Complaint – Distribution Facilities
A group of landowners located near a distribution line in the Red Deer area (the “Finlay Group”) lodged a complaint with the AUC in respect of a proposed rebuild of the 25-kilovolt distribution line designated as Line 262, operated by FortisAlberta Inc. (“Fortis”).
The Finlay Group expressed concerns regarding visual impacts and environmental degradation caused by the rebuild of the distribution line, and questioned whether Fortis adequately considered routing alternatives.
Fortis submitted that the proposed rebuild was slated for construction along its existing alignment, due primarily to load growth and customer commitments for new load in the Red Deer area. Fortis submitted that the construction method proposed was a “lean and rebuild” referring to a method by which the existing power line is excavated and leaned to allow a new power line to be set and strung in the same alignment. Fortis noted that the old line would lean toward property, and not the road, since leaning toward the road would reduce vertical clearance for traffic, which may raise safety concerns. Fortis submitted that the lean and rebuild method yielded the following advantages:
-
System integrity remained intact during new construction, and customers are not affected by power interruptions;
-
New construction can proceed outside of ‘minimum approach distances’ required by the Alberta Electric Utility Code; and
-
The lean and rebuild method requires very little specialized equipment.
However, Fortis noted that in order to maintain safe clearance heights, that vegetation and some existing structures would need to be removed in order to safely lean the line.
The Finlay Group submitted its concerns with the removal of trees within the municipal reserve, since the line would be leaned onto the municipal reserve lands. The Finlay Group suggested two alternative methods for the rebuild:
-
Leaning the existing power line towards the road, which would create outages for customers along the affected road and may require closing a portion of the road, but would not require the removal of any trees; or
-
Using a sectional live-line approach along the road.
The Finlay Group noted that in an effort to save the trees, each of the customers along the section of the rebuild would accept power outages required for a live-line construction method.
Fortis replied that the alternative methods would negatively impact the safety, reliability and cost of the project. Fortis also stated that it examined providing separate generation to each resident during construction, but noted that the extra time and expense necessary was prohibitive.
The Finlay Group also proposed an alternative route for construction. Fortis originally proposed a double-circuit distribution line along the existing route of the single-circuit line. The Finlay Group proposed instead building an additional circuit along Township Road 380, located nearby, eliminating the need for a double-circuit distribution line, and improving system reliability.
Fortis replied that the single-circuit proposal would add one kilometer of length to the distribution line and would traverse wetlands, a railway crossing and a highway crossing. Fortis submitted that this alternative was more costly and did not consider it viable.
The AUC held that the scheme for the construction and operation of distribution lines was inherently different from those of transmission lines. Notably, under the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, AUC approval is required for new or amended transmission lines. However, due to the extensive nature of distribution lines, the AUC does not issue approvals for new or amended lines. Instead, the AUC held, it assigns and approves distribution areas to distribution service providers, which empowers each provider to determine where facilities are required.
Aside from resolutions of complaints or disputes, the AUC noted that it has no direct oversight or approval role for distribution lines. Therefore, the AUC considered that its role in deciding the complaint was to determine whether Fortis exercised its statutory duties under the Electric Utilities Act to maintain a safe, reliable, economic and efficient electric distribution system.
The AUC determined that the Finlay Group proposals to lean the power line toward the road or use a live-line method were inferior to the Fortis proposal on grounds of safety and economics. Accordingly, the AUC held that it was satisfied that none of the alternatives proposed by the Finlay Group were superior to Fortis’ plan to rebuild the line.
However, the AUC encouraged Fortis to work with the Finlay Group to mitigate the impact of the project on trees in the municipal reserve area.
As a result of the above findings, the AUC dismissed the complaint by the Finlay Group, and stated that Fortis may proceed with the distribution line rebuild as planned.
