Stakeholder Comparison Comment Rationale Matrix 2012-03-06 AESO AUTHORITATIVE DOCUMENT PROCESS

Stakeholder Comparison Comment Rationale Matrix
2012-03-06
AESO AUTHORITATIVE DOCUMENT PROCESS
Alberta Reliability Standard – COM-002-AB-2 Communications and Coordination Draft 2.1
Date of Request for Comment [yyyy/mm/dd]:
Period of Consultation [yyyy/mm/dd]:
Comments From:
TransAlta
Date [yyyy/mm/dd]:
2012/03/30
2012-03-06
2012-03-06
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
through 2012-03-30
Contact:
Cristina Papuc
Phone:
403-267-2077
E-mail:
[email protected]
1
NERC COM-002-2
1
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
Purpose
To ensure Balancing
Authorities, Transmission
Operators, and Generator
Operators have adequate
communications and that
these communications
capabilities are staffed and
available for addressing a
real-time emergency
condition. To ensure
communications by
operating personnel are
effective.
Purpose
The purpose of this reliability
standard is to ensure the ISO,
the operator of a transmission
facility, the legal owner of an
aggregated generating facility
and the operator of a generating
unit have adequate and effective
communications and response
capabilities available for
addressing a real-time system
emergency condition.
Purpose
To ensure the ISO, and
entities subject to this
reliability standard have
adequate communications
and that these
communications capabilities
are staffed and available for
addressing a real-time
emergency condition. To
ensure communications by
operating personnel are
effective.
Applicability
4.1. Reliability Coordinators.
4.2. Balancing Authorities.
4.3. Transmission Operators.
4.4. Generator Operators.
Applicability
This reliability standard applies
to:
 the operator of a transmission
facility;
 the legal owner of an
aggregated generating
facility;
 the operator of a generating
unit; and
 the ISO
.
Applicability
This reliability standard
applies to:
(a) the legal owner of a
generating unit that is:
(i) directly connected to
the transmission
system or to
transmission
facilities within the
City of Medicine Hat;
and
AESO Replies
Modified the purpose to align
with the Alberta reliability
framework.
The term used to describe
applicable entities in
proposed COM-002-AB-2
Draft 2.1 has been amended
from the NERC version in
order to correctly identify the
applicable entities in Alberta
and to align with terms
included in the AESO
Consolidated Authoritative
Documents Glossary.
TransAlta has the following
comments in regards to the
applicability section.
1. TransAlta requests removal
of legal owner of generating
unit and aggregated
generating facilities, i.e. (a)
and (c) in the applicability
section. The reasons are,
a. TransAlta still
believes that this
This column is informational only.
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
2
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
standard applies to
(ii) not part of an
the operator, not the
aggregated
legal owner. The
generating facility;
AESO reply states
(b) the operator of a
that “the legal owner
generating unit that is:
rather than the
(i) directly connected to
operator is
the transmission
responsible for the
system or to
addition,
transmission
replacement,
facilities within the
maintenance, etc. of
City of Medicine Hat;
physical assets”.
and
However, to address
(ii) not part of an
a real-time
aggregated
emergency condition
generating facility;
is performed by the
(c) the legal owner of an
operators, not by the
aggregated generating
owners. The owner
facility that is directly
has no involvement
connected to the
in the real-time
transmission system
operation activities.
or to transmission
TransAlta recognizes
facilities within the City
that the “physical
of Medicine Hat;
assets” must be in
(d) the operator of an
place so the
aggregated generating
operators can have
facility that is directly
the communication
connected to the
capabilities. But, how
transmission system
to establish these
or to transmission
capabilities is an
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
AESO Replies
3
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
agreement between
facilities within the City
the owner and
of Medicine Hat;
operator. This is
(e) the operator of a
outside the scope of
transmission facility;
this standard. As
(f) the operator of an
long as the physical
electric distribution
assets for
system; and
communication are
(g) the ISO.
in place, the
operators can
address the real-time
emergency. If there
is any concern about
the physical assets
for the
communication, the
operator can discuss
the issue with the
owner, or even
terminate the
agreement and stop
operating the
generating unit or
aggregated
generating facilities
based on the
commercial
agreement. In this
case, the owner
would have to take
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
AESO Replies
4
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
the generating unit or
aggregate
generating facilities
offline because of its
own concerns about
the assets. Thus,
TransAlta does not
think there is any
reliability gap if the
legal owner was
removed from the
applicability section
as long as the
adequate
communication is
established between
the operators. How
to establish this is
not in the scope of
this standard.
