Decision 2012-318

Alberta Electric System Operator

Weasel Creek 947S and 993S Substations Needs Identification Document

AltaLink Management Ltd.

Abee Substation and Weasel Creek Transmission Project

ATCO Electric Ltd.

Weasel Creek and Abee Transmission Project

Costs Awards

November 27, 2012

The Utilities Commission The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 2012-318: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substations and Transmission Line Project Needs Identification Document Costs Awards Application Nos. 1608500 and 1608518 Proceeding ID No. 1916

November 27, 2012

Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. , Alberta T2P 3L8

Telephone: 403-592-8845 Fax: 403-592-4406

Web site: www.auc.ab.ca

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Authority to award costs ...... 2

3 Assessment of costs claims ...... 3 3.1 Dodd/Shwetz Group costs claim ...... 3 3.2 Honoraria...... 5 3.2.1 Summary of approved costs ...... 5 3.3 The Blue Route Group costs claim ...... 6 3.3.1 Honoraria ...... 6 3.3.2 Summary of approved costs ...... 7

4 GST ...... 7

5 Order ...... 7

AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) • i

The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta

Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substations, Decision 2012-318 Transmission Line Project and Application Nos. 1608500 and 1608518 Needs Identification Document Costs Awards Proceeding ID No. 1916

1 Introduction

1. This costs awards deals with claims filed by two local intervener groups relating to four applications comprising Proceeding ID No. 1363 culminating in a hearing before the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) in Redwater, Alberta from May 8 to 10, 2012.

2. On July 22, 2011, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) filed an application with the AUC seeking approval of a needs identification document related to a proposed Weasel Creek 947S substation, an Abee 993S substation and associated 144/138-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines development in the Athabasca/Lac La Biche area. In its application the AESO described the need as providing new points-of-delivery substations and associated transmission facilities to serve the pipeline developments of two industrial customers.

3. On July 28, 2011, AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) filed a facility application with the AUC seeking approval to construct and operate facilities which were to be located within its operating territory to meet part of the need identified in the AESO’s needs identification document . These facilities included the proposed 138/4.16-kV Abee 993S substation at LSD 3 of the SW-6-61-19 W4M.

4. On August 17, 2011, ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) filed a facility application with the AUC seeking approval to construct and operate facilities which were to be located within its operating territory to meet other parts of the need identified in the AESO’s needs identification document. These facilities included the proposed 144/4.16-kV Weasel Creek 947S substation at LSD 15 on section 32-59-19 W4M.

5. On August 17, 2011, ATCO filed another facility application with the AUC seeking approval to construct and operate further facilities within its operating area to meet other parts of the need identified in the AESO’s needs identification document.

6. The AESO, AltaLink and ATCO requested that the AESO’s need application be combined for consideration with AltaLink and ATCO’s facility applications in accordance with Section 15.4 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. The Commission decided to consider these four applications jointly as Proceeding ID No. 1363.

7. On September 26, 2011, the Commission issued a notice of applications. The notice of applications stated that any person who had concerns with or objections to the applications or who wished to support the applications must file a submission by October 28, 2011. The Commission received 16 submissions from individuals and landowner groups in response to the

AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) • 1 Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd. notice of applications issued on September 26, 2011. Some of these interveners withdrew their objections prior to the hearing.

8. On January 10, 2012, the Commission published a notice of hearing notifying that a hearing on these applications was to be held on May 8, 2012, in Redwater, Alberta.

9. An amended notice of hearing was published on January 31, and on February 3, 2012, which updated the previously published map of the proposed development to show an additional alternate route submitted in an amended application by ATCO.

10. On May 1, 2012, the Commission issued its ruling on standing of parties permitted to participate in this proceeding. The hearing was held from May 8 through 10, 2012, at Provident Place in Redwater, Alberta before a Commission panel comprised of Panel Chair Anne Michaud, Commission Member Neil Jamieson and Acting Commission Member Patrick Brennan.

11. On August 15, 2012, the Commission issued Decision 2012-2201 in Proceeding ID No. 1363.

12. On May 31, 2012, the Blue Route Group filed its costs claim, followed by the Dodd/Shwetz Group costs claim filed on June 7, 2012.

13. On June 19, 2012, the Commission circulated a summary of costs being claimed to interested parties. Parties were requested to file any comments regarding the amounts listed in the summary or the merits of the costs being claimed.

