Decision 2013-332
ATCO Electric Ltd.
Beartrap Transmission Project
August 30, 2013
The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 2013-332: ATCO Electric Ltd. Beartrap Transmission Project Application No. 1609059 Proceeding ID No. 2196
August 30, 2013
Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8
Telephone: 403-592-8845 Fax: 403-592-4406
Website: www.auc.ab.ca
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1
2 Background ...... 1 2.1 The approval process for new transmission development in Alberta ...... 1 2.2 Beartrap 940S substation needs identification document approval ...... 2 2.3 ATCO’s facility application ...... 2 2.4 Beartrap 940S substation...... 3 2.5 Interventions ...... 3 2.6 Hearing ...... 4
3 Issues ...... 4
4 How should the Commission treat the evidence of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and the Bushores? ...... 5 4.1 Commission findings ...... 6
5 Are the preferred west and alternate east routes consistent with the need approval? ... 7
6 Public consultation ...... 7 6.1 Views of ATCO ...... 7 6.2 Views of interveners ...... 8 6.3 Commission findings ...... 8
7 Intervener route option ...... 10 7.1 Views of interveners ...... 10 7.2 Views of ATCO ...... 11 7.3 Commission findings ...... 11
8 Preferred west route versus alternate east route ...... 12 8.1 Views of ATCO ...... 12 8.1.1 Route preference ...... 12 8.1.2 Residential and agricultural impacts ...... 12 8.1.3 Property value and future development ...... 14 8.2 Views of the interveners...... 15 8.2.1 Route preference ...... 15 8.2.2 Residential impacts ...... 15 8.2.3 Agricultural and commercial impacts ...... 16 8.2.4 Effects on property value and future development ...... 17 8.3 Commission findings ...... 17
9 Effects on the environment...... 19 9.1 Views of ATCO ...... 19 9.2 Views of interveners ...... 20 9.3 Commission findings ...... 20
10 Health and safety and electrical effects ...... 20 10.1 Views of ATCO ...... 20 10.1.1 Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) ...... 20 10.1.2 Electrical effects and noise ...... 21
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • i
10.2 Views of the interveners...... 22 10.3 Commission findings ...... 22
11 Route cost comparison ...... 23 11.1 Views of ATCO ...... 23 11.2 Views of interveners ...... 23 11.3 Commission findings ...... 23
12 Conclusion ...... 24
13 Decision ...... 25
Appendix A – Application route map ...... 27
Appendix B – Proceeding participants ...... 28
Appendix C – Oral hearing – registered appearances ...... 29
List of tables
Table 1. Residential impact metrics ...... 13
List of figures
Figure 1: RRG route ...... 10 Figure 2: ATCO preferred west and alternate east routes ...... 12
ii • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013)
The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta
Decision 2013-332 ATCO Electric Ltd. Application No. 1609059 Beartrap Transmission Project Proceeding ID No. 2196
1 Introduction
1. In this decision the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) must decide whether to approve an application by ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) to construct and operate a new transmission line and substation located east of the town of Bonnyville.
2. ATCO included a preferred west route and an alternate east route in its application.
3. Landowners from both routes participated in the proceeding. Landowners located on or near the preferred west route opposed its approval and submitted that the Commission approve the alternate east route or a modified version of the preferred west route that they themselves proposed. Landowners located on or near the alternate east route opposed its approval.
2 Background
2.1 The approval process for new transmission development in Alberta 4. Two approvals from the AUC are required to build new transmission facilities in Alberta: an approval of the need for expansion or enhancement to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System under Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act, and a permit to construct and licence to operate a transmission facility pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act.
5. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), is responsible for preparing a needs identification document (NID) and filing an application for approval of the NID with the AUC pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act. In this case, the NID was prepared in response to a request by Enbridge Pipeline (Athabasca) Inc. for a new point-of-delivery substation to serve its proposed pump station in the area.
6. Facility applications are prepared by a transmission facility owner assigned by the AESO. The transmission facility owner (in this case ATCO) files the facility application with the AUC for consideration. In making a decision, the Commission must consider whether the proposed transmission facility is in the public interest having regard to the social and economic effects of the transmission facilities and the effect of the transmission facilities on the environment in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 1 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
7. The Commission recently described its approach to deciding applications for new transmission facilities in Decision 2011-436:1
The Commission’s past practice was to weigh the established benefits of a proposed upgrade, as reflected in a need approval, with the discrete impacts of the project proposed by the facility applicant. The Commission would then assess whether implementation of the applied-for project would address the previously approved need for the project while at the same time minimizing, or mitigating to an acceptable degree, the potential adverse impacts on Albertans, both on a province-wide basis, and for those Albertans who must bear the burden of having the infrastructure placed on or adjacent to their lands.2
2.2 Beartrap 940S substation needs identification document approval 8. The AESO filed a NID application with the AUC for the Beartrap 940S substation and 144-kilovolt (kV) interconnection on October 19, 2012. The Commission approved the AESO’s application in Decision 2013-2403 and issued Approval No. U2013-3024 on June 20, 2013.
2.3 ATCO’s facility application 9. ATCO filed facility Application No. 1609059 with the AUC on November 23, 2012, to meet the need identified in the AESO’s Beartrap 940S NID noted above, requesting approval to:
Construct and operate a new substation designated as Beartrap 940S substation consisting of one 144-kV transformer, one 144-kV circuit breaker, a 46-metre high telecommunications tower and associated foundation, structural, protection, and control facilities. Construct and operate approximately 18 to 23 kilometres (depending on the route option) of new 144-kV single-circuit transmission line, designated as 7LA24, from a connection point on the existing 7L24 transmission line to the proposed Beartrap 940S substation. Alter existing transmission line 7L24 to create a tap point for the proposed single-circuit transmission line 7LA24.
10. The Commission issued a notice of applications and hearing on March 8, 2013, which was sent to registered parties by email, and was mailed directly to land title holders whose property was within 800 metres of either the preferred west or alternate east route. The notice was published on the AUC website as well as in the Bonnyville Nouvelle, and the Cold Lake Sun newspapers.
1 Decision 2011-436: AltaLink Management Ltd. And EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. – Heartland Transmission Project, Application No. 1606609, Proceeding ID No. 457, November 1, 2011. 2 Decision 2011-436, paragraph 161. 3 Decision 2013-240: Alberta Electric System Operator, Beartrap 940S Substation Needs Identification Document, Application No. 1608930, Proceeding ID No. 2196, June 20, 2013. 4 Needs Identification Document Approval No. U2013-302, Application No. 1608930, Proceeding ID No. 2196, June 20, 2013. 2 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
11. ATCO filed three amendments to the application. The first amendment was filed on March 28, 2013, requesting the inclusion of temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approval of the application. ATCO’s second amendment was filed on April 19, 2013. In its second amendment, ATCO sought to modify its alternate east route after consultation with affected landowners. The Commission issued a notice of route amendment on April 23, 2013, and mailed it to all parties on ATCO’s provided mailing list. ATCO’s third amendment was filed on May 24, 2013, requesting minor alterations to the alternate east route that arose from consultations with the Municipal District (M.D.) of Bonnyville.
2.4 Beartrap 940S substation 12. ATCO proposed a new substation, designated as Beartrap 940S substation, to be located at LSDs 11 and 12 of Section 23, Township 60, Range 4, west of the Fourth Meridian. The substation would include one 144-kV transformer, one 144-kV circuit breaker, a 46-metre tall telecommunications tower and associated substation equipment.
