NID – Facility Application
The Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) applied to the AUC pursuant to section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act for approval of a needs identification document (“NID”) for a proposed 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission system reinforcement in south Calgary. The AESO directed ENMAX Power Corporation (“ENMAX”) to submit a facility application to meet the need set out in the NID, pursuant to section 35(1) of the Electric Utilities Act. ENMAX filed a related facility application pursuant to section 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act for a 138-kV transmission system reinforcement.
The AESO submitted that it requested the approval to resolve transmission system constraints and the long term reliable operation of the 138-kV system in south Calgary. The AESO requested approval of the need for the following major components:
(a) A new 138-kV transmission circuit between ENMAX substation No. 65 and ENMAX substation No. 41, with a connection to ENMAX substation No. 54;
(b) Reconfiguration of transmission lines 32.82L and 26.81L to form a direct connection between ENMAX substations No. 32 and No. 26; and
(c) Modifications, alterations, additions or removal of equipment required to undertake the work.
In its facility application, ENMAX requested approval of the following transmission facility additions and modifications:
(a) Construction of one new single circuit 138-kV transmission line between ENMAX substations No. 65 and No. 54, designated as 138-54.81L;
(b) Construction of one new single circuit 138-kV transmission line between ENMAX substations No. 54 and No. 41, designated as 138-41.84L;
(c) Connection of ENMAX substation No. 26 to ENMAX substation No. 32 by connecting existing transmission lines 138-26.81L and 138-32.82L at the intersection of Deerfoot Trail and Stoney Trail and designating this as 138-26.81L;
(d) Adding one circuit breaker to ENMAX substation No. 65; and
(e) Adding two circuit breakers to ENMAX substation No. 41,
(collectively, the “Project”).
The AESO and ENMAX requested that the AUC consider the applications jointly, pursuant to section 15.4 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act.
ENMAX submitted two proposed routes for the Project:
(a) A preferred route, which would begin at ENMAX substation No. 65, going west along Stoney Trail, then north on Macleod Trail, terminating at ENMAX substation No. 41; and
(b) An alternate route, which would begin at ENMAX substation No. 65, going south along 88 street SE, then west along 212 and 210 Avenue S.E, then north on Macleod Trail, terminating at ENMAX substation No. 41.
A large number of landowners and local stakeholders registered as participants in the proceeding. These parties raised the following issues:
(a) Impacts to property values;
(b) Electric and magnetic fields (“EMF”) of the proposed transmission lines and their impacts on health; and
(c) Visual impacts.
AESO NID Application
With respect to the AESO NID application, the AESO stated that its Foothills Area Transmission Development Plan undertook two sensitivity studies, which confirmed for the AESO the continued need for the current transmission development as applied for. The AESO submitted that the sensitivity studies indicated that the 138-kV transmission system in the south Calgary area was prone to overloading under N-1 contingencies (i.e. when one transmission element is out of service).
The AESO submitted that it did not study alternatives to the proposed development, due to the impracticality of rebuilding the high capacity existing circuits in the south Calgary area, making the reinforcement to the 138-kV system the only reasonable alternative.
The AUC found that the AESO’s NID was not technically deficient, and in the public interest.
ENMAX Application
Consultation
ENMAX submitted that it conducted a comprehensive consultation process that met the requirements of Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments (“Rule 007”). ENMAX noted that it received statements of concern and opposition from landowners on both the preferred and alternate routes.
A large number of interveners opposed the routing of the Project, and expressed dissatisfaction with ENMAX’s consultation process, submitting that the information presented by ENMAX was lacking, or that ENMAX’s consultation efforts did not take intervener issues into account.
While the AUC noted the concerns expressed by interveners, the AUC assessed ENMAX’s consultation in light of the nature and scope of the entire Project. The AUC found that ENMAX provided sufficient information to potentially affected parties and provided opportunities for those parties to express their concerns. As a result, the AUC held that ENMAX’s consultation program complied with Rule 007.
Electrical Considerations
Several parties expressed concerns about elevated risks of exposure to EMF, and impacts of the Project on health, noise, interference with computer equipment and induced current and voltage. ENMAX submitted that EMF are found everywhere that electricity is used, and it would continue to monitor EMF-related development. However, ENMAX submitted that scientific research to date has not established any adverse health effects from exposure to EMF from transmission lines at levels normally associated with those found in homes, schools or offices.
ENMAX submitted that the strength of the magnetic field decreases quickly with distance, increases with increased current, and may be impacted by the arrangement of conductors. ENMAX noted that where possible, it would arrange its conductors to reduce EMF at the nearest residences, and would provide in-home EMF measurements pre and post-construction on the request of any resident.
