Opinion: Secrecy shrouds city's refusal to engage on Enmax power line
In a project that we have not been able to find an equivalent for in Calgary, Enmax has proposed running a high-voltage transmission line — with towers up to 10 storeys tall — down a northeast residential street. The Alberta Utilities Commission is holding a public hearing beginning May 26 to determine whether to approve Enmax's request to build the line above ground, or if it should be buried.
Article content
Article content
Article content
If Enmax gets its preferred overhead option, people living in the dozens of houses and hundreds of apartments, and those resting and recovering in the Fanning Centre, will see their view of 40 fully mature trees ripped from their streets and throughout the largest regional park in the area.
Article content
Article content
For a one-time savings of $10 million, Enmax proposes to sterilize the area and put hundreds of millions of dollars in development at the North Hill Co-op, Ambassador Motor Inn, the city-owned Midfield Heights and several smaller developments along the line's route at risk.
Article content
More than 800 people have signed a petition led by the Winston Heights-Mountview Community Association, opposing the overhead lines. However, as neighbours rally, our Ward 4 councillor and city administration have been silent.
Article content
Why would the city, with so much to lose in revenue from the land they are about to sell, and those from whom they collect property taxes, not even offer an opinion? We have worked with the city for too long to believe that the public servants wouldn't be concerned with Enmax's proposal.
Article content
Article content
And indeed they were, at one point. The city's parks department notified the AUC that it intended to participate in the hearing because it 'feels strongly that an aboveground alignment . . . will ultimately sterilize the public land.' They later, confusingly, withdrew this request to participate.
Article content
It turns out there's an unfortunate reason the city won't participate in the hearing, despite potentially losing millions from the sale of Midfield Heights lots and in future property taxes, and seeing their densification and tree canopy strategies abandoned.
Article content
In June 2024, council passed a confidential policy titled Regulatory Interventions and Municipally Owned Utilities (CD2024-0677). You can't read the details and neither can we, but we've had it confirmed by multiple city staffers and councillors that it forbids the city from offering an opinion during AUC proceedings that involve Enmax.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
29-05-2025
- Globe and Mail
Alberta regulator orders ATCO to repay $71-million to customers
Alberta utilities and logistics firm ATCO Ltd. ACO-X-T has been ordered to refund $71-million to customers, the latest development in a long-running dispute between the company and the provincial watchdog over electricity rates. But this week's decision by the Alberta Utilities Commission is far from the end of the regulatory tussle. ATCO chief executive officer Nancy Southern told shareholders at the company's annual meeting recently that ATCO intends to challenge the commission over the issue in the Alberta Court of Appeal in October. At the heart of the case is the commission's electricity rate-setting formula, called performance-based regulation. The formula is designed to encourage efficiency by providing incentives for utility companies to reduce costs. The more efficiently a utility operates, the more money it saves. Those savings are then shared with customers through lower utility rates. ATCO Electric fined $3-million for unearned rate increases, overstating its costs ATCO delivered $500-million in distribution-cost savings, which is being passed on to customers. But the commission found that those savings could not be clearly attributed to specific utility projects, programs or initiatives, as required by the commission's rules. Instead, it said that much of ATCO's savings were the result of operational changes, such as its decision not to pursue certain capital projects. The commission's judgement has come in two phases. The first, released last May, ruled that ATCO's utility rates in 2021 or 2022 'were not just and reasonable.' ATCO was granted a court appeal on that decision. The $71-million refund announced this week is the second phase of the commission's process. It separated the refund into $35-million for ATCO Electric customers, and $36-million for customers of ATCO Gas. That equates to roughly $14 per month for ATCO Electric customers for a six-month period, and $3.83 per month for ATCO Gas customers. Paul Barry, the executive director of the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, said Thursday his group was hoping for closer to $100-million for just the ATCO Electric side of the decision. Still, he's pleased some cash will be returned to customers. 'We view it as a positive, and it is setting a precedent that's a clear example of the commission seeking to hold utilities accountable,' Mr. Barry said. At ATCO's general meeting, Ms. Southern applauded the commission for implementing performance-based regulation. But, she told shareholders, ATCO and the commission have a 'major difference of opinion' in the way that the rules are applied. 'We believe we were operating within the regulatory framework,' she said. Jason Sharpe, ATCO's chief operating officer, said that ATCO had in fact built more efficient operations and lowered its rates. He said ATCO believes the commission is applying rules of performance-based regulation retroactively, hence the court challenge. The refund is to be delivered to customers over six months, beginning in September, the commission ruled. That's particularly prickly timing for the company, Mr. Sharpe said, given it overlaps with the court challenge. Mr. Sharpe said multiple requests to defer the refund decision until after the case goes through the Court of Appeal were denied by the commission. 'In our opinion, this is a premature refund until it's gone through the full appeal process,' he said, adding that it could create confusion for customers if the court finds in ATCO's favour. The commission would not comment on Wednesday's decision, but this isn't the first time it has ruled against ATCO. In 2022, ATCO was penalized $31-million after it deliberately overpaid a First Nation group for work on a new transmission line in 2018, and then failed to disclose the reasons when it applied to be reimbursed by ratepayers for the extra cost. Mr. Sharpe pointed said the latest decision 'very different,' in that it is a refund, not a penalty, and boils down to different views on how rules are applied.
