Regulatory Law Chambers logo

The City of Calgary Application for Review of Ruling on Confidentiality in Proceeding 26615, AUC Decision 27403-D01-2022

Link to Decision Summarized

Review and Variance

Application

The City of Calgary (“Calgary”) filed an application requesting review and variance (“R&V”) of specific findings made by the AUC in an interlocutory decision on confidentiality in Proceeding 26615 (the “Decision”).

The AUC found that specified information filed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“AE”) was confidential and that Calgary had breached confidentiality by filing some of that confidential information publicly.

Calgary submitted that the AUC erred by:

  1. assuming that the costs derived by AE for services provided by different providers (Wipro and IBM/Kyndryl) could be directly compared against each other on a factual basis when AE expressly stated that such items could not be compared;

  2. finding certain information to be confidential even though AE had consistently and repeatedly disclosed information of a substantially similar nature and content publicly, including in Proceeding 26615;

  3. finding the evidence of a Calgary witness in a prior proceeding to be confidential and related to confidential information when factually such evidence was not confidential and related to a different matter; and

  4. finding certain information to be confidential as fact without regard to or application of the specific definition of Confidential Information in the Wipro Master Services Agreement filed on the record.

Decision

The AUC granted the application for R&V, in part.

Applicable Legislation

Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 – ss. 10, 63.

AUC Decision 26615-D01-2022; ATCO Electric Ltd. FortisAlberta Inc. 2023 Cost-of-Service Review

AUC Rule 016: Review and Variance of Commission Decisions

Pertinent Issues

Normally, AUC interlocutory decisions are not subject to R&V applications. Because of the referral to the Enforcement Division of the AUC, the AUC has agreed, in these specific circumstances, to review the Decision.

Calgary submitted that the AUC erred by finding certain information to be confidential even though AE had consistently and repeatedly disclosed information of a substantially similar nature and content publicly. The AUC determined that the panel of the Decision did not err when determining that two sections needed to be treated as confidential. The AUC, however, noted that the disclosure of termination and transition costs was not confidential as the 2020 termination costs were publicly filed by AE., together with the $75 million aggregate estimate of the overall costs of exiting the Wipro contract. Calgary’s disclosure of these aggregated numbers was therefore not a breach of confidentiality. The AUC varied the Decision in line with this finding.

Related Posts

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Appeal – Production of Records Application Michael Judd ("Appellant") appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) that denied his...