Category: Energy Page 31 of 55

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 24056_D01-2019, ENMAX Independent Energy Solutions Inc., ENMAX District Energy Edmonton Exemption Application, August 1, 2019

In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) had to decide whether a proposed network that would provide a service (in this case steam) to customers and that fell within the definition of a public utility should be granted an exemption under the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, RSA 2000, c P-45, (PUA). The AUC concluded that an exemption should not be issued.

Carbon Security or Carbon Whimsy?

By Nigel Bankes

On July 17, 2019

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Carbon Security or Carbon Whimsy?

Document commented on: Alberta’s Proposed Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction System: Discussion Document, July 2019

This Discussion Document contains the Government of Alberta’s proposal to replace the current Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alta Reg 255/2017, (CCIR) with a Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) system for Alberta’s large final emitters (LFEs). If promulgated, the TIER system will effectively return us to the model of the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER) first introduced by the Stelmach government in 2007, and then repealed and replaced by the Notley government’s CCIR effective January 1, 2018. Both the SGER and the CCIR are greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures; both are emissions intensity schemes rather than cap and trade schemes; both require increased carbon efficiency over time (i.e. reduced carbon emissions per unit of output); both schemes offer covered entities access to flexibility mechanisms (including payments into a fund) to allow them to meet their targets in the most efficient manner; both impose a liability only on excess emissions over the target rather than on all emissions but still provide a pricing signal; both are designed to protect trade exposed sectors; and both focus on LFEs.

Another Interconnection Application Crashes Out

By Nigel Bankes

On June 28, 2019

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Another Interconnection Application Crashes Out

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 24126-D01-2019, Keyera Energy Ltd, Cynthia Gas Plant Power Plant Application, June 25, 2019

In its Smith decision earlier this year, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) concluded that a self-generator could only avoid the general “must offer, must exchange” obligations imposed by the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1, (EUA; and regulations) and the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16, (HEEA) if it fell within one of the prescribed exceptions in the legislative scheme. ABlawg commented on the Smith decision here: Opening a Can of Worms. The AUC followed its Smith decision with two further interconnection applications in April and early June: AUC Decision 23756-DOI-2019, Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. Glacier Power Plant Alteration, April 26, 2019; and AUC Decision 24393-D01-2019, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC Request for Permanent Connection for 48-Megawatt Power Plant, June 6, 2019. I commented on these latter two decisions here.

As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

By Sharon Mascher

On June 25, 2019

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

Matter Commented On: Discussion Paper on the Proposed Project List

Last week, Bill C-69 finally passed through the Senate and received Royal Assent. That the legislative process has been long and fraught goes without saying. On its first passage through the Senate, a total of 229 amendments were made to the legislation. While 130 of those amendments were ultimately rejected, Bill C-69 incorporates 99 of them – 62 as proposed by the Senate and 37 with government alterations. This reportedly is “the highest number of amendments on any piece of legislation since at least 1946.”

The Implications of the AUC’s Smith Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On June 18, 2019

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Implications of the AUC’s Smith Decision

Decisions commented on: AUC Decision 23756-DOI-2019, Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. Glacier Power Plant Alteration, April 26, 2019; and AUC Decision 24393-D01-2019, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC Request for Permanent Connection for 48-Megawatt Power Plant, June 6, 2019.

In its Smith decision earlier this year, the AUC concluded that a self-generator could only avoid the general must offer, must exchange obligations imposed by the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1, (EUA; and regulations) and the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16,(HEEA) if it fell within one of the prescribed exceptions in the legislative scheme. ABlawg commented on the Smith decision here: Opening a Can of Worms.

In these decisions, two AUC panels have confirmed the Smith decision, and in doing so further explore the implications of Smith for both new generation and for existing generation.

Category: Energy Page 31 of 55

Regulatory Forbearance and the Status of District Energy Systems Under the Public Utilities Act

Carbon Security or Carbon Whimsy?

Another Interconnection Application Crashes Out

As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

The Implications of the AUC’s Smith Decision