CTV News
29-05-2025
- CTV News
Company planning Alberta solar plant project owes citizens' group $238K: AUC
A solar panel board is seen in this undated image. (Pixabay/Pexels) The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) is taking action against a company planning to build a solar farm in an Alberta hamlet for failing to comply with an order to pay a local citizens' group more than $238,000. On May 28, the commission sent a notice of non-compliance to PACE Bang Energy LP (Pace), which was approved to construct and operate a 14.67-megawatt (MW) solar farm in Caroline, Alta., earlier this year. According to the notice, the AUC issued a costs decision on March 14, ordering Pace to pay the Caroline Concerned Citizen's Group (CCCG) $238,950.20 as intervener costs awarded for its participation in the proceedings. 'Pace failed to pay intervener costs to the CCCG and is in breach of the costs decision, the related order to pay costs in accordance with that costs decision, and a subsequent ruling confirming its obligation to pay those costs,' the AUC notice reads. Pace had until April 14 to pay the group. It instead filed an application to review the decision on April 14. The company also filed for permission to appeal the costs decision. 'Neither the filing of an application for review nor the filing of an application for permission to appeal acts to stay an order or direction of the AUC,' the AUC notes. Two days later, on April 16, Pace filed a motion to suspend the costs decision, pending the conclusion of its application for review. The company argued that paying the costs would force it to delay the development of at least five projects and cause 'consequent harms that represent a financial burden impacting Pace's operational flexibility, investment capabilities, relationships with key consultants and vendors, and the stability required for ongoing business activities.' The commission temporarily suspended the implementation of the costs on April 17, pending a decision on Pace's motion. The motion was ultimately denied on May 8. The commission directed Pace to pay the CCCG within seven days of the ruling. The commission said the CCCG filed a letter on May 23, informing them that payment of the costs had not been made by Pace within seven days of the ruling. 'The CCCG asserted that this represented willful non-compliance with the commission's order and requested that the commission take a number of steps to address that non-compliance,' the notice reads. The notice of non-compliance issued on Wednesday by the commission directed Pace to show cause why it should not take action against the company, listing several measures, including: Adding the other applicants involved in the project as liable to pay the intervener costs award; Awarding interest on the costs until payment is made; Suspending processing of approvals and orders for the Caroline Solar Farm; Suspending processing of current applications filed by Pace or its affiliates; Ceasing the acceptance and processing of new applications from Pace; Requiring Pace to provide up-front security for intervener costs connected to any pending or future applications; Bringing an application for contempt under the Alberta Utilities Commission Act; and Any further orders, directions or proceedings the commission deems 'fit to make in the circumstances.' The notice directed Pace to file a written response by no later than June 2, at 4 p.m. CTV News has reached out to Pace for comment. The CCCG has been opposing the project, citing concerns about zoning upkeep and safety. The solar power plant would have a footprint of 80 acres, about the same size as the hamlet of Caroline. The project is set to be built on land designated for residential and agricultural use. The Alberta Utilities Commission approved the project on February 28. With files from Alesia Fieldberg
Calgary Herald
29-05-2025
- Calgary Herald
ATCO says savings to come despite Alberta Utilities Commission decision
Southern Alberta-based ATCO says efficiency initiatives will save its utility customers more than $500 million despite an Alberta Utilities Commission decision. Article content Article content The AUC decision report that was released Wednesday notes that the commission found ATCO's performance-based regulation (PBR) plans 'did not operate as intended in each of 2021 and 2022.' Article content Through PBR, which is used to regulate distribution utilities in Alberta, utilities are incentivized to find efficiencies in their work and pass those on to customers through rates. Article content Article content ATCO maintains it operated within the PBR, and says established rules are now being interpreted and administered differently after the fact. It has been granted the right to appeal one of the AUC's reopener decisions, which will be heard in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Article content Article content Although it has been ordered to refund tens of millions, ATCO asserts that it should be held until the appeal is heard by the court in October. Article content The report does not directly dispute the $500 million in cost savings, and the chief operating officer of ATCO Energy Systems doesn't believe that is the AUC's intent. Article content 'This would be the AUC looking for an additional piece on top of that 500 million,' said Jason Sharpe. 'I wouldn't want someone to look at this decision and say, ATCO isn't committed to delivering lower rates for customers and being more efficient.' Article content In an email an AUC spokesperson said the regulator won't be providing interviews on the matter, but noted it has directed ATCO Electric and ATCO Gas to refund a total of $71 million. Article content Article content This comes 'after finding the companies' 2021 and 2022 rates were not just and reasonable,' resulting in overcharging of customers. Refunds to ATCO Electric and ATCO Gas customers will be $35 million and $36 million respectively. Article content 'The refund will be provided over a six-month period from Sept. 2025 to Feb. 2026, through a rate rider on bills,' the email read. Article content However, ATCO's appeal has been granted the right to be heard, and if they are correct there would be no refund. Article content By going ahead of the appeal, he said customers could end up with a refund on their bill that gets 'clawed back' after the fact.
