Town of Millet - AUC · Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider Town of Millet 2 • AUC...

Decision 2013-232

Town of Millet Franchise Agreement with FortisAlberta Inc. and Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider June 19, 2013

The Alberta Utilities Commission

Decision 2013-232: Town of Millet

Franchise Agreement with FortisAlberta Inc. and

Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider

Application No. 1609258

Proceeding ID No. 2392

June 19, 2013

Published by


Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W.

Calgary, Alberta

T2P 3L8

Telephone: 403-592-8845

Fax: 403-592-4406

Website: www.auc.ab.ca

http://www.auc.ab.ca/

AUC Decision 2013-232 (June 19, 2013) • 1


Calgary, Alberta

Town of Millet Decision 2013-232

Franchise Agreement with FortisAlberta Inc. and Application No. 1609258

Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider Proceeding ID No. 2392

1 Introduction

1. On February 4, 2013, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the AUC or the Commission)

received an application from the Town of Millet (Millet) and FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis)

requesting approval to renew their electric distribution franchise agreement (franchise

agreement) for a period of 12 years with an option for an extension to 20 years. Fortis also

applied for a decision approving an amendment to the Municipal Franchise Fee Rider which

collects franchise fees from customers in Millet. The renewed franchise agreement is attached as

Appendix 1 to this decision and is based on a standard agreement which was approved by the

AUC in Decision 2012-255.1

2. The AUC published the notice of application on the AUC website on February 4, 2013,

and in the Pipestone Flyer on February 15, 2013. If anyone had concerns or objections they were

directed to file a submission with the AUC by March 4, 2013. The AUC received an objection

from Mr. Vern Bretin on March 4, 2013 regarding the franchise application.

3. On March 14, 2013, the Commission sought the following additional information and

clarification from Mr. Bretin regarding his objection:

If you are objecting to the agreement, please describe how the Commission’s decision on

the franchise renewal may directly and adversely affect your rights. Further, if you are

asking the Commission to do anything more than consider the proposed changes in your

letter, please advise what other actions you would like the Commission to take.

4. The Commission received additional information and clarification regarding Mr. Bretin’s

objection from Mr. M. B. Niven, QC of Carscallen LLP on March 28, 2013. Mr. Niven stated

that they were the solicitors for Array Energy Corp. (Array), a generator of solar energy in

Alberta. Mr. Niven indicated that the renewal of the franchise agreement would impact Array’s

interests, specifically, he stated that certain language in the franchise agreement was not

favorable to Array’s proposal to provide solar generation to Millet.

5. By letter dated April 17, 2013, the Commission established a process schedule that

included additional or supplementing submissions from Array, followed by a reply submission

from Fortis on behalf of itself and Millet. On May 3, 2013, Mr. Niven, on behalf of Mr. Bretin

and Array filed a copy of Array’s proposal to Millet to provide a solar generation system for the

town. Fortis replied to Array’s submissions on May 10, 2013. On May 16, 2013, Mr. Bretin filed

with the Commission a letter to the editor of the Daily Freeman newspaper relating to Fortis

1 Decision 2012-255: Millet of Hinton New Franchise Agreement Template and Franchise Agreement with

FortisAlberta Inc., Application No. 1608547, Proceeding ID No. 1946, September 28, 2012.

http://www.auc.ab.ca/applications/decisions/Decisions/2012/2012-255.pdf

Franchise Agreement with FortisAlberta Inc. and Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider Town of Millet

2 • AUC Decision 2013-232 (June 19, 2013)

business in New York state. Mr. Bretin did not explain how the contents of the letter related to

his concerns about the franchise agreement.

6. In reaching the determinations set out within this decision, The Commission has

considered all relevant materials comprising the record of this proceeding.. Accordingly,

references in this decision to specific parts of the record are intended to assist the reader in

understanding the Commission’s reasoning in relation to a particular matter and should not be

taken as an indication that the Commission did not consider all relevant portions of the record

with respect to this matter.