13. ATCO stated the substation would be situated on Crown land, approximately 14 kilometres southeast of the town of Bonnyville and 16 kilometres south of Ardmore. The land-use in the area is a mix of agriculture, acreage and mixed residential and industrial, with substantial oil and gas development.
14. No concerns or objections to the substation were received by either ATCO or by the Commission.
2.5 Interventions 15. The Commission received 13 submissions from individuals and interested parties in response to the AUC’s notice of applications and hearing, issued on March 8, 2013, and re-issued April 4, 2013.
16. Six individuals or families on the preferred west route, who had been granted standing to intervene in the proceeding, organized themselves to form the Red Route Group (RRG). The RRG was generally concerned with the proposed transmission line’s impact on landowner lifestyle (including farming, manufacturing and livestock operations), subdivision potential, health impacts and property values. The RRG consisted of Andy and Vera Koziol, Eileen Leeds, Rick and Joyce Dokter, Emil Leguerrier and Lorraine Baik, Tanya and Robert Hollasch, and J. M. and Bella LaFrance, and was represented by Mr. Secord. The RRG opposed the preferred west route and wanted the alternate east route to be chosen. In the event the preferred west route was deemed to be superior to the east route, the RRG requested that a modified version of the preferred west route they developed be approved.
17. The Commission received a submission from Mr. and Mrs. Toews (the Toews) who opposed the approval of the preferred west route. The Toews expressed that they were concerned with the impact of the transmission line on their health, property value and noise. The Toews opposed all routes except for the amended alternate east route.
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 3 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
18. On June 10, 2013, ATCO wrote to the Commission to request the approval of the alternate east route and the cancellation of the oral hearing. The Commission issued a letter to potentially interested parties on the alternate east route on June 13, 2013, to request feedback regarding ATCO’s request. Two letters of opposition were received from parties bordering the alternate east route who had not previously participated in the proceeding. Specifically, upon receipt of the Commission’s June 13, 2013 notice to interested parties,5 Mr. Walter Kelly and Ms. Kathy Anderson responded to the Commission, and filed evidence indicating the nature of their objections to the alternate east route and stated that they were opposed to the cancellation of the hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Bushore (the Bushores) emailed the Commission on July 2, 2013, stating that they would attend the oral hearing. Commission counsel requested that the Bushores file additional information indicating their land location and concerns with ATCO’s project. The Bushores did not respond to Commission counsel’s request.
19. Having received the two letters of opposition from landowners on the alternate east route who owned and resided on land within 800 metres of the alternate east route, the Commission concluded that it could not grant ATCO’s request to approve the alternate east route and proceeded to hold a public hearing to consider the applications.
2.6 Hearing 20. The hearing commenced on July 16, 2013, at the Centennial Centre in Bonnyville, Alberta before a Commission panel of panel chair Tudor Beattie, QC, Commission member Kay Holgate, and acting Commission member Dr. Pat Brennan. The hearing concluded on July 17, 2013, and the Commission considered the record to be closed upon the completion of the hearing.
21. A number of parties filed written submissions regarding the application, but did not appear in person at the hearing. A list of all registered parties in Proceeding ID No. 2196 is provided in Appendix B. A complete list of all hearing participants is attached to this decision in Appendix C.
3 Issues
22. The Commission considers that the applications and interventions raise the following issues: How should the Commission treat the evidence of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and the Bushores? Are the preferred west and alternate east routes consistent with the need for transmission facilities in the Bonnyville area approved in Decision 2013-302? Does ATCO’s public involvement and consultation program meet the requirements of AUC Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and Industrial System Designations (AUC Rule 007) and was it adequate in the circumstances? Is approval of either the preferred west route or alternate east route described in the application in the public interest?
5 Exhibit 111.01, AUC letter to interested parties re request to approve alternate east route and cancel the oral hearing - 2013-06-13. 4 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
23. To address the third issue, the Commission compared the respective social, economic and environmental impacts of the two route alternatives proposed by ATCO. The comparators used in this analysis were consistent with those used in many previous decisions of the Commission and its predecessors. Specifically, the Commission considered each alternative from the following perspectives: property impacts, environmental impacts, health and safety, electrical impacts, and costs.
4 How should the Commission treat the evidence of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and the Bushores?
24. During argument both ATCO and the RRG raised the issue of what weight, if any, should the Commission give to the evidence provided by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and the Bushores. As noted above, these interveners did not register to participate in the proceeding until after the Commission notified potentially affected parties of ATCO’s request to the Commission that it approve the alternate route in a letter dated June 13, 2013.
25. In response to this notice Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson wrote an email to the Commission on June 23, 2013, and explained that their primary concern with the alternate east route was that its approval could interfere with municipal plans to do road and ditch work adjacent to the alternate east route to address local flooding. These interveners filed a second email in the proceeding on July 9, 2013, which further described their concerns about the alternate east route and its potential impact on flooding near their home. Mr. Kelly appeared at the hearing and gave direct evidence that related specifically to the flooding issue described in his two emails to the Commission.
26. The Bushores provided no information to the Commission with respect to their concerns about the alternate east route prior to the hearing. They indicated in an email to the Commission, dated July 2, 2013, that they objected to the application and would attend the hearing. The Bushores did not respond to the Commission’s request that they explain the nature of their objection. However, the Bushores attended the hearing and gave considerable oral evidence with respect to how the alternate route could directly and adversely affect their property, and their enjoyment of their property.
27. ATCO argued that the Commission should be cautious when considering what weight to give to information provided by parties who choose not to adhere to the Commission’s filing schedule. It submitted that the foundation of a fair process is the requirement for participants to pre-file their evidence so that all interested parties may respond to that evidence. It submitted that the Commission should give less weight to evidence that was not pre-filed.
28. The RRG also argued that the Commission should afford little weight to the evidence of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and of the Bushores because they did not pre-file their evidence. The RRG noted, in this respect, a statement by the Commission in AUC Decision 2011-436 in which the Commission stated that “there is an obligation to participate if a party wishes to demonstrate how approval or denial of the application does or does not satisfy the public interest.”
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 5 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
4.1 Commission findings 29. When considering the weight to accord the evidence of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and of the Bushores, the Commission must determine whether, or to what degree, ATCO and the RRG had a fair and reasonable opportunity to understand, and effectively respond to their respective concerns.
30. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson did not register for the proceeding until after the filing deadline for submissions and evidence, the Commission is satisfied that Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson clearly articulated their concerns with the alternate route in the two emails they filed with the Commission prior to the start of the hearing. In both emails, these interveners explained that their concern with the alternate route was their belief that its approval could impair the M.D. of Bonnyville’s ability to address the flooding problems adjacent to the route and their residence. Mr. Kelly’s testimony at the proceeding was consistent with his filed evidence.
31. In the Commission’s view, both ATCO and the RRG had reasonable notice of the concerns Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson raised, and had a reasonable opportunity to address them at the hearing. The Commission notes in this respect that ATCO addressed the flooding concerns of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson in paragraph 77 of its rebuttal evidence. Having regard to the foregoing, the Commission finds that the circumstances do not require it to accord less weight than it ordinarily would to the evidence provided by these interveners.
32. The Bushores did not file information with the Commission explaining the nature of their concerns with the application, or how its approval could directly and adversely affect their rights, despite a specific request from the Commission for such information. The Bushores explained at the hearing that they were unable to comply with the Commission’s request because of holiday plans and other obligations.
33. Based on their testimony, the Commission understands that the Bushores’ concerns with respect to the application related to health and safety, property devaluation, and the potential for loss of agricultural land. It is unclear to the Commission why the Bushores could not have communicated these concerns in their July 2, 2013 email to the Commission, or in a subsequent email. Even this basic information would have allowed ATCO and the RRG to more effectively understand and respond to their concerns at the hearing.
