Dear Editor:
We are facing a “wind and solar” rush very reminiscent of an oil patch play. On the County of Paintearth website, there are five solar projects and two wind projects. Access to the Hwy, 36 transmission line is a very big factor but other forces are at play as well.
To date, very high social acceptance of renewable wind and solar projects have overridden other societal benefits, which have been inadvertently impacted.
Hopefully this can change and we can take more nuanced decisions.
ATCO’s Huber Dam Craig Lake wind project in the Battle River Valley could be a test case.
The project location can be described as follows: Huber Dam is at the north end of the project and Fleet is at the south end, it extends east and west, approximately three miles. The project is partially in the broad deep Battle River watershed/valley on the north and in the south, the shallow flat Sounding Creek watershed.
The project is roughly situated on a high ridge separating the two watersheds. From the top of this ridge I can see Alliance to the north, across the river.
Imposition of these immense towers in the Battle River Valley “valued viewscapes” is not just a local or municipal issue, it is intermunicipal and regional/ provincial in scope, river valleys are like that!
The visual impact of wind turbines in the Battle River Valley/Watershed will have far reaching implications beyond immediate landowners, affecting panoramic views on a regional basis and disrupting natural landscapes for generations.
Wind towers should stay out of river valleys as valued viewscapes as a standard practice. This should include all river valleys!
ATCO held an open house April 25 to explain the project. I will only report on the question period. The rest of the day was handled professionally by ATCO staff who were very pleasant and informative.
One of the first issues addressed by meeting participants was to include the name Huber Dam in the title of the project.
The name “Huber Dam” tells local people where it is.
Vociferous topic
The first, and perhaps the most vociferous topic addressed by the 30 people was on views and the extreme ugliness of wind towers. This was expressed numerous times in colourful, creative language. It appears that the only thing uglier than a wind farm in the daylight is what it looks like at night.
ATCO offered a tool to assess the change in view. This is a picture taken from wherever you will view the project. The towers will be added to the picture through computer simulation. This was used in the Sharp Hills (Oyen) project and is recommended by the Alberta Utilities Commission.
Turbines installed at Sharp Hills are comparable to those proposed by ATCO.
I am not clear how or when a landowner can access this service or which landowners are eligible. I certainly think this service should be provided on a regional basis, that means across the river in Flagstaff.
At the meeting, I identified where a picture had been taken and where the towers were located. I know this scene very well and the picture seems to have been taken on a misty day, towers were indistinct from a mile away.
I do not believe the computer simulation includes mirages. Believe me, this is a very big issue! The differing air layers in the valley are going to make these towers mirage far higher than the real height. Approx. 180 m base to tip, the Calgary Tower is approximately 190 m.
Views can be ‘taken for nothing’
ATCO expressed its corporate opinion on viewscapes in consultations with the Alberta Utility Commission.
ATCO opinion on views is that they are owned by no one and so if no one owns them, they can take them for nothing.
They justify disregarding valued views and viewscapes based on the social supremacy of renewable energy.
ATCO is also concerned that profitability will be decreased with more issues to address. In my opinion, many values have been sacrificed to this philosophy of social acceptance for renewable energy in spite of the unintended consequences (e.g. wildlife and viewscapes).
ATCO’s opinion that no one owns the view so no one can stop them from blocking it is interesting but it is not reasonable.
In my opinion, municipalities should publicly review projects allowing public input. This will open up discourse at the municipal level or levels in this case.
For the Huber Dam project this would mean two municipal approvals and perhaps a regional/provincial approval. Like I said, river valleys are like that.
In summary ATCO believes the current situation requires quick approval and actions and a consideration of view will retard that process. This is seconded by Capital Power.
Aren’t they the folks that gave us the inadequate setbacks for towers at the east end of Halkirk? ATCO’s standard setback is 400 metres(m) from a residence. The 1000 m setback to a residence that the county has implemented shows industries inadequacy. I believe the Special Areas also has a 600 m setback from the boundaries of land belonging to non-participating landowners, which the County should consider.
All about the money?
The best question asked was more of a statement and it was. “This is all about money, isn’t it?”
That is the truth. Alberta has a regulated carbon market for large emitters, members of the public are not eligible for this market, nor would they understand it. I don’t.
The provincial creation of this market in consultation with industry is intended to make carbon dioxide reductions profitable and something that industry will drive.
Large emitters have to reduce their carbon footprint. To do this they can use carbon credits that a wind or solar project will generate. The carbon credits allow an emitter to release an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.
By 2030 the provincial and federal government will have raised the price of a carbon credit in this regulated market by over two times from the present. A good strategy is to save them up and sell them when the price doubles. To do this you have to have a project that generates them. Hence the haste! Renewable capacity will be initiated because it is profitable due to government regulations.
Landowner, benefits and non-benefits
Landowners who are chosen, will get a very generous payout for having to look at the towers; landowners who are not, will get no generous benefits to look at the same towers.
This is a great selling feature for towers. “If you don’t do it, your neighbours will.”
In the case of the Huber dam project, contracts with landowners were signed about five years ago when megawatt (MW) capacity was around two per tower. It is now six MW per tower. The payment depends on the megawatt capacity of a tower so the payout has tripled per tower in the last five years for these landowners.
Landowner payments per year are very lucrative, much higher than oil and gas.
There is too much money, the county will reap massive tax benefits. Three hundred workmen will make an impact on the local economy. There won’t be a lot of jobs after construction and we will spend the rest of our lives, looking at the towers.
Reclamation discussed
ATCO believes they should be trusted to put a bond on for reclamation near the end of the project.
The meeting participants disagreed with this most strongly and cited the current mess with abandoned wells is a good example of what will happen.
Bottom feeders will soon or later take over the projects and not have enough money for reclamation.
ATCO pointed out that the Energy Utilities Commission is considering the reclamation question and it will be up to them.
Wildlife effects
Wildlife surveys are currently being conducted by Maskwa Environmental Consulting.
Maskwa stated they had moved a tower due to the high population of bats. There is no doubt that wind turbines kill birds and bats.
I understand there are mitigative practices, but I have no knowledge if they work. Most participants concentrated on large bird such as Sandhill Cranes and Geese who pass through the area in great numbers. I myself am more concerned about smaller birds who have a higher mortality, such as Meadow Larks and Horned Larks. There are large populations of these in the project area. This is partially due to the large amount of native rough fescue.
I would estimate almost 50 per cent of the project area is native. I also think the larks like the high ridge. Location of towers is in cultivated or tame grass but both can provide an analog for native cover.
It is my impression that overall, wildlife is sacrificed for the public good surrounding renewable energy.
Huber dam
Another topic was Huber Dam. The audience wondered why they were putting five wind towers to the west and two more to the east.
People staying there would never have a sunrise or sunset without a wind power screen. This is something of a puzzle as the Alberta Utilities Commission has issued recent instructions to avoid recreational facilities.
I guess in ATCO’s mind it is another public good that needs to be sacrificed.
Social impact
The final point was social impact. Audience members noted that ATCO had covered a number of topics but not this. The viewing tool mentioned earlier, may help in this as would municipal debate.
To my knowledge, the April 25 meeting of this year is the only public meeting ATCO will hold. Community support was deemed by the meeting participants to be woefully inadequate.
ATCO mentioned they are setting up a community fund with the County that non-profits can apply to for funding for community projects.
I believe we are at a very significant place in the story of renewable energy in Alberta.
Renewable energy has had a social acceptance that has allowed proponents to ignore unintended negative consequences to equally beneficial social goods.
We need a much more balanced approval process. Projects will need to be turned down. The Huber Dam Craig Lake project is one of them.
We should not throw out all our other values to the benefit of only one.
I believe the Alberta Utility Commission is prepared to take a more nuanced view of renewable energy issues.
This is at the prompting of the provincial government following the recent wind farm moratorium.
Viewscapes are one of the issues identified by the provincial cabinet. Protecting rivers and river valleys have in the past been priority items for the province. Perhaps we can win this one?
I have not mentioned sound because I don’t know enough about it. There is a lot of discussion on this from sound experts.
The information below brought it up on the Internet are the court proceedings conducted by the Energy Utilities Commission. Project opponents were well funded and were able to contest proponents on all issues with their own experts.
“Decision 22665-D01-2018 EDP Renewables SH Project GP Ltd. Sharp Hills Wind Project September 21, 2018”
Similarly, a public consultation by the Alberta Utilities Commission is listed below. I have used page 50 and 73. I cannot access this on the AUC website, but if I put it in Google, it brings it up.
“AUC inquiry into the ongoing economic, orderly and efficient development of electricity generation in Alberta Module A Report January 31, 2024”
I am a non-participating landowner in the project area.
L. Wetter,
Fleet , Alta.
