Decision 2001-33

EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc.

Rossdale Power Plant Unit 11 (RD 11) Application No. 990289

May 2001

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Decision 2001-33: EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc., Rossdale Power Plant Unit 11 (RD 11) Application No. 990289

May 2001

Published by Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4

Telephone: (403) 297-8311 Fax: (403) 297-7040

Web site:

Contents

1 Decision...... 1

2 Application, Prehearing Meeting, and Hearing...... 1 2.1 The Rossdale Site...... 1 2.2 EPCOR’s Application ...... 2

3 Jurisdiction ...... 3 3.1 Determination of Public Interest ...... 3 3.2 Respective Roles of the EUB and ACD Regarding Historical Resources ...... 7 3.3 Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act ...... 8

4 Issues ...... 11

5 Public Consultation and Involvement ...... 12

6 Site Selection: Security of Supply, Transmission, and Infrastructure...... 16

7 Environmental Issues ...... 21 7.1 Air Quality...... 21 7.2 Water Quality and Aquatic Resources ...... 27 7.3 Noise ...... 30

8 Socioeconomic Issues ...... 34 8.1 River Valley Land Use ...... 34 8.2 Land Values...... 35

9 Historical and Archaeological Resources...... 38 9.1 Historic Power Plant Buildings...... 38 9.2 Archaeological Resources ...... 43

10 Risk Assessment and the Emergency Response Plan ...... 52

Appendix A: EPCOR Rossdale Approval Conditions and Commitments and Board Recommendations...... 54 Appendix B: Memorandum of Decision, Table 1...... 57 Appendix C: Memorandum of Decision, Table 2...... 59 Appendix D: Those Who Appeared at the Hearing ...... 60 Appendix E: Legislation...... 66

Figures...... Attached at end

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • i

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Calgary Alberta

EPCOR POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND EPCOR GENERATION INC. Decision 2001-33 ROSSDALE POWER PLANT UNIT 11 (RD 11) Application No. 990289

1 DECISION

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB/Board), having carefully considered the evidence, believes that the proposed Rossdale 170 megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired turbine (RD 11) is in the public interest. The purpose of relevant legislative provisions is the establishment of a competitive electrical generation market in Alberta, and RD 11 satisfactorily addresses this purpose. The project must also meet the public interest in relation to social, economic, and environmental impacts on society as a whole and the communities in close proximity to the plant in particular. The Board finds that the impacts associated with RD 11 have been appropriately addressed by the applicant, although certain Board-directed conditions will form part of the approval. Alberta Environment (AENV) and the EUB administer environmental standards and measures. Social impacts, such as the project’s effect on archaeological and historical resources, in the Board’s view, will be properly supervised by Alberta Community Development (ACD) pursuant to the Historic Resources Act (HRA). The Board also notes that the current Rossdale Power Plant and its predecessors have been situated on Rossdale Flats, in coexistence with nearby communities, for almost a century. For these reasons, the Board approves Application No. 990289.

A fuller discussion and reasons in support of this decision follow, as well as a summary of the conditions and commitments associated with the approval as outlined in Appendix A.

2 APPLICATION, PREHEARING MEETING, AND HEARING

2.1 The Rossdale Site

The Rossdale Power Plant is located within the City of Edmonton (the City) on about 5 hectares of land on Rossdale Flats, downstream of the Walterdale Bridge. The site is on the north side of the North Saskatchewan River immediately south of the downtown core (see Figure 1). The Rossdale site has been the location of power generating facilities since 1902. In the past the plant produced in excess of 400 MW of electricity.

Three distinct but connected buildings used or previously used for power generation occupy the site (see Figure 2). The Low Pressure (LP) Plant (Maxwell Dewar Building or LP Building) was built in stages between 1932 and 1954. The building consists of a turbine hall, a boiler house, and an associated pump station. Over its life, it housed steam turbines designated as Rossdale Units 1 to 5. The LP Plant was decommissioned in 1993 and the generation equipment was subsequently removed. Rossdale Units No. 6 and 7, housed in the Gas Turbine Hall, were

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 1

commissioned in 1958 and 1959 respectively, decommissioned in 1989, and dismantled beginning in 1992.

The High Pressure (HP) Plant is now the only facility producing electricity at Rossdale. The HP Plant houses Units 8, 9, and 10, commissioned in 1960, 1963, and 1966 respectively. Unit 8 has a capacity of 71 MW, while 9 and 10 each has a capacity of 75 MW, for a total plant capacity of approximately 221 MW. The HP Plant had been on standby for most of the 1990s, being called upon only during times of emergency. However, since deregulation of the energy industry, the Rossdale Plant has been operated when economic conditions make it viable.

2.2 EPCOR’s Application

EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc., both wholly owned subsidiaries of EPCOR Utilities Inc. (collectively, EPCOR) filed Application No. 990289 on June 25, 1999, requesting EUB approval to construct and operate a 170 MW natural gas-fired turbine, designated as Unit 11 (RD 11), at its Rossdale Power Plant in Edmonton.

The Board held a prehearing meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, on April 17, 2000, before J. D. Dilay, P.Eng. (Presiding Member), T. M. McGee (Board Member), and C. A. Langlo, P.Geol. (Acting Board Member). The Board considered representations from a number of participants at the prehearing meeting and set out the following key items in its Memorandum of Decision (MOD) issued May 30, 2000. The issues are summarized below and are more fully described in Appendices B and C:

• identification of issues relevant to the hearing, including social effects, such as land use and the value of the river valley; quality of life and public consultation; risk and public safety; burial grounds and historical and archaeological resources within the footprint of the proposed development; environmental effects, such as noise, air quality and emissions, fog, and water quality and use; property values; building/demolition plans for the LP Building; future plant expansion; and district heating and plant design;

• identification of issues not relevant to the Board’s disposition of the application, including the need for increased generating capacity, the economics of the project, and land-use planning issues, such as the City’s approval process for the project;

• clarification regarding the definition of local interveners, advanced funding requests, cost claims, and direction to the participants to explore opportunities for cooperation among parties with similar interests to avoid duplication during the hearing; and

• confirmation that the hearing would commence in Edmonton, Alberta, on October 17, 2000.

The Board believed that clarity around these preliminary matters could assist the diverse group of participants and provide for a more efficient hearing.

The application was considered at a public hearing held in Edmonton from October 17 to November 3, 2000, and from January 9 to 19, 2001, before J. D. Dilay, P.Eng. (Presiding Member), T. M. McGee (Board Member), and C. A. Langlo, P.Geol. (Acting Board Member).

2 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Participants in the hearing and the abbreviations used for groups and associations are listed in Appendix D.

3 JURISDICTION

In this report, a number of sections of legislation are referred to. For ease of reference, the full sections are contained in Appendix E.

The Central Area Council of Community Leagues and the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (collectively CACCL/EFCL), ConCerv, the Rossdale Community League (RCL), ACD, and EPCOR directed their arguments at the prehearing meeting to matters touching on the EUB jurisdiction in these proceedings. The issues included

• the determination of the public interest in light of Sections 9 and 2.1 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act (HEE Act), Section 2.1 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act (ERC Act), and Section 6(d) of the Electric Utilities Act (EU Act);

• the role of the EUB vis-à-vis ACD in assessing and determining the heritage resources of the Rossdale site; and

• the effect of Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act (MG Act) on the EUB’s consideration of the applications.

These jurisdictional issues raised at the prehearing meeting resulted in the Board’s determination of the matters, as expressed in its MOD. The Board further addresses these issues in this decision.

3.1 Determination of the Public Interest

In its MOD, the Board expressed the view that the effect of Section 2.1 of the ERC Act, Sections 2 and 2.1 of the HEE Act, and Section 6 of the EU Act (the legislative provisions) is that consideration of the need for and the economics of generating units are no longer relevant factors in assessing whether an application under Section 9 of the HEE Act is in the public interest. The applicant and CACCL/EFCL, ConCerv, and RCL made submissions regarding the factors that the EUB must take into account when making public interest determinations under Section 9 of the HEE Act.

3.1.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR submitted that the regulation of the electrical generation market has fundamentally changed with introduction of the EU Act, in particular Section 6(d). It maintained that in the restructured generation market, the EUB’s responsibilities no longer include an analysis of the need or cost of a proposed power plant. These matters, according to Section 6(d) of the EU Act, are to be made by market participants influenced by competitive market forces.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 3

EPCOR asserted that the EUB’s consideration of whether a power plant application is in the public interest must focus on whether the full costs associated with meeting appropriate environmental, social, and economic requirements or standards, described as externalities, have been properly assigned to and borne by the project. EPCOR argued that if a project has demonstrated that such costs have been internalized, the final decision on whether to proceed with the project must be the responsibility of the applicant. EPCOR submitted that the mandate of the EUB in these applications is to determine whether an applicant has in fact satisfactorily addressed all important externalities. It concluded that when the EUB has made such a finding and the applicant has proceeded with the project, the public interest has been met.

EPCOR submitted that it had properly addressed the relevant externalities connected to its project. It stated that in areas such as air quality, fog, noise, water quality, aesthetics, property values, historical resources, transmission system impacts, and risk, its project would meet or exceed existing regulatory standards or, in the absence of such standards, result in no significant adverse effects. Having properly met these externalites, EPCOR emphasized, ensures that the market-driven decision to proceed with the project will inevitably bring social and economic benefits in the public interest.

EPCOR rejected CACCL/EFCL’s contention that if mitigation of the various impacts were to a point just below the regulatory standard, the Board could still find that the cumulative impact was contrary to the public interest. EPCOR stated that if each individual externality complied with the relevant regulatory requirement, there could be no significant adverse effects and the overall project must be acceptable and in the public interest.

EPCOR objected to ConCerv’s reintroduction of the debate regarding the relevance of the need and specific project cost in determining the public interest. It noted that the Board had held in its MOD that need and project-specific economics were no longer relevant to its consideration of a power plant application. EPCOR rejected ConCerv’s interpretation of the legislative provisions as being contrary to the clear intention of the Legislature to deregulate the electrical generation market in Alberta. It urged the Board to take a purposive approach to the interpretation of the legislative provisions, especially the effect of Section 6(d) of the EU Act, by adopting a construction that would best attain the legislative goal of the creation of an electrical generation market guided by competitive market forces. Regulatory supervision over generation investment decisions, EPCOR submitted, was completely contrary to the legislative object of restructuring the generation market so that competitive market forces would determine investment and pricing decisions. It maintained that the establishment of a competitive market for generation, as opposed to the regulatory oversight exercised by the EUB prior to restructuring, would serve to promote the economic, orderly, and efficient development of electrical generation, as well as to meet the pubic interest requirement set out in both the HEE Act and the ERC Act.

3.1.2 Views of the Interveners

CACCL/EFCL agreed that need and project-specific economics were not relevant factors for the Board to review, given the legislative intent to create a deregulated, competitive generation market. It disputed, however, the suitability of the public interest test advocated by EPCOR because, in its view, it did not acknowledge the ultimate role of the EUB in assessing all the evidence regarding the nature of the impacts and the acceptability of the mitigative measures.

4 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

CACCL/EFCL contended that the current legislation did not lessen the EUB’s authority to take into account all impacts associated with the project, whether such impacts were mitigated below regulatory standards or not. It submitted that the combined effect of impacts that individually complied with established standards could lead the Board to find that a project was not in the public interest.

Further, it argued that certain impacts might not breach existing environmental or safety standards and regulations but nonetheless result in unacceptable externalities that are not allocated to the project. CACCL/EFCL supported this opinion by using the location of RD 11 in Edmonton as an illustration. Calgary, it pointed out, is where the overwhelming demand for new load is required. Building a power plant in Edmonton would result in transmission losses on a province-wide basis, an externality that would not be satisfactorily borne by the project.

CACCL/EFCL also stated that any consideration by the Board of the public interest must necessarily address the public benefits to be derived from the RD 11 expansion. It disagreed with EPCOR’s view that impacts resulting from the proposed expansion could be considered as public benefits. These items included the substantial demolition of the LP Building, mitigative measures to preserve significant archaeological resources, and the maintenance of approximately the same amount of total air emissions as previously existed.

RCL characterized the public interest as “good, beneficial and in the best interests of the society for which the particular legislation was designed,” which, in its view, required the Board to consider and weigh alternatives to the Rossdale site for power generation. It maintained that the impacts on the environment and the adverse effect on the quality of living in nearby neighbourhoods outweighed the limited benefits associated with RD 11 and further noted that such benefits could be realized at another location.

ConCerv argued that the Board’s initial interpretation of the legislation was in error and the proper construction of these provisions meant that the Board must consider economic factors such as need and cost of the expanded power plant, notwithstanding that investment and pricing decisions were to be guided by competitive market forces. ConCerv concluded that the Board was obliged to consider need and cost because Section 2.1 of the HEE Act required it to take into account Section 2.1 of the ERC Act (economic effects of the project), as well as Section 2(a) of the HEE Act (economic development of electrical generation), in considering an application for a power plant under Section 9 of the HEE Act. ConCerv stated that the normal considerations that the Board reviewed prior to deregulation, including project need and economics, were still required but, in addition, the Board must examine economic factors such as investment and need in light of competitive market forces.

It asserted that economic evidence regarding whether competitive market forces guided the plant’s location was necessary and relevant, despite the Board having excluded such evidence in a preliminary decision at the hearing. ConCerv posited that competitive market forces would place the location of a plant in an area where power could be generated at the lowest cost to both the utility and the consumer. It submitted that Rossdale Flats was not such a site when compared to alternative generation projects, such as cogeneration.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 5

3.1.3 Views of the Board

The Board considers that the submissions of both EPCOR and the interveners have merit in assessing whether a project such as RD 11 meets the public interest test. The determination of the public interest is ultimately a subjective determination bounded only by the general and specific objects of the legislation in question and the powers of the EUB to carry out those purposes. Such a determination must arise from the evidence presented and the careful, fair, and objective discernment of that evidence by the Board. The facts, circumstances, and issues of each individual application necessarily mean that no objective test of what constitutes “in the public interest” can be formulated.

Generally, as referenced by RCL, the public interest standard is met by an activity that benefits the segment of the public to which the legislation is aimed, while at the same time minimizing, to an acceptable degree, the potential adverse impacts on more discrete parts of the community. The existence of regulatory standards is an important element in deciding whether potential adverse impacts are acceptable and whether a proponent has satisfactorily accounted for these externalities, but the Board retains the discretion to find that projects are not in the public interest notwithstanding their compliance with these standards. Such cases are rare. Where no sanctioned thresholds exist, it is especially critical that the Board weigh the impact of potential adverse effects on the public and the efficacy of the mitigative measures designed by a proponent to minimize these impacts to acceptable levels.

The Board’s review of an application under Section 9 of the HEE Act requires it to acknowledge that the Legislature has expressed its clear intent to establish a deregulated, competitive electrical generation market in Alberta, with investment decisions guided by market forces. The public interest considerations that the Board must take into account in reviewing such applications are set out in the legislative provisions and include consideration of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the project, the economical, orderly, and efficient development and operation of electrical generation, and the establishment of a competitive generation market. Other elements may include the safety, reliability, and technical feasibility of a proposed project. The components of the public interest as expressed in these provisions are broad and elastic. This inherently demands that the Board assess and balance the competing elements of the public interest in each specific application before it. Part of this balancing exercise is an analysis of the nature of the externalities associated with a project and the extent to which a project proponent has accounted for these externalities. Depending on the circumstances before the Board, this includes a regard for the project’s adherence to regulatory standards and guidelines and an assessment of the project’s public benefits and adverse impacts.

The Board is not persuaded to adopt the position of ConCerv regarding its interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions. The discussion and conclusions on this issue expressed in the MOD remain unaltered. ConCerv’s construction of the legislation is incongruent and inconsistent with the legislative intent to create a generation market guided by competitive market considerations. The Legislature has unequivocally signalled in Section 6(d) of the EU Act that in the deregulated electrical generation sector pricing and investment decisions are not determined by the EUB through regulation but are reached as a result of individual market participants making decisions based on their own analysis of need, cost, supply, demand, timing, risk, and a host of other considerations grounded in the reality of competitive market forces.

6 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

3.2 Respective Roles of the EUB and ACD Regarding Historical Resources

The issue of historical resources and the EUB’s role in the preservation and maintenance of these resources was canvassed at the prehearing meeting and included in the MOD. The Board indicated that it would hear evidence on the impacts of the project on historical resources but reserved its determination on whether these issues more properly fell under the authority of ACD, pursuant to the HR Act.

3.2.1 Views of the Applicant

Epcor did not provide extensive argument on this issue, apart from indicating that its plans, measures, and commitments regarding the identification and preservation of historical resources met the public interest test under the provisions of ACD’s HR Act and the EUB’s legislation.

3.2.2 Views of the Interveners

Several parties at the hearing submitted that in determining whether the proposed RD 11 expansion is in the public interest, the Board must take into account the negative impacts on historical resources and archaeological resources (including human burials). These parties argued that the Board should deny EPCOR’s application on the grounds that such adverse impacts could not be adequately mitigated. In the case of certain First Nations and Métis interveners, the disturbance of potential gravesites and human remains would constitute an unconscionable and immitigable sacrilege.

ACD submitted that under Section 33(2) of the HR Act it was the regulator responsible for the assessment of the effects of projects on historical resources and possessed the authority to order that the preservation of resources be undertaken. It stated that under Section 16 of the HR Act, ACD could also designate resources as Provincial Historic Resources, which provides protection from alteration or removal of resources without ACD’s permission. ACD submitted that it did not have the jurisdiction to compel owners on whose land a Provincial Historic Resource was located to use such resources (buildings, for example) in a certain way, order them to construct interpretative centres, or engage in public consultation with interested parties.

ACD testified that historic resource impacts were a relevant consideration for the EUB in balancing the various components of the public interest, even though ACD was invested with the necessary authority to identify, assess, and protect these resources. It advised the Board that its staff would recommend to its Minister that a Provincial Historic Resource designation be issued for the Administration Building, Pumphouse No. 1, and the LP Building regardless of the outcome of the Board’s decision on the power plant application. With regard to archaeological resources, it stated that it would recommend that certain mitigative action be taken during the excavation and construction of the RD 11 project; however, it did not believe that sufficient archaeological resources were present to justify further action.

ACD outlined a number of matters that it stated were outside the scope of the EUB’s jurisdiction. These included public participation in assessments under the HR Act, the scope of a hearing under Section 16 of the HR Act, the designation of Rossdale Flats (a place of history) and the known cemetery near the EPCOR site as Provincial Historic Resources, the nature and

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 7

scope of ACD’s consultation with aboriginal peoples, and the apparent legislative gap between the HR Act and the Cemeteries Act.

