Decision 2009-049
ATCO Electric Ltd.
Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34
April 28, 2009
ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION Decision 2009-049: ATCO Electric Ltd. Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 Application No. 1589611 Proceeding ID. 114
April 28, 2009
Published by Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, 4th Floor, 425 - 1 Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8
Telephone: (403) 592-8845 Fax: (403) 592-4406
Web site: www.auc.ab.ca
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2 BACKGROUND ...... 1
3 THE APPLICATION ...... 2
4 ISSUES...... 3 4.1 Did ATCO Provide Adequate Consultation?...... 4 4.1.1 Views of the Parties ...... 4 4.1.2 Commission Findings...... 4 Consultation with the Danns...... 6 Consultation with the Blums...... 7 4.2 Is the Project Consistent with the Public Interest?...... 9 4.2.1 Views of the Parties ...... 9 ATCO’s Route Selection Process ...... 9 ATCO’s Preliminary Route Options...... 12 Blums’ Objections and Route Options ...... 12 Routes Blum A and Blum B...... 14 Route Blum C ...... 15 Route Blum C1 ...... 15 Danns’ Objections and Route Options...... 16 4.2.2 Commission Findings...... 17 4.3 What Mitigation Measures Should ATCO Undertake? ...... 21 4.2.3 Views of the Parties ...... 21 4.2.4 Commission Findings...... 23
5 CONCLUSION ...... 24
APPENDIX 1 – PROCEEDING PARTICIPANTS...... 27
APPENDIX 2 – ORAL HEARING – REGISTERED APPEARANCES ...... 28
APPENDIX 3 – MAP OF PRELIMINARY ROUTE OPTIONS...... 29
APPENDIX 4 – BLUMS’ ROUTE OPTIONS ...... 30
APPENDIX 5 – DANNS’ ROUTE OPTIONS...... 31
APPENDIX 6 – TABLE 6 ...... 32
AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • i
ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION Calgary Alberta
ATCO ELECTRIC LTD. Decision 2009-049 CONSTRUCT UPDIKE SUBSTATION 886S AND Application No. 1589611 144-KV TRANSMISSION LINE 7L34 Proceeding ID. 114
1 INTRODUCTION
1. ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) commenced this application, Application No. 1589611 (the Application), with the Alberta Utilities Commission (the AUC or Commission), on October 6, 2008, pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.H-16 (HEEA) for the requisite approvals to:
• construct a proposed 144/25-kV Updike substation 886S located in LSD 8 of Section 18, Township 74, Range 12 West of the 6th Meridian;
• alter the existing Goodfare substation 815S located in LSD 13 of Section 34, Township 72, Range 11 West of the 6th Meridian;
• construct 27 kilometres (km) of 144-kV transmission line designated as 7L34 from the existing Goodfare substation 815S to the proposed Updike substation 886S;
• alter the existing 144-kV transmission line 7L07 from Elmworth substation 731S and Poplar Hill Substation 790S by terminating the line at Goodfare substation 815S and continuing to designate that portion of 7L07 between Goodfare substation and Poplar Hill substation as transmission line 7L07; and
• re-designate that portion of the existing 7L07 between Goodfare substation and Elmworth substation as transmission line 7L69.
2 BACKGROUND
2. On May 25, 2006, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) filed a Needs Information Filing (NIF), registered as Application No. 1462547, with the Commission’s predecessor, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the Board), for the construction of Updike Substation 886S, enhancements to Goodfare Substation 815S, and the construction of approximately 28.5 km of 144-kV transmission line 7L34 (collectively, the Project).
3. An application was filed by ATCO with the Board on October 17, 2006 (Application No. 1483074) (the First Application), for approval of the Project. Objections were received by the Board to the proposed routing of transmission line 7L34 and a public hearing was held on April 8, 2007. The Board issued Decision 2007-0371 on May 8, 2007, stating that the Board did not have sufficient evidence to deal with the application. The Board was unable to determine whether the applied-for route was superior to the alternative routes. ATCO was directed to file
1 Decision 2007-037 – ATCO Electric Ltd. Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 (Application No. 1483074) (Released: May 8, 2007)
AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 1 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
supplemental evidence in support of its preferred route and engage in further landowner consultation.
4. ATCO withdrew the First Application when it was unable to file the supplemental evidence by the extended deadline of January 31, 2008.
5. ATCO filed the Application on October 6, 2008, with a new preferred route for transmission line 7L34.
6. The Commission issued a Notice of Application on October 30, 2008, the date at which the Commission considers it received a complete Application. Notice of the Application was publicized in the Grande Prairie Daily Herald Tribune and Beaverlodge Advertiser and parties were invited to intervene in the proceedings. Interventions were received from Jacob and Phyllis Blum and their company, Innovative Agri-Ventures Ltd. (Innovative) (collectively, the Blums), and from Larry and Marilyn Dann (the Danns).
7. The Commission convened a two day public hearing in Grande Prairie, Alberta on February 25 and 26, 2009, before Thomas McGee (Commissioner and Panel Chair), N. Allen Maydonik, Q.C. (Commissioner), and Mark Kolesar (Acting Commissioner).
8. At the end of the hearing the parties were asked to provide supplemental written Argument on limited issues which was due on March 11, 2009. The Commission subsequently gave all parties an opportunity for Reply to be filed by March 23, 2009. On March 27, 2009, the Danns submitted a late Reply and noted that they did not have access to the transcripts and therefore felt disadvantaged in providing their Reply. The Commission issued a ruling dated March 30, 2009, extending the time within which the Danns could file their Reply and giving them an opportunity to review the transcripts from the hearing and file an Amended Reply, as they saw fit. The Danns filed an Amended Reply on April 6, 2009, the date at which the Commission considers the record of the proceeding for this Application closed.
9. The issues which the Commission asked the parties to address in the supplemental written Argument were: 1) whether the Commission is able to require further information from the parties on alternate routes subsequent to a hearing; 2) what additional mitigation measures ATCO is prepared to undertake; and 3) what mitigation measures would the Blums and Danns like ATCO to undertake. Submissions on the first issue were requested in the event that the Commission determined that it did not have sufficient evidence before it on which to decide the Application. However, as the Commission has found sufficient evidence to deal with the Application, the Commission finds that it is not necessary to comment on the first issue on its jurisdiction to request further information from the parties.
3 THE APPLICATION
10. In its Application, ATCO seeks, among other things, approval to construct and operate approximately 26.7 km of 144-kV transmission line (Proposed Route) from the Goodfare substation 815S to the proposed Updike substation 886S. This Proposed Route is a variation of
2 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
Route C2 which the Commission had previously asked ATCO to consider in Decision 2007-037 when the matter originally came before the Board in the First Application.
11. In support of its Proposed Route, ATCO provided evidence on its route selection process and alternative routes developed through landowner consultation, discussed in further detail below under heading “ATCO’s Route Selection Process”. During the course of the proceeding, the interveners proposed new alternative route options which ATCO considered and responded to with evidence as to why these routes were not preferable to the Proposed Route.
12. ATCO’s Proposed Route heads west of the Goodfare substation for 2.5 miles and then north towards Highway 672. The Proposed Route then follows Highway 672 for 4.5 miles until it turns north for 3.5 miles. Approximately half a mile south of Powell Lake, the Proposed Route heads west for half a mile and then turns north for 3 miles until it connects with the proposed Updike substation. Attached as Appendices 3, 4, and 5 to this Decision are maps of all the routes proposed by the parties and considered by the Commission.
13. Jacob and Phyllis Blum are the registered owners of the SE 15-73-12-W6M, the north ½ of 10-73-12-W6M, the NE 9-73-12-W6M, and the SW 3-73-12-W6M sections of land. They reside on the northeast quarter of section 10. There is a temporary residence and farmyard on the SE15 quarter. The Blums’ company, Innovative, leases the NW10, NE9, SE15, and SW3 sections of land. The Proposed Route would be located in the road allowance adjacent to their SE15 property. The Blums raised a number of concerns with respect to the Application, their principal concerns being: inadequate consultation provided by ATCO; tree clearing on their lands; the impact to possible future expansion of their farm operations; and potential impact to Trumpeter Swan habitats in the area.
14. Larry and Marilyn Dann are the registered owners of the NE 6-74-12-W6M section of land which is adjacent to the Proposed Route running north along Range Road 125. The majority of the land is treed and the Danns do not reside on the property. The main concern the Danns expressed with respect to the Application is the tree clearing on their land and the potential impact to Trumpeter Swans in the buffer zone around Powell Lake.
15. In reaching the determinations set out in this Decision, the Commission has considered all relevant materials comprising the record of this proceeding, including the evidence and submissions provided by each party. References in this Decision to specific parts of the record are intended to assist the reader in understanding the Commission’s reasoning relating to a particular matter and should not be taken as an indication that the Commission did not consider all relevant portions of the record as it relates to that matter.
4 ISSUES
16. Three main issues were brought forward in this Application:
a. Did ATCO provide adequate consultation?; b. Is the Project consistent with the public interest?; and c. What mitigation measures should ATCO undertake?
2 Route C - Page 13 of Application AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 3 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
4.1 Did ATCO Provide Adequate Consultation? 4.1.1 Views of the Parties 17. In Decision 2007-037, the Board directed ATCO to conduct personal consultation with all potentially affected parties and to ensure that all parties understand the details and impacts of the preferred route, as well as their ability to participate in a Board proceeding. The issue of adequate consultation was raised by the Blums in the hearing.
18. In the Blums’ view, ATCO did not provide adequate personal consultation with the Blums regarding the Project and the Proposed Route.3 They asserted that any attempts by ATCO to consult with them were confusing to them and other landowners and they were not always aware of what the consultation was about. Stephen Blum relayed his view of the consultation in this manner:
The feeling that I got from this episode and things that were spoken about in the community was the methods used here were very slipshot. There wasn't a whole heck of a lot of organization behind it. It was confusing.4
19. The Danns did not challenge the adequacy of the consultation process to the same degree as the Blums. They did express concern regarding a personal consultation they had with ATCO on June 13, 2008, where they discussed a rejected route located half a mile west of the Proposed Route adjacent to the Danns’ property, which would pass through a dense forest with no existing linear disturbance.5 The Danns felt they were asked to choose between two alternatives adjacent to their property, both of which would damage the environment, in their view - one traversing a dense forest and the other traversing through the Trumpeter Swan buffer zone.6
20. ATCO submitted that it gathered “extensive feedback from nearly every quarter section in the study area and from practically every landowner along an extensive area of route options.”7 It also asserted that all interested parties had been notified of and had an opportunity to understand and provide feedback regarding the route options and that this feedback was a key factor in support of ATCO’s selection of the Proposed Route.
4.1.2 Commission Findings 21. An applicant who seeks Commission approval to construct or alter a transmission line or substation must, prior to filing the application, conduct a participant involvement program, the requirements of which are set out in Appendix A of Commission Rule 007 - Rules Respecting Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and Industrial System Designations (Rule 007). Appendix A of Rule 007 sets out general requirements for the consultation process, among other things, but is not intended to set out the precise criteria or scope for each particular application, as each application is unique. The applicant has the onus to ensure that an effective consultation process is undertaken prior to submitting a facility application.
3 Transcript Volume 2, page 551, lines 21-24, page 556, lines 14-19, page 558, lines 11-25, page 559 lines 1-10, page 561, lines 8-13, page 562, lines 9-17, lines 22-25, page 563, lines 1-3, page 564, lines 10-16 4 Transcript Volume 2, page 556, lines 20-25 5 Transcript Volume 1, page 255, lines 10-21 6 Transcript Volume 1, page 256, lines 15-23 7 Exhibit 59.02 – Opening Statement of ATCO, page 7
4 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
22. In the Commission’s view, it is critical that, in undertaking a facility project, effective communication occurs among industry, government, and the public so that concerns may be raised, properly addressed, and if possible, resolved. The applicant is required to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all those, whose rights may be directly and adversely affected by a proposed development, are informed of the application and have an opportunity to voice their concerns and to be heard.
23. An occupant, resident or landowner who is on or directly adjacent to the right of way for the proposed transmission line is entitled to personal consultation. In this Application, because both the Blums’ and the Danns’ respective properties are adjacent to the Proposed Route, ATCO was required to conduct personal consultations with them.
24. Based on the materials filed and the evidence provided, the Commission considers that ATCO’s consultation with interested parties was reasonable and met the requirements of Rule 007.8 ATCO initiated a comprehensive consultation process with interested parties within the study area, the details of which are considered below in more detail.
25. In November 2007, ATCO mailed 371 information packages9 to landowners, occupants, agencies and industry stakeholders (collectively, landowners) within at least 800 metres and up to several kilometres on either side of the preliminary proposed route options. The information package included information about the route selection process and planning, landowner participation, the regulatory process, the proposed transmission line construction and its possible effects on farming and residences, potential electrical and electric magnetic field effects, and provisions for compensation and mitigation. The package also included an invitation to an open house, a diagram of preliminary route options and a comment sheet for stakeholders to express their concerns about the project. The evidence during the hearing was that approximately two dozen people responded to the comment sheet.10
26. ATCO subsequently held an open house in Hythe, Alberta on December 5, 2007, which approximately 20 to 30 people attended.11 Questionnaires were provided to the landowners in an effort to get their views on which routing factors the landowners considered more or less important. In addition, ATCO had personal consultations with 270 landowners, “including practically all stakeholders on all routes.”12 The questionnaires13 were left with landowners when ATCO conducted its personal consultation with 270 landowners. ATCO received 138 to 140 completed questionnaires.14 According to ATCO, the personal consultation with the 270 landowners was conducted either face-to-face or by telephone.15
27. In February 2008, ATCO identified the most likely route options and revisited approximately 107 landowners in proximity to those options to discuss potential mitigation to address their concerns and possible route adjustments.16 By the conclusion of those
8 Rule 007 was since amended on March 24, 2009 9 Attachment 10 of Application; Transcript Volume 1, page 36, lines 4-7 10 Transcript Volume 1, page 103, lines 6-7 11 Transcript Volume 1, page 83, lines 24-25 and page 84, lines 1-5 12 Personal consultations occurred between December 2007 and March 2008, Attachment 3 of Application; Transcript Volume 1, page 36, lines 9-20 13 Exhibit 49, ATCO gave evidence that those landowners who chose to do consultation by phone may not have received a questionnaire 14 Transcript Volume 1, page 130, lines 19-21 15 Transcript Volume 1, page 115, lines 21-25, and page 116, line 1 16 Transcript Volume 1, page 38, lines 10-19 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 5 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
consultations, ATCO identified the Proposed Route.17 In October 2008, ATCO conducted a general project update to landowners and interested parties.
28. In the Commission’s view, ATCO undertook a comprehensive consultation process with potentially impacted parties. It conducted the comprehensive consultation process over a broad scope of the area, which included 371 landowners and conducted personal consultations with 270 of them. The evidence indicates that ATCO engaged in an evolving route selection process whereby it compiled and considered feedback from the landowners and amended route options where necessary, taking into consideration numerous factors. The Commission finds that ATCO has satisfied the requirements of Rule 007.
Consultation with the Danns 29. With respect to the Danns, Mrs. Dann testified that an ATCO field representative met with them in January 2008 and dropped off a map with preliminary routes.18 ATCO gave evidence that it developed the Proposed Route in early 2008 subsequent to its consultation process19with landowners. Mrs. Dann further noted that on June 13, 2008, two ATCO representatives met with them and brought a map outlining rejected routes and the Proposed Route.20
30. They took issue with the consultation they had with ATCO on June 13, 2008, in regard to a discussion of a rejected route (Forest Route) they stated that they had never seen before. The Forest Route was located half a mile west of the Proposed Route adjacent to their property and would pass through a dense forest with no existing linear disturbance.21 The Danns considered that they were asked to choose between two “horrible” route options which not only affected their property but would, in their view, damage the environment, the Forest Route which traverses through a dense forest and the Proposed Route which traverses through the Trumpeter Swan buffer zone.22 Mrs. Dann felt it was “like dividing a baby” and she found the encounter rather intimidating.23
31. Mrs. Dann indicated at the hearing that, ever since the June 13 meeting with ATCO, she was worried that ATCO may reconsider the Forest Route as a possible option for the transmission line.24 Her worries were relieved when ATCO confirmed that the Forest Route was rejected.25 Later, in their Amended Reply filed subsequent to the hearing, the Danns referred to the posing of the two “equally bad” route options during the June 13th meeting as an intimidation tactic.26 In their view, this was not reflective of the full and open consultation required by the AUC.
32. The Commission is concerned with this assertion made by the Danns. While Mrs. Dann stated at the hearing that “she found it rather intimidating”,27 she did not expand and make clear
17 Transcript Volume 1, page 38, lines 20-25, and page 39, lines 1-3 18 Transcript Volume 1, page 214, lines 1-4 19 Transcript Volume 1, page 236, lines 14 -18 20 Transcript Volume 1, page 235, lines 2-14 21 Transcript Volume 1, page 255, lines 10-21 22 Transcript Volume 1, page 256, lines 15-23 23 Transcript Volume 1, page 256, lines 6-8 24 Transcript Volume 1, page 256, lines 6-14 25 Transcript Volume 1, page 238, lines 12-18 26 Danns’ Amended Reply, April 6, 2009 27 Transcript Volume 1, page 256, lines 7-8
6 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
what was meant by “it”. The reference to intimidation was restated in their Amended Reply. Based on the evidence provided at the hearing by the Danns, the Commission is of the view that the Danns had limited objections to the consultation process.