7. The Commission considers that the record for this application closed on May 10, 2013.

2 Positions of the parties

8. Mr. Bretin and Array argued that if the franchise agreement was renewed for 12 years

with the possibility of an extension to 20 years, this would directly and adversely affect Array’s

ability to pursue its proposal to provide solar generation to Millet. In addition they submitted that

Millet would be deprived of the opportunity to purchase generation at a reduced price from the

solar generation facility proposed by Array.

9. Specifically, Mr. Bretin and Array argued that the language and restrictions contained in

sections 4, 5, 11 and 17 of the standard franchise agreement were not favorable to the

distribution of renewable energy through the infrastructure of Fortis. The Commission has

included excerpts from the franchise agreement with the positions of the parties in the sections

that follow.

2.1 Section 4 grant of franchise

4) GRANT OF FRANCHISE

a) Subject to subparagraph b) below, and to the terms and conditions hereof, the

Municipality hereby grants to the Company the exclusive right within the

Municipal Service Area:

i) to provide Electric Distribution Service;

ii) to Construct, Operate, and Maintain the electric distribution system, as

defined in the EUA, within the Municipal Service Area; and

iii) to use designated portions of roads, rights-of-way, and other lands

owned, controlled or managed by the Municipality necessary to provide

Electric Distribution Service or to Construct, Operate and Maintain the

Distribution System, including the necessary removal, trimming of trees,

shrubs or bushes or any parts thereof.

This grant shall not preclude the Municipality from providing wire services to

municipally owned facilities where standalone generation is provided on site or

immediately adjacent sites excepting road allowances. Such services are to be

provided by the Municipality directly and not by any other third party wire services

provider.



Subject to Article 12 of this Agreement, in the event that a third party (including a

Rural Electrification Association (REA)) owns, operates or controls any electrical

distribution facilities or lighting within the Municipal Service Area at any time

during the Term of this Agreement, the Municipality agrees that it will support the

Company’s efforts, as is reasonable, to purchase such electrical distribution

facilities or, to the extent that it has the authority to do so, the Municipality shall

otherwise require such third party to sell such facilities to the Company. Where the

Municipality supports the Company’s efforts to purchase such electrical

distribution facilities or, to the extent that it has the authority to do so, otherwise

requires a third party to sell its facilities to the Company, the Company shall be

responsible for all reasonable fees, costs and disbursements of external legal

counsel incurred by the Municipality in expending such good faith efforts.

10. Mr. Bretin and Array argued that this section would preclude Array from providing wire

service generation to municipal facilities due to the narrow wording of where such generation

can be situated. As solar generation requires certain topographical conditions, providing such

generation “on site” or “immediately adjacent” is not always practical.

11. Fortis indicated that Section 24(1) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000,

c. H-16, restricts the ability to distribute electric energy in the Province of Alberta. Further Array

cannot use Fortis’ electric distribution facilities or bypass the distribution tariff for its project as

described in its proposal

12. Fortis noted that sections 101(1) and 101(3) of the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003,

c. E-51, state:

101(1) A person wishing to obtain electricity for use on property must make

arrangements for the purchase of electric distribution service from the owner of the

electric distribution system in whose service area the property is located.

(3) No person other than the owner of an electric distribution system may provide

electric distribution service on the electric distribution system of that owner.

13. Fortis considered that Array’s proposed business arrangement may not comply with the

laws of Alberta.

14. Additionally, in accordance with the Electric Utilities Act, a distribution generator (DG)

customer that wishes to generate and export into the Alberta Interconnected Electric System

would be required to interconnect with Fortis’ distribution system as per Article 12 of Fortis’

customer terms and conditions of electric distribution service, as approved by the Commission.

Also, a DG customer must sell and buy electricity through the Alberta Electric System Operator

(AESO), which would require the generator of energy to become a market participant of the

Alberta Power Pool and abide by the market rules as set by the AESO.



2.2 Section 5 franchise fee

5) FRANCHISE FEE

….. e) Payment of Franchise Fee

The Company shall pay the franchise fee amount, billed to each Consumer, to the

Municipality on a monthly basis, within forty-five (45) days after billing each

retailer.

