Review and Variance – Facilities
The City of Grand Prairie (“Grand Prairie”) applied for review and variance of Decision 27276-D02-2022 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the AUC approved a power plant designated as the Eastlink Centre Power Plant. The approval was conditional upon Grand Prairie implementing additional noise mitigation.
The AUC approved the application from Grand Prairie to review and vary the Decision.
Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 – s 1.
AUC Rule 016: Review of Commission Decisions.
The AUC heard the preliminary and variance questions in a single proceeding instead of the usual two-stage process under s 6(2) of Rule 016: Review of Commission Decisions.
Grand Prairie argued that the AUC made a material error in imposing the condition that Grand Prairie must eliminate the high-pitched noise from the power plant. Grand Prairie also submitted that it required more time to fulfill the conditions to implement further noise mitigation due to procurement obligations applicable to it as a procuring entity under international trade agreements. It submitted that information related to its procurement obligations was previously unavailable facts, material to the Decision, which existed before the Decision was issued. However, it was not placed in evidence in the original proceeding because Grand Prairie did not know it would be relevant.
The AUC allowed the request for review. It found that Grand Prairie had demonstrated that the AUC erred in imposing the condition that high-pitched noise be eliminated. The AUC also accepted that information related to the procurement obligations existed before the Decision was issued but was not placed into evidence because Grand Prairie’s position at the time of the hearing was that no additional mitigation was required and, therefore, it did not know this information would be relevant.
The AUC varied the requirement to eliminate the high-pitched noise from the power plant to a requirement to implement mitigation measures that will alleviate or attenuate the high-pitched noise. This change was consistent with the evidence provided in the original proceeding.
The AUC also granted the request to vary the timelines for completing the noise mitigation.