December 19, 2005 640 – 5 Avenue SW

December 19, 2005
Sent via e-mail
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
640 – 5th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3G4
Attn: Jamie Cameron, Application Officer
Dear Jamie:
Re:
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) Customer Contribution Policy
(Application No. 1431750)
Please find attached for filing with the Board, the AESO’s Statement of Facts with respect to the
above mentioned application.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (403) 539-2751, or via email
at [email protected] or contact Ed Hucman at (403) 539-2469, or via email at
[email protected].
Yours truly,
Heidi Kirrmaier
Vice President, Regulatory
2500, 330 - 5th Ave SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 0L4
t (403) 539-2450 | f (403) 539-2949 | www.aeso.ca
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 1 of 12
On December 9, 2005 the EUB issued a letter outlining the process for the review of
TransCanada Energy's (“TCE”) complaint in relation to the AESO - Alberta Electric
System Operator’s optional facilities charge on the TCE Edson Gas Storage Project. As
requested by the Board, this document summarizes:
• the facts regarding how the customer contribution for the TCE project was
calculated;
• the pertinent circumstances of the EnCana Countess project as it relates to the
TCE project; and,
• a brief comparison discussion of the two projects.
1. TransCanada Energy Edson Gas Storage Project
The general facts surrounding the TCE Edson Gas Storage project in the Marlboro area
are as follows. TransCanada first met with the AESO to discuss the Edson Gas Storage
Project on February 26, 2004. In March 2004, TCE filed with the AESO their Stage one
and Stage two System Access Service (SAS) Applications, in accordance with Article 7
of the terms and conditions of the AESO Tariff, requesting the following:
• transmission service for 24 MW at a 70% load factor to supply seven (7) 4000
hp induction motors;
• in service date of June 2005;
• a substation configuration comprising two (15/20/25 MVA) transformers.
Once the AESO received the Section 101 permission from Aquila (now Fortis), (which
allowed the project to proceed on a transmission direct connect basis), the AESO
reviewed the customer requirements and developed interconnection alternatives. On
April 1, 2004 the AESO provided TCE a preliminary proposal outlining the recommended
interconnection and the estimated costs thereof, as shown in Table 1.0 below:
Table 1.0
April 1, 2004 Preliminary Interconnection Proposal
TCE Edson Gas Storage Project
AESO standard facilities proposal:
Substation:
• Construction a new “Marlboro” substation
• 138 kV bus work and a single circuit breaker
• a single 20/27/33 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
• protection, control and communication equipment
Transmission:
• construct 10 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
Total standard facilities cost:
Optional Facilities:
• one 138 kV breaker
• one 20/27/33 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
Total project cost (standard + optional facilities):
+/- 30% cost
estimate
$3.0m
$1.5m
$4.5m
$1.0m
$5.5m
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 2 of 12
The AESO determined that most economic interconnection, meeting good transmission
practices including applicable reliability, protection and operating criteria was a single
line and a single 20/27/33 MVA transformer at the Marlboro facility. The preliminary
proposal included the optional second transformer of equal size because the AESO
assumed that TCE desired a two transformer configuration as demonstrated in the
system access applications, for redundancy purposes.
The customer contribution calculation provided in the Preliminary Proposal is outlined in
Table 2.0 below. Also included in the table is a reference to the applicable sections of
the AESO’s terms and conditions.
