ENMAX Power Corporation

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ENMAX Power Corporation"

Kelley Marsh
5 years ago
Views:

Decision 21717-D01-2016 Distribution 2015-2017 Performance-Based

1 Decision D Distribution Performance-Based Regulation- Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor September 26, 2016

3 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D Distribution Performance-Based Regulation-Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor Proceeding September 26, 2016 Published by Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

4 Contents 1 Introduction Commission findings Consumers Coalition of Alberta Order... 4 ii Decision D (September 26, 2016)

5 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Distribution Performance-Based Regulation- Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor Decision D Proceeding Introduction 1. In this decision the Alberta Utilities Commission considers an application by the Consumers Coalition of Alberta (CCA) for approval and payment of its costs of participation in Proceeding (the costs claim application). The following table sets out the costs claimed and the amounts awarded: Claimant Total Fees Claimed Total Disbursements Claimed Total GST Claimed Total Amount Claimed Total Fees Awarded Total Disbursements Awarded Total GST Awarded Total Amount Awarded CCA Wachowich & Company $35, $ $1, $38, $35, $0.00 $1, $37, Regulatory Services Inc. $20, $0.00 $1, $21, $20, $0.00 $1, $21, Dustin Madsen Consulting $4, $0.00 $ $5, $4, $0.00 $ $5, Total $60, $ $3, $64, $60, $0.00 $3, $63, The Commission has awarded reduced costs to the applicant for the reasons set out below. 3. Proceeding (the original proceeding) was convened by the Commission to consider an application by (ENMAX) for approval of a performance-based regulation (PBR) plan for its electric distribution services for the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, The original proceeding included information requests (IRs) and IR responses, a technical meeting and a negotiated settlement process followed by the filing of a negotiated settlement agreement which, as directed by the Commission, excluded the X factor component of the PBR rate setting formula. In addition, the original proceeding provided for argument and reply argument with respect to setting an interim X factor pending determination of the final X factor in Proceeding 20414, the Commission-initiated generic proceeding to establish the parameters for the next generation PBR plans. The close of record for the original proceeding was May 12, 2016, and the Commission issued Decision D on August 3, The CCA submitted its costs claim application on June 13, 2016, within the 30 day timeline permitted by the Commission s rules. The Commission assigned Proceeding and Application A001 to the costs claim application. 1 Decision D : Distribution Performance-Based Regulation-Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor, Proceeding 21149, Application D , August 3, Decision D (September 26, 2016) 1

6 Distribution Performance-Based Regulation Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor 5. No comments were filed with respect to the costs application and the Commission considers the close of record for this proceeding to be July 4, 2016, the deadline for filing comments. 2 Commission findings 6. The Commission s authority to award costs for participation in a utility rates proceeding is found in Section 21 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. When considering a claim for costs for a utility rates proceeding, the Commission is also guided by the factors set out in Section 11 of AUC Rule 022: Rules on Costs in Utility Rate Proceedings (AUC Rule 022). Appendix A of AUC Rule 022 prescribes a Scale of Costs applicable to all costs claimed. 2.1 Consumers Coalition of Alberta 7. The following table summarizes the CCA s costs claim. Claimant Hours Preparation Attendance Argument Fees Disbursements GST Total CCA Wachowich & Company $35, $ $1, $38, Regulatory Services Inc $20, $0.00 $1, $21, Dustin Madsen Consulting $4, $0.00 $ $5, Total $60, $ $3, $64, The Commission finds that the CCA acted responsibly in the original proceeding and contributed to the Commission s understanding of the relevant issues. However, the Commission is unable to approve the disbursement costs claimed in respect of the services performed by Wachowich & Company for the reasons set out below. Wachowich & Company 9. The CCA was represented by Wachowich & Company in the original proceeding. The fees claimed by the CCA for the legal services provided by Mr. James Wachowich relate to reviewing the application, preparing for and attending the technical meeting, reviewing IR responses, preparing for and attending the negotiated settlement meeting, and drafting argument and reply argument on an interim X factor. 10. The Commission has reviewed the disbursements claimed for Wachowich & Company and the amounts claimed for disbursements for parking and travel are not in accordance with the Scale of Costs. Appendix A of Rule 022 states that disbursements for parking and travel are restricted to costs incurred in connection with an oral hearing. As the original proceeding did not involve an oral hearing, these disbursements and the associated GST are disallowed. 11. The Commission finds that the services performed by Mr. Wachowich were directly and necessarily related to the CCA s participation in the original proceeding, and that the fees, which were claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs for those services, are reasonable. 2 Decision D (September 26, 2016)

7 Distribution Performance-Based Regulation Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor Accordingly, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for legal fees for Wachowich & Company in the amount of $35, and GST of $1, for a total of $37, Regulatory Services Inc. 12. Regulatory Services Inc. was retained by the CCA to perform consulting services in the original proceeding. The fees claimed by the CCA relate to the consulting services provided by Mr. Jan Thygesen who had overall responsibility for the application for the CCA. The services provided included reviewing the application, preparing for and attending the technical meeting, drafting IRs, reviewing IR responses, drafting negotiating position recommendations, participating in the negotiations, participating in the drafting of the settlement agreement, and drafting argument and reply argument on an interim X factor. 13. The Commission finds that the services performed by Mr. Thygesen were directly and necessarily related to the CCA s participation in the original proceeding, and that the fees, which were claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs for those services, are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for consulting fees for Regulatory Services in the amount of $20, and GST of $1, for a total of $21, Dustin Madsen Consulting 14. Dustin Madsen Consulting was retained by the CCA to perform consulting services in the original proceeding. The consulting services were provided by Mr. Dustin Madsen CPA, CA and included review and analysis of Rule 005 filings, the application K factor calculations, historical under-earnings, capital tracker true-up proposals and the impact of higher 2014 actual O&M costs, prior to the commencement of settlement negotiations. Mr. Madsen also attended the technical meeting, drafted IRs and reviewed IR responses. 15. The Commission finds that the services performed by Mr. Madsen were directly and necessarily related to the CCA s participation in the original proceeding, and that the fees, which were claimed in accordance with the Scale of Costs for those services, are reasonable. Accordingly, the Commission approves the CCA s claim for consulting fees for Mr. Madsen in the amount of $4, and GST of $ for a total of $5, Decision D (September 26, 2016) 3

8 Distribution Performance-Based Regulation Negotiated Settlement Application and Interim X Factor 3 Order 16. It is hereby ordered that: 1) shall pay intervener costs to the Consumers Coalition of Alberta in the amount of $63, ) shall record intervener costs in the amount of $63, in its Hearing Cost Reserve Account. Dated on September 26, Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Willie Grieve, QC Panel Chair 4 Decision D (September 26, 2016)

Decision D ATCO Electric Ltd Annual Performance-Based Regulation Rate Adjustment Filing. Costs Award

Decision D ATCO Electric Ltd Annual Performance-Based Regulation Rate Adjustment Filing. Costs Award Decision 22281-D01-2017 2017 Annual Performance-Based Regulation Rate Adjustment Filing February 10, 2017 Decision 22281-D01-2017 2017 Annual Performance-Based Regulation Rate Adjustment Filing Proceeding