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.
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.
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.
Applications for Review of Decision 22986-D01-2018, Compliance Application to Decision 22011-D01-2017, ATCO Pipelines 2017-2018 General Rate Application (AUC Decision 23539-D01-2018)
In this decision, the AUC considered applications by ATCO Pipelines, a division of ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (“ATCO Pipelines”) and the Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate (“UCA”) for review of Decision 22986-D01-2018 regarding ATCO’s compliance application to Decision 22011-D01-2017, 2017-2018 General Rate Application (“the Decision”).
The Decision addressed a compliance filing from ATCO Pipelines, in Proceeding 22986, in accordance with the findings and directions provided in Decision 22011-D01-2017, in relation to ATCO Pipelines’ 2017-2018 general rate application (the “GRA Decision”).
The AUC granted ATCO Pipelines’ review application. The AUC found that the UCA did not meet the test for review. However, the AUC determined that a review, on its own motion, was warranted in relation to the issue of ATCO Pipelines’ accumulated depreciation balances.
Application for Review of an AUC Decision Dated May 3, 2018, Dismissing an Appeal Pursuant to Section 43 of the Municipal Government Act (Decision 23579-D01-2018)
In this decision, the AUC considered Ian Murdoch’s application for a review of the AUC’s decision dismissing Mr. Murdoch’s appeal regarding the method used by the City of Calgary to estimate Mr. Murdoch’s wastewater charges (the “Original Decision”).
The AUC denied the review application for the reasons summarized below.
Request for Reconsideration of EUB Decision 2005-079 and OSCA Approval No.10330A by George Percy and Barbara Percy
In this decision, the AER considered George and Barba Percys’ (the “Percys”) request under section 42 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for reconsideration of Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“EUB” or “Board”) Decision 2005-079 and of Commercial Scheme Approval No. 10030A issued to Value Creation Inc. (“VCI”) for the Heartland Upgrader project (the “Heartland Upgrader Approval”).
Direct Energy Regulated Services – Review of Decision 21568-D01-2016 (AUC Decision 22472-D01-2017)
The AUC found that it was reasonable to account for the cost of the funds over-collected from DRT customers, in establishing just and reasonable rates and to be consistent, it was also reasonable to consider the impact of the under-collection of funds from RRT customers over the same period. The AUC directed DERS to submit a compliance filing.
ATCO Utilities – Application for Review and Variance of the AUC July 20, 2017 Ruling (AUC Decision 20514-D01-2017)
The AUC dismissed the review application on the grounds that the Ruling was an interlocutory decision and the ATCO Utilities had not demonstrated special circumstances that would warrant granting review. The AUC further found that, in any event, the review application was moot, given the AUC’s subsequent decision to relieve the ATCO Utilities from the obligation to provide the directed information.
Paul First Nation – Application for Review of AUC Decision 21030-D02-2017 (AUC Decision 22560-D01-2017)
The AUC denied the leave request.
ATCO Pipelines Request for Review and Variance of Decision 21515-D01-2016 (AUC Decision 22166-D01-2017)
The review panel found that ATCO Pipelines had not shown, either on a balance of probabilities or apparent on the face of the Original Decision, that an error in fact, law or jurisdiction had occurred on the basis of the above noted grounds that could lead the AUC to materially vary or rescind the Original Decision.
Westcoast Energy Inc. Application for Review of Decision re Toll Treatment of the Tower Lake Section (NEB Decision GH-003-2015)
The review panel concluded that that Westcoast had not raised a doubt as to the correctness of the TLS Tolling Decision on these grounds.
Direct Energy Regulated Services Application for Review of Decision 21568-D01-2016: Preliminary Question (AUC Decision 22282-D01-2017)
The AUC found that DERS met the first stage of the review and variance application (also referred to by the AUC as the “Preliminary Question”), the AUC allowed the review to proceed to stage two.
