ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc....The total amount awarded to Gist Solutions on page 9 of Decision 2011-415 is $8,916.08; accordingly, the total cost award to Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd

Decision 2011-415 (Errata)

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Errata to Decision 2011-415

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. Local Intervener Cost Claim

Cost Awards

The Alberta Utilities Commission

Decision 2011-415 (Errata): ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc.


Application No. 1607444

Proceeding ID No. 1311

October 26, 2011

Published by


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

http://www.eub.ca/

AUC Decision 2011-415 (Errata) (October 26, 2011) • 1


Calgary, Alberta

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Decision 2011-415 (Errata)

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. Application No. 1607444

Local Intervener Cost Claim Proceeding ID No. 1311

1 Introduction

1. On October 21, 2011, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) issued

Decision 2011-415, ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc., Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. Local Intervener

Cost Claim, Cost Awards.

2. Appendix A to Decision 2011-415 contains an error of transcription of the costs awarded

to Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. for Gist Solutions. The total amount awarded to Gist

Solutions on page 9 of Decision 2011-415 is $8,916.08; accordingly, the total cost award to

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd is $121,939.18. This amount was reduced by $60,500.00

granted in advance funding. Appendix A has been corrected and is attached.

Dated on October 26, 2011.


(original signed by)

Carolyn Dahl Rees

Vice-Chair

(original signed by)

Mark Kolesar

Commission Member

Alberta Utilities Commission ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc.

Cost Proceeding ID. 1311

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd.

Local Intervener Cost Claim

(1605943)

Total Costs Claimed and 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)

APPLICANT

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc.

No Applicant Costs $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

INTERVENERS


McLennan Ross LLP $58,245.00 $3,853.04 $3,104.90 $65,202.94 $57,684.89 $3,853.04 $3,076.90 $64,614.83

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. $44,937.50 $8,083.29 $2,651.02 $55,671.81 $24,031.71 $4,670.74 $1,435.12 $30,137.57

HFP Acoustical Consultants $17,308.75 $114.42 $871.16 $18,294.33 $17,308.75 $91.93 $870.03 $18,270.71

Gist Solutions $84,915.00 $6,173.41 $4,554.42 $95,642.83 $8,491.50 $0.00 $424.57 $8,916.07

Sub-Total $205,406.25 $18,224.16 $11,181.50 $234,811.91 $107,516.85 $8,615.71 $5,806.62 $121,939.18

($60,500.00)

TOTAL INTERVENER COSTS $205,406.25 $18,224.16 $11,181.50 $234,811.91 $107,516.85 $8,615.71 $5,806.62 $121,939.18

TOTAL INTERVENER AND APPLICANT COSTS $205,406.25 $18,224.16 $11,181.50 $234,811.91 $107,516.85 $8,615.71 $5,806.62 $61,439.18

1

Decision 2011-415

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. Local Intervener Cost Claim

Cost Awards


Decision 2011-415: ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc.


Application No. 1607444

Proceeding ID No. 1311

October 21, 2011

Published by


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

http://www.eub.ca/

AUC Decision 2011-415 (October 21, 2011) • i

Contents

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

2 VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION – AUTHORITY TO AWARD COSTS ..................... 2

3 VIEWS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................. 2 3.1.1 BSF cost claim .................................................................................................. 2 3.1.2 ENMAX comments ........................................................................................... 3

3.1.2.1 Legal fees ................................................................................................ 3 3.1.2.2 Professional fees ..................................................................................... 3

3.1.3 BSF reply to ENMAX comments ..................................................................... 5

4 VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................................................... 6 4.1 Legal fees ....................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Millennium professional fees ......................................................................................... 7 4.3 HFP professional fees .................................................................................................... 8

4.4 Gist Solutions professional fees ..................................................................................... 8 4.4.1 Summary of approved costs for BSF ................................................................ 9

5 ORDER .................................................................................................................................. 9

AUC Decision 2011-415 (October 21, 2011) • 1


Calgary, Alberta

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Decision 2011-415

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. Application No. 1607444

Local Intervener Cost Claim Proceeding ID No. 1311

1 Introduction

1. ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. (ENMAX) filed Application No. 1605943 (Application) with the

Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) on February 26, 2010, pursuant to Section 11 of

the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, to construct and operate a 165-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired

power plant (Power Plant).

