In Proceedings 27671 and 27672, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding the 2023 revenue requirements and proposed rates of ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) and FortisAlberta Inc. (FortisAlberta). For ATCO and FortisAlberta, this concludes the rebasing cost-of-service review in preparation for the third term of performance-based regulation (PBR).
In Proceeding 27658, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) sets the maximum investment levels (MILs) for 2023 that a distribution facility owner (DFO) can contribute to the cost of connecting a new customer to its system. Therefore, the 2023 MILs for each DFO will be set by escalating the 2022 MILs by a 2.68 percent inflation factor.[1]
Individual developers are responsible for constructing electric utility infrastructure inside new residential developments within FortisAlberta Inc., ATCO Electric Ltd., and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (the DFOs) service areas. After completing construction, the developer passes infrastructure ownership back to the DFO and receives compensation from the DFO according to the approved MILs. Any costs beyond the MILs fall to the developer.[2]
In Proceedings 27651, 27653, 27684, and 27685, Apex Utilities Inc. (Apex), ATCO Gas (ATCO), ENMAX Power Corporation (ENMAX), and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EPCOR) submit their revenue requirement and distribution rates compliance filings to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) for approval going into the third term of performance-based regulation (PBR3). The approval of these compliance filings concludes each applicant’s PBR rebasing.[1]
In Proceeding 27062, ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) asks the Commission to approve their revenue requirement of $677.1 million in 2023, $687.8 million in 2024 and $698.6 million in 2025. ATCO notes that the 2023 requirement is lower than their 2022 forecast because they are proposing to stop collecting Future Income Tax (FIT) expenses, their property taxes are lower, and there are fewer head office costs. After completing a round of information requests, intervenors submitted evidence detailing their concerns regarding the application.[1]
In Proceeding 27013, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission) issues its decision regarding the allegations that Enforcement Staff of the Commission brought against ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO Electric”) regarding ATCO Electric’s sole-sourcing a major contract at above fair market value and seeking cost recovery of the project.
Background
In 2016, ATCO Electric’s non-regulated affiliate, ATCO Structures & Logistics Ltd. (“ATCO S&L”), entered an agreement with Simpcw Resources LLP. to provide Simpcw with electrical transmission and distribution project opportunities. The agreement included Simpcw’s provision of a Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project contract to ATCO S&L. Simpcw later expressed that they expected to be directly awarded ATCO Electric’s contract for matting, brushing, and hydrovac services for the Jasper Project.
In proceeding 26616, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission) issues its decision regarding the cost-of-service review for both ATCO Gas (“ATCO”) and Apex Utilities Inc. (“Apex”) in preparation for the third term of performance-based regulation (“PBR3”).
Readers may remember our previous article summarizing ATCO and Apex’s cost-of-service rebasing application whereby both utilities realign their distribution facility owner costs and revenues in preparation for PBR3. The intervenors argued that the applicants had not demonstrated how they would share efficiencies with ratepayers, that efficiencies should be quantified, that the applicants’ cost escalators overstate actual costs, and that certain capital projects should be excluded from each applicant’s rate base. The applicants responded by stating their efficiencies would be shared through lower rates, that their escalators are based on reasonable factors, and that the capital projects under question are prudent and necessary.
In Proceeding 27562, Direct Energy Regulated Services (“Direct Energy”) submits is energy price setting plan (“EPSP”) to establish regulated rates to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”).
In proceeding 26615 the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) issues its decision regarding the cost-of service reviews proposed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO”) and FortisAlberta Inc. (“Fortis”) in preparation for the third term of performance-based regulation (“PBR”).
In Proceeding 26911, the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) and the intervenors submit their arguments to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) for and against the AESO’s proposed bulk and regional rate design and modernized demand opportunity service (“DOS”).
In Proceeding 26911 the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) and several intervenors cross-examine each other’s evidence for and against the various bulk and regional rate design proposals before the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”).
Readers may remember our previous article describing the AESO’s rebuttal evidence for their bulk and regional rate design and modernized demand opportunity service application. The current rate design collects transmission costs through a mix of energy and peak demand billing determinants where a monthly coincident peak charge (“12-CP”) recovers two thirds of demand costs.