AltaLink Management Ltd.

Transcription

1 Decision D Southwest Calgary Ring Road Transmission Project August 31, 2016

2 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D Southwest Calgary Ring Road Transmission Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 August 31, 2016 Published by the: Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 Contents 1 Decision summary Introduction Background Applications overview Notice of applications and hearing Participants in the proceeding The LVCR Public interest Procedural motions Request for study of alternate routes The LVCR motion for complete responses to information requests The LVCR adjournment request The LVCR motion to file evidence AltaLink motion to expunge Exhibit 123 from the record Participant involvement program Views of AltaLink Views of the LVCR Commission findings Route determination process Views of AltaLink Views of the LVCR AltaLink s reply Commission findings Property value and visual impacts Views of AltaLink Views of the LVCR Commission findings Electrical considerations Views of AltaLink Views of the LVCR Commission findings Construction impacts Views of AltaLink Views of the LVCR Commission findings Decision D (August 31, 2016) i

4 11 Environmental impacts Views of AltaLink Views of the LVCR Commission findings Decision Appendix A Proceeding participants Appendix B Oral hearing registered appearances Appendix C AUC ruling on request for study of alternate routes Appendix D AUC ruling on Lakeview Concerned Residents motion Appendix E AUC ruling on adjournment request ii Decision D (August 31, 2016)

5 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Decision D Southwest Calgary Ring Road Proceeding Transmission Project Applications A001 to A006 1 Decision summary 1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide whether to approve s (AltaLink) applications to relocate transmission lines in and around the area of Sarcee Trail S.W. and Glenmore Trail in Calgary. After consideration of the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons outlined in this decision, the Commission finds that approval of the applications is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the development and its effect on the environment. 2. In reaching the determinations set out in this decision, the Commission has considered all relevant materials comprising the record of this proceeding, including the evidence, argument, and reply argument provided by each party. Accordingly, references in this decision to specific parts of the record are intended to assist the reader in understanding the Commission s reasoning relating to a particular matter and should not be taken as an indication that the Commission did not consider all relevant portions of the record with respect to that matter. 2 Introduction 3. On October 30, 2015, AltaLink, on behalf of itself and TransAlta Corporation (TransAlta), filed applications A001 to A006, for approval of the Southwest Calgary Ring Road Transmission Project. AltaLink explained that these applications were filed following an Alberta Transportation request that it apply to the Commission to relocate certain transmission lines to accommodate the construction of the Southwest Calgary Ring Road. To meet this request, AltaLink proposed to relocate and alter 1.4 kilometres of existing Transmission Line 3L and existing Transmission Line 150L, 3.5 kilometres of existing transmission lines 693L and 916L utilizing underground cables, and 850-metres of existing transmission lines 906L and 928L (collectively, the proposed project or the transmission lines). 4. The applications, filed pursuant to sections 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, were registered as Proceeding The Alberta Electric System Operator s (AESO) involvement in the proposed project was not required because it would not materially alter the design or functionality, or result in an expansion or enhancement of the capability of the transmission system. The AESO confirmed that because the proposed project would not require a point of delivery or load change to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System and would be paid for by Alberta Transportation, a needs identification document was not required. 6. A number of interested parties who own, reside or have an interest in land within the vicinity of the proposed project expressed concerns with the applications. As a result, the Commission held a public hearing in Calgary on June 15, Decision D (August 31, 2016) 1

6 3 Background 3.1 Applications overview 7. In its applications for the proposed project, AltaLink sought approval to: Alter double-circuit 240/138-kilovolt (kv) transmission lines 693L and 916L by constructing 3.5 kilometres of underground double-circuit 138-kV/240-kV transmission lines on a new alignment and salvaging approximately 2.5 kilometres of the transmission lines from the previous alignments. Alter single-circuit 138-kV transmission lines 3L and 150L by constructing approximately 1.4 kilometres of double-circuit structures for the transmission lines on a new alignment and salvaging approximately 1.2 kilometres of the transmission lines from the previous alignments. Alter double-circuit 240-kV transmission lines 906L and 928L by constructing approximately 850 metres of double-circuit 240-kV transmission line on a new alignment and salvaging approximately 875 metres of the transmission lines from the previous alignments. Re-terminate Transmission Line 693L onto an existing breaker at the Sarcee 42S Substation. Salvage the existing 138-kV circuit breaker that Transmission Line 693L is currently terminated to at the Sarcee 42S Substation. Install associated substation equipment at the Sarcee 42S Substation to accommodate the salvage and relocation of transmission lines 3L, 150L, 693L, 916L, 906L and 928L and add required modifications to protection and controls, telecommunications and supervisory control and data acquisition at the East Calgary 5S Substation and Sarcee 42S Substation. 8. The proposed project is sited on lands owned by Alberta Transportation designed to be a future transportation utility corridor (TUC), on the City of Calgary s road rights-of-way, and on lands owned by the City of Calgary, AltaLink, and ENMAX Corporation (ENMAX). 9. AltaLink stated that through its consultation with Alberta Transportation and stakeholder feedback, it identified one viable, low impact proposed route for the relocation of each transmission line (the proposed route). The proposed route has the shortest, direct connections and would allow the transmission lines to be located in a future TUC, road rights-of-way, and on City of Calgary and ENMAX lands. While the majority of the transmission lines would be relocated above ground, AltaLink proposed to locate the realigned portion of transmission lines 693L and 916L underground along Glenmore Trail, 37th Street S.W. and 66th Avenue S.W. 10. The total cost of the proposed project is approximately $95 million, which would be wholly allocated to Alberta Transportation. 2 Decision D (August 31, 2016)

7 3.2 Notice of applications and hearing 11. The Commission issued a notice of applications for Proceeding on November 27, The notice was mailed directly to residents, market participants, agencies and other interested parties in the vicinity of the proposed project. The notice of applications was also published in the December edition of the Lakeview, Knob Hill and Rutland Park community newspapers, in the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald on December 7, 2015, and on the AUC website. In the notice of applications, the Commission directed any person who had concerns about or objections to the applications, or who wished to support the applications, to file a statement of intent to participate by January 15, The notice also informed interested persons that an information session would be held by AUC staff on January 6, The Commission issued a notice of hearing on February 26, The notice was mailed directly to residents, market participants, agencies and other interested parties in the vicinity of the proposed project, and also published on the AUC website. It informed interested persons that a hearing was scheduled to commence on May 25, 2016, and outlined the process schedule leading up to the hearing. 13. On May 24, 2016, the Commission issued a revised notice of hearing to accommodate the availability of participants. The hearing was rescheduled to June 15, A revised notice of hearing was mailed directly to residents, market participants, agencies and other interested parties in the vicinity of the proposed project and published on the AUC website. 14. The hearing was held on June 15, 2016, in Calgary before Commission Member Anne Michaud. The Commission considers June 15, 2016 to be the date of the close of record for Proceeding Pursuant to Section 15.2 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission is obligated to issue its decision in a timely manner and, if possible, within 180 days after a receipt of a complete application. By letter dated May 24, 2016, the Commission granted an adjournment request because a number of interveners were unavailable to attend the hearing. As a result of the rescheduled hearing the Commission informed parties that it would make best efforts to issue a decision by August 31, For these reasons the decision is dated after the expiry of the 180-day deadline. 3.3 Participants in the proceeding 16. In response to the notice of applications and notice of hearing, the Commission received submissions from a group named the Lakeview Concerned Residents (the LVCR) and the Lakeview Community Association. 17. On February 19, 2016, 1 the Commission issued a ruling on standing in relation to Proceeding It granted standing to the LVCR because one or more of its members had rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the proposed project. 18. The Commission denied standing to the Lakeview Community Association because it did not provide sufficient information to show that it had rights that may be directly and adversely affected by approval of the proposed project. Nonetheless, the Commission gave the 1 Exhibit X0069, AUC Letter to Parties re Ruling on Standing. Decision D (August 31, 2016) 3