2. The Commission issued a Notice of Application and Hearing on September 21, 2010. On

October 22, 2010, Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. filed a statement of intent to participate in the

proceeding and on November 15, 2010, it indicated that it was also acting on behalf of the property

owner, Bonnybrook Custom Steel Forms Ltd. The Commission issued a ruling granting standing to

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. and Bonnybrook Custom Steel Forms Ltd. (BSF) on November

26, 2010.

3. On November 30, 2010, BSF requested an adjournment of the hearing. BSF indicated

that counsel had been retained, but it needed sufficient time to retain expert witnesses and

prepare for the hearing that was scheduled for January 10, 2011. BSF also stated that ENMAX’s

application was not ready to proceed to a public hearing because key evidence and information

was missing. The Commission issued a ruling on December 8, 2010, adjourning the hearing to

May 25, 2011.

4. The Commission received a request for advance funding from BSF on January 19, 2011,

with the budget estimate submitted for approval totalling $335,475.00. On February 2, 2011,

ENMAX commented on the advance funding request. On March 8, 2011, the Commission issued

Decision 2011-0831 granting BSF advance funding in the amount of $60,500.00.

5. The Commission convened a public hearing in Calgary, Alberta on May 25, 2011, before

Carolyn Dahl Rees, Vice-Chair and Panel Chair, and Commission Member Mark Kolesar.

Undertakings were filed subsequent to the hearing on May 30, 2011. The Commission issued

Decision 2011-353, ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc., Construct and Operate 165-MW Bonnybrook

Energy Centre, dated August 26, 2011 (Decision 2011-353).

6. On June 27, 2011, the Commission received a total cost claim of $234,811.91 for BSF.

On June 28, 2011, a summary of the costs being claimed was circulated to interested parties. On

July 11, 2011, ENMAX submitted that the cost claim filed by BSF should be reduced by

1 Decision 2011-083: ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Advance Funding, Application no.1605943, Proceeding ID no.522;

Released on March 8, 2011.

http://www.auc.ab.ca/applications/decisions/Pages/Decisions.aspxhttp:/www.auc.ab.ca/applications/decisions/Decisions/2011/2011-083.pdf

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. Local Intervener Cost Claim

2 • AUC Decision 2011-415 (October 21, 2011)

$124,304.12 and BSF replied on July 26, 2011. Accordingly, the Commission considers the cost

process to have closed on July 26, 2011.

2 Views of the Commission – Authority to award costs

7. In determining local intervener costs, the Commission is guided by its enabling

legislation. In particular, by section 22 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act which reads as

follows:

22(1) For the purposes of this section, “local intervener” means a person or group or

association 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 person 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.

8. The Commission granted standing to BSF for the reasons set out in its ruling of

November 26, 2010 that finds that BSF is a local intervener under Section 22 of the Alberta

Utilities Commission Act, because it meets the criteria in this section. The Commission has

assessed the costs claimed in respect of the application in accordance with Rule 009, Rules on

Local Intervener Costs (Rule 009).

3 Views of the Parties

3.1.1 BSF cost claim

9. The cost claim for BSF for professional costs in the amount of $234,811.91 is comprised

of:

legal fees incurred by McLennan Ross LLP in the amount of $58,245.00 for the services

rendered by Mr. G. Fitch, legal counsel with assistance from Mr. M. Barbero, student-at-

law and Mr. E. Dixon , legal counsel, and support staff, together with miscellaneous

disbursements of $3,853.04 and GST of $3,104.90;

consulting fees incurred by Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. (Millennium) in the amount

of $44,937.50 for the services rendered by Mr. R. Rudolph and support staff, together

with disbursements of $8,083.29 that include a 6% fee on professional services, a 8%

charge on vendor inventory and expenses as well as costs related to meals, parking and

mileage and GST of $2,651.02;

http://www.auc.ab.ca/acts-regulations-and-auc-rules/rules/Pages/Rule009.aspx






consulting fees incurred by HFP Acoustical Consultants Corp.(HFP) in the amount of

$17,308.75 for the services rendered by Mr. R. Wright, together with disbursements of

$114.42 related to meals, parking and mileage, and GST of $871.16;

consulting fees incurred by Gist Solutions in the amount of $84,915.00 for the services

rendered by Ms C. Connolly, together with disbursements of $6,173.41 containing a 7%

charge for administration and expenses related to mileage; and GST of $4,554.42.

