Curtis Matwychuk-Goodman

—

“Ben Franklin may have discovered electricity – but it is the man who invented the meter who made the money”
- Earl Warren-

Introduction to the Issue

conomic growth and electricity consumption are directly correlated.  As a nation’s electricity consumption increases so does the gross domestic product.[1] It is generally accepted that access to electricity is a necessary element for a healthy economy; in today’s day and age electricity is required for production of both goods and services.  Without access to reliable sources of electricity the efficiency and productivity of the North American economy would tumble.

This paper seeks to investigate the current trade policy between Canada and the United States in the case of International Power Lines (IPL) and the international sale of electricity.  The specific case of the Montana-Alberta Tie Limited (MATL) project provides an excellent case study of the Canada-U.S. relations on electrical energy.  MATL will be the first direct merchant-based grid interconnection between the province of Alberta and the state of Montana and will provide context for the regulatory environment of each country.  This paper will present the case from the Alberta perspective.  It will, however, provide analysis of both the federal and sub-federal governments from both Canada and the U.S. and their related jurisdictional authority over the MATL project.  In doing so, this paper will discuss the context surrounding the construction of an International Power Line (IPL).  The recent final approval of the MATL project demonstrates the continuing harmonization of the North American electricity grid; which will briefly be discussed.

In addition, this paper will directly examine the popular notion that Alberta is an energy superpower in the North American marketplace; albeit perhaps not a leader in the electric energy industry specifically.  In fact, this paper seeks to demonstrate that Alberta has tremendous growth opportunities but currently lacks the adequate infrastructure to exert such influence even in the North American marketplace.  To begin our discussion, let us first explore exactly what electricity is.

Electricity is an interesting commodity.  Once electricity is generated it cannot be stored. The laws of physics declare that electricity will always flow through the path of least resistance.   This is the reason that when a light switch is turned on, the lights turn on instantly. In addition to this, electricity demand is very unpredictable.[2] As a whole the electricity market services residential, commercial and industrial purposes; which means electricity must be available at any time of day in many different locations.   Furthermore, electricity loses potential over great distances and with changes in temperature.[3] This presents an interesting challenge for the creation and maintenance of a reliable electricity grid.  A perfect mix of generation, transmission, and distribution (or retailing) must exist to efficiently service all customers in need.  As a result of this the electricity industry has traditionally been region-specific and usually exists as a vertically-integrated entity.  To increase the overall efficiency of an electricity grid it is best to have many interconnections between regions because it creates economies of scale, which in turn determines the most efficient price of electricity for all users. [4]

—

The MATL Project

Montana Alberta Tie Limited (MATL) is a Calgary-based company that is currently in the progress of building Alberta’s first International Power Line (IPL).[5] This line is monumental, in that it represents the first merchant-based international project of its kind in Alberta.  This project is also unique in this province because the entire construction and financing is done by a private company instead of by the end-user who traditionally pays for such infrastructure through offset transmission charges.  Once constructed this IPL will be the first direct inter-tie between the electricity grids of the United States and Alberta.  The grid interconnection points will be located in Lethbridge, Alberta and Great Falls, Montana; crossing the border west of the Coutts crossing and spanning a distance of 345 kilometers.  The transmission power line will be privately owned and operated as a merchant system with a nominal rating of 300 megawatts of alternating current.  According to MATL, this is 240kV or enough power for 35,000 homes.[6] Even before construction, the entire line’s capacity has been auctioned off to private companies, including NaturEner, Wind Hunter and Invenergy.

The MATL transmission power line is a strategic addition to the electricity-grid and is ideally positioned for further development of local wind turbine generation projects.  The proposed IPL traverses some of the best wind energy potential locations in the western parts of North America.  In fact, the company estimates that in addition to creating 150 jobs and adding $10 million to the local economies during construction, the power line will enable up to $1 billion dollars in wind farm developments.[7] The MATL project provides a significant and necessary resource for both nations to move towards reducing their carbon footprint by providing access opportunities for renewable energy sources to join the electrical grid.  Most importantly, the MATL line will increase the overall efficiency of the Western energy grid.  If the MATL project promises such great benefits, who then has effective regulatory oversight over the IPL – Canada or the United States?

Regulatory Jurisdiction over MATL

The construction of Alberta’s first IPL provides an excellent case study of the symmetries and asymmetries of regulatory systems and trade policies of electricity as a commodity, on both sides of the border.  This paper will examine the regulatory regimes of both nations separately by looking at the jurisdiction of federal and sub-federal authorities.

The fundamental differences between Canada and the U.S. are manifested in the fact that significantly more opportunities for stakeholder input exists during all stages of the application process in the U.S.  The U.S. also has a more equal division of jurisdiction on the issue of IPLs and the international sale of electricity.  In Canada, on the other hand, authority is retained by the provincial government and there are not as many opportunities for public consultation.  In fact the provincial government is currently seeking to limit public input in essential transmission infrastructure.

After the context of each country’s regulatory regime has been established this paper will examine the move towards North American harmonization of both systems by means of joint intermediary institutions like the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Canada

–>Federal Level

At the federal level there is relatively little direct control over electric power lines and related facilities, since these are under provincial jurisdiction.[8] However, the federal government retains quasi-jurisdiction and oversight through the National Energy Board (NEB).[9] The purpose of the NEB is to “promote safety and security, environmental protection, efficient energy infrastructure and markets in the Canadian public interest.”[10] In order for an IPL to be constructed the NEB must first issue a permit to construct and operate.  This provides some effective federal control over IPLs.  The NEB considers the “technical feasibility of the project, its effect on adjacent provinces and its environmental impact.” [11] In this way the NEB ensures that projects comply with the national standards set by the Canadian Electrical Code, the Canadian Standards Association, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.  Additionally, the NEB has a mandate to ensure that IPLs are managed effectively to meet the needs of national security.  This requires an electricity reliability organization (ERO). The North American Reliability Corporation (NERC) has been appointed by the NEB as the best agency to ensure this electricity is reliable and can be counted on when needed.  NERC will be discussed further in the section on joint initiatives between Canada and the U.S.

The NEB does not regulate the import of electricity.[12] However, in addition to issuing construction and operational permits, the NEB can establish the limit of electricity to be exported.  This is determined by the total available electricity and the corresponding domestic demand.  Nearly 70 per cent of all energy exports to the U.S. are generated by hydro-electric facilities which are subject to dynamic environmental conditions.[13] This directly impacts the amount of electricity that can be exported to the U.S. at any given time.

–>Provincial Level

In Canada electricity is considered a resource and is therefore under provincial jurisdiction.[14] As a result of this, provincial regulations can vary by province.

In most provinces electricity is a public utility and is operated by a Crown Corporation.  In the cases of British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick excess electricity is exported through IPLs. The revenues earned from electricity exports are used to maintain “domestic electricity prices at levels that are lower than they would otherwise be.”[15] Each of the aforementioned provinces has substantial hydro-electric generation facilities and has nearly maximized their export potential.

Alberta is unique among all the provinces as it is the only privatized electricity sector in all of Canada.  The electricity industry was deregulated under the Electric Utilities Act (EUA) of 1995 which effectively privatized the electrical supply market.[16] Initially, this act mandated that all electricity generated would become part of a Power Pool which was regulated by the Alberta Energy Utilities Board (EUB).  However, as of 2001, retail competition was introduced effectively giving choice to consumers.  Presently in Alberta electricity generation is predominantly owned by private interests who sell the power to private retailers.  Through this process the retailers pay the owners of the transmission line for the intermediary use.  Electricity generation is separate from transmission, and separate from distribution. All three levels are private – yet must act in concert to ensure profitability of the entire system.

Although the power industry is privately owned there is still regulation oversight by three government created agencies: the Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO), the Alberta Energy Utilities Commission (EUC)^[17], and the Market Surveillance Administrator (MSA).  The first provincial regulator is the AESO; which is responsible for the reliability of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES).  The AESO is an independent not-for-profit organization that regulates access to the grid for generators and distribution companies so that electricity in Alberta is safe, reliable and affordable.  AESO facilitates a “competitive wholesale electricity market, which has more than 200 participants and about $8 billion in annual energy transactions.”[18] The AESO has a mandate to determine the need for expansion and infrastructure reinforcements.  Once a need has been determined, the AESO makes a recommendation to the second level of provincial regulation the: Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC).

The AUC is ultimately responsible for issuing permits to construct necessary transmission facilities and must conduct public consultation sessions to ensure all stakeholders have adequate input on new developments. The purpose of the public hearings is to assess local impacts, mitigate problems and accommodate solutions. As well, the AUC seeks approval of projects from the Alberta Ministry of Environment to ensure the project meets the requirements of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.[19]

Currently there is great public debate in Alberta over the authority of the AUC to construct a domestic power line between Edmonton and Calgary.  A high-voltage line between these two cities has been recommended by the AESO to reinforce the power grid, as it has only seen one infrastructure upgrade since 1989.[20] Similarly, the AESO has recommended the construction of four other critical projects, together worth an estimated $8.1 billion, out of $14.5 billion dollars in total recommended system upgrades.[21]

The AUC and the Alberta Government face even greater criticism over the proposed Bill 50: Electric Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.  The intention of the bill is to provide unilateral authority of the Alberta government to approve critical transmission projects.  If Bill 50 passes, the provincial cabinet would have considerable power over the AUC, which would compromise the democratic nature of the intended system.  Tensions are exacerbated by both landowners and ratepayers.  Landowners are worried about the negative impacts of building a line over their land – including lost property values, health impacts, and a general belief of ‘not in my back yard.’[22] Rate-payers also have concerns because they will be responsible for paying for the transmission upgrades through increases in annual electricity bills.

The third provincial regulator of electricity is the Market Surveillance Administrator (MSA).  The main purpose of the MSA is to ensure fairness of the electricity markets in Alberta’s public interest.  The agency monitors, reports, investigates and is an advisory body that reports to the AUC.  The MSA does not have regulatory authority over IPL project applications.

United States

–>Federal and State Levels

In the United States the MATL project is similarly impacted by two levels of government.  In this case the regulatory process of approval required for an IPL provides effective control to many government departments related to energy and the environment.

The state of Montana has authority over matters of transmission under the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).  The DEQ has authority set under the Major Facility Siting Act of 2003 (MFSA) which effectively supersedes all other local government entities and regulations.[23] The federal executive level of government it is largely involved in the proceeds of the state level regulatory process, has the ability to make recommendations, or can effectively veto the project.  Under the MFSA act the Montana DEQ requires two authorizations for a developer of an IPL to proceed with construction.

The first is step of constructing an IPL is an application outlining many factors.   In the MFSA application procedure a transmission developer must demonstrate the need for the project, justify its proposed location or alternative sites, and provide a baseline study (or a reliability analysis). Most importantly, the application must demonstrate a cost-benefit analysis of the project.  The Montana DEQ submits all relevant information to the DOE; in turn the DOE will issue a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).  Based on each government’s findings and subsequent public hearings, the DEQ will issue or deny a Certificate of Compliance.  This certificate signifies that all conditions of the application process are met which permits the developer to proceed to the next level of the regulatory process.[24]

The first step of the MFSA application process involves communication with all relevant stakeholders from the beginning to allow maximum public input from the start.  This public consultation at the early stages of project authorization has allowed the local constituents most impacted to have a voice in the development.  In the case of MATL, local farmers were responsible for changing the pole type design on farm-lands most impacted by the line crossing.[25] The cost-benefit analysis of the MATL project suggested a local impact to farmers that would annually result in $210,000 in additional farming related costs.[26] This was out-weighed by the net benefit from tax revenue from MATL which is estimated to be $730,000 annually. [27] This does not include the potential gains from greater system efficiency and future wind farm development related tax revenue.

The second step of the authorization process to construct an IPL like MATL, is also a multi-level process involving the federal Department of Energy (DOE) and the Montana DEQ.  This step is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Many levels of government have input in reviewing the project application through a report known as an Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Study (or agency comment stage) which is available first to related agencies impacted by the development for review.  This step of the regulatory process is intended to measure the level of environmental impact each project will have.  The implication of this is to ensure a more rigorous scrutiny process for projects that will have environmental impacts by way of national parks, critical habitat areas (reserved for endangered species), breeding areas, cultural areas, waterways, and areas of scientific, paleontological or anthropological interests.

In this way, the DEQ based their approval of the MATL project on the company’s adherence to the “Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.” This document was created through a multi-stakeholder policy approach with input from the California Energy Commission, the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC)[28], and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).[29] In addition to meeting these standards the MATL project must also adhere to the National Electrical Safety Code, the Federal Aviation Administration, water quality statutes during construction, and local visual management plans.[30] This process enables simultaneously action by both the federal level (DOE) and the state level (M DEQ) and related agencies.  This fosters greater input on the proposed projects from a wider range of state and federal levels.

Once the agency comment stage is complete, the DEQ issues a Draft EIS which is released for public comment.  This provides the general public an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.  However, this stage is limited by time; within thirty days the DEQ will issue a Final EIS which legitimizes the IPL development as a real possibility.  Based on this report the DEQ has nine months to review it and draft and issue all permits not covered by the Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) required by the proposed development.[31] This process occurs simultaneously at the federal level under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy (DOE).  There is considerable cooperation between the state and federal levels during the second stage.  Within thirty-days of the DEQ issuing a Draft EIS the DOE may issue a presidential permit to continue with construction.  Once the DEQ and the DOE approve the application a Record of Decision is given which authorizes the construction of the IPL.

It is important to note that the federal level of government is also represented by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).    This effective authority over IPLs is retained by the Electrical Reliability Organization (ERO).  In the United States the designated ERO is the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC).  This will be discussed in the next section.

—

North American Electricity Integration

Recently Canada and the United States have fostered a dialogue to create a Smart Energy Grid.  This would effectively lead to greater harmonization among all North American power generators, transmitters, and distributors.  Already this has occurred through a main joint coordinating agency that links the Canadian and American electricity market is through an Electricity Reliability Organization (ERO).  The designated ERO for both Canada and the U.S. is the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Interestingly NERC was first designated as the main U.S. ERO in 2005 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).[32] This was a result of the major blackouts of 2003 in the Northeastern regions of North America.[33] Subsequently, the NEB in Canada appointed NERC as the national ERO because it was required if Canada was to increase the trade in electricity with the U.S.  This suggests that NERC is a domestic policy tool that has been applied to Canada – meaning Canada was treated as a sub-set of American domestic policies.  It is arguable that Canada voluntarily joined NERC, yet was there an alternative option?  If Canada was not a part of NERC, then most transmission interconnection points with the U.S. would no longer be functional.  Before however, NERC was a voluntary authority that set out policies and standards for nine regional electrical councils within the U.S.  Now NERC has the ability to fine electrical generators and distributors for non-compliance with their standards and policies.  The regional council that has jurisdiction over the MATL project is the western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).

The effective jurisdiction of WECC is over the states and provinces of: Alberta, Arizona, British Columbia, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. [34] WECC has effective control over the interconnection points between Canada and the eastern coordinating councils through many high-voltage power lines; once completed MATL will become another one of these interconnections.

In order for an IPL to be approved WECC must approve the technical aspects of the proposed project.  This ensures that any new transmission infrastructure is compatible with the entire electricity grid in North America.  MATL required a Phase III status on the transmission pathway rating in order to be eligible for connection with the WECC.[35] This means that the IPL is engineered to meet the standards specified by NERC.

NERC is also part of the North American strategy for national defense; the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) program has developed Cyber Security Standards to protect assets deemed high risk but necessary for the reliability of the North American system.[36]

—

Discussion

The case of MATL suggests there are many similarities between Canada and the U.S. in terms of regulatory processes of IPLs.  However, it is evident that the process in the U.S. is much better organized with greater chance of public involvement.

In Canada the regulatory process appears less well-organized.  Also, in Alberta there is less opportunity for public consultation, which under Bill 50 may diminish even more over time.  The MATL project has demonstrated that Alberta regulatory process of IPL’s is still in an infancy stage of development.  Before MATL Alberta did not have IPLs.  During the MATL approval process Alberta effectively changed the regulatory agencies responsible for IPLs – the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) was not the presiding agency in the approval of MATL.  In fact, the AUC was formed by the dismantling of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB).  More investigation is required to determine if the MATL project played an influencing role on the change of the provincial government regulatory framework.

The MATL project has been very effective, especially in the U.S.  The company began the IPL development process in August of 2005 and in four short years was able to secure full regulatory approval from multi-levels of government from two countries.  The MATL project has also been successful in gaining funding by the federal U.S. government under the Recovery Act of 2009; made possible by the DOE through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).  In exchange for the conditional right to 50MW of the MATL line capacity, WAPA will cover the expected construction costs of $161 million.[37] MATL is the first project to be funded by WAPA under the Recovery Act of 2009.  This suggests that the project managers of MATL were keenly involved in the U.S. government regulatory process.  The Canadian company understood that in the U.S. regulation is a multilevel process that requires a coordinated and micro-policy approach.  The MATL project: aimed to harmonize the North American electricity system; is sectoral in character; and appealed to regulators because of the potential for renewable energy to be added to the grid.  It is for these three reasons that MATL was able to achieve project approval in the U.S. in just four years.

There is evidence that suggests greater integration of the North American electricity market will lead to a harmonization of regulatory oversight over matters of IPLs.  NERC is a perfect example of how Canada and the U.S. work together through an independent, sectoral-based organization to achieve common ends.  Interestingly, however, NERC was borne as a subset of domestic American policies.  This suggests that Canada could be considered the fifty-first or just another Northern state.  Given the enormous energy reserves in Canada, more specifically in Alberta, perhaps it should be the other way around.  After all, media has a unique ability to continually purport that Alberta is an energy superpower.

Is Alberta an energy superpower?  In electricity the straight answer is no.  Before the construction of MATL Alberta does have access to the United States electrical market through inter-provincial ties via British Columbia and Saskatchewan.[38] This has traditionally allowed for Alberta to engage in the import and export of power.  According to the National Energy Board, between January and February 2009 Alberta exported 167,412 megawatt hours (MW.h) of electricity. This was worth an estimated $5.6 million at an average cost of $35.32/MW.h.  During the same time period Alberta effectively imported 485,367 MW.h of electricity; worth an estimated $16.6 million at an average cost of $52.02/MW.h.[39] Based on this data it is evident that in 2009 Alberta has been a net-importer of electricity and has faced higher importing costs than those states that purchase Alberta electricity.

Alberta has paid a premium on electricity imports; paying on average $16.70/MW.h more to buy than is charged for the export of the exact same commodity.  This is most likely due to discriminatory pricing techniques involved in the electricity industry – wherein prices vary by demand and are influenced by complex financial derivatives.  However, it is interesting to consider that Alberta faces a trade deficit in electricity exports.  It is because of this that Alberta cannot be considered an energy superpower.  However, some may consider the development of Alberta’s first IPL marks an important development in the province’s energy-related economic growth strategy towards becoming an energy superpower.

It is interesting to consider that currently in Alberta most electricity is generated by burning coal.  In 2007 Alberta was responsible for the burning of a staggering 52 per cent of all coal in Canada for the purpose of electrical generation.[40] Coal is a reliable fuel source.  The economics are simple: as electrical demand increases more coal is burned so supply and demand are equal.  Subsequently, coal has a bad reputation based on the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions that result from how it is converted to energy.  If the MATL project enables Alberta to export electricity, then will impending government climate legislation detrimentally affect Alberta exports?  Will the Americans impose higher tariffs on energy from ‘unclean’ sources?  Or will MATL spur the development of renewable energy sources as promised?

—

Figure 1: Chart of Electrical Line Losses by Load and Temperature

(DOE 2008)

—

Figure 2: Major Western Canadian Electricity Transmission Interconnections – Domestic and International

(NEB January 2003, 9)

—

Figure 3: IPL Regulatory Framework – U.S.A.

—

Table 1: Key Regulatory Approvals Required by Jurisdiction

*Effective January 1, 2008 the EUB became: Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC)

**The amount of time MATL application process required for approval

***Designated the official federal Electricity Reliability Organization (ERO) by FERC in 2006; members include states/provinces from Canada, USA, Mexico

—

Table 2: Summary of Alberta Electricity Imports and Exports by Company and Destination 2009

List of Acronyms

AESO   – Alberta Electric Systems Operator

AIES     – Alberta Interconnected Electric System

APLIC   – Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (USA)

AUC     – Alberta Utilities Commission

DEQ     – Department of Environmental Quality (Montana)

DOE     – Department of Energy (USA)

EEI       – Edison Electric Institute (USA)

FERC    – Federal Electricity Regulatory Commission (USA)

IPL       – International Power Line

MATL   – Montana Alberta Tie Limited Project

MSA     – Market Surveillance Administrator (Alberta)

NEB     – National Energy Board (Canada)

NERC   – North American Energy Reliability Corporation

NEPA   – National Environmental Policy Act (USA)

WAPA – Western Area Power Administration (USA)

—

Bibliography

AESO. “About AESO.” Alberta Electric System Operator. December 2009. http://www.aeso.ca/ourcompany/ourCompany.html (accessed December 1, 2009).

Alberta Energy. Energy History in Alberta. 02 02, 2009. http://www.energy.alberta.ca/About_Us/1133.asp#2000_-_Present (accessed 12 01, 2009).

DOE. Department of Energy Announces Start of Western Area Power Administration Recovery Act Project . September 19, 2009. http://www.energy.gov/news2009/8017.htm (accessed December 3, 2009).

DEQ. “Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” MATL Transmission Line EIS. 2008. http://gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/docs/deis/eis0399/vol2/Volume2g.pdf (accessed 12 1, 2009).

MATL. Our Project – Regulatory. 2009. http://www.matl.ca/project/regulatory.php (accessed November 1, 2009).

Mintz, Jack M. “The Power of Exports.” National Post. November 9, 2009. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/09/jack-mintz-the-power-of-exports.aspx (accessed December 1, 2009).

Montana DEQ. “DEQ Findings for Certification.” Tonbridge Power – MATL Project. October 22, 2008. http://www.tonbridgepower.com/Project/DEQ%20Findings%20for%20Certification.pdf (accessed December 1, 2009).

NEB. Canadian Electricity Exports and Imports. An Energy Market Assessment, National Energy Board, Calgary: Canada, January 2003, 66.

NEB. Electricity Exports and Imports. Monthly Statistics Repor, Calgary: Canada, September 2009, 31.

NEB. Global and Canadian Context for Energy Demand Analysis. Energy Briefing Note, Calgary: Canada, September 2008, 20.

NEB. International Power Line Security Management. 11 20, 2009. http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/scrty/ntrntnlpwrlnscrtymngmnt-eng.html (accessed December 7, 2009).

NEB. Who we are, governance, and responsibilities. 11 16, 2009. http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/whwrndrgvrnnc/rrspnsblt-eng.html (accessed Dec 6, 2009).

Puckett, Carl. “Leaders celebrate the start of MATL work.” Great Falls Tribune. December 01, 2009. http://www.matl.ca/documents/2009/project/press/articles_pdf/2009-12-01%20%28Great%20Falls%20Tribune%29%20-%20Leaders%20celebrate%20start%20of%20MATL%20work.pdf (accessed December 04, 2009).

Reuters. “Alberta needs $14.5 billion in new power lines: agency.” National Post. June 2, 2009. www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id1655795 (accessed December 1, 2009).

Statistics Canada. “Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution (57-202-X).” Statistics Canada. 2007. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2009/statcan/57-202-X/57-202-x2007000-eng.pdf (accessed December 2, 2009).

“Summary of State Transmission Siting Law in the Western Interconnection.” Western Governors Association. http://www.westgov.org/wieb/transmission/other/siting_paper.pdf (accessed November 27, 2009).

[2] Recognizable trends exist where consumer consumption is based on time of day and time of year.  For example, most people are home and using electricity in the morning and in the evening; and there is more electricity consumption during the winter, especially in Canada, because there are less day-light hours.

^[3] See Appendix Figure 1: Chart of Electrical Line Losses by Load and Temperature

^[4] EEI – electricity 101 (NEB January 2003, 2)

[5] MATL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tonbridge Power Inc. (TSX: TBZ)

[6] MATL site

[7] (Puckett 2009)

[8] Constitutional division of powers

[9] As set out by: National Energy Board Act (1959); Canadian Electricity Policy (1988); Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1995).

[10] (NEB September 2008)

[11] (NEB 2009).

^[12] (NEB September 2008)

^[13] (NEB 2009)

^[14] As per the constitutional distribution of powers

^[15] (NEB January 2003, viii)

[16] (Alberta Energy 2009)

^[17] Originally the Alberta Energy Utilities Board (EUB) which in January 2008 was dismantled into two separate agencies: the Alberta Utilities Commission (EUC) and the Energy and Resources Conservation Board (ERCB).  The EUB was the presiding agency over the MATL project.

^[18] (AESO 2009)

[19] (Alberta Energy 2009)

[20] (Mintz 2009)

[21] (Reuters 2009)

[22] As discussed in class and in So Near and Yet So Far: NIMBY or BANANA.

[23] (Summary of State Transmission Siting Law in the Western Interconnection n.d.)

[24] See Appendix Figure 3 IPL Regulatory Framework – U.S.A.

[25] This effectively changed some of the 1600 poles to be installed from just being of an H-type design to a monopole type design.

[26] These costs are as simple as a farmer being forced to combine around IPL power-poles that interfere with time-tested farming efficiencies.  These costs do not factor in the impacts of construction or lost potential land-values.

[27] (Montana DEQ 2008, 12)

[28] APLIC is a multi-level committee comprised of electric utility organizations and federal agencies.

[29] EEI is an association of shareholder electric companies that represents 70% of U.S. electric power industry.

[30] (Montana DEQ 2008, 9)

[31] (Summary of State Transmission Siting Law in the Western Interconnection n.d.)

[32] FERC is an independent regulatory agency within the DOE and is responsible to federal courts.

[33] NERC was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

[34] WECC was formed in 2002 by the merger of three regional councils: the Western System Coordinating Council, the Southwest Regional Transmission Association, and the Western Regional Transmission Association.

[35] (MATL 2009)

[36] (NEB 2009)

[37] (DOE 2009)

^[38] See Appendix: Figure 2: Major Western Canadian Electricity Transmission Interconnections – Domestic and International

^[39] See Appendix Table 2: Summary of Alberta Electricity Imports and Exports by Company and Destination 2009

[40] (Statistics Canada 2007)

—

FULL DISCLOSURE:

At the time of writing this I owned shares in Tonbridge Power (TVE: TBZ) the parent company of MATL.