8 Lakeview Community Association an opportunity to provide a brief statement to the Commission that outlined its views on the applications. 3.4 The LVCR 19. The LVCR consists of residents along 37th Street S.W. who were opposed to transmission lines 693L and 916L being routed underground along Glenmore Tail and 37th Street S.W. The members of the LVCR are Raymond Mesluk, Lise Mesluk, Patricia Lindsay, Bruce Bickerton, Sheila Pilgrim, Molly Taylor and Lindal Heppner. 4 Public interest 20. When considering an application to construct or operate a transmission facility, the Commission is required 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 the effects of the proposed project on the environment. 21. The Commission s proceedings are conducted to determine an outcome that meets the public interest mandate set out in the legislation discussed below. In the vast majority of its proceedings, the Commission is not limited to considering only the evidence presented to it by the applicant and by parties that may be directly and adversely affected by its decision. Indeed, it is the Commission s role to test the application to determine whether approval of that application would be in the public interest. 22. At this stage, the public interest standard will generally be met by a route 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. 23. The Commission described its approach when considering new transmission facilities in Decision : The Commission s past practice was to weigh the established benefits of a proposed upgrade, [with] the potential adverse impacts on Albertans, both on a province-wide basis, and for those Albertans who must bear the burden of having the infrastructure placed on or adjacent to their lands With respect to the interpretation of the term public interest, the Commission is mindful of Decision , which states: 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. 2 Decision : and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc., Heartland Transmission Project, Proceeding 457, Application , November 1, 2011, page 33, paragraph Decision D (August 31, 2016)

9 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. 4 In Decision , the Commission stated: It is the role of the applicant to demonstrate that approval of its application would be in the public interest, and it is the role of the parties that may be directly and adversely affected by approval of the application to demonstrate how approval or denial of the application does or does not satisfy the public interest. They may do so by bringing evidence of the effects of the application on their own private interests and explaining how the public interest may be better served by accommodating their private interests, and they may use the evidence filed by all parties to the proceeding to argue what a better balancing of the public interest might be The Commission is aware that the proposed project may have adverse impacts on residents and the environment. However, the question before the Commission is whether these impacts, with the appropriate mitigation measures, serve to promote the public interest. 5 Procedural motions 5.1 Request for study of alternate routes 27. On November 24, 2015, Dr. Mesluk, a member of the LVCR, requested that the Commission direct AltaLink to study alternate routes. He expressed his opposition to the proposed route and submitted that it was not in the public interest. He took issue with no other EUB Decision : EPCOR Power Development Corporation and EPCOR Generation Inc., Rossdale Power Plant Unit 11 (RD 11), page 6. Decision :, Transmission Line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge, Proceeding 19, Application , pages 6-7, paragraphs 32, 33 and 35. Decision : and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc., Heartland Transmission Project, Proceeding 457, Application , November 1, 2011, page 14, paragraph 74. Decision D (August 31, 2016) 5

10 route alternatives being considered in the proceeding. In a ruling dated December 3, 2015, the Commission informed Dr. Mesluk that it had denied his request because AltaLink has the onus to demonstrate that its proposed route meets the requirements of Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments, the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, and Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, and for other reasons stated in that ruling, a copy of which is attached as Appendix C. 5.2 The LVCR motion for complete responses to information requests 28. On April 8, 2016, the LVCR filed a motion for a full and proper response to information request LVCR-ALTALINK04(5). The LVCR requested the agreement between AltaLink and Alberta Transportation regarding relocation of the lines in this Application and Alberta Transportation s funding obligations be filed on the record of the proceeding. In its response, AltaLink stated that the agreement was not relevant and that the requested information was confidential. The LVCR submitted that AltaLink s response failed to satisfy the requirements contained in Section 31 of Rule 001: Rules of Practice, which require a party to provide sufficient reasons in support of its position that information requested is not relevant and that the information is confidential and harm would be caused if it were disclosed. 29. The Commission denied the motion on April 22, 2016, indicating that it was satisfied that AltaLink s response adequately explained its reasons with respect to its objection to filing the agreement with Alberta Transportation, thereby meeting the requirements of Section 31 of Rule 001. A copy of the April 22, 2016 ruling is attached as Appendix D. 5.3 The LVCR adjournment request 30. On May 20, 2016, the LVCR requested that the Commission adjourn the hearing scheduled to commence on May 25, 2016, to a later month. The reasons given in support of the request for adjournment were that Dr. Mesluk was unable to attend because of a health condition and that two of its other members were unable to attend because they had been assigned by their employers to assist with relief efforts for the fires in the Fort McMurray area. AltaLink objected to the requested adjournment, indicating that other members of the LVCR could appear to adopt Dr. Mesluk s evidence or that he could file a written statement, and that none of the landowners were a technical witness or a siting expert. AltaLink further submitted that counsel for the LVCR did not explain why the members in Fort McMurray could not testify at the hearing by Skype or teleconference. 31. On May 24, 2016, the Commission granted the LVCR s adjournment request because many LVCR members would not be able to attend the hearing. A copy of the May 24, 2016 ruling is attached as Appendix E. 5.4 The LVCR motion to file evidence 32. On June 10, 2016, the LVCR filed a motion where it objected to the filing of AltaLink s minutes of a June 1, 2016, meeting between representatives of AltaLink, Dr. Mesluk and Mr. Heppner of the LVCR, and the LVCR s counsel, Mr. Campbell. 6 The LVCR requested leave to provide its own account of that meeting. At the hearing on June 15, 2016, AltaLink consented to the LVCR s request to file its account of the meeting, however it took objection to the 6 Exhibit X0110, AML Letter to AUC Consultation with Lakeview Concerned Residents Group. 6 Decision D (August 31, 2016)

11 concerns raised by the LVCR about the propriety of AltaLink s filing of its account. Counsel for AltaLink submitted that the meeting minutes were relevant, admissible, and filed in an appropriate fashion. AltaLink cited Section 9 of Rule 007, Appendix A which requires an applicant to document meetings and other consultation activities. It added that because it filed the record more than a week before the hearing, it had provided adequate notice. 33. During the hearing on June 15, 2016, the Commission issued a ruling in which it allowed the LVCR s account of the June 1, 2016, meeting to be filed because it found that there would be no prejudice to any party by allowing this document to be filed as evidence AltaLink motion to expunge Exhibit 123 from the record 34. During the hearing on June 15, 2016, AltaLink requested that one of the LVCR s aids to cross-examination be expunged from the record. 8 Specifically, AltaLink objected to the filing of correspondence that its witness, Mark Johns, was not privy to and the contents of which he could not confirm. The correspondence in question was comprised of three letters: one from Dr. Mesluk to the Minister of Transportation dated January 26, 2016; a reply letter from the Deputy Minister to Dr. Mesluk on March 15, 2016; and, an undated reply letter by Dr. Mesluk. The correspondence also included an reply from the Deputy Minister to Dr. Mesluk, sent on May 19, 2016, and an attached prior letter from the executive director of the Major Capital Projects Branch at Alberta Transportation to Mr. Johns, dated October 28, The LVCR took the position that the correspondence was put before Mr. Johns, who was privy to the circumstances surrounding the correspondence, if not the correspondence itself, and who gave evidence to that effect. AltaLink submitted that the evidence from Mr. Johns was contrary to the LVCR s position. It submitted that there would be prejudice from the correspondence, which brought forth alternate routes, because AltaLink has a right to know the case to be met, that the April 19, 2016 deadline for new evidence had passed, and that some of the documents were dated prior. The LVCR submitted that there was no prejudice to AltaLink from the letters as it did not believe that the correspondence was new evidence and the alternate routes were merely suggestions that ought to have been looked at pursuant to Rule 007. The LVCR submitted that the documents were filed after the deadline because of Dr. Mesluk s health problems, which had been sufficient to adjourn the hearing, and because only once the May 19, was received did it understand the significance of the prior correspondence. In light of the circumstances, and after reviewing the applicable documents, the Commission found that the documents identified were relevant to AltaLink s route determination process and may be helpful to both the Commission and parties in understanding the basis for which the proposed route was put forward by AltaLink. In order to avoid any prejudice, AltaLink was given an opportunity to respond in surrebuttal, which it declined. 6 Participant involvement program 6.1 Views of AltaLink 36. AltaLink commenced its participant involvement program for the proposed project in January Exhibit X0128, Ray Mesluk s Notes of June 1, 2016 Meeting. Exhibit X0123, LVCR Aids to Cross-Examination. Decision D (August 31, 2016) 7