3.1.2 ENMAX comments

10. On July 11, 2011, ENMAX acknowledged that some of the costs claimed are reasonable.

However, it submitted that many of the costs claimed by BSF do not meet the requirements of

section 7 of Rule 009 and for the following reasons the Commission should reduce them by

$117,662.54 in total.2

3.1.2.1 Legal fees

11. In regard to legal fees incurred by McLennan Ross LLP of $ 65,202.94 ENMAX argued

that these costs should be reduced by $3,364.20 for the following reasons:

disallowance of 2.3 hours from the hours claimed by Mr. Fitch for preparing letters to

Alberta Environment and the Honourable Ron Liepert, Alberta Minister of Energy, and 4

hours from those claimed by Mr. Barbero for research to determine a contact person at

Alberta Environment because these hours were not related to the proceeding;

a reduction of $543.90 for Mr. M. Barbero because the hours claimed for Barbero,

student-at-law, were charged at $150.00 per hour instead of $140.00 per hour, as

specified in the Scale of Costs in Rule 009; a reduction of $422.63 from the hours

claimed for Mr. Fitch because an item on the invoice3 related to preparation of letters

related to other work.

disallowance of the fees of $1911.00 for the hours claimed by Mr. Fitch with respect to

communications with Ms. Connolly of Gist Solutions as Gist Solution’s participation in

the proceeding was of no value to the Commission’s consideration of the issues;

disallowance of $441.00 in costs claimed by Mr. Fitch with respect to the proposed

evidence of D. Milne Associates and Vandertol Consulting Ltd. because AUC Decision

2011-083 denied advance funding for both pieces of proposed evidence because the

evidence was not reasonable or not warranted, respectively;

reduction of $45.67 in costs claimed for paralegal services in accordance with the Scale

of Costs in Rule 009 for support staff.

3.1.2.2 Professional fees

ENMAX submitted that costs incurred by Millennium should be reduced by a total of $25,273.38

for the following reasons.

2 See page 7 of ENMAX letter of July 6, 2011. However, on page 1 of this letter ENMAX requested a reduction of

$124,304.12. 3 McLennan Ross LLP bill No. 413084



ENMAX requested a reduction of Mr. Rudolph’s costs by 50% ($20,244.64) because his

evidence was flawed in several respects. It made an inappropriate direct comparison of NOX and

NO2 objectives.4 Further, a passive monitoring station was set up in an unpaved parking lot of an

active industrial facility used by heavy trucks and close to another facility with numerous diesel

buses on site, to determine air quality at the nearest residential sites in the Inglewood area. These

errors called into question the usefulness of the Millennium evidence and the evidence was of

limited assistance to the Commission in understanding the issues raised by the application.

ENMAX pointed out that Mr. Rudolph spent 173.5 hours to produce (i) a sworn affidavit,

including an initial 10 page report dated April 1, 2011, (ii) his principal evidence, consisting of a

20 page report, (iii) the answers to 10 Information Requests filed as Exhibit 0083.01, and (iv) a

report providing additional data with respect to passive monitoring stations filed as Exhibit

0084.01.

Also, ENMAX submitted that costs claimed by Millennium for support staff were claimed at

$63.00 and $66.00 per hour contrary to the Scale of Costs in Rule 009 which allows for costs of

$45.00 per hour. Therefore, these costs should be reduced by $1,710.69.

Furthermore, costs incurred by Millennium contain a 6% fee on professional services and an 8%

charge on disbursements, as well as parking expenses incurred prior to the commencement of the

hearing. As Rule 009 does not recognize claims for overhead based on percentages of the fees or

disbursements claimed; and limits parking claims to the attendance at the oral hearing, ENMAX

sought a reduction of $3,250.05 and $68.00 respectively for overheads and parking.

12. ENMAX submitted that costs incurred by HFP should be reduced by $23.67 in

accordance with Rule 009 which disallows mileage disbursements for traveled distance less than

50 km.