14. The Commission received submissions from ATCO on July 18, 2012, questioning the qualifications and expertise regarding transmission line routing of Mr. Dauphinais from Brubaker & Associates Inc., an expert witness who testified for the Dodd/Shwetz Group, and of Mr. Cline from Grid Power Development and Design Inc. who testified at the hearing for the Blue Route Group. In its submission, ATCO submitted that the Commission should have regard to its ruling regarding the expert qualifications of each of these witnesses when determining the appropriate quantum of costs recoverable with respect to each of their services. ATCO took no position with respect to the balance of either costs claim.

15. On July 18, 2012, counsel filed a response to ATCO for the Blue Route Group followed by the Dodd/Shwetz Group’s response. Both interveners argued that its witness was well qualified as an expert, had been previously accepted as an expert witness by the Commission, and had provided relevant and helpful evidence in the proceeding and the costs for his services should be fully recoverable.

2 Authority to award costs

16. Section 22 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act provides that the Commission may award costs to persons or group of persons that meet the definition “local intervener”. That provision reads in part as follows:

1 Decision 2012-220: Alberta Electric System Operator, AltaLink Management Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993 Substations and Transmission Line Project Application Nos. 1607512, 1607550, 1607595 and 1607597, Proceeding ID No. 1363, Released: August 15, 2012. 2 • AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd.

22 (1) For purposes of this section, “local intervener” means a person or group or associations of persons who, in the opinion of the Commission,

(a) has an interest in, and

(b) is in actual occupation of or is entitled to occupy land that is or may be directly and adversely affected by a decision or order of the Commission in or as a result of a hearing or other proceeding of the Commission on an application to construct or operate a hydro development, power plant or transmission line under the Hydro and Electric Energy Act or 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.

17. AUC Rule 009: Rules on Local Intervener Costs (Rule 009) describes the process to apply for an award of costs and lists factors that the Commission may consider when deciding on local intervener costs claims. Section 7 of Rule 009 also prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to local intervener costs claims. In the ruling issued by the Commission on May 1, 2012, the Commission determined which persons had standing as local interveners in this proceeding. The Blue Route Group is comprised of Mr. Paul Fortier and Mrs. Jill Fortier, Ms. Veronica Melnyk, Ms. Tammy Melnyk, Mr. Edward Hansen, Mr. Denis Foley, Mr. Denis Flaska, Mrs. Donna MacKay and Mr. Raymond MacKay. The Dodd/Shwetz Group is comprised of Mrs. Victoria Dodd, and Mr. Raymond Dodd, Ace High Farms Ltd., Mrs. Phyllis Shwetz, Mr. Sylvester Shwetz and Mr. Andrew Shwetz. Each of these persons was included in the ruling regarding interveners granted standing. Accordingly, the Blue Route Group and the Dodd/Shwetz Group qualify to claim costs as local interveners.

3 Assessment of costs claims

3.1 Dodd/Shwetz Group costs claim 18. Ackroyd LLP counsel for Dodd/Shwetz Group submitted a costs claim totalling $106,852.37. The claim is comprised of legal fees for two different counsel at Ackroyd LLP in the amount of $66,129.00, one representing the Dodd family and the other representing the Shwetz family, disbursements of $2,143.93 and GST of $3,413.65; consulting fees for Brubaker & Associates Inc. in the amount of $27,433.38, disbursements of $1,552.50 and GST of $27.85; consulting fees for Thompson Agricultural Consulting Ltd. in the amount of $3,835.00, disbursements of $808.54 and GST of $232.18; and a claim for honoraria for members of the Dodd/Shwetz Group in the total amount of $650.00, disbursements totalling $565.56 and GST of $60.78.

19. The Commission finds from its review of these costs claims that apart from the reductions discussed below, as required by Section 7(1) of Rule 009, these costs are reasonable and were directly and necessarily related to this proceeding and that the Dodd/Shwetz Group acted responsibly throughout the proceeding and contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission. The hourly rates claimed by Ackroyd LLP, Brubaker &

AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) • 3 Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd.

Associates Inc. and Thompson Agricultural Consulting Ltd. are in accordance with the Scale of Costs as required by Section 5(2) of Rule 009 and commensurate with the type of work performed.