12 37. On February 25, 2015, the Government of Alberta hosted a public information session for the Southwest Calgary Ring Road Project. The event was an opportunity for stakeholders to speak with all of the utilities that would be doing work as a result of the ring road construction. AltaLink representatives from a variety of disciplines were present to elaborate on its display boards, to discuss the proposed project details, and to respond to stakeholder questions. 38. Project-specific materials were provided to stakeholders within 200 metres of the proposed project. The materials referenced an electric system improvement, which AltaLink submitted was an accurate representation of the proposed project. The materials were intended to make clear that the proposed project pertained to the electric system and not another type of utility or infrastructure Personal consultation was conducted with stakeholders who own lands directly adjacent to the rights-of-way. AltaLink submitted that its participant involvement program provided stakeholders with an opportunity to learn about the proposed project, and allowed them to share their concerns with AltaLink. AltaLink s representative made at least two attempts to contact stakeholders. AltaLink submitted that it consulted with each member of the LVCR except for Mr. Bickerton, who shares an address with Ms. Lindsay On November 27, 2013, the Province of Alberta and Tsuut ina Nation signed an agreement concerning the transfer of Tsuut ina Nation land to Alberta Transportation for use for the TUC. The agreement contemplated the removal and relocation of the transmission lines affected by the proposed project. In a letter to AltaLink dated January 30, 2015, the Tsuut ina Nation confirmed its support of the proposed project No other First Nation consultation was required for the proposed project because there would be no impacts to provincial Crown lands anticipated from the proposed project that had not already been identified in the agreement between the Province of Alberta and the Tsuut ina Nation. 42. As stated earlier, the proposed project is on lands owned by Alberta Transportation designed to be future TUC, on road rights-of-way owned by the City of Calgary, and on lands owned by the City of Calgary, AltaLink, and ENMAX. No person who owns lands to be traversed by the proposed project objected to AltaLink s applications. 43. Consistent with Rule 007, the objective of the participant involvement program was to ensure that there was effective communication amongst stakeholders, the public local authorities, agencies, industry and government so that concerns could be raised, addressed and, if possible, resolved. 12 Based on its participant involvement program, AltaLink submitted that it had exceeded the consultation requirements contained in Rule Transcript, Volume 1, page 194, lines Transcript Volume 1, pages 193, lines Exhibit X0020, Appendix I Aboriginal Consultation Information. Transcript Volume 1, page 192, lines Decision D (August 31, 2016)

13 6.2 Views of the LVCR 44. The LVCR submitted that the notification and consultation regarding the proposed project was inadequate and misleading According to Dr. Mesluk, AltaLink s project-specific materials with the headline Electric System Improvement Near You was misleading because no improvement was proposed, only the relocation of transmission lines Dr. Mesluk contended that there were dozens of residents on 37th Street S.W. who were misinformed about the proposed project and did not believe that the transmission lines were being moved from the Tsuut ina Nation land onto 37th Street S.W With respect to the meeting of June 1, 2016 between AltaLink and the LVCR, Dr. Mesluk testified that he did not agree that AltaLink s account of that meeting filed as Exhibit X0110 fairly represented the full content and context of the meeting. 16 He stated that AltaLink s account was substantially different from the notes he had made after the meeting. 48. Other members of the LVCR also raised concerns with AltaLink s consultation. The written evidence of Ms. Pilgrim stated: no measures [were] taken by AltaLink to alleviate our concerns, inform us of the construction schedule and provide a contact person to whom we may address any problems we may have in the future during the construction process and that such a person will actually listen to us and take steps to deal with any such problems In her statement of intent to participate, Ms. Taylor expressed the following concerns with AltaLink s communication: The date I received the registered letter predates the date on the actual letter and predates the stated submission to AUC. The letter states that I ve had ongoing participation in the project which is untrue. I have not. I have received information in the mail but have not had anyone from AltaLink contact me directly about this project. I have attended one information session at a community hall. That is not "ongoing participation. I received a notice in my mailbox titled Southwest Calgary Ring Road-Transmission Relocation Consultation Record. This notice was very unclear. It states that the representative is Spencer McKay. It is dated, February 17, 2015 and in the comments section it says I door knocked the address listed above, no one answered. I left an information package and door hanger. In the action required section it says No action required. I took this to mean I did not need to act. Now I don t understand what it means and I do not consider it to be ongoing consultation. This consultation record was left with an information package. It was not clear what I was to do with it. The consultation record" implied that no action required pertained to me. At no time did I tell anyone from AltaLink that no action was required Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, paragraph 43. Transcript Volume 1, pages , lines Transcript Volume 1, page 130, lines Exhibit X0117, Affidavit - Ray Mesluk (sworn), June 10, Exhibit X0114, Will Say Statement for Sheila Pilgrim, PDF page 2. Exhibit X0034, Molly Taylor SIP, PDF page 1. Decision D (August 31, 2016) 9

14 6.3 Commission findings 50. A participant involvement program is a mechanism for stakeholders to express their concerns about the proposed project and to provide site-specific input in an effort to reduce the impacts of the proposed project. It is effective and consequently meets Rule 007 requirements if it has allowed stakeholders an opportunity to understand the proposed transmission facility and its potential impacts. An effective participant involvement program may not resolve all stakeholder concerns, however. 51. Although the Commission acknowledges the concerns expressed by members of the LVCR regarding AltaLink s consultation, it must assess the participant involvement program as a whole, in light of the nature and scope of the proposed project. 52. For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds that potentially affected parties, including members of the LVCR, were provided with sufficient information to understand the proposed project and were given opportunities to express their concerns during the course of the participant involvement program. 53. AltaLink s project-specific materials included a headline entitled Electric System Improvement Near You. A second notice sent to stakeholders stated that the proposed project would involve removing approximately 2.5 kilometres (1.5 miles) of 240 kilovolt (kv)/138 kv double circuit steel lattice transmission line from [Tsuut ina Nation] land and relocating it underground within the [TUC] south of Glenmore Trail and west of 37 Street Southwest. 19 The Commission finds that the participant involvement program information was sufficiently clear to inform stakeholders of the nature of the proposed project. 54. The Commission accepts AltaLink s evidence that it notified and personally consulted with stakeholders in and around the proposed project area. 55. The Commission finds that AltaLink s participant involvement program was conducted in accordance with Rule 007 and is satisfied that, overall, the program was inclusive and comprehensive. 7 Route determination process 7.1 Views of AltaLink 56. AltaLink s route determination process was based on Alberta Transportation s plans to construct the Southwest Calgary Ring Road Project while minimizing potential impacts associated with relocating the existing transmission lines. It involved minimizing agricultural, residential, environmental and visual impacts as well as considering cost, electrical considerations and special constraints. AltaLink indicated that its process to relocate the transmission lines was based on minimizing potential impacts as those impacts relate to Rule AltaLink s evidence was that preliminary routes were identified for the proposed project during discussions with Alberta Transportation, ENMAX and the City of Calgary. During preliminary route development, Alberta Transportation provided information about road design 19 Exhibit X0019, Appendix H Consultation Materials, PDF page Decision D (August 31, 2016)

15 and the required setbacks of poles from road surfaces and bridge abutments. The City of Calgary provided information about other buried facilities and ENMAX about its planned facilities relocations. Based on this feedback, AltaLink identified preliminary routes for the transmission lines. 58. Through consultation with Alberta Transportation and stakeholders, AltaLink identified one low impact route for each of the transmission lines. Other route options would have added transmission line length without reducing other impacts. AltaLink selected the proposed route for the following reasons: The proposed route has short and direct connections for the relocated portions of the transmission lines; It is located in either the future TUC, road rights-of-way, on City of Calgary or ENMAX property, which would minimize landowner and environmental impacts; It minimizes conflicts with existing and planned infrastructure, including the Southwest Calgary Ring Road, a planned City of Calgary storm sewer, ENMAX transmission lines and other utilities. 59. AltaLink added that the proposed route is viable from a technical and constructability standpoint, has few impacts, and addresses the input AltaLink received during the consultation process. 7.2 Views of the LVCR 60. The LVCR questioned AltaLink s route determination process. In particular, the LVCR found it odd that Alberta Transportation was not only directing AltaLink to remove the transmission lines from Tsuut ina Nation land but also where to relocate the those lines The LVCR provided correspondence between Dr. Mesluk and Dr. Bass, the deputy Minister of Transportation. 21 At the hearing, counsel for the LVCR submitted that the correspondence was in conflict with AltaLink s assertion that only one route for each transmission line was explored at the direction of Alberta Transportation: The very first letter from Dr. Bass, which is x0123, on March 15, 2016, says unequivocally AltaLink provided several alignment options for Alberta Transportation s consideration. There s no wiggle. There s no perfrication (phonetic) there. Dr. Bass goes on to state: (as read) I can assure you Alberta Transportation carefully evaluated all the realignment options provided by AltaLink The LVCR suggested that there were at least two potential alternate routes for transmission lines 693L and 916L, the first along Glenmore Trail (the Glenmore Trail routes) Transcript, Volume 1, pages , lines Exhibit X0123, LVCR Aides to Cross-Examination, PDF page 8. Transcript, Volume 1, page 217, lines Decision D (August 31, 2016) 11

16 and a second along 50th Avenue S.W. (collectively, the conceptual routes). 23 The LVCR clarified that the conceptual routes themselves are not routes developed by experts but, rather, evidence that AltaLink did not consider other routes that ought to have been looked at pursuant to Rule The LVCR submitted that without a thorough analysis of the conceptual routes, AltaLink cannot conclude that its single route option would be better than the other routes. 25 The LVCR examined the conceptual routes in further detail below. Glenmore Trail routes 64. Two variations of the Glenmore Trail routes were conceptualized; one located on the north side and the other located on the south side of Glenmore Trail. The Glenmore Trail routes would utilize the City of Calgary right-of-way and the TUC from the Sarcee 42S Substation and would connect existing transmission lines 693L and 916L where they cross Glenmore Trail east of Crowchild Trail The LVCR submitted that either of the Glenmore Trail routes would, on average, result in the transmission lines being 23.5 metres further from the residences, compared to the proposed route for transmission lines 693L and 916L along 37th Street S.W In addition, compared to the proposed route, the Glenmore Trail routes would have 67 fewer residences facing the transmission lines th Avenue S.W. route 67. The 50th Avenue S.W. route would commence at the corner of Sarcee Trail S.W. and Glenmore Trail, and continue east along Glenmore Trail to 50th Avenue S.W. The route would then continue east along 50th Avenue S.W. to approximately 15th Street S.W., where it would connect to the existing transmission lines. The 50th Avenue S.W. route would result in transmission lines 693L and 916L being farther away from residences than AltaLink s proposed route The LVCR submitted that if constructed above ground, the visual impacts of the 50th Avenue S.W. route would be significantly lessened due to the vacant land alongside 50th Avenue S.W. to Crowchild Trail Further, the 50th Avenue S.W. route would benefit the residents of 66th Avenue S.W. and Larkspur Way S.W. because a portion of the transmission lines would be removed and salvaged Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, April 19, Transcript, Volume 1, page 67, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 216, lines Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 3, paragraph 4. Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 3, paragraph 7. Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 3, paragraph 8. Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 3, paragraph 10. Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 3, paragraph 11. Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 3, paragraph Decision D (August 31, 2016)

17 7.3 AltaLink s reply 70. In reply argument, AltaLink s counsel addressed the correspondence between Dr. Bass and Dr. Mesluk as follows: In relation to the correspondence, the correspondence, between Dr. Bass and Dr. Mesluk, the evidence of Mr. Johns this morning was that AltaLink was not privy to those discussions and could not explain Dr. Bass s comments. Mr. Johns also indicated that only one route was ever discussed by AltaLink and that, in its discussions, AltaLink was not dealing with Dr. Bass; it was dealing with the previous deputy minister. Mr. Johns sworn evidence on this matter has to be given more weight than Dr. Mesluk s communications, in our submission In its reply evidence, AltaLink also provided the following metrics comparing the proposed route and the LVCR s conceptual routes. Table 1. AltaLink s comparison of routes for transmission lines 693L and 916L 33 Metrics Proposed Route Glenmore Trail Route (south) Glenmore Trail Route (north) Route Length (km) Parcels within 200-metres from centerline (#) First Row Residences (4) First Row Residences including Condominiums/Apartments (#) First Row Residences (Excluding residences on opposite side of Glenmore Trail as proposed route) (#) First Row Residences (Excluding residences with a road/alley/parking lot between the proposed route and residence) including Condominiums/Apartments (#) First Row Residences (Excluding residences with a road/alley/parking lot between the proposed route and residence) (#) First Row Residences (Excluding residences with a road/alley/parking lot between the proposed route and residence) including Condominiums/Apartments (#) Adjacent Schools (#) Minimum distance to property line from centreline (m) th Avenue S.W. Route Transcript, Volume 1, pages , lines Exhibit X0094, PDF page 34, Table 1. Decision D (August 31, 2016) 13

18 72. In addition to these metrics, AltaLink reviewed and identified areas along the conceptual routes that would cause significant engineering and design challenges. Details of the constraints are discussed below Construction of the Glenmore Trail routes would involve significant disruptions to traffic on a major roadway. Maintenance or emergency work on the circuit would also involve disruption to traffic AltaLink pointed to significant technical challenges at the following locations along the Glenmore Trail routes: East of Crowchild Trail, adjacent to the Calgary Girls School. At this location, the Glenmore Trail road right-of-way is occupied by the road surface and a sound barrier wall. There would be no room to locate a transmission line. The only technically feasible option for a south Glenmore Trail route through this area would be an underground transmission line adjacent to the Calgary Girls School. A north Glenmore Trail route would require the removal of trees along Langriville Drive S.W. to accommodate the transmission line. Between Crowchild Trail and Richard Road S.W. At this location, the Glenmore Trail routes would likely require the removal and relocation of existing light standards and the potential removal of trees. The City of Calgary has also advised AltaLink of its intention to expand Glenmore Trail from four to six lanes between 37th Street S.W. and Crowchild Trail. The widening of Glenmore Trail would add uncertainty to whether there would be sufficient room remaining to accommodate an overhead transmission line for the north Glenmore Trail route. Between 37th Street S.W. and Richard Road S.W. At this location, there is a sound barrier wall separating the municipal reserve land. The sound barrier wall and existing light standards would potentially be impacted by the south Glenmore Trail route. A north Glenmore Trail route would require two road crossings with angle or heavy dead-end structures. The City of Calgary s plan to widen Glenmore Trail would also add uncertainty to a route at this location AltaLink determined that the 50th Avenue S.W. route would be approximately 1.7 kilometres longer than the proposed route and would have approximately 168 additional parcels of land within 200 metres of the transmission lines. There would be a similar amount of first row residences as the proposed route; however, unlike the proposed route, 28 of those residences would be located on the same side of the road on the 50th Avenue S.W. route. There would also be two schools adjacent to the transmission lines on the 50th Avenue S.W. route while there would be none on the proposed route Exhibit X0094, AML Reply Evidence, PDF 6, paragraph 12. Exhibit X0094, AML Reply Evidence, PDF 6, paragraph 15. Exhibit X0094, AML Reply Evidence, PDF 6, paragraph 16. Exhibit X0094, AML Reply Evidence, PDF 11, paragraph Decision D (August 31, 2016)

