Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and … · 2018. 2. 23. · Alberta...

Decision 2013-463

Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power Corporation Foothills Area Transmission Development Costs Award December 20, 2013

The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 2013-463: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power Corporation Foothills Area Transmission Development - Costs Award Application No. 1609650, 1609728, 1609729, 1609757, 1609760, 1609830, 1609831, 1609832 Proceeding ID No. 2642 December 20, 2013 Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: 403-592-8845 Fax: 403-592-4406 Web site: www.auc.ab.ca

AUC Decision 2013-463 (December 20, 2013) • i

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2 Qualifications for local intervener costs.............................................................................. 3

3 Assessment of Costs Claims ................................................................................................. 3

4 Costs Claims .......................................................................................................................... 4

5 Common issues ...................................................................................................................... 5

6 Commission findings ............................................................................................................. 6 6.1 Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta ......................................................................................... 6 6.2 Ron and Laurie Conner .................................................................................................. 6 6.3 Bow Vista Farms Ltd. .................................................................................................... 7 6.4 Bow River Crossing Group ............................................................................................ 8 6.5 Abdul and Moe Hage ..................................................................................................... 8 6.6 The Randle Group .......................................................................................................... 9 6.7 Richard and Reece Pearson ............................................................................................ 9 6.8 Mattson Group ............................................................................................................. 10 6.9 1297833 Alberta Inc.; Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael Meier .............................. 11 6.10 Committee for East Route Conservation (CERC) ....................................................... 11 6.11 McLaren and Carlson Group ........................................................................................ 13 6.12 Louson Investments Ltd. and Gleneagles Investments Ltd. ........................................ 14 6.13 Phyllis Robertson ......................................................................................................... 15 6.14 The Diagonal Group ..................................................................................................... 17 6.15 Forster Family Trust ..................................................................................................... 19

7 GST ....................................................................................................................................... 20

8 Order .................................................................................................................................... 20

AUC Decision 2013-463 (December 20, 2013) • 1

The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Alberta Electric System Operator, Decision 2013-463 AltaLink Management Ltd. and Applications No. 1609650, No. 1609728, No.1609729, ENMAX Power Corporation No. 1609757, No. 1609760, No. 1609830, Foothills Area Transmission Development No. 1609831, No. 1609832 Costs Award Proceeding ID No. 2642

1 Introduction

1. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) filed an application with the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) on July 5, 2012, for the approval of a needs identification document (NID) to expand the transmission system in the vicinities of southeast Calgary, Okotoks and High River. The NID application was registered as Application No. 1608620 and referred to in this decision as the Foothills Area Transmission Development NID.

2. AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) filed three facility applications on July 12, 2012, requesting approval to construct and operate various transmission facilities to meet part of the need described in the AESO’s Foothills Area Transmission Development NID application. The applications were registered as Application No. 1608642, No. 1608643, and No. 1608637. ENMAX Power Corporation (ENMAX) also filed one facility application on July 13, 2012, requesting approval to alter and operate some of its existing substations to meet the remainder of the need described in the AESO’s Foothills Area Transmission Development NID application. The application was registered as Application No. 1608649.

3. The AESO filed a second application with the AUC on September 21, 2012, for the approval to amend the Southern Alberta Transmission Reinforcement (SATR) NID approval, which involves the re-termination of a proposed line to a new Windy Flats 138S substation from the existing Peigan 59S substation in the area southwest of Fort Mcleod. This application was registered as Application No. 1608846 and is referred to in this decision as the SATR NID amendment.

4. AltaLink subsequently filed two facility applications on September 25, 2012, requesting approval to construct and operate various transmission facilities to meet the need described in the AESO’s SATR NID amendment. These applications were registered as Applications No.1608861 and No. 1608862.

5. These eight applications (Foothills Area Transmission Development applications) were considered jointly by the Commission and designated as the Foothills Area Transmission Development Proceeding ID No. 2001.

6. A process meeting was held on November 26, 2012, at the Heritage Inn Hotel & Convention Centre in High River. The goal of the process meeting was to establish a schedule and process to fairly and effectively consider the Foothills Area Transmission Development applications.

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

2 • AUC Decision 2013-463 (December 20, 2013)

8. The Commission issued Decision 2012-3601 with respect to the process meeting. In that decision, the Commission listed the issues it considered to be relevant to the proceeding, ruled on standing, and set a schedule and process for the Foothills Area Transmission Development applications. The Commission received requests for interim and advance funding from the Stenbeck Group, the Committee for East Route Conservation (CERC), the Mattson Group and the McLaren and Carlson Group. The requests stated that advance funding was needed in order to effectively participate in the hearing. In Decision 2013-087,2 issued March 12, 2013, the Commission awarded the following local interveners with advance funding:

$27,007.50 to the Mattson Group; payment made to Carscallen LLP.

$91,812.60 to CERC; payment made to Ackroyd LLP.

$51,180.00 to the Stenbeck Group; payment made to the Stenbeck Law Office.

$13,394.85 to McLaren and Carlson Group; payment made to Peacock Linder & Halt LLP.

9. The hearing commenced on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at the Heritage Inn Hotel & Convention Centre in High River and concluded on May 30, 2013 at the Commission’s hearing room in Calgary.

10. The close of record for Proceeding ID No. 2001 was July 12, 2013.

11. On July 16, 2013, the Commission issued a letter to interested parties informing them of the date of the close of the record and that local intervener costs claims must be filed in accordance with AUC Rule 009: Rules on Local Intervener Costs (Rule 009). The letter further stated that local intervener costs claims were due on August 12, 2013 and that comments from the applicants on the costs claims were due by August 26, 2013 and replies by September 9, 2013. The interested parties were to file their local intervener costs claims in this proceeding, Proceeding ID No. 2642 which was established for local intervener costs claims in relation to the Foothills Area Transmission Development applications. The costs claims were filed on the dates set out below. On August 26, 2013, AltaLink and the AESO filed comments regarding the costs claims. Reply comments were received from the McLaren and Carlson Group, 1297833 Alberta Inc.; Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael Meier, CERC, Phyllis Robertson, the Diagonal Group and the Mattson Group. The close of record for this proceeding was September 27, 2013.

12. On October 7, 2013, the Commission issued Decision 2013-3693 with respect to the Foothills Area Transmission Development Proceeding ID No. 2001.

1 Decision 2012-360: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd., ENMAX Power Corporation, Foothills Area Transmission Development – Process Meeting Decision, Applications No. 1608620, No. 1608642, No. 1608637, No. 1608643, No. 1608649, No. 1608846, No. 1608861 and No. 1608862, Proceeding ID No. 2001, December 24, 2012. 2 Decision 2013-087: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power

Corporation, Foothills Area Transmission Development Advance Funding, Application Nos. 1609288, 1609297, 1609305, 1609355, Proceeding ID No. 2427, March 12, 2013.

3 Decision 2013-369: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power Corporation Foothills Area Transmission Development, Application Nos. 1608620, 1608642, 1608637, 1608643, 1608649, 1608846, 1608861, 1608862, Proceeding ID No. 2001, Release: October 7, 2013.



2 Qualifications for 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 interests 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 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.

14. Rule 009, which relates to local interveners’ costs claims, describes the process for applying for an award of costs and lists factors that the Commission may consider when deciding on a local intervener’s costs claim. Rule 009 also prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to local intervener costs claims.

15. In Decision 2012-360, the Commission granted standing to persons that own or reside on property that is within 800 metres of a transmission facility (transmission line or substation)

proposed in the facility applications filed by AltaLink and ENMAX, subject to there not being any objections to that standing from another party. The Commission finds that persons that own or reside on property located within 800 metres of the transmission facility are local interveners, who qualify for intervener funding under the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, subject to any objections from another party. The persons or groups who have filed costs claims are amongst those persons that were listed as persons having standing in Schedule B or groups that have standing in Schedule D of Decision 2012-360.

16. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the individuals and intervener groups who have submitted costs claims qualify to claim local intervener costs.

