• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Don't Like the Critique?--Call It a "Conspiracy Theory&

Econ101

Well-known member
U.S. concerned about 'NAFTA superhighway'



Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Saturday, February 24, 2007

Canada



Are North American governments secretly conspiring to build a "NAFTA superhighway," four football fields wide, from Mexico to Canada to bypass regulatory controls and whisk goods swiftly to market?



If you believe some right-wing websites in the United States, it's all but a fait accompli. They insist a gargantuan project is in the works that will carve a 365-metre-wide swath through the continent's heart, with 10traffic lanes, rail lines for freight and passenger trains, fibre-optic cable lines and pipelines carrying oil, gas and water.



Conservative commentators Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly and websites such as WorldNetDaily link the supposed superhighway to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a series of agreements being negotiated among the United States, Canada and Mexico. They fear the SPP will lead to a North American union similar to the European Union, with a resulting loss of American sovereignty.



If you've never heard of the NAFTA superhighway, it may be because no such plan actually exists. The whole idea, one American official recently told a congressional committee, is an "urban myth."



But some remain unconvinced, in part because the largely secretive SPP process has created an information void that provides oxygen for conspiracy theorists.



Most SPP work is being done by 19 working groups that meet behind closed doors. The project surfaces publicly only when politicians from the three countries gather for periodic updates, like yesterday's SPP ministerial meetings in Ottawa.



So far, anxiety about the purported NAFTA Superhighway has been confined to the United States. Activists in Canada, by and large, don't quite know what to make of it, although the Sierra Club has expressed concern that NAFTA super-corridors could be used to pipe Canadian water to American markets.



Even the Council of Canadians, never shy about expressing alarm about anything that furthers "deep integration" with the U.S., declined comment. "We're trying to figure out what's going on, like everyone else," says spokesman Stewart Trew.



In the U.S, though, the furore over the NAFTA Superhighway is so intense that the U.S. government's Security and Prosperity Partnership website has posted a denial under the heading, "SPP Myths vs. Facts."



Those who swear that a NAFTA superhighway is in the works cite two main pieces of evidence.



One is the Trans-Texas Corridor, a proposed statewide network of transportation routes, each of which could include six automobile lanes, four truck lanes, freight and commuter rail lines, and infrastructure for utilities. It would take up to 50 years to complete.



The other is the existence of North America's SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a non-profit organization whose mission is to develop "the world's first international, integrated and secure multi-modal transportation system."



NASCO, whose members include companies and governments in the United States, Mexico and Canada -- including the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba -- promotes and lobbies for what's known as the "international mid-continent trade and transportation corridor." It says the corridor connects 71 million people and supports $1 trillion U.S. in total commerce among the three nations.



The 4,000-kilometre corridor runs from the Pacific port cities of Lazaro Cardenas and Manzanillo in Mexico to Manitoba, with a major offshoot to the Ambassador Bridge border crossing between Detroit and Windsor. In the U.S., the corridor tracks interstate highways 35, 29 and 94.



As it happens, the first leg of the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor would run parallel to Interstate 35, leading critics to allege that the massive Texas project is a prototype for the coming NAFTA superhighway.



Allegations like that exasperate Tiffany Melvin, NASCO's executive director. The Texas plan, which NASCO supports, is a response to growing highway congestion in that state, she says. "There's no plan -- I cannot emphasize this enough -- to extend this to other states," Ms. Melvin insists.



She blames any misperception on fear-mongering by people who have strung together local highway projects to "make it appear to be some evil plot that has been kept secret from the public."



If there's any such secret plan, it's news to Andy Horosko, Manitoba's deputy minister of transportation and a member of NASCO's board.



"When we talk about the super-corridor, we're basically talking about how do we make best efforts in terms of the existing infrastructure," he says. "We're not part of any super-plan that's going to have this four-football-field-wide corridor with no regulatory controls on it."



Nor is NASCO linked to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, says Mr. Horosko, though one of the SPP's key transportation milestones is to establish "an intermodal corridor work plan" and test it in a pilot project.



"We certainly are aware of what they're doing," says Mr. Horosko. "Any time we see something that we think lines up well with SPP, we certainly try to make sure that the federal government is aware of what we're doing and can bring it to the SPP table."



But even assuming there's no secret plan to pave over a chunk of mid-America, recognition of the importance of trade and transportation corridors in expediting the movement of foreign and domestic goods is growing.



