudent response to a technically
quantified bridge infrastructure vulnerability that will have severe impacts on this
single feed pipeline that serves 10,000 customers in Mission should a seismic
event occur.
Construction delays will yield Project cost increases that are expected to be
significant, increases difficult to predict based on current market pricing for
services of qualified trades, materials, and land values that have each seen
unprecedented increases in recent years in British Columbia. All available
information sources linked to the real estate/expropriation and construction
markets have positioned the upcoming three to five years as times of significant
construction and cost escalation, facts that Terasen Gas cannot ignore when
postulating how costing might differ if the Project is delayed by any time
increment.
Terasen Gas is of the opinion that delaying project approval into the fall
constitutes financial risk with respect to overall project planning, since much of
the work that must be done is related to ascertaining feasibility, and the above
noted variables are closely linked to the financial feasibility which Terasen Gas
must consider in a prudent manner.
As described in the research commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation, the
seismic vulnerability of the Mission Bridge will grossly impact the natural gas
infrastructure currently on the Mission Bridge should an event occur.
Furthermore, other research reports support the risk evaluation that Terasen Gas
has completed, which has confirmed that delaying this project induces risk to
service disruption due to expected bridge collapse; restoration efforts will be
laden with public and worker safety concerns, in addition to incredible expense,
expense that has been evidenced after the Loma Prieta earthquake that
demonstrated the burden that a mass relight effort can pose when required in a
condensed timeframe.
In light of the experiential data that other gas utilities on the West Coast of North
America have made known, Terasen Gas believes that delaying the
commencement of this project induces additional risk that Terasen Gas
considers inappropriate and imprudent, based on the window of opportunity that
currently exists with respect to the properly planned completion of this Project.
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 3
Terasen Gas is of the view that it has demonstrated in its Application that this
upgrade is necessary and is in the interests of customers and the public whom,
consistent with the Vancouver Low Pressure Replacement Project, Terasen Gas
believes would not object to the undertaking of this Project. Terasen Gas
believes it is important that the work be carried out as soon as possible to ensure
that the integrity and reliability of the system is not compromised.
As set out in the Application, over the course of the next several months Terasen
Gas will be conducting detailed geotechnical feasibility, environmental,
construction, and land acquisition/use studies that will finalize the pipeline routing
as well as cost estimates. Terasen Gas is of the view that it is prudent and in the
best interest of customers to conduct these studies, however, the Company
would not normally choose to incur such significant CPCN project related costs
prior to its approval by the Commission. However, given the urgency of the work
and in order to ensure that this project can be completed within the timeline and
cost projections set forth in the Application, Terasen Gas has undertaken
activities, as noted, related feasibility activities that it has deemed to be prudent
and appropriate.
In order to ensure that the majority of the feasibility costs the Company expects
to incur are incurred subsequent to Commission approval, Terasen Gas has
requested a Commission Decision by August 1, 2006. Terasen Gas has
canvassed stakeholders potentially impacted by the project, including providing
stakeholders with copies of the CPCN, and is not aware of any opposition to the
CPCN. Additionally, the Company had informed all stakeholders of its intent to
submit the CPCN at its last Annual Review and Customer Advisory Council
meetings.
If the Commission determines that a lengthier review process is required, the
Company continues to be of the view that a written review process is appropriate.
If any stakeholders do register as intervenors, then a round of Information
Requests could be accommodated before the end of July, with a Company
response by the end of the first week of August. A written comment process
could follow with a Decision being rendered before the end of August. As stated
in the response to IR No. 5.5, the Company is of the view that the Commission
can render its decision before the feasibility studies are completed.
In the event that a Decision is delayed beyond August 1, 2006, the Company will
continue to proceed with its feasibility studies as it is of the view that it is
reasonable and prudent to do so. If the Commission defers its decision beyond
the beginning of August and finds that the CPCN is not in the public interest, the
Company believes it is fair and reasonable to recover the costs incurred to
perform the feasibility studies from customers.
2.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 4
Reference: CPCN Application
2.1
The CPCN Application at page 16 states that the proposed river crossing will
provide additional capacity to handle future load growth. To provide a basis for
considering project options, please provide a review of Terasen Gas’ system
development plan for providing gas service to customers on the north side of the
Fraser River in Mission and vicinity and including the area up to at least the 12
inch transmission pipeline crossing, for at least the next ten years. This review
should include the following:
−
present gas system and gas load,
−
forecast customer additions, and load growth,
−
forecast annual and peak hour and day gas demands, in sufficient locational
detail for system planning,
−
options for system reinforcement (including the option of not having an IP
crossing at Mission, and the option of upgrading the existing crossing on the
basis that the Mission bridge will eventually be seismically upgraded),
−
for each option, a summary of the system enhancements required over the
period, and their capital costs and any impacts on O&M,
−
a comparison of the financial and the non-financial attributes of the options,
−
identification of the Terasen Gas’ preferred system development option for
the area, and a discussion of why this option is preferred.
Response:
On an annual basis, Terasen Gas develops 5-year system improvement plans for
each of its distribution networks supported by 20-year long-term least cost of
service capital addition strategy to ensure adequate capacity to meet current and
forecast demands. 20-year plans are updated based on criteria regarding the
activity within the specific system; e.g. a major load has been added, a significant
SI has been identified within the first two years of the 5 year plan, a routine SI
has been identified during the 5 year plan, or a significant alteration of the system
is required for operational or third party reasons.
The primary purpose of the five-year system improvement plans is to establish
the requirements for reinforcement of the existing gas systems to meet the
demand of future account growth, customer additions and system expansion.
The forecast demands and site specific distribution of growth utilized in our plans
are based on information from BC Statistics, municipal Official Community Plans
(which define potential future development), construction permits, and projection
of gas customer capture rates, historical design peak use rates and actual
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 5
customer attachments. System improvement alternatives are then developed and
financial analyses performed to determine the preferred overall system (inclusive
of transmission, intermediate and distribution pressure gas infrastructures) longterm least cost of service option.
The information available to Terasen Gas indicates that the Maple Ridge,
Mission and Abbotsford areas are experiencing high construction activities, in a
variety of different market segments. In addition, the construction of the Golden
Ears Bridge is expected to accelerate growth north of the Fraser River and east
of Pitt River. These factors along with other information already mentioned are
considered in the account growth and demand forecast. Tables 2.1a and 2.1b
below shows the current account growth and the corresponding Terasen Gas
design demand forecast for Mission and Maple Ridge areas. This data has been
taken from the Company’s most recent 20-year plan that was prepared in July
2006.
Table 2.1a – Total Residential and Commercial Accounts (Maple Ridge & Mission)
Residential &
Commercial
Accounts
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2015/16 2020/21 2026/27
MAPLE RIDGE
MISSION
25,394
11,650
25,919
11,874
26,525
12,166
27,174
12,465
27,864
12,790
28,600
13,107
32,468
14,774
35,519
16,401
38,666
18,266
2020/21
10.61
21.13
27.17
7.48
26.03
2026/27
11.23
22.49
29.14
7.99
28.81
Table 2.1b – Design Loads by Community [1000 m3/h]
Community
Pitt Meadows
Hammond
Haney
Maple Ridge
Mission
2005/06
8.52
16.75
22.01
5.79
18.91
2006/07
8.65
16.81
20.96
5.89
19.24
2007/08
8.78
17.09
21.36
5.99
19.69
2008/09
8.91
17.39
21.79
6.10
20.14
2009/10
9.05
17.70
22.24
6.21
20.63
2010/11
9.20
18.03
22.72
6.34
21.10
2015/16
9.99
19.78
25.23
6.98
23.60
As shown in Diagram 2.1, the Coastal Transmission System (CTS) and the IP
lines provide the primary feeds to the distribution networks on the north side of
the Fraser River east of the Pitt River.
