Aeso Sts Agreement

The AESO proposed that supply market participants be required to pay a GUOC within thirty days of the entry into force of an agreement on a system access service (subsections 7.5 (3) and 7.5 (4)). The CSA approved subsections 7.5 (3) and 7.5 (4) as filed. The AESO is also concerned that the Keephills facilities will still be able to supply electricity to the AIES, failing which the AESO considers (request in paragraph 32) that it will have to reject the load. The AESO indicated that it would adopt certain transitional provisions in the form of amended rules to ensure that Keephills units can be kept online even in the absence of STS agreements, but also indicated in this request that it preferred a solution based on longer-term contracts. In order to assist it in this endeavour, it requests the Commission to exercise its power pursuant to section 8 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, A-37.2, to “hear and determine” the following legal issues (application in paragraph 41): if BP follows (it will) justice horner`s instructions and accepts the validity of ENMAX`s termination, the BP is considered the owner of the ECA and ENMAX will no longer hold the AAA. Normally, the new owner of a production facility (or APA) would also take over the System Access Agreements (STS) between the former owner and AESO, executing AESO`s pro forma sale, acquisition and novation (AA&N) agreement. BP has indicated that it will apparently not do so, as it fears that, if it does, it will enter into or be able to make historic commitments in the context of the ongoing line loss proceedings before the AUC. To discuss this equally complicated topic, see the previous interventions here and here. BP has proposed several alternatives, including denouncing existing STS agreements and executing new agreements. The AESO does not know whether it has the power to denounce existing agreements.

As indicated in the Module C Decision, the amount due to newly calculated loss factors could, in some cases, be large enough to affect the cash flows of certain market participants or affect financial stability. [3] Therefore, the Commission agreed that a delay in the due date might not give these operators sufficient discharge. Instead, the Commission has supported the AESO`s efforts to develop a payment plan for cases where the operator`s financial stability is compromised, thereby mitigating the risk of the operator`s default with the amount due. . . .