20. In Decision 2012-220 the Commission found that each of Mr. Dauphinais and Mr. Cline have greater technical qualifications and professional experience than a lay witness, giving them specialized knowledge about certain aspects of electrical transmission line routing. Their evidence was relevant to the issues under consideration at the hearing. For that reason, the Commission declined to rule that the evidence of either of them was inadmissible and proceeded to carefully weigh it considering the particular expertise applicable to each aspect of it. The Commission did not find a lack of qualifications or expertise dictating reduction in the hourly rate charged by either of them. Rather it is the contribution that such expert evidence made to understand the issues in this proceeding which the Commission is especially concerned with weighing in this case.

21. In Decision 2012-220 the Commission made the following findings regarding the expert evidence given by Mr. Dauphinais of Brubaker & Associates Inc., who recommended rejection of the facilities applications in favour of directing further consideration of other routing alternatives:

145. The Dodds presented considerable evidence and arguments promoting other potential route options named BAI-1, BAI-2, BAI-3 and BAI-4 as equally viable. Mr. Dauphinais has given expert testimony about this proposition on their behalf. The Shwetzes also suggested an alternate route option along Highway 831 with an understrung distribution line. This evidence, requesting consideration of other routing alternatives than those recommended in the facility applications, fails to establish a realistic prospect that any of them would likely result in a lower overall adverse impact to everyone potentially affected by the proposed transmission facilities. In this respect, the recommendations of Mr. Dauphinais were not persuasive and were of little assistance to the Commission. The Commission finds that his evidence has indicated that the preferred route is as viable as other alternatives he proposed.

146. ATCO’s evidence indicated that the landowners potentially affected would be opposed to these intervener proposed alternate routes. The mere transfer of impacts from one landowner or group of landowners to another located elsewhere who will be equally or more impacted, and as likely to object, is not a mitigation of landowner impacts. Accordingly, the proposal of alternate route options that will simply move the alignment of a transmission line from one group of affected individuals to another group of affected individuals without improving the line’s overall impact does not warrant rejecting ATCO’s recommended routes for further study of other alternatives.

22. Mr. Dauphinais’ investigation and analysis did not establish a factual basis indicating that, other than the route along Highway 831, the alternative routes he recommended offered reasonable prospects of reduced adverse impacts. Consequently, the Commission finds that the preparation for and introduction of this evidence at the hearing by Mr. Dauphinais was unnecessary, that its presentation unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, and that it was of very limited assistance to the Commission. Accordingly some reduction in the consulting fees claimed should be made. Applying its expertise, experience and judgment the Commission finds that a 10 per cent reduction in the amount claimed is warranted and reduces the claim accordingly from $28,959.26 to $26,063.33

4 • AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd.

23. Ackroyd LLP made claims for administrative fees, supplies, mileage and gas on Form U4. According to the Scale of Costs administrative fees are not allowed, and it restricts claims to mileage or gas charges. As such only the mileage claim will be accepted. With regard to the claim for supplies, the Commission does not deem this an allowable cost and disallows this as well. Ackroyd LLP’s claim included accommodation in the amount of $505.59 in excess of the $140.00 per day allowed under the Scale of Costs, thus reducing this claim to $420. A car rental was claimed in the amount of $140.28. The submitted invoices reflect the amount before GST being $137.97 and reducing the amount claimed. Accordingly, the Commission approves Ackroyd LLP’s disbursements in the total amount of $1,914.51.

24. Brubaker & Associates Inc. claims on Form U4 included airfare in the amount of $995.40, accommodation in the amount of $226.72 and a car rental in the amount of $231.94; however the invoices reflect different amounts before GST being $956.20 for airfare, $218.00 for accommodation and $230.80 for the car rental. The Commission has reduced these amounts accordingly and approves Brubaker & Associates Inc.’s total claim for disbursements in the amount of $1,503.44.

25. Thompson Agricultural Consulting Ltd. claims on Form U4 accommodation in the amount of $117.72, however the invoice reflects the amount is $108.00 before GST. Accordingly, the Commission has reduced this item accordingly and approves Thompson Agricultural Consulting Ltd.’s disbursements in the total amount of $798.82.

3.2 Honoraria 26. The Dodd/Shwetz Group claim for honoraria is allocated as follows: Mr. Raymond Dodd is claiming an attendance honorarium in the amount of $250.00, disbursements of $486.40 and GST of $36.82; Mrs. Victoria Dodd is claiming an attendance honorarium in the amount of $250.00 and GST of $12.50; Mr. Andrew Shwetz is claiming an attendance honorarium in the amount of $100.00, with disbursements of $55.24 and GST of $7.76; Mr. Sylvester Shwetz is claiming an attendance honorarium in the amount of $50.00, with disbursements of $23.92 and GST of $3.70.

