2013-195 - Alberta Utilities Commission

Decision 2013-195 

Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. and 

AltaLink Management Ltd. 

MATL 230-Kv International Merchant Power Lines – 

Final Design and Time Extension for MATL Project Facilities 

Costs Award 

May 24, 2013

The Alberta Utilities Commission 

Decision 2013-195: Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 

MATL 230-kV International Merchant Power Line – 


Costs Award 

Application No. 1609225 

Proceeding ID No. 2374 

May 24, 2013 

Published by 

Alberta Utilities Commission 

Fifth Avenue Place, 4th Floor, 425 - First Street SW 

Calgary, Alberta 

T2P 3L8 

Telephone: (403) 592-8845 

Fax: (403) 592-4406 

Web site: www.auc.ab.ca

Contents 

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 

2 VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................................................... 2 

3 VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION - ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 2 

3.1 The Bishop/Bennett Group ............................................................................................ 2 

3.2 David Swanson .............................................................................................................. 3 

4 GST ......................................................................................................................................... 3 

5 ORDER .................................................................................................................................. 3 

APPENDIX A – LANDOWNERS REPRESENTED BY MY LANDMAN GROUP INC. 

AND BISHOP LAW OFFICE (THE BENNETT/BISHOP GROUP) ..................................... 5 

AUC Decision 2012-195 (May 24, 2013) • i


Calgary, Alberta 

Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Decision 2013-195 

Final Design and Time Extension for MATL Project Facilities Application No. 1609225 

Costs Award Proceeding ID No. 2374 

1 Introduction 

1. Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL, later Enbridge MATL) submitted Application No. 

1607416 to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) on June 16, 2011, to amend 

its existing permits and licenses for its 230-kilovolt international merchant transmission line and 

substation to reflect design changes. Subsequently MATL and AltaLink Management Ltd. 

submitted related applications for a time extension to complete various aspects of the MATL 

project. The Commission assigned Proceeding ID No. 1301 to this application. 

2. A group of landowners affected by the MATL project, known as the Bennett/Bishop 

group objected to the amendment and time extension applications. The list of the persons 

represented by the Bennett/Bishop group is attached to this decision as Appendix A. The 

Bennett/ Bishop group was represented by Ms. Debbie Bishop of the Klimek, Buss Bishop Law 

Group and Mr. Daryl Bennett of My Landman Group Inc. 

3. On December 19, 2012, the Commission issued Decision 2012-345 1 in which it approved 

MATL’s proposed amendments and its requests for a time extension. 

4. On January 24, 2013, the Commission received a costs claim from the Bennett/Bishop 

group. The cost claim consisted of claims for the professional fees of Ms. Bishop and Mr. 

Bennett and a claim for an honorarium for Mr. David Swanson. The Commission circulated a 

summary of costs to interested parties on February 27, 2013. Parties were advised that any 

comments regarding the figures listed in the summary or the merits of the total costs claimed 

were to be filed by March 13, 2013. 

5. On March 13, 2013, Enbridge MATL submitted comments regarding the Bishop/Bennett 

Group’s claim. Enbridge MATL did not object to the claim submitted on behalf of Daryl 

Bennett/My Landman Group Inc.. However, it did object to the costs claimed for Ms. Bishop’s 

professional fees and the honorarium claimed on behalf of Mr. David Swanson. 

6. Enbridge MATL submitted that Ms. Bishop’s claim should be reduced by 50 per cent 

because her submissions focused exclusively on issues that were irrelevant to Proceeding ID No. 

1301. It observed that Mr. Swanson’s submissions were made on his behalf and on behalf of his 

wife and brother, Ted Swanson, who was represented by Ms. Bishop and Mr. Bennett. Enbridge 

MATL stated that Mr. Swanson’s submissions were short (five pages) and that the honorarium 

claimed was disproportionate to his preparation efforts. Enbridge MATL concluded that Mr. 

Swanson’s honoraria should be reduced from $2,500 to $300. 

1 

Decision 2013-345: Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. and AltaLink Management Ltd. MATL 230-Kv International 

Merchant Power Line – Final Design and Time Extension for MATL Project Facilities, Applications No. 

1607416, No. 1607721, and No. 1607863, Proceeding ID No. 1301, December 19, 2012 

AUC Decision 2013-195 (May 24, 2013) • 1


Costs Award 

Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 

7. On March 14, 2013, the Commission wrote to interested parties to give them an 

opportunity to reply to the comments filed by Enbridge MATL and were advised that any 

comments regarding Enbridge MATL’s comments were to be filed by March 28, 2013. The 

Commission did not receive any reply comments from Ms. Bishop or Mr. Swanson. 

Accordingly, the Commission considers the cost process to have closed on March 28, 2013. 

2 Views of the Commission 

8. When assessing costs claims pursuant to Section 21 of the Alberta Utilities Commission 

Act, the Commission applies AUC Rule 009: Rules on Local Intervener Costs(Rule 009). Rule 

009 also prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to costs claims. 

9. In exercising its discretion to award costs, the Commission will in accordance with 

Section 7 of Rule 009, consider whether an eligible participant acted responsibly and contributed 

to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission, and whether the costs claimed are 

reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the proceeding. The Commission considers 

these factors in light of the scope and nature of the issues in question. 

10. In the Commission’s view, the responsibility to contribute positively to the process is 

inherent in a proceeding. The Commission expects that those who choose to participate will 

prepare and present a position that is reasonable in light of the issues arising in the proceeding 

and necessary for the determination of those issues. To the extent reasonably possible, the 

Commission will be mindful of a participant’s willingness to co-operate with the Commission 

and other participants to promote an efficient and cost-effective proceeding. 

