Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power Corporation. Foothills Area Transmission Development

Transcription

1 Decision Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power Corporation Foothills Area Transmission Development March 12, 2013

2

3 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. And ENMAX Power Corporation Foothills Area Transmission Development Applications Nos , , , Proceeding ID No March 12, 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: AUC Decision (March 12, 2013) i

4 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ADVANCE AND INTERIM FUNDING REQUESTS Mattson Group CERC The Stenbeck Group The McLaren and Carlson Group COMMISSION RULING Qualification of Local Intervener Costs Interim and Awards Mattson Group CERC The Stenbeck Group The McLaren and Carlson Group ORDER... 7 ii AUC Decision (March 12, 2013)

5 The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Alberta Electric System Operator AltaLink Management Ltd. ENMAX Power Corporation Foothills Area Transmission Development Decision Proceeding ID No Introduction 1. In the Foothills Area Transmission Development proceeding, Proceeding ID 2001, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or the Commission) is considering eight applications. These include: two applications filed by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), five facility applications filed by AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) and one facility application filed by ENMAX Power Corporation (ENMAX). 2. The AESO filed need Application No with the AUC on July 5, 2012, requesting approval of the needs identification document for the proposed 240-kilovolt (kv) and 138-kV transmission system expansion in the vicinities of southeast Calgary, Okotoks and High River. The AESO also filed Application No on September 21, 2012, seeking approval to amend the existing NID approval for the Southern Alberta Transmission Reinforcement (SATR). 3. AltaLink filed three facility applications on July 12, 2012: Application No for the Langdon to Janet project; Application No for the North Foothills Transmission Project; and Application No for the Foothills 138-kV Transmission Project. On September 25, 2012, AltaLink filed two additional facility applications; Application No for the South Foothill Transmission Project and Application No for the Windy Flats 138- kv Project. 4. ENMAX filed facility Application No with the AUC on July 13, 2012, requesting approval to modify ENMAX No. 25 substation and ENMAX No. 65 substation. 2 Advance and Interim Funding Requests 2.1 Mattson Group 5. On January 29, 2013, Carscallen LLP filed a request for interim costs and advance funding on behalf of its clients, the Mattson Group, a group of six local interveners along the preferred route of the Janet to Langdon Transmission Project. The Mattson Group is represented by Michael B. Niven, Q.C., Lindsay Grice and Nicholas Ramessar of Carscallen LLP. The Mattson Group submitted an interim funding request for legal fees and disbursements incurred to date in the amount of $23, The Mattson Group has retained Mr. Jack Halpern of the The Louis Berger Group (LBG) to provide his expert opinion on routing issues in relation to the Langdon to Janet Transmission Project. Mr. Halpern s anticipated fees are $9, AUC Decision (March 12, 2013) 1

6 2.2 CERC 7. On February 1, 2013, Ackroyd LLP filed a request for advance funding on behalf of its client, the Committee for East Route Conservation 1 (CERC). CERC is represented by Richard C. Secord of Ackroyd LLP. CERC submitted a budget of $103, for Mr. Secord s legal fees and disbursements. 8. CERC and another intervener group, the Stenbeck Group (as defined below), jointly retained Mr. Robert A. Berrien of Berrien Associates Ltd. as an expert consultant to address the issue of routing and route impact planning. Mr. Berrien s total anticipated costs are $95, CERC and the Stenbeck Group have agreed to share Mr. Berrien s retainer. CERC has also retained Mr. Cliff Wallis of Cottonwood Consultants Ltd., Mr. Ed McDonald of JetPro Consultants Inc. and Mr. Greg Donaldson of Brown & Associates Planning Group. Mr. Wallis was retained to provide his expert opinion on the effect of the South Foothills Transmission Project on the environment in the Claresholm area. Mr. Wallis anticipated costs are $30, Mr. McDonald was retained to provide an expert opinion on the effect of the Claresholm Airport in relation to the applicant s decision not to route the transmission line west of Claresholm. Mr. McDonald s anticipated costs are $11, Mr. Donaldson was retained to provide his expert opinion on the effect of using land use planning considerations in relation to the applicant s decision not to route the transmission line west of Claresholm. Mr. Donaldson s anticipated costs are $23, The Stenbeck Group 9. On February 5, 2013, Stenbeck Law Office filed a request for advance funding on behalf of its clients, Bow Vista Farms Ltd., Louise Klatzel-Mudry/McHugh Family Landowners, Terry Thomson, Fredrick Thomson and Western Sky Land Trust (collectively, the Stenbeck Group). The Stenbeck Group is represented by Scott Stenbeck of the Stenbeck Law Office. The Stenbeck Group submitted a budget of $170, for legal fees and disbursements. The budget includes legal fees for Mr. Stenbeck and junior counsel from the Nyman Law Office. 10. As set out above, CERC and the Stenbeck Group have jointly retained Mr. Berrien and have agreed to share Mr. Berrien s retainer. 2.4 The McLaren and Carlson Group 11. On March 1, 2013, Peacock Linder & Halt LLP filed a request for interim funding on behalf of its clients, Mr. and Mrs. McLaren and Ms. Carlson (collectively, the McLaren and Carlson Group). The McLaren and Carlson Group is represented by Johanna C. Price of Peacock Linder & Halt LLP. The McLaren and Carlson Group submitted an interim funding request for legal fees and disbursements incurred to date in the amount of $13, The McLaren and Carlson Group has retained Mr. Robert Telford of McNally Land Services Ltd. to provide an expert opinion on routing issues in relation to the Langdon to Janet Transmission Project. The McLaren and Carlson Group are not seeking advance funding for Mr. Telford s services at this time. 1 An updated list CERC s members can be found in Proceeding ID 2001, Exhibit AUC Decision (March 12, 2013)

