Man claims Altalink construction caused damage

Mountain View Gazette

Tuesday, Jul 08, 2014 06:00 am | BY Kevin Vink

Mountain View County resident Norman Fritzler says construction of the new Altalink transmission line in the district has caused damage to his home.

Workers have been joining transmission cables together with ground-level implosive connectors near the Fritzler residence.

Although his house is about 1,000 feet from the construction site, Fritzler says the vibration and sound has caused problems at his home, which is 12 kilometres northwest of Didsbury.

“It’s sound as well as vibration. We actually feel the vibration in both our house and shop,” said Fritzler.

Not only is it the noise and vibration – both buildings have also sustained palpable damage, he said.

The acrylic stucco of the house has stress cracks near the support systems of the residence, some plastic moulding has been cracked, and some stonework on the front veranda has also cracked, he said, noting he also suspects the house has shifted somewhat because besides the cracks, one door is now hard to open and close.

“You know that’s what it appears to be. There must have been enough vibration or shifting to cause some of these cracks, and until such time as there’s a study done on it, it will he hard to really determine if (that’s the case),” he said.

“We’ve had some drywall issues, nails popping (on the drywall in the basement), as well as in the shop,” he continued, adding that he has two tenants who rent out a room in his shop, and their ceiling drywall has split apart and is now drooping somewhat.”

Fritzler has brought out the contractor who installed the stucco four years ago, and he says the contractor told him the cracks are stress-related, due to shifting of some sort.

After receiving calls from Fritzler, Altalink sent a forensic expert to the property to examine the damage.

Peter Brodsky, manager of external communications for Altalink, confirmed that the company did receive calls from Fritzler and has send out an inspector to take a look at the damage.

“That gentleman, who is a specialist of ground vibration and air pressure changes is currently working up a report based on his visit. So we don’t have any results at this point. Until we have the results available we can’t make a statement,” said Brodsky.

The report is still being compiled and may not be finished for a number of weeks, he noted, adding that the company has not had any problems using the technology in the past.

“We’ve been using this technology for quite some time and this is the first time we have ever heard from a landowner regarding physical damage attributed to implosion work,” he said.

“I cannot speak specifically about any negotiations with Mr. Fritzler directly, but really what we’re going to do is wait until we have a report in hand (and) negotiate directly with him, but at this point no decision has been made about possible cause and remuneration.”

He added he respects that Fritzler has concerns and that the company is concerned as well, and will work with him to reach a resolution.

white

NDP leader wants Alberta Utilities Commission to reject AltaLink sale

CP  |  By The Canadian Press Posted: 05/02/2014 10:12 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/02/2014 5:59 am EDT

EDMONTON – NDP Leader Brian Mason says the province needs to ask the Alberta Utilities Commission to reject the sale of AltaLink to an American company.

It was announced earlier this week that SNC-Lavalin will be selling the energy transmission company to AltaLink to U.S. Berkshire Hathaway Energy for $3.2 billion.

Mason says that this would allow and American company to reap the benefits of Alberta taxpayers, and could ultimately drive energy prices up.

He says Alberta’s transmission system should not be an internationally traded commodity because that will just raise prices.

If approved, the sale will go through December 31.

With 12,000 kilometres of transmission lines and 280 substations. AltaLink provides electricity to the majority of the province.

(CHED)

white

Atco behind anonymous newspaper ads slamming AltaLink sale

Calgary Herald

Thursday, July 03, 2014

EDMONTON – Utilities giant Atco says it paid for anonymous ads in Alberta newspapers this week warning of “serious consequences” if AltaLink is sold to Berkshire Hathaway Energy, controlled by American billionaire Warren Buffett.

The ads, some titled “We’re Losing Control,” appeared in the Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Sun, Calgary Sun, Fort McMurray Today and some rural papers.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy announced on May 1 that it intends to purchase AltaLink – Alberta’s largest electricity transmission provider – from current owner SNC Lavalin of Montreal.

The $3.2-billion deal is expected to close Dec. 31 but needs approval from the Alberta Utilities Commission and the federal government.

A full-page ad in Thursday’s Journal and Herald warned of “serious consequences for the province we call home” if the sale is approved: loss of control of critical infrastructure, a lack of regulation south of the U.S. border and the “potential for more power exports.”

Nancy Southern, chairwoman, president and CEO of Atco Ltd., confirmed Atco paid for the ads. There wasn’t a need to disclose to readers that the message was from Atco, she said.

“The reason for not putting our name on it is it isn’t about Atco or AltaLink,” Southern said. “It’s about a principle, and a discussion that Canadians, and Albertans, should have.”

She said Albertans haven’t had enough time to consider the deal and its implications. Southern said she’s not opposed to direct foreign investment in Canada, but the transmission grid is different.

It’s the “lifeblood” of the electricity industry and shouldn’t fall into American ownership, beyond the reach of Canadian regulators, she said.

AltaLink president and CEO Scott Thon said the ads “smacked of self-interest.” He said he questioned why they were anonymous.

“The only conclusion I can bring is that you want them to be anonymous because you want them to spread misinformation, and that’s what these ads do,” Thon said before refuting each of the claims in the ads.

“AltaLink will continue to be an independent Alberta company run by Albertans,” he said. “It will be regulated by the Alberta Utilities Commission and it will have operational oversight by the independent AESO (Alberta Electric System Operator).”

The sale can’t lead to an increase in power exports, he said. AltaLink doesn’t own the power it moves, and Alberta is a net importer of electrical power, not an exporter.

“We’ll continue to be transparent,” Thon said. “We’ll continue to give people the facts.”

The ads encouraged people with concerns about the sale to contact their MLAs, the federal industry minister or the utilities commission.

AUC spokesman Jim Law said the commission had received 70 emails on the issue by mid-afternoon Thursday and that more were coming in. The ads have “generated some renewed interest” in the proposed sale, Law said.

“We welcome the input directly but also remind (people) that they can provide their input to various organizations that may be representing them, such as the Utilities Consumer Advocate or the Consumers Coalition of Alberta,” Law said.

“We do have a process in place – an evidence-based public process that will evaluate the application and produce a written decision.”

The Utilities Consumer Advocate and the Consumers Coalition of Alberta have registered as interveners in the review process. Atco Electric has also registered, and has called for “an open hearing” if it’s deemed necessary.

[email protected]

Twitter.com/HowellEJ

white

Renewables not ready to meet demand for electricity

Letters to the Editor  Lethbridge Herald

July 3, 2014

I would like to respond to your recent guest column by Ben Thibault (June 18 Herald) extolling the virtues of renewables solar and wind while comparing Alberta and U.S. coal generation statistics. This is a phoney comparison since they
have 104 nuclear plants on their grid and we have none.  Until we solve the problems of large-scale storage of electricity, we cannot expect renewables to solve our emissions problems. Just because the “fuel=wind” is free does not mean wind farms are emissions free. Large amounts of carbon dioxide are generated in creating the concrete and rebar bases for wind towers, to say nothing of the steel required for the towers themselves. Depending on the size of the
installation, these towers have to be strong to handle the considerable wind forces on them. Then there is the copper for the generator and the cables, aluminum and steel for the transmission towers and lines. In the case of solar, the
“fuel=sunlight” is free but we still have problems with large-scale installations covering considerable amounts of land as well as with the chemicals used in the manufacture of the panels.  As technology currently stands in Alberta, wind power has a large installed capacity that is on the average operational about a third of the time and moonbeams don’t work for the solar. These renewables are intermittent. Other jurisdictions in the world are finding out that massive public support for renewables, although initially politically appealing, is in the long run financially costly for the public purse. Just look at Ontario for a made-in-Canada example.
We may choose to use solar, wind and batteries for our homes but that total demand is a minor part of the electricity use in the province.
Laurence G. Hoye
Diamond City

white

Land users to council: No wires

By John Stoesser, QMI Agency

In a move to block a proposed power line project a local landowners association asked M.D. council to consider designating Divisions 1 and 2 of the county as wind power and transmission line-free zones at a recent meeting.

“It is our request to find a way to declare the area south of Highway 3 and west of Highway 810 as an area free of wind farm development and high-voltage transmission lines,” Stephan Blum, the vice-president of the Chinook Area Land Users Association, said. “Why are we asking this? What I’m trying to do…is run you through a number of facts that deal with wind power and hopefully open up a discussion.”

Blum’s information-heavy presentation and request didn’t start a flood of queries from council.

“Well Stephan, you look like you expected a bunch of questions,” Councillor Fred Schoening said. “I am surprised that you are surprised… I am the Division 2 councillor and I try to keep my ear on the ground and listen to the people in my division. So I think I know where you’re coming from. I’m also a landlord in that division and the power lines could affect me. But we have to glean this as information and sort through what is the best way to do it, so don’t expect a whole bunch of questions.”

Claiming to represent over 200 individuals and roughly 80 per cent of the landowners in those divisions, Blum gave the councillors plenty to mull over.

“It is possible for us to do a zone, a no-wind zone, a no-go zone,” director of development and community services Roland Milligan said, noting that the Burmis-Lundbreck Area Structure Plan already regulates wind development in some places. “But one thing you have to remember, it is an amendment to the land use document. It’s a political process, a public process.”

The land user association pointed to a number of reasons for prohibiting wind energy and power lines in the area.

They say that the needs document that forms the basis for installing power lines as part of the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) regional grid-strengthening project is outdated, rendering the planned lines unnecessary or at least over-sized.
The AESO’s original needs document for the Southern Alberta Transmission Reinforcement (SATR) project was approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) on September 8, 2009.
“This is a time when everything was increasing,” said Blum, an engineer. “Oil prices were increasing, energy prices were increasing. Everybody was mad about the economic development at the time. That’s where the data were generated that predicated the growth that actually is happening for the next 25 to 35 years. What happened after that, we all know, the whole financial market collapsed and we got into a very different scenario compared to what we had before.”
The AESO has heard these claims before and in a previous interview Greg Retzer, the vice-president of transmission project delivery, said that they revisit the parametres for new power lines on a regular basis and that the needs were approved.
On Friday, May 30, AESO posted their long-term outlook that predicted the provincial economy, along with energy generation, will continue to grow. While the report indicated that growth would be primarily linked to the oil and gas industry in northern Alberta it did forecast that Alberta’s wind power generation will double from 1,088 to over 2,200 megawatts in 10 years time.
A large portion of the province’s wind power is generated in southern Alberta, including the Pincher Creek area. The lines that would run through the region are part of the proposed 220 kilometre-long Goose Lake to Etzikom Coulee (GLEC) transmission project. Contracted to AltaLink under the SATR umbrella, the project to connect wind generation to the grid has an estimated cost between $300 million to $450 million.
“We risk mortgaging the future of Albertans because once (the power lines) are there they cannot be removed easily,” Blum said, claiming the GLEC lines running through Pincher Creek would greatly reduce land value in the county. “So we will see the long-term destruction of the majesty of the mountain parts and this pristine area.”
According to an update the AESO and AltaLink are currently undertaking engineering studies on the GLEC component of SATR before continuing with applications and public consultations.
The stage to connect the Ware Junction to Langdon substation east of Calgary was recently cancelled. Other portions of the project are on hold after AESO identified them as missing progress marks as of yet.
“With regards to transmission we don’t really have any say where that goes, that’s a provincial driven thing,” Milligan said. “If it’s approved by the province we get to comment and if they feel it’s justified to go through an area we said we don’t want it to go through, they can overrule us according to the Municipal Government Act.”
According to financial statements released in April the municipal district expects to bring in almost $2.9 million from taxes on electrical and co-generation in 2014.
white

Opposition attack on Tory leadership frontrunner Jim Prentice a measure of how deeply Alison Redford wounded her party

Alberta First Nations suing regulator over denial to weigh in on oilsands project

Regulator’s decisions on whose voice gets heard could be discriminatory, says legal expert

The Canadian Press Posted: Jun 12, 2014 11:55 AM ETLast Updated: Jun 12, 2014 12:49 PM ET

Two aboriginal bands are taking Alberta’s energy regulator to court after it denied them the right to speak at hearings into an oilsands development near their traditional lands.

“Alberta’s regulatory system silences concerns, which is more Third World than world class,” said Chief Henry Gladue of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation. “Alberta is saying one thing and doing something very different.”