11. As the costs of a utility proceeding are generally passed on to customers, it is the 

Commission’s duty to ensure that customers receive fair value for a party’s contribution. As 

such, the Commission only approves those costs that are reasonable, and directly and necessarily 

related to the party’s participation in the proceeding. 

3 Views of the Commission - assessment 

3.1 The Bishop/Bennett Group 

12. The Bishop/Bennett Group submitted costs totaling $10,813.74. The professional fees 

claimed on behalf of Ms. Bishop were $2,982.00 and GST of $149.10. Mr. Bennett of My 

Landman Group Inc. submitted consulting costs totaling $7,316.80 and GST of $365.84. 

13. The Commission has considered the costs submitted by the Bishop/Bennett Group. The 

Commission finds that the participation of Ms. Bishop and My Landman Group Inc. was of some 

assistance in reviewing the MATL amendment and time extension applications. The 

Commission recognizes that the scope of the amendment proceeding was limited and that some 

of the submissions prepared by Ms. Bishop addressed issues ultimately determined to be outside 

of the scope of the proceeding. However, in the Commission’s view, the fees claimed on behalf 

of Ms. Bishop are reasonable and reflective of the fact that some of her submissions were made 

before the Commission expressed its views on the scope of the proceeding. The Commission is 

also satisfied that the fees claimed on behalf of Daryl Bennett and My Landman Group Inc. were 

also reasonable in the circumstances. 

2 • AUC Decision 2013-195 (May 24, 2013)


Costs Award 


14. The Commission finds that the claims for professional fees and other claims submitted on 

behalf of the Bennett/Bishop group were in accordance with the Scale of Costs. Accordingly, the 

Commission considers the Bishop/Bennett Group claims for fees, disbursements and applicable 

GST in the total amount of $10,813.74 to be reasonable. 

3.2 David Swanson 

15. Section 2 of Appendix A of AUC Rule 009: Rules for Local Intervener Costs states that 

“A local intervener who personally prepares a submission without expert help, may claim an 

honorarium in the range of $300.00 to $2500.00, depending upon the complexity of the submission.” 

16. The Commission has considered Mr. Swanson’s claim for a $2500.00 honorarium and 

has decided that it is disproportionate to the scope and nature of his participation in the 

proceeding. In the Commission’s view, a preparation honoraria of $2,500.00 represents the 

upper limit of the honoraria it is prepared to award in accordance with its Scale of Costs and 

should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Mr. Swanson’s submissions in this 

proceeding were not exceptional. While his submissions conveyed the concerns he had with the 

MATL project and the amendment, they were relatively brief and straightforward. Having regard 

to the scope and nature of his submissions and their content, the Commission is of the view that a 

preparation honoraria of $1,000 effectively reflects the time and effort expended by Mr. 

Swanson in preparing his brief submissions. 

4 GST 

17. In accordance with the Commission's treatment of the GST on cost awards, Enbridge 

MATL is required to pay only that portion of the GST paid by interveners that may not be 

recoverable through the GST credit mechanism. Accordingly where parties are eligible for a 

GST credit the Commission has reduced this particular portion of their claim. Eligible GST 

approved by the Commission amounts to $514.94. The GST allowed by the Commission may 

also be charged against Enbridge MATL’s Hearing Cost Reserve Account. 

18. The Commission emphasizes that its treatment of the GST claimed in no way relieves 

participants or their lawyers and consultants from their GST obligations pursuant to the Excise 

Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E-15. 

5 Order 

19. It is hereby ordered that: 

(1) Enbridge MATL shall pay intervener costs to the Bishop/Bennett Group in the 

amount of $10,813.74 and record the approved costs in its Hearing Costs Reserve 

Account. 

(2) Enbridge MATL shall pay intervener costs to David Swanson in the amount of 

$1,000.00 and record the approved costs in its Hearing Costs Reserve Account. 



Costs Award 


Dated on May 24, 2013. 


(original signed by) 

Neil Jamieson 

Commission Member 

4 • AUC Decision 2013-195 (May 24, 2013)


Costs Award 


Appendix A – Landowners represented by My Landman Group Inc. and Bishop Law 

Office (the Bennett/Bishop Group) 

Landowner Name 

968437 AB Ltd. (Daryl Soice) 

Joe Baczuk 

Leona Baczuk 

Gordon Clayton 

Iris Clayton 

Beverly Cudrak 

Tony Cudrak 

Dave Van Pelt Farms Inc. 

Brian Friedrick 

Georgina Giaccheta 

Van Giessen Growers Inc. 

Wayne Van Giessen 

Clarence Halma 

Rita Halma 

Less Hoytos 

Jesco Farms Ltd. 

Wim Kampert 

Willem Kampert 

Rita Kampert 

KCL Cattle Company 

KERCP Farms Inc. 

Lois Ketchey 

Allen Klassen 

Jodi Klassen 

Art Van Klei 

Brian Lindeman 

Delores Lindeman 

Will Lindeman 

LaRae Lindeman 

John Lutz 

Landowner Name 

Brenda Lutz 

George Matthies 

John Mazutinec 

Sheila Mazutinec 

Brad Moser 

Darryl Moser 

Sue-Anne Moser 

Daniel Mueller 

Les Obbagy 

Ross Orcott 

Frank Otrahalek 

Marlene Otrahalek 

James Wiskerke Otrahalek 

Frank Otrhalek 

Joyce Owens 

Prairie Gem Farms 

Rolling Prairie Farms 

John Slingerland 

Diane Slingerland 

Barry Snow 

Barbara Snow 

Ted Swanson 

Diane Sincennes 

Norman Sincennes 

Doran Templeton 

Bryan Templeton 

Roy Tetzlaff 

Anne Tetzlaff 

Les Wall 

Hubrecht Wiskerke

2013-195 - Alberta Utilities Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?