Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
AESO Consultation – EMS Upgrade Project Phase III
- Implementation
July 23, 2015
The following matrix is a summary of the stakeholder comments regarding the AESO’s EMS 3.0 Upgrade Phase III – Implementation proposal. A
summary of the proposal was presented to stakeholders at an information session (July 23, 2015) and the supporting material posted on the
AESO’s website for reference. Readers will also note that the matrix includes AESO management’s response to these comments. The responses
were developed after consideration of the comments submitted and are intended to improve the transparency of the related plans and for AESO
Board consideration in determining their decision regarding management’s recommendation to proceed.
EMS Upgrade Project - Implementation
Do stakeholders have any comments on the EMS 3.0 Upgrade Phase III - Implementation proposal?
Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary (AINA), and International Energy, Environmental and Legal Services Ltd. (IEELS)
1. It is very important in going through this sole sourcing contracting process for the EMS Upgrade Project that AESO amplify its disclosure
and consultation for present and future EMS contract terms, particularly those terms that go to or may affect present and future customer
services and options, as well as overall project costs. Knowledge of and the ability to provide feedback on EMS contract terms is particularly
applicable for comment 2 below.
AESO management highlights that the recommendation to proceed with this EMS Upgrade Project was not based on a sole sourcing
contracting process. Four vendors were contacted and formally engaged in the Validation phase of the project. All four vendors
provided product, service and pricing information for management consideration. A confidentiality agreement is in place with the
recommended vendor. Management suggests that stakeholders access the publicly available information on the internet in order to
obtain related product and feature information.
http://www.alstom.com/Global/Grid/Resources/Documents/Automation/NMS/eterraplatform%203.0%20trans_gene.pdf?epslanguage=en-GB
AESO Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
1
rd
2. Within the July 23 presentation, stress was placed by AESO on making the future EMS compliant with CIP. While this is a laudable and
required option, it is also important that the contract terms and design of the future EMS incorporate the maximum flexibility to allow the
contemplation and offering of future services that may rely for the AESO and Alberta electricity system. This would include energy storage
(the design of which is currently being contemplated); private or public interties with other electricity systems; future renewable energy
services whether wind, solar or geothermal; energy efficiency measures; smart grid applications; and the integration of heat, water, and
greenhouse gas emissions reductions with Alberta electricity load, generation and transmission.
Noted. Management concurs with this comment and highlights that system flexibility in terms of hardware infrastructure, the
availability of advanced energy management application solutions and the relative ease of integration with other systems was a key
element in its decision making process. Together, these elements are expected to accommodate current as well as future market
system evolution.
rd
3. Within the July 23 meeting, comments were made at times by AESO staff that there was no statutory or other requirement for disclosure.
As such, it was suggested that certain information may not be provided in the future. It is urged that AESO be as transparent and open as
possible for the EMS Upgrade Project, and not shield itself behind current disclosure requirements, providing further and additional
information as requested by stakeholders and interested parties.
AESO should be desirous of obtaining the most flexible system at the lowest cost that meets all anticipated and possible future needs of the
AESO, stakeholders and the Alberta electricity market. Open communications with stakeholders and interested parties about the costs,
contract terms, design and underlying rational, and ongoing implementation of the EMS Upgrade Project will assist stakeholders and
interested parties in understanding the capacities and constraints of the future EMS, AESO and the Alberta electricity transmission system,
as well as to develop commercial and market services that will strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the Alberta electricity
system and its interconnections with adjacent electricity systems.
Noted. Transparency is the overarching principle in the BRP. Specifically, the process is designed to provide clarity on the need for
and cost of the upgrade as well as ongoing implementation updates. Throughout the process, the AESO will endeavor to provide as
much information as is reasonably possible to ensure stakeholders have all information relevant to the subject matters under review.
In regards to the current and future capacities of the new EMS system, please refer to the vendor product information link provided in
comment 1.
Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta (IPCAA)
In 2014 the EMS project preliminary estimate was to cost between $16.1 M and $20.1M.
[Reference: http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Combined_Forecasts_and_Own_Costs_Budget_Presentation_for_2015_BRP_(final).pdf ]
AESO Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
2
The new AESO estimate is expected to be $39M. IPCAA has the following questions:
1. How will the AESO try to stay within this estimate?
The estimates provided prior to the initiation of the definition phase were considered preliminary. The execution of the definition
phase has resulted in sufficiently detailed requirements and design information that has increased management’s confidence in the
budget estimate provided for the implementation phase.
In addition to the planning information the definition phase provided, AESO management intends to leverage all of the existing
enterprise project controls and processes to ensure that effective cost management and containment is achieved. In addition, AESO
management has also enhanced and engaged a number of commercial, vendor management, program governance strategies to
minimize costs due to the size and complexity of this specific initiative.
2. Does this estimate account for currency risk?
AESO management did consider foreign currency risk and used the market exchange rate when the costs were estimated for
establishing the project budget for determination whether to proceed or not. Subsequent changes in exchange rates will be reported
on as a variance between budget and actual expenditures. Generally the AESO does not fix foreign currency or interest rates as the
AESO does not speculate on the direction of future rate changes.
Other Comments
Do stakeholders have any other comments to offer at this time?
AINA and IEELS Ltd.
1. Thank you for the opportunity to participate and provide feedback.
Noted.
IPCAA
While IPCAA agrees with the necessity for an EMS upgrade it is concerned over the costs and has suggestions to ameliorate those costs.
It is our understanding that the new EMS implementation will allow for increased efficiencies within the Alberta electricity market including:
• Dynamic Scheduling to allow for more responsive inter-ties, which will provide for:
AESO Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
3
•
- A more competitive marketplace and
- Ultimately, a reduced cost of electricity
Dynamic Line Ratings, which should increase the transmission capability of the Alberta electricity system, especially in areas of wind
generation without the need for new transmission lines or sub-stations. This means a potentially large cost savings, leading to:
- Enhanced reliability
- Reduced cost of electricity
- Reduced cost of transmission and
- Improved access to renewable energy
1. Since the EMS system will be in-place in mid 2017, will the AESO begin immediate stakeholdering on these two important AESO initiatives
in order to maximize the benefit to the Alberta market, rather than waiting until after the EMS is implemented? Meshing the implementation
of these initiatives with the EMS would certainly go along ways to enhancing both the benefit of the EMS upgrade and ameliorating the
increased costs.
Noted. In addition to improved grid management and system reliability, the proposed solution may assist in advancing other energy
market initiatives. However, additional dependencies and considerations also need to be assessed on Dynamic Line Ratings and
Scheduling to determine their timing and applicability.
AESO Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
4