Oldman 2 Wind Farm Limited

Transcription

1 Decision Oldman 2 Wind Farm Project September 24, 2010

2 ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION Decision : Oldman 2 Wind Farm Project Application No Proceeding ID. 293 September 24, 2010 Published by Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, 4th Floor, Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: (403) Fax: (403) Web site:

3 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION APPLICATION DETAIL Wind Farm Substation APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS DISCUSSION Participant Involvement Program Noise Other Environmental Impacts The Wind farm The Gathering System and Substation Other Approvals FINDINGS Introduction Participant Involvement Program Noise Other Environmental Effects DECISION... 9 AUC Decision (September 24, 2010) i

4

5 ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION Calgary Alberta OLDMAN 2 WIND FARM LIMITED Decision OLDMAN 2 WIND PROJECT Application No MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF PINCHER CREEK NO. 9 Proceeding ID INTRODUCTION 1. (Oldman 2), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Luxembourg Mainstream Renewable Power S.A.R.L. and Alberta Wind Energy Corporation (AWEC), filed Application No on August 26, 2009 (Application) with the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission). Oldman 2 requested approval to: construct and operate a 46-megawatt (MW) Oldman 2 Wind Farm power plant (Wind Farm) pursuant to section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act; construct and operate a 34.5/138-kilovolt (kv) Wind Farm substation (Substation) pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act; and connect the Substation to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) pursuant to section 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. 2 APPLICATION DETAIL 2.1 Wind Farm 2. The proposed Wind Farm would consist of 20 Siemens SWT wind-powered turbines, each rated at 2.3 MW for a total installed capacity of 46 MW. Each wind-powered turbine generator would be mounted on top of an 80-metre tower with and have a rotor diameter of 93 metres. 3. The proposed wind-powered turbines would be located on 712 hectares of privatelyowned lands, more specifically sections 14, 15, 21, 22, 26, and 27 of Township 7, Range 29, West of the 4th Meridian. The project site is approximately 10 kilometres northeast of Pincher Creek, Alberta, and adjacent to Highway 785 within the Municipal District of Pincher Creek No. 9 (MD). The specific proposed locations of the wind-powered turbines are set out in section 4.4 of the Application. 4. A 34.5-kV gathering system, consisting of underground power lines, would collect electric power generated from the individual wind-powered turbines and deliver the power to the Substation and, in turn, to the AIES. 5. A map was included in the Application showing the location of the gathering system lines and cross-sectional drawings showing details of the lines at locations where the lines would cross existing road allowances. With the exception of road crossings, the proposed gathering system would be located entirely on privately-owned lands. AUC Decision (September 24, 2010) 1

6 2.2 Substation 6. The proposed Substation would be located in the southeast corner of Section 27, Township 7, Range 29, West of the 4th Meridian, which is adjacent to Highway APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS 7. The Commission requested additional information from Oldman 2 on December 3, 2009, March 5, 2010, June 9, 2010, July 30, 2010, and August 10, The additional information requested by the Commission included clarifications of environmental impacts and the predicted cumulative noise impacts, exact turbine locations, details of public consultations, the design and location of the gathering system, and turbine specifications. Oldman 2 responded to the Commission s information requests (IRs) on January 4, March 25, July 6, August 5, and August 23, 2010, respectively. 8. The Commission issued a Notice of Application (Notice) on July 21, The Notice was sent directly to all interested parties, residents, and landowners within 2.0 kilometres of the proposed Wind Farm project site. The Notice was also published in the Lethbridge Herald, the Pincher Creek Echo, and the Macleod Gazette. The Notice set a deadline of August 13, 2010, for interested parties to submit objections, interventions, or statements of intention to participate (SIPs) to the Application. Six Notices were returned due to incorrect addresses. The Commission reissued the Notice to those six parties, and extended the submission deadline to August 23, 2010 for those six parties only. 9. The only intervention filed in response to the Notice was filed by Heritage Wind Farm Development Inc. (Heritage). Heritage stated in its submission that it had no intention of filing an intervention on the Oldman 2 application, but reserved the right to do so should Oldman 2 or anyone affiliated with Oldman 2 intervene in the Heritage Wind Farm Application No On September 3, 2010, the Commission dismissed Heritage s objection in accordance with subsection 24(3)(d)(ii) of AUC Rule 001 because Heritage failed to specify the rights or interests it was asserting or how those rights or interests may be affected by the Commission s decision. 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Participant Involvement Program 11. Oldman 2 stated its Participant Involvement Program (PIP) included all parties whose rights may be directly and adversely affected by the proposed Wind Farm. Oldman 2 advised that it consulted with landowners, residents, the Piikani First Nation, provincial and municipal agencies, non-governmental organizations, special interest groups and any other parties with an interest in the lands affected by its Application. Oldman 2 submitted that its PIP consisted of letters to landowners, advertisements, an article in local area newspapers, public open houses, and meetings with the Mayor of Pincher Creek, MD of Pincher Creek council members, and the staff and directors of The Oldman River Antique Equipment and Threshing Club (Heritage Acres). Oldman 2 further submitted that it notified all parties within 2.0 kilometres of the 2 AUC Decision (September 24, 2010)

7 Wind Farm and personally consulted with all occupants, residents, and landowners within 800 metres of the proposed Wind Farm. 4.2 Noise 12. In the Application, Oldman 2 provided three Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) submissions (Exhibits Oldman 2-293, AUC-293, and Oldman 2-293): The initial two NIA submissions (Exhibits Oldman and AUC-293) were performed without including the impact all of the existing and proposed wind-powered turbine and energy-related facilities in the study area. Particularly, the proposed Heritage Wind Farm was not included. In response to Commission requests for additional information, a revised and updated NIA submission, dated July 20, 2010 (Revised NIA), was submitted and replaced the two previous NIAs. In the Revised NIA (Exhibit Oldman 2-293), the predicted cumulative sound levels at 17 receptor locations were listed. The predicted noise levels were provided for the Wind Farm alone, the Wind Farm plus the existing wind farms (namely the Oldman River Wind Farm (2 turbines), the TransAlta Summerview Phase 1 Wind Farm (39 turbines), the Summerview Phase 2 Wind Farm (23 turbines), the Summerview Wind Farm substation, and finally for the Wind Farm plus the existing wind farms with the addition of the proposed Heritage Wind Farm. An additional three potential substations were included in the predicted noise levels: the proposed Oldman 2 substation, the potential Heritage substation, and the potential 240-kV Fidler substation. 13. Oldman 2 advised that the source sound power levels used in the Revised NIA were derived from manufacturer s data for the proposed Wind Farm, and from the Heritage application for the existing and proposed wind-powered projects in the study area, namely the Oldman River Wind Farm (2 turbines), the TransAlta Summerview Phase 1 Wind Farm (39 turbines), the Summerview Phase 2 Wind Farm (23 turbines), the Summerview Wind Farm substation, and the currently applied-for 1 Heritage Wind Farm (97 turbines) and its associated substation. 14. Oldman 2 explained that its sound power levels for the potential substation and Summerview substation were based on engineering calculations. The sound power level for the potential 240-kV Fidler system substation was based on a referenced report from AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink). 15. Oldman 2 stated that the Permissible Sound Level (PSL) determined in the Revised NIA submission for the 17 affected receptor locations selected in the study area is 40 dba Leq nighttime and 50 dba Leq daytime, and that the cumulative sound levels are predicted to exceed the PSL at two of the receptors (Receptor A and Receptor C). 1 Application No , Proceeding ID. 276 AUC Decision (September 24, 2010) 3

8 16. Oldman 2 reported that Receptor A is located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 21,Township 7, Range 29, West of the 4th Meridian, and that it is currently a residential dwelling situated on property owned and operated by Heritage Acres. In a submission to the Commission, Heritage Acres stated that the dwelling had been the caretaker s residence, and it is now vacant, and will no longer be occupied Oldman 2 explained that Receptor C is a rental property located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 7, Range 29, West of the 4th Meridian. In a submission to the Commission, the owner of this property committed to decommissioning (removing) the residential dwelling once the proposed Wind Farm is constructed Oldman 2 further observed that, even with the addition of the cumulative effects of the proposed Heritage Wind Farm, the proposed Oldman 2 Wind Farm would be in compliance at all receptors with the exception of Receptors A and C. Oldman 2 stated that this result was based on the implementation of sound mitigation measures proposed by Heritage in its application. Those mitigation measures entail the shutting down of a number of the Heritage Wind Farm s turbines during the nighttime hours, 4 in combination with the programming of other turbines to operate at quieter output modes, also during nighttime hours. 4.3 Other Environmental Impacts The Wind farm 19. Oldman 2 described the proposed development as being in the Mixed Grass Sub-Region of the Fescue Ecoregion of the Oldman River drainage system. The area was described as predominately cultivated agricultural land, and improved pasture with native grassland, shrubs, and forbs occurring in non-agricultural areas. Oldman 2 stated that it had made efforts to avoid development on native prairie although it would be placing three turbines on partially disturbed or grazed native prairie. 20. Oldman 2 provided an overview of environmental effects commonly associated with wind-powered turbines. Oldman 2 concluded that there would be no significant effect to birds and further monitoring and consultation with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) would be required to evaluate the effect on birds and bats. As noted in the letter from SRD, dated April 27, 2009, Oldman 2 committed to monitoring Ferriginous Hawk and Prairie Falcon nest locations and conducting post-construction monitoring of bird and bat mortality and implementing additional mitigation measures should they be required. 21. Oldman 2 stated that it considered a number of land use issues, including setbacks from property lines, provincial highways, and municipal road allowances when planning its turbine lay out. It further confirmed, in its information responses to the Commission, dated December 23, 2009, that it would maintain the setbacks imposed by SRD during construction to protect wildlife and more specifically it would maintain a 750-metre setback distance from the above-mentioned raptor nests during construction and operations. Also, Oldman 2, in planning its turbines layout, took into account archaeological sites, and potential interference with existing irrigation systems Exhibit Oldman and IR Response Exhibit AUC-293 Exhibits Oldman 2-293, AUC-293, and AUC-293 AUC Rule 012 Noise Control, defines nighttime hours as the period between 10 pm to 7 am 4 AUC Decision (September 24, 2010)

9 22. To assist the AUC in assessing potential visual impacts of the proposed development, Oldman 2 provided a number of photo montages to simulate the views of the turbines from nearby residences and areas around the project site. In response to IRs, Oldman 2 described its efforts to minimize the visual impacts of its project, agreed to paint the turbines a neutral colour, and also committed to using the photomontages for subsequent consultation with stakeholders. 23. Oldman 2 provided a map, entitled Map of Major Land Use, showing geographical features, vegetation, existing electrical, pipeline, and transportation facilities as well as the general locale of archaeological sites. 24. As part of its Application, Oldman 2 provided a copy of a letter from SRD, dated April 27, 2009, in which SRD indicated that it had reviewed the reports and information submitted in relation to the proposed Wind Farm, including: Alberta Wind Energy Oldman Wind Energy Project Bird Studies Report of June 2007; Oldman 2 Wind Farm Ltd. Summary of Bat Survey Work of April 2, 2009; and Oldman 2 Wind Farm Project Proposed Follow-up and Monitoring Programs and had no outstanding concerns with respect to the Wind Farm. SRD stated that the reports provide appropriate assessments of avian and bat surveys as well as adherence to setback distances identified under SRD Wildlife Guidelines for Alberta Wind Energy Projects, with the exception of the setback distance of 750 metres to Ferruginous Hawk and Prairie Falcon nest locations. Therefore, SRD recommended that Oldman 2 continue monitoring existing nests and, if needed, implement additional mitigation measures, should they be required and Oldman 2 has committed to do so. 25. In response to IRs, Oldman 2 provided additional information regarding the Noise Impact Assessment, maintenance of set back distances, and mitigation of effects of wind-powered turbines to wetlands and native prairie. 26. On January 20, 2009, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) provided conditional clearance to Oldman 2 with regard to potential impacts to historical resources. ACCS granted the clearance based upon an understanding that Oldman 2 would avoid two significant confidential archaeological sites which were identified in the assessment The Gathering System and Substation 27. The proposed Wind Farm would include a 34.5-kV gathering system or collector system. The system would consist of 34.5-kV underground power lines to transmit the power generated from each turbine to the Substation. Oldman 2 provided a map showing the location of the collector lines and cross-sectional drawings showing details of the collector lines where they run parallel to existing rights-of-way. This map also shows the proposed location of the Substation. 28. Oldman 2 was unable to provide the details of the Substation layout or its components. In addition, the details of the interconnection to the AIES were not available because the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) has not submitted an application for an interconnection Needs Identification Document (NID), and the transmission facility owner has not submitted a facility application for the connection. AUC Decision (September 24, 2010) 5