The Mission network is fed from King Station via the Mission IP system; the Pitt
Meadows, Hammond, and Haney areas are fed directly from the 323 mm
Livingstone-Coquitlam TP line; the Maple Ridge area is fed from Albion Station
via the Albion IP line.
Diagram 2.1
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 6
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 7
To eliminate the seismic concerns associated with the current Mission IP System
on the MoT Bridge and Mission IP/DP Station, in a manner which will provide the
most prudent cost of service solution to meet long term growth in the Mission –
Maple Ridge area, three options have been considered.
Each of the three options includes both system integrity related and incremental
capacity improvement expenditures. Both Capital and O&M expenditures are
provided. In the following Tables 2.1(i) – 2.1 (iii), items which are shaded are
system integrity works which are required in order to address the existing Mission
IP Seismic concerns. Items which are not shaded are exclusively upgrades
deemed necessary to manage system capacity related concerns.
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 8
Option 1 - Scenario under proposed Mission IP System Upgrade
Option 1 considers the replacement of the existing bridge crossing with an HDD
crossing under the Fraser River and the removal of the Mission IP/DP Station.
The looping of the Mission IP System would be required in the future due to
expected demand growth in Mission. The Cedar Station would require a capacity
upgrade by the Year 2022. Associated with the removal of the Mission IP/DP
Station, a DP loop on 7th Avenue from Cedar Station to Horne Street is required
due to the shifting of the natural gas source further away from the seismically
vulnerable river bank. As noted above, shaded figures in the table below indicate
that these costs are associated with work carried out to address system integrity
seismic concerns. In this scenario, these shaded costs are for the work that
Terasen Gas is requesting in the Mission IP Upgrade CPCN application.
Table 2.1 (i) Option 1: Mission IP River Crossing Replacement
Year
2007
Description
New 323mm IP Horizontal Directional Drill Fraser River
Crossing.
Capital Costs
$7,351,000
O&M Costs
$4,800
2007
1,000m x 219mm DP loop on 7th Avenue from Cedar Station
to Horne St.
Abandon Mission Station.
De-Commission existing 219 mm IP pipe on MoT Bridge
Relocation of south approach line-break isolation valve
Total Seismic System Integrity Costs
1,600m x 323mm King IP loop on Riverside St. from Clayburn
Rd. to Hallert Rd.
$677,000
$2,400
$197,000
$13,000
$131,000
$8,369,000
$1,192,000
-$10,000
-$4,800
$0
-$7,600
$3,840
$968,500
$3,120
$501,400
$2,760
2007
2007
2007
2008
2013
2018
2022
1,300m x 323mm King IP loop on Riverside St. from Hallert
Rd. to Grace Avenue.
1,150 m x 219mm King IP loop on Riverside St. from Grace
Avenue to Abbotsford-Mission Hwy.
Capacity Upgrade of Cedar Station
Total Capacity Related Costs
Total Seismic System Integrity & Capacity Related Costs
$148,500
$0
$2,810,400
$11,179,400
$9,720
$2,120
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 9
Option 2 – Albion IP Extension
Option 2 considers the elimination of the Mission IP crossing and the Mission
IP/DP Station. This would require looping of the Albion IP line from the CTS to
the IP line near the existing Mission Station. The Cedar Station would require a
capacity upgrade by Year 2023. Again, due to the elimination of the Mission
IP/DP Station, a DP loop on 7th Avenue from Cedar Station to Horne Street is
required.
Table 2.1(ii) Option 2 Albion IP Extension
Year
Description
2007
12,300 m x 323mm Albion IP line from Albion Gate via
Lougheed Hwy.
2007
9,300 m x 219mm Albion IP line from Albion Gate via
Lougheed Hwy.
2007
323mm Albion IP Stave River Crossing (Directional Drill).
2007
1,000m x 219mm DP loop on 7th Avenue from Cedar Station
to Horne St..
2007
Abandon Mission Station
2007
De-Commission existing 219 mm IP pipe on MoT Bridge
2007
2023
Capital Cost
$9,163,500
O&M Costs
$27,360
$4,055,000
$22,320
$500,000
$677,000
$2,160
$2,400
$197,000
$13,000
$131,000
-$10,000
-$4,800
$0
$14,736,500
$148,500
$39,440
$0
$184,500
$14,921,000
$0
$39,440
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 10
Option 3 – Mission IP Seismic Upgrade following upgrade of Mission Bridge
Option 3 considers upgrading the existing 219 mm crossing on the basis that the
Mission bridge will eventually be seismically upgraded and the removal of the
Mission IP/DP Station. Similar to Option 1, the looping of the Mission IP System
would be required in the future due to expected demand growth in Mission. The
Cedar Station would require a capacity upgrade by the Year 2021. Again, due to
the elimination of the Mission IP/DP Station, a DP loop on 7th Avenue from
Cedar Station to Horne Street is required.
Table 2.1(iii) Option 3: Mission IP Crossing Seismic Upgrade on MoT Bridge
Year
Description
th
Capital Costs
O&M Costs
2007
1,000m x 219mm DP loop on 7 Avenue from Cedar Station
to Horne St.
$677,000
$2,400
2007
Abandon Mission Station.
$197,000
-$10,000
2007
$131,000
$0
2013+
Upgrade existing 219mm IP Line on MoT Mission Bridge in
conjunction with MoT seismic upgrade in 2013+
$1,800,000
$0
$2,805,000
-$7,600
2008
1,600m x 323mm King IP loop on Riverside St. from Clayburn
Rd. to Hallert Rd.
$1,192,000
$3,840
2012
1,300m x 323mm King IP loop on Riverside St. from Hallert
Rd. to Grace Avenue.
$968,500
$3,120
2017
1,150 m x 219mm King IP loop on Riverside St. from Grace
Avenue to Abbotsford-Mission Hwy.
$501,400
$2,760
2021
$148,500
$0
$7,397,925
$9,720
$10,202,925
$2,120
Note: The above Cost Estimates provided in Tables 2.1 (i – iii) generally have an
accuracy of +/- 25%. The activities scheduled for 2007 (shaded) in Option 1, or for the
same activities when included with Option 2 or 3, have an accuracy of +/- 10%.
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 11
Comparison of Options
Terasen Gas has brought forth this application on the belief that the status quo
presents an unacceptable seismic risk to customers. Terasen Gas believes that
making these integrity improvements to the Mission IP system are necessary and
should be implemented without delay.
Option 3 was hinged on MoT’s plan to provide seismic safety retrofit and
rehabilitation to its Mission Highway Bridge. As this rehabilitation has been
delayed to at the very earliest 2013 by the MoT, Option 3 will not address the
identified vulnerabilities induced by the Mission Bridge in a timeframe acceptable
to the Company. The delay of this Project would continue to expose the
Company to risk linked to system failure, and would be inconsistent with the
guiding principles outlined in the Company’s Integrity Management Plan.
The comparison of the remaining Mission IP River Crossing Replacement
(Option 1) and the Albion IP Extension (Option 2) has identified the following:
1. Financial analysis shows the Mission IP River Crossing Replacement is the
least cost of service option.
2. The 323 mm and 168 mm Mission IP line has a MOP of 1900 kPa while the
168 mm Albion IP has a MOP of 860 kPa. Albion IP Extension would mean
extending an IP line not designed to handle high loads for a long distance.
The Albion IP extension would require looping the entire existing IP line from
Albion station plus the extension to the existing IP line near Mission Station (a
total of 21.6 km). The financial analysis reflects the high costs this option will
incur.
3. The Albion IP Extension would entail construction through a congested area
along Lougheed Highway in southeast Maple Ridge.
4. The Albion IP Extension will require crossing the Stave River delta area
adjacent to the Fraser River. This crossing may impose the same magnitude
of seismic risk as MoT bridge. Terasen Gas has not conducted a detailed
feasibility assessment of Option 2 due to the overall cost of the option.
Costs as presented in Option 2 are deemed conservative at this point.
