Decision 2003-036

ATCO Electric Ltd.

Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs for Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement

May 13, 2003

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Decision 2003-036: ATCO Electric Ltd. Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs for Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement Application No. 1285903

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

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

Web site: www.eub.gov.ab.ca

Contents

1 BACKGROUND ...... 1

2 SITES AND ESTIMATED COSTS ...... 2

3 VIEWS OF THE PARTIES...... 3

4 VIEWS OF THE BOARD...... 5

5 ORDER ...... 6

APPENDIX A – NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ...... 9

APPENDIX B – EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM...... 11

APPENDIX C – POWER PLANT DETAILS...... 13

APPENDIX D – LIST OF DECOMMISSIONED SITES...... 15

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • i

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Calgary Alberta

ATCO ELECTRIC LTD. ISOLATED GENERATION RECLAMATION COSTS Decision 2003-036 FOR DECOMMISSIONED SITES Application No. 1285903 NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT File No. 5600-23

1 BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2003, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (Board) received a Negotiated Settlement application in respect of the December 9, 2002 application of ATCO Electric Ltd. (AE), pursuant to section 35(1) of the Isolated Generation Units and Customer Choice Regulation (Regulation) for recovery from the Balancing Pool of isolated generating unit reclamation costs for decommissioned sites (Decommissioned Sites Application).

On a related decision, AE had previously filed an application (Application No. 1252803) with the Board, pursuant to section 34(5) of the Regulation for recovery of a total of $14,765,876 for isolated generating unit reclamation costs for operating sites from the Balancing Pool (Operating Sites Application). AE was able to reach a negotiated settlement for the Operating Sites (Operating Sites Settlement), which the Board approved in Decision 2002-102 dated December 3, 2002.

In the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Operating Sites Settlement, AE had indicated that the Negotiation Committee was very satisfied with the process that had resulted in the Settlement and had expressed a desire to use a similar process to deal with AE’s decommissioned sites.

In the Decommissioned Sites Application, AE advised that the same Negotiation Committee that developed the Operating Sites Settlement was working on a similar settlement in respect of AE’s decommissioned sites. Therefore, AE requested that the Decommissioned Sites Application be held in abeyance to allow for the negotiation process to continue.

As stated above, on April 1, 2003, the Board received the supplementary information respecting the completion of the Negotiated Settlement of the Decommissioned Sites Application (Decommissioned Sites Settlement) and the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (Memorandum). AE, on behalf of the parties to the Settlement requested that the Board approve it as submitted. The Decommissioned Sites Settlement and the Memorandum are attached to this Decision as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 1 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

The Decommissioned Sites Settlement addresses the process agreed to by the parties for dealing with the reclamation of the decommissioned isolated generation sites covered in the Decommissioned Sites Application and the recovery by AE from the Balancing Pool of associated costs. The Memorandum addressed the key issues important to an understanding of the Settlement. The Memorandum also provided further explanation of some of the clauses in the Settlement where parties believed further explanation would assist the Board in understanding the terms of the Settlement.

The Board published notice of the Decommissioned Sites Settlement agreement on April 14, 2003 and requested objections on or before April 23, 2003. The notice was circulated directly to all interested parties on the distribution list for AE’s 2003-2005 General Tariff Application. The Board received no objections to the Settlement and no further submissions in relation to either the Application or the Settlement.

Accordingly, the Board considers the record of this proceeding to have closed on April 23, 2003.

2 SITES and ESTIMATED COSTS

AE submitted that each of the decommissioned isolated generating sites for which it was applying for reclamation costs meets the criteria set out in section 35(1) of the Regulation. Namely, that AE was the owner of the isolated generating units, the isolated generating units were used for the purpose of providing service to customer within the service area of the electric system distribution system of AE that were not connected to the interconnected electric system, and that the isolated generating units were decommissioned before the coming into force of the Regulation.

In its Application1, AE noted that the Regulation does not require cost estimates to be made prior to undertaking reclamation work at the decommissioned sites. Instead, the Regulation states in Section 35 that the work is to be done and then AE can apply to recover the costs from the Balancing Pool. Accordingly, AE stated that there are no detailed cost estimates for the decommissioned sites.

However, AE stated that a review of the cost estimates for the remediation of the operating sites (Application No. 1252803) would find that there was sufficient diversity in the volumes of contaminated soil and the locations of the sites that a representative cost per m3 of remediated soil can be calculated and applied to the decommissioned sites, where similar diversity existed.

Using this rationale, the Tier 1 cost estimate of $14.7 million for the Operating Sites and the total Tier 1 volume of 74,105 m3 for the Operating Sites yielded a cost of $198/m3.

AE stated that applying this cost per cubic meter to the total Tier 1 volume of 56,665 m3 for the decommissioned sites (Appendix C of this Decision is reproduced from Appendix C of the Application) produced a ballpark cost estimate of $11.2 million for remediation of the decommissioned sites. AE stated that the cost to reclaim the surface of the decommissioned sites had not been estimated and those costs would be in addition to this amount.

1 Page 8

2 • EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2 003) Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

AE included a spreadsheet listing all decommissioned isolated generating sites (Appendix D of this Decision is reproduced from Appendix A to the Decommissioned Sites Application).

AE noted in Section 1.C.7 of the Application, that some of the sites were contaminated with substances that were not representative of ATCO Electric’s operations. However, AE stated it is not always possible to trace this contamination conclusively to third parties. In those cases where a third party was identified, ATCO Electric intends to conduct the remediation and surface reclamation of the site jointly, with the third party picking up its fair share of the costs. In those cases where it was not possible to link any third party to the cause of the contamination, ATCO Electric did not see any alternative but to recover 100% of the cost of remediation and surface reclamation from the Balancing Pool through this Application.

For sites that AE had sold, AE stated in its Application that AE had conducted a review of documentation regarding conditions of sale. The review indicated that no express transfer of liability occurred with transfer of title. AE stated that it might remain responsible for the remediation of any environmental releases that occurred at the decommissioned isolated generating plants.

3 VIEWS OF THE PARTIES

In addition to AE, the following parties executed the Decommissioned Sites Settlement:

• Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties; • Alberta Direct Connect Consumer Association; • Alberta Federation of REA’s Ltd.; • Alberta Irrigation Projects Association; • Alberta Urban Municipalities Association; • The City of Calgary; • Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta; • Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta; • Industrial Power Consumers and Cogenerators Association of Alberta; • Public Institutional Consumers of Alberta; and • Senior Petroleum Producers Association.

Although the Alberta Cogenerators Council (ACC) participated in the settlement discussions, the ACC did not sign the Settlement. Instead, the ACC indicated that it neither supported nor opposed the Settlement. Representatives of certain aboriginal communities also participated in the settlement process, but did not execute the Settlement. However, the Settlement was accompanied by a letter on behalf of those communities indicating their support for Board approval of the Settlement.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 3 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

In brief, the Decommissioned Sites Settlement provides for:

• Remediation of environmental releases that occurred at decommissioned isolated generating sites outlined in Appendix A of the Settlement, as provided for in Section 35(1) of the Regulation. The field portion of the remediation of the decommissioned sites is anticipated to be complete within 5 years. • Actual remediation to be conducted to comply with Alberta Environment September 2001 Alberta Soil and Water Quality Guidelines for Hydrocarbons at Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities, Volume 3: User Guide. • Establishment of a cooperative process for implementation of both the overall reclamation plan(s) and the specific reclamation measures for each isolated generating site. • Implementation of a Remediation Review Committee and a Reporting and Approval Process as described in Appendix B of the Settlement. • Payments as contemplated in subsection 35(4) of the Regulation will reflect the actual agreed upon costs of remediation, the reasonable project management costs of AE and the Interested Parties in performing their responsibilities under the processes established in the Settlement and the carrying costs as laid out in the Settlement. • Recovery by AE annually of the aforementioned costs, incurred during that year, from the Balancing Pool, subject to the approval of those costs by the Remediation Review Committee. Board involvement or approval is not contemplated, other than in accordance with the Dispute Resolution process. • Establishment of a Dispute Resolution process for matters arising from the Reporting and Approval Process.

