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.

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2023 ABCA 296

Link to Decision Summarized Permission to Appeal – Error of Law Application Michael Judd applied for permission to appeal a decision of the AER, which dismissed a pre-hearing motion brought by Mr. Judd in a regulatory appeal of a pipeline licence (the “Pipeline...

Alberta Federation of Rural Electrification Associations – Decision on Preliminary Question -Application for Review of Decision 24762-D01-2019, AUC Decision 25375-D01-2020

In this decision, the AUC considered an application filed by the Alberta Federation of Rural Electrification Associations (“AFREA”) requesting a review and variance of specific findings made in Decision 24762-D01-2019 (the “Decision”). The Decision addressed applications from seven parties for approval and payment of their respective costs to participate in Proceeding 23757, which was convened by the AUC to consider an application from the Alberta Electric System Operator for approval of the first set of Independent System Operator rules to establish and operate a capacity market for electrical generation in Alberta. The AFREA review application concerned findings in the Decision disallowing costs claimed for the services provided by its legal counsel and consultants in Proceeding 23757. The AUC denied the review application.

Robert Tupper – Decision on Preliminary Question – Application for Review of Decision 24295-D01-2019, AUC Decision 25276-D01-2020

In this decision, the AUC determined whether to review and vary its calculation of the rate rider to recover the costs of the ultraviolet (“UV”) light system upgrade approved in Decision 24295-D01-2019. The Decision addressed Salt Box Coulee Water Supply Company Ltd.’s (“Salt Box”) request for a rate rider to recover the costs associated with its UV system upgrade, which was filed as part of Salt Box’s 2019 final rate application. Mr. Robert Tupper applied for a review of Decision 24295-D01-2019, claiming that the AUC erred in calculating the UV system rate rider by basing it on the incorrect number of lots in Calling Horse Estates. The AUC denied the review application.

ATCO Pipelines Decision on Preliminary Question – Application for Review of Decision 23537-D01-2018 (Errata) Compliance Application to Decision 22986-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23953-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC granted ATCO Pipelines (“ATCO”)’s application requesting a review and variance of AUC Decision 23537-D01-2018 (Errata) (the “Decision”).

The review application concerned the AUC’s disallowance in the Decision of all incremental weld repair costs associated with ATCO Pipelines’ weld assessment and repair program (“WARP”). 

Commission-Initiated Review and Variance of Decision 22741-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23505-D01-2018)

The AUC varied its direction from the Original Decisions and directed that Fortis use its proposed hybrid deferral account approach to account for amounts relating to the AESO Contributions Program. Under this approach, projects that received a permit and licence prior to December 31, 2017, shall be given deferral account treatment provided that the AUC approved the need, scope, level and timing and associated costs for the project as part of a capital tracker review. Projects that receive a permit and licence after December 31, 2017, shall be managed under the incentive properties of K-bar.

The Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate – Application for Review of Decision 22357-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23559-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC considered an application by the Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate (“UCA”) requesting a review of Decision 22357-D01-2018 regarding EPCOR Energy Alberta GP Inc.’s (“EPCOR”) 2018-2021 Energy Price Setting Plan (the “Original Decision”).

The AUC denied the request for review on the basis that the UCA failed to demonstrate that an error of fact, law or jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the Original Decision or otherwise existed on a balance of probabilities.

Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate – Commission-initiated Review and Variance of Decision 20552-D01-2015 and Decision 20733-D01-2015 (AUC Decision 21768-D01-2017)

In this proceeding, the AUC reviewed the original panels’ determinations in the Original Decisions regarding the prudence of the costs paid by Fortis for the acquisition of the REA assets. In particular, the AUC considered the following issues:

(a)     What methodology is permitted, replacement cost new minus depreciation (replacement methodology) or reproduction cost new minus depreciation (reproduction methodology), to set the purchase price for the REAs?

(b)     Was the methodology applied by Fortis prudent?

The AUC found that Fortis applying the replacement methodology to determine the purchase price of both Kingman and VNM REAs was reasonable.

However, the AUC found that Fortis should only have compensated Kingman and VNM REAs for assigned land rights for the portion of the lines that were actually installed on private landowners’ land. The AUC found unreasonable Fortis’ assumption that all primary lines systems were installed on private landowners’ land and therefore not an adequate assumption for the purposes of estimating a value for the land rights assigned from the REAs to Fortis.

Accordingly, the AUC found that the portion of the costs assignable to the estimate of the acquisition of land rights should reflect the actual portion of the lines that are installed on private lands. The AUC directed Fortis, in the compliance filing, to re-estimate the value of the land rights acquired from the REAs by providing an accurate accounting for the portion of the lines that are actually installed on private land.