EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc.

Reconsideration of DFO Contribution in Aid of Construction Policy

The Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) has initiated proceeding 29006 in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal (the Court) decision in AltaLink Management Ltd. v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 325 (the Appeal Decision). The Court allowed the appeal of Decision 26061-D01-2021 in which the Commission determined that neither transmission facility owners (TFOs) or distribution facility owners (DFOs) would have the ability to receive a return on construction contributions.[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.

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.

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.

Micro-Gen Dispute Decision

In proceeding 28319, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding the micro-generation dispute between ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) and a farm. In June of 2023, the farm submitted a micro-generation application to ATCO and ATCO rejected the application on the basis that the generating capacity was too large relative to load. The crux of the disagreement was whether one year of history (ATCO’s position) or five years of history (the farm’s position) was sufficient to predict future load.



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.

Reconsideration of ATCO Electric Z Factor for the Wood Buffalo Fire

In proceeding 28320, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) reconsiders the Z factor adjustment of ATCO Electric (ATCO) for the 2016 Wood Buffalo fire. On April 14, 2023, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its decision regarding ATCO Electric Ltd. v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 129 (the Appeal decision) where ATCO sought to appeal the Commission’s denial of ATCO’s loss recovery associated with the 2016 fires. The Commission’s original decision relied on ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (the Stores Block decision) in which the Commission understood that ‘extraordinary retirements’ of assets are attributable to shareholders rather than customers. However, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the Commission’s decision (which depended on an interpretation and application of the Stores Block decision) and referred the matter back to the Commission.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Fortis’s Application for Determining REA Asset Transfer Compensation

In Proceeding 28358, FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) requests the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) to determine the amount of compensation that Fortis is to pay to Battle River Power Coop REA Ltd. (Battle River Power) for the transfer of electric distribution assets. The assets are in several municipalities that have recently passed bylaws requiring Battle River Power customers within municipal boundaries to take distribution services from Fortis.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

Micro-Generation Proposal Dispute

In Proceeding 28139, ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) issued a notice of dispute over whether a micro-generation unit proposed by EvolvSolar meets the generator qualifications outlined in the Micro-Generation Regulation.

EvolvSolar and its client applied to ATCO to construct a solar system that would produce 296,667 kWh per year to power a farm grain drying process. ATCO did not approve the application because the site usage averaged only 204,600 kWh over the past two years (2021 and 2022). The Micro-Generation Regulation defines a micro-generation unit as one intended to meet all or a portion of the site’s annual energy consumption. ATCO, as the wires owner, believes the proposed project does not qualify as a micro-generation unit since it might produce more energy than what is consumed on site.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

2024 GCOC Arguments

In proceeding 27084, interveners submit their arguments over the matters put forward by the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) regarding the generic cost of capital (GCOC). The Commission had already decided to proceed with a formulaic approach that was previously approved in 2009 and had asked interveners to provide recommendations for the formula’s variables. Interveners previously submited evidence detailing their variable recommendations and have since provided arguments supporting their evidence. However, some interveners continue to argue against the formulaic approach, and most proposed a specific return on equity (ROE) ratios for the 2024 GCOC.  A significant portion of argument focused on debating whether business risk has increased or decreased in the province and why the level of risk justifies each intervener’s proposal.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.