POSTMASBURG SOLAR PV ENERGY FACILITY 2 (PTY) LIMITED

(Solar International, 2013) POSTMASBURG SOLAR PV ENERGY FACILITY 2 (PTY) LIMITED Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Prepared for: Mr D. Holder Cape EAPrac dale@cape eaprac.co.za Contact Person: D. Peinke Atlantic Energy Partners 5th Floor, Hill House Building 43 De Smidt Street, Greenpoint Cape Town, 8000 F: + 27 (0) 86 514 8184 M: + 27 (0) 84 401 9015 E: david@atlanticep.com Date: 02 March 2015 Rev 2.0 Page i

DOCUMENT HISTORY REVISION HISTORY Revision No Revision Date Author Rev 2.0 2015.03.02 D Peinke APPROVAL FOR RELEASE Name Title Signed C. Stanley Director DISTRIBUTION Name Designation Company D. Holder Consultant Cape EAPrac Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENT HISTORY... II TABLE OF CONTENTS... III LIST OF FIGURES... IV LIST OF TABLES... IV ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS... V 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 PROGRESSION OF LAYOUT DESIGN... 2 2.1 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES... 2 2.2 PREFERRED LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE... 4 2.3 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN... 6 3 OVERVIEW OF THE SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY... 7 3.1 SOLAR ARRAY... 7 3.2 MOUNTING STRUCTURES... 7 3.3 GRID CONNECTION AND CABLING... 9 3.4 AUXILIARY BUILDINGS... 9 3.5 CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS... 9 4 ACCESS ROUTES... 10 5 ASSESSMENT OF COMPETITOR PROJECTS... 11 6 CONCLUSION... 11 7 LIST OF REFERENCES... 12 Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Typical Layout of a Solar PV Energy Facility (The Million Solar Roof Initiative Solar Salvation or Solar Scam? California PV Solar Farms A Bitter Harvest!, 2014)... 1 Figure 2: Alternative 1 Uniform / Conceptual Layout... 3 Figure 3: Alternative 2 Preliminary Layout Area... 3 Figure 4: Alternative 3 Preferred Layout... 4 Figure 5: Alternative 3 Preferred Layout, showing Inverter Station Placements... 5 Figure 6: Preliminary Site Development Plan (SDP)... 6 Figure 7: Cast Concrete Foundation (Solar Power Plant Business, 2013)... 7 Figure 8: Rammed / Driven Steel Pile (SolarPro, 2010)... 8 Figure 9: Ground Screw (pv magazine, 2014)... 8 Figure 10: Site Access Routes, Option 1 (light Blue) and Option 2 (Bright Green)... 10 Figure 11: Assessment of Competitors... 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Component Areas and % of Total Project Area... 1 Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AC CPV DC DEA DSR EAP EIA EIR EMP ha IPP kv MV MW MWp OH PV REDz REIPPPP SANRAL SDP SEF SWSA UN Wp WUL Alternating Current Concentrating Photovoltaic Direct Current National Department of Environmental Affairs Draft Scoping Report Environmental Assessment Practitioner Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Report Environmental Management Plan Hectare Independent Power Producer Kilovolt Medium Voltage Mega Watt Mega Watt Peak (maximum peak power production) Overhead Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Development Zones Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme South African National Roads Agency Limited Site Development Plan Solar Energy Facility Strategic Water Source Areas United Nations Watt Peak Water Use License Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page v