Table 2.0
Customer Contribution Calculation
TCE Edson Gas Storage Project
Description
Article
Estimate
Total project costs:
9.1
$5.5m
System-related costs:
9.2
$0.0
Customer-related costs:
9.2
$5.5m
Demand-related costs:
9.3
$4.5m
(roll-in available)
Roll-in calculation:
Revenue related amount:
$2.65m
9.4
Commitment term amount:
$2.00m
Total roll-in:
$4.65m
Optional costs:
22.4
$1.0m
Customer contribution:
9.4
$4.5m – 4.65m = 0.0
Optional costs:
$1.0m
Total contribution:
$1.0m
Contractual term:
9.4
9 years
TransCanada contacted the AESO on April 10, 2005 requesting additional clarification
on some of the technical considerations associated with the project and surrounding
transmission system. Some of the inquiries included a request for additional information
on the reliability of line 854L which the project was tapping, whether AltaLink had a
spare (20/27/33 MVA) transformer and what the expected outage duration was if the
single transformer failed. The AESO provided a response on April 22, 2005 informing
TCE that line 854L was very reliable, Altalink did have a spare (20/27/33 MVA)
transformer and in the event of a transformer failure it would approximately take 4-7
days to ship and replace the transformer depending on road conditions and crew
availability. Full details of the communication exchange are available in Appendix A.
On May 6, 2004 TCE sent a letter to the AESO expressing their concern regarding the
optional facility charge at the Marlboro facility. On June 16, 2004 the AESO provided a
letter to TCE responding to the concerns outlined in the May 6 letter. Both letters are
available in Appendix B.
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 3 of 12
While the AESO was preparing the June 16 response letter the AESO noticed in point
three of the May 6 letter that TCE considered two (15/20/25 MVA) transformers as an
acceptable interconnection alternative. As such AESO staff followed up with the
customer to further clarify their requirements along with the information provided in the
SAS Applications. Following a discussion with representative from TCE the AESO was
able to determine the following:
• TCE was not seeking 100% redundancy for their operation and that a somewhat
smaller level of redundancy was acceptable
• TCE presented a two transformer configuration in their System Access
Application because they assumed this would be the standard configuration
proposed by the AESO for their requested load
• The project would now consist of six (6) 4,500 hp motors still equaling 24 MW of
load
Following the June 16 letter the AESO revised its interconnection proposal outlining the
AESO’s standard facilities interconnection and the interconnection requested by the
customer as illustrated in Table 3.0 below:
Table 3.0
Revised Interconnection Proposal
TCE Edson Gas Storage Project
AESO standard facilities proposal:
Substation:
• Construction a new “Marlboro” substation
• 138 kV bus work and a single circuit breaker
• a single (20/27/33 MVA) 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
• protection, control and communication equipment
Transmission:
• construct 10 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
Total standard facilities cost:
Optional Facilities:
• one 138 kV breaker
• one 20/27/33 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
Total project cost (standard + optional facilities):
Customer requested proposal:
Substation:
• Construction a new “Marlboro” substation
• 138 kV bus work and a single circuit breaker
• a single 15/20/25 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
• protection, control and communication equipment
Transmission:
• construct 10 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
Total standard facilities cost:
+/- 30% cost
estimate
$3.0m
$1.5m
$4.5m
$1.0m
$5.5m
$2.9m
$1.5m
$4.4m
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 4 of 12
Optional facilities:
• one 138 kV breaker
• one 15/20/25 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
Total project cost (standard + optional facilities):
$900k
$5.3m
As there was a revision to the interconnection proposal, there was also a subsequent
change to the customer contribution determination. The calculation is summarized in
Table 4.0 below:
Table 4.0
Revised Customer Contribution Determination
TCE Edson Gas Storage Project
Description
Article
AESO Standard
Customer Requested
Facilities (+/-30%)
Facilities (+/-30%)
Estimate
Estimate
Project costs
9.1
$5.5m
$5.3m
System-related costs
9.2
$0.0
$0.0
Customer-related costs
9.2
$5.5m
$5.3m
$3.0 + 1.5 = $4.5m
$2.9 + 1.5 = $4.4m
Demand-related costs
9.3
(roll-in available)
$4.5m
Roll-in calculation:
$2.65m
Revenue related
The AESO would have
amount:
invested up to this amount
9.4
$2.00m
Commitment term
under the proposed
amount:
standard interconnection*
(less) Total roll-in:
Optional costs
Customer contribution:
(plus) optional costs:
$4.50m
$900k
$4.40m – 4.40m = $0.0
$900k – (4.50-4.40=100k)
= $800k**
Total contribution:
$1.0m
$800k
Contractual term:
9.4
10 years
10 years
* Note: $4.5m is the maximum available investment, as the roll-in amount would have
covered the entire cost of the AESO’s standard facilities interconnection cost.
