ENMAX Power Corporation Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation

Transcription

1 Decision D Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation February 27, 2018

2 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation Proceeding February 27, 2018 Published by Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 Contents 1 Introduction Commission findings Consumers Coalition of Alberta Order... 4 ii Decision D (February 27, 2018)

4 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation Decision D Proceeding Introduction 1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission considers an application (the costs claim application) by the Consumers Coalition of Alberta for approval and payment of its costs of participation in Proceeding (the original proceeding). The following table sets out the costs claimed and the amounts awarded: Claimant Fees Claimed Disbursements Claimed GST Claimed Amount Claimed Fees Awarded Disbursements Awarded GST Awarded Amount Awarded CCA Wachowich & Company $7, $0.00 $ $7, $7, $0.00 $ $7, Regulatory Services Inc. $3, $0.00 $ $3, $3, $0.00 $ $3, Bema Enterprises Ltd. $73, $0.00 $3, $77, $73, $0.00 $3, $77, $84, $0.00 $4, $89, $84, $0.00 $4, $89, The Commission has decided to approve the costs, as claimed, for the reasons provided below. 3. The original proceeding was convened by the Commission to consider an application by (ENMAX) for disposition of certain 2014 distribution and transmission deferral account balances. The original proceeding included information requests (IRs), IR responses, evidence, argument and reply argument. The close of record for the original proceeding was October 16, 2017, and the Commission issued Decision D on January 12, The CCA submitted its costs claim application on November 16, 2017, within the 30 day timeline permitted by the Commission s rules. The Commission assigned Proceeding and Application A001 to the costs claim application. On November 23, 2017, the CCA submitted a further invoice. 5. No comments were filed with respect to the costs claim application and the Commission considers the close of record for this proceeding to be December 4, 2017, the deadline for filing comments. 1 Proceeding 22089: 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation 2 Decision D : 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation, Proceeding 22089, January 12, Decision D (February 27, 2018) 1

5 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation 2 Commission findings 6. The Commission s authority to award costs for participation in a utility rates proceeding is found in Section 21 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. When considering a claim for costs for a utility rates proceeding, the Commission is also guided by the factors set out in Section 11 of Rule 022: Rules on Costs in Utility Rate Proceedings (Rule 022). These factors include, among other things, whether eligible participants costs claims are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the original proceeding, and whether the participants acted responsibly and contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission. Appendix A of Rule 022 prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to all costs claimed. 2.1 Consumers Coalition of Alberta 7. The following table summarizes the CCA s costs claim: Claimant CCA Hours Preparation Attendance Argument Fees Disbursements GST Wachowich & Company $7, $0.00 $ $7, Regulatory Services Inc $3, $0.00 $ $3, Bema Enterprises Ltd $73, $0.00 $3, $77, $84, $0.00 $4, $89, The Commission finds that the CCA acted responsibly in the original proceeding and contributed to a better understanding of the relevant issues in the proceeding. Wachowich & Company 9. The CCA was represented by Wachowich & Company in the original proceeding. The fees claimed by the CCA for the legal services provided by Mr. James Wachowich relate to reviewing the application, reviewing draft IRs, reviewing IR responses, reviewing draft evidence and reviewing draft argument and reply argument. 10. The Commission finds that the services performed by Wachowich & Company were directly and necessarily related to the CCA s participation in the original proceeding, and that the fees, which were claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs for those services, are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for legal fees for Wachowich & Company in the amount of $7, and GST of $ for a total of $7, Regulatory Services Inc. 11. Regulatory Services Inc. was retained by the CCA to perform consulting services in the original proceeding. The fees claimed by the CCA for the consulting services provided by Mr. Raj Retnanandan and Mr. Jan Thygesen relate to reviewing the application, drafting IRs, reviewing IR responses and reviewing draft evidence. 12. The Commission finds that the services performed by Regulatory Services Inc. were directly and necessarily related to the CCA s participation in the original proceeding, and that the 2 Decision D (February 27, 2018)

6 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation fees, which were claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs for those services, are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for consulting fees for Regulatory Services Inc. in the amount of $3, and GST of $ for a total of $3, Bema Enterprises Ltd. 13. Bema Enterprises Ltd. was retained by the CCA to perform consulting services in the original proceeding. The fees claimed by the CCA for the consulting services provided by Mr. Dan Levson, Mr. Dustin Madsen, Mr. Kris de Palezieux and Ms. Nancy Thomas relate to reviewing the application, drafting IRs, reviewing IR responses, drafting IR responses, drafting evidence, drafting argument and reply argument and reviewing argument from other parties. 14. The Commission finds that the services performed by Bema Enterprises Ltd. were directly and necessarily related to the CCA s participation in the original proceeding, and that the fees, which were claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs for those services, are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for consulting fees for Bema Enterprises Ltd. in the amount of $73, and GST of $3, for a total of $77, amount awarded 15. For the reasons provided above, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for recovery of costs in the total amount of $89, This amount is composed of legal fees of $7,595.00, consulting fees of $77, and GST of $4, Allocation of the CCA s costs 16. The CCA did not propose a method for allocating its costs as between ENMAX (distribution) and ENMAX (transmission), and no submissions were provided by ENMAX on the proposed allocation of costs approved for the CCA. In the original proceeding, much of the CCA s evidence and argument related to matters specific to ENMAX (transmission), while only some of the CCA s participation addressed matters of general application to the transmission and distribution functions of ENMAX. The scope of this proceeding involved 2 years ( ) for ENMAX (transmission), whereas it only included 1 year (2014) for ENMAX (distribution). Moreover, the applied-for transmission true-up totalled $6.459 million whereas the applied-for distribution related amount was $1.540 million. 17. Based on the foregoing, the Commission will not allocate the CCA s costs using a previously-approved methodology based on approved revenue requirements or revenue amounts reported under Rule Rather, the Commission will allocate the CCA s costs based on the applied-for amounts by each of ENMAX (transmission) and ENMAX (distribution) in the original proceeding. Accordingly, 20 per cent of the CCA s costs will be allocated to ENMAX (distribution), and 80 per cent will be allocated to ENMAX (transmission). The allocation of the 3 The Commission s established allocation methodology was recently discussed in Decision D : ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd Pension Application, Proceeding 22655, January 29, Decision D (February 27, 2018) 3

7 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation approved CCA costs to be paid by each of ENMAX (distribution) and ENMAX (transmission) is attached as Appendix A to this decision. 3 Order 18. It is hereby ordered that: 1) (distribution) shall pay intervener costs to the Consumers Coalition of Alberta in the amount of $17, ) (distribution) shall record in its Hearing Cost Reserve Account approved intervener costs in the amount of $17, ) (transmission) shall pay intervener costs to the Consumers Coalition of Alberta in the amount of $71, ) (transmission) shall record in its Hearing Cost Reserve Account approved intervener costs in the amount of $71, Dated on February 27, Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Mark Kolesar Vice-Chair 4 Decision D (February 27, 2018)

8 Alberta Utilities Commission 2014 Distribution and Transmission Deferral Account Reconciliation Proceeding Appendix A CCA Costs Allocation Allocation Percentage Amount payable to the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta (transmission) 80% $71, $71, (distribution) 20% $17, $17, TOTAL PAYABLE 100% $89, $89,034.23