1 INTRODUCTION Postmasburg Solar PV Energy Facility 2 (Pty) Ltd is proposing the establishment of a commercial solar energy facility (SEF) on the Remainder of Farm 436 Kapstewel, located in the ZF Mcgawu District (the old Hay District) of the Northern Cape Province, within the jurisdiction area of the Tsantsabane Local Municipality. The proposed SEF will have a net generating capacity of 75 MW AC with an estimated maximum footprint of ± 225 ha. A preliminary study area of ± 450 ha was assessed by the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The preliminary footprint assessed in the EIA is significantly larger than what is physically required for the proposed SEF development, to ensure that sufficient development space is available after potential environmentally sensitive areas are excluded, through findings and recommendations of specialists. The approximate area that each component of the SEF will occupy is summarised in the table below. TABLE 1: COMPONENT AREAS AND % OF TOTAL PROJECT AREA SEF Component Estimated Area % of Total Area (± 225 ha) PV structures/modules ± 205 ha 91.1 % 19.2 % Internal roads ± 18.16 ha 8.1 % 1.7 % Auxiliary buildings ± 1 ha 0.4 % 0.1 % Substation ± 0.84 ha ± 0.4 % < 0.1% % of Farm Area (1070.27 ha) The technology under consideration is either concentrating photovoltaic modules (CPV) or photovoltaic modules (PV) mounted on either of fixed or tracking structures. Other infrastructure includes inverter stations, internal electrical reticulation, internal roads, an onsite switching station / substation, a 132 kv overhead (OH) transmission line, auxiliary buildings, construction laydown areas and perimeter fencing and security infrastructure. The on site switching station / substation will locate the main power transformer/s that will step up the generated electricity to a suitable voltage level for transmission into the national electricity grid, via the OH line. Auxiliary buildings include, inter alia, a control building, offices, warehouses, a canteen and visitors centre, staff lockers and ablution facilities and gate house and security offices. Figure 1 below depicts a typical layout of a solar PV energy facility. Inverter stations Solar PV array Internal roads FIGURE 1: TYPICAL LAYOUT OF A SOLAR PV ENERGY FACILITY (THE MILLION SOLAR ROOF INITIATIVE SOLAR SALVATION OR SOLAR SCAM? CALIFORNIA PV SOLAR FARMS A BITTER HARVEST!, 2014) Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 1

It is customary to develop the final / detailed construction layout of the SEF only once an Independent Power Producer (IPP) is awarded a successful bid under the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP), after which major contracts are negotiated and final equipment suppliers identified. For the purpose of the EIA, a number of alternatives are assessed and a final layout design presented along with a preliminary Site Development Plan (SDP), in accordance with the minimum requirements prescribed by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). The final layout design and preliminary SDP prepared for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has taken into account the site constraints identified (biodiversity, visual etc.), the draft environmental management plan (EMP) and recommendations made by the various EIA specialists. Following the award of preferred bidder under REIPPPP, the appointment of major contractors and identification of final equipment suppliers may necessitate slight changes in the placement of plant components and therefore the final SDP. 2 PROGRESSION OF LAYOUT DESIGN Three Alternatives were assessed in finalising the layout design. The following section elaborates on the layout progression to the point of draft EIR submission. 2.1 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES A conceptual / uniform layout area of ± 450 ha (Alternative 1) was identified during the scoping phase of the EIA for Postmasburg Solar PV Energy Facility 2 Solar Development (the northern portion of cadastral unit RE/436, north of the Manganore Substation). This initial uniform layout did not consider any of the existing infrastructure located on and adjacent to the site (existing access / internal roads, transmission lines, dwelling & reservoirs etc.), nor any potential site constraints / environmental sensitive areas (to be identified by the various specialist studies). It was therefore excluded from the on going environmental process and not assessed further. Figure 2 below depicts Alternative 1 highlighted in blue, over the entire extent of the ± 450 ha study area. The property boundary / cadastral unit of RE/436 is indicated as a red line. The yellow lines indicate existing powerlines to the Manganore Substation, whilst brown lines indicate existing access & farm roads / tracks. In general, the entire 450 ha study area is considered to have a low agriculture potential, with limited carrying capacity, as per the Agriculture Potential specialist report. The usage of this low agricultural potential land is believed to have little effect on food security and the corresponding production of food. Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 2

FIGURE 2: ALTERNATIVE 1 UNIFORM / CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT The second alternative considered during the scoping phase of the EIA (Alternative 2) is depicted in Figure 3 below. Alternative 2 constituted a preliminary layout area concentrated to the western part of Alternative 1 above, surrounding the Manganore Substation. Alternative 2 considered existing infrastructure located on the RE/436 as well as adjacent properties. In particular, it took into account preliminary site constraints identified during the scoping phase of the project, with the intention of avoiding hills, potential drainage lines, as well as wooded areas. FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 2 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT AREA Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 3