15. Mr. Bretin and Array argued that Section 5 failed to provide a mechanism for the transfer

of any part of the franchise fee to generators providing renewal energy to Millet which, would

remove any economic incentive to Array to construct and operate a solar facility.

16. Fortis stated that the franchise fee is determined and managed by the municipality and not

by Fortis. Fortis submitted that the municipality has this right through the Municipal Government

Act, RSA 2000, c. M-26, and Fortis has no part in directing how those funds are used. Fortis

noted in this respect that, Section 61(2) of the Municipal Government Act states that “A

municipality may charge fees, tolls and charges for the use of its property, including property

under the direction, control and management of the municipality.”

2.3 Section 11 street lighting

11) STREET LIGHTING

a) Investment Option Rate

The Company agrees to provide and maintain an investment option rate for street

lighting within the Municipal Service Area to the level of service and standards

specified in the appropriate rate for investment option street lighting. This

Commission approved rate includes an allowance for the replacement of street

lighting.

The Company will provide Company standard and non-standard street lighting

under the investment option rate for street lighting. The Company will maintain an

inventory of its standard street lighting as listed in its street lighting catalogue. The

Company will use reasonable commercial efforts, based on prudent electrical utility

practices, to carry stock of such inventory for a reasonable period of time.

17. Mr. Bretin and Array submitted that Section 11 of the franchise agreement fails to

account for new energy saving technology insofar as Millet is required to operate street-lighting

contained in Fortis’ street lighting catalogue. They submitted that the process for requesting non-

conventional street lighting is arduous and the wording of the section provides unfettered

discretion to Fortis to refuse to install any street lighting systems that do not conform to Fortis’

minimum specifications. Mr. Bretin and Array observed that novel energy-savings technology

may not necessarily meet Fortis’s specifications. Mr. Bretin and Array considered that this

section created an inflexibility that unduly restrains the adoption of novel energy saving

technology.

18. Fortis stated that it offers energy-saving options for streetlights and recently has been

offering LED technology for streetlights. It noted that there is an agreement in place if the



municipality wants to proceed with the installation of streetlights not offered through

FortisAlberta’s street lighting catalogue.

2.4 Section 17 joint use of distribution system

….

b) Third Party Use and Notice

The Company agrees that should any third party, including other utilities, desire to

jointly use the Company’s poles, conduits or trenches or related parts of the

Distribution System, the Company shall not grant the third party joint use except in

accordance with this Article, unless otherwise directed by any governmental

authority or court of law having jurisdiction.

The Company agrees that the following procedure shall be used in granting

permission to third parties desiring joint use of the Distribution System:

i) first, the third party shall be directed to approach the Company to initially

request conditional approval from the Company to use that part of the

Distribution System it seeks to use;

ii) second, upon receiving written conditional approval from the Company,

the third party shall be directed to approach the Municipality to obtain its

written approval to jointly use that part of the Distribution System on any

Municipal Property or right-of-way; and

iii) third, upon receiving written conditional approval from the Municipality,

the third party shall be directed to obtain final written approval from the

Company to jointly use that part of the Distribution System.

Providing the Company has not precluded the Municipality’s ability to obtain

compensation or has entered restrictive agreements with any third parties using any

Municipal Property, the Municipality agrees that the procedure outlined above shall

apply only to agreements made after January 1, 2011.

19. Mr. Bretin and Array submitted that Section 17 of the franchise agreement was unduly

restrictive and grants Fortis unfettered discretion to simply reject third-party usage of the

distribution system through an arduous approval process that favours Fortis’ interests rather than

the municipality and potential third parties’ interests. They argued that the language of this

section should be expanded to ensure that some measure of transparency is injected into their

approval process in addition to allowing some recourse to an adjudicative body to determine the

reasonableness of Fortis’ decision to allow or disallow third-party usage of its distribution

system.

20. Fortis argued that the agreement as filed did not provide any barrier to Array for

generation sale and distribution of its proposed energy. Rather, it is consistent with the electricity

legislative framework and market within Alberta. Array’s proposal is inconsistent with the laws

of Alberta and its claims are thus entirely without merit.



