NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD Manitoba Hydro Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project File OF-Fac-IPL-M180-2015-01 02 Hearing Order EH-001-2017 Written Reply Submissions of Manitoba Hydro June 25, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 II. RESPONSE TO CAEPLA ............................................................................................... 5 A. Manitoba Hydro’s Negotiations with Landowners ............................................................. 5 B. Revisions to the Statutory Easement................................................................................... 6 C. Expropriation ...................................................................................................................... 7 III. RESPONSE TO CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA MANITOBA ......... 9 A. Economic Feasibility .......................................................................................................... 9 B. Export Price Forecast .......................................................................................................... 9 C. Discount Rate .................................................................................................................... 10 D. Economic Business Case .................................................................................................. 11 E. MMTP Monitoring Committee ......................................................................................... 11 IV. RESPONSE TO PEGUIS FIRST NATION ................................................................. 13 V. RESPONSE TO SAGKEENG FIRST NATION ......................................................... 15 A. Assessment of Environmental Effects .............................................................................. 15 B. Impacts to Crown lands used by Sagkeeng First Nation members ................................... 15 C. Financial Compensation.................................................................................................... 17 VI. RESPONSE TO WA NI SKA TAN ............................................................................... 18 VII. RESPONSE TO COUNCIL OF CANADIANS - WINNIPEG CHAPTER .............. 19 VIII. RESPONSE TO MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION .............................................. 20 IX. RESPONSE TO SHOAL LAKE NO. 40 FIRST NATION ........................................ 23 X. RESPONSE TO ANIMAKEE WA ZHING #37 FIRST NATION AND NORTHWEST ANGLE #33 FIRST NATION ............................................................ 25 A. Clarity Regarding Consultation Process ........................................................................... 25 B. Assessment of impacts to AWZ#37 and NWA#33 .......................................................... 26 XI. RESPONSE TO SOUTHERN CHIEFS’ ORGANIZATION ..................................... 28 A. Board Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................. 28 B. SCO Working Warriors Database ..................................................................................... 28 XII. RESPONSE TO SOUTHEASTERN STAKEHOLDERS COALITION .................. 29 A. The ISD for Keeyask Generation Station ......................................................................... 29 B. The ISD for the Project ..................................................................................................... 29 C. The Ownership of the Great Northern Transmission Line ............................................... 30 XIII. RESPONSE TO MANITOBA WILDLANDS.............................................................. 31 XIV. DISPOSITION SOUGHT .............................................................................................. 32 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Intervenors in the National Energy Board (“Board”) proceeding for the Manitoba- Minnesota Transmission Project (the “Project”) have provided both oral and written arguments. 2. These reply submissions (“Reply Submissions”) will first address issues raised by each of the following Intervenors in their oral final arguments: (a) Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowners Association (“CAEPLA”); (b) Consumers Association of Canada - Manitoba Branch (“CAC Manitoba”); (c) Peguis First Nation; (d) Sagkeeng First Nation; and (e) Wa Nis Ka Tan. 3. The Reply Submissions will then address issues raised by each of the following Intervenors in their written arguments: (f) Council of Canadians - Winnipeg Chapter (“CoC”); (g) Manitoba Metis Federation; (h) Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation; (i) Animakee Wa Zhing #37 First Nation; (j) Northwest Angle #33 First Nation; (k) Southern Chiefs’ Organization; (l) Southeast Stakeholders Coalition (“SSC”); and (m) Manitoba Wildlands. 4. Many arguments raised by the Intervenors have already been addressed in Manitoba Hydro’s Final Written Submissions1 and are not repeated here. These Reply Submissions focus on issues raised by the Intervenors that were not already addressed in Manitoba Hydro’s Written Submissions. Manitoba Hydro’s silence on a particular matter should not be interpreted as agreement with or acquiescence to the position of the Intervenors. 1 Exhibit A92662-1. - 4 - 5. Manitoba Hydro submits that the case for the Project is compelling, and has not been brought into question by the Intervenor arguments. The Project is in the public interest and should be approved. - 5 - II. RESPONSE TO CAEPLA 6. In CAEPLA’s final argument, it argued it was seeking “improvements” to Manitoba Hydro’s land acquisition process. Manitoba Hydro will respond to the following three issues raised in CAEPLA’s argument: (a) Manitoba Hydro’s negotiations with landowners; (b) Revisions to the Statutory Easement; and (c) Expropriation. A. Manitoba Hydro’s Negotiations with Landowners 7. CAEPLA suggested that Manitoba Hydro presented its Statutory Easement as a “take it or leave it” offer, without negotiating with landowners.2 8. CAEPLA’s argument does not reflect the facts of the Proceeding. Contrary to CAEPLA’s argument, the evidence of Mr. Ireland was clear that Manitoba Hydro did not agree with the suggestion that its Statutory Easements were provided on a take it or leave it basis.3 There is no basis to suggest otherwise. 9. Manitoba Hydro’s Reply Evidence was clear on its commitment that, prior to construction, Manitoba Hydro will prepare a draft letter for landowners affected by the new right-of-way summarizing its commitments, the concerns that were heard and details about future steps and communications. Once landowners have had the opportunity to review the draft letters, Manitoba Hydro will seek to gain additional feedback on whether they have any new or additional concerns to note. Site visits will occur on request or as needed, and will be completed by Manitoba Hydro to learn about site specific features of concern and discuss mitigation measures. Manitoba Hydro will then provide final letters summarizing its commitments to landowners prior to commencing construction on their lands.4 10. This was explained by Ms. Bratland at the hearing: “Those [commitment] letters are a way for Manitoba Hydro to document with the landowner the commitments that we’re making to them when we undertake the project on their land. The process of documenting those commitments, discussing what might be missing from those commitments, and then sending a signed letter to the landowner is another way for us to show them the 5 commitment we’ve made on their land and the actions we will undertake.” 2 Transcripts, Vol. 9 (June 21, 2018), para. 2524. 3 Transcripts, Vol. 6 (June 18, 2018), paras. 2410-2415. 4 Exhibit A92478-2, PDF page 29, para. 87. 5 Transcripts Vol. 6 (June 18, 2018), para. 2442. - 6 - 11. As Mr. Ireland indicated at the hearing, there are also other opportunities for Manitoba Hydro to address landowners’ particular concerns. Mr. Ireland stated: “If a landowner, during a discussion over a voluntary easement expresses concerns about any particular part of the easement, then there’s a potential there for us to be able to document those concerns in the landowner database. There is opportunities for us to make minor improvements or minor changes directly onto the easement form, or there’s opportunities for us potentially to have an appendix, or an add to the easement agreement.”6 B. Revisions to the Statutory Easement 12. CAEPLA argued that it was seeking changes to the Statutory Easement in the following three respects: (a) Construction in wet soil conditions; (b) Biosecurity; and (c) Third party oversight.7 13. None of these conditions is necessary. The evidence on the record is clear that Manitoba Hydro has appropriate protocols in place pertaining to each of these issues. Regarding wet soils, Mr. Matthewson confirmed that mitigation measures are available to Manitoba Hydro and needed to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.8 14. Regarding biosecurity protocols, Mr. Matthewson was clear that a biosecurity management plan is being developed and will be in place prior to construction of the Project: “…has resulted in Manitoba Hydro developing a biosecurity -- or in the process of developing a biosecurity management plan, which goes into more detail about the nature of the different construction activities, whether they be similar to Manitoba Agriculture, where they look at the nature of those activities and the disturbance to soils and involvements such as installing a foundation on a tower