In Proceeding 27666, the Alberta Utility Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding the review and variance application of the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (CCA), arguing that their 40 percent cost claim disallowance was inconsistent, punitive, and punishing. However, the CCA did not persuade the Commission that there were errors in the initial decision. Therefore, the disallowance stands.[1]
In proceeding 26617 the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) issues its decision regarding the cost-of-service negotiated settlements of ENMAX Power Corporation (“ENMAX”) and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”) in preparation for the next 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.
Argument and reply argument has been submitted in Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) proceeding 26616 on ATCO Gas North (ATCO) and Apex Utilities Inc. (Apex) cost-of-service rebasing in preparation for the next PBR term.
In Proceeding 26617, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (”EPCOR”) submits its negotiated settlement agreement (“NSA”) regarding its distribution cost-of-service application (the “Application”) to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) for review and approval.
In Proceeding 26617, ENMAX Power Corporation (“ENMAX”) submits its negotiated settlement agreement (“NSA”) with the Utilities Consumer Advocate (“UCA”) pertaining to its 2023 Distribution Cost of Service Review Application (the “Application”) to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission” or “AUC”).
Argument and reply argument have been submitted in AUC proceeding 26615 on ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) and FortisAlberta (Fortis) cost rebasing in preparation for the next PBR term. ATCO and Fortis defended their proposals against the claims and concerns of consumer groups; Consumer Coalition of Alberta (CCA), Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) and The Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta (IPCAA).
Responses have been submitted to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC)’s hydrogen inquiry. The hydrogen inquiry is broadly aimed at gathering information on the technical requirements and economic viability of blending hydrogen in natural gas distribution systems.
In Alberta Utilities Commission (“the Commission”) proceeding 26911, the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) submit its application to redesign its Bulk and Regional Rate Design and Modernized Demand Opportunity Service (“DOS”). At this stage in the proceeding, intervenors have filed their evidence either in support of or against all or some of the AESO’s proposal.