Fortis – Battle River Power Asset Transfer Compensation Decision

In proceeding 28358, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding compensation for site transfers between FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) and the rural electrification association (REA) Battle River Power Coop REA Ltd. (Battle River Power).

Over five years ago, several municipalities with which Fortis has a franchise agreement, annexed land that overlapped with existing REA service areas. Fortis requested that the REA areas be altered to align with its municipal franchise agreements. In Decision 22164-D01-2018, the Commission granted Fortis’s request contingent on there being a municipal bylaw requiring customers in the annexed area to connect to Fortis. Since then, many successful transfers have taken place between REAs and Fortis. However, a transfer of 50 sites remained outstanding for which Forts and Battle River Power could not come to an agreement.[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.

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.

The AESO’s Revised AMP Implementation Plan Application

In Proceeding 28441, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) applies to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) for approval of its revised adjusted metering practice (AMP) implementation plan. In Decision 27047-D01-2022, the Commission denied approving the AESO’s previous AMP implementation plan and directed that if the AESO wanted to file another application, it would need to include:

  • AACE Class 3 estimates and forecast completion date for all scopes of work proposed in the implementation plan,
  • AACE Class 5 estimates for the total theoretical maximum cost of implementation across all phases; and
  • Quantification of the benefits of AMP implementation, including a cost-benefit analysis.

With these requirements in mind, the AESO submitted its revised application.



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.

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.

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.

Directions for Fortis’s Streetlight Investment

In Proceeding 27682, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) issues its decision regarding the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) that pertain to its streetlight investment. In December 2021, Fortis sought the Commission’s input to determine whether Fortis should pay its streetlight investment to the developer or the municipality if the parties cannot agree on who is entitled to the payment. In Decision 27067-D01-2022, the Commission directed that the streetlight investment be paid to the municipality if the developer and municipality are in dispute. The Commission further directed Fortis to clarify the streetlight investment entitlement in its T&Cs.[1]

Fortis made its compliance filing. However, the Commission found that Fortis only complied with one of the three directions. Nevertheless, the Commission does not require Fortis to submit another compliance filing because the Commission will hear issues concerning streetlight investment in Proceeding 27658.[2]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.