2420 1 2 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 3 4 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 5 Volume 10 6 7 Including List of Participants 8 9 10 11 Hearing 12 13 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 14 15 Presiding: 16 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 17 Kathi Kinew 18 Harvey Nepinak 19 Robert Mayer 20 Terry Sargeant 21 22 Thursday, March 18, 2004 23 Radisson Hotel 24 288 Portage Avenue 25 Winnipeg, Manitoba 2421 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Clean Environment Commission: 5 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 6 Terry Sargeant Member 7 Harvey Nepinak Member 8 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 9 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 10 Rory Grewar Staff 11 CEC Advisors: 12 Mel Falk 13 Dave Farlinger 14 Jack Scriven 15 Jim Sandison 16 Jean McClellan 17 Brent McLean 18 Kyla Gibson 19 20 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 21 Chief Jerry Primrose 22 Elvis Thomas 23 Campbell MacInnes 24 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 25 2422 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Manitoba Conservation: 4 Larry Strachan 5 6 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 7 Doug Bedford, Counsel 8 Bob Adkins, Counsel 9 Marvin Shaffer 10 Ed Wojczynski 11 Ken Adams 12 Carolyn Wray 13 Ron Mazur 14 Lloyd Kuczek 15 Cam Osler 16 Stuart Davies 17 David Hicks 18 George Rempel 19 David Cormie 20 Alex Fleming 21 Marvin Shaffer 22 Blair McMahon 23 24 25 2423 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Community Association of South Indian Lake: 4 Leslie Dysart 5 Merrell-Ann Phare 6 7 CAC/MSOS: 8 Byron Williams 9 10 Canadian Nature Federation/Manitoba Wildlands: 11 Eamon Murphy 12 Gaile Whelan Enns 13 Brian Hart 14 15 Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems/Resource Conservation Man: 16 Peter Miller 17 Ralph Torrie 18 19 Trapline 18: 20 Greg McIvor 21 22 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake: 23 Dennis Troniak 24 Joshua Flett 25 Frank Moore 2424 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Justice Seekers of Nelson House: 4 Carol Kobliski 5 Kate Kempton 6 7 Environment Approvals (Manitoba Justice): 8 Stu Pierce 9 10 Presenters: 11 Billy Moore - Private 12 Bill Turner - MIPUG 13 Caroline Bruyere - Private 14 Grand Chief Margaret Swan - Southern Chiefs 15 Gordon Wapaskokimaw 16 Jim Nichols - Private 17 Drin Bayne - Private 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2425 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 Number Page 4 CNF 1006: Potential Impacts of 5 Wuskwatim Hydro Project on Boreal 6 Biodiversity, Dr. Erin Bayne 2514 7 CNF 1007: Estimates and Population 8 Consequences of Tetraonid Mortality 9 Caused by Collisions with High 10 Tension Power Lines in Norway 2515 11 CNF 1008: Cowbirds Breeding in the 12 Central Appalachians: Spatial and 13 Temporal Patterns and Habitat 14 Selection 2515 15 CNF 1009: Protecting Birds From 16 Powerlines. A practical guide 17 on the risks to birds from 18 electricity transmission 19 facilities and how to minimize 20 any such adverse effects 2515 21 CNF 1010: Changes in Wildlife 22 Communities Near Edges 2516 23 24 25 2426 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 NUMBER PAGE 3 4 CNF 1011: Defining Forest Fragmentation 5 By Corridor Width: The Influence 6 of Narrow Forest Dividing Corridors on 7 Forest-Nesting Birds in Southern 8 New Jersey 2516 9 MH/NCN-1012: Letter, March 20, 2001 from 10 Law Society of Manitoba 2518 11 MH/NCN-1013: State of 12 Minnesota in Court of Appeal, 13 Pimicikamak Cree Nation versus 14 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 15 number A030836 2519 16 MH/NCN-1014: Nisichawayasihk 17 Cree Nation versus Nisichawayasihk 18 Cree Nation Appeal Committee, Federal 19 Court of Canada Trial Division, 20 Toronto, Ontario, April 16, 2003 2519 21 MH/NCN-1015: Federal Court of Appeal Certificate 22 of Judgment, Jerry Primrose et al 23 versus Jimmy D. Spence et al, 24 February 2, 2004 2520 25 2427 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 NUMBER PAGE 3 4 MH/NCN-1016: Nisichawayasihk 5 Cree Nation Laws Election Code, 1998, 6 E.1, August 9, 2002 2520 7 MH/NCN-1017: Correspondence 8 from Douglas Bedford of Manitoba Hydro 9 regarding Wuskwatim Generation and 10 Transmission Projects and 11 documentation, March 18, 2004 2521 12 MH/NCN-1018: Manitoba Industrial and 13 Agricultural reference case activity 14 levels, updated format, 15 provided by Mr. Fleming 2522 16 MH/NCN-1019: Answer to Undertaking MH-16 2524 17 MH/NCN-1020: Wuskwatim Transmission 18 Project EIS supplemental filing 19 and IR responses which address 20 alternative routes, attached 21 proposed mapping and preliminary 22 cost estimates, map 2, other proposed 23 alternate routes 2550 24 25 2428 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 5 CNF 42: Have Dr. Bayne provide a brief 6 description of rough model re potential for the loss 7 of habitat in the range of 8,000 birds 2506 8 9 CNF-43: Have Dr. Bayne provide list of 10 species that respond negatively to edges 2511 11 12 44: Find reference to discussion had 13 with NCN re how traditional knowledge is 14 incorporated 2636 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2429 1 THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:08 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, you don't 5 have to be awake as long as your ears are open. It's 6 five after 10:00. The rivers are not yet flowing, 7 the grass is not yet growing but the sun is out and 8 there's hope and we're going to proceed. We call Mr. 9 Dan Soprovich. 10 MR. GREWAR: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I should 11 have let you know earlier. Mr. Soprovich is not 12 available today and so we are going to proceed with 13 three other presenters who are a part of the Canadian 14 Nature Federation, Manitoba Wildlands presentation. 15 Jim Nichols by telephone, Robert Hornung by telephone 16 and Dr. Erin Bayne and that should likely consume 17 most of the morning. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Now I know why you were on the 19 phone. 20 MR. GREWAR: That's right. I'll just place 21 the call to Mr. Nichols. 22 Good morning, sir, can you hear us? 23 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I can. 24 MR. GREWAR: I'm going to turn you over to the 25 chairman of the Clean Environment Commission, Gerard 2430 1 Lecuyer, Mr. Lecuyer. 2 MR. NICHOLS: Okay, Mr. Lecuyer, thank you. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nichols, good morning. 4 MR. NICHOLS: Good morning. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: First, we'll let you introduce 6 yourself. Tell us who you are, where you're from and 7 then Mr. Grewar will proceed to swear you in. 8 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. And I'll keep my 9 remarks brief because I know you have a tight 10 schedule. My name is Jim Nichols. I am a farmer 11 from Lake Benton, Minnesota. Lake Benton was the 12 largest wind farm in the world. We have over 500 13 wind turbines here now. I'm also a County 14 Commissioner from Lincoln County. And previously 15 served 16 years as a State Senator and State 16 Secretary of Agriculture. 17 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Nichols, are you aware that 18 it is an offence in Manitoba, our province, to 19 knowingly mislead this Commission? 20 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I am. 21 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell only the 22 truth in proceedings before this Commission? 23 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I do. 24 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir. 25 2431 1 (JIM NICHOLS: SWORN) 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Mr. Nichols. 4 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. I appreciate this 5 opportunity to address your group, Mr. Chair. As 6 part of the Minnesota law, I served as State 7 Secretary of Agriculture eight years as a member of 8 the Environmental Quality Board in Minnesota which I 9 think is a Board somewhat similar to yours. So I do 10 have a feeling for what your job involves and it's 11 certainly not an easy job. 12 I am calling to speak on behalf of wind energy 13 in Minnesota and urge you to consider more wind 14 resources in Canada. I know that you have some 15 excellent wind resources there, especially in the 16 wintertime. And the cold, dense air of the winter is 17 when we get our greatest production in Minnesota. 18 It takes about a 30 miles an hour wind to put 19 a turbine at full production in the summer months but 20 20 miles an hour will bring a turbine to full 21 production, approximately 20 miles an hour, in the 22 winter months because of the denseness of the cold 23 air. 24 It was a problem that we had in Vietnam. Hard 25 to fly the helicopters, the air was so hot, there was 2432 1 nothing to grab onto. So wind turbines respond very 2 well to cold, dense air. And your wind, winter wind 3 resource I know is quite excellent up there, plus the 4 leaves all fall off the trees. 5 We have been very successful here in southwest 6 Minnesota and I previously worked on legislation to 7 require the Excel Energy, our largest utility in 8 Minnesota to buy. It will be 1,100 megawatts, by the 9 year 2010, of wind energy. We currently have 10 approximately 425 megawatts on line. And as you 11 know, a standard nuclear plant is 500 megawatts. 12 We're getting close to the size of one nuclear plant. 13 We have over 500 wind turbines. 14 Our original turbines were smaller. Now 15 almost all of our wind turbines are in the size of 16 1.5 megawatts per turbine. So it takes fewer 17 turbines. 18 It's been undoubtedly the best thing that has 19 ever happened to my county. I have lived and farmed 20 here my entire life and it provided income for the 21 farmers for their wind resource, jobs. We're always 22 struggling here. Our young people leave us and go to 23 the big cities. And we need to provide jobs for them 24 and these are jobs that are attractive to our 25 graduates because all the turbines are computerized 2433 1 but it's a combination of computer and mechanical 2 skills. And the turbine companies provide on-the-job 3 training. 4 The best part is the low price of wind energy. 5 We want to provide low cost wind energy to the 6 consumers and all of our power moves to Minneapolis 7 and St. Paul. And now that wind energy cost is about 8 3 cents per kilowatt hour, a little more, a little 9 less, depending on the size of the project. The 10 bigger projects can build turbines a little bit 11 cheaper. And we have a mix of corporate owned wind 12 turbines. The largest owner here is General Electric 13 and Florida Power and Light. But we are now building 14 smaller farmer owned wind projects. So that is 15 working well for us. 16 We expect to further develop our resource and 17 of course we are adjacent to South Dakota and North 18 Dakota. And North Dakota has the best wind resource 19 in America. One-third of all the electricity 20 consumed in the United States could come from North 21 Dakota if the wind resource was fully developed 22 there. So it is a tremendous resource, and again, a 23 low cost wind resource. 24 One of the things that I would urge you to 25 consider is a mixture, a combination of wind energy 2434 1 and hydro power energy. The one problem with wind, 2 as you well know, is that it doesn't blow all of the 3 time and you need to firm up the power. 