Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Search Results

These articles by our expert team cover the details of various decisions made by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Utilities Commision (AUC), and Canada Energy Regulator (CER). Browse our searchable archive below to learn more about the results we’ve achieved for our clients.

Subscribe

City of Lethbridge Compliance Filing to Decision 24847-D01-2020 2018-2020 Transmission Facility Owner General Tariff Application, AUC Decision 25570-D01-2020

In this decision the AUC considered an application from the City of Lethbridge’s electric utility (“Lethbridge”) requesting approval of its compliance filing to Decision 24847-D01-2020, which was Lethbridge’s 2018-2020 transmission facility owner (“TFO”) general tariff application (“GTA”). The AUC foudn that Lethbridge complied with directions 1, 2,3, 6, 9 and 10, and that outstanding directions 4, 5 and 7 are intended for the next or all future GTAs, and that direction 8 is outstanding until the required technical session has been held by Lethbridge.

ATCO Electric Ltd. Hanna Region Transmission Development Deferral Account Second Compliance Filing, AUC Decision 25521-D01-2020

In this decision, the AUC considered whether to approve an application by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO Electric” or “AET”) for approval of its Hanna Region Transmission Development deferral account second compliance filing with respect to specific AUC directions issued in Decision 22393-D02-2019, ATCO Electric’s Hanna Region Transmission Development Deferral Account; and Decision 24753-D01-2020, ATCO Electric’s Hanna Region Transmission Development Deferral Account Compliance Filing. The AUC Found that ATCO Electric adequately complied with directions 3, 4 and 5 from Decision 22393-D02-2019, and directions 1, 2 and 3 from Decision 24753-D01-2020.

Energy for Less Ltd. – Dispute of Specified Penalty, AUC Decision 25294-D01-2020

Energy for Less Ltd. is an authorized independent broker of Sponsor Energy Inc., a licensed retailer of electricity and natural gas in Alberta. In this decision, the AUC considered a notice of dispute filed by Energy for Less in respect of a notice of specified penalty issued to Energy for Less and confirmed the disputed specified penalty.

Alberta Federation of Rural Electrification Associations – Decision on Preliminary Question -Application for Review of Decision 24762-D01-2019, AUC Decision 25375-D01-2020

In this decision, the AUC considered an application filed by the Alberta Federation of Rural Electrification Associations (“AFREA”) requesting a review and variance of specific findings made in Decision 24762-D01-2019 (the “Decision”). The Decision addressed applications from seven parties for approval and payment of their respective costs to participate in Proceeding 23757, which was convened by the AUC to consider an application from the Alberta Electric System Operator for approval of the first set of Independent System Operator rules to establish and operate a capacity market for electrical generation in Alberta. The AFREA review application concerned findings in the Decision disallowing costs claimed for the services provided by its legal counsel and consultants in Proceeding 23757. The AUC denied the review application.

ENMAX Power Corporation – 2018-2020 General Tariff Application Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Excluded Matters, AUC Decision 23966-D01-2020

The AUC accepted EPC’s negotiated settlement agreement. Of the six issues excluded from the negotiated settlement agreement, the AUC denied EPC’s proposed new flow-through deferral account and Remington Project deferral account and changes to its existing major storms and natural disasters deferral account. The AUC affirmed its earlier ruling that all matters regarding Substation No. 1 are to be removed from the revenue requirement for this GTA. The AUC did not approve EPC’s proposed treatment for capital leases, but approved its proposed treatment of intercompany interest revenue. Finally, the AUC provided guidance with respect to the application of EPC’s capitalization policy through its accounting practices, and confirmed that only assets that are used and required to be used are to be capitalized into rate base.

Robert Tupper – Decision on Preliminary Question – Application for Review of Decision 24295-D01-2019, AUC Decision 25276-D01-2020

In this decision, the AUC determined whether to review and vary its calculation of the rate rider to recover the costs of the ultraviolet (“UV”) light system upgrade approved in Decision 24295-D01-2019. The Decision addressed Salt Box Coulee Water Supply Company Ltd.’s (“Salt Box”) request for a rate rider to recover the costs associated with its UV system upgrade, which was filed as part of Salt Box’s 2019 final rate application. Mr. Robert Tupper applied for a review of Decision 24295-D01-2019, claiming that the AUC erred in calculating the UV system rate rider by basing it on the incorrect number of lots in Calling Horse Estates. The AUC denied the review application.