Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Alberta Electric System Operator Review and Variance of Decision 26215-D01-2021, AUC Decision 26215-D02-2021

Link to Decision Summarized

Electricity – Rates

In this decision, the AUC granted the application from the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) for review and variance (“R&V”) of Decision 26215-D01-2021. The AUC approved the AESO’s request to change the effective date for Section 3 of the Independent System Operator’s (“ISO”)’s tariff.

Review and Variance

In Decision 26215-D01-2021 (the “Decision”), the AUC approved, in part, changes to the terms and conditions of the ISO tariff to come into effect on July 1, 2021.

On May 19, 2021, the AESO, on the post-disposition record of this proceeding, requested that the AUC defer the date for the new and amended language in Section 3 of the ISO tariff, which relates to the adjusted metering practice (“AMP”), to become effective.

The sections of the approved ISO tariff that related to the substation fraction methodology involved changes to subsection 4.5(5) of the ISO tariff, as well as the change to the AESO’s consolidated authoritative document glossary (“Glossary”). The effective date of these sections would remain unchanged.

The AUC found it in the public interest to review and vary the effective date of subsections 3.2(2), 3.6(2) and 3.6(3), and new subsection 3.6(4) of the ISO tariff to a date to be specified by the AUC in its approval of the AMP implementation plan that has yet to be filed by the AESO. The AUC found the review and variance was in the public interest because:

(a)     granting the AESO’s request corrects what the AESO described as an “unworkable situation” in terms of compliance with Section 3 of the ISO tariff and certain sections of ISO rules”; and

(b)     the AMP implementation plan is meant to comprehensively address all factors involved in implementing the AMP. Accordingly, granting the AESO’s request provides parties with an opportunity to gain important clarity regarding how the AMP implementation plan will impact them before it is approved by the AUC and takes effect.

Accordingly, the affected paragraphs of the Decision were changed. The AUC clarified that it was not varying the language of section 3, but only the effective date of varied provisions.

Related Posts

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Appeal – Production of Records Application Michael Judd ("Appellant") appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) that denied his...