Decision 25170-D01-2020
1867559 Alberta Ltd.
Irricana Solar Project
May 21, 2020
Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 25170-D01-2020 1867559 Alberta Ltd. Irricana Solar Project Proceeding 25170 Applications 25170-A001 and 25170-A002
May 21, 2020
Published by the: Alberta Utilities Commission Eau Claire Tower 1400, 600 Third Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0G5
Telephone: 310-4AUC (310-4282) in Alberta 1-833-511-4AUC (1-833-511-4282) outside Alberta Email: [email protected] Website: www.auc.ab.ca
The Commission may, within 30 days of the date of this decision and without notice, correct typographical, spelling and calculation errors and other similar types of errors and post the corrected decision on its website.
Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta
Decision 25170-D01-2020 1867559 Alberta Ltd. Proceeding 25170 Irricana Solar Project Applications 25170-A001 and 25170-A002
1 Decision summary
1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission considers whether to approve applications from 1867559 Alberta Ltd., operating as Irricana Power Generation, to construct and operate a power plant designated as the Irricana Solar Project and to connect the project to FortisAlberta Inc.’s 25-kilovolt electric distribution system. After consideration of the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons outlined in this decision, the Commission finds that approval of the project is in the public interest having regard to the social, economic, and other effects of the project, including its effect on the environment.
2 Introduction
2. Irricana Power Generation (IPG) filed applications with the AUC seeking approval to construct and operate a 4.86-megawatt (MW) solar power plant, and to connect the power plant to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System, near the town of Irricana (collectively the project), pursuant to sections 11 and 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. The applications were registered on December 12, 2019, as applications 25170-A001 and 25170-A002.
3. The Commission issued a notice of applications in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 001: Rules of Practice. The Commission received statements of intent to participate in response to the notice of applications from Regine Landry and Brent Shaw. Ms. Landry and Mr. Shaw raised concerns related to solar glare, the environment, project size, property value and water supply. The Commission granted standing to Ms. Landry and Mr. Shaw based on their concerns and proximity to the proposed project and scheduled a written process to consider their concerns.
3 Discussion
3.1 Application details 4. The project would consist of approximately 15,550 solar panels on a fixed-tilt racking system, 20 inverters, two padmount transformers, a collector system, on-site buildings, access roads, control equipment and a perimeter fence. IPG stated that the project would be located on the northern 80 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 28, Range 26, west of the Fourth Meridian. IPG stated the power plant would be located on previously disturbed land.
5. The project would be interconnected to FortisAlberta Inc.’s 25-kilovolt electric distribution system at a point in Legal Subdivision 5 of Section 3, Township 28, Range 26,
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 1 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
west of the Fourth Meridian. IPG filed a letter provided by FortisAlberta indicating that it has no concerns with the interconnection of the power plant.1
3.2 Views of IPG 6. IPG stated the project’s proposed panels would have anti-reflective coating to reduce glare. However, in response to questions from Ms. Landry, IPG indicated that it was not planning to upgrade the panels should a more effective panel be available in the future to minimize solar glare.
7. IPG submitted a solar glare hazard analysis report for the project prepared by Green Cat Renewables Canada Corporation. Green Cat evaluated the proposed solar panels with anti-reflective coating to predict the intensity and amount of glare the project would produce. The following image depicts the project area in blue and the dwellings assessed with stars.2
1 Exhibit 25170-X0009, Fortis letter of no objection. 2 Exhibit 25170-X0012, Solar Glare Hazard Study, Figure 5.4 - Dwellings Highlighted for Assessment, PDF page 15.
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 2 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
8. Green Cat evaluated glare impacts at one highway, two local roads and a railway line located near the project area. Green Cat stated that no glare was predicted to occur at any of the roadways or the railway line it studied.
9. Green Cat modelled glare impacts at nearby residences based on observer heights of 1.5 metres and 4.5 metres to represent one-storey and two-storey structures. Green Cat indicated that yellow-grade glare, which has the potential to cause temporary after-images, was predicted to be produced by the project at 1.5-metre and 4.5-metre observer heights at residences D2, D5 and D6. Green Cat predicted D5 to be the most impacted property, receiving up to 17 minutes per day of yellow-grade glare at an observer height of 4.5 metres in the evenings between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Green Cat confirmed there would be no red-grade glare produced by the project, which would have the potential to cause permanent after-image burns to an individual.
