PART 4 of 5
Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith comments on Bill 50 passing and property rightsDanielle Smith has a very strong opinion on Bill 50 passing. “Bill 50 was a mistake,” rebukes Danielle. The party’s proposals to address the need for transmission are three-fold:
1) Prove the need through an independent needs hearing;
2) If there is only a single line needed, institute a competitive bidding process so the best bid wins;
3) If the line is principally for export, don’t ask Alberta ratepayers to subsidize the construction cost
Danielle assumes that if electricity bills double or triple, landowners, farmers and homeowners will most likely choose to go “off-grid” and opt for micro-generation options that include natural gas generation, geothermal, wind and solar. If Albertans do choose to go off the grid, the Wildrose Alliance will be there to support them. “Government can play a role by providing tax incentives or rebates to assist with the capital costs of making these conversions,” encourages Danielle.
The biggest travesty of Bill 50 passing is the negative consequences it will have on landowners’ rights. Danielle supports full compensation for monetary loss and devaluation of their land. “Landowners must be fully and fairly compensated for the loss of value in their property and nuisance these new lines will cause.”
When asked if there is a much broader agenda that involves the North American Union (NAU) with the dismantling of property values and rights in this province by installing these transmission lines, her answer echoes that of Gary Holden in the September 24th, 2009 Town Hall meeting. “The degree of overbuild proposed by the two north-south lines (4000 MW of new power – a 33 per cent increase) and the fact that they are DC lines (which are most cost-effective over distances of 700 km) seem to strongly suggest that exporting power is the agenda behind the construction of these lines.”
Though taxpayers will be forced to pay for these costly transmission lines as a result of Bill 50 passing, it will not affect the exploration and development of renewable alternatives. “Green technologies will continue to be an option because consumers want them. As transmission costs increase, these technologies will appear to be more affordable and it could result in an increase in the adoption of micro-generation. It would have been far better for the government to adopt measures such as demand response, net metering and promoting micro-generation before considering the need for new transmission.”
Another detriment of Bill 50 is the oversight that companies in Alberta of all kinds will lose their competitive edge. It was also reported by the Frasier Institute that a dramatic increase in electricity costs would affect Alberta’s competitiveness. Danielle agrees, “It will likely result in many businesses going off the grid or, in the extreme case, moving from Alberta. I don’t know when Albertans are likely to start seeing these costs, but as more industrial users opt out, small and medium business owners and residential consumers will have to shoulder a greater share of the cost.”
As nuclear energy is fast becoming a reality in Alberta for domestic and exporting purposes, Danielle still believes it was wrong to remove the needs assessments process. “It appears as though the western line will be built to facilitate the construction of nuclear power in the Grande Prairie area - the 2000 MW line will have to be generated through some means and that seems the most likely option. This is the reason it was wrong to eliminate the independent needs hearing and put this decision in the hands of cabinet.”
Danielle is open to all forms of energy if the people of Alberta want them and that includes nuclear energy. If the majority of a community wants a nuclear power plant to be built, the government shouldn’t stand in their way. Similarly, if the majority of residents in a community are opposed to nuclear plants being installed, they shouldn’t be forced upon them. “Though nuclear technology has some serious concerns associated with it, many jurisdictions (notably Ontario and France) have developed nuclear power with the support of residents. I am open to hearing both sides of this debate.”
Before Bruce Power can implement nuclear energy in Alberta however, an environmental assessment similar to other countries will be done to approve modern nuclear power plant construction. Long delays are not in the best interest of residents or businesses. “If the answer is yes or no, it should be decided within a reasonable time period. The next election won’t take place until 2012, at which point it will likely be too late to halt construction of the projects approved in Bill 50. We would pass legislation to restore the independent needs assessment process,” verifies Danielle.
As proposals come forward for nuclear generation, an open discussion with the public, corporations and experts is encouraged. It is important that everyone involved take a look at the facts and listen to one another so that the best decision can be made. Although she is open in this regard, Danielle admits she doesn’t know much about the negative effects of nuclear energy. “I don’t know enough about the consequences of having nuclear energy to comment fully.”
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5
Comments