ARTICLE
28 August 2019

OEB To Hear Review Motion Regarding Electricity Distributor's Proposal For New Office

AB
Aird & Berlis LLP

Contributor

Aird & Berlis LLP is a leading Canadian law firm, serving clients across Canada and globally. With strong national and international expertise, the firm’s lawyers and business advisors provide strategic legal advice across all areas of business law to clients ranging from entrepreneurs to multinational corporations.
In August 2019, the Ontario Energy Board issued procedural orders with respect to the hearing of a motion for review of its earlier decision on an application made by Energy+ Inc.
Canada Energy and Natural Resources
Aird & Berlis LLP are most popular:
  • with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
  • with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Healthcare and Property industries

In August 2019, the Ontario Energy Board issued procedural orders with respect to the hearing of a motion for review of its earlier decision on an application made by Energy+ Inc. for approval of an Advanced Capital Module project.

Energy+ requested ACM approval for a proposed capital expenditure of $8.1 million to renovate and convert an existing heritage building into an administrative office. In its decision regarding the proposed project, the OEB applied the three ACM criteria of materiality, need and prudence. The OEB found that the materiality and need criteria had been met, but that there was insufficient evidence to approve a capital budget of $8.1 million as prudent. Among other things, the OEB expressed concern that the cost estimate was higher than comparators, that there was significant uncertainty regarding the cost estimate and about the quality of Energy+’s estimates. The OEB said that it would approve only $6.5 million for the ACM, but that Energy+ would have the opportunity to address any deviation in its subsequent rate application for the year in which the project comes into service.

Energy+ brought a motion to review and vary the OEB decision on the ACM issue and on another unrelated issue. The OEB issued a Notice of Hearing and Procedural Order in which it dismissed the motion for review on the unrelated issue, but determined that it would hear both the threshold issue and the merits of the motion on the ACM issue in a single round of submissions. In a second Procedural Order, the OEB granted an extension of time for Energy+ to file further evidence in support of the threshold question and the merits of the motion and it set a schedule for an interrogatory process on the additional evidence and for submissions on the motion.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More