10. IPG acknowledged that Ms. Landry owns non-residential land within 800 metres of the project south of residence D6 and that it is her intention to build a residence on this land in the future. IPG stated that Ms. Landry’s property was not included in the noise impact assessment or solar glare hazard analysis because there is no residential dwelling on the property.
11. IPG submitted that its findings for residence D6, quoted below, would also apply to Ms. Landry’s property:
D6 is predicted to experience the most glare at a 4.5m observer height, with up to 10 minutes of yellow glare per day between 18:30 and 19:00 from late-May to mid-July. However, a site visit conducted by Green Cat Renewables confirms the presence of heavy shielding of large trees between the site and D6 that would make it highly unlikely to experience the predicted levels of glare.3
12. IPG further stated that should Ms. Landry or Mr. Shaw experience solar glare, it would mitigate the impact through landscaping measures, large trees or screens. In its final argument, IPG committed to continuing consultation with Ms. Landry throughout the development of her residence, to mitigate any adverse impacts she may experience as a result of the project.
13. IPG retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. to conduct an environmental evaluation for the project. Stantec concluded that the project would be sited on previously disturbed lands and would not result in significant impacts on the environment given the implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
14. IPG submitted a renewable energy referral report from Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) Wildlife Management. In its report, AEP concluded that the project would pose a low risk to wildlife and wildlife habitat, based on project siting and on commitments made by IPG to mitigate and monitor wildlife impacts. IPG acknowledged its statutory obligations under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Conservation and Reclamation Regulation, to properly reclaim the project and obtain a reclamation certificate at the project’s end of life.
3 Exhibit 25170-X0012, Solar Glare Hazard Study, PDF page 19.
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 3 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
15. In response to concerns raised by Ms. Landry, IPG submitted that the solar panels would have a lifespan of 25 years and that environmental impacts would be considered when new panels were to be selected.
16. To address Mr. Shaw’s concerns about the project’s impacts on water supply, IPG referred to its environmental evaluation, which stated that the project’s construction and operation are not expected to interact with surface or groundwater in the area, and that water for cleaning the panels would be brought in on trucks rather than sourced from the site.
17. IPG conducted a participant involvement program pursuant to Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments. That program included consultation with stakeholders within 800 metres of the project and notification of stakeholders within 1,500 metres of the project. IPG stated that at the time of filing the applications, all outstanding questions and concerns had been addressed.
18. IPG filed a noise impact assessment (NIA) for the project to address the requirements of Rule 012: Noise Control. The NIA predicted cumulative sound levels at noise receptors as the sum of ambient sound levels, noise contribution from the project, and noise contribution from baseline case facilities (i.e., energy-related facilities that have potential to influence sound levels at noise receptors). The NIA then assessed compliance at noise receptors by comparing predicted cumulative sound levels to applicable permissible sound levels (PSLs).
19. The NIA identified 11 dwellings as noise receptors and established the ambient sound levels and PSLs for noise receptors based on dwelling densities and distances to heavily travelled roads or rail lines. The NIA concluded that predicted cumulative sound levels for all the noise receptors are below the applicable PSLs.4
20. IPG consulted with the Rockyview County Fire Services and the Beiseker Volunteer Fire Department with respect to its emergency response plan5 and neither had any concerns.
21. IPG stated that construction would begin as early as May of 2020 and be completed by March 1, 2021.
22. With respect to Mr. Shaw’s concerns about property value, IPG stated that it did not anticipate any impacts to property values as a result of the project because the solar panels would be located on a separate property on adjacent lands.
23. IPG indicated that FortisAlberta is prepared to allow the interconnection of the power plant to its 25-kilovolt distribution system in Legal Subdivision 5 of Section 3, Township 28, Range 26, west of the Fourth Meridian pending the execution of an interconnection agreement.