2.2 PREFERRED LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE Following the scoping phase of the EIA, the extent and significance of potential sensitive areas on the site were confirmed via detailed site assessments undertaken by various specialists, and the SEF layout was adjusted to take these confirmed sensitive features into account. Alternative 2 layout was therefore discarded from the on going environmental process, and replaced with a refined layout presented in Figure 4 below as Alternative 3, approximately 225 ha in extent. FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 3 PREFERRED LAYOUT Alternative 3 above is similar to the previous Alternative 2 in that it is concentrated to the western part of the 450ha Alternative 1 study site, near to the Manganore Substation. Alternative 3 layout takes the existing infrastructure located on and adjacent to the site into account, as well as sensitive ecological, visual and heritage/archaeological features confirmed to occur on the site. Therefore a large no go area has been excluded from the PV layout to prevent encroachment onto sensitive features, identified as follows: Large yellow outline, depicting hills / koppies and intervening plains containing deep sands & numerous protected tree species; The Historical farmstead complex, shown in the northern part of the property; Sites D001, D002 & D005, marking sensitive stone cairn & grave sites; Large brown area, depicting visually sensitive areas; and Small drainage line to the south east of the property, reduced from what was originally envisaged for the Alternative 2 layout. The above adjustments aim to achieve the least possible environmental impact, while maintaining the economic viability of the project. The potential impacts (negative and positive) associated with this layout, as well as recommendations / measures focused on the Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 4

construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the development, are detailed in this impact assessment report and included in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for implementation. FIGURE 5: ALTERNATIVE 3 PREFERRED LAYOUT, SHOWING INVERTER STATION PLACEMENTS Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 5

2.3 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FIGURE 6: PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) Figure 6 depicts the preliminary SDP developed from Alternative 3. It is based on a specific solar PV technology and tracking mounting structures and therefore may change at a point where contractors and technology suppliers are identified. It presents, however, a realistic layout of what the SEF would look like. Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 6

The siting of the proposed laydown area (± 200m x 150m) for the construction period is shown to encroach slightly into the no go area recommended by the visual specialist. Since this laydown area is temporary by nature (during construction), with no permanent structures or buildings (during operation), impact on visual features will be temporary and therefore considered to be of low significance. 3 OVERVIEW OF THE SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY The following section presents an overview of the main components of the solar energy facility layout. 3.1 SOLAR ARRAY Solar PV modules are connected in series to form a string. A number of strings are then wired in parallel to form an array of modules. PV modules are mounted on structures that are either fixed, north facing at a defined angle, or mounted to a single or double axis tracker to optimise electricity yield. The solar arrays for the Postmasburg Solar PV Energy Facility 2 project have been placed in such a way that they do not interfere with sensitive features defined above. 3.2 MOUNTING STRUCTURES Various options exist for mounting structure foundations, which include cast / pre cast concrete, driven / rammed piles, or ground / earth screws mounting systems. FIGURE 7: CAST CONCRETE FOUNDATION (SOLAR POWER PLANT BUSINESS, 2013) The impact on agricultural resources and production of these options are considered to be the same, however concrete is least preferred due the effort required at a decommissioning phase in order to remove the concrete from the soil, and therefore its impact on the environment. The Postmasburg Solar PV Energy Facility 2 project will therefore make the Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 7

most use of either driven / rammed piles, or ground / earth screws mounting systems, and only in certain instances resort to concrete foundations should geotechnical studies necessitate this. FIGURE 8: RAMMED / DRIVEN STEEL PILE (SOLARPRO, 2010) FIGURE 9: GROUND SCREW (PV MAGAZINE, 2014) Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 8

3.3 GRID CONNECTION AND CABLING It is proposed to connect the SEF directly to the Manganore Substation located in the southwestern corner of the available 225 ha area. The SEF substation will be approximately 120m x 70m in size and feature a step up transformer/s to transmit electricity via a 132 kv OH single circuit line directly to Manganore. The OH power line is envisaged to be ± 500m 1km in length, a maximum height of 32m and occupy a servitude width of between 31m 40m. A 75 MW AC installation will require specific electrical components to meet the national grid code requirements in order to generate and supply electricity into the national grid. The conversion from DC (modules) to AC is achieved by means of inverter stations. A single inverter station is connected to a number of solar arrays, are will be placed along the internal service roads for ease of access. A number of inverter stations will be installed for the SEF (up to maximum of ± 60), each of which is connected to the on site / facility substation. Final placement of the inverter stations and on site / facility substation will need to take ground conditions into consideration. Interconnecting electrical cabling will be trenched where practical, and follow internal access roads to the greatest extent. Sensitive areas will consequently be avoided as far as possible, or alternatively, cables will be fastened aboveground to the mounting structures so as to avoid excessive excavation works and clearing of vegetation. 3.4 AUXILIARY BUILDINGS The auxiliary buildings will comprise of the following as a minimum: Control Building / Centre (± 31m x 8m); Office (± 22m x 11m); 2 x Warehouses (each ± 50m x 20m); Canteen & Visitors Centre (± 30m x 10m); Staff Lockers & Ablution (± 22m x 11m); and Gate house / security offices (± 6m x 6m) The total area occupied is approximately 0.3068 ha, excluding the facility substation. 3.5 CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS The internal road network of the SEF will be gravelled roads, 4 5m in width, around the solar array periphery. Roads located in between the solar modules will be un surfaced tracks to be used for maintenance and cleaning of solar PV panels. With reference to the Postmasburg Solar PV Energy Facility 2 Transport and Traffic plan, it is noted that internal access roads do not cross any drainage lines. Precautionary measures must be taken to mitigate the risk of ground disturbances where access roads will be constructed. Special attention will need to be given to drainage, water flow and erosion by applying appropriate building methods. Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 9