In the Memorandum (Appendix B), AE stated that the Decommissioned Sites Settlement builds on the Operating Sites Settlement approved by the Board in Decision 2002-102.

AE submitted that it made good economic sense to manage the reclamation of the operating sites and decommissioned sites as one project, for the following reasons:

1. The reclamation will be done by geographic area and therefore it was more efficient to remediate both operating and decommissioned sites within the same geographic area.

2. The income tax issue identified in the Operating Sites Settlement was similar for the decommissioned sites and requires a similar approach. The income tax problem was caused by the time delay between receiving any income tax deduction for the reclamation costs and paying income tax on payments received from the Balancing Pool. This problem can be eliminated if Balancing Pool payments were “streamed” to match actual reclamation costs incurred in a year. The Operating Site Settlement developed a mechanism to accomplish the “streaming” of Balancing Pool payments to match reclamation costs and in Clause 17 to the Decommissioned Sites Settlement it was proposed to use the same mechanism. Since the mechanism was the same for both the operating and decommissioned sites, administrative costs will be minimized and duplicated effort avoided if both the operating sites and decommissioned sites were administered as one project.

4 • EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2 003) Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

3. The reclamation and/or remediation work was similar for both the operating sites and decommissioned sites and so planning and overseeing the work was more efficiently handled if both the operating and decommissioned sites are managed as one project.

AE also submitted in the Memorandum (Appendix B), that Clause 23 of the Decommissioned Sites Settlement recognized the benefits of managing the operating and decommissioned sites together:

The parties agree that the overall process outlined in this Negotiated Settlement and the overall process described in the Negotiated Settlement approved by the AEUB in Decision 2002-102 will be managed as one project. To this end, the parties agree to endeavour to appoint the same representatives as used in the ATCO Electric Ltd. Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement to the extent required, in order to minimize costs of duplication and preserve labour efficiencies.

AE and the parties to the Decommissioned Sites Settlement have agreed in Clauses 3 and 27 that it represents a “package deal” and should be approved as such as being fair, reasonable and in the public interest pursuant to section 68 of the Electric Utilities Act.

4 VIEWS OF THE BOARD

Although not all interested parties (i.e. the ACC and Aboriginal Communities) signed the Decommissioned Sites Settlement, the Board considers that the Settlement was effectively unopposed. In these circumstances, similar to a unanimous negotiated settlement, the Board must be satisfied that the Settlement was arrived at according to a fair and open process in which all parties had an opportunity to have their concerns addressed. The Board must also be satisfied that no provisions of the settlement are patently contrary to the public interest.2

In the case of the Decommissioned Sites Settlement, a Board staff member observed the settlement process and no concerns about the process have been brought to the Board’s attention. The Board is satisfied that the Settlement resulted from a fair and open process.

The Board notes the similarity of the Decommissioned Sites Settlement to the previously Board approved Operating Sites Settlement. The Board notes that both settlements deal with the establishment of a Reclamation Committee and a Reporting and Approval Process to deal with the costs to be incurred over the next five years and subsequently to be recovered from the Balancing Pool pursuant to section 35(4) of the Regulation.

The Board notes one difference between the Decommissioned and Operating Sites Settlements, which the Board does not consider to be material. This difference is that the Decommissioned Sites Settlement does not provide for the establishment of an initial recovery fund from which AE is to draw upon approval of costs in respect of particular sites.

The Board has reviewed both the Settlement (Appendix A) and the Memorandum (Appendix B) plus the remainder of the accompanying documents submitted. The Board is satisfied that the Settlement deals with each of the major issues likely to arise as the reclamation and cost recovery

2 Decision 2000-85, page 6 EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 5 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

process proceeds over the life of the reclamation projects for the decommissioned isolated generating sites.

Specifically, the Board notes that the parties agree that the payments set out in subsection 35(4) of the Regulation will reflect, as per Clause 11 of the Settlement, the actual agreed upon costs of remediation and the reasonable project management costs of AE and Interested Parties, and also, as per Clause 12, associated carrying costs.

Further, the Board notes that the Settlement provides for the streaming of Balancing Pool payments to match actual reclamation costs incurred in a particular year, thus offsetting the income tax payable on the Balancing Pool payments, which parties agree are taxable. As the Board concluded in Decision 2002-102 respecting the Operating Sites Settlement, it has discretion to determine how and over what period of time payments from the Balancing Pool ought to be made in the circumstances. The Board specifically finds the Decommissioned Sites Settlement to be reasonable and in the public interest in that respect.3

Overall, the Board is satisfied that no provisions of the Decommissioned Sites Settlement are patently contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the Board approves the Settlement.

(Click here to return to the Table of Contents)

5 ORDER

For and subject to the reasons and directions set out in this Decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to Section 67(1) of the Electric Utilities Act, the ATCO Electric Ltd. Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement, dated March 21, 2003, reproduced in Appendix A (Settlement), is approved.

2. On or before December 15 of each year, ATCO Electric Ltd. will file a submission, containing the necessary information to support its request, with the Balancing Pool seeking the release and payment of the aggregate of the reclamation amounts incurred for the immediately preceding December 1 to November 30 time period. Such amounts are to be determined pursuant to the Settlement (Appendix A).

3. Pursuant to Section 35(4) of the Isolated Generating Units and Customer Choice Regulation, the Balancing Pool shall, at the earliest practical date, but no later than December 31 of the then current year, make the payment of the agreed upon amounts in accordance with the terms of the Settlement as approved herein.

(Click here to return to the Table of Contents)

3 Decision 2002-102, page 5

6 • EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2 003) Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Dated in Calgary, Alberta on May 13, 2003.

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD

(original signed by)

A. J. Berg, P. Eng. Presiding Member

(original signed by)

Gordon J. Miller Member

(original signed by)

J. R. Nichol, P. Eng. Member

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 7

Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

APPENDIX A – NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

"AE - Isolated Generation Reclamati

(Consists of 17 pages)

(Click here to return to the Table of Contents)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix A is referenced, approx. page 1)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix A is referenced, approx. page 3)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix A is referenced, approx. page 4)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix A is referenced, approx. page 5)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix A is referenced in Order)

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 9

Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

APPENDIX B – EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

"AE - Isolated Generation - Explanat

(Consists of 2 pages)

(Click here to return to the Table of Contents)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix B is referenced, approx. page 1)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix B is referenced, approx. page 4)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix B is referenced, approx. page 5)

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 11

Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

APPENDIX C – POWER PLANT DETAILS

"021204 - Appendix C - Power Plant detai

(Consists of 2 pages)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix C is referenced, approx. page 2)

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 13

Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

APPENDIX D – LIST OF DECOMMISSIONED SITES

"021204 - Appendix A - Landowner details

(Consists of 4 pages)

(Click here to return to text where Appendix D is referenced, approx. page 3)

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) • 15 Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 1 of 17

IN THE MATTER of the Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Application filed by ATCO Electric dated December 4, 2002 (Application No. 1285903);

AND IN THE MATTER of a Negotiated Settlement Agreement (“Negotiated Settlement”) reached between ATCO Electric and Interested Parties to the referenced Reclamation Costs Application;

AND IN THE MATTER of an Application by ATCO Electric seeking Alberta Energy and Utilities Board approval of the Negotiated Settlement.

