Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Alberta Electric System Operator 2016 Balancing Pool Consumer Allocation Rider F (Decision 21031-D01-2015)

Download Report

Balancing Pool Consumer Allocation – Rider F


The Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) applied to the AUC pursuant to section 82 of the Electric Utilities Act (“EUA”) for approval of a $3.25 per megawatt hour (“MWh”) credit to all demand transmission service (“DTS”) and demand opportunity service (“DOS”) market participants, (excluding the City of Medicine Hat and BC Hydro at Fort Nelson) for metered energy from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (“Rider F”). The AESO stated that all substantive aspects of Rider F continue unchanged from the previously approved Rider F.

Under section 82 of the EUA, the Balancing Pool must provide a notice to the AESO of an annualized amount to be refunded to, or collected from, market participants over the course of a year. The Balancing Pool, on November 17, 2015 provided a notice to the AESO that it determined an annualized amount of $204,584,250 for 2016. As provided for by sections 82(5) and 82(6) of the EUA, the AESO must include the annualized amount in the ISO tariff.

The AUC noted that no objections were received to the continuation of the AESO’s methodology for applying Rider F. The AUC also noted that it must approve, either with or without modification, the allocation of the annualized amount.

The AUC also held that, according to section 82(6)(a) of the EUA, it must approve the annualized amount without modification.

Accordingly, the AUC ordered that:

(a) The annualized amount of $204,584,250 provided to the AESO by the Balancing Pool was approved for 2016; and

(b) The proposed Rider F credit of $3.25 per MWh was approved effective January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

Related Posts

Sabo v AltaLink Management Ltd, 2024 ABCA 179

Sabo v AltaLink Management Ltd, 2024 ABCA 179

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Authority – Compensation Award Application On appeal from AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AML”), the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered...