alberta electric system operator · 2018. 2. 23. · application no. 1606666. this application...

Decision 2011-340

Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Amendment

AltaLink Management Ltd. New Transmission Line 1043L and Alteration of Transmission Line 904L West of Edmonton/Jackfish Lake Area

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Conductor Replacement and New Structure on Existing Transmission Lines 904LE/904LW in the Edmonton Area August 12, 2011

The Alberta Utilities Commission

Decision 2011-340:

Alberta Electric System Operator

Needs Identification Document Amendment

Application No. 1606285

AltaLink Management Ltd.

New Transmission Line 1043L and Alteration of

Transmission Line 904L West of Edmonton/Jackfish Lake Area

Applications No. 1606407 and No. 1606409

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc.

Conductor Replacement and New Structure on Existing

Transmission Lines 904LE/904LW in the Edmonton Area

Applications No. 1606664 and No. 1606666

Proceeding ID No. 754

August 12, 2011

Published by


Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W.

Calgary, Alberta

T2P 3L8

Telephone: 403-592-8845

Fax: 403-592-4406

Website: www.auc.ab.ca

http://www.auc.ab.ca/

AUC Decision 2011-340 (August 12, 2011) • i

Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1

2 The process for new transmission line development in Alberta .......................................4

3 AESO needs amendment application ................................................................................6 3.1 Commission decision ................................................................................................. 7

4 AltaLink new construction application .............................................................................7 4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Land use impacts ....................................................................................................... 8

4.2.1 Submissions of AltaLink ............................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Submissions of McNabs ................................................................................ 9

4.2.3 Submissions of other parties .........................................................................10 4.2.4 Commission findings ....................................................................................10

4.3 Environmental considerations ...................................................................................11 4.3.1 Submissions of AltaLink ..............................................................................11

4.3.2 Submissions of McNabs ...............................................................................12 4.3.3 Submissions of other parties .........................................................................13

4.3.4 Commission findings ....................................................................................13 4.4 Cost considerations ...................................................................................................14

4.4.1 Submissions of AltaLink ..............................................................................14 4.4.2 Submissions of other parties .........................................................................14

4.4.3 Commission findings ....................................................................................14 4.5 Social and economic considerations ..........................................................................14

4.5.1 Submissions of AltaLink ..............................................................................14 4.5.2 Views of McNabs .........................................................................................15


4.6 Determination of the approved route .........................................................................16 4.7 Decision on AltaLink new construction project application .......................................17

5 AltaLink rebuild application ........................................................................................... 17 5.1 Economic considerations...........................................................................................18

5.1.1 Submissions of AltaLink ..............................................................................18 5.1.2 Submissions of Falconer ...............................................................................19


5.2 Social considerations.................................................................................................21 5.2.1 Submissions of AltaLink ..............................................................................21

5.2.2 Submissions of Falconer ...............................................................................23 5.2.3 Submissions of other parties .........................................................................24

5.2.4 Commission findings ....................................................................................24 5.3 Determination of rebuild application .........................................................................26

5.4 Decision on AltaLink rebuild application ..................................................................26

New Transmission Line 1043L and Alteration of Transmission Line 904L West of Edmonton/Jackfish Lake Area, and Alberta Electric System Operator, Conductor Replacement and New Structure on Existing AltaLink Management Ltd. and Transmission Lines 904LE/904LW in the Edmonton Area EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc.

ii • AUC Decision 2011-340 (August 12, 2011)

6 EPCOR restringing application and new tower application .......................................... 26 6.1 Determination of EPCOR restringing application and new tower application ............27 6.2 Decision on EPCOR project applications ..................................................................28

7 Decision on facility applications ...................................................................................... 28

Appendix C – Proceeding participants ................................................................................... 33

Appendix D – Oral hearing – registered appearances ........................................................... 34

Appendix E - Abbreviations ................................................................................................... 35

List of tables

Table 1. Falconer landowner group members ..................................................................... 4

Table 2. McNabs landowner group members ...................................................................... 4

AUC Decision 2011-340 (August 12, 2011) • 1


Calgary, Alberta

Alberta Electric System Operator

Needs Identification Document Amendment

AltaLink Management Ltd.

New Transmission Line 1043L and Alteration of

Transmission Line 904L West of Edmonton/Jack Fish

Lake Area Decision 2011-340

Applications No. 1606285

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. No. 1606407, No. 1606409,

Conductor Replacement and New Structure on Existing No. 1606664 and No. 1606666

Transmission Line 904LE/904LW in the Edmonton Area Proceeding ID No. 754

1 Introduction

1. This decision deals with five separate applications, all of which were combined by the

Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or the Commission) as Proceeding ID No. 754 and heard

together. They are:

the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) needs amendment application

the AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) new construction application

the AltaLink rebuild application

the EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EPCOR) restringing application

the EPCOR new tower application

2. The AESO needs amendment application was filed by the AESO on June 18, 2010, as

Application No. 1606285. This application seeks approval to amend previous need

Approval No. U2010-851 to include re-terminating existing transmission line 909L at the

Sundance 310P substation instead of at the Keephills 320P substation (Keephills), as was

previously approved.

3. The AltaLink new construction application was filed by AltaLink on July 28, 2010, as

Application No. 1606407. This application seeks approval to create a new 240-kilovolt (kV)

transmission line from Keephills to either Point 1 or Point 2, as shown on the map in

Appendix A. From Keephills to Point 2 was AltaLink‟s preferred route. From Keephills to

Point 1 was AltaLink‟s alternate route. In both cases, portions of the approved transmission line

will be made up of existing transmission line between Keephills and Point 4. Both the preferred

and alternate routes share a common alignment of new construction between Point 4 and Point 3.

The preferred route parallels an existing 240-kV transmission line between Point 3 and Point 2.

The alternate route does not parallel any existing transmission lines for most of its proposed

alignment between Point 3 and Point 1. This application also seeks approval to de-energize a

transmission line from Wabamun 19S substation to Point 2 or Point 1 depending on which of the

two routes is chosen. The line will be de-energized to Point 2 if the preferred route is chosen and

to Point 1 if the alternate route is chosen. A section of existing transmission line, shown as the

1 Needs Identification Document Approval No. U2010-85, Application No. 1605880, February 18, 2010.

http://www.auc.ab.ca/applications/orders/utility-orders/Utility%20Orders/2010/U2010-085.pdf


2 • AUC Decision 2011-340 (August 12, 2011)

eastern dashed line between Keephills and Point 4 is proposed to be salvaged. In particular, the

application seeks approval to:

Construct and operate approximately 12 kilometres of 240-kV transmission line,

numbered 1043L, between Keephills and the Jackfish Lake area (including installation of

double-circuit lattice structures).

Connect the transmission lines in AltaLink‟s rebuild project and AltaLink‟s new

construction project.

Terminate existing 240-kV transmission line 909L at Sundance 310P substation.

Salvage structures on de-energized transmission line D903L/D190L, northeast of

Keephills.

4. The AltaLink rebuild application was filed by AltaLink on July 28, 2010, as Application

No. 1606409. This application seeks approval to rebuild an existing 240-kV transmission line

from Petrolia 816S substation (Petrolia) to either Point 1 or Point 2, as shown on the map in

Appendix A. If the preferred route in the new construction application above is chosen then the

transmission line would be rebuilt to Point 2. If the alternate route in the application above is

chosen, the transmission line would be rebuilt to Point 1. The length of line to be rebuilt is

approximately 47 kilometres or 50 kilometres and requires that the rebuilt transmission line

would be located north of the existing line between 2.5 metres and five metres. The structures

would be larger versions of the existing H-frame structures. AltaLink also applied to modify

connection types in the vicinity of the EPCOR restringing and tower projects. After being rebuilt

the transmission line would be connected to the transmission line from the AltaLink new

construction application above, and together the transmission line would be designated as 1043L.

TransAlta Utilities owns the portions of the transmission lines that run through the Stony Plain

Indian Reserve 135, and AltaLink applied for the rebuild on their behalf for that portion of the

route. The AltaLink rebuild application also seeks approval to de-energize the segment of

existing line 904L that runs from Wabamun 19S substation to a new dead-end structure near

Jackfish Lake and renumber the transmission line D904L.

5. The EPCOR restringing application was filed by EPCOR on October 15, 2010, as

Application No. 1606664. This application seeks approval to replace the conductors on a

12 kilometre segment of existing 240-kV transmission line, to reinforce four transmission tower

bases and redesignate the names of four transmission lines. The location of the existing

transmission line is depicted on the map in Appendix B. In particular, the application seeks

approval to:

Replace existing transmission lines 904LW and 904LE with two new conductors

per phase.

Reinforce four existing towers to accommodate the higher loads that the new conductors

will carry.

Renumber existing transmission lines as follows:

a) 904LW to 1045EL

b) 904LE to 1044EL

c) EPCOR‟s portion of 904L between Petrolia and Argyll substation to 1055 EL

d) EPCOR‟s portion of 904L between the Argyll and Ellerslie 89S substation

to 1056EL



6. The EPCOR new tower application was filed by EPCOR on October 15, 2010, as

Application No. 1606666. This application seeks approval to install one new steel tower

structure south of the Callingwood Road overpass on the east side of Anthony Henday Drive in

order to raise the line to meet the minimum clearance requirement. The location of the proposed

new tower and adjacent towers are depicted on the map in Appendix B. The proposed facilities

in this application will be collectively referred to as the EPCOR new tower project. The EPCOR

restringing application and the new tower application are closely related and are discussed

together in Section 6.

7. The AUC issued information requests to AltaLink on December 3, 2010 and

January 31, 2011, in order to clarify details of both the AltaLink applications. Both of the

AltaLink applications were deemed complete on February 15, 2011.

8. The AUC issued information requests to EPCOR on February 1, 2011, in order to clarify

details of both the EPCOR applications. Both of the EPCOR applications were deemed complete

on February 15, 2011.

9. The Commission published notice of the five applications on December 16, 2010, and

deemed all five applications to be complete on February 15, 2011. The Commission published

notice of a hearing for the five applications on March 16, 2011.

10. The Commission received three intervener submissions from individuals and landowner

groups in response to the notice of applications that was issued on December 16, 2010. Further,

the Commission received one statement of concern prior to the issuance of the notice of

applications. The Commission received four intervener submissions from individuals and

landowner groups in response to the notice of hearing that was issued on March 16, 2011.

11. The Commission found that all persons who submitted a statement of intent to participate

demonstrated that they had rights that might be directly and adversely affected by the

Commission‟s decision on the applications that comprised Proceeding ID No. 754. Pursuant to

Section 9(2) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, the Commission held a hearing to consider

the interveners‟ objections and concerns about the subject facility applications.

12. The hearing commenced on June 28, 2011, at the Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel in

Edmonton, Alberta, before a Commission panel comprised of Chair Willie Grieve, Acting

Commission Member Gwen Day and Acting Commission Member Ian Harvie. The hearing

closed on June 30, 2011, which the Commission considers to be the close of record for the

hearing.

13. A number of parties filed written submissions regarding the applications, but did not

appear at the hearing. A list of all registered parties in Proceeding ID No. 754 is provided in

Appendix C.

14. A complete list of all hearing participants is attached to this decision in Appendix D.

However, to assist readers of this report, the Commission has included the following brief

introduction to the landowners and residents who participated in the public hearing.



15. The Neighbours of Falconer Heights (Falconer) was comprised of four area residents in

the Edmonton community of Falconer Heights. Falconer submitted a written submission

outlining health, property value, visual and land use concerns with the AltaLink rebuild project.

Table 1. Falconer landowner group members

Names Land Location

Sheila and Charles LeBlanc 539 Falconer Place

Andrew and Kathy Bell 552 Falconer Place

Neil and Wendy Schaan 517 Falconer Place

Sanyi Wang and Joan Yang 515 Falconer Place

16. Rainbow Beach Development Inc., J. and S. McNab and J. Alexander and P. McNab

(McNabs) was comprised of three area residents or companies that own land in the

Mayatan Lake and Jackfish Lake areas. McNabs had property value, land use, environmental and

consultation concerns with the AltaLink rebuild project and the AltaLink new construction

project.

Table 2. McNabs landowner group members

Names Land Location

John and Sandra McNab Lot 2, Block 2, Rainbow Beach Estates

J. Alexander and Priscilla McNab Lot 3, Block 2, Rainbow Beach Estates

Rainbow Beach Developments Inc. John McNab

SW-18-52-2-W5M

17. Mr. Walter Neilson is the president of the Mayatan Lake Management Association and

made an oral statement at the hearing. His concerns were with the impacts of the preferred route

for the AltaLink new transmission line project through the Parkland County identified

environmentally significant area (ESA) in the Mayatan Lake area.

18. Mr. Harry Tyrrell is the registered owner of NE 12-52-3-W5M and made an oral

statement at the hearing. His concerns were with the impacts of the preferred route for the

AltaLink new transmission line project.

19. The Commission has reviewed the evidence, argument and reply. Any references to

specific parts of the record are intended to assist the reader in understanding the Commission‟s

decision, but should not be taken as an indication that the Commission did not consider the entire

record as it relates to that issue.

2 The process for new transmission line development in Alberta

20. Two approvals from the AUC are required to build new transmission lines in Alberta

(other than critical transmission infrastructure). The first is an approval of the need for expansion

or enhancement to the system pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act. The second is a

permit to construct and operate a transmission line pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the



Hydro and Electric Energy Act. None of the applications which are the subject of this decision

are applications for critical transmission infrastructure.

21. The AESO, in its capacity as the Independent System Operator established under the

Electric Utilities Act, is responsible for preparing a needs identification document and filing it

with the AUC pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act.

22. Facility applications are prepared by a transmission facility owner assigned by the

AESO.

23. When considering a facility application for a transmission line the Commission is

obliged by Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act to consider whether the

proposed project is in the public interest having regard to its social and economic effects

and its effect on the environment. The Commission discussed the public interest in

Decision 2009-0282 as follows:

The Commission recognizes that there is no universal definition of what comprises the

“public interest” and that its meaning cannot be derived from strictly objective measures.

The Commission acknowledges that the ultimate determination of whether a particular project is in the “public interest” will largely be dictated by the circumstances of each

transmission facility application.

In the Commission‟s view, assessment of the public interest requires it to balance the

benefits associated with upgrades to the transmission system with the associated impacts, having regard to the legislative framework for transmission development in Alberta. This

exercise necessarily requires the Commission to weigh impacts that will be experienced

on a provincial basis, such as improved system performance, reliability, and access with specific routing impacts upon those individuals or families that reside or own land along

a proposed transmission route as well as other users of the land that may be affected. This

approach is consistent with the EUB‟s historical position that the public interest standard

will generally be met by an activity that benefits the segment of the public to which the

legislation is aimed, while at the same time minimizing, or mitigating to an acceptable

degree, the potential adverse impacts on more discrete parts of the community.

… When assessing whether AltaLink‟s proposed route is in the public interest, the

Commission must weigh the benefits described above with the site specific impacts that

will be experienced by landowners and residents along the proposed route as well as others that may be impacted. The Commission understands that these impacts are real and

may be significant. Transmission towers are large structures that may obscure scenery,

impact agricultural operations, and may have an influence on land use and development

plans. The Commission expects transmission facility owners to take all reasonable steps to avoid such impacts but acknowledges that despite the use of sound routing and

planning practices such impacts are sometimes truly unavoidable given the nature of

transmission lines. Where such impacts are truly unavoidable, the Commission expects that the Applicant would explore all reasonable steps to mitigate those impacts.

3

2 Decision 2009-028: AltaLink Management Ltd. Transmission Line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge,

Application No. 1521942, Proceeding ID No. 19, March 10, 2009. 3 Decision 2009-028, pages 6 to 7. The reference in this quote to the EUB is to the Alberta Energy and Utilities

Board (predecessor to the AUC).

http://www.auc.ab.ca/applications/decisions/Decisions/2009/2009-028.pdf



3 AESO needs amendment application

24. The AESO application in this proceeding is to amend the existing Approval

No. U2010-85, which itself was an amendment to the original Edmonton 240-kV needs

identification document Approval No. U2009-62.4

25. The AESO filed a needs application with the AUC for the Edmonton Region 240-kV

needs identification document on August 26, 2008. The Commission approved the

Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification document and issued needs identification

document Approval No. U2009-62 on February 24, 2009.

26. The AESO filed an application5 with the AUC on February 5, 2010, requesting approval

for amendments to Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification document Approval

No. U2009-62. In Decision 2010-075,6 the AESO was granted Edmonton Region 240-kV

needs identification document Approval No. U2010-85 on February 18, 2010.

27. The AESO requested amendment of the following paragraph in Section 1 of

Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification document Approval No. U2010-85:

The termination of existing 240 kV transmission line 909L from Keephills 320P

substation back to Sundance 310P substation.7

28. The AESO stated that the original needs identification document, which was amended

once before, contained a single line diagram that showed the termination point applied for. The

AESO application seeks to change the wording to correspond to the single line diagram that was

submitted as a part of the previously approved needs identification document.

29. Falconer argued that because the AESO did not conduct a participant involvement

program that the public could not recognize that it was a problem they could address.

30. The AESO argued that the amendment is very minor in nature and that it is a clarification

of what was previously proposed and approved, and for this reason did not conduct a participant

involvement program. The AESO stated that a participant involvement program was completed

for the original needs identification document.

31. Falconer contended that the amendment was not in the public interest because the

existing facilities for which the needs identification document was approved are not needed due

to changes to generation in the area and the cost of transmission developments province wide.8

32. No other parties objected to the AESO amendment.

4 Needs Assessment Approval No. U2009-62, Application No. 1584342, February 24, 2009. 5 Application No. 1605880, AESO‟s Application for Amendment to NEED Assessment Approval No. U2009-62,

Alberta Electric Systems Operator, February 5, 2010. 6 Decision 2010-075: Alberta Electric System Operator Amendment to Need Assessment Approval No. U2009-62

for Edmonton Region 240-kV Transmission System Upgrades, Application No. 1605880, Proceeding ID

No. 482, February 18, 2010. 7 Application No. 1606285, page 1.

8 Transcript, Volume 2, pages 418 to 420.

http://www.auc.ab.ca/applications/orders/utility-orders/Utility%20Orders/2009/U2009-062.pdf

http://www.auc.ab.ca/applications/decisions/Decisions/2010/2010-075.pdf



3.1 Commission decision

33. The Commission finds that the single line diagram, as submitted in the original

Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification document and approved by the Commission, did

include the termination of existing 240-kV transmission line 909L from Keephills back to

Sundance 310P substation. Therefore, the AESO application is merely an amendment required to

correct the text of the original needs identification document so that it corresponds with the

approved single line diagram. In these circumstances a participant involvement program is not

required.

34. Section 38 of the Transmission Regulation provides guidance to the Commission when

considering whether to approve a needs identification document under Section 34 of the

Electric Utilities Act. Section 38 of the Transmission Regulation provides, in part, that the

Commission must:

e. consider the [AESO‟s] assessment of the need to be correct unless an interested

person satisfies the Commission that

i. the [AESO‟s] assessment of the need is technically deficient, or

ii. to approve the needs identification document would not be in the public

interest.

35. The Commission is satisfied that no person has argued that the need is technically

deficient.

36. The Commission is only called upon to consider the amendment to the existing needs

identification document, and not the merits of the original (or subsequently amended) needs

identification document approval itself. The Commission finds that the evidence does not

demonstrate that the minor amendment to correct previous needs identification document

Approval No. U2010-85 is not in the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission considers the

AESO‟s assessment of the need amendment to be correct in accordance with subsection 38(e) of

the Transmission Regulation and the Commission approves the AESO‟s needs amendment

application pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act and Section 38 of the

Transmission Regulation, and grants approval to amend the Edmonton Region 240-kV needs

identification document.

37. The AESO‟s approval will be distributed separately.

4 AltaLink new construction application

4.1 Overview

38. This application seeks approval to create a new 240-kV transmission line from

Keephills to either Point 1 or Point 2 shown on the map in Appendix A. From Keephills to

Point 2 was AltaLink‟s preferred route. From Keephills to Point 1 was AltaLink‟s alternate route.

In both cases, portions of the transmission line will be made of portions of existing transmission

line between Keephills and Point 4. Both the preferred and alternate routes share a common

alignment of new construction between Point 4 and Point 3. The preferred route parallels an

existing 240-kV transmission line between Point 3 and Point 2. The alternate route does not

parallel any existing transmission lines for most of its proposed alignment between Point 3



and Point 1. This application also seeks approval to de-energize a transmission line from

Wabamun 19S substation to Point 2 or Point 1, depending on which of the two routes is chosen.

The line will be de-energized to Point 2 if the preferred route is chosen, or to Point 1 if the

alternate route is chosen. A section of existing transmission line, shown as the eastern dashed

line between Keephills and Point 4 is proposed to be salvaged.

39. The selection of the preferred route for this project would require approximately three

kilometres of additional transmission line to be rebuilt as a part of the AltaLink rebuild project.

This extra length of line to be rebuilt is between Point 1 and Point 2, shown on the map in

Appendix A. Specific concerns that were raised about the rebuild between Point 1 and Point 2

are considered here along with the AltaLink new construction application because the issues

about the rebuild application between Point 1 and Point 2 are relevant to the choice of the

preferred or alternate route in the new construction application and the choice of the preferred or

alternate route will determine whether the route between Point 1 and Point 2 will be necessary to

consider in the rebuild application.

40. AltaLink conducted a participant involvement program for the AltaLink new construction

project before filing its new construction application. The participant involvement program

included two rounds of consultation with stakeholders on or directly adjacent to preliminary

routes. AltaLink also held open houses in Duffield, Alberta, in the vicinity of the preferred and

alternative routes.

41. AltaLink also conducted consultations with First Nations, the Métis Nation, government

agencies, non-government organizations, special interest groups and oil and gas companies.

4.2 Land use impacts

4.2.1 Submissions of AltaLink

42. AltaLink stated that the project area for the new construction application is located in dry

mixwood and central parkland natural subregions and that it is an area of rural landscape

consisting of agricultural fields and forested patches interspersed with wetlands and lakes.9

43. At the hearing, in response to questions from the Commission and Commission staff,

AltaLink explained that a route along the existing 500-kV transmission line 1202L which

runs east-west to the south of both the preferred and alternate routes was not considered based on

the number of residences in close proximity, and that there would need to be new rights-of-way

acquired along the entire length of that route.10

44. In the application AltaLink stated that the length of agricultural land crossed is

5.7 kilometres and eight kilometres for the preferred and alternate route, respectively. AltaLink

also stated that the length of existing transmission line paralleled is seven kilometres and

1.7 kilometres for the preferred and alternate route, respectively.

9 Application No. 1606407, page 44, paragraph 251.

10 Transcript, Volume 2, page 269, lines 5 to 14.



45. AltaLink showed that the number of residences within 150 metres is one and two for the

preferred and alternate route, respectively, and that the number of residences within 800 metres

is 42 and 28 for the preferred and alternate route, respectively. AltaLink further stated that 32 of

the 42 residences within 800 metres on the preferred route already have an existing transmission

line that would be closer than the proposed line and that eight of the 28 residences within

800 metres of the alternate route already have an existing transmission line that would be closer

than the proposed line.

46. In response to an information request from McNabs, AltaLink stated that if a proposed

transmission line right-of-way is expected to occupy more than 20 per cent of a parcel, or if the

parcel of land is otherwise adversely affected, AltaLink will offer a buyout of that parcel, but that

this practice has not been adopted where AltaLink is replacing structures or rebuilding existing

lines within existing rights-of-way.11

47. At the hearing, Mr. Johns, appearing for AltaLink, agreed that it appeared that McNabs

Block 1, Lot 2 land had more than 20 per cent of the land occupied by transmission right-of-way,

but that AltaLink did not typically entertain a buyout when the right-of-way existed before the

lot was created. 12

48. In the application, AltaLink stated that the preferred route has the least impact on existing

residential and agricultural land uses and that the alternate route has the least impact on existing

and planned recreational land uses.

4.2.2 Submissions of McNabs

49. McNabs submitted that they have some land adjacent to Mayatan Lake that would be

affected if the preferred route were accepted and other land adjacent to Jackfish Lake that would

be affected by the section of transmission line 904L that would have to be rebuilt if the preferred

route were selected. At the hearing McNabs presented photographs and videos of the existing

transmission developments across Jackfish Lake and Mayatan Lake which were on or around

their affected land.13

50. Mr. McNab stated at the hearing that he has plans for a 200 site recreational vehicle (RV)

park for SW18-52-2-W5M around Mayatan Lake and that a first reading of the RV park plan to

Parkland County occurred on June 28, 2011, and a second reading was planned for fall of 2011.

McNabs asserted that the preferred route would affect their ability to utilize the land as an

RV park because of the visual impacts.

51. McNabs land at Jackfish Lake has been subdivided into lots for homes. McNabs argued

that there would be detrimental impacts on the sale of Lot 2, Block 1 along the right-of-way

affected by the rebuild project, resulting “from a substantial increase in the structure size, a

change in the structure location, and the drastic clearing of the right-of-way, which will

dramatically alter the view from the building envelope located on the site.” 14

11 Exhibit 171.01, MCNAB.AML-009. 12 Transcript, Volume 2, page 230. 13 Exhibit 182.10, McNab Tab 8 – Photographs, Exhibit 183.01, Videos of Jackfish Lake, Mayatan Lake and 904L

transmission line, and Exhibit 198.01, McNab Photos of Rainbow Beach Estates. 14 Transcript, Volume 3, pages 577 and 578.



52. At the hearing, Mr. McNab told the panel that both transmission lines 904L and 908L

existed before the subdivision of the Block 1 lands, and that when the subdivision was applied

for AltaLink raised no concern.15

53. At the hearing, Mr. McNab stated that his desired outcome was for the alternate route to

be selected, and failing that, for AltaLink to purchase Block 1, Lot 2.

54. Following up on the Commission‟s questions regarding the alternate routes not applied

for, McNabs argued that AltaLink had not satisfied AUC Rule 007: Rules Respecting

Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and Industrial System

Designations (AUC Rule 007) requirement TS10, for an applicant to describe transmission line

routing alternatives and compare the relative impacts, because the AltaLink new construction

application ignores a routing alternative that parallels the existing 500-kV transmission

line 1202L to the south of the preferred and alternate routes.16

4.2.3 Submissions of other parties

55. Mr. Tyrrell made a brief oral statement at the hearing. Mr. Tyrrell asserted that there

would be a decrease in the value of his property at NE 12-52-3-W5M if the preferred route were

approved because the road allowance across the north boundary of his land would be used for the

transmission line and this would prevent him from using that road allowance for a road in the

future.

4.2.4 Commission findings

56. The Commission has before it a preferred route and an alternative route as shown on the

map in Appendix A. The Commission accepts that AltaLink developed these routes through a

process that sought to avoid environmental and landowner impacts. The Commission finds that

AltaLink has met the requirements of AUC Rule 007 with respect to the application for the two

routes as proposed.

57. The Commission accepts AltaLink‟s explanation that it did not pursue a route paralleling

transmission line 1202L because of the number of residences and that new rights-of-way would

have to be acquired along the entire length of the route. In making this decision, the Commission

considered the submissions of AltaLink and McNabs and the maps submitted with the

application.

58. The Commission has considered the evidence submitted concerning the proposed new

construction project at Mayatan Lake and future development on Mr. Tyrrell‟s land. The

Commission considers that the sections of land about which development concerns were raised,

particularly around Mayatan Lake, are already affected by an existing transmission line that the

proposed 1043L would parallel. In addition, the proposed line would be farther away from

Mayatan Lake than the existing line. The Commission found that future use of the undeveloped

road allowance would not be impaired. In the Commission‟s view, any incremental effects on the

land use are likely to be minimal. As a result, the Commission finds no compelling evidence that

future development would be impaired.

15

Transcript, Volume 3, page 437. 16 Transcript, Volume 3, page 588.



59. The Commission has also considered the evidence submitted concerning the impact on

McNabs Block 1, Lot 2 of the segment of existing transmission line 904L that would be rebuilt

as a part of the AltaLink rebuild project if the preferred route were selected. The Commission

understands that Lot 2 was configured so that a large portion of it is actually taken up by the

right-of-way for the existing transmission line 904L. As a result, the locations of the transmission

line structures and the required tree clearing would have an impact on the land use. However,

given that the transmission lines predate the subdivision of the land and that it is the shape and

size of the lot as it has been subdivided by the owner that is the main contributor to this impact,

the Commission will afford little weight to these effects in the routing decision between the

preferred and alternate route. Furthermore, the Commission is of the view that because the

potential impact on any new residence yet to be built is created by the manner in which the land

was subdivided after the existing transmission line was in place, AltaLink, by choosing not to

purchase Lot 2, is correctly applying its policy regarding the purchase of residences within

150 metres of a new transmission line.

60. The Commission observes that the preferred route has fewer residences within

150 metres, that it has more residences within 800 metres, but that there are fewer residences

than the alternate route that would have the proposed transmission line be closer than an existing

transmission line. The Commission further observes that the alternate route has significantly less

length of its route paralleling existing transmission lines. As a result, selection of the preferred

route would avoid further fragmentation of land in the area. The Commission further observes

that the preferred route crosses less agricultural land.

61. Therefore, from a land use perspective only, the Commission finds that the preferred

route is superior to the alternative route because of the relative amount of agricultural land

crossed, length of line paralleling existing transmissions and number of affected residences.

4.3 Environmental considerations


62. AltaLink stated in its application that the environmental review of the existing and new

rights-of-way consisted of historical aerial photography, searches of AltaLink and government

databases, an environmental site visit of each route and a subsequent environmental site visit to

the north route for wetland impact assessments.

63. AltaLink stated in its application that the length of new clearing required is

4.8 kilometres and 4.5 kilometres for the preferred and alternate route, respectively. AltaLink

stated that existing linear disturbances were utilized in route selection where possible and that

tree removal is scheduled to be completed in wintertime before bird nesting season.

64. AltaLink also stated in the application that a general project objective is to not place any

transmission line structures within wetlands, creeks or other water bodies. In this case, four

structures were sited within wetland boundaries on the preferred route and six structures were

sited within wetland boundaries on the alternate route, with two of the structures common

between the two routes.17 AltaLink stated that no definitive environmentally preferred route had

17 Application No. 1606407, page 46, paragraph 269.



been identified and that it was anticipated that potential environmental effects could be

mitigated.18

65. At the hearing, Mr. Johns, appearing for AltaLink, identified the environmental concerns

around Mayatan Lake to include crossing the lake itself and the potential for birds to strike the

overhead shield wire. It was confirmed that the alternate route would avoid these issues.19 In

order to minimize potential bird strikes, AltaLink confirmed that bird flappers would be installed

on the transmission line over the lake to increase the visibility for birds.20 AltaLink confirmed at

the hearing that there are no structures on the existing line built in Mayatan Lake and that it does

not plan to have structures built in Mayatan Lake if the preferred route is selected.21

66. In the application, AltaLink asserted that there were no ESAs within 800 metres of either

the preferred or alternate route. At the hearing, AltaLink clarified that there were no provincial

ESAs within 800 metres of either the preferred or alternate route.22 In response to an undertaking,

AltaLink identified that there is a Parkland County ESA around Mayatan Lake which the

preferred route would pass through. 23 The existing transmission line also passes through the

Parkland County ESA.

67. AltaLink stated in the application that to minimize impacts to wetlands during

construction, structure installation within identified wetlands would be scheduled during frozen

or dry conditions.24 In the hearing AltaLink stated that if this was not possible, mitigation

measures would be taken through the use of rig mats or floating rig mats to manage any potential

harm or damage to the land. 25

4.3.2 Submissions of McNabs

68. MacNabs argued that “[t]he right-of-way clearing proposed by AltaLink on both the

rebuild and the new construction lines has potential to negatively impact the water quality, the

aquatic [life], and the wildlife in and around both Jackfish Lake and Mayatan Lake. The clearing

will also reduce wildlife habitat and will have a long-term impact on the area due to the length of

time required for regrowth.”26

69. At the hearing, Mr. McNab requested that AltaLink conduct an environmental impact

assessment and a biophysical assessment for Mayatan Lake if the north route were selected.

70. McNabs argued that AltaLink has not fully explored and is not fully aware of alternate

mitigation options or structure placements because AltaLink has not conducted biological or

environmental studies to understand the potential impact of development on McNabs lands, in

the vicinity of either Jackfish or Mayatan Lake.

18 Application No. 1606407, page 48, paragraphs 278 to 279. 19 Transcript, Volume 2, page 237, lines 15 to 23. 20 Transcript, Volume 2, page 253, lines 7 to 15. 21 Transcript, Volume 2, page 253, lines 1 to 5. 22 Transcript, Volume 2, page 264, lines 24 to 25 and page 265 line 1. 23 Exhibit 211.01. 24 Application No. 1606407, page 46, paragraph 270. 25

Transcript, Volume 2, page 220, lines 22 to 25. 26 Transcript, Volume 3, page 581, lines 8 to 14.



71. McNabs argued that AltaLink was unaware of the Parkland County designation areas

around both Mayatan and Jackfish Lakes as an ESA until their undertaking midway though the

hearing.27 McNabs argued further that AltaLink did not know site specific conditions around

Mayatan and Jackfish Lakes or how those conditions would impact their construction or

operation requirements.


72. At the hearing, Mr. Tyrrell identified his land as an environmentally sensitive area,

although not designated as such by the province and that the environmental impact of the

proposed transmission line would be less if the line avoided Mayatan Lake and the alternate

route was selected.28

73. Mr. Neilson made a brief oral statement at the hearing on behalf of the Mayatan Lake

Management Association. Mr. Neilson asserted that in addition to the proposed power line

development that Mayatan Lake is also coming under threat of future development. He requested

that AltaLink carry out a wildlife habitat and surface water study around Mayatan Lake to assist

in identifying where construction should take place. Mr. Neilson asserted that Mayatan Lake has

a relatively intact shoreline with a healthy riparian zone that is home to many migratory and

nesting populations of birds, and that there are wildlife corridors in and around the lake.29


74. The Commission observes that both the preferred and alternate project routes are

considered potentially suitable for transmission facility development from an environmental

perspective. The Commission takes note that the preferred route has more surface water in or

within 800 metres of the right-of-way and does cross a Parkland County identified ESA around

Mayatan Lake. However, the Commission finds that there would be fewer structures placed

within wetland boundaries for the preferred route.

75. The Commission considers that the length of new clearing required for the preferred

route is 4.8 kilometres which results in more disturbance than the alternate route which would

disturb land for 4.5 kilometres.30 Clearing issues raised by McNabs around Jackfish Lake are

discussed further below.

76. The Commission does not accept the suggestions of McNabs that AltaLink is unfamiliar

with the area and should have further requirements placed on it as a result. AltaLink already has

transmission lines in the area including the line paralleling the preferred route and the line that is

to be rebuilt. No party presented evidence that AltaLink‟s current lines have caused or are

causing erosion or interference with wildlife or any other negative impacts that would justify

further environmental requirements.

77. The Commission accepts AltaLink‟s evidence on environmental mitigation measures

with regard to wildlife and wetlands. AltaLink committed to avoiding construction in wetlands,

except under frozen conditions, when reasonable. In addition, AltaLink committed to installing

27 Exhibit 211.01, AML Undertaking 001 – ESA near Mayatan Lake. 28 Transcript, Volume 1, pages 73 and 74. 29

Transcript, Volume 2, page 251, lines 4 to 8. 30 Application No. 1606409, page 40, Table 8-1.



bird flappers on the new and existing transmission lines over Mayatan Lake. Considering

environmental review and wetland studies undertaken by AltaLink in the Mayatan Lake area, the

Commission finds that AltaLink is not required to carry out a wildlife habitat study, surface

water assessment or biophysical assessment for Mayatan Lake as there are no structures

proposed to be placed in the lake and transmission line construction in this case does not have

the scale of impact that would require those studies to occur.

78. The Commission expects AltaLink to meet its commitments regarding environmental

mitigation measures and to be cognisant of the Parkland County ESA while working around

Mayatan Lake.

79. In the Commission‟s view, neither route appears to be superior from an environmental

perspective. While the alternative route may be marginally better in that it avoids the

Parkland County ESA, the preferred route crosses fewer wetlands.

4.4 Cost considerations


80. AltaLink provided initial cost estimates of the new construction project of $35.76 million

for the preferred route and $43.66 million for the alternative route. Not included in the cost

estimate for the preferred route is the approximately $2.4 million of additional work to be

completed in the AltaLink rebuild project if the preferred route is selected. The estimates were

provided at a +20%/-10% level of accuracy, as required by AUC Rule 007.31 AltaLink stated that

the key difference in the cost is that the preferred route is shorter and has a fewer number of

major turns and, therefore, it has a lower overall cost.


81. No other party commented on the cost of the AltaLink new construction project.


82. The Commission concludes that the difference in cost weighs in favour of the preferred

route. The Commission has considered the costs that would be incurred for the AltaLink rebuild

project between Point 1 and Point 2 in its assessment of the preferred route costs.

4.5 Social and economic considerations


83. In its new construction application, AltaLink submitted that the preferred route would

have less of a visual impact than the alternate route because the preferred route would parallel an

existing transmission line for most of its length. As a result, there would be little additional

visual impact from the preferred route.

84. In response to concerns expressed by McNabs regarding aesthetic changes along the

AltaLink rebuild project between Point 1 and Point 2, AltaLink proposed to replace structure 94

in its existing location rather than move it as had been originally planned. Also, in response to an

31 AUC Rule 007, Section 7.1.2 Economic Assessment, page 30.



information request, AltaLink stated that it was able to reduce the required structure height of

structures 94 and 95.32

85. AltaLink also assessed the anticipated noise and electric and magnetic fields (EMF)

impacts of the proposed routes. AltaLink also addressed noise caused by the corona effect. The

noise levels are expected to be below limits established in AUC Rule 012: Noise Control

(AUC Rule 012). For the EMF profiles along the edge of rights-of-way adjacent to the McNab‟s

lands, the EMF levels are not expected to increase significantly and are expected to be well

below established guidelines such as those of the International Council on Non-Ionizing

Radiation Protection guidelines (ICNIRP).

86. In the application AltaLink stated that in March 2009, the first project specific

notification package was distributed followed by an open house in April 2009, and personal

consultation in May 2009. In November 2009, the second round of project specific notification

package distribution, open house and consultation occurred.

