AltaLink Management Ltd. ATCO Electric Ltd.

Transcription

1 Decision May 22, 2012

2 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision : and Application Nos and Proceeding ID No May 22, 2012 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 authority to award costs Views of the Commission assessment HLG costs claim Bruce and Dulcie Beasley, John Beasley and Kelsey Beasley, Cowtech Ltd. and Integrity Ranch Ltd. costs claim GST Order... 6 AUC Decision (May 22, 2012) i

4

5 The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta and Decision Application Nos and Proceeding ID No Introduction 1. Between November 25, 2010, and April 8, 2011, (ATCO) filed nine facility applications with the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission), seeking approval to construct and operate various transmission facilities located in its service territory as part of the Hanna region transmission development project. On December 6, 2010, AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) also filed a facility application in relation to the Hanna region transmission development, seeking approval to construct and operate various transmission facilities located in its service territory. 2. These ten applications are related to facilities identified in the Hanna region transmission development needs identification document and approved by the Commission in Decisions , and All ten facility applications, and two related applications filed by the Alberta Electric System Operator for minor changes to the need approval in the project area, were considered jointly by the Commission in Proceeding ID No The facilities proposed in the applications include approximately 300 kilometres of continuous transmission line connecting the Provost area to the Oyen area and the Oyen area to the Drumheller area, and approximately 24 kilometers of 144-kV transmission line to interconnect the new facilities with existing facilities in the Sheerness, Oyen and Monitor areas. 4. The Commission published notice of all facility applications on May 6, 2011, and deemed all facility applications to be complete on August 3, The last filed application amendment was received on November 10, The Commission received 33 submissions from individuals and landowner groups in response to the notice of applications issued on May 6, On July 8, 2011, the Commission granted intervener status, to those who had demonstrated that they might be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision on the facility applications. Pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Alberta Utilities Act, the Commission decided to hold a hearing to consider the interveners objections and concerns about the facility applications Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application Hanna Region Transmission System Development, Application No , Proceeding ID No. 278, Released: April 29, Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator Amendments to Southern Alberta Transmission System Reinforcement and Hanna Region Transmission System Development Needs Identification Document Approvals, Application Nos and , Proceeding ID No. 748, Released: March 15, Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator Currant Lake 896S Substation, Armitage 949S Substation and 144-kV Transmission Line Interconnections Needs Identification Document Application Nos , , Proceeding ID No. 979, Released: September 12, AUC Decision (May 22, 2012) 1

6 7. The Commission deemed the facility applications complete and issued a notice of hearing on August 3, The Hansman Lake Group (HLG) filed a motion requesting a change of venue with respect to the AltaLink application, on the basis that its members lived more than two hours away from Oyen. The Commission issued a ruling on September 13, 2011, to change the hearing location for the facility applications relating to the Hansman Lake to Pemukan development, to Wainwright, Alberta. A revised notice of hearing was issued. 9. The hearing commenced on November 14, 2011, at the Wainwright Communiplex before a Commission panel comprised of Panel Chair Anne Michaud, Commission Member Neil Jamieson and Acting Commission Member Clifford Goerz. The hearing proceeded in Wainwright for three days, recessed and reopened in Oyen for an additional two days. 10. The Commission considers the record for this proceeding to have closed on December 15, On May 8, 2012, the Commission issued Decision On December 12, 2011, Mr. Yuk-Sing Cheng of Ackroyd LLP filed a costs claim on behalf of Tim McNally, Bryon Mailer, Janine Boisvert, and Lee Boisvert (collectively referred to as HLG). 13. On December 5, 2011, Mr. Robert A. Speidel of Speidel Professional Corporation filed a costs claim on behalf of Bruce Beasley and Dulcie Beasley, John Beasley and Kelsey Beasley, Cowtech Ltd. and Integrity Ranch Ltd. (collectively referred to as the Beasleys). 14. Both costs claims were submitted before the costs submission deadline of December 15, On December 22, 2011, a summary of costs claimed was circulated to interested parties. Parties were advised that any comments regarding the figures listed in the summary or the merits of the total costs claimed were to be filed by January 9, The Commission received comments on behalf of ATCO on January 13, 2012, stating that it had reviewed the costs claims made on behalf of the Beasleys and had no objections. ATCO took no position regarding HLG s costs claim, as HLG did not intervene on any of ATCO s applications. 17. The Commission received comments from AltaLink on January 13, 2012, stating that it had reviewed HLG's costs claims and had no objections. AltaLink took no position regarding the Beasleys costs claim, as they did not intervene on AltaLink s application. 18. The Commission considers the costs process to have closed January 13, Decision : and Hanna Region Transmission Development, Application Nos , , , , , , , , and , Proceeding ID No. 979, Released: May 8, AUC Decision (May 22, 2012)