21. Fortis submitted that the submissions of Mr. Bretin and Array incorrectly interpret the

language found in the franchise agreement and concluded that the approval of that agreement

would not have any bearing on Array’s business proposal to Millet.

3 Commission findings

22. Section 45 of the Municipal Government Act requires that municipalities receive

Commission approval prior to entering into, renewing or amending an individual electric

franchise agreement with a person to provide a utility service in the municipality. In granting

approval, the Commission must determine whether the proposed agreement is necessary and

proper for the public convenience, and properly serves the public interest, as set out in

Section 139 of the Electric Utilities Act.

23. The Commission has considered the objections of Mr. Bretin and Array in light of its

obligations under Section 139 of the Electric Utilities Act and, for the reasons that follow, has

decided to dismiss their objections and approve the franchise agreement.

3.1 The objections of Mr. Bretin and Array

24. As the Commission understands it, Array and Mr. Bretin propose to generate electric

energy through a new solar facility and then sell that electric energy directly to the Town of

Millet using the distribution facilities owned by Fortis, with any excess electricity being sold “to

the Alberta grid.”2

25. Mr. Bretin and Array summarized their concerns about the franchise agreement by

concluding that its approval would “bind the municipality to traditional generation for up to

20 years.” Having reviewed their submissions, the Commission understands that Mr. Bretin and

Array’s primary concern with the franchise agreement is that if approved, it would prevent them

from pursuing their proposal with Millet because the terms of that agreement, specifically

sections 4(a), 17 are unduly restrictive and/or provide Fortis with too much discretion. They also

expressed concern that Section 5 of the franchise agreement provides no mechanism for Millet to

transfer any part of the franchise fee to generators. Mr. Bretin and Array are also concerned that

the franchise agreement may preclude the use of energy saving street lighting because of the

restrictive language used in Section 11 of the franchise agreement.

26. The Commission finds that Mr. Bretin and Array’s objections relating to sections 4(a),

5 and 17 of the franchise agreement and the impacts of those sections on their business proposal

must be dismissed because that proposal appears to be inconsistent with the laws of Alberta

relating to the generation, sale and distribution of electric energy. Specifically, if the proposal

was implemented in the manner described by Mr. Bretin and Array, it is the Commission’s view

it would likely contravene Section 24 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act and sections 18 and

101 of the Electric Utilities Act.

27. The Commission also finds that approval of the franchise agreement will not impair the

development of renewable energy generation of the type described in Array’s proposal to Millet.

The laws of Alberta allow parties such as Array to seek approval for the construction and

operation of power plants including solar power plants. Those laws allow Array to seek approval

2 Exhibit 20.01.



to interconnect a power plant to the Alberta interconnected electric system and to exchange the

electricity generated by the power plant through the power pool. Further, under the laws of

Alberta, Array can enter into an energy price arrangement with Millet for electricity generated by

its proposed facility. Accordingly, the Commission does not accept that approval of the proposed

franchise agreement would preclude Array from pursuing its proposed project as long as it was

developed and implemented in accordance with the laws of Alberta.

28. Having regard to Mr. Bretin’s and Array’s concerns about Section 11 of the franchise

agreement, the Commission finds that this section provides sufficient flexibility for the future use

of energy saving technology for street lights. The Commission notes in this respect Fortis’

May 10, 2013, letter in which it confirmed the availability of energy saving street light options,

including LED technology.

29. Based on these findings, the Commission is of the view that the franchise agreement

between Millet and Fortis does not impact Array’s rights or abilities to establish a solar

generation facility. On this basis, the Commission dismisses Array’s objections, However should

Array establish itself as a retailer to provide electricity from solar generation, Millet would be

free to enter into any contractual relationship for supply of energy from Array, so long as Array

abides by market rules facilitated through the power pool.

3.2 Franchise agreement

30. The municipality determines the level of the franchise fee, which is the consideration

paid by the utility for the exclusive right to provide electric service to customers within the

municipality. The municipality may also collect linear property taxes from the utility. Franchise

fees and linear property taxes are a cost of Fortis doing business in the municipality, and these

costs are recovered from electricity customers in the municipality.

