Alberta Court of APpeal

Reconsideration of DFO Contribution in Aid of Construction Policy

The Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) has initiated proceeding 29006 in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal (the Court) decision in AltaLink Management Ltd. v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 325 (the Appeal Decision). The Court allowed the appeal of Decision 26061-D01-2021 in which the Commission determined that neither transmission facility owners (TFOs) or distribution facility owners (DFOs) would have the ability to receive a return on construction contributions.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Commission’s Reconsideration Decision of ATCO’s Wood Buffalo Fire Z Factor Adjustment

In proceeding 28320, the Alberta Utilities Commission issues its decision regarding the reconsideration of the Z factor adjustment for the assets of ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) which were destroyed in the 2016 Wood Buffalo fire. In Decision 21609-D01-2019, the Commission originally denied ATCO recovery of the net book value of the destroyed assets and ATCO was directed to remove the assets from its rate base. ATCO appealed the decision in ATCO Electric Ltd v Alberta Utilities Commission. The Alberta Court of Appeal (the Court) upheld ATCO’s appeal and then turned the initial decision back over to the Commission for reconsideration.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Reconsideration of ATCO Electric Z Factor for the Wood Buffalo Fire

In proceeding 28320, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) reconsiders the Z factor adjustment of ATCO Electric (ATCO) for the 2016 Wood Buffalo fire. On April 14, 2023, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its decision regarding ATCO Electric Ltd. v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 129 (the Appeal decision) where ATCO sought to appeal the Commission’s denial of ATCO’s loss recovery associated with the 2016 fires. The Commission’s original decision relied on ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (the Stores Block decision) in which the Commission understood that ‘extraordinary retirements’ of assets are attributable to shareholders rather than customers. However, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the Commission’s decision (which depended on an interpretation and application of the Stores Block decision) and referred the matter back to the Commission.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.