-----Original Message-----
From: beaudry, raymond [mailto:wrf@manitoulin.net]
Sent: April 20, 2012 4:39 PM
To: BoardSec
Cc: Edik Zwarenstein; Michael Millar; wrf@manitoulin.net; tom.adams.energy@gmail.com; cbayne@bayniche-conservancy.ca; action@lsarc.ca; neoskwes@hotmail.com; gusland@amtelecom.net; cbell@amtelecom.net; johnnicolesmith@xplornet.com; kodaisl@rogers.com; jane.wilson@ripnet.com; parker.gallant@sympatico.ca; ashnee52@hotmail.com; James C. Sidlofski NP Law; Gordon Potts NP; Art Jacko; Sarah Jane Turney CP; Neil M Smiley CP
Subject: EB-2011-0394 Oral Hearing Request



Dear Ms. Walli April 20,2012

These submissions constitute the argument pursuant to Procedural Order #5
of MCSEA, Lake Superior Action Research Coalition, Bay Niche Conservancy,
Manitoulin Nature Club, and Wikwemikong Elders, Community Members and
Youth with respect to an oral hearing.

The purpose of these submissions is to ask the Board to order an oral
hearing to consider the evidence adduced to support the application by
McLean’s Mountain Wind LP for a leave to construct to a transmission line
from the McLean’s Mountain Wind Farm on Manitoulin Island to connect with
HONI S2B on Goat Island.

In these submissions, we will explain and document why the Board will not
have a complete record unless there is an oral hearing, examples of the
critical questions left unanswered on the record to date, what we intend
to prove in an oral hearing should it be granted by the Board, what
evidence we intend to call, and our reasons for asking the Board to
convene the hearing in the stakeholder community.

Review of the Board’s Mandate

The OEB's mandate in this case is found in Section 92 of the OEB Act
which requires a leave to construct and Section 96 (2) which bounds the
Board's jurisdiction to the following:

• the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the reliability
and quality of electricity service, and
• where applicable and in a manner consistent with the policies of the
Government of Ontario, the promotion of the use of renewable energy
sources

MCSEA et al. suggest that the intention of the legislature in Section 92
is that the construction of transmission facilities in Ontario must be
regarded as a privilege. Providing transmission service to consumers in
Ontario is recognized a serious business deserving the full attention and
scrutiny of this Board. It is easy to see why the legislature has deemed
the proposed construction of transmission facilities to be examined by
the Board. For all practical purposes, transmission facilities are very
nearly permanent infrastructure. Proper management of these important
facilities is essential to the functioning of the province’s overall
electricity system.

MCSEA et al. submit that the intent of the legislature in crafting
Section 92 was to direct the Board that an applicant cannot be granted
the privilege of a leave to construct transmission facilities that will
connect with the wider Ontario grid without demonstrating its bona fides.
This provision should be interpreted as applying to the entire proposal,
including its foundational business arrangements.

In the context of this proceeding, the contested issues related to
Section 96 pertain mostly to the reliability and quality of electricity
service and consistency with the policies of the Government of Ontario.
The proposed facilities have no direct bearing on electricity prices in
the limited sense that the cost of the proposed facilities will not be
blended into the province-wide transmission cost pool.

Overview of Submission

MCSEA et al. suggests that the application before the Board raises
concerns about the bona fides and legitimacy of the applicant.

The application itself is internally inconsistent and technically
deficient.

An oral hearing is the proper forum to test these claims by way of cross-
examination of the applicant's witnesses. An oral hearing is also needed
to allow interveners to present our own viva voce evidence.

Without an oral hearing, the evidence before that Board will be
incomplete and the interveners will not have a fair opportunity to test
the applicant’s case.

Inadequate Notice

Already, using just the correspondence and the interrogatory process, we
have discovered a host of fundamental flaws in even the Notice of
Application for this proceeding. These flaws strike at the heart of the
applicant’s Notice of Application as presented to the public.

Consider this sentence from the Notice of Application: "McLean’s is a
Limited Partnership, and is equally owned by Northland Power Inc. and
Mnidoo Mnising Power Limited Partnership." Of all the things this
partnership is, to term "equal" appears to be completely inaccurate. In
fact, far from equals, MMP is a disposable partner. We learned this in
MMWL’s reply to MCSEA et al. interrogatory #3.

“Should the project receive its approvals and at a later date MMP ceases
to be both a limited partner in MMWLP and a shareholder of McLean's
Mountain Wind GP Inc., Northland Power will continue as the sole limited
partner in MMWLP and sole shareholder of McLean's Mountain Wind GP Inc.”

NPI is a sophisticated party. Without the opportunity to cross examine
witnesses, the Board will not be able to know why NPI designed the
partnership so that MMP would be disposable. We intend to prove that NPI
knew that MMP was a fundamentally illegitimate organization, acting
without due process or consultation with those who MMP purports to
represent.

MMP has no experience or demonstrated capacity with respect to the
construction of electrical infrastructure or heavy construction. The
application template, found in Ex.B/Tab2/Sch.1, requires disclosure of a
description of the business of the principals. Finding the pre-filed
evidence to contain no such information on MMP, MCSEA et. al. put the
following question in interrogatory #5:

Please explain in detail the nature of MMP including its experience in
managing large electrical projects, its financial and operating resources
to complete the project, and its governance structure.

The response received claimed that the question was irrelevant:

The composition of MMP is set out at Exhibit B, Tab 1, Schedule 1, page
1, para. 3. MMP’s experience in managing large electrical projects, its
financial and operating resources to complete the project as well as its
governance structure is not relevant to this Application as it will have
no active role in the management of this project.

MCSEA et al., considering that the Board’s “Preliminary Filing
Requirements” are not irrelevant, persisted with our questioning. Our
question of clarification and the response read as follows:

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

Question 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:
Please see McLean’s response to Questions 4 and 5 of the original MCSEA
interrogatories, and to Questions 4.1 and 4.2 above. The Applicant in this
proceeding is McLean’s Mountain Wind Limited Partnership, and not MMP. The
nature of MMP is also described at Exhibit B, Tab 1, Schedule 1,
Paragraph 3 of the Application.

The applicant’s evasive responses are contemptuous of the Board’s
requirements and jurisdiction. The applicant must be called before the
Board and asked to explain itself on all the details required by the
Board in its “Preliminary Filing Requirements”.

MMP has demonstrated no independent financial capacity to support the
development and may be reliant in part on NPI. In Question 3.4 MCSEA
asked::

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

The reply claimed that the question is irrelevant.

The overall project cost and the other matters raised in this question
are not relevant to this proceeding.

Exhibit #1 attached below suggests that MMP needs loans or guarantees
from multiple government sources to fund its portion of the investment.

We draw the Board’s attention that the pre-filed evidence purported to
provide a governance diagram in the “Corporate Chart” at Ex.B/Tab2/Sch.1
Att. 1.2.2 that the applicant later admitted was inaccurate. A different
chart is provided in response to MSEA’s Question of Clarification 2.5
Attachment 1. How is it that an applicant can appear before the Board
seeking a Leave to Construct and not be able to explain their governance
structure?

The Notice of Application not only mischaracterizes the relationship
between NPI and MMP, but it also mischaracterizes the project. "McLean’s
Mountain Wind LP entered into two feed-in-tariff (“FIT”) contracts (10 MW
plus 50 MW) with the Ontario Power Authority on April 12, 2010 in respect
of the sale of 60 MW total of electricity from the Wind Farm. The work
which is the subject of this application involves constructing a new 115
kV single circuit transmission line, consisting of an overhead line of
approximately 9 km and submarine/buried cable of approximately 1 km, and
associated facilities to connect the Wind Farm to the existing Hydro One
Networks Inc. transmission line S2B." We learned in the interrogatories
in response to Board Staff Interrogatory #2 that the intention is not to
connect 60 MW but to connect 100 MW.

“The line is sized for approximately 100 MW. Currently McLean is
contracted for 60 MW, but has applied for an additional 40 MW of FIT
contracts.”

The intention of the applicant was not accurately presented in the Notice
of Application.

Incomplete Routing Information

In response to many inquiries, the applicant has claimed that details of
routing will be determined at a future stage of the project. This stage
of the project is the absolute last call for public consultation and
input. With respect to routing, the applicant is asking for a blanket
approval, in fact a blank cheque. It is not acceptable that the public
would be left with a situation where the impacts and details are known
only upon completion of the project.

Efficiency of the Hearing

The applicant’s interrogatory responses have been evasive and non-
responsive to questions central to the Board’s jurisdiction. The poor
quality of the applicant’s responses and its error-riddled, incomplete
pre-filed evidence show that the applicant has treated this leave-to-
construct application as a rubber stamp, a fait accompli with little
regard for due process.

The deficiencies in the applicant’s evidence, such as its failure to
reply to persistent requests to complete the Board’s “Preliminary Filing
Requirements” in Ex.B/Tab2/Sch.1, cannot be allowed to stand if this
proceeding is to have any meaningful value. The Board must rule on these
glaring evidentiary questions. Having exhausted the interrogatory process
of discoveries, MCSEA et al. could pursue our information requirements
through Motions, but that process is unnecessarily cumbersome and time
consuming. Far better and more efficient that the applicant present
witnesses in an oral hearing. In a hearing environment, the Board can
efficiently sort through the questions of jurisdiction and
relevance.

MCSEA’s Evidence

The Procedural Orders of the Board so far have not identified the
schedule for the presentation of intervener evidence. MCSEA et al. intend
to present documentary, prefiled and spoken evidence on aboriginal
governance directly relevant to the Board’s understanding of the nature
and character of MMP. In addition, should an oral hearing be ordered,
MCSEA et al. intends to identify by way of notices of questions, key
documents in the possession or control of MMW LP that will clarify what
we believe the Board needs to understand about nature of MMP and its
relationship with NPI.

Location of the Hearing

Most of the interveners and half of the applicant partnership are located
on or about Great Spirit Island, also known as Manitoulin Island. We
respectfully request that the Board conduct the oral portion of the
proceeding where proposed facilities are to be located.

Thank you,

Raymond Beaudry
MCSEA