ACD provided a number of recommendations that it requested the Board adopt if it held that the project was in the public interest. These recommendations, ACD explained, were beyond its authority and included certain commitments made by EPCOR related to the involvement of aboriginal peoples and other interested parties in the historical and archaeological aspects of the project, the adaptive reuse of parts of the LP Building, Administration Building, and Pumphouse No. 1, the development of an integrated conservation plan on the power plant site, and additional archaeological work outside the RD 11 footprint.

3.2.3 Views of the Board

Under Section 2.1 of the ERC Act, the Board is obliged to take account of the social effects of a project when considering whether it is in the public interest. The history and life of a community as expressed in its architecture and archaeological assets is an aspect of society that informs and enriches its citizens. The impacts on these resources are a relevant factor when determining whether a project is in the public interest. However, in considering the issue, the Board may look to ACD and its mandate under the HR Act to ensure that the public interest in this regard is met.

ACD’s principal statutory responsibility is to identify and assess historical resources such as buildings and archaeological artifacts for the purpose of determining whether impacts from industrial and other activities necessitate the preservation of these resources. ACD’s staff provide expert and specialized knowledge in this area, and the Minister of ACD must specifically give regard to the public interest in deciding whether to designate and preserve a historical resource under Section 16(1) of the HR Act.

It is the Board’s view that the HR Act is the dominant legislation governing the supervision of historical resources in the province. In light of the regulatory regime established under the HR Act and given the testimony presented by ACD at the hearing, the Board is satisfied that ACD’s regulatory process will ensure that the resources identified at the Rossdale site will be appropriately dealt with in the public interest. The Board considers that any decision on its part to approve or to reject EPCOR’s RD 11 project would neither fetter the Minister’s discretion to designate any part of the site as a Provincial Historic Resource nor remove EPCOR’s obligation to seek ministerial approval to alter a building designated as a Provincial Historic Resource.

On this basis, the Board is not disposed to direct that conditions related to historical resources form part of the approval of RD 11. The Board notes, however, EPCOR’s repeated and emphatic representations that it intends to carry out the historic resource-related activities described at the hearing and set forth in its argument.

3.3 Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act

The Board determined in its MOD that it need not consider land-use planning issues properly within the jurisdiction of the City or halt its review of EPCOR’s application until the City had decided on EPCOR’s application for a development permit. It stated emphatically that Section 619 does not oblige the Board to carry out the municipality’s land-use planning responsibilities

8 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

under the MG Act, notwithstanding that Section 619 acknowledges that there may be some overlap between the respective reviews of the Board and a municipality. The Board did agree, however, that land use in the river valley was an appropriate subject in considering the power plant project application.

3.3.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR stated that the Board decided in the MOD that land-use planning issues and the City’s approval process for the project were not within the scope of the applications before the Board and maintained therefore that evidence and argument based on these issues must be completely disregarded by the Board. It argued that it would be unfair to EPCOR to allow such evidence or argument, because EPCOR conducted its application on the basis that these matters were not germane to the Board’s consideration of the expansion project.

EPCOR further provided its view on the interpretation and effect of Section 619 of the MG Act, which differed significantly from the interpretation of interveners. It submitted that the section did not seriously impair the City’s exercise of its authority in this field because it only restrained a municipal planning authority from dealing with those substantive planning matters that had been considered by the EUB. It maintained that if the Board did not consider and resolve land-use planning matters as a necessary component of its deliberations, the City development approval process regarding RD 11 would not be restricted or limited by the Board’s decision.

In any event, EPCOR submitted that RD 11 was entirely consistent with the City’s land-use planning instruments, pointing out that the City approved the plant expansion. EPCOR asserted that planning documents, such as the Municipal Development Plan, the North Saskatchewan River Valley Area Redevelopment Plant (ARP), the Rossdale ARP, and the relevant land-use bylaw, provide and allow for the present and continued use of the Rossdale site for utility purposes. It stated that it was not necessary or proper for the Board to consider whether the expansion was “essential” pursuant to the terms of the North Saskatchewan River Valley ARP, as this was a land-use planning matter to be addressed by the City’s planning process in the context of an application for a development permit.

3.3.2 Views of the Interveners

Both CACCL/EFCL and ConCerv submitted that the Board must take into account the current land-use regime and the evolution of land-use planning instruments relating to the City’s river valley in order to properly ascertain whether RD 11 met the public interest. They maintained that land use and the potential impacts on such use by energy projects are fundamentally relevant to the Board’s consideration of whether a project is in the public interest. CACCL/EFCL argued that the municipal land-use planning regime must be accepted by the Board as a civic expression of the desired use of the Saskatchewan River Valley, including the Rossdale site. These interveners explained that the purpose of the land-use planning instruments was to preserve the natural beauty of the river valley for recreation and park usage and to eliminate or minimize its use for industrial facilities.

CACCL/EFCL and ConCerv stated that the plain meaning and effect of Section 619 gave the Board an overwhelming precedence over municipal planning instruments, pointing out, for

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 9

example, that if the Board granted an approval, a development permit that complies with Board approval must be issued by the municipality. Other limitations on a municipality’s land-use planning authority included the mandatory amendment of statutory plans or bylaws to conform to Board-approved facilities and the inability to conduct hearings into matters determined by the Board in its approval. The result, they maintained, was to eliminate the public from meaningful participation in the City’s consideration of EPCOR’s application for a development permit or related planning approvals. CACCL/EFCL and ConCerv concluded that the Board must therefore assess the relevant land-use planning instruments and determine whether RD 11 met these desired planning policies, including whether RD 11 was essential under these planning documents.

RCL stated that while the City had authority over land-use matters and the ability to impose whatever land-use designation it deemed appropriate, the authority to construct and operate the plant was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Board, which must make its decision based on the project being in the public interest. It argued that it was necessary to examine the planning documents, especially the intended future use of the river valley and Rossdale Flats in particular, in order to compare RD 11 not only to the status quo, but also to the decommissioning of the plant, which it submitted was a long-standing representation made by the City to its residents.

RCL presented a review of the relevant planning instruments with the aim of establishing that future uses for the Rossdale site did not include the existing power plant or RD 11. It urged the Board to accept this analysis as justification for holding that the RD 11 expansion was contrary to the public interest.

3.3.3 Views of the Board

The Board maintains its views on Section 619 of the MG Act as expressed in the MOD. EUB approvals of energy facilities will take precedence over land-use planning instruments enacted by municipalities to the extent that the Board has addressed land-use issues in its decision. The following passage from Professor F.A. Laux’s Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (second edition), on page 3-17, is instructive:

Where the NRCB or the AEUB has sanctioned a project that also requires planning approval, the project may not be vetoed or altered in any way by the planning body in respect of considerations and issues that have been addressed by the provincial body. On the other hand, the planning agency’s powers remain unfettered in respect of planning considerations and issues that have not been addressed by the provincial body.

The Board will therefore not make a determination of whether the City has decided that the expansion of the Rossdale Power Plant is essential or whether the City must, under its development approval process, make such a finding. This is a matter for the City’s planning and development process. The test for the Board under its empowering legislation is set forth in Section 2.1 of the ERC Act, Section 2.1 of the HEE Act, and Section 6 of the EU Act. The test is whether the project is in the public interest, taking into account a number of factors, one being that competitive market forces will guide investment and pricing decisions regarding power generation projects. The proposed plant expansion need not be deemed essential under the Board’s legislation.

10 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

However, the issue of land use in the river valley is relevant to the Board’s consideration of the application. As explained in EUB Decision 2000-30 (which dealt with industrial development in the County of Strathcona), on page 11:

…the Board accepts that in reaching decisions regarding energy projects, the public interest, as expressed in the energy statutes, obliges it to consider the impacts of energy-related activities on neighbouring lands... The potential effect of energy-related activities on lands situated near a project site may also be described generally as a land-use issue, because the potential effects may limit or impair the use and enjoyment to which owners may legitimately wish to put their lands. In this context, the issue is one that would be properly considered by the Board.

With respect to the evidence of the interveners related to the present and historic nature of land-use planning policies, plans, and instruments for the river valley, the Board does not accept that such evidence constitutes “land-use planning issues” or “City of Edmonton’s approval process for project,” as intended by the Board and described in the MOD. For the Board’s purposes, this evidence simply indicates that the City has, for close to 100 years, enacted planning instruments and policies designed to preserve the natural beauty of the river valley and allow for industrial uses, such as the Rossdale Power Plant. The Board considers this type of evidence in the context of the impacts of the proposed project on adjacent lands. It is a description of the past, present, and future uses of the area. The Board may better appreciate the actual effects of RD 11, if any, on such usage by the introduction of this evidence. The Board is not bound, however, to give expression to the City’s land-use policies, plans, and instruments in determining the applications before it. Approval or rejection of the application is based on the public interest criteria contained in the Board’s enabling legislation.

4 ISSUES

The Board believes the issues related to Application No. 990289 to be • public consultation and involvement • site selection, including security of supply, transmission, and existing infrastructure • environmental air quality water quality and aquatic resources noise • socioeconomic river valley land use land values • historical and archaeological resources historic power plant buildings archaeological resources • risk assessment and the emergency response plan

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 11

5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT

5.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR stated that during the two years since it first announced the Rossdale 11 project it had worked hard to consult with the various parties that had expressed an interest in its application. EPCOR said that its public consultation process included open houses, plant tours, and meetings with neighbourhood residents and associations, community groups, business groups, environmental groups, First Nations, Métis groups, and government agencies.

EPCOR explained that it had also provided information to the public through the media, flyers, and the RD 11 Project Internet site. EPCOR stated that its consultation process would be ongoing, while the corporation proceeds with detailed project design and the development of an important historical and cultural interpretative centre within the Rossdale site.

EPCOR indicated that it had committed to work with nearby residents to improve the site and the overall neighbourhood. It further believed that it had worked reasonably with interested parties to make the project acceptable to all. EPCOR insisted that it had done its best to communicate the numerous benefits of the project to the public.

EPCOR testified that it held two open houses in November 1998 and March 1999. It invited residents from the surrounding community and those from across the river who overlook the site to the first open house. It invited its Public Advisory Board, the Strathcona Community League, those who attended the first open house, and the public at large to the second open house. EPCOR indicated that it advertised the second open house in the two daily newspapers. It stated that the advertisement was intended to invite anyone who wished to obtain specific information on the project to attend the open house.

EPCOR took exception to the suggestion that its public consultation program had been in any way misleading. It believed that it had provided all the information that the public needed in its application to the EUB and in subsequent supporting documents. Furthermore, EPCOR contended that it had conducted an extensive public consultation process that had been informative, open, and accurate. EPCOR did not agree that inaccuracies in its public information made all its public consultation information suspect. EPCOR admitted that perhaps from time to time some statements might not have been as accurate as they could have been. However, it said that when inaccuracies did and do occur, it was its policy to act quickly to acknowledge and correct them.

In response to the contention that the public should be consulted on the future of the Maxwell Dewar building and the archaeological finds on its site, EPCOR initially maintained that ACD was the only voice that it was required to heed on the issue of historical resources. However, later in the hearing, EPCOR stated a willingness to discuss the future of the building with community and heritage representatives.

EPCOR stated that it had a Public Advisory Committee (PAC), composed of representatives of the residential communities, the business community, and other groups and pointed out that both RCL and CACCL had representatives on that committee. It stated that the committee as a whole

12 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

had agreed with the project. EPCOR believed that it was the responsibility of individual committee members to report back to their respective associations or groups. It also said that it was not its responsibility to ensure that the committee members were indeed representing the views of their respective groups to EPCOR.

EPCOR concluded that it had done everything in its power to cooperate and consult with the public and, therefore, it did not see the need to change its approach in the future. It argued that the Rossdale Power Plant had never prevented the public from enjoying the river valley and the land therein and that, furthermore, the plant was in the public interest because EPCOR had improved the pathways around its site and kept them clear in winter. EPCOR remained firm in its belief that a majority of residents in Strathcona and Rossdale were satisfied with the RD 11 project.

5.2 Views of the Interveners

Many of the interveners believed that EPCOR had not carried out an adequate public consultation process. Although some interveners shared the opinion that EPCOR’s public consultation process was inadequate, flawed, and misleading, each had its respective reasons for believing such was the case.

Many individuals and groups expressed the view that the Rossdale site was an important historical and cultural site for many varied reasons. They argued that EPCOR should have been cognizant of this and, therefore, should have performed a broad-spectrum public consultation regarding the historical and archaeological resources located within the site. They did not agree with EPCOR’s view that only ACD should participate in the treatment of historical and archaeological resources. Instead they believed that it was EPCOR’s responsibility to consult publicly with a broad cross-section of the public on the ultimate fate of these resources.

ConCerv believed that the public consultation program undertaken by EPCOR was both inadequate and misleading. It stated that the open houses were poorly attended and inadequately handled by EPCOR. ConCerv argued that one small advertisement in the newspapers would not be seen by many people and would not attract any attention from the public at large. It noted that EPCOR staff did not present the details of the project to each individual that attended the open house. Furthermore, ConCerv argued that people would not have a clear idea of the project because the impacts were not provided. Concerv was of the view that some statements in EPCOR’s public information package were incorrect and, therefore, it did not find it possible to have confidence in the other information provided by EPCOR.

To further support its opinion, ConCerv argued that prior to this application, it was widely believed that the Rossdale Power Plant would be phased out. It provided copies of City brochures promoting the revitalization of Rossdale in which the Rossdale Power Plant was not shown, even though the Water Treatment Plant, occupying a part of the same site, was shown. It felt that the brochure was an indication that City planners had intended that the power plant would be phased out over time. However, ConCerv concluded from the material provided by EPCOR that contrary to earlier brochures, in the future the plant would expand and become a massive power plant. ConCerv argued that approval of RD 11 would effectively reverse the previously accepted plan to phase out the power plant from the river valley.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 13

CACCL/EFCL questioned why EPCOR did not issue press releases associated with certain archaeological finds on the site. It reasoned that EPCOR was withholding project information from the public so that the full impacts of the project would not be commonly known.

CACCL/EFCL contended that until about the time of hearing it had no knowledge of EPCOR’s PAC or that it supposedly had a representative on that committee. It stated that the representative, who had now been replaced on the committee, had been a member of its group several years prior. However, upon leaving CACCL, he did not notify CACCL/EFCL of his membership on the PAC but retained it as a member at large. CACCL/EFCL believed that EPCOR had a responsibility to ensure that its committee members were truly representing their respective groups and that the proper information was being reported back to the groups.

In general, RCL agreed with the stand taken by ConCerv regarding EPCOR’s consultation efforts. The two had a number of members in common.

RCL also reported a similar situation to that of CACCL/EFCL with regard to its representative on the PAC. RCL claimed that its representative was a member of the previous community board and, in fact, a person who favoured the project and was, therefore, not in agreement with the present board’s thinking.

Members of some First Nations and Métis groups believed that EPCOR had not included them in its consultation process until the last minute. As the original inhabitants of the Rossdale site, they believed that they should have been consulted from the beginning. These interveners contended that they should have been consulted by EPCOR in order to correctly ascertain the true location of the cemetery and any other possible burial sites, as well as to provide oral history on the cultural and spiritual significance of the Rossdale site.

Some of the other interveners that had attended the open houses and been in touch with EPCOR to obtain information on environmental effects said that EPCOR was not cooperative and was reluctant to supply the details they wanted.

ACD said that EPCOR advised it of the company’s intention to construct and operate the RD 11 unit in January 1999. ACD stated that on March 2, 1999, ACD notified EPCOR that a historical resources impact assessment (HRIA) was required for the proposed project to assess the impact of the proposed project on archaeological and historic resources within the development area.

ACD explained that its legislation does not permit it to direct the owner of land on which historical resources are located to consult with members of the public. However, it indicated that it did verbally advise EPCOR that contact with local First Nations communities concerning the RD 11 project would be advisable.

ACD said that if its Minister believed that it was in the public interest to designate any facilities within the Rossdale site as provincial historic resources, it would issue a notice of intention to EPCOR protecting the facility for 120 days. It said that its Minister has 120 days to make a final decision on the designation. The notice of intention would then be published in the Alberta Gazette at least 60 days prior to the expiry of the 120 days, allowing interested parties 30 days in

14 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

which to advise ACD that they wished to make representation concerning the proposed designation.

5.3 Views of the Board

The Board believes that the history of the EPCOR site, the nature of its proposed development, and the interest in the issues that it raised created a very difficult challenge for EPCOR with respect to public consultation. In addition, the Board notes that despite extensive discussion of issues not only in the earlier consultation phase, but also at the public hearing, there remain strongly disparate views between EPCOR and interveners about issues.

For example, some interveners took the view that further development at the site should not occur based on municipal planning decisions that they perceived could prevent such development and might even result in all of the industrial development being removed from the site. In addition, they said that a decision by the Board to approve the project would override any planning decisions or processes that might enable the public to have additional input. EPCOR had a different view. It believed that its proposed development was permitted under the municipal plans. Given the significant difference in positions, the Board seriously doubts that the parties could reach a resolution on this issue through the consultation required as part of the EUB application process.

Similarly, some of the First Nations and Métis interveners took the position that the cemetery is located farther to the east than EPCOR believed it to be, and in any event that there was a likelihood of a significant number of burials in the vicinity of the proposed RD 11 site, which could be encountered and disturbed if the project proceeded. As a result of its investigations, EPCOR believed that, except for a small corner, the cemetery is located to the west and mostly outside of the fence line of the site. Therefore, it is apparent to the Board that these diametrically opposed views were a significant barrier to efficient consultation. The Board also recognizes that the primary responsibility for the issues raised by various First Nations interveners rests with agencies other than the applicant or the EUB, for example, ACD, the City, and the Province.

Regarding historical resources, some interveners took the view that the LP Building needed to be preserved in its entirety and were opposed to any approach that would result in less than complete preservation. EPCOR believed that it could proceed by preserving only a portion of the LP Building and still meet the requirements of ACD. It does not appear to the Board that there was any remedy through consultation that would resolve this conflict, and therefore, the regulator, in this instance ACD, must decide what is to be done.

