Rocky View County (RVC) council has reluctantly accepted the Alberta Utilities Commission's (AUC) decision to approve the Sollair Project just north of Airdrie, and approved a land use redesignation to pave the way for the 476-acre solar farm's construction.
General Land and Power Corporation’s (GL&P) contentious Sollair energy farm land use redesignation application returned to Rocky View County council for a public hearing at the July 18 meeting, after the company won its case at the AUC earlier this spring.
RVC council had previously rejected the application for a land use redesignation from Agricultural, General District to Direct Control to construct the solar project, which is located 800 metres east of Highway 2 and adjacent to the east of Range Road 292, due to concerns about a lack of consultation with local neighbours and the fact the project would take prime agricultural land out of production.
However, the AUC issued a ruling in favour of the project by stating it was “deemed to be in the public interest,” and thus overturned the RVC local council decision on the matter.
As per the AUC’s ruling, Rocky View County must allow the land use redesignation, and now only has limited jurisdiction over the project on matters related to the applicant's development permit, which will likely be issued this fall.
Division 3 Coun. and Reeve Crystal Kissel made it abundantly clear to all members of the public who attended the hearing on July 18 that their local elected representatives’ hands were tied.
According to the guidelines posted at the beginning of the hearing, Kissel said questions and statements on the project must be confined to the topics of stormwater management, landscaping, fencing, reclamation security, dust suppression, emergency response plans, or road use agreements with the County.
All other matters would not be considered, Kissel explained, and she would be forced to rule any questions or statements outside of these categories out of order, if brought up during the meeting.
These included questions about the overall approval of the solar project, the size, angles and coating of the solar panels, annual post-construction monitoring (which is the sole purview of Alberta Environment and Protected Areas) to ensure the project is compliant with environmental standards, requirements to complete construction by June 2025, and what transmission line upgrades may be needed to complete the project.
“These rules apply to council, administration, the applicant, and anyone else who is here to speak during the public hearing,” Kissel stated. “These rules also apply to council in their decision-making process after the public hearing has been closed.”
Division 5 Coun. Greg Boehlke voiced his displeasure with the narrow focus of the hearing imposed on local councillors by the AUC decision.
“The items we can’t talk about, are they not development permit items each and every one?” he asked. “And would they not normally be items asked in public hearings?”
Kissel reiterated that council’s hands were tied in this instance by the AUC ruling, but acknowledged this was not a typical development permit application discussion.
“We cannot talk about anything that has been ruled on by the AUC,” she stated, “whether it would normally be in our jurisdiction or not.”
Thus confined as to what they could question General Land and Power Corporation about during the hearing, most on council focused on the idea of reclamation security. Specifically, their queries were about how much the County should charge for the Sollair project's eventual reclamation cost.
GL&P managing partner Mark Owerko said his company was open to negotiations with the County on that, but suggested the amount of $500,000, or about 25 per cent of the projected $2 million future reclamation cost, as sufficient to put down as a security. The money would be paid into a common fund for all solar and wind projects authorized in the county going forward.
Division 1 Coun. Kevin Hanson wasn’t so sure that even a full $2 million reclamation security would cover those costs, given the lifespan of the project would be over several decades. He suggested that council should perhaps consider adopting some kind of policy where the project could be re-evaluated every few years, and the reclamation contribution could then be adjusted to account for inflation.
Division 6 Coun. and Deputy Reeve Sunny Samra wondered why the County shouldn’t just ask for the full $2 million up front instead of accepting $500,000.
And Division 5 Coun. Greg Boehlke was also skeptical about the $500,000 suggestion from GL&P.
“You are going to spend $50 million to build this,” he said. “(The) $500,000; how far is that going to go in reclamation?”
Boehlke did acknowledge in GL&P’s case they were both the developers and owners of the land on which the Sollair Project will be built, thus providing the County with more certainty that reclamation will eventually be completed. He admitted he was more concerned about solar and wind projects that were being constructed on leased land in the region, and the results should those leasee companies ever be sold or go out of business.
Division 2 Coun. Don Kochan then asked County staff for a little more clarity on the issue, and wondered if the 25 per cent being proposed by GL&P was in line with what the County usually charges developers.
“We don’t have a specific security policy for this type of development,” explained RVC director of Community Services Matt Boscariol in response to Kochan. “As discussed in the back-and-forth, we would work with the developer, the applicant, to that end.”
“The municipality may take a reclamation security,” RVC planning officer Logan Cox added for council’s clarification later in the meeting, “but it will be up to council’s discretion on what that security is used for.”
Outside of the amount and type of reclamation security RVC will charge in this instance, other issues raised by concerned members of the public during the public hearing on July 18 included the potential for a fire or emergency response crisis due to the general inaccessibility of a site covered with thousands of solar panels, concerns about stormwater run-off from the solar farm into neighbouring properties, and skepticism expressed about GL&P’s plans to create a market garden, or include some kind of agriculture on the site, so the land won’t be completely taken out of use for agricultural production.
All these matters could be taken into consideration when RVC creates its development permit conditions for the Sollair Project, and the matter returns to council later this fall.
However, as per the direction of the AUC, Coun. Boehlke made the motion to accept General Land and Power Corporation’s application to redesignate its proposed Sollair site from general agriculture to direct control.
The motion was approved unanimously by council.