3 Assessment of Costs Claims

17. Section 7 of AUC Rule 009 sets out the criteria for awarding costs. It states:

7.1 The Commission may award costs, in accordance with the scale of costs set out in Appendix A, to a local intervener if the Commission is of the opinion that 7.1.1 the costs are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the hearing or other proceeding, and



7.1.2 the local intervener acted responsibly in the hearing or other proceeding and contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission. 7.2 In determining the amount of costs to be awarded to a local intervener, the Commission may consider whether the local intervener did one or more of the following:

7.2.1 asked questions on cross-examination that were unduly repetitive of questions previously asked by another party and answered by that other party’s witness; 7.2.2 made reasonable efforts to ensure that the local intervener’s evidence was not unduly repetitive of evidence presented by another party; 7.2.3made reasonable efforts to cooperate with other parties to reduce the duplication of evidence and questions or to combine the local intervener’s submission with that of similarly interested local interveners; 7.2.4 presented in oral evidence significant new evidence that was available to the local intervener at the time the local intervener filed documentary evidence but which was not filed at that time; 7.2.5 failed to comply with a direction of the Commission, including a direction on the filing of evidence; 7.2.6 submitted evidence and argument on issues that were not relevant to the proceeding; 7.2.7 needed legal or technical assistance to take part in the proceeding; 7.2.8 engaged in conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding or resulted in unnecessary costs; 7.2.9 failed to comply with these rules and AUC Rule 001, Rules of Practice.

4 Costs Claims

18. The Commission received the following costs claims in relation to the Foothills Area Transmission Development proceeding:

Date Intervener June 3, 2013 Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta June 19, 2013 Ron and Laurie Conner June 27, 2013 Bow Vista Farms Ltd. Bow River Crossing Group July 11, 2013 Abdul and Moe Hage July 29, 2013 1297833 Alberta Inc.; Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael Meier August 6, 2013 Committee for East Route Conservation (CERC) August 9, 2013 Randle Group Richard Pearson Mattson Group



McLaren and Carlson Group Louson Investments Ltd. and Gleneagles Investments Ltd. Phyllis Robertson Diagonal Group August 22, 2013 Forster Family Trust

19. The Commission has considered the costs claims in the order that each was filed.

5 Common issues

20. The Commission has reviewed the costs claim of each intervener or intervener group for legal fees, consultants’ fees, honoraria and expenses. It has also considered the costs claimed in light of intervener groups of similar sizes, and taken into account the level of participation and the number of individuals participating in the proceeding.

21. In assessing the legal fees, the Commission considered, in accordance with Section 7.1 of Rule 009, whether the costs were reasonable and directly related to the proceeding. In assessing the reasonableness of the costs, the Commission considered the fees claimed in relation to the issues raised by the intervener or intervener group, the size of the group, the number of experts retained, the use of common experts and the evidence gathered, and the intervener’s or group’s participation in the proceeding.

22. The Commission also reduced any legal fees claimed for meetings held prior to the filing of the applications in this proceeding. Legal services provided prior to the filing of the applications are not directly and necessarily related to the proceeding; consequently the Commission has reduced such fees from the costs claimed.

23. The Commission recognized the participation and contribution of the landowners who attended the public hearing and who provided information with respect to the impacts of the proposed transmission lines on their families and their lands.

24. The Scale of Costs allows for a claim for an attendance honorarium to be made by an intervener in the amount of $50.00 for each half day of attendance at the hearing. Costs claims of interveners who are claiming attendance honorarium in excess of this amount are adjusted in accordance with the Scale of Costs.

25. The Scale of Costs allows for a preparation honorarium of between $300.00 and $2,500.00 to be claimed by interveners for the preparation of a submission, depending on the complexity of the submission, as long as a legal counsel or an expert was not primarily responsible for the preparation of the submission. As a result, some claims for a preparation honorarium were denied.

26. The Scale of Costs allows for a claim of an honorarium of up to $500.00 for the formation of a group, even if the group is represented by legal counsel. In exceptional circumstances when the necessary preparation time is substantial, honoraria in excess of $500 may be claimed. Where two or more parties are responsible for the formation and organization of a group, the honorarium may be divided equally between them.



27. The Scale of Costs allows for a maximum amount of $140.00 per day for accommodation during a public hearing and a maximum allowable claim of $40.00 per day for meals, provided that receipts are filed. The Commission has adjusted all claims that were made in excess of these amounts, or where no receipts were submitted in support of such claims.

6 Commission findings

6.1 Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta

28. Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta submitted a costs claim for their participation in the Foothills Area Transmission Development proceeding totalling $9,200.00. The claim consists of a preparation honorarium in the amount of $7,500.00 and an attendance honorarium of $1,700.00.

29. Randy and Gerry Nauta filed a statement of intent to participate and submissions in relation to the proposed 138 kV transmission line in the proximity of their land located at SW 15-19-28-W4M and NE 10-19-28-W4M. In addition, Randy Nauta asked questions of the AltaLink panel and testified at the hearing. The Commission is aware that Gerry Nauta attended the hearing for several days. Although he was granted standing, Dan Nauta did not participate in the proceeding. Randy and Gerry Nauta refer to Dan Nauta in their submissions as residing on the NE 10-19-28-W4M, but Dan Nauta did not file any submissions.

30. Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta each claimed a preparation honorarium of $2,500.00. Under the Scale of Costs, a preparation honorarium may be awarded to interveners in relation to one intervention in a proceeding if the interveners did not retain legal counsel. However, the Scale of Costs-prescribed rates for preparation honoraria range from $300.00 to $2,500.00. In light of the participation of Randy and Gerry Nauta in the proceeding, it is reasonable to award one preparation honorarium in the amount of $2,000.00.

31. Randy Nauta claimed $500.00, Gerry Nauta claimed $800.00 and Dan Nauta claimed $400.00 in attendance honoraria. The Commission considers that the attendance honoraria claimed by Randy and Gerry Nauta are reasonable and within the Scale of Costs but denies the attendance honorarium claimed by Dan Nauta. Accordingly, the Commission approves the preparation and attendance honoraria in the total amount of $3,300.00.

6.2 Ron and Laurie Conner

32. Peterson & Purvis LLP submitted a costs claim for Ron and Laurie Conner in the amount of $19,489.32. The claim consists of legal fees for Peterson & Purvis LLP in the amount of $17,764.00, disbursements of $197.26 and GST of $898.06. Ron and Laurie Conner are also claiming honoraria in the amount of $225.00 and disbursements of $375.00.

33. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 4.8 hours for David van Moorsel at a rate of $225.00 per hour; preparation time of 19.1 hours , attendance time of 4.0 hours and argument and reply argument of 8.5 hours for Mr. van Moorsel at a rate of $240.00 per hour; and preparation time of 40.0 hours, attendance time of 23.0 hours and argument of 2.0 hours for Christopher McGarvey at a rate of $140.00per hour.

34. Upon review of the submitted claim, calculation errors were noted on Form U2 for the total number of hours claimed, which had to be corrected from 101.4 to 100.3. Mr. van



Moorsel claimed for legal services rendered prior to the filing of the applications. As a result, the Commission denies 6.40 hours claimed at a rate of $240.00 per hour by Mr. van Moorsel. In addition, a review of the invoices shows that Mr. van Moorsel did not participate in the proceeding after December 2012. Mr. McGarvey completed the oral hearing and filed argument and reply. As a result, the legal fees claimed for argument and reply for Mr. van Moorsel are denied and the legal fees claimed are further reduced by 8.5 hours at a rate of $240.00 per hour.

35. The Commission therefore approves legal fees in the total amount of $14,048.00 and GST of $702.4.

36. The Commission denies the disbursement labelled “miscellaneous” because no receipt was provided. As a result, the Commission approves disbursements in the total amount of $108.26 and GST of $5.41.

37. The Commission approves the attendance honoraria in the total amount of $225.00 claimed by Ron and Laurie Conner, because it is in accordance with the Scale of Costs. Mileage in the amount of $375.00 is approved as claimed however the GST claimed is denied because honoraria does not attract GST and GST is included in the 46 cents per kilometer.

6.3 Bow Vista Farms Ltd.

38. Stenbeck Law Office submitted a costs claim on behalf of its client, Bow Vista Farms Ltd. totalling $87,509.25. The claim is comprised of legal fees for Stenbeck Law Office in the amount of $82,657.00, disbursements of $691.93 and GST of $4,160.32.

39. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 142.30 hours, attendance time of 13.60 hours, and argument and reply argument of 73.50 hours for senior counsel Scott Stenbeck at a rate of $350.00 per hour; preparation time of 9.30 hours for junior counsel Bobbi Cammer at a rate of $240.00 per hour; and preparation time of 3.00 hours for paralegal Jacqueline Forbes at a rate of $45.00 per hour.

40. Legal fees were claimed for professional services rendered prior to the filing of the applications. As a result, the Commission denies 30.1 hours claimed by Mr. Stenbeck at a rate of $350.00 per hour. In addition, legal fees for travel time of 5 hours to meet with client or experts are not allowed under the Scale of Costs. Only travel time to attend the hearing may be claimed. As a result, these hours are denied.

41. Furthermore, because Mr. Stenbeck claimed fees to represent one intervener and the application was not complex in nature, there was no need for a junior lawyer to assist him. Therefore, the Commission denies the 9.30 hours claimed for junior counsel, Mr. Cammer, and reduces the legal fees claimed accordingly.

42. Despite the above-noted reductions, the hours claimed for preparation and argument and reply are not reasonable considering the scope of the issues brought forward and the argument and reply filed. As a result, the Commission reduces these legal fees by a further 15 per cent and approves legal fees in the total amount of $57,939.25 and GST of $2,896.96.

43. Disbursements claimed by Mr. Stenbeck have been reduced by $280.00 because no receipts were provided for the accommodations claimed.



44. Accordingly, the Commission approves Bow Vista Farms’ costs claim in the total amount of $61,261.61. The amount of $51,180.00 awarded in advance funding in Decision 2013-087 is deducted from the total amount of costs awarded, resulting in a payment of $10,081.61.

6.4 Bow River Crossing Group

45. The Commission received a costs claim totaling $50,774.44 from Stenbeck Law office on behalf of the Bow River Crossing Group, which is comprised of two interveners . The claim is comprised of legal fees for Scott Stenbeck in the amount of $34,055.00, disbursements of $553.52 and GST of $1,717.50; consulting fees for Cliff Wallis of Cottonwood Consulting Ltd. in the amount $13,635.00, disbursements of $130.92 and GST of $682.50.

46. The legal fees claimed by Mr. Stenbeck consist of preparation time of 42.10 hours, attendance of 12.10 hours and argument and reply of 43.10 hours at a rate of $350.00 per hour.

47. The Commission considers that the legal fees are not reasonable for the following reasons. The main issue brought forward by this group was in relation to the towers to be used for the Bow River crossing and this issue did not warrant the legal fees claimed. Some of the evidence filed was for both Bow Vista Farms Ltd. and the Bow River Crossing Group. The Commission accordingly reduces the legal fees claimed by 30 per cent and awards legal fees in the amount of $23,838.50. Disbursements claimed by Mr. Stenbeck have been reduced because no receipts were provided for meal expenses. As a result, the Commission approves disbursements in the amount of $142.60.

48. The Commission finds that the evidence of Mr. Wallis was of assistance to the Commission in making its decision on the applications and that the fees claimed are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves fees in the amount of $13,635.00 and disbursements of $130.92, which are all in accordance with the Scale of Costs.

49. Because the advance funding provided to Mr. Stenbeck was subtracted from the Bow Vista Farms Ltd. costs claim, the Commission awards the Bow River Crossing Group a total amount of $39,621.45.

6.5 Abdul and Moe Hage

50. The Commission received a costs claim from Rana Law on behalf of Abdul and Moe Hage totaling $11,192.83. The claim is comprised of $10,047.75 for 34.6 hours of legal services, disbursements of $109.70 and GST of $507.87.

51. The legal fees claimed by Julie Tannahill consist of preparation time of 15.65 hours and 8.15 hours of argument and reply argument at a rate of $310.00 per hour; and preparation time of 7.3 hours at a rate of $295.00 per hour; and travel time of 3.5 hours at a rate of $147.50 per hour.

52. The Commission finds that the hours claimed by Rana Law are reasonable for the work undertaken and approves the legal fees as claimed.

53. There is a claim for a miscellaneous expense in the amount of $31.10 which was not supported by any receipt or explanation. Consequently, the miscellaneous expense in the



amount of $31.10 has been rejected and Rana Law’s disbursements in the amount of $78.60 are approved.

54. The Commission approves the claim for fees, disbursements and GST in the total amount of $10,632.67.

6.6 The Randle Group

55. Wilson Laycraft Barristers & Solicitors filed a costs claim totaling $130,323.41 on behalf of its client the Randle Group. The claim is comprised of legal fees for James B. Laycraft and Aimee E. Louie in the amount of $105,607.00, disbursements of $2,001.49 and GST of $5,363.92; consulting fees for Cliff Wallis of Cottonwood Consulting Ltd. in the amount $16,335.00, disbursements of $148.00 and GST of $818.00; and attendance honoraria for Fred Randle of $50.00.

56. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 83.50 hours, attendance time of 71.50 hours and argument and reply argument of 22.30 hours for senior counsel, Mr. Laycraft at a rate of $350.00 per hour; and preparation time of 90.10 hours, attendance time of 22.00 hours, argument and reply argument of 24.00 hours for junior counsel, Ms. Louie at a rate of $320.00 per hour.

57. The Commission has considered the legal fees claimed. The Randle Group is comprised of Fred Randle, the estate of Patricia M. Randle, Frederic E. Randle, Fred Randle Farms Ltd. and Randle Farms Ltd. Fred Randle, the group’s representative, participated in the hearing. The main issue brought forward by this group was in relation to the site of the proposed Foothills 237S substation. The Commission is not satisfied that junior counsel was needed to represent the Randle Group and finds that there was duplication in the legal services provided. For these reasons, the Commission denies the fees claimed for junior counsel and awards legal fees in the amount of $62,055.00.

58. Disbursements claimed by Wilson Laycraft, Barristers and Solicitors have been reduced because no receipts were provided for meal expenses and miscellaneous expenses. As a result, the Commission approves disbursements in the amount of $1,491.49.

59. The evidence of Mr. Wallis was of assistance to the Commission in making its decision on the applications in which Mr. Randle participated and the fees claimed in that regard are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves fees in the amount of $16,335.00, disbursements of $148.00 and GST of $818.00, which are all in accordance with the Scale of Costs.

60. Mr. Randle’s claim for attendance honoraria in the total amount of $50.00 is in accordance with the Scale of Costs and is also approved.

6.7 Richard and Reece Pearson

61. A costs submission was submitted by Wilson Laycraft Barristers & Solicitors on behalf of Reece Pearson and Richard Pearson totalling $6,209.62, consisting of legal fees of $5,862.00, disbursements of $4.30 and GST of $293.32, and intervener attendance honoraria of $50.00.



62. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 10.00 hours and argument and reply argument of 3.00 hours for James B. Laycraft at a rate of $350.00 per hour; and preparation time of 3.90 hours and argument and reply argument of .20 hours for Aimee E. Louie at a rate of $320.00 per hour.

63. Upon review of the costs claim for legal fees, the Commission found that that the need for junior counsel was not demonstrated. Accordingly, the Commission reduces the legal fees to $4,550.00. Disbursements claimed by Wilson Laycraft Barristers & Solicitors are within the Scale of Cost and approved in full.

64. The Commission finds that the claim for attendance honorarium for Richard Pearson is reasonable and within the Scale of Costs.

65. Accordingly, the Commission approves the cost claim submitted on behalf of Richard and Reece Pearson in the total amount of $4,832.02 for legal fees, disbursements, GST and honoraria.

6.8 Mattson Group

66. Carscallen LLP filed a costs claim totalling $102,501.34 on behalf of the Mattson Group, comprised of nine members. The costs claim submitted consists of legal fees for Carscellen LLP in the amount of $95,998.00, disbursements of $1,051.29 and GST of $4,852.05; and intervener honoraria of $600.00.

67. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 53.9 hours, attendance of 41.20 hours, and argument and reply argument of 5.80 hours for senior counsel, Michael B. Niven at a rate of $350.00 per hour; preparation time of 7.70 hours for junior counsel, Nicholas Ramessar at a rate of $200 per hour; preparation time of 196.90 hours, attendance time of 21.40 hours, and argument and reply argument of 29.50 hours for junior counsel Mr. Ramessar at a rate of $235.00 per hour; and preparation time of .60 hours and argument and reply argument of 2.90 hours for junior counsel, Lindsay Grice at a rate of $240.00 per hour.

68. The hours claimed for travel time were not specifically identified. The Commission referred to the statement of invoice which indicated that 33.6 hours of travel time were charged for Mr. Niven and 8.3 hours of travel time were charged for Mr. Ramessar.

69. The Commission finds that, in light of the size of the Mattson Group, the assistance of junior counsel was warranted. However, the total number of hours claimed by various legal counsel for preparation and attendance is 318 hours. Considering the complexity of the issues and that no expert evidence was filed, the Commission finds that this claim is not reasonable. As a result, the legal fees claimed are reduced by 25 per cent.

70. The Commission considered the letter from Carscallen LLP dated September 9, 2013 stating that its travel time should be reduced by $1575.50 and accordingly reduces the legal fees for travel claimed by $1575.50. In addition, travel time was charged for meetings. Because travel time may only be charged for travel to and from the hearing under the Scale of Costs, the Commission further reduces the legal fees by $1,919.00. Accordingly, the Commission approves legal fees of $65,020.63.

71. The disbursements claimed by Carscallen LLP are reasonable and within the Scale of Costs.



72. Tim Mattson, intervener of the Mattson Group, claimed $500.00 for forming the group and an attendance honorarium of $100.00 . The claimed $500.00 for forming a group and the attendance honorarium of $100.00 are in accordance with the Scale of Costs and are approved in full.

73. Carscallen LLP submitted an errata to its costs claim on December 10, 2013. Because this errata was submitted past the submission deadline, the costs for Burgess Environmental Ltd. in the amount of $2,147.80 are denied.

74. Accordingly, the Commission approves the Mattson Group’s total costs claim in the amount of $69,975.10. The amount of $27,007.52 awarded in advance funding in Decision 2013-067 is deducted from the total amount of costs awarded, resulting in a payment of $42,967.58.

6.9 1297833 Alberta Inc.; Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael Meier

75. Miles Davison LLP submitted a cost claim on behalf of its client, 1297833 Alberta Inc. and Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael Meier, totalling $50,230.71. The claim consists of legal fees for Miles Davison LLP in the amount of $47,543.00, disbursements of $295.77 and GST of $2,391.94.

76. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 72.85 hours, attendance time of 21.35 hours, and argument and reply argument time of 41.00 hours for senior counsel, Sean T. Fitzgerald at a rate of $350.00 per hour and argument and reply argument of 3.70 hours for junior counsel, Ashley F. Delaney at a rate of $240.00 per hour.

77. The Commission finds that the hours claimed for the provision of legal services are not reasonable for the following reasons. The fees claimed for junior counsel are denied because legal counsel represented two interveners only. Travel time of 1.20 hours to meet with client is denied because it is not permitted under the Scale of Costs. In addition, given the tasks described, that the issues raised were not complex, and that no experts were called on behalf of the interveners, the Commission further reduces the hours claimed by Mr. Fitzgerald by 50 per cent.

78. The legal fees and disbursements are in accordance with the Scale of Costs. Accordingly, the Commission approves the costs claim in the amount of $23,450.00, disbursements of $295.77 and GST of $1,186.36.

6.10 Committee for East Route Conservation (CERC)

79. Ackroyd LLP submitted a costs claim totaling $271,455.15 for the Committee for East Route Conservation (CERC) which is comprised of 34 interveners who have land interests located in Claresholm. The costs claim is comprised of legal fees for Ackroyd LLP in the amount of $115,121.00, disbursements of $2,506.62 and GST of $5,831.57; consulting fees for Cliff Wallis of Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. in the amount of $18,900.00, disbursements of $309.74 and GST of $946.25; consulting fees for Brown & Associates Planning Group in the amount of $21,397.50, disbursements of $348.41 and GST of $1,074.74; consulting fees for Berrien Associates Ltd. in the amount of $94,346.00, disbursements of $1,122.28 and GST of $4,757.84; and intervener honoraria in the amount of $4,050.00



80. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 171.40 hours, attendance time of 39.40 hours, and argument and reply argument of 102.30 hours at rate of $350.00 per hour and travel time of 26.00 hours at a rate of $175.00 per hour for senior counsel, Richard Secord; preparation time of .20 hours for junior counsel, Sharon Au at a rate of $180.00 per hour; preparation time of 3.40 hours and argument and reply argument time of 2.40 hours for articling student, Ifeoma M. Okoye at a rate of $110.00 per hour; and argument and reply argument time of 1.30 hours for junior counsel, Ian F. McDougall at a rate of $240.00 per hour.

81. The Commission considers that the assistance of junior counsel was warranted because of the size of the intervener group. However, the total hours claimed of 346.40 is not reasonable for the following reasons. Although CERC is comprised of a large number of interveners, the intervention related to a portion of the preferred route only and all the interveners raised the same issues in relation to the application. In addition, the issues were not complex in nature. As a result, the Commission reduces the legal fees claimed by 25 per cent.

82. Receipts for miscellaneous expenses and meals were not provided for some of the disbursements claimed by Ackroyd LLP. Accordingly, the Commission adjusts the claim for disbursements from $2,506.62 to $2,299.41.

83. The Commission approves the claim for legal fees, disbursements and GST in the amount of $93,022.35.

84. Mr. Wallis claimed 54.00 hours for preparation of an expert report on the environmental impacts of the southern portion of the South Foothills Transmission Line application,4 13.75 hours for attendance and 4.50 hours of travel time. The report was of limited assistance to the Commission in making its decision on the environmental impacts of the preferred and the alternate route because it only dealt with a portion of the proposed transmission line. As a result, the Commission reduces the fees claimed by 20 per cent. The disbursements for Cottonwood Consultants are within the Scale of Costs. The Commission approves the consultant fees for Cottonwood Consultants in the amount of $15,241.50, disbursements of $309.74 and GST of $763.33.

85. Brown & Associates Planning Group’s costs consist of 63.50 hours of preparation, 12.00 hours of attendance, and 7.50 hours of travel time for Greg Donaldson. Mr. Donaldson prepared an expert report on the effect of using land use planning considerations in relation to the portion of the preferred route opposed by CERC. Given the scope of the expert opinion, the report was of limited assistance to the Commission in making its decision in this application and as a result, the consulting fees are reduced by 20 per cent. The fees and disbursements claimed are within the Scale of Costs. The Commission approves consultant fees in the amount of $17,320.50, disbursements of $348.41 and GST of $870.89.

86. The costs claimed by Berrien Associates Ltd. consist of 323.40 hours of preparation, 45.20 hours of attendance, and 50.80 hours of administrative support. The consultants fees claimed include hours incurred for the Bow Vista Farms Ltd., Bow River Crossing Group and the Randle Group, as all these groups agreed that these fees are to be claimed in the CERC costs claim. In Decision 2013-087 relating to advance funding, the Commission stated that

4 Exhibit 591.02 in EPS Proceeding ID. 2001, page 1.



“Mr. Berrien’s estimate may be high given the length of the proceeding and the scope and nature of the issues to be addressed.”5

87. The Commission considers that the total consultant hours of 323.40 claimed is not reasonable for the following reasons. The Commission is of the view that some of the tasks performed by Mr. Berrien, such as attendance at an information session, did not need to be conducted by him and were not necessarily related to his area of expertise. In addition, multiple inspections of the proposed routes were not necessary. Further, some sections of the reports were similar to those found in reports filed by Mr. Berrien in previous Commission proceedings6 but were nonetheless claimed. Lastly, Mr. Berrien’s evidence was also of limited assistance to the Commission in making its decision on the applications in question because Mr. Berrien focused on portions of the proposed routes only. Therefore, the Commission reduces Mr. Berrien’s consulting fees by 35 per cent. Accordingly the Commission approves Berrien Associates Ltd. fees of $62,183.50, disbursements of $1,122.28, which are in accordance with the Scale of Costs, and GST of $3,145.22.

