skip to main content
Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Ratemaking | Practice & Procedure

Sep 8, 2017

Alberta Utilities Commission Comments on Arguments About Information Asymmetry

By Fred D. Cass

On August 29, 2017, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) issued a decision on an application by ATCO Pipelines for approval of its 2017-2018 general rate application. The decision addressed many issues, including points of dispute with regard to rate base and operating costs and numerous issues arising from a depreciation study filed by ATCO Pipelines.

In their arguments, certain parties expressed concerns about the disclosure of information during the proceeding by ATCO Pipelines. It was argued that ATCO Pipelines had failed to provide relevant information and had exploited information asymmetry between it, on the one hand, and the interveners and the AUC, on the other hand. Submissions on this issue referred to a previous decision with respect to an application by ATCO Electric Ltd. in which the AUC had made comments about information asymmetry. In the earlier decision, the AUC recognized that information asymmetry presents a challenge, but said that its process incorporates robust pre-hearing discovery mechanisms and that the process, when engaged in by the parties in a focused manner and in good faith, provides ample opportunity for the development of an unbiased and complete record.

In the August 29th decision, the AUC noted the concerns that had been expressed in argument, but said it was not persuaded that any reduced weight should be applied to the evidence on the record. The AUC went on to confirm that the determinations made in the proceeding would be based on the merits of the application and that the burden of proof is on the utility to show that increases, changes or alterations to rates are just and reasonable. While the AUC indicated its concern about the level of responsiveness in interrogatory responses by the applicant, it acknowledged that, in certain other instances in the proceeding, the applicant had submitted information in an organized and transparent manner.

Areas of Expertise

Related Categories

Related Blogs

Posted in: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Ratemaking | Facilities

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Issues Its Largest Rate Case Decision Ever By David Stevens Jan 18, 2018 On December 28, 2017, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its Decision with Reasons in the Ontario Power Generation “Payment Amounts” case, covering the 2017 to 2021 period. Among the notable determinations are an approval of the forecast costs of the Darlington Refurbishment Project and reduct...

Posted in: Ratemaking | Practice & Procedure

Insights EnergyInsider
FERC Rejects Secretary of Energy Direction to Assure Cost Recovery for Coal and Nuclear Generators By David Stevens Jan 12, 2018 On January 8, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order terminating a rulemaking proceeding ordered by the U.S. Secretary of Energy (Rick Perry). This overrules Secretary Perry’s September 2017 Direction and “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to the FERC requiring the est...

Posted in: Utility Mergers | Ratemaking | Practice & Procedure | Ontario

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Allows Review Motions in Hydro One/Orillia Power Proceeding By Fred D. Cass Jan 10, 2018 In August 2017, we wrote about a Procedural Order issued by the Ontario Energy Board in which the OEB adjourned the hearing of an application (“MAADs” application) by Hydro One Inc. for approval to acquire Orillia Power Distribution Corporation until a decision on Hydro One’s distribution rate ap...