Electricity – Rates
Application
AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AML”) applied for review and variance of a section of the decision on AML’s general tariff application (“GTA”), Decision 26509-D01-2022 (Corrigenda) (the “GTA Decision”). S. 10.1.10 of the GTA Decision addresses AML’s proposed capital expenditures for its Pipeline Electrical Interference Mitigation Program (“PEIMP”).
Decision
The AUC varied the findings and directions in s. 10.1.10 of the GTA Decision. The AUC required AML to submit a compliance filing reflecting this decision’s conclusions.
Applicable Legislation
Safety Codes Act, RSA 2000, c S-1.
Pertinent Issues
In its GTA, AML requested approval of its applied-for revenue requirement for the 2022-2023 test period. In the GTA Decision, the AUC did not approve forecast capital expenditures of $4.510 million in 2022 and $3.375 million in 2023, or any other amount, for AML’s PEIMP because AML had not provided sufficient evidence. AML also requested that the AUC review and vary the findings in Section 10.1.10 of the GTA Decision.
The AUC found that AML should reduce its forecast capital expenditures by $255,000 in 2022 and $425,000 in 2023. AML confirmed that it and the applicable pipeline owners would pay capital expenditures in these amounts.
The AUC found that AML’s forecast of 16 events to be studied in 2022 at the cost of $1.36 million and 20 events to be studied in 2023 at the cost of $1.7 million is reasonable and accepted the amounts as capital expenditures. The AUC directed AML to provide sufficient information in its next GTA and a supporting business case to test the prudency of these costs on an actual basis.
The AUC found that interference studies are required for the capital program at issue and agreed that AML, as a transmission facility owner, is obligated to perform these interference studies, which are funded by AML and capitalized in accordance with its capitalization criteria. The AUC found AML’s forecast of 25 interference studies per year, amounting to $1.250 million per year, to be a reasonable estimate for this work.
The AUC consequently varied the findings and directions in s. 10.1.10 of the GTA Decision.