ATCO ELECTRIC LTD. ISOLATED GENERATION RECLAMATION COSTS DECOMMISSIONED SITES NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT

1. ATCO Electric has been successful in reaching a Negotiated Settlement with the Interested Parties, who are signatories to the attached agreement, regarding all issues raised by ATCO Electric's Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites filing.

2. The participants to the ATCO Electric Negotiated Settlement were as follows: • Alberta Cogenerators Council • Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties • Alberta Direct Connect Consumer Association • Alberta Federation of REA’s Ltd. • Alberta Irrigation Projects Association • Alberta Urban Municipalities Association • The City of Calgary • Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta • Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta • Industrial Power Consumers and Cogenerators Association of Alberta • Public Institutional Consumers of Alberta • Senior Petroleum Producers Association

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 2 of 17

3. This Negotiated Settlement is presented to the Board for approval as a "package deal", and it is not possible for the Board to select and approve only certain aspects of the agreement and still reflect the views of parties. Therefore, should the Board decline to accept the full Negotiated Settlement, ATCO Electric requests that the Board deny this Application and allow all Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites matters to be litigated before the Board, as contemplated by Section 68 of the Electric Utilities Act (“EUA”). For greater clarity, if the Board seeks to impose any terms or conditions, either directly or indirectly, on the parties hereto or takes any action(s) which alters the benefits or obligations of the parties hereunder, the Negotiated Settlement “package deal” will be altered and there will be no agreement.

4. It is expressly agreed that the execution of the attached Negotiated Settlement by the Interested Parties signifies their support for the approval of the Negotiated Settlement.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of March, 2003.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003)

Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 3 of 17

A. INTRODUCTION

In consideration of the mutual covenants set out in this Negotiated Settlement Agreement ("Negotiated Settlement"), the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. ATCO Electric has concluded this Negotiated Settlement with the parties hereto for a process for the recovery of reclamation and/or remediation costs for all decommissioned isolated generating units outlined in Appendix A of this Negotiated Settlement. All of the Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites issues raised by ATCO Electric's Application, dated December 4, 2002 are disposed of in accordance with the terms hereof.

2. It is understood and agreed that:

(a) all settlement offers were exchanged and discussed among the parties on a confidential and without prejudice basis; and

(b) except for (a) above, no information provided by ATCO Electric or Interested Parties in respect of and relating to ATCO Electric's Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Application ("Application") as filed with the Board, including without limitation information not otherwise on the public record before the Board, was provided on a confidential or without prejudice basis.

3. The terms of the Negotiated Settlement reflect a "package deal" and, therefore, it is not possible for the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board ("AEUB" or "Board") to accept only part(s) of the Negotiated Settlement and still reflect the overall agreement reached as between the parties. For greater clarity, if the Board seeks to impose any terms or conditions, either directly or indirectly, on the parties hereto or takes any action(s) which alters the benefits or obligations of the parties hereunder, the Negotiated Settlement “package deal” will be altered and there will be no agreement. Thus, if the Board does not accept the complete Negotiated Settlement

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003)

Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 4 of 17

there shall be no settlement among the parties of the issues raised by the Application and the parties hereto will be free to litigate all or any such issues before the Board. This clause is intended to specifically acknowledge the limits on the Board’s authority recognized in Section 68 of the EUA.

4. This Negotiated Settlement is not intended to prejudice or otherwise impact any rights or obligations the parties hereto may have with respect to the subject decommissioned isolated generating units, which are outside the scope of the matters raised by ATCO Electric’s December 4, 2002 Application. Any and all such other matters shall be dealt with without regard to this Negotiated Settlement.

5. Appended hereto are executed signature pages from the Interested Parties (acceptable in counterparts) which indicate their concurrence with the Negotiated Settlement as reflected in this agreement. It is agreed that ATCO Electric will request that the Board approve the Negotiated Settlement and that parties to this Negotiated Settlement will support ATCO Electric's request. It is understood and agreed that a party may, but shall not be obliged to, make submissions to the AEUB in support of ATCO Electric's request for approval of the Negotiated Settlement.

6. Immediately after the Negotiated Settlement is executed by all of the signatories hereto, ATCO Electric will request that the Board approve the Negotiated Settlement.

B. RECLAMATION and/or REMEDIATION COSTS

7. ATCO Electric confirms that:

i) ATCO Electric owned, leased or had an agreement covering each isolated generating unit decommissioned site outlined in Appendix A for the sole purpose of providing electricity to the surrounding

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 5 of 17

isolated community, or industrial site as the case may be; and ATCO Electric was the owner of an isolated generating unit(s) located at each site referenced in Appendix A each of which were in regulated service.

ii) ATCO Electric did not use the property in Appendix A for any purpose other than to provide isolated generation to the surrounding isolated community or industrial site, as the case may be.

iii) ATCO Electric acknowledges that each site listed in Appendix A has been decommissioned by ATCO Electric before the Isolated Generating Units and Customer Choice Regulation AR 329/2000 (“Isolated Generation Regulation”) came into force.

iv) All the material filed in ATCO Electric’s December 4, 2002 application to the AEUB entitled “ATCO Electric Isolated Generating Reclamation Costs for Decommissioned Sites Application” and the information attached in Appendix C entitled “ATCO Electric Decommissioned Sites Land Information” is true and accurate to the best of ATCO Electric’s knowledge. ATCO Electric is aware that Interested Parties have relied on this representation in executing this Negotiated Settlement Agreement.

v) ATCO Electric has satisfied itself that it was an “operator” of all the subject Isolated Generating Units listed in Appendix C, as that term is defined in S.134 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and, as such, ATCO Electric has reclamation and/or remediation responsibility with respect to such sites.

8. Pursuant to its obligations under the Isolated Generation Regulation, ATCO Electric is committed to the reclamation and/or remediation for which it bears legal responsibility that occurred prior to

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 6 of 17

December 31, 2000 at decommissioned isolated generation plants, in a reasonable, prudent and responsible manner.

9. The parties hereto agree to an open, transparent and cooperative process for implementation of both the overall reclamation and/or remediation plan(s) and the specific reclamation and/or remediation measures for each decommissioned isolated generation site. ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties will each appoint a representative(s) who will actively participate in the decision making processes (“Remediation Review Committee”) regarding the overall reclamation plan(s) and the specific measures for each decommissioned isolated generating site. The members of the Remediation Review Committee will work towards mutually accepted and supported decisions in accordance with Appendix B ("Reporting and Approval Process"). Failing mutual agreement, a binding decision will be made in accordance with the dispute resolution process provided for below.

10. ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties agree that the actual remediation will be conducted to comply with the Alberta Environment September 2001 Alberta Soil and Water Quality Guidelines for Hydrocarbons at Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities, Volume 3: User Guide. The objective of the reclamation plan is for ATCO Electric to obtain the following from Alberta Environment or the relevant regulatory body:

(i) for vacant sites on land leased or owned by ATCO Electric, a reclamation certificate;

(ii) for vacant sites on land owned by a third party, a reclamation certificate. It is recognized that if the third party landowner does not allow access and/or the necessary amount of remediation and reclamation work, ATCO Electric may not be able to obtain a Reclamation Certificate. If the necessary access is denied or if the

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 7 of 17

work cannot be completed due to interferences with site operations, ATCO Electric will attempt to obtain a sign-off and release from the third party regarding surface reclamation issues not addressed and a Letter of Compliance indicating the level of remediation attained and detailing the issues that remain outstanding.

(iii) for occupied sites on land owned by ATCO Electric, where it is not reasonably expected that a Reclamation Certificate can be obtained, ATCO Electric will remain responsible for obtaining a Reclamation Certificate at a later date. In these circumstances ATCO Electric will perform the remediation and reclamation work necessary to obtain a Letter of Compliance indicating the level of remediation attained and detailing the issues that remain outstanding.

(iv) for occupied sites on land leased by a third party from the Crown or owned by a third party, ATCO Electric will seek access to the site for the purpose of performing the necessary remediation and reclamation work and obtaining a Reclamation Certificate. If the necessary access is denied or if the work cannot be completed due to interferences with site operations, ATCO Electric will attempt to obtain a signoff and release from the third party regarding surface reclamation issues not addressed and a Letter of Compliance indicating the level of remediation attained and detailing the issues that remain outstanding.

11. ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties agree that the payments contemplated by subsection 35(4) of the Isolated Generation Regulation will reflect the actual agreed upon costs of reclamation, the reasonable project management costs of ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties in performing their responsibilities under the processes proposed in the

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 8 of 17

Negotiated Settlement and the carrying costs calculated in accordance with paragraph 12.

12. The carrying costs rate used to calculate carrying costs on all costs identified in paragraph 11 above (with the exception of carrying costs themselves) will be in accordance with the rate contained in AEUB Information Letter IL 2000-1, which is a rate equal to the Bank of ’s bank rate, plus 1.5%. The rate will be applied to the mid-year balance of annual costs submitted to the Balancing Pool for payment, excluding carrying costs. For clarity the rate will be the monthly average Bank of Canada Bank Rate plus 1.5% over the year.

13. For purposes of paragraph 11 above, ATCO Electric’s project management costs include only reasonable and prudently incurred costs of ATCO Electric labour, fringe and out-of-pocket expenses required to control and administer the project. These costs will be in the order of $180,000 annually. Actual Remediation Review Committee costs will include the costs to participate in the Reporting and Approval process detailed in Appendix B hereto, subject to the Board’s cost recovery rules adjusted to allow the recovery of necessary and reasonable travel costs. These costs are estimated to average $16,000 annually over the 5 year reclamation period.

14. ATCO Electric proposes that the Balancing Pool will provide annual payments for the actual annual agreed upon costs for reclamation and/or remediation. ATCO Electric notes that this streaming of Balancing Pool payments to match actual annual expenditures in each year eliminates income tax impacts that would otherwise be associated with the Balancing Pool payments.

15. Consistent with the agreed upon active, open and transparent process for conducting ATCO Electric’s reclamation and/or remediation activities, the

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 9 of 17

parties agree that the Reporting and Approval Process, attached hereto as Appendix B, will be part of the process for reclamation and/or remediation of the decommissioned sites. ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties will actively participate in the development of detailed steps to implement the Reporting and Approval Process. ATCO Electric will use reasonable efforts to complete the field portion of the reclamation and/or remediation of the decommissioned sites within five years.

16. Pursuant to the Reporting and Approval Process, ATCO Electric will provide Interested Parties with a monthly status report on all completed, ongoing and proposed work, by site. This will include additional work to be done as a pre-condition to obtaining a Reclamation Certificate and/or Comfort Letter from Alberta Environment or equivalent acknowledgement from the applicable federal authority. The Interested Parties will be provided a full opportunity to examine the reasonableness of the costs incurred and will, within 15 calendar days, either: (i) provide written acknowledgement from the Remediation Review Committee confirming that the costs incurred are reasonable and should be recovered from the Balancing Pool; or (ii) provide a written statement of any costs that are disputed and the reasons therefore. In the event of a dispute, the matter shall be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution process contained herein.

17. ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties agree that by December 15 of each year ATCO Electric will file a submission to the Balancing Pool seeking the release and payment of the aggregate of the amounts for the immediately preceding period of December 1 to November 30, determined pursuant to paragraphs 15 and 16 above. The annual submission will be approved by the Remediation Review Committee. The Balancing Pool shall pay such aggregate amount to ATCO Electric on or before December 31 of the then-current year. AEUB involvement or approval is not contemplated, other than in accordance with the Dispute Resolution

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 10 of 17

process contained herein. If manifest error is alleged, the party shall apply to the AEUB for a determination of whether there has been manifest error. If the AEUB agrees that there has been manifest error it will make a final determination of the dispute.

18. If a dispute arises as a result of the implementation of the Reporting and Approval Process, the amount to be paid or the requirement to pay for the reclamation and/or remediation of any decommissioned isolated generation site or any other matter related to the reclamation and/or remediation of the decommissioned isolated generating sites, ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties agree to work expeditiously and in good faith in an attempt to resolve such dispute (the “Dispute Resolution” process).

19. If the subject dispute cannot be resolved informally by representatives of ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties within ten (10) days of one of the parties to the dispute notifying the other party(ies) to the dispute of its intention to submit the matter to formal determination under this Negotiated Settlement, the dispute will be submitted for determination to an agreed upon expert in the area of the dispute. Such expert will be mutually agreed upon by ATCO Electric and the Interested Parties involved in the dispute, each acting reasonably. If the parties cannot agree upon an expert, the parties will apply to the AEUB for final resolution of the subject dispute.

20. Upon appointment of the expert, each party will have 10 days to file a written submission with the appointed expert detailing their position on the matter in dispute. The expert shall render a final decision within a further period of 10 days i.e. within 20 days from his or her appointment.

21. The determination of the expert of the subject matter of the dispute will be final and binding upon the disputing parties and shall not be subject to

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 11 of 17

appeal, absent manifest error. Pursuant to Section 2 of the Arbitration Act, that Act does not apply to Dispute Resolution under this Agreement.

22. The parties agree that the fees and expenses of any expert appointed under this Dispute Resolution process will be recovered from the Balancing Pool as part of the project costs.

C. GENERAL

23. The parties further agree that the overall process outlined in this Negotiated Settlement and the overall process described in the Negotiated Settlement approved by the AEUB in Decision 2002-102 will be managed as one project. To this end, the parties agree to endeavour to appoint the same representatives as used in the ATCO Electric Ltd. Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement to the extent required, in order to minimize costs of duplication and preserve labour efficiencies.

24. The costs subject to this Agreement relate only to the reclamation and/or remediation required because of ATCO Electric’s use of the sites listed in Appendix A as isolated generation sites.

25. It is acknowledged and agreed that ATCO Electric has represented that the sites that are the subject of the Application were designed and operated in accordance with applicable environmental protection regulations and standards of the day, and that the Interested Parties have relied on that representation. Any costs associated with reclamation and/or remediation of a site which was not designed or operated in accordance with the representation are not recoverable under this Negotiated Settlement. Any disagreement between the parties with

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 12 of 17

respect to compliance with the representation will be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution process contained herein.