88. The Commission received a claim for honoraria in the amount of $1,550.00 and disbursements in the amount of $653.20 for the members of CERC. A claim for $2,500.00 for forming the group was also submitted.

89. The Commission approves the CERC members’ attendance honoraria and disbursements as claimed. However, the Commission awards $500.00 for the formation of a group, which is the amount allowed under the Scale of Costs.

90. Accordingly, the Commission approves CERC’s costs claim in the amount of $197,030.92. The amount of $91,812.60 awarded in advance funding in Decision 2013-087 is deducted from the total costs awarded, resulting in a payment of $105,218.32.

6.11 McLaren and Carlson Group

91. Peacock Linder & Halt LLP submitted a costs claim on behalf of its clients the McLaren and Carlson Group totalling $87,423.88. The McLaren and Carlson Group is comprised of two co-owners of land in the vicinity of one of the proposed transmission lines. The claim is comprised of legal fees for Johanna C. Price and Joyce Bolton in the amount of $69,892.00, disbursements of $814.20 and GST of $3,535.31; and consulting fees for Robert Telford in the amount of $12,285.00, disbursements of $269.64 and GST of $627.73.

5 Decision 2013-087: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ENMAX Power

Corporation, Foothills Area Transmission Development Advance Funding, Application Nos. 1609288, 1609297, 1609305, 1609355, Proceeding ID No. 2427, March 12, 2013, paragraph 24.

6 Exhibit 587.02, EPS Proceeding ID 2001, in which Mr. Berrien stated at page 1 and 5: To facilitate this review we have provided a relatively extensive background section dealing with prior Board decisions that focus on, or otherwise refer to the issues at hand in these applications. It is fair to note that many of these will have been cited in earlier work by us. … We freely acknowledge that portions of the following review of decisions has been utilized in a number of our earlier submissions to the AUC. Nonetheless, the material from those reports that is relevant to this Application will be set forth. Each hearing before the AUC must rely on the evidence provided to it in the context of that specific hearing. Further, panel members may vary. As such, it is appropriate to utilize all the relevant precedents, regardless of the number of times they may have been cited in the past.



92. The legal fees claimed consist of a total of 98.00 hours for senior counsel, Ms. Price at a rate of $350.00 per hour and 148.30 hours for junior counsel, Ms. Bolton at a rate of $240.00 per hour.

93. Two legal counsel were employed in this matter. Further, one intervention for two co-landowners was prepared and one expert was employed. A review of the invoices demonstrated there was duplication of tasks by legal counsel. The Commission considers that the legal fees claimed for junior counsel are not warranted. In addition, legal fees claimed by junior counsel for the preparation of the interim costs claim and final costs claim, were not incurred for the purposes of the proceeding. As a result, the Commission denies the legal fees claimed for junior counsel. The legal fees for Ms. Price are reasonable for the tasks performed and are within the Scale of Costs. Accordingly the Commission approves legal fees in the amount of $34,300.00, disbursements of $814.20 which were in accordance with the Scale of Costs and GST of $1,755.71.

94. Mr. Telford’s claim for 45.50 hours in consulting fees is not reasonable, considering that the expert evidence was of limited assistance to the Commission in making its decision on the application and is reduced by 20 per cent. Because Mr. Telford did not provide receipts for all of his disbursements, they are reduced from $269.64 to $170.20. Accordingly the Commission approves consulting fees in the amount of $9,828.00, which were in accordance with the Scale of Costs, disbursements of $170.20 and GST of $491.40.

95. Accordingly, the Commission approves McLaren and Carlson Group’s costs claim in the amount of $47,359.51. The amount of $13,394.85 awarded in advance funding in Decision 2013-087 is deducted from the total costs awarded, resulting in a payment of $33,964.66.

6.12 Louson Investments Ltd. and Gleneagles Investments Ltd.

96. McLennan Ross LLP submitted a costs claim on behalf of its clients, Louson Investments Ltd and Gleneagles Investments Ltd. totalling $23,608.62. The claim is comprised of legal fees for Gavin S. Fitch and Michael P. Barbero in the amount of $13,677.00, disbursements of $192.75 and GST of $693.49; and professional fees for InterPlan Strategies Inc. in the amount of $8,516.25, disbursements of $98.40 and GST of $430.73.

97. The legal fees claimed consist of 32.40 hours at a rate of $350.00 per hour and .60 hours of travel time at a rate of $175.00 per hour for senior counsel, Mr. Fitch and 9.30 hours for junior counsel, Mr. Barbero at a rate of $240.00 per hour.

98. Two legal counsel were employed in this matter; one intervention for two co-landowners was prepared, and only one expert was employed. Consequently, the legal fees claimed for junior counsel are not warranted in this case and are denied. The legal fees claimed for Mr. Fitch are reasonable for the tasks performed and are within the Scale of Costs.The Commission approves the legal fees in the amount of $11,445.00 and disbursements in the amount of $192.75, which are within the Scale of Costs and GST of $581.89.

99. The consultant costs claimed by InterPlan Strategies on behalf of these interveners consists of 50.00 hours of consulting services. The tasks were performed by a principal and senior planners, however no justification was provided for the need for a principal and senior planners. As a result, and because the expert evidence was of limited assistance to the Commission, the fees claimed are reduced by 20 percent. Accordingly, the Commission approves fees in the amount of $6,813.00 and GST of $340.65. Because receipts were not



provided for parking and a $12.50 miscellaneous charge, the Commission reduces the disbursements for InterPlan Strategies to $77.40.

100. Accordingly, the Commission approves Louson Investments Ltd. and Gleneagles Investments Ltd.’s cost claim in the total amount of $19,454.56.

6.13 Phyllis Robertson

101. McLennan Ross LLP submitted a costs claim on behalf of Phyllis Robertson totalling $147,241.61. The claim consists of legal fees of $60,934.50 for McLennan Ross LLP, disbursements of $495.17 and GST of $3,071.49; consultant fees for InterPlan Strategies Inc. in the amount of $6,756.25, disbursements of $89.40 and GST of $342.29; and consultant fees for Grid Power Development and Design Inc. in the amount of $71,717.39, disbursements of $237.38 and GST of $3,597.74. An honorarium is claimed in the amount of $550.00 for Phyllis Robertson.

102. The legal fees claimed consist of preparation time of 114.30 hours at a rate of $350.00 per hour and travel time of 5.70 hours at a rate of $175.00 per hour for senior counsel, Gavin S. Fitch; and preparation time of 82.70 hours at a rate of $240.00 per hour and travel time of .70 hours at a rate of $120.00 per hour for junior counsel, Michael P. Barbero.

103. Two legal counsel were employed in this matter; yet the retainer was on behalf of one landowner. As a result the legal fees claimed for junior counsel are not warranted and are consequently denied.

104. Further, because the invoices show that 3.3 hours of senior counsel were incurred prior to the filing of the applications, the fees claimed were reduced by 3.3 hours. The fees claimed for Mr. Fitch are otherwise reasonable for the tasks performed and are within the Scale of Costs.The Commission approves the legal fees in the amount of $39,847.50 and disbursements in the amount of $495.17 which are within the Scale of Costs, and GST of $2,017.14.

105. The costs claimed by InterPlan Strategies on behalf of Phyllis Robertson consist of 40.50 hours of consulting services. The tasks were performed by a principal and senior planners, however no justification was provided for the need for a principal and senior planners. Further, the expert evidence did not assist the Commission in gaining a better understanding of the issues. As a result, the Commission reduces the fees claimed by 20 per cent. Accordingly, the Commission approves fees in the amount of $5,405.00 and GST of $270.25. Because receipts were not provided for parking, the Commission reduces the disbursements for InterPlan Strategies to $80.90.

106. The claim of Grid Power Development and Design Inc. consists of a total of 265.62 hours for Trevor Cline on behalf of Mrs. Robertson. The fees claimed are in accordance with the Scale of Costs. The Commission considers that the hours claimed are not reasonable for the following reasons. The expert evidence was of limited assistance to the Commission because Mr. Cline did not have expertise in some areas in which he provided opinion evidence. This view is supported by the following statements in Decision 2013-369:7


Corporation, Foothills Area Transmission Development, Application Nos. 1608620, 1608642, 1608637, 1608643, 1608649, 1608846, 1608861, 1608862, Proceeding ID No. 2001, October 7, 2013.