AESO Replies
b. The AESO reply
sates that “the AESO
replied that it was of
the opinion that the
legal owner rather
than the operator is
responsible for the
addition,
replacement,
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
5
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
maintenance, etc. of
the physical assets.”
“of the opinion” is the
AESO‘s opinion.
With all due respect
to the AESO’s
opinion, it was not
validated or affirmed
by the industry.
AESO Replies
c. Since the last
consultation in 2010,
in a couple of the
AESO working group
meetings, AESO
said that for going
forward, one of the
guidelines to develop
Alberta reliability
standards is that the
Alberta reliability
standard shall not be
more stringent than
the NERC standards.
The NERC standard
only applies to the
operators while
Alberta reliability
standard applies to
both the owners and
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
6
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
operators. By
expanding the
applicability to more
functional entities,
Alberta reliability
standard is more
stringent than the
NERC standard. So
adding the legal
owners in the
applicability section
is not consistent with
the approach that the
AESO
communicated to the
working group
before.
AESO Replies
2. TransAlta would like
clarification as to what
capacity of generating units
and aggregated generating
facilities this standard
should apply to, as the
applicability section does not
clearly specify an MW
threshold and the definition
of generating unit in the Act
has no capacity thresholds.
Without stating a minimum
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
7
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
capacity of generating units
and aggregated generating
facilities in the applicability
section TransAlta is
concerned that we would
need to interpret it as having
to apply to all generators,
even those below 5 MVA,
which we do not believe is
the AESO’s intent. For the
purposes of this standard
TransAlta believes a
threshold of 18 MW for a
single generating unit and
67.5MW for an aggregated
generating facilities (or
whatever it should be) would
be appropriate.
AESO Replies
3. TransAlta requests that the
AESO clarify whether or not
switchyards are included in
the definition of transmission
facility for this standard.
TransAlta believes that for
this standard the
switchyards should be
excluded. TransAlta
requests the AESO also
provide an information
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
8
NERC COM-002-2
Effective Date
January 1, 2007
R1. Each Transmission
Operator, Balancing
Authority, and Generator
Operator shall have
communications (voice and
data links) with appropriate
Reliability Coordinators,
Balancing Authorities, and
Transmission Operators.
Such communications shall
be staffed and available for
addressing a real-time
emergency condition.
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
document providing
definitions and explanations
of how the AESO will be
handling the inclusion or
exclusion of switchyards in
the applicability section of all
of the Alberta reliability
standard standards.
TransAlta will agree to the April 1,
To allow a reasonable
Effective Date
Effective Date
2013 effective date under the
April 1, 2013
amount of time for Alberta
One hundred and eighty (180)
condition that the standard is filed to
entities to implement
days after the date the
AUC by Q2 2012, i.e. submission to
proposed COM-002-AB-2
Commission approves it.
AUC at minimal three quarters
Draft 2.1
before the effective date.
R1 Each legal owner of an
aggregated generating facility
must have voice and data
communication between its
operator and any operator of a
transmission facility to which it is
connected and with the ISO.
R1 Each legal owner of a
generating unit and each
legal owner of an
aggregated generating
facility must have voice and
data communications with
any operator of a
transmission facility that is
part of the bulk electric
system to which it is directly
connected and with the ISO.
R2 The ISO, each operator of a
R2 The ISO, each operator
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
 New
 Amended
 Deleted
Drafted Alberta requirement
R1 in accordance with the
reliability standards drafting
principles to add clarity to
the requirement.
NERC requirement R1 has
been amended by removing
AESO Replies
For R1, besides the comments
mentioned in the applicability
section, TransAlta also has the
following comments specific to this
requirement.
1. The present industry
practice for the real-time
operation communication is
among the operators. R1
says “legal owner…must
have voice and data
communication with any
operator…” Does this mean
9
NERC COM-002-2
R1.1. Each Balancing
Authority and Transmission
Operator shall notify its
Reliability Coordinator, and
all other potentially affected
Balancing Authorities and
Transmission Operators
through predetermined
communication paths of any
condition that could threaten
the reliability of its area or
when firm load shedding is
anticipated
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
that the legal owner must
the requirement of the legal
of a transmission facility,
transmission facility and each
communicate verbally and
owner of a transmission
each operator of an
operator of a generating unit
exchange data with the
facility and the AESO to
must have personnel available
aggregated generating
operator of transmission
for all hours of the day, seven
facility, and each operator have communications as the
facilities and the ISO? If yes,
requirement is contained in
of a generating unit must
(7) days a week, to receive and
what kind of information will
have personnel available for proposed reliability standard
address any voice or data
be communicated among
COM-001-AB-1.1 Draft 2.1.
communication regarding a real- all hours of the day, seven
the legal owner of a
(7) days a week, to receive
time system emergency
generating unit, the operator
and address any voice or
condition.
of transmission facilities and
data communications
the ISO, specifically for the
regarding a real-time
real-time operation?
system emergency
condition.
