Search Results

Link to Decision SummarizedPermission to Appeal - ElectricityIn this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) granted permission to appeal to AltaLink Management Ltd. (the “Applicant”). The Applicant applied for permission to appeal the decision of the Alberta...

Link to Decision SummarizedPublic Utilities Act ss 101 & 102 - No Harm Test In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered the AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AltaLink”) application for permission to appeal (“PTA”) AUC conditions on a transfer of...

The ABCA denied the applications for permission to appeal the Invoicing Decision, finding there was nothing it could usefully add or correct. There was no question of law or jurisdiction which required the ABCA’s intervention.

In this decision, the ABCA considered an application by a number of landowners’ (the “Applicants”) for permission to appeal AUC Decision 22665-D01-2018 (the “AUC Decision”). In the AUC Decision, the AUC approved applications (the “Applications”) by EDP Renewables SH Project GP Ltd. (“EDP”) for approval of the Sharp Hills Wind Project (the “Project”).

The ABCA denied permission to appeal, based on finding that the Applicants did not demonstrate a serious, arguable question of law or jurisdiction arising from the AUC Decision.

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by Capital Power Corporation (“Capital Power”), ENMAX Energy Corporation (“ENMAX”), and TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) (collectively, the “Applicants”) for permission to appeal AUC Decision 790-D02-2015, which considered complaints regarding the ISO line loss rule and methodology.

The ABCA found that the AUC’s decision that it could order a remedy or relief to correct for the payment and receipt of unlawful line loss charges and credits did not raise questions of law or jurisdiction which required an appeal to the ABCA. Therefore, the ABCA dismissed the applications for permission to appeal.

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered an application by David Cymbaluk, Ferne Cymbaluk, and Philip Cymbaluk (the “Cymbaluks”) for permission to appeal a decision of the AER dated September 7, 2018 (the “AER Decision”). The AER Decision addressed the obligations of TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) with respect to the sand, gravel, clay, and marl (the “Subsurface Materials”) removed during the mining operation at TransAlta’s Highvale Coal Mine.

The ABCA denied permission to appeal.

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered Mark Dorin’s application for permission to appeal AUC Decision 23128-D01-2018 (“the Decision”). In the Decision, the AUC concluded t was in the public interest to approve an application from EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”) to construct and operate an electrical substation (the “Substation”) and associated transmission and communications infrastructure (the “Project”) pursuant to section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act (“AUCA”).

The ABCA granted permission to appeal (in part) on the following question:What was the effect, if any, of the absence of written consent by the Minister of Infrastructure given prior to the making of the Decision by the AUC, on EPCOR’s ability to proceed to have the Substation built and made operational?

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered ATCO Electric Ltd.’s (“ATCO”) applications for Permission to Appeal certain aspects of the following AUC decisions:

(a)     Decision 20272-D01-2016 regarding ATCO’s 2015-2017 General Tariff Application (the “2016 GTA Decision”); and

(b)     Decision 22094-D01-2017 regarding ATCO’s application for review of the 2016 GTA Decision (the “2017 Review Decision”).

For the reasons summarized below, the ABCA dismissed ATCO’s applications for permission to appeal the AUC decisions.

Fortis Alberta Inc. (“Fortis”) acquired land (the “Land”) and contemplated using it for construction of a centralized inventory facility. However, upon review, Fortis determined a decentralized inventory model would be more efficient and therefore no longer needed the Land. Fortis applied to the AUC requesting approval to sell the Land.

The ABCA held that the AUC did not err in law or jurisdiction in selecting the UCA methodology, pointing to the AUC’s finding that there should not be risk compensation in excess of the full recovery of costs related to risk. The ABCA held that DERS had failed to demonstrate a meritorious argument on the questions of law. Accordingly, the ABCA held that Decision 2941-D01-2015 fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law, and therefore dismissed the application.

The ABCA denied leave to appeal, finding that Remington had not established that it had a meritorious argument of law.

The ABCA held that since ATCO did not demonstrate a serious, arguable point, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

ENMAX Energy Corporation (“ENMAX”) filed an application for permission to appeal AUC Decision 790-D03-2015.

Rowbotham J.A. held that the Applicants had not raised a serious, arguable point, nor did the applicants demonstrate that the appeal would be meritorious on its face.