210. Mr. Cline has previously testified before the Commission. In Decision 2012-303, the Commission recently ruled on Mr. Cline’s qualifications as a routing expert and the weight to which his evidence on various subjects would be accorded.

With respect to Mr. Cline, the Commission recognizes that while there may be deficiencies in Mr. Cline’s qualifications with respect to the siting of transmission lines, those deficiencies go to the weight to be accorded to his expert opinions.

The Commission notes that much of the evidence given by Mr. Cline, which will be more fully discussed in the relevant sections below, went to issues that he had no qualifications upon which to rely in giving opinion evidence. Issues such as the impacts of transmission lines on agricultural operations, the impact of transmission lines on property values, and, as discussed above, the environmental impacts of transmission lines and the relevance of environmentally sensitive areas in the siting process are all areas where Mr. Cline strayed in giving opinion evidence. The Commission finds, as a general statement, the evidence provided by Mr. Cline in areas where he was clearly not qualified to opine, will be given the weight of a lay witness rather than the weight of a properly qualified expert in these areas. Where that evidence diverges from the evidence of a properly qualified expert witness, the evidence of the qualified expert witness will be preferred.

211. The evidence before the Commission in this proceeding was that Mr. Cline has not acquired any further expertise or qualifications in the above-mentioned areas.

212. Having regard to the foregoing, the Commission accepts that Mr. Cline has expertise in transmission planning. The Commission notes that Mr. Cline was not qualified as a routing or siting expert, nor was he qualified to give opinion evidence on the impacts of transmission lines on residences, agriculture or the environment. Accordingly, in this hearing the Commission has accorded Mr. Cline’s evidence on topics outside of his area of expertise with the same weight that it would accord to a lay witness. … 237. The Commission prefers the AESO’s cost evidence over that provided by Grid Power. As noted earlier, the Commission is not satisfied that Mr. Cline possesses the necessary skills, knowledge or experience to provide expert opinion evidence on the costs associated with transmission upgrades. Regardless of the Commission’s concerns about the Grid Power estimates, it appears to the Commission that Grid Power’s 911L at 138-kV proposal would have a lower cost than the AESO’s 138-kV alternative. However, due to the wide range of uncertainty of these cost estimates (-40/+80%), the magnitude of potential cost benefits associated with Grid Power’s proposal is not certain.



107. Further, the Commission considered that Mr. Cline also claimed consultant fees for the Diagonal Group and that there was overlap between the services provided to Mrs. Robertson and to the Diagonal Group in relation to the applications in this proceeding. As a result, the Commission reduces Mr. Cline’s consultant fees by 60 per cent. Accordingly, the Commission approves fees in the amount of $28,686.96 and GST of $1,434.35.

108. The disbursements claimed for Grid Power Development and Design Inc. are reasonable and within the Scale of Costs and are accordingly approved in the amount of $237.38 and GST of $11.87.

109. The claim for attendance honoraria of $550.00 for 11 days made by Phyllis Robertson is reasonable and is granted as claimed.

6.14 The Diagonal Group

110. McLennan Ross LLP submitted a costs claim on behalf of the Diagonal Group, which is comprised of 14 interveners. The claim consists of legal fees for McLennan Ross LLP in the amount of $95,173.000, disbursements of $2,501.81 and GST of $4,883.75; and professional fees of $149,880.59 for Grid Power Development and Design Inc., disbursements of $237.39 and GST of $7,505.90. 111. Members of the Diagonal Group submitted a claim for attendance honoraria in the amount of $600.00. 112. The legal costs claimed consists of preparation time of 217.50 hours at a rate of $350.00 per hour and 7.70 hours of travel at a rate of $175.00 per hour for senior counsel, Gavin S. Fitch; preparation time of 72.50 hours at a rate of $240.00 and .80 hours of travel at a rate of $120.00 for junior counsel, Michael P. Barbero; preparation time of .40 hours at a rate of $320.00 per hour for junior counsel, Evan W. Dixon; and 1.70 hours of preparation at a rate of $45.00 per hour for paralegal work.

113. Considering the size of the Diagonal Group, employing a junior counsel for the Diagonal Group was reasonable. The Commission has reduced 3.9 hours from the hours claimed by Mr. Fitch because these legal services were provided prior to the filing of the applications. In determining that the hours claimed, reduced by 3.9 hours, are reasonable, the Commission considered that the Diagonal Group participated in the FATD NID application and related facility applications. Accordingly, the Commission approves legal fees in the amount of $93,808.00, and GST in the amount of $4,690.40. The Commission finds that the disbursements were reasonable and in accordance with the Scale of Costs and approves disbursements in the amount of $2,501.81.

114. The costs claim filed for consultant fees of $149,880.59 for Grid Power Development and Design Inc. is for 555.11 hours. The tasks were performed by Trevor Cline for the Diagonal Group. The Commission considers that the hours are excessive considering that Mr. Cline’s evidence was of very limited assistance to the Commission because he gave opinion evidence in areas in which he is not qualified as an expert as stated in paragraphs 210, 211, 212 , and 237 of Decision 2013-369 which are set out above. In addition, the Commission stated the following regarding Mr. Cline’s evidence for the Diagonal Group:



218. The Diagonal group emphasized that one of the significant benefits associated with the Fidler to Langdon alternative was its substantial associated cost savings ($389 million) when compared to the AESO alternative. The Commission notes that approximately 88 per cent, or $342 million, of these cost savings are directly attributable to the cancellation of the Chapel Rock (Crowsnest) project approved in the SATR NID. For the reasons provided above, the Commission is of the view that a decision by it to eliminate the need for the Chapel Rock project would be a de facto variance of the SATR NID approval. Accordingly, the Commission does not consider it reasonable or appropriate to take into account the avoided costs of the Chapel Rock project, when assessing the economic impacts associated with the Fidler to Langdon alternative. 219. The remaining cost savings associated with the Fidler to Langdon alternative relate to Grid Power’s estimated project costs. In the Commission’s view, the project costs estimated by Grid Power are less reliable than those provided by the AESO, for two reasons. 220. First, the AESO’s cost estimate for the FATD was derived from information provided by AltaLink, the transmission facility owner, which has considerable experience in siting and costing transmission lines in the project area. By way of contrast, Mr. Cline was not qualified as a routing expert in the proceeding and the Commission is not convinced, based on his evidence, that he had the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to offer a credible opinion on the high-level costs of the Fidler to Langdon alternative. For example, Mr. Cline speculated in his evidence that it would be cheaper to build through the Porcupine Hills than across the southern prairies based on a study that AltaLink completed for a project in northern Alberta. AltaLink responded to Mr. Cline’s claims and pointed out that not only had Mr. Cline significantly underestimated the cost of the structures, he failed to take into account the fact that conditions considered in the AltaLink study were considerably different from the conditions in the Porcupine Hills. Specifically, AltaLink observed that because of increased wind and ice loading in the southern Foothills area, it would be necessary to use almost twice as many structures than would be required in the study area in northern Alberta.

221. The second and related concern for the Commission is that Grid Power did not reasonably account for the challenges associated with routing a transmission line across the terrain proposed in its alternative or the additional costs associated with addressing such challenges. The Commission notes in this respect Grid Power’s application of the per kilometre average line cost of the south Foothills project to the Fidler termination on the Fidler to Langdon alternative. As noted by AltaLink, the terrain associated with the south Foothills project is flat prairie whereas the proposed Fidler to Langdon alternative would traverse the more complex terrain of the Porcupine Hills.



… 224. The Commission gives the evidence on environmental impacts from the Stantec expert witnesses considerably more weight than that provided by Mr. Cline. The Commission found their evidence with respect to the environmental effects to be credible, well-informed and premised on their considerable experience in the area. As noted previously, Mr. Cline was not qualified to give expert evidence relating to environmental impacts. 225. The Commission finds that routing through the eastern Porcupine Hills presents more environmental challenges than the south Foothills line route on flat prairie and is convinced by the expert opinion of Dr. Gahbauer and Dr. Power that the combination of the gradient, climate and concentration of rough fescue grassland along the Fidler to Langdon alternative would lead to a high level of environmental disturbance.8

115. For the reasons set out above, the Commission reduces the consultant fees claimed by 60 per cent and approves the fees for Grid Power Development and Design Inc. in the amount of $59,952.24, GST of $3,009.49 and disbursements of $237.39 which were reasonable and within the Scale of Cost.

