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

Remington v. Enmax, 2019 ABCA 69

The ABCA granted the appeal of the ABQB’s direction that Enmax withdraw the SRB Compensation Application. The appeal of the dismissal of Enmax’s application for a stay of the Action was dismissed.

Blair v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2018 ABCA 438

In this decision, the ABCA considered an application by a number of landowners’ (the “Applicants”) for permission to appeal AUC Decision 22665-D01-2018 (the “AUC Decision”). In the AUC Decision, the AUC approved applications (the “Applications”) by EDP Renewables SH Project GP Ltd. (“EDP”) for approval of the Sharp Hills Wind Project (the “Project”).

The ABCA denied permission to appeal, based on finding that the Applicants did not demonstrate a serious, arguable question of law or jurisdiction arising from the AUC Decision.

Capital Power Corp. v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2018 ABCA 437

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by Capital Power Corporation (“Capital Power”), ENMAX Energy Corporation (“ENMAX”), and TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) (collectively, the “Applicants”) for permission to appeal AUC Decision 790-D02-2015, which considered complaints regarding the ISO line loss rule and methodology.

The ABCA found that the AUC’s decision that it could order a remedy or relief to correct for the payment and receipt of unlawful line loss charges and credits did not raise questions of law or jurisdiction which required an appeal to the ABCA. Therefore, the ABCA dismissed the applications for permission to appeal.

Cymbaluk v TransAlta Corporation, 2018 ABCA 429

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered an application by David Cymbaluk, Ferne Cymbaluk, and Philip Cymbaluk (the “Cymbaluks”) for permission to appeal a decision of the AER dated September 7, 2018 (the “AER Decision”). The AER Decision addressed the obligations of TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) with respect to the sand, gravel, clay, and marl (the “Subsurface Materials”) removed during the mining operation at TransAlta’s Highvale Coal Mine.

The ABCA denied permission to appeal.

Dorin v EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc., 2018 ABCA 427

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered Mark Dorin’s application for permission to appeal AUC Decision 23128-D01-2018 (“the Decision”). In the Decision, the AUC concluded t was in the public interest to approve an application from EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”) to construct and operate an electrical substation (the “Substation”) and associated transmission and communications infrastructure (the “Project”) pursuant to section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act (“AUCA”).

The ABCA granted permission to appeal (in part) on the following question:What was the effect, if any, of the absence of written consent by the Minister of Infrastructure given prior to the making of the Decision by the AUC, on EPCOR’s ability to proceed to have the Substation built and made operational?

AUC Bulletin 2018-17: Electric Distribution System Inquiry

Electricity - Regulatory Framework In this bulletin, the AUC indicated it was opening an inquiry into Alberta’s changing electric distribution system. The purpose of the inquiry is to map out the key issues related to the future of the electric distribution grid and...

AltaLink Management Ltd. AltaLink L.P. Transfer of Specific Transmission Assets to PLP and KLP and the Associated 2017-2018 General Tariff Applications (AUC Decision 22612-D01-2018)

The AUC approved the transfer of the assets to PLP and KLP. Applying the no-harm test, the AUC found that the identified financial harm from the transaction could be mitigated through the imposition of conditions. The AUC approved the PLP and KLP general tariffs on an interim basis, effective the date of completion of the transfers.

Commission-Initiated Review and Variance of Decision 22741-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23505-D01-2018)

The AUC varied its direction from the Original Decisions and directed that Fortis use its proposed hybrid deferral account approach to account for amounts relating to the AESO Contributions Program. Under this approach, projects that received a permit and licence prior to December 31, 2017, shall be given deferral account treatment provided that the AUC approved the need, scope, level and timing and associated costs for the project as part of a capital tracker review. Projects that receive a permit and licence after December 31, 2017, shall be managed under the incentive properties of K-bar.

The Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate – Application for Review of Decision 22357-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23559-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered an application by the Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate (“UCA”) requesting a review of Decision 22357-D01-2018 regarding EPCOR Energy Alberta GP Inc.’s (“EPCOR”) 2018-2021 Energy Price Setting Plan (the “Original Decision”).

The AUC denied the request for review on the basis that the UCA failed to demonstrate that an error of fact, law or jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the Original Decision or otherwise existed on a balance of probabilities.

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. 2018-2019 Transmission Facility Owner Tariff Application (AUC Decision 23165-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered an application by EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”) requesting approval of its transmission facility owner (“TFO”) tariff for the 2018-2019 test years.

The AUC did not approve the requested revenue requirement of EPCOR for the years 2018-2019. The AUC ordered EPCOR to refile its application by November 15, 2018.

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. 2018-2019 Transmission Facility Owner Tariff Application (AUC Decision 23165-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered an application by EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”) requesting approval of its transmission facility owner (“TFO”) tariff for the 2018-2019 test years.

The AUC did not approve the requested revenue requirement of EPCOR for the years 2018-2019. The AUC ordered EPCOR to refile its application by November 15, 2018.