Stephen Blank, a business professor at Pace University in New York, says the mid-continent corridor is well positioned to become North America's main trade conduit, in part because its roads and rail lines already exist.



That doesn't mean upgrades aren't required, adds Mr. Blank. "Everywhere along our North American infrastructure system there's tremendous need now for maintenance, which has fallen way behind, and also for thinking about what we're going to build next. And none of that is realistically being done."



The mid-continent corridor is more of an entrepreneurial concept than a physical plan, Mr. Blank says. He credits NASCO for "driving the concept of north-south trade. For the first time, I think entrepreneurs have begun to realize there's business to be done up and down the corridor."



Yet the mid-continent corridor faces competition from other regions that are promoting their own trade and transportation corridors.



One is the Canamex Corridor Coalition, a joint project of Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Montana, which is pushing a trade and transportation corridor from Mexico to Calgary. Little of the needed infrastructure now exists, though.



As well, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies is championing a corridor called Atlantica, spanning the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland, southern Quebec and several New England states.



Supporters envisage the port of Halifax as Atlantica's gateway. From there, super-sized "train trucks" would haul Asian goods to the U.S. midwest. A parallel energy corridor would ship offshore oil and gas to American markets.



But none of these competitors are as far advanced as the mid-continent corridor, which NASCO has been promoting since its formation in 1994.



"This is really a success story," asserts Mr. Blank, who says the mid-continent corridor offers "one of the first examples of a sense of collaboration north-south among urban centres."



In the past couple of years, he says, Winnipeg has come to see that its primary economic interests lie to the south. He says the city's closest partner is now Kansas City, 1,200 kilometres south along the corridor.



Kansas City is emerging as a key link in the corridor, in part because it has established an ambitious "inland port" -- a warehousing and distribution nexus that can receive goods from trucks and trains and funnel them across North America.



Creating a network of inland ports along the mid-continent corridor is one of NASCO's key objectives, says Ms. Melvin. According to Mr. Horosko, Manitoba is actively looking at establishing such an inland port near the Winnipeg airport.



Manitoba has been using NASCO to forge closer links along the corridor, all in the name of opening doors for business, says Mr. Horosko.



"We've benefited a whole lot just from putting Manitoba on the map," he says. "We are certainly known along the corridor. We've got contacts in Mexico as a result of this participation."



Ultimately, Manitoba envisions the corridor extending all the way from Mexico to Churchill on Hudson Bay.



Though ice now limits Churchill's port to a short four-month season, Russia wants to establish a shipping route between Churchill and its Siberian port of Murmansk.



Last month, Russia's transport minister told Canadian officials his country is ready to use some of its modern icebreakers to open shipping lanes to Churchill year-round. The federal government is studying the proposal.



If the plan proceeds, Churchill could become a port of entry for goods from Russia, China and India. Containers of goods would be loaded on trains at the Hudson Bay port and shipped to Winnipeg. From there, they could be sent anywhere on the continent.



Meanwhile, Kansas City SmartPort, a non-profit economic development organization, is trying to establish a Mexican customs office -- the first on American soil -- in Kansas City.



Under the plan, Mexican and American customs officials would pre-clear goods heading to Mexico by truck, including cargo from Canada. After clearing customs in Kansas City, the trucks would be sealed until they arrive in Mexico. The idea is to save time by eliminating inspections at the congested American-Mexican border.



Progress on the plan has slowed recently because of concerns by the U.S. State Department and a change of government in Mexico. But SmartPort president Chris Gutierrez was encouraged by recent meetings with officials in Mexico. "All of them are aware of it, at all levels from the president on down," he says. "They are committed to move the project forward. It's still on track."



The mid-continent corridor is also poised to become an alternate route for goods arriving from China and other Asian nations. West Coast ports such as Long Beach near Los Angeles are increasingly overburdened by the volume of Asian goods, and facilities at Lazaro Cardenas are being upgraded to provide an alternative port of entry.



Shipments would pass through multiple X-ray screening on arrival in Mexico, then be sent by rail to Monterrey. From there, they would be transferred to trailer trucks and given expedited entry to the U.S. via the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program. Once in Kansas City, the cargo could be transferred to semi-trailers or rail cars heading east or west or continue on to Canada.



Another NASCO initiative is NAFTRACS, a pilot project that will use intelligent transportation systems, known as ITS, to track and monitor freight shipments.