26. ATCO Electric agrees to pay costs of the Interested Parties associated with the Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Application and this Negotiated Settlement in accordance with the AEUB’s Guidelines for Utility Cost Claims, Guide 31B adjusted to allow for the recovery of necessary and reasonable travel costs, upon receipt of an invoice and appropriate support from each Interested Party. Each Interested Party agrees to provide an invoice of such costs, not later than 30 days after the Board issues an Order approving this Negotiated Settlement, and to provide in writing that its costs have been reasonably incurred and that its cost claim has been prepared in accordance with the Board's guidelines for intervenor cost claims. ATCO Electric will advance a summary of costs paid by ATCO Electric to all Interested Parties within the time period established by the Board for such submission. The summary will also include out of pocket costs reasonably incurred by ATCO Electric in respect of its participation in this Negotiated Settlement. ATCO Electric will ask the Board to approve the recovery of these costs from ATCO Electric's Hearing Cost Reserve Account. Each Interested Party will be responsible for providing any additional information the Board may request in respect to its cost claim. In the event that the Board finds that any portion of costs paid by ATCO Electric in respect of any Interested Party may not be recovered by ATCO Electric from ATCO Electric's Hearing Cost Reserve Account, that Interested Party shall pay the disallowed amount to ATCO Electric within 30 days of the Board advising ATCO Electric of its decision to not approve the recovery of such costs.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 13 of 17

27. All parties to this Negotiated Settlement agree that it is fair, reasonable and in the public interest and should be approved by the Board as a “package deal”.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 14 of 17

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: (May be executed in counterpart)

Alberta Cogenerators Council

Per: Name (Print): Title: Date:

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 15 of 17

ATCO ELECTRIC LTD.

ISOLATED GENERATION RECLAMATION COSTS DECOMMISSIONED SITES NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: (May be executed in counterpart)

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 16 of 17

Appendix B

Isolated Generation Site Reclamation – Decommissioned Sites

Reporting and Approval Process

The reporting and approval process for ensuring transparency on the Isolated Generation Site Remediation program will include the following components:

1. Project Management Strategy Document ATCO Electric’s project management strategy will be documented and submitted to the Remediation Review Committee in advance of any field work to obtain consensus on the following areas: • preferred reclamation and/or remediation technology. • contractor pre-qualification and selection process. • project supervision and control. • mechanics of the cost reconciliation process. • communication plan. • proposed overall project schedule (including a map showing the locations of the sites and indicating the proposed calendar year for remediation). • Tentative annual budgets for the project based on the proposed schedule and approved project estimate.

2. Annual Reclamation and/or Remediation Plan An annual remediation plan will be prepared prior to the start of each calendar year indicating the proposed schedule and budget for the upcoming year. This plan will be submitted for review and approval to the Remediation Review Committee in the last quarter of each year to allow sufficient time to finalize arrangements for field activities. This plan will include the following items: • Any work carried over from previous year. • Sites selected for reclamation and/or remediation in calendar year. • Rationale for sites selected. • Individual site budgets. • Individual site reclamation and/or remediation plans.

3. Individual Site Reclamation and/or Remediation Plans Individual site reclamation and/or remediation plans would be developed and submitted to all affected parties for review and approval prior to commencing field work at any site. These plans would include the following: • Site information – location.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix A ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 17 of 17

• Affected parties - land-owner/leaseholder information, aboriginal interests if any, other affected parties. • Type and extent of contamination – soil and groundwater. • Agreed-upon remediation method(s). • Access or schedule issues – e.g. winter access. • Proposed confirmatory sampling frequency and analytical program. • Local providers to be utilized provided they meet contractor evaluation criteria, e.g. landfill, gravel pit, trucking/excavation contractors, etc. • Proposed schedule for field activities at the site. • Any on-going monitoring requirements.

4. Monthly Status Report Reporting on field and planning activities will be supplied in the form of regular status reports which would include the following information: • Project status (completed, in-progress and planned activities). • Expenditures status by site. • Completed sites for review and sign-off • Changes to project plan and reasons. • Details of any unexpected discoveries.

5. Annual Reconciliation Reports By November 30th of each year an annual completion report will be prepared and submitted for approval and reimbursement. This report will include: • Reconciliation of actual cost with annual budget. • Reclamation certificates and/or Letters of Compliance obtained to date. • Summary of project status compared to the five-year schedule – e.g. list of all sites indicating status (completed, carried over from previous year, work not yet started).

6. Project Completion Report Upon completing the reclamation and/or remediation of all sites in the Regulation a project completion report will be prepared and submitted. This report will include: • The Letters of Compliance received from Alberta Environment or equivalent applicable federal authority. • Final reconciliation of the project cost with project budget. • Summary of project compared to the five-year schedule. • Any ongoing monitoring requirements.

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Appendix B ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 1 of 2

March 21, 2003 Via Email

Alberta Energy & Utilities Board 5th Floor, 640 - 5th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4

Attention: Mr. Satwant S. Lota

Dear Sir:

RE: ATCO Electric Isolated Generating Reclamation Costs Recovery for Decommissioned Sites Application No. 1285903 Negotiated Settlement – Explanatory Memo

The attached Negotiated Settlement builds on the settlement related to the reclamation cost recovery for isolated generation operating sites approved by the AEUB in Decision 2002-102. The explanatory memo that accompanied the operating site negotiation indicated:

“The Negotiation Committee is very satisfied with the process that has resulted from this Negotiated Settlement and have expressed a desire to use a similar process to deal with ATCO Electric’s decommissioned sites.”

It makes good economic sense to manage the reclamation of the operating sites and decommissioned sites as one project. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. The reclamation will be done by geographic area and so it is more efficient to be remediating both operating and decommissioned sites within the same geographic area.

2. The income tax issue identified in the operating sites settlement is similar for the decommissioned sites and requires a similar approach. The income tax problem is caused by the time delay between receiving any income tax deduction for the reclamation costs and paying income tax on payments received from the Balancing Pool. This problem can be eliminated if Balancing Pool payments are “streamed” to match actual reclamation costs incurred in a year. The operating site settlement developed a mechanism to accomplish the “streaming” of Balancing Pool payments to match reclamation costs and in Clause 17 to the

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003)

Appendix B ATCO Electric Ltd. Page 2 of 2

attached decommissioned site settlement it is proposed to use the same mechanism. Since the mechanism is the same for both the operating and decommissioned sites, administrative costs will be minimized and duplicated effort avoided if both the operating sites and decommissioned sites are administered as one project.

3. The reclamation and/or remediation work is similar for both the operating sites and decommissioned sites and so planning and overseeing the work is more efficiently handled if both the operating and decommissioned sites are managed as one project.

The attached Decommissioned Site Negotiated Settlement has recognized the benefits of managing the operating and decommissioned sites together and in Clause 23 of the Settlement it states:

“The parties agree that the overall process outlined in this Negotiated Settlement and the overall process described in the Negotiated Settlement approved by the AEUB in Decision 2002-102 will be managed as one project. To this end, the parties agree to endeavour to appoint the same representatives as used in the ATCO Electric Ltd. Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Negotiated Settlement to the extent required, in order to minimize costs of duplication and preserve labour efficiencies.”

The attached Negotiated Settlement builds on the Settlement approved in AEUB Decision 2002-102. The Negotiation Committee is satisfied with the process that has resulted from that decision and want a similar process as outlined in the attached Negotiated Settlement to be used for the decommissioned sites.

On behalf of the Negotiation Committee, I urge the AEUB to approve the attached Negotiated Settlement as expeditiously as possible.

BRB/lyk cc. All Interested Parties

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Discommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Estimated Volume Remediation Commission Decommission Plant of Soil (m3) Under Groundwater then Impact on Landowner Operations Joint Remediation date date Tier 1 Criteria Reclamation

AEC Ogston 1995 1997 5 ok yes minimal - very small volume Anzac 1960 1966 0 ok not required not applicable Assumption 1966 1968 0 ok not required not applicable Atikameg 1963 1971 0 ok not required not applicable Berwyn 1940s 1940s 275 exceeds yes reduced access to house Boyer River (micro) 1961 1967 0 ok not required not applicable Buffalo Creek unknown 1991 did not test did not test did not test not applicable Caribou 1991 1992 150 ok yes abandoned site, but w/in CLAWR Castor 1928 mid 1930s 100 exceeds yes moderate - w/in town, noise concerns Cecil Royce 1990 1992 500 dry yes moderate - operating oilfield site Cutbank 1980 1981 0 ok not required not applicable Deer Mountain 1963 1964 1,150 ok yes minimal - reduced lease road access Conoco Canada Resources Ltd. East Panny (Colin) 1994 1998 0 ok not required not applicable Empress 1932 1955 500 dry yes HIGH - w/in town, under bldg, operating business on site Fairview (Original) 1946 1952 1,700 ok yes moderate - within town, reduced road access, noise & visual concern Fort Original 1959 1979 8,200 ok yes HIGH - located in town next to lake Fort McKay 1969 1973 0 ok not required not applicable Fort McMurray 1957 1989 5,150 ok yes moderate - ATCO Electric site; near residential area & river 1956 1965 0 ok not required not applicable Gregoire Lake (micro) 1967 1987 800 ok yes Moderate - active microwave site; reduced roadway access Hangingstone 1990 1994 0 dry not required not applicable Hanna 1928 1931 0 ok not required not applicable 1964 1967 500 ok yes HIGH - residential area; reduce access to bldg, noise & visual concern 1946 1956 3,000 ok yes HIGH - residential area; reduce access to bldg, noise & visual concern Indian Cabins Original 1973 1987 2,500 ok yes minimal - abandoned site Jasper Community unknown 1974 480 no wells yes HIGH - busy industrial area, in Jasper Jean D'or Prairie 1966/89 1989/00 800 ok yes moderate - abandoned lot; reduced road accesss, located w/in town 1954 1955 0 ok not required not applicable Keg River (micro) 1961 1967 0 ok not required not applicable 1957 1959 0 ok not required not applicable 1963 1966 4,950 exceeds yes HIGH - large volume; w/in town, reduced parking, operating business on site Former BA Bulk Stn. unknown 1949 300 ok yes moderate - small volume, operating business on site Loon River Airbase 1990 1999 0 ok not required not applicable Manning 1949 1955 1,550 exceeds yes HIGH - large volume, w/in town, reduced road access YES - not sure who yet McLennan 1938 1956 0 ok not required not applicable Meander River community 1965 1967 0 ok not required not applicable

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) 1 of 2 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Discommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Estimated Volume Remediation Commission Decommission Plant of Soil (m3) Under Groundwater then Impact on Landowner Operations Joint Remediation date date Tier 1 Criteria Reclamation

Meander River micro 1961 1967 0 ok not required not applicable Muskeg 1967 1986 0 ok not required not applicable Nipisi 1969 1970 0 ok not required not applicable Overlander 1963 1971 0 no wells not required not applicable Paddle Prairie unknown unknown 0 ok not required not applicable 1928 1950 4,600 ok yes HIGH - reduces parking & alley access, located downtown, noise concern Peerless Lake 1975 1987 0 ok not required not applicable Pembina 1995 1996 did not test did not test did not test not applicable Pocahontas 1966 1981 250 no wells yes HIGH - reduces trail access, noise & visual concern; in National Park Rainbow Lake Diesel 1966 1968 2,150 ok yes HIGH - large volume, pasture used for horses, noise concern Rycroft 1947 1950 920 dry yes HIGH - reduces parking, access to bldg, visual concern Skunk 1987 1996 2,050 exceeds yes HIGH - large volume, operating oilfield site Conoco Canada Resources Ltd. 1956 1957 1,050 ok yes HIGH - reduced parking, within town, noise concern Smith 1958 1964 600 ok yes minimal - abandoned site Soars 1988 1993 1,200 ok yes minimal - abandoned site St. Paul 1936 1948 550 ok yes moderate - w/in town, reduced road access, noise concern (Home 1) 1956 1957 70 no wells yes minimal - reduced lease road access Trout (Murphy) 1995 1995 5 ok yes minimal - very small volume Trout Lake (Original) 1976 1987 110 ok yes moderate - reduces parking area & access to store Twin Lakes unknown unknown 200 dry yes moderate - reduced access to operating microwave site Vegreville 1927 1956 4,850 ok yes HIGH - under bldgs, large volume, w/in town, large impact on business Venus 1989 1993 did not test did not test did not test not applicable Wabasca 1974 1978 3,250 exceeds yes HIGH - residential area; reduce access to bldg, noise & visual concern YES - not sure who yet Watt Mountain 1961 1967 1,800 ok yes HIGH - large volume, reduced road access to operating microwave site Worsley 1962 1970 0 dry not required not applicable Youngstown 1943 1954 400 exceeds yes minimal - abandoned site; AE property 1968 1969 0 ok not required not applicable

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) 2 of 2 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Current Plant Current Development Current Use Ownership Current Ownership Specific General

AEC Ogston grassed area, ATCO trailer Active plant site Crown Land Leaseholder - Northstar Energy Corporation Anzac Private residence & yard private residence & yard Private land Ms. Rita Gagne, Lac La Biche Assumption Grassed area empty lot Federal land Tha First Nation Atikameg School, playground, ice rink, portable classrooms, old plant bldg Storage for equipment & boiler for school Federal land Whitefish Lake First Nation Berwyn Private residence & yard private residence & yard Private land William & Dorothy Nidish Boyer River (micro) Cleared area w/ microwave tower site Microwave tower site Crown Land Leaseholder - Telus Buffalo Creek Cleared, grassed area Abandoned oilfiled lease - reclamation has been done Crown Land Leaseholder - Marathon Canada Ltd Caribou Cleared, grassed area Abandoned oilfield lease Federal land CLAWR, Leaseholder - Husky Oil Castor Old plant building Castor Opportunity Centre & Recreation Storage building Private land Town of Castor Cecil Royce Cleared grassed area on oilfield lease Cleared area on oilfield lease Crown Land Leaseholder - Home Oil Cutbank Abandoned oilfield lease - cleared area Abandoned oilfield lease Crown Land Leaseholder - Summit Resources Ltd Deer Mountain grassed area between two roadways empty lot Crown Land Leaseholder - Conoco Canada Resources Ltd East Panny (Colin) Cleared area w/in oilfield lease Operating oilfield plant Crown Land Leaseholder - Conoco Canada Resources Ltd Empress Old plant building Storage of small trucks & general equipment Private land Mr. Carmen Cooper & Sterling Equities and Acquisitions Fairview (Original) Gravel parking area Parking area Private land Mr James Der Original ATCO Electric office & yard ATCO Electric office & yard Private land ATCO Electric Fort McKay Grassed area empty lot Crown Land Crown Land Fort McMurray Old plant building Building leased Private land ATCO Electric Fort Vermilion Grassed area w/ cement pad empty lot Private land Northwest Regional Health Authority Gregoire Lake (micro) Cleared area w/ Telus microwave site Microwave tower site Crown Land Leaseholder - Telus Hangingstone Cleared area w/ Telus microwave site Microwave tower site Crown Land Leaseholder - Telus Hanna Cleared area, agricultural equipment Parking area for agricultural equiptment Private land Lloyd Hutton & Roy Hutton High Level Apartment bldg & parking area aparment building & parking lot Private land Scott & Karen Lanti High Prairie Old plant bldg & residence trailer Do-All Contracting Shop Private land Bill Salisbury Indian Cabins Original Cleared, grassed area Grassed area Mixed land Jasper Community Commercial buildings Commercial buildings Federal land Jasper National Park; tennants lease from Park Jean D'or Prairie Cement pad, wooden shed, trailer Abandoned lot Federal land John D'or Prairie IR #215 Joussard Cleared, grassed area back yard of Post office, general store & bus depot Private land Sam & Cindy Sawka, Joussard Keg River (micro) Cleared area w/ Telus bldgs, AST, tower Microwave tower site Crown Land Leaseholder - Telus Kinuso Private residence & yard private residence & yard Private land Lyle Churchill, Kinuso La Crete Empty gravel lot short-cut to the parking area for the nearby shopping centre Private land Glenn Michaud, Allen Kronhit Lloydminster Bill's Small Engine Repair Small engine repair shop & storage yard Private land Bill Wilson, Lloydminster Loon River Airbase Cleared grassed area Grassed area Crown Land Land and Forest Service Slave Lake office Manning ATCO Electric office & yard ATCO Electric office & yard Private land ATCO Electric McLennan Private residence & yard private residence & yard Private land Mr. Nabil Razkalla & Heart River Housing Ltd. Meander River community Grassed area Trail from main road to school Crown Land MD of Mackenzie Meander River micro Cleared area w/ Telus microwave site & cement pad Microwave tower site Crown Land Leaseholder - Telus Muskeg Cleared area w/ Telus microwave site Microwave tower site Crown Land Crown Land Nipisi Grassed area Grassed area Crown Land Crown Land Overlander Treed area ROW for gas lines & OH power lines; treed Crown Land Crown Land Paddle Prairie Grassed area b/w 2 fenced lots Grassed area Federal land Paddle Prairie Metis Settlement

