AltaLink Management Ltd. & EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc.

Transcription

1 Decision AltaLink Management Ltd. & EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project Amendment Structure T176 Repositioning Costs Award July 29, 2013

2 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. & EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project Amendment Structure T176 Repositioning Costs Award Application Nos Proceeding ID No July 29, 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 Groot Farms Ltd. costs claim GST ORDER... 3 AUC Decision (July 29, 2013) i

4

5 The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta AltaLink Management Ltd. & EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project Amendment - Decision Structure T176 Repositioning Application Nos Costs Award Proceeding ID No Introduction 1. On September 26, 2010, AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EPCOR) filed an application to construct and operate a double-circuit 500- kilovolt transmission line to connect the existing 500-kilovolt system on the south side of the city of Edmonton to a new substation to be located in the Gibbons-Redwater area. The Heartland application included a preferred east route and an alternate west route. 2. The preferred east route was approved on November 1, 2011, in Decision The Commission attached six conditions to its approval of the Heartland application. Condition 6 related specifically to Tower 176 and reads as follows: 6. The applicants work with Groot Farms Ltd., the relevant municipal authorities and Suncor Energy Inc. to further explore the possibility of moving structure T176 as proposed in SE W4 further into the southeast corner, without encroaching on the expansion plans for Highway 825 or significantly impacting the industrial yard site owned by Suncor Energy Inc. If structure T176 can be repositioned to the satisfaction of Groot Farms Ltd., the relevant municipal authorities and Suncor Energy Inc., the applicants must file an amendment that shows the repositioning of structure T176. If structure T176 cannot be repositioned, the applicants must provide an account of its consultations with the parties and the reasons why it could not be repositioned On July 10, 2012, AltaLink and EPCOR filed the amendment application, Application No On October 5, 2012, the Commission issued a notice of application, with a deadline to file submissions on or before October 26, The Commission issued a notice of hearing on December 20, 2012, with a hearing date of February 13, That hearing date was later rescheduled to February 28, On February 28, 2013, the Commission held a hearing in Edmonton, Alberta, to consider the amendment application. 1 2 Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project, Application No , Proceeding ID No. 457, November 1, Decision , page 273. AUC Decision (July 29, 2013) 1

6 Heartland Transmission Project Amendment Structure T176 Repositioning AltaLink & EPCOR 7. On March 27, 2013, the Commission issued Decision Groot Farms Ltd. filed its costs claim on March 26, On April 17, 2013, the Commission circulated a summary of costs being claimed from Proceeding ID No Parties were advised that any comments regarding the costs claim were to be filed by May 1, The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the costs claim submitted in this proceeding. 10. The Commission considers the costs process to have closed on May 1, Views of the Commission 11. 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 also prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to costs claims. 12. In exercising its discretion to award costs, the Commission will in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 009, consider whether an eligible participant acted responsibly and contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission, and whether the costs claimed are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the proceeding. The Commission considers these factors in light of the scope and nature of the issues in question. 13. In the Commission s view, the responsibility to contribute positively to the process is inherent in a proceeding. The Commission expects that those who choose to participate will prepare and present a position that is reasonable in light of the issues arising in the proceeding and necessary for the determination of those issues. To the extent reasonably possible, the Commission will be mindful of a participant s willingness to co-operate with the Commission and other participants to promote an efficient and cost-effective proceeding. 14. As the costs of a utility proceeding are generally passed on to customers, it is the Commission s duty to ensure that customers receive fair value for a party s contribution. As such, 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 Groot Farms Ltd. costs claim 15. Klimek Buss Bishop submitted a costs claim totalling $11,262.03, on behalf of Groot Farms Ltd. The claim is comprised of legal fees for Klimek Buss Bishop in the amount of $10,614.00, disbursements of $9.95 and GST of $531.20; and an attendance honoraria for Mr. Wayne Groot in the amount of $50.00, disbursements of $54.18 and GST of $ Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Amendment Application Structure 175 and 176 Repositioning, Application No , Proceeding ID No. 2007, March 27, AUC Decision (July 29, 2013)

7 Heartland Transmission Project Amendment Structure T176 Repositioning AltaLink & EPCOR 16. The Commission has considered the costs claim submitted by Groot Farms Ltd. bearing in mind the principles specified in the Commission s Scale of Costs, as set out in Appendix A to Rule 022. The Commission finds that the hours incurred are reasonable given tasks descsribed in the costs claim. The Commission notes that the claim for legal fees is in accordance with the Scale of Costs. Accordingly, the Commission approves Groot Farms Ltd. s claim for legal fees in the amount of $10, Further, the Commission has reviewed the disbursements claimed. The Commission finds that the disbursements are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves Groot Farms Ltd. s claim for disbursements, attendance honoraria and GST in the total amount of $ GST 18. In accordance with the Commission s treatment of GST on cost awards, AltaLink is required to pay only that portion of GST paid by interveners that may not be recoverable through the GST credit mechanism. Eligible GST approved by the Commission amounts to $ 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 20. It is hereby ordered that: (1) AltaLink shall pay intervener costs to Groot Farms Ltd. in the amount of $11, Dated on July 29, The Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Willie Grieve Chair (original signed by) Gwen Day Acting Commission Member (original signed by) Clifford Goerz Acting Commission Member AUC Decision (July 29, 2013) 3