4 ACCESS ROUTES Two access routes are being considered for the Postmasburg Solar PV Energy Facility 2 project, both off the R325 to the development. Furthermore, both these road access options are aligned along existing farm access roads: Road access Option 1 (light blue): crosses Portion 4 of Farm 436 parallel to the 132kV powerline from the west (± 3200m in length to the PV facility security checkpoint); Road Access Option 2 (bright green): crosses Portions 2 and 5 of Farm 436 (the old mine land), entering the property from the south (± 6980m in length to the PV facility security checkpoint). Both the abovementioned access road options are considered to be viable, from environmental and technical viewpoints, and the selection of the preferred alignment will largely be subject to consent from the relevant landowners / caretakers. The required access road would be gravel and approximately 5m in width. FIGURE 10: SITE ACCESS ROUTES, OPTION 1 (LIGHT BLUE) AND OPTION 2 (BRIGHT GREEN) Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 10

5 ASSESSMENT OF COMPETITOR PROJECTS Various other solar projects are being developed or proposed in the broader vicinity of Postmasburg, including the Bid Window 1 Lesedi and Bid Window 2 Jasper Solar PV Energy Facilities. The competitor projects neither impact on the layout design of the SEF, nor the proposed routing of the 132 kv OH line to the Manganore Substation. The competitor projects are concentrated closer to the Olien MTS, and are identified as follows: 50 MW Solar CSP, Ample Solar Groenwater (Pty) Limited (± 22km); 300 MW Solar PV, Kyfontein Power Plant Project Company (± 36km); 75 MW Solar PV, Intikon Energy Pty Ltd (LESEDI) (± 33km); 3 MW Solar PV, AE AMD Renewable Energy Pty Ltd (± 35km). FIGURE 11: ASSESSMENT OF COMPETITORS 6 CONCLUSION The preferred layout alternative site (Alternative 3) has been developed and selected based on key criteria identified above, including inter alia, terrain / slope, accessibility, assessment of alternatives, proximity to the Manganore Substation as well as consideration of sensitive areas to minimize ecological, visual and archaeological impacts. Specialists were engaged and have completed detailed assessments that have been included in final EIR. Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 11

7 LIST OF REFERENCES pv magazine. (2014, September 3). 100 MW solar PV project underway in Pakistan. Retrieved from http://www.pv magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/100 mw solar pv projectunderway in pakistan_100016311/#axzz3pauwtq77 Solar International. (2013, January 17). Trina Solar Supplies 61MW Of Solar PV Modules For Green Tower Project In Brandenburg. Retrieved from http://www.solarinternational.net/article/76674 Trina Solar supplies 61MW of solar PV modulesfor Green Tower project in Brandenburg.php Solar Power Plant Business. (2013, December 07). Abandoned Farmland Serves as Solar Site. Retrieved from http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/news_en/20131207/321200/?st=msbe SolarPro. (2010, June/July). Ground Mounted PV: Page 6 of 9. Retrieved from http://solarprofessional.com/articles/design installation/ground mountedpv/page/0/5 The Million Solar Roof Initiative Solar Salvation or Solar Scam? California PV Solar Farms A Bitter Harvest! (2014, January). Retrieved from GO Solar CALIFORNIA: http://www.gosolarcaliforniainformation.com/ Rev 2.0 Final EIR Technical Layout Development Report, March 2015 Page 12