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.

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.

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.