34. The Commission finds that the Bushores’ decision to provide no information about the nature of their concerns about the project before they gave their oral testimony did impair ATCO and the RRG’s ability to effectively address those concerns. The Commission is of the view that the Bushores were provided with sufficient opportunity to provide the information requested and finds that it must take into account their decision not to provide this information in accordance with the Commission’s direction when assessing the weight it ought to accord to their evidence.
6 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
5 Are the preferred west and alternate east routes consistent with the need approval?
35. No parties in this proceeding argued that ATCO’s facility application was inconsistent with the transmission facilities described in the NID contained within Approval No. U2013-302. The Commission assessed only ATCO’s applied-for preferred west and alternate east routes in determining whether the proposed routes met the need.
36. In the Commission’s view, the transmission facilities proposed in ATCO’s application meet the need identified in NID Approval No. U2013-302.
37. While the RRG proposed another route option available to meet the need, this landowner developed route6 was not included in ATCO’s application, and was not a route that the Commission could approve following the proceeding. In order to consider this route for approval, the Commission would have to deny ATCO’s application and recommend that ATCO give further consideration to the route proposed by the RRG in a new application. Accordingly, the Commission has not assessed whether this route meets the need identified in Approval No. U2013-302.
6 Public consultation
6.1 Views of ATCO 38. ATCO conducted a participant involvement program for the project before filing its application. The participant involvement program included notification of more than 200 landowners, occupants, agencies and other potentially interested parties within at least 800 metres, and up to several kilometres away from the preferred west and alternate east route options. ATCO also conducted two rounds of consultation with landowners within 800 metres of the proposed substation and proposed transmission line rights-of-way, and held an open house on March 13, 2012, in Ardmore, Alberta.
39. ATCO also consulted with government agencies, companies and organizations that had an interest in the project or otherwise conducted business in the project area.
40. ATCO stated that its consultation program was focused to ensure landholders that were potentially impacted by the project received information in a timely manner and were provided an opportunity to voice their concerns. ATCO testified that it did not intend to limit anyone’s participation in the consultation or regulatory process, and that it uses consultation feedback to help improve its approach.
41. ATCO continued to consult with potentially affected parties throughout the application process. It stated that two application amendments were filed as a result of ongoing consultation; namely, ATCO’s second and third amendments. ATCO also stated that once drainage concerns were raised by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, it attempted to work with all parties to resolve their concerns.7
6 Exhibit 102.01, Written evidence/CV Jim Dauphinais. 7 Transcript, Volume 1, page 28, lines 14-18. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 7 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
42. ATCO submitted that its consultation program was conducted in accordance with the requirements contained in AUC Rule 007. With regard to the later interventions, ATCO submitted that the consultation program began well before the spring of 2013, and that all potentially affected parties had received the necessary information to become aware of the project prior to the notice of applications and hearing issued by the Commission.
6.2 Views of interveners 43. Several members of the RRG, on the preferred west route, expressed concerns with the adequacy of ATCO’s consultation efforts. Mr. and Mrs. Hollasch (the Hollaschs) indicated that ATCO was not transparent in its dealings and disregarded their concerns.
44. Mrs. Hollasch testified that she brought pictures to the open house that showed how her view would be affected by the proposed line. She stated that ATCO staff at the open house did not take her concerns seriously because the line was not proposed for her property. Mrs. Hollasch submitted a complaint to ATCO and requested an ATCO representative come to her residence to discuss the visual impact issue. She stated that someone did come to fill out a form with her and stated she was the only person in opposition. The Hollaschs also testified that ATCO sent surveyors on their property without their permission and that the surveyors told her they were surveying for the M.D. of Bonnyville.
45. Mr. and Mrs. Koziol, also on the preferred west route, indicated that ATCO had not incorporated their suggestions into the applied-for route. Also, Ms. Leeds stated that ATCO has not given a satisfactory response to her concerns and showed no willingness to negotiate.
46. On the alternate east route, Mrs. Bushore testified that she had not been adequately consulted by ATCO. Mrs. Bushore testified that when she was consulted over the phone in February, she requested to have a meeting. Mrs. Bushore had requested a meeting after work on a Friday but ATCO was unable to accommodate her due to a conflict with a flight. Mrs. Bushore stated that nothing transpired and she did not hear back from ATCO until a phone call in May, in which a meeting was set up. Mrs. Bushore testified that at the meeting ATCO was agitated when she refused to withdraw her opposition. Mrs. Bushore indicated that she felt that ATCO was trying to dissuade her from partaking in the Commission’s hearing process8 and that she felt “bullied”. Mrs. Bushore testified that she was told Mr. Kelly was in agreement with the project, but found out he was out of the country at the time.
6.3 Commission findings 47. The Commission finds that ATCO’s public involvement and consultation program was consistent with the requirements of AUC Rule 007 and adequate in the circumstances. The Commission recently commented on its public consultation requirements and expectations in Decision 2011-436:
283. The Commission also finds that the individual concerns raised by interveners do not necessarily mean that the applicants failed to meet the prescribed public consultation requirements provided in AUC Rule 007. To some degree, consultation is an extension and enhancement of the requirement to notify parties that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission’s decision on an application. In the Commission’s view, effective consultation achieves three purposes. First, it allows parties to understand the nature of a proposed project. Second, it allows the applicant and the intervener to identify areas of concern. Third, it provides
8 Transcript, Volume 1, page 159 to 160, lines 23-25, 1-2. 8 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
a reasonable opportunity for the parties to engage in meaningful dialogue and discussion with the goal of eliminating or mitigating to an acceptable degree the affected parties concerns about the project. If done well, a consultation program will improve the application and help to resolve disputes between the applicant and affected parties outside of the context of the hearing room.
284. The Commission acknowledges that even a very effective consultation program may not resolve all intervener concerns. This is not the fault of the applicant or the intervener; it merely reflects the fact that the parties do not agree. With this in mind, the Commission will consider a consultation program to be effective if it meets AUC Rule 007 requirements and has allowed interveners to understand the project and its implications for them, and to meaningfully convey to the applicant their legitimate concerns about the project.
48. The Commission considers it paramount that effective communication takes place among industry, government and the public so that concerns may be raised, properly addressed and, if possible, resolved. All persons whose rights may be directly and adversely affected by the proposed development must be informed of the application, and have an opportunity to voice their concerns and to be heard.
49. The Commission is satisfied that ATCO’s consultation program was consistent with the principles of effective consultation described above. ATCO’s consultation program began in early 2012, and included an open house and personal consultations with various potentially affected parties. The Commission finds that participant feedback was used to identify opportunities to reduce the impacts of the project through localized adjustments. ATCO’s second and third project amendments were a result of such feedback.
50. The evidence before the Commission indicates that ATCO demonstrated efforts to respond to landowner concerns, including those concerns raised by RRG members, by setting up consultation meetings to discuss specific issues. The Commission recognizes that there remain contentious issues between members of the RRG and ATCO. This does not, in and of itself, mean that ATCO failed to conduct meaningful consultation.
51. In regard to the consultation concerns raised by the Bushores, the Commission emphasizes that, while an applicant must fulfill the requirements contained in AUC Rule 007, there is a corresponding responsibility on landowners to participate in the consultation so that their particular concerns are identified, assessed and mitigated, if possible.
