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.
Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Water – Review and Variance Application EMCOR Utility (2035570 Alberta Ltd.) (“EMCOR”) applied for approval of its general rate application (“GRA”) regarding its potable water system for the 2023-2027 test years....
Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Administrative Penalty – Extension Application Green Block Mining Corp. (“Green Block”) sought a second extension of the deadline for payment of the outstanding amount of an administrative penalty the AUC ordered in...
Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Water – Review and Variance Application Salt Box Coulee Water Supply Company Ltd. (“Salt Box”) applied to the AUC for a review of Decision 28021-D02-2024 (the “Decision”) and Order 28021-D03-2024 (the “Order”). The...
Link to Decision Summarized Review and Variance – Administrative Penalty Application Green Block Mining Corp. (“Green Block”) requested a 30-day extension for payment of the penalty ordered in Decision 26379-D05-2023, which directed payment of an administrative...
Link to Decision Summarized Review and Variance - Changed Circumstance Application Corix Utilities (Foothills Water) Inc. (“Corix”) applied to the AUC for a review of the AUC’s Decision 27844-D02-2023 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the AUC decided on the approval...
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...
Link to Decision Summarized Solar Power – Review and Variance Application Aura Power Renewables Ltd. (“Aura”) applied for a review and variance of AUC Decision 27488-D01-2023, regarding the Burdett Solar Project (the “Decision”). Decision The AUC denied Aura’s...
Link to Decision Summarized Facilities – Review and Variance Application Anita Jenkins (“A. Jenkins”), applied for review and variance of Decision 27561-D01-2023 (the “Decision”). The Decision partially approved, with conditions, applications from RES Forty Mile Wind...
Link to Decision Summarized Facilities - Industrial System Designation Application TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd (“Keystone”) filed an application seeking a review and variance of the CER decision for Phase 1 of the RH-005-2020 (“Decision”) proceeding (the...
Link to Decision Summarized Review and Variance - Procedural Application On February 10, 2023, Wheatland Industries Inc. (“Wheatland”) applied for a review and variance of Decision 26395-D01-2021 issued on November 12, 2021, which decision approved the construction...
Link to Decision Summarized Electricity - Review and Variance Application Members of the Concerned Cypress County Owners Group (“CCCOG”) applied for review and variance of Decision 27240-D01-2023 (the “Decision”) regarding ENGIE Development Canada GP Inc. ("ENGIE”)’s...
Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - RatesApplicationEPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc. (“EDTI”) applied to the AUC for review and variance of Decision 27653-D01-2022 regarding EDTI’s 2023 Cost-of-Service Compliance Filing and 2023 Distribution Rates...
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 SummarizedReview and Variance - Opening Rate BaseIn this decision, the AUC approved an application from AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AML”) for review and variance of Decision 26509-D01-2022 (Corrigenda) (the ”Decision”) in part. The AUC allowed a review...
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 SummarizedReview and Variance - CostsIn this decision, the AUC approved the application from FortisAlberta Inc. (“FortisAB”) for review and variance (“R&V”) of Decision 25916-D01-2021 regarding FortisAB’s 2022 Phase II distribution tariff...
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 DecisionReview and VarianceIn this decision, the AUC denied the application from the Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate (“UCA”) to review and vary Decision 26212-D01-2021 (the “Original Decision”). The Original Decision approved the return on equity...
Link to Decision SummarizedR&V - Rates The AUC dismissed the application from the Cambridge Park Home Owners Association (“Home Owners”) for a review and variance (“R&V”) of Decision 26429-D01-2021 (the “Review Application”).BackgroundIn Decision...
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 - Supply and Markets - Toll Principles In this decision, the CER dismissed the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (“EPAC”)’s application to extend the NOVA Gas Transmission (“NGTL”) Gas Transportation Temporary...
Link to Bulletin SummarizedBulletin In accordance with its commitment to reduce red tape by eliminating unnecessary applications, procedures, and delays, the AUC has established new internal performance standards and timelines for processing costs and stage one review...
Link to Decision SummarizedOwnership Transfer – Connection In this decision, the AUC varied specific findings in Decision 24434-D01-2021 (the “Decision”) following an application from C&B Alberta Solar Development ULC (“CBA”). Based on CBA’s changes to its...
Link to Decision SummarizedOwnership Transfer – Connection In this decision, the AUC varied specific findings in Decision 24434-D01-2021 (the “Decision”) following an application from C&B Alberta Solar Development ULC (“CBA”). Based on CBA’s changes to its...
Link to Decision SummarizedRates In this decision, the AUC denied the application by Salt Box Coulee Water Supply Company Ltd. (“Salt Box”) for review and variance of findings in AUC Decision 24295-D02-2020 (the “Decision”). The Review Panel upheld the Decision on all...
Link to Decision SummarizedError of Fact In this decision, the AUC denied the application by Sage Water Services Corp. (“Sage Water”) for review and variance of findings in AUC Decision 24797-D01-2020 (the “Decision”). Sage Water had not met the requirements for a...
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 SummarizedRates - Electricity - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC considered whether to grant an application (the “R&V Application” filed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO Electric”) requesting a review and variance (“R&V”) of specific...
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 SummarizedCosts Awards - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC considered an application (the “Review Application”) filed by the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (“CCA”) requesting a review and variance of specific findings in AUC Decision...
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 SummarizedDepreciation Parameters - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC considered the mechanics for incorporating approved changes to a distribution utility’s depreciation parameters into the calculation of going-in rates for the 2018-2022...
Link to Decision SummarizedReview and Variance - Prudence In this decision, an AUC review panel (the “Review Panel”) considered ATCO Pipelines’ claim for a variance of Decision 22986-D01-20181 and Decision 23537-D01-2018. The Review Panel allowed the claim for...
Link to Decision SummarizedGeneral Tariff Application - Review and Variance In this decision, the AUC considered whether to grant an application (the “Review Application”) filed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO Electric”) requesting a review and variance of specific...
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...
The AUC denied the Review Application, based on finding that AltaLink failed to demonstrate that an error of fact, law, or jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the Transmission Asset Decision or the Costs Decision or otherwise existed on a balance of probabilities.
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.
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”).