Purpose

We invite stakeholders to provide their feedback on the materials presented and discussion held during Internal Demand Rates September 2026 session via the following stakeholder feedback form by end of day October 21. 

Concise and focused feedback is encouraged. Thank you for your input.

Following Internal Demand Rates stakeholder session held on September 21 & 23, 2026, we are inviting written comments from stakeholders on:

• The three rates your organization prefers and why 
• Potential guardrails to avoid under-recovery from low-load factor self-supplying customers
• Proposal for Controllable Load Rate Class
• Proposal for bill impact mitigation principles and transition

Please refer to the IDR Day 1  and Day 2 Materials, and the FTI pre-read analyses provided on AESO Engage to assist with your responses.

*NOTE*: There is a total of 19 questions, most containing preamble information to provide context. The preamble and context can be found in the feedback form.

Instructions

1. This feedback form is open to all industry stakeholders.
2. Please submit your responses by clicking "Submit Feedback" below. 
3. Only one completed feedback form will be accepted per organization.
4. Submissions due by October 21, 2026 and will be shared once received AESO Engage in their original format for review by all stakeholders.
5. If you have any questions, please email stakeholderrelations@aeso.ca.

Stakeholder Questions [without added preamble and context]

Rate Design options

1.  Please share which 3 rate design options your organization believes the AESO should include in its application and provide your reasons. 

2. Please share your organization’s views on the advantages and drawbacks of using a declining block to modify the fixed charge. 

3. Regardless of your previous response, please share your organization’s views on how a declining block should be designed and calibrated, if one was to be used (e.g., number of blocks, rate of decline, etc.). 

Potential guardrails to avoid under-recovery from low-load factor self-supplying customers

Defining the self-supply cost allocation challenge

4. Does your organization agree that there is a potential risk of delayed or under-recovery of system costs from self-supplied load (including low load factor self-supplied data centres) under the current rate design options under consideration, and under certain conditions (e.g., self-supply configuration, network topology)? Please explain. 

5. Does your organization agree that there is not an equal risk of delayed or under-recovery of system costs from all data centres (e.g., grid-supplied, self-supplied, price responsive)? Please explain.  

Options to address the self-supply cost allocation challenge

6. Please share your organization’s preferred solution (if any) to the self-supply cost allocation challenge (i.e., guardrail and billing determinant) and provide rationale.

7. Please comment on the advantages and drawbacks of all potential solutions (i.e., guardrail and billing determinant). 

8. Please comment on which customers to whom your preferred solution should apply. For example, all customers, all self-supplied customers, all self-supplied data centres. If possible, explain how the relevant group of customers could be defined. 

Options evaluation

9. To the extent there is a lack of consensus on the previous questions (i.e., defining the cost recovery challenge and options to address the challenge), how should the AESO evaluate potential options and solutions? 

Rate DOS calculator under various rate design options

10.  Do you agree with how we propose to calculate Rate DOS if Rates 2.1/AML or 2.2 were used? Please explain. 

11. Do you agree with how we propose to calculate Rate DOS if the Vol-excl charge was used in Rate DTS, for example for Rate 2.7? Please explain. 

Controllable load rate classs

12. Does your organization agree with the above rationale for creating a controllable load rate class? If not, which reason do you disagree with and why?

13. Does your organization agree with our design objectives for the controllable load rate class? If not, which design objective do you disagree with and why?

14. Does your organization agree with the proposed rate design for the controllable load rate class, i.e., Rate DTS for the firm portion and an equivalent rate to Rate DOS for non-firm usage? Please explain.   

15. If not addressed in the previous response, please share your organization’s preferred rate design alternative for the controllable load rate class (any of those discussed during the internal demand rates workshops or some other alternative). Please explain how your preferred alternative addresses the rate design objectives presented or the alternative objectives you’ve proposed. 

16. Please comment on the proposed eligibility guardrail to prevent DTS cannibalization. If this guardrail is unsatisfactory to your organization, please propose an alternative or additional guardrail and explain.  

Bill impact mitigation and transition measures

17. Please provide feedback on the proposed bill mitigation principles (slide 59 of Day 2). 

18. Please provide any recommended bill impact mitigation options, including how they align to proposed bill mitigation principles (question 17 above). 

19. Please provide feedback on our proposed starting point in considering transition to new rates (slide 60 of Day 2).