March madness

Dear Editor,

It looks like we have to critique the last two vague routes proposed by ATCO/AltaLink for the CETO project.

Once again, they want your input regarding their route proposals.

Interestingly, after the two previous rounds of consultations, specific details pertaining to the two routes which have been selected to present to the AUC, are not clear.

Both of the proposed routes have included sub-routes, rather than the clear routing everyone was expecting. Confuse and divide in order to conquer.

Adding to the frustration of this CETO Project application is the fact there has been no concrete construction on any renewable energy project to support this application.

Capital Power has received a time extension on their proposed Halkirk 2 project.

ATCO/AltaLink have stated the pace of construction is related to the pace of development of renewable projects.

This begs the question of why even go through this if nothing is actually under construction?

Only when these projects are actually under construction and proceeding, is there a real need for a transmission development to take place.

Only then should meaningful consultations with landowners proceed.

AESO’s mentality of “build it and they will come” is clearly misguided.

ATCO/AltaLink’s decision to recommend construction of a mono pole double circuit structure to the AUC is a result of landowners feedback.

They view it as the most efficient, cost-effective, least invasive structure to build.

The least invasive route is to construct the transmission line on public right-of-way’s not across landowner’s property.

If this project is built for the public good, it should be placed on public right-of-ways. If property owners had full property rights this conversation would not be happening.

Elected officials must have the courage, not cowardice, to confront this type of allowed behaviour.

It is important you give ATCO/AltaLink your feedback regarding line routing and the monopole double circuit structure.

For those of you who are on the rejected routes, I want to thank you for taking the time to express your opinions on the CETO project.

When ATCO/AltaLink presents their application to the AUC, the land agents representing them will be asking landowners to sign options on the proposed routes.

Grant Barnes, a land agent who works with ATCO/AltaLink stated this is standard procedure.

My advice to everyone is not to sign anything. Why would you sign an option for something which may not proceed?

I would remind everyone a number of us have contacted CAEPLA to represent us in negotiations with ATCO/AltaLink’s land agents when the final decision is made on routing.

Landowners need to be united as a single voice to ensure meaningful negotiations.

CAEPLA has been successful in representing landowner’s concerns. If you’re interested in joining our group, call me at 403-742-3904.

Remember ATCO/AltaLink’s land agents are not working in your best interest.

 

Brett Penosky,

Stettler, Alta

About the author

Avatar

ECA Review Publisher

Subscribe

* indicates required