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

ATCO Electric Ltd. v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2019 ABCA 417

Link to Decision SummarizedRates - Information Technology Costs In this decision, ATCO Electric Ltd. and ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (the “Applicants”) sought permission to appeal an AUC decision that allowed only part of the Applicants’ information technology (“IT”)...

EQUS REA Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2019 ABCA 277

Link to decision summarizedELECTRICITY - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL DENIED In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered EQUS REA Ltd. (“EQUS”)’s application for permission to appeal AUC Decision 22164-D01-2018 (the “AUC Decision”). The...

Milner Power Inc. and ATCO Power Ltd. Complaints Regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology (AUC Decision 790-D07-2019)

The AUC found that the AESO complied with the AUC’s direction from Decision 790-D06-2017. The AUC confirmed that although the proposed methodology for the historical period required AUC approval, the related procedure documents in this proceeding did not, because these procedures will likely evolve as necessary to implement the Modified Module B methodology.

Commission-Initiated Proceeding METSCO’s Risk-Based Asset Management Framework for ENMAX and EPCOR (AUC Decision 23102-D01-2019)

The AUC found that ENMAX failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing the prudence of the scope, level, and timing, and the actual costs, for the Proactive Cable Replacement Project and the Overhead Conductor Replacement Project in 2015 and 2016, as required under the project assessment test under Criterion 1. Accordingly, the AUC did not extend capital tracker treatment to ENMAX’s actual 2015 and 2016 costs associated with the PG4-A-4 Proactive Cable Replacement Project and the PG4-A-8 Overhead Conductor Replacement Project. EPCOR did not rely on METSCO’s analysis to support costs associated with any applied for 2016 capital tracker true-up amounts but indicated it would use METSCO’s analysis in its 2017 asset management and capital planning processes.

EPCOR Water Services Inc. E.L. Smith Solar Power Plant (AUC Decision 23418-D01-2019)

The AUC found that approval of the project was in the public interest with regard to the social, economic, and other effects of the project, including its effect on the environment. The AUC found that EPCOR Water’s proposal to provide a portion of the energy produced by the project to the adjacent water treatment plant and to export the excess energy to the AIES was not contemplated by the legislative scheme. However, the AUC approved the interconnection of the power plant on the basis that, as a municipally owned company, EPCOR Water’s intended purpose could be achieved through alternative means contemplated by the legislative scheme.