87. In response to McNabs assertion at the hearing that AltaLink did not respond to McNabs

requests for information, AltaLink submitted an internal AltaLink email that includes reference

to a February 26, 2010, conversation between an AltaLink employee and Mr. McNab in which

Mr. McNab requested further information, as well as a May 5, 2010, letter from AltaLink to

Mr. McNab responding to the February request for further information and providing the name

and number of a contact person for them if they had any additional questions. McNabs did not

follow up with further questions.33

4.5.2 Views of McNabs

88. McNabs argued that the removal of trees along the rebuild project right-of-way between

Point 1 and Point 2 would make the transmission structures 100 per cent visible rather than just

barely visible as the existing structures currently are, and argued that there would be negative

visual impacts for the land owned on the rebuild project resulting from a substantial increase in

the structure size, changes in structure locations, and the drastic clearing of the right-of-way. In

particular, the removal of the trees would make it more difficult to sell Block 1, Lot 2 and would

reduce the value of the lot.

89. At the hearing, Mr. McNab stated that a number of different AltaLink land agents had

come to speak to him, and that the land agents did not know what the previous agents had said.

McNabs argued that the land agents had such limited information that they were unable to deal

directly with any of McNabs concerns.

90. At the hearing, Mr. McNab stated he was disappointed in AltaLink‟s consultation

process, that the information provided was confusing and that the confusion was compounded

because he holds land at the transition point between the rebuild and new construction projects.

91. McNabs argued that AltaLink had not met the requirements of AUC Rule 007 TS15, for

the applicant to summarize discussions held with potentially directly and adversely affected

persons, or AUC Rule 007 TS16, for an applicant to describe how concerns of those potentially

32

Exhibit 191.01. 33 Exhibit 214.01.



directed and adversely affected persons were or will be dealt with. McNabs argued if these

requirements were not met because AltaLink had not met with the McNabs at the time the

application was filed and, to date at the hearing, had still not described how AltaLink would deal

with their concerns.


92. No other party identified specific concern relating to the social impacts of the line, not

identified in other sections of the decision.


93. The Commission considers that since the preferred route parallels an existing

transmission line, no significant new visual impacts will result.

94. The Commission recognizes AltaLink‟s proposal to mitigate visual concerns about the

portion of the rebuild project in the vicinity of Jackfish Lake by placing structure 94 in-line with

the existing structures of existing transmission line 904L to reduce the height of structures 94

and 95. The Commission notes that, although the rebuild project occurs only within the existing

right-of-way, AltaLink has committed to further consultation with McNabs to further mitigate

visual concerns. At the hearing, AltaLink and McNabs agreed that additional consultation would

be beneficial if the preferred route for the new construction project was approved. AltaLink and

McNabs agreed on the following which could be included as a condition of the approval.

In the event that the preferred route is approved, AltaLink's Director of Siting will be the

point of contact with John McNab. He will conduct a site visit with Mr. McNab and

discuss options for the final design of the 904L or 1043line, taking into account the McNabs' preferences, other impacted stakeholders, and any approvals that may be

required.34

95. Regarding noise impacts, the Commission accepts that the proposed transmission line

meets the requirements of AUC Rule 012 based on the evidence submitted by AltaLink.

96. Regarding consultation, the Commission finds that AltaLink met the requirements as set

out in AUC Rule 007. However, the Commission considers that the lack of a single contact

person with whom the McNabs could discuss their concerns made consultation efforts more

difficult and that a single contact might have led to the McNab concerns being addressed sooner.

97. All other factors being equal, the Commission finds that the social considerations weigh

in favour of the preferred route because it parallels and existing transmission line.

4.6 Determination of the approved route

98. The Commission finds that the AltaLink new construction project application is

technically complete and complies with the technical requirements prescribed in AUC Rule 007.

99. As noted above, the Commission heard extensive evidence relating to the merits of the

preferred route and alternate route, as well as the environmental, social and economic impacts of

34 Transcript, Volume 3, page 601, lines 18 to 24.



these routes. The Commission explained the process of making facilities decisions in the

following passage from Decision 2009-028:

Of course, making a decision such as this one cannot be reduced to a mathematical

formula applied to charts and spreadsheets that rank various criteria. It requires the

decision-maker to consider all the evidence to assess the social, economic and

environmental impacts of each route taking into account the effectiveness of mitigation measures examined in the proceeding. The Commission does not weight the criteria

individually. Rather, it weighs all of the criteria together, and considers both the potential

impact on individuals and on the larger community.35

100. Having considered the social, economic and environmental evidence presented, the

Commission, on balance finds the preferred route to be superior to the alternative route, and

finds that selection of the preferred route is in the public interest pursuant to Section 17 of the

Alberta Utilities Commission Act.

101. The principal factors that influenced the Commission in this case are the cost and the

placement of the new construction parallel to an existing transmission line which minimizes the

incremental visual impacts of the new construction and reduces the degree to which the

countryside is fragmented. The Commission also considered that, although the rebuild in the

Jackfish Lake area would occur only within the existing right-of-way, AltaLink and McNabs

have agreed to further consultation in order to mitigate the effects of the preferred route on the

McNab lands around Jackfish Lake and the Commission will make the agreement a condition of

this approval. AltaLink and McNab are ordered to report back to the Commission when

consultations have been concluded.

4.7 Decision on AltaLink new construction project application36

102. Approvals for AltaLink‟s new construction project application can be found in Section 7.

5 AltaLink rebuild application

103. This application seeks approval to rebuild existing 240-kV transmission line 904L from

Petrolia 16S substation to either Point 1 or Point 2, shown on the map in Appendix A. As a result

of the preferred route in the AltaLink new construction application being approved, the

transmission line will be rebuilt to Point 2. The length of line to be rebuilt is approximately

50 kilometres and will require that the rebuilt transmission line be located between 2.5 metres

and five metres north of the existing transmission line. The structures applied for would be larger

H-frame structures than the existing H-frame structures. After being rebuilt the transmission line

would be connected to the transmission line approved in the AltaLink rebuild application and

together the transmission line from Petrolia 16S substation to Keephills 320P substation would

be designated as 1043L. TransAlta Utilities owns the portion of transmission lines that run

through the Stony Plain Indian Reserve 135 and AltaLink applied for the rebuild on behalf of

TransAlta Utilities. The AltaLink rebuild application also seeks approval to de-energize the

segment of existing line 904L that runs from Wabamun 19S substation to a new dead-end

structure near Jackfish Lake and renumber the line D904L.

35

Decision 2009-028, page 36, paragraph 193. 36 Application No. 1606407.



104. Due to the interconnected nature of the AltaLink new construction and rebuild

applications, discussion and the views of McNabs regarding impacts arising from the

approximately three extra kilometres of transmission line upgrades required for the preferred

route of the AltaLink new construction application is found in Section 4, above.

105. AltaLink conducted a participant involvement program for the AltaLink rebuild

application project before filing its application. The participant involvement program included

two rounds of consultation with stakeholders on or directly adjacent to the proposed rebuild

project. In addition, AltaLink held open houses in communities along the route.

106. AltaLink also conducted consultations with First Nations, the Métis Nation, government

agencies, non-government organizations, special interest groups, and oil and gas companies.

5.1 Economic considerations


107. AltaLink stated that the project is a rebuild of an existing 240-kV line, no new substation

is required, and the final project configuration (all transmission structures and lines) will be

located within an existing right‐of-way.37

108. AltaLink further stated that any alternative to using the existing right‐of‐way requires the

acquisition of additional private lands and the possibility of having to establish a new

right‐of‐way entering the city of Edmonton. For this reason, no alternative route was applied

for.38

109. AltaLink provided an initial cost estimate of the rebuild to connect to the preferred route

of the AltaLink new construction project as $64.96 million. The estimate was provided at

a +20%/-10% level of accuracy, as required by AUC Rule 007.39

110. At the hearing, Mr. McKenna testified that no other conductors were considered for

meeting minimum requirements specified in the Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification

document and functional specification other than the two-bundle 1033 conductor applied for.

Also, the conductors chosen were the most economical and met the minimum requirements

without having to go to a larger conductor. 40

111. AltaLink stated that placing the line underground was not considered in any area, or

specifically between the North Saskatchewan River and Petrolia because the incremental cost for

underground is typically in the range of seven to ten times more than above ground. AltaLink

estimated the transmission line between the North Saskatchewan River and Petrolia to cost

approximately $2.5 million. AltaLink, therefore, estimated an underground option could cost

between $17.5 million and $25 million.41

37 Application No. 1606409, page 8. 38 Application No. 1606409, page 9. 39 AUC Rule 007, Section 7.1.2 Economic Assessment, page 30. 40

Transcript, Volume 1, page 85, lines 13 to 17. 41 Exhibit 191.02, AltaLink reply evidence, paragraph 10.



112. AltaLink argued that the transmission line is in a pre-existing right-of-way with two other

pre-existing lines. Also, subdivisions have been built up around the right-of-way after the lines

were built. It submitted that there was no public interest justification for placing the middle line

underground while leaving the other two above ground and that there was no justification to

consider burying all of the lines in the existing right-of-way.

113. AltaLink responded to intervener assertions about property values declining due to the

rebuilding of the H-frame transmission line by arguing that the Tsawwassen case study,42 which

involved the mass purchase of homes and subsequent resale by BC Hydro, was not relevant to

this case. AltaLink argued that the facts were very different from what was proposed in the

AltaLink rebuild application. AltaLink also argued that the report filed by Mr. Gettel on behalf

of Falconer, that relied in part on the Tsawwssen case study, actually supports a finding that the

effect of a change in the height of the H-frame structures is so small that it gets lost in the

rounding. This conclusion was based on Mr. Gettel having used 2.5 per cent increments in his

report while finding effects on value of 2.5 per cent and five per cent.