7 2 Views of the Commission authority to award costs 19. The Commission s authority to award costs for hearing participants is found in sections 21 and 22 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. 20. Section 21 states the Commission may order by whom and to whom its costs and any other costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission are to be paid. Section 21 also states the Commission may make rules respecting the payment of costs to an intervener other than a local intervener. 21. Section 22 defines the phrase local intervener and states: (1) For the purposes of this section, local intervener means a person or group or association of persons who, in the opinion of the Commission, (a) (b) has an interest in; and is in actual occupation of or is entitled to occupy land that is or may be directly and adversely affected by a decision, or order of the Commission in or as a result of a hearing, or other proceeding of the Commission on an application to construct or operate a hydro development, power plant or transmission line under the Hydro and Electric Energy Act or a gas utility pipeline under the Gas Utilities Act, but unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, does not include a person or group or association of persons whose business interest may include a hydro development, power plant or transmission line or gas utility pipeline. (2) The Commission may make rules respecting the payment of costs to a local intervener for participation in any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission. 22. AUC s Rule 009: Local Intervener Costs (Rule 009) lists the Commission s rules for local intervener costs claims. This rule describes the process for filing and commenting on such claims and lists the factors that the Commission may consider when deciding on a local intervener costs claim. Rule 009 also includes the Commission s Scale of Costs, which lists the fees and expenses that the Commission will consider in a local intervener costs claim. 23. The Commission also considers that the members of HLG are local interveners because they own land or reside in the vicinity of the proposed facilities and may be directly and adversely affected by a decision of the Commission with respect to this application. Therefore, HLG is eligible to claim costs under Section 22 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act in accordance with Rule The Commission considers that Bruce and Dulcie Beasley, John and Kelsey Beasley, Cowtech Ltd. and Integrity Ranch Ltd. are local interveners, because they own lands, or reside in the vicinity of the proposed facilities and may be directly and adversely affected by a decision of the Commission with respect to these facility applications. Therefore, they are eligible to claim costs under Section 22 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act in accordance with Rule 009. AUC Decision (May 22, 2012) 3

8 3 Views of the Commission assessment 3.1 HLG costs claim 25. HLG consists of several landowner families who may be affected by the facility applications filed by AltaLink and ATCO in the Hansman Lake to Pemukan area. The costs claim submitted on behalf of HLG totals $151, The claim is comprised of legal fees incurred by Ackroyd LLP in the amount of $74,956.00, together with disbursements of $2, and GST of $3,897.42; consulting fees incurred by Brubaker & Associates Inc. of $26, together with disbursements of $2,662.59; consulting fees incurred by Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. of $32,670.00, together with disbursements of $2, and GST of $1,733.76; and HLG members personal disbursements totalling $ The balance of the claim is for honoraria and loss of income. 26. On October 5, 2011, Ackroyd LLP filed a request for advance funding on behalf of its clients, the members of HLG. 27. On October 14, 2011, the Commission issued Decision approving HLG s request for advance funding in the amount of $84, The advance comprised of $22,000 to Brubaker and Associates, $15, to Cottonwood Consultants Ltd., and $46, to Ackroyd LLP as set out in column (k) of Appendix A. 28. The Commission finds that the hours incurred by legal and consulting experts are reasonable for the tasks described in HLG s costs claim. The Commission notes that there were calculation errors found on HLG s U1 Form with respect to Cottonwood Consultants Ltd s consulting fees in the amount of $32, and GST of $1, The adjusted total amount of fees, disbursements and GST to account for these errors is $148, The Scale of Costs provides for either attendance honoraria or lost wages. The HLG claimed $2, for lost wages, in addition to honoraria for the affected interveners. The Commission will award only honoraria to these interveners, in accordance with the Scale of Costs. 30. HLG s claim for members honoraria is allocated as follows: Mr. Tim McNalley is claiming honoraria in the amount of $ for forming a group, as well as attendance honoraria in the amount of $ totalling $ Mr. Lee Boisvert is claiming attendance honoraria in the amount of $ Mrs. Janine Boisvert is claiming attendance honoraria in the amount of $ Mr. Bryon Mailer is claiming attendance honoraria in the amount of $ The Commission has awarded the attendance honorarium to Mrs. Boisvert because she was entitled to be present and did, in fact, attend the hearing. The Commission will not award child care expenses to Mrs. Boisvert because she did not sit as part of the HLG s panel to give evidence during the hearing, and her attendance was therefore not critical to the presentation of HLG s case. 5 Decision : Advance Funding Request by Hansman Lake Group, Application: , Proceeding ID No. 979, Released: October 14, AUC Decision (May 22, 2012)

9 32. The Commission finds that the HLG s intervention was of assistance to the Commission in its determination of the issues. Except for a few minor deviations from the Scale of Costs, which were disallowed, the claim for disbursements is in accordance with the Scale of Costs. 33. Accordingly, the Commission approves the costs claimed in the total amount of $148, The Commission has already awarded the amount of $84, in advance funding to HLG. The balance of the costs award that remains payable is $64, Bruce and Dulcie Beasley, John Beasley and Kelsey Beasley, Cowtech Ltd. and Integrity Ranch Ltd. costs claim 34. The Beasleys are individuals or companies that may be directly and adversely affected by a decision of the Commission with respect to the facility applications filed by ATCO with respect to the Lanfine to Oakland project. The costs claim submitted by the Beasleys totalled $13, The claim was comprised of legal fees incurred by Robert Speidel, in the amount of $12,160.00, together with disbursements of $ and GST of $ The Commission finds that the hours incurred are reasonable for the tasks described in the Beasleys costs claim. There were calculation errors found on the U1 Form with respect to the legal fees of Robert Speidel as a result of the honoraria being included in the amount claimed for legal fees. The amount claimed for legal fees was adjusted accordingly and reduced to $11, The GST was also corrected to $ The corrected total amount of fees, disbursements and GST is $13, The Beasleys claimed attendance honoraria of $ each for a total amount of $ This amount complies with Rule 009; accordingly, the Commission approves the requested honoraria. 37. The Commission finds that the Beasleys intervention was of assistance to the Commission in its determination of the issues. The Commission finds that the disbursement claims allowed are reasonable and commensurate with the demand of the claim. 38. Accordingly, the Commission approves the costs claimed in the amount of $13, GST 39. In accordance with the Commission s treatment of GST on costs awards, ATCO and AltaLink are required to pay only that portion of the GST paid by interveners that may not be recoverable through the GST credit mechanism. 40. Eligible GST approved by the Commission totals $6,428.26, comprised of $5, with respect to HLG s costs claim and $ with respect to the Beasleys costs claim. 41. The Commission emphasizes that its treatment of the GST claimed in no way relieves participants or their lawyers and consultants from their GST obligations pursuant to the Excise Tax Act. AUC Decision (May 22, 2012) 5

10 5 Order 42. It is hereby ordered that: (1) shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $64, to HLG, as set out in column (l) of Appendix A. Payment shall be made to Ackroyd LLP, Attention: Richard Secord at Suite 1500, Jasper Avenue, and Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3S9. (2) shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $13, to Bruce and Dulcie Beasley, Cowtech Ltd. and Integrity Ranch Ltd, as set out in column (l) of Appendix A. Payment shall be made to Robert A. Speidel at Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T5G 2T8. Dated May 22, The Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Anne Michaud Panel Chair (original signed by) Neil Jamieson Commission Member (original signed by) Clifford Goerz Commission Member 6 AUC Decision (May 22, 2012)

11 Alberta Utilities Commission AltaLink and ATCO Proc ID No Hanna Transmission App No. ( , ) , Total Costs Claimed/Awarded Appendix A Total Fees Claimed (a) Total Honoraria Claimed (b) Total Expenses Claimed (c) Total GST Claimed (d) Total Amount Claimed (e) Total Fees Awarded (f) Total Honoraria Awarded (g) Total Expenses Awarded (h) APPLICANT AltanLink Mangement Ltd. No Applicant Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 Sub-Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 INTERVENERS Bruce Beasley, Dulcie Beasley, Cowteck Ltd. and Integrity Robert A. Speidel $12, $0.00 $ $ $13, $11, $0.00 $ $ $12, $0.00 $12, Bruce Beasley $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Dulcie Beasley $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $ John Beasley $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Kelsey Beasley $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Sub-Total $12, $0.00 $ $ $13, $11, $ $ $ $13, $0.00 $13, Hansman Lake Group Ackroyd LLP $74, $0.00 $2, $3, $81, $74, $0.00 $2, $3, $81, $46, $35, Brubaker & Associates Inc. $26, $0.00 $2, $0.00 $29, $26, $0.00 $2, $0.00 $28, $22, $6, Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. $32, $0.00 $2, $1, $36, $32, $0.00 $2, $1, $36, $15, $20, Tim McNalley $0.00 $1, $ $0.00 $2, $0.00 $ $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Lee Boisvert $0.00 $ $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Janine Boisvert $0.00 $ $40.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $ $40.00 $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Bryon Mailer $0.00 $ $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ Sub-Total $134, $3, $8, $5, $151, $133, $1, $7, $5, $148, $84, $64, Total GST Awarded (i) Total Costs Approved (j) Costs Previosly Advanced (k) Total Costs Awarded (l) TOTAL INTERVENER COSTS $146, $3, $8, $6, $164, $145, $1, $7, $6, $161, $84, $77, TOTAL INTERVENER AND APPLICANT COSTS $146, $3, $8, $6, $164, $145, $1, $7, $6, $161, $84, $77,