** Note: the $4.5m maximum available investment was applied to the total costs of the
customer requested interconnection.
22.4
9.4
$4.65m
$1.0
$4.5m – 4.65m = $0.0
$1.0m
The above information was presented to TCE for review. TCE continued to voice their
disagreement with the optional facilities charge but in the interests of moving their
project forward and meeting their required in service date they complied with AESO
interconnection milestones. The AESO filed a needs application for the new Marlboro
substation with EUB on July 5th. On page one of the needs application, the Project
Scope Summary outlined the customer’s requirements, the two (2) 25 MVA transformer
configuration interconnection proposal (as outlined in Table 3.0 above) and customer
contribution determination as outlined in (Table 4.0) above (attached as Appendix C).
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 5 of 12
The AESO issued an invoice to TCE for the $856,000 customer contribution on July 6,
2005.
During the review of the needs application the AESO received several information
requests from the EUB regarding the project including the rationale for installing two
transformers at the substation (BR-AESO-01 a). The question and response are
provided below:
Request:
(a) Explain why there is the requirement for installing two 15/20/25 MVA
138/4.16 kV transformers in this application.
Response:
(a) TransCanada requested the installation of a second transformer for reliability
purposes. AltaLink has informed AESO that the response time to replace a
transformer at the proposed Marlboro station is 4 to 7 days. Further delays
could also occur if road bans are in effect for the Edson area during spring
break up. This level of reliability is unacceptable to TransCanada and they
have requested a second transformer. In the event of a single transformer
failure, most of the load can be served by the second transformer.
TransCanada also requested that smaller sized transformers be installed in
order to reduce short circuit levels at their 4.16 kV busses
TCE sent another letter informing the AESO that they still disagreed with the optional
facility charge but wished to proceed with the project. The AESO acknowledged that
letter on September 8, 2005. Both letters are available in Appendix D.
The AESO received the needs application approval for the TCE Edson Gas Storage
Project from the EUB on October 18, 2004. During the same time period the AESO
received the final functional specification for the project along with a new project cost
estimate of (+/-10%) for both the AESO standard facilities interconnection and the
customer requested interconnection. As there were material changes to the original +/30% cost estimates the AESO recalculated the customer contribution calculation as
given in Tables 5.0 & 6.0 below.
Table 5.0
Revised Interconnection Proposal Costs (+/- 10% Estimate)
Edson Gas Storage Project
+/- 10% Cost
AESO standard facilities proposal:
Estimate
$3.57m
Substation:
• Construction a new “Marlboro” substation
• 138 kV bus work and a single circuit breaker
• a single (20/27/33 MVA) 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
• protection, control and communication equipment
$3.18m
Transmission:
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 6 of 12
• construct 10 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
Total
Optional Facilities:
• one 138 kV breaker
• one 20/27/33 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
Customer requested proposal:
Substation:
• Construction a new “Marlboro” substation
• 138 kV bus work and a single circuit breaker
• a single 15/20/25 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
• protection, control and communication equipment
Transmission:
• construct 10 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
Total
Optional facilities:
• one 138 kV breaker
• one 15/20/25 MVA 138/4.16 kV LTC transformer
$6.75m
$1.67m
$3.47m
$3.18m
$4.4m
$1.57m
Table 6.0
Revised Customer Contribution Determination (+/- 10 % Estimate)
TCE Edson Gas Storage Project
Description
Article
AESO Standard
Customer Requested
Facilities
Facilities
Total project costs:
9.1
$6.75m
$8.22m
System-related costs:
9.2
$0.0
$0.0
Customer-related costs:
9.2
$8.42m
$8.22m
Demand-related costs:
$6.75m
$6.65m
9.3
(roll-in available)
$6.75m
Roll-in calculation:
$2.65m
Revenue related
The AESO would have
amount:
invested up to this amount
9.4
$4.40m
Commitment term
under the proposed
amount:
standard interconnection*
(less) Total roll-in:
Optional costs:
Customer contribution:
(plus) Optional costs:
22.4
9.4
$7.05m
$1.67m
$6.75m – 7.05m =
$0.0
$1.67
$6.75m
$1.57m
$6.65m – 6.65m = $0.0
$1.57 – (6.75-6.65=100k)
= $1.47m**
Total contribution:
$1.67
$1.47m
Contractual term:
9.4
16 years
16 years
* Note: $6.75m is the maximum available investment, as the roll-in amount would have
covered the entire cost of the AESO’s standard facilities interconnection cost.