33. Without further elaboration on this point and supporting evidence, the Commission is not in a position to find that ATCO engaged in intimidation tactics. In order to reach such a conclusion, the Commission would require specific evidence. In addition, the Commission recognizes that ATCO has not had an opportunity to address this allegation because it was only brought forward in the Danns Amended Reply filed at the close of the proceeding.
34. The evidence in this proceeding is that the Danns received and completed a questionnaire and met with ATCO representatives in person on at least one occasion. The Commission can reasonably conclude that the Danns had the opportunity to ask questions about the Proposed Route and express their concerns.
35. As such, the Commission finds that ATCO engaged in adequate consultation with the Danns and there is no evidence to support the allegation that ATCO was intentionally intimidating in their interaction with the Danns. In its consultation with the Danns, the Commission finds that ATCO has satisfied the requirements of Rule 007.
Consultation with the Blums 36. With respect to the Blums, evidence was given by ATCO that, in November 2007, an initial information package was mailed to the Blums’ PO Box number. ATCO reasonably assumed that, because the mail was not returned, it had been delivered to the Blums.28 Later in February 2008, ATCO representatives met with Mr. and Mrs. Blum29 and sought feedback about two routes (the Proposed Route and a route one half mile south of the Proposed Route). The Blums opposed both routes and advised ATCO that it would have to compensate the Blums if those routes were pursued.30
37. The Blums’ position was that they did not want to consult with ATCO until a final route was proposed.31 On March 4, 2008, ATCO staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Blum for two and a half hours to discuss the Proposed Route.32 According to ATCO, at that meeting the Blums identified objections based on loss of property values, health concerns from electromagnetic fields (EMF), restriction on subdividing lands, and the lack of compensation to assess the impact of the Proposed Route.33
38. Stephen Blum, Mr. and Mrs. Blum’s son and a director of Innovative, who appeared on behalf of the company,34 testified that an ATCO representative contacted him by telephone, but he could not remember the date of the phone call.35 Stephen Blum indicated to the representative that he was too busy to answer any questions over the phone, but he was willing to meet the ATCO representative in person in Grande Prairie.36 At that meeting, Stephen Blum received an
28 Transcript Volume 1, page 109, lines 19-22 29 Transcript Volume 1, page 43, lines 18-20 30 Transcript Volume 1, page 44, lines 2-7 31 Transcript Volume 2, page 624, lines 1-6 and page 722, lines 12-19 32 Transcript Volume 1, page 44, lines 8-11 33 Transcript Volume 1, page 44, lines 12-17 34 Transcript Volume 2, page 648, line 23 35 Transcript Volume 2, page 552, lines 7-13 36 Transcript Volume 2, page 552, lines 14-25, page 553, lines 1-14 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 7 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
information package regarding the Project but noted that ATCO was not willing to discuss specifics of any routes with him.37
39. ATCO called the Blums on June 4, 5, and 6, 2008, to attempt to set up a meeting.38 On June 6, 2008, Mr. Blum advised ATCO that the Project details should be sent to the Blums’ representative, Mr. Ray Strom, and that Mr. Blum did not want to talk to ATCO unless compensation was going to be paid before the Application was made.39
40. After leaving phone messages with Mr. Strom on two occasions, an ATCO representative spoke with Mr. Strom on June 17, 2008, and arranged to send the Project information to him.40 ATCO sent the information package on June 18, 2008.41 On June 24, 2008, discussions took place between ATCO and Mr. Strom regarding setting up a meeting in Grande Prairie.42 Mr. Strom indicated that he would fax his and Mr. Blum's compensation rates for meeting with ATCO prior to the meeting.43
41. After receiving the fax on June 25, 2008, ATCO emailed Mr. Strom to indicate that intervener costs are paid in accordance with the Commission’s Rule 009 - Rules on Local Intervener Costs.44 On July 4, 2008, Mr. Strom indicated to ATCO by phone that the Blums would not meet unless they were provided with compensation.45 On October 16, 2008, ATCO included the Blums in a general project update mail-out to landowners and interested parties.46
42. On October 30, 2008, ATCO contacted Mr. Blum by telephone and offered to meet with him to provide site specific information as applied for to the Commission in the Application.47 Mr. Blum indicated to ATCO that he did not want to meet but that he wanted the Project information.48 ATCO mailed the updated Project information to the Blums and also sent a copy of the same information to Mr. Strom.49 Mr. Blum stated during the hearing that he did not disagree with the consultation process in ATCO’s opening statement but he didn’t remember the dates.50
43. In the Commission’s view, the evidence indicates that ATCO made concerted efforts to engage the Blums in the consultation process. As set out in Appendix A of Rule 007, the public is strongly encouraged to participate in ongoing issue identification, problem solving, and planning with respect to local electric facility developments. The Commission considers that it is inconsistent for the Blums to criticize the consultation process as lacking and disorganized in the face of evidence that they were not willing to engage in discussions with ATCO unless a final route option had been proposed,51 and unless both Mr. Blum and Mr. Strom were each paid
37 Transcript Volume 2, page 555, lines 18-22 38 Transcript Volume 1, page 44, lines 20-24 39 Transcript Volume 1, page 44, line 25 and page 45, lines 1-5 40 Transcript Volume 1, page 45, lines 6-10 41 Transcript Volume 1, page 45, lines 13-14 42 Transcript Volume 1, page 45, lines 15-18 43 Transcript Volume 1, page 45, lines 19-23 44 Transcript Volume 1, page 45, lines 24-25, page 46, lines 1-4 45 Transcript Volume 1, page 46, lines 5-12 46 Transcript Volume 1, page 46, lines 13-15 47 Transcript Volume 1, page 46, lines 16-20 48 Transcript Volume 1, page 46, lines 20-22 49 Transcript Volume 1, page 46, lines 23-25 and page 47, lines 1-2 50 Transcript Volume 2, page 622, lines 2-4 51 Transcript Volume 2, page 722, lines 12-22
8 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
for their time. In the Commission’s view, if consultation with ATCO was essential to the Blums, as they assert, then it would have been reasonable for them to forego the fee they requested. Pursuant to Rule 007, ATCO was not required to pay any consultation fees to the Blums for Mr. Blum’s or Mr. Strom’s time. The Commission finds that ATCO acted reasonably in denying payment of such fees.
44. The Commission finds that ATCO made reasonable efforts to consult with the Blums, and the Blums, by their own choice, did not accept the opportunity to enter into dialogue with ATCO in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. As such the Commission finds that the Blums’ criticisms of the consultation process are unwarranted.
45. In its consultations with the Blums, the Commission finds that ATCO has satisfied the requirements of Rule 007.
4.2 Is the Project Consistent with the Public Interest? 46. It became evident during the course of the proceeding that, apart from the consultation issue, the main objections raised by the Blums’ and Danns’ were limited to the Proposed Route of the transmission line running adjacent to their respective properties. No objections were raised with respect to other aspects of ATCO’s facility Application, including the proposed Updike Substation and upgrades to the Goodfare Substation. Accordingly, the majority of the discussion below of whether the proposed Project is within the public interest focuses on the Proposed Route.
47. Before considering the details of the numerous route options posed by the parties, including the Proposed Route, the Commission finds it useful to first consider ATCO’s route selection process as it demonstrates the factors which ATCO took into consideration in reaching its decision on the Proposed Route as the preferred route option. This consideration assists the Commission in assessing whether and to what extent the public interest principle was applied by ATCO in reaching its decision that the Proposed Route is the best route option for the Application.
4.2.1 Views of the Parties ATCO’s Route Selection Process 48. In the First Application before the Board, ATCO presented five different routes for the study area, which they referred to as Routes A, B, C, D and DW. Route A was the route for which ATCO unsuccessfully sought approval in the First Application. Route C was the route which the Board in Decision 2007-037 directed ATCO to reconsider. In addition to routes A, B, C, D, and DW, ATCO considered two new route options in the Application namely, Routes AW and BE (collectively, all routes are referred to as Preliminary Routes).52 A map of the Preliminary Routes is found at Appendix 3 to this Decision.53
49. ATCO indicated that the Preliminary Routes were chosen based on technical, economic and environmental and land-use criteria. The general transmission line routing criteria used were:
52 Pages 13-15 of Application 53 Page 5 in Attachment 10 of Application AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 9 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
• Minimize impacts with other land uses such as residences, built-up areas and oil and gas facilities;
• Utilize existing linear disturbances to minimize new disturbances and clearing, following existing power lines where possible;
• Follow road allowances where possible, for access, to reduce new clearing and to avoid impacts to agriculture;
• Keep routes as straight as possible, to reduce line length; and
• Avoid environmentally sensitive areas such as watercourses, recreation areas, parks, campgrounds and wildlife habitat; and
54 • Avoid wet areas and steep slopes for better access and to reduce environmental impacts.
