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

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited – Application for the Sundre Crossover (NEB Decision and Order with Reasons to Follow GH-002-2017)

On 24 March 2017, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (“NGTL”) applied to construct and operate the Sundre Crossover Project (the “Project”) pursuant to section 58 of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”) and section 45.1 of the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations (“OPR”) (the “Application”). In the Application, NGTL also requested exemptions from paragraph 30(1)(a) and section 31 of the NEB Act.

The Board approved the Project and issued Order XG-N081-030-2017, and associated conditions pursuant to section 58 of the NEB Act and section 45.1 of the OPR, respectively. The NEB granted NGTL the relief requested with respect to paragraph 30(1)(a) and section 31 of the NEB Act.

The NEB issued this decision with reasons to follow.

AER Decision Dismissing Request for Regulatory Appeal by Ken Cowles – Jupiter Resources Inc. Well Licences (Appeal No. 1849984)

In this decision, the AER considered Mr. Cowles’ requests under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for regulatory appeals of the AER’s decisions to approve certain well licences (the “Licences”) issued to Jupiter Resources Inc. (“Jupiter”). The Licences were issued in December 2015, allowing Jupiter to drill and produce fourteen natural gas wells.

The AER determined that: (1) Mr. Cowles did not file a statement of concern in relation to the applications for which the Licences were issued; and (2) in any case, the record does not indicate that Mr. Cowles was directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decisions to issue the Licences.

The AER therefore dismissed the requests for regulatory appeals.

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited – Albersun Pipeline Asset Purchase Project (NEB Report GHW-001-2016)

On April 27, 2016, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (“NGTL”) applied to the NEB seeking leave to purchase the Albersun Pipeline (the “Project”) from Suncor and include the cost in the NGTL System rate base, pursuant to Parts IV and V of the National Energy Board Act, and for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Albersun Pipeline, among other things, dated 27 April 2016.

The NEB granted NGTL leave to purchase the Project and approved NGTL’s request to include the purchase price of the Albersun Pipeline in the Alberta System rate base.

TransCanada PipeLines Limited – Application for Approval of Dawn Long Term Fixed Price Service (NEB Decision RH-003-2017)

On 26 April 2017, TransCanada PipeLines Limited (“TransCanada”) filed an application under Parts I and IV of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”) (the “Application”), requesting the NEB approve:

(a)     the Dawn Long Term Fixed Price (“LTFP”) service (the “Dawn LTFP Service” or “Service”);

(b)     the tolling methodology and tolls for the Service; and

(c)     consequential amendments to the Canadian Mainline Gas Transportation Tariff.

The NEB approved the Application as filed.

The NEB directed TransCanada to separately track and report annually the actual costs and revenues related to Dawn LTFP service and to provide, in all future toll proceedings, disaggregated information to support the prudence of Dawn LTFP service-related TBO costs.

AltaGas Utilities Inc. – 2016 Capital Tracker True-Up Application (AUC Decision 22710-D01-2017)

In this decision, the AUC considered AltaGas Utilities Inc.’s (“AltaGas”) 2016 capital tracker true-up application (the “Application”).

In this decision, the Commission made the following determinations:

  • because three projects, Drumheller Phase 6 (town), Settler Area 1 (town), and Erskine (rural) were not previously determined by the AUC to be needed, the AUC assessed these projects and found all three to be needed.

  • the actual scope, level, timing and actual costs of each of the projects or programs included in the 2016 true-up were prudently incurred and satisfied the project assessment requirement of Criterion 1.

  • the capital tracker projects or programs included in the 2016 true-up continued to meet the requirements of the accounting test under Criterion 1.

  • there was no need to reassess the project or program requirements against Criterion 2, unless the driver for the project or program had changed.

  • the projects or programs included in the 2016 true-up satisfied the materiality requirement under Criterion 3.

  • with one exception (discussed below), the AUC found that AltaGas complied with previous Commission directions.

ATCO Utilities – Application for Review and Variance of the AUC July 20, 2017 Ruling (AUC Decision 20514-D01-2017)

The AUC dismissed the review application on the grounds that the Ruling was an interlocutory decision and the ATCO Utilities had not demonstrated special circumstances that would warrant granting review. The AUC further found that, in any event, the review application was moot, given the AUC’s subsequent decision to relieve the ATCO Utilities from the obligation to provide the directed information.

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. – 2015 Capital Tracker True-up Application (AUC Decision 21843-D01-2017)

The AUC approved the 2015 K factor true-up refund of $2.9 million and $1.8 million in the north and south, respectively, the portions of the 2017 forecast K factor amounts of $0.8 million and $0.5 million in the north and south, respectively, arising from the approval of the 2017 updated SMR forecast, and the portion of the 2014 K factor amount associated with the Alberta Floods program of $0.375 million in the south.

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.

AltaGas Utilities Inc. and AltaGas Utility Holdings Inc. 2016 Debenture and Common Shares Issue Application (AUC Decision 21578-D01-2016)

AltaGas Utilities Inc. (“AUI”) and AltaGas Utility Holdings Inc. (“AUHI”) applied for approval for the issuance of debentures and common shares pursuant to section 26(2)(a) of the Gas Utilities Act. AUI and AUHI requested approvals no later than June 28, 2016 so that interest payments on its applied-for debentures would mirror the interest payment dates of the most immediately preceding 10-year term debt from AltaGas Ltd., their parent company.

Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. – Proceeding 336 Application 1820596 – Pool Delineation, Crossfield Basal Quartz C & V Pools (AER Decision 2016 ABAER 007)

Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. (“Bearspaw”) applied to the AER pursuant to section 33(1)(d) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (“OGCA”) requesting that the AER include Bearspaw’s well located at 102/11-24-24-28W4M (“102/11-24”) within the Crossfield Basal Quartz C pool. The 102/11-24 well is currently the only well in the Basal Quartz V pool.

Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. – Proceeding 336 Application 1820596 – Pool Delineation, Crossfield Basal Quartz C & V Pools (AER Decision 2016 ABAER 007)

Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. (“Bearspaw”) applied to the AER pursuant to section 33(1)(d) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (“OGCA”) requesting that the AER include Bearspaw’s well located at 102/11-24-24-28W4M (“102/11-24”) within the Crossfield Basal Quartz C pool. The 102/11-24 well is currently the only well in the Basal Quartz V pool.

ATCO Gas 2016 Transmission Service Charge (Rider T) (AUC Decision 21248-D01-2016)

The AUC found that the proposed province-wide Rider T rates would provide lower costs for northern Alberta users than if Rider T was calculated separately. The AUC also made note that this was the third year in which a province wide Rider T was applied, and also the third year in which southern service area customers have subsidized the costs of northern service area customers. The AUC further noted that the level of cross-subsidization has increased with each subsequent year.