The Board also notes that for some of the consultation activities carried out by EPCOR it was ultimately unclear as to whether or not the people who EPCOR thought were representing the community in consultation efforts were actually doing so. For example, the company believed that an individual who lived in Rossdale and who was a member of EPCOR’s PAC was informing the community and was representing the position of the community to EPCOR. It became clear at the hearing that this was not the case. The Board believes that it was reasonable for EPCOR to believe that this person was representing Rossdale. The Board further believes that there was an unfortunate misunderstanding between the person and the community at large about the role he was playing and the responsibility he had to report back to the community and

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 15

to take the community’s position to EPCOR. Regrettably, it appears that communication between the individual and the community was poor and, therefore, the Board recognizes that EPCOR could have created other opportunities for consultation between it and the community. However, the community league must also carry some responsibility for the misunderstanding.

Notwithstanding the factors that created the difficulties in achieving effective and efficient public consultation, the Board also believes that the issues arising from the site and the proposal put a special responsibility on the applicant to provide public consultation efforts that exceed the ordinary. It is not evident to the Board that EPCOR’s public consultation effort was as extensive and comprehensive as it might have been. In particular, the Board notes that some interveners said that they were excluded from consultation events. The Board also notes that the unique relationship between EPCOR and the City, which has jurisdiction over planning issues, seemed to limit the public’s ability to have input to these matters, causing the citizens to express their frustration at the EUB hearing.

The Board notes that many parties were very dissatisfied with EPCOR’s public consultation efforts. Having regard for the views of the parties, the Board believes that EPCOR did not do an adequate job of public consultation and that many of its actions were reactive rather than proactive. The Board believes that EPCOR should have taken much more action at an earlier stage to determine who was interested in its proposal and what questions and concerns they had that it needed to address. The Board believes that although a better public consultation effort may not have resolved all of the issues, it may have resolved some of them, and of those that could not be resolved, it likely would have better defined them, resulting in a more efficient hearing.

The Board notes that there will be further opportunities to address consultation needs should the project proceed and that EPCOR plans to do this.

6 SITE SELECTION, INCLUDING SECURITY OF SUPPLY, TRANSMISSION, AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

6.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR indicated that the RD 11 project would consist of a new 170 MW gas turbine generating unit operating in combined cycle configuration with the existing Unit 8 steam turbine generating unit. It stated that by proceeding with this project, the efficiency of Unit 8 working in combined cycle with Unit 11 would improve from 26 to 47 per cent, an efficiency gain unique to the Rossdale site. EPCOR indicated that the addition of RD 11 would not expand the capacity of the site but rather return it to its early 1990s’ installed capacity of approximately 400 MW. The proposed 170 MW would be added to the current capacity of 220 MW.

EPCOR submitted that it selected this site for the following reasons:

• There is existing infrastructure in place.

16 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

• The Rossdale Unit 8 boiler is the oldest steam boiler owned by EPCOR and is in poor condition.

• The Unit 8 steam turbine generator is in good condition and is of an ideal capacity for repowering with a combustion turbine.

• The efficiency gains of 80 per cent are unique to Rossdale.

• The site offers a unique opportunity to locate generation in close proximity to the Edmonton downtown load, providing increased security of supply for the city core and reducing transmission line losses.

• The transmission system is accessible on site with ample capacity to accommodate the new unit.

• The future potential of district energy is unique to Rossdale.

EPCOR said that RD 11 would be consistent with the historical use of the site and noted that it planned to operate the existing plant for as long as it was economic to do so. EPCOR denied that it had intended to decommission the Rossdale Power Plant in the year 2000. EPCOR argued that it had chosen the retirement date of the year 2000 for Units 8, 9, and 10 for accounting and depreciation purposes and that it was not related to the actual physical state of the units. EPCOR explained that, for example, if a plant never ran, it would still be depreciated over the same length of time. EPCOR predicted that by the time that the existing Units 8, 9, and 10 reached the end of their useful lives, alternative technologies would likely be available for continued power generation at the site.

EPCOR stated that the Rossdale location places RD 11 close to the downtown Edmonton load centre. It submitted that the new generating unit would provide an economic and environmentally sound source of additional capacity. It also believed that the location of the new unit at Rossdale would minimize transmission losses with the City’s transmission system, as well as increasing the security of supply to Edmonton in an emergency situation. EPCOR explained that an emergency situation could be a high-impact, low-probability incident, such as an ice storm knocking out all transmission lines into Edmonton.

EPCOR believed that the combined capacity of both the Clover Bar and the Rossdale plants with the proposed RD 11 would, theoretically, be able to supply the electric load of Edmonton without relying on the transmission lines coming into Edmonton from the west. However, EPCOR admitted that it had not done any transient stability study to demonstrate that the Edmonton power system would be stable should it be separated from the provincial grid. EPCOR told the Board that it had confirmed with ESBI, the Transmission Administrator, that it would bear any increase in provincial transmission system costs caused by the RD 11 project.

EPCOR rejected a greenfield site because, while new generation on a greenfield site may prove to be more thermally efficient, it would not provide the opportunity to reuse existing facilities to increase the efficiency of an existing plant. It also would not provide the security of supply to Edmonton, because it would be located a considerable distance away. EPCOR submitted that a

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 17

power plant had been situated on the Rossdale Flats site for close to a century and the site contained all the infrastructure required to provide generation, transmission, and distribution, together with an existing water treatment plant.

EPCOR explained that both Clover Bar and Genesee were unsuited for this type of expansion and reuse. It testified that the steam turbine generators at Clover Bar were too large and expansion was restricted by the terrain. Further, a significant transmission upgrade would be required to convey additional generation. However, EPCOR submitted that no new transmission lines were required at Rossdale and that only minimal modifications were required of the existing transmission facilities.

EPCOR further stated that Genesee’s steam-turbine generators were also too large. EPCOR advised that it was studying the potential for additional coal-fired electric generation development at Genesee as part of its future planning, noting that it had significant coal resources at Genesee. However, EPCOR said any development at Genesee would be not be a combined cycle type of plant that could be built in two to three years. It would be a four- to six- year development, requiring much greater planning and resources.

EPCOR declined to discuss any further potential generation projects on the basis that such information was commercially sensitive, given the deregulated generation market in Alberta and the number of parties interested in developing generation plants. It stated, however, that it did not currently have another cogeneration option that represented a more attractive business investment than RD 11.

EPCOR stated that in the past 20 years it commissioned and received three separate reports examining the concept of district heating and cooling, which it referred to as district energy. In the case of heating, the proposed system would extract steam from a generating unit and transmit the heat through a distribution system of pipes to the buildings. Rossdale would be the most efficient location in the downtown to feed heat energy into the system. EPCOR said that although all three studies determined that district energy was technically and economically feasible, it was not actively planning a district energy system at present.

6.2 Views of the Interveners

ConCerv and RCL complained that EPCOR’s application did not provide a sufficient analysis of its site selection procedure. Specifically, they argued that the benefits associated with the selection of Rossdale were not clearly enunciated, nor was there an adequate comparison with alternative sites. ConCerv maintained that although EPCOR identified alternatives to the Rossdale site, it conducted only a cursory technical and preliminary cost assessment of alternatives. S. Ulfsten submitted that given the current market conditions of rising natural gas prices, the only practical site for EPCOR to build more generating capacity was at Genesee, a plant that had been constructed with future expansion as an integral part of its design. She noted that the cooling pond was sized to accommodate future generating units and there was a long- term coal supply.

ConCerv and CACCL/EFCL submitted that Units 8, 9, and 10 were close to the end of their economic lives and certainly were at the end of their expected base lives. They further submitted

18 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

that the expected retirement of Units 8, 9, and 10 had been previously set by this Board to be the end of the year 2000, although this could be extended for a short time without undue expenditure. CACCL/EFCL noted that the low efficiency of the Rossdale plant even with the addition of the more efficient RD 11 unit would likely not justify significant life extension. Both interveners contended that an approval of RD 11 would significantly extend the life of an old, inefficient power plant poorly situated to supply market demand and that such an extension would be prolonged by the installation of another unit (as yet unapplied for) that they believed EPCOR had planned for the Rossdale site.

ConCerv was not opposed to the continued operation of the existing plant in the short term to meet Alberta’s energy requirements while alternative sources of power generation were being developed. ConCerv submitted that new power generation, such as at the Genesee plant, would soon become available. However, ConCerv stated that if RD 11 were approved to solve the short-term need for new generation, the citizens of Edmonton and the local community residents would be left with an unattractive industrial plant in the centre of its river valley park for at least 25 years, and perhaps much longer.

ConCerv and CACCL disputed EPCOR’s claim that the Rossdale location would enhance the reliability of supply to Edmonton if a calamitous event similar to Montreal’s 1998 ice storm occurred in Alberta, knocking out transmission lines into the city. They seriously doubted whether the Rossdale and Clover Bar plants could be separated from the rest of the provincial grid and still operate, and they regarded the likelihood of any benefit being provided by the addition of RD 11 as extremely remote to the point of unbelievability. With respect to transmission losses, these two interveners and Treaty Six noted that the need for additional power in Alberta was greater in the south near Calgary and around Grand Prairie, where loads had increased faster than generation capacity. On a system-wide basis, any increased power generation in the north would have a net effect of increasing power transmission from north to south. Therefore, they argued that an approval of additional generation at the Rossdale site would, in fact, increase transmission losses. ESBI submitted that, from its perspective, the proposed RD 11 would have neither a positive nor a negative impact on the transmission system.

CACCL/EFCL submitted that using the existing Unit 8 steam turbine in combined cycle with the proposed RD 11 gas turbine would reduce the efficiency of the entire combined cycle process below that which could be expected from a new combined cycle plant. They noted that the efficiency of the RD 11 project (47 per cent) would not be the overall efficiency of the entire Rossdale plant. The efficiencies of Units 9 and 10 would remain low, at 27 per cent. Therefore, the overall efficiency of the plant would actually be 39 per cent.

ConCerv, CACCL/EFCL, and RCL dismissed EPCOR’s justification of the site based on the past century’s use of it by asserting that the critical issue for the Board to address was whether new power generation at the Rossdale site would be an appropriate land use in the river valley in the year 2001. They submitted that approval of RD 11 would perpetuate an industrial land use at the Rossdale site that was no longer appropriate, given its location in the central river valley, at a time when there was a reasonable expectation that that land use for power generation would be discontinued.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 19

CACCL/EFCL stated that the historical reasons for the power plant’s location in the river valley no longer applied, since natural gas had replaced coal from the banks of the North Saskatchewan River as a fuel source and water could now be conveniently withdrawn from the river and moved up out of the valley using modern pipelines. It further noted that, unlike the early days of power generation in Edmonton, the Rossdale Power Plant now served the entire province through the Alberta Integrated System.

ConCerv, CACCL/ EFCL, RCL, and S. Ulfsten dismissed EPCOR’s claim that the site was a prime candidate for district heating. They pointed out that most buildings in Edmonton already had heating systems installed and that EPCOR had taken few, if any, serious steps since the 1970s to implement a district heating system, notwithstanding three commissioned reports on the feasibility of such an undertaking.

ConCerv, CACCL/EFCL, and RCL concluded that EPCOR’s choice of the Rossdale site for the addition of new generating capacity was motivated primarily by considerations of project economics. Simply put, the Rossdale site was the least costly alternative and therefore EPCOR’s best business case. They urged the Board to reject the application, since in the absence of economic benefits to EPCOR, there was no other compelling evidence to approve RD 11.

6.3 Views of the Board

The Board’s assessment of the Rossdale Power Plant location as the site for additional generation capacity must be made in the context of the Legislature’s express intention, through enactments to the HEE Act and the EU Acts and discussed earlier in Section 3.1.3, that the creation of a competitive generation market is desirable and in the best interest of Albertans. The approval, construction, and operation of RD 11 will assist in meeting this legislative purpose if, in addition to producing electrical power, it results in impacts to the community and the environment that are acceptable according to current regulatory standards, benefits accrue to the public, and no compelling reason exists to reject it. The discussion and Board conclusions regarding social and environmental impacts of the project are set forth elsewhere in this report.

The Board notes that EPCOR submitted that the Rossdale plant location offered distinct benefits to the public, including security of supply to Edmonton in the event of a catastrophic destruction of transmission lines entering Edmonton from the west, reduction of transmission losses, the utilization of existing transmission facilities on the site, and the prospect of district heating. It asserted that the Rossdale site had been the home of a generation plant for close to 100 years. The interveners refuted the proffered benefits of the Rossdale site and argued that it was time for the river valley location to be free from industrial activity.

It is the Board’s view that the Rossdale site does not necessarily provide the security of supply to Edmonton, as maintained by EPCOR. Although the Board believes that it is possible for all transmission lines feeding into Edmonton to be out of service simultaneously, it believes that this scenario is very unlikely. Further, the Board notes that no evidence was presented regarding the dynamic stability of the Rossdale and Clover Bar plants supplying the entire load of the City under islanded conditions.

20 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

With respect to transmission losses, the Board acknowledges that under existing transmission tariffs, transmission losses associated with any new generating project, whether positive or negative, are either charged or credited to the proponent. Therefore, if there were increased losses caused by the RD 11 project, EPCOR would be responsible for their cost under applicable transmission tariffs.

The Board accepts EPCOR’s representation that the existing Rossdale plant will continue to operate into the future. Under the current electric deregulation framework, the decision as to whether these units run is left to market conditions. The Board does not believe that the current Rossdale plant would have inevitably been decommissioned in 2000 but for the proposed RD 11 project, especially in light of the deregulation of the electrical generation industry contemplated in the EU Act. The Board places some significance on this point because the Rossdale site has been used for almost a century for power generation. The continuation of this, using to some extent existing electrical facilities, is not a jarring or unforeseen accommodation for the area.

The Board also acknowledges that while the concept of district heating has not led to any infrastructure being built, the Rossdale location may well provide a central location from which to generate and distribute the heat. Other locations may provide just as feasible a source.

Taking into account the above discussion, the Board finds that the Rossdale Power Plant site is a suitable location for the RD 11 project.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

7.1 Air Quality

7.1.1 Views of the Applicant

With respect to nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, EPCOR committed to comply with Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) National Emission Guidelines for Stationary Combustion Turbines, 1992. EPCOR said that NOx emissions from RD 11 would remain within the currently licensed rate of 83.4 kilograms per hour (kg/h) specified in the current Rossdale Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) licence from AENV. On the basis of plume dispersion modelling, it also predicted that maximum NOx and CO concentrations both at ground level and at the height of adjacent high- rise apartments would remain within the applicable guidelines.

EPCOR committed to adaptively manage NO2 emissions and to evaluate NO2 data from the Forest Heights monitoring station operated by the Strathcona Industrial Association. EPCOR also committed to install continuous stack emissions monitoring equipment at RD 11 and to report the results to AENV monthly.

EPCOR concluded from its environmental assessment that there would be no significant adverse impacts on ground-level air quality as a result of the project. Assessment of NOx emissions in the application had assumed a source concentration of 25 parts per million (ppm) from RD 11. At this source concentration, predicted emissions would be compliant with the Alberta Ambient Air

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 21

Quality (AAAQ) Guidelines. EPCOR stated that with the operation of RD 11 and improved technology, ground-level concentrations for both NO2 and CO would be reduced below existing levels. However, EPCOR subsequently committed to a source concentration of 15 ppm NOx from RD 11, with a resulting incremental improvement of air quality.

EPCOR cited dispersion modelling results with a 58.2 metre (m) stack height and the maximum NOx emission rate licensed by AENV that predicted that hourly NO2 ground-level concentrations from Rossdale could be reduced approximately 30 per cent below existing conditions. Using the 58.2 m stack height with an NOx emission rate typical of normal operating conditions reduced hourly ground-level concentrations by 20 per cent. EPCOR’S dispersion modelling scenarios using a 38.2 m stack height showed less improvement to ground-level air quality. EPCOR assessed air quality for both 58.2 m and 38.2 m stack heights and concluded that both heights would ensure compliance with AAAQ Guidelines. EPCOR stated that it had applied for an intermediate 47 m stack height because it would improve aesthetics in Rossdale while achieving acceptable air quality.

In addition to ground-level concentrations, EPCOR also assessed impacts of NO2 and CO emissions at higher elevations that would affect the air quality for high-rise apartment residents. Modelling with a 58.2 m stack height, EPCOR predicted that emissions would fall by 25 per cent from current levels. Modelling with a 38.2 m stack height, EPCOR predicted no improvement to existing air quality for apartment residents.

EPCOR also assessed cumulative effects on air quality, identifying vehicular emissions trapped during atmospheric inversions as the primary cause of poor air quality. EPCOR submitted that air-monitoring data supported the view that elevated emission plumes from sources such as Rossdale had only a minimal effect on ground-level air quality. EPCOR modelled the Rossdale power station generating at full load with RD 11 and two additional similar units to estimate the potential cumulative contribution of the plant to air emissions. The analysis found that averaged hourly, daily, and annual maximum predicted NO2 values were compliant with AAAQ Guidelines. EPCOR stated that it was satisfied with Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC3) dispersion modelling results that used climatic records from observation stations of different topography from Rossdale, noting that this was common practice.

To evaluate the relationship between NOx emissions and the formation of anthropogenic ozone, EPCOR evaluated ozone-monitoring data from AENV and meteorological records. It concluded that RD 11 emissions would not increase ozone formation. EPCOR said that NOx emissions would scavenge and deplete ozone downwind from Edmonton. EPCOR also said that temperature and mixing zone conditions in the Edmonton area were not conducive to ozone generation.

EPCOR committed to implementing an improved burner management system for Units 9 and 10, but said that it did not intend to install replacement burners or selective catalytic reduction technologies for further emissions control.

EPCOR said that air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would be of negligible importance due to the low concentrations in Rossdale emissions. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) liberated by incomplete combustion of natural gas would be

22 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

emitted at very low levels due to the 99.9 per cent combustion efficiency of the gas turbine under normal operating conditions. EPCOR stated that the maximum predicted ground-level concentrations of HAPs for all operating conditions presented no significant risk to human health.

EPCOR anticipated a 38 per cent increase in total plant emissions of water vapour with the installation of RD 11. EPCOR said that it would not be possible to reduce plume moisture from its stacks, since that was directly related to the volume of fuel combusted. The only possible mitigation of plume-induced fog conditions would be to raise the stack height to improve dispersion. EPCOR acknowledged that the release of water vapour to the atmosphere produced visible plumes at the Rossdale site during conditions of high humidity. However, it was EPCOR’s view, based on modelling of vapour concentrations, that stack emissions contributed negligibly to the occurrences of ground-level fog. EPCOR said that in its experience the visibility of stack plumes was of little concern to the public. Nevertheless, EPCOR agreed to undertake an observational study of the occurrence, extent, and frequency of water vapour plumes from the plant stacks.

