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

ENMAX Energy Corporation v. Balancing Pool (2017 ABQB 718)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“ABQB”) considered an application by ENMAX Energy Corporation (“ENMAX”) for (the “Application”):

(a)     an interim injunction compelling the Balancing Pool to complete and communicate the results of its assessment and verification of ENMAX’s Termination Notice (the “Termination Notice”) in respect of the Power Purchase Arrangement (“PPA”) for the Keephills Generation Facility (the “Keephills PPA”);

(b)     an interim injunction compelling the Balancing Pool to take offer and dispatch of Keephills Units 1 and 2 without further delay; and

(c)     in the alternative, the determination of an issue of law, namely whether the Balancing Pool is required to fulfill its statutory obligations to complete and communicate the results of its assessment and verification of the Keephills Termination Notice and take offer and dispatch control of Keephills Units 1 and 2.

The ABQB:

(a)     granted an interim injunction compelling the Balancing Pool to complete and communicate the results of its assessment and verification of the Termination Notice; and

(b)     dismissed, as premature, ENMAX’s application for an interim injunction compelling the Balancing Pool to take offer and dispatch control of Keephills Units 1 and 2.

Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. – Post-Construction Comprehensive Sound Level Survey (AUC Decision 22535-D01-2017)

Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. (“Millar Western”) is the approval holder of AUC Power Plant Approval U2012-2373 (the “Approval”) to construct and operate a 5.2-megawatt (MW) Biogas Power Plant (the “Biogas Plant”). Condition 4 of the Approval required Miller Wester to conduct a comprehensive noise survey at the power plant within six months after the power plant was commissioned and report the findings to the AUC.

In this decision, the AUC considered the post-construction comprehensive sound level survey (“CSL Survey”) for the Biogas Plant, filed by Miller Western pursuant to Condition 4.

With respect to the CSL Survey, the AUC found that:

(a)     the CSL Survey was conducted in accordance with the requirements of AUC Rule 012: Noise Control (“Rule 12”);

(b)     the Biogas Plant was in compliance with the PSL requirements at receptors R2 and R4; and

(c)     the dwelling referred to as Receptor R3 had been demolished and, accordingly, the AUC did not need to assess PSL compliance at Receptor R3.

TransAlta Corporation – 2015-2016 Transmission General Tariff Application (AUC Decision 22651-D01-2017)

On May 12, 2017, TransAlta Corporation, as Manager of the TransAlta Generation Partnership (“TransAlta”), filed an application with the Commission requesting approval of its 2015-2016 General Tariff Application (“GTA”) (the “2015-2016 GTA” or “Application”).

In the Application, TransAlta requested the AUC approve:

(a)     a revenue requirement of $4.79 million for 2015;

(b)     revenue requirement of $6.14 million for 2016

(c)     transmission facility owner (TFO) terms and conditions of service (T&Cs) for 2015 and 2016; and

(d)     reconciliation of certain deferral accounts proposed by TransAlta.

In this decision, the AUC approved the Application, subject to certain adjustments and directions summarized below.

ENMAX PPA Management Inc. v. Balancing Pool (2017 ABQB 605)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“ABQB”) considered an application by ENMAX PPA Management Inc. (“ENMAX”), requesting a declaration that the effective date of the Battle River Power Purchase Arrangement (“BR PPA”) termination was January 1, 2016. The Balancing Pool maintained that the termination took effect on July 13, 2016, when it assumed ENMAX’s role as buyer under the BR PPA.

For the reasons summarized below, the ABQB found that the effective date of termination of the BR PPA was January 1, 2016, at 12:01 am.

ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission) (2017 ABCA 331)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered ATCO Electric Ltd.’s (“ATCO”) applications for Permission to Appeal certain aspects of the following AUC decisions:

(a)     Decision 20272-D01-2016 regarding ATCO’s 2015-2017 General Tariff Application (the “2016 GTA Decision”); and

(b)     Decision 22094-D01-2017 regarding ATCO’s application for review of the 2016 GTA Decision (the “2017 Review Decision”).

