Category: Energy Page 38 of 57

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application

Bill Commented On: Balancing Pool v ENMAX Energy Corporation, 2018 ABCA 143 (CanLII)

This decision deals with applications by two parties (the Balancing Pool and TransAlta) to be accorded party status (or, failing that, intervenor status) in permission to appeal applications launched by TransCanada Energy, ENMAX and Capital Power relating to one aspect of the long-running line loss proceedings before the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). Justice Paperny’s decision on these preliminary matters merits reporting on ABlawg for two reasons. First, it provides an example of a Court taking the unusual step of granting party status in relation to that most preliminary of applications, a permission to appeal application (rather than at the subsequent stage where leave has been granted). Second, it provides an opportunity to update the status of the line loss file (AUC Proceeding 790).

Regulated Tolls in the Competitive Environment of Northeast British Columbia: NEB Issues Directions to NGTL and Westcoast

By Nigel Bankes

On March 28, 2018

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Regulated Tolls in the Competitive Environment of Northeast British Columbia: NEB Issues Directions to NGTL and Westcoast

Decision Commented On: National Energy Board Examination to Determine Whether to Undertake an Inquiry of the Tolling Methodologies, Tariff Provisions and Competition in Northeast British Columbia: Examination Decision, March 8, 2018

As noted in a post this time last year, the chair of the National Energy Board (NEB, the Board) decided to appoint a single Board member, Lyn Mercier, to conduct an examination to determine whether to conduct an Inquiry into the Tolling Methodologies, Tariff Provisions and Competition in Northeast British Columbia. Ms. Mercier submitted her Report to the Board on February 22, 2018 and the Board has now released its “Examination Decision” under the signature of the Board’s secretary.

Power Purchase Arrangement Litigation Comes to an End

By Nigel Bankes

On March 14, 2018

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Power Purchase Arrangement Litigation Comes to an End

Matter Commented On: Government of Alberta Press Release, March 9, 2018

The Government of Alberta issued a Press Release on March 9, 2018 indicating the Government and ENMAX “have agreed to withdraw ENMAX from the Power Purchase Arrangement (PPA) legal action initiated in 2016 by the Attorney General”. The agreement apparently “provides for the transfer from ENMAX to the Balancing Pool of 166,667 carbon offset credits and for a payment of equivalent value to ENMAX from the Balancing Pool for previously disputed and unpaid dispatch services and PPA transition matters”. The release goes on to note that “With this agreement, the legal action between the Government of Alberta, ENMAX and the remaining parties will be ended”.

ABlawg has published numerous posts on the PPA litigation (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and there is a nice summary of the history of the litigation on the blog of the Alberta Power Market, a very informative blog prepared by members of the Electricity Markets Group of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

This post may be cited as: Nigel Bankes “Power Purchase Arrangement Litigation Comes to an End” (14 March, 2018), online: ABlawg, http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Blog_NB_PPA_Litigation_Ends.pdf

To subscribe to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to http://ablawg.ca

Some Things Have Changed but Much Remains the Same: the New Canadian Energy Regulator

By Nigel Bankes

On February 15, 2018

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Some Things Have Changed but Much Remains the Same: the New Canadian Energy Regulator

Bill Commented On: Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Given the discussions over the last year as to the future of the National Energy Board (see posts here and here) it is hardly surprising that Part 2 of Bill C-69 takes the form of an entirely new Act to be known as the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA) rather than a set of amendments to the existing National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985, c N-7. This no doubt creates the impression that the new Bill represents a wholesale replacement of the NEB rather than mere tinkering. This post examines whether this is indeed the case by examining in some more detail what has changed and what remains the same. My focus is Part 2 of Bill C-69. My colleague Martin Olszynski has already provided a post on Part 1 of the Bill, the proposed new Impact Assessment Act (IIA) as well as the amendments to the Fisheries Act.

The AESO Line Loss Marathon Inches Towards the Finish Line

By Nigel Bankes

On January 8, 2018

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The AESO Line Loss Marathon Inches Towards the Finish Line

Decision Commented On: Milner Power Inc. & ATCO Power Ltd. Complaints Regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology, Phase 2 Module C, AUC Decision 790-D06-2017, December 18, 2017

In a pre-Christmas post on the power purchase arrangements (PPAs) saga I hinted that, at least from the perspective of the energy regulatory lawyers in the city, the PPA saga must be the gift that keeps on giving; but this epithet must be even more so for the line loss dispute—for this truly is a marathon. And while the latest decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) gets us a little closer to the finish line, I fully expect that we shall see further applications to the AUC for review and variance and perhaps several more trips to the Court of Appeal. Indeed I believe that there is still one outstanding application (Capital Power Corporation v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2015 ABCA 197 (CanLII) and see also at paras 150-152 of this decision) for permission to appeal an earlier decision which application was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the AUC’s decision on the merits (i.e. this decision).