Rebasing for the 2018-2022 Performance-Based Regulation Plans for Alberta Electric and Gas Distribution Utilities Second Compliance Proceeding (AUC Decision 23355-D02-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered the second compliance filing for the interim notional 2017 revenue requirement and 2018 base K-bar for the 2018-2022 performance-based regulation (“PBR”) plans for the following Alberta electric and gas distribution utilities:

·            AltaGas Utilities Inc.,

·            ATCO Electric Ltd. (distribution),

·            ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (distribution),

·            ENMAX Power Corporation (distribution) (“ENMAX”),

·            EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (distribution) (“EPCOR”), and

·            FortisAlberta Inc. (“Fortis”)

(collectively, the “Distribution Utilities”).

While the AUC accepted the general principles and methodologies utilized by each of the Distribution Utilities for calculating their respective 2018 PBR rates, the AUC did not approve any specific rates in this decision since the directions throughout this and other decisions would result in changes to 2018 rates.

EPCOR Energy Alberta GP Inc. 2018-2020 Non-Energy Regulated Rate Tariff Application (AUC Decision 22853-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered EPCOR Energy Alberta GP Inc.’s (“EPCOR”) 2018-2020 non-energy regulated rate tariff (“RRT”) for service in the EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (“EDTI”) and FortisAlberta Inc. (“Fortis”) service territories.

The AUC approved EPCOR’s forecast customer site counts, operating costs, corporate services costs, property taxes, hearing cost deferral account, and depreciation expense subject to certain directions which EPCOR was directed to address in a compliance filing.

The AUC approved EPCOR’s terms and conditions effective October 4, 2018.

Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate – Commission-initiated Review and Variance of Decision 20552-D01-2015 and Decision 20733-D01-2015 (AUC Decision 21768-D01-2017)

In this proceeding, the AUC reviewed the original panels’ determinations in the Original Decisions regarding the prudence of the costs paid by Fortis for the acquisition of the REA assets. In particular, the AUC considered the following issues:

(a)     What methodology is permitted, replacement cost new minus depreciation (replacement methodology) or reproduction cost new minus depreciation (reproduction methodology), to set the purchase price for the REAs?

(b)     Was the methodology applied by Fortis prudent?

The AUC found that Fortis applying the replacement methodology to determine the purchase price of both Kingman and VNM REAs was reasonable.

However, the AUC found that Fortis should only have compensated Kingman and VNM REAs for assigned land rights for the portion of the lines that were actually installed on private landowners’ land. The AUC found unreasonable Fortis’ assumption that all primary lines systems were installed on private landowners’ land and therefore not an adequate assumption for the purposes of estimating a value for the land rights assigned from the REAs to Fortis.

Accordingly, the AUC found that the portion of the costs assignable to the estimate of the acquisition of land rights should reflect the actual portion of the lines that are installed on private lands. The AUC directed Fortis, in the compliance filing, to re-estimate the value of the land rights acquired from the REAs by providing an accurate accounting for the portion of the lines that are actually installed on private land.

Direct Energy Regulated Services 2017-2018 Default Rate Tariff and Regulated Rate Tariff Compliance Filing to Decision 22004-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23748-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered Direct Energy Regulated Services’ (“DERS”) compliance filing application, pursuant to the AUC’s order in Decision 22004-D01-2018 (the “Original Decision”).

The AUC found that DERS complied with the applicable directions from the Original Decision. The AUC approved the default rate tariff (“DRT”) and the regulated rate tariff (“RRT”) revenue requirements for 2017 and 2018, as filed.

The AUC did not approve any of the DRT or RRT interim rate true-up amounts also requested by DERS as part of its compliance filing. The AUC directed DERS to file a separate application to finalize its DRT and RRT interim rate true-up amounts after it completed billing on interim rates up to September 30, 2018.

BHEC-RES Alberta G.P. Inc. Forty Mile Wind Power Project (AUC Decision 22966-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered whether to approve an application from BHEC-RES Alberta G.P. Inc. (“RES”) to construct and operate a wind power project located in the County of Forty Mile No. 8 in southeastern Alberta.

The AUC approved the RES project, finding it was in the public interest having regard to its social, economic, and other effects, including its effect on the environment.

FortisAlberta Inc. – Application for Orders Confirming Boundaries of FortisAlberta Inc. Exclusive Municipal Franchise Areas (AUC Decision 22164-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC granted FortisAlberta’s requested alterations to rural electrification associations (“REAs”) service areas that overlapped with the municipal franchise areas granted to FortisAlberta. However, the AUC decided not to order an immediate transfer of existing REA facilities and customers in the annexed (formerly overlapping) areas in the absence of a municipal bylaw requiring those customers to connect to FortisAlberta. In the AUC’s view, in the absence of such a bylaw, existing REA facilities in the formerly overlapping areas would eventually transition to FortisAlberta because of the altered service areas.