19 76. To illustrate potential impacts of the 50th Avenue S.W. route, AltaLink explained that there would be challenges at the following locations: Between 19th Street S.W. and 20th Street S.W. At this location, there are residences located on both sides of the road. The road right-of-way is approximately 22 metres wide. As such, regardless of the side of the road, routing the transmission line along this location would place a transmission line in closer proximity to a greater number of residences than a route along 37th Street S.W. Between 21st Street S.W. and 21A Street S.W. At this location, AltaLink identified proximity issues to a high school on the south side and residences on the north side. The closest residence is approximately seven metres from the driving surface of 50th Avenue S.W. Mount Royal University. At this location, the conceptual route would bisect two recreational sport fields, two parking lots and a Mount Royal University building. Although an underground option would be technically feasible, construction of the transmission line would result in closure of the fields and parking lots during construction. The conceptual route would also have to be revised to avoid the building. In addition, an underground transmission line in this area could pose significant impacts to the long-term plans for development of new facilities for Mount Royal University or may require a subsequent relocation of the transmission line in the future AltaLink indicated that if it were ordered by the Commission to investigate the conceptual routes further, there would be a delay of one to three years Commission findings 78. Although some members of the LVCR expressed general concerns with AltaLink s route determination process, no stakeholder opposed the relocation of transmission lines 3L, 150L, 906L or 928L. 79. One of the primary issues in this proceeding is whether the Commission should deny the application for transmission lines 693L and 916L and direct AltaLink to file an application for the transmission lines with alternative routes. Some members of the LVCR argued that approval of the proposed route was not in the public interest because other routes had not been investigated. Although the Commission heard evidence from AltaLink on the conceptual routes, AltaLink has applied to construct the proposed project along a single route. For this reason its application will stand or fall on the merits of this single, proposed route. 80. The proposed project is located within the city of Calgary, in a relatively high density area. In light of this, and taking into account the evidence tendered on siting constraints, the Commission is of the view that proposing one route was reasonable in the circumstances. 81. Section 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act entitled Power of Commission re applications states that the Commission may grant the approval, permit, licence or amendment subject to any terms and conditions that it prescribes or may deny the application. The Commission s objective is to determine whether the application as filed is in the public interest Exhibit X0094, AML Reply Evidence, PDF 12, paragraph 37. Transcript, Volume 1, page 94, lines Decision D (August 31, 2016) 15

20 and, if not, what changes could be ordered to most effectively balance the various public interest factors it must consider, using its own expertise to assess the evidence before it. 82. The Hydro and Electric Energy Act allows the Commission to order changes in the location of a transmission line, to prescribe the location and route of the transmission line as precisely as it considers suitable, and to prescribe the location of the right-of-way of the transmission line and the relationship of its boundaries to the transmission line, or any part of the transmission line. 83. While the summary of the potential alternative routes explained AltaLink s rationale for its choice of proposed route, the Commission will only consider whether the proposed route is suitable. The Commission cannot consider or approve the conceptual routes in this decision because AltaLink has not applied for these routes. In this respect, the LVCR acknowledged that the conceptual routes were suggested to demonstrate that there were other options available and not as detailed alternative routes. 84. When considering the evidence before it, should the Commission find that the applications as filed are not in the public interest, it may deny the applications and direct AltaLink to apply for the transmission lines in a specific location, including along Glenmore Trail or along 50th Avenue S.W. The Commission s predecessor, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the Board) in Decision , discussed potential routing options and stated the following: The Board considers that the onus is on ATCO Electric to demonstrate that its applied for route is superior or stands out as the preferred route, given the various competing factors, as compared to other potential routes. The onus is not on interveners to clearly demonstrate a superior alternative. However, even if a no other best route or no clearly demonstrated superior alternative test was to be used, the Board is not persuaded, based on the evidence presented, that these thresholds have been met. Similarly, the evidence on record relating to the other potential routes is not sufficient for the Board to assess whether or not the various potential routes are even pretty much the same In the circumstances of the applications before it, the Commission has some evidence on the impacts of the conceptual routes because AltaLink has filed preliminary route metrics. For example, the Commission is aware of the number of residences within 200 metres. If, as a result of its analysis of the route options presented at the hearing, the Commission determines that any of the conceptual routes are clearly superior to the route proposed by AltaLink, it may deny and refer these applications back to AltaLink with directions to further explore these conceptual route options in future applications. 86. Although the Commission accepts AltaLink s submission that the proposed route is technically feasible, it has considered the nature of the potential adverse impacts to some residences located near the proposed route. Based on the preliminary metrics presented by AltaLink and the nature of the impacts that landowners on the proposed route may experience, the Commission finds that the proposed route, on balance, is superior when compared to the conceptual routes. Having considered all of the evidence, the Commission finds that the location of the proposed route is acceptable for the construction and operation of the transmission lines. 40 EUB Decision : ATCO Electric Ltd., Construct Updike Substation 886S and 144-kV Transmission Line 7L34, Application , May 8, 2007, page Decision D (August 31, 2016)

21 8 Property value and visual impacts 8.1 Views of AltaLink 87. The proposed project would relocate existing transmission lines either farther from the nearest residences, or underground in the case of transmission lines 693L and 916L along 37th Street S.W. The proposed project would locate the transmission lines in the TUC or in the City of Calgary road rights-of-way and therefore, visual impacts of the transmission lines are expected to be minimal. 88. Counsel for AltaLink argued: In our submission, the project minimizes visual impacts. Each of the houses along 37 Street S.W., including Dr. Mesluk's house farther south, faces west, the existing lattice towers for the transmission line are located between these residences [and] the mountains. As such to the extent that the interveners are concerned about their view scapes of the mountains, they will be improved by the project or, at worst, unaffected. Removing the existing lattice towers and placing the line underground will improve the view of the mountains to the west In response to a question at the hearing, Mr. Johns testified: [c]ertainly, in all the years I ve been involved with transmission, landowners often ask us to bury underground to take care of health, visual, property value concerns. So I would deduce from that that there is no impact to property value from an underground line across the road from you Views of the LVCR 90. Members of the LVCR expressed concerns that the proposed project may have impacts on their property values. 43 They are specifically concerned with the visual impacts of the proposed project and in particular the riser structures for transmission lines 693L and 916L that would be located along 66th Avenue S.W. 91. Dr. Mesluk pointed out that the area of the proposed riser structures is an important site visited by international tourists. He testified that the tourists would not want to view the two ugly riser structures Dr. Mesluk asked AltaLink to improve the aesthetics of the riser structures by dying the concrete base of the structures with a brown dye, instead of waiting for the riser colour to leach into the concrete. 45 When asked if he would prefer a brown colour for the riser structures as opposed to the galvanized steel colouring, Dr. Mesluk replied that an all-weathered brown colouring for the riser structures would be the best of the worst Transcript Volume 1, page 204, lines Transcript, Volume 1, pages 95-96, lines Exhibit X0114, Will Say Statement for Sheila Pilgrim, PDF page 2. Exhibit X0113, Will Say Statement for Patricia Lindsay, PDF page 2. Transcript, Volume 1, page 113, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 131, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 149, lines 2-9. Transcript, Volume 1, pages , lines Decision D (August 31, 2016) 17

