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.

Enforcement Staff of the Alberta Utilities Commission Phase 2 Enforcement Proceeding with Salt Box Water Coulee Water Supply Company Ltd. – Denial of Negotiated Settlement Agreement Application, AUC Decision 28021-D02-2024

Link to Decision Summarized Water – Financial Statements Application In Decision 28201-D01-2023, the Alberta Utilities Commission (“AUC”) determined that Salt Box Coulee Water Supply Company Ltd. (“Salt Box”) committed two contraventions:  failing to file audited...

Milner Power Inc. and ATCO Power Ltd. Complaints Regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology (AUC Decision 790-D07-2019)

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.

Commission-Initiated Proceeding METSCO’s Risk-Based Asset Management Framework for ENMAX and EPCOR (AUC Decision 23102-D01-2019)

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.

Alberta Energy Regulator v Lexin Resources Ltd, 2019 ABQB 23

The ABQB determined that the prejudice to the Receiver and other creditors of Lexin if the stay was lifted outweighed the prejudice, if any, that would be suffered by Midstream if the stay was not lifted.

There were no equitable grounds that would otherwise justify the lifting of the stay.

Percy v. Value Creation Inc. (2018 ABCA 189)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered an application by Value Creation Inc. (“VCI”) (the applicant/respondents in the underlying appeal) to strike an amendment to the original permission to appeal application by Mr. and Mrs. Percy of an AER decision dated December 7, 2017 (the “Original AER Decision”). The Percys (the respondent/appellants in the underlying appeal) amended their permission to appeal application to add a January 29, 2018 AER decision confirming the Original AER Decision (the “January 29 Decision”).

The ABCA dismissed the application to strike.

Group 1 Companies Filings re Abandonment Cost Estimate Review 2016 (NEB Decision – File OF-AF-ACE 01)

In this decision, the NEB found that each Group 1 company used a methodology to develop its Abandonment Cost Estimate (“ACE”) based on its pipeline system’s characteristics. Although the NEB recognized the need to account for company or pipeline-specific characteristics, it found that it was important for Group 1 companies to follow a consistent and standardized approach to provide greater clarity, consistency, and transparency in their ACEs, and to allow the NEB to better evaluate the reasonableness of each company’s ACE. To achieve greater consistency, transparency and accuracy for future ACE reviews, the NEB stated that it intends to initiate a process for the next steps for future reviews.

Balancing Pool v. ENMAX Energy Corporation (2018 ABCA 143)

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”).

Percy v. Value Creation Inc. (2018 ABCA 50)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by Greg and Barbara Percy (the “Percys”) for:

(a) a stay of an AER hearing scheduled for February 6, 2018, pending the Percys’ appeals of:

(i) AER letter decisions issued on December 7 and December 8, 2017, denying the Percys’ request to delay the February 6, 2018, hearing and to expand the scope of that hearing; and

(ii) the AER decision denying the Percys’ request for reconsideration of EUB Decision 2005-079; and

(b) an adjournment of the Percys application to the ABCA for permission to appeal the December 7 and 8th AER decisions.

Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) (2017 FCA 174)

The FCA granted British Columbia leave to intervene, subject to conditions regarding the scope of its participation. The FCA cautioned that while British Columbia may have been “blasé” in approaching its motion to intervene, it must be vigilant in complying with the conditions. The FCA warned that if any were breached, the FCA panel hearing the appeal could revoke British Columbia’s status as an

Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) (2017 FCA 116)

The FCA found that all of the background statements objected to, were admissible for the limited purpose of orienting the court, but not as evidence of what actually happened below. The FCA stated that evidence of what actually happened below was to be found exclusively in the record of the administrative proceedings. The FCA stated that it would seek submissions from the parties on whether reply evidence needs to be filed with respect to Aboriginal engagement and consultation activities that occurred after the Governor in Council’s decision approving the project.

Goodhart v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017 ABCA 22

Download ReportApplication for Extension of Time to Appeal – Application Denied – AER Does not Owe Private Duty of Care In Goodhart v Alberta Energy Regulator, the ABCA considered Mr. Goodhart’s application seeking an extension of time to file his appeal of an ABQB...

Recommendation to Reject for Adoption of NERC Reliability Standards: New Versions of NERC Reliability Standards and Intra-Balancing Authority Transaction Identification (AUC Decision 21075-D02-2016)

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.

Enbridge Line 10 Westover Segment Replacement (NEB Hearing Order OH-001-2016)

The NEB released a hearing order for Enbridge’s application to replace the Westover Segment of its line 10 pipeline, which consists of replacing 32 kilometers of existing 12 inch diameter pipeline with approximately 35 kilometers of new 20 inch diameter pipeline from Enbridge’s Westover Terminal to its Nanticoke Junction facility in Hamilton, Ontario.

NEB postpones Trans Mountain Expansion Oral Hearings

The NEB announced that it was postponing the oral portion of Hearing Order OH-001-2014 for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the “Project”), and that it was further taking the step of striking from the record all evidence prepared by or under the direction of Mr. Steven J. Kelly of IHS Global Canada Limited in Hearing Order OH-001-2014.