-----Original Message-----
From: "beaudry, raymond" <wrf@manitoulin.net>
To: "James C. Sidlofski NP Law" <JSidlofsky@blg.com>
Cc: "BoardSec OEB" <BoardSec@ontarioenergyboard.ca>,"Michael Millar OEB Board Counsel" <michael.millar@ontarioenergyboard.ca>,"Edik Zwarenstein OEB" <Edik.Zwarenstein@ontarioenergyboard.ca>,"Gordon Potts NP" <gordon.potts@Northlandpower.ca>,"Art Jacko" <ajacko@uccm.ca>,"Rosemary Wakegijig Wiki" <neoskwes@hotmail.com>,"Catherine Bayne" <cbayne@bayniche-conservancy.ca>,"George Browne" <gbrowne@bayniche-conservancy.ca>,"John & Nicole Smith Nature Club" <johnnicolesmith@xplornet.com>,"Parker Gallant PEC" <parker.gallant@sympatico.ca>,"Jane Wilson WCO" <jane.wilson@ripnet.com>,"Sherri Lange" <kodaisl@rogers.com>,"Sarah Jane Turney CP" <sturney@fasken.com>,"Neil M Smiley CP" <nsmiley@fasken.com>,"Raymond Beaudry" <wrf@manitoulin.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:32:49 -0400
Subject: EB-2011-0394 Questions of Clarification for MCSEA et al

re. EB-2011-0394 Questions of Clarification for MCSEA et al. 
Interrogatory Responses

Dear Mr. Sidlofsky,

Please find attached questions of clarification on the initial responses of McLean's Mountain Wind LP to our interrogatories. 

Our questions of clarification follow the numbering system of the original interrogatories.

We will supply the newspaper articles referenced as soon as possible.

Thank you
Raymond Beaudry
MCSEA

Response to Question #2

The question sought details of MMP/NPI partnership including dates for the formation of the partners and their respective roles. The reply was not responsive.

2.1 When was MMP/NPI partnership created? Please produce the documents creating the partnership.

2.2 Who were the representatives of the respective parties when the partnership was created?

2.3 Is MMP, Mnidoo Mnising Power Corporation (MMPC), and Mnidoo Mnising 
Power LP the same company or partner? If not please explain in detail what each entity is relative to the approvals sought in this case.

2.4 Please provide the time of formation of each of MMP, Mnidoo Mnising Power Corporation (MMPC), and Mnidoo Mnising Power LP.

2.5 The flow chart in Exhibit B Tab 2 Sch. 1 Attachment 1.2.2 on the next 
unnumbered page shows that NPI is partnered with MMPLP. Please explain.

Response to Question #3

The question sought clarification of the overall project investment responsibility for each of the two 50/50 partners. In addition, the question sought clarification as to the implications of a hypothetical collapse in the partnership. The response failed to respond to the element of the question seeking a summary of the investment requirements. 
The response clarified that Northland Power will continue with the project irrespective of the participation of MMP, assuming Northland can meet all the requirements of other approvals.

3.1 Can approvals to be granted without a partner in this application or would a new application be required?

3.2 Is the partnership dependant upon REA approval? 

3.3 The Manitoulin Expositor newspaper article Feb 9,2011 - UCCM, Northland Partner on McLeans Mtn. wind farm quotes the project cost as $200 million, including related transmission requirements. Please confirm the overall cost of the project.

In this same article the 1990 lands claim was used to the MMP’s advantage. Was the partnership dependant upon an agreement of this claim. Would NPI been able to proceed solely without accommodating

A news interview at the signing of the partnership announcement in Sudbury quotes John Brace that a 50% return is better than nothing. Was this a forced partnership?

3.4 Please document MMP’s capacity to fund its share of the investment. Is the funding confirmed and what is the source of the funds?

3.5 What are the terms and conditions of the REA and all other approvals that bear on a change in proponency ?

Response to Question #4

The question sought to clarify the role of MMP. The answer focused on MMP’s lack of operational role.

4.1 Is MMP a joint holder of any of the lands rights acquired?

4.2 Is MMP only providing financial support for the project? What is MMP’s role?

Response to Question #5

Question #5 sought clarification of the nature of MMP but the answer only referred to the composition of MMP.

5.1 Exhibit B Tab 2 Sch 1, reference 1.3.1 requires a Description of  Business of each of the Parties. However, MMP has not been described in this section. Please provide clarification of the nature of MMP.

