ENMAX

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.

The PBR3 Parameters

In Proceeding 27388, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) sets the parameters of the third term of performance-based regulation (PBR3) in Alberta, which w ill be applied to the four following electric distribution utilities: ATCO Electric Ltd., FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis), ENMAX Power Corporation, and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EPCOR); and the following two natural gas distribution utilities, ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and Apex Utilities Inc. In sum, PBR3 builds upon PBR2 but makes some key changes in how benefits and efficiencies are respectively provided and quantified going forward with the addition of an efficiency sharing mechanism and the removal of the efficiency carryover mechanism.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Principles of Maximum Investment Levels (MILs) Decision

In proceeding 27658, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision on whether it remains reasonable for electric distribution utilities to invest in new residential customer connections up to a prescribed maximum investment level (MIL). Additionally, the Commission issues its decision on whether MILs related to street lighting installed in developments should be paid to the municipality within which the development was constructed or to the developer. Ultimately the Commission concludes the continuation of MILs, albeit under four new governing principles, and it decides that MILs should be paid to the municipalities in which a new development is constructed.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Decision on ENMAX’s 2023-2025 Transmission General Tariff Application

In proceeding 27581, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding the 2023-2025 Transmission General Tariff Application of ENMAX Energy Corporation (ENAMX) in which ENMAX entered a negotiated settlement with interveners. The Commission notes that this decision was originally supposed to have been released in July of 2023, but was delayed after it was learned that ENMAX was being investigated by Commission Enforcement staff regarding the year-end capitalization of certain distribution and transmission projects. The investigation is ongoing, but the Commission understands that the investigation results are unlikely to have a material impact on this decision.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Information Requests in the Residential Standards and Maximum Investment Levels (MILs) Proceeding

In Proceeding 27658, intervenors submit their information requests that address several topics in the standards of service and maximum investment levels (MILs) for residential services proceeding. These information requests fall in line with one or several topics included in the February 2023 issues list. Parties addressed information requests to the following intervenors: the distribution facility owners (DFOs) (ATCO Electric Ltd., ENMAX Power Corporation, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc., FortisAlberta Inc.), the Developers (Anthem Properties, BILD Alberta, Melcor Developments Ltd.), the Municipalities (Alberta Municipalities, City of Airdrie), the Alberta Federation of Rural Electrification Associations (AFREA), and the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA).



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

2024 GCOC Evidence

In proceeding 27084, intervenors submit their evidence regarding the issues list and other matters put forward by the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) concerning the 2024 Generic Cost of Capital (GCOC). The Commission decided that the equity risk premium (ERP) approach for determining return on equity (ROE) is appropriate. The ERP approach is the basis for the one-factor formula previously approved by the Commission in 2009 and the two-factor formula adopted by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB). The Commission produced an issues list based on the two-factor approach, which the following formula expresses:

  • ROE (test year) = Notional ROE (VAR1 + VAR3) + Factor One + Factor Two
  • Factor One = VAR4 x (Forecast Long Canada Bond Yield (test year) (VAR2) – Base Forecast Long Canada Bond Yield (VAR1))
  • Factor Two = VAR7 x (Utility Bond Spread (test year) (VAR6) – Base Utility Bond Spread (VAR5))

The Commission’s questions in the issues list mainly ask intervenors to calculate and justify appropriate variables (VAR) for the above equation.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Information Requests and Responses in ENMAX’s 2023-2025 Transmission General Tariff Application

In proceeding 27581, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission), the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (CCA), and the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) each submit their information requests (IRs) to ENMAX Energy Corporation (ENMAX) regarding ENMAX’s 2023-2025 Transmission General Tariff Application. ENMAX recently responded to these IRs that covered operations and maintenance costs, depreciation practices, and specific projects and programs.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Commission Decision on Direct Energy’s Energy Price Setting Plan Application

In Proceeding 27562, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding the 2023-2025 Energy Price Setting Plan (EPSP) Application of Direct Energy Regulated Services (Direct Energy). Direct Energy is a regulated rate option (RRO) provider in ATCO Electric Ltd.’s service territory. The EPSP establishes electricity pricing for these RRO customers. Direct Energy proposed EPSP includes nine total changes: six to the confidential procurement protocol and three to other non-confidential provisions of the EPSP. However, after hearing intervenor arguments, Direct Energy’s EPSP is not approved by the Commission, and Direct Energy is to refile the plan after making the necessary changes.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Commission Decisions on Apex’s, ATCO’s, ENMAX’s, and EPCOR’s Cost-of-Service and Distribution Rate Compliance Filings going into PBR3

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]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

ENMAX Energy’s 2023-2024 Energy Price Setting Plan: Intervenor Arguments

ENMAX Energy Corporation (ENMAX Energy) provides regulated rate option (RRO) services in ENMAX Power Corporation’s service territory; however, the Commission must approve the RRO tariff through an energy price setting plan (EPSP). In Proceeding 27495, ENMAX Energy’s application proposes to continue its previous EPSP with several refinements. After examining the application and submitting information requests, the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) argues against certain aspects of ENMAX Energy’s proposal.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.