13. Finally, ENMAX submitted that costs incurred by Gist Solutions in the amount of

$95,642.83 should be disallowed in their entirety. In ENMAX’s view, the evidence presented by

Gist Solutions was of no value because the its report sets out concerns identified with respect to

environmental, groundwater and soil issues of the proposed site for the power plant and makes

recommendations for future environmental activities. However, ENMAX stated that a careful

reading of the application and information request responses – particularly those provided to

requests from the Commission early on in the process – demonstrate that the concerns raised had

already been identified by ENMAX, will be addressed by Canada Malting Corporation as part of

its commitment to reclaim the site to the satisfaction of Alberta Environment and ENMAX, or

will be addressed by ENMAX at the appropriate time. Indeed, ENMAX’s program to address

environmental issues was supported by Ms Connolly, the principal of Gist Solutions, in her oral

testimony. Therefore, EBI argued that it was difficult to see how the Gist Solutions Report or Ms

Connolly’s participation contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the

Commission, as required by section 7(1)(b) of Rule 009.

14. ENMAX also strongly objected to any award for costs associated with general oversight

services from Gist. It pointed to AUC Decision 2011-083, in which the Commission declined to

provide advance funding for this purpose. The Commission stated that it

4 Exhibit 0083.01, Response to Question 6, iv



“is not convinced that the services of Gist Solutions merit advance funding as BSF has not shown

that management services are needed ….”

15. It argued that the BSF letter of June 20, 2011 should not be accepted as demonstrating the

need for external oversight of the BSF intervention. Furthermore, BSF retained consulting firms

with significant experience in the regulatory process to assist it. Ms Connolly’s general oversight

services were unnecessary, resulting in many tens of thousands of dollars of unjustifiable costs.

Also, the statement of account for Gist Solutions does not meet the standards set out in Rule 009

for professional services. Each invoice contains a 7% charge for administration, totaling

$6,241.26 when GST is included, which is in clear contravention of AUC Rule 009. In addition,

the mileage claim of $240.82 should be disallowed because no details are provided and mileage

for intercity travel is restricted to intercity travel distances of 50 km or greater.

16. ENMAX commented on the Gist Solutions timesheets filed on July 26, 2011 in support

of the BSF cost claim. EBI argued that the timesheets in some instances did not provide the

description of the activity undertaken in sufficient detail to allow the Commission to understand

the nature of the activity and how it relates to the issues being advanced by BSF. In addition.

ENMAX submitted that the filing of the timesheets was late as the timesheets were not filed with

the original cost claim. It reiterated its request that the Gist’s costs be disallowed in their

entirety.

3.1.3 BSF reply to ENMAX comments

17. On July 26, 2011 BSF replied to ENMAX’s comments. It submitted that all costs claimed

were directly and necessarily related to the hearing and BSF acted responsibly in the hearing and

its participation contributed to a better understanding of the issues before the Commission.

18. BSF disagreed with ENMAX that costs claimed for the preparation of letters to Alberta

Environment were unreasonable or improperly incurred. BSF explained that the reason it

contacted Alberta Environment was to investigate assertions made by ENMAX in its application.

19. BSF agreed that hours for Mr. Barbero, student-at-law, should be claimed at $140.00 per

hour as set out in Rule 009. BSF also did not take issue with ENMAX’s comments submitted in

regard to paralegal charges.

20. BSF submitted that costs incurred by McLennan Ross LLP that are associated with

communications with Gist Solutions should not be disallowed because it contended that the

services and evidence provided by Gist Solutions were of value and provided assistance to the

Commission.

21. BSF argued that costs associated with the proposed evidence of D. Milne Associates and

Vandertol Consulting Ltd. should not be disallowed as they relate to the legitimate activity of

identifying potential witnesses and are completely reasonable.

22. BSF claimed that costs claimed for Mr. Rudolph of Millennium should not be reduced by

50% as proposed by ENMAX because the evidence was not flawed. Also, BSF argued that the

points raised by ENMAX were hardly a justification for such a drastic reduction. Moreover, BSF

contended that Millennium’s evidence was of considerable assistance to the Commission in

pointing out the significant limitations of the evidence submitted by EBI in support of its



application. BSF argued that Mr. Rudolph had spent considerable time preparing information

requests on behalf of BSF and was entitled to be compensated accordingly.

