Riverview Substation Project

Transcription

1 Decision D Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Facility Applications AltaLink Management Ltd. Interconnection Applications Riverview Substation Project September 28, 2018

2 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D : Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application Proceeding Application A001 EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Facility Applications Proceeding Applications A002, A005 and A006 AltaLink Management Ltd. Interconnection Applications Proceeding Applications A003 and A004 September 28, 2018 Published by the: Alberta Utilities Commission Eau Claire Tower, 1400, 600 Third Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0G5 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 Contents 1 Decision summary Introduction and background AESO needs identification document application Details of the application Commission findings EDTI facility applications Details of the applications Views of the Dorin Group on safety Views of EDTI Findings Jurisdiction Technical and environmental requirements Safety of proposed sites Other issues Public interest AltaLink interconnection applications Details of the applications Commission findings Decision Appendix A Ruling on standing Appendix B Ruling on pre-hearing motion of Dorin Management Group Appendix C Ruling on adjournment motion of Dorin Management Group Appendix D Ruling on requests for notices to attend Appendix E Oral hearing registered appearances and Commission staff List of figures Figure 1: Riverview Substation proposed sites... 5 Decision D (September 28, 2018) i

4

5 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Facility Applications AltaLink Management Ltd. Decision D Interconnection Applications Proceeding Riverview Substation Project Applications A001 to A006 1 Decision summary 1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide whether to approve a needs identification document application from the Alberta Electric System Operator, facility applications from EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and interconnection applications from AltaLink Management Ltd. for a new substation and transmission lines, referred to as the Riverview Substation Project (the project). After considering the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons outlined in this decision, the Commission finds the Alberta Electric System Operator s assessment of the need to be correct and finds that approval of the EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. applications is in the public interest having regard to the social, economic, and other effects of the project, including 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. Accordingly, references in this decision to specific parts of the record are intended to assist the reader in understanding the Commission s reasoning related to a particular matter. Such references 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 and background 3. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) filed an application with the Commission, pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act, seeking approval of the Riverview Substation needs identification document. The application was registered on November 22, 2017, as Application A EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EDTI) filed facility applications with the Commission for approval of the construction and operation of the Riverview Substation and associated fibre optic lines. The proposed facilities were applied for to meet the need identified by the AESO. The applications, filed pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, were registered on December 7, 2017, as applications A002, A005 and A006. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 1

6 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 5. AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) filed interconnection applications with the Commission for approval to interconnect the proposed Riverview Substation to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System, by altering transmission line 1139L and connecting the substation to the transmission line. The proposed facilities were applied for to meet the need identified by the AESO. The applications, filed pursuant to sections 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, were registered on December 8, 2017, as applications A003 and A Pursuant to Section 15.4 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the AESO, EDTI and AltaLink requested that the Commission consider the needs identification document application, facility applications, and interconnection applications jointly. The Commission advised the AESO, EDTI and AltaLink that the applications had been combined and were being considered jointly as Proceeding On February 2, 2018, the Commission issued a notice of applications for Proceeding The notice was sent directly to landowners, occupants and residents within 200 metres of the proposed substation locations, and to any other potentially affected stakeholders. The notice was also published on the AUC website and in local area newspapers. Notification was automatically ed to AUC efiling System users who had chosen to be notified of notices of applications issued by the Commission. 8. AUC staff held a public information session on February 27, 2018, to inform interested persons about the AUC process for reviewing the applications and how they could participate in the proceeding. 9. The Commission received statements of intent to participate from Mark Dorin and the Dorin Management Group (Dorin Group) which was comprised of the following individuals: Dr. Saraswati Prasad Singh Stuart Ian Hay Michel Donoff Edith Cristy Elizabeth Storochuk Dale Braun Coleen Braun Larry Evanoff Guy Lewis Daneve Lucas 10. The concerns raised by the Dorin Group were specific to the construction of the Riverview Substation, but did not take issue with the other applications in Proceeding The Dorin Group also requested, as part of its statement of intent to participate, that the Commission assess its jurisdiction when accepting and acting on EDTI s applications because the Minister of Infrastructure had not yet provided written consent for the project to be located in the Edmonton transportation utility corridor. 2 1 Exhibit X0063, Notice of application for proceeding Edmonton Restricted Area Development Regulations AR 287/ Decision D (September 28, 2018)

7 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 11. On May 28, 2018, the Commission granted the Dorin Group standing and ruled that members of the Dorin Group held interests in land within 500 metres of the project and had brought up concerns related to their properties, property value impacts, and safety impacts that may arise from approval of the project. Additionally, the Commission ruled on the matters regarding its jurisdiction and indicated that it required applicants to obtain written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure for the construction and operation of projects within the Edmonton transportation utility corridor, and that only after receiving this consent would permits and licences be issued. This ruling can be found in Appendix A. 12. The Commission issued a notice of hearing for the proceeding on May 28, Subsequent to receiving information responses from EDTI, the Dorin Group filed a pre-hearing motion 3 on July 9, 2018, seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2018, and requested that the Commission hold a technical meeting with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Infrastructure, Occupational Health and Safety, and any others who may have associated legal duties and a process meeting, as well as requesting a revised process schedule. The Commission denied the adjournment request, but issued a revised process schedule. This ruling can be found in Appendix B. 13. On July 30, 2018, the AESO submitted a motion 4 requesting that the Commission confirm there was no need for the AESO to attend or present witnesses at the hearing, as the Dorin Group did not dispute the AESO s assessment of the need for the project. The Commission ruled on this motion 5 and found it was not necessary for the AESO to attend or present witnesses at the hearing. 14. On August 1, 2018, AltaLink submitted a letter 6 requesting clarification on whether the Commission anticipated having any questions for AltaLink at the hearing. If no questions were to be asked, AltaLink proposed that it not participate in the hearing. The Commission ruled on this request 7 and found it was not necessary for AltaLink to attend or present witnesses at the hearing, since there were no objections to AltaLink s applications for the project. 15. The Dorin Group filed motions 8 on August 17, 2018 and August 20, The first motion sought an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2018, and the second motion requested that the Commission issue notices to various parties to attend the hearing. For the reasons set out in the rulings, the Commission dismissed these motions. The rulings can be found in appendices C and D. 16. On August 21, 2018, prior to the opening of the hearing, the Dorin Group filed a letter indicating that it would not participate in the hearing. 9 3 Exhibit X , Pre Hearing Motion 23128_ Intervenors July Exhibit X0175, Motion re AESO further participation Exhibit X0176, AUC ruling on request to not participate. 6 Exhibit X0177, AML Letter to AUC - Participation at Upcoming Hearing. 7 Exhibit X0179, AUC Ruling on AltaLink Management Ltd.'s request to not participate in the oral hearing. 8 Exhibit X0182, Dorin Group Procedural Motion Aug ; Exhibit X0203, Aug Dorin Group Procedural Motion. 9 Exhibit X0211, August Decline to Participate Dorin and Braun. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 3

8 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 17. A hearing was held on August 21, 2018 in Edmonton, Alberta before Commission Member Neil Jamieson. 18. At the hearing, EDTI presented witnesses that each adopted the evidence contained in its applications, information responses and reply evidence. These witnesses were available for questioning. No other person or group participated in the hearing for Proceeding The oral hearing participants can be found in Appendix E. 3 AESO needs identification document application 3.1 Details of the application 19. EDTI, as the owner of electric distribution facilities in the southwest Edmonton area, requested system access service to serve a growing demand for electricity. EDTI requested a rate demand transmission service contract capacity increase of 24 megawatts. The AESO determined that the need could be met by adding a substation in the southwest Edmonton area, to be designated as the Riverview Substation. The new substation would include two 240/25-kilovolt (kv) transformers, four 240-kV circuit breakers, and fourteen 25-kV circuit breakers. Two new 240/25-kV circuits would be added to connect the Riverview Substation to the existing transmission line 1139L via an in-and-out configuration. 20. The AESO examined other alternatives in response to EDTI s request for system access service. The alternatives included upgrading and expanding the existing Petrolia Substation, upgrading and expanding the existing Jasper Substation, upgrading the existing Summerside and Poundmaker substations, and adding the proposed Riverview Substation and upgrading the existing Summerside Substation. The AESO ruled out the alternatives after determining that they would not be viable from an environmental and social impact perspective. EDTI was not in favour of the alternatives due to substation expansion space constraints and higher costs of the alternatives compared to the project. The alternatives accounted for future developments in the southeast Edmonton area, which EDTI indicated would be the subject of a forthcoming request for system access service. The AESO submitted that it would examine those developments at a later time. 21. The AESO conducted power flow and voltage stability studies to assess the impact of the proposed development on the transmission system. The AESO concluded that the project and associated load would not adversely impact transmission system performance. 22. The AESO directed EDTI and AltaLink to file facility applications with the AUC for the facilities to meet the need identified. 23. The AESO directed EDTI and AltaLink to assist the AESO in conducting a participant involvement program for its needs identification document application. Between November of 2016 and October of 2017, the AESO, EDTI and AltaLink provided notification to stakeholders about the need and other details for the project. The AESO indicated that it was not aware of any concerns or objections raised regarding the project. 24. The Dorin Group did not take issue with the AESO s assessment of the need for the project. 4 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

9 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 3.2 Commission findings 25. The Commission finds that the needs identification document application filed by the AESO contains all the information required by the Electric Utilities Act, the Transmission Regulation and Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments. 26. No interested party demonstrated that the AESO s assessment of the need for the project is technically deficient or that approval of the needs identification document application is not in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission considers the AESO s assessment of the need to be correct, in accordance with Subsection 38(e) of the Transmission Regulation, and approves the AESO s needs identification document application. 4 EDTI facility applications 4.1 Details of the applications 27. To meet the need identified by the AESO, EDTI proposed to construct the Riverview Substation and connect the substation to AltaLink s transmission line 1139L via two EDTI-owned 70-metre slack connections. A preferred and alternate site (proposed sites) were selected for the project and are shown in Figure 1. EDMONTON ANTHONY CAMERON HEIGHTS HENDAY DR. TR. 184 ST. SIHK MASKEKO 216 PREFERRED SITE B 627 ALTERNATE SITE A TRANSMISSION LINE TO BE RENAMED 1139L TRANSMISSION LINE TO BE RENAMED 1164L SLACK-SPAN CONNECTIONS NORTH SASKATCHEWAN R. N.T.S. Figure 1: Riverview Substation proposed sites Decision D (September 28, 2018) 5