4 There is no battery for wind generators. I'm 5 always asked this question. Our turbines now, our 6 big turbines, one turbine produces enough power for 7 500 homes. So I wouldn't even know what size battery 8 that would take, but it's simply not an option. The 9 best battery that we have seen for the best backup 10 for wind, or vice versa, is water power because you 11 can store the water behind the dams and release it 12 when you need the power. So we believe here and we 13 wish we had more water resources in Minnesota. We 14 simply do not. 15 The combination of wind and water would be an 16 excellent mix. And it also allows you then to you 17 don't have to build as many dams because you don't 18 have to run the water as much. You use it when the 19 wind isn't blowing. 20 So that's one of the things we've looked at 21 here. And I've worked with a little bit with the 22 State of South Dakota on that because they do have 23 some big existing dams out on the Missouri River. 24 So that's one of the things I guess I'd like 25 to say is that better development, more development 2435 1 of your wind resource would certainly be a great 2 thing for you I think as it has been for us in that 3 then you would have less need for more of the huge 4 dams. 5 That's basically my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 6 I'd be glad to answer questions but I know you're on 7 a tight schedule. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I will 9 look at my colleagues here and the people in the room 10 to see if there are questions. Yes, Mr. Sargeant 11 will ask you questions. 12 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, sir. 13 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Nichols, I'm one of the 14 panelists. My name is Terry Sergeant. Just a couple 15 of questions. How much land is the 500 or do the 500 16 turbines occupy? 17 MR. NICHOLS: They work very well with our 18 farmland. I grow corn and soybeans and we have a lot 19 of cattle here. Of course the average -- the 20 diameter of the average turbine is 12 feet in 21 diameter so the footprint of it, with the concrete, 22 is less than 20 feet in diameter. So it's a very 23 tiny footprint. Then you have the road that leads to 24 the turbines. But we have found that the roads are 25 helpful to us. As farmers, we can put the wagons on 2436 1 the road while we combine and fill them right there 2 on the wind turbine road. We don't even lift the 3 planters up when we plant across the road. 4 So the land taken out of production, if you -- 5 it's less than a half an acre. If you were a farmer 6 farming 300 acres and you had four wind turbines, it 7 would take probably 200 acres -- up to two acres, I'm 8 sorry, two acres out of production out of 300. It's 9 absolutely nothing. We say it's like farming around 10 a rock pile. We've got a lot of rock piles here. It 11 really has had absolutely no disruption. We do not 12 have to fence around the turbines out in the cattle 13 pastures because there's nothing that the cattle can 14 do to the transformer or the turbine itself, the 15 tower. 16 I would certainly urge you to use the tubular 17 towers. We did a lot of work on this and moved quite 18 slowly before we built. We spent about a year 19 studying this before the first turbines were built 20 and one of the best decisions we made in the local 21 community is that we would only allow the tubular 22 towers. They are much more attractive aesthetically. 23 More importantly there's no place for the birds to 24 nest. We had no bird kill. 25 He have had a long study on bird kill here. A 2437 1 one-year study, no birds were killed. They did find 2 two bats. We feel bad that we lost those two bats 3 but we'll get by. 4 So the tubular towers as opposed to the 5 lattice towers, which look like a radio tower, they 6 simply don't cause any problems aesthetically or for 7 agriculture. And they have proven to be low cost in 8 the long term because, and I climb these towers and 9 work on them, work on the wind turbines. It's nice 10 on a cold winter day to be climbing inside up the 11 tower inside the tower. 12 They have put a lot of the lattice towers in 13 Iowa and I've talked to those technicians. It's very 14 cold on a winter day because you're climbing 200 feet 15 in the air and the wind is going to hit you pretty 16 hard. And there's no additional maintenance. We 17 think those towers will stand for at least 50 years, 18 the towers and the concrete. Perhaps after 25 years, 19 we'd have to replace the blades and the generator and 20 the gear box. 21 It is very low cost energy and it will 22 continue to get cheaper which is I think the best 23 part of wind energy. I think everyone has to look at 24 that as they are building future resources. They are 25 going to have to compete with wind because it's 2438 1 cheap. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nichols, are you still 3 there? 4 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I am. 5 MR. SARGEANT: Now, the 500 wind turbines that 6 you mentioned, are they all in one area or are they 7 scattered around on different farms? 8 MR. NICHOLS: The beauty of it is they are 9 scattered out. The average farm in Minnesota is a 10 little over half a section in size. We started off 11 here of course, as I think you did in Canada, square 12 miles. And we had four farms per square mile. Now 13 we have two, maybe one farmer per square mile which 14 is unfortunate. And so the average farmer would have 15 three or four turbines on his farm. Not a lot. They 16 are not real dense and we like that. 17 I believe that no more than eight turbines per 18 section is appropriate, first of all, because you're 19 going to have some wind or rain loss, production loss 20 if another turbine is out in front of it especially. 21 The winds are going to come from the northwest. The 22 best winds are your winter winds, and in Canada too. 23 You don't want to crowd them together too 24 much. I have seen those crowded wind farms out in 25 California. Frankly, they are ugly. Here in 2439 1 Minnesota, we think they are beautiful. I mean 2 everybody who lives here we actually think they are 3 beautiful not just because they come from us but 4 because they are aesthetically pleasing. I like to 5 get up each morning and look out my window and see 6 the wind turbines and see which direction the wind is 7 blowing from and how much they are producing. You 8 feel good if the winds are blowing and your turbines 9 are producing power. You feel like you're 10 contributing to society. So they are spread out, 11 those 500 over a distance of more than 50 miles. 12 MR. SARGEANT: Who owns these towers? 13 MR. NICHOLS: Well, they were originally built 14 by Enron. You've probably heard of Enron and their 15 bankruptcy. 16 MR. SARGEANT: We have. 17 MR. NICHOLS: That was a problem. But General 18 Electric bought them out in the bankruptcy court. So 19 right here in my home county, 143 of the big towers 20 were owned by Enron and now owned by General 21 Electric. 22 The other big investor is Florida Power and 23 Light, a big utility. And PacifiCorp Power Marketing 24 out in Oregon. Those are the three big corporations. 25 One of the problems that we have is there's a 2440 1 federal tax credit for wind energy but it is a 2 corporate tax credit. And it doesn't allow ordinary 3 people to use that tax credit. Because of that, our 4 turbines are all mostly corporate owned. Now we're 5 trying to change that law because we'd like to see 6 much more local ownership. And as you look at that 7 in Canada, local ownership is best of course. 8 But you need a combination of both because the 9 big corporations, they had the resources to do the 10 research and development to develop the very large, 11 very efficient wind turbines. And it's now become a 12 mature industry. 13 Ten years ago, we built our first turbines ten 14 years ago. None have ever failed. People say are 15 they reliable? And I say, well, we started building 16 ten years ago and every one is still running. None 17 have failed. But originally they were smaller and 18 they couldn't produce energy. The very large wind 19 turbines are going to be able to produce it on a big 20 wind farm for less than three cents per kilowatt hour 21 so it's cheap energy. 22 MR. SARGEANT: Your climate in Minnesota is 23 similar to ours in Manitoba although not quite as 24 severe. We heard evidence earlier this week that 25 wind turbines become increasingly difficult to 2441 1 operate when it gets below 30 below Celsius which is 2 probably much the same in Fahrenheit, so minus 25, 3 30? 4 MR. NICHOLS: Well, as I said, I have another 5 part-time job. I work on wind turbines. And I was 6 in charge. I was a regional manager for a big wind 7 turbine company. I was in charge of 300 wind 8 turbines here in the entire mid-west. And so I climb 9 towers and work on them. Today is a typical example. 10 I called them up on my computer when I got up this 11 morning and they are all running. And that's pretty 12 much how it is every day. 13 You're going to have -- they are all computer 14 controlled so if the computer senses anything wrong, 15 it's called a fault and the computer stops the 16 turbine. They are very very safe and then it 17 requires a human being to start the turbine back up. 18 Job security is the way we look at it. We don't want 19 the computer to replace us entirely but they are 20 extremely reliable. And no, I can tell you as a 21 person, that's what I do is work on wind turbines 22 every day. They run in the winter, they run in the 23 summer. 24 Once the turbine is running, it heats up the 25 oil in the gear box and the oil is heated anyhow. 2442 1 They all come with a cold weather package so the oil 2 is never allowed to get very cold. But in the winter 3 time, they run almost continuously. In fact, we have 4 no days, winter or summer, where the turbines don't 5 produce some power. We record that with the 6 computer. So they produce power every day, 365 days 7 out of the year. And they simply run. You cannot 8 imagine how reliable they are. They just run. I 9 cannot emphasize that enough. 10 They are extremely reliable. They don't break 11 down and I am not going to tell you that they never 12 break down. I have been in on gear box replacement 13 and generator replacements. You know, it's no 14 different than your car. And think of it as your 15 car. Sure it's cold but your car starts and runs 16 pretty much all winter long. Wind turbines are 17 exactly the same. 18 MR. SARGEANT: Well, not always does my car 19 start in Manitoba on cold winter mornings. 20 Mr. Nichols, one last question, I think it's 21 my last question. What part of Minnesota are you in? 22 MR. NICHOLS: We are in the south western 23 corner. And it doesn't appear like it's high ground 24 because it's flat but the glacier ended here from 25 Canada 12,000 years ago. So the land is a little bit 2443 1 higher here. Because of that, we've got a good 2 resource. But we have learned that wind resource is 3 quite good even if you are not on top of the ridge. 4 The new turbines, the long blades, and that's 5 what you would build in Canada, the blades are more 6 than 100 feet long and a blade is nothing more than a 7 long pry bar. You've got a lot of leverage there. 8 Obviously you've got a long pry bar, you've got a lot 9 of leverage. So the long-bladed turbines reach full 10 production at a much lower wind speed. 11 As I said, in the wintertime, the new 12 generation of turbines could probably hit maximum 13 production at 20 miles an hour of wind. So 14 production is very efficient even at the lower wind 15 speeds. 16 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. That's all my 17 questions. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nichols, you referred to 19 the larger turbines producing about 1.5 megawatts? 20 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this an average? 22 MR. NICHOLS: That is peak production. The 23 standard turbine now in the U.S. and in Canada is the 24 1.5 megawatt which lights up 500 homes. To put that 25 in perspective, 1.5 is 1,500,000 watts or it would 2444 1 light up, at any instant, 15,000 100-watt light 2 bulbs. So that is instantaneous production. 