31. The Commission observes that Millet completed second reading of Bylaw No. 2012-14,

which authorized it to execute a new franchise agreement with Fortis to provide distribution

service within Millet.

32. In the franchise agreement, Millet proposed to increase the franchise fee to 12.00 per cent

from 10.00 per cent of the delivery revenue received by Fortis. In addition to the collection of the

franchise fee, Millet has also opted to continue the receipt of linear property taxes from Fortis.

With the franchise fee and linear property taxes combined, the monthly cost for an average

residential customer is forecast to increase by $0.88 to $5.87 from $4.99.

33. The term of the franchise agreement is 12 years, for a potential maximum term of

20 years. In accordance with Section 45 of the Municipal Government Act, a council may grant

exclusive right to provide a utility service in all or part of the municipality with a term not

exceeding 20 years. The Commission finds that the term of this agreement is in accordance with

the legislated time frame.

34. The franchise fee can be changed once annually at the sole discretion of Millet to a

maximum of 20 per cent in accordance with articles 5(b) and 5(c) of the franchise agreement.

The Commission agrees with these provisions, which were approved in the standard agreement

in Decision 2012-255.



35. Having regard to the foregoing, pursuant to Section 45 of the Municipal Government Act,

Section 106 of the Public Utilities Act, RSA 2000 and Section 139 of the Electric Utilities Act,

the Commission approves the franchise agreement and finds the right granted by Millet to Fortis

to be necessary and proper for the public convenience and properly serves the public interest.

36. The Commission also approves the continued collection of linear property taxes as part of

the franchise agreement pursuant to Section 353 of the Municipal Government Act. The linear

property tax rate for Millet is 1.41 per cent.

3.3 Riders

37. Franchise fees and linear property taxes are collected through Fortis’ Municipal

Franchise Fee Rider and Rider A-1 respectively. Fortis submitted a Municipal Franchise Fee

Rider schedule showing a new franchise fee of 12.00 per cent effective January 1, 2014, attached

as Appendix 2 to this decision.

38. The linear property tax rate for Millet changes on an annual basis. The linear property tax

rate of 1.41 per cent was acknowledged by Commission letter dated April 23, 2013, in

Application No. 1609499.

39. In accordance with Section 125 of the Electric Utilities Act, and based on the approval of

the franchise agreement in this decision, the Commission approves Fortis’ Municipal Franchise

Fee Rider and finds the amounts to be just and reasonable.

4 Order

40. It is hereby ordered that:

(i) A copy of Bylaw No. 2012-14 shall be filed with the AUC after third reading

along with a copy of the executed franchise agreement with a commencement

date of January 1, 2014.

(ii) The new franchise fee for Millet as indicated on the Municipal Franchise Fee

Rider schedule attached as Appendix 2 to this decision becomes effective after the

execution of the franchise agreement, but not before January 1, 2014.

(iii) Any changes in the level of the franchise fee pursuant to the provisions in

Article 5(b) of the franchise agreement are required to be filed with the AUC for

acknowledgement on or before the date that the rate comes into effect, including

an updated Municipal Franchise Fee Rider schedule.



(iv) Prior to implementing any change in the franchise fee, customers shall be notified

of the change in the franchise fee through the publication of a notice in the

newspaper having the widest circulation in Millet at least 45 days prior to the

implementation of the revised franchise fee. A copy of the notice shall be filed

with the AUC.

Dated on June 19, 2013.


(original signed by)

Neil Jamieson

Commission Member



Appendix 1 – Town of Millet franchise agreement with FortisAlberta Inc.