2. As written, the R1 would be
interpreted to require the
R3 The ISO must notify the
R3 The ISO must notify the
legal owner of a generating
WECC Reliability
WECC Reliability Coordinator,
unit to install extra
Coordinator, adjacent
adjacent interconnected
equipment even though the
transmission operators and
interconnected
operator of the same
affected adjacent balancing
transmission operators
generating unit has already
and affected adjacent
authorities through
had the equipment for the
predetermined communication
balancing authorities
communication with the
through predetermined
paths of any threat to the
operator of transmission
communications paths:
reliability of the interconnected
facility and with the ISO.
(i) of any threat to the
electric system or if the ISO
TransAlta does not believe
reliability of the
anticipates shedding firm load.
this is the intent of this
interconnected electric
standard.
system; or
3. Thus, TransAlta requests
(ii) if the ISO anticipates
the legal owner be replaced
shedding firm load.
with the operator.
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
AESO Replies
10
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
AESO Replies
For the numbering in the standard,
TransAlta request the numbering is
the same as those in the NERC
standards (having R1, R1.1 and
R2). The reasons are:
1. TransAlta manages the
reliability standards
compliance across the fleet
in the US and Canada. All
other Canadian provinces
adopt the NERC reliability
standards without any
changes. If the numbering in
the Alberta reliability
standard is different from the
NERC version, TransAlta
will have a specific internal
compliance program for
Alberta. This will incur the
cost just because of
numbering difference.
TransAlta believes this cost
is not necessary and does
have the reliability benefits.
2. TransAlta believes that it is
also possible for the Alberta
reliability standard to have
the same numbering as the
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
11
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
NERC version, i.e. only
having R1, R1.1 and R2
requirement in Alberta
version. For example,
AESO Replies
a. The R2 requirement
can be added to the
end of R1
requirement as a
second sentence.
b. The R3 requirement
can be renumbered
as R1.1
c. The R4 requirement
can be renumbered
as R2.
d. The R5 requirement
shall be removed as
explained in the
comment section for
R5.
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
12
NERC COM-002-2
R2. Each Reliability
Coordinator, Transmission
Operator, and Balancing
Authority shall issue
directives in a clear, concise,
and definitive manner; shall
ensure the recipient of the
directive repeats the
information back correctly;
and shall acknowledge the
response as correct or
repeat the original statement
to resolve any
misunderstandings.
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
R4 The ISO must give a verbal
directive to an operator of a
transmission facility, legal owner
of an aggregated generating
facility and operator of a
generating unit in a clear,
concise and definitive manner.
If the recipient of the verbal
directive does not respond by
repeating the information in the
directive as specified in
requirement R5, then the ISO
must request the recipient to
repeat the information in the
directive. If the information is
repeated correctly, the ISO must
verbally acknowledge this to the
recipient. If the information in
the response is not correct, the
ISO must repeat the verbal
directive and the above process
until the ISO is satisfied that the
recipient understands the
information in the directive.
R4 The ISO must, when
issuing a verbal directive to
an operator of a
transmission facility,
operator of an aggregated
generating facility,
operator of a generating
unit or an operator of an
electric distribution
system, do so in a clear,
concise and definitive
manner, identify the
instruction as a directive
and:
 New
 Amended
 Deleted
AESO Replies
TransAlta requests that the R4
requirement be renumbered as R2
as explained above.
Drafted Alberta requirement
R4 in accordance with the
reliability standard drafting
principles to add clarity to
the requirement.
(i) if the recipient of the
directive does not respond
by repeating the information
in the directive as specified
in requirement R5, then the
ISO must request the
recipient to repeat the
information in the directive;
(ii) if the information is
repeated correctly, the ISO
must acknowledge this to
the recipient; and
(iii) if the information in the
response is not correct, the
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
13
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
ISO must repeat the
directive and the above
process until the ISO is
satisfied that the recipient
understands the information
in the directive.
R5 Each person who receives a
verbal directive from the ISO
must repeat the information in
the verbal directive back to the
ISO correctly, either in response
to the initial verbal directive or in
response to the ISO’s repetition
of the verbal directive.
2
R5 Each operator of a
transmission facility, each
operator of an aggregated
generating facility, each
operator of a generating
unit and each operator of
an electric distribution
system who receives a
directive from the ISO in
accordance with
requirement R4 must repeat
the information in the
directive back to the ISO,
either in response to the
initial directive or in
response to the ISO’s
repetition of the directive.
