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: Practice & Procedure | Ontario | Consumer Protection

Insights EnergyInsider
Court Denies Certification of Proposed Class Action Against Hydro One By David Stevens Dec 07, 2017 On November 28, 2017, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a motion to certify a class action against Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) that sought damages of $100 million related to alleged overcharges resulting from the rollout of a new customer information system (CIS) starting in 2013. As s...

Posted in: Ratemaking | Practice & Procedure | Ontario

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Plans to Introduce “Proportionate Review” of Utility Rate Applications By David Stevens Dec 01, 2017 A recent webinar presented by Ontario Energy Board staff to representatives of Ontario’s electricity distributors sets out the OEB’s plan to link utility performance and regulatory review. As seen in the presentation from the webinar, the OEB intends to employ a more light-handed review process f...

Posted in: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Climate Change / Renewables

Insights EnergyInsider
Ontario Confirms Updated Cap and Trade Regulations to Link with Quebec and California By David Stevens Nov 30, 2017 Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has confirmed that a decision has been made to proceed with amended regulations to facilitate the linkage of Ontario’s Cap and Trade program with California and Quebec (discussed in an earlier post). This will ensure tha...