Search Results

Link to Decision SummarizedMarket Oversight and Enforcement – FEOC In this decision, the AUC approved the application from Fengate Central Utilities Block GP Inc. (“Fengate”) for the preferential sharing of records that are not available to the public between Fengate,...

Pursuant to sections 101(2)(d)(i) and 102(1) of the Public Utilities Act, the AUC approved PTHLP, 1792191 Alberta Corp. and 1656877 Alberta Ltd. to enter into certain credit facilities and to mortgage and encumber property for the purpose of executing the purchase of transmission assets.

The AUC found that the AESO complied with the AUC’s direction from Decision 790-D06-2017. The AUC confirmed that although the proposed methodology for the historical period required AUC approval, the related procedure documents in this proceeding did not, because these procedures will likely evolve as necessary to implement the Modified Module B methodology.

The AUC found that ENMAX failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing the prudence of the scope, level, and timing, and the actual costs, for the Proactive Cable Replacement Project and the Overhead Conductor Replacement Project in 2015 and 2016, as required under the project assessment test under Criterion 1. Accordingly, the AUC did not extend capital tracker treatment to ENMAX’s actual 2015 and 2016 costs associated with the PG4-A-4 Proactive Cable Replacement Project and the PG4-A-8 Overhead Conductor Replacement Project. EPCOR did not rely on METSCO’s analysis to support costs associated with any applied for 2016 capital tracker true-up amounts but indicated it would use METSCO’s analysis in its 2017 asset management and capital planning processes.

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by the Balancing Pool and TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) to be added as parties (or as intervenors) to the applications for permission to appeal portions of AUC Proceeding 790, Module C (Decision 790-D06-2017 (the “Permission to Appeal Applications”).

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 found that the AESO’s proposed steps to calculate loss factors were reasonable, subject to any determinations the AUC may make based on any further consultation between the AESO and stakeholders.

The AUC held that the Transmission Regulation requires that the AESO forward reliability standards along with a recommendation that the AUC either adopt or reject the reliability standard. The AUC held that implicit in the AESO’s responsibilities is to tender a copy of the reliability standard itself.

Download ReportWind – Noise Study EDF EN Canada Development Inc. (“ECDI”) asked the AUC to consider whether its post-construction comprehensive noise study complied with AUC Rule 012: Noise Control (“Rule 12”).ECDI received approval from the AUC to modify the...

The AUC held that TAMA Power provided information on the need, nature and duration of the time extension as being minor in nature. The AUC also held that the requested change to reporting intervals for pre-construction activities was reasonable, and granted TAMA Power’s request.

The AUC further directed EDTI, beginning in 2015, to make its filings pursuant to AUC Rule 005: Annual Reporting Requirements of Financial and Operational Results using AUC-approved figures for ROE and debt and equity ratios.

The AUC further directed EDTI, beginning in 2015, to make its filings pursuant to AUC Rule 005: Annual Reporting Requirements of Financial and Operational Results using AUC-approved figures for ROE and debt and equity ratios.

The AUC approved the AESO’s proposed ISO Tariff amendments to implement a TCR cost effective November 26, 2016 on a final basis.

The AUC accepted the AESO’s submissions, relying on the representations made by the AESO in finding that the Agreements were no longer needed.

The AUC agreed with Medicine Hat, finding that the residential development of Desert Blume would be better served by a single electric distribution service provider. The AUC found that this would provide consistent service to affected residents, and would be in the public interest.

Download ReportRemoval of Generating Unit from Inventory - Isolated Generating Units and Customer Choice Regulation ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO”) filed an application with the AUC for approval to dispose of mobile generating unit CUL 307 (“CUL 307”) pursuant to section...