Response to Question #6

Question #6 asked for the representative of each of the First Nations at the time MMP was created and who represented each First Nation at the time of the signing of the partnership agreement between MMP and NPI. The response indicated that “authorization for the creation of the partnership with Northland by each of the First Nations was given by the signing of Band Council Resolutions.” Further, the reply states that “the identities of the individuals who represented each of the Bands at the 
time is not relevant.”

6.1 Please provide all of the BCR's referred to in the reply to Question #6. If the information is not included in the respective BCRs, please provide the dates the member partner BCR’s were signed.

6.2 MCSEA is concerned by inconsistencies in public reports about the individuals representing the members of MMP at the time the partnership with NPI was signed. Please verify who the signing partners were.

6.3 When a signing chief member is not re-elected for the next term , is that community still a member partner?

6.4 Would a new partnership agreement required in the above circumstance? 
If so, what would transpire in this situation?

Response to Question #7

Question #7 asked for details of the involvement of Whitefish River First Nation in MMP at the time this commitment was made. The reply indicated that, “The Applicant confirms that the term of office for chief and council of the Whitefish River First Nation ended on January 7, 2011 and that the election of a new chief and council did not occur until February 12, 2011.” Further, the reply indicates that “Prior to the signing of the 
McLean partnership in December 2011, a Band Council Resolution was signed by the council of the Whitefish River First Nation which authorized the Chief to commit the Whitefish River Nation to MMP.”

7.1 Please confirm that Franklin Paibomsai (Shining Turtle) of the Whitefish River FN signed the MMP partnership agreement with NPI. Please provide date of the partnership agreement between MMP and NPI.

7.2 There is a discrepancy in the reported dates of the signing of the Mclean partnership agreement: December 2010 and December 2011--as indicated in responses to Questions #6 and #7, respectively, as well as February 10th, 2011--as indicated in Northland's own media release and February 8, 2011--as indicated in a “Community Announcement “ from MMP. Please verify which of these three dates was the actual date for the signing of the partnership and the reason for this discrepancy.

7.3 Regarding the election referenced in the reply from McLean, what was the date the election was called?

7.4 Please confirm that Franklin Paibomsai (Shining Turtle) of the Whitefish River FN signed the BCR. Please provide the date of that signature?

Response to Question #9

Question #9 addressed the relationship of AOK with MMP. McLean statements in response that “support continues from AOK” and “The REA comment period was not extended an additional 60 days” 

These two statements appear to conflict with information in the following newspaper articles.

1. Manitoulin Expositor Jan 25, 2012 - “AOK requests extension of comment deadline for wind turbines. Chief wants community consultation.”

2. Manitoulin Expositor Feb 22, 2012 - “AOK gets permission from MOE to submit late comments concerning Northland Power Wind Project.”

9.1 How does McLean explain the contradictions between the statements contained in its reply to Question #9 and the information presented in these two articles?

9.2 Please verify that a meeting by NPI and MMP representatives met with AOK following the publication of the February 22, 2012 article.

9.3 Please verify AOK’s position in relation to the project right now.

9.4 Please verify that the original signing of the partnership between MMP and NPI was done without the knowledge or support of this community.

9.5 Please provide the AOK BCR that supports the project.

Response to Question #11

Question #11 asked for details on the role of UCCMM chiefs in the formation of MMP.

11.1 Please provide all BCR’s in support of the MMP partnership.

11.2 Please provide evidence that community meetings were held in all member communities.

11.3 Does McLean contest the statements in the following two articles 
claiming that consultations did not take place in the member communities 
identified below?

Reference Manitoulin Expositor articles;
Feb 9,2011 - UCCM, Northland Partner on McLeans’ Mtn. wind farm “Chief Hare noted that “we had discussion at the council level” on the issue of the UCCMM partnership with Northland, while admitting that ‘we didn’t go to the community,” in part because there is already a process in place in which Northland is required to hold public consultations.

Feb 16,2011 - UCCM,Northland deal earns higher rate by 1.5 cents/kwh “Even if we were consulted and accommodated to the fullest extent, I’m sure there would be people who would say no,” Chief Endanawas said”.

Response to Question #13

Question #13 asked for information on the nature of the land title for the lands proposed to be used by the applicant.

13.1 Does McLean recognize that the Provincial land in the North Channel that McLean is proposing to occupy is currently subject to a disputed land claim initiated by the Wikwemikong First Nation?

Response to Question #15

Question #15 asked for specifics on lands required for easements for the proposed transmission facilities. Specifics were not provided.

15.1 MCSEA requests information of what easements are being applied for and their exact location. We are not requesting evidence of ownership.