5.1.2 Submissions of Falconer

114. The Falconer group was comprised of four families in a subdivision that backed on to the

existing transmission line right-of-way. The houses were built after the two transmission lines

and one distribution line were in place. Two of the houses backed on to the right-of-way while

two more were across the street, a row away. The distribution line is approximately 15 metres

from the closest home. The H-frame transmission line is approximately 45 metres from the

closest home and the lattice tower line is approximately 68 metres from the closest home.

115. At the hearing, Falconer recognized that underground transmission line construction

would be more costly, but argued that the extra cost was justified as it would be in the public

interest.

116. In his opening statement, Falconer property value expert, Mr. Gettel asserted that for the

four homes he had assessed, the incremental decrease in property value arising from changing

the size of the H-frame transmission structures would be five per cent for the two homes that

back onto the transmission right-of-way and 2.5 per cent for the two homes located the next row

back and separated by a road. Also, in his opinion, the existing transmission lines had already

impacted the property values of the homes in question by seven to 11 per cent.43 Mr. Gettel

testified that as an appraiser he works in 2.5 per cent and five per cent increments.44

117. In his opening statement, Mr. Gettel asserted that the Tsawwassen case study is

considered key to this analysis as an existing line was rebuilt and expanded in a mature

residential area. In his assessment, Mr. Gettel stated that the analysis of Tsawwassen Heights

showed incremental losses of six to 12 per cent which can occur as a result of a rebuilt line being

expanded.


118. No other parties commented on cost or undergrounding of the rebuilt transmission line.

42 Exhibit 186.08. 43

Exhibit 207.02. page 2. 44 Transcript, Volume 2, page 406, lines 8 to 9.



119. In an email to the Commission, Ping, a resident of Falconer Heights, indicated concern

over the impact of the project on property value.45


120. The Commission is of the view that because the application was to rebuild the

transmission line in the existing right-of-way, AltaLink did not need to file an alternative route.

The Commission finds that the use of the existing right-of-way in the rebuild project satisfies the

AESO direction and is cost effective.

121. The Commission considers that no compelling evidence was presented regarding the

proposal by Falconer to underground any portion of the rebuilt transmission line. The estimated

incremental cost of at least $15 million was not demonstrated to have any benefit to justify the

additional cost. Indeed, the reduced visual impact of undergrounding a single transmission line in

a corridor that contains two other lines, one of which is significantly larger, was not justified by

the additional cost that would be passed on to Alberta ratepayers.

122. In making its finding regarding the potential impact on property values of the homes in

Falconer Heights, the Commission has taken into account the fact that the transmission line

under consideration already exists and is to be replaced with similar structures not significantly

larger. In the same corridor there is a distribution line which is closer to the homes in

Falconer Heights than the rebuilt H-frame structures will be and a second transmission line that

is a significantly larger steel lattice structure than the proposed structures of this project.

123. Although the proposed structures in the vicinity of Falconers would be taller by two to

six metres and the centerline moved 2.5 metres closer, the viewscape pictures46 of the rebuilt line

presented at the hearing did not show a marked difference from the current view of those

structures from the homes in Falconer Heights. The existing lattice towers of the other

transmission line will remain as the most imposing structures when viewed from the homes of

Falconer Heights. Also, the pictures taken from some of the homes filed in evidence did not

support the Falconer position that the proposed change in structures would cause a change in the

view from these homes and result in a negative impact on property values. Indeed, some of the

pictures focussed only on the existing lattice structures.

124. In addition, the Commission considers that when Falconer first began its intervention and

filed evidence in the proceeding, some members of Falconer believed that the proposed

structures for the rebuild were to be lattice towers and, therefore, believed that such a change

would impact their property values. However, the evidence is clear that the H-frame structures

would not be replaced with lattice structures and that the existing lattice structures will remain

unchanged. Also, the Commission does not accept the evidence that some potential buyers of the

homes in question that were for sale were refusing to view the homes because of the rebuild

application. The evidence was that some potential buyers did not view the homes after they

45

Exhibit 98.01. 46 Exhibit 179.01.



pulled into the driveway and that the existing transmission lines are visible from the street behind

the houses. 47

125. Furthermore, the Commission does not accept the comparison between the proposed

rebuild project and the property value case study for Tsawwassen Heights in British Columbia

because no new right-of-way is needed, no change in transmission line voltage is proposed and

there is no change in structure type, among other factors. As a result, the Commission does not

accept the evidence submitted by Falconer and finds that the proposed rebuild project will not

have a measureable impact on the property value of the homes in Falconer Heights.

5.2 Social considerations


126. AltaLink stated that the existing wooden poles are being replaced with self-weathering

steel structures and that the height of the three relevant structures to Falconer, structures 297 to

299, are proposed to be a height of 22 to 24 metres, an increase from the height of the existing

18 to 20 metre structures.48

127. In response to information requests from Falconer, AltaLink provided visual comparisons

of the existing structure and proposed structure for structure 298.49AltaLink stated in the

application that because the project is a rebuild of an existing transmission line within an existing

right-of way the visual aspect of the transmission line does not change substantially.

128. With respect to consultation, AltaLink argued the success of its consultation process was

demonstrated in that there are hundreds of residents and stakeholders in the area east of the

North Saskatchewan River and only four persons objected to the project and from those four

only the LeBlanc‟s have complained about consultation. AltaLink further argued that the

information provided to stakeholders was accurate.

129. AltaLink did not prepare a visual impact assessment for the rebuild, but indicated that

information on what structures would look like was including in newsletters to stakeholders.

130. AltaLink also stated in the application that stakeholders had expressed concerns

regarding EMF associated with the transmission line rebuild and the potential impacts on human

health.

131. AltaLink used a computer program called „Corona And Field Effects‟ to model the

existing and expected levels of EMF from the proposed rebuild of 240-kV transmission

line 1043L. AltaLink asserted that all the results of modeling are lower than established

international guidelines for electric and magnetic fields for general public and occupations

exposure (such as those from the ICNIRP).

132. The profiles generated by the model show that the electric fields and magnetic fields are

strongest when close to the lines and diminish quickly as the distance increases from the lines.

AltaLink modeled electric and magnetic fields for the peak load conditions and at ten per cent

47 Transcript, Volume 2, page 391, and Exhibit 186.05. 48

Exhibit 170.02, FALCONER.AML-002. 49 Exhibit 179.01, FALCONER.AML-003 (update) and FALCONER.AML-004 (Update).



above nominal voltage for both the existing and proposed transmission line. From this model and

at the load conditions modeled, the electric field levels at the north edge of the right-of-way in

the segment south of Falconer Heights would be expected to increase to about 0.5 kilovolt

per metre (kV/m) from 02. kV/m, which is lower than the ICNIRP guideline of 4.2 kV/m. The

magnetic field at the north edge of the right-of-way in the segment south of Falconer Heights and

at the load levels modeled, would be expected to increase to about 19.7 milligauss (mG) from

13.6 mG, which is also lower than the ICNIRP guideline of 833 mG.50

133. In response to a Falconer information request, AltaLink took field measurements of the

magnetic field at structure 298 of existing transmission line 904L and at 539 Falconer Place, in

Edmonton. The measured magnetic field was 2.2 mG and 1.8 mG at the back and front of the

house, respectively.51 In response to questions at the hearing, AltaLink argued that those

measurements are typical.

134. In the application, AltaLink stated that it treats concerns regarding adverse health effects

from exposure to EMF very seriously. AltaLink hired Exponent, Inc. to compile a status report on

EMF Health Research. The report stated that “numerous national and international scientific

agencies that have reviewed the extensive body of research that currently exists have not

concluded that long-term exposure to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields

(ELF EMF) is a cause of any adverse health effect. Recent research does not provide strong

evidence to alter this conclusion.”52

135. At the hearing, AltaLink‟s EMF expert from Exponent, Inc., Dr. Erdreich, asserted that,

copious and extensive research has not established that there are any adverse health effects from

electric and magnetic fields. AltaLink argued that this view was accepted by the scientific

community.

136. Dr. Erdreich asserted that, given the scientific evidence, exposure from EMF is not a

health issue and referred to the Health Canada publication of 2010. The 2010 Health Canada

publication stated:

You do not need to take action regarding daily exposures to electric and magnetic fields

at extremely low frequencies. There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by

exposures at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors.53

137. AltaLink assessed the anticipated noise impacts of the proposed facility developments

and predicted that the expected noise levels would be below the limits established in

AUC Rule 012, and will be lower than the existing transmission line because of the change in

conductors. AltaLink also addressed noise caused by the corona effect. AltaLink asserted that

corona activity is most noticeable during foul weather conditions and on lines with voltages

exceeding 240 kV. AltaLink explained that the transmission line rebuild would be constructed

50 Application No. 1606409, Appendix K, page 12, Table 1-10 and Table 1-11. 51 Exhibit 188.01. Falconer.AML-015 (Rev.1), page 3. 52

Application No. 1606409, Appendix J, Section 1. 53 Application No. 1606409, Appendix 1 of Appendix J.



using larger conductors and different bundling, which would significantly reduce corona activity

near the conductors from what it is today.

138. AltaLink stated that the project is proposed to be located entirely within an established

transmission line right‐of‐way with existing access trails and roads, and that the anticipated

environmental effects would be minimal.

5.2.2 Submissions of Falconer

139. Falconer argued that the project would have negative visual impacts, based on the

structures being wider, taller and moved closer. Pictures taken from a second floor window of

the Wang residence (across the street from the homes that back onto the right-of-way) showed

one of the lattice towers and one of the existing H-frames was also visible.54

140. Falconer argued that any misunderstanding on the part of Falconer members as to the

extent and scope of the rebuild project, including tower materials, design and height was a failure

on the part of AltaLink‟s consultation.

141. Falconer argued that AltaLink did not comply with the requirements of AUC Rule 007,

specifically with regard to the hesitancy to provide project-specific materials and that AltaLink

never discussed options, alternatives or mitigative measures with Falconer.

