AUC Decision 29274-D01-2025

Background

The Alberta Utilities Commission (the “AUC”) rejected an application for a 15-MW solar project called the Harvest Sky Solar Farm based on opposition from the Town of Hanna (the “Town”).^[1] 

PACE Canada Development LP (“PACE”) proposed to build a solar power project; PACE proposed that panels would flank the Town’s uncontrolled airport. The solar panels would be located as close as 120 metres from the centreline of the runway. The Town had concerns regarding the close proximity of the Project to the airport. The Town retained Brownlee LLP to represent it as an intervener before the AUC. 

Commitments 

Prior to the AUC hearing commencing, the Town was able to negotiate commitments with PACE addressing a number of its concerns should the project be approved. The commitments included the following: Road Use and Development Agreements, Crossing Agreement, Landscaping Plan, Reclamation, Project Design Brief and Dedications, Waste Management, Fire and Emergency Response, Communication to Personnel, and Weeds, Pests, Soil and Dust Management.

The AUC takes a specific approach to Commitments; they perform a very important function in the AUC regulatory process. Commitments are binding and enforceable the same way as conditions imposed by the AUC. Securing commitments is a way to address municipal concerns and either eliminate the municipality’s need to intervene (i.e. participate) in the AUC hearing, or alternately reduce the number of issues the municipality addresses at the AUC hearing.  

Often, commitments defer issues to the development permit stage of the project (should it be approved). The reason such deferrals are critical is due to section 619 of the Municipal Government Act, which grants the AUC paramountcy over municipal planning bylaws or development approvals.

The Decision 

In this Decision, the AUC ultimately denied PACE’s application, largely citing the concerns raised by the Town and other interveners given the Project’s close proximity to the airport and the associated safety concerns arising from its location.

When pursuing the AUC’s approval of a project like a solar power plant, the proponent has the burden of demonstrating to the AUC that the project will be, on the whole, in the public interest. Insofar as safety concerns are relevant to a proposed project before the AUC, the proponent must demonstrate that safety concerns are minimal and will not outweigh any public benefit the approval may have from other factors (such as generation of power and economic development).

The main issues before the AUC concerning the public interest were the many safety concerns of the Project. In particular, the AUC found that:

• the proximity of the Project to the airport significantly reduced the landing options a plane would have in the event of an emergency; 
• if a crash were to happen near or in the solar farm, the emergency response would be significantly hindered by the presence of energized solar arrays. 

Overall, these safety concerns, as well as several others, were legitimate and PACE had not done enough to dispel these risks. 

There were also several issues which were marred by uncertainty which weighed against AUC approval:

• Turbulence - the possibility of increased turbulence over the runway caused by the Project was uncertain. If such an increase in turbulence was present, this would create an additional safety issue for planes as they took off from and landed at the airport. 
• Uncontrolled airport – there is no air traffic controller available to warn pilots of dangerous situations respecting take off or landing.  While there were examples of solar farms operating closely to controlled airports in other areas, the Project would be the first solar power plant in North America to be constructed next to an uncontrolled airport. These meant there were no comparable projects and the extent of the safety risks was unclear. In regards to these issues, the uncertainty and unknowns were factors which weighed against approving the project. 

Ultimately, many of the concerns raised by the Town were accepted by the AUC as legitimate safety risks or at least uncertainties for which PACE could not provide sufficient answers. This led to the AUC rejecting PACE’s application. The effectiveness of these uncertainties demonstrate that municipalities do not have to bear the burden of being test cases for novel projects and their associated safety concerns. 

Takeaways 

This decision highlights the importance to retaining experienced legal counsel from the outset and even prior to any AUC proceedings commencing. While PACE’s application was denied in this case, the Town’s counsel was able to negotiate a multitude of commitments from PACE should the project have gone ahead. These early-negotiated commitments worked to both reduce the scope of the hearing that took place and also provided certainties in many regards should the application have been granted. 

It is also important for municipalities to be mindful and proactive in retaining experts and ensuring municipal staff are available to attend the hearing as witnesses. For most matters before the AUC there will only be a limited number of experts in the relevant fields and they are busy and in-demand. As the AUC timeframes move quickly, it is critical to ensure that experts are both retained and available to speak to the issues at hand. 

In this case, the Town retained experts to testify on the effects of solar glare and the impacts of the project on other flight and airport operation issues. These experts were able to point out safety issues caused by an increase in turbulence, an increased chance in bird strikes, solar glare issues, and the potential interference of the project with the airport’s communication systems. It was ultimately their testimony that carried the day. 

Lastly, the Town’s municipal witnesses also played an important role as they have the most intimate knowledge of the area at issue. In particular, since safety and firefighting issues were paramount, David Mohl, the Town’s Fire Chief, provided valuable testimony. He provided testimony that addressed the elevated dangers of fires occurring in solar farms and the additional measures needed to both prevent and fight them. In particular, during the hearing he explained the difficulties that the fire services would encounter without further resources and support from PACE: 

If that same plane goes down in a solar panel array, we are sitting at the gate waiting because we have no way of knowing whether the plane's [sic] energized. We have no way of knowing what's shut off, what's not. And you can do tons of training on that, but if you do not have full-time staff that are able to meet us at the gate to tell us what's going on, we are blind.

It was as a result of testimony from Chief Mohl and the Town’s expert testimony that the Commission found that PACE had not adequately addressed the safety issues and ultimately denied the application.

Overall, this case highlights the importance of seeking intervener status before the AUC, and also retaining experienced legal counsel and experts early in the process and confirming the availability of municipal staff witnesses.

[1] Decision 29274-D01-2025 - PACE Canada Development LP - Harvest Sky Solar Farm.