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) 1 of 4 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Current Plant Current Development Current Use Ownership Current Ownership Specific General

Peace River Telus building & parking area Telus building & parking area Private land Telus Peerless Lake Gravel parking area parking lot Crown Land MD of Opportunity; NLC lease Pembina Generator building Active plant site Crown Land Leaseholder - Marathon Canada Ltd Pocahontas Treed area Interpretive/nature trail for old mine site Federal land Jasper National Park Rainbow Lake Diesel Grassed w/ gravel approach Grassed area - horse pasture Crown Land Leaseholder - Harold Griffiths Rycroft Office building Village of Rycroft office building Private land Village of Rycroft Skunk Active Conoco oilfield site Active plant site Crown Land Leaseholder - Conoco Canada Resources Ltd Slave Lake Gravel parking area Parking lot for commercial businesses Private land Osprey Developments Smith grassed area w/ cement pad Private land Railink Canada Ltd Soars Cleared grassed area on oilfield lease Abandoned oilfield lease - still has many bldgs, etc Federal land Elizabeth Metis Settlement; leaseholder: CNRL St. Paul Cleared area w/ grain storage bins Storage area for grain bins Private land Danny Martin & Scott Martin Swan Hills (Home 1) Grassed area w/ many pipeline ROW empty lot Crown Land Crown, many ROWs Trout (Murphy) Cleared area w/in oilfield lease Active plant site Crown Land Leaseholder - Murphy Oil Trout Lake (Original) General Store, parking area, AST (store) parking lot for store Crown Land Leaseholder - Trout Lake Store Twin Lakes Cleared area w/ Telus microwave site & cement pad Microwave tower site Mixed land Telus Vegreville Warehouse bldg, gravel yard, bottle depot, trucking co. Warehouse bldg, gravel yard, bottle depot, trucking co. Private land Eastline Transfer Ltd & Central Wholesale Venus Oilfiled compressor site Operating Compressor site Crown Land Leaseholder - Husky Oil Wabasca Duplex building & gravel parking area private residence & yard Private land Adam Auger Watt Mountain Cleared area w/ microwave site (bldg, tanks, tower, outhouse) Microwave tower site Crown Land leaseholder - Telus Worsley Grassed area w/ cement foundation empty lot Private land ATCO Electric Youngstown Empty grassed lot, cement pad empty lot Private land ATCO Electric Zama City Tent-like quonset, rental equipment, woodshed, skid trailers Servicing & renting equipment such as light plants on trailers Private land Grove Enterprises (Irvin Grove)

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) 2 of 4 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Plant Landowner Contact Name Landowner Contact Information Date ESA delivered