EPCOR said that there were neither theoretical reasons nor observational data to support interveners’ concerns that plant-induced fog caused road or bridge icing. The company cited yearly accident statistics from different Edmonton bridges to show that there was no statistical relationship between occasional incidents of valley fog and traffic accidents on the bridges. Furthermore, EPCOR said that RD 11 would actually reduce the incidence of ground-level fog in the river valley. Units 9 and 10 would operate less often, reducing the quantity of cooling water to be discharged to the North Saskatchewan River and thereby creating less fog. EPCOR believed that conclusions regarding fog presented by ConCerv were tenuous and not supported by sufficient evidence. Although EPCOR did not agree that a case had been made for an adverse impact related to fog, it nevertheless committed to address the issue by undertaking an observational study to document the frequency and intensity with which fog from the Rossdale thermal discharge impacted downstream bridges.

EPCOR stated that the increased efficiency (80 per cent) of Units 11 and 8 operating in the combined cycle configuration would reduce total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 per cent per kilowatt-hour. Nevertheless, the higher operating load of the plant would substantially increase net emissions of CO2. EPCOR stated that it had stabilized current CO2 emissions from the Rossdale plant at 1990 levels, which, it noted, complied with the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol.

To address further CO2 increases, EPCOR proposed a greenhouse gas mitigation and offset program. EPCOR committed to reduce CO2 on a net basis of 50 000 tonnes per year for RD 11. It had planned additional offset projects and emission reductions to stabilize Rossdale’s CO2 levels. EPCOR said it would implement a site-specific plan for the management and reduction of greenhouse gases in RD 11’s first year of operation.

7.1.2 Views of the Interveners

ConCerv disagreed with EPCOR’s statement that RD 11 would result in a more environmentally friendly plant, citing the large predicted increase in mass emissions of CO2 and the 50 per cent

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 23

increase of NOx emissions compared with existing levels. It criticized EPCOR for doing no better than maintaining its current licensed NOx emission rates despite the availability of improved technology to reduce those emissions. It said that RD 11 would extend the life of an environmentally inefficient plant.

ConCerv believed that EPCOR had overstated the benefits of its project to air quality because it had compared the predicted emissions of RD 11 to the maximum licensed emissions and not to the historical operating emissions, as it should have. ConCerv also challenged EPCOR’s assertion that developing the plant at the existing site was preferable to building at a greenfield site. It said that the Rossdale expansion would increase pollution in an already crowded airshed (downtown Edmonton). ConCerv calculated that a greenfield power plant of similar capacity and with more stringent pollution-control technologies (e.g., selective catalytic reduction) would contribute approximately 92 per cent fewer emissions than Rossdale.

ConCerv predicted that RD 11 would increase the areal extent over which visible plumes could occur to 47 square kilometres (km2). This could diminish the quality of life for residents. It noted that the frequency of visible plume occurrences would nearly double and ground-level fog would develop in elevated areas adjacent to the plant, reducing visibilities to less than 205 m.

ConCerv’s study suggested that open-water fog plumes resulting from EPCOR’s heated water discharge might reduce visibility in the river valley during December to March. River fog could extend 1 to 2 km downstream, reducing visibilities to as low as 8 m to 137 m respectively.

CACCL/EFCL submitted that RD 11 would have an adverse and unacceptable impact on air quality. The community leagues were opposed to continued industrial land use in a river valley environment, saying that increased emissions and the release of waste heat were a concern for the present and in light of the proposed RD 11 any Rossdale expansions that might follow RD 11. CACCL/EFCL said that any further cumulative adverse impacts to the river valley from power generation were undesirable even if AENV guidelines were achieved.

Treaty Six was concerned that EPCOR’s assessment of air emissions did not appear to be based on the full generation load of the Rossdale plant. It believed that EPCOR should have also assessed air emissions based on potential expansion of more than one steam turbine unit. It also questioned whether inversion conditions, given the river valley topography, would cause unacceptable ground-level concentrations of emissions. Treaty Six believed adverse environmental effects would result from RD 11. It was concerned with both the release of harmful heavy metals from the combustion of natural gas and the formation of fog and asked the Board to ensure that negative impacts would not occur.

WCWC said the higher CO2 emissions would contribute to global warming, elevated levels of urban air pollution, such as increased ground-level ozone, and an increase in related human health effects. It stated that for each tonne of CO2 emitted, there was a societal cost of between $5 and $32 for additional public health costs attributed to such things as ozone effects upon human respiratory illnesses. WCWC said that if the application were denied, health costs of between $2.2 and $14.9 million could be saved. WCWC asked that more information be provided to address alternatives to the project, including the option of not developing the facility.

24 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Dr. Charlton questioned EPCOR’s NOx emission factors for Units 8, 9, and 10. He noted that EPCOR claimed that the Unit 8 boiler would produce 30 per cent less NOx than the Unit 9 and 10 boilers. While EPCOR promoted the efficiency of RD 11, Dr. Charlton recommended further improvements, such as flue gas recirculation. He said that the Unit 9 and 10 boilers should be modified to lower NOx emissions or should not operate.

Dr. Charlton said that 10-year average of NOx emissions from Rossdale were the reference level EPCOR should have used in comparing the anticipated emissions from RD 11. He believed that EPCOR had used high load conditions and emission levels from the existing plant during the last two to three years in order to overstate the air quality improvements that could reasonably be attributed to RD 11. He said that it was questionable whether RD 11 would actually improve air quality relative to historical averages of NOx concentrations. Dr. Charlton also raised the issue of heavy metals released during the combustion of natural gas and sought information from AENV to address it.

Dr. Charlton believed that the proposed stack height would not allow plumes to rise sufficiently above the river valley, resulting in less than optimum dispersion. He said that this was an important consideration, since he believed that the Rossdale NOx emissions were comparable to the total combustion emissions from all automobiles in the city. Thus, he argued, if AAAQ Guidelines were to be exceeded by industrial sources such as Rossdale, some future reduction of the number of automobiles in Edmonton might be necessary. Dr. Charlton pointed to a general lack of understanding by Edmontonians of the large load to the local airshed that Rossdale was capable of producing.

Mr. Wasnea was concerned that increased CO2 emissions of RD 11 might adversely affect the health of river valley residents. He accepted the evidence of EPCOR that while ground-level concentrations of CO2 had not been calculated, this non-toxic pollutant was not expected to have adverse effects due to ground-level concentrations.

AENV stated that although NOx emissions from the Rossdale Power Plant would increase as a result of RD 11, ground-level concentrations of NO2 would comply with AAAQ Guidelines. AENV expected that improved air dispersion from RD 11 would reduce NO2 concentrations at ground level and at the height of high-rise apartments.

AENV noted that the NOx emission rate of RD 11 would be more than 30 per cent less than the CCME guideline. AENV was satisfied that EPCOR’s use of dry low-NOx technology with the proposed gas turbine was consistent with its policy to reduce emissions. AENV questioned whether the 15 ppm low-NOx technology proposed by EPCOR had been proven through industrial use. It accepted EPCOR’s information that the manufacturer would certify boiler performance. AENV also encouraged EPCOR in its use of low-NOx burners as a pollution control measure.

Alberta Health and Wellness (AH&W) said that public health would likely not be compromised by the construction or operation of RD 11. In response to an intervener’s concern regarding health effects and heavy metals, AENV stated that the combustion of fuel types other than natural gas was generally associated with the liberation of heavy metals.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 25

EPCOR’s current EPEA licence requires it to participate in the Strathcona Industrial Association’s Ambient Air Monitoring Network. AENV said it expected similar requirements would apply to RD 11. AENV acknowledged EPCOR’s commitment to compliance with CCME guidelines and the planned installation of continuous emission monitoring equipment for RD 11.

AENV stated that it might require ambient air monitoring within EPCOR’s EPEA licence as a means to validate the company’s air quality assessment. It noted that ISC3 modelling would not have benefited from complete meteorological data from the river valley, as monitoring stations are located outside of the valley.

AENV stated that it believed outstanding issues concerning the applied-for stack height of 47 m needed to be pursued to determine whether mitigation for plume emissions that might contribute surface fog was possible.

7.1.3 Views of the Board

The Board accepts that the Rossdale Power Plant, including RD 11 and all other contributing sources (e.g., City), will comply with AAAQ Guidelines. However, the Board also notes that the upper limits of the guidelines would likely be approached if additional generating units were added at Rossdale. Without emission reductions comparable to those of RD 11 and the application of innovative technological solutions, the Board believes there to be limited capacity within the airshed to accept future emission sources from the Rossdale site.

The Board acknowledges EPCOR’s selection of low-NOX technology to achieve a source concentration of 15 ppm for the RD 11 project. With the 15 ppm source concentration and improved environmental performance and load factors expected for RD 11, the Board believes EPCOR would also be able to substantially reduce its licensed emission rate of 83.4 kg/h for NOx. The Board notes that EPCOR has not identified any future expansion plans beyond RD 11 and has no plans to amend the maximum licensed emission rate of 83.4 kg/h for its Rossdale plant. Notwithstanding, the Board will require EPCOR to report to the Board on a regular basis respecting the feasibility of reducing the NOx emission rate below current levels through operational and technological improvements for RD 11 as well as for Units 9 and 10.

The Board notes that EPCOR has previously undertaken to retrofit the stacks of Units 8, 9, and 10 to alleviate concerns about air quality. In terms of the applied-for stack height of 47 m, the Board believes that air quality issues remain a significant concern to residents in the area of the Rossdale plant and the City, and the Board also believes that there is still uncertainty regarding the impact of stack plumes and stack height on surface fog in the river valley and on ground-level air quality. The Board notes AENV’s interest in the potential to mitigate surface fog from stack plumes. The Board will therefore require EPCOR to undertake observational studies of both the occurrence, extent, and frequency of water vapour plumes from its stacks and the frequency and intensity with which fog from its thermal discharge impacts downstream bridges and roads. Due to the high variability of winter conditions, the Board will require multiyear observation studies. The Board notes AENV’s intent to review the proposed 47 m stack height of RD 11 during EPEA licensing and supports this review.

26 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Based upon air quality observations from existing monitoring stations, there is reasonable agreement with EPCOR’s predictive modelling of ground-level air quality. Due to the absence of river valley meteorological data in the modelling analysis, some questions remain regarding terrain effects upon air quality. The Board believes an air quality monitoring plan is needed to validate EPCOR’s predicted impacts and recommends that AENV pursue this during licensing.

The Board commends EPCOR’s ongoing corporate activities through International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 and the Voluntary Challenge Registry to better manage the environment. EPCOR’s commitments to establish offsetting projects for CO2 reduction and to issue a site-specific plan at the Rossdale plant for reduction and management of greenhouse gases are consistent with those corporate activities.

7.2. Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

7.2.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR submitted that the addition of RD 11 operations to the existing water withdrawals from and discharges to the North Saskatchewan River would not result in significant adverse effects to water quality or aquatic ecosystems. It stated that during normal operations, water withdrawals and the rate of coolant water and waste heat released to the river would be comparable to currently approved limits licensed by AENV. For short periods during which RD 11 might run independently of Unit 8 under upset conditions, higher thermal discharges could be expected. However, those discharges would be similar to full-load generating conditions. Water diverted from the river would pass through cooling condensers in a “once-through” process and be discharged back to the river. However, EPCOR said that while noncontact cooling waters would not contain chemicals, they would experience a temperature increase of 10 to 11° Celsius (C) and alter ambient river temperatures.

EPCOR modelled the thermal effects of its plume on the North Saskatchewan River in the context of the cumulative effects of multiple outfalls. Based on modelling results, the plume size would increase approximately 3 per cent with the addition of RD 11. Under all plant operating conditions and low-flow river discharges, EPCOR expected the mixing zone would satisfy AENV’s Surface Water Quality Guidelines. EPCOR measured water quality parameters and benthic populations inside its thermal plume, as well as upstream and downstream. Statistically significant differences in the mean standing crop of benthic organisms upstream and downstream versus inside the plume exposure area were recorded; however, EPCOR stated that the results were likely influenced by localized upstream nutrient enrichment. Due to the study design and confounding factors such as various other discharges influencing the river, it maintained that it was difficult to separate the effects of the thermal discharge. Nevertheless, EPCOR stated that benthic organisms of the North Saskatchewan River would not be adversely affected by cooling water discharges from the Rossdale Power Plant.

EPCOR stated that it was satisfied with the conclusions of its environmental impact assessment (EIA) that no adverse biological effects on the river were present and did not believe that additional monitoring was required. EPCOR stated that environmental effects on the river should also be considered in the context of cumulative effects. Should additional monitoring be

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 27

required, EPCOR noted that it would be necessary to incorporate other sources of discharges in any watershed monitoring.

EPCOR submitted that RD 11 would not cause changes to fish habitat or numbers of fish. It said that no changes were needed to existing intake or outfall structures, which it believed provided adequate screening to meet Alberta guidelines, minimizing fish entrainment.

EPCOR tested groundwater from the Rossdale site for contaminants and found it to contain metals, including barium. In the absence of AENV criteria for barium, the Rossdale sample was referenced against the British Columbia government standard and found not to exceed the 10 milligrams per litre acceptable limit. EPCOR reported that other metals analyzed were at concentrations below CCME criteria and Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines and were also acceptable.

7.2.2 Views of the Interveners

ConCerv challenged AENV with respect to EPCOR’s compliance with Alberta’s Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life. ConCerv said that on the basis of the EIA, ambient water temperatures in the thermal discharge plume could be increased by more than 3°C if RD 11 were approved. ConCerv was concerned that EPCOR’s current thermal discharge might already be affecting aquatic biota and that RD 11 might worsen the impacts.

Ms. Ulfsten questioned EPCOR’s assessment of thermal discharge effects, as she was concerned about possible impacts to aquatic life. She cited independent expert information regarding multiple sources of waste heat discharged to rivers and their possible indirect effects on aquatic organisms. In her opinion, the baseline aquatics data collected by EPCOR should be the reference point for further monitoring work, which she believed was necessary to test the company’s conclusions.

Ms. Ulfsten also noted the low number of fish caught per unit of fishing effort compared with past studies near the Rossdale site. She believed that aquatic organisms were affected by discharges to the North Saskatchewan River and that there was a need for a cumulative effects assessment of the river due to the apparent decline in aquatic species over time. She also believed that the practice of using current environmental conditions as baseline data for EIAs was misleading because it failed to consider cumulative effects over time.

AENV stated that EPCOR’s annual diversion of water, even with RD 11, would not exceed current licensed volumes and that it did not anticipate adverse effects, since EPCOR’s water diversions were less than 2.5 per cent of the river’s annual flow volume. AENV corroborated EPCOR’s evidence that increased water temperatures in the river due to RD 11 would be slight compared to current operations. It stated that EPCOR’s thermal plume was small enough to allow fish passage in unaffected portions of the river channel. Exceeding the ambient river temperature by more than 3°C was acceptable to AENV, given the hydrologic conditions of the North Saskatchewan River.

28 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

AENV accepted that EPCOR’s installation and operation of RD 11 would sufficiently protect fish from possible entrainment during water diversions. With limited opportunity for cooling waters to be exposed to chemicals, AENV had no concerns about discharges from the Rossdale Power Plant causing chemical contamination of the North Saskatchewan River.

AENV said that its management of cumulative impacts to the river emphasized a combination of cumulative effects assessment and collective improvement of discharges rather than managing single discharges. It noted examples of licence amendments to municipal and industrial discharges within Edmonton in support of what it described as a watershed approach. Regarding the appropriate time frame of baseline information, AENV stated that its approach was to compare environmental impacts of a project against existing standards or limits. It accepted the methods used by EPCOR to assess cumulative impacts to the river.

AENV stated that it was prepared to require EPCOR to complete additional monitoring to assess thermal discharge effects to the river should the EUB grant approval of RD 11. Although AENV was not concerned about groundwater contamination in the area at the present time, it also agreed that an expanded network of groundwater monitoring would be a useful precaution to detect any further changes in groundwater quality.

7.2.3 Views of the Board

The Board notes that EPCOR will be amending its current EPEA licence to accommodate RD 11 and to operate within environmental limits licensed by AENV. The Board believes that harmful adverse effects are not occurring to the river. Nevertheless, thermal discharge information that EPCOR submitted with its assessment of aquatic resources suggests that some alteration of the North Saskatchewan River and its aquatic ecosystems from unknown sources has already occurred. This points to the need for additional biological sampling and ongoing adaptive management of thermal discharges by EPCOR. The Board notes that AENV is considering a licence requirement for EPCOR to complete additional biological and water quality monitoring and supports such monitoring to evaluate impacts of thermal discharges.

Given the diverse land uses and activities, the Board also believes that there is a need for wider participation by water users in assessing and managing cumulative effects on water quality within the North Saskatchewan River watershed. While the Board understands that AENV and the City currently do some monitoring of water quality in the North Saskatchewan River, it is unclear what tools are available to address cumulative environmental effects within the watershed. The Board recommends the voluntary establishment of a jointly funded water users’ organization to examine environmental conditions of the North Saskatchewan River as a proactive measure. The Board believes such action is appropriate and will encourage AENV to pursue such a cooperative initiative among water users.

From limited samples analyzed at the Rossdale site, some groundwater contamination is known to occur. Given the long history of industrial activity at the site and proximity to the North Saskatchewan River, and in keeping with groundwater monitoring standards for comparable industrial sites, the Board believes that there may be some merit to an expanded groundwater monitoring network at the Rossdale Power Plant and intends to follow up with AENV on this

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 29

matter. Licensing requirements as determined by AENV for EPCOR should adequately address this issue.

7.3 Noise

7.3.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR said that the RD 11 project would not result in any significant adverse effects as a result of noise emissions from the Rossdale site. However, having recognized that noise was a significant issue with residents in the area, the company said that it would address both the level of noise and impacts of specific noise components. EPCOR conducted a noise impact assessment, which identified potential sources of noise from the RD 11 project and predicted the sound level contributions of each major facility on the proposed site. It noted, however, that noise from nearby facilities, such as the transformer substation and the water treatment plant, were not measured, because noise from these facilities formed part of the existing ambient noise levels.

EPCOR prepared the following table comparing the predicted sound levels before and after noise control against the regulatory standards for the Rossdale site, including the addition of RD 11. The locations of the alphabetically labelled residences are shown on the map in Figure 3.

Predicted sound level contributions of EPCOR Rossdale site with switchyard noise control and nighttime sound level limits (dBA) Predicted sound level contribution Nighttime sound level limits Site noise with switchyard noise control Current site EUB directive City of Edmonton Residence configuration Existing site Site with RD 11 (dBA Leq) bylaw A 45.4 41.3 43.2 51 50 B 42.3 38.2 39.0 51 50 C 42.0 40.5 41.7 51 50 D 38.5 37.7 38.7 51 50 E 55.5 48.5 49.2 56 50

EPCOR noted that ambient sound levels at most of the residences were above the 50 decibel (dBA) City bylaw maximum sound level for nighttime hours, even when noise contributions from the Rossdale site were excluded. It believed that vehicular traffic noise was the main source of noise affecting each of these locations. EPCOR also said it expected that ambient sound levels in the area of the Rossdale facility to increase as the city increased in size or as traffic volume increased.

EPCOR said that, with the exception of residence E to the northwest of the site, the contribution of the Rossdale site to total noise was less than the City bylaw maximum of 50 dBA for nighttime hours. EPCOR acknowledged that the transformers from the Rossdale site were audible at residence E, but noted that the majority of the acoustical energy at the site was due to vehicular traffic.

30 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

EPCOR made a firm commitment that noise emissions from the Rossdale plant with RD 11 would not increase above current levels and would be in compliance with the EUB Noise Control Directive (Interim Directive [ID] 99-8) and the City of Edmonton Noise Bylaw. EPCOR also committed to deal effectively with the high and low frequency noise components and other noises that are particularly annoying to the surrounding communities. To accomplish this, EPCOR said that it would implement the following noise mitigation measures:

• install noise barriers around the transformers in the switchyard;

• modify boiler stacks to address high frequency tonal components—this involves installing lined duct elbows to the boiler exhaust stacks 9 and 10, including a modification to the preheater seals for Unit 8;

• install ventilation equipment on the HP Plant building, allowing the closing of the roll-up doors on the north wall during nighttime hours;

• to the extent possible, limit construction noise to daytime hours;

• wherever possible, inform local residents in advance of any activities that may cause unusually loud nighttime noise and schedule these to create minimum disruption.

EPCOR said that it was committed to work with local communities on an ongoing basis to ensure that noise levels remain within prescribed limits. It said it would also undertake to attenuate noise emitting from the power plant toward the residential area to the northwest of the plant site, where the only violations of the City’s noise bylaw exist.

7.3.2 Views of the Interveners

Interveners raised three main issues:

• the need for EPCOR to meet both EUB and City noise requirements under the current Rossdale plant configuration and with the inclusion of RD 11;

• the need to address tonal components of the sound spectrum from the Rossdale site; and

• the lack of an effective community advisory panel and noise complaint handling and response protocol.

Some interveners expressed concern about existing or cumulative noise levels in the area and the potential for increased noise levels should the project proceed. ConCerv stated that inner city noise is already a problem and that new developments that will inevitably contribute to greater noise levels should not be allowed. RCL also expressed concern about the noise that it believed would result from the expanded facility. RCL said that noise was a significant issue and should be considered by the Board as a key aspect of the public interest.

Local residents were not satisfied with EPCOR’s statements committing to meet EUB and City noise requirements. They believed that the company should have ranked the noise sources and

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 31

the effect each source had on the residences surrounding the plant. They were also concerned that EPCOR had not developed a formal plan to attenuate the current and predicted noise levels and had failed to provide details of actual noise attenuation procedures that it proposed to employ. RCL argued that EPCOR had not taken the noise issue seriously until long after the application process began. As a result, there had been no real consultation with the community on the issue. RCL said that EPCOR’s recommendations on noise mitigation surfaced for the first time at the hearing. The interveners said that were it not for the application to the EUB, the noise concerns of residents would likely still not be addressed.

RCL said that the noise reports commissioned by EPCOR failed to detail the outstanding noise event sources responsible for background noise in the surveys with sufficient confidence. RCL also claimed that EPCOR did not understand EUB and City requirements well enough to ensure that these standards could indeed be met. It said that EPCOR’s own evidence showed that both EUB and City guidelines would be contravened under certain meteorological conditions. The interveners were unwilling to rely on EPCOR’s assurances that it would meet the requirements. They contended that EPCOR did not know if the required noise attenuation was technically or financially attainable, given that the final target was neither sufficiently understood nor predicted with appropriate accuracy. Interveners also doubted that the City would take action against the company if noise from the Rossdale plant exceeded the City bylaw noise limits.

RCL challenged EPCOR’s interpretation of the suitability of the EUB directive in urban areas, the appropriate measurement locations for the City bylaw, and the differences in measurement techniques between the two regulatory requirements.

Although the local residents recognized the contribution of vehicle noise to their sound environment, they pointed to the fact that during the late night and early morning hours, traffic noise diminished but plant noise was always present and invasive to their homes. Some of the local residents argued that traffic noise was not a significant factor in the area to the east of the plant or in the area called Skunk Hollow. Mr. Kozak, a resident of Rossdale, stated that high- frequency noise emanating from the Rossdale site was particularly intrusive and was significantly and adversely affecting his quality of life. He said that EPCOR had responded responsibly to his concerns. Nevertheless, he was upset about the time it would take to remedy current problems and was concerned that the problem could get worse with the addition of new equipment.

The interveners said that EPCOR’s community advisory panel and complaint and response mechanism had been insensitive to the residents and ineffective in dealing with the noise issue. RCL asked the Board to direct EPCOR to make improvements in the area of public involvement and complaint response, regardless of the disposition of the application.

7.3.3 Views of the Board

The Board acknowledges that the issue of noise, particularly in an urban environment, presents challenges both for residents in the area and the owner of the facility. The presence of two regulatory regimes for management of noise also adds to the complexity of this issue.

32 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

The Board believes that EPCOR’s noise impact assessment was conducted appropriately, indicating that the requirements of ID 99-8 will be met. The Board is also satisfied that the proposed noise attenuation program will result in the facility being able to meet the permissible sound levels (PSLs) designated for the area. It should be understood that mitigation must go beyond no net increase to ensure that PSLs are met under all ambient conditions. The Board also notes that ID 99-8 assesses noise from two perspectives, the quantitative sound pressure level measured in decibels and the impact of noise on quality of life. Normally, if the PSLs are met, impacts to quality of life are no longer an issue. In unusual situations, however, dominant tonal components at high or low frequencies may be extremely annoying and affect quality of life for some individuals even though PSLs are being met. The Board recognizes the impact tonal noise components may have on some people and believes the noise experienced by Mr. Kozak, for example, may fall into this category. Therefore, the Board will require EPCOR to resolve the matter even if the company is in compliance with the EUB requirements for PSLs. The Board recognizes that the Rossdale site is adjacent to a number of communities and that the impacts from industrial noise require special attention in an urban environment. Although the EUB did not receive complaints about the Rossdale site prior to the hearing, the Board attributes this to the lack of public awareness of the EUB requirements. The Board believes that its staff need to be more involved in noise-related matters at the Rossdale site to ensure that all parties understand and work within the technical requirements and spirit of ID 99-8.

While the Board cannot rule on or otherwise enforce the City’s Noise Bylaw, the Board is satisfied with the commitment made by EPCOR to undertake noise mitigation measures to meet it. In this regard, the Board encourages EPCOR to take steps to ensure that the City requirements and the PSLs are met. The Board also believes that in order to maintain its commitment to deal effectively with local issues, it will be necessary to develop a process to work with local communities. The Board strongly encourages EPCOR to invite the City to participate in its proposed community advisory committee on noise matters, thereby providing further assurance of commitment to compliance. In addition, EPCOR should give strong consideration to establishing an effective noise complaint receiving and handling protocol. This protocol should be made known to the community so that there is a clear understanding of where and when to call and what response the public can expect.

Therefore, in approving EPCOR’s application, the Board will condition the approval as follows:

• EPCOR will conduct, to the Board’s satisfaction, research into the presence of any dominant tonal components and other industrial sounds that may be characterized as annoying and report on what steps will be taken to suitably address them. Noise mitigation should target reducing the impact of such sounds to a level that would be less intrusive on the quality of life for nearby residents.

• EPCOR will conduct post-start-up comprehensive noise surveys under representative conditions at selected residential locations to confirm compliance with the established PSLs for the area. If the PSLs are exceeded as a result of power plant-related noise, EPCOR will undertake whatever steps are necessary to immediately reduce noise levels below the PSLs. It should be noted that failure to meet the ID 99-8 requirements will result in consequences regarding EPCOR’s operating practices in order to reduce facility noise levels accordingly. The Board has considered the consequences that could result from ordering a facility of the

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 33

size and nature of the Rossdale Power Plant to be shut down but, notwithstanding that difficulty, intends to enforce its noise requirements.

• EPCOR will establish a community advisory panel, as part of its public advisory initiatives, with participation of public members who adequately represent neighbourhoods surrounding the Rossdale site. EPCOR should also give strong consideration to expanding the panel’s membership to include a representative of the City of Edmonton Bylaw Department. The panel will in turn develop an effective community noise complaint receiving and handling protocol to be used by EPCOR. The Board would be prepared to provide staff members to assist.

8 SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES

8.1 River Valley Land Use

8.1.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR disagreed with the suggestion that the Board address land-use planning issues and the City’s approval process. This was in response to several interveners who raised the issue during the prehearing meeting and because EPCOR believed that the City has jurisdiction over land-use zoning and the issuance of development permits for the project. However, EPCOR did not object to interveners raising issues related to project impacts on land use in the river valley.

EPCOR submitted that RD 11 was consistent with the City’s land-use plans, bylaws, and zoning. According to EPCOR, current districting of the site allowed power stations as a discretionary use and none of the applicable plans or bylaws required or suggested that the existing Rossdale Power Plant be decommissioned or removed. In support of this argument, EPCOR noted a September 7, 1999, letter from the City’s Planning and Development Department indicating that it had no concerns with RD 11 in respect to land-use planning and various other issues.

In response to arguments raised by interveners, EPCOR noted that neither the North Saskatchewan River Valley ARP nor the Rossdale ARP prohibited power plant expansion, but served to control such activities in a way that minimized environmental effects. Furthermore, EPCOR submitted that the ARPs did not require the removal of the existing power plant. EPCOR noted that any outstanding issues regarding zoning within the context of existing plans would be dealt with through the City’s planning and development approval process. EPCOR also stated that, as a discretionary use, the power plant was not an exception to the City’s land-use plan, as claimed by some interveners, and that with the approval of a development officer, such development could occur under either ARP.

8.1.2 Views of the Interveners

RCL, ConCerv, and CACCL/EFCL argued that construction of RD 11 would not be in the public interest because of its adverse impacts on the river valley and the local communities. They submitted that expansion of the power plant was inconsistent with the North Saskatchewan River Valley ARP, which states that “new or expanded major facilities which adversely impact

34 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

residential communities shall be discouraged.” ConCerv and CACCL/EFCL also noted that under the North Saskatchewan River Valley ARP, parks and residential development are the only two future uses contemplated for the river valley and that the expansion of major public facilities is not allowed unless deemed essential and approved by City Council. ConCerv argued that there was no evidence to show that City Council had deemed RD 11 to be essential and that neither of the motions passed by City Council with respect to RD 11 actually could be construed as an approval.

The three groups also submitted that continued operation of the existing Rossdale plant was not in the public interest and that approval of RD 11 would perpetuate a land use that was no longer appropriate in the river valley and that would otherwise be discontinued. RCL noted that the power plant was not recognized under current city zoning, such as the Rossdale ARP or the land- use bylaws, or in future plans for the area. RCL claimed that on the basis of these documents, the site had been designated as a park and there was an expectation within the community that the existing plant would be demolished.

8.1.3 Views of the Board

The Board’s view on the significance of land-use planning instruments as part of the present application is set forth in Section 3.3.3 of this report. The Board acknowledges that the Rossdale Power Plant has coexisted with adjacent communities and users of the river valley for close to 100 years. Evidence provided at the hearing indicates that the City has regularly reviewed the status of the Rossdale Power Plant within the context of its plans and bylaws and that EPCOR will have to receive the appropriate development permits from the City before construction of RD 11 could proceed. Outstanding concerns about whether RD 11 is consistent with zoning and bylaws should therefore be directed to the City in the context of its approval process.

8.2 Land Values

8.2.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR submitted that the construction and operation of RD 11 would have no adverse impacts on the value of residential properties in proximity to the proposed plant. It argued that, with a few exceptions, the existing power facilities had not affected the value of adjacent properties and that its announcement of the RD 11 project in September 1998 had no detectable impact on the value of properties in the Rossdale area.

To assess the impact of the existing power plant on land values, EPCOR analyzed 280 sales transactions from the Edmonton Multiple Listing Services (MLS) for the period from January 1, 1995, to March 31, 2000, using multiple regression analysis in Hedonic Pricing Model format. According to EPCOR, this analysis showed that, with the exception of a few houses in South Rossdale, proximity to the existing Rossdale plant had had no adverse impact on the price of nearby properties. EPCOR claimed that this finding was consistent with the results of numerous proximity studies of the effects of high-voltage transmission lines. The studies cited by EPCOR showed that negative proximity effects were found only where properties were located within 200 to 300 feet (97 to 146 m) of transmission lines. EPCOR noted that in the case of RD 11 the

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 35

nearest residential properties were at least 400 feet (121 m) distant and most were more than 800 feet (244 m) away from the proposed RD 11 site.

EPCOR used the same data to test whether the value of properties adjacent to the power plant declined in response to the September 1998 announcement of the RD 11 project. It compared trends in the prices of properties in the study area with the prices of similar properties in areas that would not be affected by RD 11. According to EPCOR, proximity to the power plant site had no detectable impact on housing price increases during this period.

EPCOR reported that the statistical methods used in its analysis were conducted in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and that these are standard approaches for conducting proximity and view impact studies in Canada and the United States. However, to further support its conclusions, EPCOR noted that there was no evidence of any “panic selling” by house or condominium owners in South Rossdale or Skunk Hollow or by condominium owners on Saskatchewan Drive.

In regard to the contradictory evidence on property values presented by various interveners, EPCOR argued that those studies were not conducted in accordance with accepted appraisal standards or were flawed for various reasons. In the case of the study conducted for RCL, EPCOR noted that the analysis employed a smaller, nonrandom sample of MLS data and that in applying the direct sales comparison approach, RCL did not undertake any adjustments of the sales price data to account for differences in the nature of the property, such as age, size, or other characteristics. As for the study undertaken for ConCerv, EPCOR argued that it was based on the unfounded assumption that if RD 11 were not approved, the site would be redeveloped for nonindustrial uses. It further argued that the analysis relied on assumptions and studies from other jurisdictions and ignored actual market sales transaction data for the Rossdale area. Overall, EPCOR characterized the evidence provided by RCL and ConCerv as being superficial and unreliable.

8.2.2 Views of the Interveners

RCL argued that RD 11 would adversely affect property values in the Rossdale area. According to its analysis of MLS sales data for the period from 1996 to September 2000, RCL concluded that properties in the Rossdale area sold for an average 13 per cent less than comparable properties on the top of the bank outside the river valley, and this difference was attributed to the announcement of the expansion of the Rossdale Power Plant.

To make this assessment, RCL examined 79 selected sales transactions and employed a direct comparison approach, which involved estimating costs per square metre for various housing types in the Rossdale area and comparing these with corresponding values for highly similar housing elsewhere in Edmonton. For rental properties, RCL employed a gross-income multiplier so that there was no need to account for differences among properties in terms of size, age or other characteristics.

According to RCL, its direct comparison approach showed that the value of housing units in Rossdale, other than single-family dwellings, was from 6.5 to 29 per cent lower after the September 1998 announcement of RD 11 than in other neighbourhoods. RCL concluded that

36 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

because of the proximity of the proposed power plant, investors rate Rossdale rental properties lower than other top-of-bank areas. RCL stated that its evaluation was done in accordance with the standards of the Appraisal Institute of Canada.

RCL challenged EPCOR’s evaluation of land value effects, arguing that it employed incorrect assumptions about land-use zoning and other factors affecting property values. RCL also noted that someone unfamiliar with Rossdale and Edmonton undertook EPCOR’s study, and they were unable to correctly identify all the factors concerning variability in property values and the effects of the Rossdale Power Plant, particularly in regard to high-rise development along Saskatchewan Drive and proximity to the University of Alberta.

ConCerv argued that EPCOR failed to adequately or appropriately define the base case against which the effects of approving RD 11 should be evaluated. It suggested that the base case should consist of decommissioning the power plant and redeveloping the area with land uses that would not have the negative features of a power plant or other industrial development. ConCerv argued that the noise, air emissions, and vapour plume resulting from RD 11 would have an adverse effect on property values in the Rossdale area under this scenario. It noted that similar types of industrial development in other areas had reduced the value of adjacent residential properties by 1 to 30 per cent. ConCerv also noted that the City had recently decided to reduce the assessed value of a property in Skunk Hollow by 10 per cent because the view from the property is marred by the existing power plant.

ConCerv submitted that approval of RD 11 would cumulatively adversely affect property values in the Rossdale area by approximately $9 million per year. It argued that increased noise, air emissions, and vapour plume from the plant would cause a 1 per cent reduction in the value of all properties within a 1 km radius of the plant, a 2 per cent reduction in the value of properties having a partial view of the plant, and a 4 per cent reduction for properties with a full view of the plant. ConCerv indicated that about $0.1 million of this reduction would take the form of reduced property tax payments to the City.

CACCL/EFCL also questioned EPCOR’s assertion that development of RD 11 would have no adverse effect on property values but offered no data to support this contention. It stated that it was aware of numerous studies that showed that people living adjacent to green spaces enjoyed higher values for their properties while those living adjacent to industrial sites faced lower values. However, it did not produce these studies. It also noted that redevelopment of older properties in the Rossdale area may be delayed as a result of building RD 11 because the expanded power plant would affect the marketability of such investments.

8.2.3 Views of the Board

The experience of the EUB is that landowners often have concerns about the effect that new industrial development may have upon the value of their properties. These concerns often arise in situations when a new industrial operation would impose environmental or social costs on an existing community. However, in the case of RD 11, the Board is being asked to consider the implications of installing and operating additional power generation capacity at an existing power plant that has occupied the site, along with other industrial users, for nearly a century.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 37

In considering whether RD 11 would affect the value of adjacent properties, the Board cannot accept the argument that the base case for this analysis should be based on decommissioning of the existing plant. The Board believes that given the history of the facility and land-use zoning, there is a reasonable expectation that the plant will continue to operate for some time. Furthermore, the Board believes that anyone purchasing property in the Rossdale area would have factored the effects of continued plant operation into their decision to purchase.