10 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 28. For both proposed sites, the Riverview Substation would be located in the northwest quarter of Section 4, Township 52, Range 25, west of the Fourth Meridian. EDTI indicated that the dimensions of the substation fenced area would be approximately 105 metres by 113 metres and that both locations would be within the Edmonton transportation utility corridor near the intersection of Maskêkosihk Trail and Anthony Henday Drive. 29. EDTI stated that Alberta Infrastructure currently leased out the land within the Edmonton transportation utility corridor near transmission line 1139L for agriculture. Alberta Infrastructure confirmed that the lease may be amended or terminated to accommodate transportation or utility infrastructure. In its application, EDTI indicated that it understood the ministerial consent process for the siting of the project in the Edmonton transportation utility corridor. EDTI also confirmed it was applying to Alberta Infrastructure for temporary workspace and an access road. 30. EDTI stated that the preferred site had less social impacts compared to the alternate site, but recognized that the preferred site had greater potential environmental impacts than the alternate site due to its impact on an ephemeral category D wetland. As such, EDTI submitted a Water Act application to Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), seeking approval to disturb the existing wetland, and received Water Act approval on December 20, Upon completion, the Riverview Substation would include the following major equipment: two 240/25-kV, 45/60/75-megavolt ampere load tap changing transformers four 240-kV circuit breakers fourteen 25-kV circuit breakers one 70-metre 240-kV slack-span connection to transmission line 1139L one 70-metre 240-kV slack-span connection to transmission line 1164L 32. EDTI also proposed to construct two fibre optic lines. The first fibre optic line, designated as FO-34, would be approximately 2.2 kilometres in length and would connect the Riverview Substation to EPCOR Water Service Inc. s E.L. Smith Water Treatment Plant. The second fibre optic line, designated as FO-35, would be approximately 200 metres in length and would connect the Riverview Substation to AltaLink s Central Alberta Underground Fibre Optic Build fibre optic cable. 33. EDTI s participant involvement program consisted of notification and consultation. EDTI notified stakeholders by issuing project-specific information packages for the proposed Riverview Substation to landowners, occupants, and residents within 200 metres of the proposed sites, landowners along River Heights Drive, and government agencies, affected companies, and other interested parties. It also conducted personal consultations with 10 companies, four government bodies or agencies, and one charitable organization. 34. EDTI sent project-specific information packages to the Enoch Cree Nation and Papaschase First Nation and consulted with these First Nations. 35. Additionally, a project-specific information package was developed for the FO-34 fibre optic line and was distributed to landowners and encumbrance holders on whose land the fibre optic line would be sited and 49 residents adjacent to the fibre optic line. EDTI consulted with 6 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

11 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Alberta Infrastructure on the FO-35 fibre optic line, as the fibre optic line would be on Alberta Infrastructure s land. 36. EDTI submitted that Mr. Dorin contacted EDTI regarding the project and was engaged in consultation regarding various facets of the project. 10 During this consultation, Mr. Dorin raised concerns relating to oil and gas facilities in the area and the proximity of the project to the existing oil and gas facilities. EDTI stated it undertook a careful review of Mr. Dorin s concerns and, although he appeared to disagree, EDTI determined that the proposed sites were safe locations to construct and operate the project. EDTI also submitted that the resolution of Mr. Dorin s remaining concerns were more properly addressed by the AER. 11 EDTI indicated that Mr. Dorin did not consider his concerns to be resolved. EDTI confirmed there were no other outstanding objections or concerns from stakeholders or interested parties regarding the project. 37. EDTI developed a project-specific environmental protection plan to ensure that the project would be undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner, and to ensure compliance with applicable environmental legislation. EDTI stated that it would comply with AEP s Environmental Protection Guidelines for Transmission Lines, pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Miscellaneous) Regulation. 38. EDTI intended to conduct both breeding and migratory bird surveys in the spring or summer of EDTI added that, in accordance with the recommendation of the local AEP wildlife biologist, the osprey nest identified during the baseline breeding survey would be checked in the spring of EDTI stated that if ospreys were detected, AEP would be contacted to discuss mitigation during construction of the Riverview Substation. Additionally, all data collected during the pre-construction surveys would be provided to the local AEP wildlife biologist and all mitigation measures recommended by the local AEP wildlife biologist would be incorporated into the environmental protection plan. 39. EDTI also completed a noise impact assessment and concluded that the Riverview Substation would meet Rule 012: Noise Control. Additionally, the noise levels produced would be well below the limits established in the City of Edmonton s Community Standards Bylaw. 40. EDTI received Historical Resources Act approval for the Riverview Substation and the FO-34 fibre optic line from Alberta Culture and Tourism on February 13, 2017, and December 11, 2017, respectively. EDTI indicated that the approval for the Riverview Substation included lands for the substation and the FO-35 fibre optic line. 41. The cost of EDTI s part of the project was estimated to be approximately $34,747,162 (within +20 per cent/-10 per cent accuracy) for the preferred site and $34,725,434 (within +20 per cent/-10 per cent accuracy) for the alternate site. All costs would be allocated to the distribution division of EDTI. 10 Exhibit X0010, EDTI FA Riverview Substation New POD, PDF page Exhibit X0010, EDTI FA Riverview Substation New POD, PDF page 23. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 7

12 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 4.2 Views of the Dorin Group on safety 42. The Dorin Group took issue with the proposed Riverview Substation as indicated in the statements of intent to participate submitted by its members. More specifically, Mr. Dorin asked the Commission to consider placing terms and conditions on any approval to be issued relating to siting, construction, and operation of the project. Mr. Dorin also asked the Commission to consider whether the terms and conditions of the licences of oil and gas operations, and for occupation of Restricted Development Area lands, had been implemented or enforced. Additional issues included the nature of the statutory scheme governing the Edmonton transportation utility corridor, property rights and property value impacts, and public safety, as well as competing jurisdiction issues, arising from the proximity of the project s proposed sites to oil and gas operations. The Dorin Group also submitted that the Commission must consider the explosive vapours in the area where the project was proposed to be located and that high voltage substations create electrical ignition sources. The Dorin Group maintained that, from a public safety standpoint, these two items do not mix with acceptable results. 43. On June 11, 2018, the Dorin Group filed its information requests to EDTI and EDTI responded to the requests on June 25, In addition to its responses, EDTI provided the following three attachments: PennWest Emergency Response Plan (Emergency Response Plan), 12 Hazard Review for Proposed EPCOR and AltaLink Substation Adjacent to Cedar Creek Energy [Ltd.] Battery (Hazard Review), 13 Quantitative Risk Assessment for Obsidian Energy Sales Gas Pipeline and Cedar Creek Energy [Ltd.] Battery (Risk Assessment) In its prehearing motion of July 9, 2018, the Dorin Group took issue with the Emergency Response Plan, arguing that it may not have been approved by the AER, or if it was, the approval process was flawed and that the Emergency Response Plan contained errors. The Dorin Group alleged that the Emergency Response Plan was incorrect for the following reasons: It was based on unsubstantiated or inadequate lease boundaries; It was based on the presence of a sales gas pipeline, the use of which had been discontinued; It failed to take account of the repurposed water line; and It was based on an incorrect hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) concentration in the injection well The Dorin Group also had concerns about the Hazard Review and Risk Assessment. It argued that these documents should have been filed with EDTI s applications and had not been provided to the Dorin Group prior to the filing of its information requests. The Dorin Group argued that the Hazard Review was based on incorrect assumptions and contained errors, as it was based on the Emergency Response Plan. 12 Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF pages Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF pages Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF pages Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page 5. 8 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

13 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 46. The Dorin Group submitted that a technical meeting with the AER, Alberta Infrastructure, Occupational Health and Safety, and any others who may have associated legal duties was necessary due to the complexities of the operations of the Cedar Creek Energy Ltd. s (Cedar Creek Energy) Armisie Field, the Emergency Response Plan, and the AER s decisions on the Emergency Response Plan. The Dorin Group argued that the understanding of how the leased area for a tank battery facility becomes a public safety/public interest matter is required to understand the concerns of the Dorin Group Intervenors 16 and raised issues regarding the lease boundaries of the Cedar Creek Energy Tank Battery (Battery). 47. On July 26, 2018, the Dorin Group filed written evidence which was comprised of written submissions and documents 17 and indicated that it would not be tendering any written evidence prepared by independent witnesses. In its submissions, the Dorin Group summarized its interactions with Penn West Petroleum Ltd. regarding construction of oil and gas facilities, such as wells and pipelines, concerns about lands owned and leased by members of the Dorin Group, and its meetings with the AER regarding the H2S concentrations in Cedar Creek Energy s Armisie Field oil and gas facilities, such as the Obsidian Energy Sales Gas Pipeline (sales gas pipeline) and Battery. The Dorin Group made assertions about H2S odours, gas venting and vapour off of the Battery and how the AER had addressed these incidents. 48. The Dorin Group also asserted that the oil and gas facility licensee is not, by virtue of an allegedly inadequate lease boundary around the Battery, fulfilling its responsibility to enforce the requirements of Section 8.090(2) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules. 18 Thus, the Dorin Group alleged that the adjacent oil and gas facilities presented a risk to the project because of an alleged failure to enforce the law that no fire as defined in Section 8.090(1)(a) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules may be created or caused to be created within 50 metres of a source of ignitable vapours The written submissions also indicated that Mr. Dorin attempted to advise EDTI and AltaLink of Cedar Creek Energy s Armisie Field oil and gas and power line operations. The Dorin Group further stated that it was not opposed to the project, but its opposition related to any energy activity with regulatory non-compliance and trespassing by an energy developer on public lands. Mr. Dorin contended that EDTI had not reviewed the precise nature of Cedar Creek Energy s Armisie Field operations to enable it to identify and mitigate all public safety risks and land occupation issues associated with locating the project in proximity to oil and gas facilities. 50. The documents appended to the written submissions related to the AER, compliance matters at the Armisie Field oil and gas facilities, well surveys, surface leases for the oil and gas facilities, and an earlier version of the emergency response plan for such facilities. 16 Exhibit X , Pre Hearing Motion 23128_ Intervenors July , PDF page Exhibits X0139 to X Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page 5. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 9

14 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 4.3 Views of EDTI 51. The Hazard Review and Risk Assessment were prepared by Dr. Brian Zelt, P.Eng., Ph.D., an independent consultant retained by EDTI. In its responses to the Dorin Group s information requests, EDTI stated that Dr. Zelt was asked to conduct an independent analysis to assess the safety of the project. He was not asked to review the Emergency Response Plan In the Hazard Review, Dr. Zelt reviewed the Dorin Group s concerns with respect to the project and the hazards associated with the oil and gas practices at the Battery. 21 The Hazard Review stated that the proposed sites were outside potential hazard distances for fireball/jet fire hazards but were within average and worst-case distances for potential flash fires resulting from a worst-case non-ignited release from the Battery or sales gas pipeline. 22 Dr. Zelt concluded that based upon the review of setbacks, hazard and risks consideration identified in this report, both sites appear to be acceptable. However, on the basis of hazard and risk, the site that is further from hazard (i.e., Battery operations and pipelines) would have the lower hazard and risk ranking The Risk Assessment was a quantitative risk assessment of the sales gas pipeline and Battery to determine whether there was a public safety risk associated with the sales gas pipeline and the Battery. The Risk Assessment concluded that at either of the proposed sites for the project, the location risk levels were lower than all of the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada guidelines. 24 Dr. Zelt s analysis concluded that both of the proposed sites for the project were acceptable and that the proposed preferred site was sited in a safe location relative to the sales gas pipeline and Battery. 54. On August 17, 2018, EDTI filed reply evidence. 25 In its reply evidence, EDTI discussed the Dorin Group s allegations that the adjacent oil and gas facilities licensee was not fulfilling the requirements of Section 8.090(2) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules. EDTI stated that the Dorin Group had not provided evidence that the licensee failed to meet the requirements of Section 8.090(2). 26 EDTI indicated that the Dorin Group had not provided any cogent evidence demonstrating that there was any fire created. 27 EDTI further stated that even if there was evidence demonstrating the presence of vapours emitted from sources of ignitable vapours, there was no evidence that such circumstances would present any meaningful risks of ignition. 28 Additionally, EDTI noted that all oil and gas facilities located near the project fall under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act and the jurisdiction of the AER. 55. EDTI also discussed the Dorin Group s allegations of errors in the Emergency Response Plan. 29 EDTI indicated that an Emergency Response Plan was a planning document for an oil and gas operator that sets out an operator s plan to respond to any emergency event, assists an 20 Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF page Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF page Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF page Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF page Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN , PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence; Exhibit 23128, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence. 26 Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Decision D (September 28, 2018)