27. The Commission recognizes the participation of each of these members of the Dodd/Shwetz Group and awards them attendance honoraria in the total amount of $650.00. However the Scale of Costs does not allow GST to be claimed on honorarium or mileage amounts. The Commission has reduced this part of this claim accordingly.

28. With respect to Mr. Raymond Dodd’s mileage claim of $363.62 and parking, the Scale of Costs restricts transportation and parking costs to hearing dates; therefore the Commission awards $78.20 for travel and declines the claim for parking. Accordingly, the Commission approves Mr. Raymond Dodd’s disbursement claim in the amount of $165.74.

3.2.1 Summary of approved costs 29. The total claim approved by the Commission and awarded to the Dodds/Shwetz Group is in the total amount of $103,204.57. These costs relate to their intervention in ATCO’s facilities applications and accordingly will be directed to be paid by ATCO.

AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) • 5 Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd.

3.3 The Blue Route Group costs claim 30. Prowse Chowne LLP submitted a costs claim in the total amount of $106,018.78 on behalf of the Blue Route Group. The claim is comprised of legal fees for Prowse Chowne LLP in the amount of $39,760.00, disbursements of $536.81 and GST of $2,007.69; consulting fees for Grid Power Development and Design Inc. in the amount of $57,595.00, disbursements of $1,439.96 and GST of $2,928.82; and a claim for honoraria for members of the Blue Route Group totalling $1,750.00.

31. The Commission finds from its review of these costs claims that apart from the minor reductions discussed below, as required by Section 7(1) of Rule 009 these costs are reasonable and were directly and necessarily related to this proceeding and that the Blue Route Group acted responsibly throughout the proceeding and contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission. The Commission considered the quantum of the consultant’s fees from Grid Power Development and Design Inc. to border on excessive for the extent of assistance warranted in this proceeding and wishes to caution accordingly for future purposes; however, the hourly rates claimed by Prowse Chowne LLP and Grid Power Development and Design Inc. are in accordance with the Scale of Costs as required by Section 5(2) of Rule 009 and commensurate with the type of work performed.

32. Prowse Chowne LLP claimed mileage in the amount of $143.52 at $0.52 per kilometre; the Scale of Costs permits $0.46 per kilometre reducing this item to $126.96. The claim for land title searches in the amount of $160.00 does not reflect the amount in the filed invoices of $150.00 and has been reduced to that amount. Accordingly, the Commission approves Prowse Chowne LLP’s disbursements in the amount of $510.25.

33. Grid Power Development and Design Inc.’s mileage claim in the amount of $458.64 is calculated at $0.52 per kilometre; the Scale of Costs permits $0.46 per kilometre reducing the claim to $405.72. The Scale of Costs permits $140.00 per day during the hearing for accommodations, reducing the amount to $420.00 rather than the $487.20 claimed. The amount of the airline tickets before taxes is $189.13 as invoiced rather than $226.00 as claimed and reduced accordingly. Accordingly, the Commission reduces and approves Grid Power Development and Design Inc.’s disbursements in the amount of $1,282.84.

3.3.1 Honoraria 34. The Blue Route Group’s claim for honoraria is allocated as follows. Ms. Jill Fortier, Mr. Paul Fortier, Mr. Patrick Fortier, Ms. Donna MacKay and Mr. Denis Flaska each claimed $100.00, Mr. Raymond MacKay claimed a $150.00 attendance honorarium, and Ms. Veronica Melnyk and Tammy Melnyk each claimed an attendance honorarium in the amount of $50.00.

35. Additionally, Ms. Jill Fortier and Mr. Paul Fortier claimed $500.00 each for the formation of an intervener group. However, the Scale of Costs only allows for the formation a group in the total amount of $500.00; therefore, the Commission awards them $250.00 each.

36. The Commission recognizes the participation of each of these members of the Blue Route Group and awards honoraria in the total amount of $1,250.00.

6 • AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd.

3.3.2 Summary of approved costs 37. The total claim by the Blue Route Group approved by the Commission and awarded to them is $105,697.63. These costs relate to their intervention in ATCO’s facilities applications and accordingly will be directed to be paid by ATCO.