3 Average, we're running about 40 per cent on 4 average. In the wintertime, our production is -- 5 last month -- in December was an excellent month. We 6 had some turbines that averaged almost 60 per cent 7 which means they are producing 60 per cent of full 8 power or on average are producing more than a 9 megawatt or about a megawatt for 1.5 turbine. 10 But it will vary. You will always be 11 producing some power. Sometimes you'll light up 12 15,000 light bulbs and sometimes you'll be lighting 13 up 10,000 light bulbs. 14 But when you put 500 turbines out there, it's 15 much easier to manage. The variation is much less. 16 You can tell pretty reliably during the day how much 17 you are going to produce. 18 If you were trying to back up a single wind 19 turbine, that's tough to do. But when you get 500, 20 as we have now, they always produce a lot of power. 21 You just kind of count on that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. What's the 23 cost of one of these larger newer turbines that you 24 just referred to? 25 MR. NICHOLS: 1.5 million. The cost is pretty 2445 1 much $1.00 per watt. So 1.5 megawatt turbines would 2 cost $1.5 million. And to put that in perspective, 3 our contract price right now, as I said, is a little 4 over three cents. If you own that turbine yourself, 5 you should see income from that turbine of 6 approximately $30,000 per year until it's paid for, 7 15 years. And then after that, it will be over 8 $100,000 per year. It's a good investment for 9 anyone. 10 And the power is cheap. Our turbines now, 1.5 11 megawatt turbine over a one-year period will produce 12 over 5 million kilowatt hours. And that's a very 13 standard number. 14 Production year to year almost never varies. 15 You can very accurately predict what your turbine 16 will produce and you need that for financing 17 purposes. I can't tell you each day how much you 18 will produce but over one year, it's a very constant 19 number and it would be in Canada, too. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: You have referred to one 21 problem with turbines as being they don't function 22 all the time. I gather that there are situations 23 where it may be because of winds being too heavy. 24 They may have to be stopped or other problems. Would 25 you talk about that? Or what percentage of the time 2446 1 do you experience problems? 2 MR. NICHOLS: We almost never stop them, 3 maybe twice in a year for the winds being too high. 4 Sixty miles an hour is where they shut down but that 5 just isn't a problem. And they are running almost 6 all the time. Rarely if ever do you not see a 7 turbine producing some power but it won't be at full 8 production. That is the difference. 9 You in Canada, I'm sure you are a winter 10 peaking province which means you're going to use most 11 of your energy in the wintertime. And that works 12 well with wind turbines because the summer months, 13 the winds go down pretty dramatically. July is our 14 worst month for production. Now in the summer 15 peaking state, and we are in Minnesota, summer 16 peaking, people in the Twin Cities have their 17 air-conditioners on. That causes some problems for 18 us. I think in Canada, you have less demand for air 19 conditioning. You don't need as much production in 20 the summer but you need a lot more heat in the 21 winter. So one of your advantages, and correct me if 22 I'm wrong, but I think you would be a winter peaking 23 province. And the turbines produce -- 24 THE CHAIRMAN: That's true. 25 MR. NICHOLS: -- in the winter time and often 2447 1 at full production. The cold dense air, it's the 2 denseness of the air that spins the blades. Cold 3 dense air, they really turn out. It's amazing how 4 they turn out. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Just other questions from the 8 audience here? Mr. Byron Williams. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Mr. Nichols. My 10 name is Byron Williams. I'm a lawyer, I have to 11 confess, but I am a farmer's son. I represent the 12 Consumers Association and the Manitoba Society of 13 Seniors. And I just had a few questions for you. I 14 believe I heard you mention a federal tax credit. 15 And I wonder, just very generally, if you could 16 outline for me what actions the state or the Federal 17 Government have taken to encourage the wind industry 18 in your state? 19 MR. NICHOLS: Well, the best thing we did, and 20 there's some things in your life that you'd be glad 21 you worked on and I spent 16 years in politics as I 22 said. So I look back on a few of them. But it was a 23 great career for me and I would like to have retired 24 without ever having lost any elections. And mostly I 25 worked on renewable energy in Minnesota. If you come 2448 1 to Minnesota and put gas in your car, you're going to 2 burn ethanol. That's the law. I did a lot of work 3 on that as Secretary of Agriculture and organized and 4 built three large farmer-owned ethanol plants. 5 And also in '94 when we passed our law in 6 Minnesota, if you live and are served by Excel Energy 7 which is two and a half million customers in the 8 Metropolitan area, Twin Cities, you're going to use 9 wind energy. That's the law. 10 So I really encourage you to do that as a 11 state and as a province. I have often argued that 12 the best decisions we've ever made as a state 13 legislature was our movement toward renewable energy 14 because it has stabilized our power costs. And I use 15 California as an example. They are so heavily 16 dependent, 90 per cent dependent upon natural gas so 17 they have no stability in their electrical costs. 18 And also now when I go to a gas station, I want to 19 buy ethanol, 85 per cent ethanol because it's 20 20 cents cheaper than gasoline. 21 So we have lower cost energy now because we 22 are using our own wind resources and our own 23 corn-based resources, ethanol. The best decision I 24 think we ever made. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Nichols, I want to go back 2449 1 to that legislative decision in a second. Just 2 before we go there, you also mentioned a federal tax 3 credit. And could you just provide a couple details 4 in terms of what that's related to in terms of the 5 wind production and is it aimed at giving a greater 6 capital cost allowance or what actually is involved 7 with the federal tax credit? 8 MR. NICHOLS: It is a tax credit per kilowatt 9 hour. It started at 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour and 10 it has a 2 per cent inflation clause in it so it's 11 more than that now. And it's simply a credit against 12 income taxes paid, federal income taxes. 13 Unfortunately it is basically a corporate tax credit. 14 So a large corporation would get refund of taxes paid 15 based on the amount of energy that the turbines that 16 they own produce. 17 That has certainly spurred the corporate 18 interest here in the United States. And that is why 19 virtually all of our turbines are corporate owned. 20 And I am not saying that's a bad thing but we'd like 21 to see that as a tax credit for ordinary income. And 22 ordinary people would own a turbine. 23 So that tax credit has reduced the cost of 24 wind energy well and we expect eventually that tax 25 credit will end. It needs to go on for a few more 2450 1 years at least. 2 And in the beginning, the turbines were too 3 small and not efficient enough. The large turbines, 4 they get larger, could produce more and more energy. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of your industry, do 6 you have any opinion on how long that tax credit 7 should continue? 8 MR. NICHOLS: Well, I would like to see it go 9 for about another ten years. Our congress, they got 10 a lot of problems out there, but the tax credit did 11 expire. I think it will be reinstated and it will be 12 retroactive. We need to produce low cost energy. 13 For example, on my farm here in Lincoln 14 County, I pay 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour for my 15 electricity that I consume on my farm and in my 16 house. We are now producing it in Lincoln County for 17 about 3.3 cents. You can see our production cost is 18 about half of what we're now paying to buy energy. 19 Our energy comes for REA co-ops from North 20 Dakota, from lignite. And we need to be in that 21 range. A pretty good rule of thumb in the electrical 22 industry is about half your cost is to generate the 23 power and half your cost is to distribute it. 24 And again, our customers in Minneapolis and 25 St. Paul, Excel Energy, their cost is 6.6 cents, 2451 1 about 6.6. For electricity, we need to produce it 2 3.3 cents to be competitive. And that's pretty much 3 where we are. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Nichols, just go back one 5 last question on this point. You spoke of in 1994, 6 the legislation requiring Excel Energy to achieve a 7 certain amount of renewable energy and I guess by 8 somewhere towards the end of this decade about 1,100 9 megawatts. I guess my question is why did you have 10 to require Excel Energy to do so? Was it because 11 they were caught in the wrong mind-set or is it their 12 economics at the time suggested that wind was not 13 where they wanted to be? 14 MR. NICHOLS: At the time, wind was not where 15 it needed to be price wise. The first turbines that 16 were built here ten years ago were 330 kW turbines 17 and 30,000 watts. Now they are five times larger, 18 1.5 megawatts. And the original contract price was 19 4.9 cents per kilowatt hour. As I said, we want to 20 be down closer to that 3 cent range, about 3.3 cents. 21 Technology wasn't there. 22 There were no large wind farms in the world. 23 That is why Lake Benton, my home, was the largest 24 wind farm in the world because we had several hundred 25 megawatts right here around Lake Benton. 2452 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Would it be your view now that 2 the need for that legislative requirement is passed 3 given the changed economics of wind energy? Is it 4 still a requirement to mandate Excel Energy to 5 purchase this, a certain percentage of renewable 6 energy or would market forces just encourage it to do 7 so? 8 MR. NICHOLS: I am going to lobby you for the 9 mandate because market forces will move much more 10 slowly. Because I did a lot of work on getting this 11 law passed in Minnesota, I was just invited in 12 Colorado to testify before their legislature out 13 there, the House and Senate, and they are trying to 14 pass the mandate in Colorado. New Mexico just did 15 that. 16 But in Colorado, Excel Energy is a combination 17 of the big utilities in Colorado and Minnesota. 18 Excel is a big utility in Colorado. Excel Energy is 19 supporting and testified in favour of the renewable 20 portfolio standard in Colorado. That's how far it 21 has come. Excel Energy doesn't oppose it anymore. 22 But I think you do need -- it's very hard to 23 get financing for wind turbines. The major cost is 24 borrowed money. To get the financing in place, you 25 need to have a secure market. That's why I would 2453 1 encourage you to consider the mandate. It certainly 2 won't hurt you. It's low cost energy but it will 3 allow you to build big wind farms that can be 4 financed. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I'm clear, is it your 6 view that removing the requirement now would be 7 detrimental to the wind industry or is the market 8 sufficiently mature in your state that Excel would 9 just continue with its practices regardless of this 10 legislative mandate? 11 MR. NICHOLS: Well, as an example here, we 12 just received a 60 megawatt contract with Excel and 13 that will be a locally owned, locally farmer-owned 14 project which is what we want. Without that mandate 15 in place, I don't think we would have got that 60 16 megawatt contract. 17 The industry will continue to move forward but 18 at a much slower rate if you do not have the 19 renewable portfolios. It will take you 50 years to 20 get to that 40 per cent reliance on wind energy 21 without the mandate. You'd probably get there in 20 22 with it. That's the difference. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Just I want to move on very 24 quickly to the 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Given 25 your comments of a few minutes ago, that cost is the 2454 1 generation cost? 2 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. That's what we get paid. 3 Our farmer-owned project, our contract is for 3.3 4 cents and that's locked in for 20 years. So it's 5 cheap energy now but 20 years from now, very cheap. 6 The real beauty of wind is the price doesn't go up 7 for the next 20 years. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: So if I were trying to get a 9 picture of the costs that are not included in kind of 10 the costs of wind energy just from that 3.3 cent 11 figure, the shaping and firming costs would be one 12 cost that a utility would incur because wind doesn't 13 blow all the time. Is that right? 14 MR. NICHOLS: It has to be firmed up, that's 15 correct. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. So those costs aren't in 17 that 3.3 cents? 18 MR. NICHOLS: No. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: And another cost, and I guess 20 it depends on the size, but another cost would be 21 transmitting that power to the network or wherever 22 you're going to use it. Would that cost be included 23 in the 3.3 cents? 24 MR. NICHOLS: Originally it was because we 25 didn't have to build new powerlines. Now we have to 2455 1 build some new power lines. But I want to go back to 2 your other, about the firming power. Having just 3 returned from Colorado, Excel Energy, the utility 4 that buys the power and distributes to their 5 consumers, they testified at the legislature that the 6 wind farm in Colorado that was just built was going 7 to save their consumers $4 million over the next 20 8 years. You would have to buy less natural gas. 9 So actually, the big utilities now like Excel 10 like wind energy because it's much cheaper to buy 11 power from a wind turbine than it is from a natural 12 gas turbine. That was their testimony and is a 13 matter of record. 14 So when you talk about the cost, the big 15 consumer, Excel Energy, the big utility has testified 16 it's going to save them money. And I would think 17 they would know a lot more than I do. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Now, just the last thing I want 19 to touch on is I think the term of art that I think 20 Manitoba Hydro uses to discuss the capacity and how 21 frequently generation can be produced in a year's 22 capacity factor. And I think you spoke of a 40 per 23 cent, in the sense that you are operating about 40 24 per cent of the time? 25 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, you can expect 40 per cent 2456 1 of your power now will come from wind turbine, the 2 new wind turbines, the 1.5 megawatts. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have any opinion or 4 sense of wind power sounds, in the Minnesota context, 5 economic or may be economic at the 40 per cent 6 capacity factor, what if it was at 25 per cent? Is 7 the case still as good? It's certainly not as good. 8 Is it still doable? 9 MR. NICHOLS: Projected to be 28 per cent, 10 wind resource turned out to be much better than we 11 assumed. When you get over 30 per cent, it's 12 economical. If your capacity factor is less than 30 13 per cent, I don't think that it is, I have not ran 14 all the numbers on that, but our turbines here are 15 producing at a profit and they are the smaller 16 turbines, they are the 750s. So we have only 17 recently approached that 40 per cent capacity factor 18 and just, in the last year, a lot of the big turbines 19 have been built here. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Nichols, on behalf of my 21 clients, I want to thank you for taking the time to 22 speak with us. It's been very illuminating. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns. Oh, I'm 2457 1 sorry, Mr. Bedford. I was looking at you, I didn't 2 see any signal. 3 MR. BEDFORD: There's your signal. 4 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Mr. Chair, I have no problem 5 about the sequence in questions at all but I wanted 6 to just check scheduling and ask you whether I should 7 phone the next two presenters and give them some kind 8 of sense. There's one person sort of staring at his 9 phone right now expecting a call. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: No problem doing that, yes. 11 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I'll go and do that then. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bedford. 13 MR. BEDFORD: Good morning, Mr. Nichols. My 14 name is Doug Bedford and I'm one of the counsel at 15 this hearing for Manitoba Hydro which is one of the 16 two proponents of the Wuskwatim dam project. 17 I have to tell you, Mr. Nichols, that 18 listening to what you've had to say that a good deal 19 of it runs somewhat contrary to a number of 20 statements and some of the written evidence that's 21 been filed in this proceeding to date. 22 Have you, Mr. Nichols, had an opportunity to 23 read the evidence and testimony that's been given 24 before this Commission on the subject of wind power? 25 MR. NICHOLS: No, I have not. I can only 2458 1 relate to you what my personal experiences are as one 2 that works on wind turbines and what our costs of 3 production have been here in Minnesota. 4 MR. BEDFORD: I always find it unfair in life 5 if I have to pose questions to someone who hasn't had 6 an opportunity to read evidence and material that 7 contradicts statements that he's given. What I would 8 really like to do is have sent to you that evidence 9 and information that runs contrary to your opinion so 10 that you'd have a reasonable opportunity to read it 11 and then come back on the phone. And the Commission 12 doesn't finish sitting today. We have several more 13 weeks of listening and evidence to put in. But come 14 back at a time that's convenient to you and to us 15 after you've read the material and then I would have 16 a number of questions that I'd like to put to you. 17 But with the Commission's permission, if we're 18 going to do that, there are a few additional 19 questions I could put to you this morning. But I 20 would like the opportunity to speak to you again 21 later on this subject. I'm looking to the Commission 22 to confirm that if I ask a few more questions now, we 23 can have Mr. Nichols come back in the future? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: If that is okay with Mr. 25 Nichols, we'll make every attempt to make that 2459 1 possible. 2 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. 4 MR. NICHOLS: Do you have a question? Can I 5 answer a question? 6 MR. BEDFORD: It's coming. 7 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. 8 MR. BEDFORD: I guess for starters, Mr. 9 Nichols, I can tell you that I often have occasion to 10 drive through your state. Regrettably I haven't 11 driven quite close enough to where you live to see 12 all the turbines scattered over the Minnesota 13 countryside but I am curious. What do you do for 14 transmission lines for all these wind tower turbines? 15 MR. NICHOLS: Well first of all, I encourage 16 you to come and see us because I'll give you a tour. 17 They are beautiful. They are just beautiful. 18 MR. BEDFORD: I accept the invitation. 19 MR. NICHOLS: We were lucky when we first 20 started. All of our production now moves out on an 21 existing transmission line that once served a nuclear 22 plant in South Dakota that is now closed. That plant 23 was connected, the nuclear plant to a coal plant in 24 Granite Falls, Minnesota and that's now closed. So 25 there was existing transmission line here and that 2460 1 helped us enormously. 2 But our Public Utilities Commission has 3 approved a very large new line from Sioux Falls into 4 Minnesota that will correct with an existing line up 5 to the Twin Cities. And then some smaller lines will 6 be built to that big new line. That will be a 345 kV 7 line. So we did need additional transmission and 8 that's one of the challenges that we face. In fact, 9 we're working on a very large project to build a big 10 line to Los Angeles, California. 11 But the beauty of it is, and I have been to 12 Chicago and California on this issue, our delivered 13 cost of power because we can produce it so cheaply in 14 the midwest from wind is far cheaper than they are 15 now paying in the large cities. That includes the 16 cost of the transmission. 17 When you figure the cost of transmission 18 amortized over 20 years, it adds about 8/10 of a cent 19 to the bill. And we have to firm our power up. In 20 this case, we're using coal and lignite which are a 21 little more expensive. Wind is the cheapest energy 22 you can build here in the United States. We can 23 deliver the cost 1,000 miles away, delivered to a 24 large city for 4.3 cents and this would be Los 25 Angeles being over 14 (not audible). That's why they 2461 1 are very interested in our power because it's cheap. 2 MR. BEDFORD: You've probably heard, Mr. 3 Nichols, that we had two of your fellow citizens, 4 Senators Anderson and Kubly speaking to us a couple 5 of days ago. Regrettably they had to leave before I 6 got to talk to them. But one of the questions I had 7 intended to put to them, because I'm curious about 8 it, is what the present generating capacity in the 9 State of Minnesota is and I understand when I ask a 10 question like that, where we're primarily looking at 11 the generating present capacity of Excel Energy. 12 I've tried to abstract the answer to my 13 question from some of the written evidence that's 14 filed and I'm calculating at the moment that it's in 15 the range of a present generating capacity of 7,000 16 megawatts. But can you assist me? Is that accurate 17 or too low or too high? 18 MR. NICHOLS: That's fairly accurate. At our 19 peak production, we would need 9,000 megawatts. 20 There would be in addition to that, there had been 21 some new -- in addition to that 7,000 megawatts, 22 there had been some new natural gas combustion 23 turbines because we do have a need for peaking power 24 in the summer. That's our peak month, July and 25 August. 2462 1 MR. BEDFORD: We in fact did hear about the 2 kind of new generation that Minnesota is building in 3 addition to wind that you've talked about and there 4 was some comment a couple of days ago that there is a 5 new 365 megawatt gas-fired generation station that's 6 just been announced that will be constructed at 7 Mankato, Minnesota. Are you familiar with that? 8 MR. NICHOLS: I am familiar with that. And 9 there has been a new gas combustion turbine built 10 near Jackson, Minnesota as well. So there's been 11 this need for these natural gas combustion turbines. 12 MR. BEDFORD: I am assuming given what is 13 clearly on your part a keen interest in developing 14 something like a wind resource which we all 15 understand from a common sense point of view is clean 16 and renewable and we all believe that the wind will 17 always blow. I'm a little surprised that you are 18 building more gas-fired generation. But having said 19 that, I assume you would prefer, if possible, that 20 rather than Minnesotans building gas-fired 21 generators, that Minnesotans take advantage of our 22 water resources in Manitoba and have us build more 23 Hydro dams? 24 MR. NICHOLS: Well, I am aware that I think 25 Excel Energy now buys 500 megawatts of water power 2463 1 from Canada. And obviously they -- the U.S. needs 2 firm power. I don't know what your sale price is on 3 that and you probably won't tell me that. 4 My goal is to provide cheap energy and that's 5 what I find most attractive about wind is it gets 6 cheaper every year and it's clean. But it does need 7 to be firmed up. In the real world, that's what we 8 have to deal with. 9 We in the United States are working -- one of 10 the projects I'm working on is to firm it up with 11 coal and lignite. Natural gas is just simply too 12 expensive I believe for energy production, for 13 electrical production and it's also driving up the 14 cost of heating our homes. We need to move away from 15 natural gas in the United States. But I don't know 16 what your cost of power is and I had been told that 17 there are some environmental problems with that, too. 18 But I'm not going to get into that because I've never 19 been to see your dam. 20 MR. BEDFORD: Well, let me extend an 21 invitation on behalf of Manitoba Hydro that after I 22 come and do the tour of your wind farm, we'd be 23 delighted to have you come to Manitoba and I'm sure I 24 can look after arranging a tour of some of Manitoba 25 Hydro's power dams for you. 2464 1 You are right. I am not allowed to reveal to 2 you the price that we charge Excel Energy for the 3 power. If I did that, I know I'd be looking for a 4 job tomorrow morning. 5 Returning to the 7,000 megawatt existing 6 capacity in your state, Mr. Nichols, we did hear from 7 Senator Anderson that approximately 95 per cent of 8 that generating capacity is presently nuclear and 9 coal and gas-fired generation. I'm sure you are 10 aware of that. 11 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 12 MR. BEDFORD: I would assume then that your 13 intent at least, if not the intent of all 14 Minnesotans, is that as you develop wind power, and I 15 know you mentioned a goal of by 2010 I think you said 16 moving up to 1,100 megawatts of capacity, your goal 17 surely is to substitute this new wind capacity for 18 existing nuclear and coal-fired so that you can 19 retire the nuclear and retire the aging coal-fired 20 generation? 21 MR. NICHOLS: Well, our demand is increasing 22 in Minnesota. So by law, as you probably know, and I 23 worked on that, the law says that Excel will use 24 1,100 megawatts of wind by 2010. So that's the law. 25 We know that's going to happen. And a lot of that is 2465 1 new demand. We do have some coal plants in 2 Minneapolis and St. Paul that are slated to close now 3 as you probably know. They are very old. One of 4 them was built shortly after the turn of the century. 5 And Excel has really been -- I can't say enough good 6 about Excel as a utility. They've been a very good 7 utility for us in Minnesota. They've always provided 8 cheap power and they've always looked for two 9 renewable energies. And then we don't appreciate 10 enough that we have very cheap power here in 11 Minnesota thanks to Excel Energy. 12 But we did have two old coal plants. They've 13 been targeted to close. That's a very positive step 14 in the right direction because one of the failures of 15 our 1977 Clean Air Act in the United States is that 16 they grandfathered in old and polluting plants, the 17 idea being that they were going to come off line 18 eventually. And those plants have continued to run 19 and we need to address that because we do have some 20 severe pollution problems. 21 MR. BEDFORD: One of the documents that this 22 Commission has before it is a draft report dated May 23 28, 2003 prepared by the Midcontinent Area Power Pool 24 which we all call MAPP. I'm sure you're familiar 25 with -- 2466 1 MR. NICHOLS: I'm familiar, yeah. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Excel Energy, you and I know and 3 others here are learning, is a member of the MAPP 4 Council. MAPP, in this 2003 draft report, Mr. 5 Nichols, predicts that Excel, by the year 2011, is 6 going to be faced in the summer with having to import 7 just over 2,000 megawatts of energy. Can we put some 8 confidence in these kind of reports prepared by MAPP? 9 MR. NICHOLS: Obviously MAPP is very respected 10 in our own -- our own Department of Commerce in 11 Minnesota has projected for Excel large increases in 12 demand. They have ratcheted that back a little bit 13 is my understanding now. But clearly in the range of 14 more than 1,000 megawatts. I don't know if they are 15 projecting 2,000 megawatts or not now because I know 16 they backed off a little bit. 17 Obviously that's one of the things that we 18 targeted with our goal, actually the law, of 1,100 19 megawatts of wind by 2010. Looking more at filling 20 the new demand rather than forcing plants off line. 21 MR. BEDFORD: I know Senator Nichols, but I 22 cannot recall off the top of my head, but I have read 23 that this legislation in Minnesota which obligates 24 Excel to buy, by 2010, the 1,000 or the 1,100 25 megawatts of wind generation, is subject to Excel 2467 1 being able to be satisfied that reliability concerns 2 will not be jeopardized and that the price will be 3 affordable presumably to Excel and through it to 4 Minnesota customers. Is my memory correct on that 5 subject? 6 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 7 MR. BEDFORD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear. 8 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, that's correct. 9 MR. BEDFORD: I must say, I'm quite certain 10 that it was no coincidence that you made several 11 passing references to how well windmills work in cold 12 weather in Minnesota. I am sorry, I said windmills, 13 wind turbines would have been a better expression. 14 Have you, per chance, kept records of how many minus 15 30 degrees Centigrade, which would be I think roughly 16 minus 25 degree Fahrenheit, days you've had this last 17 winter in Minnesota where you've observed these wind 18 turbines working? 19 MR. NICHOLS: We had three weeks of very cold 20 weather, below zero every night for three straight 21 weeks. It really doesn't affect the production. The 22 turbines just run. First of all, when it's cold, 23 they tend to run better because the dense air 24 produces more. And once they are up and running, 25 they are warm. And even when they are not running, 2468 1 we heat the oil. So they are heated if they wouldn't 2 be running and then they are almost always running. 3 And when they are running, they are warm. So cold 4 air, it just isn't a problem. Believe me, I work on 5 wind turbines. 6 MR. BEDFORD: I think -- 7 MR. NICHOLS: It's not a problem. 8 MR. BEDFORD: I think, Mr. Nichols, if you are 9 agreeable, when you come to Manitoba for your visit 10 to our hydro dams, I'm going to do my best to arrange 11 for that visit in January when we experience minus 30 12 degree weather and I am going to ask you the same 13 question that I've just put to you. 14 MR. NICHOLS: We had in Grand Forks, North 15 Dakota, I know it was 44 degrees below zero in 16 February and it was approaching 40 degrees below zero 17 here on my thermometer that same night. So I've 18 lived here my whole life. And when the wind blows 19 here, wind chill is a problem for us. Twenty and 30 20 degrees below, I am a farmer, I'm used to that, 21 that's not going to affect your wind turbines. They 22 will produce. 23 MR. BEDFORD: I should have clarified that we 24 use this expression "wind chill" in Manitoba, too. 25 But when I said minus 30, that's without the 2469 1 additional factor of the wind chill. 2 MR. NICHOLS: I know. I understand that. 3 We're like you. It's cold here. I'd rather come 4 there and see your dams in the summer. Is that all 5 your questions? 6 MR. BEDFORD: No, no, I have a few more. 7 Let's talk about the reverse. Often when I'm 8 watching my television in the evenings, we do have 9 access to Minneapolis, St. Paul channels and you have 10 a very, to my mind, sophisticated warning system for 11 things like tornadoes and high winds and storms. You 12 mentioned that the turbines work best in I think you 13 said 30 mile an hour winds. What happens to those 14 turbines, and I know it's not an everyday experience 15 in your state, but when you have severe weather 16 conditions with 100 mile an hour winds or, God 17 forbid, a tornado? 18 MR. NICHOLS: I am glad you asked that because 19 two years ago, we had a tornado here in my farm. Did 20 absolutely nothing to the wind turbines. When the 21 wind picks up, when the wind is strong, the blades 22 are vertical to the wind. They don't catch a lot of 23 wind. The pitch is a variable pitch. The pitch goes 24 vertical instead of horizontal to the wind. So wind 25 is not a problem. 2470 1 But anyhow, 145 miles an hour on my farm with 2 the wind turbines, now we know exactly what it was, 3 nothing. When the wind hits 60 miles an hour, the 4 turbines shut down. The tornado was gone in a few 5 minutes and the computer turned them on and they 6 started up again. We did have one problem. One 7 section of the transmission line was torn down, so 8 those turbines on that section couldn't run until we 9 got the line rebuilt which didn't take very long. 10 But I am amazed because I once worried they 11 are up there 200 feet in the air and the blades stick 12 up another 100 feet so you are 300 feet in the air 13 and you've got 145 miles an hour wind. They are so 14 tough. You can't knock them down. And I climb them 15 when I work on them and I've been up there in very 16 high winds. You just can't knock them down. They've 17 survived 180 mile an hour winds in Texas. We are 18 just amazed. And we used to worry about that. Never 19 seen a blade tore off. Never seen one knocked down. 20 I don't think it can be done. Maybe 200 mile an hour 21 winds. But 145 mile an hour did nothing. And it's 22 amazing. They are tough. 23 MR. BEDFORD: My concern wasn't windmills 24 falling over on the prairies of Minnesota, it was 25 something that we had been told earlier that these 2471 1 turbines come with sophisticated equipment that 2 automatically shuts them down in certain weather 3 conditions. And I think I did hear you say that when 4 the winds get extraordinarily high, there's an 5 automatic mechanism that shuts the equipment down 6 temporarily? 7 MR. NICHOLS: And it was very temporary. The 8 tornado was gone through in five minutes. They were 9 probably off line for five minutes. 10 MR. BEDFORD: Similarly, our understanding 11 from manufacturers of this kind of equipment is that 12 all wind turbines have a low temperature cut-off; is 13 that correct? 14 MR. NICHOLS: There is none, believe me. 15 There is no low temperature cut-off, absolutely not, 16 absolutely not. They never shut down. The only time 17 they would ever shut down is if the winds were more 18 than 60 miles an hour and that may happen four times 19 in a year I'm guessing. It just doesn't happen. Our 20 winds tend to be in that 20 to 30 mile an hour range, 21 and 10 miles an hour as well. 22 The problem is when you don't have enough 23 wind, a hot summer day. Our problem is July. The 24 winds are too light and there's no air density and we 25 just don't have as much production as we need in 2472 1 July. That's our problem. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Thank you. I'm glad you said 3 that because that was going to be my next question, 4 my curiosity about what does happen in the summer. 5 And I gather from reading MAPP reports and charts and 6 charts of numbers, the importation of electrical 7 energy in Minnesota rises significantly in the summer 8 and falls in the winter. I'm sure you can 9 corroborate that? 10 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And I want to be very 11 truthful about wind. It doesn't blow all the time. 12 There is one and only one problem with wind turbines, 13 wind doesn't blow all the time. You're going to have 14 some wind all the time but you're not going to have 15 maximum production and we have to deal with that. 16 MR. BEDFORD: You mentioned a number of dollar 17 figures. And just so when we look at the transcript 18 subsequently, no one clarified, but my experience 19 when Americans talk about money, they always talk in 20 terms of U.S. dollars. It was U.S. dollars, Mr. 21 Nichols? 22 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. They are going to 23 disconnect me in two minutes. 24 MR. BEDFORD: Yes. Given that warning, we'll 25 talk to you again, but that will be the balance of my 2473 1 questions for today. 2 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much for the 3 opportunity to answer questions. 4 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Mr. Nichols. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Speak. 6 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Are you still there, Mr. 7 Nichols? 8 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I am, but I think I'm about 9 to be cut off. 10 MS. WHELAN ENNS: What I'm going to do, it's 11 Gaile Whelan Enns here, is sort of speak quickly 12 through three questions which we will then try to 13 come back to with you if I could. I understand that 14 Manitoba Hydro has invited you to Northern Manitoba. 15 I think that's a good idea. 16 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. 17 MS. WHELAN ENNS: And I would suggest perhaps 18 that in that kind of a visit, you have a good look at 19 a lake that's become a reservoir, perhaps South 20 Indian Lake. 21 The second question for us to come back to, 22 talking quickly, the effects then of wind turbines on 23 wildlife would be something I'd like to ask you where 24 we could come back to it. 25 And on the economics, I think perhaps to have 2474 1 an answer to the question in terms of county tax 2 revenues, what we would think of as municipal tax 3 revenues from the corporate wind farms and corporate 4 wind companies? 5 MR. NICHOLS: To answer that very quickly. We 6 collected last year $520,000 in Lincoln County for 7 our school district, township and county from the 8 wind turbines. It's about 20 per cent of our 9 revenue. It's fantastic. We love it. 10 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Nichols, for 12 your time and for your offer for additional time 13 sometime down the road. We appreciate your 14 contribution. 15 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 17 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Nature 18 Federation has two more calls slated for this morning 19 although one of them was scheduled for 10:30 and that 20 has passed. The proposal is now to go directly to 21 Dr. Erin Bayne who will be coming in by telephone 22 from Alberta. And with your permission, I'll place 23 that call now. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR. GREWAR: Dr. Bayne, can you hear me? 2475 1 DR. BAYNE: Yes, I can. 2 MR. GREWAR: Dr. Bayne, I'm going to turn you 3 over to our Chairman, Mr. Gerard Lecuyer. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Dr. Bayne. You 5 are connected to the room where we are presently 6 holding hearings on proposed projects of transmission 7 and generation project known as Wuskwatim. 8 I will let Mr. Grewar swear you in and then I 9 will give you the opportunity to introduce yourself 10 and say who you are, where you're from, et cetera. 11 And then you can go on to speak to us. 12 DR. BAYNE: All right. 13 MR. GREWAR: Dr. Bayne, are you aware that it 14 is an offence in Manitoba to knowingly mislead this 15 Commission? 16 DR. BAYNE: Yes. 17 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell only the 18 truth in proceedings before this Commission? 19 DR. BAYNE: Yes. 20 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Dr. Bayne. 21 22 (DR. ERIN BAYNE: SWORN) 23 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Dr. Bayne. 25 DR. BAYNE: Okay. My name is Erin Bayne and 2476 1 I'm an assistant professor of Landscape Ecology in 2 the Department of Biological Sciences at the 3 University of Alberta. And I've studied the effects 4 of human land use practices on boreal forest 5 biodiversity for about the past 12 years. And my 6 focus of my research is on the effects of habitat 7 loss, fragmentation, with a real focus on how human 8 activities alter interactions between different 9 species. 10 And I was asked on behalf of Manitoba 11 Wildlands to give my assessment of the environmental 12 impact statement, environmental impact statement for 13 this hydro project. 14 Now I want to stress from the outset that I am 15 here as an impartial scientific observer and I'm not 16 for or against this project. I am simply going to 17 kind of -- what I'm going to try and do is provide 18 some insights into issues that I felt were not well 19 addressed in the EIS. Again, at the outset as well, 20 I will stress that I have only read those sections of 21 the EIS that pertain to my area of expertise which is 22 mostly in biodiversity issues. 23 Now, the focus of what I'm going to talk about 24 is how human activity in the boreal forest may be 25 affecting biodiversity and why I think just some of 2477 1 the issues that I think need to be made to raise to 2 this Commission when making their decision. 3 Biodiversity is defined as the full spectrum 4 of plant and animal life across ecosystems and it 5 includes things like genetic diversity, species 6 diversity, landscape diversity and ecosystem 7 diversity. And in the scientific literature 8 currently I'd say over the last ten years, there's 9 been a growing concern that human activities are 10 threatening biodiversity in many parts of the world. 11 MR. ABRA: Dr. Bayne, my name is Doug Abra. 12 I'm the lawyer for the Clean Environment Commission. 13 I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir, but I wonder if you 14 could slow down. We have a Court Reporter here who's 15 taking down your evidence and we're all having 16 trouble keeping up with you, sir. 17 DR. BAYNE: Okay, certainly. The three 18 greatest threats to biodiversity that exists 19 currently in the scientific literature are probably 20 in the following order, which are habitat loss, 21 habitat fragmentation and the effects of invasive 22 species. 23 Now in 1992, Canada signed what was called the 24 Rio Convention Act on biodiversity. Now this is not 25 a legally binding agreement but what it did is it set 2478 1 Canada to basically develop a set of targets so that 2 the maintenance of biological diversity became a key 3 element in terms of environmental impact assessments 4 in an overall assessment of what we were doing out in 5 the landscape. And they've got this definition of 6 biodiversity but it's very unclear as to what it 7 means. And it makes processes such as what we're 8 seeing here quite challenging. 9 Now, the reality is that we can't measure 10 biodiversity on the landscape today so we can't say 11 how our activities affect biodiversity per se. And 12 instead, we focus often on individual species. And I 13 think that was very clear in this environmental 14 impact assessment. There was some very good 15 assessments of what might happen to particular 16 species, particularly through things like the Habitat 17 Suitability Model. 18 But those models often rely on things like 19 presence/absence of a species. And the question is 20 often, you know, as this development goes through, 21 will that affect whether or not the species is here 22 after that development. 23 And the reality is very few individual 24 developments will ever cause a species to go 25 extinction or disappear from the landscape. What it 2479 1 does is it causes a slow change to the ecosystem with 2 the addition of each little human activity. And 3 that's particularly been demonstrated in Alberta. 4 And what I'd like to do I guess over the next 5 probably 10 to 15 minutes is give you a few examples 6 of how small incremental changes through, you know, 7 various developments in Alberta have resulted in some 8 changes in that ecosystem. 9 Now, I'm going to talk about three specific 10 areas of research in Alberta that we believe are 11 starting to be -- three groups of organisms, excuse 12 me, that are being affected by human activity. And 13 these are boreal caribou, boreal forest birds and the 14 invasion by non-native species. And my focus is 15 going to be on how these groups are being affected by 16 linear features such as the power line that's being 17 proposed for this project. 18 And I'm not really going to focus on the 19 effects of any one power line because in their own 20 context, the single power line may have relatively 21 little effect. It's more the effect of a power line 22 in terms of its cumulative effect with other human 23 land uses both in the past, the ones occurring today 24 and what might be predicted to happen in the future. 25 Now, a major area of research in boreal 2480 1 Alberta has been to understand the decline of the 2 woodland caribou. Now woodland Caribou in Alberta 3 and actually across much of the boreal forest of 4 Canada are non-migratory species that exist in 5 scattered herds at low densities. And they tend to 6 live in peatland environments, much like the habitat 7 that this project is proposed to go through. 8 Now the idea of living in a peatland and why 9 caribou live in peatland is because it's thought to 10 represent a spatial separation strategy for avoiding 11 areas where predators such as wolves are common. 12 Wolves, in most parts of the boreal, tend to live in 13 upland environments whereas caribou live in peatland. 14 Now, the caribou, as many of you will know, is 15 a threatened species in Canada and its decline across 16 its range tend to be the most severe in areas of high 17 linear feature density. There's been several recent 18 papers published in journals like Journal of Wildlife 19 Management that demonstrate this to be true. So in 20 other words, it seems like as linear feature density 21 goes up in the landscape, the decline in caribou 22 populations becomes more severe. 23 Now, this has led to a lot of research in 24 Alberta trying to understand this relationship in 25 terms of why linear features are affecting caribou. 2481 1 And the general take home from work with 2 radio-collared caribou both using what are called GPS 3 collars and VHF collars which give you a different 4 detail level of information, is that caribou avoid 5 linear features to some extent. Now this is not 6 absolute. Caribou will often be found on a road or 7 often be found on a power line. But relative to what 8 you would expect if they were using those things in 9 proportion to their abundance on the landscape, this 10 is not true. 11 Caribou in particular avoid roads by up to 12 about 500 metres, pipelines by about up to 250 to 300 13 metres. And when you say the word pipeline, this is 14 traditionally in Alberta, pipelines are a much more 15 dominant element than say power lines but they are 16 usually of about a similar width. And they also even 17 will avoid narrow features such as seismic lines in 18 Alberta which are around 10 metres wide. 19 Now, this kind of avoidance we don't know 20 exactly why it happens but there's been two proposed 21 reasons for it and the first is that caribou are 22 simply avoiding these areas because they are 23 sensitive to the human disturbances in terms of 24 vehicle traffic, quad traffic, snowmobile traffic 25 that may happen on these. That is one possible 2482 1 explanation. There has been research to suggest that 2 this is true but it doesn't fully explain the 3 patterns that are observed. 4 So another explanation and one that currently 5 is the working model for caribou management in 6 Alberta is that caribou are avoiding these linear 7 features because these are places where predator 8 activity and predator abundance are increasing. 9 The data to demonstrate that this is true has 10 been collected by a man named Adam James here at the 11 University of Alberta and it's published again in the 12 Journal of Wildlife Management. And he was able to 13 demonstrate with radio-collared wolves that wolves 14 are using linear features to move from upland 15 environments into peatland where they are then 16 potentially able to capture caribou and kill them. 17 And what he found is that radio-collared 18 wolves in general are closer to linear features than 19 you would expect by random chance. Now this is again 20 in Alberta and again, the research I'm talking about 21 is in Alberta, but generally it seems like wolves 22 tend to use linear features that are created by human 23 activity to move throughout the landscape. 24 The other thing that's been shown is that 25 wolves are able to travel much faster on these linear 2483 1 features and as a consequence, have a greater chance 2 of running into a caribou or some other ungulate. 3 Now, on its own, I mean a change in the 4 predator/prey relationship between wolf and caribou 5 may not be the only factor that is driving this 6 decline of caribou. And an alternative explanation 7 is that there has also been a new predator added to 8 boreal environments and that is the coyote. 9 The coyote, up until about 30 years ago, was 10 absent from much of the boreal forest and is 11 increasing and expanding its range throughout. And 12 we have been able to demonstrate here in Alberta that 13 coyotes are about three times more abundant in areas 14 with higher densities of linear features and 15 cutblocks. Areas where the overall human footprint 16 or cumulative effects is greatest. 17 Now coyotes, much like wolves, tend to use 18 linear features to move throughout the landscape. On 19 their own, they probably would have relatively little 20 impact on something like caribou but you put them in 21 addition to things like wolves and that may be 22 sufficient to be what's causing the declines in 23 caribou that we've seen. 24 Increasingly -- a trend that is increasing in 25 the boreal that is suggestive of human impacts having 2484 1 a slow degradative effect on boreal forest system is 2 increase in the number of deer. And we have seen 3 this in Alberta that where we have a lot of areas of 4 human disturbance, high linear feature densities, 5 deer are about four times more abundant than you 6 would find in more pristine areas. 7 Now obviously for many people, an increase in 8 deer is a positive thing and that is a valid point of 9 view. But increased deer means increased prey 10 availability for predators like wolves, like coyotes. 11 And what this can do is it increases the number of 12 predators out in the landscape which, in turn, leads 13 to increased predation risk for native species like 14 moose and caribou. 15 So that simply, you know, saying yes, we have 16 more deer because, and this is a positive thing, you 17 need to take a look at what the trophic effects might 18 be by adding that new prey item to the system. 19 Now, as I was reading this EIS, one of the 20 things that I think was well done is the idea of 21 trying to limit human access. In Alberta, this is a 22 huge issue in that all of the activity from the 23 energy sector has made it at a very acceptable 24 landscape which allows people to go into fairly 25 remote areas to hunt, fish. And this can have 2485 1 obviously negative population consequences for 2 species that are hunted or fished. 3 But in some circumstances, I mean there are 4 cases, for example, with woodland caribou where it's 5 a protected species that despite the fact that it's 6 protected, there are still a number of human caused 7 mortalities of this animal usually due to poaching 8 and/or due to, you know, road mortality. And what we 9 found is that human-caused mortalities of caribou in 10 Alberta are about 200 metres closer to linear 11 features than you would expect by random chance. 12 So again, suggesting that as more linear 13 features go out in the landscape, there's a greater 14 risk to the caribou also from human activities. 15 Now I'd like to switch gears a little bit. 16 The caribou is I think a very, you know, it's a very 17 compelling story that the more linear features and 18 the more human activity we put out in the landscape, 19 the greater risk that species will be at. But it is 20 one species and, you know, we really are more 21 interested in the overall state of the ecosystem. 22 And one of the groups of organisms of 23 particular interest I think in the boreal right now 24 that people are quite concerned about are breeding 25 forest birds. The reason for this is that the boreal 2486 1 forest of Western Canada has the highest diversity of 2 breeding birds in North America, over 300 species. 3 Approximately 40 per cent of those are short-distance 4 migrants, 40 per cent are long-distance migrants and 5 20 per cent are resident species. 6 Now what that means is a short-distance 7 migrant is a bird that comes to the boreal forest, 8 breed and then will leave and go to Texas or Mexico. 9 Forty per cent or long-distance migrants meaning they 10 will go to places like Central America or even South 11 America to spend the winter. 12 Now, those migrant species all come under what 13 is called the Migratory Birds Act which means that 14 they have legally mandated federal protection. They 15 are not an endangered species legislation by any 16 stretch of the imagination but what it does have as a 17 regulatory body is that the government is required to 18 understand these patterns to protect these species 19 through international agreements. 20 Now many of these species have fairly large 21 ranges and do occur in the United States as well. 22 But 21 of them breed only in the boreal forest of 23 Western Canada and the majority of those are found 24 that ranges overlap the proposed study area for this 25 hydro project. That means we have an extremely high 2487 1 level of international responsibility for these. 2 Now of these 21, a number of them are what I 3 have referred to earlier as long-distance migrants. 4 Now, long-distance migrants are a group of birds that 5 are right now of particular concern because across 6 North America, we have seen declines in their 7 numbers. Those declines are not well-understood. We 8 don't know the exact mechanisms but there are 9 definite international implications in terms of how 10 we go out managing this. We simply -- you know, 11 Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service 12 will have to have agreements in place with other 13 government agencies in other countries to maintain 14 these populations. 15 Now, because of the Migratory Bird Act, 16 there's been a number of legal challenges recently 17 put out particularly against the forestry sector in 18 trying to enforce the Migratory Bird Act which says 19 that you will not disturb a nesting bird willingly or 20 knowingly. Now forestry, by definition when it 21 happens in the summertime, cuts over a land base 22 where birds are nesting. So there's been a number of 23 legal challenges under this Act and that Act is going 24 to be in the area of great debate over the next 25 little while. 2488 1 Now, the major issues for the decline of 2 neotropical migrants are thought to be mainly habitat 3 loss and habitat fragmentation. I think it's really 4 important at the outset to say that in this EIS, it 5 was recognized that removal of the native vegetation 6 will result in the loss of habitat for some forest 7 specialists. And that is just a reality. Any linear 8 feature that becomes a permanent conversion on the 9 landscape basically results in a loss of habitat. 10 To give you an idea of the magnitude of the 11 effect, however, I have done some analysis using -- 12 now, this is again very -- a cursory analysis and I 13 must -- you know, it would need a lot more work to be 14 an absolute number, but based on the habitats that 15 were described in the EIS, I've gone through a 16 database that I have that talks about the birds that 17 would be there. And approximately 8,000 territories 18 would be lost due to this power line. 19 Now, in the same light though, some species, 20 as was recognized in the report, will benefit from 21 new habitat created by the power line. And I think 22 that's often put into those environmental impact 23 statements and it's a valid point. However, I think 24 it's also important to note that these are often 25 generalist species of low conservation concern. Are 2489 1 often very common in other environments, particularly 2 in human disturbed landscapes farther south. 3 So in terms of saying biodiversity has gone 4 up, that is true, but it's what is appropriate 5 biodiversity. I think it's a bigger issue. 6 Now, one of the areas that I've found the 7 Environmental Impact Statement is weakest on in this 8 regard was the concept edge effects. Now the effects 9 of a power line can reach substantially beyond the 10 edge of a linear corridor itself. And I think this 11 is really important that this be recognized. 12 Now the edge, to give you a definition, is a 13 place where plant communities such as the power line 14 meet or where successional stages or vegetative 15 conditions within the plant communities come 16 together. And the edge effect is what happens when 17 you have a change in normal ecological processes at 18 this edge interface. 19 Now, birds can respond to edge effects in a 20 variety of different ways. And the literature that 21 was reviewed in the Environmental Impact Assessment 22 was very old in this regard and I believe it needs to 23 be re-evaluated using some of the much more recent 24 literature that summarizes the issue I think much 25 more effectively. 2490 1 But as a general -- my general assessment of 2 edge effects in the literature today would be that 3 birds definitely react to the altered vegetation 4 structure at some distance from the power line. And 5 what this is going to be caused by is changes in the 6 vegetation and microclimate that occur due to the 7 opening up of the landscape. 8 Now again, as I said before, some species 9 respond to this positively, some species respond 10 negatively. What it is is a change and whether it's 11 good or bad depends on your perspective. But most of 12 the species that respond positively are generally 13 species of low conservation concern. 14 Now, edge effects occur for many reasons but 15 the two major ones are that as you open up the 16 landscape, you get increased wind speed in the 17 landscape which can result in greater blow down of 18 trees, resulting in an increased opening of the 19 canopy and that can reduce the suitability of that 20 habitat for certain species. You also can have an 21 increased rate of evapotranspiration changing the 22 moisture gradient which can change the food supply 23 for the birds. 24 And so overall, like I said, it's sort of a 25 back and forth. Some species will do well, some will 2491 1 do poor. But one of the things that was not put out 2 in this report is about how far this edge effect 3 might be. And right now, the current wisdom in the 4 literature that it is typically about three to five 5 times the height of the canopies. You have a 20 6 metre canopy, you might expect an edge effect of 7 about 60 metres. That gives you an idea of the scale 8 at which this might affect birds. 9 Now, simply changing the habitat is not the 10 only thing that will happen with an increase in 11 linear feature density on the landscape. As with 12 caribou, when you saw these changes of predator/prey 13 relationships, you know, wolves using linear features 14 to catch caribou, the same principle holds for forest 15 birds in that many predator species will often move 16 on linear features particularly on the edge. And 17 what this has been shown to do is it can result in 18 reduced nesting success for birds that do choose to 19 put their nests near edges. Now what this means is 20 that yes, the birds are there but they are not 21 reproductively successful meaning that, you know, 22 over time, this could result in declines in 23 populations in these areas. 