Wind Power Project – Impacts on Aerial Spraying Operations
In this decision, the AUC considered applications filed by Capital Power Generation Services Inc. (“Capital Power”) for the construction and operation of the Halkirk 2 Wind Power Project (the “Project”), pursuant to sections 11, 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act (“HEEA”).
The AUC found that approval of the Project was in the public interest having regard to the social, economic and environmental effects of the Project, because:
(a) the applications met the informational and other requirements set out in Rule 007;
(b) Capital Power’s Participant Involvement Program (“PIP”) and consultation met the regulatory requirements of AUC Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments (“Rule 007”);
(c) the construction and operation of the Project would not affect the health of nearby residents and livestock;
(d) with regard to potential land use impacts, agricultural impacts, ground and surface water impacts, property value impacts and safety concerns, the AUC was not convinced that the project would result in the adverse impacts advanced by the interveners; and
(e) Capital Power’s estimated daytime and nighttime predicted cumulative sound levels for the Project met the requirements of AUC Rule 012: Noise Control (“Rule 012”).
Background
The Project would be located five kilometres north of the existing Halkirk Wind Power Facility (“Halkirk 1”) and approximately 12 kilometres north of the town of Halkirk, in the County of Paintearth.
The Project would consist of the following components:
• seventy-four 2.0-megawatt (MW) wind turbines, each with a hub height of 95 metres and a rotor diameter of 110 metres, with a total capability of 148 MW;
• a 34.5-kilovolt (kV) collector system, consisting of underground power lines; and
• a new substation (the “Substation”), for future connection of the Project to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System.
The location of the Project is shown in the following map:
The primary participants in the hearing were the proponent, Capital Power, and an intervener group identifying itself as the Battle River Group (“BRG”). The BRG consisted of 16 individuals and families located within two kilometres of the project and the Circle Square Ranch (a corporation) located approximately six kilometres from the Project.
Legislative Scheme
Section 11 of the HEEA states that no person may construct or operate a power plant without prior approval from the AUC. In addition, sections 14 and 15 of the HEEA require AUC approval prior to constructing or operating a substation or a transmission line.
When considering an application for a power plant and associated infrastructure, the AUC is guided by sections 2 and 3 of the HEEA, and Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act (the “AUCA”).
Section 2 of the HEEA sets out the purposes of that act:
• to provide for the economic, orderly and efficient development and operation, in the public interest, of the generation of electric energy in Alberta;
• to secure the observance of safe and efficient practices in the public interest in the generation of electric energy in Alberta; and
• to assist the Government in controlling pollution and ensuring environment conservation in the generation of electric energy in Alberta.
Section 3 of the HEEA requires the AUC to have regard for the purposes of the Electric Utilities Act (“EUA”) when considering whether an applied-for power plant is in the public interest under Section 17 of the AUCA. The purposes of the EUA include providing for the development of an efficient electric industry structure and the development of an electric generation sector guided by competitive market forces. Section 3 of the HEEA expressly directs that the AUC shall not have regard to whether the proposed power plant “… is an economical source of electric energy in Alberta or to whether there is a need for the electric energy to be produced by such a facility in meeting the requirements for electric energy in Alberta or outside of Alberta.” Accordingly, the AUC does not consider the potential need and cost of an applied-for power plant, such as the Project.
The AUC explained that determination of whether a project is in the public interest requires the AUC to assess and balance the negative and beneficial impacts of the specific project before it. The public interest will be largely met if applications are shown to be in compliance with existing provincial health, environmental and other regulatory standards in addition to the public benefits outweighing negative impacts.
Rule 007 applies to an application for the construction and operation of power plants, substations and transmission lines. An application must meet the informational and other requirements set out in Rule 007. Specifically, an applicant must provide technical and functional specifications, information on public consultation, environmental and land use information including a noise impact assessment (“NIA”). The NIA submitted with an application must also meet the requirements set out in Rule 012.
Consultation and Participant Involvement Program
With respect to the adequacy of consultation and PIP, the AUC found that:
(a) the applications met the informational and other requirements set out in Rule 007; and
(b) Capital Power’s PIP and consultation met the regulatory requirements of Rule 007.
The AUC found that Capital Power presented accurate Project information and that landowners were given an opportunity to have their concerns heard.
The AUC found that Capital Power’s PIP could have been improved with respect to providing information about the Project’s impacts on human health. The AUC noted that Capital Power’s initial PIP information packages contained little information on health-related concerns, notwithstanding that early stakeholder feedback included such concerns regarding human health. The AUC considered that Capital Power’s PIP would have been more robust if it had initially included access to third-party, independent and credible scientific sources of information on the impacts of wind power projects to human health.
Agriculture and Impacts to Aerial Spraying Operations
The AUC noted that many BRG members farmed as either mixed grain operations or grain and cow/calf operations.
