County council gave the Heartland Transmission Project an official thumbs-down last week in a move that one councillor says puts council's credibility at risk.
The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) wrapped up the hearing on the Heartland Transmission Project on July 18. That project involves a 500-kilovolt double-circuit power line that, if built, would cross Sturgeon County.
Although county councillors had loudly questioned the need for the line before the hearing, they did not formally reject the line's construction. Instead, council said that the line, if built, should be made in a way that minimizes impacts on residents, compensates them and places the line in a transportation utility corridor.
County representatives at the hearing made these arguments, but in their closing remarks also said the commission should approve the line "without delay."
This wasn't the message council was looking for, said Coun. Don McGeachy, as it gave people the impression that the county supported the Electric Statutes Amendment Act (or Bill 50), the provincial law that eliminated the requirement for the AUC to evaluate the Heartland project based on need. "That's never been our position."
Many councillors were "taken aback" by these remarks, said Mayor Don Rigney, who has long argued that the lines should not be built as they would make Alberta's electricity prices too high.
After an in camera discussion on the issue called by Coun. Karen Shaw, McGeachy moved to have council oppose the construction of the Heartland project, as a review of the evidence presented at the hearing showed that the line's costs greatly exceed its benefits.
The motion passed 4-3, with councillors Ken McGillis, Joe Milligan and Tom Flynn opposed.
The county had gone into the hearing knowing that the line was going to be built, Flynn said, and set a goal of minimizing its impacts on residents. "For us to come up with a motion afterward that is basically opposing our intervention doesn't show much leadership," he said, and could harm the county's efforts to intervene on the proposed eastern transmission line (a 500-kilovolt line being built by Atco Electric that would hook into the Heartland Project on the east edge of the county). "Our credibility is at risk."
If there's any flip-flopping here, Rigney said, it's because of the madness inherent in Bill 50.
"Sturgeon County was told that your choice is between lethal injection and hanging [i.e. routing], when the real issue was guilt or innocence [i.e. need]," he said. "We did the best [we could] in a bad situation. We didn't need to spend $400,000 of our taxpayers' money [to intervene in the hearing]."
Changing horses?
McGeachy said he tabled his motion after weeks of in camera conversation with council. Alberta did not need this "massive overbuild" of a line, he said, one that would drive up electricity prices and drive industry out of Alberta. What's more, several Progressive Conservative leadership candidates are now questioning the logic behind Bill 50.
But since the AUC had said it would not consider need in the hearing, only alignment, the county was advised by its consultants not to raise the issue. "We were informed and directed that you stay within the guidelines or your message is lost," McGeachy said.
Shaw said she has always stood in opposition to the line and pointed out that both the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta and Rick Cowburn, a former vice-president of Epcor, have said the lines were overkill in terms of capacity.
The lines are overkill, agreed John Kristensen, spokesperson for Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans (a lead opponent to the lines). "None of us think this line is needed."
Kristensen said he had no problem with the county changing its stance on the line after the hearing. "In fairness to Sturgeon County, they followed the rules of the AUC."
Shaw wasn't sure how this motion would affect the AUC's ruling, but hoped it would reassure residents that they did their best to oppose the line. "I haven't talked to one person who's said if we build these lines, we'll need them."
The AUC's decision is due on Oct. 17.