Last March, the Alberta Energy Regulator told the Beaver Lake Cree Nation and the Whitefish Lake First Nation that they wouldn’t be allowed to address hearings into Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.’s (TSX:CNQ) Kirby expansion proposal.

The two groups were among five First Nations and one environmental group that had asked to air their concerns about the 85,000-barrel-a-day project. All those applications were denied and the regulator cancelled planned public hearings.

Although the Beaver Lake band said the development would be on its traditional lands and on at least one member’s trapline, the regulator ruled that wasn’t enough to be considered directly and adversely affected.

It told the band it must “demonstrate actual use of land and other natural resources in the project area by its members.”

The regulator used a similar argument with the Whitefish Lake First Nation and added that the band’s concerns about cumulative effects were “general in nature and not related to the project or the project lands.”

‘Resource development can co-exist with First Nations and can happen in a way that respects our traditional way of life — but not if we are frozen out of the process by the Alberta energy regulator.’– Whitefish Lake Chief James Jackson Jr.

Whitefish Lake Chief James Jackson Jr. said in a release that his band has routinely been granted standing in the past.

“Our past participation in the regulatory process helped resource companies better understand our concerns and provided at least some motivation for industry to work with First Nations to address our concerns,” he said.

“Resource development can co-exist with First Nations and can happen in a way that respects our traditional way of life — but not if we are frozen out of the process by the Alberta Energy Regulator.”

Documents filed with the Alberta Court of Appeal say the regulator’s decision was “flawed, arbitrary and unfair” and made public-interest rulings in a “factual vacuum.”

“In refusing to grant a regulatory hearing, there can be no, or no adequate, consideration of the potential adverse impacts on the First Nations’ constitutionally protected rights,” the documents read.

“Without a hearing, the First Nations are effectively precluded from participating any mitigation or accommodation measures to mitigate these impacts,” says the appeal.

At least one legal expert has suggested that the regulator’s decisions on whose voice gets heard could be discriminatory.

“It seems unlikely that the (regulator) would ask whether a fee simple owner actually used her land as part of determining whether that person was directly and adversely affected,” Nigel Bankes, a University of Calgary resource law professor, wrote in a recent analysis.

The regulator’s dismissal of cumulative effects concerns undermines the agency’s intended task, he added.

“The demanding nature of the tests suggests that a First Nation will never be able to establish direct and adverse effect based on a cumulative effects argument,” Bankes wrote. “Such a conclusion is inconsistent with the statutory mandate of the (regulator).”

Bankes and opposition politicians have said the Kirby decision is an example of a new pattern of restricting who is entitled to express concerns about oilsands developments. Last fall, two different aboriginal groups were also denied standing to appear at public hearings on proposals adjacent to their traditional lands.

A Queen’s Bench judge, on a separate matter, urged the government and the regulator to draw the circle widely when seeking public input on oilsands development.

The appeal is expected to be heard in the fall.

white

NDP blasts energy pilot project that would see fracking regulations reduced – Says government plan undermines environmental regime

By Marty Klinkenberg, Edmonton Journal June 12, 2014

EDMONTON – Alberta’s NDP is concerned that the provincial government is working with oil and gas executives to reduce regulations related to the controversial process of fracking.

A government document obtained by the NDP shows Alberta’s Energy Regulator is scheduled to meet next week with industry officials to discuss a pilot project that will reduce regulations and streamline the application process for fracking and other forms of unconventional oil and gas development.

The information session on June 17 is meant to brief industry representatives on regulations that will be tested in the Fox Creek area beginning in September. Representatives from Alberta’s Environment and Energy departments will also attend the meeting, the document shows.

“At the same time government is selling itself as being a steward of the environment, it is working behind closed doors to undermine the integrity of our environmental regime,” NDP critic Rachel Notley said Thursday. “It is the type of game-playing you expect from a tired, 40-year-old government that is not going to change.

“Making major changes to regulations that govern fracking shouldn’t be done behind closed doors with a bunch of industry insiders, it should happen in public. Albertans deserve better than this.”

Bob Curran, a spokesman for the Alberta Energy Regulator, said the regulations on trial will apply only to development in the Fox Creek area, site of a geological formation estimated to contain 443 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 61.7 billion barrels of oil.