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 7 of 12
** Note: the $6.75m maximum available investment was applied to the total costs of the
customer requested interconnection.
TCE was invoiced an incremental $716,900 (inclusive of GST) in December of 2004 to
account for the increase in customer contribution attributed to the change in project
costs estimates. The incremental contribution was calculated as follows:
Customer contribution (+/-10% estimate):
Customer contribution paid (+/-30% estimate):
Contribution outstanding:
Contribution outstanding inclusive of GST:
$1.47m
$800 k
$670 k
$716.9k
The last communication that the AESO had with TCE regarding the project is a letter
dated January 19, 2005 wherein TCE informed the AESO that the number and type of
compressor motors was changing from six (6) 4500hp motors provided in the needs
application to now five (5) 5000hp motor driven compressors. There was no mention of
changing the load requirement at the site. Please see Appendix E.
The AESO notes that final costs have not yet been received with respect to this project,
and the customer contribution will be subject to final true-up at that time consistent with
Article 9.7(e) of the AESO’s current terms and conditions of service.
2. EnCana Countess Gas Storage Project
The following are the general facts surrounding the EnCana Countess Gas Storage
project. EnCana approached the AESO in November 2002 requesting system access
service for their gas storage plant in southern Alberta. Project assumptions at the time
were to install ten (10) 4,000hp induction motors at the site. EnCana filed for system
access service on November 6, 2002. The application stated that the site load would be
22 MW with a requested in service date of September 1, 2003. The AESO continued to
meet with the EnCana over December 2002 and January 2003 to discuss and clarify
various aspects of the project. In January the customer informed the AESO that the load
requirement at the site may be larger than originally contemplated in the application as
EnCana was considering installing seven (7) 4,500 hp induction motors bringing the load
requirement to 26.1MW. EnCana also informed the AESO that there would be a second
phase to the project where the facility would be further expanded the following year by
installing an additional three (3) 4,500hp motors bringing the total load at the facility
37.2MW.
Based on the information provided by EnCana, the AESO proceeded to draft the need
application for the project assuming Phase 1 of EnCana’s project would consist of seven
(7) x 4500 hp motors with a total installed site load of 26.1 MW and that Phase II would
proceed in 2004 where a total of ten (10) 4,500 hp motors would be at the facility
increasing the site load by 11.1 MW to a total of 37.2 MW. Please see the Project
Scope Summary in the needs application filed with the EUB on February 5, 2003 –
Appendix F.
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 8 of 12
Using the current information available to the AESO at the time the AESO determined
the best interconnection alternative that would meet the customer’s requirement and
filed that information in a needs application with EUB in February 2003. The following
considerations were taken into account in the decision making process:
•
•
•
Proceeding with a single 25 MVA transformer could accommodate the 22MW
outlined in the System Access Service application but would not accommodate
the increased Phase I load of 26.1 MW
Proceeding with a single 42 MVA transformer would provide capacity for both
Phases I and II but AltaLink (AML) did not have a 42 MVA spare available
Proceed with a two (2) 25 MVA transformer configuration that would
accommodate both “Phase I and II” and allow sparing to be covered by AML’s
existing 33 MVA spare.
The AESO conducted a cost comparison of installing two (2) 25 MVA transformers
versus one 42 MVA transformer and is outlined in Table 7.0 below.
Table 7.0
Interconnection Alternative Cost Comparison
EnCana Countess Gas Storage Project
Option #1
Install two 25 MVA
transformers (@ $600k ea.)
Option #2
Install one 42 MVA transformer
(@ $800k ea.) plus additional
LV Bus & switchgear (@ $200k)
Phase I:
seven 4500hp motors
(2003)
Phase II:
10 4500hp motors
(2004)
$1.2m
$0.00
$1.0m
$800k
(purchase of spare 42
MVA transformer)
The AESO concluded that the two (2) 25 MVA transformer configuration was the
preferred standard interconnection alternative on the grounds that:
• the proposed development was to expand to a total of 37.2 MW in the following
year and,
• AltaLink did not have a spare 42 MVA transformer available
On January 16, 2003 the AESO presented EnCana the following customer contribution
determination based on a two 25 MVA transformer configuration (please see Table 8.0
below).
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 9 of 12
Table 8.0
Interconnection Proposal & Customer Contribution Determination
EnCana Countess Gas Storage Project
+/- 10% cost
AESO standard facilities proposal:
estimate
Substation facilities:
• build new Hussar substation
• two 138 kV breakers
$5.0m
• two (15/20/25 MVA) 138/4.16 kV LTC transformers
• protection, control and communication equipment
• upgrades to the Namaka Substation
Transmission:
$5.0m
• construct 44 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
$10.0m
Total standard facilities cost:
Description
Total project costs:
System-related costs:
Customer-related costs:
Demand-related costs:
(roll-in available)
Roll-in calculation:
Revenue related amount:
Commitment term amount:
Total roll-in:
Optional costs:
Customer contribution:
Optional costs:
Total contribution:
Contractual term:
Article
9.1
9.2
9.2
Estimate
$10.0m
$0.0
$10.0m
9.3
$10.0m
9.4
$1.60m
$6.00m
$7.60m
$0.0m
$10.0 – 7.60 = $2.4m
$0.0m
$2.40m
20 years
22.4
9.4
9.4
The project was energized in September 2003. EnCana approached the AESO shortly
after energization about some concerns regarding errors made in the customer
contribution calculation. The AESO reviewed the concerns by the customer and
presented a revised customer contribution calculation to the customer on December 18,
2003 (outlined in Table 9.0).
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 10 of 12
Table 9.0
Customer Contribution Determination
EnCana Countess Gas Storage Project
Description
Article
Estimate
Total project costs:
9.1
$10.0m
System-related costs:
9.2
$640k*
Customer-related costs:
9.2
$9.36m
Demand-related costs:
9.3
$9.36m
(roll-in available)
Roll-in calculation:
Revenue related amount:
9.4
$1.80m**
Commitment term amount:
$6.00m
Total roll-in:
$7.80m
Optional costs:
22.4
$0.0m
Customer contribution:
9.4
$9.63 – 7.80 = $1.83m
Optional costs:
$0.0m
Total contribution:
$1.83m
Contractual term:
9.4
20 years
Contribution refund:
9.7
$570k***
* Note: $640k of the total project costs were now deemed system-related costs.