FortisAlberta Inc. – Compliance Filing to Decision 22741-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23372 – D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered FortisAlberta Inc.’s (“FortisAlberta”) compliance filing to Decision 22741-D01-2018 (the “Original Decision”). In the Original Decision, the AUC considered FortisAlberta’s application for approval of its 2016 performance-based regulation (“PBR”) capital tracker true-up and directed FortisAlberta to provide additional information and calculations in a compliance filing.

Direct Energy Regulated Services – 2017-2018 Default Rate Tariff and Regulated Rate Tariff (AUC Decision 22004-D01-2018)

Direct Energy Regulated Services (“DERS”) is a business unit of Direct Energy Marketing Limited (“DEML”) and performs the natural gas default rate tariff (“DRT”) and electricity regulated rate tariff (“RRT”) functions in the service territories of ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (“ATCO Gas”) and ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO Electric”), respectively.

In this decision, the AUC considered, DERS’ application requesting approval of its 2017-2018 DRT and RRT tariff for the January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018 period (“Test Period”).

Sale and Transfer of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Electric Distribution Assets to FortisAlberta Inc. (AUC Decision 21785-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered applications by FortisAlberta Inc. (“FortisAlberta”) and the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass (the “Municipality”) for the sale and transfer of the Municipality’s electric distribution system. In addition, FortisAlberta requested that the AUC consider the reasonability, calculation and prudence of the purchase price of $3,745,902.

The AUC found that approval of the sale and transfer of the Municipality’s electric distribution system was in the public interest.

With respect to the purchase price, the AUC:

(a)     found the use of the replacement cost new less depreciation methodology was reasonable in the circumstances; and

(b)     approved the value of the applied-for replacement cost new amount.

However, the AUC did not find the applied-for depreciation amount to be prudent. Accordingly, the AUC did not find the applied-for purchase price to be prudent, for rate setting purposes.

Burnco Rock Products Ltd. – Complaint Application re FortisAlberta Inc. Fees (AUC Decision 22872-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered a complaint filed by Burnco Rock Products Ltd. (“Burnco”) against FortisAlberta Inc. In its complaint, Burnco asked the AUC for relief from certain provisions in Fortis’ Customer Terms and Conditions of Electric Distribution Service (“T&Cs”), including a declaration that Burnco is not obligated to pay the Distribution Customer Exit Charge, an order requiring Fortis to repay the overcharges made by Burnco immediately, and that Fortis be required to salvage Site ID 0040592553255 (“Site 1”) and Site ID 0040667097191 (Site 2) (collectively, the “Sites”) without further delay.

Balancing Pool v. ENMAX Energy Corporation (2018 ABCA 143)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by the Balancing Pool and TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) to be added as parties (or as intervenors) to the applications for permission to appeal portions of AUC Proceeding 790, Module C (Decision 790-D06-2017 (the “Permission to Appeal Applications”).

AUC Bulletin 2018-05: Amended Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments

In this bulletin, the AUC announced minor amendments to Rule 007 to reflect certain aspects of the Roles and Responsibilities Document (summarized above). The AUC stated that the most notable change is the inclusion of wildlife referral reports prepared by AEP staff in the applications submitted by prospective wind and solar power plant proponents.

EPCOR Energy Alberta GP Inc. – 2018-2021 Energy Price Setting Plan (AUC Decision 22357-D01-2018)

Energy Alberta GP Inc. (“EEA”) is required to file monthly energy rates with the AUC. These monthly energy rates are determined under the Electric Utilities Act (“EUA”), in accordance with the Regulated Rate Option Regulation (the “RRO Regulation”), and the applicable AUC approved energy price setting plan (“EPSP”).

In this decision, the AUC considered EEA’s application requesting approval of a proposed EPSP for the term of May 1, 2018, to April 30, 2021.

Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie – Permit Application for the Quebec-New Hampshire Interconnection(NEB Letter Decision)

On 23 December 2016, Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie (“HQT”) applied to the NEB pursuant to subsection 58.11(1) of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”), for a permit to construct and operate a 79.2 kilometre (km) long 320 kilovolt (kV) power line from just north of Sherbrooke, Quebec to the New Hampshire border (the “Project”). The Project as applied for would increase HQT’s capacity to export power into the New England grid.

Enel Alberta Wind Inc. – Complaint Pursuant to Section 26 of the Electric Utilities Act Regarding Conduct of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AUC Decision 22367-D01-2017)

On January 25, 2017, Enel Alberta Wind Inc. (“Enel”), the owner of the Castle Rock Ridge (“CRR”) Wind Farm (the “CRR Wind Farm”), filed a complaint with the AUC regarding the conduct of the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) (the “Complaint Application”), pursuant to Section 26 of the Electric Utilities Act (“EUA”).

For the reasons summarized below, the AUC dismissed the Complaint Application.