Pteragen Canada Inc.

Transcription

1 Decision May 7, 2013

2 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision : Application No Proceeding ID No May 7, 2013 Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Decision Application No Proceeding ID No Introduction 1. (Pteragen) filed an application with the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or the Commission) requesting approval to construct and operate a 120-megawatt (MW) wind-powered generation project, known as the Peace Butte Wind Power Project (the power plant), pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. In conjunction with the power plant, Pteragen applied to the AUC to construct and operate a 34.5-kilovolt (kv) collector system consisting primarily of underground power lines with some overhead sections to facilitate the connections of wind-powered turbines to Tothill 219S substation. 2. Pteragen also applied to the AUC to construct and operate Tothill 219S substation to facilitate the future connection of the power plant to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System. 3. The power plant and Tothill 219S substation would be located near the village of Seven Persons in Cypress County, approximately 22 kilometres south of Medicine Hat in southern Alberta. 4. The application was registered on October 15, 2012, as Application No Section 11of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act requires a person proposing to construct and operate a power plant to obtain an approval from the AUC. 6. In making a decision on the application, the Commission must consider: Whether the approval of the application is in the public interest having regard to the social and economic effects of the development and the effects of the development on the environment, in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. Whether the application meets all the requirements of AUC Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, and Industrial System Designations (AUC Rule 007). 2 Background 7. Pteragen proposed to construct 60 Gamesa G90 wind turbines, each rated at two MW, for a total installed capacity of 120 MW. Each turbine would be constructed with a three-blade 90-metre diameter rotor on a 78-metre high tower. AUC Decision (May 7, 2103) 1

4 8. The turbines would be located on 51 quarter sections of rural land in the Municipal District of Cypress County. The project area is on freehold lands utilized for agriculture and grazing. 9. The proposed Tothill 219S substation would be located in LSD 13 of Section 34, Township 9, Range 6, west of the Fourth Meridian to facilitate the future connection of the power plant to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System. 10. The Commission issued a notice of application on March 6, 2013, to persons within 2,000 metres of the project. The notice was published in the Medicine Hat News, the Prairie Post and the Bow Island Commentator newspapers. 11. Benign Energy Canada II Inc. filed a letter indicating that it registered for the proceeding for the purpose of monitoring wind industry regulatory processes, but did not object to the application. There were no other submissions or objections filed in response to the Commission s notice of application. 12. Pteragen s participant involvement program consisted of information packages, personal consultation and two public open houses. The information packages were mailed to all landowners within two kilometres of the project area. Personal consultation involved landowners within 800 metres of the proposed project boundaries. 13. Pteragen held an open house on February 26, 2008, and on January 18, 2011, in the village of Seven Persons, Alberta. Letters of invitation were sent to all landowners within two kilometres of the project for both open houses. In addition, written invitations to the 2011 open house were sent to six First Nations groups. The notifications of the open houses were published in the Medicine Hat News, the Cypress Courier, the 40 Mile Commentator and the Prairie Post newspapers. A total of 119 participants signed in at the 2008 open house while 26 participants signed in at the 2011 open house. 14. Pteragen provided details regarding concerns expressed by two stakeholders during consultation about the project. Pteragen stated that one stakeholder is located more than five kilometres from the project area boundary and should not be directly or adversely affected by the project. Pteragen had ongoing communications with the second stakeholder with respect to potential noise and visual effects to their residence. Pteragen stated that adjustments were made to the project design to address the stakeholder s concerns. 15. As part of its application, Pteragen submitted a draft environmental protection plan, which described mitigation and reclamation measures, and related environmental commitments made. That plan will be finalized with further input from the Wildlife Management branch (formerly the Fish and Wildlife Division) of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Pteragen provided a copy of the Wildlife Management Wind Energy Referral Report 1 (sign-off letter), dated February 8, In the sign-off letter, Wildlife Management indicated that Pteragen had conducted searches of conservation databases, field investigations of native grasslands, pre-construction wildlife species at risk and rare plant surveys in relation to the proposed project. 1 Exhibit 035.PCI.2181 AESRD Signoff. 2 AUC Decision (May 7, 2013)