50. The Preliminary Routes were presented to landowners. Based on landholder and agency feedback, adjustments to the preferred route were made,55 resulting in the Proposed Route illustrated in the map below.
R.13 R.12 R.11 R.10W.6M.
C NR PROPOSED UPDIKE T.74 SUBSTATION 886S Valhalla Centre 59
721 43
Horse Lake IR 152B Hythe T.73
672 ALTA. - B.C. BORDER B.C. - ALTA.
720 723 GOODFARE SUBSTATION 671 815S Goodfare C N R T.72
BeaverLodge
Legend
Proposed 144-kV transmission line route Goodfare to Updike Project - Grande Prairie Area AUC Application No. 1589611 ATCO Electric
54 Page 12 of Application 55 Page 12 of Application
10 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
51. In the Application, ATCO provided a comparison table supporting the choice of the Proposed Route as preferable over a number of alternative routes in Table 6 – Summary of 7L34 Route Options of the Application,56 a copy of which is found at Appendix 6 to this Decision. ATCO considered sixteen criteria in comparing the various Preliminary Routes, although it stated that there are three key factors which have more weight than the others. Those key factors are: 1) least objections by affected stakeholders; 2) avoid proximity to residences, particularly those existing residences nearest the route; and 3) follow existing linear disturbances (particularly existing distribution lines).57
52. ATCO stated that other factors, such as overall environmental impacts, minimizing the length and cost of the transmission lines and additional factors listed in Table 6 are “all important to some degree and must be factored into the routing assessment, although the weight of those other factors is generally less than the key factors, and they would influence the assessment only when all other factors were, on balance, generally equal.”58 ATCO asserted that its ranking of these factors is consistent with feedback from landowners and other interested parties in the study area.
53. Subsequent to deciding on the Proposed Route, ATCO retained Mr. Robert Berrien of Berrien Associates Ltd. to provide an independent assessment of the Proposed Route.59 Mr. Berrien prepared a document which compared the Proposed Route against the rejected Preliminary Routes.60 Mr. Berrien prepared a second document which presented a comparison between the Proposed Route and the alternative routes suggested by the Blums and the Danns.61 The details of these alternative routes are discussed in further detail below.
54. ATCO noted that when the Blums’ and Danns’ alternative routes were presented, they relied on Mr. Berrien’s analysis of those alternative routes to avoid duplication of effort.62 ATCO noted that Blum A, Blum B, and Dann A, B, and C all coincided with segments of previously rejected ATCO routes B, D, and DW. ATCO had received feedback from landowners respecting those routes during their public consultation and consequently rejected them as a preferred route option.63
55. Mr. Berrien testified at the hearing that he used results from the ATCO questionnaire64 which asked respondents to rate a variety of potential factors relating to the location of a transmission line. Mr. Berrien indicated that the responses to the questionnaire reflect the criteria landowners in the area consider important.
56. Mr. Berrien concluded that avoiding home sites should be the number one routing priority, followed by utilizing existing linear disturbances. He considered other criteria to be important, as well, including minimizing line length and minimizing objections to the route. Based on these criteria, Mr. Berrien concluded that the Proposed Route is the superior route when compared against the Preliminary Routes and the alternative routes suggested by the
56 Table 6 on Page 16 of the Application 57 Transcript Volume 1, page 49, lines 11-25 58 Exhibit 59.02 – Opening Statement of ATCO, page 8 59 Transcript Volume 1, page 291, lines 10-25, and page 292, lines 1-11 60 Exhibit 46 – Berrien Report January 20, 2009 61 Exhibit 53 – Berrien Report January 26, 2009 62 Transcript Volume 2, page 382, lines 21-23 63 Transcript Volume 2, page 384, lines 15-25 and page 385, lines 1-13 64 Exhibit 49 – ATCO Electric Routing Questionnaire AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 11 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
Blums and the Danns. In essence, Mr. Berrien’s evidence supported ATCO’s assertion that the Proposed Route is the preferred route.
ATCO’s Preliminary Route Options 57. In Decision 2007-037, the Board directed ATCO to revisit the merits of Route C since that route “is entirely located along developed road or highway, and the route would incur the fewest hectares of right of way clearing required by a large margin, thereby potentially involving less incremental impact to landowners along that potential route.”65
58. ATCO stated the Proposed Route is similar to Route C with two deviations in response to landowner concerns and preferences.66 The first deviation is after the first mile west of the Goodfare substation heading north towards Highway 672. The Proposed Route does not follow the alignment of Route C in that area due to the close proximity of Route C to a number of residences which would have resulted in objections.67
59. The second deviation between Route C and the Proposed Route is where the route would have turned north and headed towards the proposed Updike substation along Range Road 125. The landowners along that stretch indicated to ATCO that they would have objections if the Proposed Route was located in front of their homes along Range Road 125 and preferred having the Proposed Route located half a mile to the east at the back of their property.68 ATCO submitted that more tree clearing is required by locating the Proposed Route along those quarter sections, as opposed to following the existing road allowance along Range Road 125. However, the proposed deviation was based on landowner preferences to have trees cleared in order for the Proposed Route to be located further away from their residences.69
60. ATCO rejected Route C and adopted the Proposed Route, noting that the Proposed Route is consistent with the feedback received through the participant involvement program conducted throughout the study area.70 ATCO noted that consultation with landowners led to the change in alignment from Route C to the Proposed Route.
61. According to ATCO’s evidence, Route C has a higher number of landowner objections than the Proposed Route, and a higher number of quarter-sections with landowner concerns or objections comparable to the other Preliminary Routes. Route C has the second highest number of residences within 50 to 100 metres along its route and the highest number of residences within 100 to 200 metres along its route. While ATCO recognized that Route C has the most understrung distributions lines, with the least amount of tree clearing required, the amount of understrung wires also makes it the most expensive route.71
Blums’ Objections and Route Options 62. In the Blums’ view, ATCO has failed to demonstrate that the Proposed Route is superior compared to other potential route options.
65 Page 3 of EUB Decision 2007-037 66 Transcript Volume 1, page 53, lines 23-25, page 54, lines 1-3, page 295, lines 22-25, and page 296, lines 1-5 67 Transcript Volume 1, page 296, lines 22-25, and page 297, lines 1-2 68 Transcript Volume 1, page 299, lines 19-25, and page 300, line 1 69 Transcript Volume 1, page 300, lines 15-19 70 Transcript Volume 1, page 52, lines 3-8 71 Page 15 of Application
12 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
63. The Blums stated that the most sensitive area of their lands is the SE15 quarter section because there are plans to expand the Blums’ farming operations on that quarter.72 The Blums oppose the Proposed Route as the tree clearing that would be required would destroy a valuable wind break and those trees are a significant part of their family history.73 The Blums are also concerned that the Proposed Route will impact any future expansion of their cattle or grain operation on that section of land. Further, they submitted that the location of the Proposed Route could impact the seven Trumpeter Swans which frequent the area.74 The Blums stated that all of the alternative routes proposed by them would run along other sections of land owned by them. Their main concern appeared to be the desire to keep intact the trees and shelter belt on the SE15 quarter section.
64. The Blums raised a number of other objections to the Proposed Route, including potential health effects resulting from EMF,75 interference with GPS operation,76 interference with telephone and satellite reception,77 and the health and productivity of cattle,78 among others. Given that little or no evidence was provided to support these objections, the Commission accepts ATCO’s responses to these objections set out in its letter of January 28, 2009.79
65. The Blums suggested two alternative routes, designated as Blum A and Blum B, which they considered to be less onerous and more viable than the Proposed Route.80
66. The Blums retained Mr. Dallas E. Maynard of Dallas E. Maynard & Associates Inc. as their expert to evaluate the Proposed Route. Through an interview and site inspection with the Blums, Mr. Maynard developed a third alternative route, designated as Blum C, detailed in his January 15, 2009 report.81
67. Mr. Maynard noted that there is a strong possibility that, within the next 10 years, Highway 672 will be expanded along the Proposed Route,82 but stated that this expansion is not in Alberta Transportation’s 3-year plan.83 He submitted that if the highway is expanded in the future the Proposed Route would be required to move further onto the Blum’s property.