Oldman 2 Wind Farm Limited – Review of Decision 3521-D01-2015: Mr. Yanke and Mr. Huebner Noise Complaints, July 20, 2015 (AUC Decision 20843-D01-2015)
The AUC dismissed Oldman 2’s review application, finding that Oldman 2 failed to demonstrate that the hearing panel committed any error of law or jurisdiction in Decision 3521-D01-2015 that could lead the AUC to materially vary or rescind its decision.
Decision on Review Application of the Métis Nation of Alberta of the Standing Ruling for the Fort McMurray West 500-kV Transmission Project (Decision 21030-D01-2016)
Download ReportReview Application – Facilities – Standing The Métis Nation of Alberta (“Métis”) filed an application pursuant to Rule 016: Review of Commission Decisions (“Rule 16”) with the AUC seeking a review of the AUC’s ruling which denied the Métis standing in...
Livingstone Landowners Guild Decision on Preliminary Question Application for Review of Decision 2009-126 (AUC Decision 20846-D01-2016)
Download ReportReview Application – Needs Identification Document The Livingstone Landowners Guild (“LLG”), a group of landowners located in southern Alberta in the Oldman River watershed, east of the Livingstone Range, applied to the AUC pursuant to Section 2 of AUC...
Request for Review and Variance of Decision 20598-D10-2016 AltaLink Management Ltd. and TransAlta Corporation Time Extension Request for Transmission Lines 909L and 1043L (AUC Decision 21291-D01-2016)
The AUC held that the requested variations were in keeping with the broader public interest considerations in Decision 20598-D10-2015, and granted the requested variances.
Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate Review of Decision 20271-D01-2015: FortisAlberta Inc. Disposition of Land in High River (AUC Decision 20990-D01-2016)
The AUC concluded that the UCA had not raised a reasonable probability that the hearing panel’s reasons disclosed an error which could lead the AUC to materially vary or rescind the decision in questions. The AUC therefore declined to review Decision 20271-D01-2015.
ENMAX Power Corporation Decision on Request for Review of Decision 3368-D01-2015 regarding 138-2.82L and 138-2.83L Transmission Realignment (Decision 20612-D01-2015)
The AUC dismissed Remington’s application for review.
Office of the UCA Review and Variance of Decision 2941-D01-2015: Regulated Rate Tariff and Energy Price Setting Plans – Generic Proceeding: Part B – Final Decision (Decision 20419-D01-2015)
The review panel found that the UCA had not raised a reasonable possibility that the hearing panel committed an error of fact, law or jurisdiction that could reasonably lead the Commission to materially vary or rescind its findings in Decision 2941-D01-2015. The review panel found that the grounds for review advanced by the UCA did not satisfy the test set out in Section 6 of Rule 016 and the application for review was denied.
DERS and EPCOR Review and Variance of Decision 2941-D01-2015: Regulated Rate Tariff and Energy Price Setting Plans – Generic Proceeding: Part B – Final Decision (Decision 20416-D01-2015)
The review panel found that DERS and EPCOR had not raised a reasonable possibility that the hearing panel committed an error of fact, law or jurisdiction that could reasonably lead the AUC to materially vary or rescind its findings in Decision 2941-D01-2015. The AUC dismissed the applications for review.
ATCO Electric Ltd. Application for Review of Decision 2014-283 (Decision 3523-D01-2015)
Download ReportReview and Variance – Purchase Price ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO”) requested a review of AUC Decision 2014-283 (the “Panel Decision”). In the Panel Decision, the AUC was prepared to approve the purchase price for the Kearl 240-kV line (the “Kearl Line”)...
ATCO Power Ltd. Decision on Preliminary Question – Application for Review of AUC Decision 2014-242: 2014 ISO Tariff Application and 2013 ISO Tariff Update (Decision 3494-D01-2015)
The AUC dismissed the first and second ground of review, and deferred the third ground of review until such time as the Alberta Court of Appeal renders a decision in respect of AUC Decision 2013-025.
ATCO Utilities (ATCO Gas, ATCO Pipelines and ATCO Electric Ltd.) Application for Review of AUC Decision 2014-169 (Decision 3372-D01-2015)
The AUC determined that the ATCO Utilities failed to discharge their onus in section 6 of Rule 016.