Dear Editor:
Your May 25 story states that AltaLink is working to improve the transparency process. In my opinion, and without prejudice, I consider this to be pathetic reporting.
Have you visited among the people of the western corridor to learn about the “transparency” AltaLink has displayed, and continues to display? Have you taken the trouble to discover, first hand, the impact of AltaLink’s involvement in our community, and indeed, the demoralizing impact of your paper’s treatment of the story over the years? Those among us who have been directly involved know a very different story than the one you have printed, and the frustrating thing is that you and your paper will not even accept verifiable information that is handed directly to you. And you won’t go out into the country to find it out for yourself.
If you had bothered to investigate, a simple fact check of the most recent actions of AltaLink would have revealed that they have refused to communicate with some of the public, and threatened to sue others for defamation because they disagree with Altalink’s fabrications. How is this improving the process?
Your story claims that transmission line losses have been in the range of $70 million dollars a year, but even AltaLink, themselves, are on record as saying it was $36 million dollars a year in 2007. Last year, in 2009, they claimed it was $250 million a year. Originally the lines were only going to cost power customers $5 a month – then is was $8 a month – and now you report $1.10 a month. If you have been in touch with the process, wouldn’t you be questioning AltaLink’s math competency? Or perhaps, their veracity? I guess if AltaLink is just making the figures up for the consumption of lazy editors and reporters who do not verify their stories, the truth will never be known.
For your information, and for the information of your readers, assuming that you will print this letter, line losses can be accurately represented only in terms of percentage loss. Total line loss for the province has continually improved (and has dropped) from the normal line loss range of five to seven per cent, to less than four per cent for each of the last three years. These numbers are verifiable. For Altalink to equate line loss in monetary terms is a great way to deceive the public. I should also note that AltaLink is not proposing to remove or fix any line that they claim is suffering from high losses. They are only proposing to build more lines and their plans are to continue to use the old lines without any repairs whatsoever. But their “story,” repeated in your newspaper, certainly paints a much more palatable scenario, doesn’t it? Have you ever wondered why?
And underlying all this, as if this was not enough, AltaLink claims that they want to improve the transparency process, yet they lobbied for the passage of Bill 50 which eliminated transparency altogether. Where is the proof that these lines are needed?
It certainly is a pity that you do not take the responsibility to look into all sides of a story before you present what you’ve been given as fact, and conversely, before you reject what others have provided you.
Connie Jensen,
Buck Lake