68. Mr. Maynard introduced an additional alternative route during the proceeding which is referred to as Blum C1.84 Mr. Maynard testified that Blum C1 is superior to the Proposed Route as it offers the least impact to the Blums SE15 quarter and it does not impact residences.85
69. The Commission now considers in more detail the routes proposed by the Blums, noted as Blum A, Blum B, Blum C and Blum C1.
72 Exhibit 50.01 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate, January 21, 2009 73 Transcript Volume 2, pages 506-508, page 518, lines 17-25, page 519, lines 1-13, page 525, lines 5-23 74 Transcript Volume 2, page 520, lines 17-23 75 Exhibit 50.03 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate, November 18, 2008, page 2 76 Exhibit 50.03 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate, November 18, 2008, page 3 77 Exhibit 50.03 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate, November 18, 2008, page 3 78 Exhibit 50.03 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate, November 18, 2008, page 3 79 Exhibit 54 - ATCO letter to Commission, January 28, 2009 80 Exhibit 50.03 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate, November 18, 2008, page 4 81 Exhibit 50.08 – Maynard Report, January 15, 2009 82 Transcript Volume 2, page 476, lines 4-8 83 Transcript Volume 2, page 477, lines 8-12 84 Transcript Volume 2, page 484, lines 15-24; Exhibit 68 Blum C1 Alignment 85 Transcript Volume 2, page 495, lines 18-25, and page 496, line 1 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 13 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
Routes Blum A and Blum B 70. Route Blum A follows a west alignment from the Goodfare substation for 7 miles and then heads north to join up with the Proposed Route in the NW corner of section 9-73-12-W6M. The Blum B route follows a west alignment from the Goodfare substation for 7.5 miles and then heads north to join up with the Proposed Route in the south section of 17-73-12-W6M. The Blums detailed their Blum A and Blum B alternative routes in their January 21, 2009 submission to the Commission.86 A map of Blum A and B, together with Blum C, C1 and the Proposed Route is found in Appendix 4 of this Decision.
71. Mr. Maynard noted that the Blums own SW 3-73-12-W6M, on which routes Blum A and Blum B traverse. Some tree clearing on the Blums’ SW3 section would be required if Blum A is accepted, but Mr. Maynard commented that the trees are immature.87 Mr. Maynard submitted that there are two existing residential sites located close to both the Blum A and Blum B routes.88 He stated that if a mitigation approach can be devised for the two residential sites located in close proximity to both alternate routes then both the Blum A and Blum B alternatives may have merit.89
72. In Mr. Berrien’s comparative analysis of the Proposed Route with the alternative routes suggested by the Blums, Blum B ranks second to the Proposed Route.90 Blum A and C are inferior to the Proposed Route on all the criteria except for line length and project cost. Blum B receives a worse ranking than the Proposed Route, in all respects except for the number of home sites, line length, and project cost.
73. The Commission notes that Exhibit 53, which is the comparison table provided by Mr. Berrien, includes an additional hybrid route. Mr. Berrien gave evidence that the hybrid route took elements of the Blums and Danns’ routes and combined them. There was little discussion of this route during the hearing and no party suggested that it was a preferred routing option. Further, the exact location of the hybrid route is unclear. The Commission therefore finds this route has no merit.
74. ATCO gave evidence of an additional objection to Blum B from a landowner who does not want a transmission line on or near his property because he plans to build a home site on the property.91 In ATCO’s view this objection to Blum B raised by the landowner should carry more weight than an objection to a route that follows an existing distribution line.92
75. Mr. Stephen Blum’s preference between the Proposed Route and other suggested routes, was Blum B because the route is simple and there are not a lot of objections that, in his view, cannot be mitigated.93
86 Exhibit 50 – Blum Statement of Intent to Participate January 21, 2009 87 Transcript Volume 2, page 493, lines 16-21 88 Transcript Volume 2, page 494, lines 1-15 89 Transcript Volume 2, page 494, lines 21-24 90 Exhibit 053 – Table 1: Landowner Route Comparison Summary, Page 4. The Table also includes a Hybrid Route which blended elements of the Blums’ and Danns’ Routes, but little discussion of this route was made at the hearing nor is it clear the exact route alignment 91 Transcript Volume 1, page 309, lines 18-25, and page 310, lines 1 92 Transcript Volume 2, page 458, lines 14-18 93 Transcript Volume 2, page 617, lines 24-25, and page 618, lines 1-13
14 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
Route Blum C 76. The Blum C route was proposed by Mr. Maynard in his report.94 The Commission notes that during the hearing Mr. Maynard retracted some of the benefits of route Blum C that had been previously set out in his report.95 Route Blum C deviates from the Proposed Route at the southwest quarter of section 7-73-11-W6M where it heads north paralleling the Proposed Route by half a mile to the east. The Blum C route turns west in the middle of section 18-73-11-W6M and parallels the proposed route by half a mile to the north. In the middle of the south portion of section 17-73-12-W6M, Blum C joins up with the Proposed Route.
77. Mr. Berrien indicated that there is an existing well site located adjacent to the Blum C route at SW14-73-12-W6M where the transmission line would not be able to run over the well site.96 For the Blum C route to be feasible, a deflection would be required around the well site.
78. Mr. Berrien also noted that the Blum C route runs adjacent to the Horse Lake First Nations Indian Reserve (HLFN Indian Reserve) along section 14-73-12-W6M, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.97 To deal with this issue, the transmission poles along the HLFN Indian Reserve would have to be located 9 metres south of the property line (the south portion of 14-73-12-W6M) for the right of way to not enter into the HLFN Indian Reserve.
79. Regarding the Blum C route alternative, ATCO noted that there is an additional landowner objection along that route98 and that the route would create an additional linear disturbance for five miles, whereas the Proposed Route would follow the existing linear disturbance along Highway 672.99
Route Blum C1 80. Alternative route Blum C1 was introduced by Mr. Maynard during the hearing, the details of which are found in Exhibit 68. Blum C1 deviates from the Proposed Route at mid- section on the east side of section 12-73-12-W6M and heads west for 4.5 miles, located half a mile south of the Proposed Route. This alternate route rejoins the Proposed Route in the middle of the south portion of section 17-73-12-W6M.
81. Mr. Maynard noted that an advantage of the Blum C1 route is that it would eliminate any impact of the potential expansion of Highway 672 in the future.100 There remains an existing well site along Blum C1 which may require a deflection of the transmission line. Mr. Maynard also stated that Route Blum C1, like Blum C, does not follow the existing 25-kV distribution line, which would result in fewer poles and a lower cost.101
82. Mr. Maynard asserted that Blum C1 is the superior alternative, with Blum C being his second choice.102 Mr. Jacob Blum expressed a preference for route Blum C1 because it would not go along his SE15-73-12-W6M section.103
94 Exhibit 50.08 – Maynard Report, January 15, 2009 95 Transcript Volume 2, page 469, lines 4-6 96 Transcript Volume 1, page 71, lines 2-5 97 Transcript Volume 1, page 71, lines 8-12 98 Transcript Volume 2, page 388, lines 15-20 99 Transcript Volume 2, page 389, lines 12-17 100 Transcript Volume 2, page 487, lines 21-25, and page 488, lines 1-5 101 Transcript Volume 2, page 489, lines 2-7 102 Transcript Volume 2, page 495, lines 11-25, and page 496, lines 1-7 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 15 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
83. ATCO questioned Mr. Jacob Blum as to whether he remembered ATCO representatives talking to him about a route along the now proposed C1 alignment during the consultation process prior to the Proposed Route being determined.104 Mr. Blum indicated that he remembered talking to ATCO about a route in that area and he was opposed to a route that would traverse the west boundary of their home quarter, NE10.105
84. ATCO noted in its Reply Argument, dated March 23, 2009, that route Blum C1 was introduced by Mr. Maynard at the proceeding after the ATCO panel had concluded its evidence. Consequently this did not allow ATCO to present evidence regarding the route.
Danns’ Objections and Route Options 85. The Danns’ property is heavily treed and is located within a Trumpeter Swan buffer zone. They do not reside on the property. Their main concerns with the Proposed Route were the tree clearing that would be required on their property and that the Proposed Route traverses through a Trumpeter Swan buffer zone. They were concerned about the impact of the Proposed Route to the environment and to the Trumpeter Swans and other wildlife that frequent the area. The Danns also raised concern that the transmission line could decrease their property value.106 Since they did not provide any evidence to support the latter contention, the Commission dismisses that objection.