5 16. With respect to land use impact, Pteragen estimated that there would be a total permanent loss of six hectares of native prairie due to a combination of turbine foundations and permanent access roads. Pteragen submitted that the current land use in the project area is varied and would include agricultural lands including pastures, grassland habitat, rural residential, and native prairie. Pteragen expected that this loss in native prairie would result in minimal habitat loss, however, displacement around the turbines would be expected. Pteragen committed to the development of a detailed conservation and reclamation plan for the project, which would minimize the effect of development on grassland and would result in restoration of grassland vegetation to the fullest degree possible using current best management practices. 17. With respect to potential impact on wildlife, Pteragen contracted Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to conduct wildlife surveys between fall 2007 and fall Additional site reconnaissance was requested by Wildlife Management and was completed in November No key wildlife habitat features were observed within the project area that would be affected by the operation of the project. 18. As indicated in its sign-off letter, Wildlife Management received Pteragen s report regarding its spring 2012 reassessment of all sites for the presence of snakes. It found that the requirements for pre-development planning and surveys, pre-construction wildlife species at risk surveys, and rare plant surveys satisfactory. Notwithstanding, Wildlife Management stipulated in the sign-off letter that additional wildlife survey data might be required, should construction of the wind farm not commence within two years of the date of the sign-off letter. 19. With respect to limiting and reducing the effects of the project on vegetation, Pteragen contracted Stantec to conduct vegetation studies for the project. Pteragen committed to implement mitigation measures which would include the development of a detailed conservation and reclamation plan, and the development of a complete and detailed site-specific environmental protection and reclamation plan covering the construction and operation phase of the project. Pteragen submitted that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, it was confident that the project could be constructed and operated with minimal adverse environmental effects. 20. With respect to the means to reduce bat mortality, Wildlife Management indicated that Pteragen developed a post-construction wildlife monitoring plan and would report the results of the post-construction wildlife monitoring to Wildlife Management. In particular, Pteragen committed to gather additional data on bat activity in relation to fatalities during wind turbine operation, and to assess impacts to ungulate winter range and migration of pronghorn. 21. In terms of site selection, Wildlife Management indicated that, with noted exceptions, landscape features that attract or funnel birds or bats had been avoided, and that Pteragen had attempted to locate turbines in areas other than native grasslands and other important wildlife habitats. One turbine (turbine 57) was permitted to encroach on the prescribed setback from coulee habitat. Other setbacks in proximity to smaller and less permanent wetlands were also slightly relaxed. The proposed electrical collector system would be underground, where possible, to reduce potential bird strikes. 22. With respect to the means to reduce bat mortality, Pteragen made a firm commitment to implement mitigation, as directed by Wildlife Management, and to apply an adaptive management approach, should post-construction monitoring reveal a higher than acceptable bat AUC Decision (May 7, 2013) 3

6 fatality rate during the operation of the project. Pteragen agreed that, prior to construction, it would implement off-site conservation offsets as prescribed by Wildlife Management to help mitigate potential impacts. In addition, Wildlife Management noted that Pteragen may need to implement additional site-specific mitigation for species at risk and other wildlife. 23. Pteragen confirmed that a Historical Resources Act clearance has been applied for, conditional Historical Resources Act clearance was granted and full clearance is anticipated to be issued for the project. Pteragen indicated that the proposed development may adversely affect previously recorded and newly recorded historical resources. Alberta Culture indicated that further historical resource surveys would be required and that historical resources were to be avoided during construction. In the conditional Historical Resources Act clearance, 2 Alberta Culture indicated that additional study of historical resources was needed in relation to a number of historical resources and, in particular, that mitigation and possible movement of wind turbines may be required to protect historical resources in the vicinity of turbines numbered T17 and T Pteragen committed to historical resource protection indicating that temporary fencing would be used to prevent accidental impacts. Should previously unidentified historical resources be identified during construction, Pteragen committed to suspending construction, if required, until permission to continue work was granted by Alberta Culture after the find was examined by qualified archaeologists. 25. Pteragen contracted the services of GENIVAR to prepare a noise impact assessment, dated October 12, 2012, for the proposed project. 26. The noise sources evaluated in the noise impact assessment included 60 proposed Gamesa G90-2 wind turbines operating in standard operating mode with no noise reduction, the proposed substation Tothill 219S substation, and three existing energy-related facilities in the area (the Yangarra and Kinder Morgan compressor stations and Peace Butte 404S substation). 27. The permissible sound level was determined for all twelve dwellings located in the study area to be 50 dba L eq daytime and 40 dba L eq nighttime. GENIVAR stated that the dwelling identified as House #11 would be permanently decommissioned prior to the construction of the project. 28. GENIVAR submitted the conclusion of its analysis indicated that the predicted cumulative sound level expected at the eleven dwellings (after House # 11 decommissioned) in the study would comply with AUC Rule 012: Noise Control (AUC Rule 012). 29. GENIVAR further stated that the noise levels were predicted using conservative assumptions such as downwind sound propagation and simultaneous operation of all wind turbines at maximum sound power. In additional, GENIVAR indicated that Gamesa wind turbines are manufactured with five modes of sound-reduced operation features. In response to the Commission s information request AUC-Pteragen-29, Pteragen stated that should one or more turbines exceed the permissible sound level, as a mitigation measure, the sound output of the turbine(s) could be reduced using Gamesa s noise reduction system at the target turbines. Gamesa s noise reduction system would invoke the control software to initiate the change of the pitch for given wind speed inputs, which would change the rotor tip speed, and in turn would 2 AC Final Conditional Clearance, Exhibit 037.PCI AUC Decision (May 7, 2013)

