Regulatory Law Chambers logo

AltaLink Management Ltd. – 2014-2015 Deferral Accounts Reconciliation Second Compliance Filing, AUC Decision 24919-D01-2019

Link to Decision Summarized

Rates – Compliance Filing – Deferral Accounts Reconciliation


In this decision, the AUC set out its determinations regarding the application by AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AML”) for its 2014-2015 deferral accounts reconciliation second compliance filing. The AUC approved AML’s request to collect $119.4 million through a one-time charge to the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”).

Background

On January 23, 2019, the AUC issued Decision 22542-D02-20191 regarding AML’s 2014 and 2015 deferral accounts reconciliation application, which required AML to file a reconciliation application with its responses to AUC directions.

AML filed its compliance application on February 15, 2019. In Decision 24329-D01-2019, the AUC ordered AML to provide a second refiling of its 2014 and 2015 deferral accounts reconciliation application.

On September 23, 2019, AML filed an application requesting approval for its 2014-2015 deferral accounts reconciliation second compliance filing.

Issues

In its application, AML applied to collect $119.4 million through a one-time charge to the AESO. The deferral accounts settled included the following charges for 2014 and 2015:


Image2.png

 

In its application, AML prepared responses to AUC directions from Decision 24329-D01-2019. The AUC found that AML adequately responded to those directions, and approved AML’s adjustments as filed.

AML also applied to collect an additional $1.0 million related to carrying costs under Rule 023. AML stated that the $8.6 million in carrying costs approved by the AUC in Decision 24329-D01-2019 was only calculated up to the end of June 2019. AML requested that the calculation of the final carrying-cost amount be extended to the date of issuance of the AUC’s final decision and that its request to collect $9.6 million assumed a final decision from the AUC by the end of October 2019.

The AUC noted that the award of carrying costs pursuant to Rule 023 is a discretionary award. It found AML’s request for an additional $1.0 million in carrying costs reasonable in the circumstances given that the same $91.7 million was still to be recovered from the AESO. The AUC approved AML’s request for carrying costs in the amount of $9.6 million.

Related Posts

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Administrative Law – Judicial Review v. Statutory Appeal Application Ummugulsum Yatar (“Ms. Yatar”) contested the denial of her insurance...