10 4.4 Other Approvals 29. Oldman 2 submitted the following approvals or letters to the Commission: Municipal District of Pincher Creek No. 9 development permit (for the substation and general site locations of each of the 20 wind turbines); The Transport Canada approval; The NAV Canada non-objection letter; and The Alberta Transportation permit (for gathering system lines or turbines within 300 metres of numbered Highways 510 and 785). 5 FINDINGS 5.1 Introduction 30. The Commission considered the Application pursuant to sections 11, 14, and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, which provides: 11 No person shall construct or operate a power plant unless the Commission, by order, has approved the construction and operation of the power plant; 31. Regarding the proposed Substation, section 14 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act states, in part: 14(1) No person shall construct a transmission line or any part of a transmission line unless the person is the holder of a permit issued by the Commission. 32. Section 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act states: 15 No person shall operate a transmission line unless the person is the holder of a subsisting licence to operate the transmission line, issued by the Commission. 33. In making a decision on the Application, the Commission must consider: the potential direct and adverse impacts on nearby residents and the environment; whether the Application meets all the requirements of AUC Rule 007 Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and Industrial System Designations (Rule 007); and whether the approval of the Application would be in the public interest. 5.2 Participant Involvement Program 34. The Commission finds that Oldman 2 complied with the consultation and notification requirements contained in AUC Rule 007. The Commission also finds that Oldman 2 s consultation steps were adequate given the nature and scope of the project. 6 AUC Decision (September 24, 2010)

11 35. The Commission is satisfied that there are no persons with standing who have unresolved issues related to the proposed Wind Farm. 5.3 Noise 36. The Commission considered the Revised NIA and noise-related supplementary information filed by Oldman 2. As stated above, the Revised NIA presents the cumulative noise effects of the following: proposed Wind Farm; existing Oldman River Wind Farm (2 turbines); existing TransAlta Summerview Phase 1 Wind Farm (39 turbines); existing Summerview Phase 2 Wind Farm (23 turbines); applied-for Heritage Wind Farm (97 turbines); 5 proposed Oldman 2 substation; existing Summerview Wind Farm substation; proposed Heritage substation; and proposed 240-kV Fidler substation. 37. The Commission considered that, for purposes of the cumulative sound levels, the Revised NIA was based on the mitigation measures proposed by Heritage Wind Farm as described in Application No Those measures require the shutting down of a number of the Heritage Wind Farm turbines in combination with the programming of other turbines to operate at quieter output modes during the nighttime hours. Even with such mitigation measures in place on the part of Heritage Wind Farm, the cumulative sound levels for the proposed Wind Farm are predicted to exceed the PSL at Receptor A and Receptor C. Although the Commission has before it letters from the owners of the dwellings identified as Receptor A and Receptor C stating that those dwellings will either remain unoccupied or will be removed, the Commission finds that these receptors are not excluded from compliance with AUC Rule 012 Noise Control, as contended by Oldman 2. As a result, if Receptor A and Receptor C are occupied at the date the Wind Farm is connected to the AIES and becomes operational, Oldman 2 must undertake mitigation measures necessary to meet the 40 dba nighttime requirement. A condition will be included in the approval to this effect. 38. In addition, the Commission considered that the Revised NIA concluded that four other receptors are potentially subjected to cumulative noise levels above 39 dba nighttime sound level 6 when the permissible nighttime sound level is 40 dba. Considering this fact, the Commission finds that a post-construction comprehensive sound level survey, in accordance with AUC Rule 012 Noise Control is needed once the proposed Wind Farm becomes 5 6 Application No , Proceeding ID. 276 See Table 7 of Revised NIA, Exhibit Oldman AUC Decision (September 24, 2010) 7