Response to Question #16

Question #16 asked for details on road use agreements.

16.1 Did NEMI council request a sign off from the MOE and MNR in regards to approval of the road users agreement with McLean? Has this been done? If so, please provide documentation.

16.2 Who are the parties to the road use agreement with NEMI? 

16.3 Is there a road use agreement with UCCMM? Please provide the details.

16.4 Verify that a road use agreement is mandated by the Province. What process would apply should the township or municipality not agree to have a road use agreement?

16.5 Verify that the NEMI council informed the public that the road user agreement was a requirement of the GEA and should an agreement not been reached then the province would set the road use agreement which may not be in the best interest of the municipality.

16.6 Please detail any financial arrangements associated with the road use agreement, including but not limited to the payment amounts, the payment schedule, the term, the payee, associated approvals, assignment rights, and applicable conditions.

16.7 Please detail the setback requirements in the road use agreement for any structures from the fence lines or other ROW boundaries. What is the process in the event that variations are required relative to the requirements of all road use agreements that the project requires?

Response to Question #17

Question #17 asked for details on the locations of poles 72 and 73.

17.1 Please confirm that the pole locations 72 and 73 are not consistent with the REA Submission as prefiled.

Response to Question #18

Question #18 asked for details about the accommodations required to deal with intersections with 44 kV systems.

18.1 Please confirm the pole heights required for all 44 kV crossings. What process is McLean proposing in the event that the pole heights as reflected in the current application turn out to be inconsistent with the pole heights required? 

18.2 Are any other types of materials considered other than wood poles as identified in this application?

18.3 Are wood poles the structure material type identified in this application?

Response to Question #22

Question #22 requested details on First Nation land, road allowances, and land claim areas in relation to the ROW and distances from conductor swing.

22.1 Please provide a more detailed map as previously requested.

22.2 Lot 11 and 12 of Conc 6 are owned by First Nation members and not identified on the map. Please confirm.

22.3 Please identify Sheguiandah First Nation ceremonial lands in proximity to the proposed facilities.

22.4 Please identify the areas that the 1990 lands claim was referenced in the Manitoulin Expositor Feb 9, 2011 - UCCM, Northland Partner on McLeans Mtn. wind farm.

22.5 Please confirm whether the possible unsettled shoreline marine allowance land claim for the submarine cable crossing was discussed with your First Nation partner, who the individuals representing the First Nation were and what was the agreement reached in respect to this possible land claim.

Response to Question #23

Question #23 sought details on the impact of proposed facilities on official OFSC snowmobile trails and notice to snowmobile interests. The response refers to a requirement for a detailed plan.

23.1 Please provide the most current plan referred to in the response, drawn to scale with all required information.

Response to Question #24

Question #24 sought assurances from the applicant that the quality of electricity service to facilities neighbouring the proposed transmission facilities. McLean did not provide assurances that electrical services to existing consumers will not be impacted. 

24.1 Please provide detail on the electrical mitigation practices and plans to address any issues that could affect the clean energy currently being supplied.

24.2 Will an underground counterpoise, sky wire or shield wire be installed for the length of the 115 kV circuit as practiced by HONI? 

24.3 What is the grounding plan for the proposed transmission system? 

24.4 Will the proposed transmission facility be bonded to the grounding on the HONI system? 

24.5 NPI sought to purchase three feet of land inside the road allowance along lot 3 conc 7. This purchase request was denied by the landowner. There is an existing 45 foot transformer pole at 342 Morphets’ Side Road at this lot location. Please explain what measures will be required to abide by the line separation requirements set out in CSA C22.3 in this region of the proposed transmission line. 

Please confirm that the applicant can meet all its requirements without expropriating any private land. Should the line separation distances not be achievable in accordance with CSA C22.3 with the line routing limited to just the road allowance on Morphet’s Side Road, would the use of private land be required?

24.6 Will the electricity quality at the transformer station match the system requirements?

Response to Question #25

Question #25 sought details on over-currents and trickle voltage related to the project.

25.1 What measures and assurances are provided by the applicant to alleviate these concerns? Will capacitors and over-current protection be installed on the existing LDC or secondary lines? If so, is the upgrade the responsibility of HONI or the applicant?

Response to Question #27

Question #27 sought details on the land use plans for road allowances. The answer was not responsive.

27.1 There are two criteria for determining road allowances. One is the the township plan. However, where the fences are not on the road allowance boundaries, a measurement can be taken from the centre of both existing fences to the centre of the road and a road width determined from the center of the road. Please identify which method to be used for the line location proposed.