7 3 Commission Ruling 3.1 Qualification of Local Intervener Costs 13. Section 22 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act provides that the Commission may award costs to persons or groups of persons that meet the definition of local intervener. That provision reads in part as follows: 22 (1) For purposes of this section, local intervener means a person or group or associations of persons who in the opinion of the Commission, (a) has an interest in, and (b) 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 as a gas utility pipeline under the Gas Utilities Act, but unless otherwise authorized by the Commission does not include a person or group or associations 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. 14. The Commission finds that members of the Mattson Group, CERC, the Stenbeck Group and the McLaren and Carlson Group have demonstrated that they have interests in land that is or may be affected by the Commission s decision on one or more of the above-mentioned applications and are local interveners as defined in Section 22(1) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. Accordingly, these groups qualify to claim local intervener costs on behalf of their respective members who own or reside upon lands that may be affected by the Commission s decision on one of the above-mentioned applications. 15. Section 2 of AUC Rule 009: Rules on Local Intervener Costs (AUC Rule 009), provides that the Commission may make an award of advance funding upon the request of a local intervener and reads as follows: 2.1 A local intervener who intends to take part in a hearing or other proceeding may, at any time during the hearing or other proceeding, make a request to the Commission for an advance of funds in accordance with the scale of costs set out in Appendix A and submit a budget in accordance with Appendix B. 2.2 The Commission may award an advance of funds to a local intervener if the local intervener demonstrates a need for financial assistance to address relevant issues in the hearing or other proceeding. 2.3 If the Commission awards an advance of funds to a local intervener under subsection 2.2, the Commission may advance the funds to the local intervener and AUC Decision (March 12, 2013) 3

8 (i) (ii) set out the terms for repayment of the advance to the Commission by the local intervener, or direct the applicant to reimburse the Commission for the funds advanced to the local intervener, or direct the applicant to advance funds to the local intervener and set out the terms for repayment of the advance to the applicant by the intervener. 16. Section 4 of AUC Rule 009 provides that the Commission may make an award of interim funding upon the request of a local intervener and reads as follows: 4.1 A local intervener may apply to the Commission for an award of interim costs incurred in a hearing or other proceeding by filing an interim costs claim. 4.2 A local intervener may only claim interim costs in accordance with the scale of costs set out in Appendix A. 4.3 The Commission may award interim costs to a local intervener if the Commission is of the opinion that the costs are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the hearing or other proceeding, the hearing or other proceeding in which interim costs are claimed is lengthy, and the local intervener has demonstrated a need for financial assistance to continue to address relevant issues in the hearing or other proceeding. 4.4 If the Commission awards interim costs to a local intervener under subsection 4.3, the Commission may pay the interim costs to the local intervener and (i) (ii) set out terms for repayment of the interim costs to the Commission by the local intervener if the Commission varies or denies costs on a claim for costs filed by the local intervener at the close of the proceeding, or direct the applicant to reimburse the Commission for the interim costs paid to the local intervener, or direct the applicant to pay the interim costs to the local intervener and set out terms for repayment of the interim costs to the applicant by the local intervener if the Commission varies or denies costs on the claim for costs filed by the local intervener at the close of the hearing or other proceeding. 4 AUC Decision (March 12, 2013)

