Regulatory Law Chambers logo

PGI Processing ULC Power Plant Application for Kybob #3 South Gas Plant, AUC Decision 28337-D01-2024

Link to Decision Summarized

Gas – Facilities


PGI Processing ULC (“PGI”) applied for approval to construct and operate a new 33-megawatt cogeneration power plant within the fenceline of the existing Kaybob #3 South Gas Plant (the “K3 Plant”) near Fox Creek, in Woodlands County (the “Project”).


The AUC approved the application from PGI to construct and operate the Project.

Pertinent Issues

The AUC determined that the information requirements in Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial System Designations, Hydro Developments and Gas Utility Pipelines (“Rule 007”) were met and that the participant involvement program for the Project met the requirements of Rule 007.

The AUC held that the noise impact assessment submitted by PGI met the requirements of Rule 012: Noise Control and that the predicted cumulative noise levels showed that the facilities were expected to meet the permissible sound levels during daytime and nighttime hours.

The Project did not require a federal impact assessment or an environmental evaluation because it is situated on an AER-regulated industrial site. The Project did not require a Historical Resources Act approval since it is located on previously disturbed brownfield space within the existing boundary of the K3 Plant.

The AUC accepted the conclusions of the air quality assessment report that air emissions will comply with Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives Guidelines. The submitted environmental protection plan concluded that the environmental effects of the Project due to pre-construction, construction and post-construction activities will be limited if PGI adheres to applicable guidelines and implements the mitigation measures identified in the report. Given its location within a developed plant site, it was not anticipated that wildlife and vegetation species of management concern, including species at risk, will be found in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, the AUC did not anticipate significant adverse effects from the Project.

The AUC found the Project to be in the public interest in accordance with s 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.

Related Posts

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Appeal – Production of Records Application Michael Judd ("Appellant") appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) that denied his...