ISEA is also concerned that the Keephills facilities will still be able to provide electricity to the IESA, otherwise (the application in point 32) expects it to reject the charge. ISEA indicated that it would enter into interim agreements in the form of amended rules to ensure that Keephills units could be maintained online even in the absence of STS agreements, but it also indicated in this request that it preferred a contract-based solution for a long period of time. To help them, she asked the Commission to take its powers under S 8 of the Alberta Utilities Act, SA 2007, A-37.2, to “hear and determine” the following legal issues (request in paragraph 41): EOA proposed that operators be required to pay a GUOC within 30 days of the entry into force of a system access service (subsections 7.5, paragraph 3 and 7.5(4)). The AUC approved subsections 7.5 (3) and 7.5 (4) of the original structure. If BP follows Justice Horner`s instructions and accepts the validity of ENMAX`s notice of termination, it will be considered the owner of the PPP and ENMAX will no longer own the PPP. In due course, the new owner of a production facility (or AAE) would also take over the system access agreements (STS) between the former owner and ISO and would do so by implementing the pro-forma agreement (AA-N) of AESO. BP has suggested that it does not appear to be doing so because it was concerned that, in this case, it would make or resume historic commitments in the ongoing proceedings against the loss of line losses before the AUC. To discuss this equally complex subject, read here and here in previous speeches. BP has proposed some alternatives, including the termination of existing STS agreements and the implementation of new agreements. ISEA is not sure that it has the power to denounce existing agreements. This article can be quoted as: Nigel Bankes “PPA Terminations and the AESO Tariff” (November 30, 2017), online: ABlawg, ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Blog_NB_PPA_terminations.pdf . The calculation of line losses using the illegal method for the historical period has led some generators to pay too much and some to pay too much.

In the Module C decision, the Commission defined the method of recalculating loss of position for the historical period and defined generators to be recalculated for recalculated fees and credits for that period. . The AUC found that ISO`s appropriate measurement practices are in line with existing legislation. The AUC noted that the public policy considerations put forward by proponents of promoting renewable forms of production should not take precedence over the need to implement ISO`s appropriate dosing practices in order to correct the determination of erosion billing and the possible cross-subsidy of DCG by the charge. In addition, concerns about the cost or complexity of implementing appropriate measurement practices should not presipe their approval. . In the decision of Module C, the Commission instructed AESO to recover any defaults from all operators who pay royalties or receive refunds for the historical period with Rider E of the AESO tariff, but only after ISES uses all reasonable means to recover arrears before resorting to recovery by Rider E. [5] ISO has proposed several changes to its terms and conditions to determine the characterization of a liaison project as a systemic or cumulative project with the participant.