A sign along the Highway 3 near Medicine Hat's southwest city limits states, "City substation not wanted here." The parcel is a preferred location for planned electrical system upgrades, but is facing opposition from Cypress County residents who live nearby.--News photo Collin Gallant
cgallant@medicinehatnews.com@CollinGallant
Cypress County residents on the edge of Medicine Hat are planning opposition to a proposed substation in the city’s far southwest corner.
That plan is now before provincial utility regulators, while owners of a cluster of homes near the preferred site are prepared to argue against the facility, which utility officials say is needed to meet growing demand in south Medicine Hat.
If approved, the substation would be built near the intersection of Highway 3 and Township Road 122, the access to a series of county cul-de-sacs where residents say “City Substation Not Wanted Here,” according to a large fence-line sign.
City officials say the $20-million project is required to meet and ensure good operations in the city’s growing south end, and stress they will meet requirements of regulators. At that location, costs could be more than 10 per cent lower.
“It’s been a very frustrating process, trying to figure out what’s going on,” said Jim Jackson, who lives across the county road from the city’s preferred location, and bought the triangular shaped parcel last year.
He said he can’t understand the city’s reasoning to place “industrial” equipment so close to homes, and says his neighbours would like to see it remain a natural area and would now like to see the permit denied.
“There is so much, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk (for city) either here or the (proposed) second site.”
Five residents of the “City View” county subdivision, as well as Cypress County itself, have applied for standing in the AUC application and decision process which opened on June 29.
If accepted as intervenors, they would be able to pose questions to the applicant, or stress their concerns to the commission before a decision is made.
Early discussions began last year between the city’s consultant and landowners and residents, and officials say they are willing to discuss issues, and work within AUG regulations and guidance, but they feel the project is in the community’s best interests.
“We do as much as is practical to address the concerns of residents that may be impacted and that’s an ongoing effort,” said Grayson Mauch, director the city’s utility distribution system. “If we do get the permit approved, that would continue.”
City planners say the substation would better balance power delivery in the larger region.
A secondary location is just north of S. Boundary Road on land adjacent to the the Rolling Hills Greenhouse near the turnoff to the county hamlet of Desert Blume.
Both are on the main line, known as MH-20L, which follows S. Boundary in the city and its extension, Township Road 122, in the county.
The two sites were reportedly chosen from eight potential sites due to their locations in conjunction with engineering requirements of the system.
In terms of cost, the Highway 3 site would be $2.9 million less to build due to ease of access and other factors, and is considered disturbed pasture in terms of environmental sensitively.
The specific land on the second site – on the dry corner of irrigated pasture – is considered native grassland.
A group of residents, who Jackson says is engaging legal firm to put their position to the AUC, are concerned about noise, the loss of natural space, lighting, potential damage to the water table (their homes operate on wells) and the industrial nature of the substation.
The AUC will decide on whether to deny the entire application or choose between two locations for the facility.
This week the Alberta Utilities Commission advertised it will begin a hearing process on the matter.
Affected parties have until Aug. 12 to register for standing in the process, and that begins a process by which the city and its consultants respond to information requests with a number of deadlines for information exchange.
Final written positions are required by Sept. 23.
The matter could proceed to a hearing later this fall at a date yet to be determined.