Response to Question #28

Question #28 sought details on changes to fence lines.

28.1 Please identify what fences will be required to be relocated. 

28.2 In the event that cedar rail fences are to be moved, will cedar rails of equal or greater quality be replaced by the applicant?

Response to Question #31

Question #31 asked for details on proposed ROW and line clearances. The answer provided assumes that all facilities will be located on existing municipal ROWs.

31.1 Please confirm that no lines, poles, anchoring, guying, or other encroachments be located outside the existing municipal ROW.

Response to Question #32

Question #32 addresses the applicant’s land use plans for Morphet’s Side Road, particularly the planned use of the populated north side, as opposed to the unpopulated south side.

32.1 The existing fence lines are very close to the ROW boundaries. Please provide a detailed map showing any deviation as claimed. 

32.2 What are the guying and anchoring requirements for switching sides of the road? If guying and anchoring is required, please provide drawings showing the guying and anchoring including the land requirements.

32.3 The map provided in attachment 1 of Tab 1 (the Board Staff responses) shows the transmission line on the south side of Morphet’s side road and two deviation angles on lot 7 conc. 6 to line up with the road allowance. This is not consistent with the line routing described in overhead line site plan and plan and profile drawings. Please explain.

32.3 In attachment 1 there is a vacant lot east beside the construction staging area that fits the description of a receptor. Please explain why the 550 noise receptor setback is not identified at this location. Please identify all vacant lot receptor locations as per attachment 1 and include 550m noise receptor setback.

Response to Question #36

Question #36 addressed alternative transmission routes. The response makes various claims, including the claim that the proposed route only crosses the existing 44 kV system once.

36.1 Please verify in your statement that the proposed route only crosses a 44 kV system once.

36.2 Please provide drawings on all alternative routes considered by the applicant or proposed by the public. Include all roadways, receptors, and existing rural and sub-transmission circuits. 

Response to Question #38

Question #38 asked for the applicant’s plans with respect to expropriation.

38.1 Does McLean agree that lands will be required where no current lease arrangements have been made?

Response to Question #39

Question #39 related to the route of the submarine section of the proposed facility. The reply indicates that negotiations between CP and McLean are continuing.

39.1 What is the expected date of MNR approval for the submarine component?

Response to Question #40

Question #40 addressed the implications of changing the submarine route.

40.1 Have the MOE, MNR, and Transport Canada been informed of a change in route and submarine cable exit points?

40.2 Who determines whether additional public comment is warranted or not?

40.3 What changes would be required to warrant additional public comment?

40.4 In the event that OEB approval is received but the route is subsequently changed, what is the applicant’s position on the applicability of the original approval? Who determines whether resubmission is required or not?

Response to Question #41

The Board noted in PO #1 that “any approval of the leave to construct application would ordinarily be conditional on all necessary permits and authorizations being acquired, including a completed REA.”

41.1 Please indicate when each of the required approvals relevant to this leave to construct application are expected to be received?

Response to Question #43

Question #43 asked for a resolution of inconsistencies in various drawings purporting to show transition station location on the Manitoulin side of the submarine cable route. One of the maps prefiled confused the transition station for a substation.

43.1 Please clarify the purpose and location of the facilities presented in E/Tab1/Sch.3 Drawing #Q1010E201 revision D.

43.2 Please provide an updated general plan from Exhibit E, tab one Sch,4 that does not show a substation at the submarine cable entry point.

43.3 Please verify that no changes in routing were done at the Harbour View Road since the application submission.

Response to Question #44

Question #44 related to routing on Harbour View Road approaching the water’s edge.

44.1 There are private structures built in and along the Harbour View road allowance. Will these be required to be moved or demolished?

44. 2 Please provide updated detailed mapping showing all structures (including dwellings), road allowance boundaries and the transition station in relation to the proposed route along this road allowance.

44.3 Should the route proposed on the record of this proceeding not be acceptable due to private structures, is there an alternate route available? If so what easements would be required for the alternative?

44.4 Should the route be in the road allowance, ,what are the distances to the existing structures?

Response to Question #45

Our original Question #45 contained an error by referring to a substation (following the exhibit E/Tab1/Sch4) when we intended to refer to a transition station.

45.1 Please provide the characteristics of the fenced off transition station including land rights, noise studies, fence height, dimensions and location of this station in relation to Harbour View Road, road allowance.

Response to Question #46

In the application no ballast system was to be used for the submarine cable crossing. In the response to interrogatories there is a ballast system now planned. 