 New
 Amended
 Deleted
Alberta Variance2: The
AESO recognizes that the
responsibility to repeat the
information in an AESO
directive back to the AESO
rests with the recipient of the
directive. A new Alberta
requirement, R5, has been
added to COM-002-AB-2
Draft 2.1 to address this
responsibility.
AESO Replies
TransAlta requests the R5
requirement be removed. The
reason is:
Since the last consultation in 2010,
in a couple of AESO working group
meetings, AESO said for going
forward, one of the guidelines to
develop Alberta reliability standards
is that the Alberta reliability
standards shall not be more
stringent than the NERC standards.
In the NERC standard R2 requires
the issuer of directives to ensure
the recipient repeats back. The
recipient does not have any
compliance obligation to repeat the
directives back. In the Alberta
reliability standard as written in the
An Alberta variance is a change from the US Reliability Standard that the AESO
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
14
NERC COM-002-2
M1. Each Transmission
Operator, Balancing
Authority and Generator
Operator shall have
communication facilities
(voice and data links) with
appropriate Reliability
Coordinators, Balancing
Authorities, and
Transmission Operators and
shall have and provide as
evidence, a list of
communication facilities or
other equivalent evidence
that confirms that the
communications have been
provided to address a realtime emergency condition.
(Requirement 1, part 1)
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
R5 requirement, the recipient will
have the obligation of repeating
back. Thus by adding this
requirement, the Alberta reliability
standard is more stringent than the
NERC standard, which is not
consistent with the approach that
the AESO communicated to the
working group before.
MR1 Evidence exists of voice
and data communication as
specified in requirement R1,
such as a list of voice and data
communication devices.
MR2. Where a real-time system
emergency condition has
occurred, evidence exists that
demonstrate any voice or data
communications were
addressed, such as voice
recordings and operator logs.
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
AESO Replies
MR1 Evidence of having
voice and data
communications as required
in requirement R1 exists.
Evidence may include a list
of communication devices
and documentation
including an overview,
purpose, diagrams and
network connectively for
each data and voice
communication system.
MR2 Evidence of having
personnel available as
required in requirement R2
exists. Evidence may
include operator logs,
timesheets, on-call lists, or
shift schedules.
15
NERC COM-002-2
M2. The Balancing Authority
and Transmission Operator
shall have and provide upon
request evidence that could
include but is not limited to,
operator logs, voice
recordings or transcripts of
voice recordings, electronic
communications, or other
equivalent evidence that will
be used to determine if it
notified its Reliability
Coordinator, and all other
potentially affected
Balancing Authorities and
Transmission Operators of a
condition that could threaten
the reliability of its area or
when firm load shedding was
anticipated. (Requirement
1.1)
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
MR3 Evidence exists to confirm
notification as specified in
requirement R3, such as voice
recordings, operator logs and
email records.
MR3 Evidence of notifying
as required in requirement
R3 exists. Evidence may
include operator logs or
voice recordings.
MR4 Evidence exists to verify
the requirement as specified in
requirement R4 such as, voice
recordings, operator logs and
email records.
MR4 Evidence of giving
directives as required in
requirement R4 exists.
Evidence may include voice
recordings or, where voice
recordings are not available,
operator logs that indicate
the recipient repeated the
information back correctly.
AESO Replies
MR5 Evidence of repeating
information in the directive
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
16
NERC COM-002-2
COMPARISON BETWEEN NERC COM-002-2 AND CURRENT ALBERTA COM-002-AB-2
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION
Reason for Differences
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2.1
between COM-002-AB-2
Stakeholder Comments
COM-002-AB-2 Draft 2 (From
(Revised version for reDraft 2.1 and NERC
(Insert comments here)
previous consolation)1
consultation)
COM-002-2
as required in requirement
R5 exists. Evidence may
include voice recordings or,
where voice recordings are
not available, operator logs
that indicate the recipient
repeated the information
back.
AESO Replies
The Alberta reliability
standards do not contain a
compliance section.
Compliance with all Alberta
reliability standards is
completed in accordance
with the Alberta Reliability
Standards Compliance
Monitoring Program,
available on the AESO
website at:
http://www.aeso.ca/loadsettl
ement/17189.html
Compliance
To view the compliance
section D of the NERC
reliability standard follow this
link:
http://www.nerc.com/files/CO
M-002-2.pdf
Regional Differences
Regional Differences
Regional Differences
None identified.
None identified.
None identified.
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
17
New Definitions
Stakeholder Comments
(Insert comments here)
AESO Replies
None
Issued for Stakeholder Consultation: 2012-03-06
18