Search Results

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - FacilitiesApplicationThe City of Grand Prairie (“Grand Prairie”) applied for review and variance of Decision 27276-D02-2022 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the AUC approved a power plant designated as the Eastlink...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and VarianceApplicationThe City of Calgary (“Calgary”) filed an application requesting review and variance (“R&V”) of specific findings made by the AUC in an interlocutory decision on confidentiality in Proceeding 26615 (the...

Link to Decision SummarizedFacilities - Review and VarianceIn this decision, the AUC denied the application from Ken Leskow, Mary Abbot, Len Nash, Erick Corkum, Ty Miller, Jason Bishop, and George and Marilynn Bishop (the “review applicants”) to review and vary AUC...

Link to Decision SummarizedR&V - Revenue RequirementsIn this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission (“AUC”) considered whether ATCO Electric Ltd. (“AE”), ATCO Transmission and ATCO Pipelines, a division of ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (the “ATCO Utilities”),...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Cost AllocationIn this decision, the AUC denied the application from the Alberta Federation of Rural Electrification Associations (“AFREA”) to review and vary AUC Decision 25916-D01-2021 (the “Decision”).BackgroundThe...

Link to Decision SummarizedElectricity - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC denied the application from ATCO Electric Ltd. (“AE”) for a review and variance of findings in Decision 24964-D02-2021 regarding inflation rates for in-scope labour for 2020 and...

Link to Decision SummarizedElectricity - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC denied the application from Milner Power Inc. (“Milner Power”) for review and variance (“R&V”) of findings regarding the interest calculation applied to loss factor charges, set...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Rates In this letter, the AUC dismissed the application from the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (“CCA”) for a review and variance (“R&V”) of Decision 25938-D01-2021. In Decision 25938-D01-2021 (the “Original Review...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Salvage In this decision, the AUC varied findings from Decision 23848-D01-2020 (the “Decision”) and approved the net salvage method proposed by AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AltaLink”).IntroductionAltaLink proposed to...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Contributions in Aid of Construction In this decision, the AUC decided to vary findings made in Section 8 of Decision 22942-D02-2019 (“the Decision”) regarding the application from the Alberta Electric System Operator...

Link to Decision SummarizedNet Salvage Methodology In this decision, the AUC granted a review application filed by AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AltaLink”) requesting a review and variance of determinations made in Decision 23848-D01-2020 (the “Decision”) denying a...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Distributed Generation - AESO Tariff In this decision, the AUC approved the preliminary stage application from the Community Generation Working Group (“CGWG”) and FortisAlberta Inc. (“FortisAB”) for review and variance...

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.

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.

Link to Decision SummarizedRural Electrification Associations - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC considered review applications filed by North Parkland Power REA Ltd. (“North Parkland”) and by Rocky REA Ltd. (“Rocky REA”), and collectively the “REAs”)...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Z Factor In this decision, the AUC considered a review application filed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO”) requesting a review and variance of specific findings in AUC Decision 21609-D01-2019: ATCO Electric Ltd., Z Factor...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - ISO Tariff In this decision, the AUC considered an application filed by the Alberta Direct Connect Consumers Association (“ADC”), the Dual Use Customers (“DUC”), and the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance, Costs Rulings  In this decision, an AUC review panel considered whether to grant a review application filed by the City of Calgary (“Calgary”) on costs rulings (the “Costs Rulings”) made in the ATCO Gas and...

Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance, Legal Costs In this decision, an AUC review panel considered whether to grant an application (the “Application”) filed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO”) requesting a review and variance (“R & V”) of specific findings in...

Link to Decision SummarizedCode of Conduct - Utility Definition In this decision, the AUC considered whether to grant an application (the “Review Application”) filed by Alberta PowerLine Limited Partnership (“Alberta PowerLine”), requesting a review and variance of...

In answering the preliminary question at the first stage of the review process – whether there are grounds to review the original decision – the review panel found that EQUS did not meet the requirements for review of the Decision. The Review Application was dismissed.