Link to Decision SummarizedJurisdiction - ElectricityApplicationThe Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) requested guidance regarding the treatment of a refund associated with historical line losses as directed in AUC Decision 790-D06-2017 (the “Module C...
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.
Milner Power Inc., ATCO Power Ltd. Complaints Regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology, AUC Decision 790-D08-2020
Link to Decision SummarizedLoss Factor Calculation In this decision, the AUC found that the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (“AESO”) amended Module C payment plan compliance filing (“Module C Payment Plan”) concerning the collection and reimbursement of loss...
Manitoba Minnesota Transmission Project (MMTP or Project) Certificate EC-059, Condition 3 – Implementation of Commitments, and Condition 15, Commitments Tracking Table, CER Letter Decision
Link to Decision SummarizedCompliance - Conditions In this decision, the CER found that Manitoba Hydro complied with Conditions 3 and 15 of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity EC-059 permitting Manitoba Hydro to operate the Project (the “Certificate”)....
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.
Dalziel Enterprises Ltd. – Payment in Lieu of Notice Charge Complaint with FortisAlberta Inc. (AUC Decision 22796-D01-2018)
In this decision, the AUC considered a complaint filed by Dalziel Enterprises Ltd. (“DEL”) against FortisAlberta Inc. (“Fortis”). In its complaint, DEL asked the AUC for relief from the payment in lieu of notice (“PILON”) provisions in Fortis’ Customer Terms and Conditions of Electric Distribution Service (“T&Cs”).
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.
Doell Noise Complaint re ENMAX Power Corporation Substation No. 8 (AUC Decision 20948-D01-2017)
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.
Complaint by Mr. Baux Regarding Metered Service Horse Creek Water Services Inc. (Decision 22318-D01-2017)
The AUC concluded that Mr. Baux is required to have a meter. The AUC considered that Mr. Baux and HCWS should share equally in the total cost of the water meter installation up to $800. The AUC ruled that any amounts over $800 will be the responsibility of Mr. Baux.
Finlay Group Complaint Regarding FortisAlberta Inc. Distribution Line Rebuild Project (AUC Decision 20799-D01-2016)
The AUC dismissed the complaint by the Finlay Group, and stated that Fortis may proceed with the distribution line rebuild as planned.
Response to Blazer Water Systems Ltd. Letter to the AUC (Disposition 20930-D01-2015)
The AUC held that it would consider how to treat the amounts in the deferral account in Blazer’s upcoming general rate application.
AltaLink Management Ltd. Alberta Transmission Facility Owner Terms and Conditions Compliance with Decision 2014-307 (Decision 20882-D01-2015)
The AUC determined that it would hear evidence on the status of the process to complete the alignment of the Alberta TFO T&Cs with the relevant AESO authoritative documents as part of AltaLink’s 2015-2016 general tariff application hearing. AltaLink’s 2015-2016 general tariff application is being heard in December 2015.
Milner Power Inc. Complaints regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology; ATCO Power Ltd. Complaint (Decision 790-D02-2015)
Download ReportISO Rule – Complaint – Line Losses – AUC Authority Milner Power Inc. (“Milner”) first filed its complaint with the AUC predecessor, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the “AEUB”), on August 17, 2005 in respect of the Independent System Operator...