Background 3. The applications in this proceeding are a part of the larger south and west Edmonton area transmission development project.

Transcription

1 January 18, 2016 To: Parties currently registered on Proceeding South and West Edmonton Area Transmission Development Harry Smith 367S Substation and Connection Proceeding Applications A001 to A010 Ruling on Standing Introduction 1. In this ruling the Commission must determine standing for Proceeding A person who demonstrates the potential for direct and adverse effect is said to have standing. 2. The Commission asked me to inform you of its ruling on the standing of registered participants in relation to the applications in Proceeding Background 3. The applications in this proceeding are a part of the larger south and west Edmonton area transmission development project On October 30, 2015, AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) filed applications for approval of the Harry Smith development portion of the south and west Edmonton area transmission development. 5. In this proceeding, the applications before the Commission include the following proposed development components (collectively, the project or the proposed project): Construct a new substation to be called the Harry Smith 367S substation containing two 240/138-kV, 240/320/400 MVA transformers, four 240-kV circuit breakers, and five 138-kV circuit breakers. A preferred and alternate substation site is proposed. Connect the Harry Smith 367S substation to the existing 240-kV transmission system in the area with two new 240-kV transmission lines. A preferred and alternate route are proposed. Connect the new substation to the existing 138-kV transmission system in the area with three new 138-kV transmission lines. A preferred, preferred variant and an alternate route are proposed. 1 AUC Decision

2 January 18, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Salvage an east/west portion of existing 138-kVtransmission line 739L between the Acheson 305S substation and the proposed 138-kV transmission lines. Upgrade the existing Acheson 305S substation by adding two new 138-kV circuit breakers, relocating an existing capacitor bank, and changing where the transmission line terminates. 6. On November 13, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of application for Proceeding Responses were due by December 18, The Commission subsequently extended the deadline to January 8, 2016, for persons who had not received the notice in the original mail out. 7. The Commission received nine submissions in response to the notice expressing concern with the project and intent to participate in the proceeding. Of the submissions received, eight were from landowners or corporations that expressed concern about the project s impacts on their lands including a submission from the Parkland Airport Development Corp. Given the number of submissions filed, the Commission has decided not to describe each submission in this ruling. The most common concerns expressed in the statements of intent to participate were as follows: Land impacts (impacts to farming, land value, visual aesthetics, future development) Environmental impacts Proximity to the airport 8. The Commission also received a statement of intent to participate from the Gunn Métis Local 55 (Gunn Métis) that explained that the project is within its deemed territory. The Gunn Métis indicated that there were two locations within 800 metres of the proposed project components that support Gunn Metis harvesting and indicated that it considered these locations to be confidential. As such, the Gunn Métis asserted that the project would interfere with its traditional aboriginal rights and impact the well-being of its community members. How the Commission determines standing 9. Standing before the Commission is determined in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act which states: (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. 10. In Cheyne v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), the Alberta Court of Appeal characterized section 9(2) as the equivalent of section 26(2) of the Energy Resources Conservation Act and confirmed that the two-part test for standing under section 26(2) applies to subsection 9(2). In an earlier decision, Dene Tha v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), the Court of Appeal described that two-part test as follows:

3 January 18, 2016 Page 3 of 6 s. 26(2) has two branches. First is a legal test, and second is a factual one. The legal test asks whether the claim right or interest being asserted by the person is one known to the law. The second branch asks whether the Board has information which shows that the application before the Board may directly and adversely affect those interests or rights. The second test is factual In its description of the factual test in the Dene Tha decision, the Court of Appeal stated that: It was argued before us that more recent case law on prima facie infringement of aboriginal or treaty rights changed things. But the Board still needed some facts to go on. It is not compelled by this legislation to order intervention and a hearing whenever anyone anywhere in Alberta merely asserts a possible aboriginal or treaty right. Some degree of location or connection between the work proposed and the right asserted is reasonable. What degree is a question of fact for the Board In Sawyer v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) the Alberta Court of Appeal commented further on the factual component of the standing test and stated that in considering the location or connection, the Board is entitled to look at factors such as residence, the presence or absence of other wells in the area, and the frequency and duration of the applicant s use of the area near the proposed site The Commission assesses the potential for direct and adverse effect on a case-by-case basis, having regard for the specific circumstances of each proposed project application and each application for standing. The Commission considers that the expression of general or broad concerns about a proposed project, without some link or connection to the demonstrated or anticipated characteristics of a proposed project will generally be an insufficient basis for establishing the potential for a direct and adverse effect. In the Commission s view, this is the very mischief that the Alberta Court of Appeal identified when it opined that some degree of location or connection between the work proposed and the right asserted is a necessary ingredient for standing. 5 Standing Ruling Landowners or residents within 800 metres of a proposed right-of-way or substation location 14. The AUC has reviewed the applications and all submissions and finds that persons who own or reside upon land crossed by the proposed preferred or alternate routes or substation locations described in the applications have standing to participate in the proceeding. In the Commission s view, such persons have rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision on the applications Dene Tha' First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68, at paragraph 10. Ibid, at paragraph ABCA 297 at para 16. Dene Tha First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68 at para 14.

4 January 18, 2016 Page 4 of Given the scope and nature of the proposed project, and taking into account the nature of the facilities proposed in the applications, the Commission finds that persons who own or reside upon land located within 800 metres of the edge of a proposed transmission line right-of-way or substation location will also have standing to participate in the proceeding. In the Commission s view, such persons also have rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision on the applications. 16. All landowners and corporations who filed submissions were located within 800 metres of the project. A list of parties with standing is set out in Schedule A to this ruling. Gunn Métis Local The Gunn Métis asserted that it enjoys aboriginal rights associated with the ability to use lands in the area of the project for traditional purposes. For the purposes of this ruling, the Commission is prepared to assume, without deciding, that the Gunn Métis is entitled to exercise aboriginal rights in the area that it has asserted in its submissions. Based on that assumption, the Commission finds, in relation to the first part of the standing test, that the Gunn Métis has legal rights which may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision on the applications. 18. Regarding the factual part of the test, the Commission notes that some of the concerns expressed by the Gunn Métis were specific to certain areas. Specifically, the Gunn Métis has submitted that its members exercise traditional rights within 800 metres of the proposed transmission lines and/or substation components. 19. The Gunn Métis also expressed concerns that were more general in nature regarding the exercise of its members aboriginal rights. 20. In the Commission s view, the Gunn Métis provided insufficient information to establish a causal connection between the harvesting locations (species) and the potential impact(s) on its rights from the project. However, the Gunn Métis has two additional options to participate in the hearing. The Gunn Métis may submit further information, by February 1, 2016, explaining how the harvesting of species located within 800 metres of the project, or the exercise of its rights, may be affected by construction or operation of the project. In that case, the Commission would issue a further ruling on standing. Alternatively, the Commission will afford the Gunn Métis the opportunity to make a submission at the hearing. If the Gunn Métis chooses the latter option it would not be eligible for intervening funding pursuant to Rule 009: Local Intervenor Costs and would not be eligible to file evidence or participate in the information request process.

5 January 18, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Conclusion 21. For the reasons stated above, the Commission has determined that the parties listed in Schedule A have demonstrated that they have rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision on the applications. Therefore, pursuant to Section 9 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, the Commission will hold a hearing for Proceeding The Commission will issue a notice of hearing in due course. Yours truly, Shanelle Sinclair Commission Counsel

6 January 18, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Name Representative Bromley, Dian Gilgen, Robert and Silke (Gilgen Group) Nicholas Ramessar, Carscallen LLP Johnston, Mark Keltie, Bruce Keltie, Donald, Gene, Harlee D. and Roxanne Lewis Farms Ltd. Richard Secord, Ackroyd LLP Netzlaff, Art and Jacquie Parkland Airport Development Corp. Nicholas Ramessar, Carscallen LLP Trueman, Ashley, Margaret and Shauna Schedule A Persons with Standing in Proceeding 20987