7 reduce the noise emission. GENIVAR submitted that the sound control algorithms of the proposed turbines would provide sufficient controllability for the pitch of the turbine blades in mitigating sound emission. 3 Findings 30. The Commission reviewed the application pursuant to the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the pertinent provisions which are found in subsections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 11. Additionally, the Commission considered Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, which states: 17(1) Where the Commission conducts a hearing or other proceeding on an application to construct or operate a power plant under the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, it shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must consider in conducting the hearing or other proceeding, give consideration to whether construction or operation of the proposed power plant is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the plant and the effects of the plant on the environment. 31. The Commission finds that Pteragen has complied with the application requirements as set out in AUC Rule The Commission accepts the participant involvement program conducted by Pteragen and that there are no outstanding public or industry objections or concerns. There were no objections filed in response to the Commission s notice of application. 33. The Commission has determined that the technical, siting, emissions, environmental and noise aspects of the power plant have been met. 34. The Alberta Culture Historical Resource Act clearance is contingent upon the completion of additional historical resources surveys, further identification, assessment and avoidance of historical resources. The Commission expects that Pteragen will complete all additional historical resource studies, and protect historical resources to the satisfaction of Alberta Culture, prior to commencing construction of the wind farm. 35. The Commission expects Pteragen adhere to the mitigation strategies, carry out off-site compensation offsets and post-construction mitigation program as reflected in the Wildlife Management sign-off letter. 36. In addition, the Commission considers it important for Pteragen to develop and implement a post-construction wildlife monitoring program, including bat carcass surveys, for at least two years and that such a program be developed in consultation with and be acceptable to Wildlife Management. Pteragen must file the results of the post-construction monitoring with Wildlife Management. 37. In the event that post-construction monitoring indicates wildlife fatality rates associated with operation of the project are unacceptable to Wildlife Management, Pteragen shall promptly implement mitigation acceptable to Wildlife Management. Should unacceptable wildlife fatalities continue or any unanticipated environmental impacts occur, the Commission may review Pteragen s approval pursuant to Section 41 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. AUC Decision (May 7, 2013) 5

8 38. With respect to noise, the Commission has considered the predicted noise from the proposed project and finds that proposed project would meet the requirements of AUC Rule 012. However, the Commission recognizes that the accuracy of the modelling based on the standard ISO 9613 has a tolerance of ±3 decibels. In light of this accuracy tolerance, it is possible that the predicted sound levels may exceed the nighttime permissible sound level at some dwellings. Accordingly, the Commission directs Pteragen to conduct a post-construction comprehensive noise study at receptor location H7 under representative conditions to verify and ensure that the facility complies with the permissible sound level as determined in accordance with AUC Rule Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed wind power project is in the public interest, in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. 4 Decision 40. Pursuant to sections 11, 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves the application and grants the following: Power Plant approval set out in Appendix 1 Approval No. U May 7, 2013 (Appendix 1 will be distributed separately). Substation permit and licence set out in Appendix 2 Tothill 219S Substation Permit and Licence No. U May 7, 2013 (Appendix 2 will be distributed separately). 41. The Commission recognizes that due to unforeseen circumstances, Pteragen might be required to relocate wind-powered turbine locations from what those described in the application. Notwithstanding, the Commission is aware that the environment, wildlife and noise impact assessments are based on the wind-powered turbines layout and the exact location of each of the turbines. 42. Therefore, the Commission directs that should the location of any wind turbine supporting structure be relocated more than 50 metres from the coordinates stated in the application, Pteragen must re-apply to the Commission for approval to relocate the structure prior to construction. Additionally, for any relocation of a turbine supporting structure within 50 metres that further impacts a feature to which Wildlife Management setbacks or Alberta Culture avoidance or mitigation requirements apply, Pteragen must immediately consult with the appropriate agency, and implement any additional mitigation measures specified. Dated on May 7, The Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Tudor Beattie, QC Commission Member 6 AUC Decision (May 7, 2013)