23. BSF strongly objected to ENMAX’s assertion that costs claimed by Gist Solutions should

be disallowed in their entirety. It contended that BSF was entitled to pursue the environmental

issues raised by the fact that the proposed power plant site was a brownfield site. BSF contended

that this information was not clear on the record. As a result, it was reasonable of Gist Solutions

to assume that environmental studies or assessments must exist with respect to proposed BEC

site. BSF argued that it was through Gist Solutions pursuing the issue that ENMAX finally

disclosed that its main consultant had prepared an environmental site characterization report on

the proposed power plant site. BSF added that it was as a result of the filing of the Gist Solutions

Report that ENMAX clarified in its reply evidence that Alberta Environment will have to

approve reclamation of the wastewater lagoon which was being carried out by Canada Malting

Corporation. Also, BSF argued that Alberta Environment will have to approve the remediation of

the entire site based on information contained in a phase II environmental site assessment. It

reiterated its position that Gist Solutions should be awarded costs for general oversight services

who acted as a general consultant. Gist Solutions assisted Mr. Jackson by explaining the issues,

both substantive and process, over and above that which legal counsel could provide.

24. Finally, BSF disagreed with EBI that the district heating plant was not relevant to the

application before the Commission and Gist Solutions was correct to raise the issue. It contended

that the district heating was within the jurisdiction of the Commission in terms of its assessment

of the social and environmental effects of the project. Also, on July 26, 2011, BSF submitted

timesheets for Ms Connolly of Gist which ENMAX had pointed out were lacking from the cost

claim, in contravention of Rule 009.

4 Views of the Commission

4.1 Legal fees

25. In making its determination on the cost claim, the Commission is mindful of section 7 of

Rule 009 under which the Commission may award costs, in accordance with the Scale of Costs,

if it is of the opinion that the costs are reasonable and directly and necessarily related to the

hearing and that the local intervener acted responsibly and contributed to a better understanding

of the issues before the Commission.

26. With respect to legal fees, the Commission notes that the case was conducted by Mr.

Fitch, an experienced legal counsel from McLennan Ross LLP. The Commission considers that

Mr. Fitch was well able to assist his client, BSF, in the preparation and presentation of the

intervention. As noted in his invoices, Mr. Fitch advised his client on the retention of experts and

worked with those experts in presenting the intervention. Also, based on the invoices, Mr. B.

Jackson and Mr. I. MacGregor, representatives of the companies who intervened in this

proceeding, were very involved in the preparation of the intervention. Therefore, the

Commission considers that it was not necessary or reasonable to involve Gist Solutions in all

aspects of the intervention as it added to the legal fees and other professional costs incurred in

relation to the intervention.

27. The Commission observes that the hourly rate for Mr. Fitch is in accordance with the

Scale of Costs. However, the hourly rate claimed for Mr. Barbero, student-at-law, should be



$140.00 per hour as set out in Rule 009 and not at $150.00 per hour as claimed by BSF.

Accordingly the claim is reduced is by $543.90.

28. The Commission, also, notes that the Scale of Costs does not allow costs for paralegals.

However, costs of support staff may be charged at an hourly rate of $45.00. Accordingly, fees

claimed for paralegal work are reduced by $45.67. The Commission grants the disbursements of

McLellan Ross as claimed as the disbursements are reasonable and in accordance with the Scale

of Costs.

4.2 Millennium professional fees

The Commission considers that the professional fess claimed by Mr. Rudolph of Millennium are

excessive because the expert evidence provided was of limited assistance to the Commission in

ascertaining whether the proposed power plant raised concerns regarding air quality in the

Bonnybrook area. The Commission notes that Millennium was retained to review the applicant’s

evidence on air quality and air quality modeling assessment, and on fogging and icing. It raised

concerns with the assessment as it considered that the use of a more generalized model

misrepresented the baseline air quality in the vicinity of the proposed power plant. Of greatest

concern to Millennium was what it believed was an underrepresentation of the NO2 emissions

resulting from the operations at the Canadian Pacific Railway Alyth train yards. It conducted two

months of air monitoring in the Bonnybrook area which showed greater peak concentration of

