Decision ATCO Electric Ltd. Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Line Project. Costs Award. October 9, 2013

Transcription

1 Decision Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Line Project Costs Award October 9, 2013

2 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision : Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Line Project Costs Award Application Nos and Proceeding ID No October 9, 2013 Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Web site:

3 Contents 1 Introduction Views of the Commission Commission findings Red Route Coalition V.G. Findlater Professional Corporation GST Order... 4 AUC Decision (October 9, 2013) i

4

5 The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Decision Line Project Application Nos and Costs Award Proceeding ID No Introduction 1. On April 27, 2012, filed a facility application for the Bonnyville to Bourque transmission project, registered as Application No (Proceeding ID No.1855). ATCO filed amendments to the application on September 17, 2012 and March 6, The major components of the application were: Alterations to the existing Bonnyville 700S Substation Construction of approximately 47 to 54 kilometres of a new 240 kv doublecircuit transmission line, to be potentially operated with one circuit energized at 144 kv. The proposed transmission line would connect to Bonnyville 700S substation to Bourque 970S substation. Setting up temporary workspace areas and construction of permanent access trails along the proposed transmission line as set out in the application. Alterations of the existing 144 kv transmission lines 7L24, 7L53 and 7L89 to facilitate connection of the proposed 240 kv transmission line. 2. The Commission issued a notice of application for proceeding ID No on January 2, A notice of hearing for this proceeding was issued on February 22, 2013, and was sent to registered parties by , was mailed directly to approximately 800 land title holders who were within 800 metres of proposed transmission facilities rights-of-way for all route alternatives in the application. It was published on the AUC website as well as in the Bonnyville Nouvelle, the Edmonton Journal and the Edmonton Sun newspapers. On March 19, 2013, the Commission issued a notice of application amendments. 3. The Commission held a public hearing to consider the Bonnyville to Bourque application in Bonnyville on April 22 to 24, On June 27, 2013, the Commission issued Decision approving ATCO Electric Ltd. facility application under consideration in proceeding ID No On May 23, 2013, Ackroyd LLP submitted a cost application on behalf of the Red Route Coalition. 1 Decision Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Project, Application No , Proceeding ID No. 1855, July 23, 2013 AUC Decision (October 9, 2013) 1

6 Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Line Project Costs Award 6. On June 14, 2013, V.G. Findlater Professional Corporation submitted a costs claim application on behalf of the interveners it represented. 7. On July 4, 2013, the Commission circulated a summary of the costs being claimed to interested parties. Parties were advised that any comments regarding figures listed in the summary, or the merits of the total costs claimed, were to be filed by July 18, On July 18, 2013, filed a letter requesting additional time to provide comments on costs claimed. 9. On July 22, 2013, filed comments on the local intervener cost claims submitted in proceeding raised concerns with respect to the use and costs of Brubaker & Associates, Inc., as well as the reasonableness of costs for the two senior counsel utilized by Ackroyd LLP. requested that the AUC take these two issues into account when rendering its decision. 2 Views of the Commission 10. When assessing costs claims pursuant to Section 21 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, the Commission applies AUC Rule 009: Rules on Local Intervener Costs (Rule 009). Rule 009 prescribes in section 7 a Scale of Costs applicable to all costs claimed. 11. In exercising its discretion to award costs, the Commission will in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 009 consider whether an eligible participant s costs are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the proceeding and whether the eligible participant acted responsibly in the proceeding and contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission. 12. As the costs of a utility proceeding are generally passed on to customers, it is the Commission s duty to ensure that the customers receive fair value for a claimant s claim. The Commission only approves those costs that are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the party s participation in the proceeding. 3 Commission findings 3.1 Red Route Coalition 13. The Red Route Coalition submitted a costs claim totalling $134, The claim is comprised of consulting fees for Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. in the amount of $20,182.50, disbursements of $1, and GST of $1,100.36; consulting fees for Brubaker & Associates Inc. in the amount $7,495.00; legal fees for Ackroyd LLP in the amount of $93,094.00, disbursements of $4, and GST of $4,866.57; and intervener attendance honoraria of $1,400.00, intervener disbursements of $ and GST of $ The legal fees claimed consist of $44,730,00 ($31, [89.4 hours] for preparation and $13, [38.4 hours] for attendance) for Mr. Richard Secord, 2 AUC Decision (October 9, 2013)