15 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. operator to assess the resources it needs to respond to an event, and includes the calculation of an area in relation to which the operator needs to plan its emergency response, referred to as the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). 30 EDTI stated that the EPZ was calculated based on relevant information relating to the oil and gas facilities in question and statistical information, but it was not a hazard assessment. As such, EDTI asserted that the correctness of the Emergency Response Plan was of no consequence to the assessment of the hazard risks that the adjacent oil and gas facilities posed to the project. 31 EDTI also indicated that even after using a conservative approach to assess hazard risks, the risks to the project from potential hazards associated with adjacent oil and gas facilities were substantially below acceptable levels In addition, EDTI prepared three illustrative EPZ maps 33 that accounted for the Dorin Group s allegations of errors in the Emergency Response Plan. The first map showed an EPZ currently used in the Emergency Response Plan. The second map showed an EPZ that reflected the correction of one of the Dorin Group s alleged errors and adopted a larger lease boundary around the Battery. 34 The third map showed an EPZ that reflected the correction of all of the errors alleged by the Dorin Group and reflected a larger lease boundary around the Battery, the sales gas pipelines as being non-operational, the repurposed water line, and higher H2S content for the injection well. 35 The second map illustrated that the EPZ would encroach onto the project s alternate site and the third map illustrated that the proposed sites would not fall within the EPZ EDTI also filed Dr. Zelt s reply evidence on August 17, 2018, 37 which focused on calculations and other information underpinning the EPZ maps and the effect on hazard risk assessment of a non-operating sales gas pipeline. Dr. Zelt also indicated that the Hazard Review and Risk Assessment demonstrated that the risks to the project from potential hazards associated with adjacent oil and gas facilities were substantially below acceptable levels. 38 He added that he had used an industry standard, very conservative approach to assessing hazard risks. The proposed sites were entirely acceptable from a hazard risk assessment perspective, even if one were to accept the errors in the Emergency Response Plan alleged by the Dorin Group. 39 Dr. Zelt added that if one took into consideration that the sales gas pipeline was not currently operating, the risk associated with an ignition event at the Battery to the project was substantially lower than he conservatively assessed in his reports. 40 Additionally, Dr. Zelt stated that if an ignition event were to occur at the Battery, it was highly unlikely that anything would happen that would affect the project Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0200, Attachment 1; Exhibit X0201, Attachment 2; Exhibit X0202, Attachment Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF pages Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0190, EDTI Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence. 38 Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page 8. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 11

16 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 58. During the hearing, in response to Commission questions, Dr. Zelt described the facilities shown in one of the illustrative EPZ maps for the proposed sites for the project. Dr. Zelt testified that the Battery gathered oil effluent from various wells and separated the solution gas out of the oil effluent, 42 and that typically, there were no emissions or vapours coming off of the Battery. 43 Additionally, Dr. Zelt described three pipelines, two of which were effluent lines that gathered oil effluent and one that was the sales gas pipeline, and the transmission lines between the project and the Battery. 59. Dr. Zelt explained that the Hazard Review was a qualitative assessment that determined whether a site was beyond various distances where there could be harm 44 and concluded that between the [two proposed sites], the [preferred site] would be further from the hazard and would be safer than the [alternate site]. 45 When considering the most conservative EPZ scenario, as shown in the second map of the reply evidence, Dr. Zelt stated that: The gas pipeline, again, which is licensed for the facility as the sales gas pipeline, it is no longer used at this point in time, but it's still licensed. Typically when you do an emergency planning zone, you do it to whatever the licensed radar [sic] is. So it's licensed, so you calculate an emergency planning zone; use the maximum operating pressure and the maximum H 2S content. In this case, the different segment this pipeline has various segments, depending on the diameter and the amount of gas in it. This version of it shows 190 metres -- we've revised it it should be 130 metres. This segment that goes up to the facility only has a certain amount of gas, so the emergency planning zone going to the facility is 130. Further down, about 2 kilometres away, it is 190. The [EPZ] for the green rectangle labelled "Tank Battery" is determined by the largest [EPZ] for the pipeline entering or exiting the facility, or by a well that is on site Dr. Zelt further indicated: Well, for the diagram that green line that goes around the cyan tank battery is 190 metres. So the [alternate site] is just beyond 190 metres. It s approximately 200 metres from the corner of the [Battery] fenceline. The [preferred site] is approximately 420 metres EDTI elaborated on Dr. Zelt s statement by clarifying that the measurements from the northwest portion of the Battery to the southeast portions of the alternate and preferred sites were 199 metres 48 and 350 metres, 49 respectively. 42 Transcript, Volume 1, page 23, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 24, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 31, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 31, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 26, line 20 to PDF page 27, line Transcript, Volume 1, page 28, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 28, line Transcript, Volume 1, page 29, line Decision D (September 28, 2018)

17 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 62. Since a quantitative statement of safety could not be made using only the Hazard Review, Dr. Zelt prepared the Risk Assessment that evaluated whether the proposed sites would result in a higher risk in the project area and whether the Battery presented a risk to the project or to the surrounding neighbourhood. Dr. Zelt testified that the Risk Assessment accounted for many ignition sources in the calculation of risk. 50 Dr. Zelt also evaluated the risk of the sales gas pipeline, which had the largest EPZ and the highest potential for offsite risks. 51 Based on the Risk Assessment, Dr. Zelt was of the opinion that the proposed sites for the project were at distances below the comparative levels of risk and that the project was sited in a safe location relative to the Battery and sales gas pipeline. 63. In its final argument, EDTI submitted that the Dorin Group filed numerous documents on the record of the proceeding, most of which were irrelevant to the scope of the proceeding and the Commission s jurisdiction. EDTI added that the Dorin Group s concepts of what facts should be assessed by the Commission and the issues that should be resolved go beyond the scope of the proceeding and the Commission s jurisdiction. 52 EDTI argued that it had addressed all relevant concerns raised by the Dorin Group and that there were no outstanding potential issues of property value or safety impacts in relation to the project EDTI also submitted that the project was in the public interest as it would meet the need identified by the AESO. EDTI further stated that it had taken a comprehensive approach to identifying low-impact locations for the project and had taken meaningful steps to eliminate or mitigate potential social, economic, and environmental impacts on more discrete parts of the community, including the Dorin Group. 54 EDTI contended that the preferred site for the project was the lowest impact site and should be approved. 4.4 Findings Jurisdiction 65. In relation to the applications before it, the Commission has the powers and duties set out in the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Alberta Utilities Commission Act and the Electric Utilities Act, and regulations and rules made under these acts. 66. The Dorin Group raised the issue of the Commission s jurisdiction to consider the EDTI applications a number of times in the course of the proceeding even though the Commission had ruled as follows in its ruling on standing. 22. In its decision on the Heartland Transmission Project, which was an application by AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. for the approval of transmission infrastructure within Alberta s transportation and utility corridors, the Commission stated the following: 708. The Edmonton and Sherwood Park restricted development area regulations provide that the Commission, which is a government agency as that term is defined in both regulations, cannot issue permits and licenses permitting the 50 Transcript, Volume 1, page 33, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 33, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 48, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 49, lines Transcript, Volume 1, page 46, lines 1-5. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 13

18 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. construction of transmission facilities within either restricted development area without the written consent of the minister of infrastructure. Section 4(2) of the Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulations states: (2) No Minister of the Crown, government official or government agency shall, without the written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure, exercise any power under the Municipal Government Act, the Pipe Line Act, the Water Resources Act or any other Act to order, authorize, approve, permit or consent to any operation or activity that causes, is likely to cause or will cause a surface disturbance of any land in the Area, or issue or cause to be issued any order, authorization, approval, permit, licence or consent instrument for that purpose Section 4(2) of the Sherwood Park West Restricted Development Area Regulations is similarly worded In light of these provisions, the applicants commented on the approval process for the construction and operation of a transmission line within the Edmonton transportation and utility corridor in response to an information request from the Commission. The applicants described this process as follows: AltaLink and EPCOR s understanding is that the AUC has jurisdiction to decide upon the Heartland Application prior to the receipt of a Ministerial Consent from Alberta Infrastructure. However, the AUC requires a Ministerial Consent from the Minister of Infrastructure prior to issuing AltaLink and EPCOR permits and licences for transmission facilities within the TUC. In order to construct transmission facilities in the TUC, the AUC, AltaLink and EPCOR require Ministerial Consents. AltaLink and EPCOR will also require a Right of Entry and a Utility Right of Way. For the Heartland Project, Alberta Infrastructure s application process is expected to consist of the following steps: AltaLink and EPCOR apply to Alberta Infrastructure for Ministerial Consents; Alberta Infrastructure reviews the applications and determines whether other authorizations from Alberta Infrastructure are required; Alberta Infrastructure issues the Ministerial Consents. Alberta Infrastructure will forward the AUC a copy of AltaLink and EPCOR s Ministerial Consent and will also issue the AUC a separate Ministerial Consent simultaneously; AltaLink and EPCOR submit an application for a Right of Entry to Alberta Infrastructure; and AltaLink and EPCOR enter into a Utility Right of Way agreement with Alberta Infrastructure. 14 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

19 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd The Commission and its predecessors have previously considered a number of applications for transmission lines within a transportation and utility corridor. When the decision was to approve the application, the past practice was to approve the application subject to the written consent of the minister. This was the approach taken by the Energy Resources Conservation Board in Decision , where the board stated that its approval was subject to the consent of the Minister of the Environment pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Calgary Restricted Development Area Regulations, the board will issue the permits and licenses in due course A similar approach was taken by the board in Decision , discussed earlier in this section, when it stated that it would not proceed with a request for ministerial approvals or the issuance of board approvals until an issue relating to the ownership of the subject line had been resolved More recently, the Commission considered this issue in AUC Decision The Commission found as follows: 26. The Commission does not have the authority to simply direct that the Transmission Lines be relocated to the TUC. That authority belongs to the Minister who controls activities and facilities located in the TUC. The Commission has the authority to approve a transmission line relocation under sections 14 and 17 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. However in relation to the relocation into the TUC, the Commission s approval of such a relocation would be subject to the Minister s approval of the relocation. An application by AltaLink to relocate the Transmission Lines is not presently before the Minister or the Commission Having regard to the clear wording of the relevant provision in both regulations, and having reviewed the previous decisions of the Commission and its predecessors, the Commission finds that it has the jurisdiction to approve the Heartland application on the condition that the applicants provide it with the written consent of the minister of infrastructure. However, the Commission recognizes that it may not issue a permit and licence for the construction and operation of the Heartland project until it receives the minister s written consent. [footnotes removed] Since the Heartland decision (Decision ) was issued, the Commission has required applicants to obtain written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure for the construction and operation of projects within the transportation and utility corridors and provide the Commission with written confirmation of that consent. After the consent is received the Commission then issues permits and licences. The Commission notes that EDTI is aware of its obligation to receive written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure. 56 Given this past practice the Commission finds that the Dorin Group has not presented sufficient reasons to justify a further inquiry into the Commission s jurisdiction to approve the proposed Riverview Substation project as a preliminary matter. 55 Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project, Application Proceeding 457, November 1, 2011, paragraphs Exhibit X0092, EDTI Comments re Standing, PDF page 8. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 15

