Decision 2006-114 Request for Review and Variance of Decision 2005-031: Alberta Electric System Operator, Needs Identification Document Application, Edmonton-Calgary 500 kV Electric Transmission Facilities December 6, 2006 ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD Decision 2006-114: Request for Review and Variance of Decision 2005-031: Alberta Electric System Operator, Needs Identification Document Application, Edmonton-Calgary 500 kV Electric Transmission Facilities December 6, 2006 Published by Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G4 Telephone: (403) 297-8311 Fax: (403) 297-7040 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.eub.ca CONTENTS 1 DECISION............................................................................................................................. 1 2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Deregulation and the New Regulatory Process for Transmission System Upgrades .... 3 2.2 The NID Application ..................................................................................................... 3 2.3 The Prehearing Meeting for the NID Application ......................................................... 4 2.4 The NID Hearing ........................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Decision 2005-031 ......................................................................................................... 6 2.5.1 Legislative Framework for Section 34 Decisions............................................. 6 2.5.2 Step 1: Need to Upgrade the N-S Transmission System .................................. 6 2.5.3 Step 2: Was AESO’s Preferred Concept Reasonable and in the Public Interest?............................................................................................................. 7 3 THE REQUESTS TO REVIEW DECISION 2005-031 ........................................................ 8 3.1 The Board’s Authority to Review Its Own Decisions ................................................... 8 3.2 The Review Requests..................................................................................................... 9 4 THE REVIEW HEARING .................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Notice and Information Sessions ................................................................................. 10 4.2 Hearing Participants..................................................................................................... 10 4.3 The Review Hearing .................................................................................................... 11 4.4 Preliminary and Interlocutory Motions........................................................................ 12 4.5 Issues............................................................................................................................ 12 5 PRELIMINARY MATTERS............................................................................................... 13 5.1 The Filing of a Transmission Facility Application by AltaLink.................................. 13 5.2 Lavesta’s Jurisdictional and Process Concerns............................................................ 13 5.3 Allegation of Lack of Proper Notice............................................................................ 14 5.4 Allegation that the Board Improperly Limited the Scope of the Review Hearing....... 14 5.5 Allegation of Noncompliance with Section 28 of the Transmission Regulation......... 15 5.6 Allegation of Lack or Loss of Jurisdiction................................................................... 16 5.7 Allegation of Bias in the Proceedings.......................................................................... 16 6 THE PUBLIC INTEREST................................................................................................... 17 7 WAS AESO’S METHODOLOGY FOR ITS HIGH-LEVEL COMPARISON OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES REASONABLE?............................................................. 18 7.1 Views of the Parties ..................................................................................................... 18 7.2 Views of the Review Panel .......................................................................................... 19 8 HIGH-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL, LANDOWNER, AND AGRICULTURAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEST CORRIDOR............................................................... 21 8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 21 8.2 Agricultural Impacts..................................................................................................... 23 8.2.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 23 8.2.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 26 8.3 Residential Impacts (Population Density/Future Development/Land Value).............. 28 8.3.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 28 8.3.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 32 EUB Decision 2006-114 (December 6, 2006) • i 8.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 34 8.4.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 34 8.4.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 37 8.5 Electrical Considerations ............................................................................................. 38 8.5.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 38 8.5.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 49 8.6 Visual Impacts.............................................................................................................. 52 8.6.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 52 8.6.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 53 8.7 Special Constraints....................................................................................................... 54 8.7.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 54 8.7.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 55 9 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS ................................................................................. 56 9.1 Views of Parties ........................................................................................................... 56 9.2 Views of the Review Panel .......................................................................................... 57 10 IMPACTS ON FIRST NATIONS....................................................................................... 57 10.1 Traditional Lands ......................................................................................................... 57 10.2 Consultation ................................................................................................................. 58 10.3 Views of the Review Panel .......................................................................................... 60 11 OTHER MATTERS............................................................................................................. 60 11.1 Did AESO Apply for and Did the Board Approve a Transportation and Utility Corridor?..................................................................................................................... 60 11.1.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 60 11.1.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 61 11.2 Transmission Losses .................................................................................................... 62 11.2.1 Views of the Parties ........................................................................................ 62 11.2.2 Views of the Review Panel............................................................................. 63 12 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 63 13 ORDER ............................................................................................................................ 65 APPENDIX A MAP OF THE CORRIDORS ............................................................................ 67 APPENDIX B ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................... 68 APPENDIX C HEARING PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................ 70 APPENDIX D EUB RULINGS ON APPREHENSION OF BIAS ........................................... 73 APPENDIX E EUB RULINGS ON PRELIMINARY AND INTERLOCUTORY MOTIONS....................................................................... 76 ii • EUB Decision 2006-114 (December 6, 2006) ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES