Attached is evidence presented in the on-going Ontario Energy Board hearing reviewing a proposal from a 50/50 partnership between Northland Power Inc. (NPI) and Mnidoo Mnising Power (MMP) to build a major high voltage transmission connection to Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron.
The evidence demonstrates that the partnership agreement between NPI and it’s partner MMP is not based on a legitimate foundation. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that at least one of the MMP partners — Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation (AOKFN) — opposes the project with two Band Council Resolutions raising concerns about wind power development (here and here).
Under the Green Energy Act, the scope of the Board’s consideration of electricity transmission applications has been severely curtailed.
Although this evidence appears to attack the very foundation for the McLean’s Mountain Wind Farm application before the Board, the evidence has been dismissed by the Board. The reasons the Board offered for the dismissal is that NPI is an experienced party and the general partner, and that if there is a concern over legitimacy of the partnership, that concerns is only relevant to the Ontario Power Authority who is contracting for the power and not the OEB.
How exactly has the Board’s mandate to consider electricity transmission applications been “severely curtailed” by the GEA Act?
First class question.
The scope of the OEB’s mandate to consider proposed transmission projects is set out in legislation as follows:
OEB Act Section 92.
This section is just like the section of the OEB Act that governs gas pipeline developments. When the OEB considers gas pipeline expansions, that Board considers a wide scope of public interest considerations. However, when considering transmission applications, the Board’s jurisdiction is now constrained by Section 96, Subsection 2.
The limited scope of review for electricity was in the OEB Act long before the GEA Act. All it did was add 96(2)(2).
I am pretty grossed out by whiners without the courage to sign their drivel.
Whining EnergyWatcher’s statement is correct, if Whiner EW is referring to the period prior to Bill 35 in 1998.
Whiner’s statement “All it did was add 96(2)(2)” suggests that it is OK with Whiner that citizens of Ontario with legit concerns about harms caused to them by government energy decisions, where those beefs fall squarely within the Board’s mandate, cannot expect a fair hearing in front of the Board. I take the alternative view that every citizen of Ontario is entitled to a fair hearing.
If you want to understand how ordinary, decent people get treated in a 96(2)(2) world, read the final decision in OEB EB-2011-0394.
Pingback: Renewable Energy vs. Responsible Aboriginal Government Part Two: | Quixotes Last Stand