20 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 67. The Dorin Group did not make any persuasive arguments during the course of the proceeding on the Commission s lack of jurisdiction to consider the proposed Riverview Substation and related transmission applications until the Minister of Infrastructure issued written consent. For the reasons stated above, the Commission has jurisdiction to consider the applications. However, the Commission recognizes that it may not issue permits and licences for the project until it receives the Minister s written consent. If the Commission determines that these applications are in the public interest, it will approve the applications on condition that such consent is obtained and filed in this proceeding. Further, the matters that relate to the administration of the Edmonton transportation utility corridor are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 68. On the matters related to oil and gas facilities, the Commission considers that the AER has jurisdiction over upstream oil and gas facilities and pipelines, including emergency response plans for such facilities, and enforcement of its requirements. Accordingly, the Commission makes no determinations on matters that are solely within the purview of the AER such as those that relate to the oil and gas facilities in the Armisie Field adjacent to the proposed substation site or the regulatory oversight of the AER over these facilities Technical and environmental requirements 69. The Commission finds that the facility applications to construct the Riverview Substation, connect the substation to transmission line 1139L, and construct two fibre optic lines, filed by EDTI pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, comply with the information requirements prescribed in Rule 007. The facility applications are also consistent with the need identified in the needs identification document application. 70. The Commission further finds that the participant involvement program undertaken by EDTI satisfies the requirements of Rule 007. The evidence filed by EDTI with respect to consultation indicates that accurate project information was provided to stakeholders. The Commission recognizes that EDTI consulted with Mr. Dorin and reviewed his concerns as part of its participant involvement program. EDTI provided Mr. Dorin with sufficient information to understand the project and an opportunity to express his concerns. The Commission is satisfied that through the participant involvement program, EDTI demonstrated a willingness to consult with interveners and interested persons and it attempted to resolve the concerns raised by the interveners. 71. The Commission considers that siting the project in the Edmonton transportation utility corridor minimizes the potential environmental impacts of the project because this area is a disturbed area; it is currently under cultivation. The proposed sites avoid the need for access roads due to their proximity to transmission line 1139L (the point of interconnection) and to Maskêkosihk Trail and Anthony Henday Drive. In addition, EDTI has developed a project-specific environmental protection plan, in accordance with AEP s Environmental Protection Guidelines for Transmission Lines (R&R/11-03), enacted pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Miscellaneous) Regulation, and in accordance with the Environmental Construction Operations Plan Framework established by Alberta Transportation, the City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary. Although the preferred site impacts an ephemeral category D wetland, EDTI submitted a Water Act application to AEP seeking approval to affect the wetland, 16 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

21 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. and received Water Act approval on December 20, The Commission considers that the issuance of the Water Act approval and EDTI s adherence to that approval to be strongly indicative that the project s impact on the wetland can be effectively mitigated. 72. Based on the above, the Commission finds that the environmental protection plan adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Riverview Substation and associated fibre optic lines. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the environmental protection plan, 57 the Commission is satisfied that the potential environmental impacts of the Review Substation and associated fibre optic lines will be minimized. 73. The Commission acknowledges that EDTI planned to conduct breeding and migratory surveys in the spring or summer of 2018 and check the osprey nest, identified during the baseline breeding survey, in the spring of In the event this has not been completed, the Commission expects EDTI to complete these surveys and check the osprey nest in the spring or summer of the subsequent year. Additionally, the Commission expects EDTI to discuss mitigation measures with AEP if required Safety of proposed sites 74. Based on his qualifications and experience, the Commission finds that Dr. Zelt is an independent and qualified expert in the field of hazard assessment. 75. The Emergency Response Plan filed by EDTI in relation to the adjacent oil and gas activity in the Armisie Field was obtained from the AER which indicated it was the current approved plan for these oil and gas activities. As such this Emergency Response Plan may be relied on to determine the contents of the plan. The Commission also accepts EDTI s evidence on the purpose of an emergency response plan, the manner in which an EPZ is calculated and that the Emergency Response Plan in question properly indicates the oil and gas facilities licensed by the AER. The Commission finds persuasive the uncontroverted evidence of EDTI and Dr. Zelt s opinion evidence and testimony that any perceived errors in the Emergency Response Plan do not affect the safe siting of the proposed Riverview Substation as demonstrated by the three illustrative EPZ maps 58 filed by EDTI. 76. More specifically, in his reply evidence, Dr. Zelt stated that he reviewed the three illustrative EPZ maps and was satisfied that the first map reflected the currently approved EPZ. Dr. Zelt understood and was satisfied with the second map that showed the currently approved EPZ for the facilities, but incorporate[ed] a larger lease boundary around the tank battery that the Dorin Group claims is a source of ignitable vapour from which the EPZ is measured. 59 In relation to the third map, Dr. Zelt stated that he provided EDTI with EPZ calculations supporting the map, and that the calculations were based on the AER s standard, approved methodology. 60 Dr. Zelt reiterated in his testimony that the Dorin Group s alleged errors in the Emergency Response Plan do not affect the safe siting of the proposed Riverview Substation. 57 Exhibit X0023, Appendix-EPP_ECO Plan, PDF pages 8 to Exhibit X0200, Attachment 1; Exhibit X0201, Attachment 2; Exhibit X0202, Attachment Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page Exhibit X0195, Zelt Rebuttal Evidence, PDF page 4-7. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 17

22 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 77. Further, the Commission accepts EDTI s submissions that the Emergency Response Plan is not an assessment of the hazard risks presented by the oil and gas facilities to the proposed Riverview Substation at the proposed sites. As explained above, EDTI retained Dr. Zelt to prepare the Hazard Review and Risk Assessment to assess the hazard risks associated with a potential ignition event at the adjacent oil and gas facilities on the proposed substation sites. 78. The Commission is satisfied that Dr. Zelt s uncontroverted evidence and testimony demonstrate that the risks to the proposed Riverview Substation at either of the proposed sites from potential hazards associated with adjacent oil and gas facilities are substantially below acceptable levels. The Commission accepts that Dr. Zelt used very conservative assumptions and inputs in his assessment of the risks associated with a potential ignition event from the adjacent oil and gas facilities because Dr. Zelt assumed the presence of an operating sales gas pipeline going into the Battery and used an EPZ of 190 metres. Such an assumption was conservative in the circumstances because, had he taken into account that the pipeline was no longer in operation, the risk associated with the Battery would be substantially lower. In addition, the Risk Assessment accounted for many ignition sources in the calculation of risk and evaluated the risk of the sales gas pipeline, which had the potential for offsite risks and concluded that, at either of the locations proposed for the Riverview Substation, the risk levels were lower than all the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada guidelines. 79. For the reasons set out above, the Commission finds that either of the proposed sites is safe. However, given that the preferred site is located at 350 metres from the Battery while the alternate site is located at 199 metres, the Commission finds that the preferred site is more protective of public safety. 80. The Dorin Group did not participate in the hearing. As a result, it did not adopt its written evidence and such evidence was not tested. The Dorin Group s claims about the explosive vapours in the area where the project was proposed to be located and that high voltage substations create electrical ignition sources were unsupported assertions. The information and submissions filed did not specifically address the risk posed by the proposed substation at the proposed sites. Rather, the Dorin Group made submissions at length about the oil and gas facilities and the regulation of those facilities by the AER and the Dorin Group s interactions with the AER over the years as well as issues with leases for oil and gas facilities. These submissions were not relevant or useful to the Commission in making its decision on the proposed Riverview Substation application. The information provided by the Dorin Group did not address the Hazard Review and Risk Assessment prepared by Dr. Zelt and the submissions of EDTI that the project could be safely located as proposed. For these reasons, the Commission gives the written evidence filed by the Dorin Group little or no weight. 81. At various points during Proceeding 23128, the Commission ruled that the concerns of the Dorin Group respecting the AER and its regulation of oil and gas facilities were out of the scope of this proceeding because these issues were solely within the jurisdiction of the AER. Considering these rulings and the extensive filing of information relating to other regulators and to matters that were outside the scope of this proceeding and the jurisdiction of the Commission, the Commission finds that that the Dorin Group needlessly lengthened the proceeding. 18 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

23 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd Other issues 82. In their statements of intent to participate, members of the Dorin Group identified concerns about impacts of the project on their properties or property values. However, it did not file any evidence in support of these concerns and no evidence in this proceeding demonstrated any potential affects of the project on their properties or property values. Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is no evidence to substantiate these concerns Public interest 83. For the reasons set out above, the Commission finds the proposed Riverview Substation located at the preferred site and associated transmission lines are in the public interest, pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. 5 AltaLink interconnection applications 5.1 Details of the applications 84. To meet the need identified by the AESO, AltaLink proposed to alter the existing transmission line 1139L by salvaging approximately 60 to 70 metres of conductor and adding two structures to support EDTI s in-and-out transmission line configuration. The new transmission line structures would be weathered steel poles. AltaLink proposed to split transmission line 1139L into two separate sections and rename the sections transmission lines 1139L and 1164L. AltaLink and EDTI determined that the demarcation point for ownership of the proposed lines would be at the two new proposed structures. AltaLink would own transmission line 1164L from the last structure before the Petrolia Substation to the demarcation point and transmission line 1139L from the Harry Smith 367S Substation to the demarcation point. 85. As the project is located in the Edmonton transportation utility corridor, AltaLink discussed land access with Alberta Infrastructure and stated that it would be applying for right-of-entry and Ministerial Consent. 86. AltaLink stated that the weathered steel pole structures may use guy wires and anchors as supports. AltaLink added that the design and operating voltages of transmission lines 1139L and 1164L would remain at 240 kv. No additional permanent right-of-way would be required for the project as the new structures would be located within the existing right-of-way. 87. AltaLink conducted a participant involvement program for the project that involved notifying and consulting with all stakeholders within 200 metres of the project, as well as stakeholders in the nearby community of River Heights. AltaLink specified that it sent its project-specific information package to landowners, an encumbrance holder, agencies, oil and gas companies, and industries in the vicinity of the project. AltaLink submitted that although there were no Indigenous consultation requirements, AltaLink sent both Enoch Cree Nation and Papaschase First Nation copies of the project specific information package. In December of 2016 and January of 2017, AltaLink and EDTI jointly engaged with representatives from both First Nations and attended a number of meetings to discuss the project. AltaLink stated that it was not aware of any outstanding Indigenous concerns regarding the project. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 19

24 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 88. AltaLink developed an Environmental Specifications and Requirements document, which is a framework for implementing and monitoring the environmental effects of the project. AltaLink anticipated that the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would result in negligible environmental effects. AltaLink submitted that the project would comply with the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, applicable sections of the Environmental Protection Guidelines for Transmission Lines, and all relevant legislation, regulations, rules, and guidelines. AltaLink further submitted that AltaLink and its contractors would obtain AEP permits prior to conducting wildlife surveys. 89. AltaLink did not complete a noise impact assessment as no continuous noise sources were being added. 90. AltaLink initially received Historical Resources Act approval for the project on December 15, After submitting updated project information and mapping to Alberta Culture and Tourism, AltaLink received another approval on October 5, The cost of AltaLink s portion of the project was estimated to be approximately $3,581,605 (within +20 per cent/-10 per cent accuracy) for the preferred site and $3,545,877 (within +20 per cent/-10 per cent accuracy) for the alternate site. All costs would be allocated to the distribution division of EDTI. 92. The Dorin group did not advance any specific objections to the AltaLink applications. 5.2 Commission findings 93. The Commission finds that the facility applications to alter transmission line 1139L and to connect the Riverview Substation to the transmission line, filed by AltaLink pursuant to sections 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, are consistent with the need identified in the needs identification document application. 94. The Commission also finds that the participation involvement program undertaken by AltaLink meets the requirements of Rule The Commission further finds that the technical and environmental aspects of the project, as submitted by AltaLink, fulfill the requirements of Rule The Commission considers that there are no outstanding technical or environmental concerns associated with the project, nor are there any outstanding public or industry concerns. 97. The Commission recognizes that it may not issue permits and licences for the project until it receives the Minister s written consent and will approve the applications on condition that such a consent is filed in Proceeding Given the considerations discussed above, the Commission finds the project to be in the public interest, pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. 20 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

