ARCHIVED -  Telecom Costs Order CRTC 92-3

Telecom Costs Order

Ottawa, 17 June 1992

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 92-3

In re: AGT Limited (AGT) -Revenue Requirement Proceeding for 1992

Application for costs by the City of Calgary (Calgary).

DIRECTION AS TO COSTS

1. The issue of awarding costs to a municipality was addressed in both In re: NorthwesTelInc., General Increase in Rates Telecom Decision CRTC 87-3,Telecom Costs Order CRTC 87-3, 11 March 1987, and In re: BellCanada - 1988 Revenue Requirement, Rate Rebalancing and Revenue Settlement Issues -Telecom Decision CRTC 88-4, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 88-7,19 May 1988. In denying applications for costs by municipalities in those proceedings, theCommission stated its view "that a municipality's participation in regulatory matters affecting itscitizens is a recognized function of a municipality and, accordingly, that a portion of its annualbudget may properly be deemed to be appropriated for this participation." In each case theCommission went on to say that in its view "costs should not, in principle, be awarded tomunicipalities."

2. In an earlier Commission decision, CN Telecommunications, Increase in Telephone Ratesin Newfoundland, Telecom Decision CRTC 78-5, 5 July 1978, costsfor counsel fees only were awarded to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation ofMunicipalities (The Federation), which represented more than 200 incorporated municipalities inNewfoundland and was the sole intervener to participate actively at the public hearing. TheCommission found that the Federation had exceeded the level of participation in the publichearing that could reasonably be expected of it.

The Commission stated that it "believes that participation in regulatory matters affecting itsmembership is a normal function of an association such as the Federation and that a portion ofits membership fees and annual budget can be deemed to be directed towards thisparticipation". However, it found in this case that "such a level of financing would merely haveenabled the Federation to submit a general statement of its concerns and to play a minimal rolein the proceedings". The Commission allowed for a partial award of costs.

3. In the two most recent costs decisions involving municipalities, the Commission indicated thatthe applications in question did not entail particular circumstances that would lead it to treat themunicipalities in the same manner as it did the Federation.

4. The Commission does not consider that the participation of Calgary in this proceeding entailedparticular circumstances that would lead the Commission to treat Calgary in the same manneras it did the Federation. The Commission has determined that different treatment from that inthe NorthwesTel and Bell Canada proceedings is not justified for Calgary in this proceeding and,accordingly, denies the application for costs by Calgary.

Allan J. DarlingSecretary General