Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Enforcement Staff of the AUC Settlement Agreement with the City of Grand Prairie, AUC Decision 27391-D01-2023

Link to Decision Summarized

Markets – Enforcement


The AUC Enforcement Staff requested approval of a settlement agreement with the City of Grand Prairie (“Grand Prairie”) related to the operation of a power plant without the required approval. The power plant also exceeded the noise levels permitted under Rule 012: Noise Control.


The AUC approved the settlement agreement. Grand Prairie admitted to having constructed and operated a power plant without approval and that the power plant exceeded the nighttime permissible sound level at nearby residences between April 2021 and February 2022. The settlement agreement did not impose an administrative penalty under s 63(1)(a) or s 63(2) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. The settlement agreement included terms and conditions to remedy Grand Prairie’s non-compliance issues.

Applicable Legislation

Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 – ss 8 and 23(1)(b), 63(1)(a), 63(2), 66.

Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16 – ss 11 and 18.

Hydro and Electric Energy Regulation, Alta Reg 409/1983 – s 18.1(2).

AUC Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations, Hydro Developments and Gas Utility Pipelines.

AUC Rule 013: Criteria Relating to the Imposition of Administrative Penalties.

Pertinent Issues

The AUC considered the public interest test developed in R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 to determine if it should approve the settlement agreement and the provisions of Rule 013: Criteria Relating to the Imposition of Administrative Penalties.

The AUC accepted that, in this case, the objective of enforcement could be reached without an administrative penalty, namely through the conditions and requirements agreed to in the settlement agreement.

The AUC also noted the submissions from Enforcement staff indicating that a monetary administrative penalty that could have been imposed upon the city could have negatively affected municipal taxpayers, including those adversely affected by the power plant.

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...