25 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. 6 Decision 99. Pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act, the Commission approves the need outlined in Needs Identification Document Application A001 and grants the AESO the approval set out in Appendix 1 Needs Identification Document Approval D September 28, This appendix will be distributed separately Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves Application A002 and is prepared to grant EDTI the approval set out in Appendix 2 Substation Permit and Licence D to construct and operate Riverview Substation Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves Application A003 and is prepared to grant AltaLink the approval set out in Appendix 3 Transmission Line Permit and Licence D to alter and operate transmission line 1164L Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves Application A004 and is prepared to grant AltaLink the approval set out in Appendix 4 Transmission Line Permit and Licence D to alter and operate transmission line 1139L Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves Application A005 and is prepared to grant EDTI the approval set out in Appendix 5 Telecommunications Facilities Permit and Licence D to construct and operate the FO-34 fibre optic line Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves Application A006 and is prepared to grant EDTI the approval set out in Appendix 6 Telecommunications Facilities Permit and Licence D to construct and operate the FO-35 fibre optic line Pursuant to sections 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves applications A002 and A003, and is prepared to grant EDTI and AltaLink the approval set out in Appendix 7 Connection Order D to connect the Riverview Substation to transmission line 1164L Pursuant to sections 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves applications A002 and A004, and is prepared to grant EDTI and AltaLink the approval set out in Appendix 8 Connection Order D to connect the Riverview Substation to transmission line 1139L. Decision D (September 28, 2018) 21

26 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd The Commission cannot issue permits and licences for the construction and operation of the project within the transportation and utility corridor without the prior written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure. The permits and licences to EDTI and AltaLink will therefore be distributed upon receiving written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure. Dated on September 28, Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Neil Jamieson Commission Member 22 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

27 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Appendix A Ruling on standing Appendix A - Ruling on standing.pdf (consists of 7 pages) Decision D (September 28, 2018) 23

28 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Appendix B Ruling on pre-hearing motion of Dorin Management Group Appendix B - Ruling on Pre-hearing motion (consists of 9 pages) 24 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

29 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Appendix C Ruling on adjournment motion of Dorin Management Group Appendix C - Ruling on adjournment motio (consists of 4 pages) Decision D (September 28, 2018) 25

30 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Appendix D Ruling on requests for notices to attend Appendix D - Ruling on requests for notice (consists of 3 pages) 26 Decision D (September 28, 2018)

31 Riverview Substation Project Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Appendix E Oral hearing registered appearances and Commission staff Name of organization (abbreviation) Counsel or representative EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EDTI) J. Liteplo T. Crotty-Wong Witnesses C. Wagner G. Newton M. Bensted B. Zelt Alberta Utilities Commission Commission Panel N. Jamieson, Commission Member Commission staff G. Bentivegna (Commission Counsel) A. Ayri K. Wen Decision D (September 28, 2018) 27

32 May 28, 2018 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding Alberta Electric System Operator Riverview Substation Needs Identification Document Application A001 EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. New Riverview Substation Applications A002, A005 and A006 AltaLink Management Ltd. Riverview Substation Connection Applications A003 and A004 Ruling on standing 1. In this ruling, the Alberta Utilities Commission decides whether to hold a public hearing to consider applications by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EDTI), and AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) for approval of a needs identification document and facility applications for the Riverview Substation project located in Edmonton, Alberta. 2. The Commission must hold a hearing if persons who have filed a statement of intent to participate in Proceeding have demonstrated that they have rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision. Such a person may participate fully in the hearing, including giving evidence, questioning of witnesses, and providing argument. This permission to participate is referred to as standing. 3. The Commission issued notice of applications for Proceeding on February 2, The Commission received statements of intent to participate from Mark Dorin and the Dorin Management Group (the Dorin Group) which consists of the following individuals: Dr. Saraswati Prasad Singh Stuart Ian Hay Michel Donoff Edith Cristy Elizabeth Storochuk Dale Braun Coleen Braun Larry Evanoff Guy Lewis Daneve Lucas

33 Alberta Utilities Commission May 28, 2018 Page 2 of 7 4. The Commission has decided that Mark Dorin and members of the Dorin Group have standing in this proceeding. 5. The Commission has authorized me to communicate its decision on standing. Statements of intent to participate 6. Mr. Dorin stated he has an option to purchase an interest in land currently held by Dale Braun and submitted an Option Agreement for Purchase of Real Property in support of his statement of intent to participate. 1 That land is located in Section 4, Township 52, Range 25, west of the Fourth Meridian. Mr. Dorin stated the Commission should consider the terms and conditions of approval considered, decided upon, and issued related to siting, construction, and operation of the Riverview Substation. Mr. Dorin also stated the Commission should consider what the terms and conditions of licensing to oil and gas operations, and occupation of Restricted Development Area lands, are related to existing operations, and whether the terms have been kept or enforced. 7. Members of the Dorin Group have an interest in lands in very close proximity to the proposed sites of the Riverview Substation project. Specifically, nine of the 10 members of the Dorin Group have interests in land located in legal subdivisions 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Section 4, Township 52, Range 25, west of the Fourth Meridian, approximately 180 metres from the Riverview Substation project. Dr. Singh is the owner of land in the southwest and southeast quarters of Section 4, Township 52, Range 25, west of the Fourth Meridian, approximately 480 metres from the Riverview Substation project. 8. In the Dorin Group s statement of intent to participate, some of the issues outlined were the nature of the statutory scheme governing the Edmonton Restricted Development Area, and more generally, transportation utility corridors, property rights and property value impacts, and public safety, as well as competing jurisdiction issues arising from the proximity of the Riverview Substation project s site to oil and gas operations. The Dorin Group stated further process was not required if the Commission issued conditional consent for siting the Riverview Substation, with certain terms and conditions to be complied with prior to issuance of a permit and licence. 9. The Dorin Group also submitted that the Commission must consider the explosive vapours in the area where the Riverview Substation is proposed to be located and that high voltage substations create electrical ignition sources, and these two items do not mix with acceptable results from a public safety standpoint. 2 The Dorin Group submitted that it could not prove that EDTI had mitigated risks associated with the proximity between the proposed locations for the Riverview Substation and existing oil and gas operations. 3 1 Exhibit X0093, Braun Dorin Option Agreement. 2 Exhibit X0096, Response to EPCOR Comments re Standing, PDF page Exhibit X0096, Response to EPCOR Comments re Standing, PDF page 16.

34 Alberta Utilities Commission May 28, 2018 Page 3 of 7 How the Commission determines standing 10. Section 9(2) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act sets out how the Commission must determine standing: (2) If it appears to the Commission that its decision or order on an application may directly and adversely affect the rights of a person, the Commission shall (a) give notice of the application in accordance with the Commission rules, (b) give the person a reasonable opportunity of learning the facts bearing on the application as presented to the Commission by the applicant and other parties to the application, and (c) hold a hearing. [emphasis added] 11. The meaning of the key phrase, directly and adversely affect, has been considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal on multiple occasions, and the legal principles set out by the court guide the Commission when it determines standing. Standing is determined by application of a two-part test. The first test is legal: a person must demonstrate that the right being asserted is recognized by law. This could include property rights, constitutional rights or other legally recognized rights, claims or interests. The second test is factual: a person must provide enough information to show that the Commission s decision on the application may directly and adversely affect the person s right, claim or interest To determine if a right is directly affected, the court has said that [s]ome degree of location or connection between the work proposed and the right asserted is reasonable. 5 When considering the location or connection, the Commission looks at factors such as residence and the frequency and duration of the applicant s use of the area near the proposed site The Commission summarized court decisions relating to the meaning of the phrase directly and adversely affected in a decision issued in 2015 and concluded that to pass the test for standing, the potential effects associated with a decision of the Commission must be personal rather than general and must have harmful or unfavourable consequences. The Commission further commented that the court decisions highlight the need for persons seeking standing to demonstrate the degree of connection between the rights asserted and potential effects identified The Commission assesses the potential for a direct and adverse effect on a case-by-case basis. It considers the specific circumstances of each proposed project application and each statement of intent to participate that it receives. In the past, the Commission has decided that general or broad concerns about a proposed project will generally be insufficient to establish 4 Cheyne v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 94; Dene Tha First Nation v Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68 [Dene Tha ]. 5 Dene Tha. 6 Sawyer v Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2007 ABCA Decision 3110-D , Market Surveillance Administrator Allegations against TransAlta Corporation et al., Phase 2 Preliminary matters; Standing and Restitution, Proceeding 3110, September 18, 2015.

35 Alberta Utilities Commission May 28, 2018 Page 4 of 7 standing, unless a more specific link or connection to the demonstrated or anticipated characteristics of a proposed project is established. Ruling 15. Based on the information filed, the Commission is prepared to assume without deciding that Mr. Dorin represents the specific individuals identified in paragraph three of this ruling. 16. The Commission is satisfied that members of the Dorin Group have demonstrated that they have legal rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision on the applications. The members of the Dorin Group and Mark Dorin all hold interests in land within 500 metres of the Riverview Substation project and have demonstrated that the Commission s decision on the applications has the potential to result in a direct and adverse effect on them. The potential effects described by these persons include concerns related to their properties, property value impacts, and safety impacts that may arise from approval of the Riverview Substation project. In the Commission s view these concerns have a sufficient nexus to matters raised in the applications to support a request for standing. 17. As stated in the Commission s previous letter, the Commission will not scope the proceeding at this stage. However, the Commission is mindful of the concerns about the scope of this proceeding raised by EDTI. The Commission reminds the Dorin Group that any concerns brought forward must be relevant to the issues raised in this proceeding. It is incumbent on each intervener to establish a connection between their concerns and the Riverview Substation project. Evidence on property value and safety impacts are acceptable, however, if there are other issues that the Dorin Group wishes to submit evidence on, please submit a request to the Commission with additional information to help the Commission determine if the additional proposed evidence will be within the scope of this proceeding. 18. The Dorin Group stated that further process was not required if the Commission issued conditional consent for siting the Riverview Substation project, with certain terms and conditions to be complied with prior to issuance of a permit and licence. It is apparent to the Commission that the Dorin Group may not fully understand the Commission s process. Section 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act states that the Commission may approve a project, deny a project or approve a project with conditions. The Commission hears evidence from parties and then issues a decision on a project application. Parties may advocate for the imposition of conditions however, the Commission sets the process before making its decision on the application. Once a decision is issued, there is no further process and the applicants may commence construction once all other relevant approvals have been obtained. As such, the imposition of conditions is premature at this stage. The Commission will hold a hearing to consider the applications in this proceeding. A notice of hearing is being issued concurrently with this ruling letter. 19. Regarding the next process step, which is information requests to the applicants, the Commission has decided to deal with relevance on a case by case basis. In other words, should the applicants deem information requests to be irrelevant to the issues raised in this proceeding they can decline to answer on that ground and the Commission will rule on relevance as necessary.

36 Alberta Utilities Commission May 28, 2018 Page 5 of The Commission also reminds members of the Dorin Group that relevance of the issues raised is one factor that the Commission will take into account in applications for the recovery of costs brought under Rule 009: Rules on Intervener Costs. Jurisdiction as a preliminary matter 21. The Dorin Group made the following request in the materials filed in support of its statement of intent to participate: With great respect, this Commission is requested, as a preliminary matter, to assess its jurisdiction to accept and act on EPCOR s application for completeness reasons and absent clear written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure or a delegate of the Minister and to treat these submissions as a challenge to the jurisdiction of this Commission to do so In its decision on the Heartland Transmission Project, which was an application by AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. for the approval of transmission infrastructure within Alberta s transportation and utility corridors, the Commission stated the following: 708. The Edmonton and Sherwood Park restricted development area regulations provide that the Commission, which is a government agency as that term is defined in both regulations, cannot issue permits and licenses permitting the construction of transmission facilities within either restricted development area without the written consent of the minister of infrastructure. Section 4(2) of the Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulations states: (2) No Minister of the Crown, government official or government agency shall, without the written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure, exercise any power under the Municipal Government Act, the Pipe Line Act, the Water Resources Act or any other Act to order, authorize, approve, permit or consent to any operation or activity that causes, is likely to cause or will cause a surface disturbance of any land in the Area, or issue or cause to be issued any order, authorization, approval, permit, licence or consent instrument for that purpose Section 4(2) of the Sherwood Park West Restricted Development Area Regulations is similarly worded In light of these provisions, the applicants commented on the approval process for the construction and operation of a transmission line within the Edmonton transportation and utility corridor in response to an information request from the Commission. The applicants described this process as follows: AltaLink and EPCOR s understanding is that the AUC has jurisdiction to decide upon the Heartland Application prior to the receipt of a Ministerial Consent from Alberta Infrastructure. However, the AUC requires a Ministerial Consent from 8 Exhibit X0096, Response to EPCOR Comments re Standing, PDF page 30.

37 Alberta Utilities Commission May 28, 2018 Page 6 of 7 the Minister of Infrastructure prior to issuing AltaLink and EPCOR permits and licences for transmission facilities within the TUC. In order to construct transmission facilities in the TUC, the AUC, AltaLink and EPCOR require Ministerial Consents. AltaLink and EPCOR will also require a Right of Entry and a Utility Right of Way. For the Heartland Project, Alberta Infrastructure s application process is expected to consist of the following steps: AltaLink and EPCOR apply to Alberta Infrastructure for Ministerial Consents; Alberta Infrastructure reviews the applications and determines whether other authorizations from Alberta Infrastructure are required; Alberta Infrastructure issues the Ministerial Consents. Alberta Infrastructure will forward the AUC a copy of AltaLink and EPCOR s Ministerial Consent and will also issue the AUC a separate Ministerial Consent simultaneously; AltaLink and EPCOR submit an application for a Right of Entry to Alberta Infrastructure; and AltaLink and EPCOR enter into a Utility Right of Way agreement with Alberta Infrastructure The Commission and its predecessors have previously considered a number of applications for transmission lines within a transportation and utility corridor. When the decision was to approve the application, the past practice was to approve the application subject to the written consent of the minister. This was the approach taken by the Energy Resources Conservation Board in Decision , where the board stated that its approval was subject to the consent of the Minister of the Environment pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Calgary Restricted Development Area Regulations, the board will issue the permits and licenses in due course A similar approach was taken by the board in Decision , discussed earlier in this section, when it stated that it would not proceed with a request for ministerial approvals or the issuance of board approvals until an issue relating to the ownership of the subject line had been resolved More recently, the Commission considered this issue in AUC Decision The Commission found as follows: 26. The Commission does not have the authority to simply direct that the Transmission Lines be relocated to the TUC. That authority belongs to the Minister who controls activities and facilities located in the TUC. The Commission has the authority to approve a transmission line relocation under sections 14 and 17 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. However in relation to the relocation into the TUC, the Commission s approval of such a relocation would be subject to the Minister s approval of the relocation. An application by AltaLink to relocate the Transmission Lines is not presently before the Minister or the Commission.

38 Alberta Utilities Commission May 28, 2018 Page 7 of Having regard to the clear wording of the relevant provision in both regulations, and having reviewed the previous decisions of the Commission and its predecessors, the Commission finds that it has the jurisdiction to approve the Heartland application on the condition that the applicants provide it with the written consent of the minister of infrastructure. However, the Commission recognizes that it may not issue a permit and licence for the construction and operation of the Heartland project until it receives the minister s written consent. [footnotes removed] Since the Heartland decision (Decision ) was issued, the Commission has required applicants to obtain written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure for the construction and operation of projects within the transportation and utility corridors and provide the Commission with written confirmation of that consent. After the consent is received the Commission then issues permits and licences. The Commission notes that EDTI is aware of its obligation to receive written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure. 10 Given this past practice the Commission finds that the Dorin Group has not presented sufficient reasons to justify a further inquiry into the Commission s jurisdiction to approve the proposed Riverview Substation project as a preliminary matter. 24. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned by phone at or by at Shanelle.H.Sinclair@auc.ab.ca. Yours truly, Shanelle Sinclair Commission Counsel 9 Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project, Application Proceeding 457, November 1, 2011, paragraphs Exhibit X0092, EDTI Comments re Standing, PDF page 8.

39 July 20, 2018 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Riverview Substation Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 Ruling on Pre-hearing Motion of Dorin Management Group 1. In this ruling, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide on the matters raised in the pre-hearing motion filed by the Dorin Management Group (Dorin Group) filed on July 9, Specifically, the Commission must rule on whether to grant the adjournment request, whether to hold a technical meeting with Alberta Infrastructure, Occupational Health and Safety and any others who may have associated legal duties and a process meeting, and whether to revise the hearing process schedule dated May 28, The Commission also must decide whether to grant the alternative proposal of the Dorin Group that the Commission review the obvious errors in a sour gas emergency response plan filed by EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EDTI) as part of its information responses and make the findings on the emergency response plan (ERP) requested by the Dorin Group. 3. For the reasons set out below, the Commission denies the adjournment request and the request to hold a technical meeting or a process meeting. 4. Regarding revising the hearing process schedule, the Commission did not suspend the process schedule for Proceeding and the Dorin Group should have filed intervener evidence by July 10, 2018, but did not do so. To ensure a fair process, the Commission affords the Dorin Group a further opportunity to file intervener evidence. As a result, a revised proceeding schedule for the remaining process steps is set out below. Pre-hearing motion 5. On July 9, 2018, the Dorin Group filed a pre-hearing motion in Proceeding seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, It further requested that the Commission hold a technical meeting with Alberta Infrastructure, Occupational Health and Safety and any others who may have associated legal duties and a process meeting, as well as a revised process schedule for the proceeding. 1 Exhibit X

40 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 2 of 9 6. The grounds for the pre-hearing motion are as follows. The Dorin Group submitted that it is not satisfied with the EDTI information responses of June 25, 2018 because EDTI provided partial responses, declined to answer some information requests, filed three additional documents, 2 and declined to provide other documents requested such as lease agreements that establish the Cedar Creek Lease Boundary. 7. The Dorin Group added that the first document filed by EDTI, namely the PennWest Emergency Response Plan, has the potential to simplify the issues and expedite the proceeding if the Commission has sufficient regard to a related pipeline (Licence 35962) discontinuance decision (dated February 1, 2016) of the Alberta Energy Regulator. 3 However, the Dorin Group took issue with the ERP arguing that it may not have been approved by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), or if it was, the approval process was flawed and that the ERP contained errors. The Dorin Group made lengthy submissions about the ERP, the AER Directive 71: Emergency Preparedness and Response for the Petroleum Industry, and deficiencies in the AER processes. 8. The Dorin Group further stated that the second and third document filed by EDTI, namely the Hazard Review for Proposed EPCOR and AltaLink Substation Adjacent to Cedar Creek Energy Battery (Hazard Review) and the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Obsidian Energy Sales Gas Pipeline and Cedar Creek Energy Battery (Risk Assessment) were not filed with the EDTI application and were not provided to the Dorin Group prior to the filing of the information responses. The Dorin Group contended that these documents have the potential to unnecessarily complicate and extend the proceeding and cause unnecessary cost and time to be expended by it and the Commission. The Dorin Group also argued that the Hazard Review is based on incorrect assumptions and contained errors as it was based on the ERP. It submitted that given the complexities of these documents, that they were filed on June 25, 2018, and that the Dorin Group has to seek the Commission s permission to raise new issues, the Dorin Group was unable to file its evidence in response to these documents within the specified timelines in the process schedule for the proceeding. 9. Regarding the request for a technical meeting, the Dorin Group submitted that such a meeting was necessary due to the complexities of the operations of the Armisie Field, the ERP and AER s decisions on the ERP. It contended that if Alberta Infrastructure and Dr. Zelt, the author of the Hazard Review and Risk Assessment, were involved in the technical meeting such involvement might simplify the process and reduce the issues in dispute. The Dorin Group made submissions on its interactions with staff at Alberta Infrastructure on the Edmonton Restricted Development Area regarding a plan of survey related to lease agreements, hazards and regulatory 2 Exhibit X0133, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN Attachment 1, PennWest Emergency Response Plan, Edmonton Property, Armisie / Leduc Field, PDF pages 11-78, EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN Attachment 1, Hazard Review for Proposed EPCOR and AltaLink Substation Adjacent to Cedar Creek Energy Battery 06-04, Zelt Professional Services Inc., 24 November 2017,PDF pages , and EPCOR-DORIN-2018JUN Attachment 2, Quantitative Risk Assessment for Obsidian Energy Sales Gas Pipeline and Cedar Creek Energy Battery 06-05, Zelt Professional Services Inc., 17 November 2018 PDF pages Exhibit X0134.1, PDF page 4.

41 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 3 of 9 non-compliance. The Dorin Group acknowledges that enforcement of alleged non-compliance related to oil and gas issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding. 4 However, it argued that understanding of how the leased area for a tank battery facility becomes a public safety/public interest matter is required to understand the concerns of the Dorin Group and again referred to a 2016 AER proceeding. 5 The Dorin Group raised issues regarding the lease boundaries of the Cedar Creek Tank Battery such as asking the Commission to direct Alberta Infrastructure to produce a copy of the surface lease agreement being relied on by Cedar Creek Energy Ltd. and/or Obsidian Energy in the public interest In the event that the Commission denied its request for an adjournment, technical meeting or a process meeting, the Dorin Group requested that the Commission rule on whether the three EDTI documents referred to above constitute evidence and whether EDTI should be compelled to revise its application 7 in light of the new information contained in its motion. It reiterated its concerns about AER requirements, approvals and processes in relation to the oil and gas activity adjacent to the proposed substation and about the processes of Alberta Infrastructure used to make decisions regarding the Edmonton Restricted Development Area. EDTI Response to the Pre-hearing Motion 11. EDTI opposed the pre-hearing motion and requested that the Commission dismiss it because the motion did not provide any reasonable basis for the relief requested by the Dorin Group. 8 It submitted that the issues raised by the Dorin Group in support of the motion were not relevant to the two issues on which the Dorin Group was granted standing: safe siting of the proposed substation and the potential impacts of the proposed substation on property values. EDTI added that the issues raised in support of the pre-hearing motion were not relevant to the exercise of the Commission s jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. 12. Regarding the adjournment request, EDTI argued that the objective of the Dorin Group was to use the Commission s regulatory process as a means of seeking redress respecting the operation and regulation of the oil and gas facilities adjacent to the proposed substation site. EDTI submitted that these facilities fall solely within the jurisdiction of AER, and are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission or the matters at issue in this proceeding. In support of its argument, it pointed to the detailed description in numerous paragraphs of the pre-hearing motion of the Dorin Group s interactions and submissions to AER and the AER s process or response. EDTI further submitted that as indicated in paragraph 33 of the pre-hearing motion, the Dorin Group understands that its concerns should be brought to the AER, and (ii) that the problem that the Dorin Group is attempting to solve through its Motion (and, more generally, 4 Exhibit X0134.1, PDF page 10, paragraph Exhibit X0134.1, PDF page Exhibit X0134.1, PDF page Exhibit X Exhibit X0136, PDF page 2.

