Purpose

We invite stakeholders to provide their feedback on the materials presented and discussion held during Internal Demand Rates Workshop 2 via the following stakeholder feedback form by end of day June 26. 

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

Following Internal Demand Rates Workshop 2 held from June 2-5, 2026, we are inviting written comments from stakeholders on:

• Advancing rate design options, and 
• The proposed terms and conditions for non-firm service offerings. 

Please refer to the Workshop 2 presentation, and the Detailed Bill Impacts at Customer Cohorts Appendix 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 June 26, 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

Rate Design options

During Workshop 2, we discussed which rate design options to study and refine in more detail. We categorized the main rate design options tabled during Workshop 1 in terms of likelihood to impact customer bills and promote efficiency improvements. Below is a very abbreviated summary (i.e., non-comprehensive summary) of what we heard during Workshop 2, in term of which rate design options to advance for further study and refinement: 

Category 1: Minimal Disruption

• 2.7 – studying how to recover the residual cost by spreading it over several billing determinants, to limit customer bill impacts and avoid behaviour distortions
• CWSAA option – studying efficiency gains or losses from moving from a primarily CP-based rate to an NCP-based rate

Category 2: Maximum efficiency (CP charge)

• 2.1 – including analysis of alternative billing determinants for the fixed charge
• 2.2 – including analysis of the allocation between the ‘access’ (i.e., fixed) charge and ‘usage charge’ (i.e., billing capacity charge variants and volumetric charge variants)
  • One variant of 2.2 we will study is the ADC amended proposal XCP + BCC_excl + existing BCC
• We note that AltaLink Management (AML) revised its previous proposals to align with 2.1 and 2.2, asking the AESO/FTI to examine allocations and billing determinants, per above.

Category 3: Maximum efficiency (TOU charge)

• 4.1
• We note that the Alberta Direct Connect Consumers’ Association (ADC) rescinded its TOU-based proposal, asking the AESO/FTI to study rate option 2.2 with modified billing determinants in conjunction with the declared capacity option.
• We note that the Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) advised that the analysis of the ‘UCA option’ did not comport with its intent and is therefore removed.

1. Does your organization agree that the five rate design options discussed above should be advanced for further study? Please explain why or why not.

2. To the extent that you do not agree with the previous question, please suggest alternative(s). (choose maximum 3 from any discussed during Workshops 1 and 2)

3. What should be the eligibility criteria?  

4. Based on your response(s) from questions 1 and 2, please explain why your organization prefers those rate option(s). (e.g., particular elements of the rate option, the allocation of cost between elements) 

5. Which rate option(s) would your organization propose we don’t pursue for further study? Please explain. (e.g., particular elements of the rate option, the allocation of cost between elements)

6. What one or two design features are “non-negotiable” for your organization? (supporting or opposing)

Design of the Coincident Peak (CP) Charge

During Workshop 2, stakeholders asked us to consider a CP charge without pre-defined months (see slides 312 to 317 of the Workshop 2 presentation). This would result in reduced cost reflectivity for some regions whose regional peak is generally unaligned with system peak, improved cost reflectivity for regions whose regional peak is generally aligned with system peak, with an overall reduction in cost reflectivity. It would also mean moving to type of annual billing cycle and have implications for those attempting to forecast and predict the coincident peak

7. Does your organization have comments on stakeholders’ proposal to move a CP charge without pre-defined months?

8. Please provide feedback on the declared capacity option (slides 198-248 of the Workshop 2 presentation), including the terms & conditions initially contemplated.

9. Based on information shared to date, would your organization consider using the declared capacity option? What additional information is required to advance the concept further (either to progress it or terminate it)?

Rate Demand Opportunity Service (DOS)

10. Please provide feedback on the proposed changes to Rate DOS (see slides 249-265 of the Workshop 2 presentation).

11. Does your organization have any additional Rate DOS revisions you would like us to consider?

Controllable Load

12. Please provide feedback on the Joint Renewable Generators Alliance, Energy Storage Canada & Enfinite proposal (slides 13-26 of Workshop 1 Consolidated Stakeholder Rate Design Option Proposals), and the terms & conditions initially contemplated (slides 233-248 of the Workshop 2 presentation)