Via Email
electricity.regulatory.affairs@fortisbc.com April 18, 2011
Mr. Dennis Swanson
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Regulatory Affairs Department
FortisBC Inc.
100-1975 Springfield Rd.
Kelowna, BC V1Y 7V7
Dear Mr. Swanson:
Re: Heritage Hills Complaints
On the Okanagan Transmission Reinforcement Project
Issue of Compliance with the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
The British Columbia Utilities Commission (Commission) received 12 written complaints from November 13, 2010 to January 26, 2011, concerning the implementation of the Okanagan Transmission Reinforcement (OTR) Project in the area of the Heritage Hills subdivision near Penticton, British Columbia. The complaints allege that the Project was not built, and is not operating, in accordance with the evidence presented in the Application and hearing that subsequently resulted in granting of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). FortisBC Inc. (FortisBC) responded to the complaints on December 13, 2010.
The Commission has investigated the complaints by comparing the evidence presented in the OTR Hearing and the Commission’s Decision for the OTR Project, to the information about the OTR Project as constructed that is in FortisBC’s response of December 13, 2010.
NATURE OF COMPLAINTS
Rather than address each complaint individually, the Commission has grouped the complaints into the following categories and sub-categories. The complaints assert that:
1. Aesthetics
a) The line was constructed utilizing poles that exceed 100 feet in height.
b) No attempt has been made to reduce the reflective appearance of the poles to blend in with the surroundings.
c) The conductor is a larger diameter than stated in the Application.
d) There are eight conductors versus the six in the Application.
2. Health Issues
a) The line is radiating higher Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) than stated in the Application.
b) The line is exhibiting higher noise levels than the replaced 161 kV line contrary to “no material change” stated in the Application.
3. Property Values
Property values have dropped below the stated impact filed in the Application.
COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
1.0 AESTHETICS
POLE HEIGHT
FortisBC stated in the Application and updated in Exhibit B-3, Attachment 42.1b, for Alternative 1A (the OTR line constructed on the existing line 76 right-of-way [ROW]) that structure heights will vary over a range of about 27.4 metres (90 feet) to 36.6 metres (120 feet) with one or two sites potentially taller. [Exhibit B-1-1, Tab 4, pp. 32-34] The typical height was estimated to be 30.4 metres (100 feet). In response to the complaints, FortisBC states that during the regulatory process it stated the heights of the seven poles erected in Heritage Hills would range from 90 feet to 130 feet with the average pole height being 102 feet. Of the seven poles erected in Heritage Hills, three are shorter than what was anticipated, two are the same, one is taller by five feet, and another is taller by 20 feet because of local design and terrain issues.
The Commission finds the height of poles in Heritage Hills is consistent with the Application and the CPCN.
POLE APPEARANCE
FortisBC stated in Section 4 of the Application that galvanized steel poles will be used for the transmission line. In response to the complaints, FortisBC states the galvanized coating may take up to one year to dull in an inland climate.
The Commission finds the appearance of the poles is consistent with the Application and the CPCN, recognizing that some time is needed for the pole galvanized coating to dull.
SIZE OF CONDUCTORS
For Alternative 1A in the Application, the conductor to be used was identified as the Bunting conductor with a diameter of 33 millimetres. FortisBC stated that the “5 millimetre difference in diameter (Bunting at 33 millimetre diameter as compared to Drake at 28 millimetre diameter …) will not be discernable.” [Exhibit B-11, BCUC IR3, Table A99, p. 20] The complaint contends that the artist rendering presented by FortisBC in the proceeding is misleading with respect to its visual impact.
The installed conductors are Bunting with a diameter of 33 millimetres. As Bunting conductors were proposed in the Application and used in the Project, the Commission finds the size of the conductor is consistent with the Application and the CPCN.
NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
The Application stated that the Project would have two new circuits each with three conductors, and the fibre-optic cable currently mounted on 76 line structures would be relocated to the new structures. [Exhibit B-1, p. 11] The number of power conductors used is six, which is consistent with the Application. There is a fibre-optic cable, and a second fibre-optic cable from the old 76 Line that FortisBC states is scheduled to be removed.
The Commission finds the number of wires is six conductors, plus two fibre-optic cables. After removal of the temporary fibre-optic cable, there will be six conductors and one fibre-optic cable, which will be consistent with the Application and the CPCN.
2.0 HEALTH ISSUES
EMF
In the proceeding, FortisBC stated that the new line was calculated to have EMF levels between 1 and 7 milligauss (mG) at the edge of the ROW and 8 to 38 mG in the ROW. The former 138 kV line had an EMF level of 5 to 58 mG at the edge of the ROW and 37 to 109 mG in the ROW. One complainant measured EMF values and noted a peak measurement of 35 mG at 1:30 p.m. (date, weather conditions, relative height and position on the ROW were not specified).
In its response to the complaints FortisBC states, “On December 1, 2010 a FortisBC representative recorded magnetic field readings at Heritage Hills. Readings taken on the edge of the ROW averaged 6.2 mG and readings taken in the ROW (directly under the transmission line) averaged 7.9 mG. The maximum readings taken on the ROW was 12.5 mG. FortisBC expects these levels will be further reduced when the second transmission line circuit is energized.
The Commission finds the EMF values measured by FortisBC and a complainant are consistent with the Application and the CPCN. All of the measured EMF levels are well below the standard of 833 mG quoted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
CORONA EMISSIONS and AUDIBLE NOISE
The Application stated FortisBC designed the line using British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Engineering standard ES 41-K Section 4.2 which states that transmission lines shall be designed to produce an L5[1] rain audible noise level at the edge of the ROW below 55 dBA[2] in residential, urban, suburban and rural areas, and below 70 dBA in wilderness areas. In response to the complaints, FortisBC states that readings taken on December 1, 2010, on the ROW in Heritage Hills ranged from 25 dBA to 40 dBA, which conforms to the L5 rain audible noise level, and confirms that the line is operating as expected. FortisBC further states that transmission lines are more audible in the first several months of being energized and expects that the audible noise will be reduced once both lines are broken-in by the fall of 2011.