NASCO hopes the technology will reduce theft, improve inventory management and delivery times, and lead to more efficient customs clearance for freight.



Source: The Ottawa Citizen

canada.com
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Pretty long article to try and deny something, in the end, they confirm.

I would like to know why a 6 mile wide Alta Link "easement" is needed when it supposedly is "only" going to include two 500KV powerlines. The landowners association asked me to forward these messages on to anyone who is interested. The main jest here is that the Alberta government will build the lines, thus allowing them to expropriate land for this purpose, and then sell the transmission lines to a private company to operate. A whole lot of back-scratching is going on here.

On April 14, 2005, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) received approval from the Alberta Energy Utility Board (EUB) to have AltaLink upgrade a 240KV transmission line to a 500KV line and develop an additional 500KV transmission line from Genesee (Edmonton) to Langdon (Calgary). This was approved despite opposition from the City of Calgary, the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, and the Alberta Direct Connect Consumer Association who all argued for a more economical 240KV line.

The sham behind this decision is that of the 13 alternatives considered, Option V was chosen in October 2003 prior to any consultation with any industry stakeholders. AESO said Option V was also chosen because it had the least landowner impact. However no landowner was ever consulted. Approximately three industry stakeholders meeting were held in early 2004; AESO submitted the final application to the EUB for approval on May 7, 2004; and because Option V was chosen, AltaLink was designated the sole beneficiary and future owner, awarded the rights to build and own the transmission line.

SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. (SNC) is one of the world’s largest utility engineering and construction companies, and SNC owns 77% of AltaLink. This ownership guarantees SNC the contract (estimated to be worth about $600 million) to engineer and build this project. SNC consulted AESO on the need for this line and SNC’s ownership guarantees they get the contract. Upon completion, SNC would assume ownership of 77% of the asset. The project is paid for by the Alberta public, (called the load), and the transmission lines are expected to have a market value of approximately $2 billion dollars after completion.

Stakeholders owning property and citizens found out about this project only after it had been approved. They immediately filed for a review of the decision, citing lack of notification of the hearing. The EUB said the notification process was adequate but it was clearly confusing. The EUB granted these stakeholders a review in July 2006, but refused to allow or consider any review of the need to build a transmission line. Stakeholders were not allowed to discuss or submit evidence challenging the decision that approved the line. In other words the stakeholders were granted a review but they were not allowed to review anything.

The review, called a review and variance (R&V), granted property owners the unfair onus to prove a strip of land varying in width, from Edmonton to Calgary known as the “West Corridor”, to be unsuitable. These stakeholders, spent considerable time and resources to gather evidence to support their case that the “West Corridor” was unsuitable for another transmission line. When they requested that the EUB provide some criteria or a definition of suitable verses unsuitable the EUB did not respond.

The challenge incumbent upon three stakeholder groups at the review was to disprove the empirical data utilized to create a corridor comparison chart in the Needs Application Document [NID]. The corridor comparison chart in the NID is the evidence relied upon by the EUB in its decision. When stakeholders requested a copy, and the source of the information relied upon by AESO to construct a corridor comparison chart, AESO provided a document labeled N4(a) dated May 18, 2006. When asked how a document dated in 2006 could be included as evidence submitted in 2004, AESO responded by saying they had relied upon the information in the document but never submitted it as evidence nor was the finalized version published until 2006. During the review, it was learned that document N4(a) was constructed from two other documents submitted to the AESO by two electric transmission companies, AltaLink and ATCO. AltaLink submitted its document in November 2004 and ATCO submitted its document in July 2004. When it was made known to the EUB Board panel that both supporting documents arrived only after AESO’s application was submitted, the EUB panel ignored the conflict in the sequence of dates. AESO was asked if there were any other versions of the document such as N4(a), they answered no. When AESO was asked if they had submitted any evidence at the first hearing consisting of any of the information in N4(a), they answered no.

Stakeholders argued in the closing statements of the review hearing that the only evidence provided to the EUB Board panel, was the evidence provided by the stakeholders that supported the view the west corridor was unsuitable. Furthermore, AESO having the opportunity to provide evidence in support of the corridor failed or chose not to submit evidence. In the absence of any evidence supporting AESO’s position, stakeholders argued the Board had no alternative but to find the corridor unsuitable. The Board panel rejected the argument.

After the review, Altalink filed an application to build a line. In that application AltaLink made public a different corridor other than the one under consideration at the R&V. Stakeholders complained when they discovered AltaLink withheld information from them at the review. The critical information was, AltaLink moved the corridor 20 miles north of Calgary and reduced it in width by 50%, from twelve miles wide to six miles wide. In affect, AltaLink mislead stakeholders into thinking the corridor was 12 miles-wide when it was only ever considering a 6 mile-wide corridor. In essence, by withholding information, in what could be classified as a classic bait-and-switch tactic, Altalink misled the stakeholders into a futile effort to disprove a 12-mile wide corridor when in reality they were only ever considering a six-mile wide corridor in a different location.

There are number of inconsistencies and conflicts of interest that surround the application to build these transmission lines. Evidence was submitted during the review that showed that the death rate in and around Edmonton would increase by 500 people annually, based on each 10-microgram increase in particulate matter of air pollution. When the question was asked how much more particulate matter will increase as a result of the increased coal fired generation, the Board only asked “What if the study is wrong”? It is widely known, that air pollution in and around Edmonton will increase as a result of increased generation, but to what degree no one knows. Ironically, 35% of all the power produced will be lost in transmission because AltaLink wants to use AC lines. If DC transmission technology was utilized that number would be reduced by 50%. A 500KV AC line also produces an electromagnetic force (EMF) level that is 200 times higher than those shown to double childhood leukemia. DC technology has no EMF. AltaLink Management will not consider DC transmission lines because they say DC technology costs too much.

Kellan Fluckiger the chief executive in charge of Alberta Dept of Electricity testified at the first hearing on behalf of the Ralph Klein government and then in a letter dated June 16, 2006 he reiterated the government’s support for AltaLink’s 500KV line, for the review hearing. Mr. Fluckiger is married to a senior executive at Altalink, the direct beneficiary of this project and Mr. Klein is now employed by BLG, the law firm that represents AltaLink.

In a letter written to stakeholders prior to the beginning of the review hearing, the EUB denied stakeholders the opportunity to cross-examine friendly witnesses. In the hearing stakeholders were then denied an opportunity cross-examine testimony that was in opposition to their cause.

When stakeholders pointed to the Transmission Regulations and said the EUB violated sec: 28 of the regulations, the Board responded by saying that participants at the original hearing agreed to not apply that section of the law. When it was pointed out that Sec: 32 of the same regulations state, the “Transmission Regulations” supercede any agreement prior to or after the law comes into affect, the Board rejected the stakeholders’ argument. Evidence suggests that there was no agreement verbally or otherwise to not abide by Sec:28. On the contrary, transcripts confirm every lawyer participating agreed that the “Transmission Regulations” applied in their entirety.

AltaLink has made public, in numerous press and public statements that this transmission line is not for electricity export. However, the EUB approval was granted giving considerable weight to the capabilities of this line to increase exports. Maximum export capabilities for this line are 750MW at light loads. The proposed transmission line only has a capacity to transmit 1000 MW.

Industry proponents have suggested publicly that the transmission line is needed in Calgary by 2009 or the lights will go out. There is no evidence to support this claim and on the contrary there is ample evidence to prove this assertion is false. In order to prove the need for this proposed transmission line, AESO excluded all imports, all wind power and the Calpine gas generator. A total of 1500MW was excluded from the calculations to prove a need for a line that can only transmit 1000MW. Today 3900MW of new and proposed wind power could be available to southern Alberta but AESO has arbitrarily capped wind power at 900MW preventing 3000MW from connecting to the grid.

In 2004, the U.S. based Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee (NTAC) convened a study group with the mandate of identifying transmission options that could be used to connect new generation projects in Western Canada to consumers in California. The group included experienced transmission planners from Alberta’s AESO. The committee released their study in March of 2006.

Called the Canada-NW-California (CNC) group, the objective of the CNC study was to provide high-level information on the feasibility of potential transmission projects to transfer a variety of new generation resources out of Canada to California. The first step was to identify potential generation resources that could influence the development of the transmission grid from Canada though the Pacific North West and on to California.

The analysis was done for delivery of Canadian electricity to the Columbia River area and both northern and southern California. AltaLink’s 500 KV AC line is included in a number of options specified in the report, specifically options 5A, 5B, 7A, and 8A.

The report concluded that DC technology was assumed to be less costly than AC technology.