For the reasons summarized below, the ABCA dismissed ATCO’s applications for permission to appeal the AUC decisions.

AltaLink Management Ltd. – 2015-2016 General Tariff Application Second Compliance Filing (AUC Decision 22378-D01-2017)

The AUC denied AltaLink’s proposal to recapitalize allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”) in the amount of $7.1 million related to cancelled transmission projects. The AUC directed AltaLink to refund $167.1 million related to the amount of return it collected from customers on its CWIP-in-rate base balances over the years 2011-2014, $22.7 million related to the return earned on the accumulated CWIP-in-rate base returns in the years 2011-2014, and $22.4 million related to the return earned on the accumulated CWIP-in-rate base returned in the years 2015-2016.

ENMAX Power Corporation Distribution Terms and Conditions Compliance Filing (AUC Decision 22141-D01-2017)

ENMAX Power Corporation’s proposed changes to its terms and conditions of service are approved, with the exception of Section 5.5.1 Force Majeure Relief, which is approved on an interim basis, both effective the date of this decision. The interim approval will remain in effect until ENMAX Power Corporation’s next terms and conditions of service application or its next annual  performance based regulation rate adjustment filing, whichever occurs first.

Reasons for Decision: ITC Lake Erie International Power Line (NEB Decision EH-001-2015)

The NEB found that the Lake Erie Connector international power line project (the “Project”) to be in the public interest and to be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity. Subject to Governor in Council (“GC”) approval, the NEB  erected that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) be issued for the Project.

Alberta (Utilities Consumer Advocate) v. FortisAlberta Inc. (2016 ABCA 333)

Fortis Alberta Inc. (“Fortis”) acquired land (the “Land”) and contemplated using it for construction of a centralized inventory facility. However, upon review, Fortis determined a decentralized inventory model would be more efficient and therefore no longer needed the Land. Fortis applied to the AUC requesting approval to sell the Land.

Milner Power Inc. – Complaints regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology – Phase 2 Module C – Preliminary Issues (AUC Decision 790-D04-2016)

The AUC directed that the AESO file with the AUC a list that includes the contact information for all parties that received an ISO tariff invoice with a loss factor component since January 1, 2006. The AUC directed the AESO to file that information within one month of the decision. The AESO had to file that list by October 28, 2016.

ENMAX Power Corporation 2015-2017 Electricity Distribution Performance-Based Regulation Plan – Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Interim X Factor (AUC Decision 21149-D01-2016)

The AUC concluded that the NSA provides a reasonable balance of customer interests from all rate classes. Based on this review – and the fact that no larger commercial or industrial customers filed submissions in opposition of the NSA – the AUC concluded the negotiated settlement process was fair. The AUC did not adopt either of the proposed interim X Factors advanced by EPC or the consumer groups. Instead, the AUC ordered the interim X Factor be set at 0.8 percent, as determined in Decision 2009-035.

ATCO Electric Transmission and ATCO Pipelines Application for ATCO Electric Transmission 2015-2017 and ATCO Pipelines 2015-2016 Licence Fees (AUC Decision 21029-D01-2016)

The AUC found that licence fee payments by the regulated utilities, and indirectly by customers, should not be included in revenue requirement. The AUC therefore denied the application and directed ATCO Electric to reflect the findings of this decision in its compliance filing to its 2015-2017 general tariff application. ATCO Pipelines was directed to remove the licence fees placeholders from its next general rate application.

Direct Energy Regulated Services v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2016 ABCA 156

The ABCA held that the AUC did not err in law or jurisdiction in selecting the UCA methodology, pointing to the AUC’s finding that there should not be risk compensation in excess of the full recovery of costs related to risk. The ABCA held that DERS had failed to demonstrate a meritorious argument on the questions of law. Accordingly, the ABCA held that Decision 2941-D01-2015 fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law, and therefore dismissed the application.