“Let’s be clear: this is a draft for a pilot, brought about predominantly by landowner concerns that we have heard about for years,” Curran said in an email. “A pilot project, by definition, is designed to test draft regulations.

“We are not changing the regulations, nor are we proposing changes at this time. We are putting together a pilot project. That is all.”

According to the document obtained by the NDP, a final version of the regulations under review is scheduled to be released on June 27.

A recent draft of the pilot project describes it as “the start of a change in the way that the AER regulates the energy sector.”

The regulations being tested “are intended to reduce the burden placed on industry” and “manage risks to achieve play-based objectives and Government of Alberta policy outcomes.”

The regulations to be tested propose a single application process that authorizes activities carried out over the lifetime of a project, and tasks approval-holders with reporting requirements.

“Overall the intent (of the approach) is orderly and responsible development,” the draft says.

Curran said if government decides to implement regulatory changes based on the pilot project, the proposed changes will be made public and an opportunity will be provided for feedback.

Notley believes government has already made up its mind, however.

“If the pilot project is successful, it will serve as a template for future development,” she said. “There is no question the rules that will govern this type of thing are already a long way down the road.”

[email protected]

Twitter: @martykej

INDUSTRY INSIDERS SETTING THE AGENDA ON FRACKING REGULATIONS: NOTLEY

EDMONTON ––Today, New Democrat Environment critic Rachel Notley released an internal document obtained by the New Democrats which shows that the new energy regulator and the PCs are only consulting with industry insiders on a pilot project for fracking. Notley is calling on the PCs to ensure that First Nations, environmental groups, as well as all other interested Albertans, are included in the consultation process.

“Yet again, this PC government is only consulting with their friends and insiders, while excluding the rest of us,” Notley said. “Making major changes to the regulations that govern fracking shouldn’t be done behind a closed door, with a bunch of industry insiders—it should happen out in the light, in public.”

In 2011, the New Democrats released information showing that the government was colluding with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) to create a public relations strategy for fracking.

Yesterday, two First Nations announced they were suing the Alberta Energy Regulator, after they had been excluded from hearings on development applications.

“It’s just business-as-usual for this PC government to talk about consulting and about a world-class regulatory regime and then turn around and work secretly with industry to ‘reduce the regulatory burden,’” Notley said. “Albertans are tired of a secretive, old-boys club approach to development in this province. We need a government that puts Albertans first.”

Notley noted that the draft regulations include several troubling elements which would profoundly reduce independent oversight of fracking activity in the province.

white

Candidates need to get disagreeable

With apologies to Jerry Seinfeld, this is a post about nothing.  It was supposed to be a post highlighting the policy differences between the three PC candidates.

Instead we have a Letterman top-ten list of the ways they agree:

10.  All three will end “entitlements” which have slightly different definitions, but pretty much mean “see how far I can run from Alison Redford”.

9.  All care deeply for average Albertans.

8.  All think we should be patient while flood victims decide whether to take a government buy out.

7.  All are committed to public health care.

6.  All would review the closure of the Michener Centre.

5.  All want to help the mentally ill.

4.  All would stop spending money on ridiculous things.

3.  On that note, none would give taxpayer money to hockey arenas.

2. All would change the format of the provincial budget back to more-or-less the way it was.

And the number one way all of the candidates agree is …

1. They all support the oil sands.

Now to be fair, the process of getting into this race was weird.

Despite the vacancy occurring on March 23, candidates had to wait until May 15 to pick up papers. They weren’t allowed to raise money or spend a dime until they returned those papers by May 30.

That is twisted because to take out the papers they needed $20,000, and to return them they needed another $30,000 plus 500 signatures collected in person from around the province – all of which requires money but fundraising is prohibited by law until you return the papers.  They couldn’t even use personal funds because the donation limit is $30,000. So each of them had to break one law or another just to be here.  I digress.

What it means is before June 1, they couldn’t assemble advisors, travel around and consult with Albertans, or do the other things you do to develop policy.

So here, in mid-June, it is too much to expect hefty policy platforms from them.

But all have been involved in politics for a long time. They must have ideas. Maybe they are waiting until the dog days of summer to roll them out when no one is looking.

But there are only so many times the headlines can tell us what today’s topic of agreement is.

white