142. Falconer argued that AltaLink could have worked with EPCOR and developed a proposal

to underground all three transmission and distribution lines in the corridor, and that would

alleviate visual concerns with the project.

143. Falconer argued that, given the proximity of the homes in the area to the transmission line

and the incremental change in EMF, that it was in the public interest to ensure that EMF was as

low as possible. To facilitate this, Falconer proposed that the transmission line be constructed

underground or that Falconer properties be bought out.

144. Falconer argued that the 1.8 mG and 2.2 mG magnetic field measurements taken outside

of 539 Falconer Place are not typical based on the EMF Rapid report submitted by AltaLink in

the application, which included a study whose results indicated that 15 per cent of homes have

more than 2.1 mG magnetic fields on average. Falconer argued that the measurements made its

situation unique and that it should be treated uniquely as a result.

145. Falconer argued that prolonged exposure to EMF was a health risk recognized by other

jurisdictions, as evidenced by Germany and Austria enacting legislation regarding setback

distances of transmission lines from homes.

146. Falconer argued that, according to AltaLink‟s own expert, Dr. Erdreich, science cannot

prove a negative and so it cannot be proven that EMF exposure does not cause cancer or other

diseases.

54 Exhibit 186.05, Tab 3 – Wang and Yang Statement.



147. Falconer submitted a report on EMF written by Dr. Blank, who did not appear as a

witness at the hearing.55

148. Falconer took issue with AltaLink providing only the predicted sound measurement

levels under fair weather conditions, given that AltaLink is generally aware that most noise

complaints occur under foul weather condition.

149. Falconer submitted a report on noise written by its noise expert, Mr. Farquharson, which

included a review of noise regulations, how the AltaLink noise models were developed and made

recommendations for noise surveys.56 At the hearing, Mr. Farquharson agreed the rebuilt

transmission line would produce less noise, but stated that it is unknown if the proposed

conductor configuration was the optimal configuration with respect to noise.


150. In an email to the Commission, Ping, a resident of Falconer Heights, indicated concern

over EMF, noise and stress impacts of the project.57

151. No other parties commented on social issues.

152. No parties commented on environmental issues for the rebuild project east of the

North Saskatchewan River.


153. The Commission finds that no compelling evidence was presented regarding the visual

impacts of the AltaLink rebuild project for the following reasons. As noted above, the

transmission line predates the building and purchase of homes by members of Falconer, and the

structure type proposed for the rebuild is the same as the existing structures with only a marginal

increase in size. The Commission considers that there was confusion in the Falconer group as to

what the structure type was, as evidenced by the property value expert being misinformed by a

Falconer member about the new structure type,58 and also by Mr. Wang‟s evidence that it is not

clear to all the members what the proposed structure height and materials are.59 The Commission

finds that the photos submitted demonstrated that the dominant transmission line structures are

the larger steel lattice structures and not the H-frame structures proposed to be rebuilt.60 The

visualization of the expected view from Falconer Heights after the rebuild, as submitted by

AltaLink, shows that the view will not change significantly.61

154. With respect to consultation, the Commission finds that AltaLink met the requirements

set out in AUC Rule 007. There is no need to propose an alternative route in the circumstances

of this case.

55 Exhibit 186.11, Tab 9 – Dr. Blank Report. 56 Exhibit 186.10, Tab 8 – Farquharson Report. 57 Exhibit 98.01. 58 Transcript, Volume 2, pages 349 and 350. 59 Transcript, Volume 2, pages 320 to 323. 60

Exhibit 186.05 and Exhibit 179.01 61 Exhibit 179.01, FALCONER.AM-003 (Update) and FALCONER.AML-004 (Update).



155. With respect to electric and magnetic fields associated with the transmission line rebuild

and the potential impacts on human health, the Commission acknowledges that the interveners

expressed their concerns regarding the potential impacts of EMF on human health generally.

However, because the homeowners in this case bought their homes adjacent to the right-of-way

and after the distribution line and transmission lines were in place, the issue for the Commission

in this proceeding is whether any incremental increase in EMFs has been proven to be likely

and, if so, whether the incremental increase would be sufficient to justify requiring Alberta

ratepayers to pay for burying the line (or all of the existing lines as Falconer suggested) or to

justify compensation or a buy-out of Falconer homes by Alberta ratepayers, as Falconer

requested. The evidence of Dr. Blank filed by Falconer addressed concerns about increases in

EMFs, but Dr. Blank did not appear for cross-examination to speak to his evidence and how it

might be considered in the particular circumstances of this case.

156. The evidence on the record shows that the strength of electric and magnetic fields falls

very quickly the farther one moves away from electrical energy lines. In this case, there is no

estimate of what the EMFs would be at the residences under normal operating conditions after

the new line is built. There is, however, evidence that current EMF readings at one of the

Falconer residences is in the 1.8 mG to 2.1 mG range. The Commission accepts the evidence that

this type of level is not out of the ordinary. Indeed, Falconer drew the Commission‟s attention to

the report filed by AltaLink that shows that on average 15 per cent of homes can expect levels

that are higher than 2.2 mG. There was no evidence on the record that attempted to distinguish

between or allocate responsibility for the normal EMF levels measured at 539 Falconer Place

amongst background sources, the distribution line, the H-frame transmission line and the lattice

tower transmission line. However, in the Commission‟s view, the evidence suggests that because

the strength of the magnetic fields falls very quickly as one moves away from the lines, the

strength of the magnetic fields at Falconer homes is likely influenced more significantly by the

presence of the distribution line (because it is closer to the residences) and by other background

magnetic fields than by either of the existing the transmission lines, and that this is not likely to

change when the rebuilt line is in place.

157. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that the evidence demonstrates that the

incremental increase in EMFs that might be caused by the rebuild project would be sufficient to

justify requiring Alberta ratepayers to pay for burying the line (or all of the exist ing lines) or to

justify compensation or a buy-out of Falconer homes by Alberta ratepayers.

158. With respect to noise impacts, the Commission accepts that the proposed transmission

line rebuild would meet the requirements of AUC Rule 012, which clearly states that predicted

sound levels are to be presented for fair weather conditions and not for foul weather conditions.

The Commission considers that AltaLink‟s submission that the proposed rebuild of the

transmission line would decrease sound levels associated with the transmission line was

undisputed.

159. The rebuild of the transmission line includes construction work that will occur in the

Edmonton Restricted Development Area. Therefore, Alberta Infrastructure authorization, in the



form of Ministerial Consent, is required prior to any surface disturbance in this area.

The Ministerial Consent is required prior to the Commission issuing of permits and licences.62

160. The Commission finds that the expected environmental effects will be minimal. The

entire rebuild project will occur within an existing right-of-way.

5.3 Determination of rebuild application

161. The Commission finds that the AltaLink rebuild application is technically complete and

complies with the technical requirements prescribed in AUC Rule 007.

162. Having considered the social, economic and environmental evidence presented, the

Commission, on balance, finds that approval of the rebuild application is in the public interest

pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.

163. The principal factors that influenced the Commission in this case are the fact that the

entire project will be constructed within an existing right-of-way and the application is for a

relatively small incremental change to the size of the existing H-frame structures with

correspondingly small incremental changes in visual and EMF factors and an overall reduction in

expected noise. The houses in close proximity to the project were built and purchased after the

existing lines were in place. The Commission does not accept that there will be any measureable

incremental effect on the property values of these homes from the rebuilding of the H-frame

structures and replacing the conductors.

5.4 Decision on AltaLink rebuild application63

164. Approvals for AltaLink‟s rebuild application can be found in Section 7.

6 EPCOR restringing application and new tower application

165. EPCOR conducted a participant involvement program for its projects prior to filing its

applications.64 The participant involvement program included one round of notification and

consultation with stakeholders of the route and an open house.

166. In the EPCOR restringing project application, EPCOR identified that Mr. Hauer was

objecting to the project, wanting tower 37 moved approximately 100-feet west of its current

location, away from homes and closer to Anthony Henday Drive. Mr. Hauer asserted that

moving the tower would put it in a straight line with adjacent towers, thereby reducing the

amount of conductor required and reducing cost. EPCOR responded that although moving the

tower would place the tower in a straight line with adjacent towers, but that the conductor

savings would be weighed against the costs of moving the tower. EPCOR identified that costs

would include temporary transmission lines during construction and construction work on the

adjacent towers. EPCOR estimated that the $2 million to $2.5 million to relocate the tower

62 Refer to Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulation, Alberta Regulation 287/74, subsection 4(2). 63

Application No. 1606409. 64 Applications No. 1606664 and No. 1606666.



exceeded the savings realized by a shorter conductor length. Mr. Hauer registered his intent to

participant in the proceeding, but did not submit anything further and did not attend the hearing.

167. EPCOR filed applications in response to a direction from the AESO to address a segment

of the Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification document, specifically to replace the

conductor on the 12-kilometre small conductor section of transmission line 904L south of

Jasper substation with 2x477 kcmil bundle conductor.

168. EPCOR stated that both the EPCOR projects occur within or partially within the

Edmonton Transportation and Utility Corridor.

169. In both the EPCOR applications, EPCOR stated that the project will not have any

significant adverse impact on the public or the environment.

170. EPCOR estimated the cost of its projects to an accuracy of +20%/-10%. The estimated

cost of the new tower project was $183,870. While the estimated cost of the restring project was

$7,968,955.

6.1 Determination of EPCOR restringing application and new tower application

171. At the hearing, the Commission heard the EPCOR restringing and new tower applications

first because no person appeared at the hearing to object to either EPCOR project or filed any

additional information prior to the hearing. Therefore, the Commission makes its findings based

on the applications which EPCOR adopted as its evidence at the hearing.