3.3 Views of the interveners 24. Ms. Landry expressed her concerns regarding the project in her statement of intent to participate and in a brief written statement. Ms. Landry stated that she owns 4.5 acres of land approximately 800 metres from the project, and plans to build a two-storey residence on her property within the next year, which would face the project. She indicated that her property is south of residence D6 in the solar glare hazard analysis, and north of the CN Railway. IPG’s
4 Exhibit 25170-X0034, Noise Impact Asssessment (sic), PDF page 30. 5 Exhibit 25170-X0033, Emergency Response Plan.
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 4 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
landowner map indicated that her property is in the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 27, Range 26, west of the Fourth Meridian.
25. Ms. Landry explained that site D6 is predicted to receive up to 10 minutes of yellow-grade solar glare at the 4.5-metre observer height per day, and her property would experience similar impacts due to the proximity of her land to site D6.
26. Ms. Landry questioned whether IPG would be using solar panels that reflect the least amount of glare and if it would continue to upgrade the panels in the future to ensure a maximum reduction in solar glare. Lastly, she questioned whether IPG would take action to prevent glare from reaching her property and what mitigation measures would be available.
27. Ms. Landry also raised concerns related to the lifespan of the solar panels and whether the chosen panels are environmentally friendly.
28. Mr. Shaw expressed his concerns about the project in his statement of intent to participate; he did not file a subsequent submission. Mr. Shaw stated that he owns property located in the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 28, Range 26, west of the Fourth Meridian. Mr. Shaw raised concerns regarding potential health risks associated with the project, including risks associated with long-term exposure to glare. Mr. Shaw questioned IPG about whether the amount of glare his property, site D6, might receive could be reduced, and if he would be compensated for planting barriers on the west side of his property to further reduce glare. He also expressed concern that his livestock may be impacted by the solar glare directed towards his property.
29. Mr. Shaw raised additional concerns related to the value of his property being impacted by the project and that the project’s maintenance practices may impact the local water supply.
4 Findings
30. The Commission has reviewed the application and has determined that the technical, siting, environmental and noise aspects of the power plant have been met. The Commission is satisfied that IPG conducted its participant involvement program in accordance with Rule 007.
31. The Commission finds that the NIA submitted by IPG in support of the application fulfills the requirements of Rule 012, and based on prediction results of the NIA, the project will likely comply with the PSLs established in accordance with Rule 012.
32. The Commission notes that the potential environmental effects of the project were designated by AEP as low risk. The Commission finds that due to IPG’s siting of the project on previously disturbed lands and its commitment to implementing the mitigation measures set out in the project-specific renewable energy referral report issued by AEP, the potential environmental effects of the project, can be adequately mitigated.
33. The Commission accepts the conclusion of the environmental evaluation that the project is not expected to affect surface water or groundwater sources, and that water required for cleaning the panels will be supplied from off-site.
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 5 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
34. Rule 033: Post-approval Monitoring Requirements for Wind and Solar Power Plants applies to all solar projects approved after September 1, 2019. Accordingly, IPG must comply with the requirements of Rule 033. Subsection 3(3) of Rule 033 requires approval holders to submit to AEP and the AUC annual post-construction monitoring survey reports. Consequently, the Commission imposes the following as a condition of approval:
a. IPG shall submit an annual post-construction monitoring survey report to Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) and the AUC within 13 months of the project becoming operational, and on or before the same date every subsequent year for which AEP requires surveys pursuant to Subsection 3(3) of Rule 033: Post-approval Monitoring Requirements for Wind and Solar Power Plants.
35. There are currently no public safety standards or regulations in place associated with solar glare. The Commission accepts the conclusion by Green Cat in its solar glare hazard analysis, that solar glare from the panels will not result in lasting health impacts on individuals, but that an observer’s vision could be temporarily affected by an after-image from solar glare. The Commission observes that Green Cat’s conclusion was premised upon the use of an anti-reflective coating applied to the solar panels that would limit solar glare.
36. The Commission notes that IPG has committed to working with landowners with glare concerns and to providing screening for interveners should they experience adverse effects from glare following construction of the project.
37. The Commission acknowledges that although Ms. Landry has indicated an intent to construct a residence in the near future, there is currently no residence on her property, nor is there evidence that Ms. Landry has made an application to begin development. The absence of a residence or construction plans may make it difficult to pre-emptively ascertain and mitigate glare effects.
38. The glare analysis report indicated that incidents of yellow-grade glare were predicted to occur at residences adjacent to the project. Further, both interveners had outstanding concerns relating to solar glare from the project. The Commission notes that the solar glare hazard analysis stated there are natural barriers between the project and residence D6 which would significantly decrease the amount of solar glare the residence would receive. However, the Commission wishes to ensure that any glare associated with the project is addressed by IPG in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Commission imposes the following as conditions of approval:
b. IPG shall use anti-reflective coating for the project’s solar panels.
c. IPG shall file a report detailing any complaints or concerns it receives or is made aware of regarding solar glare from the project during its first two years of operation, as well as IPG’s response to the complaint. IPG shall file this report no later than 25 months after the project becomes operational.
39. In his statement of intent to participate, Mr. Shaw raised general concerns regarding the project’s impact on his property value. The Commission is of the view that concerns related to property value impacts require specialized expertise and evidence specific to a particular project. No such evidence was filed in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission is not satisfied that the evidence before it in this proceeding supports a finding that the construction and operation of the project will impact property values.
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 6 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
40. The Commission notes that IPG has not finalized its selection of inverters and panels for this project. Consequently, the Commission imposes the following as a condition of approval:
d. Once IPG has made its final selection of equipment for the project, it must file a letter with the Commission that identifies the make, model, and quantity of the equipment and, if the equipment layout has changed, an updated site plan. This letter must also confirm that the finalized design of the project will not increase the land, noise and environmental impacts from what was approved for the base reference case by the Commission. This letter is to be filed no later than one month before construction is scheduled to begin.
41. The Commission notes that FortisAlberta did not express any concerns with the interconnection of the power plant and there are no outstanding public or industry concerns.
42. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers the project to be in the public interest in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.
5 Decision
43. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the Irricana Solar Project and grants 1867559 Alberta Ltd. the approval set out in Appendix 1 – Power Plant Approval 25170-D02-2020 – May 21, 2020.
44. Pursuant to Section 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the interconnection and grants 1867559 Alberta Ltd. the connection order set out in Appendix 2 – Connection Order 25170-D03-2020 – May 21, 2020.
45. The appendices will be distributed separately.
Dated on May 21, 2020.
Alberta Utilities Commission
(original signed by)
Neil Jamieson Commission Member
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 7 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
Appendix A – Summary of Commission conditions of approval
This section is intended to provide a summary of all conditions of approval for the convenience of readers. In the event of any difference between the directions and conditions in this section and those in the main body of the decision, the wording in the main body of the decision shall prevail.
The following are conditions of Decision 25170-D01-2020 that require follow-up with the Commission, and will be tracked as conditions of Power Plant Approval 25170-D02-2020 using the AUC’s eFiling System:
• IPG shall submit an annual post-construction monitoring survey report to Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) and the AUC within 13 months of the project becoming operational, and on or before the same date every subsequent year for which AEP requires surveys pursuant to Subsection 3(3) of Rule 033: Post-approval Monitoring Requirements for Wind and Solar Power Plants.
• IPG shall file a report detailing any complaints or concerns it receives or is made aware of regarding solar glare from the project during its first two years of operation, as well as IPG’s response to the complaint. IPG shall file this report no later than 25 months after the project becomes operational.
• Once IPG has made its final selection of equipment for the project, it must file a letter with the Commission that identifies the make, model, and quantity of the equipment and, if the equipment layout has changed, an updated site plan. This letter must also confirm that the finalized design of the project will not increase the land, noise and environmental impacts from what was approved for the base reference case by the Commission. This letter is to be filed no later than one month before construction is scheduled to begin.
The following is a condition of Decision 25170-D01-2020 that does not require follow-up with the Commission:
• IPG shall use anti-reflective coating for the project’s solar panels.
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 8 Irricana Solar Project 1867559 Alberta Ltd.
Appendix B – Proceeding participants
Name of organization (abbreviation) Company name of counsel or representative
1867559 Alberta Ltd. (IPG) Tony Smith
Regine Landry
Brent Shaw
Alberta Utilities Commission
Commission panel Neil Jamieson, Commission Member
Commission staff Meghan Anderson (Commission counsel) Victor Choy Kyle Surgenor
Decision 25170-D01-2020 (May 21, 2020) 9