ENMAX submitted that its modelled EMF values for the preferred and alternate routes would be approximately 86 milligauss (mG) at the centreline, 5 mG at 30 metres from the centreline, 2 mG at 50 metres from the centreline, and less than 1 mG at distances greater than 80 metres from the centreline. ENMAX submitted that the 80 metre values were in the range typically found within Calgary homes and emitted by household fixtures. ENMAX further submitted that these values were well below the 2,000 mG exposure limit set out in the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines.
Interveners also expressed concerns with corona noise, which is a humming or buzzing noise from the transmission line due to electrical discharge and ionization of air around the surface of an alternating current transmission line conductor. ENMAX submitted that in order to mitigate noise, it would install corona shields on all insulators and would use large diameter conductors to ensure that there are no sharp edges on the conductor. ENMAX also submitted that it would undertake an annual maintenance program to detect and repair corona issues.
The AUC held that ENMAX’s EMF modelling was credible, and accepted that the EMF levels decreased rapidly with an increase in distance from the line. As a result, the AUC held that the expected EMF values from the transmission line would be well below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines. The AUC accordingly found no evidence to suggest that there would be adverse health impacts from EMF in relation to the Project.
The AUC also held that ENMAX’s mitigation measures for corona noise, would assist in reducing the noise from the project, and therefore determined that the preferred and alternate routes for the Project were acceptable regarding electrical considerations.
Property Value and Visual Impacts
ENMAX submitted a land impacts assessment report from Golder Associates (“Golder”) assessing four route options based on the criteria in Rule 007. Golder noted that the impacts were site specific and subjective, making estimates difficult.
Golder also noted that existing transmission and distribution lines were located adjacent to existing residential properties in the assessment area. Overall, Golder concluded that impacts to property values were more likely to occur along transmission line routes that are in proximity to a greater number of residential properties. As a result, Golder stated that the preferred and alternate routes have the lowest number of residential properties, and hence the lowest impact on residential property values.
With respect to visual impacts, Golder noted that the transmission structures are expected to be visible from residences, roads and recreational installations in the assessment area. However, Golder noted that the preferred route would have the lowest visual impact as it was the shortest, and made the most use of existing rights-of-way to reduce residential, environmental and visual impacts.
ENMAX also proposed to construct the line with steel monopole towers, which would reduce the visual impacts and number of towers relative to lattice towers or wood towers.
Interveners submitted a report from Gettal Appraisals Ltd. (the “Gettel Report”) to conduct a financial impact assessment on the impact of the Project on residential property values. The report from Gettel limited its consideration to homes within 150 meters of the Project with a direct sightline on the Project, and conducted appraisals on three homes in the area.
The Gettel Report used three case studies to assess the impacts:
(a) Vacant residential lots adjoining a 138-kV transmission line west of Edmonton;
(b) Properties in Sturgeon County adjacent to the Heartland Transmission project; and
(c) Properties adjacent to a 138-kV to 240-kV transmission line upgrade near Tsawwassen in British Columbia.
The Gettel Report concluded that the typical range of anticipated value lost was correlated with the proximity of the property to the Project as follows:
(a) 0-50 metres with a clear sightline: 15 percent loss;
(b) 50-100 metres with a clear sightline: 10 percent loss; and
(c) 100-150 metres with a clear sightline: 5 percent loss.
The Gettel report estimated a cumulative economic loss of $3,783,350 as a result of the Project on residential property values.
Interveners were also supported by two local developers, who submitted evidence that they had discounted lots in close proximity to the Project by between 5 and 10 percent, and that generally, the presence of major regional infrastructure has a negative effect on property prices.
The AUC held that, while it agreed with the approach taken by the Gettel Report, it did not accept the conclusion of a 5 to 15 percent value diminution, since the Gettel report relied heavily on its case study in British Columbia, which the AUC held was not comparable in respect of the properties, or the proposed Project.
With respect to visual impacts, the AUC held that the proposed route would be the furthest away from residences, and the location of the Project along existing rights-of-way would result in much lower visual impacts than other proposed routes.
Environmental Impacts
ENMAX submitted that no adverse impacts on land use were anticipated, given that the Project would be located on existing rights-of-way in a developed, urban environment. However, ENMAX committed to conducting additional field surveys prior to the start of construction in order to allow for site-specific measures to be developed as required.
ENMAX also noted that the alternate route would have a much higher potential for adverse environmental impacts, since it did not traverse existing rights-of-way, and instead traversed environmentally significant areas.
The AUC held that the proposed Project would be located in an urban, highly disturbed area, most of which would be on an existing right-of-way. The AUC held that both the preferred route and the alternate route were viable from an environmental impact perspective. However, because of the potential impacts to wetlands, the AUC held that a review of the environmental impacts favoured the preferred route.
Conclusion
In keeping with the findings and determinations above, the AUC held that the preferred route for the Project would have less of an overall impact than the alternate route and that its approval was therefore in the public interest, in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.
Accordingly, the AUC approved the AESO’s NID application as filed, and approved ENMAX’s Project application along the preferred route.