52. In addition, the Commission issued three notices to stakeholders on the alternate east route, but the Bushores’ submission to the Commission was not received before the deadline date. Timely submissions from interested parties help the Commission and allow all parties a fair opportunity to review these concerns, and to ask questions to test the evidence. Consultation is a two-way street and the Commission expects the public to participate in meaningful discussions with a proponent of a project and to respect the timelines set out by the Commission.
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 9 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
7 Intervener route option
7.1 Views of interveners 53. The RRG developed a modified version of the preferred west route proposed by ATCO (the RRG route). The RRG route would proceed north in a straight line from node E4 where it would connect with the existing transmission line 7L24 at the section boundary between Section 33, Township 61, Range 4, west of the Fourth Meridian and Section 4, Township 62, Range 4, west of the Fourth Meridian. The RRG route is illustrated below in Figure 1.
54. The RRG argued that the RRG route was the lowest cost option, as it was shorter and had fewer turns than the preferred west route. The RRG estimated the cost of its route to be $9.7 million.
Figure 1: RRG route9 (shown in purple)
55. The RRG retained Mr. Dauphinais, Managing Principal of Brubaker & Associates Inc., a consultant in the field of public utility regulation, to develop routing factors for a modified version of ATCO’s preferred west route. Mr. Dauphinais also provided an evaluation of the RRG route versus ATCO’s preferred west route. In his report, dated June 7, 2013, Mr. Dauphinais stated that health, cost, impact on property owners, impact on the environment, impact on archeological and historical sites, and impact on aesthetics are factors that should be considered when developing route options. Mr. Dauphinais estimated the RRG route would cross 2.7 hectares of cultivated fields and 17.2 hectares of pasture land,10 but that it would not cross cross-cultivated land.11
56. The RRG stated that its route was equal or superior to the preferred west route as it was shorter, crossed fewer cultivated and pasture hectares, and crossed fewer wetlands and water bodies.
9 Exhibit 102.01, PDF 23, Attachment JRD-1 – RRG Route Modification Overlaid on ATCO Attachment 7 Revision 1. 10 Exhibit 102.01, PDF 25, Attachment JRD-3 – RRG Modified Table 10: Summary of 7LA24 Route Options. 11 Transcript, Volume 1, pages 121 to 122, lines 25, 1-3. 10 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
57. At the hearing, the RRG also submitted that the RRG route would have less impact on affected landowners than the preferred west route.
7.2 Views of ATCO 58. ATCO submitted that the RRG route traversed an area of heavy oil and gas development. It stated that the RRG route would have to be modified to avoid wellbore locations in the area. Specifically, to ensure compliance with the Alberta Electrical Utility Code, ATCO required a 40-metre set-back from the edge of the right-of-way to a wellbore. ATCO submitted that the RRG route did not respect this set-back. To support its finding that the RRG route would be located within the set-back, ATCO submitted that it verified the location of the wellbores with surveys registered with the Alberta Land Titles Office.12 ATCO also pointed out that a portion of the RRG route was currently undergoing remediation activities. ATCO consulted with the industrial occupant of this property, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, and indicated that the occupant objected to the RRG route.
59. ATCO stated that the RRG route had as many residences within 150 metres, but more residences within 800 metres of the right-of-way than the preferred west route. ATCO stated that the RRG route would have one residence within 150 metres and 24 residences within 800 metres of the right-of-way.13
60. ATCO submitted that the RRG route is not viable because the RRG had not consulted with affected landowners. ATCO indicated that it consulted with directly affected and adjacent parties when the RRG route was submitted, and that there was strong opposition to the route.
61. At the hearing, ATCO testified that the updated project metrics14 for the RRG route were based on a modified version, which included a deflection in the line to maintain the setback distance from wellbores. The modified route resulted in the RRG route having more major turns than the preferred west route and being slightly longer than the original RRG route.
7.3 Commission findings 62. The Commission finds that the alternate route proposed by the RRG is inferior to the preferred west route and the alternate east route options filed by ATCO because of the safety concerns associated with its routing through an active industrial site. The RRG route crosses an active oil and gas site where heavy equipment may be used for many years to come, both for new construction and for ongoing remediation. The debate at the hearing regarding whether the proposed line could be successfully threaded through the existing wells while maintaining the necessary safety setback reflects this concern. In the Commission’s view, the safety risks associated with the RRG route are not outweighed by the marginal benefits associated with it.
63. The Commission accepts that the affected landowners on the RRG route were not consulted with prior to the RRG route being developed.
12 Exhibit 128.10, paragraphs 56-58. 13 Exhibit 128.04, Table 10: Beartrap Transmission Project Updated Route Metrics. 14 Exhibit 128.04, Table 10: Beartrap Transmission Project Updated Route Metrics. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 11 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
8 Preferred west route versus alternate east route
8.1 Views of ATCO 8.1.1 Route preference 64. ATCO proposed two route options for the 144-kV transmission line, a preferred west route and an alternate east route. ATCO stated that the proposed route options were chosen after evaluating technical, economic, environmental and land-use criteria in combination with multiple rounds of stakeholder consultation. ATCO submitted that both route options were viable.
R.6 R.5 R.4 R.3 R.2W.4M.
COLD LAKE T.64
CRANE LAKE GRANDE CENTRE 846S SUBSTATION
55 RIVER
BEAVER COLD LAKE 892 T.62
BONNYVILLE 700S 28 SUBSTATION BONNYVILLE T.61
28 659 MOOSE LAKE 657 PROPOSED T.60 940S BEARTRAP MURIEL SUBSTATION LAKE
897 T.59
EXISTING 7L24 TRANSMISSION LINE PREFERRED WEST 7LA24 ROUTE ALTERNATE EAST 7LA24 ROUTE N.T.S.
Figure 2: ATCO preferred west and alternate east routes 65. ATCO stated that the proposed west route was preferred to the alternate east route as it is a shorter, lower cost route with less area of disturbance. ATCO stated the preferred west route would require less tree clearing and have a lower impact on wetland habitats than the alternate east route.
66. ATCO acknowledged that the alternate east route would minimize impacts to industrial development and cross-cultivated agricultural developments.
8.1.2 Residential and agricultural impacts 67. ATCO stated that its proposed routes generally followed quarter section lines because choosing to follow quarter lines instead of paralleling road allowances allowed for a greater distance between the transmission line and residences.
12 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
68. The following table summarizes ATCO’s evidence with respect to the transmission line’s proximity to residences:
Table 1. Residential impact metrics Route option Preferred west route Alternate east route
Distance to nearest occupied residence 90 metres 80 metres
Number of residences within 150 metres 1 2 of right-of-way Total number of landowner objections 15 2 within 800 metres of right-of-way
69. ATCO stated that it considered visual impacts in choosing the routing of the transmission line, attempting to avoid close proximity to residences, parks and protected areas. No scenic viewpoints were identified through consultation and residents’ visual concerns may be addressed through structure placement. At the request of Mr. and Mrs. Dokter (the Dokters), ATCO agreed to locate structures further into a cultivated field. This would allow for an increased separation between the line and the Dokter residence, avoid impacts to a tree line, and mitigate the visual impact.
70. With respect to the alternate east route, ATCO submitted that it had been made aware of a flooding issue on the Kelly/Anderson property. If the alternate east route is approved, ATCO submitted that raising the road will not affect the transmission line.15 ATCO stated that it has consulted with the M.D. of Bonnyville, which indicated that the transmission line on the alternate east route would not impede the mitigation of the drainage issue raised by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson. Specifically, ATCO stated that it was advised by the M.D. of Bonnyville that there was no intended future expansion of Range Road 434. In the event the road would be widened, the road expansion would occur on the east side, away from the existing water line and the transmission line.16 At the hearing, ATCO also stated that the M.D. of Bonnyville did not have plans to move the waterline, which is located between the road and the proposed transmission line. ATCO submitted that it is committed to working with the M.D. of Bonnyville to ensure the transmission line does not prevent reconstruction work.