42 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 4 of 9 by participating in this proceeding) is what it perceives to be an unwillingness on the part of the AER to take action in response to its concerns In response to the Dorin Group s allegations that the ERP filed as part of EDTI s information responses was outdated, based on wrong information or not approved by AER, EDTI submitted that EDTI and the Commission may assume that AER has effectively exercised and is exercising its jurisdiction over the oil and gas facilities in question and the ERP for those facilities. It added that the Commission s jurisdiction did not include judging the performance of other Alberta regulators such as AER. EDTI addressed the issues raised about the ERP. EDTI further submitted that no adjournment was necessary to allow the Dorin Group to file evidence regarding the ERP because the Dorin Group appears fully prepared to respond to its alleged error. The Motion refers repeatedly to a document authored by the Dorin Group entitled the EPCOR Report (the Report), a copy of which was submitted to EDTI on May 23, 2017 and filed with the Commission as X It added that as the ERP was a publicly available document, the assertion of the Dorin Group that it is unable to file evidence due to the timing of filing of the ERP was unfounded. 14. EDTI also responded to the Dorin Group s assertion that it needed an adjournment to submit evidence because the Dorin Group has to seek the Commission s permission to file such evidence. As noted above, EDTI referred to the Commission s ruling on standing, to argue that the Commission had stated that evidence on property value and safety impacts is acceptable. EDTI submitted that the pre-hearing motion did not propose the filing of evidence beyond these categories. As the ERP, Hazard Assessment, and Risk Assessment are all matters related to safety impacts, there was no need to seek permission from the Commission to file evidence relevant to safety impacts. EDTI also submitted that the proceeding schedule established by the Commission afforded the Dorin Group ample time to gather evidence on the safety impacts, and respond to the EDTI application and responses to information requests. Also, an adjournment of the hearing would be prejudicial to it in that it would result in additional project costs. As a result, no adjournment was needed. 15. In response to the Dorin Group s question about whether Dr. Zelt will be called as a witness at the hearing, EDTI noted that, in its information response, it had indicated that Dr. Zelt would be seated as a witness at the oral hearing to respond to relevant questions respecting his reports. 11 As such, the Dorin Group will have an opportunity to question Dr. Zelt on his reports and no adjournment was needed. 16. EDTI further submitted that a technical meeting was not necessary to clarify any document or issue in this proceeding because it appeared that the intent of the technical meeting, as proposed by the Dorin Group, was to review issues related to the ERP and the regulatory history of the Armisie field, including a tank battery facility. EDTI submitted that these issues 9 Exhibit X0136, PDF page Exhibit X0136, PDF page Exhibit X0136, PDF page 6.

43 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 5 of 9 were not relevant to its application and reiterated that these matters fall with the jurisdiction of the AER and not that of the Commission. It added that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to compel the attendance of Alberta Infrastructure or Alberta Occupation Health and Safety at a technical meeting because they are not parties to this proceeding. 17. On the alternate request of the Dorin Group, EDTI submitted that the request for the Commission to review the ERP and make findings on its sufficiency is outside the Commission s jurisdiction for the above-noted reasons. It is also inconsistent with the Commission s process as described in the ruling on standing. Therefore, EDTI submitted that this alternate request should be denied. In addition, EDTI submitted that the request for an adjournment, until EDTI shows that there is an up-to-date AER approved ERP and a reasonable chance that the Minister of Infrastructure would approve the siting of the proposed substation, was unfounded and should be denied. Further, this request seeks to have the Commission to impose certain conditions on the process for this proceeding and is inconsistent with the Commission s process and the Commission s jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. 18. On the Dorin Group request for a ruling on the documentary evidence and compelling EDTI to revise its application, EDTI submitted that the oral hearing will provide the Dorin Group with a full and procedurally fair opportunity to challenge the application and evidence filed by EDTI, to the extent it wishes to do so. 19. With respect to the Dorin Group s failure to file evidence in accordance with the proceeding schedule, EDTI stated that the mere filing of a motion does not suspend the proceeding schedule and asked the Commission to enforce the schedule as issued. It submitted that, if the Dorin Group wanted to file additional evidence, it would have to seek the Commission s permission to do so. However, if the Commission were to give the Dorin Group additional time to file evidence, the delay should be no more than 10 days and the Commission should maintain the currently scheduled hearing date. EDTI added the Dorin Group should not need more than 10 days seeing the voluminous materials already filed by the Dorin Group in this proceeding, Mr. Dorin s intimate familiarity with the history and operations of the adjacent oil and gas facility and their catalogue of thousands of pages of documents that pertain to the related facts associated with Armisie Field. 12 EDTI proposed a revised process schedule for the remaining steps. Reply of Dorin Group 20. On July 20, 2018, the Dorin Group filed its reply to EDTI s response to its pre-hearing motion. The Dorin Group reiterated that it filed the pre-hearing motion because it was not satisfied with EDTI s information responses. It contended that EDTI overlooked risks and assessed risks that were irrelevant. It reiterated its concerns with the ERP, the Hazard Assessment and Risk Assessment and argued that, although the Dorin Group can cross-examine Dr. Zelt at the oral hearing, the Commission should question the need for an oral hearing given 12 Exhibit X0136, PDF page 9.

44 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Dr. Zelt s findings. The Dorin Group added that assuming that the Commission is the only decision maker, there are implications related to the ERP that are beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Dorin Group submitted that: Most importantly, as far as the Dorin Group is concerned, the Information Request and related pre-hearing Motion processes have narrowed the issues to the degree that an oral hearing is not required. Moreover, for Intervenors to be caused to prepare for an unnecessary oral hearing, as to matters that remain unclear in the Facility Application after the Information Request process has been completed, is a waste of Intervenor time and resources, and those of this Commission, when there is no assurance that Intervenor real costs will be covered by EPCOR or that Intervenors will not be required to pay EPCOR s costs arising because EPCOR filed an incomplete erroneous application The Dorin Group also argued that the scope of the proceeding and the jurisdiction of the decision-making panel should be expanded. It submitted that it did not have sufficient time to reply to EDTI s response to the pre-hearing motion or to prepare and file written evidence. 22. The Dorin Group reiterated its request for a technical meeting and the reasons for its request, such as EDTI reliance on anecdotal advice and on AER documents, and issues with the oil and gas activity adjacent to the proposed substation site. The Dorin Group requested that the Commission compel EDTI and Dr. Zelt to attend a technical meeting. 23. The Dorin Group submitted new arguments regarding the choice of locations for the proposed substation. It also argued that the Commission should review the effectiveness of gas venting risk mitigation efforts and made lengthy submissions on the various AER applications and requirements. The Dorin Group contended that it is not seeking in this proceeding redress for matters falling within the jurisdiction of AER. The Dorin Group made more extensive submission in its reply on compensation and the Surface Rights Act. 24. The Dorin Group stated that it was preparing to file a reconsideration application with AER and requesting information from Alberta Infrastructure. It requested permission to file copies of letters to be written to AER and applications to be filed with AER. 25. The Dorin Group further submitted that if the Commission were to deny the relief requested in its pre-hearing motion, the Commission should cancel the oral hearing and direct the parties to file written evidence, possibly including affidavits, and to submit arguments related solely to gas venting public safety issues by the date set for the oral hearing (August 21, 2018) Exhibit X0137, pdf page 3 14 Exhibit X0137, pdf page 19.

45 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 7 of 9 Ruling 26. The Commission has authorized me to inform you of its ruling on the pre-hearing motion. 27. At the outset of this ruling, the Commission wants to dispel any misunderstanding respecting the matters over which it has jurisdiction in this proceeding. The powers and duties of the Commission are set out in the enactments that govern the Commission. For purposes of this proceeding, the powers and duties of the Commission are set out in the Hydro and Electric Energy Act and the Alberta Utilities Commission Act and regulations and rules made under these acts. Although the Dorin Group acknowledged that AER has jurisdiction over upstream oil and gas facilities and pipelines, including ERPs for such facilities, and enforcement of its requirements, the Dorin Group makes lengthy submissions on the ERP arguing that it may not have been approved by AER, or if it was, the approval process was flawed and that the ERP contained errors, on the AER Directive 71: Emergency Preparedness and Response for the Petroleum Industry, and deficiencies in the AER processes. Additional submissions on this issue are made in the Dorin s Group reply as noted above. The Dorin Group is basing its pre-hearing motion in part on these matters. In this ruling, the Commission will not consider matters that are solely within the purview of AER such as those that relate to the oil and gas facilities in the Armisie field adjacent to the proposed substation site and AER s regulatory oversight of these facilities because these matters are not within the Commission s jurisdiction. For this reason, the Commission will not grant the Dorin Group permission to file in this proceeding its future correspondence with AER or applications made to AER. 28. In addition, as previously stated in the Commission s ruling on standing, Alberta Infrastructure has jurisdiction over matters related to facilities within the area governed by the Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulation. The Commission will not consider any requests directing Alberta Infrastructure to provide documents regarding leases pertaining to the area of the proposed substation to the Dorin Group because the Commission does not have jurisdiction to issue such a direction. Also, even if the Commission were to consider that a technical meeting was needed, which as explained below the Commission does not, the Commission has no authority to direct Alberta Infrastructure or Alberta Occupational Health and Safety to participate in a technical meeting because these ministries are not parties to this proceeding and are not under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 29. As a result, given the distinct legislative authority of the Commission, AER and Alberta Infrastructure, the Commission will make a decision on the applications before it in this proceeding and will not issue any directions to any other agency or ministry. 30. With respect to the grounds raised for adjournment, the Commission denies the request for the following reasons. First, on the issue of the EDTI information responses, the Dorin Group states was not satisfied with the EDTI responses to its information requests. However, with the exception of EDTI s response to EPCOR-Dorin-2018Jun (a) which is discussed below, no other responses were identified as being deficient or not full responses to the questions. The mere