86. The Danns questioned whether it is in the public interest for the Proposed Route to pass through a Trumpeter Swan buffer zone and urged the Commission not to approve a route which traverses the buffer zone. The Danns conceded that there is an existing 25-kV distribution line along their property, but they submitted that this is not a valid reason to further damage an environmentally sensitive area within the Trumpeter Swan buffer zone.107
87. The Danns recommended that ATCO reconsider two rejected routes - Routes D and DW,108 which correlate with segments of Dann A and Dann B. The Danns also proposed their own alternative route,109 designated as Dann C. After hearing Mr. Berrien’s evidence that a section of the route is slough-like and would go through wetlands,110 Mrs. Dann conceded that route Dann A would not be a suitable route.111
88. ATCO gave evidence that, when assessing the potential impacts of the Proposed Route and comparing it with alternatives, the Proposed Route is in the public interest even though it will impact the Danns’ property. They submitted that in comparison to the Danns’ route options, the Proposed Route would require less tree clearing and would follow an existing distribution line along the Danns’ property.112
103 Transcript Volume 2, page 618, lines 19-25, and page 619, lines 1-4 104 Transcript Volume 2, page 626, lines 7-11 105 Transcript Volume 2, page 628, lines 11-25, and page 629, lines 1-7 106 Transcript Volume 1, page 262, lines 23-35 and page 263, lines 1-10 107 Transcript Volume 1, page 260, lines 7-12 108 Exhibit 40 – Danns Statement of Intent to Participate November 10, 2008 109 Exhibit 62 – Danns Submission February 24, 2009 110 Transcript Volume 1, page 234, lines 8-21 111 Transcript Volume 1, page 248, lines 7-11 112 Transcript Volume 1, page 201, lines 6-25, page 202, lines 1-15; Exhibit 53 – Berrien Report January 26, 2009, page 4
16 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
4.2.2 Commission Findings 89. As noted earlier, the Blums’ and Danns’ concerns regarding the Project focused on the Proposed Route. As no objections were raised with respect to other aspects of the Project, including the proposed Updike Substation and upgrades to the Goodfare Substation, the Commission does not find it necessary to go into the details of those aspects of ATCO’s Application. The Commission has reviewed and considered all the relevant materials and evidence in reaching its determination that the approvals sought with respect to the Updike Substation and upgrades to the Goodfare Substation, and other necessary approvals are within the public interest.
90. The Commission now considers the issue of whether the Proposed Route in particular is within the public interest.
91. In determining whether to approve the Project and in particular the Proposed Route, the Commission must consider whether the Project is in the public interest. In assessing public interest, the Commission is statutorily required to consider the social, economic, and environmental impact of a proposed project.113 Another general principle that is applied is that the transmission of electric energy in Alberta is to be developed and operated in a safe, reliable, economic, efficient, and orderly manner.114
92. In determining whether the Project is within the “public interest”, the Commission is required to balance the benefits associated with upgrades to the transmission system with the associated impacts, having regard to the legislative framework for transmission development in Alberta. As stated by the Commission in AltaLink Management Ltd. Transmission Line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge, Decision 2009-028115 (Pincher Creek Decision) at p.6, para 33:
This exercise necessarily requires the Commission to weigh impacts that will be experienced on a provincial basis, such as improved system performance, reliability, and access, with specific routing impacts upon those individuals or families that reside or own land along a proposed transmission route as well as other users of the land that may be affected. This approach is consistent with the EUB’s historical position that the public interest standard will generally be met by an activity that benefits the segment of the public to which the legislation is aimed, while at the same time minimizing, or mitigating to an acceptable degree, the potential adverse impacts on more discrete parts of the community.116
93. The Commission in the Pincher Creek Decision went on to explain that the Commission must weigh the benefits set out above with the site specific impacts that will be experienced by landowners and residents along the proposed route, as well as others that may be impacted. It went on to comment that the impacts are real and may be significant, noting that (at p. 7, para 35):
Transmission towers are large structures that may obscure scenery, impact agricultural operations, and may have an influence on land use and development plans. The
113 Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act 114 Section 2 (a) and (b) of HEEA 115 Decision 2009-028 – AltaLink Management Ltd. Transmission Line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge (Application No. 1521942, Proceeding ID 19) (Released: March 10, 2009) 116 EUB Decision 2001-33: EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc., Rossdale Power Plant Unit 11 (RD 11), (Application No. 990289) (Released: May 2001), page 6 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 17 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
Commission expects transmission facility owners to take all reasonable steps to avoid such impacts but acknowledges that despite the use of sound routing and planning practices such impacts are sometimes truly unavoidable given the nature of transmission lines. Where such impacts are truly unavoidable, the Commission expects that the Applicant would explore all reasonable steps to mitigate those impacts.
94. The weighing of the public benefit of a transmission line against the site specific impacts is a difficult task. Although no evidence was raised at the hearing, it is reasonable to presume that the parties agree that the Project, by providing transmission service in the designated area, benefits the customers in the area as well as the public at large.
95. The Commission finds that ATCO made concerted efforts to adopt a systematic process by which various social, economic and environmental impacts were taken into consideration in reaching a decision on a preferred route. As noted in paragraphs 49 to 52 above, ATCO considered social, economic, and environmental criteria in its route selection process to come up with the Preliminary Routes. Based on its selection criteria, as set out in Table 6, ATCO determined that the Proposed Route was superior to the other Preliminary Routes. The Commission found Table 6 helpful to the extent that the route options and the criteria were laid out in one table, and it provided a general picture of how each route compared to the others, with respect to the criteria adopted for the analysis, criteria that were based, at least in part, on the expressed desires of the local community.
96. In the Commission’s view route selection is not an exact science. It requires a balancing of interests that is not readily quantified or prioritized. Ultimately, the Commission relies on the relevant public interest principle set out by statute and the application of that principle as set out in the Pincher Creek Decision in assessing whether the Proposed Route is in the public interest. That is, the Commission is to consider:
…all the evidence to assess the social, economic and environmental impacts of each route taking into account the effectiveness of mitigation measures examined in the proceeding. The Commission does not weigh the criteria individually. Rather it weighs all the criteria together, and considers both the potential impact on individuals and on the larger community.117
97. Not surprisingly, the Proposed Route and the Preliminary Routes have landowners along them who will be impacted. This is an unavoidable fact. Route C has more than double the number of residents within 400 metres of the Proposed Route as opposed to the Proposed Route. The Danns expressly reject Route C118 and given that Route C and the Proposed Route have the same alignment along the Blums property, it is reasonable to infer that the Blums also reject Route C.119 Route C is favourable in that it follows more kilometres of road allowance than the Proposed Route. However, ATCO explained that, based on landowner feedback, Route C was modified to deviate from the road allowance,120 eventually resulting in the Proposed Route. In other words, ATCO reduced the impact of the Proposed Route by reducing the number of landowners impacted, relative to Route C, at the cost of deviating from some kilometres of road allowance. The Commission finds this adjustment to be reasonable, noting that the Proposed Route is acceptable to a greater majority of residents and landowners.
117 Decision 2009-028, Application No. 1521942, Proceeding ID. 19, pages 36 and 37, paragraph 193 118 Exhibit 40 – Danns Statement of Intent to Participate, November 10, 2008 119 Exhibit 50.01 – Blums Statement of Intent to Participate January 21, 2009 120 Transcript Volume 1, page 299, lines 19-25, page 300, line 1
18 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
98. The Proposed Route minimizes the amount and degree of adverse impact to landowners along the route. While Route C may follow more understrung wire and potentially less clearing would be required, it does so with an impact on many more landowners. Further, the difference in the kilometres of understrung wire and hectares of right-of-way clearing required is not sufficiently greater on Route C to outweigh other considerations. For these reasons, the Commission finds the Proposed Route preferable over Route C.
99. The Commission finds that the remaining Preliminary Routes are inferior to the Proposed Route. It is noteworthy that none of the interveners supported these routes in their entirety. Bearing this in mind, the Commission finds it is unnecessary to set out in great detail the rationale for dismissing each of these routes in favour of the Proposed Route.
100. The Commission generally accepts the reasons for which ATCO rejected the Preliminary Routes. Route A was rejected as one of the residences was less than 50 metres from the proposed line, and there were a high number of landowner objections and a larger number of quarter-sections with landowner concerns or objections. Route AW was rejected for similar reasons, arising from its proximity to a large number of quarter-sections with landowner concerns or objections. Route B was rejected due to the close proximity of a residence, 21 metres from the line, and more landowner objections than the Proposed Route. Route BE had few residences within 400 metres of the line but had a high number of landowner objections and shared the highest number of quarter sections with landowner concerns or objections. Route BE also had the most deviation from road allowances and the least amount of co-routing with existing distribution lines. Routes D and DW had close proximity to residences, at least one of which was as close as 21 metres. They also had more landowner objections than the Proposed Route, a greater overall line length and would require a larger amount of tree clearing.
