Message: D14-16153

From: Michael Wynia
To: Natasha Gocool, jaclyn@wpd-canada.ca, jesse@wpd-canada.ca, Ian@wpd-canada.ca, iminott@stikeman.com, konstantine.stavrakos@gowlings.com, commissioner@eco.on.ca, Agatha.GarciaWright@ontario.ca, Santos, Narren (ENE)
Cc: Steve Sage
Sent: 2014-04-12 at 11:31 AM
Received: 2014-04-12 at 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: EB-2014-0226: wpd Fairview Wind Inc.- PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2

Dear Natasha,

Â

Thank you for forwarding Procedural Order No. 2 of the OEB which we shall further review and consider.

Â

In further reviewing that order and in preparation for a hearing on this matter it would be of considerable assistance to obtain additional clarification from the OEB.

Â

Based on the interrogatories received from the OEB, it is our understanding that the Board is prepared to issue an order with respect to this matter irrespective of the status of the REA approvals process. That is, the OEB is prepared to issue an order which would suggest that the municipality itself should have been in a position to agree upon the location of infrastructure in its road system prior to the completion of the REA process which could affect the location of such works. Notwithstanding the fact that the municipality has maintained a position that it never refused to reach an agreement on the matter, this would further suggest that the municipality should have expended considerable effort and public funds on a matter of great uncertainty particularly given the range and depth of concerns expressed by the municipality.

Â

Since the Board was clear about indicating that it was prepared to issue an order with respect to these matters regardless of the status of the REA process, we are seeking a further clarification from the Board on a related matter.  As you are aware the application to the OEB by wpd requesting that the Board determine the location of the electricity distribution facilities was made on June 24, 2014. However, the location of those same facilities was the subject of an Environmental Registry posting on July 24, 2014. As you may be aware, the purpose of an Environmental Registry posting is to obtain comments and engage the public, including municipalities, regarding environmental activities.  The timing of the wpd appeal, being substantially before the Environmental Registry posting, suggests that it is wpd’s position that the municipality should have agreed to the location of electricity distribution facilities within the infrastructure it administers not just prior to the completion of the environmental review process and issuance of an approval, but also prior to public notification and engagement concerning the location of that same infrastructure through the Environmental Registry process.  It would appear to be wpd’s assertion that the municipality should make a decision regarding the location of infrastructure in its road system before:

Â

·        A full environmental review has been completed;

·        Before fundamental issues by expressed by the municipality have been addressed;

·        Prior to public notification and consultation through the Environmental Registry process; and ,

·        Prior to approvals for the project being issued.

Â

What is not clear to us, is whether or not the OEB is also prepared to issue an order that effectively would have also required the municipality to pre-determine an approved location for the location of services which were to be the subject of an Environmental Registry posting. That is, there is a resulting expectation that the municipality should have been able to make a decision regarding the location of infrastructure prior to any public notification regarding same and prior to the associated Environmental Registry process. Having a municipality agreeing to the location of private infrastructure in a public road in advance of public consultation would seem to be somewhat contrary to the spirit and intent of the Environmental Registry Process.

Â

As you may know, municipalities operate on a basis of transparency in decision making and we also incorporate into our planning processes extensive public engagement and consultation as well as a regard to the comments and concerns of other agencies involved in the approvals process. We are therefore perhaps naïve in regard to a process which seems to require that we make decisions in a somewhat contrary environment.

Â

If you could clarify the Board’s position with respect to expectations regarding due process around the Ontario Environmental Registry process, this would be of considerable assistance to us. As the matter of the EBR process in regard to the EBR and OEB process appears complex, we are also, by copy of this email, seeking some guidance directly from the Offices of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Â

Regards,

Â

Â

Michael Wynia, MCIP, RPP

Director of Community Planning and Development/

Information and Technology Services

Â


HYPERLINK "http://www.clearview.ca"Clearview Township Â

Â


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete this email.