71. ATCO also indicated that the affected landowner along Range Road 434, near the Kelly/Anderson property, has objected to the suggestion that the line be further offset from the road allowance into his field.
72. ATCO submitted that the preferred west route will cross 4.2 hectares of cultivated land and 18.9 hectares of pasture land. In comparison, the alternate east route would cross 8.9 hectares of cultivated land and 17 hectares of pasture land. The preferred west route would also cross one kilometre of cross-cultivated land, while the alternate east route would cross 0.3 kilometres of cross-cultivated land.17
15 Transcript, Volume 2, page 210, lines 6-25. 16 Transcript, Volume 1, page 27 to 28, lines 22-25, 1-3. 17 Exhibit 128.04, Table 10: Beartrap Transmission Project Updated Route Metrics. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 13 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
73. ATCO submitted that it attempted to site the applied-for transmission lines on quarter and sections lines where they would have the least impact on operations in the area, which are mostly farming operations. It explained that annual compensation is provided to landowners to mitigate loss of efficiencies, due to the necessity of farming around towers and intangibles such as mitigation measures, landowners may implement to reduce perceived risks and additional insurance of farm equipment. ATCO’s metrics showed that tree clearing is required for 1.9 hectares of the preferred west route and 9.8 hectares of the alternate east route.18
74. ATCO stated it heard concerns from stakeholders about the removal of shelterbelts, but that the slope, wind and water erosion risks are low for the majority of both the preferred west and alternate east routes, and anticipated erosion impacts from shelterbelts would be minimal. ATCO has stated it may provide compensation to facilitate the re-establishment of compatible vegetation species in the area.
75. ATCO stated that it has adopted measures to address weed concerns. Its equipment cleaning practices, including mechanically cleaning equipment, consulting with the local Agricultural Fieldman to identify and mitigate potential noxious weed infestations and maintaining cleaning records are expected to alleviate weed concerns. ATCO stated that additional cleaning, such as the use of bleach, may be used if there is a confirmed presence of clubroot in the area or if it is recommended by the local agricultural fieldman. ATCO is not aware of clubroot issues within the M.D. of Bonnyville.19
8.1.3 Property value and future development 76. ATCO submitted that the pattern of residential development in the project area significantly constrains future development in a north/south direction within privately held lands.
77. ATCO does not anticipate that there would be an impact to property value for either bare agricultural land or land where a residence is present. ATCO submitted that the potential impact on property value decreases with distance.20 ATCO attempted to minimize the property value impact by siting the transmission line a reasonable distance away from residences and siting the transmission line along property boundaries, roads and other linear disturbances.
78. ATCO stated that it did not typically compensate for native timber that had been allowed to establish along property edges as it did not have a commercial timber value, however, it may provide compensation to support the re-establishment of compatible species. ATCO provided a list of compatible species suitable to be planted within eight metres of the transmission line.21
79. ATCO stated that it gives consideration to potential future land development when routing transmission lines, however, the timing and implementation of development is not always defined. ATCO noted that there have been no new subdivisions approved in the area since 2010.22 However, ATCO stated the proposed transmission line is compatible with the existing land use along the preferred west and alternate east routes and would not preclude residential or farm-yard development.
18 Exhibit 128.04, Table 10: Beartrap Transmission Project Updated Route Metrics. 19 Exhibit 87.01, RRG.ATCO-014. 20 Exhibit 128.10, paragraph 32. 21 Exhibit 128.03, Table 1: May be Planted Near (Within 8 m) of a Transmission Line. 22 Exhibit 128.10, paragraph 45. 14 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
8.2 Views of the interveners 8.2.1 Route preference 80. The RRG opposed ATCO’s preferred west route and indicated the alternate east route was superior to the preferred west route because there were fewer landowner objections and the alternate east route was preferable from a biodiversity point of view.
81. The Toews opposed the preferred route and supported the alternate east route, as it located the transmission line further away from their residence.
82. The Bushores indicated that they opposed the alternate east route. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson indicated that they had concerns about the consequences of the applied-for alternate east route, but were not against transmission development in the proposed location provided that their concerns about flooding could be addressed.
8.2.2 Residential impacts 83. The RRG members along the preferred west route were generally concerned with the impact of the proposed transmission line on landowner lifestyle, viewscape, the ability to subdivide parcels and the impact on property values.
84. Mr. Dokter was concerned with the proximity of the proposed transmission line on the preferred west route to both his residence and work place. Mr. Dokter’s cabinet manufacturing facility is 175 feet from the transmission line and his residence is 340 feet from the transmission line.23 Mr. Dokter also submitted that a dugout on the LaFrance property is used by the Dokter family for recreational purposes and that the Dokter family had concerns with the proximity of the line to the dugout.
85. The Hollaschs submitted they had many floor to ceiling windows with views of the hills five kilometres east of their property. They stated that the transmission line would be sited on those hills, and would spoil their serenity and views.24
86. Mr. Kelly’s property is located adjacent to the proposed alternative east route. His residence is located approximately 100 metres from the right-of-way east of Range Road 434.25 Mr. Kelly testified that his land has been flooding and indicated that the ditches on either side of the range road should be defined and the road grade raised to alleviate the flooding. He explained that because the road grade is too low, water flows directly onto his home site. He stated that water flows south from the railway ditch because it is at least one metre lower than the ditch located at the bridge on Range Road 434, close to his home.26 Mr. Kelly was concerned that the transmission line would impede the modification of the ditches required to prevent future flooding. He testified that the proposed location of the transmission line would likely be where the ditch would have to be moved.27 The Bushores also expressed concerns about the drainage issue and flooding on their cultivated lands to the west of their home.28
23 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 6, PDF page 79. 24 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 7, PDF page 84. 25 Exhibit 41, PDF page 22. 26 Transcript, Volume 1, page 151, lines 22-24. 27 Transcript, Volume 1, page 150, lines 10-14. 28 Transcript, Volume 1, page 164, line 16. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 15 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
8.2.3 Agricultural and commercial impacts 87. The RRG members stated that working around the transmission lines would cause overlap, invasion of noxious weeds and the loss of shelterbelts, all of which could lead to a loss of farm revenue.29
88. Mr. Koziol owns land on both sides of the transmission line and submitted that he did not want transmission towers in the center of his field as it would be a safety and efficiency concern.30 Mr. Koziol also stated that the increased wear on farm equipment from turning around poles, would result in higher maintenance costs.
89. Ms. Leeds also expressed concerns that the construction activities would impact agricultural activities. Ms. Leeds submitted that the presence of transmission towers and guy-wires on the farmland would make farming harder. Ms. Leeds stated that there was no clear indication on when construction would occur and if it occurred before harvest, crops would be lost.31
90. Mr. Leguerrier stated that he was concerned with liability issues arising from accidents with farm equipment hitting the transmission line as well as potential fires that may occur from birds coming in contact with the transmission lines.
91. The members of the RRG also expressed concerns with the temporary workspaces and access trails. Ms. Leeds submitted that the disturbed land would lose some of its productivity for several years and Mr. Leguerrier stated that the access trails and right-of-way would open up his land to access for the general public.