101. For all these reasons, the Commission finds that the Proposed Route is superior to each of the Preliminary Routes. The Commission must now consider how the Proposed Route compares to the alternative routes proposed by the Blums and the Danns.
102. The Commission concludes that the Proposed Route is superior to the routes presented by the Blums. In comparison to routes Blum A and B, the evidence121 indicates that the Proposed Route has fewer affected homesites and less environmental impact and tree clearing.
103. Mr. Maynard’s concern about the possibility of a highway expansion eventually requiring further clearing on the Blums’ property is, at this stage, mere speculation. It is not a compelling basis on which to find that the Proposed Route is inconsistent with the public interest. Similarly, with respect to the Blums’ assertion that the Proposed Route could impact their future plans for farm expansion, the Commission finds only limited evidence on the issue. The Blums currently do not have any concrete plans for expansion.122
104. Regarding route Blum C, the Commission notes that Mr. Maynard, who proposed route Blum C, agreed with ATCO regarding the technical deviations required to make the route workable.123 Due to the proximity to the HLFN Indian Reserve, the technical deflection required, and the amount of new linear disturbance required for this route, the Commission concludes that the Proposed Route is superior to route Blum C.
121 Exhibit 53 – Berrien Report January 26, 2009 122 Transcript Volume 2, page 519, lines 1-11 123 Transcript Volume 2, page 483, lines 8-15 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 19 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
105. The Commission agrees with ATCO’s position that Blum C1 was introduced at a late stage in the proceeding, which did not allow ATCO an opportunity to present evidence on this route. It is not reasonable to expect an applicant to be able to respond to a newly proposed route so late in the proceeding. It would be prejudicial to expect ATCO to do so. The Commission finds that, without further evidence, there is insufficient information to find Blum C1 to be a viable option and the Commission cannot conclude that Blum C1 is superior to the Proposed Route.
106. With respect to the Danns’ three proposed routes, the Commission accepts ATCO’s evidence that the Danns’ routes would result in a greater amount of tree clearing as well as the creation of new linear disturbance along those routes.124 The Commission notes that tree clearing was one of the main concerns for the Danns. For these reasons, the Commission’s view is that the Proposed Route is preferable to the route options presented by the Danns.
107. In regard to the potential impact to the Trumpeter Swans, the Commission notes that the existing trees on the Dann’s property will be taller than the proposed transmission line. There is evidence from ATCO that the trees will act as a deterrent to the Trumpeter Swans, encouraging them not to fly into the transmission line. The Commission gives weight to the opinion of Alberta Sustainable Resources Development (ASRD), the body responsible for the management of fish and wildlife including the Trumpeter Swans. ASRD did not recommend mitigation measures along the Danns’ property.125 ASRD did, however, recommend mitigation measures south of the Danns’ property along a stretch where there is no barrier between Powell Lake and the Proposed Route, as detailed in Attachment 2 of the Application.
108. The Commission recognizes that Trumpeter Swans are a species at risk, as designated by ASRD. In the Commission’s view their protection and welfare is an important consideration in assessing whether the Proposed Route is in the public interest. However, ASRD, which is charged with the responsibility to assess potential harm to the swans has expressed limited concern, even where the route crosses buffer zones. In this regard, the Commission notes that ATCO, in its route planning, extended the Trumpeter Swan buffer zones beyond the boundaries set out by ASRD.126 ASRD did not require ATCO to move the Proposed Route, but directed mitigation measures in some areas. ATCO indicated that certain mitigation measures will be utilized to minimize the potential impacts on wildlife, which are discussed in further detail under section 4.3 below.
109. The Danns’ raised issue in their Amended Reply with ATCO’s interpretation of the ASRD’s findings. In their view the Commission should have required information from ASRD directly so that it is ASRD which tells the Commission which routes it objects to and why.
110. The Commission notes that ASRD received a direct mailing of the Notice of Application. In addition, ATCO consulted directly with ASRD regarding the Application.127 ASRD could have submitted its concerns, if any, directly to the Commission. Thus, ASRD had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings if it so wished. The fact that it did not indicate to the Commission that ASRD did not have concerns beyond those addressed to ATCO, and for
124 Transcript Volume 1, page 201, lines 19-25, and page 202, lines 1-15 125 Transcript Volume 1, page 203, lines 19-23 126 Transcript Volume 1, page 278, lines 17-25, and page 279, lines 1-3 127 Attachment 3 of the Application, Table B
20 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
which mitigation measures were recommended along the Proposed Route to deal with any potential impact to Trumpeter Swans.
111. The Commission finds that, based on the evidence before it, the Proposed Route is preferable to the Danns’ route options.
112. In summary, in determining whether the Proposed Route is in the public interest, the Commission has examined all the evidence provided, including the various comparison tables, relevant maps and submissions of the parties. Taking all these factors into account, the Commission finds that the Proposed Route is preferred over all other alternative routes. The Proposed Route on balance minimizes the amount and degree of adverse impact to landowners along the route and minimizes required tree clearing. In addition, the Commission finds that the Proposed Route will not adversely affect wildlife, providing ATCO adopts the mitigation measures proposed by ASRD. Finally, the Commission also finds that the majority of the objections to the Proposed Route voiced by the Danns and the Blums can be largely mitigated through measures proposed by ATCO.
4.3 What Mitigation Measures Should ATCO Undertake? 113. Given the Commission’s finding that the Proposed Route is superior to the Preliminary Routes and to the alternative route options presented by the Blums and the Danns, the Commission now considers the measures ATCO must undertake to mitigate the impact of the Proposed Route.
4.2.3 Views of the Parties 114. ATCO proposed to use a compact transmission structure design with taller poles and shorter spans (Tall Pole Structure), along the property of the Blums and Danns to reduce the amount of tree clearing required. For the Blums, ATCO proposed to clear a minimum width of 15 metres for the Proposed Route and temporary 25-kV distribution line and a vegetation control zone of five metres where trees would be selectively cleared based on tree height.
115. In its March 12, 2009 written Amended Argument, ATCO submitted that the proposed mitigation measure with the Tall Pole Structure is sufficient and that the impact to the trees on the Blums’ and Danns’ property would not be significant. They also indicated that with respect to both the Blums’ and Danns’ property, there are safety concerns about replanting trees in the tree cleared zone after construction of the proposed transmission line.128 In ATCO’s view, “the trees would eventually come into contact with the conductors.”129
116. The Danns are of the view that the Tall Pole Structure would make it “ever so much worse for the swans”.130 In their Amended Reply of April 6, 2009, the Danns asserted that any use of high transmission lines would be a hazard to the Trumpeter Swans. They went on to refer to their June 13, 2008 meeting with ATCO, when the two ATCO representatives purportedly suggested the possibility of using a lower, broader structure as mitigation in the Trumpeter Swan area. It is unclear what lower, broader structure the Danns are referring to, although the description seems consistent with the H-frame structure referred to in ATCO’s Application. At page 5 of Attachment 2 of its Application, ATCO notes that the H-frame structure could be
128 ATCO Amended Argument, March 12, 2009, page 9 129 Transcript Volume 1, page 321, lines 16-25, and page 322, lines 1-6 130 Danns Reply Argument, March 27, 2009 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 21 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
used with the consent of landowners to minimize potential harm to the swans. It is unclear from the evidence given and the materials filed, which transmission structure the Danns prefer along the Proposed Route adjacent to their property.
117. As a further mitigation measure, ATCO suggested that the temporary 25-kV distribution line on the Blums’ property could be constructed to the north of the trees on cultivated land on the SE15 quarter section of land. This mitigation measure would further reduce the tree clearing required on the Blum’s property by six metres but will add additional cost to the project.
118. In their March 11, 2009 written Argument, the Blums stated that the compact transmission structure design does not adequately mitigate their concerns with tree clearing on their property as the taller trees would still be removed. The Blums submitted that the only mitigation measure that will address their concerns would be to place the transmission line along their property underground.
119. The Blums subsequently asserted in their March 23, 2009 Reply Argument that the photo mosaics submitted by ATCO in its March 12, 2009 Amended Argument constitute new evidence and should not be accepted by the Commission.
120. Together with its written Amended Argument, ATCO submitted five photo mosaics in total together with five accompanying cross-section drawings. Two of the mosaics and cross- section drawings depict where the trees will be cleared on the Blums’ and Danns’ property based on the width of the transmission line right of way and vegetation control right of way as proposed in ATCO’s Application. Another two of the mosaics and cross-section drawings depicts the same clearing based on the Tall Pole Structure. The remaining photo mosaic and cross-section drawing depict the additional mitigation measure raised by ATCO at the Commission’s request in the letter of March 2, 2009.