(return to text)

Appendix 1 - Franchise agreement Millet

(consists of 37 pages



Appendix 2 – Municipal Franchise Fee Rider with respect to the Town of Millet

(return to text)

Appendix 2 - Municipal Franchise Fee Rider

(consists of 3 pages)

Franchise Agreement with FortisAlberta Inc. and Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider

Town of Millet Appendix 1 - Franchise agreement

Page 1 of 37

AUC Decision 2013-232 (June 19, 2013)



Page 2 of 37




Page 3 of 37




Page 4 of 37




Page 5 of 37




Page 6 of 37




Page 7 of 37




Page 8 of 37




Page 9 of 37




Page 10 of 37




Page 11 of 37




Page 12 of 37




Page 13 of 37




Page 14 of 37




Page 15 of 37




Page 16 of 37




Page 17 of 37




Page 18 of 37




Page 19 of 37




Page 20 of 37




Page 21 of 37




Page 22 of 37




Page 23 of 37




Page 24 of 37




Page 25 of 37




Page 26 of 37




Page 27 of 37




Page 28 of 37




Page 29 of 37




Page 30 of 37




Page 31 of 37




Page 32 of 37




Page 33 of 37




Page 34 of 37




Page 35 of 37




Page 36 of 37




Page 37 of 37


FortisAlberta Inc. 2013 DT Rates Filing

Rider Schedules

Page 1

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE FEE RIDERS

Availability Effective for all consumption, estimated or actual, on and after the first of the

month following Commission approval, the following franchise fee riders apply

to all FortisAlberta distribution tariffs, except riders and rebates, in each

municipality.

Price A percentage surcharge per the table below will be added to the gross distribution

Adjustment tariff, excluding any riders or charges that relate to pool price deferral account

amounts, calculated for each site within each municipality and will be billed to the

applicable retailer.

FortisAlberta will pay to each municipality each month, in accordance with the

franchise agreements between FortisAlberta and the municipalities, the franchise

fee revenue collected from the retailers.

Municipal Franchise Fee Riders

Municipality Percentage

Surcharge Effective

Acme 3% 2002/02/01

Airdrie 10% 2013/01/01

Alix 17% 2011/01/01

Amisk 0% 2002/11/01

Athabasca 6% 2013/01/01

Barnwell 0% 2002/03/01

Banff 4% 2012/01/01

Barons 0% 2002/03/01

Barrhead 5% 2003/02/01

Bashaw 3% 2011/01/01

Bassano 11.4% 2013/01/01

Bawlf *pending 3% 2013/04/01

Beaumont 5% 2009/01/01

Beiseker 0% 2002/04/01

Bentley 10% 2013/01/01

Bittern Lake 5% 2003/05/01

Black Diamond 10% 2007/01/01

Blackfalds 20% 2010/03/01

Bon Accord 20% 2010/07/01

Bow Island 7% 2013/01/01

Bowden 12.55% 2007/01/01

Boyle 3% 2002/08/01

Breton 20% 2012/01/01

Brooks 12.63% 2004/01/01

Bruderheim 0% 2004/02/01


Surcharge Effective

Calmar 20% 2007/01/01

Camrose 6% 2012/01/01

Canmore 8% 2005/02/01

Carmangay 0% 2002/02/01

Caroline 3% 2003/02/01

Carstairs 5% 2008/01/01

Champion 15% 2011/03/01

Chauvin 9% 2013/01/01

Chestermere 0% 2006/06/01

Chipman 0% 2007/03/01

Claresholm 2% 2003/02/01

Clive 9% 2012/01/01

Clyde 11% 2013/01/01

Coaldale 9% 2008/01/01

Coalhurst 7% 2004/01/01

Cochrane 15% 2006/01/01

Coutts 3% 2004/01/01

Cowley 5% 2011/01/01

Cremona 10% 2009/01/01

Crossfield 0% 2002/04/01

Crowsnest Pass 14% 2012/01/01

Czar 5% 2003/07/01

Daysland 5% 2008/01/01

Devon 13% 2013/01/01

Didsbury 12.5% 2012/01/01


Town of Millet Appendix 2 - Municipal Franchise Fee Rider

Page 1 of 3



Rider Schedules

Page 2

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE FEE RIDERS Effective: the first of the month following

Commission approval for consumption from

the first of the month following Commission

approval

FortisAlberta’s Retailer Terms and Conditions of Distribution Tariff Services provide for other charges, including an

arrears charge of 1.5% per month.


