Purpose

We invite stakeholders to provide their feedback on the materials presented during Internal Demand Rates Workshop 1 via the following stakeholder feedback form by end of day April 21, 2026. Responses do not need to be lengthy; concise and focused feedback is encouraged. Thank you for your input.

Following Internal Demand Rates Workshop 1 held from April 7-9, 2026, we are inviting written comments from stakeholders on:

• Alternative rate classes, 
• Shortlisting the proposed rate options, and 
• The analytical framework for the shortlist analysis.

This follows the Day 3 conversation on a path to shortlisting the rate design options for further study. You may refer to the Workshop 1 presentation to assist with your responses.

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 April 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

Alternative Rate Classes

1. Do you see a clear need for an additional rate class and on what basis? Please explain. With the exception of a suitable non-firm offering for energy storage, which we’ve already committed to exploring further.

2. What characteristics would you suggest we use to define the alternative rate class(es)?

3. What should be the eligibility criteria?  

4. Would this be an opt-in or imposed rate class (from the customer’s perspective)?

Shortlisting the Proposed Rate Options

During Workshop 1, we received feedback to not move to a shortlist of rate design options until doing a first pass on quantifying bill impacts (using static analysis). With this context, we ask the following questions

5. Are there any changes to the longlist of proposed rates (FTI and stakeholder options) that would otherwise make them acceptable, and are not yet captured in another option? 

6. Please provide initial feedback on the declared capacity option (page 58 of Workshop 1 presentation). What terms & conditions would you need clarified (at this stage of the process)? 

7. Based on information shared to date, would you consider using the declared (nominated) capacity option? If so, what capacity would you be likely to declare? Or what might your use depend on?

Initial Analytical Framework for the Shortlist Analysis

8. Is there any quantification of a scorecard criteria that is missing or is there any proposed quantification that is redundant?

9. If Time of Use (TOU) - based rates were adopted, how do you anticipate (as a customer) this would change your use of the grid? 

10. Is there any additional context on how you operate (as a customer) that you feel we should factor into our assessment?

11. Any other comments you wish to share at this time?