92. The RRG members were concerned about the spread of noxious weeds such as clubroot. Ms. Leeds testified that a level three cleaning, steam cleaning of equipment followed by disinfecting with a bleach solution, should be implemented by ATCO to prevent the spread of clubroot.32
93. Mrs. Hollasch testified that she is a competitive rider and has a ranch day program where young girls come to experience western horseback riding and western lifestyle. Mrs. Hollasch indicated that she had various advertising materials featuring pictures of her property and that the transmission line would impact the image portrayed to potential customers which, in turn, would negatively affect her ranch day business.33
29 Exhibit 105.01, paragraph 24. 30 Exhibit 57.01. 31 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 5, PDF page 67. 32 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 5, PDF page 69. 33 Transcript, Volume 1, page 139 to 140, lines 10-22. 16 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
8.2.4 Effects on property value and future development 94. The RRG had concerns with devaluation of property. Ms. Leeds submitted that the presence of transmission towers and guy-wires on the farmland would make her property less desirable at the time of resale.34 The Dokters stated that whether the visual and health concerns are real or perceived, it would have a negative effect on property value.35 Mr. Leguerrier stated that the price of his acreage would be affected.
95. The RRG members also expressed concerns that the transmission line would prevent future development. Mr. Koziol submitted that the only available space to create a new subdivision is where the transmission line would now be sited.36 Ms. Leeds submitted similar concerns that the transmission line would prevent subdivision of her property.
96. On the alternate east route, Mrs. Bushore expressed concerns that the transmission line would impact a potential subdivision. Mrs. Bushore stated that the area where she plans to subdivide a lot for her son would be near the location of the proposed transmission line.37
8.3 Commission findings 97. The Commission has assessed both the preferred west and alternate east route options presented by ATCO. The Commission accepts that both route options are viable. The Commission recognizes that the choice of either route will impact those who live and work on or near it.
98. The Commission, in keeping with its past decisions, considers that proximity to residences is an important consideration in siting transmission lines. Generally, the Commission considers metrics of residences within 150 metres of the centreline because the Commission considers that the impacts from transmission lines diminish with distance. The preferred west route has one fewer residence within 150 metres than the alternate east route but more residences within 800 metres. Consequently, the preferred west route has less impact on those landowners most affected by the transmission development.
99. The Commission notes that members of the RRG expressed concerns with the visual impact of the transmission line. The Commission recognizes that the impairment of a viewscape in scenic country is an unwanted impact caused by transmission lines. It is a factor that is considered in assessing the overall advantages and disadvantages of the proposed route options. The Commission recognizes that viewscapes are subjective. The evidence before the Commission is that the proposed transmission line would be situated about a half mile from the Hollasch home. In the Commission’s view, the design and size of the structures coupled with their distance from the Hollasch home diminishes visual impact. Any residual impairment of the view is not sufficient on its own to deny the preferred west route. The Commission accepts that ATCO will consult with landowners to attempt to minimize the visual impact from their residences through the placement of structures along the right-of-way.
34 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 5, PDF page 67. 35 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 6, PDF page 80. 36 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 4, PDF page 65. 37 Transcript, Volume 1, page 164, lines 9-15. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 17 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
100. Several interveners expressed concern with potential negative impacts to their farming operations. ATCO stated that it is committed to working with farmers to minimize the impacts via consultation regarding structure placement, compensation and implementing measures to control noxious weeds. The Commission finds that most potential agricultural impacts can be reduced with mitigation measures and that ATCO’s proposed mitigation measures are satisfactory. The Commission acknowledges that even with ATCO’s proposed mitigation measures the transmission line will impact agricultural operations. The metrics provided by ATCO indicate that the preferred west route traverses significantly less cultivated land than the alternate east route. The Commission finds that crossing less cultivated land favours the preferred west route.
101. With respect to tree clearing, including the destruction of windbreaks, the Commission determines that the preferred west route will require less tree clearing. The Commission accepts ATCO’s submission that the area is at low risk for slope, wind and water erosion, and that ATCO has stated it may provide compensation to facilitate the re-establishment of compatible vegetation species in the area.
102. The Commission recognizes that the RRG and Mrs. Bushore were concerned with the transmission line’s potential impact on property values. No expert reports were filed with respect to this issue and the evidence that was given was brief and in the nature of a personal opinion. The Commission considers that the evidence is insufficient to allow it to determine whether there may be a positive or negative effect on the value of lands on or near the proposed transmission routes. Further, there was no evidence before the Commission to indicate that the impacts to property value, if established, would be greater on one route when compared to the other. In the absence of evidence to support the Bushores concerns, the Commission is not persuaded that there will be negative impacts to property values.
103. The Commission finds that the preferred west route has fewer residences within 150 metres of the transmission line, crosses less cultivated land and requires less tree clearing than the alternate east route. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the preferred west route has lower residential and agricultural impacts.
104. The Commission notes that Mr. Kelly and the Bushores expressed concern that approval of the alternate east route could impede work by the M.D. of Bonnyville on the ditches located on both sides of Range Road 434 to correct the flooding issue.
105. Based on the evidence, the Commission is not convinced that approval of the alternate east route would impede the M.D. of Bonnyville’s ability to address the flooding and draining issues along Range Road 434 for the following reasons. First, the Commission notes that in ATCO’s third amendment, the alternate east route along this segment was moved to the east, out of the ditch and 0.6 metres onto the adjacent private property, in response to a request by the M.D. of Bonnyville to accommodate future road widening.
18 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
106. Second, it was ATCO’s evidence that the M.D. of Bonnyville had indicated to it that the project would not impede the mitigation of drainage issue faced by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson. ATCO expanded on this evidence at the hearing and explained that there is an existing municipal waterline running along the west side of Range Road 434. ATCO stated that during consultations with the M.D. of Bonnyville, the M.D. stated that in the event it ever decides rebuild or expand the range road that expansion would likely occur on the east side of the road allowance because of the existence of the waterline. The Commission notes, in this respect, the Bushores’ evidence that the widening of the municipal road to the north of their home was done on the south side of the road due, in part, to the presence of a waterline on the north side of the road.38
107. The Commission recognizes that the legitimate concerns expressed by Mr. Kelly, Ms. Anderson and the Bushores regarding the drainage and flooding issues they have experienced along Range Road 434. However, in the Commission’s view, these are flooding issues that pre-existed the proposal for the alternative route, and it is satisfied that approval of the alternate route would not have a material impact on these flooding issues or the M.D. of Bonnyville’s ability to address that issue.
9 Effects on the environment
9.1 Views of ATCO 108. ATCO estimated that the preferred west route would cross 2.6 hectares of wetlands and water bodies, while the alternate east route would cross 5.6 hectares.39
109. ATCO retained EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA) to identify and assess potential environmental impacts associated with this project. EBA conducted environmental surveys and concluded that there is no vastly superior environmentally favoured route. ATCO stated that the elk survey and the stick nest survey favoured the preferred west route while the owl and wetland surveys favoured the alternate east route. ATCO stated that a rare plant species was located in three wetlands along the alternate east route. ATCO submitted the results of additional environmental studies conducted during spring-summer 2013. An amphibian survey did not identify species of concern on either route and a breeding birds study indicated the presence of a species of concern on the alternate east route.40
110. ATCO’s environmental evaluation predicted that the impact of the project on wildlife would be low in magnitude and not significant for either route provided that the proposed mitigation measures were implemented. The mitigation measures suggested include winter construction, installation of bird markers and construction monitoring by a qualified biologist.41 No species requiring setbacks were observed. ATCO stated that Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development has not expressed objections to either the preferred west or alternate east route options.
