Category: Utility Regulation Page 1 of 5

Matter Commented On: AUC Decision 30732-D01-2026, Synapse Real Estate Corp., Synapse Data Center Power Plant Project, August 17, 2026

PDF Version: What Can We Learn From A Failed Synapse Or Two?

On August 17, 2026, a panel of commissioners of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) rejected, in trenchant terms, an application from Synapse Real Estate Corp (Synapse) to construct and operate a 1,400?megawatt (MW) combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant together with massive amounts of backup diesel generation (1,800 MW) (together, the power facilities). The power facilities were to be located within the town of Olds and co-located with a large-scale data centre. The power plant was intended to provide electricity exclusively to the data centre and not be connected to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (the grid). While the generation and data centre were clearly intended to be functionally integrated, the AUC has no jurisdiction over data centres. The AUC’s jurisdiction is confined to new power facilities under the terms of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16 (HEEA), specifically ss 11 and 19, as supplemented by s 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 (AUCA). Section 17 of the AUCA is crucial insofar as it confirmed that a principal criterion for approval is that the project be in the public interest.

New “Public Document” on the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On September 13, 2024

In Utility Regulation, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Document commented on: “Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty, Agreement-in-Principle Content, Public Document”, dated August 30, 2024, release announced September 5, 2024.

PDF Version: New “Public Document” on the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty

In the first part of July, the governments of Canada and the United States announced that they had reached an agreement in principle (AiP) on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). At about the same time, the province of British Columbia released a backgrounder summarizing the AiP. I provided an ABlawg commentary on that backgrounder here and I have previously posted on modernization of the CRT here and here.

Stores Block Meets Vavilov: The Status of Pre-Vavilov ABCA Decisions

By Nigel Bankes

On May 1, 2023

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision commented on: ATCO Electric Ltd v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 129 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Stores Block Meets Vavilov: The Status of Pre-Vavilov ABCA Decisions

This case is an appeal of the ATCO Fort McMurray fire decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). In this case, a panel of the Court of Appeal made an important statement as to the status of previous court decisions on AUC-related matters that were rendered prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

The Regulation of District Energy Systems in Alberta: Part 3

By Nigel Bankes

On March 7, 2022

In Energy, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Regulation of District Energy Systems in Alberta: Part 3

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 26717-D01-2022, Calgary District Heating Inc. Exemption from Provisions of the Public Utilities Act, March 2, 2022

As the title indicates, this is my third post dealing with the regulation of district energy systems in Alberta. My first post, “Regulatory Forbearance and The Status of District Energy Systems Under the Public Utilities Act”, dealt with an application by ENMAX for relief from the entirety of Part 2 of the Public Utilities Act, RSA 2000, c P-45, (PUA) as it might apply to a proposed district energy system in Edmonton (Edmonton DE Decision). The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) denied the application. It concluded that ENMAX had not discharged its onus to show that (at para 35) “sufficient competition will exist such that regulation of ENMAX in its provision of thermal energy within the exclusive franchise area is unnecessary; or, stated in another way, that it would be in the public interest to exempt DE Edmonton and ENMAX (as its owner and operator) from Part 2 of the Public Utilities Act.” Rather, the evidence that customers who agreed to take service from the district energy facility and removed their existing boilers would effectively be captive to the service provided by ENMAX. While there was some discussion of whether more limited exemptions would protect these customers, it became clear that ENMAX’s application was in the nature of an “all-or-nothing application.” Accordingly, the AUC found it unnecessary to opine on the acceptability of a more limited set of exceptions.

Off-Grid Energy for Bitcoin Mines in Alberta: A Problematic Legal Regime

By Nigel Bankes

On August 31, 2021

In Energy, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Off-Grid Energy for Bitcoin Mines in Alberta: A Problematic Legal Regime

Decision Commented On: Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), Decision 26379-D02-2021, Allegations against Link Global Technologies Inc., Phase 1, August 19, 2021

I don’t know much about Bitcoin operations, but I do know that they need a lot of power to run large computers, and it therefore makes sense for them to locate near cheap sources of power. Over the last several months, there have been a number of stories about Bitcoin operators checking out Alberta locations. For example, Collin Gallant published a nice piece in the Medicine Hat News in April 2021. But this last week (August 25, 2021) the CBC ran with a more detailed story about one of the Bitcoin operators mentioned in Gallant’s piece (Link Global Technologies Inc.) that had co-located close to a shut in gas well to take advantage of cheap fuel to power their gas turbine generators.