9 17. The Commission is satisfied that the Mattson Group, CERC, the Stenbeck Group and the McLaren and Carlson Group have all demonstrated a need for financial assistance. The Commission also finds that the combined applications qualify as a lengthy proceeding and as such, substantiate the Commission s consideration of interim funding requests. 3.2 Interim and Awards 18. Historically, the Commission and its predecessor the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board have awarded between 30 and 50 per cent of an intervener s projected costs as advance funding. 19. In giving this advance and interim funding, the Commission makes no determination on the value of any intervener s participation. Any intervener organization that accepts advance funding pursuant to this order accepts the risk that, if its final cost award relating to the proceeding is denied in its entirety or less than the amount of the advance funding directed in this order, it will be required to repay the entire amount awarded or the difference. 20. In making its final cost award, the Commission will expect to be satisfied that all fees and disbursements claimed relate to the proceeding and conform to the Scale of Costs adopted by the Commission. The Commission will also consider the effectiveness of the participation, its relevance to the issues, and whether the costs of the participation were necessary and reasonable Mattson Group 21. The Commission has reviewed the Mattson Group s interim funding request for legal fees and disbursements in regard to the tasks undertaken by Carscallen LLP to date. The Commission finds that the costs claimed are reasonable and directly relevant to the proceeding. The Commission approves the Mattson Group s interim funding request of $23, The Commission finds that the issues to be addressed by LBG are relevant to the Janet to Langdon Transmission Project. Furthermore, the estimate of $9, appears to be reasonable given the tasks to be performed by the expert consultant and the scope and nature of the issues to be addressed in this proceeding. The Commission approves 40 per cent of the budgeted amount CERC 23. The Commission has reviewed the budget filed by Ackroyd LLP for anticipated legal fees to be incurred during the course of this proceeding. The Commission finds that the estimated costs claimed are reasonable and directly relevant to the proceeding. The Commission is prepared to approve 40 per cent of the estimated legal fees. 24. The Commission has reviewed the request for advance funding filed by Ackroyd LLP with respect to Mr. Berrien s estimated budget. The Commission has reviewed the breakdown of preparation and hearing attendance time provided by Mr. Berrien in addition to the hourly rates for the services of Mr. Berrien and his technical and secretarial staff. The Commission understands that Mr. Berrien s estimated cost includes services that will be provided to the Stenbeck Group. Overall, the Commission finds that Mr. Berrien s estimate may be high given the length of the proceeding and the scope and nature of the the issues to be addressed. However, the Commission is prepared to approve 30 per cent of the budgeted amount at the present time and will consider this issue further in its final costs decision. 25. The Commission has reviewed the request for advance funding with respect to Mr. Wallis participation as an expert on environmental matters. The Commission finds that the AUC Decision (March 12, 2013) 5

10 budget appears to be reasonable given the tasks to be performed by the expert consultant and the scope and nature of the issues to be addressed in this proceeding. The Commission approves 40 per cent of the budgeted amount. 26. The Commission has reviewed the request for advance funding for Mr. McDonald s participation in the proceeding. The Commission has also reviewed AltaLink s letter dated March 1, 2013 regarding the need for Mr. McDonald s services. AltaLink stated that the Claresholm Airport advisor had no concerns with a route paralleling the existing 911L west of Claresholm. AltaLink indicated that the presence of the airport did not preclude it from siting the transmission line along this route and as a result, requested that the AUC deny any costs pertaining to this expert. The Commission has reviewed Ackroyd LLP s request for advance funding as well as AltaLink s response. Based on the submissions, the Commission finds that it will be in a better position to make a determination on this issue upon hearing from Mr. McDonald during the course of the hearing. As such, the Commission denies an award of advance funding with respect to Mr. McDonald s services and reserves its final decision on costs until the proceeding has concluded. 27. The Commission has reviewed the request for advance funding with respect to Mr. Donaldson. The Commission finds that the budget appears to be reasonable given the scope and nature of the issues to be addressed in this proceeding. In conformity with the percentage approved for the other experts, the Commission approves 40 per cent of the budgeted amount The Stenbeck Group 28. The Commission has reviewed the budget filed by the Stenbeck Law Office for anticipated legal fees to be incurred during the course of the proceeding. In comparison to the estimated fees submitted by CERC, the Commission finds that the anticipated legal fees may be disproportionate to the scope of the Stenbeck Group s interventions. However, the Commission is prepared to approve 30 per cent of the budgeted amount at the present time and will consider this issue further in its final costs decision. 29. The Commission is in receipt of the Stenbeck Group s letter dated March 3, 2013 confirming that it is not claiming advance funding for Mr. Berrien as part of its advance funding submission The McLaren and Carlson Group 30. The Commission has reviewed the McLaren and Carlson Group s interim funding request for legal fees and disbursements in regard to the tasks undertaken by Peacock Linder & Halt LLP to date. The Commission finds that the costs claimed are reasonable and directly relevant to the proceeding. The Commission approves the McLaren and Carlson Group s interim funding request of $13, The McLaren and Carlson Group is not requesting an award of advance funding for the services of its expert, Mr. Robert Telford. 6 AUC Decision (March 12, 2013)

11 4 Order 32. It is hereby ordered that: (1) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay advance intervener costs and interim costs in the amount of $27, to the Mattson Group. Payment shall be made to Carscallen LLP, Attention: Michael B Niven, Q.C. at 1500, Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2Y3. (2) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay advance intervener costs in the amount of $91, to CERC. Payment shall be made to Ackroyd LLP, Attention: Richard C. Secord at 1500 First Edmonton Place, Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3S9. (3) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay advance intervener costs in the amount of $51, to the Stenbeck Group. Payment shall be made to the Stenbeck Law Office, Attention: Scott C. Stenbeck, at Suite 204, 1741 Dunmore Road SE, Medicine Hat, Alberta, T1A 1Z8. (4) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay interim costs in the amount of $13, to the McLaren and Carlson Group. Payment shall be made to Peacock Linder & Halt LLP, Attention: Johanna C. Price at Suite 850, Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 4H2. Dated on March 12, The Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Anne Michaud Panel Chair (original signed by) Neil Jamieson Commission Member (original signed by) Ian Harvie Acting Commission Member AUC Decision (March 12, 2013) 7