The Board notes that the applicant and interveners used similar data but employed different methods and reached different conclusions in their assessments of the effects of power plants on residential property values. To resolve these differences, the Board believes that it must first consider whether changes brought about by the construction and operation of RD 11 might actually affect the use and/or enjoyment of nearby properties and the resulting property values. Property owners and other interveners argued that RD 11 would have an adverse effect on noise, fog, aesthetics, and long-term development plans for the site. However, given that the Board has already reviewed these factors and has concluded that none of them will change appreciably as a result of RD 11, it can see no reasons why property values in the Rossdale or surrounding areas would reasonably be expected to change as a result of the RD 11 project.

Furthermore, the Board will condition its approval to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the community with respect to noise, fog, and air emissions. For these reasons, the Board concludes that RD 11 will not adversely affect property values in the Rossdale area or for high- rise development along Saskatchewan Drive.

9 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

9.1 Historic Power Plant Buildings

9.1.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR submitted that the proposed RD 11 project would be built to the east of the HP Plant and would require the demolition of all or part of the historic LP Building. EPCOR submitted an HRIA, as directed by ACD, which confirmed the historic value of three buildings (the LP Building, the administration building, and Pumphouse No. 1), focusing particular attention on the LP Building because the other two buildings would not be affected by EPCOR’s proposal.

The HRIA noted that the LP Building was designed and constructed in six distinct phases between 1932 and 1954 (Figure 4). Maxwell Dewar, a prominent Alberta architect, designed the first three phases (1932, 1938, 1942) of the building. The architects who designed subsequent phases remained faithful to Dewar’s design. The LP Building produced electrical power until 1989 and was decommissioned in 1993. At that time, the City sought and received approval from the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) (Board Approval No. HE 9308) to dismantle and remove the equipment.

The HRIA concluded that each of the four options developed by EPCOR would require the demolition of a significant portion of the LP building and would have a significant impact on the building’s integrity and heritage character. The report recommended a new option (“Option 3

38 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Revised”), which entailed constructing RD 11 with an east-west orientation as far north as possible to minimize the portion of the LP Building that would have to be demolished (see Figure 4). It also recommended the development of a long-term conservation plan for the LP Building, the Administration Building, and Pumphouse No. 1.

After evaluating all of the options, EPCOR submitted that its preferred option was to construct RD 11 with an east-west orientation in the middle of the LP Building (Figure 4). The northern two-thirds of the LP Building, including the 1932, 1942, 1947, and 1952 phases, would be demolished to accommodate the project and provide space for future development. The Switch House, built in 1942 and 1947, would also have to be demolished. The southern third, including most of the 1938 phase and all of the 1954 phase, would be conserved. EPCOR said that the remaining structure could be developed as both an interpretive centre and “for complementary uses related to power generation at the site.”

EPCOR argued that heritage character-defining elements of the LP Building are found in each development phase. It submitted that preservation of one of the earliest and the latest phases of the building would therefore sufficiently protect the heritage character-defining elements. EPCOR said it had demonstrated that its proposal would not result in any significant adverse effects to the historically significant architectural resources of the Rossdale site.

EPCOR reminded the Board that the Minister of Community Development had stated that no decision would be made on the matter of historic designations at the Rossdale site until the EUB hearing was completed. It asked the Board to approve its application without undue delay over the separate issue of historical designation. EPCOR said it would apply for provincial historic designation of the remaining portion of the LP Building if the regulators accepted its proposal.

9.1.2 Views of the Interveners

Interveners told the Board that the Rossdale buildings, and the LP Building in particular, were uniquely valuable architectural and historical resources worthy of preservation. A coalition of community groups known as the Fort Augustus Coalition, including a number of interveners in the EPCOR proceedings, had petitioned the Minister of ACD to designate the Rossdale site as a Provincial Historic Resource.

ConCerv described the LP Building as one of the most important historical buildings in the City and noted that the Rossdale Power Plant was listed in the “A” list of the City’s Register of Historic Resources. It criticized a decision by City Council to authorize the demolition of the LP Building without consulting the Edmonton Historical Board. ConCerv said it would not be sensible to destroy a unique historical resource that can only increase in value to accommodate a project with a limited lifespan and declining value. HSA added that City Council’s decision ran counter to recommendations from the City’s own Planning Department and did nothing to diminish the historical significance of the LP Building.

ConCerv said it was unacceptable that all of the layout options included in the terms of reference for the HRIA entailed the loss of a significant portion of the LP Building and the Switch House. It questioned why EPCOR had not investigated options placing the new equipment outside the footprint of the LP Building and why EPCOR had not explored redevelopment alternatives.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 39

ConCerv wanted the LP Building converted to a cultural use that would retain its integrity and historical value.

CACCL/EFCL noted that, with the exception of ACD, every person or group with expertise in heritage building conservation—including the Edmonton Historical Board and its Historical Resources Review Panel; the City’s Planning and Development Department’s Heritage Planner; the Historical Society of Alberta (HSA); and the Heritage Canada Foundation (HCF)—had opposed EPCOR’s plans to demolish a portion of the LP Building. The descendants of the Lagimodière family, Ms. Ulfsten, and ConCerv also said the building should be preserved intact. RCL said it believed that a majority of Rossdale residents would prefer to have the LP Building demolished. However, it also recognized the building’s architectural and historical value and opposed any plan that would remove a portion of the LP Building, saying that if the building is worth preserving, it should be preserved in its entirety.

Several interveners, including ConCerv, HSA, HCF, and CACCL/EFCL, said that the proposal to retain a portion of the LP Building would diminish its landmark quality and compromise the historical and architectural integrity of the site. RCL said that in its view EPCOR’s plan captured “the worst of both worlds,” because the historical resource would not be preserved and the objectionable use of the site for power generation would be continued and expanded.

ACD said it was prepared to accept the demolition of a portion of the LP Building, but only the minimum needed to install a single generating unit, while preserving enough of the form and massing of the building to retain its historical character.

While CACCL/EFCL and ConCerv opposed the demolition of any part of the building, they said that if some portion of the LP Building were to be removed, it should be the absolute minimum required to accommodate RD 11. CACCL/EFCL and ConCerv said it would not be in the public interest to allow EPCOR to demolish more of the building than presently necessary to accommodate future development for which there are currently neither plans nor approvals.

ConCerv and CACCL/EFCL said that EPCOR’s most recent proposal was contrary to the recommendations of both ACD and EPCOR’s own architectural consultant, because it called for the demolition of more of the LP Building than would be required to accommodate RD 11. CACCL/EFCL noted that EPCOR had written to ACD to say that it could not preserve any more of the LP Building. In its letter, EPCOR said that if ACD could not accept this, it would be unable to proceed with either the generating facilities or its heritage conservation plans. CACCL/EFCL submitted that EPCOR’s position was intransigent and at odds with the requirements of the regulator and therefore the project was “effectively dead.” It said that under these circumstances, the Board should not issue an approval.

Other interveners asked the Board to delay a decision on approval for other reasons. ConCerv said no demolition or construction should be allowed on the site until the Minister of Community Development ruled on the application to have the site designated as a Provincial Historic Resource. ACFA said that studies on the potential impact of the project on historic architectural resources were not conclusive and that a decision should be delayed to allow further study. HSA said EPCOR had failed to demonstrate that the history of the site had been

40 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

thoroughly examined and understood. It would not be in the public interest to proceed with the project, it said, when to do so would jeopardize significant cultural and historical resources.

CACCL/EFCL submitted that frequent changes in EPCOR’s plans for the facility and the fact that the company’s draft conservation plan produced in September 2000 remained to be finalized left the proponent’s plans in a state of flux and the Board in some doubt as to whether it was reviewing the final iteration. ConCerv said the late arrival of EPCOR’s conservation plan had precluded a meaningful public consultation process with city historic groups and the city heritage planner. In its view, EPCOR’s promise to undertake a full public consultation on the design of the RD 11 building was not adequate, because it would exclude the real heritage issues by pre-emptively excluding full preservation and alternative uses.

With respect to EPCOR’s architectural conservation plan, ConCerv said EPCOR’s proposal to preserve only the 1938 and 1954 phases of the LP Building would not adequately represent the building. It cited a September 9, 2000, letter from the City’s Planning and Development Department stating that the limited historical conservation proposed by EPCOR was “insufficient as a legacy for future generations.” HSA took issue with EPCOR’s assertion that the company had provided a comprehensive stewardship plan.

ACD told the Board that its mandate was to protect valuable historical resources by directing HRIAs for projects that could adversely affect historical resources and by designating significant historical resources under the protective provisions of the HR Act. ACD ordered EPCOR to undertake an HRIA pursuant to Section 33 of the HR Act. Its staff attended the hearing to gather further information about the impact of the RD 11 project on historical resources.

In a letter to EPCOR dated May 23, 2000, ACD expressed its intention, based on the information at hand, to recommend that the Minister of Community Development designate the Administration Building, Pumphouse No. 1, and the LP Building as Provincial Historic Resources regardless of the outcome of EPCOR’s application to the EUB. This designation would not prohibit alteration of the structures; however, any such alteration would require prior approval from the Minister. It would also recommend that ACD permit only the minimum demolition of portions of the LP Building to install a single generating unit, while preserving enough of the form and massing of the building to retain its historical character. The same letter recommended that the Minister await the outcome of the EUB hearing before making a decision on the matter of provincial designation for the site.

A number of interveners, including ACD, the Métis Nation of Alberta Association, and the descendants of the Lagimodière family, spoke in favour of the development of a cultural interpretive centre. The Métis Nation said it would be very disappointed if the Board and ACD determined that the relatively recent power plant buildings were the only historic resources on the site worthy of preservation in light of their evidence for the historical importance of the St. Joachim Cemetery and the Fort Augustus Coalition’s request for historical designation of the Rossdale site.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 41

9.1.3 Views of the Board

The Board heard from a number of sources including the applicant and many interveners, that the LP Building is a significant historical and architectural resource. Various concerned parties have tried to ensure its protection and conservation under the provisions of the City municipal bylaws and the HR Act. The Board understands that the power plant, including the LP Building, may still be on the “A” list of the City’s Register of Historic Resources. Community groups have petitioned to have the Rossdale site designated as a Provincial Historic Resource. ACD has expressed its intention to recommend to its Minister that the Administration Building, the LP Building, and Pumphouse No. 1 be designated as Provincial Historic Resources. EPCOR has also expressed its intention to seek provincial historical designation of the portion of the plant that would remain, should its proposal be accepted.

The Board accepts the evidence of the various parties that the power plant buildings are both historically and architecturally important and worthy of conservation. The Board will therefore have regard for the impacts of the project on these historical resources as one facet of its determination of the public interest with respect to EPCOR’s proposal. However, as previously indicated in Section 3.2.3, the Board will defer to the specialized regulatory regime entrusted to ACD by the HR Act to make the necessary conservation decisions regarding preservation of the historical architectural resources.

The Board notes that much of the information concerning the architectural and historical merits of the Rossdale Power Plant buildings comes from the HRIA. Early in the review process, ACD staff expressed their intention to attend the EUB proceedings with a view to gaining further information, particularly with respect to the views of other parties, and that they would make recommendations to the Minister of Community Development in light of that information. ACD staff also gave evidence at the hearing that they would be recommending the designation of the LP Building, the Administrative Building, and Pumphouse No.1 to their Minister. It is the Board’s understanding that the Minister will decide whether to designate all or part of the power plant as a Provincial Historic Resource in response to the petition from the Fort Augustus Coalition, the recommendations of ACD staff, and, potentially, a request from EPCOR. In the event of a designation of the LP Building, for example, any alteration to the building will require the approval of the Minister.

The Board is mindful of ACD’s stated interest in pursuing discussions with the company specifically to limit the demolition to the minimum required to accommodate RD 11. Interveners raised the prospective difficulty of reconciling ACD’s objective of minimizing demolition with EPCOR’s position that it cannot demolish less than proposed. The Board does not regard this as an impediment to completing its review of EPCOR’s application. The matter must be resolved through ACD’s regulatory process. The Board is supportive of the position of ACD and certain interveners regarding the importance of preserving as much of the LP Building as possible.

In summary, the Board is satisfied that the public interest regarding the architectural resources at the Rossdale plant will be properly served through the application of the regulatory scheme administered by ACD and its Minister. Further, the Board applauds EPCOR’s willingness to explore ways to adapt the remaining portion of the LP Building and Pumphouse No. 1 to interpret the history of the site. The Board also recognizes that many of the participants in the

42 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

hearing expressed an interest in helping to develop an interpretive centre and encourages EPCOR and ACD to take the opportunity to involve parties as appropriate.

9.2 Archaeological Resources

9.2.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR submitted an HRIA prepared by its consultant archaeologists that evaluated the archaeological resources in the vicinity of the proposed RD 11 project. The HRIA occurred in three stages, the first stage during the summer and fall of 1999, the second stage during the summer of 2000, and the third stage in the fall of 2000. The third stage was prompted by EPCOR’s decision to change the location of RD 11. The HRIA also reviewed prior historical and archaeological documentation relating to the site. The Board did not receive the final HRIA report from EPCOR.

In the course of the 1999 and 2000 excavations, a section of palisade wall and a number of artifacts associated with the fur-trade era forts located on the flats were excavated. Further, artifacts from three deeply buried occupations were uncovered, the oldest of which was approximately 8000 years old. All of the artifacts recovered by EPCOR had been heavily disturbed by the succession of power plants and water treatment facilities located on the site since 1902. However, EPCOR indicated that despite the heavy industrial impact, areas of relatively undisturbed deposits remained, both within the proposed RD 11 project footprint and to its south. EPCOR’s archaeologists concluded that the significance of the early fort occupations at Rossdale lay in both the uniqueness and the age of the occupations.

In the fall of 2000, evidence of three fur trade-era structures located within a fort was recovered. EPCOR’s archaeologists classified these remains to be of high regional/provincial significance. As a result of their cumulative excavations, they concluded that the density of fort-related remains increased to the south towards the river and that despite heavy disturbance, there remained areas of undisturbed soil that were likely to contain archaeological deposits. In their opinion, however, the possibility of finding significant remains warranting preservation within the RD 11 footprint was very low, given the extent of disturbance.

EPCOR’s archaeologists encountered no evidence of human burials during any of the excavations. Approximately 30 000 bones and bone fragments were recovered from the dig. EPCOR’s archaeologists stated that any bones or fragments that resembled human bones were carefully examined and compared with the comparative collection at the University of Alberta. EPCOR’s archaeologists classified none of the bones examined as human.

EPCOR conducted historical research to aid in determining the specific location of the historic graveyard located on Rossdale Flats. This research led to EPCOR’s conclusion that the graveyard was likely in use for approximately 60 years from the 1820s to the 1880s. Based upon two historical maps and other historical records, EPCOR concluded that the graveyard’s location was primarily west of the EPCOR site on the present site of Rossdale Road and the traffic median immediately to its west. EPCOR suggested that only a small portion of the southeast corner of the graveyard might fall within the site and that none would fall within the RD 11 footprint. This location was consistent with the documented locations of human remains

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 43

previously discovered in the area. It was also consistent with a historically known graveyard located in a grove of trees to the west of the fort. EPCOR’s archaeologists indicated that they had not used oral history in their efforts to locate the graveyard because they did not believe it would provide the specific information necessary to aid in their investigations.

EPCOR recommended that the following steps be taken prior to the construction of RD 11:

• The demolition of existing structures, removal of abandoned utilities, and stripping of fill layers associated with the RD 11 footprint should be monitored by archaeologists.

• Upon removal of fill across the entire impact zones, mitigative excavations should be conducted on all undisturbed areas within the footprint.

• Archaeologists should conduct at least one deep test of the precontact occupation levels.

• Archaeologists should monitor the removal of any subsurface decommissioned utility lines and building demolition in the areas south of the revised RD 11 footprint.

The locations of the various excavations and significant findings conducted for EPCOR, as well as the suspected location of the graveyard and area of concern about possible burials, are detailed in Figure 5.

EPCOR submitted that the proposed RD 11 project would not result in any significant adverse impact to archaeological resources. On the contrary, it said the archaeological mitigation program it had adopted would provide a public benefit through the recovery and preservation of historical artifacts that would reveal aspects of Edmonton’s early history.

EPCOR argued that the likelihood of encountering a grave or human remains in the area to be disturbed by the RD 11 project was extremely small. It noted that ACD shared this view. The company indicated that it would conduct further investigations to locate the corners of the cemetery that might overlap the western boundary of its property. EPCOR said that it had also adopted a burial policy to deal with the remote possibility of uncovering human remains. This policy, EPCOR said, would ensure that any human remains would be identified and respectfully dealt with in a manner consistent with the approach of ACD.

EPCOR stated that it would adopt the following commitments with regard to the archaeological resources located at the Rossdale site:

• accept the recommendations provided by its archaeologists for mitigating potential impacts on archaeological resources in Exhibit 26;

• discuss future studies relating to the location of the original riverbank and the archaeological occupations associated with it;

• provide opportunity for aboriginal peoples to be involved in site archaeological excavations and for aboriginal elders to be present as observers on the site on either a full- or part-time basis during excavations;

44 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

• conduct further investigations to locate the four corners of the cemetery and not proceed with landscaping along Rossdale Road until the location of the burial site is resolved;

• adopt precautionary measures to ensure that, if encountered, human remains will be identified and appropriately and respectfully dealt with through its burial policy;

• work with other stakeholders, including the City of Edmonton, to honour the burial site;

• develop an interpretive centre to acknowledge and conserve the architectural and archaeological history of the site for the benefit of all Albertans, as outlined in Tab 5 of Exhibit 10;

• proceed with discussions and consultations with respect to the development of the interpretive centre immediately following approval from the EUB; and

• ensure that stakeholders have a continued involvement in the historical and archaeological components of the project.

9.2.2 Views of the Interveners

CACCL/EFCL submitted that the Board should not issue an approval for RD 11 until the public has more and better information as to precisely what archaeological resources are located at the south end of the Rossdale site and how RD 11 would impact those resources. CACCL/EFCL pointed out that the people of Alberta own the archaeological resources buried beneath EPCOR’s site; they are not the property of EPCOR. CACCL/EFCL argued that by relocating RD 11 in an attempt to address the heritage building issue, EPCOR had unfortunately chosen the most archaeologically significant and sensitive area at the site. CACCL/EFCL submitted that public interest demands caution be exercised in granting approval for more industrial development at Rossdale, given the significance of the discoveries that have been made to date.

CACCL/EFCL was satisfied that the archaeological investigations at the EPCOR site had been conducted with the appropriate due diligence. It also agreed with EPCOR that the site was subject to a great deal of disturbance and that there was very little in the original RD 11 footprint that would warrant preservation. It indicated, however, that there was a good possibility that artifacts worthy of preservation might be found in the southern portion of the revised footprint.

CACCL/EFCL agreed with EPCOR’s proposal to remove all the overburden from the revised footprint and to then explore the undisturbed areas. This approach would alleviate any concerns about possible human remains in that area. It also agreed with EPCOR’s proposal to explore the area south of the revised footprint and with its intent to determine the boundaries of the historic cemetery. Until additional evidence could be gathered about the location of the cemetery, it agreed with EPCOR’s placement of the cemetery and supported EPCOR’s decision not to rely on oral history in that regard.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 45

CACCL/EFCL’s consultant recommended against full excavation of any archaeological remnants encountered south of the RD 11 project. He agreed that efforts should be made to determine the location of such remains but felt that the most appropriate approach would be to preserve the remains in situ for future archaeologists. With regard to exploration of the precontact sites, he recommended the use of three or four test holes over a larger area rather than the one test hole approach proposed by EPCOR.

CACCL/EFCL’s consultant submitted that the excavations at the EPCOR site revealed significant historical resources for both pre- and postcontact occupations of the site. He further indicated that under different circumstances, the site would be a good location for a large historical interpretative centre. EPCOR, he said, should assume a stewardship role and ensure that the archaeological resources of the site were preserved so that future generations might understand the site’s cultural and historical significance.

RCL adopted CACCL/EFCL’s position regarding the preservation of archaeological resources.

First Peoples/First Settlers (FPFS) strongly opposed the application because of concerns about the project’s impacts on the underlying archaeological and historical resources and on the remains of their ancestors whom they believed to be buried there. While FPFS agreed that the “Christian cemetery” was likely 120 to 140 m from the proposed RD 11 footprint, they ardently believed that Rossdale burials were not confined to that cemetery. FPFS argued that additional graves were likely scattered throughout the site.

FPFS stated that if the Board granted approval to the requested expansion, it would contribute to a “serial desecration” that has continued for more than a century. FPFS said that the Rossdale site was historically and continued to be a sacred site for both the First Nations and the Métis peoples that should be protected from further desecrations.

FPFS argued that EPCOR’s HRIA was substantially flawed because it failed to consider oral history and other significant historical documents prior to and during the excavations conducted on EPCOR’s behalf. These interveners argued that the excavations were tainted by an ethnocentric approach that largely ignored the Rossdale site’s cultural value for peoples of Métis and First Nations descent. FPFS stated that EPCOR had made little or no effort to consult with them in the early stages of the project, even though their ancestors were interred at the site. FPFS believed that EPCOR had a duty to engage in extensive consultation with them and that this duty was not fulfilled.

FPFS also argued that the location of the historic cemetery identified by EPCOR was incorrect. On the basis of historic paintings, photographs, journals, and previous archaeological work performed at the site, it suggested that the historic graveyard was much larger than recognized by EPCOR and that a larger portion of the graveyard was located on the EPCOR site (Figure 5).

FPFS submitted that Rossdale Flats was a gathering place for First Nations peoples for thousands of years. It stated that because of its history as an important ceremonial site, and because of the burials located there, Rossdale Flats was a sacred site for peoples of First Nations and Métis descent. It further argued that Fort Edmonton/Fort Augustus II and IV were the most

46 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

important early fur trading centres west of the Red River and that Rossdale Flats might be considered the birthplace of the Métis Nation.

FPFS presented a panel of elders who submitted that the RD 11 project should not proceed until EPCOR had completed appropriate consultation with First Nations peoples. The panel believed that elders from all of the aboriginal communities had a role to play in decisions concerning the future of the site. The panel also requested a moratorium on construction at the site to allow more extensive research and excavations.

FPFS’s elders panel stated that the remains interred at the site should not be disturbed. It indicated that traditionally once a body had been buried it was left alone and that there was no appropriate ceremony to address the disturbance of a grave or the relocation of a body to a new gravesite.

Mr. Wells expressed concern about the possible impacts of the RD 11 project upon any undiscovered human remains that might be located on the site. He said it was his belief that a number of veterans of the War of 1812-1814 are also buried at the site. Mr. Wells indicated that he was the direct descendant of a person who was buried at the site and that he wanted to ensure the site’s continued sanctity.

At EPCOR’s invitation, Mr. Wells participated in the RD 11 excavations as a member of the field crew. He was satisfied that the work performed by EPCOR’s archaeological consultant and crew was professional but said that he would have preferred to see EPCOR consider oral history in conjunction with the excavations. He expressed concern about the use of hydrovac equipment in any further archaeological work on the site, as it could potentially destroy or displace significant artifacts.

Mr. Wells submitted that the cemetery is likely larger than the area suggested by EPCOR and that it is possible that not all the burial areas had been located. He maintained that the RD 11 project should not continue until such time as it had been determined that it would not disturb any remaining undiscovered burials. Should human remains be encountered, he said, it was of paramount importance that they be treated with the utmost respect. It would be necessary to consult with the appropriate elders before any further steps were taken.

Mr. Wells requested that all future archaeological excavations should be monitored by the descendants of those buried there, including people of First Nations, Métis, French, and Euro- Canadian backgrounds. Mr. Wells further requested that the elders of the different First Nations groups interested in the areas be consulted on an ongoing basis with regard to the project. Mr. Wells supported EPCOR’s commitment to operate an interpretive centre that appropriately recognizes the site’s historical and cultural significance.

The Mountain Cree Camp Syllabics Institute (MCCSI), on behalf of Mr. Wells, stated that Rossdale Flats was a sacred site for the Cree people and that it had a spiritual and ceremonial importance akin to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The MCCSI proposed the use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) at the Rossdale site to help archaeologists identify human remains or gravesites. The MCCSI believed that SAR was capable of detecting disturbances and anomalies in soil and could lead to the identification of potential gravesites.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 47

The Association Canadienne-Française de l’Alberta’s (ACFA) representative provided evidence about her direct relationship to many of the historical figures associated with the site. ACFA opposed the RD 11 project and stated that further development may forever destroy important cultural, historical, and archaeological resources that should be preserved. The Rossdale site, ACFA emphasized, is historically important for all Albertans.

ACFA requested that the Board take steps to ensure the reburial of the human remains previously removed from the site. It also requested that prior to their reburial, the remains be subject to DNA testing. In place of the RD 11 project, ACFA stated that a cultural/historical development would be more appropriate.

HSA and HCF collaborated in their submissions because the two groups shared a common interest: to ensure that all aspects of the Rossdale site’s history are thoroughly studied, interpreted, and maintained. They stated that in the case of this application, the history of the site should be considered as a whole. They indicated that not enough time had been allotted to allow all parties to reach an acceptable standard of investigation. They recommended that the applicant be asked to prepare an integrated study of the site using all the research put forth or now in progress. HSA/HCF submitted that the applicant must continue its archaeological caretaking role of the site through time, as prescribed by provincial legislation. One part of that responsibility was the requirement for public consultation.

With regard to the possibility of undiscovered burials on the Rossdale site, HSA/HCF suggested that the documented evidence to date was inconclusive. They stated that they would like to see more work in that area, as well as some investigation into the application of advanced technologies to the matter of the burials.

The Papaschase First Nation Association of Alberta (PFNAA), the Mother Earth Healing Society (MEHS), and the Blackfoot Elders expressed similar views with regard to the proposed project. They all opposed any further disturbances to remaining burials that may be encountered and stated that traditionally gravesites were not tampered with. They consider the graveyard and the remaining gravesites as sacred and advocated the return of those remains previously removed from the site, requesting that they be reinterred in their resting places.

All of these interveners supported the creation of a multicultural interpretive centre located on the site that would accurately reflect the site’s historical and cultural value. These interveners also stressed the importance of ensuring that all the appropriate stakeholders be consulted and involved in the creation of the interpretive centre.

PFNAA did not object to the RD 11 project and stated that it was satisfied that the proposed expansion would not affect the graveyard. The Blackfoot Elders stated that they did not oppose the RD 11 project as long as the sacredness of the gravesites was appropriately recognized and protected. The MEHS did not object to the project but asked that the Board consider a two- to four-year moratorium on the project to allow time for EPCOR to work with the various groups on the oral and historical research for the interpretive centre.

48 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Treaty Six stated that its interest in EPCOR’s project extended beyond the burial issues. It considered Rossdale Flats to be a sacred site because of its long history as a spiritual and cultural centre. Treaty Six stated that its members had long gathered on the site for special ceremonies.

The Treaty Six panel stated that because the site is within Treaty Six territory, it had a constitutional right to be consulted about the proposed EPCOR expansion. So far, Treaty Six submitted, EPCOR’s consultation efforts with them had been insufficient. It asked the Board to delay its consideration of the application until such time as the appropriate consultation had taken place. The Treaty Six panel was not prepared to comment on the burial or historical resource issues until the appropriate consultation was carried out.

ACD noted that the HR Act provided for designation of historic resources as Provincial Historic Resources where preservation was in the public interest. It stated that the act also provided ACD with the authority to order assessments of the effects of projects on historical resources and to order that salvage, preservation, or protective measures be undertaken following such an assessment. ACD said that it had required EPCOR to carry out an assessment to determine the effect of RD 11 on historic resources.

ACD stated that the archaeological resources at EPCOR’s Rossdale site were important, but noted that they had suffered a century of serious attrition due to the heavy industrial development on the site. ACD stated that to date excavations had encountered only sparse precontact deposits, and because of the depths of these deposits, access had been difficult.

ACD indicated that the fur trade-era archaeological resources were not unique when considered from a larger regional or provincial perspective. It pointed out the existence of other archaeological sites in Alberta located along the North Saskatchewan River that were of comparable age and represented the same fur trade enterprises. It noted that the integrity of these other sites was in some cases far superior to that of the Rossdale area forts. Consequently, ACD submitted, the Rossdale archaeological resources could be considered as having high regional significance only if other factors affecting significance were not taken into account. ACD stated that the real significance of the archaeological resources was substantially reduced in light of the damage inflicted by long-term heavy industrial use and disturbance at the site. According to ACD, the site’s significance was further reduced by the existence of contemporaneous remains in a better state of preservation at other sites. ACD indicated that therefore it would not pursue Provincial Historic Resource designation of the archaeological resources within the RD 11 project footprint.

With regard to the issue of human burials, ACD noted that EPCOR had encountered no evidence of human remains in any of its excavations and opined that the likelihood of encountering such burials during the construction of the RD 11 project was low. ACD acknowledged, however, that there was a remote possibility that other burials could be encountered outside of the known burial locations.

ACD said that human remains did not fit the definition of “historical resources” as found in the HR Act and that, consequently, it did not have jurisdiction over them. It suggested, however, that it could have jurisdiction over any grave goods associated with a burial. ACD stated that there was currently a gap in the province’s legislation with regard to human remains located outside of

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 49

a registered cemetery and noted that the Government of Alberta was currently taking steps to address this gap in a timely manner.

ACD recognized the concern of many interveners about the use of hydrovac equipment in the archaeological work done at the site. It stated that while such equipment may be necessary in some situations to address safety concerns, it would ask EPCOR to minimize its use.

ACD stated that it would recommend to its Minister the issuance of an order pursuant to Section 32(2) of the HR Act requiring EPCOR to mitigate potential impacts to the archaeological resources that would be disturbed by the RD 11 project. ACD proposed additional conditions should EPCOR encounter evidence of human remains during the construction of RD 11. Finally, ACD recommended that the Board include as conditions of its approval the following commitments made by EPCOR:

• Prior to construction of RD 11, any structural remains (such as building outlines, cellars, trash pits, privies, and hearths) shall be exposed through mechanical excavation of the entire south RD 11 footprint.

• EPCOR shall conduct a complete archaeological excavation of any fur trade-era deposits connected with the intact structural remains that occur among or underlie existing sources of industrial disturbance.

• In any location already disturbed within the RD 11 location, but which nevertheless yields high densities of fur trade-era or precontact-era artifacts, such artifacts must be recovered for analysis and interpretive uses.

• At suitable locations to be determined by ACD (after receipt of the final HRIA report for archaeological activities in 2000), EPCOR shall conduct a deep archaeological investigation to explore for precontact-era archaeological resources, including those that might lie below the Mazama Ash layer.

• An archaeologist retained by EPCOR will be present to monitor removal of materials beyond the known fur trade-era archaeological layer into undisturbed sediments during construction. At this layer, any outlines of grave vaults would be evident before any human remains are encountered.

• In the event that human remains or traces of a grave, such as a vault outline, are encountered during the monitoring process, all associated construction will stop until the proper authorities (police, medical examiners’ office, ACD) have had an opportunity to examine the situation. If it is established that human remains are not of concern under the Fatality Inquiries Act, then the appropriate community groups (First Nations, Métis, Euro-Canadian) will be consulted as to how the remains should be treated.

50 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

• A physical anthropologist will be retained by EPCOR on stand-by to assist with monitoring and consultation with authorities in the event that human remains are encountered.

• EPCOR shall accept its archaeologists’ recommendations contained in Exhibit 26 for mitigating potential impacts on archaeological resources.

• EPCOR is committed to discussing future studies relating to the location of the original riverbank and archaeological occupations associated with it.

• EPCOR will provide opportunity for aboriginal peoples to be involved in on-site archaeological excavations and for aboriginal elders to be present as observers on the site on either a full- or part-time basis during excavations.

9.2.3 View of the Board

The Board recognizes the historical and cultural importance of the Rossdale site for all Albertans but is mindful of ACD’s testimony that its value as an archaeological resource has been significantly eroded by a succession of power plants and a century of heavy industrial development. The Board understands that this extensive disturbance, in conjunction with the existence of better-preserved, contemporaneous sites along the North Saskatchewan River, played a significant role in ACD’s decision not to pursue Provincial Historic Resource designation of the archaeological resources located within the RD 11 project footprint.

The Board acknowledges the possibility that further archaeological resources may be encountered during the construction phase of RD 11. The Board notes, however, that ACD endorsed EPCOR’s proposed mitigation plan for the project footprint, subject to certain conditions and its receipt of a final HRIA. The Board accepts ACD’s position in this regard and is satisfied that the proposed steps will ensure that any archaeological resources encountered will be appropriately protected and preserved through ACD’s regulatory process, as more particularly discussed in Section 3.2.3.

It is the Board’s position that EPCOR’s proposed mitigation strategy and burial policy, as conditioned by ACD, will ensure that in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, they will be treated with the utmost deference and respect. The Board is especially reassured by ACD’s position that EPCOR must consult with the appropriate community groups (First Nations, Métis, Euro-Canadian) as to how any human remains should be treated.

The Board is also cognizant of EPCOR’s stated desire to • determine the four corners or boundary of the historic cemetery; • work with other stakeholders, including the City, to honour those buried at the site; and • develop an interpretative centre to acknowledge and conserve the architectural and archaeological history of the site for the benefit of all Albertans.

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 51

In the Board’s opinion, the above initiatives are appropriate, given the very legitimate concerns raised by participants about the appropriate recognition and treatment of those buried at the site.

While the Board lacks the necessary jurisdiction to consider issues such as the future of the historic graveyard or the appropriate treatment of remains previously disinterred from the Rossdale site, it encourages those with the authority to address these issues, such as the City and the Province, to work together to address these very real concerns in an appropriate and mutually acceptable manner.

The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence before it with regard to the Rossdale archaeological resources and the historic cemetery and concludes that, within the context of the RD 11 project, the Rossdale archaeological resources can be appropriately protected through the legislative scheme expressed in the HR Act and as indicated by ACD in its evidence and argument.

10 RISK ASSESSMENT AND THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

10.1 Views of the Applicant

EPCOR provided an assessment of the risks associated with the proposed modification of Unit 8 (RD 8) and addition of RD 11. The assessment considered both individual specific risk (ISR) and collective risk.

It defined ISR as the probability that an adult would become a casualty considering his or her risk of exposure. The assessment employed a conservative exposure risk factor for residents, who spend more time outdoors and therefore are more exposed to risk than commercial or transient individuals. ISRs associated with the existing and proposed configurations of the Rossdale plant were depicted as risk isopleths on a site map. The analysis showed that at distances greater than roughly 50 m from the new equipment, individual specific risks would fall below the generally accepted risk threshold for members of the public of one in one million per year. EPCOR noted that the risk isopleths shown in its risk assessment would shift south under the revised proposal for the location of RD 11 (see Figure 4). The risk to patrons of a potential interpretive centre in the southern portion of the LP Building would still be less than one in a million, which is generally considered to be insignificant.

EPCOR submitted that collective risks were also shown to be insignificant. The annual risk of four or more deaths, for example, would be in the order of one in 900 million. EPCOR said that the margin of error surrounding the risk estimates was likely plus or minus 50 per cent, which would not affect the conclusion that the risks were insignificant. EPCOR said that it had adopted the risk mitigation measures recommended by its consultant.

52 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

10.2 Views of the Interveners

Interveners sought clarification of the assumptions that were included in the risk assessment. ConCerv questioned whether the relocation of RD 11 as proposed during the hearing would alter the conclusions of the risk assessment based on the earlier proposal to house the unit at the north end of the LP Building.

10.3 Views of the Board

The Board believes that EPCOR’s risk assessment was appropriately conducted and represents a plausible and appropriately conservative summary of the risks associated with the Rossdale project. The individual and collective risks to members of the public off site are very low and in the Board’s view are acceptable. Therefore, the Board concludes that EPCOR has an established emergency response plan that can accommodate the proposed changes to the plant.

Issued at Calgary, Alberta, on May 8, 2001.

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD

J. D. Dilay, P.Eng. Presiding Member

T. M. McGee Board Member

C.A. Langlo, P.Geol. Acting Board Member

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 53

APPENDIX A EPCOR ROSSDALE APPROVAL CONDITIONS AND COMMITMENTS AND BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Air Quality

Approval Conditions • EPCOR is required to report to the EUB on a regular basis respecting the feasibility of reducing the licensed emission rate for NOx below current levels through operational and technological improvements for RD 11 as well as for Units 9 and 10. Should AENV license the Rossdale Power Plant with a reduced NOx emission rate, there would be no requirement for this reporting to the EUB. • EPCOR is required to undertake observational studies both of the occurrence, extent, and frequency of water vapour plumes from its stacks and of the frequency and intensity with which fog from its thermal discharge impacts downstream bridges and roads. Due to the high variability of winter conditions, multiyear observation studies will be required.

