UCA Review & Variance Application of Fortis’s Reopened Rate 21

In proceeding 29010, the Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) files an application for a review and variance of Decision 28576-D02-2024. Particularly, the UCA questions the approved changes to Fortis’ Rate 21. The UCA asserts that Fortis’s acquisition of the Tomahawk REA in November of 2023 constitutes new material facts that may have had bearing on the decision.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

AltaLink 2024-2025 GTA: Wildfire Mitigation and Salvage Expenditure Arguments

In proceeding 28174, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) approved the negotiated settlement of AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) on all issues except for those matters related to AltaLink’s wildfire mitigation plan and its salvage expenditures. Parties recently delivered their arguments regarding these outstanding issues, which focused on AltaLink’s newly proposed wildfire mitigation programs and its forecast salvage expenditures calculation.



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

ATCO PBR2 Plan Review – Evidence and Arguments

In proceeding 28300, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) hears arguments for and against whether the plan for the second term of performance-based regulation (PBR2) of ATCO Gas and ATCO Electric (ATCO) was flawed; and if so, whether it is reasonable to re-open the plan. In proceeding 20414, the Commission set out a reopener provision allowing for the review of PBR plans if a utility’s return on equity (ROE) is 300 basis points above or below the approved ROE for two consecutive years, or if it is above or below 500 points in a single year. ATCO exceeded the 300-basis point threshold for 2021 and the 500-basis point threshold for 2022, triggering this current proceeding.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.

AltaLink 2024-2025 NSA Application

In proceeding 28174, AltaLink Management Inc. (AltaLink) applies to the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) for the approval of a negotiated settlement agreement (NSA). The NSA was made between AltaLink, the Alberta Direct Connect Customers, the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (CCA), the Alberta Federation of REA’s Ltd. (AFREA), the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta (IPCAA), and the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA).

The Commission permitted a negotiated settlement process on all but the following two matters:[1]

  • AltaLink’s proposed wildfire deferral account.
  • AltaLink’s request to recover $11 million in returns incurred over the 2022-2023 period that apply to 2019-2021 actual salvage expenditures.

Additionally, parties involved in the negotiated settlement agreed to exclude three additional matters that are closley related to the two excluded by the Commission:[2]

  • AltaLink’s 2024-2025 forecast salvage expenditures.
  • AltaLink’s 2019-2023 actual salvage expenditures.
  • AltaLink’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan business cases.

The NSA also did not result in any changes to AltaLink’s terms and conditions.[3]



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ATCO Electric’s 2023-2025 General Tariff Application Decision

In Proceeding 27062, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the Commission) decides on the 2023-2025 General Tariff Application of ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO). The Commission allowed ATCO and interveners to enter a negotiated settlement process on all matters except for the Vegetation Management reserve removal and modifications to ATCO’s Variable Pay Program reserve. Parties were also unable to agree on the treatment of the $7.5 million undepreciated balance for ATCO’s Jasper Palisades isolated generation plant. Therefore, the Commission dealt with these three issues separately from the negotiated settlement.[1]



To view more of this post, please

Login Here

or contact us.