Topic:"Tariff Design" in M08888

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: - 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2019 in the amount of $34,050,000 with performance targets of 127.2 GWh in incremental annual net energy savings and 20.2 MW in incremental net annual peak demand savings. -...

AI summary The Board approves a 2019 DSM Plan with specific energy and demand savings targets, accepts a progress report, and directs updates to avoided costs and the RBIA. E1 is required to conduct a new DSM Potential Study and improve methodologies for GHG estimates and transparency in its processes. The Board also requests alternate DSM budget scenarios and compliance with filing frameworks.

la Commission ayant supposé à tort que les clients avaient acquis un droit de propriété sur les biens de l'entreprise du fait de la prise en compte de ceux-ci dans l'établissement des tarifs. [82-85]

AI summary The commission erroneously assumed customers had acquired property rights over the company's assets due to their inclusion in tariff calculations. This claim is referenced in the document's sections 82-85.

lementer adéquatement un service de gaz dans l'intérêt public ou, plus précisément, de réglementer un monopole dans l'intérêt public, grâce principalement à l'établissement des tarifs. J'y reviendrai. La disposition qui nous intéresse au p...

AI summary The text discusses the regulation of gas utilities under the Gas Utilities Act (GUA), emphasizing the need to protect consumers by requiring authorization for asset sales. It references legal frameworks like the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act (AEUBA) and the Public Utilities Board Act (PUBA), arguing that the Commission's role is to ensure fair pricing, not abstract legal interpretation. Key cases cited include MacAvoy and Sidak, Pushpanathan, and Atco Ltd.

t is Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch , 488 U.S. 299 (1989), which relies on the same principle as was adopted in Market St. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of California , 324 U.S. 548 (1945). biens de cette entreprise. Lorsque le ta...

AI summary The text references U.S. Supreme Court cases ( Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch and Market St. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of California ) to establish a legal principle regarding tariff structures and client rights. It emphasizes that clients do not acquire equity-based rights to non-depreciable assets when paying only for service utilization.

B. La décision de la Commission ATCO soutient que la décision de la Commission doit être considérée isolément, sans égard aux attributions de l'organisme en matière de tarification. Toutefois, je ne crois pas que l'audience tenue pour l'ap...

AI summary ATCO argues that the Commission's decision under article 26 should be considered separately from tariff-setting responsibilities. The Commission disagrees, citing Alberta's TransAlta (1986) case, which established a formula for allocating profits from public asset sales. ATCO claims the process was unrelated to tariff approval, but the Commission links it to broader regulatory authority.

tant équivalant aux deux tiers du profit est en fait pris en compte pour établir la base tarifaire actuelle d'ATCO. Le profit est donc réparti de manière abstraite entre les intéressés concurrents.) L'argument d'ATCO est fréquemment invoqu...

AI summary ATCO argues that a tariff structure allocating two-thirds of profits to competitors constitutes a confiscatory effect. The argument references U.S. constitutional property rights principles, notably the 1973 Democratic Central Committee case, where a court ruled against profit allocation to shareholders when public utility assets were sold. The decision emphasized balancing public interest against private gains.