|
|
|
Ottawa, 19 May 1988
|
|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 88-7
|
|
In re: Bell Canada - 1988 Revenue Requirement, Rate Rebalancing and Revenue Settlement Issues - Telecom Decision CRTC 88-4
|
|
Application for costs by the City of Edmonton.
|
|
DIRECTION AS TO COSTS
|
1. The issue of awarding costs to a municipality was addressed in In Re: Northwestel Inc., General Increase in Rates, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 87-3, 11 March 1987, in relation to the application by the City of Yellowknife for costs arising from its participation in the 1987 general rate increase proceeding for Northwestel in Whitehorse, Yukon. In denying the application for costs, the Commission stated:
|
|
The Commission considers that a municipality's participation in regulatory matters affecting its citizens is a recognized function of a municipality and, accordingly, that a portion of its annual budget may properly be deemed to be appropriated for this participation. Therefore, it is the view of the Commission that costs should not, in principle, be awarded to municipalities.
|
|
2. Costs had been awarded to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities (the Federation) in CN Telecommunications, Increase in Telephone Rates ln Newfoundland, Telecom Decision CRTC 78-5, 5 July 1978, in relation to the application by the Federation for costs for participation in the 1978 general rate increase proceeding for CN Telecommunications in Newfoundland, now Terra Nova Telecommunications Inc.
|
|
3. In granting costs to the Federation, the Commission stated that the Federation had played a "major role" in the public hearing, had "exceeded the level of research and participation in the public hearing that could reasonably be expected of it", was the sole intervener to participate actively in the hearing, and had represented all of more than 200 incorporated municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland. In the City of Yellowknife case, by contrast, the Commission concluded that the participation of Yellowknife did not entail particular circumstances that would lead the Commission to treat the municipality in the same manner as it did the Federation.
|
|
4. The Commission does not consider that the participation by the City of Edmonton in this proceeding entailed circumstances significantly different from those in the Northwestel proceeding. Consequently, the Commission has determined that different treatment is not justified for the City of Edmonton in this proceeding and, accordingly, denies the application for costs by the City of Edmonton.
|
|
Fernand BélisleSecretary General
|
|
|