22 8.3 Commission findings 93. The Commission recognizes that some residences along 37th Street S.W. would experience an increase in visual impacts associated with the riser structures. It considers however, that because these structures would be located in close proximity to an existing doublecircuit transmission line, the incremental visual impacts would be minimal. The Commission expects AltaLink to work with residents to attempt to minimize the visual impacts of these specific transmission line structures. The Commission expects that AltaLink will consider some of the LVCR members preference and request for all-weathered brown colouring of the riser structures and a concrete foundation blended with dye. 94. The LVCR members residences are located along the underground portion of the route. The visual impact would therefore be limited to the presence of riser structures located on the existing right-of-way, south of 66th Avenue S.W. Residences in this area are located on the north side of 66th Avenue S.W. The Commission consequently finds that the overall visual impacts of the transmission lines will be minimal and that because of AltaLink s commitments, such visual impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable degree. 95. While the Commission considers that individual members of the LVCR were concerned about the potential negative impact of the proposed project on their property value, it cannot give any weight to their opinion evidence on how much value their property may lose because none of the members possess the skill, knowledge and experience necessary to establish themselves as an expert. Furthermore, the Commission is not persuaded that the underground portion of the transmission lines would have a negative impact to the property value of the nearby residences. 9 Electrical considerations 9.1 Views of AltaLink 96. In its application, AltaLink included modelling to predict the proposed project s electric and magnetic field (EMF) levels which demonstrated the maximum calculated levels for the overhead and underground transmission lines. 47 The profiles confirm that magnetic field levels from the underground transmission lines would be lower than the levels from overhead transmission lines at distances farther than two metres from the centre line. 48 The electric fields would be blocked by the shielding and earth above the underground transmission lines The most conservative EMF levels predicted to result from the proposed project would be substantially lower than the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. 98. The magnetic field at the nearest property line along 37th Street S.W. was expected to be approximately two-milligaus. At the residence, the estimated level would be approximately one milligaus. The ICNIRP guidelines for exposure levels to the general public is Exhibit X0080, AML IR Response to LVCR, PDF pages Transcript, Volume 1, page 210, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 208, lines Decision D (August 31, 2016)

23 2,000 milligaus. Consequently, the magnetic field levels produced by AltaLink s facilities in the area would be well below the ICNIRP guidelines At the location of the riser structures, the highest possible magnetic field level would be a sum of the individual magnetic fields produced by the various components of the transmission lines. Assuming all sources were additive, the total magnetic field at the closest residence would be less than five milligaus, which would be significantly lower than the ICNIRP guidelines To support its modelling, AltaLink committed to measuring the EMF levels at the residences along 37th Street S.W. and 66th Avenue S.W. before and after construction and energization of the proposed project AltaLink retained Exponent, Inc., and filed its report dated February 2014 entitled Status Report on Electric and Magnetic Field Health Research The report suggested that there is no evidence to suggest that extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields are a cause of any long-term effects to human, plant, or animal health Views of the LVCR 102. All of the members of the LVCR expressed concerns about EMF and stated that many people in our society are concerned about EMF Although Ms. Pilgrim did not testify at the hearing, her pre-filed will-say statement indicated the following: Really, all I conclude from this is [AltaLink has] no idea of what thermal backfill is nor the effect of it on EMF. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable because nowhere in their application is there any data provided by AltaLink to predict that there will not be unsafe magnetic fields above the lines Dr. Mesluk indicated particular concerns related to EMF from the riser structures because of the complicated nature of these structures. 56 He explained that in the riser structures the transmission lines curve, then travel vertically 90 degrees before travelling horizontal 90 degrees, forming a coil. He testified that AltaLink had not demonstrated that the EMF levels from the riser structures were predicted to be safe given the limitations of the CAFE program that AltaLink used to complete its EMF modelling Should the proposed project be approved, the LVCR requested that AltaLink commit to sending out someone to record and report the EMF levels after energization Transcript, Volume 1, page 209, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 209, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 208, lines Exhibit X0023, Appendix L Electrical Considerations Information. Transcript, Volume 1, page 228, lines Exhibit X0114, Will Say Statement for Sheila Pilgrim, PDF page 2. Transcript, Volume 1, page 132, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 132, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 229, lines Decision D (August 31, 2016) 19

24 9.3 Commission findings 106. AltaLink filed evidence on the topic of health effects of electric and magnetic fields that was uncontroverted by any other person with relevant expertise in this field. The results of AltaLink s computer modelling of the EMF levels associated with the proposed project showed predicted levels well below the ICNIRP exposure guidelines for the general public of 2,000- milligauss for magnetic fields. The Commission accepts and finds the results of this modelling credible The Commission also considers the following paragraph in the Exponent, Inc. report persuasive: The existing body of scientific literature is extensive and has been thoroughly evaluated by multidisciplinary expert panels convened by numerous national and international health, scientific, and governmental agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO). Overall, none of these agencies and expert panels has concluded that long-term exposure to [extremely low frequency] EMF is known to cause any adverse health effect, including cancer and other illnesses. Recent research does not provide new evidence to alter this conclusion The Commission expects AltaLink to uphold its commitment to measure EMF levels at the residences along 37th Street S.W. and 66th Avenue S.W., including the area near the riser structures, before and after construction and energization of the proposed project Based on the above, the Commission finds that the proposed project is acceptable from an electrical consideration perspective. 10 Construction impacts 10.1 Views of AltaLink 110. AltaLink acknowledged that, should the proposed project be approved, there may be traffic impacts during construction. 60 However, it added that it is committed to ensuring that access to 37th Street S.W. for residents, public transit, emergency services, and recreational users would be maintained and that two-way traffic would continue AltaLink committed to holding an information session for the Lakeview community to provide additional details prior to the start of construction and contact information for a right-ofway coordinator who would act as AltaLink s point of contact for stakeholders. Newsletters and social media would also be used to keep stakeholders up to date regarding the proposed project s construction. All traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be coordinated and approved by the approval authority, namely the City of Calgary roads department Exhibit X0023, Appendix L Electrical Considerations Information, PDF page 4. Transcript, Volume 1, page 205, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 24, lines 1-5. Transcript,Volume 1, page 206, lines Decision D (August 31, 2016)