** Note: the revenue related amount is now $1.80m versus $1.60m due to an error in the
first calculation
*** the customer originally paid a contribution of $2.40m less new contribution of $1.83m
lead to a $570k contribution refund to EnCana
Actual costs for the project were provided by AltaLink on March 26, 2004 and the AESO
finalized the customer contribution calculation for the project (provided in Table 10.0
below)
Table 10.0
Final Customer Contribution Determination
EnCana Countess Gas Storage Project
AESO standard facilities proposal:
Actual Costs
Substation facilities:
• build new Hussar substation
• two 138 kV breakers
$4.69m
• two (15/20/25 MVA) 138/4.16 kV LTC transformers
• protection, control and communication equipment
• upgrades to the Namaka Substation
Transmission:
$3.95m
• construct 44 km of 138 kV line and associated switches
$8.64m
Total standard facilities cost:
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 11 of 12
Description
Article
Actual Costs
Total project costs:
9.1
$8.64m
System-related costs:
9.2
$680k
Customer-related costs:
9.2
$7.96m
Demand-related costs:
9.3
$7.96m
(roll-in available)
Roll-in calculation:
Revenue related amount:
9.4
$1.80m
Commitment term amount:
$6.00m
Total roll-in:
$7.80m
Optional costs:
22.4
$0.0m
Customer contribution:
9.4
$7.96 – 7.80 = $160k
Optional costs:
$0.0m
Total contribution:
$160k
Contractual term:
9.4
20 years
Contribution refund:
9.7
$2.24m*
* Note: the customer originally paid a contribution of $2.40m less new contribution of
$160k lead to a $2.24m contribution refund to EnCana
3. TCE / EnCana Comparison
Each customer interconnection request is unique, and therefore the final interconnection
configuration and/or commercial terms are generally also unique. Notwithstanding, the
AESO applies the tariff and related principles and approach consistently across all
customers, subject to normal refinement and development of supporting business
practices over time. In its complaint, TCE suggested there is an inconsistency in
customer treatment between the EnCana Countess and TCE Marlboro projects. The
AESO submits that the principles the AESO adhered to in both cases were the same.
Table 11.0 below provides a comparison summary of the two projects:
Table 11.0
Project Comparison
TCE Edson & EnCana Countess Gas Storage Projects
TCE Edson Gas Storage
EnCana Countess Gas
Project
Storage Project
Load requested
24.0MW
26.1MW
Future load requirement
0.0MW
37.2MW
Initial standard facilities
• build new Hussar
• Construction a new
interconnection proposed
substation
“Marlboro” substation
by the AESO
• one 138 kV breaker
• 138 kV bus work and
one circuit breaker
• one 42 MVA
transformer
• one (20/27/33 MVA)
138/4.16 kV LTC
• protection, control and
transformer
communication
equipment
• protection, control and
communication
• upgrades to the
Alberta Electric System Operator - Statement of Facts
TransCanada Energy Complaint
Application No. 1431750
December 19, 2005
Page 12 of 11
•
Decision considerations
•
•
Final standard facilities
proposed by the AESO
•
•
•
•
•
equipment
construct 10 km of 138
kV line and associated
switches
No incremental load
growth contemplated
AltaLink had a spare
33 MVA transformer
available
Construction of a new
“Marlboro” substation
138 kV bus work and a
single circuit breaker
a single (20/27/33 MVA)
138/4.16 kV LTC
transformer
protection, control and
communication
equipment
construct 10 km of 138
kV line and associated
switches
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Namaka Substation
construct 44 km of 138
kV line and associated
switches
AltaLink did not have
a spare 42 MVA
transformer
the proposed
development was to
expand to a total of
37.2 MW in the
following year
build new Hussar
substation
two 138 kV breakers
two (15/20/25 MVA)
138/4.16 kV LTC
transformers
protection, control and
communication
equipment
upgrades to the
Namaka Substation
construct 44 km of 138
kV line and associated
switches
In summary, the AESO submits the standard facilities interconnection solution proposed
for TCE’s Edson Gas Storage project is the result of a sound approach and consistent
with the intent of the tariff.
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix A
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix A
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No.1431750
Appendix B
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No.1431750
Appendix B
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No.1431750
Appendix B
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No.1431750
Appendix B
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No.1431750
Appendix B
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No.1431750
Appendix C
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix D
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix D
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix D
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix E
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix E
Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
Application No. 1431750
Appendix F