|
|
|
Ottawa, 3 December 1993
|
|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 93-15
|
|
In re: AGT Limited - Revenue Requirements for 1993 and 1994
|
|
Application for Costs by the City of Calgary (Calgary).
|
|
On 24 August 1993, Calgary applied for its costs of participation in the above-named proceeding. In its application and reply, Calgary submitted that, among other things, the Commission should change its policy on costs applications by municipalities. In Calgary's view, the issue is not whether or not Calgary needs the costs, but rather, the issue is one of fairness. Calgary argued that, first, since the benefits of its intervention will flow throughout the province, as a matter of fairness, the costs of the intervention should not be borne exclusively by Calgary taxpayers. Second, costs should be awarded to ensure that the views of a cross-section of telephone subscribers in Alberta are presented before the Commission.
|
In its answer, AGT Limited objected to the application by Calgary on the basis of its lack of financial need. In addition, AGT Limited noted that Calgary's main theme at the hearing focused in particular on Calgary's interests. Finally, AGT submitted that it would be inappropriate for the Commission not to maintain its precedent in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 1992-3, 17 June 1992 (Costs Order 92-3) in which costs to Calgary were denied.
|
|
DIRECTION AS TO COSTS
|
|
1. As noted above, Calgary argued that financial need is not properly an issue in awarding costs to
municipalities. The Commission's general policy of awarding costs to interveners meeting its
established criteria was originally set out in CRTC Procedures and Practices in
Telecommunications Regulation, Telecom Decision CRTC 78-4, 23
May 1978 (Decision 78-4). In order to achieve the Commission's objective of informed
participation in its public hearings, the Commission decided that interveners who would not
otherwise have sufficient funds to properly present their case should be eligible to apply for
some form of financial assistance.
|
|
2. The Commission thus stated in Decision 78-4 that,
|
|
costs will not be available to interveners who already have funding from government or other
sources that would in the Commission's opinion enable them to participate in the case.
|
|
3. The Commission has, over the years, maintained this position except in a few instances where it
has found that the proceeding involved special and unique circumstances of such a nature as to
warrant making an exception to its general policy.
|
|
4. With respect to municipalities in particular, the Commission has stated that costs for their
participation in proceedings before the Commission that do not involve special and unique
circumstances should not in principle be awarded.
|
|
5. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission considers that it
would not be appropriate to change this longstanding policy. The Commission maintains this
policy on the basis of its view that a municipality's participation in regulatory matters affecting its
citizens is a recognized function of the municipality and, accordingly, that a portion of its annual
budget may properly be deemed to be appropriated for this participation.
|
6. Based on this policy, and given the lack of any particular circumstances in the proceeding, the
Commission denied the application of Calgary for costs for its participation in the AGT Limited -
Revenue Requirement Proceeding for 1992 in Costs Order 92-3.
|
7.Recognizing the special and unique circumstances of the AGT Limited - Issues related Income
Tax proceeding, the Commission, by a majority decision in Telecom Costs Order CRTC
93-10, 27 August 1993, (Costs Order 93-10), recently awarded costs
to Calgary. The Commission found that the issues examined in that proceeding were complex
and technically difficult. In addition, Calgary was the sole intervener who participated in that
proceeding and without its participation, the Commission would not have conducted an oral
public hearing.
|
|
8. The Commission has determined that the proceeding into AGT Limited's Revenue
Requirements for 1993 and 1994, and Calgary's participation therein, did not involve any special
or particular circumstances that would call for an exception to be made to the general policy of
the Commission regarding costs awards to municipalities.
|
|
9. In light of the foregoing, the application of Calgary for an award of costs in respect of the above-
titled proceeding is hereby denied.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
|