25 10.2 Views of the LVCR 112. In their statements of intent to participate, Ms. Lindsay, 63 Ms. Pilgrim 64 and Mr. Bickerton 65 stated that the construction of the transmission lines would impede access to the Weaselhead Natural Area and Glenmore Park The LVCR explained that the residents of 37th Street S.W. were recently subjected to a major storm sewer construction project that was disruptive to their lives. 66 Should the proposed project be approved by the Commission, the LVCR requested that AltaLink provide its members with updates on the construction schedule every couple of weeks. 67 It also requested that an AltaLink representative be physically present on-site during construction to address any issues that may arise Commission findings 114. The Commission recognizes that the proposed project, if approved, will create traffic delays for area residents. Given that any adverse impact caused by traffic would be temporary, and taking into account AltaLink s efforts to inform the community, the Commission finds this impact to be acceptable. 11 Environmental impacts 11.1 Views of AltaLink 115. AltaLink retained AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC) to prepare an environmental overview for the proposed project. AMEC was also the consultant that conducted the environmental assessment for the broader Southwest Calgary Ring Road development. Overall, AMEC concluded that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed project would either be within the range of impacts of the Southwest Calgary Ring Road development or would result in no adverse impacts The potential environmental effects associated with the construction of the proposed project through the implementation of AltaLink s Environment Specifications and Requirements (ESR) would be minimal. 69 One reason for its view was that Alberta Environment and Parks was contacted and provided with the proposed project information and did not express any concerns AltaLink stated that it would comply with relevant portions of the Environmental Protection Guidelines for Transmission Lines, (R&R/11-03) and of the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and any other applicable statute, regulation, or rule. It added that it would abide by the Agricultural Pests Act and Weed Control Act to ensure that agricultural diseases and weeds are not introduced as a result of construction Exhibit X0048, Patricia Lindsay Statement of Intent to Participate. Exhibit X0049, Sheila Pilgrim Statement of Intent to Participate. Exhibit X0074, Bruce Bickerton Statement of Intent to Participate. Exhibit X0115, Will Say Statement Dr. Ray Mesluk, PDF page 4. Transcript, Volume 1, pages , lines Transcript, Volume 1, pages 196, lines Exhibit X0002, AML Southwest Calgary Ring Road Application, PDF page 16, paragraph 21. Decision D (August 31, 2016) 21

26 118. In response to the LVCR s concern that the underground cable may leak substances into the surrounding soil, AltaLink explained that it would utilize cross-linked polyethylene cables, which do not contain any fluid substances. 70 AltaLink has used this type of cable in other underground projects and expected no environmental impacts as a result of the cable itself In response to the LVCR s concern about the heat generated from the underground transmission lines, AltaLink replied: Ambient temperatures were analyzed at 0 degrees, minus 10, and minus 30. The analysis outlined in AltaLink s reply evidence illustrates that as the ambient temperature decreases, so does the operating temperature of the transmission line. Although the cable system itself generates heat, as the heat is transferred to the ambient environment, it does so more easily, as is the case with cold weather or freezing soils, and the cable system operates at a lower temperature. Due to this correlation, the underground transmission line will not produce sufficient heat to melt snow and ice during the winter months at the depths of installation proposed for this project Views of the LVCR 120. The LVCR expressed concerns that if a high-pressure, gas-filled pipe or self-contained fluid-filled pipe were to be used to construct the underground transmission lines, there would be a potential for fluid or gas to leak into the surrounding soils Members of the LVCR were also concerned that the heat from the underground transmission lines would be sufficient enough to melt snow during the winter daytime, which would then freeze at night and create a slippery and hazardous road surface Commission findings 122. The Commission understands that AltaLink is subject to, and will comply with, relevant sections of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Environmental Protection Guidelines for Transmission Lines, and other applicable statutes, regulations, rules and guidelines listed in the facility applications AltaLink has prepared an environmental specifications and requirements document and has proposed to implement a number of environmental mitigation measures. The Commission accepts AltaLink s representations in the applications and related evidence that to the extent practical it will implement those mitigation measures in good faith. The Commission recognizes AltaLink s statement that, should the proposed project be approved, following the completion of the remaining environmental studies and surveys, it will finalize the environmental specifications and requirements document and provide the final version to its construction contractor prior to construction Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 25, paragraph 46. Transcript, Volume 1, page 92, lines 1-4. Transcript, Volume 1, pages , lines Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 14, paragraph 37. Exhibit X0088, LVCR Evidence, PDF page 11, paragraph Decision D (August 31, 2016)

27 124. Based on the evidence submitted, the Commission accepts that because the proposed project would utilize a cross-linked polyethylene cable, there is no potential for a fluid or gas leak from the cable into the ground The Commission was not presented with any expert evidence on environmental effects that contradicted the evidence filed by AltaLink. The Commission therefore finds that the mitigation and monitoring measures put forward by AltaLink adequately mitigate the environmental effects of construction and operation of the proposed project, and that the proposed project is in the public interest from an environmental perspective. 12 Decision 126. After consideration of the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons outlined in this decision, the Commission finds that approval of the proposed project is the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the development and its effect on the environment Pursuant to sections 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the applications and is prepared to grant AltaLink the following approvals: Appendix 1 Alter Transmission Line 3L Permit and Licence D Appendix 3 Alter Transmission Line 150L Permit and Licence D Appendix 5 Alter Transmission Line 693L Permit and Licence D Appendix 6 Alter Transmission Line 916L Permit and Licence D Appendix 7 Alter Transmission Line 906L Permit and Licence D Appendix 8 Alter Transmission Line 928L Permit and Licence D Pursuant to sections 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the applications and is prepared to grant TransAlta the following approvals: Appendix 2 Transmission Line 3L Licence D Appendix 4 Transmission Line 150L Licence D Decision D (August 31, 2016) 23

28 129. The Commission cannot issue permits and licences for the alteration and operation of the proposed project within the transportation and utility corridor without the prior written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure. The permits and licences to AltaLink and TransAlta will therefore be distributed separately upon receiving written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure. Dated on August 31, Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Anne Michaud Commission Member 24 Decision D (August 31, 2016)

29 Appendix A Proceeding participants Name of organization (abbreviation) Company name of counsel or representative (AltaLink) B. Hunter J. Yearsley Lakeview Concerned Residents Group D. Campbell Alberta Utilities Commission Commission Member Anne Michaud Commission staff Shanelle Sinclair (Commission counsel) Jesse Baker Taylor McCusker Conrad Dalsin Decision D (August 31, 2016) 25

30 Appendix B Oral hearing registered appearances Name of organization (abbreviation) Name of counsel or representative Witnesses (AltaLink) B. Hunter J. Yearsley C. Chen M. Johns W. Mundy Lakeview Concerned Residents Group D. Campbell R. Mesluk L. Heppner 26 Decision D (August 31, 2016)

31 Appendix C AUC ruling on request for study of alternate routes (return to text) Appendix C.pdf (consists of 1 page) Decision D (August 31, 2016) 27

32 Appendix D AUC ruling on Lakeview Concerned Residents motion (return to text) Appendix D.pdf (consists of 4 pages) 28 Decision D (August 31, 2016)

33 Appendix E AUC ruling on adjournment request (return to text) Appendix E.pdf (consists of 2 pages) Decision D (August 31, 2016) 29

34 December 3, 2015 Mr. Raymond Mesluk th Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3E 5M9 Dear Mr. Mesluk: Southwest Ring Road Transmission Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 Request for study of alternate routes 1. The Alberta Utilities Commission is in receipt of your request for a study of alternate routes in relation to the above-noted Southwest Ring Road Transmission Project applications, Proceeding The Commission has asked that I inform you of its ruling on your request. 2. The Commission denies your request for the following reasons. The Commission makes decisions on applications before it. In this case, the applicant,, has to show that the proposed route meets the requirements of Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments, the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, and Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. Landowners and residents may participate in Proceeding by filing submissions objecting to or expressing concerns about the proposed route, as you have done. Before making a decision, the Commission may hold a hearing on the merits of the applications. A hearing would involve and interested landowners and residents. 3. On November 27, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of application which provides a summary of the applications and indicates how landowners and residents may participate in Proceeding The notice also states that Commission staff will hold an information session regarding the Commission application process and how to participate in this proceeding. However, the merits of the application will not be discussed. The information session will be held on January 6, 2016 at 7 p.m. at the Lakeview Community Association, th Street S.W. Calgary. 4. If you have questions, please contact Taylor McCusker at or taylor.mccusker@auc.ab.ca Sincerely yours, Giuseppa Bentivegna Commission Counsel

