Energy – Page 50

In its 2006 decision in ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB, now the Alberta Utilities Commission) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds on the sale of a utility asset to ratepayers where the sale of that asset resulted in no harm to ratepayers in terms of either rates or service. For a bare majority of the Court, Justice Bastarache held that the rights to assets rest without qualification with the utility.

TransCanada’s Alberta Pipeline System now under federal regulatory authority

By Nigel Bankes

On March 23, 2009

In Constitutional, Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision, TransCanada PipeLines Limited, GH-5-2008, Jurisdiction and Facilities, February 2008 (posted to the NEB website February 26, 2009)

PDF Version: TransCanada’s Alberta Pipeline System now under federal regulatory authority

It’s official. The intra-provincial natural gas transmission system (the Alberta System), originally built by Alberta Gas Trunk Line Limited, latterly known as NOVA, and part of the TransCanada PipeLines (TCPL) empire since 1998, will henceforward be regulated by the National Energy Board rather than the provincial regulators, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) (for pipeline construction etc) and the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) (for tolls and tariffs etc).

The Incredible Shrinking Jurisdiction of the Alberta Utilities Commission

By Alice Woolley

On June 11, 2008

In Administrative Law, Energy

Cases Considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2008 ABCA 200

PDF Version: The Incredible Shrinking Jurisdiction of the Alberta Utilities Commission

Introduction

In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“Board”) (now the Alberta Utilities Commission (“Commission”)) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds of disposition on the sale of a utility asset, even to ameliorate harm to customers that might arise from that sale. The Court held that while the Board has some jurisdiction to impose conditions on the sale of an asset – to, for example, give “due consideration to any new economic data anticipated as a result of the sale” (ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2006 SCC 4 at para. 81 (“AGPL”)) – that power did not allow the Board to “confiscate” any net gains enjoyed by a utility upon disposition.

“www.JustAnswer.com… or How the Alberta Courts Respected the Market Surveillance Administrator’s Just Exercise of Jurisdiction”

By Alice Woolley

On March 3, 2008

In Energy

Cases Considered: Alberta (Market Surveillance Administrator) v. Enmax Energy Corporation 2008 ABQB 54

PDF Version: “www.JustAnswer.com… or How the Alberta Courts Respected the Market Surveillance Administrator’s Just Exercise of Jurisdiction”

Regulation of the functioning of the market for electricity poses difficulties. The price for electricity in Alberta is determined through the mechanism of the Power Pool on an hourly basis. Generators bid the electricity they will have available for dispatch into the Power Pool during a given hour, and the Power Pool selects electricity in merit order (from the lowest price bid to the highest price bid) as required to meet demand in that hour. The price of electricity in each hour is the level of the highest bid of the last unit of electricity required to meet demand in that hour. Every in merit generator in that hour is then paid at that price, regardless of the level of the bid initially made by that generator.