A significant concern raised by the BRG was the Project’s impact on aerial spraying for farming operations. In particular, the BRG expressed concerns regarding the following:
• Wind Turbine T051 would potentially prevent an aerial operator (Mr, Fetaze) from taking off and landing his aircraft;
• the short notice that spraying operators were usually given before commencing aerial spraying operations;
• the lack of communication between Capital Power and all aerial spraying operators in the area; and
• Capital Power’s lack of knowledge of the safe distance between wind turbines and landing and take-off of aircraft.
The AUC found that there was potential for Wind Turbine T051 to obstruct the Fetazes’ airstrip. The AUC noted that PP14 of Rule 007 allows an applicant to locate a wind turbine within 50 metres of the applied-for coordinates without having to reapply unless there is an adverse impact on the permissible sound level or wildlife setback distance. In light of the foregoing, the AUC found that the following condition of approval was warranted:
Capital Power shall engage with the Fetazes to locate Wind Turbine T051 in a manner which minimizes the effects of the wind turbine on the safe operation of the airstrip, to the extent possible within 50 metres of the applied-for coordinates. Prior to construction, and no later than two years from the date of this decision, Capital Power will advise the Commission of the results. The Commission will then decide if further process is necessary.
The AUC noted:
• Capital Power’s commitment to work with pilots operating near the Project to minimize impacts to aerial spraying operations; and
• Capital Power’s statement that if spraying were anticipated within 150 metres of a wind turbine, the wind turbine might be suspended from operating during that period.
Given the potential safety risks of flying next to a wind turbine and taking into account the benefits of aerial spraying to agricultural operations, the AUC stated that it expected Capital Power to not only consult with pilots but also to shut down wind turbines at the pilots’ request during aerial spraying.
Hydrogeology
The AUC considered the potential impacts of Project construction and operation on groundwater resources in the area, and whether the commitments proposed by Capital Power would be sufficient to mitigate those potential impacts.
The AUC found that the probability of harm to groundwater from the possible vibration during construction or operation would be extremely low. The AUC also found that:
• Capital Power’s commitment to test groundwater quality and level at all residential and stock wells within 500 metres of a wind turbine location was sufficient in the circumstances; and
• should impacts to groundwater wells arise due to the construction or operation of the Project, Capital Power had committed to working with impacted landowners to implement appropriate mitigation on a case-by-case basis.
Residential Area, Visual Impact and Property Values
The AUC found that Capital Power adequately sited the Project given the constraints.
The AUC found that the Project’s visual impacts had been mitigated as much as possible, including by:
(a) locating the collector lines underground;
(b) minimizing the number of lights required on the wind turbines; and
(c) using the minimum number of synchronized flashes per minute and flash duration.
Noise
The AUC accepted that the noise from the Project, with the implementation of the planned operating scheme, was expected to meet the daytime and nighttime permissible sound levels (“PSL”) and all requirements of Rule 012.
In making its finding on noise, the AUC accepted Capital Power’s commitment that the wind turbines would only operate in accordance with the operating scheme described in its NIA, namely during the daytime period all 74 wind turbines were planned to operate in the unrestricted Mode 0 STE and during the nighttime period two wind turbines would operate in Mode 0 STE, 70 wind turbines would operate in Mode 1 STE and two wind turbines would operate in Mode 2 STE (the “Operating Scheme”).
The AUC found that Capital Power’s NIA met the requirements of Rule 012, including with respect to the equipment used to conduct the field noise measurements, along with the three calibration dates of this equipment.
The AUC noted Capital Power’s commitment to rerun the NIA model to include a new residence, proposed by Mr. Felzien, in the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 40, Range 14, west of the Fourth Meridian (the “New Felzien Residence”), if the residence is constructed prior to construction of the Project.
The AUC directed that the New Felzien Residence be treated as a dwelling given that Mr. Felzien had a building permit for it. The AUC held that as long as Mr. Felzien holds a building permit for the New Felzien Residence, the NIA model must be rerun with the new residence included as a receptor and the results shared with Mr. Felzien.
The AUC placed the following conditions on the Project’s approval:
• Capital Power would operate the Project in accordance with the Operating Plan.
• Capital Power would conduct post-construction comprehensive noise studies and evaluations of low-frequency noise at certain receptors and file all studies and reports relating to the post-construction noise survey and low-frequency noise evaluation with the Commission within one year of connecting the Project to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System.
Health
The AUC noted BRG’s argument that the Project could cause negative health impacts, exacerbate existing health conditions and result in annoyance which could negatively impact health. The BRG submitted articles that they claimed supported their views but did not retain the authors of these reports or anyone with expertise in human health.
Understanding and interpreting the numerous studies and literature that have considered the health effects of wind turbines requires considerable knowledge, skill and expertise. The AUC afforded little weight to opinion evidence about the health effects of noise or shadow flicker from lay witnesses on these complex topics.
The AUC found that there was no persuasive evidence that the Project, operating as proposed in the application, was likely to result in adverse health effects for nearby residents.
Decision
The AUC issued the power plant and substation approvals for the Project, subject to the conditions summarized above. The AUC found that approval of the Project was in the public interest having regard to the social, economic and environmental effects of the Project.