12 operational. The study must be done under representative conditions to verify and ensure that the facility complies with AUC Rule 012. Verification and reporting to the AUC, however, will only be required for Receptors A (if occupied), B, C (if occupied), E, J, K, and L. The survey must be completed within one year of the Wind Farm s connection to the AIES and it becoming operational. If this verification and reporting indicates that noise levels at any of the receptors does not satisfy the requirements of AUC Rule 012 Noise Control, the Commission will require that further steps be taken to ensure compliance. 5.4 Other Environmental Effects 39. The Commission accepts the statements made by Oldman 2, as noted above, that Oldman 2 considered a number of land use impacts when planning its turbine layout including avoiding development on native prairie, although three proposed turbines will be on partially disturbed or grazed native prairie. In addition, the Commission took into account the letter from SRD, dated April 27, 2009, in which SRD indicated that its concerns relating to the project had been addressed and that it had no further concerns at that time because Oldman 2 had made a commitment to conduct post-construction monitoring of bird and bat mortality and implement additional mitigation measures, should they be required. To ensure that the potential environmental impacts are mitigated, the Commission is of the view that Oldman 2 must abide by its commitment. 40. In making its decision, the Commission also considered that Oldman 2 has received a development permit from the Municipal District of Pincher Creek No. 9 for the proposed wind turbine locations and proposed Substation. 41. Furthermore, the Commission observes that ACCS has issued a conditional clearance to Oldman 2 on the understanding that Oldman 2 will avoid two significant confidential archaeological sites that were identified in the assessment. Oldman 2 will have to act in accordance with the conditional clearance. Also, if Oldman 2 were to discover any other sites containing historical resources, Oldman 2 must contact ACCS, and act in accordance with ACCS s direction. 42. As a result of the above, the Commission finds that the potential direct and adverse impacts on the environment and on residents and landowners near the proposed Wind Farm have been addressed. 43. The Commission further finds that the requirements of AUC Rule 007 have been met with regards to the proposed Wind Farm. 44. For these reasons, the Commission has determined that approval of the proposed Wind Farm is in the public interest. 45. Regarding the proposed Substation, the Commission denies Oldman 2 both a permit and licence for the Substation and the interconnection order because the application for the proposed Substation and interconnection does not meet the requirements of AUC Rule 007. Specifically, Oldman 2 has not filed a substation layout or a complete list of proposed substation equipment. In addition, required information was not provided by Oldman 2 regarding the requested interconnection order. Without this information, the Commission cannot make a decision regarding the proposed Substation and interconnection. 8 AUC Decision (September 24, 2010)

13 6 DECISION 46. Pursuant to sections 11 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves, in part, Oldman 2 s application regarding the construction and operation of a power plant and grants the approval set out in Appendix 1 to this decision. (Appendix 1 will be distributed separately). Dated on September 24, ALBERTA UTILITIES COMMISSION (original signed by) Thomas McGee Panel Chair Acting Commissioner (original signed by) Anne Michaud Commissioner (original signed by) Mark Kolesar Commissioner AUC Decision (September 24, 2010) 9