4 GST

38. In accordance with the Commission’s treatment of GST on costs awards, ATCO is required to pay only that portion of GST paid by interveners that may not be recoverable through the GST credit mechanism. Eligible GST approved by the Commission amounts to $3,591.45 with respect to the Dodd/Shwetz Group and $5,299.04 for the Blue Route Group for a total of $8,890.49. The GST allowed by the Commission may be charged to ATCO’s hearing costs reserve account.

39. The Commission emphasizes that its treatment of GST claimed in no way relieves participants’ or their lawyers and consultants from their GST obligations pursuant to the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.

5 Order

40. It is hereby ordered that:

(1) ATCO Electric Ltd. shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $103,204.57, to Dodd/Shwetz Group, as set out in column (j) of Appendix A. Payment shall be made to Ackroyd LLP, Attention: Mr. Richard Secord at 1500 First Place, 10665 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3S9.

(2) ATCO Electric Ltd. shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $105,697.63, to the Blue Route Group, as set out in column (j) of Appendix A. Payment shall be made to Prowse Chowne LLP, Attention: Ms. Daniela O’Callaghan at Suite 1300, 10020 – 101A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3G2.

Dated on November 27, 2012.

The Alberta Utilities Commission

(original signed by)

Anne Michaud Panel Chair

(original signed by)

AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) • 7 Weasel Creek 947S and Abee 993S Substation, Alberta Electric System Operator, Transmission Projects and AltaLink Management Ltd. and Needs Identification Document Costs Awards ATCO Electric Ltd.

Neil Jamieson Commission Member

(original signed by)

Pat Brennan Acting Commission Member

8 • AUC Decision 2012-318 (November 27, 2012) Alberta Utilities Commission AE Appendix A Weasel Creek 947S Abee 993S Substation NID (1607597,1607595,1607550,1607512)1608518,1608500 Proc ID No. 1916

Total Costs Claimed/Awarded

Total Fees Total Honoraria Total Expenses Total GST Total Amount Total Fees Total Honoraria Total Expenses Total GST Total Amount Claimed Claimed Claimed Claimed Claimed Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) APPLICANTS ATCO Electric 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 INTERVENERS Blue Route Group Prowse Chowne LLP $39,760.50 $0.00 $536.81 $2,007.69 $42,305.00 $39,760.50 $0.00 $510.25 $2,375.79 $42,646.54 Grid Power Development and Design Inc. $57,595.00 $0.00 $1,439.96 $2,928.82 $61,963.78 $57,595.00 $0.00 $1,282.84 $2,923.25 $61,801.09 Blue Route Group $0.00 $1,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 $0.00 $1,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,250.00 Sub-Total $97,355.50 $1,750.00 $1,976.77 $4,936.51 $106,018.78 $97,355.50 $1,250.00 $1,793.09 $5,299.04 $105,697.63 Dodd, Shwetz Group Ackroyd LLP $66,129.00 $0.00 $2,143.93 $3,413.65 $71,686.58 $66,129.00 $0.00 $1,914.51 $3,359.85 $71,403.36 Burbaker & Associates Inc. $27,433.38 $0.00 $1,552.50 $27.85 $29,013.73 $27,433.38 $0.00 $1,503.44 $22.44 $26,063.33 Thompson Agricultural Consulting Ltd. $3,835.00 $0.00 $808.54 $232.18 $4,875.72 $3,835.00 $0.00 $798.82 $204.41 $4,838.23 Raymond Dodd $0.00 $250.00 $486.40 $36.82 $773.22 $0.00 $250.00 $165.74 $4.38 $420.12 Victoria Dodd $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $12.50 $262.50 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 Andrew Shwetz $0.00 $100.00 $55.24 $7.76 $163.00 $0.00 $100.00 $55.24 $0.37 $155.61 Sylvester Shwetz $0.00 $50.00 $23.92 $3.70 $77.62 $0.00 $50.00 $23.92 $0.00 $73.92 Sub-Total $97,397.38 $650.00 $5,070.53 $3,734.46 $106,852.37 $97,397.38 $650.00 $4,461.67 $3,591.45 $103,204.57

TOTAL INTERVENER COSTS $194,752.88 $2,400.00 $7,047.30 $8,670.97 $212,871.15 $194,752.88 $1,900.00 $6,254.76 $8,890.49 $208,902.20 TOTAL INTERVENER AND APPLICANT COSTS $194,752.88 $2,400.00 $7,047.30 $8,670.97 $212,871.15 $194,752.88 $1,900.00 $6,254.76 $8,890.49 $208,902.20

1