Last Monday evening the citizens for Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans, (RETA), sponsored a question-and-answer session concerning the Heartland Transmission Project. The members of RETA should be commended for advocating for responsible electricity transmission for all Albertans. However, for RETA to advocate effectively they need information, and it appears that some information has not been disclosed.
For example, RETA has not been told about the “CNC” report published on May 16, 2006 that outlines the need for the Heartland Transmission Project. RETA is aware of a half truth, which is that the Heartland transmission line will provide some electricity to the Heartland, but the complete truth, revealed in the CNC report, clearly outlines that the Heartland transmission line is required to enhance electricity export from northern Alberta to southern California, hence the acronym CNC or “California — Northwest — Canada”. Two employees of the Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO) contributed to the publication of this report.
RETA was not told that AESO’s definition of demand routinely masks (includes) the industry’s need to export, and that AESO is mandated by Alberta Energy to build a zero congestion transmission grid. Zero congestion is a theory and technically impossible. If a zero congestion policy was applied to Alberta roads, all intersections would be a series of over-passes and under-passes with on and off ramps. Many of the roads in and around Edmonton and Calgary would have to be 16 to 30 lanes wide. It makes no economic sense to build a road system of this magnitude, and it makes no sense to build a transmission system of this magnitude. Export criteria and zero congestion policies must be debated in the context of the public’s interest. What is the public’s need, and when is it considered? How much of the Heartland project is above and beyond the needs of Albertans, and only benefits industry?
Under current Alberta law, the public’s need and interest are not a factor. Consideration of the public’s “present and future convenience and need” was removed from legislation at 3:30 a.m. on Dec. 5, 2007. At that time, Section 14 (3) of the Hydro Electric Energy Act was removed from law retroactively to June 2003, as if it never existed. Section 34 (1) of the Electric Utilities Act now defines the requirement to approve a transmission line as “if the AESO determines the transmission line may be required to meet the needs of the market participants.” RETA is correct to call for responsible transmission lines for all Albertans, but the law dictates that industry only has to prove the line may be needed. How does this provision advocate for the public’s interest?
Even health concerns do not supersede what industry may need. The Minister of the Environment has ruled that Environmental Impact Assessments, (EIA), are optional in the approval process of transmission line applications. Health concerns are addressed in the EIA report.
I favour economic growth and I support access to foreign markets, but there has to be a balanced, fair and transparent process where the public’s interest is protected. Until the “public’s interest” is defined and reinserted into legislation, RETA can only hope to be the recipient of a magnanimous gesture from a manufactured process. Legally speaking, legislation governing electricity favours industry. RETA is dealing with government and industry representatives who, with straight faces, claim that transmission towers do not affect property values. Some of these same representatives are directly and indirectly responsible for hiring private investigators that tapped the telephone conversations of the last group of citizens who advocated for responsible electricity transmission. Should we trust these representatives, and who they represent?
To achieve “responsible electricity transmission” for the benefit of all Albertans, RETA needs to recognize the issue is not with the current regulatory board. There needs to be political change!
Joe Anglin, Lavesta Area Group Leader