NOx than the monitoring data from the Calgary Regional Airshed Zone southeast station NO2

concentrations, suggesting that this was proof that regional data used underestimated NO2

concentrations in the project area. In AUC Decision 2011-353, the Commission determined that

the NO2 concentrations from the ENMAX assessment could not be compared to the NOx results

provided by the Millennium monitoring. The Commission is of the opinion that the necessity of

conducting such monitoring was questionable and resulted in erroneous evidence. The position

advanced in its expert evidence that the applicant’s air modeling method for evaluating air

quality predictions and monitoring was not substantiated. As a result the Commission is of the

view that the evidence prepared by Millennium was not helpful to the Commission.

29. In addition, the Commission is of the view that there was very little detail in the invoices

regarding the services provided by Mr. Rudolph. From the evidence, the Commission is aware

that Mr. Rudolph reviewed the applicant’s air quality modeling assessment, prepared information

requests, prepared a report and conducted air monitoring. However, it appears from the invoices

that some services were provided by AMEC but it is not clear what services AMEC provided. As

a result of the above, the Commission reduces the professional fees claimed by Mr. Rudolph by

50%.

30. Also, Millennium claimed costs for support staff at $63.00 and $66.00 per hour, contrary

to the Scale of Costs which sets a rate of $45.00 per hour for support staff. Accordingly, the costs

claimed for Kelly Bradshaw, Shannon Carlsen, Caitlin Logan, Elaine Skelly, Henan Zhang and

Julie Zhu are reduced by $1,710.69.

31. The Millennium invoices contain a 6% fee on professional services and an 8% charge on

disbursements, as well as parking expenses incurred prior to the commencement of the hearing.

According to Rule 009, the Commission does not recognize claims for overhead based on

percentages of the fees or disbursements claimed; and limits parking claims to the attendance at

the oral hearing. Accordingly, the costs claimed for disbursements are reduced by $3,250.05.



4.3 HFP professional fees

32. The Commission considers that the professional fees claimed by HFP are reasonable and

the evidence was relevant to one of the issues raised by the application, noise impacts from the

proposed power plant. The work carried out by HPF was detailed in its invoices and the evidence

was of assistance to the Commission in understanding the noise issue. Regarding disbursements,

the Commission disallows the amount of $23.67 as it relates to travel less than 50 km.

4.4 Gist Solutions professional fees

33. In AUC Decision 2011-083 on the advance funding request in this matter, the

Commission did not grant advance funding for Gist Solutions because the Commission was not

convinced that the proposed services of Gist Solutions merited advance funding, as BSF had not

shown that management services were needed and that the scope of the environmental

assessment was not clearly defined.5

34. The Commission considers that Decision 2011-083 should have cautioned BSF that it

may not be able to recover costs with regard to services provided by Gist Solutions. The

Commission is not persuaded by the June 20, 2011 letter from BSF arguing that it needed Gist

Solutions to act as a general consultant for its intervention. Also, the Commission does not

consider that Gist Solutions was needed to explain the process and the environmental issues

involved in the proceeding. First, as noted above, BSF retained experienced legal counsel who

was well able to assist BSF in retaining experts and explaining the process. It appears from the

invoices of legal counsel that both principals of the companies intervening participated in

meetings with legal counsel and experts. Furthermore, the purpose of retaining experts is to assist

an intervener who does not have expertise in an area to understand the substantive issues and

prepare and present its intervention. In this matter, Millennium was retained to address the

intervener’s concerns regarding air quality and fogging and icing. Also, noise concerns were

addressed by HFP for the intervener. As a result, the Commission finds that Gist Solutions acting

as a general consultant added to the costs of the proceeding and that these services were not of

assistance to the Commission in determining the issues arising from the application.

35. The Commission considers that the need to remediate and reclaim the site of the proposed

power plant was at best a peripheral issue in the proceeding because Canada Malting

Corporation, owner of the site, was responsible for the remediation and reclamation and that this

work would have to be completed to the satisfaction of Alberta Environment. The Commission

did not find any need for further environmental activities before deciding on the application.

