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.
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.
In this decision, the AUC approved a methodology for the calculation of final loss factors for the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016 (the “Historical Period”). The AUC also determined to whom revised invoices for line loss charges or credits for the historical period were to be issued.
In this decision, the AUC approved a methodology for the calculation of final loss factors for the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016 (the “Historical Period”). The AUC also determined to whom revised invoices for line loss charges or credits for the historical period were to be issued.
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. (“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.
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.
Download ReportTerms and Conditions of Service – Liability of Rural Landowners for Abandoned Energy Facilities – Farmers Advocate In this decision, the AUC considered proposed amendments to the terms and conditions of service of EPCOR Energy Alberta GP Inc. (“EPCOR”),...
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.
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.
The AUC directed ATCO Electric to refile its application on or before October 24, 2017.
The AUC approved the negotiated settlement agreements as filed with the quantum for the refund of surplus accumulated depreciation set at $31.4 million.
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.
The AUC concluded that the comprehensive noise survey at receptors B, J and K was conducted in accordance with Rule 012.
The AUC approved, on a final basis, a deemed equity ratio of 36 per cent for the transmission and distribution operations of ENMAX for 2016 and 2017.
The AUC denied the leave request.
The AUC concluded that the adverse effects of the wind power plant, including noise and impacts to the environment, could be mitigated to an acceptable degree. The AUC therefore considered the project to be in the public interest in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.
The AUC found the proposed transmission line developments to be in the public interest pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.
The Majority directed that the AESO cease publication of the HTR as soon as practicable, and by no later than 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday May 23, 2017.
The AUC found the project and its Preferred Route, to be in the public interest pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.
The AUC denied ATCO Electric’s requested capital tracker treatment for $5.284 million in capital additions in 2015 for the MC Project. The AUC directed ATCO Electric, in its compliance filing, to reassess whether its programs or projects included in the 2015 true-up, satisfy the two-tiered materiality test requirement of Criterion 3.
The AUC found that because the condominium board was satisfied with the noise reductions from the Substation, no outstanding complaint existed. The AUC concluded that the complaint had been resolved and closed the proceeding.
The AUC directed ENMAX to submit, in a compliance filing, a copy of the T&Cs reflecting the findings and directions in this decision, as well as a blacklined version of the T&Cs.
The AUC approved Fortis’ 2017 PBR rates as filed, effective April 1, 2017.
The AUC held that the Recovery Rider J, as applied for, was a fair means of collecting the previously refunded amounts over a reasonable time period. Accordingly, the AUC approved the Recovery Rider J and the associated Combined Rider J, as filed.
The AUC held that the Recovery Rider J, as applied for, was a fair means of collecting the previously refunded amounts over a reasonable time period. Accordingly, the AUC approved the Recovery Rider J and the associated Combined Rider J, as filed.
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.
The AUC directed the AESO to address whether changes to the deferral account allocation methodology and to Rider C are warranted given the concerns raised by the PS Group, as part of its next ISO tariff application.
The AUC approved the Project along the west route option.
The AUC ordered ENMAX Energy Corporation to file a compliance filing to its 2016-2018 energy price setting plan, and include as an attachment to its application a complete energy price setting plan that reflects the findings, directions and conclusions in this decision, by no later than February 28, 2017.
The AUC directed FortisAlberta Inc.to file a compliance filing application in accordance with the directions contained within this decision on or before February 27, 2017.
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.
In Decision 20414-D01-2016 (the “2016 PBR Decision”), the AUC determined the parameters that apply to the next generation of performance based regulation (“PBR”) plans. The parameters the AUC approved in the decision apply for the 2018-2022 PBR term.
In this decision, the AUC approved the AESO new line loss rule, as filed.
The AUC held that when calculating loss factors, the AESO should use the full range of net-to-grid output of each generating facility.
Download ReportISO Rule – Loss Factor and Loss Factor Methodology This decision follows in a series of decisions regarding a complaint made by Milner Power Inc. (“Milner”) on August 17, 2005 regarding Independent System Operator (“ISO”) Rule 9.2: Transmission Loss...
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.
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.
The ABCA granted the adjournment. Martin J.A. held that denying the adjournment could result in litigation by installment, a practice strongly discouraged by the courts. Martin J.A. concluded that there was no compelling reason to make an exception in this case.
The AUC concluded that a 25% reduction in TCM forecasts was warranted. The AUC directed ATCO to provide a revised breakdown of TCM costs in its compliance filing.
The AUC approved DERS’ late payment penalty charge application for the refund and recovery of late payment penalty charge amounts through a rate rider. The AUC ordered DERS to cubmit a compliance filing.
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.
The AUC approved the Projects, including the Cooking Lake Development, along the preferred route proposed by AltaLink.
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.
In light of the directions provided in this decision, the AUC directed Lethbridge to file a compliance filing no later than July 28, 2016.
The AUC dismissed Oldman 2’s review application, finding that Oldman 2 failed to demonstrate that the hearing panel committed any error of law or jurisdiction in Decision 3521-D01-2015 that could lead the AUC to materially vary or rescind its decision.
The AUC approced the project subject to conditions.
The AUC approced the project subject to conditions.
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.
The AUC approved the sale of the Property, as filed.
The AUC approved the sale of the Property, as filed.
The AUC directed AltaLink to file a compliance filing to reflect the findings, conclusions and directions in this decision on or before July 25, 2016.