7 Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Line Project Costs Award $37, ($30, [126.6 hours]for preparation and $7, [31 hours] for attendance) for Mr. Ian McDougall, and $7,000 (20 hours) in preparation fees for Mr. William McElhanney 15. In total, counsel for the Red Route Coalition claimed legal fees for 236 hours to prepare for this proceding. While the Commission recognizes that the Red Route Coalition represented a relatively large number of interveners and that there was some unavoidable duplication in the work performed by Mr. Secord and Mr. McElhaney, it is of the view that the legal fees claimed exceed what is reasonable given the scope and nature of the proceeding and the Red Route Coalition s participation. 16. The Red Route Coalition asked and answered information requests and filed evidence prepared by an expert and by members of the Red Route Coalition group itself. The hearing of this application consisted of two days of evidence and just over one half day of argument. The primary issues raised in the proceeding related to the environmental and agricultural impacts associated with the applicant s preferred and alternate routes. While the information presented was site specific, the underlying issues were similar to issues that the Commission has considered in many previous transmission line applications and the evidence presented in that regard was neither overly technical nor complex. Having regard to the foregoing, the Commission considers the 236 hours of preparation time claimed for this short hearing to be excessive and reduces the costs claimed for preparation by 15 per cent. 17. The Commission finds the attendance fees and disbursements claimed on behalf of Ackroyd LLP to be reasonable and approves them in full. 18. The Commission finds the the fees and disbursements claimed on behalf of Cottonwood consultants are reasonable and approves them in full. 19. The Commission also finds the fees claimed on behalf of Brubaker & Associates Inc. to be reasonable in the circumstances. The comparison of the applicants preferred and alternate routes was an important issue in the proceeding and the Commission considers that it was reasonable for the Red Route Coalition to engage routing experts to assist in their review of the application and the drafting and answering of information requests. The Commission approves the fees and disbursements for this expert in full. 3.2 V.G. Findlater Professional Corporation 20. V.G. Findlater Professional Corporation submitted a costs claim on behalf of Clay Braithwaite, Andy and Mary Anne Leprous, Stephen Scott and Curtis and Rachelle Scott totalling $24, The claim is comprised of legal fees for V.G. Findlater Professional Corporation in the amount of $23,550, disbursements of $ and GST in the amount of $1, Mr. Findlater represented four clients who owned or occupied land on the alternate route. Mr. Findlater filed statements of intention to participate on behalf of some of his clients, attended the hearing, cross examined witnesses, sat a witness panel and gave argument. In the Commission s view the legal fees and disbursements claimed for the work performed were reasonable given the nature and scope of his clients participation and the Commission approves them in full. AUC Decision (October 9, 2013) 3

8 Bonnyville to Bourque Transmission Line Project Costs Award 4 GST 22. In accordance with the Commission s treatment of GST on cost awards, ATCO Electric Ltd. is required to pay only that portion of GST paid by interveners that may not be recoverable through the GST credit mechanism. 23. The Commission emphasizes that its treatment of the GST claim in no way relieves participants or their consultants from their GST obligations pursuant to the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E Order 24. It is hereby ordered that: shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $128, to the Red Route Coalition. Payment shall be made to Ackroyd LLP, attention: Mr. Richard Secord at 1500 First Edmonton Place, Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3S9. ATCO Electric shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $24, Payment shall be made to V.G. Findlater Professional Corporation, attention: Mr. Vic Findlater at Box 7820, Bonnyville, Alberta T9N 2J1. Dated on October 9, The Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Tudor Beattie Panel Chair (original signed by) Neil Jamieson Commission Member (original signed by) Gwen Day Acting Commission Member 4 AUC Decision (October 9, 2013)