Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Concord Vulcan GP2 Ltd. Vulcan Solar Project Battery Energy Storage System Addition, AUC Decision 27215-D01-2022

Link to Decision Summarized

Solar Power – Facilities


Concord Vulcan GP2 Ltd. (“Concord”) applied to add a 21-megawatt (“MW”), 42-MW-hour battery energy storage system (“BESS”) to the Vulcan Solar Project.


The AUC approved the application to alter and operate the Vulcan Solar Project by adding the 21-MW, 42-MW-hour BESS.

Applicable Legislation

Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 – s 17.

AUC Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations, Hydro Developments and Gas Utility Pipelines.

AUC Rule 012: Noise Control.

Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16 – ss 11 and 19.

Pertinent Issues

The BESS will be constructed within the existing fence line of the 22-MW Vulcan Solar Project (the “Project”) and will allow for two hours of storage and would charge primarily from on-site solar production and discharge to the 25-kilovolt FortisAlberta Inc. distribution network. The BESS will also be able to charge from the distribution network.

The applications submitted by Concord included correspondence from Alberta Environment and Parks indicating that the Project’s environmental impacts would not change due to the BESS. The application also included a participant involvement program, a noise impact assessment, and a site-specific emergency response plan.

The AUC was satisfied that the noise impact assessment of the Project met the requirements of Rule 012: Noise Control and that the Project would continue to comply with permissible sound levels.

As there are no residences within 800 meters of the Project, the AUC accepted Concord’s explanation for not completing a toxicity plume prediction modelling a thermal runaway event.

Given that no one raised concerns about the addition of the BESS, there are no residences within 800 meters of the Project, and that the BESS will locate the addition within the existing power plant fenceline, the AUC did not consider it necessary for Concord to conduct further consultation.

Concord made several commitments regarding its emergency response plan and the development and improvement of the safety of the Project. The AUC imposed conditions of approval based on Concord’s commitments.

Related Posts

Sabo v AltaLink Management Ltd, 2024 ABCA 179

Sabo v AltaLink Management Ltd, 2024 ABCA 179

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Authority – Compensation Award Application On appeal from AltaLink Management Ltd. (“AML”), the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered...