In a discussion that must resonate with municipalities across the country coping with renewable energy development, Kneehill County council discussed resident concerns over a major wind project near Three Hills. The discussion was held at the Sept. 10 regular meeting of council.
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Mike Haugen reminded councillors at a previous meeting a group of concerned residents had questions for the municipality regarding the Lone Pine Wind Project proposed near the Town of Three Hills.
“During the council meeting on Aug. 20 the Wind Concerns Kneehill County group presented to council and provided a list of questions they would like answered,” stated Haugen’s report to council. “Due to time constraints, the council was unable to discuss these questions during the meeting. As a result, a motion was passed to defer the discussion of Wind Concerns Kneehill to the next regular council meeting on September 10, 2024.”
Councillors discussed each question the group asked. The first response given was that as far as collector lines on municipal roads go, other industries have traditionally done similar things in the past. Staff added that each project is looked at individually while noting the county engages applicants to look at other options than that one; staff also observed other laws or policies might also be involved and require legal advice.
It was noted that public utilities cannot be restricted. Councillors discussed whether any restrictions the municipality may place on renewable energy projects also be placed on other industries.
Coun. Jerry Wittstock stated he felt if such work was permitted it should be fully at the expense of the applicant.
The second question involving the use of re-zoning and land-use bylaw (LUB) authority dominated most of the entire discussion.
The CAO observed that a re-zoning from agriculture to industrial involves a bylaw which also includes a public hearing, which would give Kneehill County residents a chance to speak up about any proposed project. Haugen observed that’s essentially the extent to which a municipal re-zoning can affect a renewable project because such projects are overseen by higher levels of government including regulators like the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC).
Councillors spent much time discussing what effect such resident opinion would have on a renewable energy project and to whom such feedback should be sent.
Reeve Ken King stated it seemed to him that the AUC’s renewable energy project approval process has no place for ratepayer input, with a local re-zoning bylaw the only method. “The proponent’s engagement is ridiculous,” said King.
The reeve reiterated that even if Kneehill County turned down a re-zoning, the AUC could ignore that decision and approve the project anyway. King noted the re-zoning collects local input, “…And beyond that it has no function,” said the reeve.
The third question was answered thusly: yes, Kneehill County is aware there is a private airstrip already existing within the project area. Concerned residents stated a renewable energy development may have a negative effect on existing businesses but during discussion it was again observed that municipalities have no authority over such problems.
The fourth question involved construction concerns, and councillors responded that Kneehill County does have authority over things like dust and weed control; it was also noted construction typically proceeds with contractors signing road use agreements with Kneehill County; such agreements usually include consequences for damage of public roads.
Coun. Laura Lee Machell-Cunningham noted she recently had a construction project in her division and stated she was hearing between 20 and 25 complaints a week about the contractor’s workers speeding on public roads. The reeve observed he was also concerned about renewables developers using county roads as “yard sites.”
The next concern, regarding “pristine views,” was one the reeve appeared to share. King stated that when it comes to projects affecting scenic beauty, areas east of Calgary should be treated in identical fashion to areas west of Calgary.
The next question, regarding setbacks, was answered with a nod to, again, other laws and policies from higher levels of government.
Lastly, the concerned residents asked how Kneehill County was addressing the AUC’s rule 007 review; councillors agreed the municipality’s comments which were sent to the AUC should be shared with the public.
According to the AUC’s website, rule 007 “…sets out application requirements for the construction, alteration, operation, and the discontinuation, dismantling and removal of power plants, substations, transmission lines, industrial system designations, hydro developments and gas utility pipelines…”
Councillors agreed the CAO will summarize responses into a letter to be signed by Reeve King.
Stu Salkeld
Local Journalism Initiative reporter
ECA Review
