The Northwest Territories Public Utilities Board has allowed Inuvik Gas Ltd. a $6-per-gigajoule interim refundable increase, rather than the $10 it requested, while leaving final rates and the justification for major investments unresolved.
The August 27, 2026 decision made the increase effective September 1. The Board accepted that supply conditions had materially changed and that some additional revenue was warranted, but found the evidence insufficient to approve the entire request even temporarily.
A later public filing corrects an important premise of the original proposal. In its October 13 responses to Board information requests, IGL said all customer classes had actually been charged $35.44/GJ, including government customers. Its proposed model therefore uses $45.44/GJ for every class, not the $51 government rate initially described.
IGL explained that the original government figure assumed it had been charging the $41/GJ rate approved in 2012, when it had not. The signed interim order lists $41.44/GJ for residential and general-service customers and $47/GJ for government customers. IGL’s subsequent correction is evidence in the continuing case, not an amended Board order or confirmation that government customers are now being billed $47.
Why the Board allowed only part of the increase
The case arose after IGL gave notice of its proposed increase in June. The Town of Inuvik filed a complaint under section 52 of the Public Utilities Act, arguing that the increase had not been justified and would cause rate shock. It questioned capital spending, the changing fuel mix, the proposed M18 gas supply, returns and the impact on different customer classes.
IGL pointed to declining production from the Ikhil gas field and a growing reliance on propane-based synthetic natural gas. The Board accepted, on a preliminary basis, that maintaining the old rates throughout an extended review could leave a material revenue shortfall and risk impairing the company’s ability to recover reasonable service costs.
But the Board could not yet determine whether all proposed investments were prudent, appropriately sized, needed when planned or supported by a proper comparison of alternatives. It also wanted a more detailed explanation of operating-cost increases, coordinated supply planning, demand assumptions and the allocation of costs among customer classes.
The $6 increase represents 60 per cent of the request. The Board weighed service reliability and revenue pressures against rate shock and unanswered questions. Its order expressly leaves the final decision on every issue open. Refundability preserves the possibility of a later adjustment; it does not promise an automatic refund or establish its amount.
Public evidence leaves cost questions open
The October responses do not turn the interim ruling into a final cost approval. IGL said it had not commissioned a formal external cost-of-service, rate-design or class-allocation study. It cited its small customer base and the expense of such a study, and acknowledged that it could not quantify any cross-subsidization among classes. Charging everyone the same rate does not resolve that question.
IGL also described a future internal rate review after M18 supply begins and actual costs are known. Its responses to the Town say that review could produce an increase, a decrease or no change, and do not propose a separate interim refundable rate or account. That company plan is distinct from the Board’s existing refundable interim order.
October directions move the case forward
In an October 16 procedural letter, the Board extended the Town’s evidence deadline to November 2 after IGL’s information responses arrived late and further information was due. The revised schedule calls for information requests to the Town on November 9, responses on November 20, argument on December 4 and replies on December 11.
The Board also directed IGL to provide existing supporting spreadsheets in Excel format with formulas and cell references intact, or explain where they were unavailable. It did not require the company to recreate records that did not exist. Permitted redactions were not to prevent review of the remaining calculations.
For the current review, the Board accepted the publicly filed version of the supply-cost attachment with individual prices redacted. It said individual natural-gas, synthetic-natural-gas and compressed-natural-gas prices were not required for that assessment, and no separate confidentiality determination was necessary. Instead, it sought information about procurement, related-party arrangements and safeguards supporting reasonable prices.
IGL’s October 22 supplemental response identifies related-party Ikhil natural gas and prospective M18 compressed natural gas, alongside arm’s-length propane purchases. It clarifies that IGL produces synthetic natural gas from propane rather than purchasing it. The company said M18 pricing remained under negotiation, with final terms requiring approval by its own board.
The response describes competitive propane procurement and the company’s reasons for additional storage and supply arrangements. Those explanations form part of IGL’s evidence; they do not amount to a Board finding that the arrangements or their costs are prudent.
Transaction questions are not a no-harm approval
A separate October 20 Board letter sought information about the proposed transaction involving ATCO, Canadian Utilities and Emera, including ownership relationships, potential efficiencies and any merger or integration costs affecting IGL. The Board expressly said the request did not begin a formal no-harm review or expand the proceeding’s scope at that stage.
In its October 22 reply, IGL said its direct ownership and shared-service arrangements were not expected to change, no transaction costs would be allocated to it and no incremental rate costs were anticipated. These remain company representations, not adjudicated findings. The rate case still turns on the evidence and the Board’s final determination.