Terasen Gas believes that comprehensive feasibility studies will yield higher
overall costs.
5. The Albion IP Extension would mean that southeast Maple Ridge and
Mission areas will be served via a single IP line. The consequence of a linebreak is therefore much higher than individual feeds to Maple Ridge and
Mission.
6. The Albion IP Extension would shift a large portion of the current King Station
load to Albion Station. This would reduce the throughput capacity of the CTS,
by shifting the load from the large diameter (762 mm and 1067 mm)
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 12
transmission lines near the supply source to a small diameter (323 mm)
transmission line further downstream.
As stated in its Application (page 9), Terasen Gas concludes that the
appropriate, prudent action is to proceed immediately with a seismic upgrade to
the gas system. The Mission IP River Crossing Replacement (Option 1) is
recommended as it will implement, in a timely manner, a solution that will ensure
reliable service to the gas customers and safety of the general public. As the
long range system improvement plans for distribution networks for the Maple
Ridge and Mission areas are independent of the alteration to the IP systems, the
proposed Seismic Upgrade of the Mission IP System is consistent with the
system improvement plans for the Maple Ridge and Mission areas.
2.2
Please explain how the Mission LP System Upgrade Project is consistent with
Terasen Gas’ system development plan for the area.
Response:
The Mission IP System Upgrade Project is consistent with Terasen Gas’ system
improvement plan for the area, as explained in the response to Question 2.1.
3.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 13
Reference: CPCN Application, Appendix D
3.1
Further to page 8 of the CPCN Application, please confirm that Terasen Gas has
been aware since 1998 that the Intermediate Pressure pipeline on and north of
the Mission bridge is vulnerable to a seismic event.
Response:
Terasen Gas has been aware since December 1998 that the infrastructure north
of the Mission Bridge is vulnerable to a seismic event.
In 2001, the MoT had indicated that its five-year budget plan included retrofitting
this bridge to a safety level of a 1:475 year earthquake event by 2006. At this
point, Terasen Gas understood that there were seismic issues on the Bridge
itself.
In March 2006, Terasen Gas was made aware that retrofitting of the bridge to a
safetly level of 1:475 has been delayed to at the very earliest 2013. Also in
March, 2006, the specific vulnerability of the bridge was confirmed via the Brybil
Report, commissioned by the MoT and provided to Terasen Gas in March 2006.
The Brybil Report emphasizes seismic vulnerability such as on Page iv where it
is stated that there are “…insufficient expansion seat lengths to accommodate
seismic bridge movements. Span collapses are likely once the deck moves
beyond the expansion seat length”. Thus, if the span collapses, the pipeline will
fail.
As a result of the anticipated delay to the retrofitting of the bridge and the
emphasis of the seismic vulnerability of the bridge itself, Terasen Gas filed its
CPCN application on June 20, 2006.
3.2
Other than the expected timing of the seismic upgrading of the bridge, what if
anything has changed since 1998 with respect to the seismic vulnerability of the
pipeline system?
Response:
In order to ensure alignment with stakeholder and industry integrity management
expectations, as a prudent operator, Terasen Gas must be proactive to ensure
public safety. A seismic event in Seismic Zone 4 is considered by Terasen Gas
to be a ‘when’ question versus an ‘if’ question. Terasen Gas wishes to upgrade
this infrastructure in a prudent manner, the optimal state of preparedness being
to eliminate this known risk as quickly as possible. Terasen Gas wishes to
protect its gas facilities from seismic damage induced by this seismically
vulnerable bridge.
Changes that have occurred post-1998, with respect to this IP System, have
involved, as per Page 8 of the CPCN Application, a significant amount of work
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 14
that has been carried out per recommendations contained in the Golder Report
submitted. In assessing the return periods cited in this report, the window of a
significant seismic event has decreased, while Terasen Gas’ understanding with
respect to the seismic vulnerability of the bridge structure has been validated. As
indicated in the Brybil Report provided to Terasen Gas in March of 2006, a
seismic event is predicted to yield liquefaction related effects that will cause
complete loss of service for an indefinite time frame to 10,000 Terasen Gas
customers in Mission. Upon receipt of this new information contained in the Brybil
report, Terasen Gas submitted this CPCN application.
3.3
Please provide a comparison of the three upgrading Options identified in
Appendix D, and update the comparison in terms of estimated cost and other
matters.
Response:
Appendix D identifies the options of: a) the Mission IP River Crossing
Replacement, b) the Mission IP Crossing Seismic Upgrade on MoT Bridge, and
c) the Minor Upgrades to the Mission IP system on the approaches to the MoT
Bridge with no improvement of the bridge crossing. This last option of only minor
upgrades is not viable as it does not address the issue of providing secure,
reliable gas service to Mission .
The three seismic improvement options for consideration are:
Option1:
Mission IP River Crossing Replacement
Option 2: Albion IP Extension
Option 3: Mission IP Crossing Seismic Upgrade on MoT Bridge
The comparison of these three options is provided in the response to Question
2.1.
3.4
The following consideration is set out on page 7 of Appendix D:
“A further consideration is that an earthquake large enough to damage the IP
pipeline will likely result in damage to the network of DP pipelines as well. There
may be little difference in the length of service interruption considering the time
required to mobilize and repair distribution lines compared to making repairs to
DP and IP pipelines simultaneously. Further, an earthquake large enough to
damage the IP pipeline may also result in considerable damage to customer
facilities and could potentially lead to a reduction in the immediate need for gas
service to the affected area.”
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 15
In this context, please explain why Terasen Gas believes that installing a new
river crossing at this time is necessary.
Response:
The IP MoT Bridge Crossing is a single feed to the Mission area, and if damaged
must be adequately repaired before service to any customer can be provided. In
comparison, the DP system is land based and easier access is anticipated,
allowing the system to be re-activated on an area-by-area basis.
Since the IP pipeline is operating at a higher stress, compared to the gas lines
forming the distribution system, it is more likely that the integrity of the IP pipeline
will be compromised and flow disrupted due to additional stresses from ground or
bridge movement. Considering the location of the IP pipeline, it will be very
difficult to gain access to carry out evaluation or repairs until any sustained
damage to the MoT Bridge has been substantially completed.
In comparison, the gas lines making up the DP system are of much smaller
diameter and operate at a much lower stress. They may become damaged from
ground movement but they are able to withstand greater deformation than the IP
pipeline and hence, although damaged, will likely remain “in service”. As well the
DP system is land based and will be more readily accessible which will allow the
system to be re-activated on an area-by-area basis. For these reasons, it is true
that the distribution system may suffer damage, but without the same
consequences as damage to the IP pipeline.
As a result of a seismic event there will likely be damage to customer facilities,
but it is also likely that many (i.e. most) customers will still be relying on their gas
service, especially since they may opt to remain at their homes in this time of
difficulty. Although there may be a reduction in demand there will be customers
that require gas service which can not be provided unless the IP pipeline is
intact.
Furthermore, in order to mitigate the more significant consequences of a failure,
the new IP pipeline crossing of the Fraser River is proposed.
4.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 16
Reference: CPCN Application, Appendix A
4.1
Further to Table 3.2 on page 11, please provide a cost estimate in approximately
the level of detail as to cost categories that are set out in Appendix A (but not
necessarily a monthly breakdown) for each of the three components of the
project identified on page 1 of the CPCN Application, for the upgrading of the
Cedar Station and for any other components of the project.
Response:
($,000s)
Approximately 2 km - NPS 12 HDD Fraser River Crossing
Project Management, Engineering, Inspection, Consultants
Land and other
Materials
Construction
$ 1,206
858
951
4,336
$ 7,351
IP / DP System Improvements
Approximately 1000 metres of NPS 8 - Cedar to Horne
Polyethylene Distribution Loop inclusive of Cedar Station
modifications
Other (South Valve Relocation, De-commission IP on MoT Bridge)
677
145
$
Mission Station Removal
Total before AFUDC, Retirement Costs
4.2
822
197
$ 8,370
The study dated December 23, 2004 in Appendix D appears to show a cost for
the horizontal directionally drilled (“HDD”) crossing of $3,000,000. Please
reconcile this cost estimate with the estimate in the CPCN Application.