116. The Commission finds the claim for attendance honoraria by members of the Diagonal Group reasonable and within the Scale of Costs. Accordingly, the Commission approves the Diagonal Group’s attendance honoraria costs claim in the amount of $600.00.

117. The Commission approves the Diagonal Group’s costs claim in the total amount of $164,924.42.

6.15 Forster Family Trust

118. Monte S. Forster Barristers & Solicitors submitted a cost claim on behalf of the Forster Family Trust totalling $4,250.00. The claim consists of legal fees for Neil Patterson in the amount of $4,250.00.

119. The legal costs claimed consist of preparation time of 7.50 hours and attendance time of 9.50 hours for Mr. Patterson. The fees claimed are in accordance with the Scale of Costs.

120. The Commission considers the legal fees reasonable and approves these fees as claimed in the amount of $4,250.00.


Corporation, Foothills Area Transmission Development, Application Nos. 1608620, 1608642, 1608637, 1608643, 1608649, 1608846, 1608861, 1608862, Proceeding ID No. 2001, October 7, 2013



7 GST

121. In accordance with the Commission’s treatment of GST on costs awards, AltaLink is required to pay only that portion of the GST paid by interveners that may not be recoverable through the GST credit mechanism. The Commission emphasizes that its treatment of the GST claimed in no way relieves interveners or their lawyers and consultants from their GST obligations pursuant to the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.

8 Order

122. It is hereby ordered that:

(1) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta in the amount of $3,300.00.

(2) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Ron and Laurie Conner

in the amount of $15,464.07. Payment shall be made to Peterson & Purvis LLP, Attention: David van Moorsel at 537 – 7th Street South, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 2G3.

(3) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Bow Vista Farms in the

amount of $10,081.61. Payment shall be made to 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 intervener costs to Bow River Crossing

Group in the amount of $39,621.45. Payment shall be made to Stenbeck Law Office, Attention: Scott C. Stenbeck at Suite 204, 1741 Dunmore Road SE, Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 1Z8.

(5) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Abdul and Moe Hage in

the amount of $10,632.67. Payment shall be made to Rana Law, Attention: Julie Tannahill at Suite 102, 620 – 12th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2R 0H5.

(6) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to the Randle Group in the

amount of $84,122.06. Payment shall be made to Wilson Laycraft Barristers & Solicitors, Attention: James B Laycraft at Suite 1601, 333 – 11th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2R 1L9.

(7) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Richard and Reece

Pearson in the amount of $4,832.02. Payment shall be made to Wilson Laycraft Barristers & Solicitors Attention: James B. Laycraft at Suite 1601, 333 – 11th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2R 1L9.

(8) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to the Mattson Group in the

amount of $42,967.58. Payment shall be made to Carscallen LLP, Attention: Michael Niven at 1500, 407 – 2nd Street SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 2Y3.



(9) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to 1297833 Alberta Inc.; Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael Meier in the amount of $24,932.13. Payment shall be made to Miles Davison LLP, Attention: Sean T. FitzGerald at Bow Valley Square II, 205 – 5 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 2V7.

(10) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to the Committee for East

Route Conservation (CERC) in the amount of $105,218.32. Payment shall be made to Ackroyd LLP, Attention: Richard Secord at 1500 First Edmonton Place, 10665 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3S9.

(11) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to the McLaren and Carlson

Group in the amount of $33,964.66. Payment shall be made to Peacock Linder & Halt LLP Attention: Johanna C. Price at Suite 850, 400 – 3 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 4H2.

(12) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Louson Investments Ltd.

and Gleneagles Investments Ltd. in the amount of $19,454.75. Payment shall be made to McLennan Ross LLP, Attention: Gavin Fitch at 1600 Stock Exchange Tower, 300 – 5th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3C4.

(13) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to Phyllis Robertson in the

amount of $79,040.57. Payment shall be made to McLennan Ross LLP, Attention: Gavin Fitch at 1600 Stock Exchange Tower, 300 – 5th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3C4.

(14) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to the Diagonal Group in

the amount of $164,924.42. Payment shall be made to McLennan Ross LLP, Attention: Gavin Fitch at 1600 Stock Exchange Tower, 300 – 5th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3C4.

(15) AltaLink Management Ltd. shall pay intervener costs to the Forster Family Trust

in the amount of $4,250.00. Payment shall be made to Monte S. Forster Barristers & Solicitors, Attention: Monte S. Forster at Suite 700, 1300 – 8th Street SW, Calgary, Alberta T2R 1B6.

Dated on December 20, 2013. The Alberta Utilities Commission (Original signed by) Anne Michaud Panel Chair



(Original signed by) Neil Jamieson Commission Member (Original signed by) Patrick Brennan Acting Commission Member

AUC Alberta Electric System OperatorAltaLink Management Ltd.

ENMAX Power CorporationCost Proceeding ID No. 2642

Foothills Area Transmission Development - Costs Award

Total Costs Claimed/Awarded

Total Fees Claimed

(a)

Total Expenses Claimed

(b)

Total GST Claimed

(c)

Total Amount Claimed

(d)

Total Fees Awarded

(e)

Total Expenses Awarded

(f)

Total GST Awarded

(g)

Total Amount Awarded

(h)

Advance/InterimAmountsAwarded

(i)

Total AmountAwarded

(j)APPLICANT

Alberta Electric System OperatorNo Applicant Costs $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 AltaLink Management Ltd.

No Applicant Costs $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

ENMAX Power CorporationNo Applicant Costs $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 INTERVENER

Randy, Gerry and Dan Nauta$9,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,200.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $3,300.00

Sub-Total $9,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,200.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $3,300.00 Ron and Laurie Conner

Peterson & Purvis LLP $17,764.00 $197.26 $898.06 $18,859.32 $14,048.00 $108.26 $707.81 $14,864.07 $0.00 $14,864.07 Ron & Laurie Conner $225.00 $375.00 $30.00 $630.00 $225.00 $375.00 $0.00 $600.00 $0.00 $600.00

Sub-Total $17,989.00 $572.26 $928.06 $19,489.32 $14,273.00 $483.26 $707.81 $15,464.07 $0.00 $15,464.07 Bow Vista Farms Ltd.

Scott C. Stenbeck $82,657.00 $691.93 $4,160.32 $87,509.25 $57,939.25 $411.93 $2,910.43 $61,261.61 $51,180.00 $10,081.61 Sub-Total $82,657.00 $691.93 $4,160.32 $87,509.25 $57,939.25 $411.93 $2,910.43 $61,261.61 $51,180.00 $10,081.61

Bow River Crossing GroupScott C. Stenbeck $34,055.00 $553.52 $1,717.50 $36,326.02 $23,838.50 $142.60 $1,191.93 $25,173.03 $0.00 $25,173.03

Cliff Wallis, Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. - Expert $13,635.00 $130.92 $682.50 $14,448.42 $13,635.00 $130.92 $682.50 $14,448.42 $0.00 $14,448.42 Sub-Total $47,690.00 $684.44 $2,400.00 $50,774.44 $37,473.50 $273.52 $1,874.43 $39,621.45 $0.00 $39,621.45

Abdul and Moe HageRana Law $10,047.75 $109.70 $507.87 $10,665.32 $10,047.75 $78.60 $506.32 $10,632.67 $0.00 $10,632.67 Sub-Total $10,047.75 $109.70 $507.87 $10,665.32 $10,047.75 $78.60 $506.32 $10,632.67 $0.00 $10,632.67

1





Total Fees Claimed

(a)


(b)

Total GST Claimed

(c)


(d)

Total Fees Awarded

(e)


(f)

Total GST Awarded

(g)


(h)


(i)

