Decision 2013-332 ATCO Electric Ltd. Beartrap Transmission Project August 30, 2013 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 2013-332: ATCO Electric Ltd. Beartrap Transmission Project Application No. 1609059 Proceeding ID No. 2196 August 30, 2013 Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: 403-592-8845 Fax: 403-592-4406 Website: www.auc.ab.ca Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 The approval process for new transmission development in Alberta ............................ 1 2.2 Beartrap 940S substation needs identification document approval ............................... 2 2.3 ATCO’s facility application ........................................................................................... 2 2.4 Beartrap 940S substation................................................................................................ 3 2.5 Interventions ................................................................................................................... 3 2.6 Hearing ........................................................................................................................... 4 3 Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 4 4 How should the Commission treat the evidence of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Anderson, and the Bushores? ................................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Commission findings ..................................................................................................... 6 5 Are the preferred west and alternate east routes consistent with the need approval? ... 7 6 Public consultation ................................................................................................................ 7 6.1 Views of ATCO ............................................................................................................. 7 6.2 Views of interveners ...................................................................................................... 8 6.3 Commission findings ..................................................................................................... 8 7 Intervener route option ...................................................................................................... 10 7.1 Views of interveners .................................................................................................... 10 7.2 Views of ATCO ........................................................................................................... 11 7.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 11 8 Preferred west route versus alternate east route ............................................................. 12 8.1 Views of ATCO ........................................................................................................... 12 8.1.1 Route preference ............................................................................................. 12 8.1.2 Residential and agricultural impacts ............................................................... 12 8.1.3 Property value and future development .......................................................... 14 8.2 Views of the interveners............................................................................................... 15 8.2.1 Route preference ............................................................................................. 15 8.2.2 Residential impacts ......................................................................................... 15 8.2.3 Agricultural and commercial impacts ............................................................. 16 8.2.4 Effects on property value and future development ......................................... 17 8.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 17 9 Effects on the environment................................................................................................. 19 9.1 Views of ATCO ........................................................................................................... 19 9.2 Views of interveners .................................................................................................... 20 9.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 20 10 Health and safety and electrical effects ............................................................................. 20 10.1 Views of ATCO ........................................................................................................... 20 10.1.1 Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) .............................................................. 20 10.1.2 Electrical effects and noise ............................................................................ 21 AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) • i 10.2 Views of the interveners............................................................................................... 22 10.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 22 11 Route cost comparison ........................................................................................................ 23 11.1 Views of ATCO ........................................................................................................... 23 11.2 Views of interveners .................................................................................................... 23 11.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 23 12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 24 13 Decision ................................................................................................................................ 25 Appendix A – Application route map ....................................................................................... 27 Appendix B – Proceeding participants ..................................................................................... 28 Appendix C – Oral hearing – registered appearances ............................................................ 29 List of tables Table 1. Residential impact metrics ....................................................................................... 13 List of figures Figure 1: RRG route ................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: ATCO preferred west and alternate east routes ..................................................... 12 ii • AUC Decision 2013-332 (August 30, 2013) The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Decision 2013-332 ATCO Electric Ltd. Application No. 1609059 Beartrap Transmission Project Proceeding ID No. 2196 1 Introduction 1. In this decision the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) must decide whether to approve an application by ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) to construct and operate a new transmission line and substation located east of the town of Bonnyville. 2. ATCO included a preferred west route and an alternate east route in its application. 3. Landowners from both routes participated in the proceeding. Landowners located on or near the preferred west route opposed its approval and submitted that the Commission approve the alternate east route or a modified version of the preferred west route that they themselves proposed. Landowners located on or near the alternate east route opposed its approval. 2 Background 2.1 The approval process for new transmission development in Alberta 4. Two approvals from the AUC are required to build new transmission facilities in Alberta: an approval of the need for expansion or enhancement to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System under Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act, and a permit to construct and licence to operate a transmission facility pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. 5. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), is responsible for preparing a needs identification document (NID) and filing an application for approval of the NID with the AUC pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act. In this case, the NID was prepared in response to a request by Enbridge Pipeline (Athabasca) Inc. for a new point-of-delivery substation to serve its proposed pump station in the area. 6. Facility applications are prepared by a transmission facility owner assigned by the AESO. The transmission facility owner (in this case ATCO) files the facility application with the AUC for consideration. In making a decision, the Commission must consider whether the proposed transmission facility is in the public interest having regard to the social and economic effects of the transmission facilities and the effect of the transmission facilities on the environment in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.