Response:
The $3,000,000 estimate shown in Appendix D was an order of magnitude
estimate (i.e. minimal in depth study) and as such has a high degree of potential
variability. The estimate does not address long-term system capacity
requirements and assumed simple replacement of the pipe on the bridge with a
river crossing of the same size of pipe that is on the bridge. The table on page 10
of Appendix D was prepared to compare different options of seismic upgrade.
The options were not equivalent in terms of the level of seismic event security
achieved, but were examples to show what order of magnitude of expenditure
was needed to achieve a certain level of security.
For the CPCN application regarding the HDD crossing of the Fraser River,
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 17
confidence levels and estimate quality were significantly improved as a result of
conducting a detailed system capacity study from the information gathered from
vendors, contractors, consultants, and Terasen Gas specialists in conjunction
with available mapping, review of existing reports, and site visits.
4.3
What would be the cost of a 219 mm (NPS 8) HDD crossing, rather than the
proposed 323 mm (NPS 12) crossing?
Response:
A 219 mm (NPS 8) HDD Crossing would cost approximately $300,000 to
325,000 less than the proposed 323 mm (NPS 12) crossing. Most of this minimal
cost reduction is due to less material with a minor cost decrease in construction.
All other costs are not dependent on the pipe size.
4.4
The CPCN Application at page 16 states that a 219 mm crossing is needed to
meet the growth in needs for 20 years. How long will the existing 168 mm and
219 mm system have sufficient capacity to serve customers?
Response:
The Mission IP system consists of the following line sections:
• 323 mm from King Station to Downes Station
• 168 mm from Downes Station to Mission Station
• 219 mm crossing on the MoT Bridge
• 219 mm from Mission Station to Cedar Station, and
• 114 mm from Mission Station to Hatzic Station.
With the existing 219 mm river crossing, the Mission IP System has sufficient
capacity to meet demand through the winter of 2007-08. After the spring of
2008, the IP line would require 1.6 km of 323 mm, 1.3 km of 323 mm and 1.15
km of 219 mm looping in 2008, 2012 and 2017, respectively. In addition, a
capacity upgrade to Cedar Station is required in 2021.
4.5
Will the new HDD crossing be constructed to Intermediate Pressure or
Transmission Pressure standards? Why? What would be the differential cost of
constructing the HDD crossing to the other pressure standard?
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 18
Response:
The HDD Crossing will be constructed to IP standards as a TP requirement is not
anticipated. If the HDD crossing were constructed to TP standards, no increase
in the cost of the Project would be expected as the specifications of the river
crossing pipe are governed by the stress incurred during the pull back of the pipe
under the river, rather than by the maximum operating pressure
Notwithstanding that the anticipated utilization will be limited to IP, as there is not
likely to be any additional cost; Terasen Gas will consider testing the HDD
crossing pipe to highest capability of the material.
4.6
The CPCN Application at page 12 states that the $8.848 million cost estimate
has an accuracy of + 10 percent. Is Terasen Gas prepared to accept a cap of
110 percent of $8.848 million as the amount of expenditure that would go into
rate base?
Response:
No. Terasen Gas is not prepared to accept a cap as described in the information
request. Terasen Gas is of the view that the Project is in the best interest of
customers, as described in the Application, and would expect to include 100% of
prudently incurred capital expenditures in its rate base. The Company notes that
alternative solutions to continue service reliability are either significantly higher or
keep the Fraser River crossing at risk for a substantial additional period of time.
Furthermore, the potential cost in an emergency response (Section 4.3 of
Application) could be $15.7 million and would require 8 months of work before
essential service could be restored.
Additionally, as set out in the CPCN, site specific geotechnical work is required to
be completed in order to establish more definitive cost estimates, which, although
not expected, could possibly be outside of the 10% cap. Although the Company
is of the view that its current cost estimates are reasonable based on the
preliminary evaluations it has performed as described in the Application, Terasen
Gas does not think it is reasonable to be held to a cap based upon these
estimates as suggested by this Information Request.
4.7
For the HDD portion of the project, would Terasen accept a cap of 110 percent of
the cost estimate for the HDD component?
Response:
No, the Company is of the view that accepting such a cost cap would not be
reasonable. Please refer to the response to Question 4.6.
4.8
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 19
Please explain the basis for each significant component of the cost estimate for
the HDD portion of the project, with particular emphasis on the current level of
knowledge about subsurface soil conditions at the proposed crossing location
and the extent to which the cost estimate was information provided by HDDknowledgeable people based on site-specific conditions at Mission.
Response:
Significant components of the cost estimate for the HDD portion of the project
are:
•
Project Services (engineering, construction, environmental and land
consultants)
•
Materials
•
Construction
•
Land Acquisition
The cost estimate for Project Services was based on similar projects adjusted for
the anticipated conditions and complexity of this Project.
Material cost estimates were established upon consultation with potential
vendors and are based on preliminary estimates of quantities and projected
market pricing at the time of ordering.
The construction cost estimates considered the knowledge of the subsurface soil
conditions identified in the 1998 Golder reports and on knowledge of the soils
under the Fraser River at locations such as adjacent to the Port Mann Bridge and
at the Bedford Channel near Fort Langley.
To establish the total length of the HDD, historical recommendations were used
to prepare the preliminary design and estimates, notwithstanding that the final
requirements can only be determined after the site specific geotechnical work
has been completed. This information, combined with the consultations with two
independent HDD contractors, was used to forecast the degree of difficulty that
could be encountered at Mission and to estimate the cost of the construction
portion of the project.
The land acquisition portion of the cost estimate was based on preliminary
identification of potential land use, potential short-term damage, and historical
compensation.
5.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 20
5.1
On page 11 and 12, the CPCN Application states that the project is “conceptually
planned,” and estimates that $525,000 of work will be required to confirm the
construction feasibility of the project. Please provide a breakout of this cost
estimate by work item and month of expenditure.
Response:
The estimated $525,000 of work is broken out by work item and month of
expenditure in the Cost Estimate Details contained in Appendix A of the
Application. Please refer to the items under “Phase 1 – Justification” excluding:
“Pre-CPCN to Date” and “Final CPCN Submittal”.
5.2
On page 12, Terasen Gas recognizes that unforeseen circumstances may result
in costs exceeding the $8.848 million estimate for the project. What level of cost
would cause Terasen Gas to conclude that the project as proposed is not
feasible?
Response:
Terasen Gas believes that the criteria for a reconsideration of the proposed
capital works as set out in the Application would be based on a comparison with
the next best alternative, which in the opinion of Terasen Gas, is Option 2 (Albion
IP extension).
Terasen Gas has determined that the Capacity Related capital costs associated
with extending the Albion IP System would cost approximately $14.737 Million.
(See Response to IR 2.1, Table 2.1(ii) – Shaded Rows). Should Option 1 be
deemed unfeasible or if feasibility studies conclude that seismic system integrity
costs associated with Option 1 will exceed $14.737 Million, Terasen Gas will
further investigate the Albion Option.
As noted in the response to 2.1, Option 1 and 2 are preferred options to Option 3.
Option 3 was hinged on MoT’s plan to provide seismic safety retrofit and
rehabilitation to its Mission Highway Bridge. As this rehabilitation has been
delayed to at the very earliest 2013 by the MoT, Option 3 will not address the
identified vulnerabilities induced by the Mission Bridge within an appropriate
timeframe.
5.3
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 21
If Terasen Gas determines that the Mission IP upgrade as proposed is not
feasible, what upgrading Option would it implement?
Response:
Please refer to the response to Question 5.2.
5.4
What is the earliest date when Terasen Gas can substantially complete its
evaluation of the construction feasibility of the project and will be able to confirm
the project feasibility and cost estimate to the Commission?
