Line Relocation
ENMAX Power Corporation’s (“ENMAX”) application to realign transmission lines 138-2.82L and 138-2.83L (the “Lines”) is as a result of Remington Development Corporation’s (“Remington”) decision to terminate its right-of-way agreement with ENMAX. ENMAX disputed the termination, however the Court of Queen’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) upheld Remington’s right to terminate the right-of-way in 2011 and 2012. However, the ABCA directed that the Lines shall not be removed or relocated until ordered by the AUC.
Accordingly, ENMAX requested approval to:
(a) Remove and salvage segments of the Lines and 13 structures;
(b) Install new lines in 910 metres of new underground duct banks;
(c) Construct a new overhead segment of transmission line 2.83L on four new steel monopole structures; and
(d) Replace three existing towers with termination structures.
One intervener expressed concerns about road and lane closures, and impacts on businesses during construction. In response ENMAX committed to mitigating such impacts by providing staff during construction to aid in traffic flow, and erecting signage to show that the businesses were open during construction.
ENMAX estimated the cost of the relocation would be approximately $13.3 million, with an in-service date of Q3 2016. ENMAX developed six alternatives, however, it rejected five due to the fact that:
(a) Four were located on Remington’s lands; and
(b) One was located on Alberta Transportation’s lands.
Both parties refused to grant rights-of-way to ENMAX along any of the rejected alternate routes. Accordingly, ENMAX considered the possible cost and compensation that could be ordered by the Surface Rights Board associated with the rejected alternate routes to be indeterminate, and of little use for selecting a preferred route. Therefore ENMAX selected its preferred underground route along 10th and 11th Ave. S.E. in Calgary.
The AUC held that such uncertainty with respect to the Surface Rights Board valuations was not a sufficient basis on which to accept the proposed route. The AUC also noted that Remington did not participate in the hearing with respect to the Lines, and the AUC had no information on which to determine Remington’s plans for the land over which the Lines are located. The AUC held that it was unable to approve the relocation of the Lines in a vacuum.
Therefore, owing to the lack of information supporting a need to relocate the Lines, the AUC was not persuaded that any relocation was necessary. The AUC accordingly found that the proposed relocation of the Lines was not in the public interest and denied the application.