24 Now, these effects tend to be most focused and 25 there is a lot of debate in the literature as to the 2492 1 generality of this relationship but I think much of 2 that has to do with it depends on where in the 3 landscape you are. If you are close to the southern 4 edge of the boreal forest where the power line may 5 come out and meet up with more towns or more 6 agricultural landscapes, those sorts of places, that 7 is where you're going to see an increase in the 8 number of generalist predators from that landscape 9 and invasive species. 10 One example is a species called the 11 brown-headed cowbird which I have recently 12 demonstrated is moving and increasing its range in 13 the boreal forest the further north you go. And it 14 seems to use linear features throughout the 15 landscape, often using things like power poles as 16 observational perches. 17 Now, the reason the brown-headed cowbird is a 18 negative species in this regard, it is what's called 19 an obligate brood parasite. What that means is it 20 lays its eggs in the nest of other species. And this 21 comes as a reproductive cost to those other species 22 resulting in again reduced reproductive success for 23 those forest birds that live in that environment. 24 Now, this is an area of which I am a little 25 bit less familiar but I think it was important 2493 1 because I didn't see it put in the Environmental 2 Impact Statement. It's just the idea of collisions 3 between power lines and migrating birds. They are 4 undoubtedly going to occur and as more lines get put 5 out on the landscape, the more likely this is to 6 happen. 7 Now in the literature right now, I went 8 through and did a literature search the other day, 9 and on average, people estimate that tens of 10 thousands to hundreds of thousands up to 174 million 11 birds annually are killed by collisions with power 12 lines. This comes from the California Power 13 Authority and a report published by them. 14 Put that in context, I guess what that might 15 mean in Norway, of the power line corridors there, 16 there's about 100,000 grouse are estimated to be 17 killed annually by collisions. And about 650,000 18 grouse are hunted every year. So about, you know, 10 19 to 15 per cent of the annual allowable harvest gets 20 lost to collisions with power lines. 21 Another thing that was put into the EIS and a 22 valid point is that many birds of prey, owls, some of 23 your larger raptors, will use towers for perching. 24 And it is a valid point and they will use them for 25 perching and in fact building nests, so a positive 2494 1 effect. However, there are often times when 2 electrocution of these birds can happen. And because 3 of their small population sizes, even small numbers 4 of birds lost to this type of disturbance can have 5 quite a large population effect. 6 Finally, I'd like to talk a little bit on 7 non-native species. Linear features, and we have 8 demonstrated this on various types of linear features 9 in Alberta, are becoming point sources for the 10 establishment of non-native plants and insects. Now 11 the mechanisms for this are not totally understood 12 but the disturbance created by creating the linear 13 disturbance in the first place is thought to play a 14 role. But also these linear features particularly 15 often are travelled by human equipment that bring new 16 dirt, new seeds, new eggs from particular insects 17 into the environment and these can allow them to find 18 a place to basically set up shop and then, as a 19 result, will become places where these species will 20 spread from. 21 So I guess to summarize what I would like to 22 just point out is that this power line on its own may 23 have, you know, relatively little impact relative to 24 what's going on in the surrounding landscape but it 25 is one more piece in an overall growing cumulative 2495 1 effect that could be having a considerable change in 2 the boreal condition. 3 The magnitude of the loss, the habitat loss 4 from this power line per se will depend on how wide 5 the edge effect is thought to be. And I cannot 6 answer exactly how wide that is and it's going to 7 depend on the species that you talked about. But I 8 think in terms of the precautionary principles with 9 caribou, for example, you might want to start 10 thinking that in fact the area lost is something more 11 like 250 metres plus on either side of that line. 12 One of the things that is a definite reality I 13 think is that adding more linear features to the 14 landscape will change normal predator/prey 15 relationships and this will particularly increase as 16 more and more powerlines or any linear feature goes 17 out on the landscape. 18 What I would argue that the Commission needs 19 to look at is to try and put this power line in the 20 context of your overall plan for that landscape. 21 What will that future look like without this power 22 line? Is it part of a larger plan? 23 And in Alberta, what we've been doing to deal 24 with these issues to try to give us an idea of how 25 many can we put out there before the system is going 2496 1 to be hugely affected is to use modelling software to 2 allow us to predict what the future might hold based 3 on our best scientific knowledge. 4 And I think what you have to recognize is that 5 this power line is just one more piece in the 6 cumulative effects world that's going on out there 7 and the question is do you think it's going to push 8 the system past some threshold. 9 With that, I'll close and happily answer any 10 questions. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bayne. Yes, 12 there are some questions. Mr. Mayer will ask. 13 MR. MAYER: Mr. Bayne, my name is Bob Mayer. 14 I'm one of the Commissioners. I live in Thompson, 15 Manitoba, approximately 60 kilometres due east of the 16 plan site of the Wuskwatim project and one of the 17 terminating ends of one of the power lines we're 18 talking about. 19 Firstly, I should tell you that I have seen 20 the caribou cross the road and two sets of power 21 lines to get just a little south of Ponton. I've 22 seen, or not seen, we were kept away, 300 caribou 23 amassed on our golf course in Thompson, Manitoba a 24 couple of years ago and appeared to have not a great 25 deal of trouble crossing the power lines or the 2497 1 roads. But I understand your point about that, that 2 there may have been a lot more there than actually 3 crossed the roads. 4 I am assuming, sir, that, I guess I should 5 mention the osprey nesting on top of the power polls 6 too along highway number 6. But that aside. I'm 7 taking it, sir, that you've read the material that 8 was relevant especially to the transmission lines. 9 Have you had an opportunity to review the maps? 10 DR. BAYNE: I have looked at them to some 11 degree but I would have to say, you know, I don't 12 know the system well enough to have made a decision 13 as to, you know, the choice of where the line went 14 was a good choice or not. 15 MR. MAYER: I think the Commission or at least 16 I, as a member of this Commission, have some concern 17 about the way the line is planned. And I think my 18 concerns have been heightened by your comments on 19 where the problems may well lie. For example, sir, 20 if you look at the -- if you look at the map, you 21 will see that the line that is planned or the two 22 lines actually that are planned from Wuskwatim to 23 Herblet Lake Station appear to pass through virgin 24 boreal forest. If you move that line over, not a 25 whole lot of kilometres, and move straight east from 2498 1 the Wuskwatim project, you will run into Provincial 2 Trunk Highway number 6 which runs from Thompson, 3 Manitoba, actually runs from north of that, all the 4 way to Winnipeg. But along Provincial Trunk Highway 5 number 6 and leading all the way down Provincial 6 Trunk Highway number 6 down Provincial Road 391 up 7 392 into Snow Lake which is where the area of the 8 Herblet Lake Station is, there is a road and very 9 closely adjacent to the road is at least one set of 10 power lines. 11 Having already established that linear 12 barrier, sir, would it, in your opinion, be more 13 prudent to build the additional lines within close 14 proximity to the already existing linear barriers? 15 DR. BAYNE: The response to that question 16 is -- I mean I will have to be somewhat cagey on this 17 one, but what I will say is that it will depend on 18 the species of particular concern. If by using 19 caribou as an example, I would probably recommend 20 that that would be a better choice than running it 21 into a relatively pristine peatland environment. 22 However, there are concerns that the more -- 23 the more of a series of linear features you put in 24 one place, the more impermeable barrier it comes for 25 other species. And I would throw as an example 2499 1 forest songbirds for example. They will cross linear 2 features a certain width to get to the other side 3 when, you know, in dispersing during their, you know, 4 for when juvenile disperse throughout the landscape. 5 However, the wider and wider they get, the less 6 likely it is they will be to cross that. 7 You know, caribou -- I want to go back to what 8 you said earlier about the caribou because I think 9 this is very important. I am not trying to say that 10 caribou will not be found in disturbed human 11 environments. They are regularly found in Alberta on 12 well pads, you know, on a road. They do not 13 completely avoid these features. And I think that's 14 very important to know. But on average, and I think 15 this was very relevant, is that they spend less time 16 near those than you would expect given what's out 17 there on the landscapes. 18 So that, from a scientific perspective, 19 indicates that they avoid these features to an extent 20 and that there is a reason for that and we're really 21 working on that hard right now to figure out what 22 that is. 23 MR. MAYER: I wonder, sir, you've mentioned 24 the songbirds. I think our corridors are already 25 wider than the width that is mentioned in your paper. 2500 1 But I would ask you to comment on the effect that 2 would have on human access. If you've already got a 3 corridor there, one more isn't going to extensively 4 or even marginally increase human access to virgin 5 area. So how big is the issue of human access? 6 DR. BAYNE: Well, if I was going to have to 7 rank it, I would say human access is probably going 8 to be particularly for your large mammals, fur bears, 9 animals such as those is going to be one of your 10 largest concerns. So in that respect, you know, with 11 that group of organisms, I would be, you know, 12 definitely recommending that putting them together is 13 probably a better strategy. 14 MR. MAYER: Thank you, sir. 15 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if I might just 16 interrupt. We did have, and I haven't heard Dr. 17 Bayne indicate where he would like these entered or 18 if he'd like these entered. We have been provided 19 with some additional background documentation and I'm 20 just wondering if Dr. Bayne could give us some 21 indication of where this fits in and whether or not, 22 for example, the Commission will be accepting it as 23 supporting documentation. We haven't distributed 24 them just yet but we have them here. 25 DR. BAYNE: Well, what I provided were a 2501 1 series of scientific publications that basically 2 provide the, you know, the graphical and statistical 3 documentation of the patterns that I described. And 4 what I was hoping by providing those was to give just 5 some more insight into, you know, issues of linear 6 features and edges that I didn't feel were addressed 7 in the EIS. 8 So each one of them represents -- you know, 9 some are my work, some are people I work with, some 10 are others just, you know, other scientific experts