The City of Red Deer

Transcription

1 Decision D Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application Compliance Filing January 29, 2016

2

3 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D : Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application Compliance Filing Proceeding January 29, 2016 Published by Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

4 Contents 1 Introduction Commission s authority to award costs Commission Findings Order... 4 ii Decision D (January 29, 2016)

5 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application Compliance Filing Decision D Proceeding Introduction 1. On September 4, 2015, the City of Red Deer (Red Deer) filed an application (compliance application) with the Alberta Utilities Commission seeking confirmation of its compliance with the directions of the Commission in Decision 3599-D The Commission issued Decision 3599-D in respect of Red Deer s transmission facility owner (TFO) general tariff application (GTA) (Proceeding 3599). Decision 3599-D directed Red Deer to provide a compliance filing within 60 days of its release, and to continue to maintain and reconcile deferral accounts relating to return on equity, direct assign capital, a hearing cost reserve and a self-insurance reserve. 2. The Commission issued a filing announcement and a notice of application on September 8, 2015, to all parties that were registered in Proceeding 3599, which indicated that the deadline for filing a statement of intent to participate (SIP) in respect of the compliance application was September 15, The compliance application was assigned Proceeding On September 14, 2015, the Commission received a SIP from the Consumers Coalition of Alberta (CCA). In its SIP, the CCA stated that it was prepared to file argument and reply without the need for information requests (IRs). No other SIPs were received. 3. The Commission subsequently determined that Proceeding 20802would be handled by way of a minimal written process and outlined process steps in a letter dated September 17, 2015, as follows: Process step Deadline Argument/comments from the CCA September 24, 2015 Reply from Red Deer October 1, No comments were received from the CCA by the September 24, 2015 deadline. In its October 1, 2015 submission, Red Deer stated it had no further comment on its compliance application, in light of the fact that the CCA had not submitted any comments or argument. In correspondence dated October 2, 2015, the CCA confirmed that it did not intend to file argument in Proceeding The Commission considered the record for the compliance application proceeding to have closed on October 2, Decision 3599-D :, Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application, Proceeding 3599, Application , July 7, Decision D (January 29, 2016) 1

6 Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application Compliance Filing 6. On October 23, 2015, the Commission issued Decision D with respect to Red Deer s compliance application. 7. Red Deer submitted a costs claims application to the Commission on October 30, The Commission assigned Proceeding and Application A001 to the costs claims application. 8. The Commission circulated a summary of costs claimed to interested parties on November 5, 2015, and requested comments regarding the figures listed in the summary, or on the merits of the costs claimed, by November 18, No comments were received. 9. The Commission considers the close of record for this costs claim proceeding to be November 18, Commission s authority to award costs 10. When assessing costs claims pursuant to Section 21 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c. A-37.2, the Commission applies AUC Rule 022: Rules on Intervener Costs in Utility Rate Proceedings (AUC Rule 022). Appendix A of AUC Rule 022 also prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to all costs claimed. 11. In exercising its discretion to award costs, the Commission will, in accordance with Section 11 of AUC Rule 022, 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. 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. 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 party s contribution. 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 Red Deer submitted a costs claim for recovery of costs paid in the total amount of $10, to Chymko Consulting Ltd., comprising fees of $10, The claim did not include amounts attributable to either disbursements or GST. 14. The claim for Chymko Consulting Ltd. relates to 65.0 hours of consulting services performed by Mr. Nigel Chymko, Mr. Michael Turner, and Ms. Ashley VanDamme. The hours claimed for Mr. Chymko relate to 3.0 hours for review of Decision 3599-D and compliance materials, and 0.75 hours for drafting the argument. The hours claimed for Mr. Turner relate to hours for review of directions for the compliance filing, researching 2 Decision D :, Compliance Filing to Decision 3599-D , Proceeding 20802, Application A001, October 23, Decision D (January 29, 2016)

7 Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application Compliance Filing vacancy rates, review of draft compliance application materials, and 1.75 hours for preparation of the argument. The hours for Ms. Van Damme relate to 43.5 hours for review of Decision 3599-D and preparation of the compliance application, and 0.50 hours for preparation of the argument. 15. The Commission notes from its review of the time sheet submitted by Chymko Consulting Ltd. that amounts have been claimed in respect of work performed by all consultants in connection with the preliminary preparation of argument. As noted earlier in this decision, Red Deer ultimately elected not to file argument in light of the CCA s final decision to do likewise. The Commission considers that these costs were nonetheless reasonably incurred at the time the work was performed and will exercise its general discretion with regard to costs to permit the recovery of these costs in the circumstances. 16. The Commission has assessed the costs claim in respect of services provided by Chymko Consulting Ltd. and finds that the hours incurred are reasonable given the tasks described in the costs application. The costs have been claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs, with the exception of those claimed in respect of Ms. VanDamme s services. Submitted supporting documentation indicates that Ms.VanDamme provided consulting services at an hourly rate of $ The Commission s Scale of Costs currently permits recovery of costs for a consultant with one to four years of experience to a maximum of $ per hour. 17. Consequently, amounts associated with Ms. VanDamme s fees have been adjusted to bring them into conformity with the Scale of Costs. This adjustment decreases the original amount claimed by $ and results in a new total of $9, in fees for services provided by Chymko Consulting. 18. Accordingly, the Commission approves the recovery of Red Deer s costs claim in the total amount of $9,702.50, which is comprised solely of consulting fees. Decision D (January 29, 2016) 3

8 Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application Compliance Filing 4 Order 19. It is hereby ordered that: 1) shall pay external costs in the amount of $9, ) shall record the approved costs in its Hearing Costs Reserve account in the amount of $9, Dated on January 29, Alberta Utilities Commission (Original signed by) Mark Kolesar Vice-Chair (Original Signed by) Anne Michaud Commission Member (Original Signed by) Bill Lyttle Commission Member 4 Decision D (January 29, 2016)