Total AmountAwarded

(j)The Randle Group

James B. Laycraft $62,055.00 $1,956.49 $3,184.07 $67,195.56 $62,055.00 $1,491.49 $3,177.32 $66,723.81 $0.00 $66,723.81 Aimee E. Louie $43,552.00 $45.00 $2,179.85 $45,776.85 $0.00 $45.00 $2.25 $47.25 $0.00 $47.25

Cliff Wallis, Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. - Expert $16,335.00 $148.00 $818.00 $17,301.00 $16,335.00 $148.00 $818.00 $17,301.00 $0.00 $17,301.00 Fred Randle $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00

Sub-Total $121,992.00 $2,149.49 $6,181.92 $130,323.41 $78,440.00 $1,684.49 $3,997.57 $84,122.06 $0.00 $84,122.06 Richard and Reece Pearson

James B. Laycraft $4,550.00 $4.30 $227.72 $4,782.02 $4,550.00 $4.30 $227.72 $4,782.02 $0.00 $4,782.02 Aimee E. Louie $1,312.00 $0.00 $65.60 $1,377.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Richard Pearson $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 Sub-Total $5,912.00 $4.30 $293.32 $6,209.62 $4,600.00 $4.30 $227.72 $4,832.02 $0.00 $4,832.02

Mattson GroupCarscallen LLP $95,998.00 $1,051.29 $4,852.05 $101,901.34 $65,020.63 $1,051.29 $3,303.18 $69,375.10 $27,007.52 $42,367.58

Tim Mattson/Mattson Group $600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $600.00 $600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $600.00 $0.00 $600.00 Sub-Total $96,598.00 $1,051.29 $4,852.05 $102,501.34 $65,620.63 $1,051.29 $3,303.18 $69,975.10 $27,007.52 $42,967.58

1297833 Alberta Inc.; Daniel, Julie, Deborah and Michael MeierMiles Davison LLP $47,543.00 $295.77 $2,391.94 $50,230.71 $23,450.00 $295.77 $1,186.36 $24,932.13 $0.00 $24,932.13

Sub-Total $47,543.00 $295.77 $2,391.94 $50,230.71 $23,450.00 $295.77 $1,186.36 $24,932.13 $0.00 $24,932.13 Committee for East Route Conservation (CERC)

Ackroyd LLP $115,121.00 $2,506.62 $5,831.57 $123,459.19 $86,340.75 $2,299.41 $4,382.19 $93,022.35 $91,812.60 $1,209.75 Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. $18,900.00 $309.74 $946.25 $20,155.99 $15,241.50 $309.74 $763.33 $16,314.57 $0.00 $16,314.57

Brown & Associates Planning Group $21,397.50 $348.41 $1,074.74 $22,820.65 $17,320.50 $348.41 $870.89 $18,539.80 $0.00 $18,539.80 Berrien Associates Ltd. $94,436.00 $1,122.28 $4,757.84 $100,316.12 $62,183.50 $1,122.28 $3,145.22 $66,451.00 $0.00 $66,451.00

Jeanne Burnham $2,750.00 $65.32 $0.00 $2,815.32 $750.00 $65.32 $0.00 $815.32 $0.00 $815.32 Wayne Burnham $200.00 $130.64 $0.00 $330.64 $200.00 $130.64 $0.00 $330.64 $0.00 $330.64

Art Fisher $100.00 $65.32 $0.00 $165.32 $100.00 $65.32 $0.00 $165.32 $0.00 $165.32 Pat Fisher $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00

Don Brunner $200.00 $130.64 $0.00 $330.64 $200.00 $130.64 $0.00 $330.64 $0.00 $330.64

2





Total Fees Claimed

(a)


(b)

Total GST Claimed

(c)


(d)

Total Fees Awarded

(e)


(f)

Total GST Awarded

(g)


(h)


(i)

Total AmountAwarded

(j)Carol Brunner $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 James Senos $100.00 $65.32 $0.00 $165.32 $100.00 $65.32 $0.00 $165.32 $0.00 $165.32

Elizabeth Mulholland $100.00 $65.32 $0.00 $165.32 $100.00 $65.32 $0.00 $165.32 $0.00 $165.32 Dennis Nelson $200.00 $130.64 $0.00 $330.64 $200.00 $130.64 $0.00 $330.64 $0.00 $330.64

Kathleen Fisher $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 Sub-Total $253,904.50 $4,940.25 $12,610.40 $271,455.15 $183,136.25 $4,733.04 $9,161.63 $197,030.92 $91,812.60 $105,218.32

McLaren and Carlson GroupPeacock Linder & Halt LLP $69,892.00 $814.20 $3,535.31 $74,241.51 $34,300.00 $814.20 $1,755.71 $36,869.91 $13,394.85 $23,475.06

Robert Telford (McNally Land Services) $12,285.00 $269.64 $627.73 $13,182.37 $9,828.00 $170.20 $491.40 $10,489.60 $0.00 $10,489.60 Sub-Total $82,177.00 $1,083.84 $4,163.04 $87,423.88 $44,128.00 $984.40 $2,247.11 $47,359.51 $13,394.85 $33,964.66

Louson Investments Ltd and Gleneagles Investmenets Ltd.McLennan Ross LLP $13,677.00 $192.75 $693.49 $14,563.24 $11,445.00 $192.75 $581.89 $12,219.64 $0.00 $12,219.64

InterPLAN Strategies Inc. $8,516.25 $98.40 $430.73 $9,045.38 $6,813.00 $77.40 $344.71 $7,235.11 $0.00 $7,235.11 Sub-Total $22,193.25 $291.15 $1,124.22 $23,608.62 $18,258.00 $270.15 $926.60 $19,454.75 $0.00 $19,454.75

Phyllis RobertsonMcLennan Ross LLP $60,934.50 $495.17 $3,071.49 $64,501.16 $39,847.50 $495.17 $2,017.14 $42,359.81 $0.00 $42,359.81

InterPLAN Strategies Inc. $6,756.25 $89.40 $342.29 $7,187.94 $5,405.00 $80.90 $274.30 $5,760.20 $0.00 $5,760.20 Grid Power Development and Design Inc. $71,717.39 $237.38 $3,597.74 $75,552.51 $28,686.96 $237.38 $1,446.22 $30,370.56 $0.00 $30,370.56

Phyllis Robertson $550.00 $0.00 $0.00 $550.00 $550.00 $0.00 $0.00 $550.00 $0.00 $550.00 Sub-Total $139,958.14 $821.95 $7,011.52 $147,791.61 $74,489.46 $813.45 $3,737.66 $79,040.57 $0.00 $79,040.57

Diagonal GroupMcLennan Ross LLP $95,173.00 $2,501.81 $4,883.75 $102,558.56 $93,808.00 $2,501.81 $4,815.49 $101,125.30 $0.00 $101,125.30

Grid Power Development and Design Inc. $149,880.59 $237.39 $7,505.90 $157,623.88 $59,952.24 $237.39 $3,009.49 $63,199.12 $0.00 $63,199.12 Ken Friesz $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 $0.00 $150.00

Lorne Dugdale $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 $0.00 $150.00 Richard Douglas $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00

Graham Harmeson $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 Sue McMurray $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00

3





Total Fees Claimed

(a)


(b)

Total GST Claimed

(c)


(d)

Total Fees Awarded

(e)


(f)

Total GST Awarded

(g)


(h)


(i)

Total AmountAwarded

(j)Sub-Total $245,653.59 $2,739.20 $12,389.65 $260,782.44 $154,360.24 $2,739.20 $7,824.98 $164,924.42 $0.00 $164,924.42

Forster Family Trust

Mr. Neil Patterson, LLB, for Forster Family Trust $4,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,250.00 $0.00 $4,250.00

Sub-Total $4,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,250.00 $0.00 $4,250.00

TOTAL INTERVENER COSTS $1,187,765.23 $15,435.57 $59,014.31 $1,262,215.11 $773,766.08 $13,823.40 $38,611.80 $826,201.28 $183,394.97 $642,806.31 TOTAL INTERVENER AND APPLICANT COSTS $1,187,765.23 $15,435.57 $59,014.31 $1,262,215.11 $773,766.08 $13,823.40 $38,611.80 $826,201.28 $183,394.97 $642,806.31

4

Date post:	02-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and … · 2018. 2. 23. · Alberta...

Documents