Compliance Filing – 2014 ISO Tariff
This decision arises from the AUC’s Decision 2014-242 (“Decision 2014-242”), which directed the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) to re-file its 2014 ISO Tariff application to reflect the findings and other directions provided in Decision 2014-242.
The compliance filing from the AESO was split into two modules by the AUC. Module 1 addressed directions 1 to 4 and 9 to 11 of Decision 2014-242, and Module 2 addresses directions 5 to 8 from Decision 2014-242. Module 2 has recently concluded, and a decision from the AUC for Module 2 is forthcoming.
As part of its re-filing, the AESO requested that the AUC:
(a) Confirm that the AESO has complied with Commission direction 1 to 4 and 9 to 11 from Decision 2014-242;
(b) Approve the 2014 rate calculation methodology provided as Appendix B of the application;
(c) Approve the 2014 ISO Tariff provided as Appendix E to the application, to be effective July 1, 2015 excluding subsection 3 of section 8 of the ISO Tariff which will remain as currently approved; and
(d) Approve Rider J on a final basis effective January 1, 2015.
The AUC held that the AESO adequately addressed and responded to the following directions from Decision 2014-242, and noted that they were not contested in the proceeding:
(a) Direction 1 – continue to exclude participant-owned projects from project database;
(b) Direction 3 – use 1.5 megawatt (MW) low end data point to calculate the point of delivery charge;
(c) Direction 4 would be addressed in a future AESO tariff or other application;
(d) Direction 9 – use project database as provided in information response ACCESS-AESO-001;
(e) Direction 10 would be addressed in a future AESO tariff or other application;
(f) Direction 11 – submit amended pro forma construction commitment agreement by December 31, 2014; and
(g) Rider J – Wind Forecasting Service Cost Recovery Rider, effective January 1, 2015 on a final basis.
With respect to Direction 2 in Decision 2014-242, the AUC directed the AESO to use the “full increased capacity made possible by an upgrade project”, and that “if the AESO cannot reasonably determine this capacity level for any given project, then the project should be excluded from the database.”
The AESO explained the point of delivery charges and maximum investment levels that would result from cost functions arising from different cost bases such as Greenfield projects and upgrade projects. The AESO submitted that it had fully complied with Direction 2, in proposing a declining scale for point of delivery charges and annual investment amounts. However, the AESO noted that there were unanticipated impacts, as were raised by interveners in the information request process.
As a result, the AESO submitted that it may be reasonable to delay the implementation of Direction 2 until the issue can be explored further in consultation with stakeholders. The Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate (“UCA”) and Devon Canada agreed with the AESO’s proposed approach to resolving the new concerns.
The AUC agreed that the effects of Direction 2 were unanticipated, and held that the proposed plan of action by the AESO, to delay the implementation until the matter can be thoroughly explored, was reasonable, noting the agreement among the parties.
As a result, the AUC directed that, except for subsection 3 of Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Service, the 2014 ISO Tariff is approved effective July 1, 2015 including rates, riders, terms and conditions and appendices.
