Alberta Utilities Commission

Fortis – Battle River Power Asset Transfer Compensation Decision

In proceeding 28358, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding compensation for site transfers between FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) and the rural electrification association (REA) Battle River Power Coop REA Ltd. (Battle River Power).

Over five years ago, several municipalities with which Fortis has a franchise agreement, annexed land that overlapped with existing REA service areas. Fortis requested that the REA areas be altered to align with its municipal franchise agreements. In Decision 22164-D01-2018, the Commission granted Fortis’s request contingent on there being a municipal bylaw requiring customers in the annexed area to connect to Fortis. Since then, many successful transfers have taken place between REAs and Fortis. However, a transfer of 50 sites remained outstanding for which Forts and Battle River Power could not come to an agreement.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

The Renewable Moratorium Lifts and Intended Policy Changes

Readers may recall our previous update on Alberta’s renewable generation moratorium in which the Government of Alberta paused the approval of renewable generation and required the Alberta Utilities Commission to commence an inquiry regarding the development and impact of renewable generation in the province. The moratorium was lifted on February 29, 2024, and the Commission will now assess those applications that were affected by the pause on an individual basis to determine whether an immediate decision can be issued or if they require further processing. However, the Alberta Government has made known its intention to enact legislation that will affect renewable development in the province. Additionally, the Commission plans to initiate a stakeholder consultation regarding the application requirements for renewable projects.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

EPCOR Energy 2024-2025 Energy Price-Setting Plan (EPSP) Application and Arguments

In proceeding 28717, EPCOR Energy Alberta GP (EPCOR Energy) submits its 2024-2025 energy price-setting plan application to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) for review and approval. This price-setting plan is what EPCOR Energy will use to determine the regulated rate option (RRO) charge that it provides to eligible customers in the service areas of EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and FortisAlberta Inc.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Revised AMP Implementation Evidence and Argument

In Proceeding 28441, interveners submit their evidence in support or opposition to the revised adjusted metering practice (AMP) plan applied for by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO). The AESO’s original AMP plan was rejected by the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) in 2022. Evidence in this proceeding was submitted by AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink), and the AESO in support of the implementation plan, by Fortis arguing for changes to the timing of AMP, and by the DCG Consortium in opposition to the plan.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

ENMAX’s R&V Application of the PBR3 K-bar Mechanism

In proceeding 28574, ENMAX Power Corporation (ENMAX) applies for a review and variance of the K-bar mechanism approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) for the third generation of performance-based regulation (PBR3). ENAMX asserts that the Commission erred in believing that the K-bar would provide ENMAX with sufficient funding and seeks the Commission to grant a review of the PBR3 K-bar. ENMAX’s case is grounded in its concern that the approved K-bar does not meet ENMAX’s needs to fund the replacement of its aging assets or to respond to the growing need to modernize the grid. Furthermore, ENMAX states that the current K-bar will force the utility to choose which benefits its customers will forgo and that it may have to put off investment into reliability drivers, externally driven projects, and grid modernization to prioritize safety on its network.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

AltaLink 2024-2025 NSA Application

In proceeding 28174, AltaLink Management Inc. (AltaLink) applies to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) for the approval of a negotiated settlement agreement (NSA). The NSA was made between AltaLink, the Alberta Direct Connect Customers, the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (CCA), the Alberta Federation of REA’s Ltd. (AFREA), the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta (IPCAA), and the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA).

The Commission permitted a negotiated settlement process on all but the following two matters:[1]

  • AltaLink’s proposed wildfire deferral account.
  • AltaLink’s request to recover $11 million in returns incurred over the 2022-2023 period that apply to 2019-2021 actual salvage expenditures.

Additionally, parties involved in the negotiated settlement agreed to exclude three additional matters that are closley related to the two excluded by the Commission:[2]

  • AltaLink’s 2024-2025 forecast salvage expenditures.
  • AltaLink’s 2019-2023 actual salvage expenditures.
  • AltaLink’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan business cases.

The NSA also did not result in any changes to AltaLink’s terms and conditions.[3]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Arguments for Fortis-Battle River Power Asset Transfer Compensation

In Proceeding 28358, FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) and Battle River Power Coop (Battle River Power) submit their arguments and reply arguments to the Alberta Utilities Commission regarding their positions on the compensation for an asset transfer between the two companies. Battle River Power’s arguments focus on trusting that their valuation is more accurate since they constructed the assets, and they argue that Fortis’s application is procedurally incomplete. Fortis’s arguments centre on demonstrating that their valuation is more closely aligned with the Commission’s practice and that their application is procedurally valid.



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.

The 2024 Return on Equity Calculation

In proceeding 28585, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) publishes its calculation of the 2024 return on equity (ROE) after having approved the parameter values required to implement the new ROE formula. The Commission’s proposed 2024 ROE, based on the formula, is 9.28 percent.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Contributions in Aid of Construction Appeal

The Court of Appeal of Alberta (the Court) has issued its decision regarding the appeal of Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) Decision 26061-D01-2021. The appeal was filed by AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink), ATCO Electric Ltd., ENMAX Power Corporation, and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc.  The crux of this appeal is the Commission’s treatment of contributions in aid of construction. In Decision 26061-D01-2021, the Commission disallowed transmission and distribution facility owners (TFOs and DFOs) from earning a return on contributions in aid of construction, despite affirming that the current practice was in line with the legislative framework. The utilities could then only treat the contributions as expenses in the year of disbursement because of the decision. The four DFOs filed an appeal with the Alberta court.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.