38 Transcript, Volume , page 165, lines 9-16. 39 Exhibit 128.04, Table 10: Beartrap Transmission Project Updated Route Metrics. 40 Exhibit 117.04, AUC-ATCO ELECTRIC-12.2, pages 3-5. 41 Exhibit 37.00, Beartrap Transmission Project – Environmental Evaluation, pages 39-40. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 19 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
111. ATCO stated that one advantage of the preferred west route relative to the alternate east route is the impact of the proposed routes on the Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone. ATCO stated that the alternate east route covers more than twice the amount of the Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone. Further, the area along the alternate east route is already fragmented by oil and gas development. ATCO stated that it is important to preserve the Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone to the east, in light of the disturbance already present.
9.2 Views of interveners 112. Several members of the RRG expressed concerns that the transmission line would negatively impact wildlife in the area.42 The RRG members indicated that they have observed several species of birds and deer in the area, and did not want to disturb the wildlife habitat.
113. The RRG retained Cliff Wallis of Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. to evaluate the preferred west and alternate east routes. Mr. Wallis stated that both routes should be considered viable and pose no significant elevated risk to environmentally significant areas, important bird habitats or elements of conservation concern and that from a biodiversity perspective, there is no clear choice between the preferred west and alternate east route.43 Mr. Wallis stated that the preferred west route potentially impacted more wetlands, passed in closer proximity to a priority migratory bird habitat and an Environmentally Significant Area of provincial importance, while the alternate east route would intersect more key wildlife and biodiversity zones. Mr. Wallis stated the impact on Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone in the area is of less concern than wetlands as the Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone is already heavily fragmented by oil and gas activity. 44
9.3 Commission findings 114. The Commission accepts ATCO’s evidence that potential environmental impacts are expected to be low in magnitude and not significant for either route option. The Commission takes comfort that Mr. Wallis, an expert for the RRG, reached a similar conclusion in his review. Although the environmental impacts are low in magnitude, the Commission notes that the environmental metrics slightly favour the preferred west route as it preserves more of the Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zone. The Commission expects that ATCO will minimize potential adverse environmental effects by conducting the mitigation measures outlined in the environmental evaluation and as described in the application.
10 Health and safety and electrical effects
10.1 Views of ATCO 10.1.1 Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) 115. ATCO stated in its application that stakeholders had expressed concern about EMF and the potential impact that it would have on their health.
42 Exhibit 105.01, paragraph 21. 43 Exhibit 101.01, page 19. 44 Exhibit 101.01, page 1. 20 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
116. ATCO retained Exponent Inc., which provides engineering and scientific consulting, to provide a report on EMF. Dr. Erdreich, appeared as an expert witness representing Exponent Inc. on ATCO’s witness panel. Dr. Erdreich is a senior manager at Exponent Inc. and holds a Ph.D. in Epidemiology. She has experience in environmental epidemiology and health risk assessments. Dr. Erdreich answered questions posed by the interveners as well as by the Commission on the impact of EMF on health.
117. ATCO indicated that alternating-current transmission lines are a source of extremely low-frequency EMF and that these fields are at the highest levels under the line, but decrease dramatically with distance.
118. ATCO has adopted the conclusions of Health Canada, the World Health Organization and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and submitted that the weight of the scientific evidence does not support a cause and effect relationship between general health symptoms and exposure to EMF in animals or humans.
119. ATCO stated that the ICNIRP guidelines for magnetic field exposure for the public are 2,000 milligauss (mG) and 10,000 mG for occupational workers. The magnetic fields created by using common household appliances such as electric drills and hair dryers can exceed 200 to 300 mG at the range of the person using the appliance. Ambient magnetic fields in North American residences typically range from 0.6 to six mG.
120. ATCO explained that magnetic field levels at any point 35 metres or more from the centerline of the Beartrap transmission project will be one two thousandth the recommended public exposure levels. The nearest residence to the Beartrap transmission project is 90 metres from the centerline, at which point the magnetic field strength would be approximately 0.1 mG, which is one twenty thousandth the recommended public exposure levels.
121. For electric field strength, ICNIRP recommends a public exposure guideline of 4.2 kilovolts per metre (kV/m) and an occupational exposure of 8.3 kV/m. The expected electric field strength at 35 metres from the Beartrap transmission project will be approximately 0.047 kV/m, or one one hundredth the ICNIRP public exposure guideline. At the nearest residence, 90 metres from the transmission line, the electric field strength will be one five hundredth the ICNIRP public exposure guideline.45
122. Based on the above information, ATCO submitted that the EMF levels for the proposed transmission line would be well below the public exposure guidelines at the edge of the right-of-way. ATCO asserted that it would continue to provide information on EMF to concerned stakeholders and monitor EMF research.
10.1.2 Electrical effects and noise 123. ATCO submitted that radio, television and GPS interference is rare with transmission lines. For radio, the lower frequency AM radio has a greater chance to have interference than higher frequency FM radio. Like EMF, radio interference would have the greatest potential under the transmission line and would decrease dramatically with distance. Television interference is generally not a concern, but has the potential to become a concern if a transmission structure is located between the TV source signal and the receiver. This can be mitigated with structure placement. Digital TV signals have a higher tolerance to interference
45 Exhibit 128.06 , PDF 2-3. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 21 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
sources and satellite television signals should not be impacted by the transmission line as the towers are sited far enough from residences to prevent the blocking of the line-of-site of the satellite receiver. ATCO stated that transmission lines do not generally affect GPS systems as the GPS satellites and GPS receivers are constantly moving in relation to one another and any blocking of the signal is temporary. ATCO committed to work with Telus before and after construction to identify and mitigate any adverse impacts.
124. ATCO considered induced current and voltage in nearby metallic objects such as pipelines, fences and buildings. It stated that transmission line interaction with pipelines is well known, and that ATCO and the pipeline operators will continue to meet the regulated standards so facilities can be operated safely. ATCO stated it will ground structures, where necessary, to minimize and mitigate induced voltages.
125. ATCO conducted a noise impact assessment in accordance with AUC Rule 012: Noise Control (AUC Rule 012) for the Beartrap 940S substation. The assessment shows the facility will meet the permissible sound levels.
10.2 Views of the interveners 126. The members of the RRG expressed health concerns with the transmission line. Mr. Dokter’s cabinetry business would be located 75 feet from the property line, and he had health concerns for himself and his workers due to the close proximity of the transmission line.46 In addition, Mr. Dokter submitted concerns that food grown in a greenhouse near the line would be unfit for human consumption due to EMF.47
127. Mr. Leguerrier stated that because his farm equipment uses GPS, two-way radios and other cellular equipment, he was concerned that the transmission line would create interference.48
128. On the alternate east route, Mrs. Bushore also expressed concerns with EMF. She stated her walking and biking route around her property would be near both an existing and a new 144-kV transmission line.49 Mrs. Bushore also indicated she planned to subdivide and create a lot in the northwest corner of her property near where the proposed transmission line would tap into the existing transmission line. Mrs. Bushore was worried about health concerns from EMF if a residence for her son was constructed in this location.50
10.3 Commission findings 129. Several interveners expressed concern that potential adverse health effects associated with EMF will impact their activities in and around the transmission line. No expert evidence was filed by any of the concerned parties as to the adverse health effects associated with EMF from the proposed transmission line.
46 Exhibit 105.01, paragraph 27. 47 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 6, PDF page 79. 48 Exhibit 105.01, Tab 8, PDF pages 93 to 95. 49 Transcript, Volume 1, page 162, lines 9-16. 50 Transcript, Volume 1, page 163, lines 20-25. 22 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
130. The Commission finds that the expected EMF levels for the proposed transmission line will be well below the public exposure guidelines at the edge of the right-of-way. Given the expected electric and magnetic field levels, the Commission finds that the evidence before it does not support a conclusion that there will be any adverse health effects associated with the EMF produced by the proposed transmission line. In this respect, the Commission accepts ATCO’s evidence set out in the application, and confirmed by ATCO’s witness, that exposure to extremely low frequency EMF caused by the transmission line does not pose a health risk to those who live and work along the line, their livestock or crops.
131. The Commission expects that ATCO will provide information about EMF to concerned stakeholders. The Commission directs that ATCO, if requested, provide landowners adjoining the transmission line with individual EMF consultations.
132. The Commission also finds that other electrical effects, including radio, television and GPS interference, created by the transmission line can be mitigated and holds ATCO to its commitment that effective mitigation measures will be implemented if these effects are encountered.
133. Regarding noise impacts, the Commission accepts that the project meets the requirements of AUC Rule 012 based on the evidence submitted by ATCO.
11 Route cost comparison
11.1 Views of ATCO 134. ATCO estimated the cost of the preferred west route to be $10.5 million and the alternate east route to be $13 million. ATCO stated that Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. would be baring between 95 and 97 per cent of the cost with the remainder being allocated to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System and paid by ratepayers.51
11.2 Views of interveners 135. Mr. Secord, on behalf of the RRG, argued that in cases of a customer project such as this the Commission should be consistent with its past decisions and not place an overriding weight on cost.52 Accordingly, Mr. Secord suggested that the more costly alternate east route be approved.
136. Enbridge did not express a preference regarding cost.53
11.3 Commission findings 137. The Commission found previously that the preferred west route is less costly than the east alternate route and therefore is preferred from a cost perspective. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission notes that the application is to serve a customer project and most of the cost will be paid by Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. The Commission agrees with the RRG members that when deciding which route option is in the public interest, cost is generally one of the less important criteria considered.
51 Transcript, Volume 1, page 110, lines 9-16. 52 Transcript, Volume 2, page 252, lines 11-12. 53 Exhibit 102.01, PDF 25, Attachment JRD-3 – RRG Modified Table 10: Summary of 7LA24 Route Options. AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 23 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
12 Conclusion
138. In making its determinations for an application for a transmission line, the Commission considers each route option proposed relative to the criteria proximity to residences, effects on agricultural land and operations, environmental impacts, health impacts, visual impacts, cost and any other types of potentially adverse impacts that parties request the Commission to consider. The Commission must consider all relevant factors and the often conflicting interests of the interveners on both proposed routes and the interests of Albertans as a whole to arrive at a decision which seeks to have the least overall adverse impact. As the Commission stated in Decision 2012-327:54
…the Commission does not weigh routing criteria individually. Rather it weighs all of the criteria together, and considers both the potential impact on individuals and on the larger community.55
139. The Commission considers that the evidence provided to support the application during the proceeding is sufficient and finds that the application complies with the consultation requirements prescribed in AUC Rule 007.
140. The Commission is of the view that the concerns raised by the members of the RRG can be mitigated. Accordingly, the Commission did not request that ATCO investigate the RRG route.
141. The Commission has considered carefully both the preferred west and alternate east route options. In considering the applied-for route options, the Commission has applied its routing criteria and considered the relative impacts of those routes on the lands and residences along which or through which the routes could pass. The Commission accepts ATCO’s submission that both the preferred west and alternate east route options are viable.
142. The Commission has determined that the preferred west route has less overall impact because it is shorter, has a smaller number of residences within 150 metres of the transmission line centreline, requires less tree clearing and has less impact on cultivated lands. The Commission also considers that the preferred west route crosses fewer wetlands and water bodies and costs less than the alternate east route.
143. The Commission has also reviewed the record regarding the Beartrap 940S substation and determined that it would not cause direct and adverse impact and complies with the permissible sound level in accordance with AUC Rule 012.
144. For the above reasons, the Commission has determined that the preferred west route and the Beartrap 940S substation are in public interest.
54 Decision 2012-327: AltaLink Management Ltd. – Western Alberta Transmission Line Project, Application No. 1607067, Proceeding ID No. 1045, December 6, 2012. 55 Decision 2012-327, paragraph 658. 24 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
13 Decision
145. Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the application and grants ATCO the approval to construct and operate the Beartrap 940S substation as set out in Appendix 1 – Substation – Permit and Licence No. U2013-387 – August 30, 2013 (Appendix 1 will be distributed separately).
146. Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the application and grants ATCO approval to construct and operate transmission line 7LA24 along the preferred west route as set out in Appendix 2 – Transmission Line – Permit and Licence No. U2013-388 – August 30, 2013 (Appendix 2 will be distributed separately).
147. With regard to the alteration of transmission line 7L24 to create a tap point for the proposed single-circuit transmission line 7LA24, the Commission finds this proposed alteration to be of a minor nature and there are neither any persons directly and adversely affected nor any adverse environmental impacts that result from this alteration. Accordingly, the Commission holds that the alteration of transmission line 7L24 meets the requirements of Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Regulation and does not require a new permit and licence.
Dated on August 30, 2013.
The Alberta Utilities Commission
(original signed by)
Tudor Beattie, QC Panel Chair
(original signed by)
Kay Holgate Commission Member
(original signed by)
Patrick Brennan Acting Commission Member
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 25
Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO ElectricLtd.
Appendix A – Application route map
R.6 R.5 R.4 R.3 R.2W.4M.
COLD LAKE T.64
CRANE LAKE GRANDE CENTRE 846S SUBSTATION
55 RIVER
BEAVER COLD LAKE 892 T.62
BONNYVILLE 700S 28 SUBSTATION BONNYVILLE T.61
28 659 MOOSE LAKE 657 PROPOSED T.60 940S BEARTRAP MURIEL SUBSTATION LAKE
897 T.59
EXISTING 7L24 TRANSMISSION LINE PREFERRED WEST 7LA24 ROUTE ALTERNATE EAST 7LA24 ROUTE N.T.S.
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 27 Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
Appendix B – Proceeding participants
Name of organization (abbreviation) counsel or representative
ATCO Electric Ltd. Wes Caldwell Shawn Munroe
Red Route Group Richard Secord Rick and Joyce Dokter Tanya and Robert Hollasch Andy and Vera Koziol J. M. and Bella LaFrance Eileen Leeds Emil Leguerrier and Lorraine Baik
Walter Kelly and Kathy Anderson
Ken and Maryanne Bushore
Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. Kaare Svidal Ed de Palezieux
David Kufeldt
Paramount Resources Ltd.
Jason and Amy Toews
The Alberta Utilities Commission
Commission Panel Tudor Beattie Q.C., Panel Chair Kay Holgate, Commission Member Dr. Pat Brennan, Acting Commission Member
Commission Staff J.P. Mousseau (Commission Counsel) Shanelle Sinclair (Commission Counsel) Victor Choy
28 • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) Beartrap Transmission Project ATCO Electric Ltd.
Appendix C – Oral hearing – registered appearances
Name of organization (abbreviation) Witnesses counsel or representative
ATCO Electric Ltd. Glen Doll Shawn Munroe Shawn Martin Kelly Bray Travis McDonnell Pete Bothwell Peter Martyniuk Linda Erdeich Chris Oakley
Red Route Group Eileen Leeds Richard Secord Tanya and Robert Hollasch Ian McDougall Rick Dokter
Experts: Cliff Wallis Jim Dauphinais
Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. Ed de Palezieux
Walter Kelly Walter Kelly
Ken and Maryanne Bushore Ken and Maryanne Bushore
AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • 29