Commitments EPCOR is committed to • comply with Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) National Emission Guidelines for Stationary Combustion Turbines, 1992;

• not exceed the current licensed emission rate for NOx of 83.4 kg/h and to install low NOx technology capable of meeting a source emission concentration of 15 ppm from RD 11;

• adaptively manage NO2 emissions and evaluate NO2 data from the Forest Heights monitoring station operated by the Strathcona Industrial Association to install continuous stack emissions monitoring equipment at RD 11 and to report the results to AENV monthly; • implement an improved burner management system for Units 9 and 10; • conduct an observational study to document the frequency and intensity with which fog from the Rossdale thermal discharge impacted downstream bridges;

• reduce CO2 on a net basis of 50 000 tonnes per year for RD 11—it had planned additional offset projects and emission reductions to stabilize Rossdale’s CO2 levels; and • implement a site-specific plan for the management and reduction of greenhouse gases in RD 11’s first year of operation.

Recommendations

• The Board recommends that AENV review the licensed NOx emission rate of 83.4 kg/h for the Rossdale Power Plant during EPEA licensing.

• The Board recommends that AENV review the proposed 47 m stack height of RD 11 during EPEA licensing.

• The Board recommends that AENV review the need for an air monitoring plan and program associated with the Rossdale Power Plant.

54 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Water Quality

Recommendations • Consideration by AENV of the need for additional groundwater monitoring at the EPCOR Rossdale site. • Consideration of the need for additional biological and water quality monitoring to assess the effects of EPCOR’s thermal discharge to the North Saskatchewan River. • Voluntary establishment of a jointly funded water users’ organization to examine environmental conditions of the North Saskatchewan River as a proactive measure.

Noise

Approval Conditions • Conduct, to the EUB’s satisfaction, research into the presence of any dominant tonal components and other industrial sounds that may be characterized as annoying, and report on what steps will be taken to suitably address them. Noise mitigation should target reducing the impact of such sounds to a level that would not be as intrusive to the quality of life for nearby residents.

• Conduct post-start-up comprehensive noise surveys under representative conditions at selected residential locations to confirm compliance with the established PSLs for the area. If the PSLs are exceeded as a result of power plant-related noise, EPCOR will undertake whatever steps are necessary to immediately reduce noise levels below the PSLs. It should be noted that failure to meet the EUB the Noise Control Directive requirements will result in consequences regarding EPCOR’s operating practices in order to reduce facility noise levels accordingly.

• Establish a community advisory panel, as part of EPCOR’s public advisory initiatives, with participation of public members who adequately represent neighbourhoods surrounding the Rossdale site. EPCOR should also give strong consideration to expanding the panel’s membership to include a representative of the City of Edmonton Bylaw Department. The panel will in turn develop an effective community noise complaint receiving and handling protocol to be used by EPCOR. The Board would be prepared to provide staff members to assist.

Commitments EPCOR is committed to • install noise barriers around the transformers in the switchyard; • modify boiler stacks to address high frequency tonal components—this involves installing lined duct elbows to the boiler exhaust stacks 9 and 10, including a modification to the preheater seals for Unit 8; • install ventilation equipment on the HP Plant building, allowing the closing of the roll-up doors on the north wall during nighttime hours;

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 55

• to the extent possible, limit construction noise to daytime hours; • wherever possible, inform local residents in advance of any activities that may cause unusually loud nighttime noise and schedule these to create minimum disruption.

56 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF DECISION, TABLE 1

TABLE 1. Matters raised by parties that EPCOR did not object to being raised as issues relevant to the Board’s disposition of the Application

Issue Included in hearing?

Category 1-A: Social Effects

Land use in the river valley Yes Yes Decommissioning and demolition of Low Pressure Plant Building

Historical resources Yes

Archaeological resources Yes

Burial grounds Yes, but limited to impacts of the project on burial grounds (i.e., does not include past treatment of remains, artifacts, and burial sites or historical land titles issues)

Noise and vibration Yes

Public consultation process (including Yes information disclosure)

Risk and public safety Yes; includes human health impacts

Future plant expansion at the site Yes

Plant design and landscaping Yes

System reliability Yes

Quality of life Yes

District heating Yes

(continued)

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 57

TABLE 1. Matters raised by parties that EPCOR did not object to being raised as issues relevant to the Board’s disposition of the Application (continued)

Issue Included in hearing?

Category 1-B: Socioeconomic Effects

Residential property values Yes

Employment Yes

Value of the central river valley Yes

Transmission of increased power generation Yes

Category 1-C: Environmental Effects

Air quality and plant emissions Yes

Fog Yes

Water quality and use Yes

Completeness of environmental impact Yes assessment

Location of plant at Rossdale site Yes

58 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

APPENDIX C MEMORANDUM OF DECISION, TABLE 2

TABLE 2. Matters raised by parties that EPCOR objected to being raised because they are not relevant to the Board’s disposition of the Application

Issue Included in hearing?

Category 2-A: Need and Economics

Need for increased generating capacity No

Need for expanded facilities at proposed Yes, but limited to siting issues and geographic location need for the power plant, not need for extra generation

Economics of the project No

Energy conservation program No

Economic impact of project Yes (under Category 1-B: Socioeconomic impacts)

Highest and best use of natural gas No

Category 2-B: Land-Use Planning Issues

Land use planning issues No

City of Edmonton’s approval process for No project

Category 2-C: Other Matters

Site Integration Plan Yes (relevant to design and landscaping issues under Category 1-A)

Interest in resource development projects No generally

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 59

APPENDIX D

THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING

Principals and Representatives1 (Abbreviations Used in Report) Witnesses

EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generating Inc. (EPCOR) D. R. Wright, Q.C. D. R. Topping, P.Eng. J. M. Liteplo D. Lewin, Ph.D., P.Eng. L. Johnston, P.Eng. A. Keller, P.Eng. M. F. Molloy D. M. Leahy, Ph.D., of Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. N. Maybee, of HFP Acoustical Consultants R. P. Innes, P.Ag., of Stantec Consulting B. Shelast, P.Biol., of Stantec Consulting B. O. K. Reeves, Ph.D., of Lifeways of Canada Limited D. Whiting, of WHITING Architecture R. A. Partridge, of Henderson, Inglis, Partridge Architects R. L. Mansell, Ph.D., of Wright Mansell Research Ltd. W. N. Kinnard, Jr., Ph.D., of Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut F. G. Bercha, Ph.D., P.Eng., of the Bercha Group

ATCO Pipelines (ATCO) S. H. T. Denstedt K L. Illsey

1 Although the Board has made every effort to ensure that the names of groups have been recorded correctly, in some cases there have been more than one spelling or version provided to the EUB.

60 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING (continued)

Principals and Representatives (Abbreviations Used in Report) Witnesses

Alberta Environment (AENV) Alberta Community Development (ACD) Alberta Health and Wellness (AH&W) R. K. Bodnarek L. Cheng, Ph.D., AENV D. Stepaniuk L. J. Hurt, ACD H. L. Veale J. W. Ives, Ph.D., ACD A. Mackenzie, AH&W J. Nagendran, P.Eng., AENV R. Nutbrown, P.Eng., AENV K. K. Singh, P.Eng., AENV

ESBI Alberta Ltd. M. Buchinski D. Chesterman, P.Eng.

Central Area Council of Community Leagues and the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (CACCL/EFCL) G. S. Fitch B. Neufeld E. Solez D. Hildebrand, P.Eng., of Optimum Energy Management Inc. N. Bacalso, of Optimum Energy Management Inc. O. Lovatt, of Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. T. H. Gibson, Ph.D., of Alberta Western Heritage

ConCerv K. E. Buss J. Oxenford, P.Eng. R. C. Secord T. Power R. J. Jeerakathil C. Stout A. Mondor, C.A. D. Williams D. Murray, of David Murray Architect J. Sturgess, of Sturgess Achitecture L. A. Beale, of Sturgess Architecture

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 61

THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING (continued)

Principals and Representatives (Abbreviations Used in Report) Witnesses

ConCerv (cont’d) D. G. Howery, of Applications Management Consulting Ltd. M. J. G. Davies, of RWDI West Inc.

Rossdale Community League (RCL) J. A. Bryan, Q.C. L. Parish G. A. Smith M. G. Faulkner, Ph.D., P.Eng., of the University of Alberta A. Chopko, of Chopko Real Estate Appraisals K. C. MacKenzie, of MacKenzie Associates Consulting Group Limited

Historical Society of Alberta (HSA) M. Fedori M. Fedori R. Williams

Heritage Canada Foundation (HCF) D. Franklin D. Franklin

All Colors Society D. Good Striker D. Good Striker

Association Canadienne-Française de l’Alberta (ACFA) L. Coutu Maisonneuve L. Coutu Maisonneuve D. Magnan L. Lemieux

Blackfoot Confederacy First Nations (Blackfoot Elders) F. English F. English A. Blackwater T. Black Weasel G. Bull Shields T. Crane Bear E. Crowshoe J. Many Heads

62 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING (continued)

Principals and Representatives (Abbreviations Used in Report) Witnesses

Blackfoot Confederacy First Nations (cont’d) (Blackfoot Elders) A. McMaster M. Plain Eagle M. Stimson M. Wolfleg W. Yellow Wings E. Young Man

First Peoples/First Settlers (FPFS) D. Good Striker D. Good Striker P. Coutu P. Coutu C. Desjarlais C. Desjarlais E. Blair L. Coutu Maisonneuve L. Hoffman-Mercredi T. Richards N. Springett C. Woodbridge

Métis Nation of Alberta Association P. Coutu P. Coutu

Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations (Treaty Six) J. Graves, P.Eng. N. Calliou P. Waskahat S. Youngchief

Mother Earth Healing Society (MEHS) L. Sinclair J. Aquash M. Friedel E. Quinn

Papaschase First Nation Association of Alberta (PFNAA) A. Gladue V. Belcourt A. Blackwater T. Black Weasel W. Gauthier J. Dick A. Lawrick L. Tanghe

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 63

THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING (continued)

Principals and Representatives (Abbreviations Used in Report) Witnesses

Papaschase First Nation Association of Alberta (PFNAA) (cont’d) C. Wildcat M. Bellerose C. Dion C. Suvee D. Wabasca

Chief and Council of Papaschase First Nation Association of Alberta C. Desjarlais C. Desjarlais

J. Chowace J. Chowace T. Richards

The Lagimodière Family L. Coutu Maisonneuve

R. Wells R. Wells J. Badger J. Budinski L. Parry E. Rattlesnake W. Roan E. Roan-Nadue

Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC) L. Phillips L. Phillips B. Toole

North American Native Council T. S. Wishewan2

R. Charlton, Ph.D. R. Charlton, Ph.D.

S. Ulfsten S. Ulfsten

Mr. and Mrs. T. Hill T. Hill

2 T. Wishewan registered at the hearing but did not participate.

64 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARING (continued)

Principals and Representatives (Abbreviations Used in Report) Witnesses

J. Jimenez J. Jimenez

F. Kozak F. Kozak

A. Wasnea A. Wasnea

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Staff D. A. Larder, Board Counsel J. P. Mousseau, Board Counsel K. G. Gladwyn T. Chan, Ph.D. P. Wickel, P.Eng. J. W. Berg, P.Eng. P. Hunt D. DeGagne L. Wilson-Temple D. Morris R. Powell, Ph.D., P.Biol. J. Thompson C. R. Supernault

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 65

APPENDIX E LEGISLATION

• Electric Utilities Act, S.A. 1995, C.E-5.5, as amended

6(d) to establish a flexible framework so that decisions about pricing and investment for generation of electricity are guided by competitive market forces,

• Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 1980, C.E-11, as amended

2(a) [The purposes of this Act are] to provide for the economic, orderly, and efficient development and operation, in the public interest, of hydro energy and the generation and transmission of electric energy in Alberta,

2.1 Where by any other enactment the Board is charged with the conduct of a hearing, inquiry or other investigation in respect of a proposed energy resource project, it shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must consider in conducting the hearing, inquiry or investigation, give consideration to whether the project is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the project and the effects of the project on the environment.

• Hydro and Electric Energy Act, R.S.A. 1980, C.H-13, as amended

2.1 Where the Board is considering

(a) an application under section 9 for the construction or operation of a generating unit as defined in the Electric Utilities Act, or

(b) an application under section 17 for connection of a generating unit as defined in the Electric Utilities Act,

the Board shall treat the application in a manner similar to the manner in which it would treat an application over which the Board has jurisdiction relating to an industrial facility and in doing so the Board shall have regard for section 6 of the Electric Utilities Act,

(c) for the purposes of the consideration required to be given by the Board under section 2.1 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, and

(d) in order to determine whether the purposes of this Act will be achieved.

9(1) No person shall construct or operate a power plant unless the Board, by order, has approved the construction and operation of the power plant.

• Municipal Government Act, S.A. 1994, C.M-26.1, as amended

66 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

619(1) A licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB or AEUB prevails, in accordance with this section, over any statutory plan, land use bylaw, subdivision decision or development decision by a subdivision authority, development authority, subdivision and development appeal board, or the Municipal Government Board or any other authorization under this Part.

(2) When an application is received by a municipality for a statutory plan amendment, land use bylaw amendment, subdivision approval, development permit or other authorization under this Part and the application is consistent with a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB or AEUB, the municipality must approve the application to the extent that it complies with the licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted under subsection (1).

(3) An approval of a statutory plan amendment or land use bylaw amendment under subsection (2)

(a) must be granted within 90 days of the application or a longer time agreed on by the applicant and the municipality, and

(b) is not subject to the requirements of section 692 unless, in the opinion of the municipality, the statutory plan amendment or land use bylaw amendment relates to matters not included in the licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB or AEUB.

(4) If a municipality that is considering an application under subsection (2) holds a hearing, the hearing may not address matters already decided by the NRCB, ERCB or AEUB except as necessary to determine whether an amendment to a statutory plan or land use bylaw is required.

(5) If a municipality does not approve an application under subsection (2) to amend a statutory plan or land use bylaw or the municipality does not comply with subsection (3), the applicant may appeal to the Municipal Government Board by filing with the Board

(a) a notice of appeal, and

(b) a statutory declaration stating why mediation was unsuccessful or why the applicant believes that the municipality was unwilling to attempt to use mediation.

(6) The Municipal Government Board, on receiving a notice of appeal and statutory declaration under subsection (5),

(a) must commence a hearing within 60 days of receiving the notice of appeal and statutory declaration and give a written decision within 30 days of concluding the hearing, and

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 67

(b) is not required to notify or hear from any person other than the applicant and the municipality against whom the appeal is launched.

(7) The Municipal Government Board, in hearing an appeal under subsection (6), may only hear matters relating to whether the proposed statutory plan or land use bylaw amendment is consistent with the licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted under subsection (1).

(8) In an appeal under this section the Municipal Government Board may

(a) order the municipality to amend the statutory plan or land use bylaw in order to comply with a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB or AEUB, or

(b) dismiss the appeal.

(9) Section 692 does not apply when the statutory plan or land use bylaw is amended pursuant to a decision of the Municipal Government Board under subsection (8)(a).

(10) A decision under subsection (8) is final but may be appealed by the applicant or the municipality in accordance with section 688.

(11) In this section, “NRCB, ERCB or AEUB” means the Natural Resources Conservation Board, Energy Resources Conservation Board or Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.

68 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Corona Bay Central Station Station Station Downtown 100 Ave.

l

l

i

104 St. 104 H

Grandin y

R i v e r 100 St. 100 Station m a

l 109 St. 109 l e B 97 Ave.

d.

R

e d. l Telus

101 St. 101 R 105 St. 105 a Field

d Capital City Recreation Park s a L R T

Rossdales Power n o Plant Site

N o r t h R Rossdale o

Water c Treatment S Facility S a s k a t c h e w a n

d. Fire Dept.

R Training Centre l

Walterdale Park l

Q u e i e 91 Ave.

n H Skunk E Hollow l 90 Ave. e i Queen z a b e

l t h r. a St. 99 d Pa D t e r Elizabeth r W a l k Rd. Park n w a St. 101 c h e

S a s k a t

109 St. 109 104 St. 104

Figure 1. Area Map Application No. 990289 EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc.

Decision 2001-33

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 69

Approximate Extent of Rossdale Power Plant Site

Rossdale Rd. Guard 105 St. 105 House

ATCO Gas Metering and Regulating Station Rossdale Substation

Bellamy Substation

Transformer Switch Yard Admin. Building

Garage

Rossdale High Water Oil Pressure Treatment Pumphouse Plant Low Facility Pressure Plant (decommissioned)

Gas Turbine Plant (decommissioned) E.P. Machine Garage Shop and Pumphouse Services North No. 2

Low Level Pumphouse Saskatchewan Pumphouse No. 1

River

Figure 2. Rossdale Power Station Buildings and Structures Application No. 990289 EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc.

Decision 2001-33

70 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Corona Bay Central Station Station Station Downtown 100 Ave.

l

l

i

104 St. 104 H

Grandin y

R i v e r 100 St. 100 Station B m a

l 109 St. 109 l e B 97 Ave.

d.

R

e d. l

101 St. 101 R 105 St. 105 a Rossdale

E d s a L R T A

s n o

N o r t h R o

c

S S a s k a t c h e w a n

d.

R Rossdale Power

l Plant Site

Walterdale Park l Q u e i 91 Ave. e

n H C Skunk E Hollow l 90 Ave. e i z a b e l t h r.

a P D St. 99 e r d Queen a a l t r k W Elizabeth Rd. a n e w

h St. 101 Park t c

S a s k a 109 St. 109

D St. 104

Legend

Monitored residence

Figure 3. Noise Monitoring Sites Application No. 990289 EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc.

Decision 2001-33

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 71

Turbine Gas Turbine Hall Boiler Hall Hall

1952

Switch House

1947 Option 3 Revised

1942

1932

Central Control Room 1938 Current Proposal for RD 11 1954

Figure 4. Proposed Locations of RD 11 Application No. 990289 EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc.

Decision 2001-33

72 • EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001)

Rossdale Rd. Location of historic St. Joachim 105 St. 105 cemetery according to FPFS

Cemetery Approximate location of enclosure - 1882 proposed gas pipeline

Cemetery enclosure - 1919 Position of cemetery according to Aresco (1977)

Palisade wall

Option 3 revised

Current proposal for RD 11

North

Saskatchewan

River

Legend

Area of concern for possible burial locations according to Minni (1989)

Areas excavated by EPCOR in connection with RD 11 Current structures Proposed locations of RD 11

Figure 5. Rossdale Site with Historical and Excavation Areas Application No. 990289 EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc. Decision 2001-33

EUB Decision 2001-33 (May 8, 2001) • 73