The Commission finds that the noise levels measured by FortisBC on December 1, 2010, are consistent with the Application and the CPCN. The Commission directs FortisBC to report the noise readings after the second line is in-service and both lines are broken in.
3.0 PROPERTY VALUES
A complainant refers to a 15 percent decrease in property values across the board on the most recent Property Assessments. This information was reported to have been obtained from an assessment officer in Kelowna during a telephone conversation on January 17, 2011, and the value reduction was directly attributed to the OTR installation; however, the complainant did not submit any other evidence of decreased property values from the British Columbia Assessment Authority of a decrease in property values as a direct result of the OTR Project.
FortisBC was asked in an Information Request if raising the height of the transmission poles from 16 metres to 30 metres would have a negative impact on property values for every property that currently enjoys an unspoiled view of Skaha Lake. FortisBC responded that it does not agree that there will be a negative impact on property values. [Exhibit B-8, Q5.1, p. 5]
FortisBC referred to the expert opinion provided by Interwest Property Services (1991) located in Appendix K of the Application. [Exhibit B-1-3] Interwest Property Services stated, “Significant view benefits will also be derived from the tower replacement and line raising option on several properties. In a few instances, the tower height will bring conductors into view where they were previously below the view level. These instances appear to be limited to lots above Heritage Drive. It is noted that this potential obstruction of the conductors will be from several hundred feet away, and that each conductor will be will be at a separate level, not in the more visible groupings of the H frame tower format.” Interwest Property Services further stated, “Previous studies on the impact of Electric Transmission Lines indicated no impact on property values from the second and third row of residences from the right of way, even with the more visually intrusive steel multi-plate structures or H frame towers. Where the current conductor levels are directly in front of the views to Okanagan Lake from the row of encumbered lots adjacent to the west of Heritage Boulevard, there will be an enhancement of views. It must be noted that many of the lots adjacent to the present right of way have either a directed view of the lake to the southwest or an obstructed view caused by the knoll in the centre of the above aerial view. The obstructed Skaha Lake view properties are not anticipated to have a noticeable view change. It should also be noted that there are only three tower locations. One is barely visible to any of the lots as it is below the view corridor to the southwest of the subdivision. The next is a triple tower at the point of intersection, which is quite visible to all lots above or to the east of Heritage Boulevard. The third is on the knoll, which obstructs the view of the lake.”
In the CPCN Decision, the Commission Panel accepted FortisBC’s opinion that some houses would have improved views and some would have more obstructed views if Alternative 1A is approved. There was no evidence that there would be a negative impact on property values as a group. There may be a small negative impact on the views from some specific properties, but the extent to which any negative impact on views may be offset by reduced EMF concerns cannot be determined. Some property values in the vicinity of the existing lines would probably increase if the existing line is removed from the ROW and the Upland route used for the new lines. However, given the other public interest advantages of using the existing ROW route, the potential benefit to the private property owners was not a determinative factor.
The Commission recognizes in its Decision that although the value of some individual properties may be negatively impacted by the OTR Project, the OTR Project on the existing ROW in Heritage Hills had other public interest advantages of using the existing ROW route. This matter was thoroughly considered in the proceeding and the OTR Project as constructed is consistent with the Application and the CPCN.
COMMISSION DETERMINATION
After reviewing the complaints, the Commission found the line height, pole appearance, the conductor diameter, the number of conductors, EMF and noise levels (even though only one circuit is currently energized), are consistent with the Decision and the CPCN granted. The Commission Panel recognized that there would be an impact to the property values and view in the Decision but the potential benefit of using the existing ROW route was considered a determining factor and remains as such. Following careful review of the concerns brought forth by the complainants, information provided by FortisBC, the CPCN, the Application and the Decision, the Commission concludes that the OTR Project materially complies with the evidence presented to the Commission in the Application and the proceeding and is consistent with the Decision and the CPCN.
COMMISSION DIRECTIVES
To follow up on the issue of audible noise levels, the Commission directs FortisBC to perform sound level measurements six months after the second line is in service and both lines are broken-in, anticipated for fall 2011. The results of the fall 2011 measurement and any repairs (such as a dirty conductor or sharp line hardware damaged during construction) or planned corrective actions should be reported to the Commission no later than January 20, 2012.
Yours truly,
DJF/ac Erica M. Hamilton
cc:
|
Robert Advocaat |
P. and A. Kreeft 312 Heritage Blvd. Okanagan Falls, BC V0H 1R3
|
|
Helmut and Ingeborg Benn |
Kelly Levant
|
|
Daniela Fehr |
Douglas Lychak
|
|
Colin Harlingten |
Judy Olmstead
|
|
Lynn Jackson (Jackson_lynn@telus.net) |
John Skinner
|
|
Ines Kaminski |
Tony and Diane Walter |
Mr. Oswald Dias, Policy Analyst
Ministry of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources
Electricity Transmission/Inter-jurisdictional Branch
PO Box 9314, Stn Prov Govt, Victoria BC V8W9N1
(Oswald.Dias@gov.bc.ca)
[1] L5- statistically, this level will only be exceeded five percent of the time.
[2] dBA- weighting of sound level, though originally intended only for the measurement of low-level sounds, is now commonly used for the measurement of environmental noise and industrial noise, as well as when assessing potential hearing damage and other noise health effects at all sound levels.