The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) approved a Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) in Proceeding 30504 between FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) and the intervenors on Fortis’s depreciation study. The Commission considered whether the negotiated adjustments to Fortis’s depreciation parameters and the resulting impacts on revenue requirements and customer rates should be approved.
In Proceeding 30555, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) issued its decision reconsidering the compensation payable by FortisAlberta Inc. (Fortis) to Battle River Power Coop (Battle River) for the transfer of 41 customer sites and related distribution facilities from Battle River to Fortis. The proceeding followed a direction from the Court of Appeal of Alberta that the compensation be determined under Section 29(4) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act rather than Section 32.
On July 30, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its FortisAlberta Inc v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2026 ABCA 258 ruling concerning the third term of the performance-based regulation (PBR) framework for Alberta distribution utilities. This decision (Docket 2301-0264AC) was heard alongside two other related appeals (0265AC and 0268AC) involving FortisAlberta, ENMAX Power, and ATCO Electric in relation to the October 2023 Decision 27388 which established the third term of PBR.1
While the Court largely upheld the AUC’s decision, it found the Commission made an error in dismissing Fortis’ complaint involving the stretch factor adjustment present within PBR without sufficient explanation. Additionally, the Court made a number of recommendations to the Commission in regards to improving regulatory efficiency, including making Decisions more legible to lay persons, specifically by reducing the use of acronyms.
On June 30th, 2026, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) announced its decision regarding the ongoing payment dispute between FortisAlberta and Tenaris (known as 2543500 Alberta Ltd). The dispute concerned a proposed $586,918.80 Payment in Lieu of Notice (or PILON) charged to Tenaris over its plans to reduce the minimum and expected peak demand in its electric service agreement contract.
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 26615 the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) issues its decision regarding the cost-of service reviews proposed by ATCO Electric Ltd. (“ATCO”) and FortisAlberta Inc. (“Fortis”) in preparation for the third 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.
In Proceeding 27018, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) issues its decision regarding the Phase II Distribution Tariff Application of EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”).
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).