Response:
Terasen Gas expects the earliest date to complete the Construction Feasibility is
October 1, 2006.
5.5
Recognizing the date in the response to the previous question, please outline the
Regulatory Timetable that Terasen Gas recommends the Commission use to
review the CPCN Application.
Response:
Terasen Gas is of the view that the Commission can review the CPCN in
advance of completion of the detailed feasibility study, and as such does not
need to await the results of the study before rendering a decision. A decision
could be made with a condition based on the results of the feasibility study.
Please refer to the response to Question 1.2 for the Company’s proposed
regulatory timetable.
6.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 22
6.1
Further to pages 23-25 of the CPCN Application, please provide a list of all the
agencies and other parties that Terasen Gas has been in contact with regarding
the Mission IP Upgrade Project, identify when this contact was made, and
provide a summary of the party’s response to the project.
Response:
Table 6.1 below details the communications that have occurred with all agencies
and other parties with regard to the Mission IP Project. Table 6.1 does not
include the notification referred to in the Commission letter of June 30, 2006,
requesting that all property owners and Parties listed under Public Consultation
on page 25 of the Application. Each of these parties were contacted separately
by an e-mail notification on Friday, July 7, 2006, advising them that Terasen Gas
had submitted this Application which may have an effect upon their property. A
link to view Application on the Terasen Gas website and a copy of the
Commission June 30, 2006 letter and Information Request No. 1 were attached
to this notification.
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 23
List of Agencies and Parties Contacted
Agency/Party
Terasen
Representative
Contact Information (i.e. phone,
address, etc)
Date of
Contact
Summary of Party's Response to Contact
1
CPR
Roger De Iaco
23/03/2006
If required, will forward pipeline crossing
agreements
2
Sto Lo Nation
Bruce Falstead
23/05/2006
Delivered project information to Lands Manager
3
Sto Lo Nation
Bruce Falstead
24/05/2006
Responded by email with First Nations information
in the Mission area.
4
Matsqui First Nation
Bruce Falstead
Rod Klopp ph# 403.319.6414
Valerie Sam, Lands Manager
Tel. 604.824.2454 or 1.800.665.3224
valerie.sam@stolonation.bc.ca
Valerie Sam, Lands Manager
Tel. 604.824.2454 or 1.800.665.3224
valerie.sam@stolonation.bc.ca
Chief Alice McKay Phone 604-8266145 email matsquiband@shaw.ca
5
Bruce Falstead
6
Bruce Falstead
7
BC Lands
BGC
Chief Alice McKay Phone 604-8266145 email matsquiband@shaw.ca
Cynthia Collins Environmental Manager
Matsqui First Nation Phone 604-8266145 email matsquiband@shaw.ca
Bob Herath - 604 582 5200
bob.herath@gov.bc.ca
8
BC Lands
BC Lands - Integrated
Land Management
Bureau
BC Lands - Integrated
Land Management
Bureau
Vancouver Marine
Communications and
BGC
Mike Wilcox michael.willcox@gov.bc.ca
31/05/2006 07/06/2006
Phone call plus emailed project information (no
response)
Notified that water act section 9 approval was
needed before drilling in Fraser River
Party decided that an "approval" and not a
"notification" was required under water act section
9; also that a tenure was required from BC Lands
BGC
Shana Bow - 604 586 4406
shana.bow@gov.bc.ca
30/05/2006 06/06/2006
Party unsure if "approval" or "notification" was
require under water act section 9
BGC
Sukhdev Randhawa - 604 586 4439
sukhdev.randhawa@gov.bc.ca
09/06/2006 Present
Party notified that Fraser River tenure application
would take up to 140 days to complete. BGC has
been in contact to track progress.
BGC
604 666 6011 RMIC-Pacific@pac.dfompo.gc.ca
03/04/2006
Party notified that a notice to shipping request
should be submitted, and a phone call should be
#
9
10
11
25/05/2006
31/05/2006
01/06/2006
30/03/2006
Phone call plus emailed project information
Spoke to Chief referred to Environmental
Manager, will respond if the band has concerns or
questions
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 24
#
Agency/Party
Traffic Services
Terasen
Representative
address, etc)
12
District of Mission
BGC
Sharon Clark - sclark@mission.ca
13
BGC
Karl Filiatrault - 604 864 5514 ext 5725
kfiliatrault@abbotsford.ca
14
City of Abbotsford
Department of Fisheries
and Oceans
BGC
Brian Naito - 604 666 8190
naitob@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
15
Property Owners
BGC
Bobby Braich - cell 604 854 9797
16
17
18
19
20
Utilities Contacted
25
Oil and Gas
Commission
BC Hydro
Department of Fisheries
and Oceans
Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks
Fraser River Estuary
Management Program
26
Visser Property
21
22
23
24
BGC
BGC
BGC
BGC
BGC
Leslee Ellis
Roger De Iaco
Gene Mcintosh - office 604 820 9188
cell 778 549 2928
Terasen Gas Inc.
BC Hydro
Allstream Inc.
Telus Communications
Penney Buckler
Date of
Contact
05/04/2006
24/05/2006 12/06/2006
29/03/2006 31/03/2006
21/06/2006 27/06/2006
26/06/2006
12/06/2006
12/06/2006
12/06/2006
12/06/2006
April/May
2006
place 1 week before intended drilling for
confirmation
Party notified that none of proposed boreholes
were on District property
A street excavation and construction permit was
received
A letter of advice was received
A lock for Braich property was cut by BGC to gain
entry. Lock was eventually replaced
Small portion of parties hay crop was damaged
during drilling. Terasen Gas has been
communicating with party about compensation for
lost crop
Utilities cleared
Utilities cleared
Utilities cleared
Utilities cleared
Discussed process for acquiring RoW and other
approvals through the OGC.
Pat Siega
No contact made yet as there were no engineering
investigations/works directly impacting property
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 25
#
Agency/Party
Terasen
Representative
address, etc)
Date of
Contact
27
Kismet Farms
David Kan/
Kevin Jay
Amarjit Sandhu - by letter
First letter dated
November 15,
2005 and
ongoing
28
Tenant
Kevin Jay
To tenant on property
Letter dated
June 5, 2006
Bobby Braich - by letter
First letter dated
November 15,
2005 and
ongoing
29
Braich/Bridgewater
Property
30
Mauro Investments
Property
David Kan/
Kevin Jay
31
City of Abbotsford
Kevin Jay
Sean Visser
32
BC Hydro
Roger De Iaco
Pat Siega ph# 604.528.2874
33
MoT
Suzana Prpic
Allan Galambos ph# 604.660.8244
First letter
dated June
13, 2006
May 25 2006
and ongoing
Nov 18, 2005
and ongoing
owner.
Letter to notify property owner of engineering
investigations/work on property. Other letters have
been sent since to update progress. No response
from property owner.
Advised tenant on property of engineering
investigations/work on property. No response from
tenant.
investigations/work on property. Other letters have
been sent since to update progress. No response
from property owner.
No contact made yet as there were no engineering
investigations/works directly impacting property
owner.
investigations/work on property. No response from
property owner.
Communicated our ROW requirements. They
were in general agreement with our proposal.
Advised on the approximate timing of the Mission
bridge seismic retrofit.
7.0
Submission Date:
July 14, 2006
Page 26
Reference: CPCN Application, Appendices E, G
7.1
Please provide a copy of the Brybil Report that is referred to in the letter in
Appendix E.
Response:
Please refer to Attachment 7.1.
7.2
Further to the map in Appendix G, please file a current map of the Terasen Gas
Coastal Natural Gas System, including Mission and vicinity.
Response:
Please refer to Attachment 7.2 for an approximate representation of the Lower
Mainland Natural Gas System. In the attached map, transmission pressure gas
lines are indicated by solid lines and intermediate pressure gas lines are
indicated by broken lines.
