In proceeding 29006, ten participants submitted written arguments to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission or AUC) following rounds of extensive information requests (IRs) and evidence. A virtual hearing for reply arguments is scheduled for April 23, 2025.
In Proceeding 29255, ENMAX Power Corporation (EPC or ENMAX) submitted a negotiated settlement agreement to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) for its 2026-2028 Transmission General Tariff Application (GTA). The agreement was reached between EPC, the Consumers Coalition of Alberta (CCA), and the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), with an invitation extended to the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta (IPCAA). The settlement covered both monetary and non-monetary aspects.
In proceeding 29615, TransAlta Corporation (TransAlta) is applying to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the AUC or Commission) for approval of its Transmission General Tariff Application (GTA) for 2024-2025. TransAlta’s revenue requirements for the test period are $12.8million for 2024, and $13.4 million for 2025.
In Proceeding 29255, ENMAX Power Corporation (EPC or ENMAX) submitted its General Tariff Application (GTA) for 2026-2028 to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). The proceeding has included two technical sessions and one round of Information Requests (IRs), some of which were confidential. The Intervenors include the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (CCA) and The Utilities Consumers Advocate (UCA).
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.