Also, BSF has not shown the manner in which the remediation and reclamation of the site might

directly and adversely affect it.

36. However, the Commission notes that Gist Solutions did prepare a letter report on the

environmental, groundwater and soil issues associated with the proposed BEC site and attended

the hearing. The Commission is of the view that some costs should be awarded for these

services, although it was of limited assistance. The Commission has reviewed the invoices

provided by Gist Solutions and, even if it considers the timesheets provided, it is difficult to

separate out the time spent as a general consultant from that spent on the preparation of the

report. For all of the above reasons, the Commission reduces the fees claimed for professional

5 AUC Decision 2011-083 at page 4



services by Gist Solutions by 90% which would result in a cost award for Gist Solutions of

$8,491.50.

37. Also, the Commission observes that the disbursements claimed by Gist Solutions contain

a 7% charge for administration totaling $6,241.26 with GST. According to Rule 009 the

Commission does not recognize claims for overhead based on percentages of the fees or

disbursements claimed, thus the amount of $6,241.26 is disallowed. Further, in accordance with

Rule 009 the Commission disallows the mileage disbursements in the amount of $240.82 as it

relates to travel less than 50 km.

4.4.1 Summary of approved costs for BSF

38. The Commission approves the following:

Total Fees Total

Disbursements

Total GST Total Amount

McLennan Ross LLP $57,684.89 $3,853.04 $3,076.90 $64,614.83

Millennium EMS

Solutions Ltd $24,031.71 $4,670.74 $1,435.12 $30,137.56

HFP Acoustical

Consultants $17,308.75 $91.93 $870.03 $18,270.71

Gist Solutions $8,491.50 $0.00 $424.58 $8,916.08

Total $107,516.85 $8,615.69 $5,806.63 $121,939.18

39. The Commission approves the total costs award in the amount of $121,939.18 as set out

above and detailed in Appendix A. The Commission reduces this amount by $60,500.00 which

was granted in advance funding.

40. The Commission awards to BSF the remaining amount of $61,439.17.

5 Order

It is hereby ordered that:

1. The remaining intervener costs in the amount of are approved.

2. ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc. shall pay intervener costs in the amount of $61,439.17 to

Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd. and Bonnybrook Custom Steel Forms Ltd. Payment

shall be made to McLellan Ross LLP, attention Gavin Fitch at 1600 Stock Exchange

Tower, 300 – 5 Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 3C4.



Dated on October 21, 2011.


(Original signed by)

Carolyn Dahl Rees

Vice-Chair

(Original signed by)

Mark Kolesar

Commission Member

Alberta Utilities Commission ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc.

Cost Proceeding ID. 1311


Local Intervener Cost Claim

(1605943)

Total Costs Claimed and 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)

APPLICANT

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc.

No Applicant Costs $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

INTERVENERS


McLennan Ross LLP $58,245.00 $3,853.04 $3,104.90 $65,202.94 $57,684.89 $3,853.04 $3,076.90 $64,614.83

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. $44,937.50 $8,083.29 $2,651.02 $55,671.81 $24,031.71 $4,670.74 $1,435.12 $30,137.57

HFP Acoustical Consultants $17,308.75 $114.42 $871.16 $18,294.33 $17,308.75 $91.93 $870.03 $18,270.71

Gist Solutions $84,915.00 $6,173.41 $4,554.42 $95,642.83 $29,720.25 $0.00 $1,486.01 $31,206.26

Sub-Total $205,406.25 $18,224.16 $11,181.50 $234,811.91 $128,745.60 $8,615.71 $6,868.06 $144,229.37

($60,500.00)

TOTAL INTERVENER COSTS $205,406.25 $18,224.16 $11,181.50 $234,811.91 $128,745.60 $8,615.71 $6,868.06 $144,229.37

TOTAL INTERVENER AND APPLICANT COSTS $205,406.25 $18,224.16 $11,181.50 $234,811.91 $128,745.60 $8,615.71 $6,868.06 $83,729.37

1

Documents

ENMAX Bonnybrook Inc....The total amount awarded to Gist Solutions on page 9 of Decision 2011-415 is $8,916.08; accordingly, the total cost award to Bonnybrook Steel Fabricators Ltd