Transmission Line – Rule 007
AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AltaLink”) applied to the AUC to construct and operate a new transmission line, to be designated as 423L approximately 16 kilometers in length and located east of Lacombe, Alberta (the “Application”). The Application comprised of the following components:
(a) Construction of a single-circuit 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to be designated as 423L, from the existing Lacombe 212S substation to the existing Ellis 332S substation;
(b) Alteration of transmission line 80AL near the Lacombe 212S substation to accommodate the 423L transmission line;
(c) Alteration of transmission line 784L near the Ellis 332S substation by relocating the line onto double-circuit structures with transmission line 423L for one quarter section;
(d) Alteration of Lacombe 212S substation by adding two new 138-kV circuit breakers;
(e) Alteration of Ellis 332S substation by adding one 138-kB circuit breaker; and
(f) The salvage of portions of transmission lines 80AL and 784L to accommodate transmission line 423L,
(collectively, the “Project”).
AltaLink submitted several route options in response to concerns raised during its consultations for the Project.
The AUC considered the following issues related to AltaLink’s application:
(a) Was the application consistent with the need for transmission facilities approved in Decision 2012-098?
(b) Did AltaLink’s application comply with the requirements of the Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and Industrial System Designations (“Rule 007”)?
(c) How should the AUC treat the evidence with respect to the full rail parallel route?
(d) Would the approval of the application be in the public interest pursuant to section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act?
Need
The needs identification document for the project from the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”) was previously approved by the AUC in Decision 2012-098. The AUC also approved facilities in Decision 2014-219 to meet a portion of the need identified in Decision 2012-098.
The AUC held that no party questioned whether AltaLink’s application to construct and operate the Project met the need identified by the AESO. Therefore the AUC found that the Project was consistent with and met the need approved in Decision 2012-098.
Consultation
The AUC noted that Rule 007 requires applications for transmission line projects to conduct a participant involvement program before an application is filed. The applicant is expected to ensure that the information is understandable, and that the project is discussed with the widest possibly impacted audience as early as practicable.
The AUC found that AltaLink’s participant involvement program met the requirements of Rule 007, allowing interveners to understand the Project, and allowing them to meaningfully convey their concerns with the Project. The AUC determined that AltaLink had provided the means for stakeholders to make further inquiries, and express their concerns. The AUC also found that AltaLink’s alternate route selections were developed as a result of consultations with stakeholders, and demonstrated how stakeholders’ views were incorporated into the applied-for routes.
The AUC noted that effective consultation programs may not resolve all stakeholders’ concerns, and that parties may not agree on the impacts of a proposed project. The AUC characterized the process of consultation as a two-way street, holding that affected parties need to articulate the impacts they feel they may face, in order to allow the proponent to respond to, and incorporate those concerns.
Environmental Impacts
AltaLink submitted that in assessing the potential environmental impacts of the Project, it implemented a staged approach to integrate environmental considerations into the Project’s development, design and construction. AltaLink submitted that the environmental setting of the Project included terrain, soils, vegetation, hydrogeology, wetlands, watercourses, and wildlife. AltaLink submitted that it performed a number of studies including:
(a) A wetland evaluation report;
(b) Early and late season vegetation survey reports;
(c) Weed survey reports; and
(d) Wildlife survey reports.
AltaLink noted that these reports described a number of recommended mitigation measures that it planned to apply to the Project. Among the mitigation measures AltaLink planned to implement were:
(a) A requirement to develop a construction environmental management plan prior to the start of construction;
(b) A requirement to develop a post-construction reclamation plan, including:
(i) Re-contouring of disturbed areas;
(ii) Erosion and settlement control methods;
(iii) Topsoil salvage and replacement; and
(iv) Re-vegetation;
(c) Long term monitoring during operation of the Project, including avian protection measures such as installing bird markers and flight diverters; and
(d) Implementing standard procedures for vegetation management, waste handling and disposal plans.
AltaLink submitted that each of the route options were viable from an environmental impact perspective, and that no one route was strongly favoured for its environmental impacts.
The AUC held that the Project would be constructed on road allowances and that the lands surrounding it are primarily agricultural. The AUC held that the potential environmental impacts would be limited and, with appropriate mitigation measures, each of the route options presented were satisfactory from an environmental perspective.
Noise
AltaLink did not provide a noise impact assessment, as it submitted that no continuous audible noise sources were proposed as part of the Project.
The AUC accepted AltaLink’s submissions, noting that no noise emitting components were being added to any of the substations within the Project.
Electrical Effects on Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (“CP Rail”)
AltaLink submitted a report conducted by CP Rail regarding electromagnetic compatibility of the CP Rail line and the Project. The report, prepared by CP Rail determined that electromagnetic interference with the CP Rail line would occur if the Project were constructed over the preferred route, alternate route, and the full rail parallel route. However, CP Rail’s report also noted that the preferred and alternate route would be acceptable if mitigation measures were implemented.
CP Rail’s report stated that the preferred mitigation measure was to increase the distance of the Project from the rails. However, should a larger setback distance not be possible, CP Rail’s report stated that the only acceptable mitigation method was to install insulated joints along the line.
Other parties attacked the CP Rail report on the basis that CP Rail had omitted any analysis of rail tracks on the north and south ends of the Project, and further failed to include an analysis of conductivity or soil resistivity in its model. Other landowners submitted that CP Rail failed to consider any alternative mitigation measures, such as direct grounding of the rails to the soil.
