Category Archives: Utility Regulation

Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application

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). Continue reading →

The Complaint Jurisdiction of the AUC with Respect to the AESO

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Complaint Jurisdiction of the AUC with Respect to the AESO

Decisions Commented On: (1) AUC Decision, 22367-D01-2017, Enel Alberta Wind Inc. General Partner of the Castle Rock Ridge Limited Partnership Complaint Pursuant to Section 26 of the Electric Utilities Act Regarding Conduct of the Alberta Electric System Operator December 23, 2017; (2) AUC Decision 21867-D01-2017, ENMAX Corporation Written Complaint About the Conduct of the Independent System Operator October 23, 2017; (3) AUC Decision 2010-104, Lavesta Area Group Written Complaint about the Conduct of the Independent System Operator March 10, 2010

The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) (aka the ISO, the Independent System Operator) established by the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1 (EUA) has two principal functions. It is responsible for the operation of the power pool and for the procurement of ancillary services, and it is responsible for engaging in transmission system planning and for providing system access to the transmission system. In furtherance of the latter it must prepare and submit to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) for approval a tariff (EUA, s 30) setting out the rates to be charged by the AESO for system access service and the terms and conditions that apply. Continue reading →

PPA Terminations and the AESO Tariff

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: PPA Terminations and the AESO Tariff

Matter Commented On: Application from the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) requesting legal determinations by the AUC under Section 8 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act with respect to system access service for generation from the Keephills facilities, November 24, 2017

The complicated issues surrounding the termination of Power Purchase Arrangements (PPAs) are about to get a lot more complicated. Justice Horner’s decision mandating the Balancing Pool to complete its assessment and verification of ENMAX’s notice of termination (delivered May 5, 2016) of its Keephills PPA (see ENMAX PPA Management Inc v Balancing Pool, 2017 ABQB 718 (CanLII) and my post on that decision here) has triggered an application by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) to have the AUC decide certain questions of law so as to assist the AESO in ensuring the continuation of an appropriate legal framework within which the Keephills facilities will continue to supply power to the Alberta Interconnected System (AIES). Continue reading →

The Efficiency Plank in Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Efficiency Plank in Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan

Report Commented On: Getting it Right: A More Energy Efficient Alberta, Final Report of the Alberta Energy Efficiency Advisory Panel, released 23 January 2017 and related press release

As reported in previous posts, Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) released in November 2015 following receipt of the Leach Report has four key planks: (1) phasing out emissions from coal-generated electricity and developing more renewable energy, (2) implementing a new carbon price on greenhouse gas emissions, (3) a legislated oil sands emission limit, and (4) employing a new methane emission reduction plan.

The government introduced legislation to implement an economy-wide carbon price in June 2016 (the Climate Leadership Implementation Act) with the results of that in the form of the carbon levy coming into force on January 1 of this year (2017). The fall session of the legislature (2016) saw the introduction and passage of Bill 25, The Oil Sands Emission Limit Act to implement the third objective, a legislated oil sands emission limit (I commented on Bill 25 here) and followed this up with Bill 27, the Renewable Electricity Act to implement the second half of the first plank – developing more renewable energy. I commented on Bill 27 here. Then there were subsequent developments with respect to transforming Alberta’s “energy only” market which I commented on here. This last post also commented on the first half of the first plank of the CLP, i.e. the agreement between the province and the owners on the phase-out of coal generating facilities and the level of compensation payable.

As part of the plan to replace coal generation the province has also been looking at energy efficiency policies and micro or distributed generation. Although energy efficiency measures do not result in more generation they do suppress load and avoid (or at least postpone) the need to build or run new generation. While energy efficiency has a lower public profile than new generation, most commentators suggest that energy efficiency and demand side management policies are usually among the most cost effective measures for meeting load and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – especially where the current energy mix, as in Alberta, is carbon intensive. Continue reading →

Board Cannot Ignore Injurious Affection Losses

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Board Cannot Ignore Injurious Affection Losses

Case Commented On: Koch v Altalink Management Ltd, 2016 ABQB 678 (CanLII)

This case involves WATL (the Western Alberta Transmission Line) and parcels of land owned by the Kochs that will be bisected by the line. The principal point of law involved relates to the injurious affection suffered by the lands retained by the Kochs (i.e. these are Koch lands which lie outside the area of the right of way acquired by Altalink). It is a standard principle of compensation law that such losses should be recoverable. However, in this case, Altalink, in an argument accepted by the majority of the Surface Rights Board panel hearing the case, took the position that the Kochs had bought the lands at a price that was already discounted from its original market value by the prospect of WATL being constructed. Accordingly, the Kochs had suffered no injurious affection losses and were therefore not entitled to any compensation under this head of damages. On this theory the party that had suffered the loss was the vendor to the Kochs and to compensate the Kochs for injurious affection would to award them a windfall. The minority would have awarded injurious affection damages of $125,780. The Kochs appealed. Continue reading →