172. The Commission finds that the proposed transmission line and related facilities fulfill the

need identified in the Edmonton Region 240-kV needs identification document.

173. The Commission notes that both EPCOR projects occur within the Edmonton Restricted

Development Area (commonly referred to as the Edmonton Transportation and Utility Corridor.)

Alberta Infrastructure authorization, in the form of Ministerial Consent, is required prior to any

surface disturbance in the corridor.65 EPCOR testified that it was in the process of obtaining

such the Ministerial Consent in question and would file the consent once it was obtained.

174. Based on the information provided by EPCOR regarding its participant involvement

program, the Commission finds that the participant involvement program conducted by EPCOR

as acceptable. The Commission finds that there is likely to be no significant adverse

environmental impact, based on the minor nature of the projects, specifically to restring an

existing transmission line, upgrade four foundations and add a single tower.

175. The Commission finds that the EPCOR restringing and new tower applications are

technically complete and comply with the technical requirements prescribed in AUC Rule 007.

176. For the above reasons, the Commission is satisfied that the EPCOR restringing and new

tower projects66 are in the public interest, pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities

Commission Act, and approves the applications.

65

See Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulation, Alberta Regulation 287/74, subsection 4(2). 66 Applications No. 1606664 and No. 1606666.



177. EPCOR must file the Ministerial Consent to allow for a disturbance in the Edmonton

Restricted Development Area before the Commission issues permits and licences respecting the

above-mentioned approvals of the EPCOR restringing and new tower applications.

6.2 Decision on EPCOR project applications67

178. Approvals for EPCOR‟s project applications can be found in Section 7.

7 Decision on facility applications

179. Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission

approves AltaLink‟s application for the preferred route for the AltaLink new construction

project.


approves AltaLink‟s application for the transmission line 1043L rebuild.


grants AltaLink approval to alter and operate the 240-kV transmission lines D903L, 909AL

and 904L, and construct and operate a new 240-kV transmission line along the preferred route of

the AltaLink new construction application. The continuous transmission line from Keephills to

Petrolia will be designated as 1043L.


grants AltaLink approval to alter and operate the 240-kV transmission line 909L to terminate at

Sundance 310P substation.

183. Pursuant to Section 21 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission grants

AltaLink approval to de-energize and salvage the transmission line 190L from

structures 33 to 42.


AltaLink approval to de-energize and salvage the transmission line D903L from structures 33 to

42 and structures C to F.


grants AltaLink approval to alter and operate the portion of 240-kV transmission line 904L from

structure 332 to Petrolia 816S substation as 240-kV transmission line 1055L.



structure 333 to Ellerslie 89S substation as 240-kV transmission line 1056L.


AltaLink approval to de-energize the portion of 240-kV transmission line 904L from

Wabamun 19S substation to the new dead end structure as 240-kV transmission line D904L.

67 Applications No. 1606664 and No. 1606666.





structure 43 to Petrolia 816S substation as 240-kV transmission line 1044L.



structure 43 to Sundance 310P substation as 240-kV transmission line 1045L.



Petrolia 816S substation to East Edmonton 38S substation.


grants TransAlta Utilities approval to alter and operate the portion of 240-kV transmission line

904L inside of Stony Indian Reserve 135 as 240-kV transmission line 1043L.


grants TransAlta Utilities approval to alter and operate the portion of 240-kV transmission line

908L inside of Stony Indian Reserve 135 as 240-kV transmission line 1045L.


grants EPCOR approval to alter and operate the 240-kV transmission line 904LW, including

re-designating as transmission line 1045EL.


grants EPCOR approval to alter and operate the 240-kV transmission line 904LE, including

re-designating as transmission line 1044EL.


grants EPCOR approval to re-designate and operate EPCOR‟s portion of the 240-kV

transmission line 904L between Petrolia 816S substation and Argyll substation as 1055EL.


grants EPCOR approval to re-designate and operate EPCOR‟s portion of the 240-kV

transmission line 904L between Ellerslie 89S substation and Argyll substation as 1056EL.


AltaLink an order to connect 1043L to Petrolia 816S substation.


EPCOR an order to connect 1044EL to AltaLink 1044L.









202. The permits and licences granted to AltaLink and TransAlta Utilities will be distributed

separately. The permit and licence for transmission line 1043L will be granted once the

Commission has received confirmation that Ministerial Consent has been granted for work to

occur in the Edmonton Restricted Development Area.

203. The permits and licences granted to EPCOR will be distributed separately once the

Commission has received confirmation that Ministerial Consent has been granted for work to

occur in the Edmonton Restricted Development Area.

Dated on August 12, 2011.


(original signed by)

Willie Grieve

Chair


Gwen Day

Acting Commission Member


Ian Harvie

Acting Commission Member



DE

VO

N

LED

UC

BE

AU

MO

NT

SP

RU

CE

GR

OV

ES

TO

NY

SP

RIN

G

WA

BA

MU

N

ED

MO

NT

ON

60

2

16

627

779

28

628

16A

2

UP

GR

AD

ED

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

LINE

904L

DE

-EN

ER

GIZ

ED

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

LINE

PR

EF

ER

RE

D T

RA

NS

MIS

SIO

N LIN

E R

OU

TE

1043L

ALT

ER

NA

TE

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

LINE

RO

UT

E 1043L

KE

EP

HILLS

320P

SU

BS

TA

TIO

N

EP

CO

R P

ET

RO

LIA

E816S

SU

BS

TA

TIO

N

WA

BA

MU

N 19S

SU

BS

TA

TIO

N

LAK

E PLA

INW

AB

AM

UN

LAK

E

BIG

LAK

E

JOH

NN

YS

LAK

E

NO

RT

H

SASKATCHEWAN

R.

JAC

K F

ISH

LAK

E

N.T

.S.

R.26

R.25

R.24W

.4M.

R.28

R.1W

.5M.

R.2

R.3

R.4

R.27

T.50

T.51

T.52

T.53

SA

LVA

GE

D T

RA

NS

MIS

SIO

N LIN

E

PO

INT

1

PO

INT

2

PO

INT

3

PO

INT

4

Appendix A – AltaLink Applications No. 1606407 and No. 1606409 map



Appendix B – EPCOR Applications No. 1606664 and No. 1606666 map

EXISTING EPCOR JASPER

805S SUBSTATION

EXISTING ALTALINK 240-kV

EXISTING 240-kV

TRANSMISSION

TRANSMISSION LINE 904L

NO

RT

H

SASKATCHEWAN

R.

CALLINGWOOD

WHITEMUD DR.

87 AVE.

STONEY PLAIN RD.

199

ST

.A

NT

HO

NY

100 AVE.

199

ST

.H

EN

DA

Y D

R.

184

ST

.

170

ST

.107 AVE.

LINE 904LW/904LE

EXISTING TOWERS OF INTEREST

PROPOSED NEW TOWER

LESSARD RD.

N.T.S.

EPCOR PETROLIA

816S SUBSTATION

31

30

DR

.



Appendix C – Proceeding participants

Name of Party or Organization (Abbreviation) Counsel or Representative


Alberta Electric System Operator J. Cusano

M. Madras N. Nguy and H. Do

AltaLink Management Ltd. M. Ghikas

A. Phan

B. Billey PING

S. Chung McNabs H. Meldrum

A. Cuan and R. Ramirez N. and W. Schaan

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. D. Crowther

C. Walker A. and J. Toth

D. Evoy and B. Samson H. Tyrrell

C. French D. and A. Vanderwell

S. Ghasri

J. and P. Hastings

D. Hauer

G. Holmes and D. Russell

D. and J. Kielly

H. and R. Kuntz

G. Lofzien

G. Marrinier

Mayatan Lake Management Association L. Neilson

Neighbours of Falconer Heights E. Chipiuk



Appendix D – Oral hearing – registered appearances


Witnesses

EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EPCOR)

D. Crowther C. Walker

B. Wiles W. Behr

AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink)

M. Ghikas

M. Johns P. McKenna W. Mundy L. Erdreich

Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)

J. Cusano M. Madras

A. Xu D. Sullivan

Neighbours of Falconer Heights (Falconer)

E. Chipiuk

S. Wang C. LeBlanc B. Gettel J. Farquharson

Rainbow Beach Development Inc, J. and S. McNab and J. Alexander and P. McNab (McNabs)

H. Meldrum

J.McNab

Mayatan Lake Management Association

L. Neilson

H.Tyrrell

The Alberta Utilities Commission Commission Panel Willie Grieve, Chair Gwen Day, Acting Commission Member

Ian Harvie, Acting Commission Member Commission Staff

G. Bentivegna (Commission counsel) T. Chan K. Gladwyn D. Lam M. Marchen T. Wilde J. Law A. Brinker



Appendix E - Abbreviations

AESO Alberta Electric System Operator

AESO amendment Application No. 1606285

AltaLink AltaLink Management Ltd.

AltaLink new

construction project


AltaLink rebuild project Application No. 1606409

AUC Alberta Utilities Commission

AUC Rule 007 AUC Rule 007: Rules Respecting Applications for

Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and

Industrial System Designations

AUC Rule 012 AUC Rule 012: Noise Control

Commission Alberta Utilities Commission

EMF electric and magnetic fields

EPCOR EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc.

EPCOR projects EPCOR new tower project and EPCOR restring project

EPCOR new tower

project


EPCOR restring project Application No. 1606664

ESA Environmentally Significant Area

Falconer The Neighbours of Falconer Heights

ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection

Keephills Keephills 320P substation

kV kilovolt

kV/m kilovolts per metre



McNabs Rainbow Beach Development Inc, J. and S. McNab,

and J. Alexander and P. McNab

mG milliGauss

Petrolia Petrolia 816S substation

RV recreational vehicle

alberta electric system operator · 2018. 2. 23. · application no. 1606666. this application...

Documents