AEC Ogston Northstar Energy Corporation 400-3rd Ave SW Suite 3000 PO Box 1448 Stn M Calgary AB T2P 2L6 not yet Anzac Rita Gagne, owner Lac La Biche AB 25-Mar-02 Assumption Steven Acknassay, Acting Band Manager, Dene Tha First Nation P.O. Box 120 Chateh AB T0H 0S0 (780-321-3862) 9-Apr-02 Atikameg Lloyd Chalifoux, Director of Housing, Whitefish Lake First Nation General Delivery Atikameg AB T0G 0C0 (780-523-0655) 24-Apr-02 Berwyn William & Dorothy Nidish, landowners General Delivery Berwyn AB (780-338-3867) 18-Sep-02 Boyer River (micro) Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 1002-100 Street, AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268) 12-Feb-02 Buffalo Creek John Prediger, Area Foreman, Marathon Canada Ltd or Tom Brooks, Marathon Canada Ltd 444-7th Ave SW Suite 1000 Calgary AB T2P 0X8 (780-849-2276) & [email protected] n/a Caribou Husky Oil Operations Ltd 707-8th Ave SW Floor 19, PO Box 6525 Stn D, Calgary AB not yet Castor Mike Yakielashek, Administrator, Town of Castor P.O. Box 479, Castor AB (780-882-3215) 29-May-02 Cecil Royce Home Oil not yet Cutbank Sandra Brown, Operations Technologist, Summit Resources Ltd #500, 630-4th Ave SW, Calgary AB T2P 0J9 (780-269-4404) not yet Deer Mountain Larry Kuhn, CET; SHEAR Northern Advisor, Conoco Canada Resources Ltd 4912 Plaza Avenue, Box 580 Swan Hills AB T0G 2C0 (780-333-7707) 10-Jul-02 East Panny (Colin) Larry Kuhn, CET; SHEAR Northern Advisor, Conoco Canada Resources Ltd 4912 Plaza Avenue, Box 580 Swan Hills AB T0G 2C0 (780-333-7707) 12-Apr-02 Empress Greg Tindall, landowner, Sterling Equities & Acquisitions Ltd & Carmen Cooper, landowner #3, 9821-44 Ave, Edmonton AB & PO Box 120 Empress AB (Cooper) 24-May-02 & 28-May-02 Fairview (Original) James Der, landowner, Dragon Inn Restaurants Ltd.& Jim Thacker, Thacker's autobody, neighbor P.O. Box 159 Fairview AB, T0H 1L0 (780-835-1162) 2-Jul-02 Fort Chipewyan Original Phil Pearson, Manager of Engineering & Public Works, RMWB 9909 Franklin Ave Fort McMurray AB T9H 2K4 ATCO Electric Fort McKay Larry Wright, Utilities Superintendent, RMWB 9909 Franklin Ave Fort McMurray AB T9H 2K4 26-Mar-02 Fort McMurray ATCO Electric ATCO Electric ATCO Electric Fort Vermilion Gary Johnson, Director Corporate Services, Northwestern Health Services Region Suite 200, Provincial Bldg, 10106-100 Ave High Level AB T0H 1Z0 (780-926-4388) 9-Apr-02 Gregoire Lake (micro) Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 1002-100 Street, Edmonton AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268; cell 780-719-9072) 12-Feb-02 Hangingstone Dave Lapp, M.Sc., Contaminated Sites Coordinator, Alberta Environment 111 Twin Atria Bldg, 4999-98 Ave, Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3 (780-427-9872) 20-Feb-02 Hanna Roy Hutton & Lloyd Hutton, landowners P.O. Box 550 Hanna AB T0J 1P0 (403-854-3431) 18-Apr-02 High Level Scott & Karen Lanti, landowners, K.S.L. Apartments P.O. Box 1646, High Level AB T0H 1Z0 (780-926-3516) 20-Aug-02 High Prairie William Salisbury, landowner, Do-all Building Contracting Box 956 High Prairie AB T0G 1E0 (780-523-4063) 11-Jul-02 Indian Cabins Original Jan Deemter, P.Eng., Regional Groundwater Engineer, Alberta Environment Provincial Bldg, 9621 - 96 Avenue, Bag 900-31, Peace River AB T8S 1T4 (780-624-6170) 27-Feb-02 Jasper Community Jurgen Deagle, Environmental Management Officer, Jasper National Park & Dwain Wacko, leaseholder & P.O. Box 10, Jasper AB, T0E 1E0 (JNP), Box 670 Jasper (Wacko), 16110-116 Ave Edmonton T5M 3V4 (780-447-8301)(Dairyland) 07-Mar-02, 26-Aug-02 & 06-Sep-02 Jean D'or Prairie Arthur Dumaine, Nation Administrator, Little Red River Nation P.O. Box 30 John D'or Prairie 3-Aug-02 Joussard Sam & Cindy Sawka, landowners, Joussard Superette Box 120 Joussard AB T0G 1J0 (780-776-3840) 2-Apr-02 Keg River (micro) Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 1002-100 Street, Edmonton AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268) 12-Feb-02 Kinuso Lyle Churchill, landowner General Delivery, Kinuso AB T0G 1K0 2-Apr-02 La Crete Glenn Michaud, landowner, La Crete Glass & Mirror Ltd 780-928-3233, cell 780-926-6265 fax 780-928-3133 22-Nov-02 Lloydminster Bill Wilson, landowner, Bill's Small Engine Repair & Mervin Townsend, mortgage holder 3710-58 Ave, Lloydmindter AB T9V 2N9 (780-875-1207), Box 662 Lloyd SK S9V 0Y7 (308-825-5099) 18-Jun-02 & 20-Jun-02 Loon River Airbase Dave Lapp, M.Sc., Contaminated Sites Coordinator, Alberta Environment P.O. Box 390 Slave Lake AB T0G 2A0 not yet Manning ATCO Electric ATCO Electric ATCO Electric McLennan Nabil Razkalla, landowner & Alberta Social Housing Corporation 4th Floor, 10405 Jasper Ave Edmonton AB T5J 4R7 (780-422-8544) (ASH), Box 393 McLennan AB T0H 2L0 (780-324-4444) (NR) 3-Apr-02 Meander River community Paul Driedger, Director of Planning, MD of Mackenzie #23 P.O. Box 1690 La Crete AB T0H 2H0 (780-928-3983) 10-Apr-02 Meander River micro Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 1002-100 Street, Edmonton AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268) 12-Feb-02 Muskeg Alberta Environment 3rd Fl Provincial Bldg, 4920-51 Street, Red Deer AB T4N 6K8 19-Feb-02 Nipisi Dave Lapp, M.Sc., Contaminated Sites Coordinator, Alberta Environment 111 Twin Atria Bldg, 4999-98 Ave, Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3 (780-427-9872) 20-Feb-02 Overlander Alberta Environment 3rd Fl Provincial Bldg, 4920-51 Street, Red Deer AB T4N 6K8 19-Feb-02 Paddle Prairie Darla Wanuch, Acting Administrator, Paddle Prairie Metis Settlement General Delivery Paddle Prairie AB T0H 2W0 8-Apr-02

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) 3 of 4 Isolated Generation Reclamation Costs Decommissioned Sites Negotiated Settlement ATCO Electric Ltd.

Plant Landowner Contact Name Landowner Contact Information Date ESA delivered

Peace River Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 10020-100 Street, Edmonton AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268) 21-Nov-02 Peerless Lake Sandra MacArthur, Assistant Manager, MD of Opportunity #17 & Willie Hendry, Northern Lakes College P.O. Box 60 Wabasca AB T0G 2K0 (780-649-3427 or 780-649-2561), PO Box 3000 AB (780-751-3280 or 780-849-3100) 24-Apr-02 & 26-Apr-02 Pembina n/a Pocahontas Jurgen Deagle, Environmental Management Officer, Jasper National Park P.O. Box 10, Jasper AB, T0E 1E0 7-Mar-02 Rainbow Lake Diesel Harold Griffiths, leaseholder, LaPrairie Group Box 455 Rainbow Lake T0H 2Z0 (780-956-3571) 20-Aug-02 Rycroft Sandra Isaac, Municipal Administrator, Village of Rycroft P.O. Box 360, Rycroft AB T0H 3A0 (780-765-3652) 18-Sep-02 Skunk Larry Kuhn, CET; SHEAR Northern Advisor, Conoco Canada Resources Ltd 4912 Plaza Avenue, Box 580 Swan Hills AB T0G 2C0 (780-333-7707) 10-Jul-02 Slave Lake Joey Mouallem & Dennis Barton, landowner, Osprey Developments Ltd Box 363 Slave Lake AB T0G 2A1 (780-849-3828) (780-805-3100) 9-Jul-02 Smith Shawn Smith, Regional Vice President, Railink Canada Ltd 1165 Weber Centre, 5555 Calgary Trail South, Edmonton AB T6H 5P9 28-Jun-02 Soars CNRL & Elizabeth Metis Settlement not yet St. Paul Danny & Colleen Martin, landowners P.O. Box 274 St Paul AB T0A 3A0 (780-645-2476) 19-Jun-02 Swan Hills (Home 1) Jan Deemter, P.Eng., Regional Groundwater Engineer, Alberta Environment Provincial Bldg, 9621 - 96 Avenue, Bag 900-31, Peace River AB T8S 1T4 (780-624-6170) 27-Feb-02 Trout (Murphy) leaseholder, Murphy Oil Company Ltd 555-4th Ave SW Suite 2100 P.O. Box 2721 Stn M Calgary AB not yet Trout Lake (Original) Leonard Belrose and Marlene Kelford, leaseholders, Trout Lake Store Inc. P.O. Box 120 Trout Lake AB T0G 2N0 (780-869-3931) 9-Jul-02 Twin Lakes Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 1002-100 Street, Edmonton AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268) 12-Feb-02 Vegreville Nip Olyn, landowner, Central Wholesale & Eastline Transfer Ltd Box 333 Vegreville AB T0B 4L0 (Eastline Transfer) not yet Venus n/a n/a Wabasca Adam Auger, landowner (780-891-3924 or 780-891-3151) not yet Watt Mountain Nancy McIntyre, Senior Environmental Advisor, Telus Corp Floor 32W, 1002-100 Street, Edmonton AB T5J 0N5 (780-493-7268) 12-Feb-02 Worsley ATCO Electric ATCO Electric yes Youngstown ATCO Electric ATCO Electric 27-Feb-02 Zama City Irvin Grove, landowner, Grove Enterprises Ltd. P.O. Box 1762 High Level AB T0H 1Z0 (780-926-1150) 10-Apr-02

EUB Decision 2003-036 (May 13, 2003) 4 of 4