skip to main content
Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | Alberta | Consumer Protection

Nov 13, 2015

AUC Approves $56 Million Payment From TransAlta For Price Manipulation

By David Stevens

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) has now approved the payment of $56 million by TransAlta Corporation (TransAlta) as an appropriate sanction for the finding that TransAlta had engaged in conduct that did not support the fair, efficient and openly competitive operation of Alberta's electricity market. We described the AUC's findings in an earlier post.

As described in another earlier post, the $56 million payment is the subject of a settlement between TransAlta and the Alberta Market Surveillance Administrator (MSA). The payment is comprised of disgorgement of economic benefits ($27 million), penalty ($25 million) and payment of MSA investigative costs ($4 million).

The settlement was presented to the AUC by the MSA and TransAlta as part of a Consent Order. After determining that it has jurisdiction to accept the Consent Order, the AUC then addressed whether settlement is in the public interest. The AUC found that a settlement or joint submission on an appropriate penalty should be accepted as long as it falls within a range of acceptable outcomes in the circumstances. It is not appropriate for the AUC to insist upon an outcome that is identical to what it would have fashioned itself. Taking that approach, the AUC found that the Consent Order is in the public interest, and should be approved. In coming to this conclusion, the AUC acknowledged that while the penalty part of the payment ($25 million) is quite high, the seriousness of the contraventions support such a penalty.

As explained in our earlier post, the $56 million payment will go to the Alberta Government's general revenue fund. This is what the Act requires. There will be no direct compensation for affected consumers. It remains to be seen whether there will be any private litigation, such as a class action, seeking consumer compensation.

Related Blogs

Posted in: Facilities | Practice & Procedure | Energy Policy | Canada (Federal)

Insights EnergyInsider
Legislation Introduced to Replace the NEB and Project Review Process By David Stevens Feb 14, 2018 On February 8, 2018, the federal government released Bill C-69 titled “An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.” The new legislation is the culmination of the promise...

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: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Facilities

Insights EnergyInsider
Ontario Court of Appeal Finds That Gas Utility’s Franchise Agreement Prevails Over Drainage Act By David Stevens Jan 16, 2018 In a decision released on January 10, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal found in favour of Union Gas on the question of whether the cost sharing provisions of a model franchise agreement apply to the relocation of a gas pipeline necessitated by drainage works. The Court found that the provisions ...