Surcharge Effective

Drayton Valley 8% 2008/03/01

Duchess 12% 2010/01/01

Eckville 10% 2004/01/01

Edberg 6% 2010/01/01

Edgerton 12% 2012/01/01

Edson 5% 2006/01/01

Ferintosh 6% 2009/01/01

Foremost 3% 2014/01/01

Fort Saskatchewan 0% 2003/06/01

Gibbons 10% 2013/01/01

Glenwood 0% 2002/04/01

Granum 5.5% 2013/01/01

Hardisty 5% 2011/01/01

Hay Lakes 5% 2007/08/01

High River 20% 2005/10/01

Hill Spring 0% 2002/05/01

Hinton 10.7% 2012/01/01

Holden 3.5% 2008/01/01

Hughenden 0% 2002/12/01

Hussar 3% 2003/05/01

Innisfail 8% 2013/01/01

Irma 7% 2013/01/01

Irricana 0% 2002/01/01

Island Lake 0% 2006/05/01

Killam 6% 2013/01/01

Lacombe 6.2% 2004/01/01

Lamont 5% 2002/09/01

Leduc 16% 2004/07/01

Legal 0% 2002/10/01

Lomond 0% 2002/05/01

Longview 15% 2008/01/01

Lougheed 5% 2011/01/01

Magrath 8% 2010/01/01

Mayerthorpe 4% 2004/01/01


Surcharge Effective

Milk River 10% 2013/01/01

Millet 12% 2014/01/01

Milo 10% 2010/04/01

Morinville 20% 2006/01/01

Nakamun Park 0% 2003/03/01

Nanton 5% 2013/01/01

New Norway 6% 2009/01/01

Nobleford 0% 2004/11/01

Okotoks 8.5% 2013/01/01

Olds 8.59% 2011/01/01

Onoway 7.5% 2013/01/01

Penhold 19% 2006/01/01

Picture Butte 8% 2009/01/01

Pincher Creek 8% 2009/01/01

Provost 20% 2012/01/01

Raymond 6% 2005/01/01

Redwater 0% 2003/05/01

Rimbey 7% 2004/01/01

Rocky Mtn House 7.5% 2013/01/01

Rosemary 6% 2011/01/01

Ryley 0% 2004/01/01

Seba Beach 0% 2003/07/01

Sedgewick 6% 2012/01/01

Silver Sands 3% 2008/02/01

South Baptiste 0% 2005/05/01

South View 0% 2008/02/01

Spruce Grove 14.25% 2006/01/01

St. Albert 0% 2002/05/01

Standard 0% 2002/12/01

Stavely 3% 2003/02/01

Stirling 5% 2008/01/01

Stony Plain 20% 2013/01/01

Strathmore 10% 2013/01/01

Strome 8% 2003/04/01



Page 2 of 3



Rider Schedules

Page 3

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE FEE RIDERS Effective: the first of the month following

Commission approval for consumption from

the first of the month following Commission

approval

FortisAlberta’s Retailer Terms and Conditions of Distribution Tariff Services provide for other charges, including an

arrears charge of 1.5% per month.


Surcharge Effective

Sundre 5% 2013/01/01

Sunrise Beach 0% 2008/08/01

Sunset Point 0% 2003/03/01

Sylvan Lake 10% 2004/01/01

Taber 20% 2004/01/01

Thorsby 10% 2010/01/01

Tilley 7.5% 2011/01/01

Tofield 5% 2002/10/01

Turner Valley 10% 2009/01/01

Vauxhall 0% 2004/09/04


Surcharge Effective

Vulcan 20% 2011/01/01

Viking 8% 2013/01/01

Wabamun 0% 2002/10/01

Wainwright 3% 2002/04/01

Warburg 10% 2009/01/01

Warner 0% 2002/04/01

Westlock 12% 2013/01/01

Wetaskiwin 10% 2009/01/01

Whitecourt 3.5% 2013/01/01



Page 3 of 3


Date post:	08-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Town of Millet - AUC · Amendment to Municipal Franchise Fee Rider Town of Millet 2 • AUC...

Documents