7.3
Further to the map in Appendix G and page 25 of the CPCN Application, please
file a map outlining the land holdings that would be affected by the proposed
project.
Response:
Please refer to Attachment 7.3.
7.4
Please clarify if the list of affected parties on page 25 of the CPCN Application
refers to all components of the project or only to the HDD component. If not all
components, please identify the number and nature of parties that will be
impacted by each of the other components and describe Terasen Gas’ public
consultation plans for each component.
Response:
The list of affected parties on Page 25 of the CPCN reflects all property owners
that may be directly impacted either due to right of way concerns, and/or
workspace requirements related to the installation of the two HDD pipeline
installations, in addition to the 1000 metre distribution pressure main along 7th
Avenue. An application to the MoT will also be submitted for the HDD under
Highway 11, for the de-commissioning of the pipeline currently suspended from
the Mission Bridge and for the de-commissioning of the existing valve station. All
other parties involved in Project related applications and approvals are described
on page 23 and 24 of the CPCN Application.
Attachment 7.1
Attachment 7.2
1
BRISTOL
ST. CUGH RD
L
A
K
E
L
W
EL
JESPERSON
W
ID
LA
KLASSEN
FLOODS
ESTELL
JONES LAKE
AY
HW
NS-C
SE
A
ANA
BI
DA
RD
HIG
RD
N
CHAPLI
TRA
E
ES L
AK
E
VIMY
JON
TRANMER
POPKUM
-B
RO
W
N
McMILLAN
HA
CK
N
O
IX
406mm OD (NPS 16)
FLOW CONTROL STATION
323mm OD (NPS 12)
GATE STATION OR PIPELINE TAP
NELSON
MILLER
273mm OD (NPS 10)
ATKINS
DISTRICT REGULATOR STATION
E
E
SS
219mm OD (NPS 8)
VALVE STATION
SL
No 5
BENCH
No 4
FARNHAM
BRITESIDE
SOUTHSIDE
GREENHILL
W
RO
SP
AR
CR
ER
TZ
EL
SW
M
cR
A
BIRCH
ASHTON
CAMERON
HAMILTON
FORD
ANNIS
McELWEE
McLEOD
N
UPPER PRAIRIE
PREST
BANFORD
GIBSON
RD
KE
No 3
R
ELK VIEW
EVANS
TYSON
EE
K
BROWN
PEACH CARTER
FORD
WILSON
WEBSTER UNSWORTH
LICKMAN
HOPEDALE
SIMMONS
SUMAS PRAIRIE
BLACKBURN
1ST ST
BUSTIN
STANDEVEN
GILLANDERS
PREST
GRIGG
YOUNG
REEVES
McSWEEN
McDONALD
WILLIAMS
ER
W
HENDERSON
CONNOR
CHADSEY
CHILLIWACK BOUNDARY
A
JU SAVOY
B
A
H STEWART
IL
L
R
D
CULTUS
M
TO
W
N
TOLMIE
LAKE
168mm OD (NPS 6)
C
COMPRESSOR
114mm OD (NPS 4)
MUSTERSTATION
88mm OD (NPS 3)
SON
0
D
R
Y
E
A
L
L
D
V
S
L
M
B
IA
L
E
R
3
4
5
ROB
IN
LINDELL
ST
FRO
ENGINEERING SERVICES
CA
NY
5
GENERAL REVISIONS, ADDED TERASEN SYMBOL
F. SEDLAR
ENGINEERING SERVICES
6
GENERAL REVISIONS, ADDED HORNBY REG STN.
F. SEDLAR
BY
No.
03/04/28
03/11/28
ON
CANADA
REVISION
DRAWN
DESIGNED
CHECKED
DATE(YY-MM-DD)
U
PL
L
O
C
FA
2
KILOMETRES
OV
EHRO
1
60mm OD (NPS 2)
ICK
N
IVERSO
JAN
INTER-PROVINCIAL HWY
SUTHERLAND
BODNAR
L
IL
M
KITCHEN
BARNES
TO
R
E
IV
R
R
SE
A
FR
PARK
DEROCHE
D
R
L
A
N
A
C
MARION
DE
LAKE
STROMBERG
ARNOLD
CORBOULD
TERASEN GAS HUNTINGDON INC.
TERASEN GAS INC. DISTRIBUTION AREA
CHILLIWACK
SAND
POWERHOUSE
McDERMOT
BOWMAN
BARKER
BOUNDARY RD
36"
SCHNBIDER
HUNTINGDON
COLE
30"
LAMPSON
WHATCOM
YORK
KENNY
8"
RIVERSIDE
McKENZIE
McCALLUM
ANGUS CAMPBELL
CONCHMAN
GLADWIN
LANDING RD
McDONALD
G
N
EE
M
cK
ROY
OXEN
12"
TREMBLAY
JOHNSTON
NI
CO
M
E
LENNOK
ISLAND
LI
D
A
U
Q
BELL
RIVERSIDE
GLADWIN
TRETHEWEY
CLEARBROOK
TOWNLINE
NORTH DEROCHE RD
E
RHU
HESS
THOMPSON
PENNINGTON
NEWTON
LITTLE
BEHARREL
ROWAN
ON
MA
NS
GLEDHILL
STAVE LAKE RD
CLE
CATHERWOOD
LA
E
AV
ST
SABDS RD
6"
SELDON
GLENMORE
BATES
OLUND
MT LEHMAN RD
IL
LE
O
N
V
ROSS
D
R
A
PE
LEFEUVRE
272 ST
SCHOOL
R
TE
ES
LV
SY
SE
RD
KE
WATT
CEDAR
CADE-BARR
NELSON
WREN
2"
4"
6"
264 ST
256 ST
LA
K
O
T
O
O
E
L
HARDY
KONTAG
FARMS RD
UX
N
SO
NH
JO
L
EL
PB
M
CA
VALLEY
CLAY
BARR
WOLF
HAYWARD
E
STAV
BRADNER
264 ST
SPRATT
SABO
McCOOMBS
SHAW
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
FARRINGTON
N
SO
IL
W
280 ST
KE
DY
2"
256 ST.
248 ST
240 ST
232 ST
224 ST
216 ST
208 ST
AINSWORTH
YEO
284 ST
272 ST
256 ST.
252 ST.
240
30"
12"
BELL
STATIM ROLLEY
ROTHSAY
56 ST
252 ST
250 ST
216 ST
244 ST
246 ST
243 ST
240 ST
236 ST
248 ST
237 ST
232 ST
228 ST
12
224 ST
232 ST
8"
204 ST
200 ST
BURNS
ER
RIV
224 ST
227 ST
"
216 ST
ER
V
LO
G
192 ST
192 ST
184 ST
HOTSPRINGS RD
STAVE LAKE RD.
R
TE
ET
U
LO
A
TH
U
SO
MARC
216 ST
LAITY
207 ST
BAYNES
PACIFIC HIGHWAY
176 ST
L
IL
SYLVESTER
IV
ER
208 ST
NEAVES
McKECHNIE
SHARPE
HARRIS
HALE
210 ST
Y
ED
McTAVISH
N
EN
K
176 ST
8"
8"
168 ST
160 ST
OXFORD
152 ST
144 ST
140 ST
128 ST
4"
OCEAN PARK
56 ST
C
IA
OR
CT
VI
T
T
PI
OXFORD
DEVON
COAST MERIDIAN
R
4"
AM R
IVE
160 ST
184 ST
152 ST
12"
8"
96 ST
88 ST
4"
80 ST
72 ST
64 ST
8"
4"
53 ST
R
HARPER
EL
INE
SPICER
36"
140 ST
144
144 ST
136 ST
132 ST
128 ST
120 ST
112 ST
104 ST
12"
D
R
E
IV
R
46A
40 ST
52 ST
8"
EN
T
EL
41B ST
34 ST
A
N
K
B
S
O
PM
R
T
E
D
EV
R
O
B
12"
6"
68 ST
140 ST
KING GEORGE HIGHWAY
A
R
SE
A
FR
24"
136 ST
132
128 ST
RD
IS
C
A
N
N
8"
No.5 RD
R
ROBERTSON
208 ST
ON
BS
RO
R
VE
RI
D
N
IS
L
A
No 8 RD
24"
No 9 RD
20"
No 7 RD
Mo 6 RD
No. 4 RD
GARDEN CITY RD.
INDUSTRIAL
BOUNDARY
30"
KNIGHT
FRASER
MAIN
CAMBIE
OAK
GRANVILLE
No. 3 RD
GILBERT
No. 2 RD
RAILWAY
No. 1 RD
STURGEON BANK
N
RIVERSIDE
O
"
PT
42
NELLES
W
McDERMOT
IE
E
DELAIR
EL
LD
"
36
D
ED
V
RY
THORNTON
V
CAMPBELL
ER
K
LA
D
T
LAKE
EXTROM
R
M
S
ON
RYDER
RS
PA
N
N
JI
457mm OD (NPS 18)
L
BOUNDARY RD
"
30
E
G
D
RI
NO. 5 RD
YARROW CENTRAL
RUSSELL
IL
"
KING
HUNTINGDON RD
0 AVE
M
A
M
LAKE
CLEARBROOK
AIRPORT
S.
M
SU
MARSHALL
30
LAXTON LAKE
0 AVE
T
S
RD
WELLS LINE
4 AVE
1 AVE
L
E
L
L
A
R
PA
LUMSDEN
H
ALDERGROVE
8 AVE
No. 4 RD
WARD
DUNCAN
LE
13
KING
PA
ST
KEITH WILSON RD
SINCLAIR
E
YN
O
S
ER
TERASEN GAS INC.INTERMEDIATE PIPELINES
PA
WATSON PROMENTORY
THOMAS
508mm OD (NPS 20)
K
B
"
SOUTH
RA
36"
R
42
L
DYKE RD
ALDER
30"
TERASEN GAS SUMAS INC. PIPELINE
EE
K
"
No. 3 RD
E
LL
L
KEEPING
MILL
30
E
AK
FARINA
N
RD
LO
M
EN
ND
LI
BAILEY
610mm OD (NPS 24)
CR
EE
SIMPSON
JACKMAN
GLADWIN
YARROW
HIGGINSON
STEVENSON
SOUTH SUMAS RD
K
A
LE
ATCHELITZ
PETER
RUD
EL
M
YA
McGUIRE
SPRUCE
TERASEN GAS HUNTINGDON INC. PIPELINE
THE FALLS
GOLF CLUB
DOCK
PATTERSON
Y
OLD
CHILLIWACK
SUMAS CENTRAL
ADAMS
DUKE ENERGY PIPELINES
762mm OD (NPS 30)
CR
24 AVE
15
E
RA
VALLEY
ALLAN
RD
914mm OD (NPS 36)
EN
ABBOTSFORD
GLENWOOD
16 AVE
CLAYBURN RD
MATSQUI
No. 2
DG
T.
DOWNES
TRANS CANADA HWY
H
MC
MACLURE
28 AVE
ROCK
HARRIS
HALLERT
BATEMAN
LE
PIPELINES
TERASEN GAS (VANCOUVER ISLAND) INC. PIPELINE
RT
PRAIRIE
No. OF CUSTOMERS - 538,753
TERASEN GAS TRANSMISSION
1067mm OD (NPS 42)
30"
AIRPO
YALE
YA
CHEAM
LIU
BRADSHAW
24 AVE
FORE
11
32 AVE
No. 1
ABBOTSFORD
6"
DOWNES
"
BROOKSWOOD
0 AVE
T
O
IT
42
CHILLIWACK
H
C
LOWER MAINLAND
NATURAL GAS SYSTEM
KILOMETRES OF MAIN - 10,119
YALE RD
ROSEDALE
LE
N
L
IL
O
36"
ELGEY
36"
AIRPORT RD
"
30
AGASSIZ
LAKE
K
SO
ELL
RD
6" CASTLEMAN
IN
RT
ONN
SLOUGH
P
CAM
H
BE
CR
TOWNSHIP LINE RD
IES
ALLEN
TOWNSHIP LINE
NORTH
ALDERGROVE
40 AVE
8 AVE
6TH AVE
48 AVE
RO
40 AVE
8A AVE
TH
NZ
20 AVE
U
McC
YALE RD
CHILLIWACK CENTRAL
R
SUNNYSIDE
WHITE
HAVERMAN
OTTER
30"
48 AVE
44 AVE
BROWN
O
H
L
E
TZ
EL
SW
16 AVE
MARINE DR
PARK
GLOUCESTER
LIVINGSTONE
BEATON
C
R
LD
12TH AVE
BOUNDARY BAY
OCEAN
32 AVE
.S
OS
IR
HURD
20 AVE
"
LE
D
IW
O
FR
DELA
16TH AVE
24 AVE
40 AVE
E
PAG
RN RD
17
28 AVE
C
NI
18
YA
R
A
O
34 B AVE
6"
MUD BAY
INTER-PROVINCIAL HWY
C
E
OM
ER
D
ER
K
DY
D
RR
VE
RI
McDONALD
AS OF JANUARY 1, 2003
C
A
H
RN
33A AVE
IN
IRW
R
KL
IV
E
OP
AR
T
M
LD
BRICE
LL
FIRST AVE
RN
.R
BELL
FAIRFIELD
K
D
R
A
S
PAS
I
36 AVE
IE
R
DYKE
NICOMEN
BE
D
NON
45 AVE
36A AVE
R
VE
JONES
NICOMEN ISLAND
L
D
E
B
PAGE
MERCER
AYBU
OLD CL
.R
NO
G
M
SI
EN
KIRKPATRICK
A
IS
.
CA
LANGLEY
E
ANDERSON
M
N
N
M
O
B
M
A
T
60 AVE
BALFOUR
B
99
LADNER TRUNK RD
MISSION
66 AVE
R
HYDE BUKER
CO
GALLAGHER
56 AVE
I
SERPENTINE R
McKAMIE
HATZIC
NI
LO
Y
TA
CA
A
STARR
W
HA
BRINK
AT
HOD
GSO
R
OUGH
SL
RD
ER
6"
H
R
LANGLEY
10
GOUDY
ST
IN
99
HORNBY
48 AVE
IR
L
CLOVERDALE
VE
BENSON
K
E
64 AVE
N
KI
BELL
N
AM
4"
NHA
CHE
KIT
KL
B
D
D
N
A
L
IS
E
WESTHAM ISLAND
1
BARR
E
KL
IC
SP
MALCOLM
BA
Y
HE
ED
L
K
64 AVE
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
NORTH
V
A
SA
W
LANGLEY
GLOVER
7
DAVIS
4"
CEDAR
HWY
N
SH
"
SILVERDALE
McTAVISH
U
18
SILVERDALE
MISSION
D
A
V
72 AVE.
H
BEST
14 AVE
RD
M
IA
L
IL
W
IT
CR
62 AVE
SO
SE
RO
E
G
AY
LAKE
CHERRY
MARSH
McKAY
W
64 AVE
60 AVE
N
IS
84 AVE
MARSH
60 AVE
K
IR
K
SURREY
BOSE
GH
D
GUNN
SM
72 AVE.
AN
84TH
HI
CLAYTON
42
"
ISL
FARMS
HATZIC
M
6"
80 AVE.
NT
RD
FO
64 AVE
A
ER
TS
D
N
LA D
N
A
L
FINN RD
DELTA
RAWLINSON
AD
CE
RIV
88 AVE
FERNDALE
O
IS
A
E
D
AN
ES
RICHARDS
BB
N
L
S
MONCTON
PANORAMA
FORT
88 AVE
CR
SA
A
SCOTTSDALE
A
GARY PT.