121. The Commission notes that four of the cross-section drawings filed in ATCO’s Amended Argument had been previously provided by ATCO in its Application and its January 28, 2009 submission. The evidence provided in the related photo mosaics is essentially the same as the cross-section drawings. Thus, while the photo mosaic is technically “new”, the substance is not. The Commission finds that the introduction of these four photo mosaics would not prejudice the Blums or the Danns. Contrary to the Blums’ contention, the parties had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the “new” evidence in their respective Replies. In any event, the Commission has not relied on the photo mosaic regarding the Blums’ and Danns’ property in rendering its decision on the mitigation issue.
122. The Commission also accepts the photo mosaic and accompanying cross-section drawing depicting the additional mitigation measure of routing the temporary distribution line around the trees on the Blums SE15 quarter. As this information was provided in response to the Commission’s letter of March 2, 2009, requesting additional mitigation steps ATCO was willing to take, the Commission accepts the filing of this photo mosaic and accompanying cross-section drawing. To be clear, the Commission accepts ATCO’s Amended Argument in its entirety.
123. With respect to the Danns’ property, ATCO stated that the additional mitigation measure it suggested for the Blums’ property is not feasible for the Danns’ property because there is no alternative route available for the temporary 25-kV distribution line.
22 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
124. ATCO proposed to clear a minimum width of 15 metres for construction of the Proposed Route and temporary 25-kV distribution line, as well as a vegetation control zone of 12 metres where trees would be selectively cleared based on tree height. Due to the tall uniform height of the trees on the Danns’ property, ATCO estimated that most of the trees within 27 metres of the property boundary would be required to be cleared.
125. The Danns stated in their March 9, 2009 written Argument that there does not appear to be any mitigation measures that ATCO can take which would resolve their concerns. The Danns indicate that the taller poles required with the compact transmission structure design would actually be less favourable for the Trumpeter Swans. The Danns do not agree with ATCO’s assertion that the remaining trees would protect the Trumpeter Swans from colliding with the Proposed Route. Since the only mitigation measure available along the Danns’ property cannot address both the Trumpeter Swans and reduce tree clearing, the Danns submit that the only measures that would address their concerns would be to place the transmission line underground along their property or to reroute the transmission line to the west, away from their property and the Trumpeter Swan buffer zone.
4.2.4 Commission Findings 126. With respect to the Blums’ property, ATCO notes that underground transmission lines cost about eight to ten times more than overhead structures.131 The Commission accepts ATCO’s evidence on the cost of underground transmission lines and finds the high cost prohibitive and contrary to the public interest. Further, certain measures can be undertaken to reduce the impact of above ground transmission lines at a significantly lower cost. The combination of these factors makes an underground transmission line inconsistent with the public interest in these circumstances.
127. The Commission directs ATCO to determine whether the Blums accept the proposal to construct the temporary 25-kV distribution line north of the trees on the SE15 quarter section of their property, thereby reducing the impact on their trees. Even if the Blums do not accept the rerouted temporary distribution line as an additional mitigation measure, the Commission nevertheless finds that the Proposed Route remains in the public interest.
128. Given the Blums’ concern with tree clearing on their property, ATCO is directed to use the Tall Pole Structure along the Proposed Route adjacent to the Blums’ property.
129. The Commission accepts ATCO’s position with respect to the risk of replanting trees along both the Blums’ and Danns’ property in the tree cleared zone subsequent to the construction of the transmission line. Specifically, the Commission finds that replanting trees would pose a safety concern as the trees mature and any immature trees replanted there would not provide a windbreak along the Blum’s property.
130. The Commission accepts ATCO’s position that the additional mitigation measure suggested by ATCO for the Blums’ property, that is, moving the temporary distribution line, is not feasible for the Danns’ property because there is no alternative route available for the temporary 25-kV distribution line.
131. The Commission recognizes that ATCO proposed the Tall Pole Structure to minimize tree clearing along the Danns’ property. However, given the Danns’ concerns of how the
131 Transcript Volume 1, page 231, lines 7-12 AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 23 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
transmission pole structure may affect the Trumpeter Swans, the Commission directs ATCO to consult with ASRD prior to construction to determine which pole structure (Tall Pole Structure, H-frame structure, or standard structure) is less harmful to the swans. ATCO is directed to use the pole structure recommended by the ASRD in the areas which the ASRD considers necessary for the safety of the Trumpeter Swans.
132. ATCO is directed to delay construction of the Project if the ASRD considers a delay necessary to avoid disturbance to Trumpeter Swans. ATCO is directed to advise the Commission of the ASRD’s recommendation with respect to when construction should occur and with respect to which pole structure is preferable.
5 CONCLUSION
133. The Commission approves ATCO’s Application No. 1589611 for the:
• construction of 144/25-kV Updike substation 886S located in LSD 8 of Section 18, Township 74, Range 12 West of the 6th Meridian;
• alteration of existing Goodfare substation 815S located in LSD 13 of Section 34, Township 72, Range 11 West of the 6th Meridian;
• construction of 144-kV transmission line designated as 7L34 following the Proposed Route from existing Goodfare substation 815S to proposed Updike substation 886S;
• alteration of existing 144-kV transmission line 7L07 from Elmworth substation 731S and Poplar Hill Substation 790S by terminating the line at Goodfare substation 815S and continuing to designate that portion of 7L07 between Goodfare substation and Poplar Hill substation as transmission line 7L07; and
• re-designation of that portion of existing 7L07 between Goodfare substation and Elmworth substation as transmission line 7L69.
134. The Commission directs ATCO to work with the Blums and the Danns to mitigate their respective concerns over tree clearing and protection of Trumpeter Swans as noted in this Decision.
135. The Commission will issue the necessary permits and licences for these approved transmission facilities shortly after the issuance of this Decision.
24 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
Dated in Calgary, Alberta on April 28, 2009.
ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION
(original signed by)
Thomas McGee Panel Chair
(original signed by)
N. Allen Maydonik, Q.C. Commissioner
(original signed by)
Mark Kolesar Acting Commissioner
AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 25
Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
APPENDIX 1 – PROCEEDING PARTICIPANTS
Name of Organization (Abbreviation) Counsel or Representative (APPLICANTS)
ATCO Electric Ltd. K. Drozdowski
J. and P. Blum and Innovative Agri-Ventures. Inc. E. Chipiuk
L. and M. Dann M. Dann
Alberta Utilities Commission
Commission Panel Thomas McGee, Panel Chair N. Allen Maydonik, Commissioner Mark Kolesar, Acting Commissioner
Commission Staff A. Jin (Commission Counsel) R. Chan T. Chan
AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 27 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
APPENDIX 2 – ORAL HEARING – REGISTERED APPEARANCES
Name of Organization (Abbreviation) Witnesses Counsel or Representative (APPLICANTS)
ATCO Electric Ltd. K. Pearce K. Drozdowski J. Crinklaw R. Berrien
J. and P. Blum and Innovative Agri-Ventures. Inc. P. Blum E. Chipiuk S. Blum J. Blum D. Maynard
L. and M. Dann L. Dann M. Dann
28 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
APPENDIX 3 – MAP OF PRELIMINARY ROUTE OPTIONS
Adobe Acrobat Document (consists of 1 page)
AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 29 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
APPENDIX 4 – BLUMS’ ROUTE OPTIONS
R.13 R.12 R.11 R.10W.6M.
C NR PROPOSED UPDIKE T.74 SUBSTATION 886S Valhalla Centre 59
721 43
Horse Lake IR 152B Hythe T.73
672 ALTA.B.C. - BORDER
720 723 GOODFARE SUBSTATION
671 815S C N Goodfare R T.72
BeaverLodge
Legend
Proposed 144-kV transmission line route Blum A proposed route Blum B proposed route Blum C proposed route Blum C1 proposed route Blum's land AUC Goodfare to Updike Project - Grande Prairie Area Application No. 1589611 ATCO Electric
30 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
APPENDIX 5 – DANNS’ ROUTE OPTIONS
R.13 R.12 R.11 R.10W.6M.
C NR PROPOSED UPDIKE T.74 SUBSTATION 886S Valhalla Centre 59
721 43
Horse Lake IR 152B Hythe T.73
672 ALTA. - B.C.BORDER
720 723 GOODFARE SUBSTATION
671 815S C N Goodfare R T.72
BeaverLodge
Legend
Proposed 144-kV transmission line route Dann A proposed route Dann B proposed route Dann C proposed route Dann's land
Goodfare to Updike Project - Grande Prairie Area AUC Application No. 1589611 ATCO Electric
AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009) • 31 Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34 ATCO Electric Ltd.
APPENDIX 6 – TABLE 6
32 • AUC Decision 2009-049 (April 28, 2009)