[comments by Joe Anglin, author]

This story takes many twist and turns. The regulator (EUB) supposedly delegated to protect the rights of the citizens consistently worked to undermine the integrity of the process. At one point in the review hearing after the Board Chairman called an opposition lawyer a “Philadelphia Lawyer”, he then shouted at a stakeholder, “I am denying your right”.

There are litanies of improprieties plaguing the approval of this 500KV transmission line application. Events and statements indicate that public officials are complicit in an attempt to approve this transmission line and the primary beneficiary is AltaLink and the coal electricity generating companies of TransAlta, Epcor, and TransCanada, who are seeking what appears to be, a backroom deal to have the public subsidize electricity export to California. Department of Energy policy clearly states the public will not subsidize exports.

Concept V (two 500KV transmission lines) was chosen in October 2003, coincidentally just at the same time two senior employees of TransAlta transferred to AESO. Concept V is inescapably identical to a 1980 500KV TransAlta proposal that was never built.

An anonymous source well connected in the electricity industry in Alberta has informed me that this line was promised to AltaLink back when TransAlta spun off AltaLink, in an effort to sweeten the deal for AltaLink’s foreign owned partners. Considering AltaLink was purchased for more than $200 million more than it was worth, this theory has some credibility.

The fact is this proposal to build two 500KV transmission lines is nothing short of a public subsidiary that directly benefits four extremely large coal generated electricity producers. The generating plants called Genesee, Sundance, Keephills and Wabamun are some of the largest producers of green house gases (GHG), also consisting of mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide, in Canada. The key debate today is not whether pollution from coal plants kills people; it indisputably does. The debate is, do we subsidize old dirty technology at the expense of encouraging newer cleaner technology, such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC). IGCC is the gasification of coal. IGCC plants use heat and pressure to cook off the impurities in coal and convert it into synthetic gas. The advantages of IGCC plants are many. They are 10% more efficient, consume 40% less water, produce 50% less ash and waste, and are nearly as clean burning as natural gas. But more important, it is far easier and cheaper to capture carbon dioxide from coal at an IGCC plant. Theoretically IGCC technology can capture 100% of the carbon dioxide.

More importantly from an economic and industry view, California, as a trend setting state in the U.S. has just passed a new law establishing that the GHG emissions rates for new financial commitments to purchase electricity must be no higher than the GHG emissions rate of an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) plant. Seven other states are considering the same or similar measures and more are sure to follow. In short, California wants to stop purchasing electricity from plants such as Genesee, Sundance, Keephills and Wabamun. While our largest (one and only) customer of electricity is moving to limit its purchases of dirty coal power plants, Albertans are subsidizing them in what may a $2 billion boondoggle that favours only a few companies at the expense of the entire province. In the end, if other provinces step up and meet the requirements of the new standards demanded by California, Alberta’s electricity market may have no export capabilities and we would have spent $2 billion dollars in a wasted effort.

The EUB has done everything in it power to keep the public from participating in the approval process of these lines. The public was not notified of the first hearing. They were then limited to participating only as members of a group in the review hearing, which by the way did not review anything discussed in the first hearing. Now the public is told only those who reside within 800 meters of the proposed line will be recognized as having standing in the next hearing. The 800-meter rule is a bit bizarre since the line route has not been finalized and if the route changes ever so slightly before or during the hearing, those with standing could find themselves without standing and those not present at the hearing, thinking they are not affected, may discover the line will indeed cross their property.

There is a hearing is scheduled in Red Deer March 12, 2007 for the next phase of approval. Concerned groups and citizens should write every politician possible, the AESO and the EUB. If you can show up at the hearing, demand that the EUB respect the rights of the citizens of this province. Citizens deserve a full and complete review on this matter and so far that has not happened.

The EUB and AESO are supposed to consider the public need. They have failed in this matter miserably. To help the cause and us, write these people and tell AESO to withdraw their application No. 1346298 and tell the EUB to hold a complete and full review of decision 2005-031. Respect the rights of the people of Alberta and give us a full review!

Contact the EUB attn: J. Richard McKee 5th Floor, 640-5th Ave SW Calgary AB T2P 3G4 Tel: (403) 297-3488 Fax: (403) 297-7031 e-mail [email protected]

Contact the AESO Attn: Dale McMaster and Neil Millar Calgary Place 2500, 330 - 5th Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 0L4 Tel (403) 539-2450 Fax (403) 539-2949 Email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected] .
 
Top