AltaLink replied by stating that CP Rail intentionally used a discontinuity in its model at the south end of the Project as CP Rail did not own that track, and was not prepared to accept or allow any unnecessary risk to another owner’s track. CP Rail also used a discontinuity along the north end of the Project as it was not prepared to accept any risk for any portion of its track outside the footprint of the Project. AltaLink also responded that CP Rail did not consider direct grounding due to the fact that such measures would unduly interfere with signalling and existing active crossings along the rails.
The AUC held that the modelling in the CP Rail report was reasonable, including the assumptions used by CP Rail. The AUC further determined that the CP Rail report was sufficient to demonstrate that CP Rail would experience electromagnetic interference due to a parallel transmission line along its tracks, and noted that if the preferred route, alternate route or full rail parallel route were approved, some level of mitigation would be required.
The AUC made no finding on the appropriateness of the mitigation measures to be used, noting that the modelling of impacts in the CP Rail report would be verified against actual measurements should any of the routes be approved and constructed.
Route Alternatives
AltaLink had previously applied to construct and operate the Project providing evidence and reply evidence regarding its preferred route and alternate route, which had previously paralleled rail lines owned by CP Rail. AltaLink later withdrew the alternate route as a result of ongoing discussions with CP Rail. AltaLink withdrew the alternate route due to questions regarding its ability to parallel the railway for the southern portion of the alternate route. As a result, AltaLink’s application did not include an option to fully parallel the CP Rail line along the alternate route, as AltaLink submitted that it may cause undue risk to CP Rail’s operations or may cause electromagnetic interference to CP Rail’s operations.
As a result of the changes to AltaLink’s alternate route due to concerns from CP Rail, several landowner interveners requested that the AUC strike AltaLink’s evidence related to the withdrawn alternate route, or to compel CP Rail to attend the hearing and provide evidence of its own. For reasons set out within the rest of the decision, the AUC determined that it was not necessary to strike any portion, or to compel evidence, as AltaLink’s witness panel included a CP Rail employee.
Several interveners requested that the AUC deny the application as filed and to direct AltaLink to re-file its application for the Project to be routed along the full rail parallel route They submitted that the viability of the full rail parallel route indicated that the applied for routes were not in the public interest.
AltaLink submitted however, that the AUC was required to separate its consideration of the application from the possible mitigation measures required, arguing that the AUC lacked the jurisdiction to direct CP Rail to impose any particular mitigation measures to accommodate the full rail parallel route.
The AUC held that the Hydro and Electric Energy Act (the “HEEA”) permitted it to order changes to the location of a transmission line; prescribe the location and route of the transmission line as precisely it considers suitable; and prescribe the location of the right-of-way and the relationship of its boundaries to the transmission line or any part of it. However, since AltaLink did not apply for the full rail parallel route, the AUC held that it could not approve that route in its decision.
In answering the question related to its jurisdiction, the AUC held that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that it’s applied for route stands out as the superior route. If it did find that the Project was not in the public interest, it could have denied the application and directed AltaLink to apply for the Project in a specific location, including the full rail parallel route.
However, the AUC determined that it did have sufficient evidence before it to make a meaningful comparison between the full rail parallel route and the applied for routes. Therefore, the AUC held that if it were to determine that the full rail parallel route was a superior alternative, it may exercise its discretion under section 19 of the HEEA and deny the application and direct AltaLink to apply for the full rail parallel route.
With respect to the admissibility of expert witness testimony and evidence, the AUC maintained its current practice of not having to qualify experts beforehand. The AUC held that each of the witnesses that presented evidence in a fair and objective manner, consistent with their expertise, was considered an expert. The AUC did however classify some witnesses who were presented as expert witnesses as witnesses providing “technical evidence” instead. The AUC described technical evidence as evidence that is expert evidence provided by a corporate witness, and involves an additional step where the AUC considers whether, or to what degree, the policy evidence, factual evidence or technical evidence, was influenced by the witness’ position as an employee or representative of the party.
AltaLink submitted that it identified its preferred route based on a combination of factors, including conversations with stakeholders, environmental assessment impacts, number of corner structures required for construction, accessibility for maintenance purposes, and electrical considerations. AltaLink’s preferred route, in its submission, had lower residential impacts than the alternate routes, as it would avoid a number of residences that would otherwise fall within 150 metres of the Project.
Several landowners promoted the landowner suggested route, which avoided two additional residences, and would further avoid AltaLink having to replace a distribution line owned by EQUS REA Ltd. In response, AltaLink accepted the landowner suggested route option, submitting that the combined preferred route with the landowner suggested route would have the lowest overall residential impact, with no residences within 150 metres of the Project.
The AUC held that while all of the applied for routes were viable, the applied-for preferred route, together with the landowner suggested route option was the superior route for the Project, and approved that route. The AUC determined that the agricultural impacts of the preferred route could be mitigated by AltaLink’s proposed removal of two structures along the preferred route.
The AUC specifically determined that the landowner suggested route option was superior to the preferred route along the southern portion of the Project due to the lower residential and visual impacts compared with the preferred route. The AUC also found that the incremental costs of this route alternative were outweighed by the benefits to landowners, and not having to relocate other local distribution lines.
The AUC rejected the alternate route and the full rail parallel route, noting that the number of residences and landowners impacted would be drastically higher than the approved route, particularly along the northern section of the Project.
Decision
Accordingly, the AUC found that the Application met the requirements of Rule 007, and was in the public interest. The AUC therefore granted AltaLink approval to construct the Project along the preferred route with the landowner suggested route option.
