Summary#

Edmonton City Council approved a work plan update for changes to the City’s review of EPCOR Water Services Inc.’s performance-based regulation (PBR) applications. The goal is to improve how the City reviews proposed water and wastewater rates, utility performance and related information; this decision does not approve EPCOR’s 2028–2031 rates or application.

• City staff must advance proposed changes to PBR principles and outcomes, and to roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.
• Staff must return to Utility Committee with options for adding two industry professionals to the Committee and for letting the Utility Advisor ask direct questions at meetings focused on PBR.
• Staff must advance proposed changes to performance measures and how performance is measured.
• Recommendations 4 and 5 are for a later phase, with planning to require more staff and Committee resources. Staff must also report back with possible alternatives to the proposed penalty framework after Council removed recommendation 9.
• Council approved the Committee’s recommendations without debate on September 8, 2026, by a vote of 12–0.

What it means for you#

• Water and wastewater customers: This changes the City’s review process, not your rates directly. The decision does not set new rates or guarantee a particular rate outcome.
• EPCOR Water Services: Its 2028–2031 application is due to the City by November 30, 2026. Some process changes may apply to that application; staff expect more significant changes later or during that PBR term.
• Utility Committee and City staff: They must work on the specified changes and return with options and a report on the penalty framework. The decision does not set a full implementation schedule or require that the proposed Committee changes be adopted as written.

Money#

The changes are expected to need extra funding, but no total cost is available.

• City staff say external consulting support and permanent staffing are needed, including up to two full-time-equivalent staff in City Administration and more resources for Utility Committee’s regulatory expertise.
• Possible funding sources include water and wastewater rates or a funding request in the 2027–2030 operating budget. Council must approve any additional funding before staff proceed with process changes.

What is unclear#

• The cost of consulting, staff and Committee resources, and how any costs would be split or recovered through rates, are not settled.
• The decision does not set a timeline for implementation or say which changes will be ready for the 2028–2031 application.
• The options for adding industry professionals and giving the Utility Advisor direct-question powers have not been decided.
• The details of recommendations 4–8 and the alternative penalty framework are not included in the decision text.

Case for#

• City staff say the current model has been effective but needs incremental improvements as PBR applications become more complex.
• The proposed work aims to strengthen the City’s review of rates, capital plans and utility performance, while clarifying who is responsible for each part of the process.
• The two-industry-professional and direct-question options could add expertise and allow more detailed questioning during Committee review, if adopted.

Case against#

• The work requires added staff, consulting and Committee resources, but the cost and funding source are not settled; some costs might be recovered through utility rates.
• Several important choices remain for later reports, so the decision does not yet establish how the new review process will work in practice.
• Council removed the proposed penalty-framework recommendation and asked for alternatives, leaving unclear how poor performance could lead to penalties or other corrective action.