46 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 8 of 9 assertion that the Dorin Group is not satisfied with the responses is not sufficient to support the adjournment request. 31. Second, on EDTI s failure to provide the lease agreements requested in EPCOR-Dorin- 2018Jun (a), EDTI stated that it did not possess the complete and fully executed copies of lease agreements requested and noted that all leases within the Transportation and Utility Corridor (the location of proposed substation) were managed by Alberta Infrastructure. Given these reasons, the Commission finds that this is a full response to the question and no further response is required to this question. 32. Third, regarding the production of the ERP, the Hazard Assessment, and the Risk Assessment, the Commission notes that in EPCOR-Dorin-2018Jun (b), the Dorin Group asked EDTI to produce the ERP referred to in its application, and in EPCOR-Dorin-2018Jun (c), the Dorin Group asked EDTI to file a hazard assessment or assessments for the proposed substation site. EDTI has filed these documents as part of its response. As a result, the Commission finds that the filing of these documents was responsive to these questions. 33. Fourth, the pre-hearing motion contains lengthy submissions on the accuracy of the ERP, the Hazard Review, and the Risk Assessment. These submissions are more akin to final argument than reasons for an adjournment. It is open to the Dorin Group to test the Hazard Review and Risk Assessment at the oral hearing by questioning Dr. Zelt as he will be in attendance at the hearing or by filing its own evidence on the safe siting of the proposed substation, as it was one of the reasons that the Dorin Group was granted standing. Although the Dorin Group contends that EDTI should have filed these documents with the application or provided them to the Dorin Group prior to the information responses, it does not provide reasons in support of this submission. In addition, the pre-hearing motion does not contain reasons to support the request for a Commission direction to EDTI to revise its application. The Dorin Group raised the issue of the safe siting of the proposed substation and has had time to gather information on this issue and it appears from its submissions in the pre-hearing motion that it has such information. Further, as noted above, evidence regarding the AER s requirements, including those on ERPs, processes, approvals, or enforcement related to oil and gas facilities are outside the scope of this proceeding. The Commission is not satisfied that the filing of the ERP, Hazard Review, and Risk Assessment supports the granting of an adjournment. 34. Regarding the request for a technical or process meeting, the purpose of such a meeting, as framed by the Dorin Group, would be to review the ERP, the regulatory history of the Armisie field, and to provide a basic understanding of how the leased area for a tank battery facility becomes a public safety/public interest matter. 15 These are matters that are within the jurisdiction of the AER and are not within the purview of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission considers that such a technical meeting would not clarify the issues related to the EDTI application or its evidence, and denies the request for a technical or process meeting. 15 Exhibit X , PDF page 10.

47 Alberta Utilities Commission July 20, 2018 Page 9 of Respecting the alternate request of the Dorin Group, the Commission will not review the ERP by employing an expert and make findings on the ERP because AER has jurisdiction over ERP for oil and gas facilities and has regulatory oversight over such facilities and not the Commission. In addition, such a request shows a misunderstanding of the Commission s hearing process because the Commission makes its decisions on the evidence before it and not prior to a hearing. 36. In addition, the Commission has set a process schedule that includes an oral hearing. The Commission considers that the Dorin Group has not provided any persuasive reasons to cancel the oral hearing and to restrict the written evidence to the issue of gas venting which is an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the AER. 37. Although the date of July 10, 2018 for the filing of intervener evidence has passed and the process schedule was not suspended by the filing of the pre-hearing motion, to ensure a fair hearing, the Commission exercises its discretion and affords the Dorin Group a further opportunity to file intervener evidence in this proceeding on property values or the safe siting of the proposed substation by July 27, The Commission notes that such a date allows an additional 17 days to the Dorin Group to file its evidence. Although the hearing date has not changed, the Commission revised the remaining steps of the proceeding schedule as follows: Filing of intervener evidence July 27, 2018 Applicants information requests to interveners August 2, 2018 Interveners information responses August 13, 2018 Reply evidence August 17, 2018 Commencement of oral hearing August 21, 2018 at 9 am 38. For the above-noted reasons, the pre-hearing motion is dismissed. 39. The Commission notes that, although the Commission has provided copies of Rule 009: Rules on Local Intervener Costs and explanations on this rule, the Dorin Group continues to labour under the misapprehension that the Commission may order it to pay EDTI s costs in this proceeding. This is not the case. Sincerely, Giuseppa Bentivegna Commission counsel

48 August 17, 2018 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Riverview Substation Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 Ruling on Adjournment Motion of Dorin Management Group 1. In this ruling, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide on the adjournment request filed by the Dorin Management Group (Dorin Group) on August 17, For the reasons set out below, the Commission denies the adjournment request. The oral hearing will proceed as scheduled on August 21, Adjournment motion 3. On August 17, 2018, the Dorin Group filed a motion in Proceeding seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2018, on the basis that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear the application. The Dorin Group contended that the Commission had to obtain the consent of the Alberta Minister of Infrastructure prior to scheduling an oral hearing. 4. The Commission has authorized me to inform you of its ruling on the adjournment motion. Ruling 5. The Commission notes that the Dorin Group had previously requested, as a preliminary matter, to assess the Commission s jurisdiction to accept and act on EPCOR [Distribution & Transmission Inc.] s application for completeness reasons and absent clear written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure or a delegate of the Minister and to treat these submissions as a challenge to the jurisdiction of this Commission to do so In its ruling on standing, dated May 28, 2018, the Commission addressed this jurisdiction question as follows: 1 Exhibit X0182, Dorin Group Procedural Motion Aug Exhibit X0096, Response to EPCOR Comments re Standing, PDF page 30.

49 Alberta Utilities Commission August 17, 2018 Page 2 of In its decision on the Heartland Transmission Project, which was an application by AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. for the approval of transmission infrastructure within Alberta s transportation and utility corridors, the Commission stated the following: 708. The Edmonton and Sherwood Park restricted development area regulations provide that the Commission, which is a government agency as that term is defined in both regulations, cannot issue permits and licenses permitting the construction of transmission facilities within either restricted development area without the written consent of the minister of infrastructure. Section 4(2) of the Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulations states: (2) No Minister of the Crown, government official or government agency shall, without the written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure, exercise any power under the Municipal Government Act, the Pipe Line Act, the Water Resources Act or any other Act to order, authorize, approve, permit or consent to any operation or activity that causes, is likely to cause or will cause a surface disturbance of any land in the Area, or issue or cause to be issued any order, authorization, approval, permit, licence or consent instrument for that purpose Section 4(2) of the Sherwood Park West Restricted Development Area Regulations is similarly worded In light of these provisions, the applicants commented on the approval process for the construction and operation of a transmission line within the Edmonton transportation and utility corridor in response to an information request from the Commission. The applicants described this process as follows: AltaLink and EPCOR s understanding is that the AUC has jurisdiction to decide upon the Heartland Application prior to the receipt of a Ministerial Consent from Alberta Infrastructure. However, the AUC requires a Ministerial Consent from the Minister of Infrastructure prior to issuing AltaLink and EPCOR permits and licences for transmission facilities within the TUC. In order to construct transmission facilities in the TUC, the AUC, AltaLink and EPCOR require Ministerial Consents. AltaLink and EPCOR will also require a Right of Entry and a Utility Right of Way. For the Heartland Project, Alberta Infrastructure s application process is expected to consist of the following steps: AltaLink and EPCOR apply to Alberta Infrastructure for Ministerial Consents; Alberta Infrastructure reviews the applications and determines whether other authorizations from Alberta Infrastructure are required; Alberta Infrastructure issues the Ministerial Consents. Alberta Infrastructure will forward the AUC a copy of AltaLink and EPCOR s Ministerial Consent and will also issue the AUC a separate Ministerial Consent simultaneously;

50 Alberta Utilities Commission August 17, 2018 Page 3 of 4 AltaLink and EPCOR submit an application for a Right of Entry to Alberta Infrastructure; and AltaLink and EPCOR enter into a Utility Right of Way agreement with Alberta Infrastructure The Commission and its predecessors have previously considered a number of applications for transmission lines within a transportation and utility corridor. When the decision was to approve the application, the past practice was to approve the application subject to the written consent of the minister. This was the approach taken by the Energy Resources Conservation Board in Decision , where the board stated that its approval was subject to the consent of the Minister of the Environment pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Calgary Restricted Development Area Regulations, the board will issue the permits and licenses in due course A similar approach was taken by the board in Decision , discussed earlier in this section, when it stated that it would not proceed with a request for ministerial approvals or the issuance of board approvals until an issue relating to the ownership of the subject line had been resolved More recently, the Commission considered this issue in AUC Decision The Commission found as follows: 26. The Commission does not have the authority to simply direct that the Transmission Lines be relocated to the TUC. That authority belongs to the Minister who controls activities and facilities located in the TUC. The Commission has the authority to approve a transmission line relocation under sections 14 and 17 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. However in relation to the relocation into the TUC, the Commission s approval of such a relocation would be subject to the Minister s approval of the relocation. An application by AltaLink to relocate the Transmission Lines is not presently before the Minister or the Commission Having regard to the clear wording of the relevant provision in both regulations, and having reviewed the previous decisions of the Commission and its predecessors, the Commission finds that it has the jurisdiction to approve the Heartland application on the condition that the applicants provide it with the written consent of the minister of infrastructure. However, the Commission recognizes that it may not issue a permit and licence for the construction and operation of the Heartland project until it receives the minister s written consent. [footnotes removed] Since the Heartland decision (Decision ) was issued, the Commission has required applicants to obtain written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure for the construction and operation of projects within the transportation and utility corridors and provide 3 Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. and EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. Heartland Transmission Project, Application Proceeding 457, November 1, 2011, paragraphs

51 Alberta Utilities Commission August 17, 2018 Page 4 of 4 the Commission with written confirmation of that consent. After the consent is received the Commission then issues permits and licences. The Commission notes that EDTI is aware of its obligation to receive written consent from the Minister of Infrastructure. 4 Given this past practice the Commission finds that the Dorin Group has not presented sufficient reasons to justify a further inquiry into the Commission s jurisdiction to approve the proposed Riverview Substation project as a preliminary matter. 7. The Commission considers that the Dorin Group has raised the same challenge to the Commission s jurisdiction and, for the reasons stated above, the Commission determines that it need not await the consent of the Alberta Minister of Infrastructure prior to reviewing and holding a hearing on the application. The Commission s authority to make a decision on the applications in question is pursuant to the Hydro and Electric Energy Act and the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. For these reasons, the Commission dismisses the motion and the hearing will commence as scheduled on August 21, If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned by phone at or by at giuseppa.bentivegna@auc.ab.ca. Sincerely, Giuseppa Bentivegna Commission Counsel 4 Exhibit X0092, EDTI Comments re Standing, PDF page 8.

52 August 20, 2018 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding Alberta Electric System Operator, EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd. Riverview Substation Project Proceeding Applications A001 to A006 Ruling on request for notices to attend 1. In this ruling, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide on the request filed by the Dorin Management Group (Dorin Group) on August 20, for the Commission to issue notices to attend for the hearing scheduled August 21, For the reasons set out below, the Commission denies this request. Request 2. On August 20, 2018, the Dorin Group filed a request (in Proceeding 23128) asking the persons listed on page three to appear before the Commission and to direct these parties to produce all documents related to the specific issues listed in the table. The Dorin Group also asked for the filing of lease agreements referred to on page two of the request, which it had previously asked EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EDTI) to produce. Finally, the Dorin Group requested that the Commission investigate and state why the Armisie Field operations were shut in and whether these operations would remain shut in. 3. The Commission has authorized me to inform you of its ruling on the procedural motion. Ruling 4. The Commission has previously ruled in Proceeding as follows with regards to its jurisdiction over the proposed project, and that of the Alberta Energy Regulator in relation to oil and gas facilities and Alberta Infrastructure over the transportation/utility corridor: 27. At the outset of this ruling, the Commission wants to dispel any misunderstanding respecting the matters over which it has jurisdiction in this proceeding. The powers and duties of the Commission are set out in the enactments that govern the Commission. For purposes of this proceeding, the powers and duties of the Commission are set out in the Hydro and Electric Energy Act and the Alberta Utilities Commission Act and regulations and rules made under these acts. Although the Dorin Group 1 Exhibit X0203, Aug Dorin Group Procedural Motion.