35 April 22, 2016 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding Southwest Calgary Ring Road Transmission Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 Ruling on the Lakeview Concerned Residents motion Introduction 1. In this ruling, the Alberta Utilities Commission must determine whether to grant a motion (motion) by the Lakeview Concerned Residents (LVCR) dated April 8, for a full and proper response to an information request it asked of (AltaLink), as general partner of AltaLink L.P. AltaLink opposes the motion. 2. The Commission has authorized the writer to provide its ruling on the motion. Information request 3. On March 29, 2016, AltaLink filed its responses to information requests (IRs) submitted by the LVCR. 4. AltaLink declined to provide certain information requested by the LVCR in IR LVCR-ALTALINK-4(5), stating that the information was confidential and irrelevant to the issues raised in Proceeding IR LVCR-ALTALINK-4(5) and AltaLink s response are as follows: Request: Please provide the agreement between AltaLink and Alberta Transportation regarding relocation of the lines in this Application and Alberta Transportation's funding obligations. Response: The commercial agreement between AltaLink and Alberta Transportation contains confidentiality obligations. Regardless, the agreement between AltaLink and Alberta Transportation is not relevant to the issues in this proceeding. The relevant details of the agreement including the Project details and the costs, which are paid by Alberta Transportation, are set out in the Facility Application Exhibit X0085, Motion for complete and coherent responses to IR s, April 8, 2016, page 1. Exhibit X0080, AML IR Response to LVCR, March 29, 2016.

36 Alberta Utilities Commission April 22, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Motion 5. The motion was submitted pursuant to sections 9, 30 and 31 of Rule 001: Rules of Practice. Section 31.1 requires a party alleging that an information request is not relevant to provide specific reasons in support of its position. Similarly, in refusing to provide requested information on the grounds that the information is confidential, a party must provide specific reasons and an explanation of the harm that would be caused if the information were disclosed. 6. In providing its response to LVCR-ALTALINK-4(5), AltaLink stated that the IR was not relevant and that the requested information was confidential. LVCR submitted that AltaLink s response failed to satisfy the requirements contained in Section 31 of Rule 001 because the company made no effort to give specific reasons why the wording of the document dealing with what it has chosen to disclose is not relevant nor provided specific reasons why the information is confidential and any harm that may be caused if it is disclosed In its letter dated April 12, 2016, the Commission invited AltaLink to comment on the motion. The Commission also afforded the LVCR an opportunity to reply to AltaLink s submissions by April 19, On April 15, 2016, the Commission received comments from AltaLink objecting to the motion. In its response, AltaLink stated the following: As AltaLink indicated in response to LVCR s information request, the relevant aspects of the funding agreement with Alberta Transportation have already been filed on the record of the Proceeding. The relevant facts are as follows: The estimated cost and schedule of the Project have been provided in the Application; As indicated in the Application, all of the Project costs have been allocated to Alberta Transportation (Ex. X0002, para. 226 PDF 58); The [proposed] Project schedule is outlined in the Application (Ex. X0002, para 221 PDF 57); Alberta Transportation, which is responsible for the Calgary Ring Road, confirmed the line relocations that were applied for. AltaLink has filed the letter from Alberta Transportation; and (Ex X0053, PDF 4) which indicates that Alberta Transportation would not agree to line relocations (i.e., any additional scope of work) beyond what AltaLink applied for. 3 Exhibit X0085, Motion for complete and coherent responses to IR s, April 8, 2016, page 2.

37 Alberta Utilities Commission April 22, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Other than the three matters identified above, the agreement with Alberta Transportation is not relevant. The agreement also does not address other types of social and economic effects or effects that the Project may have on the environment. That type of information is within AltaLink s Application and already on the record No response was received from the LVCR to AltaLink s comments on the motion. Commission ruling 10. The Commission has provided guidance 5 with respect to the form and content required in motions requesting direction from the Commission with respect to allegedly deficient information request responses. The Commission indicated that such motions should clearly include, as part of the grounds on which the motion is made: the reasons why the information request response does not comply with the provisions of Rule 001: Rules of Practice, Section 30(1)(b) or 31(1); the materiality of the requested information, in the context of either the principle involved or the approximate impact to the applied-for revenue requirement (or to the subject matter of the application); the purpose for which the requested information is required; the prejudice to the intervener if the requested information is not provided; and how the requested information will assist the Commission in evaluating the application. 11. The Commission considered that the above information should be provided with respect to each allegedly deficient information request response. This information will assist all parties in understanding the rationale for the motion, promote more complete response and reply submissions on the motion, and assist the Commission in evaluating the merits of a motion of this nature. 12. In evaluating the motion the Commission has considered the above guidance given in earlier Commission rulings, the submissions of the parties, and the provisions of sections 29, 30(1) and 31 of Rule 001. Further, the Commission considered the nature of the current proceeding, the materiality of the information and potential impacts to parties of either providing or not providing the requested information. 13. The Commission is satisfied that AltaLink s response to the information request and comments on the motion adequately explain AltaLink s reasons with respect to its objection to filing the agreement with Alberta Transportation, thereby meeting the informational requirements of Section 31 of Rule Exhibit X0087, AML Letter to Parties-Response to LVCR GroupMo_0091.pdf, February 15, For example see Commission letter, dated February 13, 2012, in ATCO Utilities Proceeding 240, Application , Exhibit AUC-240.

38 Alberta Utilities Commission April 22, 2016 Page 4 of The Commission accepts AltaLink s response and finds that the relevant aspects of the agreement with Alberta Transportation have already been filed on the record and that the balance of the agreement is not relevant to the issues raised in the proceeding. In making this finding, the Commission has taken into account that information relating to Alberta Transportation and the cost of the project is available on the record of the proceeding in another form, and that the LVCR will have an opportunity to test this information through cross-examination at the hearing. 15. Given the above finding, it is not necessary for the Commission to rule on the confidentiality of the requested agreement with Alberta Transportation. 16. For the reasons stated above, the Commission will not direct AltaLink to provide a further response to LVCR-ALTALINK-4(5). The motion is dismissed. 17. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at or shanelle.sinclair@auc.ab.ca. Yours truly, Shanelle Sinclair Commission Counsel

39 May 24, 2016 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding Southwest Calgary Ring Road Transmission Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 AUC ruling on adjournment request 1. In this ruling, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide whether to grant an adjournment and reschedule the public hearing for Proceeding 20986, in response to a request from the Lakeview Concerned Residents (LVCR). The Commission has ruled on this request and has directed me to write to interested parties to advise them of its reasons for this ruling. Background 2. On February 26, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of hearing for this proceeding, which scheduled a hearing in Calgary commencing on Wednesday, May 25, On May 20, 2016, LVCR requested that the Commission adjourn the hearing for approximately one month, for two reasons. First, it stated that one of its key witnesses, Dr. Mesluk, is unable to attend the hearing due to medical reasons that arose the week of May 16, Second, it stated that two of its other witnesses are unavailable because they have been assigned by their employers to assist with relief efforts for the fires in the Fort McMurray area. LVCR explained that for these reasons, a hearing commencing on May 25, 2016 would create difficulty for its members. 4. In a letter dated May 20, 2016, (AltaLink) objected to the requested adjournment. AltaLink indicated that other members of LVCR could appear at the hearing to adopt Dr. Mesluk s evidence, and that it would not object to the filing of a written statement from Dr. Mesluk in his absence. AltaLink added that none of the landowners, including Dr. Mesluk, is a technical witness or siting expert. 5. AltaLink further submitted that counsel for LVCR did not explain why the LVCR members currently in Fort McMurray could not attend the hearing by Skype or by teleconference. Commission ruling 6. The Commission has considered LVCR s adjournment request and AltaLink s submissions in this regard and has decided to adjourn the hearing for approximately one month because a number of LVCR members are unavailable to attend the hearing.