COAST
MERIDIAN
72 AVE
91
TILBURY
D
ANDERSON
R
FRASER RIVE
S
ER
D
UN
K
PLANT
STEVESTON HIGHWAY
JOHNSON
ISL
D
SC
83 AVE
80 AVE
AN
AN
AN
CENTRE
80 AVE
ALBION
LL
LANGLEY
TR
NEWTON
MI
ON
TAIT
McKIN
DELTA
24"
OPERATIONS
30"
W
O
RO
G
IL
T
42"
TERESEN GAS INC.
88 AVE
18"
Mc
ALEXANDER
LATIMER
SILVERHILL
LIMBERT
VIE
LIN
B
V
RI
80 AVE
TYNEHEAD
NE
BAY
ER
LNG
U
ER
RICHARDSON
NICHOL
WHONNOCK
BY
KS
ST
82 AVE
36"
30"
6"
TO
EAGLE
RIVER RD
IS
GUILDFORD
96 AVE
96 AVE
YS
R
8"
84 AVE
D
N
A
L
Y
IL
KE
RT
TE
88 AVE
R
A
ROEBUCK
86 AVE
100 AVE
99 AVE
TR
CASWELL
ES
20"
NELSON
PH
A
YW
104 AVE
MO
DALE
K
16"
A
96 AVE
L
LV
96 AVE
92 AVE
100A AVE
THORNHILL
MISSION
RD
LAKE
NICOMEN
E
AK
R
FANCHE
KENT
HUNT
KIL
SQUAKUM
DURIEU
IN
RD
RISO
N
BAY
CA
HA
102 AVE
R
AL
SHOO
RICHMOND
102 AVE
G
CH
A
RO
HAR
ME
SANDELL
KA
SMITH
ELSE
H
18"
EN
EW
NA
RD
ISLAND
TE
LE
99a
112 AVE
E
CR
KANAKA
104 AVE
FERGUSON
KA
LA
AL
LAKE
EK
WHARE
BARNSTON
WHONNOCK
KENNEDY
W
104 AVE
108 AVE
108 AVE
VE
112 A
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
7
IN
R
GR
PATTULLO
RD
HANEY
124 AVE
DEWDNEY
A
ER
D
91
YA
V
OS
R
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
HAMMOND
McCALLUM
HUMPHREY
T
ER
FORD
112 AVE
VE
AL
24 AVE
KENT
HARRISON
EMERALD
McPHERSON
N
IV
IV
R
LE
R
R
"
RI
RS
TE
ER
H
AL
EW
W
LE
VI
EL ON
SI
IS
WILLIAMS
FRANCIS
A
MEADOWS
HAMMOND
E
R
GA
BAY
BENNETT
TE
OU
GOLF
SY
RICHMOND
D
T
RIVER
H
6T
WAY
12
116 AVE
OL
S
SE
CAMBIE RD
BLUNDELL
INE
A
BRIDGEPORT
GRANVILLE
MAR
FR
R
VANCOUVER AIRPORT
WESTMINSTER HIGHWAY
V
M
RICHMOND
S.E.OAK
E
ISLAND
PITT
CH
U
E
D
H
T
T
S
AR
MITCHELL ISLAND
GRANT McCONA
CHI
E
7
EA
HARTLEY
ALOUET
E
TT
T
T
RE
N
RI
cB
H
12
NORTH
FORD
HORN
O
EN
H
SOUTH
AL
PINE
KI
M
FRASER
MARINE DR
RT
W
O
H
T
12
99a
WINDSOR
LL
HI
DOUGLAS
O
DENT
ALDER
DG
IMPERIAL
RY
MA
BY
3
9
McCONNELL CREEK RD
MAPLE RIDGE
McKAY
6"
M
V
A
N
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
SS
ESPLANADE
CEDAR
HO
"
20
CAPE
MEADOWS
PA
WOODRIDGE
NEW
6T
70TH
UITL
KINGSWAY
WESTMINSTER
E
1a
TRENTON
BROADWAY
LAKE
Y
DOMINION
COMO LAKE
AY
41ST AVE
"
PITT
FENTON
AY
20"
DEER LAKE
20
PIP
NG
SW
HIGHW
16"
VANCOUVER
KI
COMOLAKE AVE
Y
4"
NAB
D
R
COQ
WESTWOOD
COQUITLAM
HARRIS
A
BONSON
BURNABY
BUR
MA
RI
NE
McNEIL
192 ST
IW
CANADA WAY
AY
RICHARDSON
PIPPINGTON
D
AUSTIN
SW
VICTORIA
BURNS
R
PITT RIVER RD
NG
27TH AVE
DUNBAR
LA
RD
99
RIV
PRAIRIE
7
"
30
LL
VA
IS
RR
G
OPERATIONS
2ND & WOODLAND
KI
25TH & ARBUTUS
HEED
BURNABY
30" BROADWAY
BROADWAY
LOUG
EY
RD
MO
ER
A
MARY HILL
7
UNIVERSITY OF
B.C.
2ND & BOUNDARY
UNIVERSITY
G
GLEN
156 ST
UNIVERSITY BLVD
1ST AVE
SPERLING
INAL
GRANDVIEW
MAIN
4TH AVE
20"
CASSIAR
TERM
CAMBIE
MARINE DR
SIMON FRASER
6"
CURTIS
MUNDY
A
R
R
U
B
SPANISH BANKS
D
4"
7a
SCHOOLHOUSE
D
R
HASTINGS
BARNET
R
LAKE
COQUITLAM
KE
HEAD OFFICE
IA
O
AR
RG
ENGLISH BAY
C
BARNET HIGHWAY
CL
EO
IO
THERMAL PLANT
24"
TERASEN INC.
G
BURRARD
NARROWS
SECOND
LANSDOWNE
ROCHE PT.
BURRARD INLET
6"
DAVIS
LO
A
RD
24"
IOCO
STANLEY
EK
RE
D
S C WOO
ON
T
S
O
N
WE
WATER
JACOBS
16"
E
K
LA
TE
ET
U
SATCHELL
SUNNYSIDE
BELCARRA
DOLLARTON HIGHWAY
S
PARK
PI
T
T
LAKE BUNTZEN
M
AR
H
RT
NO
Y
BA
L
EL
W
SE
BE
D
YM
OU
R
DEEP COVE RD
RIVER
LONSDALE
8"
OW
C
ANMORE
KAMP
RR
PROSPECT POINT
EAGLE MTN
20"
8"
"
0
2
NA
MT. SEYMOUR PARKWAY
ST
LAKE
KE
D
SASAMAT
LA
3R
16"
T
N.SHORE
1
VE
20"
RS
12"
D
AR
RR
BU
CAPILANO RIVER
RD
CAPI
LANO
TAYLOR WAY
INE D
R
FI
3
RD
BE
STA
2ND ST
LAKE
NORTH VANCOUVER
MAR
PT. ATKINSON
RY
M
TO
HOPE
K
99
8"
AIRPORT RD
EE
"
30"
36"
LAKE
CR
12
NN
1
LY
CYPRESS BOWL RD
ITLAM
INLET
COQU
WEST VANCOUVER
HARRISON
A
MICROFILMED
M
SCALE- AS SHOWN
TERASEN GAS SUMAS INC.
UNITED STATES
REF.-
XXXXXXX
SAP ID:
XXXXXXXXXX
DRAWING No.
99000-P-000-024-R6
Attachment 7.3

bc gas utility ltd.

Transcription

Similar documents

Terasen Gas - Service Line

Trip distance: 61 miles Time: 1 hr 21 mins, per Yahoo directions

View the Article Here - Miami Design District

April 10th, 2016

NYC winter ideas map

Print PDF Article

rivermark village

BCPL Mobile Library Services - Read Rover Newsletter

E-64 Letters of Comment dated September 26, 2005 from the

BC GAS UTILITY LTD.