46.1 Please confirm the ballasting plan.

46.2 When was this decision made to use a ballast system?

46.3 What type of ballast system will be used to anchor the submarine cable?

Response to Question #47

Question #47 related to the submarine section of the facilities.

47.1 What is the height of the ballast system?

47.2 Please verify the ownership and purpose of the two existing submarine cables referred to in McLean’s response.

47.3 Please verify that the two existing submarine cables referenced cross the north channel at or very near the bridge. 

Response to Question #57

Question #57 asked for details on various issues including a “detailed map of the 115 kV line leaving Harbour view road including property lines, road allowance, transition substation, marine allowances, sub cable route and entry point to North Channel.” The applicant’s reply was not responsive.

57.1 Please provide a detailed map (without identifying the specifics of land ownership) showing transition station location in relation to the overhead line and complete submarine cable route from the transition station to submarine cable entry point including property lines, road allowance, and existing structures in close proximity.

Response to Question # 60

Question #60 sought an updated project development plan. The reply provided an updated Gantt chart. 

60.1 Please identify where the REA, OEB and all other approvals are located on the applicant’s current Gantt chart plan.

60.2 Please explain the significance of the “limited notice to proceed” and “notice to proceed” shown on the chart, including the type of work that is enabled by each notice.

60.3 As per the revised Gantt chart, what work was completed on LNTP #1 and LNTP #2 and who authorized this?

Response to Question # 61

Question #61 sought an explanation for the applicant’s timing in filing the current leave to construct application.

6.1 Do the applicant’s current FIT contracts for MMWF have an expiry date or date that requires a project to be commenced by? If so, please provide details on the contractual implications should the FIT projects now under contract for MMWF be delayed.

Response to Question # 66 

Question #66 sought information on the reliability implication for consumers reliant on Hydro One’s 115 kV circuit S2B connecting at Goat Island.

66.1 In the event of a transmission line failure or variable wind conditions, when the project is producing generation, will the HONI system not require to have backup reserve readily available? How will this be controlled?

66.2 What protection systems are in place should the S2B go offline?

66.3 How quickly can dropped load from this project be compensated to manage voltage issues to Manitoulin T.S. customers in close proximity and those distant where line regulators have slower response times?

66.4 Regulators and relays take some time to compensate. What is an acceptable voltage drop and how quickly can it be compensated for?

66.5 Have all the requirements of the SIA Notification of conditional Approval been met? Please identify any requirements outstanding.

66.6 Please correct SIA Addendum Figure 1: Proposed Connection Arrangement drawing on page 8. The location directions of Espanola TS and Manitoulin TS in relation to the proposed station seem reversed.

66.7 In the SIA Addendum under Revision R4. Hydro One Protection Impact Assessment. The Executive summary states it is feasible for Maclean’s Mountain Windfarm to connect the proposed 60 MW generation at the location in Figure 1 as long as the proposed changes have been made. Have the proposed changes been made? If not when is the date of changes expected?

66.8 Revision R4; Telecommunications, when is the expected date of new communications between McLean’s Mountain Windfarm and Martindale TS?

66.9 According to the SIA Revision R4, when S2B is supplied from Algoma TS, the McLean’s Mountain Windfarm will need to be taken offline. In the last 5 years, what fraction of the time has S2B been fed from Algoma? 

66.10 Will McLean be financially compensated for bottled generation at McLean’s Mountain Windfarm during these events in future?

66.11 What is the future projected supply source from Algoma TS to the S2B?

Response to Question # 68

Question #68 addressed a public presentation made by a representative of Northland Power to the North Eastern Manitoulin and the Islands council. The applicant responded that it “did not provide slides at the August 4, 2009 meeting.”

68.1 Please confirm that NPI representative John Brace distributed presentation materials to NEMI council and the public on August 4, 2009. Please provide a copy of these presentation materials.

Response to Question # 70

Question #70 sought surveying reports on the proposed facilities.

70.1 Please provide any existing survey reports in relation to this proposed transmission line.

Tab 4

Response to Question # 9

9.1 Compass directions are incorrect in response. Please correct.

Response to Question # 13

13.1 The landowners for lot 3 concession 7 objects to the removal of any trees including cedar, pear, apple and other fruit bearing trees as they provide the buffer between the road and house location. Please explain why the transmission line cannot be extended further east on the south side of Morphet’s sideroad where no other residences are and cross the road east of this lot. 

Response to Question # 14 

14.1 Please provide all Aboriginal and non Aboriginal consultation after July 24, 2010 including EBR postings and public notices.

14.2 Please provide the distance poles 72 and 73 are off the road allowance.